Re: Cortana speaks Mandarin
I also want to be the payment processor.
One Ring and all that.
161 posts • joined 2 May 2013
I also want to be the payment processor.
One Ring and all that.
so perhaps Baidu of pizzas as well. (wow, what speculative wealth !)
Uber hope to become the Google of Taxis, I want to be the Google of pizzas, that's the reason for the potential added value.
OT but can I point out
Uber satisfies a demand, some of that is just displacement, replacing bus/bike/car with a taxi doesn't really create new value however if it increases the overall number of journeys then those are increased economic value.
I can use Uber to hail a car to take me from A to B, I could also use Uber to request that someone brings me another 4 pack from the offy now (the online supermarket won't deliver till later).
It would save me from having to walk to the shop which I wouldn't do (nearest shop is 6 miles), I'm not allowed to drive as I have consumed my current beer stash so Uber would have created new economic activity that wouldn't have been there before.
The fact that I could get an Uber driver to bring me any good I desired and could pay for on demand (subject to a willing driver and the space in the vehicle) also means that a whole host of goods not normally available without difficulty could be presented to the market.
As has been pointed out, regulation is supposed to be there for the protection of the public but sometimes that regulation, in the eyes of consumer/supplier, is misplaced and this can have a chilling effect on that market.
Uber might offer a convenient way around some of these 'intrusive' regulations allowing this economic activity to take place and so increasing GDP. (hookers and blow now being added into the existing GDP calculation)
Obviously people operating outside the 'regulated environment' are subject to sanctions from the authorities and this will be reflected in the risk premia applied to the price charged for the service provided.
I am genuinely interested in understanding your position on recreational drugs.
I think that the current situation is not optimal (to say the least)
I don't think we should legalise all drugs and it be a free for all, some of these substances are quite evidently dangerous in the wrong circumstances.
The War on Drugs has been going on for far too long, the endless parade of Czars and Lords in constant battle and still the lines on the map just move from side to side.
I think it should be done differently, a legal regulated market can be created for anything, there is one for nuclear fuel and another for F35s, there is another for baby milk.
I believe that a legal regulated market exists to control the creation, distribution, supply and consumption of things.
The current recreational drugs market is unregulated, it is out of control and this favours sharp practices and unscrupulous behaviour in the supply chain to the detriment of everybody.
What is your take on the current drugs situation in the UK ?
It may have been tried as an over-the-counter drug for public consumption in those circumstances and found wanting, my point is that the harms caused by the unregulated market far outweigh the harms that would be caused by a properly regulated and transparent market.
Harms such as these
The outcomes you mention in your second paragraph already occur in the unregulated market despite spending huge resources and plenty of my taxes trying to stop it.
What evidence do you have that the outcomes would be worse and that I would have to increase my tax contributions if these substances were available in a regulated environment ?
This is the pricing information for injectable heroin of BP quality
price of 200mg Filnarine® SR (morphine sulphate, highest dose) is 73 pence
That would be less than a Mars Duo
Have you any idea how cheap this stuff is to make or grow ?
The majority of people (who are currently criminals in the eyes of the law) would rather buy from legitimate sources simply for the quality control.
The market for counterfiet Scotch is a consequence of the high duties imposed by Government and nothing to do with the production costs or the margin imposed by premium branding.
(in fact it is the Government that creates the market demand for these counterfeit goods, ask Tim)
My (notional) drugs habit only (notionally) harms others because of the oppresive regime run by my corrupted Government.
All of the known natural recreational drugs can be grown in the UK (medicinal sources are legitimately sourced in the UK to supply the legal market - we do not import opuim/morphine/heroin, the poppies are grown here)
All of the known synthetic recreational drugs can be synthesised in the UK (again we can manufacture any medicinal drug legitimately)
The only bar to a thriving legitimate recreational drugs manufacturing, distribution and supply operation completely within the UK is the UK Government.
Due to this bar more than £1beelion of annual taxes from legal UK grown marijuana that could be used to fund a solution to the current A&E crisis is not being raised.
Matt, trust me, if the legal status of recreational drugs in the UK was changed you would not be forced to use them, your life could continue as it does now, the only difference you would see is a reduction in your taxes and less aquisative crime on your streets.
They say that SR2 had a turnover of >£5million per month (£60million p/a), that demand is still there whether you shut down the SR.
That demand will be satisfied one way or another, it would appear that you support the illicit way.
(oh, and by the way, the global illicit substance demand is greater than $500Beelion per year, every last red cent untaxable)
Agreed, all we need now is The Return Of The Moderatrix and the Reg will be back to normal (for whatever value of normal floats your boat)
It would be interesting to compare the base model to the one with the Packs.
How many of the items you are charged for are only options that have previously been disabled, such as all the heating elements and wiring installed in the seats but the software switch to turn it on is not available.
On washing machines it used to be standard practice that the only difference between the spin speeds was jumper position on the circuit board (this evolved into a solder bridge to save money)
'So to sort a table: Alt-JO and the Table Tools Layout tab is opened, SO and the sort dialog is open.'
I can go with 'SO' to open the sort dialogue but what is the relationship of 'JO' to Table Tools, surely Alt-TA should open Table Tools. Alt-JO should open some kind of Join tools tab/dialogue.
I don't use MS products anymore, does Alt-FX still work ?
Unlikely to be a subliminal Hoover logo as vacuums suck, my first impression was it was similar to the ASOV logo
so Win10 comes with all these drivers that very few will actually need, no doubt there will be no way of uninstalling them and they will be loaded at startup just in case.
Don't get me wrong, it's a cool bit of kit but Win12 will be out before anything like this becomes mainstream and in the meantime all those PCs will be donating diskspace and cpu time to non-essential crud.
is atmospheric pressure increasing ?
is the atmoshere expanding ?
is there a combination of the two ?
If not then temperature is not rising.
(or was Boyle wrong ?)
I'm wide awake, did you bump your head when you stirred ?
It's not really very efficient though is it, shipping stuff from here to there and back again just to take advantage of slacker regulation or lower worker pay ?
What Tim wants is socialism, global regulation of both rules and opportunity.
Tim (bless him) thinks that optimum capitalism, the maximum return on capital is different from optimum socialism, the maximum return on labour.
They are one and the same. (maximal return on investment)
Anything less produces a suboptimal outcome and we all lose.
It might take some time for it to sink in (entrenched ideals and all that)
I've noticed that the days are getting longer as well, if it continues at this rate then sometime in March/April the days and nights will be equal length, by the end of September there will be no night left.
I've also noticed that there are many more wading birds than last summer, if trends continue we will be up to our eyeballs in wading bird shit by 2025.
Of course it might be cyclical, I haven't measured for long enough.
It might be local, my increase is someone else's decrease.
I'm just messin' with the above, however -
If the whole of the climate is warming then surely either the atmospheric pressure will increase or the atmospheric volume will increase or some combination of the two.
Has anything like this been observed (by scientist or denier alike) ?
Yes Bentley was hung, Craig wasn't.
Neither shot the copper.
Bentley was hung because any other result would have undermined 'respect for the law'
This was the corrupt state protecting itself in a time of Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt, Profumo, Kagan and the rest.
Them at the bottom had everything to fear from them at the top as them at the top wrote contemporary history.
Elm House ?
This has been going on too long, they didn't need false memories as false evidence and institutional bias won every time.
That was before the internet and 24/7 surveilance, TPTB aren't the only ones making real time copies any more.
We were on the roof, just messing around.
You had the gun, I had only just given it to you after monopolising it all day and then we got busted,
I figured we would go down for what we had done (the smashing of the windows and trespass), there was no chance of escape, I said 'let him have it', and you did.
I tried to tell the truth, that you were simple, that it was all my doing.
But they were big, they put words in my mouth, I didn't know what to believe anymore, I was scared, I was only a little kid.
IT WASN'T MY FAULT, HE DIDN'T MEAN TO DO IT.
We were together on the roof when the copper died.
You were hanged, I wasn't.
They said I was the lucky one.
There is $100 up for grabs
One student decides on the split
The other accepts or declines
If acceptance then both walk away with some money
If decline then both get nothing
It appears that 70/30 in favour of the decider is a deal breaker,
60/40 in favour of the decider is a deal maker.
The question appears to be 'Why?'
This has nothing to do with Altruism but percieved risk/reward ratios (this is nurtured/learned behaviour)
70/30 is no go
60/40 is go
33 and 1/3 seems to be the boundary condition.
Elinor Oostrom had some interesting ideas.
This isn't easy reading but worth it for some of the ideas embedded within
Saudi was run by our man until he nationalised Aramco (Arabian-American Oil Co) at which point the leader was assassinated by the Americans (proxy) and the man belonging to the US was installed.
The current leaders can do what they like internally as long as they protect their masters interests.
This is just like Iran, we used to own that until our oil was nationalised so in conjunction with the US the democratic government was overthrown and the Shah installed.
Because the new bunch (Ayatollahs) won't do their former masters bidding they are ostracised.
If a new source of energy was to be discovered it wouldn't surprise me to see the whole of the Middle East glassed over to cover up previous crimes (by Western States)
it might be dismal and not even a science but it still gets more comments than most articles (Government stupidity usually generates more).
Well done Tim.
Presumably there is no need to actually post the offendings pics, on the first ask some gullible people will send the money. (these people are most valuable and can be sold to other scammers)
Those that don't pay are then threatened and some of those will pay. (these can also be sold but not for as much)
The rest you can forget about, they are not bothered or there are probably pictures of their winkies adorning the internet already and they probably like the idea of more.
It makes more sense not to publish the non-payers because they may be more receptive to blackmail attempts in the future as their circumstances have changed (ie they have more to lose)
This conference has nothing to do with cybersecurity and everything to do with TTIP.
You will accept it (in full) whether you like it or not, this is also at the heart of Camerons EU stance, his apparent anti-EU grandstanding is nothing of the sort.
This meeting is the same as the ones I have with my bosses, all top down.
He will be told what will be and it is his job to sell it to his underlings, if he can't sell it then someone who can will be installed.
I'nt democracy brilliant
try this for size
I think he edits the wiki as well
'Minister for Child Protection Beverley Hughes described the show as "unspeakably sick" but later admitted she had not seen the episode. Home Secretary David Blunkett said that he was "dismayed" but had also not seen the episode, because he was on holiday in Majorca at the time and is blind'
The exporter can write whatever he likes on the outside of the package sufficient to get the package out of the originating country.
As the purchaser will be the importer it is up to the purchaser to notify HMRC of the value of any items and arrange to make payment of any duties/taxes payable.
Non or Mis reporting of values by the importer for the purpose of evading tax is illegal
HMRC would argue that extending the detection of evasion to include all imports would be so costly that general taxation would have to rise and so the current situation is the best compromise.
VAT is a buyers tax, sometimes it is collected for HMRC by the seller, other times it isn't.
Just because the seller doesn't collect it (perhaps he/she is not in the UK) doesn't mean it is not payable.
As long as the seller makes it clear that any duties/taxes are the buyers responsibility, just like the many ebay sites selling cheap tablets from China do there is not a problem.
HMRC can enforce payment of VAT at the entry point if it wishes and as Dr Mouse points out they often do.
It doesn't matter where the purchaser resides it is in the destination that the buyers taxes will apply.
If I live in the UK and buy an item in China and have it shipped to another place in China then no UK VAT would be payable, pricing the item on the website to include UK VAT automatically makes no sense to an international company shipping products all over the globe.
Rather than a call to do something about non-VAT sellers this is either a prompt to HMRC to do their job more thoroughly or a general winge about VAT being too high.
In the old days.
When I went into a shop and bought a mars bar for cash the data created was not mine, it could only be used for vague demand pattern analysis (mars bar demand at that price at that time, over time)
When I use my debit card to process the same transaction I gift a whole purchasing history of every interaction I had with that (or associated) companies.
(my debit card issuer doesn't currently have any way to monetise that data (for all transactions over all time), give them time)
As this data is only generated by my actions, it must be my data (no matter how it is gathered)
It could be argued that as I am in the public domain when I am generating this data then the information itself is not propriety, derived data may or may not be.
(I would argue that because the data is not made publicly available at point of capture then the ownership of the data is already established, the question now becomes one of who is getting paid)
How much do you have to process public domain data for it to become propriety information ?
The moisture affecting the readings/operability of the devices is intriguing.
Would the machine fail to make a reading if a quantity of spit was injected along with the breath ?
How much spit would be required to consistently make breathlysers fail ?
What would be the effects of a particularly viscous grebby ?
Science demands answers.
'On motorways and main trunk roads, multiple "trains" could be running all day the full length of the road as cars join and leave.'
You could have charging trams entraining for a section of road with a high power cable above to boost in car charging.
In jouney refuelling (at a price), no more standing on a cold windswept forecourt pumping smelly diesel.
I like driving most of the time which makes your driverless cars a no no.
I want to personalise my space so communal ownership is a no no.
How about I get to drive my car when I want but can put it on autopilot when I want (or am required to by city limits).
Cars on autopilot can entrain with other autopilotted cars going in the same direction.
Entrained cars could travel at a higher average speed and a higher density than manual cars.
Entrained share a connection, one of the vehicles could be an inline mobile charging station.
The incentive of faster and cheaper journey times will lead people to choose freely to entrain where available.
Because my car can do both modes I still keep the freedom to choose between community transport and individual transport as needs be.
Why did Lloyds buy RBS one weekend ?
Tehran strip club
Why did HSBC launder Mexican money
Fast and Furious
Why did S&C get away
Spooks knew all of this.
They don't work for you, they work for the State (and nice work it is), you just pay for it.
Now go back to sleep and pay your taxes like the good little sheeple they know you are, you wouldn't want them to focus their attentions (and their abilities to produce evidence) on you, would you ?
They cannot see how corrupt they have become because they epitomise the very word.
They do not protect ordinary people
They endanger ordinary people through their actions
They persecute ordinary people for voicing legitimate concerns to protect themselves
They have become Thatchers 'Enemy Within'
There is nothing stopping the Government spending money into existence and then taxing it all back out again, as the overall amount of money in circulation has not changed, this is not inflationary.
This is the equivalent of the private banking system creating a loan and then destroying the loan as it is repaid.
The difference is that the private bank charges interest on the money it creates whereas Government created money doesn't.
If a Government doesn't tax all the money it spends then it creates inflation.
If a bank doesn't collect all the debts it has created (writes off some debts as uncollectable) then this is also inflationary.
Inflation will cause all goods to rise in price equally.
Do not confuse the rise in price of some goods (oil in the 70's) as inflation because that rise will be compensated by a fall in the price of other goods (anything not oil related in the 70's)
Governments, because they choose to borrow from the markets, are sensitive to supply shocks disrupting the economy (because the economy determines the interest rate they must pay) are likely to try to ameliorate commodity price rises, this is the wrong thing to do.
A Government should impose higher taxes on goods that are rising in price to reduce demand and stimulate alternatives, they should reduce taxes on goods that are experiencing price contraction to stimulate demand.
This seems counter intuitive but only because nothing works like you think it does.
'hence the segregation between national debt (government) and the current holder of the bonds (BoE).'
Can you not see the circularity of this, if the Government pays off these bonds (loans) to the BoE, the BoE passes these funds right back to the owners (the Government).
The Government of a Sovereign Nation does not have to borrow the Nations currency from any market because as the sole issuer of this currency it can produce an unlimited supply.
The value of a Sovereign Nations currency is detemined by the demand for that currency and surprise surprise, that demand is from the Government of that Nation alone (in the form of tax demand)
Foreign entities have no need or demand for Sterling, if they require aircraft parts that are made here they will pay in coffee beans or sugar.
The money has no value except as a satisfier of a tax demand.
Nothing at all works like you think it does. (we all go along with the pretence, but that is all it is)
Obviously I'm not going to change your view, only you can do that but here is something to think about.
25% of the National Debt is owned by the Bank of England.
The BoE is wholly owned by the Government.
The BoE got the money to buy this debt by printing it.
Of course growing inequality contributes to lowered GDP, Duh!
If we, collectively, rich and poor alike produce a pie of X size this arbitrary year, it is distributed amongst us at a given rate.
Come the next year, if the collective pie is distributed at a rate that disproportionately favours a select few, do you think that those that contributed but got a lessor slice will contribute anything like the productivity they did previously ?
That is the productivity gap.
'Billions we didn't have' ?
The BoE (the bank that is owned by our Government that we own) can print money at will, how can we not have enough sterling ?
(what, we own a bank that can print interest free money but we insist on borrowing credit from the private banking system at interest. Who provides the private banking system with the money to lend to the Government ? That would be our bank (the BoE) and we lend it at nearly ZIrp yet we borrow that liquidity at >2%)
The fact is (and you will not like this) The Deficit is the difference between what the economy should be producing and what Private Enterprise is actually producing.
The National Debt is all the infrastructure in the UK that we collectively own, it is an asset of the people and a debt of the Government.
When Cameron says he will reduce the deficit, he can either match what private enterprise is producing (which is less than the potential) or he can invest the deficit differently to stimulate private enterprise to come up to productive speed. (it is hard to tell what he wants as they said they would clear the deficit by 2015 and it is bigger than ever)
When he says he will reduce the National Debt, he means he will liquidate the Nations assets. (increasing the National Debt means new roads, power stations etc. that we collectively pay for, reducing it means selling it off for £ sterling that we can print at will for free)
Nothing works like anybody thinks it does (or should), simply we account for the wrong things and this distorts everything.
'It's a network and an application layer protocol, not the second fucking coming, with extra cherries.'
I gave you an upvote for that line alone
> have one on me for the rest.
I don't know whether increased Government spending leads to increasing overall prosperity or an increase in prosperity allows a Government to increase spending as a percentage of the overall pie.
It could be entirely independent.
Some think that the invention of the seed drill by Jethro Tull started a massive increase in wealth (that almost everyone benefitted from) and everyone (Government and Populace alike) has been reaping what was sown ever since.
As you say, their is probably an epic tome (and possibly a Nobel) in there somewhere.
People were poorer in real terms (and the poorest were very poor) back in the 1930's.
In the modern era people in general are much better off and the poorest are still better off.
What I find interesting is the coincidence between Government spending as a percentage of GDP and the whole of the country (poor and rich alike) getting better off.
'Public spending in the United Kingdom has steadily increased from 12 percent of GDP in 1900 to 47 percent today. '
Now if we reduce public spending as a percentage of GDP back to 1930's levels (25 - 30%), would it be a coincidence that we all (rich and poor alike) collectively get poorer.
I wonder if it isn't coincidence but correlation after all.
'There are matters of competition, supply and demand to consider, now over a MUCH larger base'
Much more demand
So why do we have so many unemployed ?
There was huge domestic demand in the 50's and low unemployment
There is now huge foreign demand and we have high unemployment
There is no risk without reward and nobody will take risk without backstopping.
(enter the BoE/ECB/Fed/BoC/BoJ etc)
And nobody takes the risk of properity for everyone.
There is something rotten in the state of [Denmark]
How do you account for that ?
'Since then, well, not a lot of growth in demand overall.'
Wow ! all these new people on the planet not wanting (for) anything.
Every 60 - 70 years the communally paid for infrastructure is sold off (cheaply) to those in power, those assets are then run down (whilst operating profits are distributed to the new owners) until the infrastructure collapses and the public (if they want services to continue) are forced to invest anew.
This cycle is repeated just out of living memory (but is certainly inside the 'families' memory)
For those that might be cynical about this point of view should read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressel, written in 1910 there is discussion of the privatisation of the gasworks - did anybody tell Sid in 86?
'(don't worry, we'll be looking at this from a female perspective in a later piece)'
Please, please let that be from The Moderatrix or Verity Stob (I promise to be good and not drool too much)
> Penguin gimp mask obviously
Not in the slightest.
This case is
The defendent is guilty/not guilty of the charges against him based on this evidence
(not hearsay, not character, not upbringing, voting record, drinking record or criminal record)
Just because he is the type to have committed this crime and has been found to have committed many similar crimes to this does not make him guilty of this one.
Where is the direct evidence linking him with this (drugs) crime.
The reason for the trial ordering is to make subsequent trials easier for the prosecution.
If he is found guilty of the drugs thing the it will be easier to make a case for the murder plot thing (motive)
If found guilty of the murder thing then laundering/evasion will be easier to prove (motive and means)
Just because he might be a murderous barsterd is irrelavent as to whether he was an international drugs dealer.
His attitude towards international drugs dealing, consumption or murder has nothing to do with whether he was dealing in drugs or not.
The question is, was he dealing in drugs or not ?, did he conspire with others to facilitate the dealing of illegal substances ?
I don't care whether he was responsible for 9/11, was he responsible for the crimes that are alleged in this particular case and where is the evidence ? (all the rest is just shit, and the judge should know this and rule accordingly)
(just because I am of proven bad character does not make me guilty of this particular crime)