|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 27, 2016 3:46:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 26, 2016 0:41:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 25, 2016 21:16:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 25, 2016 0:34:15 GMT -5
Everything is a meme.
Game of the Year: Galactic Civilizations 3
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 22, 2016 16:30:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 21, 2016 4:04:30 GMT -5
Five wizards, boxing. They jump quickly.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 20, 2016 22:04:24 GMT -5
Caltech states the statistical confidence level that Planet Nine exists is 3.5 Sigma. That's around a .9997 (99.97%) probability, ladies and gents. :D One of the authors, Michael Brown, puts it at an understandable 90%
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 20, 2016 19:53:49 GMT -5
Check out what Caltech thinks they found in our solar system. Pretty neat, eh? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_NineAs of 05:50 21 of January 2016: "It is estimated Planet Nine follows an elliptical path around the Sun, with an orbital period of 10,000–20,000 Earth years. The hypothetical planet would have an average orbital distance of roughly 600 astronomical units (AU), or about 20 times the distance of Neptune from the Sun, though it may come as close as 200 AU, and would have an inclination of about 30° from the eight known planets. The planet is estimated to have 10 times the mass and 2 to 4 times the diameter of Earth. Mike Brown speculates that the planet is most probably an ejected ice giant, similar in composition to Uranus and Neptune: a mixture of rock and ice with a small envelope of gas."
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 12, 2016 20:06:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
RIP
Jan 11, 2016 12:14:46 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Jan 11, 2016 12:14:46 GMT -5
about the only thing I ever learned from Yahoo news.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 6, 2016 15:12:48 GMT -5
I have request pls do that but with this face
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 30, 2015 12:53:26 GMT -5
At this point I'd be willing to say that good community constitutes rehabilitation.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 30, 2015 12:02:01 GMT -5
Hetzer cosplay.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 30, 2015 1:32:50 GMT -5
IT'S ABOUT COMMUNITY
|
|
|
Movies
Dec 29, 2015 17:26:12 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Dec 29, 2015 17:26:12 GMT -5
Watched them Star Wars today. Very good. Nice pacing.
|
|
|
Music
Dec 27, 2015 13:58:28 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Dec 27, 2015 13:58:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Music
Dec 25, 2015 1:02:15 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Dec 25, 2015 1:02:15 GMT -5
Jaedrik should like this one You know it! Merry Christmas, all.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 20:55:15 GMT -5
Ohhh doo doo Yellen actually hiked rates
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN OHHHHH BOY OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BOOOIIIYYYYYOOOOOOO
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 15:08:07 GMT -5
Yes it does. Because it's not a ponzi scheme and he never meant for people to take it that way. A ponzi scheme by definition is fraudulent, SS is not fraudulent, so it's not a ponzi scheme Oh. Okay. That strikes me as a walk-back / backpedal from Krugman, then. Another one, then, Paul Samuelson, a prominent Keynesian like Krugman, also called SS a ponzi scheme. Your argument hinges on how you're defining "fraudulent." This confuses me, though. Please explain what you mean by it, and how one would distinguish something that has a similar investment / payout structure that's legitimate and not fraudulent. Alright, let's say what I mean by it is something different for now. But how I mean a ponzi scheme still fits Social Security. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission: "What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. . . . In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. Why do Ponzi schemes collapse? With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out." sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm Obviously, what I mean by 'fraud' is something else, but setting that aside... SS and Medicare have Ponzi aspects to them under these definitions. I also forgot to mention Medicare, which is actually a bigger financial threat than SS. "Think about it: the government taxes current workers in order to pay current retirees their Social Security and Medicare benefits. When today's workers grow old and retire, they in turn will receive their benefit payments from payroll taxes taken from future workers. The whole system depends on bringing in new 'participants,' or else it collapses. Indeed, as we will soon see, the system is collapsing, because of shifting demographics. . . . Before we dive into the scary numbers regarding Medicare's impact on the federal budget, it's important to first explain why demographics matter so much when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. The answer is that they are indeed Ponzi schemes, where the original 'investors' are paid not with the genuine earnings created from the wise investment of their initial contributions, but instead with the money flowing in from the next wave of 'investors.'" - don't obsess about finding the source for this one. I'd rather you focus on the arguments themselves. I can post the 'as we will soon see' part if you want. It has neat graphs and stuff from
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 13:02:21 GMT -5
I mean, like, that doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 2:13:38 GMT -5
We should repudiate the debt. Maybe China would go to war with us, kek Those unfunded liabilities tho Literally bankrupt. Even Paul Krugman called social security a ponzi scheme c'mon let's be honest here sorry for the post I'll respond later maybe (we all know how them promises go, not that you guys want to read my anarchosomethings anyways) also raise interest rates or riot ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 21:34:46 GMT -5
Bernie is most certainly a socialist. You can debate to what degree or under what specific terminology or multiple terminologies he best fits it, but he is exactly as he proclaims himself to be... a socialist; and one who's running on a "bread and circuses" platform. Bernie promotes economic nationalism and has built his campaign upon the powerful political tool of appealing to voter resentment of others. Most of his key positions revolve around reducing our nation's economic freedoms, catapulting taxes, and exploding social programs; basically, he's trying to construct something akin to a European welfare state. Still not Socialism. Regulation is not Socialism. Taxation is not Socialism. Social programs are not Socialism. To the degree they tend towards a fully socialized system and deny the free market, they are socialist, but only to that degree. To the degree they tend away from that socialized system, they aren't socialist, but only to that degree. There is an is and is not, but there is also a mostly is or somewhat isn't. It's more accurate to say they're more socialist than non-regulation, non-taxation, and non-government / public social programs, and less so than complete regulation, complete taxation, and complete governmental societal control. We can only say something is more or less in the cases where it's neither 0% nor 100%. Horray for tautology! What most people mean when they say 'socialist' is 'more socialist than our current situation.' On me opinions: Trump is very ad hoc by-the-seat-of-his-pants or something like that. I think he'd take the blue collar vote away from most Democrats since he's a businessman and is known to be very kind to his employees. His bombasticness and non-politically-correct is what attracts the independent everyman. Being ad hoc, there's only a few specific things I know he's said that I like: "Yellen won't raise the interest rates because they don't want a crash just now," and his general stuff about "The Middle East is destabilized, and we're the ones who caused it." Other than that I don't really like him. Then again, he's not the establishment guy who's selected by the Republican party neocon leadership, and they hate that. It looks good that their pick, Jeb, isn't going anywhere. If someone not Jeb or willing to bow to them gets the nomination they might bow out / conspire with the opposition like they did with Barry Goldwater. Rand is slowly getting better (and it's showing in the polls, the Drudge one at least (it's the only one I've seen)) by channeling more of his father lately. Hopefully he keeps going that direction--I think that'd go a long way to converting hearts and minds to the cause of liberty! :D
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 16:48:57 GMT -5
But at that point the phrase "socialist" loses all meaning, especially in the context of the western world. Socialism is defined as the complete government takeover of a particular service/product. Communism is when you have the complete government takeover of all or nearly all systems that would otherwise be within a free market system. Capitalism is defined simply as having a system where there is product/service to customer transfer/sale that is not completely controlled by the government. You can also have government interventions that are pro-capitalist, such as Anti-Trust intervention and just like Anti-Trust regulations Bernie's ideas have all been pro-capitalist, because they involve strengthening the free market by increasing the stability and buying power of people in middle and lower classes. The beliefs and definitions of a candidate aren't as important as what they are going to do if elected. With 2016 the most important actions IMO are going to be replacing the soon to retire Supreme Court Justices. I know that if trump, Cruz, or Carson win the replacements will be more Scalia assholes who can't even stay consistent on their positions within 48 hours, if Jeb or Rubio win it's going to be a combination of Scalia types and Kennedy types, and if Hillary or Bernie win it's going to be Ginsberg and Kagan types. I'd rather have Supreme Court justices replaced by people who understand the concept of "Equal Protection under law" and don't claim that corporations are people rather than hacks that will spend their time arguing how anti-sodomy laws are necessary or how "separation of church and state" is really just about popular religion being above the law. Sir, what I mean by 'socialist' and what you mean by 'socialist' are two separate things. I'm using a different definition, but that doesn't mean the ideas behind them have lost meaning. There's no point quibbling about what words mean when it's the meaning that counts and not the words. Meaning isn't inherent to words. Besides, my definition goes along with how many people use it when they say "Obama is socialist" or something like that, not that that matters to our discussion. I learned it in my community college western civ course, is understood this way more often. One of the fathers of this way of thinking would be Bastiat. There are degrees of socialization a country may be in, therefore people are more or less socialist, not socialist or not. It's one of those sliding scale thingies. Otherwise, historically, a difference academic historians, not people who mean things in the popular sense, ascribe to self-described Socialists and Communists in Europe has been strategy. Communism is a more traditional Marxian bottom-up violent revolt--which is why, say, Lenin instituted a new economic plan to grow the middle class, because you can't have a proletariat revolution without the bourgeois. At least that's how the teachers used it. Stalin was described that way too, but his strategy was different in that he wanted to skip the middle part, or saw the middle part as sufficiently done, but he was still communist in the sense that he came to power through unscrupulous means, but I suppose one could argue that the system was based on having no scruples. Anyways, the end goal was the same: a classless society with the means of production publicly owned. Socialists, on the other hand, attempt to work up through the system in power. They like democracies, republics, those sorts of things. Hitler tried the a weird nationalist communism with the Beer Hall Putsch, but nobody was on board, so he changed up his strategy and became a 'national socialist'--aka, fascist. Whereas socialism and communism are normally described as class-identifying and nationally transcendent, fascism is described as an unholy union of socialism and nationalism. How are you defining 'pro-capitalist'? Favorable for the system, for the people under the system, as a change to the system of capitalism for the better, for the entrepreneurs under the system? I'd also like to see how you think that these trusts come about naturally, historically, and what the anti-trust policies would do to prevent bad things from happening. Also, what are your thoughts on Paul, who placed third in the Drudge poll last night? Nevermind Carson or Jeb, who've got like nothing in the polls :D Lastly, please describe what you mean by "Equal Protection under the law." You can't expect me to respond if I don't have a clear picture of what you're talking about~
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 14:33:12 GMT -5
AidsAidsAids taught me something. It's that words are subjective things. So what's really important to understanding people is what they mean by words, rather than focusing on how they use them
If socialism is taken to mean "the public ownership of the means of production," and we grant that there are degrees to which this ownership is institutionalized, then extend the principle of 'degrees of socialization' to individual's viewpoints, it becomes that every one of the candidates is a socialist to an extent. Yes, even Ghandi and MLK Jr. were socialist to an extent. To an extent. Sad, true. Sanders just happens to be the most socialist of the candidates.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 14:28:10 GMT -5
Horray. But for real horray on the last one, she's a great inclusion.
I'm more concerned about Elise's localization, she became far more annoying and possessive. My decision to by Fates hinges on how hard NoA beefs the localization, and it looks to be heading in the direction of "really beefed it."
Oh also Knuckles and Geno Mii costumes. It wouldn't do to have Nintendo / Japanese pride shown up by having a fully playable Knuckles in Project M, but my money's more on Nintendo not wanting competition for the Knuckles' fans or Konami finding out about PM.
|
|
|
Music
Dec 13, 2015 17:05:26 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Dec 13, 2015 17:05:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 11, 2015 19:46:18 GMT -5
I want more NAMCO characters. Way back when we first found out I was hoping for one SoulCal rep, one Tekken rep, and Lloyd from Tales of. We got Heihachi and Lloyd as Mii skins though, I highly doubt that they'll be any more than that. Isaac would be cool, he was for sure one of the most voted characters. Indeed! Personally, I think Yoshimitsu would've been perfect, but probably no way he'd have his seppuku special.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 11, 2015 14:15:59 GMT -5
I predict Snake, returning 64 stage, MGS stage, Wolf, and a Smash Ballot character out of the blue.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 9, 2015 22:03:00 GMT -5
For the people that don't go over to the things that make sense thread (posted this there)
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 9, 2015 13:42:30 GMT -5
Another one of the theories of Project M's demise
|
|