Well, the U.N. and some Russian dude recently called for a global currency, if such a thing were to happen it would likely become cashless. I'm not sure how many people realize that the vast majority of wealth is not in paper form, nor could it be.
Made me wonder what the Nigerian 419 scam would become in the future when they can't claim their uncle, the former finance minister, has a hundred million dollars hidden under his mattress and needs you to help launder it for him.
It's gonna be interesting when we finally move to a cashless society. Things like this will be unforgivable in such a society. That is, we will have to have solved this problem, by and large, of card theft and purchase fraud.
I know that the card companies have been working on a method of reducing fraud by doing something like linking your card to your phone and texting you for verification when they detect suspicious activity. Or perhaps requiring you to send your picture back to them or something as a verification.
The person who can create a secondary verification system like that will make a lot of money by solving the great problem that is card-fraud.
Once upon a time, the Greek Athenians went to all the Greek City States and said, "Lets band together against our enemies for mutual survival against the Persians."
All the city-states agreed and the Greek world became one under the Athenians. To this end they selected the Spartans, the warlike ones, as the soldiers, etc., but the Athenians headed it up and were the naval power of the time. Everyone paid money to this central state to finance arms, boats, and soldiers.
Years went by and the threat was defeated, but a funny thing happened. Athens had grown rich, and reliant, on that money coming in, and when some city-states tried to stop paying, Athens demanded that they continue on pain of war. What began as mutual protection became tribute on pain of death. The Spartans decided to invade Athens.
So, you ask whether a country running out of money would go ape-shit... well, as Greece showed, they would at least go to war. And that's enough.
Well, I think you're just being over-emotional about the issue because you're emotionally invested. I am not emotionally invested, nor am I a racist.
I am however a futurist, and like to look at likely scenarios of the future. All I've said is that if the oil tap looks like it's going to run dry that this will destabilize the middle-east further. When the middle-east gets destabilized, generally a few things happen: 1) someone tries to attack Israel. 2) Terrorism increases globally. If you'd like to refute either of those points using history, I'd love to laugh at the attempt.
Iran, for instance, sells a lot of oil right now, it finances their country in large measure. Things are fine for Iran economically, in general, yet they still talk, weekly, about nuking Israel. And you're trying to tell us that that behavior wouldn't get worse if it looked like Iran couldn't afford to spend so much on their military anymore? You are probably as economically illiterate as so many are, I suppose I cannot hold it against you. It's a modern tragedy.
As for these countries having tons of money, you're way, way off. Saudi Arabia is nearly bankrupt. They have borrowed a fuck-ton of money, last time I checked, and I don't think that's changed since then, I can't imagine how it could have. If you want to say that the various royal families have gigantic gobs of money, sure, you got me there. That doesn't mean much, however, it's all in private hands. An economy needs a middle-class. What's your plan to convince the Saudi Royal family, and others like them around the world, virtual despots, to share the wealth? Kuwait is so oil-dependent that as of '91 they were paying a gigantic yearly salary of $80,000 to each resident of the country, many other countries do similar, Venenzuela was trying to set something up like that too (foolishly) until the price of oil floored again. You think Kuwait wouldn't be economically devastated by oil being replaced? You're fooling yourself.
If the oil-tap gets turned off that would result in, literally, trillions of dollars per year no longer flowing into the middle-east. Do you really mean to say that that wouldn't have an effect on the middle-eastern economy? You're fooling yourself. The middle-eastern economy is currently dependent on that cash-flow and does not have the economic infrastructure in place to makeup a shortfall that could drop to zero within 5-10 years - which is exactly what Algae biodiesel could achieve. If WWIII broke out, and oil reserves were cut-off, that could result in a massive switch to biodiesel even faster on our part. When the switchover happens, at the least, the middle-east would experience a depression as long as 15-30 years in duration while it built up other avenues of economic production, and that assumes they don't go to war in that time period.
I have no desire to see this happen, I wish the people of the middle-east well, by and large they are a decent people with extremists messing it up for everyone, just like everywhere else. But we also have to deal with the reality of the situation. You're anger just shows you're not prepared to look at things with that level of detachment.
Yes, but when shipping becomes the largest cost of a product, distant producers cannot compete in price with local producers. This is, for instance, why beer companies have trouble competing on a national scale, and why (I think it was) Anheiser-Busch was caught freeze-drying, shipping 'beer powder' and then re-hydrating their beer across country. Oil is competitive because it can't be produced in America. But, algae-produced biodiesel can essentially be made anywhere, and therefore will be, and shipping long distances will put you at a serious disadvantage to the local producer.
Having lots of sun won't make the middle-east a viable producer of biodiesel in the same way that they produced oil.
Middle Eastern countries attacking Israel is a possibility (they'd think it's "now or never"), but terrorists are a different story. They don't commit acts of terror because they're black hat-wearing moustache-twirlers. They want more advanced countries to get the hell out of their country's affairs. The only reason rich countries (U.S. etc.) are still in the middle east is to get at their oil. No money in oil = waste of money to stay in the middle east. Terrorists will still hate Israel though, and no rich countries caring about the middle east = Israel being screwed.
- That's a fine point, however I think that Israel is in the same position as Japan, the U.S. needs an ally in the region and they are our go-to country. Japan doesn't have a drop of oil, yet we will always be tight with them. Same with Israel, we've got massive economic ties with Israel, and major national security interests in their surviving in the region (and might I take a brief aside to pour cold water on the two state-solution BS, it's a dumb idea). It's true that we generally leave countries alone to do as they please, but we simply cannot do that in the case of oil producing nations. The oil must flow >_>
As an aside, biofuel relies on a large amount of water, and fresh water is hard to come by in the middle east. Chances are they'll still use their own oil. Which means controlling the oil = controlling the middle east. Expect lots of infighting when that happens, and embargoes on foreign biofuel. Will the infighting prevent the coordinated destruction of Israel? Let's hope so, or else they're likely to break out their nukes.
- This is a very good point, though we may eventually produce strains which tolerate sea water, in fact I think there are existing strains now that tolerate brackish water if not seawater. But your point about them using their own oil is a good one. However, we take care of most of the technical jobs in producing that oil, if we pull our people out they're gonna be paying us to produce their own oil, that would be a rich reversal of fortune. You're right about the nukes, I think this is exactly when the next nuclear attack would be closest.
Algae bio-diesel is a hot topic. You convert sunlight, water and waste-products into bio-diesel, and the biggest problem they've had so far is the algae reproducing too much! The approach of using an organism like algae to produce renewable energy is likely to work and be far cheaper than any tech we would have to manufacture for a long, long time. Algae biochemistry is just far more advanced in terms of its micro-mechanical capability than we are, and it is its own factory; reproducing without abandon.
So what's holding back algae from solving the energy problems of the world? - One, it's early in development still, although there are two or three notable research plants in the U.S. and England connected to major universities working on it currently. - Two, the key to making it economical is to raise the ratio of bio-diesel produced to biomass of the algae, basically the efficiency of output compared to the inputs.
Right now they get something like 10-20% efficiency. If they could up that significantly to say 80-90% then it's more economical than even gasoline. Can they do this? They think so:
They've got a concept which involves pumping human waste into the algae water, along with straight carbon-dioxide atmospheres, and pumping in carbon-dioxide black-smoke through the water, smoke harvested from coal-burning plants (making the Greens even happier) which actually scrubs the air clean(er) as a result. With that they think they can get the efficiency up there. So it actually helps us deal with other environmental problems on the side.
Now, where the actual tech comes in will be breeding new strains and adding and subtracting genes. Right now they've mainly bred strains the old fashioned way, without any genetic splicing. Once the splicing does occur, and the world's library of genetic techniques and effects can be brought to bear we may have something, perhaps an oil replacement, a true oil replacement. They'll begin dropping in genes, and playing with the best traits of various strains to create a super-algae. And then, it'll be "bye-bye oil."
But, I'll throw this final monkey wrench in the whole thing: say we did create a breakthrough tech that resulted in oil losing its price advantage, so much that within 5-10 years all gasoline refining could stop and the world could survive on bio-diesel and ethanol, all at cheaper prices than oil allowed - what do you think that would do to the Middle-east?
I think the Arab countries which rely on oil money for basically everything would realize the jig is up, their income is gonna dry up fast, and many of those countries would go completely ape-shit. They'd probably attack Israel, us too perhaps, before their wealth and power began to fade. Without oil money that region is just the armpit of the world, many regions could be called 4th world countries;P And without oil money their influence would soon wane, and the ability of radical elements to commit global acts of terror would wane just as quickly.
So, let's indeed replace oil ASAP with something like algae-produced bio-diesel, or any similar tech that gets us off oil at a cheaper price than oil, and that will not only keep a lot more wealth in the US, it is ultimately the only way to end global terrorism as a major problem and concern in the world.
Little Big Planet probably would've been gigantic if it had been made for the Wii, who knows. Being stuck in the PS3 camp leaving the developers hungry for cash is pretty funny to me. Like the previous post said, they made that Faustian deal with Sony to get their game made and now it's biting them on the backside.
There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.
I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but copyright law is increasingly working more against society than in its interests, and this story just goes to prove that yet again. When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.
Great game + great advertising = long-time sales.
Great game + No, or inadequate advertising = Sleeper hit.
Bad game + Great advertising = Over-hyped P.O.S.
Bad game + Bad Advertising = Daikatana:P
It's not an attractive way to raise the issue, but it's true: artists should be rewarded for their work. Look at how the studios screwed the Gilligan's Island people, who languished in poverty after the networks ran episodes for decades.
The second issue is that is big corporations like those in Hollywood, no one takes you seriously until the lawsuit hits the table. I really don't blame him for being upset, sounds like he tried to go through friendly channels for awhile.
Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.
We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.
You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max. Reduce regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.
The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy. All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.
This is just a rumor, as it turns out. But, I could swear, for a moment there, I felt a disturbance in the force... like millions of money launderers cried out in joy and then were suddenly silenced.
Only a technological singularity is likely to produce a machine capable of understanding humans like we understand each other. We must simulate the human brain, using the blueprints of DNA to do our building for us. See Kurzweil.
No, that doesn't capture the meaning I was going for. My point was that, despite the evolution of the storytelling delivery process, the old processes remain alive and vital.
Storytelling doesn't get killed by the invention of books and writing. Storytelling will always be around. Books don't disappear because video came around. In fact, books can do things that video cannot or that video has a much harder time doing, like giving the internal monologue of a character. Similarly, storytelling has aspects that books cannot capture; storytelling adds the emotional impact of voice tenor, the beat of how the words are told and at what tempo, etc. And both of these are attempts to capture a real-life event. So along comes videos and captures a real-life event.
It's all circular, it's all additive, not subtractive - supportive not destructive. With new delivery methods the old doesn't die, but our options and our culture becomes richer.
One day we'll have the ultimate storytelling vehicle: direct experiential input, ala the technology in "Strange Days", some variant of that, the ability to playback an event directly into our senses and that will overpower any other form of storytelling by its vividness and clarity. But that STILL won't kill the other delivery mediums, because that can't offer analysis or exposition like a book can, etc.
Exagerrated
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is like saying that verbal storytelling lost to books, or that books lost to radio, or radio lost to movies.
The internet, by virtue of interactivity, is far better for certain kinds of entertainment, sure, it has a competitive advantage. But sometimes you just want to sit down and receive and not interact, and that functionality will always be there, even if it's now the computer that will produce it in the future.
And there will always be demand for that sort of one way entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the U.N. and some Russian dude recently called for a global currency, if such a thing were to happen it would likely become cashless. I'm not sure how many people realize that the vast majority of wealth is not in paper form, nor could it be.
I remember hearing about a particular African country that had already gone cashless, that tourists basically changed money in for an ATM card at the airport, but couldn't find any references to it, just something about Nigeria moving towards a cashless society: http://www.africanews.com/site/Nigeria_moves_towards_a_cashless_society/list_messages/23145
Made me wonder what the Nigerian 419 scam would become in the future when they can't claim their uncle, the former finance minister, has a hundred million dollars hidden under his mattress and needs you to help launder it for him.
It's gonna be interesting when we finally move to a cashless society. Things like this will be unforgivable in such a society. That is, we will have to have solved this problem, by and large, of card theft and purchase fraud.
I know that the card companies have been working on a method of reducing fraud by doing something like linking your card to your phone and texting you for verification when they detect suspicious activity. Or perhaps requiring you to send your picture back to them or something as a verification.
The person who can create a secondary verification system like that will make a lot of money by solving the great problem that is card-fraud.
We can only pray that ME2 is blissfully elevator free (and therefore without 20 min. of load-time between scenes) ;P
Once upon a time, the Greek Athenians went to all the Greek City States and said, "Lets band together against our enemies for mutual survival against the Persians."
All the city-states agreed and the Greek world became one under the Athenians. To this end they selected the Spartans, the warlike ones, as the soldiers, etc., but the Athenians headed it up and were the naval power of the time. Everyone paid money to this central state to finance arms, boats, and soldiers.
Years went by and the threat was defeated, but a funny thing happened. Athens had grown rich, and reliant, on that money coming in, and when some city-states tried to stop paying, Athens demanded that they continue on pain of war. What began as mutual protection became tribute on pain of death. The Spartans decided to invade Athens.
So, you ask whether a country running out of money would go ape-shit... well, as Greece showed, they would at least go to war. And that's enough.
Know thy history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
Can I get a "This is Sparta!"?
Well, I think you're just being over-emotional about the issue because you're emotionally invested. I am not emotionally invested, nor am I a racist.
I am however a futurist, and like to look at likely scenarios of the future. All I've said is that if the oil tap looks like it's going to run dry that this will destabilize the middle-east further. When the middle-east gets destabilized, generally a few things happen: 1) someone tries to attack Israel. 2) Terrorism increases globally. If you'd like to refute either of those points using history, I'd love to laugh at the attempt.
Iran, for instance, sells a lot of oil right now, it finances their country in large measure. Things are fine for Iran economically, in general, yet they still talk, weekly, about nuking Israel. And you're trying to tell us that that behavior wouldn't get worse if it looked like Iran couldn't afford to spend so much on their military anymore? You are probably as economically illiterate as so many are, I suppose I cannot hold it against you. It's a modern tragedy.
As for these countries having tons of money, you're way, way off. Saudi Arabia is nearly bankrupt. They have borrowed a fuck-ton of money, last time I checked, and I don't think that's changed since then, I can't imagine how it could have. If you want to say that the various royal families have gigantic gobs of money, sure, you got me there. That doesn't mean much, however, it's all in private hands. An economy needs a middle-class. What's your plan to convince the Saudi Royal family, and others like them around the world, virtual despots, to share the wealth? Kuwait is so oil-dependent that as of '91 they were paying a gigantic yearly salary of $80,000 to each resident of the country, many other countries do similar, Venenzuela was trying to set something up like that too (foolishly) until the price of oil floored again. You think Kuwait wouldn't be economically devastated by oil being replaced? You're fooling yourself.
If the oil-tap gets turned off that would result in, literally, trillions of dollars per year no longer flowing into the middle-east. Do you really mean to say that that wouldn't have an effect on the middle-eastern economy? You're fooling yourself. The middle-eastern economy is currently dependent on that cash-flow and does not have the economic infrastructure in place to makeup a shortfall that could drop to zero within 5-10 years - which is exactly what Algae biodiesel could achieve. If WWIII broke out, and oil reserves were cut-off, that could result in a massive switch to biodiesel even faster on our part. When the switchover happens, at the least, the middle-east would experience a depression as long as 15-30 years in duration while it built up other avenues of economic production, and that assumes they don't go to war in that time period.
I have no desire to see this happen, I wish the people of the middle-east well, by and large they are a decent people with extremists messing it up for everyone, just like everywhere else. But we also have to deal with the reality of the situation. You're anger just shows you're not prepared to look at things with that level of detachment.
Yes, but when shipping becomes the largest cost of a product, distant producers cannot compete in price with local producers. This is, for instance, why beer companies have trouble competing on a national scale, and why (I think it was) Anheiser-Busch was caught freeze-drying, shipping 'beer powder' and then re-hydrating their beer across country. Oil is competitive because it can't be produced in America. But, algae-produced biodiesel can essentially be made anywhere, and therefore will be, and shipping long distances will put you at a serious disadvantage to the local producer.
Having lots of sun won't make the middle-east a viable producer of biodiesel in the same way that they produced oil.
- That's a fine point, however I think that Israel is in the same position as Japan, the U.S. needs an ally in the region and they are our go-to country. Japan doesn't have a drop of oil, yet we will always be tight with them. Same with Israel, we've got massive economic ties with Israel, and major national security interests in their surviving in the region (and might I take a brief aside to pour cold water on the two state-solution BS, it's a dumb idea). It's true that we generally leave countries alone to do as they please, but we simply cannot do that in the case of oil producing nations. The oil must flow >_>
- This is a very good point, though we may eventually produce strains which tolerate sea water, in fact I think there are existing strains now that tolerate brackish water if not seawater. But your point about them using their own oil is a good one. However, we take care of most of the technical jobs in producing that oil, if we pull our people out they're gonna be paying us to produce their own oil, that would be a rich reversal of fortune. You're right about the nukes, I think this is exactly when the next nuclear attack would be closest.
Algae bio-diesel is a hot topic. You convert sunlight, water and waste-products into bio-diesel, and the biggest problem they've had so far is the algae reproducing too much! The approach of using an organism like algae to produce renewable energy is likely to work and be far cheaper than any tech we would have to manufacture for a long, long time. Algae biochemistry is just far more advanced in terms of its micro-mechanical capability than we are, and it is its own factory; reproducing without abandon.
So what's holding back algae from solving the energy problems of the world?
- One, it's early in development still, although there are two or three notable research plants in the U.S. and England connected to major universities working on it currently.
- Two, the key to making it economical is to raise the ratio of bio-diesel produced to biomass of the algae, basically the efficiency of output compared to the inputs.
Right now they get something like 10-20% efficiency. If they could up that significantly to say 80-90% then it's more economical than even gasoline. Can they do this? They think so:
They've got a concept which involves pumping human waste into the algae water, along with straight carbon-dioxide atmospheres, and pumping in carbon-dioxide black-smoke through the water, smoke harvested from coal-burning plants (making the Greens even happier) which actually scrubs the air clean(er) as a result. With that they think they can get the efficiency up there. So it actually helps us deal with other environmental problems on the side.
Now, where the actual tech comes in will be breeding new strains and adding and subtracting genes. Right now they've mainly bred strains the old fashioned way, without any genetic splicing. Once the splicing does occur, and the world's library of genetic techniques and effects can be brought to bear we may have something, perhaps an oil replacement, a true oil replacement. They'll begin dropping in genes, and playing with the best traits of various strains to create a super-algae. And then, it'll be "bye-bye oil."
But, I'll throw this final monkey wrench in the whole thing: say we did create a breakthrough tech that resulted in oil losing its price advantage, so much that within 5-10 years all gasoline refining could stop and the world could survive on bio-diesel and ethanol, all at cheaper prices than oil allowed - what do you think that would do to the Middle-east?
I think the Arab countries which rely on oil money for basically everything would realize the jig is up, their income is gonna dry up fast, and many of those countries would go completely ape-shit. They'd probably attack Israel, us too perhaps, before their wealth and power began to fade. Without oil money that region is just the armpit of the world, many regions could be called 4th world countries ;P And without oil money their influence would soon wane, and the ability of radical elements to commit global acts of terror would wane just as quickly.
So, let's indeed replace oil ASAP with something like algae-produced bio-diesel, or any similar tech that gets us off oil at a cheaper price than oil, and that will not only keep a lot more wealth in the US, it is ultimately the only way to end global terrorism as a major problem and concern in the world.
Little Big Planet probably would've been gigantic if it had been made for the Wii, who knows. Being stuck in the PS3 camp leaving the developers hungry for cash is pretty funny to me. Like the previous post said, they made that Faustian deal with Sony to get their game made and now it's biting them on the backside.
There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.
I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but copyright law is increasingly working more against society than in its interests, and this story just goes to prove that yet again. When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.
I suggest: Explosion Club
First rule of Explosion Club: You do not talk about Explosion Club.
Second rule of Explosion Club: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT EXPLOSION CLUB.
The last rule of Explosion Club: If it's your first time, you mix the chemicals yourself and will blow something up.
Here, found a pict of the actual ad:
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/01/Bitchadmikewilson.jpg
You don't remember the full-page magazine ads for Daikatana which said, "John Romero wants to make you his bitch. Suck it down!"?
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/daikatana/
Great game + great advertising = long-time sales. Great game + No, or inadequate advertising = Sleeper hit. Bad game + Great advertising = Over-hyped P.O.S. Bad game + Bad Advertising = Daikatana :P
It's not an attractive way to raise the issue, but it's true: artists should be rewarded for their work. Look at how the studios screwed the Gilligan's Island people, who languished in poverty after the networks ran episodes for decades. The second issue is that is big corporations like those in Hollywood, no one takes you seriously until the lawsuit hits the table. I really don't blame him for being upset, sounds like he tried to go through friendly channels for awhile.
Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.
We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.
You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max. Reduce regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.
The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy. All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.
Don't throttle me, bruh!
This is just a rumor, as it turns out. But, I could swear, for a moment there, I felt a disturbance in the force... like millions of money launderers cried out in joy and then were suddenly silenced.
The answer is 42, it's the question we're looking for!!!
Hardly news, since this'll certainly be struck down \ overturned in future rulings. Trying to protect employees can go too far and become ridiculous.
Apparently the law also specifies you have the right to confess your guilt, and pay your fine with a smile, also.
Only a technological singularity is likely to produce a machine capable of understanding humans like we understand each other. We must simulate the human brain, using the blueprints of DNA to do our building for us. See Kurzweil.
What if companies began taking the 'Guitar Hero' model of flight sims and began produce full-featured desktop cockpits ^_^
No, that doesn't capture the meaning I was going for. My point was that, despite the evolution of the storytelling delivery process, the old processes remain alive and vital. Storytelling doesn't get killed by the invention of books and writing. Storytelling will always be around. Books don't disappear because video came around. In fact, books can do things that video cannot or that video has a much harder time doing, like giving the internal monologue of a character. Similarly, storytelling has aspects that books cannot capture; storytelling adds the emotional impact of voice tenor, the beat of how the words are told and at what tempo, etc. And both of these are attempts to capture a real-life event. So along comes videos and captures a real-life event. It's all circular, it's all additive, not subtractive - supportive not destructive. With new delivery methods the old doesn't die, but our options and our culture becomes richer. One day we'll have the ultimate storytelling vehicle: direct experiential input, ala the technology in "Strange Days", some variant of that, the ability to playback an event directly into our senses and that will overpower any other form of storytelling by its vividness and clarity. But that STILL won't kill the other delivery mediums, because that can't offer analysis or exposition like a book can, etc.
This is like saying that verbal storytelling lost to books, or that books lost to radio, or radio lost to movies.
The internet, by virtue of interactivity, is far better for certain kinds of entertainment, sure, it has a competitive advantage. But sometimes you just want to sit down and receive and not interact, and that functionality will always be there, even if it's now the computer that will produce it in the future.
And there will always be demand for that sort of one way entertainment.