Yes, and sound takes time to reach a destination... so how accurate would that time be, if I called FROM THE NETHERLANDS to find out what time it is in New York city using that phone number? :P
Printing more money does affect the value of said money. A process generally known as inflation, and there have been countries where they've printed so much money, that bread costs somewhere in the 6 digit range.
There are very definite downsides to just printing more money in order to get rid of debts, maybe not for the governments per se but for their constituents definitely.
It'd be better to find a sustainable solution, and that's by making the balance more even. In so far as expenses and incomes more on the same level.
Upon reading the link you gave Richard, I have the following to add.
Sure, the US is not at risk of dying.
So, the money lenders have very little risk that the country is going away anytime soon. But that isn't a 100% given certainty.
And at some point, you have to wonder: "are we doing the right thing?" At least, if you keep digging yourself deeper in debt for billions a year.
Money is, if you really think about it, already a bizarre thing, because where does it really come from, and why does it have such a weird effect on society?
But if countries can spend money willy-nilly, what would be the point of keeping a balance? Why not just keep spending without any regards for what comes in. After all you can just turn over the debt and bring in more money, right? "The sky is the limit"?
In fact, what would be the point of money? Would we really need it?
Yes I understand that my money comes from the government. (even here in Euro-land)
But, it's actually quite simple to understand balancing.
You have a ledger sheet where you write down your expenses.
And you have a ledger sheet where you write down your income.
And the trick to making the balance is to somehow find a way to have about the same, or preferably less expenses than what your income is.
Obviously, that doesn't work all the time.
Sometimes you have to spend more than you make, that's when you tap into reserves or take out a loan.
This all also works for countries.
But in the US' case (and no doubt the case for many other countries, like for instance Greece), they've been spending more than they make for quite a number of years.
And that's just not a long-term tenable situation. Someone has to pay back those loans as well.
But because the balance is such that they don't have anything left except for a big gaping hole in the budget, the US can't pay back what its owed.
Sure, a country may not be the same as my household, but balancing for a country works the same way as balancing for a household, just with bigger numbers.
Fact is, if you keep spending more money than you make, you have a serious issue, and you need to figure out where you can cut spending AND/OR increase income.
In the case of the US there is a huge amount of extra income to be generated through the raising of the taxes for higher incomes (you know the people who have been tax exempt, because they 'create jobs' (in other countries)). That's why, for me as an outsider, it was quite bizarre to see how that just wasn't acceptable for the republican extremists (the tea party favourites).
Every economist said: the only sensible thing to do here is to cut costs and raise taxes.
But noooooooooooo, we're having none of that, we'd rather risk defaulting the entire country (and do more damage than any terrorist could ever do) than raise a single tax for the so-called job-creators (who don't really create jobs for Americans).
Well, I wouldn't trust the US government to give me the correct time of day. Let alone trust them with money.
How can you run a country where you continuously spend more money than you make and still expect you can get a good rating?
I understand the whole idea of 'you've got to spend money to make money', but in this case, it feels more like spending money for the sake of spending money. It's not as if the US is getting better because of it.
And let's just ignore the crazy amount of money that elections cost. I'd say vote for the person who tries to make it to the White House on the smallest budget possible.
Also, sure it's nice to hear that you have a AAA-rating, but what does it mean, and how is AAA better than AA+? What is the difference? Why not have an A-B-C rating or a 1-10 scale?
But are you using version 6, 7, 8 or 9 of said webbrowser?
That makes a big difference.
For instance, Google+ does not work with IE6 and 7, for a few very good reasons. The biggest one being the fact that both those browsers have horrible support for common web standards. And it would cost anyone a lot of energy, time and resources to get these sites to work in just one of those browsers?
If you're still running 6 or 7, why is that? Why would you willingly use an outdated browser? If it's because you're not allowed to install a newer version on your office pc, then what the heck are you doing on a music site like turntable.fm during work hours? :)
The fact that Microsoft decided to pay Lindows instead of the other way around may mean that there's more to this than you think.
And it's relevant as how ClarkeyBalboa explained it. Whether it's right or wrong is not up to us to decide but up to a judge, if he or she gets a chance to do so.
Windows as a brand name is strong, about as strong or even more so than Facebook's brand name. Both are an established trademark. In the Windows-vs-Lindows case Microsoft decided to settle out of court in case the judge would rule against Microsoft and invalidate the trademark on Windows. Even though it's an already very much established trademark.
Facebook is a word very much like Windows. Very generic. The chances that a judge invalidates said trademark isn't 0. It's a real possibility, and one I'm sure Facebook will have to keep an eye on.
And who are you to decide whether a claim is meritless or not?
Facebook.com can have a strong brand name even without the whole trademark thing.
Brand name is separate from a trademark.
Besides all that, being a trademark bully, hurts the overall image of Facebook.com
And another thing, this isn't a case where someone else is using the name "facebook", but rather just used "book" in their name.
Sure, you could say that they are lifting on the coattails of Facebook.com when going that route, but book is a very generic and broad term, even more so than facebook. And by objecting to a site using "book" or "face" in their name, just because Facebook.com has a trademark on the name Facebook, is just petty and silly.
You just violated our non disclosure agreement, that you signed before you took on that little job. You disclosed our patent-pending form filling procedure. Expect a call from our lawyers Boolle, Chit and Moore.
Even you must see that all you achieve by suing your fans is that you'll drive them away, and they stop being your fans. Less fans mean less word-of-mouth advertising. In fact I'd go so far as they'd become the polar opposite of what they were. They advocate against watching your movies/reading your books/listening to your music.
"Ah don't bother with any of Summit's movies, they screwed me over royally, by suing the hell out of me. Now I don't have money to go to the cinema to watch the latest Twilight film, nor will I be able to in the near future. Screw them, I don't need them! If I were you, I'd go spend that money on something else. If you must watch that movie, just download it, Summit doesn't deserve your money."
Hacking is wrong? I guess that depends on your definition.
Merely being curious about how systems operate is hacking, and isn't wrong.
Testing security on certain products isn't wrong and that too is hacking.
Social engineering, which is also a form of hacking, has its uses, and isn't necessarily wrong either.
Most of the acts attributed to Anon isn't hacking per se. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to DDOS a website. All you need is a large amount of computers. And isn't really hacking.
The information about how to hack our transit cards are actually out there... For a time you couldn't even get the card readers anywhere, because there was a huge run on them.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: 1
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are very definite downsides to just printing more money in order to get rid of debts, maybe not for the governments per se but for their constituents definitely.
It'd be better to find a sustainable solution, and that's by making the balance more even. In so far as expenses and incomes more on the same level.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, the US is not at risk of dying.
So, the money lenders have very little risk that the country is going away anytime soon. But that isn't a 100% given certainty.
And at some point, you have to wonder: "are we doing the right thing?" At least, if you keep digging yourself deeper in debt for billions a year.
Money is, if you really think about it, already a bizarre thing, because where does it really come from, and why does it have such a weird effect on society?
But if countries can spend money willy-nilly, what would be the point of keeping a balance? Why not just keep spending without any regards for what comes in. After all you can just turn over the debt and bring in more money, right? "The sky is the limit"?
In fact, what would be the point of money? Would we really need it?
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re:
But, it's actually quite simple to understand balancing.
You have a ledger sheet where you write down your expenses.
And you have a ledger sheet where you write down your income.
And the trick to making the balance is to somehow find a way to have about the same, or preferably less expenses than what your income is.
Obviously, that doesn't work all the time.
Sometimes you have to spend more than you make, that's when you tap into reserves or take out a loan.
This all also works for countries.
But in the US' case (and no doubt the case for many other countries, like for instance Greece), they've been spending more than they make for quite a number of years.
And that's just not a long-term tenable situation. Someone has to pay back those loans as well.
But because the balance is such that they don't have anything left except for a big gaping hole in the budget, the US can't pay back what its owed.
Sure, a country may not be the same as my household, but balancing for a country works the same way as balancing for a household, just with bigger numbers.
Fact is, if you keep spending more money than you make, you have a serious issue, and you need to figure out where you can cut spending AND/OR increase income.
In the case of the US there is a huge amount of extra income to be generated through the raising of the taxes for higher incomes (you know the people who have been tax exempt, because they 'create jobs' (in other countries)). That's why, for me as an outsider, it was quite bizarre to see how that just wasn't acceptable for the republican extremists (the tea party favourites).
Every economist said: the only sensible thing to do here is to cut costs and raise taxes.
But noooooooooooo, we're having none of that, we'd rather risk defaulting the entire country (and do more damage than any terrorist could ever do) than raise a single tax for the so-called job-creators (who don't really create jobs for Americans).
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Time
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
How can you run a country where you continuously spend more money than you make and still expect you can get a good rating?
I understand the whole idea of 'you've got to spend money to make money', but in this case, it feels more like spending money for the sake of spending money. It's not as if the US is getting better because of it.
And let's just ignore the crazy amount of money that elections cost. I'd say vote for the person who tries to make it to the White House on the smallest budget possible.
Also, sure it's nice to hear that you have a AAA-rating, but what does it mean, and how is AAA better than AA+? What is the difference? Why not have an A-B-C rating or a 1-10 scale?
Ok, I'll stop rambling now.
On the post: El_Segfaulto's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
erm..
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Your name is your description.
How about french fries? Are they made of french people?
On the post: The Advantage Of Copycat Startups: Will Rolling.fm Keep Turntable.fm Innovating?
Re: Competition spurring improvement
That makes a big difference.
For instance, Google+ does not work with IE6 and 7, for a few very good reasons. The biggest one being the fact that both those browsers have horrible support for common web standards. And it would cost anyone a lot of energy, time and resources to get these sites to work in just one of those browsers?
If you're still running 6 or 7, why is that? Why would you willingly use an outdated browser? If it's because you're not allowed to install a newer version on your office pc, then what the heck are you doing on a music site like turntable.fm during work hours? :)
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's relevant as how ClarkeyBalboa explained it. Whether it's right or wrong is not up to us to decide but up to a judge, if he or she gets a chance to do so.
Windows as a brand name is strong, about as strong or even more so than Facebook's brand name. Both are an established trademark. In the Windows-vs-Lindows case Microsoft decided to settle out of court in case the judge would rule against Microsoft and invalidate the trademark on Windows. Even though it's an already very much established trademark.
Facebook is a word very much like Windows. Very generic. The chances that a judge invalidates said trademark isn't 0. It's a real possibility, and one I'm sure Facebook will have to keep an eye on.
And who are you to decide whether a claim is meritless or not?
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brand name is separate from a trademark.
Besides all that, being a trademark bully, hurts the overall image of Facebook.com
And another thing, this isn't a case where someone else is using the name "facebook", but rather just used "book" in their name.
Sure, you could say that they are lifting on the coattails of Facebook.com when going that route, but book is a very generic and broad term, even more so than facebook. And by objecting to a site using "book" or "face" in their name, just because Facebook.com has a trademark on the name Facebook, is just petty and silly.
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re: Re: Re: Avengers
Sorry, what? Oh right, yeah to me "The Avengers" is the British 60s-70s tv-series.
Never really went for comics myself. And the US comic books never really caught on in Europe for some reason.
On the post: Judge Realizes That Nearly All Of The 23,322 People Sued By US Copyright Group Aren't In Its Jurisdiction
Re: Re:
Ivory tower... check
Misguided sense of reality... check
Hurts innocent bystanders... check
On the post: Paperwork Makes Work
You just violated our non disclosure agreement, that you signed before you took on that little job. You disclosed our patent-pending form filling procedure. Expect a call from our lawyers Boolle, Chit and Moore.
have a nice day,
J. Butttalker
On the post: Summit Entertainment Commences Criminal Legal Action Against Twilight Fan Who Shared Images From Movie
Re:
"Ah don't bother with any of Summit's movies, they screwed me over royally, by suing the hell out of me. Now I don't have money to go to the cinema to watch the latest Twilight film, nor will I be able to in the near future. Screw them, I don't need them! If I were you, I'd go spend that money on something else. If you must watch that movie, just download it, Summit doesn't deserve your money."
On the post: Summit Entertainment Commences Criminal Legal Action Against Twilight Fan Who Shared Images From Movie
Re:
Merely being curious about how systems operate is hacking, and isn't wrong.
Testing security on certain products isn't wrong and that too is hacking.
Social engineering, which is also a form of hacking, has its uses, and isn't necessarily wrong either.
Most of the acts attributed to Anon isn't hacking per se. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to DDOS a website. All you need is a large amount of computers. And isn't really hacking.
On the post: Dutch Journalist In Legal Trouble For Showing How New Transit Card Is Easy To Defraud
Re:
On the post: Dutch Journalist In Legal Trouble For Showing How New Transit Card Is Easy To Defraud
Re: Re:
Next >>