In case of BitCoin the reason for centralization is not technical but cultural. For such a long time people used to have their money kept in a bank or a fund of some sort it is difficult for them to realise that with BitCoin there is no reason to do that.
Also there are some ideas for ETFs floating around in BitCoin space and this is truly stupid. With something like gold ETF it makes sense to have a traded fund because gold delivery actually *costs money*, but with BitCoin the cost of delivery is negligible, so there is no reason to have someone else store your BitCoins. In case of gold you can pay somebody to store a *physical amount* of gold for you, that's why you are paying a fee - somebody else has to store physical bars or coins and keep it all secure. But in case of BitCoin the entire concept is ridiculous, in fact ETFs will *introduce a storage cost where there is no need for one currently*.
I think with a source code repository the reason for some centralization is much greater than with something like BitCoin, where the reasons are cultural and some of it is just lack of understanding, so it is misinformation and illiteracy on the subject.
Soviet era style tactics are the best, aren't they? Turn half of the population into informers, you don't even need that many people, you just need to seed the doubt in the people's minds that they are constantly being watched. Except that they are being watched constantly
or they could use the money to build an airline if they need fast commute, the technology is here, it works, it's proven, it can be measured in terms of costs and profits upfront, it doesn't require a weird infrastructure setup that is the Achilles heel of hyperloop - a very long thin steel vacuum tube. A thin steel tube will expand and contract due to temperature fluctuations, flexible joints will have to maintain vacuum somehow? Anybody with a tiny amount of explosives (or even with a rifle) will be able to kill everybody in the tube by de-pressurising it and the coming air will derail every car inside the tube, crashing one into the next, etc. Getting the car into the tube without losing vacuum, handling the atmospheric pressure over the entire tube, handling security, handling temperature changes...
How will they handle any single mishap of any single car inside the tube? How deadly is any one single mishap to all the passengers inside one car and to all cars in the tube?
All this while trying to be competitive to an airliner or to a bullet train??????
Well that's why democracy is garbage, the crap like this is what also ends up destroying business and various services, including what is covered in this story. Running a business and deciding who to sell to should be covered by the individual right to association as well as private property rights.
- I see the words you typed here but I fail to see the issue. Yes, people are selfish, that's a good thing. We wouldn't have any progress with selfless people, we probably wouldn't even exist today with selfless people.
By the way, collectivism is a more generic term than socialism and I prefer to use it because it is a more clear version of what I mean to say. Collectivism is the superset of socialism, communism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, things of that nature. The main point of all of these 'isms' is that the collective has precedence over the individual and his or her rights. Well, not in my book. AFAIC involuntary collectivism of any kind is oppression to be fought against, I don't care about the flag colour and slogans and political motivations. They are all the same anti individual rights, pro strong government and thus anti human, all to be acted against.
Full employment economy, ha? Well, if you count holding multiple minimum wage jobs for some, while not actually counting others, who gave up looking for jobs as unemployed, then sure, it is a 'full employment' economy.
are you OK with them starving to death to avoid "stealing" from the skilled?
- yes. I am completely OK even with extermination of the entire species if the alternative is slavery via collectivist oppression. However I do not think that extermination or any sort of destruction is necessary in a society where individual freedoms are protected from the collective because in the absence of individual oppression by the collective the system will balance itself, the people who are in need will solve their own problems by coming up with solutions (and in order for the solutions to be viable they cannot rely on any form of violence, violent solutions are a temporary fix if they are any fix at all, thus any form of a violent 'fix' will end up further unbalancing the system, ensuring more violence and more unbalancing until it rebalances itself probably also in violent manner).
Oh, and you're also assuming that supporting a decent standard of living for the unskilled is morally wrong.
- no, I am asserting that violence and oppression are morally wrong.
Redistributing wealth creates more freedom
- war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. etc.etc.
Maybe you shouldn't be on this site, you know, it being 'for nerds', some of who are actually fairly technical people that look forward towards innovation just like this one.
Less traffic, less congestion, no wasting time on shopping, personal buttler service for the 99% that will save us a portion of our lives in more ways than one. How many accidents happen on the roads just because of shopping?
AFAIC meddling is immoral and unethical even if 'morals' and 'ethics' are used to attempt to justify it. The only moral thing on this planet is not to oppress others, not to use force and brutality of any kind to make people do what you want them to do. Make something people want/need and trade it with them on a voluntary basis, do not force your desires upon them with collectivist force and weapons, that would be moral. The so called 'morality' and 'ethics' of collectivism are no such thing at all, they are necessarily immoral and unethical. They are mistaken for morality and ethics but immediately lose that label at any form of closer examination. What is their go to move? Violent enforcement and oppression by the collective. That's not moral or ethical by any standard.
Brutal repression will happen if the people in questions start acting up in ways that commands brutal repression of-course. The collectivism acts both ways, it acts to promote the majority's agenda of taking from those who can and distributing to those who cannot. It also can act by brutally oppressing those who act up, you see? It doesn't even matter who acts up, those who have or those who have not. Either type will be oppressed by collectivism one way or another, which is why collectivism is such an affront to individual liberties.
My personal opinion on this of-course is that the collective, the mob, any vast majority of people do not have the entitlement to steal from any minority who have the resources, but they will anyway because 'might makes right'. In the past 'might makes right' worked in a particular way, because 'might' and 'majority' of people was nearly a synonym. In the future 'might' may become synonym with 'automation' and 'robotics' and I do not see the difference between a majority oppressing a minority and a minority oppressing the majority. Two wrongs don't make a right, but given ability and opportunity nobody is going to allow themselves to be abused without a fight, and you know what? Root for the winning side. At least in the future the winning side may finally also be the moral side.
The machines are expensive while they are a novelty, but in our times a machine does not have to stay a novelty for long. Not carrying the bags of produce? How about boxes of produce?
"Enforce" being the key word there of-course. Obviously you believe that the 'benefit of all' can be achieved by enforcement, by taking the individual rights away and by putting the collective above the individual. I disagree that the collective has any precedence over an individual.
One single person being oppressed at the behest of some collectivist 'good' is the death of all individuals. Without individuals having rights not to be oppressed by the collective the individuals have the moral responsibility to completely deny the collective and to destroy it.
Of-course this goes directly against one of my previous post where I explained what systems are and what laws guide systems, however there is no contradiction here. The systems want to survive and they are much better at surviving by fighting individuals than individuals are at fighting the systems to protect their own rights against those systems, so it seems to be a fools errand at first glance.
However I did state there as well that if the fundamentals that the systems are basing themselves on are flawed, then by pushing forward based on the flawed fundamentals, the systems will eventually self destruct and AFAIC the fundamentals here are flawed.
It is Individuals who have rights, collectives do not. Collectives have entitlements that the individuals grant them, individuals have the rights not to be oppressed by the collectives, I mentioned it here many times and I will repeat it again. Individual rights are the protections against the collective oppression, collectivist 'rights' are entitlements that require destruction of individual rights. There is no way around this and thus the fundamental ideology of collectivism will always be long term wrong in a number of ways, morally, economically, societally. Destruction of collectivist societies who place themselves above the rights of the individuals is imminent and inevitable.
Razer Wants To Build the Best Linux Laptop, And It Needs Your Help
- if that is the case (and have been around long enough not to bother not only with TFA but even with TFS) then I can tell you they already screwed up.
A company seeking for a direction from suggestions of their customers before having anything they can show as a product in the first place... what is it, have they prematurely gotten rid of a director or something? A company has to have direction, customer suggestions are great an all, but they cannot be the thing that gives your company its purpose, you have to have a reason to do what you do in the first place.
I want a 19" 1920x1200 screen, 10TB of M.2 SSD storage, 2 quad core CPUs and 256GB of RAM in my laptop. I want it all for no more than 1200USD.
His name used to be Oughttobeenough but after the 640K ought to be enough for anybody (a quote that may never have even been said) he decided that name was not good enough, thus....
Yes, but unlike a unique number generated by some fancy algorithm and unlike pieces of paper that are printed at a whim *without* any actual backing, this is a real thing, it's valuable enough that it is recognized as money (was recognized as money in many cultures for thousands of years) and is much more likely to keep being valuable enough to be recognized as money (without any government telling people that it is money, it just is).
So I am perfectly happy for it to stay in a vault as long as I can be more or less certain in its security. I definitely cannot be certain about the security of the purchasing power or paper money and I don't even want to talk about the security of purchasing power of BitCoins (which may go to a trillion USD per BitCoin for all I care, it is not money because it has no intrinsic value).
Gold does have intrinsic value, it is a substance, substances have that value. It has certain properties that make it better money than other substances. It is a substantial item/object/quantity of weight and purity, so it is a real thing, unlike a unique number in a computer or a network.
I don't see a reason to give up my gold for other purposes (jewelry, electronics, health care, whatever), those are legitimate purposes and we mine 1.5% of total gold supply a year approximately anyway, a part of that covers those needs.
So that's my take on it. As to the precise knowledge at any moment in time whether the gold is in a vault in case of gold money (which I am not using yet, probably will at some point), they use Brinks as I understand and independent auditors as well. It's definitely more than the Federal reserve is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
In case of BitCoin the reason for centralization is not technical but cultural. For such a long time people used to have their money kept in a bank or a fund of some sort it is difficult for them to realise that with BitCoin there is no reason to do that.
Also there are some ideas for ETFs floating around in BitCoin space and this is truly stupid. With something like gold ETF it makes sense to have a traded fund because gold delivery actually *costs money*, but with BitCoin the cost of delivery is negligible, so there is no reason to have someone else store your BitCoins. In case of gold you can pay somebody to store a *physical amount* of gold for you, that's why you are paying a fee - somebody else has to store physical bars or coins and keep it all secure. But in case of BitCoin the entire concept is ridiculous, in fact ETFs will *introduce a storage cost where there is no need for one currently*.
I think with a source code repository the reason for some centralization is much greater than with something like BitCoin, where the reasons are cultural and some of it is just lack of understanding, so it is misinformation and illiteracy on the subject.
Soviet era style tactics are the best, aren't they? Turn half of the population into informers, you don't even need that many people, you just need to seed the doubt in the people's minds that they are constantly being watched. Except that they are being watched constantly
No, because the chicken wouldn't do it.
Why did a CS student traverse a tree?
or they could use the money to build an airline if they need fast commute, the technology is here, it works, it's proven, it can be measured in terms of costs and profits upfront, it doesn't require a weird infrastructure setup that is the Achilles heel of hyperloop - a very long thin steel vacuum tube. A thin steel tube will expand and contract due to temperature fluctuations, flexible joints will have to maintain vacuum somehow? Anybody with a tiny amount of explosives (or even with a rifle) will be able to kill everybody in the tube by de-pressurising it and the coming air will derail every car inside the tube, crashing one into the next, etc. Getting the car into the tube without losing vacuum, handling the atmospheric pressure over the entire tube, handling security, handling temperature changes...
How will they handle any single mishap of any single car inside the tube? How deadly is any one single mishap to all the passengers inside one car and to all cars in the tube?
All this while trying to be competitive to an airliner or to a bullet train??????
Your SIG and Hamlet:
(2C || !2C)==if...
Well that's why democracy is garbage, the crap like this is what also ends up destroying business and various services, including what is covered in this story. Running a business and deciding who to sell to should be covered by the individual right to association as well as private property rights.
it's selfish people who don't use mass transit
- I see the words you typed here but I fail to see the issue. Yes, people are selfish, that's a good thing. We wouldn't have any progress with selfless people, we probably wouldn't even exist today with selfless people.
Why so scared to post under your nick? Fear of down voting? Moderation points are overrated.
By the way, collectivism is a more generic term than socialism and I prefer to use it because it is a more clear version of what I mean to say. Collectivism is the superset of socialism, communism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, things of that nature. The main point of all of these 'isms' is that the collective has precedence over the individual and his or her rights. Well, not in my book. AFAIC involuntary collectivism of any kind is oppression to be fought against, I don't care about the flag colour and slogans and political motivations. They are all the same anti individual rights, pro strong government and thus anti human, all to be acted against.
Full employment economy, ha? Well, if you count holding multiple minimum wage jobs for some, while not actually counting others, who gave up looking for jobs as unemployed, then sure, it is a 'full employment' economy.
Slavery is repugnant, individual freedom is virtuous.
are you OK with them starving to death to avoid "stealing" from the skilled?
- yes. I am completely OK even with extermination of the entire species if the alternative is slavery via collectivist oppression. However I do not think that extermination or any sort of destruction is necessary in a society where individual freedoms are protected from the collective because in the absence of individual oppression by the collective the system will balance itself, the people who are in need will solve their own problems by coming up with solutions (and in order for the solutions to be viable they cannot rely on any form of violence, violent solutions are a temporary fix if they are any fix at all, thus any form of a violent 'fix' will end up further unbalancing the system, ensuring more violence and more unbalancing until it rebalances itself probably also in violent manner).
Oh, and you're also assuming that supporting a decent standard of living for the unskilled is morally wrong.
- no, I am asserting that violence and oppression are morally wrong.
Redistributing wealth creates more freedom
- war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. etc.etc.
what cashiers? In a robotic door to door delivery society there will be human cashiers???
Maybe you shouldn't be on this site, you know, it being 'for nerds', some of who are actually fairly technical people that look forward towards innovation just like this one.
Less traffic, less congestion, no wasting time on shopping, personal buttler service for the 99% that will save us a portion of our lives in more ways than one. How many accidents happen on the roads just because of shopping?
AFAIC meddling is immoral and unethical even if 'morals' and 'ethics' are used to attempt to justify it. The only moral thing on this planet is not to oppress others, not to use force and brutality of any kind to make people do what you want them to do. Make something people want/need and trade it with them on a voluntary basis, do not force your desires upon them with collectivist force and weapons, that would be moral. The so called 'morality' and 'ethics' of collectivism are no such thing at all, they are necessarily immoral and unethical. They are mistaken for morality and ethics but immediately lose that label at any form of closer examination. What is their go to move? Violent enforcement and oppression by the collective. That's not moral or ethical by any standard.
Brutal repression will happen if the people in questions start acting up in ways that commands brutal repression of-course. The collectivism acts both ways, it acts to promote the majority's agenda of taking from those who can and distributing to those who cannot. It also can act by brutally oppressing those who act up, you see? It doesn't even matter who acts up, those who have or those who have not. Either type will be oppressed by collectivism one way or another, which is why collectivism is such an affront to individual liberties.
My personal opinion on this of-course is that the collective, the mob, any vast majority of people do not have the entitlement to steal from any minority who have the resources, but they will anyway because 'might makes right'. In the past 'might makes right' worked in a particular way, because 'might' and 'majority' of people was nearly a synonym. In the future 'might' may become synonym with 'automation' and 'robotics' and I do not see the difference between a majority oppressing a minority and a minority oppressing the majority. Two wrongs don't make a right, but given ability and opportunity nobody is going to allow themselves to be abused without a fight, and you know what? Root for the winning side. At least in the future the winning side may finally also be the moral side.
The machines are expensive while they are a novelty, but in our times a machine does not have to stay a novelty for long. Not carrying the bags of produce? How about boxes of produce?
"Enforce" being the key word there of-course. Obviously you believe that the 'benefit of all' can be achieved by enforcement, by taking the individual rights away and by putting the collective above the individual. I disagree that the collective has any precedence over an individual.
One single person being oppressed at the behest of some collectivist 'good' is the death of all individuals. Without individuals having rights not to be oppressed by the collective the individuals have the moral responsibility to completely deny the collective and to destroy it.
Of-course this goes directly against one of my previous post where I explained what systems are and what laws guide systems, however there is no contradiction here. The systems want to survive and they are much better at surviving by fighting individuals than individuals are at fighting the systems to protect their own rights against those systems, so it seems to be a fools errand at first glance.
However I did state there as well that if the fundamentals that the systems are basing themselves on are flawed, then by pushing forward based on the flawed fundamentals, the systems will eventually self destruct and AFAIC the fundamentals here are flawed.
It is Individuals who have rights, collectives do not. Collectives have entitlements that the individuals grant them, individuals have the rights not to be oppressed by the collectives, I mentioned it here many times and I will repeat it again. Individual rights are the protections against the collective oppression, collectivist 'rights' are entitlements that require destruction of individual rights. There is no way around this and thus the fundamental ideology of collectivism will always be long term wrong in a number of ways, morally, economically, societally. Destruction of collectivist societies who place themselves above the rights of the individuals is imminent and inevitable.
Razer Wants To Build the Best Linux Laptop, And It Needs Your Help
- if that is the case (and have been around long enough not to bother not only with TFA but even with TFS) then I can tell you they already screwed up.
A company seeking for a direction from suggestions of their customers before having anything they can show as a product in the first place... what is it, have they prematurely gotten rid of a director or something? A company has to have direction, customer suggestions are great an all, but they cannot be the thing that gives your company its purpose, you have to have a reason to do what you do in the first place.
I want a 19" 1920x1200 screen, 10TB of M.2 SSD storage, 2 quad core CPUs and 256GB of RAM in my laptop. I want it all for no more than 1200USD.
Thanks.
His name used to be Oughttobeenough but after the 640K ought to be enough for anybody (a quote that may never have even been said) he decided that name was not good enough, thus....
Yes, but unlike a unique number generated by some fancy algorithm and unlike pieces of paper that are printed at a whim *without* any actual backing, this is a real thing, it's valuable enough that it is recognized as money (was recognized as money in many cultures for thousands of years) and is much more likely to keep being valuable enough to be recognized as money (without any government telling people that it is money, it just is).
So I am perfectly happy for it to stay in a vault as long as I can be more or less certain in its security. I definitely cannot be certain about the security of the purchasing power or paper money and I don't even want to talk about the security of purchasing power of BitCoins (which may go to a trillion USD per BitCoin for all I care, it is not money because it has no intrinsic value).
Gold does have intrinsic value, it is a substance, substances have that value. It has certain properties that make it better money than other substances. It is a substantial item/object/quantity of weight and purity, so it is a real thing, unlike a unique number in a computer or a network.
I don't see a reason to give up my gold for other purposes (jewelry, electronics, health care, whatever), those are legitimate purposes and we mine 1.5% of total gold supply a year approximately anyway, a part of that covers those needs.
So that's my take on it. As to the precise knowledge at any moment in time whether the gold is in a vault in case of gold money (which I am not using yet, probably will at some point), they use Brinks as I understand and independent auditors as well. It's definitely more than the Federal reserve is doing.
Hmmm, so how is it going with that amazing reading comprehension of yours, must be tough out there?
I give you.... Gold Money. There you go, no need to move gold out of vault and to 'recertify it' to transact in it.