|
This is a shot in the dark because it's about one line from a book I don't remember - all I do remember is that it was about anthropology, and it had a quote from some tiny society that lived on a minuscule island - maybe Easter Island, or another island with Polynesians? The point is, you could hear the ocean from anywhere, so they asked the anthropologist, as if in disbelief, "is it true some people live where they can't hear the sea?" Any clue what book, or what people, that quote might pertain/belong to?
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:You've probably somehow turned off the "check spelling as you type" option. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly where it is in options but I know that's more or less the wording of it, if that helps. I went digging around and found the "check me to make the computer spell right" button.. it was on so I turned it off and on again and now it seems to be working. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
tuyop posted:You essentially create money constantly, not only from forging it. Want some gum and have a dollar? Go to a store and buy a dollar worth of gum. There is now one dollar in the store owner's pocket (and one fewer temporarily worthless pack of gum) and one dollar worth of something in your pocket. You and the store owner created a dollar. Uh, no? The shop owner had a dollar's worth of gum and I had a dollar. Now the reverse is true. It was an exchange, nothing was created.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Mortley posted:This is a shot in the dark because it's about one line from a book I don't remember - all I do remember is that it was about anthropology, and it had a quote from some tiny society that lived on a minuscule island - maybe Easter Island, or another island with Polynesians? The point is, you could hear the ocean from anywhere, so they asked the anthropologist, as if in disbelief, "is it true some people live where they can't hear the sea?" This does not help find the book, but on some of the islands of the Pacific, since many are small volcanic islands with a huge percentage of the population living within a stone's throw of the sea, because geography and food sources, the ocean is pretty much a constant sound. There are still lots of places in the Pacific where people do not have to shop for food, just rice. Of course on any island with cars and populations, the noise of cars replaces the ocean sounds pretty completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:56
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
fishmech posted:If any bank wanted to get into remote depositing cash in the way you describe, we'd probably need a new federal law to be passed to allow the practice. Note that if you have a torn up bill, but with serial numbers still readable if put back together and at least 51% of the total bill with you, it can be turned in at a bank to be replaced with a new bill of the same value - so you'd probably have to prove you'd burned the bill beyond recognition or some other extreme method of destruction. The actual destruction isn't what matters. If I deposit a check using the app on my phone, it doesn't matter at all what happens to the paper check after that because it's now worthless. If I try to deposit it at another bank, it won't clear. For a system like this to work with cash, then everyone and everywhere that accepts cash would need to check the serial number of every bill that's offered in payment, against a master list of bills that have been "deposited" electronically and are now worthless. This could be done if there was some pressing need, but... what would that need be, again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I currently make 15 an hour, 40 hours a week so an annual income of roughly 31,200. No benefits, no sick days. The only time off I get are vacation days and I dont get too many. Also some paid holidays. Also I live in the Phoenix, Arizona if that matters. My boss has recently given me the option of working on a 1099 (Private contractor status) at 17.50 an hour. Im aware of most of the downsides of a 1099 (doing all your own taxes quarterly, no paid holidays etc) but what Im curious about is if I would actually make more money this way? Or if the tax rate Id be paying with the 1099 would make the extra 2.50 an hour irrelevant since the gain in income would be offset by taxes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Uh, no? The shop owner had a dollar's worth of gum and I had a dollar. Now the reverse is true. It was an exchange, nothing was created. Gum is worthless to the shopkeeper until you buy it. It's not a dollar's worth of anything, it's just that thing that someone might value at a dollar. By buying it, you give it value and hold onto that value yourself, since the gum is obviously worth a buck to you. You also take a worthless thing from the shopkeeper's perspective and he's a dollar richer. You both now have a dollar's worth of stuff whereas before you had a dollar and the shopkeeper had a gum waiting for someone to assign it value. The gum was probably a bad example because debt is a much more clear case of spontaneous creation of money, but the principle is the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I currently make 15 an hour, 40 hours a week so an annual income of roughly 31,200. No benefits, no sick days. The only time off I get are vacation days and I dont get too many. Also some paid holidays. Also I live in the Phoenix, Arizona if that matters. You should expect a much greater raise in your hourly wage plus greater control over what you work in exchange for being a 1099 worker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Gum is worthless to the shopkeeper until you buy it. It's not a dollar's worth of anything, it's just that thing that someone might value at a dollar. By buying it, you give it value and hold onto that value yourself, since the gum is obviously worth a buck to you. You also take a worthless thing from the shopkeeper's perspective and he's a dollar richer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You will not make more money that way, it'll just be a pain in the rear end. thats what i thought. it sounds like my boss is trying to give me a raise that isnt really a raise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:thats what i thought. it sounds like my boss is trying to give me a raise that isnt really a raise. Don't forget the mantra of the non-self employed: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I currently make 15 an hour, 40 hours a week so an annual income of roughly 31,200. No benefits, no sick days. The only time off I get are vacation days and I dont get too many. Also some paid holidays. Also I live in the Phoenix, Arizona if that matters. I thought Federal law covered part vs. full time... should't you be getting benefits at 40hr/week? Anyway, that's not really a raise. Check out the IRS page on contract work, and whatever AZ has on the books in addition. If your boss thinks contractor pay is just a difference in tax forms he's sorely mistaken. "You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed." That's just the tip of the iceberg for Fed poo poo, so if they're offering this to you with the expectation that you still show up for 40/week with a set schedule and ongoing job duties they might already be in violation. IANAL but that sounds like a hosed up proposition, expecting you to self-file and take a hit for an extra ~$80 per week. Did they offer you any more flexibility?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:If it's not worth a dollar when the shopkeeper owns it, it's not worth a dollar when I own it either. Either gum and a dollar equally valuable and we simply exchanged them to end up back where we started, or gum is not worth a dollar and I'm down one dollar while the shopkeeper is up one dollar. There is no extra dollar. I don't hold onto the value because I can't exchange the gum for a dollar or use it in place of a dollar. You're confusing cost and value. It cost you a dollar so you value it at a dollar. The store sold it for a dollar but they value it at about 7 cents. So to them, they made a dollar for basically nothing, and to you, you got value for money. They're up (basically) a dollar, you're even in your mind. This is a terrible simplification, so I'm sure some pendant is going to come along and tell me how I don't understand anything about overheads and payroll, and miss the point completely. Memento fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I currently make 15 an hour, 40 hours a week so an annual income of roughly 31,200. No benefits, no sick days. The only time off I get are vacation days and I dont get too many. Also some paid holidays. Also I live in the Phoenix, Arizona if that matters. The usual figure is that employees cost 1.5 times their hourly wage. But there is few benefit for you in becoming a contractor, so unless you are going to double your hourly rate to $30.00...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Memento posted:You're confusing cost and value. It cost you a dollar so you value it at a dollar. The store sold it for a dollar but they value it at about 7 cents. So to them, they made a dollar for basically nothing, and to you, you got value for money. They're up (basically) a dollar, you're even in your mind. Nope. A dollar's a dollar and a pack of gum is a pack of gum. They're not the same in my mind or in fact. I'm not even, I've exchanged one thing for another. I'm down a dollar and up a pack of gum. And even if I did feel like I was even, that wouldn't change the fact that a pack of gum is not a dollar and doesn't have the same function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Nope. A dollar's a dollar and a pack of gum is a pack of gum. They're not the same in my mind or in fact. I'm not even, I've exchanged one thing for another. I'm down a dollar and up a pack of gum. And even if I did feel like I was even, that wouldn't change the fact that a pack of gum is not a dollar and doesn't have the same function. Trade is not a zero-sum game. If you spent a dollar on a pack of gum, then you accepted that the pack of gum was worth a dollar. You are of course free to decide that a dollar for a pack of gum is too expensive, or that you don't like gum, and so you don't even consider buying a pack of gum. This is basic econ 101 stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Trade is not a zero-sum game. If you spent a dollar on a pack of gum, then you accepted that the pack of gum was worth a dollar. No, I accepted that it was worth trading for a dollar. It does not hold the value of a dollar. Those are completely different things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I accepted that it was worth trading for a dollar That's literally the definition of value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Memento posted:That's literally the definition of value. I don't know how to explain the difference other than to repeat that once I have the gum it is not worth a dollar, it's worth a pack of gum, because those are different things and not directly comparable. When it was in the shop it was worth trading for a dollar. When it is in my hand, it is not. Things are not other things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't know how to explain the difference other than to repeat that once I have the gum it is not worth a dollar, it's worth a pack of gum, because those are different things and not directly comparable. When it was in the shop it was worth trading for a dollar. When it is in my hand, it is not. Things are not other things. Well, it is theoretically worth trading for a dollar, because it's not changed since you bought it from the shop. All that's happened is that if you tried to sell it to someone on the street they'd regard you with suspicion since it would be a weird thing to do. I think you're conflating the use-value of gum (it can be chewed and maybe freshen your dirty stink breath) versus the exchange-value of it (one dollar). Its exchange-value hasn't changed, but you're more likely to have a use-value for it than the shopkeeper, since you considered it worth exchanging a dollar for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't know how to explain the difference other than to repeat that once I have the gum it is not worth a dollar, it's worth a pack of gum, because those are different things and not directly comparable. When it was in the shop it was worth trading for a dollar. When it is in my hand, it is not. It is, actually. It's worth a dollar - to you. If it wasn't worth a dollar to you, you wouldn't have traded a dollar for it. This is the basics of demand-side economics. The value of a thing is what the thing will bring. A pack of gum will bring a dollar, therefore it is valued at a dollar. The issue you're not understanding is that a value proposition only works for the person making the analysis. Gum isn't worth a dollar to the store you bought it from, they probably lose fifty packets a day to accidental theft from people forgetting they picked it up. So to them, trading gum for a dollar is a practically infinite value trade. They have a dollar, for (basically) nothing, and you have a good that you personally value at a dollar. I'm not saying that a $1 sticker price packet of gum is worth $1 to someone if they have something you want and want a dollar for it, because a packet of gum isn't currency. You're right there, it's no longer worth trading for a dollar, because of various societal factors. But if you didn't value it at a dollar, why would you have traded a dollar for it? Tiggum posted:Things are not other things. No they're not, but the magic of economics is you can compare apples and oranges, or bananas and cruise missiles, because you get to assign them a numerical value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Memento posted:No they're not, but the magic of economics is you can compare apples and oranges, or bananas and cruise missiles, because you get to assign them a numerical value. Which, coincidentally, is where even the most hardcore communist and lassez-faire capitalist will find common ground: a universal medium of exchange, i.e. currency, is a necessity for a functioning economy. Marx even wrote about how anyone calling for the abolition of currency was a poo poo-huffing idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
I have the list of attendees for a conference in 2014, and I'm trying to find the same list for 2012-2015. Any suggestions? http://www.flexiblepowersymposium.com/pdf/FPS_FinalRegistration.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which, coincidentally, is where even the most hardcore communist and lassez-faire capitalist will find common ground: a universal medium of exchange, i.e. currency, is a necessity for a functioning economy. Marx even wrote about how anyone calling for the abolition of currency was a poo poo-huffing idiot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Well said. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:A solid currency is better than a barter level economy, which is what most communist economies ran on. There were significant barriers to trade for every communist country while the United States was practicing containment. You can only get so far on wheat and thorium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
foot posted:I have the list of attendees for a conference in 2014, and I'm trying to find the same list for 2012-2015. Any suggestions? Email the show's organisers
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
foot posted:There were significant barriers to trade for every communist country while the United States was practicing containment. You can only get so far on wheat and thorium. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, everybody is happy to go visit a communist country, but they still bring toilet paper. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
I suppose I could wander somewhere else in SA but I just want a quick short answer to these questions, and a half-rear end google search reminds that people are way too into sports to answer stupid questions from people only slightly interested in things: What happened to the Montreal Canadiens this year? WIll they miss the playoffs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
spog posted:Email the show's organisers I'll give it a shot, but the power industry is extremely close lipped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
I bought a couple of dress shirts yesterday. They both have instructions to machine wash warm, use a non-chlorine bleach if needed, and dry on low heat; one is white, and the other is light blue. Am I okay to mix those in with other colors, or should I do one or both of them in their own load?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well, it is theoretically worth trading for a dollar, because it's not changed since you bought it from the shop. All that's happened is that if you tried to sell it to someone on the street they'd regard you with suspicion since it would be a weird thing to do. I think you're conflating the use-value of gum (it can be chewed and maybe freshen your dirty stink breath) versus the exchange-value of it (one dollar). Its exchange-value hasn't changed, but you're more likely to have a use-value for it than the shopkeeper, since you considered it worth exchanging a dollar for. Memento posted:It is, actually. It's worth a dollar - to you. Memento posted:If it wasn't worth a dollar to you, you wouldn't have traded a dollar for it. Memento posted:But if you didn't value it at a dollar, why would you have traded a dollar for it? Memento posted:No they're not, but the magic of economics is you can compare apples and oranges, or bananas and cruise missiles, because you get to assign them a numerical value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:If I can't get a dollar for it then its exchange value has definitely changed. You can get a dollar for it, it's just harder to because if some goon-looking motherfucker walked up to me in the street offering me gum for the exact same price it is at a store then I'd do that thing pigeons do where no matter how quick you are they're always at least 2 inches out of reach. Some people might be like "oh I was going to buy some later so this saves me some hassle" but these people are the rarity. It hasn't lost value, it's just the vendor lacks appeal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Having it was worth a dollar. The item itself is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
kapalama posted:This does not help find the book, but on some of the islands of the Pacific, since many are small volcanic islands with a huge percentage of the population living within a stone's throw of the sea, because geography and food sources, the ocean is pretty much a constant sound. Thanks, I'm glad to know the premise of the quote isn't flawed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I bought a couple of dress shirts yesterday. They both have instructions to machine wash warm, use a non-chlorine bleach if needed, and dry on low heat; one is white, and the other is light blue. Am I okay to mix those in with other colors, or should I do one or both of them in their own load? Honestly I would just dry clean them. You can buy the dry clean sheets for the dryer that work well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
kapalama posted:What happened to the Montreal Canadiens this year? WIll they miss the playoffs? They won't make the playoffs. Half rear end google search returns good answers nowadays! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
man
|
if you were on a planet orbiting a star in or near the galactic center, would the night sky still be dark?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
dokmo posted:They won't make the playoffs. The reason they're going to miss the playoffs is that it's difficult to win going from having the best goaltender in the game to some guys who are not Carey Price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:if you were on a planet orbiting a star in or near the galactic center, would the night sky still be dark? Totally not an expert here, but I would guess it would depend on how bright and populated it is, plus where in its rotation the planet is. If the planet is between its star and the galactic center then probably you would get a less bright night (and quite the show!). If the planet's star is between the planet and the galactic centre that day, then probably the night will be darker, depending on the other two factors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:53
|
|