innguest

33 ms·

241.
by innguest 12y ago
Yes, this is correct. This system is called Petrodollar (if anyone wants to understand why the USD is the global reserve currency).
242.
by innguest 12y ago
> We have spent trillions in Iraq and interest rates haven't even gone up. That's because they're set by the Fed and not allowed to fluctuate according to market pressure. Surely you knew this? It's the same reason wh
243.
by innguest 12y ago
Nice to meet you, I'm the guy that sells you put options and makes money off your "bullish" beliefs. Could you tell me what MainStream Media on Earth has been predicting the crash of the US economy for 7 years? To me the MSM
244.
by innguest 12y ago
Do you disagree that most people want a government? I think not. Do you disagree that most of those people want a government because they want government to intervene on social and economic issues? Do you disagree that most of those people
245.
by innguest 12y ago
> Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly. Unlikely. HNers are wide-eyed Utopians in the Platonic fashion of believing in virtue through central planning. There is no cynicism here to be found, but in the downvoted comments.
246.
by innguest 12y ago
Given two or more sides of an issue, there will be those that use more emotional arguments in their rhetoric, and there will be those that won't care about the pathos side of rhetoric and focus on the logic. According to my experience,
247.
by innguest 12y ago
There's also very limited land but land is not tightly controlled by an unelected government agency the same way radio waves are. If what you say is true then we should be able to buy and sell radio wave frequencies from each other. Bu
248.
by innguest 12y ago
I'll answer you because you're asking explicitly, but see warfangle's reply to my post making fun of me. What warfangle etc don't understand is that was exactly the excuse for the FCC to get into the Radio business. Oh n
249.
by innguest 12y ago
It boils down to that much: emotive people that can't reason without reacting are the majority, and they are easily swayed by politicians who are swayed by professional talkers (lobbyists) that know how to appeal to politicians' e
250.
by innguest 12y ago
> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't
251.
by innguest 12y ago
> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another s
252.
by innguest 12y ago
Ok, so we have this common ground of thinking money isn't too real if it can be printed at will by central bankers. That's good. Now ask yourself: what do central banks hoard? Whatever they hoard must be, at the very least, a more
253.
by innguest 12y ago
Great point! Let me help you out. Your hemlock hypothetical already exists. It's a Japanese fish called Fugu and the fatality rate from consumption thereof is 6.8%. I would never advocate for making Fugu illegal.
254.
by innguest 12y ago
Same here, I know someone very smart and prolific and I've sat next to him and watched him code page after page smoking bowl after bowl for almost a year. That's what makes me think it's all about the person and nothing to do
255.
by innguest 12y ago
According to the W3C browsers are supposed to use the hellish combination of HTML + CSS + JS instead of simple OpenGL which works everywhere.
256.
by innguest 12y ago
Why am I not surprised to hear that OpenGL "just works" when for years I've been wondering why the clowns at W3C keep pushing for crappy substitutes?
257.
by innguest 12y ago
That's funny because it's true. I've been saying this forever, we already have OpenGL viewports, we don't have to listen to the folks at W3C. Browsers draw on the screen. Why is each browser concerned with the rendering
258.
by innguest 12y ago
How about everyone in America goes to some lobby.gov website, and either put in a new topic, or vote an existing topic up, for X amount of topics to be discussed the coming weekend. There are many ways to solve this, and even if each person
259.
by innguest 12y ago
If the taxpayer wasn't so easily distracted they should be voting for Lobby Neutrality where the communication ways with politicians would be guaranteed to be equal to everyone, be they a citizen or a corporation or Israel.
260.
by innguest 12y ago
Bingo. This is just another way to divide people and create pointless discussion about a non-issue so we can praise the "tolerant" and chastise those who see it for the agitprop it is. FTFA: > So if the law requires that a pers
261.
by innguest 12y ago
> I'd be really interested to see studies of people who "recovered" from depression. Indeed. I'd be interested in reading case after case of people that recovered from depression. But for all the industry has put out
262.
by innguest 12y ago
Bingo. Only a wide-eyed statist would ask "why do we fight all these wars we can't win". Uh, we're winning them alright. The point, as you said, is to destabilize some key regions so that a certain chosen territory can l
263.
by innguest 12y ago
The solution to collectivism is individualism.
264.
by innguest 12y ago
What is the point of having laws curbing the government if the government can change those laws when it pleases?
265.
by innguest 12y ago
On what day of class do they prove that "Microeconomics" is a Science? Would you care to demonstrate that? I'm just asking because you're making an appeal to something in that argument, and I'm curious if you'r
266.
by innguest 12y ago
It's BS as you rightfully detected but that doesn't stop the State cheerleaders above from giving us 1001 reasons why this is bad and we must protect the lives of electrical workers, firefighters, and even the lofty goal of protec
267.
by innguest 12y ago
Because keynesians don't really want to help the poor, they want to be taxed which serves as flogging to atone for their guilt for the poor, which then makes them feel better about themselves. If we wanted to help the poor we would be
268.
by innguest 12y ago
Care to share your rebuttals to the counterpoints that have been made to your argument? Is this just faith or opinion to you? Some folks in this world are concerned with what's better for people; should we just take your opinion or sho
269.
by innguest 12y ago
Wikipedia is not a good source for controversial topics as it tends to pick one side (the mainstream side) for its readers.
270.
by innguest 12y ago
> I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument. Maybe freedom of intellectual property? The reason you're not sure file sharing is free speech is because your thinking is still clouded by the notion that there

More ›