The overwhelming majority of money in circulation exists only as notations in ledgers or bits in computers, and has never been, nor will ever be, instantiated into any physical currency.
Your 2008 link has a misleading headline. The article quotes him as saying
"If our current account deficit keeps running at present levels, the dollar I think is almost certain to be worth less five to ten years from now compared to other major currencies,"
but the article headline misleadingly quotes him saying "worthless".
So to be fair to Mr. Buffett, "worth less" != "worthless"
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
I'm not saying there's no such phenomenon as "dark matter" or "dark energy".
I'm agreeing with GP that our understanding of dark matter is no better than Huygen's or Boyle's understanding of the aether.
They didn't invent the aether for kicks. They had made physical observations of light and magnetism that known science could not account for. The "luminiferous aether" was an initial clumsy attempt to understand an emerging frontier in Science.
I think our successors will laugh at our clueless "dark matter" explanations for exciting phenomena we are on the cusp of discovering. But as long as our understanding is this vague, our "dark matter" is not much different than the "Luminiferous Aether" concept was three centuries ago.
Blood libels are allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.
I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.
It is a fact that Palin put out a map with crosshairs over Gifford's district. It is a fact that Giffords spoke publicly about where that could lead.
Palin brought gunsights to the fight. Now she's facing criticism. If she can't take it, she shouldn't start it.
Everybody votes against corruption. Everybody also votes against terrorists, pedophiles, and puppy mills. But they all happen anyway.
The root problem isn't corruption, it's power. Voters have decided that government should be responsible for all our problems, and have gradually allowed government commensurate power over our lives.
Now our votes change nothing. And, naturally, the power we've ceded often corrupts the empowered.
In American culture, Religion may indeed triumph over Science, but Religion would lose to Money. Amazon isn't going to deprive itself of significant sales.
Slashdot Mirror
> paper money can be burned as fuel
The overwhelming majority of money in circulation exists only as notations in ledgers or bits in computers, and has never been, nor will ever be, instantiated into any physical currency.
Good luck burning database entries.
To what end? They are Too Big To Fail, regardless of how much they screw us.
Free market, American style. Privatized profits, socialized losses.
Your 2008 link has a misleading headline. The article quotes him as saying
"If our current account deficit keeps running at present levels, the dollar I think is almost certain to be worth less five to ten years from now compared to other major currencies,"
but the article headline misleadingly quotes him saying "worthless".
So to be fair to Mr. Buffett, "worth less" != "worthless"
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
> Occam's Razor points to the former
I'm not convinced invisibility is a simpler explanation than human error, nor that human error is more exotic than "dark matter."
Occam's Razor doesn't help here. Neither choice is obviously simpler than the other.
And if we don't have enough people to make all that pie, maybe part of the solution is to make more people?
Rather than answering my question, you inverted it, made it a statement, then attributed the statement to me? Then concluded I should kill myself?
Please ease up on the vitriol. I mean you no harm.
Sounds good to me. Let's send them all there.
What do we need more humans for?
I'm not saying there's no such phenomenon as "dark matter" or "dark energy".
I'm agreeing with GP that our understanding of dark matter is no better than Huygen's or Boyle's understanding of the aether.
They didn't invent the aether for kicks. They had made physical observations of light and magnetism that known science could not account for. The "luminiferous aether" was an initial clumsy attempt to understand an emerging frontier in Science.
I think our successors will laugh at our clueless "dark matter" explanations for exciting phenomena we are on the cusp of discovering. But as long as our understanding is this vague, our "dark matter" is not much different than the "Luminiferous Aether" concept was three centuries ago.
> it's based on real observations.
We can't see dark matter any more than our predecessors saw the Luminiferous aether.
> Make an observation, and then come up with a theory to explain it.
Like "Whew, those were seven bad years. Must have been that mirror I broke."
Making observations and theories is part of science. But what sets science apart from superstition is rigorous testing of the theories.
And we don't have any way to test for matter whose only property is it brings our mathematical formulae in line with our physical observations.
> if the earth gets both hotter and cooler, does it matter?
Maybe not.
Would you care if the temperature in your home fluctuated between 150 F and 0 F, but averaged out to a tolerably warm 75 degrees?
"Blood libel" makes perfect sense? I never heard the phrase before yesterday, and I couldn't make any sense of what it could mean when I read it.
I had to look it up, and the most generic definition I found was from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blood_libel
Blood libel - Definition
Blood libels are allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.
I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.
It is a fact that Palin put out a map with crosshairs over Gifford's district. It is a fact that Giffords spoke publicly about where that could lead.
Palin brought gunsights to the fight. Now she's facing criticism. If she can't take it, she shouldn't start it.
Please elaborate?
> This censorship wrongly conflates the word to be the problem
That's the best argument I've heard yet. These people are targeting a word. Not the institution of slavery, not racism.
Twain used the word on purpose to sharpen his anti-racist message. Removing the word serves only to dull his attack.
This censorship is completely counter-productive.
At least it's a stable job.
TIE fighters are a short-range ship, and that's no moon.
> If enough people vote against corruption
Everybody votes against corruption. Everybody also votes against terrorists, pedophiles, and puppy mills. But they all happen anyway.
The root problem isn't corruption, it's power. Voters have decided that government should be responsible for all our problems, and have gradually allowed government commensurate power over our lives.
Now our votes change nothing. And, naturally, the power we've ceded often corrupts the empowered.
> Only the American tax-payer is the fool, here.
Not sure what you mean.
Are we fools for paying taxes? The alternative is big men with guns confiscating our possessions and imprisoning us.
Are we fools for bailing out bankers? That choice wasn't a checkbox on our tax forms.
Are we fools for approving the Goldman/Facebook deal? Again, not a tax form checkbox.
Are we fools for not arming ourselves and shooting somebody? Who would you want us to shoot?
Who are you talking to, exactly? Is it just theodp, or everybody on Slashdot, or do you want my grandma to roll out her own new Android patch?
Does releasing the source code absolve the vendor of any responsibility to support their product?
Don't beat yourself up. One can love a work without knowing its artist(s).
Yeah, but those are in the Old Testament, which doesn't count anymore. (Except, of course, for the parts that still do count.)
Good thing we're here. I'm sure all our ranting on Slashdot will make them re-think their policy.
I suggest a netbook running Linux.
In American culture, Religion may indeed triumph over Science, but Religion would lose to Money. Amazon isn't going to deprive itself of significant sales.
0x 52 61 70 65 == 1,382,117,477 degrees ASCII