Slashdot Mirror

It makes using gold as money infinitely more complex

We have computers now. Record-keeping makes using gold as money very slightly more complex - and can be done by the guy actually holding the gold on your behalf. (Unless you propose trading by physically exchanging chunks of gold, which I hope you don't.)

and for the most part uncontrolled by governments

For the most part.

Hording is a problem, but most people will just leave it in banks

Leaving in bank = hoarding, assuming that you're eliminating fractional reserve banking (and that by "leaving in bank" you didn't mean "investing").

hording is more a problem now since people don't trust paper dollars to keep their value.

Inflation tends to increase spending and borrowing.

Many times you don't know what the benefit of a science experiment/project will be, not till many years after that. Maybe it started as some kind of pet project (no pun intended), and maybe that's all it will ever amount to. But maybe in a few years we'll see applications for this. Sometimes we just do stuff to "goof around" and we may be surprised at the results. Example: Google's "20% time " revolves exactly around this idea, and it has been very productive.
Now, you might say that I would think differently if the PacMan game involved dogs and not Paramecium, and I would probably agree. In all experiment we have to weight the suffering of the subject with the visible benefit of the project. Paramecium is a protozoa , which is a primitive organism with no nervous system (second paragraph), while a dog is a much more advanced organism which shows obvious signs of suffering when hurt.
If you would argue that "useless" experiments on all organisms are prohibited, it will be a huge hinderence to science and in the long run might prevent the development of life saving inventions. And yes, there is a hidden assumption that human life is more important than Paramicium's; if we don't agree on that, we will have a hard time agreeing on anything else regarding this subject.

You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).

Yes I use "you" and "I", in English Composition it is informal and generic. "You" specifically is Objective Third Person

Not being able to rationally debate with me you resort to accusing me of the wrong use of "I" and "you" as specifically you the person I am replying to and I who is replying, when you yourself gets it wrong in your accusation, I see no reason to continue this conversation. In both cases my use of "I" and "you" are in the third person.

Falcon

The claim was that they could send voice as an electrical wave several miles. Don't know how true the story is, but it sounds like it might work.

Of course it will work.

Morse used earth conduction to bridge the Susquehanna River in 1842-3. CALLING ALL NATIONS -- 1941

Kids were taking on projects like this in 1913. How To Make A Wireless Telephone

Very Low Frequency (VLF) Stations [2010]
  Ham Radio below 9 kHz [2006?]

Distilleries* do attempt this from time to time, such as Laphroaig's Quarter Cask Scotch. However, even when the process is older (and good distilleries keep fastidious notes on the process of each cask and subsequent bottling), other issues can crop up - is the water the same as in the past? What about the barley? So on and so on. Of course, the best way to gauge the success of the men working the stills... is for the distillery to pull an older bottle sample from 100 years ago and give it to a skilled taster to compare the two.

*Yes, distilleries can collect the water, and do the malting, brewing, and bottling, but not always every step. I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out by now that Scotch, especially single malts, is in essence, double (or triple) distilled beer.

a commercial enterprise's primary concern is profit. they're obligated to their shareholders

Actually a corporation's primary responsibility is to improve the public good. The first two businesses granted corporate charter were the Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1604. Both were shipping businesses and shipping was a risky business to be in. The British and Dutch thought shipping was a common good, so to encourage shipping these companies were granted limited liability. If a ship sank because of bad weather or was attacked by pirates the ship owners were liable for the loss. The owner could lose everything including their home. So liability was limited to just what the corporation owned. A person could own stocks in the corporation and the most they would loose is the amount they paid for the stocks. If a corporation no longer served the public good then it could have it's corporate charter revoked.

However generally corporations are no longer held accountable to the public good. Instead as Thomas Jefferson warned of we now have a corporate aristocracy.

Falcon

That is 100% wrong. First of all, the Slashdot asker might live in Europe, in which case he has even more rights to stand on. It is not uncommon here for employers stealing their employees inventions, making billions and then getting sued by the inventor for millions. If the invention is invented at work and if the invention is relevant for the work, an invention that improves the manufacturing process would be a prime example, then the company has a right to take ownership of the invention but must pay the inventor reasonable compensation. That is, a few percent of what the invention brings in.

If the invention is not relevant for work, a developer inventing a new blend of coffee for example, then that invention is the sole property of the inventor. The company has no right to it whatsoever even if the invention was made on company time using company resources.

IANAL, but I can Google.