Yeah, and face massive amounts of piracy as people filled up their music devices. The point is, if Apple not pursued record companies and settled with DRM'd music, the record companies would be the ones to suffer, not Apple.
While I agree with what you are saying about Microsoft, the idea that Apple was "forced" to include DRM was laughable. If Apple refused to include DRM-ed songs in iTunes what would the record companies do? Few people care what record companies record their artists so they aren't going to be going to 20 different sites to download music, there were no real competitors to iTunes at that time so either they would abide by the iTunes policies or have their music be pirated left and right.
I think Microsoft and the rest of the software companies have realized that patent-trolls do more harm than good. The thing Microsoft wants isn't profit anymore, they have enough of that but rather influence, because influence will help them with support contracts, where they can make the easy money. All Microsoft really has to do is keep Windows how it is to make there be little to no learning curve and they've won the OS market. Apple still shows no sign of slowing down their overpriced hardware, yes, I know if you put everything that Apple puts in their machines you get essentially the same price, but most people don't have a desire to spend $1,000+ on a laptop that can do, for them, everything a $500 machine or cheaper can. Linux keeps getting more user friendly every day but it still isn't Windows and it still isn't pre-loaded on most machines by default (or when it is, its simply marketed as a free alternative to Windows lacking some features rather than a viable alternative OS).
If Microsoft can keep doing what they are doing, they can continue to rake in profits. Heck, the more patents they squash the easier developing is for them so they can keep more of the profits.
In all honesty, I don't think many corporations enjoy patenting everything, but with the way that the system is, if you don't have the patent you don't know who is going to try to sue you next...
...And how is that? Look, a ton of people are on Facebook and they are easy to find and people are on there often. Ok, sure, if you only communicate with a few people, yeah, e-mail and phone calls will work, but that doesn't always scale. For one, e-mails oftentimes fail for one reason or another (spam filters, people don't check e-mails often, it gets ignored, etc), even international texting rates are insanely expensive, if you want to talk to someone in another country, you can't just call them on the phone. Instant messengers are good to a point but then have the problem of having different accounts, for example Joe Smith might be SmithJoe@hotmail.com for his MSN, JoeDawggx11 for his AIM and have a ICQ number of 234234234234. So depending on your IM client of choice you will have a number of different usernames which can be a pain to keep track of. Plus, the chances of you convincing your friend they need to get MSN/AIM/ICQ to chat with you is pretty slim, or they will install it then promptly never log on again.
Lets face it, if you want to talk to someone, the best chances of you being able to do it is via Facebook if you can't meet face-to-face or you/them don't want to pay for calls/texts.
Yeah, both the major parties are willing to lie to get into office though, so it makes no difference. It makes no difference if republicans promise smaller government because they haven't delivered. It makes no difference if democrats promise to give more civil liberties, it hasn't happened.
Yeah, third parties will change their campaign strategies no doubt, but it won't change what the parties stand for which is going to the highest bidder.
Um, yeah. Past the age of like two your kid shouldn't be swallowing random stuff. You don't give science kits to two year olds, you give them to 7 or 8 year olds or perhaps 5 and 6 year olds with a lot of parental supervision.
If your kid won't listen to you about eating random crap and is about 4 or older, you've screwed up as a parent or there is something wrong with your kid.
But it shouldn't be part of the testing. By childrens toy I mean something that you give to two year olds, something like a pacifier or the like, not a toy intended for kids older than the "lets eat random crap" stage.
Here's a thought: teach your kids not to swallow magnets.
If your kid is too stupid not to eat two magnets, they shouldn't be given a science kit. Heck, you should probably just lock them in a padded room so they can't hurt themselves. Science kits aren't given to two year olds, if your kid who is 7 or 8 swallows magnets, either you've failed as a parent or your kid is pretty damn stupid.
If you don't like what is in science kits, don't buy them for your kid, and your kid will end up in a low paying job eating away at society's wealth by using welfare and the like.
But let us who can actually raise kids and don't want our kids to end up with dreams and aspirations beyond the local Burger King buy the kits for our kids.
Because where is the fun in that? See, chemistry sets are designed to encourage children to pursue science. If you are just doing it on the computer, why not just play a FPS on the computer? It doesn't teach kids to really explore or to think like a scientist.
The Consumer Product Safety commission should only be concerned about things that are really hazards when used correctly or things that are easily used incorrectly, for example, lead based paint on children's toys, yeah thats a real concern. The fact that some children -might- -possibly- use some materials in a science kit and get hurt is nearly non-existent.
The more we regulate science kits and lose children's natural curiosity in the world around us by essentially telling them that anyplace other than indoors watching TV and doing a bit of exercise on the treadmill is going to kill them, the more we can watch the US slip further and further into the dark ages...
I don't need to cite anything here. What you need to do is pay attention to history and notice how being poor on a farm was much different then being poor in the city.
That wasn't because of the fact that the dollar was tied to gold, that was simply because like all large technologies they were deployed in areas of high population density first, then spread out.
Really? Is that why every industrialized nation in the world has moved away from that? Is it some vast complicated conspiracy or something?
The reason why every industrialized nation has moved away from gold is because a fiat currency gives a ton of power to the government. Governments, by nature, want more power.
Governments dream of a system that lets them print whatever currency they want so they can fun unneeded wars and settle debt.
It wouldn't? Then how to you account for the US and European banks conspiring to manipulate the gold markets to their benefit in 1961? They in fact did do so and was able to get the Brenton woods system dismantled in 1968 largely because of it.
Bretton Woods failed because it was a poorly designed system, other countries realized that the dollar was being overprinted with nothing to back it up, so countries redeemed their dollars which were fast becoming worthless for gold which was stable, the fact that the US didn't have a 100% gold-backed currency was the reason it failed.
I understand it completely. What you don't understand is that historically, governments have set the value of currency against gold. The US has set the value of it's currency at $20 per ounce when it was on the gold system. It was later changed by law to $35 per ounce a few years before being remove completely. And your money only stays if you have it with you and not in a bank or investment somewhere. If you have a gold coin weighing 1/20th of an ounce worth $1, when they increase the currency value to $35 per ounce, that extra weight will only be there for the money you have in your possession. And then to realize that, you will have to break laws to melt it down.
Which is why silly nationalistic terms for weight are a bad thing. Rather than having Dollars, Pounds, Marks, etc. we should instead be trading in fixed weights such as an ounce or gram.
And the idea of monopolizing currency also fails when you do this, the government shouldn't be the only entity that can create money, if I have an ounce of gold just sitting around, I should be able to use it for currency. If we would switch to a sane method of using fixed units of weight to define money, it ends up making a lot more sense.
But all that is besides the point as if you expect the value of the dollar to remain at 1910 terms, then the value of your time will return also.
Which would make no difference. The prices of goods remain relatively constant to what people are making, excluding technological advancements. The advantage to gold is that my savings remain constant, my wages remain constant. When inflation makes the price of food rise $.25 for an average meal, my wages aren't going to go up to match that. My wages are "sticky", so because of inflation, I make less real money in the only term that matters: what that money can buy. With a gold standard, we aren't going to have inflation like that so that meal will stay proportional to my wages.
Bullshit, the banks conspired to inflate and deflate the value of gold in 1961. Don't sit there and tell me that something that is historically true is impossible to happen. But you see, the problem isn't that fiat currencies aren't stable, it's that you think a gold standard somehow is when it isn't. You are being blinded by much of what you do not understand and people attempting to either sell you something or push some political ideals onto you. A gold standard is not stable and it was moved
When society started moving away from self sustaining farm life and into industrialization with mass amounts of the population dependent on others for their survival, the old system needed to have it's corrections balanced out to alleviate the pain and suffering caused to those at the ends of the social classes by spikes in the monetary system. When deflation occurred, it usually corrected itself before the working classes could take advantage of it leaving them out of the increased value loop often leaving them unemployed. When inflation occurred, it caused employees to be underpaid and they couldn't afford to live. What this ended up with is a system where the poor was actually living day by day and could easily die due to swings in the monetary system.
[Citation Needed]
Given a sane monetary policy (hard-money standard, 100% reserve standard, etc) monetary spikes are nearly impossible to cause harm, if they even occur. The reason why banks failed in the great depression is because they were using fractional-reserve banking, which, in essence is writing bad checks. When you put money in a bank in a savings account, you have the right to take it out whenever, just like when you are handed a check, you can cash it whenever. Only the banks didn't expect that people would ever cash their checks, or cash them all at once. Fractional reserve banking is simply fraud and needs to be outlawed.
When we switched to a fiat currency, those swings were much more stable and a lot less intense for the extreme ends of the social class ladders.
Right, because now the poor get screwed because of "sticky wages", that wages don't keep up with inflation, where the middle class and non-governmental rich get screwed because their savings become worthless. It doesn't mean crap if I have $100,000 in the bank if I started with $1 when now its $500,000 to get a candy bar. You can't look at things with the dollar amount and say "oh, I just gained money" because in reality you lost wealth, you lost purchasing power. That is what fiat currency does, it makes people lose purchasing power when they save.
The only people who really gain are the government because they know when debasement of currency is taking place and can get faster wage increases.
Now back to your savings point, taking money out of the system which is what burying it in your back yard would do, is about as bad as burning the money/gold/silver/whatever because it does cause changes in the valuation of the dollar. The rich could simply control the economy by withholding their money from it causing wild swings in the valuation of the dollar. Take someone like John D Rockefeller, he became the richest man in the world in 1911 with the break up of standard oil, if he removed all that money from society and tossed it into a pit somewhere never to be found again, what would have happened to the value of the dollar not only here, but around the world? It would have suffered from severe deflation. If after society adjusted to the change, he could dump it back in causing massive inflation. This mean that political powers were beholden to the wealthy for mere stability of the economy.
But it wouldn't happen because society wouldn't count that money as being "destroyed". If he -did- however burn a lot of fiat currency, it would be a very good thing for everyone else because their money would be worth even more.
What you don't seem to understand is that with fiat currency you are essentially allowing the government to determine the value of money. And right now it is in the government's best interest to print a shit-load of money because we are massively in debt. The government is not your friend, it is your enemy. There is no such thing as "good government", especially not when it comes to money because the government wants as much money as possible from every single source possible.
Ok, first off, our dollar is not based off of any economic indicator, the only thing backing it up is that the US has nuclear weapons and a strong army, that is it.
Next, the payment in Ramon noodles, you would only need a truck load to accept payment if you were conflating today's economic realities with the imagined one. If ramen noodles were the source of payment, their supply structure and distribution would be completely different then they are now and you would use considerably less. Just because they are 10 for $1.00 today doesn't mean they would be if they were a form of currency. Look at closed systems like prisons where cheap food or cheap cigarettes have become forms of currency, they are only worth something because of their artificial scarcity and the want or need of the people involved.
Yes they would, you don't seem to understand that a dollar is meaningless. What matters is scarcity, the raw materials used to make ramen noodles are abundant which is why they are so cheap. Making ramen noodles as currency would not change that value (it would probably decrease in value as more people made them).
You make the mistake of thinking that economies are closed systems, they aren't. Money needs to have intrinsic value to keep its value, the idea of "counterfeiting" money (excluding of course banknotes or checks) that have intrinsic value doesn't exist because it is the value of the item itself that gives it value. A gold coin isn't worth a lot of money because it is stamped in a certain way (disregarding collector value for a moment) but rather because it is made out of gold. True money is a commodity with intrinsic value, stamping weights and measurements on it is a way to make the exchange easier.
You have to keep in mind that the US doesn't have a true Fiat Currency. It's backed by the wealth of the nation in various ways.
No, no it isn't. Tell me what is stopping Obama and congress from creating an extra $10,000,000,000 out of thin air? There is nothing stopping them from doing that. The idea that our currency is backed up by anything is laughable because there are no restrictions on currency creation. It doesn't matter if the country is poor or rich, they can create any amount of currency they like because it isn't backed up by anything.
Simple because a dollar doesn't buy the same as a dollar in 1910 did, doesn't mean that your time and skills aren't gaining the same figurative amounts.
Except for the fact it gives an unfair advantage to those at the top and screws the people on the bottom. Wages don't increase very often based on inflation. We might have increases in the minimum wage twice a decade to help with inflation but they still are in essence working for less while those higher up have more flexible wage increases giving them more wealth. Think about it, when was the last time you got an increase on pay due to inflation? My guess is either rarely or never. You can get an increase in pay for gaining more education, for working with the same company longer but there are rarely wage increases due to inflation.
Anyways, if we were to adjust your rate of pay today to the same standards, you wouldn't be making 100k a year, you would be making $1k a year. Your lowly $10.00 an hour job would be something more like one cent per hour going from the 1/100th scale and more like 1.6 cents per hour converting the $1200 per ounce to one dollar. It's not like you would be making the same as today with the benefits of gold as you put it. You are only making 100k today because the value of the dollar dropped compared to gold in the past.
Yes, but that once cent would be worth a lot more and it would keep its value for longer. That one cent that today doesn't buy anything, might buy you a small meal with a revaluation of the dollar, and because gold is stable in relation to its purchasing power, that one cent would buy you the sam
The BlackBerry is a pain to develop for, especially compared to Android where you can essentially drag and drop your way to a functional program.
I really don't see this BlackBerry tablet going anywhere, there are two types of BlackBerry users, there are the users who use a BlackBerry because they either like the price (a BlackBerry is pretty much the cheapest smartphone on contract, especially before Android came out) or like the form factor (which can be imitated) and then there are the corporate people who like it because their corporation requires them to use it for their job.
I don't know anyone who actually -likes- the BlackBerry OS or the lack of apps. But it seems like RIM is alienating both people with the tablet. It is going to be a very-restricted "app store" which will mean nothing interesting is in it for the first crowd and is rather redundant for the second crowd (especially if you already have support contracts for something like a laptop).
Does anyone -want- a BlackBerry tablet with a more restricted amount of apps than even the iPad? If the thing was cheap, like $200 or less, yeah, people would want it. But if its more expensive than $300, I can get a laptop for that price and barring any requirements that you use a touch screen, I can run everything off of a cheap notebook that I could on a tablet, and could actually get work done without buying expensive, specialized accessories and extra software.
But the thing is, there are a -ton- of people who have BlackBerries who simply wanted a cheap phone or liked the form factor. If RIM alienates the people who might otherwise buy their products, they have a losing situation. Its silly to run a business with a mentality that out of 100% of your customers, if you alienate 25% of them, it is a good thing. If RIM's real customers were simply just corporate drones, then why would they market them to individuals through advertising? Until Android, the real strength of BlackBerries were that they were cheap, reliable and standardized.
If RIM only wants to appeal to the corporate drones, they will lose marketshare quickly once employees start complaining about having to use a BlackBerry rather than "that cool new -insert newest Android device here-".
Other than appealing to corporate drones, RIM -has- no strength. While their browsers have improved, they offer no strength in web browsing to Android or iOS, while they have a touch screen phone, its OS isn't very intuitive when compared to Android/iOS which were created for touch screens, just about any smartphone now has e-mail, etc.
If RIM doesn't restrict app sales, they stand to gain because people forced to use a BlackBerry have access to games and "fun" apps on their phones like iOS/Android users have, and also the boring corporate stuff. However, if they alienate their users, they have nothing to gain.
But the thing is, I know what my lunch is going to be. If I get a Caesar Salad, it is going to be a Caesar Salad, I'm not going to buy a Caesar Salad and it ends up being a bowl of ramen noodles. But that risk is still there when it comes to an app. I'm a type of person who buys things in order to enjoy them in the future, I hate getting ripped off, I'm not going to buy something unless I know I can get good use out of it, with a lot of applications, you simply don't know what you are going to get. Yes, there is a 24 hour return period, but many times that doesn't give you the chance to evaluate it plus its updates. If that $.99 program is going to be rendered useless on my phone a week from now, I'm not going to buy it but I don't know if it will be or not.
The thing is though, hardware is certain (well, unless you have a PS3, then Sony disables half the features), I know what my phone can do when I buy it and its been reviewed thoroughly. On the other hand, I have no guarantee that that app will even run decently. And 24 hours isn't really enough to fully review most applications, what happens if an update breaks it? What happens if the game is only like 10 levels? Etc. all those things leave you a feeling of being ripped off, even if it was just for a small amount of money.
Plus, software isn't forever, my phone I can theoretically use for a decade, that app may not run on newer hardware, etc.
Exactly. There are a -lot- of ways to fund development, making an application, overpricing it, failing to maintain it, etc. will end in failure. If your software fills a needed niche, people will pay for it if you aren't a dick about it, but most software doesn't fill a needed niche. For example, I have no problems downloading the full versions of things like an NES emulator because the free version A) Wasn't very crippled (no save state support, I can live with that) B) Didn't have obnoxious ads that blocked the gameplay C) Did its jobs well and D) Didn't have crippling updates (like Shazam has). On the other hand, something like Shazam was nice, then they reduced the number of playbacks to 7, then they reduced it to 5, so I removed it and encouraged all my friends to do the same. Yeah, Shazam is cool, but they were dicks, I'm not going to buy the full version of software that treats me like crap.
Google along with the developers need to make incentives for purchasing "legitimate" copies of Android software. For one, it doesn't have a great "gift card" mechanism, yes, you can register a gift card as a Google Checkout card and it does work, but it isn't as seamless as buying an iTunes giftcard, typing in the number and seeing your balance at all times. Secondly, there are a crapload of Android apps that are overpriced, you can't expect someone to pay for essentially a tech demo or utility. Markets like the Android market give people a large ego into thinking that people -should- pay $.99 for a few images and sounds it took you a few hours to find on Google then make a quick program to organize them. And number three, a lot of apps simply don't work. Unless there is a free version equivalent to all the features of the paid version, no one wants to spend even $.99 on something that doesn't work then deal with the hassle of returning the application.
...Except for the fact that encryption software is often times classified as "military" technology, making the distribution of most software impossible.
It is silly that Sony and the US government through copyright laws, seems to think that Sony should own our consoles that we paid for, and quite honestly it sets a disturbing precedent against property rights. If Sony wants to try to block people from accessing PSN for this, if Sony wants to make firmware updates to prevent this it should be well within their rights, but don't tell me what I can and can't do with -my- console. The idea that I don't own the hardware that I bought and should be able to run whatever on it is quite scary. Property rights need to be balanced to have a free economy, Sony should own their services and I should own my own console.
The next thing you know, people are going to sue for removing the OEM copy of Windows off of your new computer...
Yes, but the economy will adjust itself. Whenever there is more gold found society gains actual -wealth- when the government prints more money people lose wealth. And a scenario like yours, while possible is incredibly improbable, if you look at gold prices (in official British records) from 1257 onwards there never has been any massive inflation of gold. The thing is, gold is pretty rare, it has been mined since the dawn of humanity and its universally accepted as rare. I would put my faith in the fact that gold is rare much more than I would put my faith in the government not to mass produce worthless paper.
Yes, one could make an argument that fiat currency will reestablish itself after massive inflation, but when it comes down to it, fiat currency is near worthless when it comes to the sole purpose of money which is to store wealth. I need a way to change intangible things into tangible things. My time and skills are intangible, I need a way to transfer them into something that I can keep. Food goes bad and is bulky, I don't want to get paid in food because it is hard to store. Imagine getting paid in Ramen noodles, you'd pick up your paycheck which would be a car/truckload of noodles. So humanity needed to find a better way, different cultures used different things, for example the ancient Chinese used "knife money", others used rare shells or items of great craftsmanship but still others used gold/silver. The thing that all these things had in common is they could not be produced infinitely. It took time to make an item of great skill, it took resources to make knife money, etc. The fact is, is that barring major technical advancements all of them had set limits and could not be produced infinitely.
There is nothing magical about gold/silver that makes it be the only thing currency can be backed in, but it makes the most sense, both have high weight-value ratio when compared to other materials, both have a known rarity (unlike some items like Palladium)and they are resistant to corroding.
what is happening with Fiat Currency is that political systems are in more control over the value of the dollar. Sometimes there are things outside their control but instead of limiting the production of gold and silver to cause corrections, you can much easier manipulate interest rates and taxes. so with a fiat monetary system, there is actually more precise control over the value of the currency if no one manipulates it to their benefit which seems to be the biggest problem facing governments today.
That is the problem with fiat currency, you depend on someone else who does not work in your best interests to determine your value. With gold, they can debase all new coins, but if you kept on holding the older coins, you still had that value in gold no matter what the face said. All historical fiat currencies have ended in hyperinflation, the oldest one that has not is the US dollar and it will be heading that way. The government would -love- hyperinflation, they could pay the debt they owe to other countries simply by printing more money because the debt is based in US dollars which is essentially meaningless. The problem is, we think the US is immune to the laws of economics, but we aren't. Look at Mexico just a few years ago, look at Zimbabwe now, look at Post-WWI Germany, etc. fiat currencies end in hyperinflation because the temptation is there to simply print more money.
With fiat currency, why should I save? Chances are, if I put $20 in a bank and got that $20 + interest back, I wouldn't have gained any money, I might have gained currency but when it comes to purchasing power I wouldn't have gained anything and most likely lost a few cents in buying power. If I have any fiat currency I shouldn't save it, I should spend it on tangible goods before the purchasing power gets reduced, that is exactly what we have today.
Fiat currencies create unsustainable booms, by increasing the amount of currency out there which ends up busting quite q
Facebook is for catching up on your personal life, things like, "Hey, want to meet for coffee" or "Here are some pictures I took at the zoo", a blog is for "Anyone want to read my 10 page rant on DRM?" or "Here are my political views", Twitter is like micro-stalking, things like "I'm buying butter and milk at the supermarket" and "I'd like Taco Bell for lunch".
Both Facebook and Blogs have their places, but they don't fulfill the same purpose.
Ah yes, so I'm a troll now for pointing out obvious flaws in our Government's fake money. Enjoy your hyperinflation moderator when everything you don't own in your hand becomes worthless. That savings account doesn't mean crap when it takes $50 to buy a candy bar now...
Slashdot Mirror
Which would end up in causing massive piracy as people having music players of higher storage space can put more and more songs on them.
Yeah, and face massive amounts of piracy as people filled up their music devices. The point is, if Apple not pursued record companies and settled with DRM'd music, the record companies would be the ones to suffer, not Apple.
While I agree with what you are saying about Microsoft, the idea that Apple was "forced" to include DRM was laughable. If Apple refused to include DRM-ed songs in iTunes what would the record companies do? Few people care what record companies record their artists so they aren't going to be going to 20 different sites to download music, there were no real competitors to iTunes at that time so either they would abide by the iTunes policies or have their music be pirated left and right.
I think Microsoft and the rest of the software companies have realized that patent-trolls do more harm than good. The thing Microsoft wants isn't profit anymore, they have enough of that but rather influence, because influence will help them with support contracts, where they can make the easy money. All Microsoft really has to do is keep Windows how it is to make there be little to no learning curve and they've won the OS market. Apple still shows no sign of slowing down their overpriced hardware, yes, I know if you put everything that Apple puts in their machines you get essentially the same price, but most people don't have a desire to spend $1,000+ on a laptop that can do, for them, everything a $500 machine or cheaper can. Linux keeps getting more user friendly every day but it still isn't Windows and it still isn't pre-loaded on most machines by default (or when it is, its simply marketed as a free alternative to Windows lacking some features rather than a viable alternative OS).
If Microsoft can keep doing what they are doing, they can continue to rake in profits. Heck, the more patents they squash the easier developing is for them so they can keep more of the profits.
In all honesty, I don't think many corporations enjoy patenting everything, but with the way that the system is, if you don't have the patent you don't know who is going to try to sue you next...
...And how is that? Look, a ton of people are on Facebook and they are easy to find and people are on there often. Ok, sure, if you only communicate with a few people, yeah, e-mail and phone calls will work, but that doesn't always scale. For one, e-mails oftentimes fail for one reason or another (spam filters, people don't check e-mails often, it gets ignored, etc), even international texting rates are insanely expensive, if you want to talk to someone in another country, you can't just call them on the phone. Instant messengers are good to a point but then have the problem of having different accounts, for example Joe Smith might be SmithJoe@hotmail.com for his MSN, JoeDawggx11 for his AIM and have a ICQ number of 234234234234. So depending on your IM client of choice you will have a number of different usernames which can be a pain to keep track of. Plus, the chances of you convincing your friend they need to get MSN/AIM/ICQ to chat with you is pretty slim, or they will install it then promptly never log on again.
Lets face it, if you want to talk to someone, the best chances of you being able to do it is via Facebook if you can't meet face-to-face or you/them don't want to pay for calls/texts.
Yeah, both the major parties are willing to lie to get into office though, so it makes no difference. It makes no difference if republicans promise smaller government because they haven't delivered. It makes no difference if democrats promise to give more civil liberties, it hasn't happened.
Yeah, third parties will change their campaign strategies no doubt, but it won't change what the parties stand for which is going to the highest bidder.
Um, yeah. Past the age of like two your kid shouldn't be swallowing random stuff. You don't give science kits to two year olds, you give them to 7 or 8 year olds or perhaps 5 and 6 year olds with a lot of parental supervision.
If your kid won't listen to you about eating random crap and is about 4 or older, you've screwed up as a parent or there is something wrong with your kid.
But it shouldn't be part of the testing. By childrens toy I mean something that you give to two year olds, something like a pacifier or the like, not a toy intended for kids older than the "lets eat random crap" stage.
Here's a thought: teach your kids not to swallow magnets.
If your kid is too stupid not to eat two magnets, they shouldn't be given a science kit. Heck, you should probably just lock them in a padded room so they can't hurt themselves. Science kits aren't given to two year olds, if your kid who is 7 or 8 swallows magnets, either you've failed as a parent or your kid is pretty damn stupid.
If you don't like what is in science kits, don't buy them for your kid, and your kid will end up in a low paying job eating away at society's wealth by using welfare and the like.
But let us who can actually raise kids and don't want our kids to end up with dreams and aspirations beyond the local Burger King buy the kits for our kids.
Because where is the fun in that? See, chemistry sets are designed to encourage children to pursue science. If you are just doing it on the computer, why not just play a FPS on the computer? It doesn't teach kids to really explore or to think like a scientist.
The Consumer Product Safety commission should only be concerned about things that are really hazards when used correctly or things that are easily used incorrectly, for example, lead based paint on children's toys, yeah thats a real concern. The fact that some children -might- -possibly- use some materials in a science kit and get hurt is nearly non-existent.
The more we regulate science kits and lose children's natural curiosity in the world around us by essentially telling them that anyplace other than indoors watching TV and doing a bit of exercise on the treadmill is going to kill them, the more we can watch the US slip further and further into the dark ages...
I don't need to cite anything here. What you need to do is pay attention to history and notice how being poor on a farm was much different then being poor in the city.
That wasn't because of the fact that the dollar was tied to gold, that was simply because like all large technologies they were deployed in areas of high population density first, then spread out.
Really? Is that why every industrialized nation in the world has moved away from that? Is it some vast complicated conspiracy or something?
The reason why every industrialized nation has moved away from gold is because a fiat currency gives a ton of power to the government. Governments, by nature, want more power.
Governments dream of a system that lets them print whatever currency they want so they can fun unneeded wars and settle debt.
It wouldn't? Then how to you account for the US and European banks conspiring to manipulate the gold markets to their benefit in 1961? They in fact did do so and was able to get the Brenton woods system dismantled in 1968 largely because of it.
Bretton Woods failed because it was a poorly designed system, other countries realized that the dollar was being overprinted with nothing to back it up, so countries redeemed their dollars which were fast becoming worthless for gold which was stable, the fact that the US didn't have a 100% gold-backed currency was the reason it failed.
I understand it completely. What you don't understand is that historically, governments have set the value of currency against gold. The US has set the value of it's currency at $20 per ounce when it was on the gold system. It was later changed by law to $35 per ounce a few years before being remove completely. And your money only stays if you have it with you and not in a bank or investment somewhere. If you have a gold coin weighing 1/20th of an ounce worth $1, when they increase the currency value to $35 per ounce, that extra weight will only be there for the money you have in your possession. And then to realize that, you will have to break laws to melt it down.
Which is why silly nationalistic terms for weight are a bad thing. Rather than having Dollars, Pounds, Marks, etc. we should instead be trading in fixed weights such as an ounce or gram.
And the idea of monopolizing currency also fails when you do this, the government shouldn't be the only entity that can create money, if I have an ounce of gold just sitting around, I should be able to use it for currency. If we would switch to a sane method of using fixed units of weight to define money, it ends up making a lot more sense.
But all that is besides the point as if you expect the value of the dollar to remain at 1910 terms, then the value of your time will return also.
Which would make no difference. The prices of goods remain relatively constant to what people are making, excluding technological advancements. The advantage to gold is that my savings remain constant, my wages remain constant. When inflation makes the price of food rise $.25 for an average meal, my wages aren't going to go up to match that. My wages are "sticky", so because of inflation, I make less real money in the only term that matters: what that money can buy. With a gold standard, we aren't going to have inflation like that so that meal will stay proportional to my wages.
Bullshit, the banks conspired to inflate and deflate the value of gold in 1961. Don't sit there and tell me that something that is historically true is impossible to happen. But you see, the problem isn't that fiat currencies aren't stable, it's that you think a gold standard somehow is when it isn't. You are being blinded by much of what you do not understand and people attempting to either sell you something or push some political ideals onto you. A gold standard is not stable and it was moved
When society started moving away from self sustaining farm life and into industrialization with mass amounts of the population dependent on others for their survival, the old system needed to have it's corrections balanced out to alleviate the pain and suffering caused to those at the ends of the social classes by spikes in the monetary system. When deflation occurred, it usually corrected itself before the working classes could take advantage of it leaving them out of the increased value loop often leaving them unemployed. When inflation occurred, it caused employees to be underpaid and they couldn't afford to live. What this ended up with is a system where the poor was actually living day by day and could easily die due to swings in the monetary system.
[Citation Needed]
Given a sane monetary policy (hard-money standard, 100% reserve standard, etc) monetary spikes are nearly impossible to cause harm, if they even occur. The reason why banks failed in the great depression is because they were using fractional-reserve banking, which, in essence is writing bad checks. When you put money in a bank in a savings account, you have the right to take it out whenever, just like when you are handed a check, you can cash it whenever. Only the banks didn't expect that people would ever cash their checks, or cash them all at once. Fractional reserve banking is simply fraud and needs to be outlawed.
When we switched to a fiat currency, those swings were much more stable and a lot less intense for the extreme ends of the social class ladders.
Right, because now the poor get screwed because of "sticky wages", that wages don't keep up with inflation, where the middle class and non-governmental rich get screwed because their savings become worthless. It doesn't mean crap if I have $100,000 in the bank if I started with $1 when now its $500,000 to get a candy bar. You can't look at things with the dollar amount and say "oh, I just gained money" because in reality you lost wealth, you lost purchasing power. That is what fiat currency does, it makes people lose purchasing power when they save.
The only people who really gain are the government because they know when debasement of currency is taking place and can get faster wage increases.
Now back to your savings point, taking money out of the system which is what burying it in your back yard would do, is about as bad as burning the money/gold/silver/whatever because it does cause changes in the valuation of the dollar. The rich could simply control the economy by withholding their money from it causing wild swings in the valuation of the dollar. Take someone like John D Rockefeller, he became the richest man in the world in 1911 with the break up of standard oil, if he removed all that money from society and tossed it into a pit somewhere never to be found again, what would have happened to the value of the dollar not only here, but around the world? It would have suffered from severe deflation. If after society adjusted to the change, he could dump it back in causing massive inflation. This mean that political powers were beholden to the wealthy for mere stability of the economy.
But it wouldn't happen because society wouldn't count that money as being "destroyed". If he -did- however burn a lot of fiat currency, it would be a very good thing for everyone else because their money would be worth even more.
What you don't seem to understand is that with fiat currency you are essentially allowing the government to determine the value of money. And right now it is in the government's best interest to print a shit-load of money because we are massively in debt. The government is not your friend, it is your enemy. There is no such thing as "good government", especially not when it comes to money because the government wants as much money as possible from every single source possible.
But I don't see
Next, the payment in Ramon noodles, you would only need a truck load to accept payment if you were conflating today's economic realities with the imagined one. If ramen noodles were the source of payment, their supply structure and distribution would be completely different then they are now and you would use considerably less. Just because they are 10 for $1.00 today doesn't mean they would be if they were a form of currency. Look at closed systems like prisons where cheap food or cheap cigarettes have become forms of currency, they are only worth something because of their artificial scarcity and the want or need of the people involved.
Yes they would, you don't seem to understand that a dollar is meaningless. What matters is scarcity, the raw materials used to make ramen noodles are abundant which is why they are so cheap. Making ramen noodles as currency would not change that value (it would probably decrease in value as more people made them).
You make the mistake of thinking that economies are closed systems, they aren't. Money needs to have intrinsic value to keep its value, the idea of "counterfeiting" money (excluding of course banknotes or checks) that have intrinsic value doesn't exist because it is the value of the item itself that gives it value. A gold coin isn't worth a lot of money because it is stamped in a certain way (disregarding collector value for a moment) but rather because it is made out of gold. True money is a commodity with intrinsic value, stamping weights and measurements on it is a way to make the exchange easier.
You have to keep in mind that the US doesn't have a true Fiat Currency. It's backed by the wealth of the nation in various ways.
No, no it isn't. Tell me what is stopping Obama and congress from creating an extra $10,000,000,000 out of thin air? There is nothing stopping them from doing that. The idea that our currency is backed up by anything is laughable because there are no restrictions on currency creation. It doesn't matter if the country is poor or rich, they can create any amount of currency they like because it isn't backed up by anything.
Simple because a dollar doesn't buy the same as a dollar in 1910 did, doesn't mean that your time and skills aren't gaining the same figurative amounts.
Except for the fact it gives an unfair advantage to those at the top and screws the people on the bottom. Wages don't increase very often based on inflation. We might have increases in the minimum wage twice a decade to help with inflation but they still are in essence working for less while those higher up have more flexible wage increases giving them more wealth. Think about it, when was the last time you got an increase on pay due to inflation? My guess is either rarely or never. You can get an increase in pay for gaining more education, for working with the same company longer but there are rarely wage increases due to inflation.
Anyways, if we were to adjust your rate of pay today to the same standards, you wouldn't be making 100k a year, you would be making $1k a year. Your lowly $10.00 an hour job would be something more like one cent per hour going from the 1/100th scale and more like 1.6 cents per hour converting the $1200 per ounce to one dollar. It's not like you would be making the same as today with the benefits of gold as you put it. You are only making 100k today because the value of the dollar dropped compared to gold in the past.
Yes, but that once cent would be worth a lot more and it would keep its value for longer. That one cent that today doesn't buy anything, might buy you a small meal with a revaluation of the dollar, and because gold is stable in relation to its purchasing power, that one cent would buy you the sam
The BlackBerry is a pain to develop for, especially compared to Android where you can essentially drag and drop your way to a functional program.
I really don't see this BlackBerry tablet going anywhere, there are two types of BlackBerry users, there are the users who use a BlackBerry because they either like the price (a BlackBerry is pretty much the cheapest smartphone on contract, especially before Android came out) or like the form factor (which can be imitated) and then there are the corporate people who like it because their corporation requires them to use it for their job.
I don't know anyone who actually -likes- the BlackBerry OS or the lack of apps. But it seems like RIM is alienating both people with the tablet. It is going to be a very-restricted "app store" which will mean nothing interesting is in it for the first crowd and is rather redundant for the second crowd (especially if you already have support contracts for something like a laptop).
Does anyone -want- a BlackBerry tablet with a more restricted amount of apps than even the iPad? If the thing was cheap, like $200 or less, yeah, people would want it. But if its more expensive than $300, I can get a laptop for that price and barring any requirements that you use a touch screen, I can run everything off of a cheap notebook that I could on a tablet, and could actually get work done without buying expensive, specialized accessories and extra software.
But the thing is, there are a -ton- of people who have BlackBerries who simply wanted a cheap phone or liked the form factor. If RIM alienates the people who might otherwise buy their products, they have a losing situation. Its silly to run a business with a mentality that out of 100% of your customers, if you alienate 25% of them, it is a good thing. If RIM's real customers were simply just corporate drones, then why would they market them to individuals through advertising? Until Android, the real strength of BlackBerries were that they were cheap, reliable and standardized.
If RIM only wants to appeal to the corporate drones, they will lose marketshare quickly once employees start complaining about having to use a BlackBerry rather than "that cool new -insert newest Android device here-".
Other than appealing to corporate drones, RIM -has- no strength. While their browsers have improved, they offer no strength in web browsing to Android or iOS, while they have a touch screen phone, its OS isn't very intuitive when compared to Android/iOS which were created for touch screens, just about any smartphone now has e-mail, etc.
If RIM doesn't restrict app sales, they stand to gain because people forced to use a BlackBerry have access to games and "fun" apps on their phones like iOS/Android users have, and also the boring corporate stuff. However, if they alienate their users, they have nothing to gain.
But the thing is, I know what my lunch is going to be. If I get a Caesar Salad, it is going to be a Caesar Salad, I'm not going to buy a Caesar Salad and it ends up being a bowl of ramen noodles. But that risk is still there when it comes to an app. I'm a type of person who buys things in order to enjoy them in the future, I hate getting ripped off, I'm not going to buy something unless I know I can get good use out of it, with a lot of applications, you simply don't know what you are going to get. Yes, there is a 24 hour return period, but many times that doesn't give you the chance to evaluate it plus its updates. If that $.99 program is going to be rendered useless on my phone a week from now, I'm not going to buy it but I don't know if it will be or not.
The thing is though, hardware is certain (well, unless you have a PS3, then Sony disables half the features), I know what my phone can do when I buy it and its been reviewed thoroughly. On the other hand, I have no guarantee that that app will even run decently. And 24 hours isn't really enough to fully review most applications, what happens if an update breaks it? What happens if the game is only like 10 levels? Etc. all those things leave you a feeling of being ripped off, even if it was just for a small amount of money.
Plus, software isn't forever, my phone I can theoretically use for a decade, that app may not run on newer hardware, etc.
Exactly. There are a -lot- of ways to fund development, making an application, overpricing it, failing to maintain it, etc. will end in failure. If your software fills a needed niche, people will pay for it if you aren't a dick about it, but most software doesn't fill a needed niche. For example, I have no problems downloading the full versions of things like an NES emulator because the free version A) Wasn't very crippled (no save state support, I can live with that) B) Didn't have obnoxious ads that blocked the gameplay C) Did its jobs well and D) Didn't have crippling updates (like Shazam has). On the other hand, something like Shazam was nice, then they reduced the number of playbacks to 7, then they reduced it to 5, so I removed it and encouraged all my friends to do the same. Yeah, Shazam is cool, but they were dicks, I'm not going to buy the full version of software that treats me like crap.
Google along with the developers need to make incentives for purchasing "legitimate" copies of Android software. For one, it doesn't have a great "gift card" mechanism, yes, you can register a gift card as a Google Checkout card and it does work, but it isn't as seamless as buying an iTunes giftcard, typing in the number and seeing your balance at all times. Secondly, there are a crapload of Android apps that are overpriced, you can't expect someone to pay for essentially a tech demo or utility. Markets like the Android market give people a large ego into thinking that people -should- pay $.99 for a few images and sounds it took you a few hours to find on Google then make a quick program to organize them. And number three, a lot of apps simply don't work. Unless there is a free version equivalent to all the features of the paid version, no one wants to spend even $.99 on something that doesn't work then deal with the hassle of returning the application.
...Except for the fact that encryption software is often times classified as "military" technology, making the distribution of most software impossible.
It is silly that Sony and the US government through copyright laws, seems to think that Sony should own our consoles that we paid for, and quite honestly it sets a disturbing precedent against property rights. If Sony wants to try to block people from accessing PSN for this, if Sony wants to make firmware updates to prevent this it should be well within their rights, but don't tell me what I can and can't do with -my- console. The idea that I don't own the hardware that I bought and should be able to run whatever on it is quite scary. Property rights need to be balanced to have a free economy, Sony should own their services and I should own my own console.
The next thing you know, people are going to sue for removing the OEM copy of Windows off of your new computer...
Yes, one could make an argument that fiat currency will reestablish itself after massive inflation, but when it comes down to it, fiat currency is near worthless when it comes to the sole purpose of money which is to store wealth. I need a way to change intangible things into tangible things. My time and skills are intangible, I need a way to transfer them into something that I can keep. Food goes bad and is bulky, I don't want to get paid in food because it is hard to store. Imagine getting paid in Ramen noodles, you'd pick up your paycheck which would be a car/truckload of noodles. So humanity needed to find a better way, different cultures used different things, for example the ancient Chinese used "knife money", others used rare shells or items of great craftsmanship but still others used gold/silver. The thing that all these things had in common is they could not be produced infinitely. It took time to make an item of great skill, it took resources to make knife money, etc. The fact is, is that barring major technical advancements all of them had set limits and could not be produced infinitely.
There is nothing magical about gold/silver that makes it be the only thing currency can be backed in, but it makes the most sense, both have high weight-value ratio when compared to other materials, both have a known rarity (unlike some items like Palladium)and they are resistant to corroding.
what is happening with Fiat Currency is that political systems are in more control over the value of the dollar. Sometimes there are things outside their control but instead of limiting the production of gold and silver to cause corrections, you can much easier manipulate interest rates and taxes. so with a fiat monetary system, there is actually more precise control over the value of the currency if no one manipulates it to their benefit which seems to be the biggest problem facing governments today.
That is the problem with fiat currency, you depend on someone else who does not work in your best interests to determine your value. With gold, they can debase all new coins, but if you kept on holding the older coins, you still had that value in gold no matter what the face said. All historical fiat currencies have ended in hyperinflation, the oldest one that has not is the US dollar and it will be heading that way. The government would -love- hyperinflation, they could pay the debt they owe to other countries simply by printing more money because the debt is based in US dollars which is essentially meaningless. The problem is, we think the US is immune to the laws of economics, but we aren't. Look at Mexico just a few years ago, look at Zimbabwe now, look at Post-WWI Germany, etc. fiat currencies end in hyperinflation because the temptation is there to simply print more money.
With fiat currency, why should I save? Chances are, if I put $20 in a bank and got that $20 + interest back, I wouldn't have gained any money, I might have gained currency but when it comes to purchasing power I wouldn't have gained anything and most likely lost a few cents in buying power. If I have any fiat currency I shouldn't save it, I should spend it on tangible goods before the purchasing power gets reduced, that is exactly what we have today.
Fiat currencies create unsustainable booms, by increasing the amount of currency out there which ends up busting quite q
Hey, I'd rather have Flash than "Quick"Time.
Blog != Facebook != Twitter.
Facebook is for catching up on your personal life, things like, "Hey, want to meet for coffee" or "Here are some pictures I took at the zoo", a blog is for "Anyone want to read my 10 page rant on DRM?" or "Here are my political views", Twitter is like micro-stalking, things like "I'm buying butter and milk at the supermarket" and "I'd like Taco Bell for lunch".
Both Facebook and Blogs have their places, but they don't fulfill the same purpose.
Ah yes, so I'm a troll now for pointing out obvious flaws in our Government's fake money. Enjoy your hyperinflation moderator when everything you don't own in your hand becomes worthless. That savings account doesn't mean crap when it takes $50 to buy a candy bar now...