search results matching tag: merchant

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (140)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (3)     Comments (139)   

Historian Delivers EPIC Takedown Of Religious Wacko

bobknight33 says...

Ben Franklin would have banned gay or porn also.

First book order:
In 1732, the Company's first book order was sent to London. James Logan, secretary to William Penn, assisted in picking the books. He was considered "the best Judge of Books in these Parts." In addition to having the largest personal library in Pennsylvania, the learned Logan knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Many of the earliest books in the Library's collection were either religious or educational tomes. But not all. As can be seen from other books donated by the Company's first members, there was an interest in politics, philosophy and business. Benjamin Franklin and others donated a number of works including A Collection of Several Pieces by John Locke and Plutarch's Morals. Franklin also donated his copy of Merchants Mappe of Commerce to the company. The books were kept in the librarian's lodgings.

Raids: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

A material that destroys the things that try to cut it

SFOGuy says...

oh cool!

What I like is the harkening backwards.
The plastic matrix with the granite chips was the answer to the WW II problem of armor plating merchant ships against strafing. Neat to see it re-emerge

eric3579 said:

Hank explains it quite well

Have We Lost the Common Good?

shinyblurry says...

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

newtboy said:

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

The Moiré Effect Lights That Guide Ships Home

Sagemind says...

From YouTube:


Martin Jeffries
2 days ago
Hi Tom, I'm a merchant navy officer who used to work around there, although I never came across this particular light... Sector Lights and Leading lights (parallax) are the internationally recognised marine signals for this sort of use (white light centre, with red and green lights either side to guide you to a safe channel, which i'm sure you've researched and are aware of), but one thing that doesn't come up too often is lines to specifically avoid, and as such there isn't an internationally recognised means of transmitting this with lights. The signal is pointing towards the danger, which is unusual in maritime practice, but it's certainly not a common light and isn't in the IALA buoyage system used for identifying marine hazards.

If it's in a marina, which i think you mentioned, it'll be specifically to stop boats dropping anchor on the submerged cable within the marina's jurisdiction, and it'll be specifically referenced in the marina's or the solent by-laws as an anomalous regulation. (I don't have time to go and hunt it down, but it'll be there as a local reg.) As far as i'm aware, that's the only possible reason for it. It's an unusual solution to an unusual problem. I could of course be wrong...i bring no hard evidence to the table!
Hope it helps

Star Citizen Vanduul driller 2016

MilkmanDan says...

The cynic in me sees "persistent universe with players all over the place" as a drawback, because if even 1% of the "interaction" takes the form of "muahaha, let's gank the noob!" it can ruin things for everybody.

I thought we kind of already established this as fact with Ultima Online, like 20 years ago. You could be a miner, a merchant, an explorer, or a farmer ... and get ganked by some asshole the moment that you leave city limits.

That experiment in complete freedom with natural checks and balances didn't work until the servers were split into Felucca/Trammel PvP/no PvP zones. Maybe Star Citizen will have some check like that from the outset, but no matter how it is handled will make somebody mad.

lv_hunter said:

{snip and re-sequence}
But I mostly have a sense you don't actually understand the game in general. The game is leagues ahead of no mans sky just for the fact it'll be a persistent universe with players all over the place that you can interact with.

The game isn't all about dog fighting. You can be a miner, a merchant, a racer, an explorer, heck farming is going to be implemented as well.

Star Citizen Vanduul driller 2016

lv_hunter says...

People are paying them to develop the game. As far as i know, very very people have spent up to 100K.

Even if someone has the best stuff. If they're terrible pilots, a good pilot with a cheap ship can easily beat someone in a expensive ship.

Yes people are pumping money into it, development is taking time, but the game is huge and a lot ifs being developed as far as ultra HD graphics, going from huge area flight and ground based combat.

"Oh but battlefield has flight and ground based combat!" yes all within a confines of a couple 10 KM. The bengal carrier is supposed to be in complexity of a couple BF maps crammed into one area.

But going back, once the game goes live fully, no one will have the ability to purchase in game ships with real money, though who knows, that might change.

But going back to "pwning newsbs" any one with a decent ship with excellent piloting skills can pwn someone with ha ultra expensive ship. This certainly isn't a , paying top dollar and being on top. If you're gonna pay top dollar, you're gonna be in the arena commanders playing vs bots and now vs other players in dog fight melees. Those people are going to be good because they're gonna be excellent pilots.

But, the game isn't all about dog fighting. You can be a miner, a merchant, a racer, an explorer, heck farming is going to be implemented as well.

But I mostly have a sense you don't actually understand the game in general. The game is leagues ahead of no mans sky just for the fact it'll be a persistent universe with players all over the place that you can interact with.

dannym3141 said:

As good as this game looks, I can't figure out who on earth would pay top dollar just to get teabagged by some Saudi oil baron's son who had the requisite 3 million dollars to get the best stuff..

In all seriousness though - I don't understand how the real money investment is going to be justified in terms of gameplay. If you pay top top money then you expect the game to work, be good fun, and have a big advantage over all the people who can't afford all the good stuff (AKA "pwning newbs" in the parlance of our time). But if they don't keep the newbs playing the game, the game world will be empty, no economy or trade, it'll be a dead game - who wants to keep playing a game where some pay2win kid runs circles round you all day? So how do you keep newbies interested and keep them playing, whilst also still ensuring people who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars will have their huge advantage over everyone else? How will an economy work within that system too?

I feel like it's a recipe for either a dead game, or some seriously pissed off rich people. If the rich people don't mind dropping 100k on a game, will they mind dropping 100k on suing the developers? The frankly ridiculous buy-ins may have given them some very big headaches before the game has even started, in terms of economy and relative strength of the players. Starting to get no man's sky vibes.

Doubt - How Deniers Win

Too Big to Fail and Getting Bigger

RedSky says...

The Basel 3 accords are essentially doing this. Basel and its previous incarnations are essentially non-binding guidelines established by an international agency for banks that domestic regulatory agencies in countries then enact. Even if they don't, banks follow these anyway because it's effectively an international standard.

Basel 2 (which we had prior to the GFC), had 2 tiers of capital that could be held. The actual shareholder stock capital that is rock solid (tier 1) and various loose definitions (including at the time AAA rated mortage backed securities) - tier 2. The last I heard, that 2nd tier has essentially been done away with and the overall capital requirements (%) required to be held, has been raised.

The problems though are:

1 - Unless you raise capital to stupendous levels (like seriously inhibiting bank lending), you wouldn't have anywhere near the buffer to prevent another 2008. The problem then was not insufficient capital. It's that the industry as a whole made a large judgement error in valuing mortgage backed securities.

2 - This also highlights the problem that breaking up the banks wouldn't solve the issue of groupthink because availability of credit and economic conditions are a universal thing. An analogy is the oil price. Even though the US is a major oil producer in it's own right, events like Iraq recently still heavily impact prices in the US because global prices don't change in a vacuum.

3 - As far Glass Steigel, even if investment and traditional banks were separate, operating in the same field, if credit dries up (say because a investment bank made a bad decision), that will still affect the traditional merchant banks.

All banks work through fractional lending. You take a deposit, keep a buffer for capital. You lend out the rest. Some returns back as a deposit, again you keep a buffer and lend out the rest. In bad economic conditions, regardless of whether caused by them or other players in the finance industry, some of their lenders default and there is potential for their entire capital buffer to collapse and the bank to default if the crisis is bad enough. Even if it's purely a merchant bank.

-

What splitting the banks probably would do is increase competition, and lower banking costs as well as salaries, which is generally a good thing and I would agree here that this is something that banks have lobbied heavily against (as well as things like the Consumer Protection Agency, for the same reason, margins). Having said that, there are a lot much more monopolistic companies with lower risk and much more stable margins (e.g. Wallmart).

charliem said:

The issue with telling the banks to just raise more capital, without changing the regulations....means they would just leverage that extra capital to increase their profits yet again.

It adds fuel and oxyegn to the fire, they have a feduciary responsibility to behave like this too, as they are publically listed entities.

The only way to fix this, is to regulate the leveraging ratios they can use. That FORCES them to both reduce the risky behavior, and increase their capital levels.

But good luck with that one, you think lobbyists are strong? Id like to see how much money lobbyists make trying to defend the banks from losing their profits.

Unless of course you re-enact glass steigel act, forcing the investment banking arms to separate away from the traditional banking arms....again, damaging bank corporation's overall profits (they lose the mum and pop capital in their vaults to use as investment leverage....less profit)

Wont...ever....happen. Ever.

The REAL Reason You're Circumcised

ChaosEngine says...

Yep, but as the video says, all of those potential risks (urinary tract, stds, etc) are better managed by simple hygiene or the use of a condom.

If there are legitimate medical reasons for a particular individual to be circumcised, then of course you should do it. But that's the rub for me. It is a surgical procedure that involves removing part of your body. It shouldn't be done just because some puritanical flake merchant hated sex.

Put it this way. We're all born with an appendix. It's utterly useless and every now and then, just straight kills you for no good reason. Surely every child should have this dangerous organ removed? Well, it turns out that's really not a good idea, because that would ultimately do more harm than good.

We don't go around doing random medical procedures for anything else, and the vast majority of the world gets along just fine with their dicks intact.

My last word on this is that I will continue to call it barbaric, because I'm trying (in my own tiny way) to change attitudes on this. Using milquetoast terms doesn't help that. I'm not going to change this myself, but hopefully I'm contributing to a gradual shift in attitudes where infant boys are not mutilated (even "harmlessly") on the whims of their parents.

edit: really really last word. Kudos to all involved for a thought provoking discussion. You can have a rational argument on the internet!

newtboy said:

I think it's the 'does no harm' part that is being disagreed with. Some people consider this harmful (rightly or wrongly) and/or dangerous, others think not doing it is harmful/dangerous.
Studies like the one you cite seem to show the benefits outweigh the 'harm', and that the 'harm' is minimal... without relying on opinion.

Louis CK couldn't have been more wrong

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'louis ck, sean penn, bradley cooper' to 'louis ck, sean penn, bradley cooper, stephen merchant' - edited by alien_concept

Joseph Gordon Levitt is the Lip Synch King

Joseph Gordon Levitt is the Lip Synch King

Piers Morgan: "You are an incredibly stupid man"

Kofi says...

A few Korean merchants 20 years ago justifies the deaths of 100+ people (at least) due to spree killers in the intervening years. A man of principles not doubt.

I also like how he alludes that the mother of this spree killer wasn't responsible enough. This is exactly the point Morgan is trying to make. We need laws to dictate RESPONSIBLE gun ownership such as it being legally enforced to have them in safes locked away from those who are mentally ill. Its not rocket surgery.

How to Eat an Ear of Corn - Quickly!



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon