It is a fucking conspiracy. fed is run by the banks, banks didn't want fed to intervene bc they were making big bonuses and it was good for the people there. duh.
This is an obvious case of corruption of our government. No one was regulating because they didn't want to regulate it.
This is why there needs to be things like campaign finance reform and people should seriously go to jail without chance of being pardoned for these types of crimes.
Willful ignorance of this shit should have been considered aiding & abetting theft.
But no, no one will go to jail because the rich and powerful never go to jail. They didn't get rich and powerful by not being corrupt.
Yes, there is always some conspiracy, but calling it a conspiracy is not nearly enough to actually explain the situation and your gut reaction is lowering the quality of conversation. Also the threat of jail is not enough to fix the problem.
go fuck yourself guy who down-voted me, you are part of the willful ignorance.
Greenspan was a goddamned Rayndian.
Stephen Friedman had super strong ties to goldman sachs,
In fact, almost everyone high up in the fed has ties to banking in one form or another.
None of the people involved are even interested fair in regulation.
I don't understand why this is controversial.
it is a fucking conspiracy and I'm calling it as it is.
Would my post have been better if I had suggested execution, or is the real reason it is downvoted because it is unpopular to call something a conspiracy?
we all tell ourselves these fairy tales about how the world is fair and there are no conspiracies and closed door deals between those in power, but it is all a lie.
Dude. What in the history of Hacker News would make you possibly believe that a post starting with "It's a fucking conspiracy" in earnest would do anything except get brutally downvoted?
Tritium is produced by fission reactors, tritium decays into an isotope of helium.
So i think this is different from oil where oil can't really be produced.
I'm not saying we should crap all of our helium away, but I'm having a hard time being concerned about something that we can at least hypothetically produce.
Who says oil can't be produced? I mean, it doesn't make sense to use it as a fuel source since you'd have to put in at least as much energy as you'd be getting back out, but you can still produce it.
I think you are absolutely right. The success of the ipod is all about very clever advertising. At the time that it came out, there were dozens of other mp3 players that were cheaper and just as good (there still are dozens of mp3 players that are cheaper and just as good).
But somehow apple turned the ipod into something that wasn't an mp3 player and was an ipod.
And Apple is really good at marketing and also making their products pretty (so that they can be marketed).
Sansa or Creative, for example, don't seem to spend anywhere near the marketing money on their products as apple does, and it seems to show. (iPod is a household name, no one knows what I'm talking about when I talk about my SanDisk).
(I'm sure iTunes had something to do with it too...)
I think that too often we want to attribute the success of a product to rational causes such as technological superiority or 'innovation'...
But really, I think there is a lot more that needs to be said about clever manipulation of your consumer's thoughts/desires.
I also don't get why you are getting downvoted. Disagreement by downvote is not cool. Disagree by disagreeing, downvote when someone is being an idiot.
Interesting how you imply product's prettiness to be somehow secondary to its functionality. Apple creates pretty products and that's why they are bought - not because they are marketed as pretty. If you've seen any scifi movies you know that the future is slick sweet, just like the iPad. Everyone wants to live in the future.
If you want to go the other direction dimensionally and technologically, you can get 'Flatland, a romance of many dimensions' off project Gutenberg.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/97
I am impressed that he did this in two hours, but at the same time, I am dismayed that I am impressed that he did it in two hours.
Why are 'simple' programming tasks often so hard?
For example: I spent hours trying to figure out what was wrong with my oauth requests to twitter last night. Just kept getting "401 Unauthorized" over and over. Still haven't figured it out. (The worst part has to be that I was using a library and serious debugging ended with me following the instructions on the tutorial step-by-step; I still got the error...).
My question: Why should this app take 2 hours? Why shouldn't this take 2 minutes? All it is is a little form that stores the number of push-ups you did and the week. Why is everything so hard? Why is so much of my life painful library wrangling?
I've been working on building a generalized DSL for http-requests (based on a site structure description generate the request-functions).
I figured it would be interesting to test it with twitter's oauth. It works quite well for http-get requests, didn't work very well for post requests (ex. status updates). Squinted at it, macro-expanded a few times and fixed a bug... now it seems to be generating the right code. Still not working
So I went back to the base case (libraries without my DSL over-top, direct from tutorial), posts still didn't work.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that posts will work for very short strings, or strings that are very repetitive (a string full of s's 'ssssssssssssssssssssss...' would post, as would 'wtf' and 'ww'; 'well this is a nice message', would not...).
Much hacking and fussing and resetting of keys later, it was 4am and I had to get up and work in a few hours (did I mention I was doing this for fun? sigh).
So I'm starting to think that something may have changed in twitter's oauth spec between when I downloaded the libraries and when I got back to using them (it was a few months). Other than that, I suppose my next step would be to look at some other implementations and figure out if there is a bug in the what I am using.
I guess my point is, even easy things aren't easy.
It would be cool if you could integrate their APIs into what you are doing.
(Create Alikewise account based off of already existing Goodreads or Librarything account).
I guess what I'm concerned about is that it becomes a very niche site without a community that is hanging out and talking about the books that they are reading.
Presumably if you go on, you find someone, and you leave, you don't have the 'all my friends are on it' factor. (It is also kind of limited group, a lot of people will not be looking for partners that read the same books as they do). It kind of appeals to people you might think of (or who might think of themselves) as intelligentsia.
But is a cool idea, and is definitely intriguing at very least in terms of social experiments, kind of figuring out if people are compatible because of similar intellectual interests. I hope it goes well for you!
I agree, integration would be great. It's a pain to input a bunch of books, reviews, and ratings. If Goodreads had a "turn this into a dating site" button, I'd press it in a heartbeat, but there's no way I'm going to start over inputting books and ratings on a new site.
However, this makes it a poorly designed link sharing system. I never know where the link that i'm clicking resolves to, and it isn't really optimized for parsing the links out of the message (as a developer i've got to do a regex or something to pull the http:// garbage out of the message). Why isn't there a seperate field for links?
Of course he's kidding! I refuse to believe that wasn't some tongue-in-cheek statement. For fluid dynamics, all we are talking about is addition and multiplication, and the precedence rules for these operations are what you would expect them to be.
Static typing and testing are not replacements for structuring your code so that when you read it at each level of structure you know that it is right.
This is an obvious case of corruption of our government. No one was regulating because they didn't want to regulate it.
This is why there needs to be things like campaign finance reform and people should seriously go to jail without chance of being pardoned for these types of crimes.
Willful ignorance of this shit should have been considered aiding & abetting theft.
But no, no one will go to jail because the rich and powerful never go to jail. They didn't get rich and powerful by not being corrupt.