As opposed to a deflationary currency where the real productivity gains of the populace are transferred via deflation directly to the wealthiest currency holders?
Yes, people who have savings do better in that environment. Today's savers are punished. Capitalism (real, not crony) requires capital, aka savings.
Anybody who thinks savings is foolish and debt is the way to go would be opposed to a deflationary currency as debt becomes more expensive and savings becomes more rewarded. Also people who want to take a piece of the inflation obviously want inflation.
People with savings == the wealthiest people. The 1%.
Above some critical % of savings, you will never need to do anything productive for the economy ever again, since the amount you spend on necessities will be less then the increase in value of your savings. Conversely, the people who pay for things, will never ever be in that situation and will have to work their entire lives till death.
Unless of course you plan to double or more the population every generation. Sure nothing can go wrong with that either.
As opposed to a deflationary currency where the real productivity gains of the populace are transferred via deflation directly to the wealthiest currency holders?
Investments are not made "into currency". It's a metaphor for abstracting away whatever we're actually doing (i.e. money in bank, bank loans to person, person buys house, pays interest back from working their job etc.) - at the end of the day it's an investment in the productivity of individuals. Money, as a convenient means of exchange - makes this work - because doing that transaction in cows would be tricky and industrially constraining.
Also will probably cease accepting it if a steady downward trend sets in. The current reason is PR and the ability to accept BitCoin, then let the price appreciate and (essentially) sell it back to BitCoin advocates for more money.
Except none of this matters over the timeframes that economies fall apart. If someone strikes a big vein and mines it all, then starts trying to sell it too quickly - boom - your currency suddenly devalues to nothingness, and stays that way for quite some time.
The difference is you've just given up the ability to do informed management of your currency, and as your example neatly points out, co-opted a whole bunch of useful industrial capacity into the exercise of just trying to make exchangeable currency.
It'll happen if there's even rumors. If you think gold is going to collapse, then damn, borrow away because you'll be able to pay it back much cheaper.
It's lame that the ABS doesn't seed a torrent itself though. It'd make a great poster case for the long-term benefits of the NBN (and it's higher upload speeds) for the government.
Depends on concentrations. Water will kill you in high enough quantity. HF is bad, but how much was being produced? How much of this compound would be put in the car? Look hard enough and you'll find just about everything in an uncontrolled combustion product.
Wouldn't just be paint though. You have to somehow paint a base conductor, the organic PV material, and a transparent top-electrode. You also have to segment and set up chains, otherwise the whole thing will kick out like 1V pretty inefficiently.
They're a hardware company. I have no problem with them running custom firmwares or whatever *on the hardware* but a closed-source software driver stack is just absurd. I'd much rather we move to a model where the drivers were always OSS, even if it meant we needed more firmware running on the GPU itself since it'd be a return to having standard interfaces and it would mean everyone would get the benefits of improvements in the driver stack, rather then just the favored operating system.
I don't get the one cable thing. Cable density has never really been the problem - it's connector variety. If I need 10 cables, but they're all the exact same connector and can be plugged in wherever, then who cares how many there are - it takes no effort to manage them.
A laptop with 10 Thunderbolt ports along the back would have tons of expandability, you'd never be port starved (maybe bandwidth starved) and they could all be easily hidden with jack covers or whatever.
What's keeping Thunderbolt down is the lack of widespread roll out and affordable PCI-E x16 enclosures to use with graphics cards.
Paying $800 so I can use a regular graphics card with my laptop is absurd. For that price I can buy the entire computer and GPU I'd need in a desktop format.
And the only reason it's expensive is because there's just no volume.
Just keep squeezing that stone, I'm sure you'll get blood from it someday.
I mean do you want to start with how the expenditure of Iraq and Afgahnistan was moved to being "on the books" for the Federal government under Obama (despite, you know, still being real money being blown away by Bush) or the GFC finally unfolding at the terminal stage of Bush's term and thus Obama (and said Democrat congress) inheriting the choice of "bail out the banks go bankrupt" or "let 90+% of Americans go bankrupt".
From your tone I assume you think we should've just let the banks go under, which is an easy sentiment when you foolishly believe you wouldn't have lost money.
The long-term strategic interests of the United States are most cost-effectively served by building goodwill to the US throughout the world. If that means we use NASA as one such vehicle to deliver outreach and some long-term interest in people moving to and supporting the US, why not? Money not spent bombing the Middle East is money that can go to NASA and other pure science programs which don't necessarily have immediate practical applications (but are frequently of the most value long term).
No sequence of nucleic acid, by itself, is dangerous. It gets obliterated by the stuff on your finger, for example.
You need to shoot it into an organism, get it stably being transcribed into proteins, and then after all that actually wind up with an organism that's viable and has good disease properties. Most "flesh eating bacteria" for example are normal throat bacteria that are normally harmless.
This. The potential "super virus" that was developed a few months back wasn't done with any complex genetic engineering. They just passed it between ferrets for a few generations, and wound up with the most dangerous disease currently imaginable.
You want a risk factor? Factory farms swimming in our antibiotics of last resort for no good reason.
It's all about how much mass you can move though. More mass means more people, resources, landers arriving at Mars per trip, or more fuel which you can then blow on shorter trip times.
We obviously can technically do it - but being cost-efficient and speedy are not solved challenges.
Depends how heavy that room is. And I suppose, how heavy the fuel is - you could justify launching a large, one-off ship that you then only have to send up fuel for. A 90 or 30 day trip to Mars would mean you'd be able to run regular missions shuttling between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically "stop doing stupid things with your computer".
Why a firm needed Malware Bytes on it's servers in the first place is the real question here.
The punchline is you really want to panel it onto foil and then laminate over that or something I suppose. More like wall-paper I guess?
As opposed to a deflationary currency where the real productivity gains of the populace are transferred via deflation directly to the wealthiest currency holders?
Yes, people who have savings do better in that environment. Today's savers are punished. Capitalism (real, not crony) requires capital, aka savings.
Anybody who thinks savings is foolish and debt is the way to go would be opposed to a deflationary currency as debt becomes more expensive and savings becomes more rewarded. Also people who want to take a piece of the inflation obviously want inflation.
People with savings == the wealthiest people. The 1%.
Above some critical % of savings, you will never need to do anything productive for the economy ever again, since the amount you spend on necessities will be less then the increase in value of your savings. Conversely, the people who pay for things, will never ever be in that situation and will have to work their entire lives till death.
Unless of course you plan to double or more the population every generation. Sure nothing can go wrong with that either.
As opposed to a deflationary currency where the real productivity gains of the populace are transferred via deflation directly to the wealthiest currency holders?
Investments are not made "into currency". It's a metaphor for abstracting away whatever we're actually doing (i.e. money in bank, bank loans to person, person buys house, pays interest back from working their job etc.) - at the end of the day it's an investment in the productivity of individuals. Money, as a convenient means of exchange - makes this work - because doing that transaction in cows would be tricky and industrially constraining.
Not within a single 12-hour period.
Also will probably cease accepting it if a steady downward trend sets in. The current reason is PR and the ability to accept BitCoin, then let the price appreciate and (essentially) sell it back to BitCoin advocates for more money.
It's actually a fundamental logical principle too: that things are themselves ( A == A ).
Except none of this matters over the timeframes that economies fall apart. If someone strikes a big vein and mines it all, then starts trying to sell it too quickly - boom - your currency suddenly devalues to nothingness, and stays that way for quite some time.
The difference is you've just given up the ability to do informed management of your currency, and as your example neatly points out, co-opted a whole bunch of useful industrial capacity into the exercise of just trying to make exchangeable currency.
It'll happen if there's even rumors. If you think gold is going to collapse, then damn, borrow away because you'll be able to pay it back much cheaper.
It's lame that the ABS doesn't seed a torrent itself though. It'd make a great poster case for the long-term benefits of the NBN (and it's higher upload speeds) for the government.
Depends on concentrations. Water will kill you in high enough quantity. HF is bad, but how much was being produced? How much of this compound would be put in the car? Look hard enough and you'll find just about everything in an uncontrolled combustion product.
Wouldn't just be paint though. You have to somehow paint a base conductor, the organic PV material, and a transparent top-electrode. You also have to segment and set up chains, otherwise the whole thing will kick out like 1V pretty inefficiently.
It's a log-scale. So yes, it is a hockey-stick.
They're a hardware company. I have no problem with them running custom firmwares or whatever *on the hardware* but a closed-source software driver stack is just absurd. I'd much rather we move to a model where the drivers were always OSS, even if it meant we needed more firmware running on the GPU itself since it'd be a return to having standard interfaces and it would mean everyone would get the benefits of improvements in the driver stack, rather then just the favored operating system.
Cheap maybe not, but 4-5x the cost of the graphics card you might want to use is absurd for an interface.
I don't get the one cable thing. Cable density has never really been the problem - it's connector variety. If I need 10 cables, but they're all the exact same connector and can be plugged in wherever, then who cares how many there are - it takes no effort to manage them.
A laptop with 10 Thunderbolt ports along the back would have tons of expandability, you'd never be port starved (maybe bandwidth starved) and they could all be easily hidden with jack covers or whatever.
What's keeping Thunderbolt down is the lack of widespread roll out and affordable PCI-E x16 enclosures to use with graphics cards.
Paying $800 so I can use a regular graphics card with my laptop is absurd. For that price I can buy the entire computer and GPU I'd need in a desktop format.
And the only reason it's expensive is because there's just no volume.
This. 9/11 changed the perception of hijackings. And hell, during 9/11 one plane's passengers did resist successfully.
Just keep squeezing that stone, I'm sure you'll get blood from it someday.
I mean do you want to start with how the expenditure of Iraq and Afgahnistan was moved to being "on the books" for the Federal government under Obama (despite, you know, still being real money being blown away by Bush) or the GFC finally unfolding at the terminal stage of Bush's term and thus Obama (and said Democrat congress) inheriting the choice of "bail out the banks go bankrupt" or "let 90+% of Americans go bankrupt".
From your tone I assume you think we should've just let the banks go under, which is an easy sentiment when you foolishly believe you wouldn't have lost money.
The long-term strategic interests of the United States are most cost-effectively served by building goodwill to the US throughout the world. If that means we use NASA as one such vehicle to deliver outreach and some long-term interest in people moving to and supporting the US, why not? Money not spent bombing the Middle East is money that can go to NASA and other pure science programs which don't necessarily have immediate practical applications (but are frequently of the most value long term).
No sequence of nucleic acid, by itself, is dangerous. It gets obliterated by the stuff on your finger, for example.
You need to shoot it into an organism, get it stably being transcribed into proteins, and then after all that actually wind up with an organism that's viable and has good disease properties. Most "flesh eating bacteria" for example are normal throat bacteria that are normally harmless.
This. The potential "super virus" that was developed a few months back wasn't done with any complex genetic engineering. They just passed it between ferrets for a few generations, and wound up with the most dangerous disease currently imaginable.
You want a risk factor? Factory farms swimming in our antibiotics of last resort for no good reason.
It's all about how much mass you can move though. More mass means more people, resources, landers arriving at Mars per trip, or more fuel which you can then blow on shorter trip times.
We obviously can technically do it - but being cost-efficient and speedy are not solved challenges.
Depends how heavy that room is. And I suppose, how heavy the fuel is - you could justify launching a large, one-off ship that you then only have to send up fuel for. A 90 or 30 day trip to Mars would mean you'd be able to run regular missions shuttling between the two.