taks

oh, yeah, that nonsense. totally without merit, but hey, whatever. when you can demonstrate that foregoing the rights of one over another, i.e., one person has more rights than another, you can claim some moral superiority. till then, just another socialist that just.doesn't.get.it. if you're going to be an ass, be an ass, but quit misrepresenting what i have said. i never said it did, just noticed that the world benefits from the US military might. really, is it possible for you to make a single argument without misrepresenting someone? taks

which also means it gains the benefit of US tax dollars when it comes to defense, as do many other countries. that's a pretty big bennie. taks

you keep mentioning the "laissez faire failure" yet neither i, nor anyone else, have ever actually witnessed such a "failure." certainly you aren't referring to what is happening now, are you? taks

yeah, thanks. i agree... diversify. my retirement stuff is ok diverse, and i haven't lost that much as i noted. yes, krezack, i would assume he was in some high-risk sector. stories like that happen even during good times, however. people are panicky, and the problems get compounded when trying to understand a system that ultimately, cannot be understood (other than that it is chaotic and driven by emotion). that's really why i don't invest. i'd get too hung up on formulaic approaches and lose my arse. i have a built in ability (and desire) to see patterns and could too easily fool myself. no way, better to just avoid the whole mess. taks

i guess so, in a way, but that's not really a whole lot different than say VHS systems, other than overall duration. i think as technology advances, durations for any product will get shorter and shorter. guess you just gotta hunker down and live with something for a while, then suffer the cost of the next upgrade when you have no choice. yeah, i suppose. i have a bit of a deeper understanding of the overall technology (though not by much), and i may also be biased by that knowledge. yup. i'm waiting, anxiously. i'm tired of HDDs failing on me, too, and i hope they go out the window as well. HDDs are the second most unreliable piece of the system i've ever had, right behind mobos. i'm not 100% certain that my mobo problems weren't actually HDD problems, for that matter. grrr. bandwidth efficiency. believe it or not, you can cram more content down a digital channel* than an analog one, plus with error correction coding, you can actually perfectly reconstruct the original signal. that is impossible to do with analog... MPEG2 is the compression, from what i've read, which is variable, and sometimes results in a crappy picture (even on HD channels). this depends upon your carrier and how many channels it's cramming into a given amount of space. i do not know what modulation scheme they're using (though i could find out with some digging). taks *technically, all "channels" are analog, the difference is how the information is packaged. in a "digital channel," some sort of digital modulation scheme is used to transmit bits of information, though the actual waveform is still radio frequency (RF), i.e., analog. for example, the most basic digital modulation scheme is known as binary phase (or biphase) shift keying. the carrier wave (some RF frequency, a sinusoid) is multiplied by +/-1 which represents the data bits (0 is mapped to +1 and 1 is mapped to -1). what is transmitted is a noisy looking sinusoid, and the "bits" are encoded in the phase jumps. wiki has a picture under the topic BPSK.

unfortunately, i am incapable of investing wisely. that's why i do not own any stock. i do NOT understand human emotion, which is ultimately what drives everything related to the stock market. my brother did buy one share of disney for my son's 1st birthday, btw. i had to fill out some form for the penny we earned last year. i had to claim it on my taxes, too, and as some of you may recall, our information was in one of the boxes that got lost recently when disney's banker was transferring data from one location to another. for this one share of stock, i had to turn on some credit protection thing. one freaking share, and a penny in dividends. sheesh. taks

i wish more stations actually broadcast HD, btw. regular def stuff looks like crap on a big tv. mine is a 52" sony, which isn't really all that big, and i have to avoid regular def shows because it almost hurts my eyes. even with the changeover in february, all that will happen is that analog broadcasts will go away. they aren't required to broadcast in HD, just digital. if you've got cable or satellite, you won't even notice a difference (except when you no longer can pick up your local stations over the air with your HF tuner... grrr). taks

i think, too, that the people that are the most tied up in the stock market tend also to be the most active w.r.t. trading. the guy that lost that much was probably chasing something down and ended up losing everything. taks

hehe... yes, that would be me... yes again. it is impossible to model human behavior. it is compounded by the fact that we aren't irrational "at least once," but rather, more often than not. at least, one person's view w.r.t. anothers. that's where i think regulation is appropriate, btw. full disclosure. fraud is a big part of this. nope. this means, btw, that there really is no "equilibrium," rather, the market is chaotic. which is also a point in which i differ from ayn rand. i can, and do, think about other people selflessly. at this point i'd rather see the government buy up the bad paper. period. don't bail out anybody, let 'em fail. i've heard that it would only take $150B. yeah, i know, socialist mess, but it was a socialist mess that got us into this problem in the first place. ultimately, the system is what it is and we need to do something to save it from collapse, that may be enough. dunno. taks

just got off the phone with my stockbroker brother... he was wondering if i took this beating well. i don't really own any stocks except for some in my retirement fund, and the stocks in there are the only ones that haven't been losing ground this year (overall down only 9%, but on not much money anyway). his comment: "if you think it's bad, i know a guy that was worth $14M a year ago... $400k today." the deeper your investments, the worse hit i suppose. taks

a butterfly effect of sorts. not sure what you're talking about krezack. tell you what? taks

curious how any socialists are saving any capitalists... really, can't happen. of course, if you really think there exists anything even remotely resembling a capitalist/free market economy in the world today you're dreaming. personally, i've read many that say we should just let 'em collapse, let the bad loans fail, and suffer for a while. yup, we'll suffer, but a bailout will only drag out the suffering doling it out in smaller doses. meh. the system has been screwed for so long it doesn't matter... taks

btw, i finished SoA with my solo swashbuckler. quite easy, actually, particularly once you get the use magic HLA since you can put on or carry anything. mix-n-match for specific fights. granted, it helps that i know all the tactics required for just about every fight anyway, but still... my guy is now through watcher's keep, too (there was one fight in there i had to cheat a bit) and i have to CTRL-R every once in a while to prevent a maze. lots of weezards cast it, and there is no save making it an unfair game ender. same goes for domination, dire charm (perhaps even charm) but those don't have a graphic that you can see to CTRL-R beforehand so you end up re-loading. anyway, now the game is about seeing how easily i can dispatch everything. at 16 M exp. points, i've been level-capped for quite a while. the first major battle in sendai's enclave is pretty tough, but i have not gone back with revised tactics. usually i just charge in to known battles and worry about getting tricky only if i get beat down once or twice. taks

now that i had not heard. i knew they were trying, but never got the story that they had succeeded. taks

i should add, thank gawd for vaclav klaus, too, a former communist (well, leading a former communist country) that doesn't mind speaking his mind. taks

uh, your post is nothing more than an explanation of how it is being implemented. that does not prove anything, and particularly does not disprove anything i've said. i don't even argue that such things don't experience limited success, just that they can't long term, nor will they. read the criticisms section, too. von mises was probably the brightest economist that has ever lived. too bad this notion of "compassion" runs so deeply through the human psyche, for we are collectively incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. taks

??? uh, it was, and most discussions on economics will back that statement. the risk was there before the bubble burst, too, and has been noted for nearly a decade that it was a bubble that could burst. and, they didn't turn a profit, did they. $700 B of taxpayer money is going to cover that overall loss. show me where i said they don't regulate anything at all? they are no longer "communist," at least, they dont' provide everything any more. china has an increasingly free market, which is where their expansion is coming from. i think you need to re-read what i said, and then look at what is happening. sure, and i think mixed economies don't work. not sure what you mean by this. edit: i think i understand you now. another strawman. i'm not claiming any positive effects of a practice, in fact, i've made it quite clear that not everyone should own a home simply because not everyone can be trusted to pay it off. sorry if you didn't see that part, but it is how i've always seen the situation. the reason this all started was this silly notion that the US needed to increase home ownership levels to something that was not sustainable. the regulations were passed which opened up the flood gates on home purchases. it was a bubble, and it seems everyone knew it, yet nobody cared. well, they cared, but they knew we'd have to pick up the tab. too. so you think it is moral to take from one to give to another? sorry, but i do apply morality across the board, equally. i don't single out who gets preferential treatment. everyone has the same rights. any system which favors the rights of one over another is immoral. as i expanded above, true free market/capitalism is technically "amoral" (without morality), but that is more moral than an immoral system such as one you propose. i don't care how deep your compassion runs for the under privileged, that does not give you the right to claim morality when forcibly removing from one to support another. in communist/socialist societies, the ratio is even worse. either way, at least in a capitalist system the 10% got that without stealing. taks

i realize this enoch, even if i stated it incorrectly. the effect is the same, however. banks were told that high-risk lenders were being backed by the government. that inherently reduces their risk, even if it ultimately meant they were being backed by the taxpayers. i have also read of accusations levied against lenders that refused to provide subprime loans, but i haven't read about how widespread this was. many did, particularly the smaller, local banks. they are, not surprisingly, still solvent for the most part. as with any government sponsored entity, there needs to be someone watching the operation. unfortunately, you often end up with the fox guarding the henhouse. my position is that if the government never built the henhouse, we'd never need to put a fox in charge of guarding it. they did try to constrain freddie and fannie, btw, but to no avail. if you give the corporate entities an ability to capitalize on their greed, they will. never said you have to share my views on rights, though i've always estimated that you had this overall view. taks

touche, my bad. i'm not claiming that "all levels of government regulation are failures based on a small subset." besides the fact that the subset is not small, not by any stretch. it is more like a majority of the overall set. my economic stance has been justified every time i make it: no one person has rights that trump another's. period, that's the entire basis. no, it does not. and you correctly state in an earlier post that what is good for australia is not necessarily good for larger economies, which is really the heart of the matter. pure socialism works for a village of 50 people, for that matter. no, the point is that they claim regulation is working fine. i've stated quite clearly that the system is rigged. your argument starts out with a system that is regulated across the board, here in the US, in the EU, everywhere. one example of regulation helping out (or being claimed as helping out) from within that system is immaterial, which is what i was getting at. a valid comparison would be if australia was the only regulated economy and all others were not (vice versa, as well). unfortunately, this is an impossible situation since that has never existed (nor do i think it ever will). uh, you're the one that mentioned those things. again, we've got this hugely regulated system and you're judging from within the system. no. now you're committing **** hoc ergo proctor hoc. with this therefore because of this. taks

gotcha on the first part. as for this bit, that's a bit hard to say since phrase "free market equilibrium" is pretty broad in scope. an easy example is monopolies: once one company begins to dominate, they inherently become less efficient (due to a lack of competition). less efficient means that their profit is no longer being maximized. once that happens, the door opens to competition that implements the same things in a more efficient manner. they offer the product at a reduced price, bringing down the former "monopoly"'s share of the market, as well as their price (in order to compete). supply and demand curves hold for every aspect of society in the same regard. perhaps, but the favored argument style in here (and everywhere for that matter) is a misrepresentation of your "opponent"'s position, which gets tiring. you were noble enough to admit it, krezack will never concede. i have made the same mistakes, and when it gets pointed out, i back down. i am also one of the most misrepresented in here, though probably because i have some of the most "radical" (or forceful) opinions. i do understand that most of the time such an argument is done unwittingly, and i realized even when you first made your statement that it wasn't your intent. well, there are a few others, such as china. china, however, has shifted to more and more free market strategies, so "collapse" isn't a fair word. they are also intentionally holding the yen to the dollar which is sort of cheating, but that can't hold for long. i can't argue with this line of reasoning, at least not all of it. i'm not sure i agree that the risk of catastrophic failure is present, at least, i think we don't know, so perhaps rightfully we assume it exists (your point, maybe?). the risk exists now, so the other option, no (or very little) regulation may be a lateral trade, which i think you're saying as well. as i've noted, one of my biggest complaints is that the regulation trumps rights. no authority should be given the power to grant more rights (or more powerful rights) to one over another. risk aside, that is what i'm getting at with statements about morality. yes, Xard, i agree that the system is technically "amoral," but morality enters into it when someone begins to favor one over another, which is immoral, IMO. so "amoral" is more moral than "immoral," understand where i'm coming from. there's no contradiction in my terminology. taks

excuse me? not sure how you can make the claim given the already noted provisions which triggered this situation. it's not "laissez-faire" when the government sets regulations that require backing loans that are high-risk, not in the least. not sure what this has to do with anything. china's success is due to their expansion of the free market. their communist ways are no longer. NK doesn't get the hint and is suffering tragically. no, they didn't have the excessive levels of home ownership, either. nor do they have the growth we have. even in our crisis over here, as bad as it is, unemployment is still near "full employment" levels. strange. how is it moral to compel a bank to give out a loan to someone that is high-risk? by doing so, you're saying that the person that is at an economic disadvantage have rights that trump the lender, who otherwise knows he's giving his money away to someone that can't give it back. this is legitimate discrimination: if the high-risk dude cannot be expected to pay back his loan, he shouldn't be getting the loan. morality is the issue, and i'm sorry if you don't like it. but telling one that he has rights over another is immoral. taks PS: krezack, you're right, it is like arguing with a brick wall. you don't understand why your arguments are flawed (in spite of me quoting your misrepresentations directly), and it is annoying. you.just.don't.get.it. too bad, because you are indicative of the standard brain trust running around in the world making decisions, voting in the very things that plague society. just enough intelligence to think you know best.

um, no, i didn't make that specific claim, and i'm not citing a "few examples," either. "examples" pile up continuously, if not daily. i'm not, and you're committing another strawman. is that intellectually honest? even noob admitted he misrepresented me, yet you fail to acknowledge your complete and utter lack of tact in this regard. then do. good for them, but that is not "proof" that regulation works, not in the least. again, here you are judging a system from within the system claiming "capitalism couldn't have done that." you can't even state with certainty that the asian crash or 2000 recession were not triggered by excessive regulation in the first place (and we know that regulation was a major player in the 2008 recession, and it is too early to tell if anyone will weather that). taks

thank you, and yes, this is exactly why i said it was a strawman. i wasn't saying that you disagreed with my assertions, just that there was an assumption in what you stated that i never claimed. yes, i think it will. no, i cannot prove that. just because i cannot prove that, however, does not mean my criticisms of the regulated are incorrect. those criticisms stand on their own evidence, which we have in abundance. every ideal system, for that matter, cannot exist as long as humans have free will. i wasn't trying to imply you called me wrong, just that you expected me to prove something to back a claim i didn't make. the implied argument (whether you intended it or not) was that i have to prove an alternative in order for my criticisms to be true. that's just plain false. no, krezack explicitly stated that i did not understand the strawman argument since there was no misrepresentation. you just conceded that you did indeed misrepresent me, and he made the same claim, so obviously my understanding of the strawman was not only correct, but proved. Nice try, but no: um, yes. i stated opinion that the free market is the only way to go because no means of regulating has been shown to work. in other words, my comment is that regulation does not work (my analysis), and my solution is no regulation (opinion). i do agree that there are some that are necessary, such as fraud, which i have pointed out, but that's another story. i cannot prove that no regulation will be completely self-balancing, and in fact, i'm quite certain it won't work perfectly, as no system can (otherwise we'd be back to the idealism thing). the burden of proof is on those that advocate regulation, which has repeatedly proven to not work. the more regulation that there is, the less efficient, and less prosperous, the system is. almost, but not quite. the alternatives do not collapse to a free market. most seem to (theoretically) collapse to anarchy, which has its own problems. the free market requires work, but not regulation. there needs to be some sort of enforcement behind free trade. for example, it is not free trade if the other guy refuses to pay, so there needs to be some guarantee that the trade will be conducted properly. taks

i tell you what krezack, go back and show me where i ever said either "the free market is always right" (your words) or "a fully unregulated market is a perfectly self-balancing system" (noob's words) and i'll concede i made a mistake. i do think that it is the best system out there, simply because it is the only moral system in which neither buyer nor seller has rights that trump the other's. morality requires that no one person's rights are given consideration over another's. taks

what part of your misrepresentation don't you understand? i never claimed what you said i claimed. it is you that don't even understand your own argument. or are you saying that you didn't misrepresent me and the quotes i posted, from both you and noob, were really not what the seemed? delusional, yes, you are. uh, the discussion about the current failure of the US' regulated market... every single socialisst country that has failed, or is failing? how many examples of proof do you need? taks