Comments Posted By Han
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 31 Comments
Are you doing freelance work these days? (No need to answer if you’re not.)
If so, how much to install the following three plugins on a standard SMF install:
1. Chat http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=611
2. World Map of users http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=56
3. Last Ten Posts plugin
» Posted By Han On Saturday, 1st August 2009 @ 16:12
A two-hour monopoly on comestibles — that’s what a movie theater has on each viewer. More decisively, a precious non-familial relation (significant other, social peer) usually accompaines the client. So to maintain status he usually pays up. (What’s ten bucks in comparison to not getting sex or being the laughing stock of one’s social circle?)
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 13th February 2008 @ 14:20
From an article on the UK’s demographics:
“Across the country, [non-whites] account for almost 22 per cent of pupils at primary school
compared to 20.6 per cent last year. At secondary level, numbers rose at a similar rate, to 17.7
Not a country to copy unless it’s a demographic death spiral one wants.
» Posted By Han On Sunday, 20th January 2008 @ 16:53
Not sure if that post is for me, as in, “everyone’s on the feel-good globalization bandwagon, lose the xenophobia”, but .
Firstly, regarding the civil war, at least 50% of the post-1945 African civil wars have the CIA funding one side or another (it’s more like 90%), someones even instigating the whole affair from naught. U.S. corporations somehow always emerge with control of natural resources (e.g. diamonds, gold, uranium, copper, oil). I think this is not difficult to check. In the few areas like Sudan where firms from other countries hold a major stake in something, in this case China and oil, the CIA foments a civil war in Darfur and because its side isn’t winning accuses China (!) of sponsoring geonocide.
Secondly, all US/UK-based international organizations of that sort — UNICEF, Red Cross, USAID, Doctors Without Borders — accomplish little, and as a standard matter are infiltrated with CIA agents-in-training. It’s better not to have them in a country, as a rule.
Thirdly, Britain’s a dying nation-state, demographically speaking. As with the U.S., this is because their government isn’t controlled by Britons anymore.
» Posted By Han On Sunday, 20th January 2008 @ 16:40
The immigration-related changes in Singapore were very much done by those who run the U.S., through their various ways. Here is what they, the Jews, did to the formerly Anglo-Saxon city of Los Angelos with immigration law changes of 1965 (and a few earlier, a few later):
That series of maps parallel demographic changes that occurred in all the major cities of the U.S. since 1965. The same will result in Singapore if the laws don’t change — that is, the changes are not accidental, but intended by design. Countries that do not defend their borders shall cease to exist and become foreign-controlled mongrel colonies.
» Posted By Han On Sunday, 20th January 2008 @ 09:56
Okay, but laws don’t change themselves. You’ll be complaining about the same law ten, fifteen years from now.
Regarding immigration theory + empirical evidence, all could be summarized in 2 minutes verbally. There’s nothing to study, except unimportant details someone actually writing a law might.
» Posted By Han On Saturday, 19th January 2008 @ 21:07
I mean, Singapore’s such a modest-sized country one person could easily make a difference… it’s not like in these huge countries where one person has little chance of influence cause the Establishment’s so entrenched. (Btw, as I mentioned sometime back economics theory and empirical evidence supports your intuition on the immigration topic.)
» Posted By Han On Saturday, 19th January 2008 @ 20:27
If you’re bitter about immigration why not go into politics and get the laws changed? The influx wont stop until the law in Singapore changes.
» Posted By Han On Saturday, 19th January 2008 @ 20:25
Looks like my granny’s money pouch 🙂 — with the exception of the fancy Euro label.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 26th December 2007 @ 16:59
Seems like very reasonable prices to ordinary U.S. bloggers (except for the kiddies), and probably a discount to commercial sites.
I’ve been long awaiting the debut of phpbb3 to make a certain plugin. (May not succeed; check that — probably won’t succeed — since my programming “experience” consists of two undergrad courses writing tictactoe and “Hello world” scripts.)
But anywhere I’ll ramble a bit about it, not trying to elicit a technical response, more trying to think the finale through:
The plugin WP-united unifies the WP and PHPBB3 logins (which uses PHPBB3’s system).
Part of the site concerns Darwinism & economics, and is invitation-only by necessity, mainly limited to researchers & students in the area. (It is no good to if disinterested passerbys clog such discussions.)
Except not exactly: Those invited can in turn automatically invite anyone they judge interested. And here’s what the new plugin offers:
An “Invite a Friend” form, which simultaneously emails Friend and preapproves the associated email for registration in the PHPBB3 system (utilizing PHPBB3’s new registration approval feature). This way Friend can register — if he so chooses — without webmaster intervention.
I am awaiting the Gold version to see what modifications I will have to make.
» Posted By Han On Tuesday, 11th December 2007 @ 10:47
Lester, what is the going rate for your freelance services these days, that is if you’re freelancing? Just curious… (not that I could afford to hire ppl…)
» Posted By Han On Monday, 10th December 2007 @ 19:02
Oh, btw, econ is simple if explained properly. Easier than physics or chemistry, definitely; after all, it explains phenomenon happening right before everyone’s eyes. The only possible issue is a statistical fuzzieness that drives some hard science types crazy.
» Posted By Han On Thursday, 13th December 2007 @ 10:16
It’s a permanent political change. The next president isn’t gonna get less bloodthirsty. All the leading candidates, Republican or Democratic — Clinton, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee– are backed by the same world-dominationist neocons (who are not a free-floating political faction, but agents of powerful private-sector allies, among them those who got the Iraq oil. They dominate both political parties now, if you’re willing to believe.) I hate to sound “conspiratorial” on half my posts (it’s why I get banned regularly), but that’s the actual situation now.
The main cause of dollar drop: central bank expansion of M3. M3 has more than doubled in past ten years. Referring to Macroeconomics textbook, doubling money supply halves currency value by 50%, holding all else equal. E.g.: Japan holds $1,000 billion in treasuries, loses $500 billion due to depreciation. Who gets the wealth? The person/persons who printed the dollars out of nothing, or the ppl they extend credit to. The rest of America and the world suffer inflation (“dollar depreciation”, as you put it).
Secondary cause: the decades-long outsourcing of manufacturing, which increases the trade deficit. The non-WASP (hint hint) megabucks plutocracy (owners of capital, in econ terminology) increase profits by outsourcing. Some outsourcing’s natural, but this is something else, too long to explain.
IMO, a properly governed U.S. should generate a massive structural trade surplus with the rest of the world, cuz U.S. workers hold absolute advantage in most goods and services, especially the high-value-added.
» Posted By Han On Thursday, 13th December 2007 @ 09:16
The dropping dollar probably has little/nothing to do with the war, IMO. The Afghan + Iraq war altogether cost ~$120 billion a year, which is nothing for the U.S. budget of $2.2 trillion. Besides, remember they’re stealing ~$10 trillion (110 billion barrel * $100) so it’s a good long-term investment, probably. I’m not being cynical; our neoconservative rulers know these things well. (Also remember the U.S. economy grows 3% annually, or $110 billion dollars — so the country can easily afford the war. For comparison, the U.S. military cost about 45% of GDP during WWII, whereas the two present-day wars cost a puny 1%.)
I don’t want to explain the causes in detail cuz it’d take too long. But it’s deliberate policy, and they know what they’re doing. In other words, there is no problem, at least not for the U.S. (For other countries holding U.S. dollars, yes, they’re being screwed.)
Btw, if you’re interested in these things I could send you an invite to the econ forum when it’s up. We’re gonna cover this sort of econ theory & more.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 12th December 2007 @ 19:20
Huh? Compulsory? Maybe in a less populous country like Singapore, but in the U.S. it’s capitalistically all-volunteer. Probably cuz 300m people yield enough volunteers, and that the wealthy don’t want offspring to fight.
What the U.S. is doing, I’m afraid, is basically overrunning the world with one arm and nine fingers tied up, using only its free pinkie. That’s why I pretty certain they’ll never leave Iraq, and probably do in Iran soon, too, cause the wars cost the $13 trillion dollar economy almost nothing. Nobody there even notices.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 12th December 2007 @ 17:34
Yea, i wouldn’t mind so much the theft of Iraqi oil if they split the loot among U.S. citizens equally, but these handful of Rockefeller & Rothschild firms took full control of the reserves themselves, so us ordinary “Americans” got screwed, too. We pay for the war through our taxes, serve in the armed forces, but get no oil. Double-penetrated, we are.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 12th December 2007 @ 13:30
Hmm, I don’t know the contract terms in those countries. It would not surprise me if the Western firms took 50% or more of gross revenue.
I know of two country deals, and the terms were so lopsided that Western firms practically owned the oil outright:
1. In pre-Mossadeq Iran, BP took something like 95% of revenue, gave Iran 5%. Then Mossadeq was elected president, demanded 50%. CIA killed him, installed the Shah.
2. Ecuador (or was it Peru?…) where the revenue was divided as follows:
70% to the U.S. oil firm
25% to other U.S. firms in services and loan interest
5% to Peru
The 5% went mostly to corrupt officials who took orders from the U.S. Any opposition leader that arose was liable to assassination at any time.
If I were to guess, the situation in Iraq probably resembles the Ecuadorean deal. U.S. firms basically stole Iraq’s 110 billion barrels of oil due to Bush’s war, and will keep it.
» Posted By Han On Monday, 10th December 2007 @ 17:09
Oil’s even cheaper at the source. It costs $3/barrel to get the oil out of the ground in Iraq (prewar, assuming no rebel attack), $5/barrel in Saudi Arabia. So what’s happening is Wall Street speculators, Rockefeller & Rothschild oil companies (all of the big oil firms in the West, AFAIK), and the Arab countries themselves make MASSIVE profits.
$100 minus $5 means a $95 surplus, split among the named parties.
» Posted By Han On Monday, 10th December 2007 @ 10:53
This book is one I might have read B.G. (before graduation) when leisure permits a student to explore a subject’s every crevice, but now lack the time for.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 5th December 2007 @ 12:12
Bittorrent for Dummies. They have that, believe it or not 🙂
I don’t know how long that site, which is engaged in open but very useful (to me) piracy will last. (For the record Amazon.com doesn’t have many better non-corporate customers than me in numbers of books purchased, but:
pdf format + free + instantaneous download = irresistable bargain
» Posted By Han On Friday, 23rd November 2007 @ 10:14
Maybe this is better left unsaid, but I’m secretly hoping someone makes a Torrent of this book, cuz Dummies books always teach me at least 2 or 3 new tricks, even on simple topics. Btw, here’s a good book download site for those who havent found it:
Maybe it’ll pop up there as they often have new Wiley Publishing items.
» Posted By Han On Thursday, 22nd November 2007 @ 01:47
Btw, I didn’t intend to be abrasive in the comment above — by “not a view”, I mean it in the sense 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t just a view. (This thread’s oddly intriguing to me for some reason and I enjoy coming back while laboring on my half-feeble quarter-constructed site…)
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 7th November 2007 @ 12:12
Btw, this subject isn’t “a view”. It’s known economic theory, all. Immigration gifts a country’s wealth away. Period.
The occassional genius justifies this gift with his excess economic productivity.
There’s more, but conclusion is, being anti-immigration is necessary to protect country, property, and existence. You don’t protect your country, ppl will steal it.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 7th November 2007 @ 11:51
XXX: Foreigners naturally appreciate it when Singaporese gift abroad its national wealth. For nothing. Most of the 2.5m will add nothing, but take on net.
No one ought to express surprise organized lobbies exist to open borders… it’s a perfectly rational policy goal for foreigners to pursue.
Domestically, muggers steal wallets, and internationally national wealth: its land, nature’s services, etc.
Moreover, what better way to destroy a country by tricking it into mass immigration? None, short of actual invasion and genocide. And tricking a government into destroying itself costs nothing, as compared to war.
» Posted By Han On Wednesday, 7th November 2007 @ 11:38
Btw, they use that “talent import” pretext everywhere. Even in the talent-rich U.S. which actually does not need a single immigrant, strictly speaking. (Though the country could beneficially skim, say, 10,000 einsteins a year from the rest of the world.)
Even in China, which receives low-quality foreigners and not the high, since few in their right mind would come here. If I did not have location-specific things to do in Beijing, I’d get out immediately. (The Bush Regime has convinced China to “import talent” too, lol.)
The way to get talent is to pay the smartest nationals to breed. It takes 21 years for the investment to fruition, but it’s really the only way. Unless one wants economic mercenaries with no loyalties whatsoever. That’s the Darwinian view, anyway 🙂
» Posted By Han On Tuesday, 6th November 2007 @ 18:31
It’s the same group of ppl who push these nation-wrecking policies in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Taiwan, HK, China, and now Singapore: Jews. That appears ridiculous but is true.
A nice fragmented population is exactly what they want of other countries. History of how they wrecked WASP America here:
I know these things quite well, as my parents immigrated to the U.S. decades ago. I witnessed firsthand as Anglo-Saxon America turned to ethnic mush. Now Jews control the federal government completely, having wiped out the competition.
Not that I care very much, because in that case it’s not my fight.
» Posted By Han On Tuesday, 6th November 2007 @ 18:17
A quick analog: you invite people to your $200,000-value house. You visit other ppl’s houses. No problem so far, everyone’s friendly.
But affixing the stranger’s name onto the property deed gifts $100,000 to him, and that is immigration: a gift of national wealth.
Theoretically, it should occur rarely.
» Posted By Han On Monday, 5th November 2007 @ 20:17
Gav: Merit within the nation deserves funding. Your objection is to his foreigness only.
The real problem is mass immigration. Immigration gifts a nation’s wealth to foreigners, ceteris paribus. I’m afraid your Singporese government has been *tricked* — yes, that’s a strong word meaning the involvement of deliberate, malice deception — into giving the country away.
I have read that Lee Kuan Yew or whoever plans to import ~1.5 million foreigners over the next 15 years. In practice, this will mean the end of Singapore, its wealth given to foreigners.
Whenever my website is up it will contain a complete economic and Darwinian analysis of immigration, including a full accounting of costs.
» Posted By Han On Monday, 5th November 2007 @ 20:10
If you’re opposed to immigration, that’s fine. Same with scholarships for non-nationals. I agree on both counts, generally. (Personally, I think Singapore lets in far too many people. It’s giving the country away for nothing. Same in the U.S., for that matter.)
But!!!, if a country wants immigrants this kid’s a better lottery draw than the next guy. And if private citizens donate their money that way, so what? Parking excess wealth in a promising new generation is what old, moribound greybeards like to do.
» Posted By Han On Sunday, 4th November 2007 @ 15:49
Back To Stats Page
I should add that I’m a U.S. citizen (New Yorker, though currently in Beijing) and U.S. kids get away with this sort of stuff all the time. It’s technically illegal, but unless they access a sensitive government network or do major, malicious damage, it’s not a police matter.
Over there, in a case like this the kid might be expelled from the school, and that’s absolute max. Usually he’ll face some minor, meaningless school discipline proceedings.
» Posted By Han On Saturday, 3rd November 2007 @ 21:12