The only thing SMS authentication stuff is used for is for the bank/etc to send you an SMS with a code in it that you need to enter to login. How does someone else being send you a non-working code at a time you likely aren't trying to login to your bank/etc anyway possibly matter in the slightest?
Sure some people probably though they could trust the sender information on an SMS, and it not being might enable some shenanigans (sending X a rude/etc message that seems to be from Y), but I can't see how it damages two factor authentication via SMS.
And for those the fact that some address is already registered tells you exactly nothing since anyone could have done that. So that doesn't matter in the slightest.
Sure the great depression is slightly left of center to there are 71 years after and only 57 years before. Still enough to see that the slope is basically the same between the two. It certainly isn't negative before the great depression which would be required for the "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" scenario being claimed. And of course the gold standard existed until 1971 so most of the graph is under a gold standard - but a lot of that was "in name only".
If you are 70 and going to need to cash out you wouldn't be in the stock market - unless you are an idiot of course, in which case there are plenty of other ways you'll lose your money anyway so there's no need to try and stop that vector.
The only mark against it is the lack of individual freedoms, but if southern europe is fine then you won't mind them (and they in the scheme of things the US actively removing the alternative option anyway).
GDP was exponential when there was a gold standard and yet we didn't see "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" is the point of that chart. You haven't explained why your predictions didn't happen when humanity actually tried it out.
Though I agree in the sense that exponential economic growth is not sustainable, so obviously nothing (other than something else with will inevitably fail) is going to work if you must keep that.
Yeah storing lead (in the form of bullets would be best) would be far better than gold. If hyperinflation comes about then the price of lead goes up with gold, and if things get far worse to a mad max apocalypse you'll actually be able to use/sell them.
I know I wouldn't be trading my food for useless metal coins in that situation (not that I expect that to happen).
What property of gold gives it its value? The fact that it's a limited commodity? Does that mean any limited commodity would make a good currency?
Basically yes. There are a few other pretty obvious properties that high school economics/commerce would cover and no doubt wikipedia lists somewhere, but those can all be handled via "backing" rather than actual gold coins.
The value of all things is fungible. Why shouldn't currency also be so? Do you believe an economy based on gold would have prevented the worldwide economic collapse in 2007-08? How? The fact that gold is a relatively fixed supply does not mean it's value is any less arbitrary.
An economy based on the gold standard would have stopped the bailouts from happening, yes.
Whether you think that would have been a good thing or the end of the world is another matter of course.
It likely would also have prevented the bubble itself (rather than just avoiding the pop) since the cheap money wouldn't have been as easy to generate. Again whether that is a goo thing or a bad thing is another matter (and the view as to which probably correlates to the earlier view).
So set a nanogram of gold to be $1 trillion. Is there enough supply now? The current price of gold is completely irrelevant - it currently isn't backing currencies, obviously if it was its value would skyrocket to match the money supply.
And yes a gold standard would give you deflation if gold production was lower than economic growth. However jumping to "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" is ridiculous - the industrial revolution happened on the gold standard. Here's US GDP growth, I can't seem to seem se the amazing change in growth you seem to be claiming should have happened when the US transitioned from "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recision" gold standard to the current system.
Benefits won't pile up - they have a ten year limit and only apply to people who die while employed. That's very different than pension/health benefits that pay out for years after retirement (so you can't even get out of them by sacking your current workforce, since that triggers them for your current workforce).
They aren't a mining company or some other industry with above average worker death rates, they can just drop the benefits once their workers age enough that the payment probabilities get too high. I doubt (though could be wrong since I can't be bothered checking) that google's employees are unionized to any great extent.
Sure averaged out over everyone insurance better cost more than the benefits it delivers (or else your insurance company is going broke and not going to be able to pay you anyway). But for unlikely events that have huge financial impacts insurance can be perfectly rational.
Insuring my TV against being stolen/destroyed would be silly - it's cheap enough that I can just buy another one and I can live without it easily enough too. Insuring my car against being stolen/destroyed would also be silly - though possibly for someone with a low enough income who relies on their car for that income it might be worthwhile or someone with a ridiculously expensive car. Insuring my house against being stolen/destroyed (not sure how you steal house, but they do burn down) is reasonable - the probability is low but the impact is huge so spending a small amount on insurance is probably a good idea (though it will depend on how your wealth, your income, and the house replacement cost compare).
So typical life insurance is better than this deal? Or are you no-typical? $35k *0.5 * 10 = $175k which is less than the $250k you mention.
Large chunks of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, maybe even Canada (though I've never really looked) meet your criteria and are a tad more realistic than Mars. Of course living and working legally elsewhere isn't cheap or easy. And freeing yourself from the claws of the IRS is even less easy and cheap (you'll need to get citizenship elsewhere before you can ditch the US citizenship).
That it is worse than insurance is compeletely orthogonal to whether it is a generous benefit on google's part.
Do you often get things like this confused? If I say "buy 1 get 2 free" is better than "buy 1 get 1 free" can you not help yourself from somehow interpreting me as saying "buy 1 get 1 free is crap"?
Ah ok. I understand. You think smartphones and dumbphones are the same market and hence they are. It doesn't matter if "the smartphone market" is commonly used by both businesses and regulators involved in the field, you trump all of them.
No it doesn't. It means production has peaked, no more, no less.
Sure when inventory starts to shrink that might result in production peaking, but it doesn't have to. Production could peak earlier or it could peak later (planning for the long term is not high up on the list of things humans are good at). But peak oil is the peaking of production and the definition has nothing to do with inventory.
I'm not sure what any of that had to do with anything I wrote.
I didn't "burn on Obama", I didn't compare his errors with Bush's. In fact I didn't mention Obama at all. I merely responded to a ludicrous claim with the obvious counter example that what was claimed clearly is not happening.
But sure bring out the insults, calling me stupid will shut me right up I guess.
Yes, a law. The answer to all the world's problems.
But yes if the security question is used for anything other than accessing you account after having lost your password the storing it with your password makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Which won't help them because they still don't have the SMS from the bank for the other half of the tweo factor authentication.
The only thing SMS authentication stuff is used for is for the bank/etc to send you an SMS with a code in it that you need to enter to login. How does someone else being send you a non-working code at a time you likely aren't trying to login to your bank/etc anyway possibly matter in the slightest?
Sure some people probably though they could trust the sender information on an SMS, and it not being might enable some shenanigans (sending X a rude/etc message that seems to be from Y), but I can't see how it damages two factor authentication via SMS.
Sure if you ignore that the From: field is also set entirely by the sender to anything they want.
And for those the fact that some address is already registered tells you exactly nothing since anyone could have done that. So that doesn't matter in the slightest.
Sure the great depression is slightly left of center to there are 71 years after and only 57 years before. Still enough to see that the slope is basically the same between the two. It certainly isn't negative before the great depression which would be required for the "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" scenario being claimed. And of course the gold standard existed until 1971 so most of the graph is under a gold standard - but a lot of that was "in name only".
You should try citing articles that agree with your point rather than ones that pick your claim to pieces.
If you are 70 and going to need to cash out you wouldn't be in the stock market - unless you are an idiot of course, in which case there are plenty of other ways you'll lose your money anyway so there's no need to try and stop that vector.
for a), b), and c).
The only mark against it is the lack of individual freedoms, but if southern europe is fine then you won't mind them (and they in the scheme of things the US actively removing the alternative option anyway).
Do you always rave about completely unrelated crap? That doesn't apply to this case as not just the article but the summary explain.
What a great idea, because unexpected events requiring steering never happen on straight pieces of road.
Will my silver bullets work on them?
Sure the other guys at the surivalist meetups laugh at me, but we'll see who is doing the laughing when it's a werewolf apocalypse instead of zombies.
GDP was exponential when there was a gold standard and yet we didn't see "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" is the point of that chart. You haven't explained why your predictions didn't happen when humanity actually tried it out.
Though I agree in the sense that exponential economic growth is not sustainable, so obviously nothing (other than something else with will inevitably fail) is going to work if you must keep that.
Because courts use whetever the currency in their jurisdiction is.
Yeah storing lead (in the form of bullets would be best) would be far better than gold. If hyperinflation comes about then the price of lead goes up with gold, and if things get far worse to a mad max apocalypse you'll actually be able to use/sell them.
I know I wouldn't be trading my food for useless metal coins in that situation (not that I expect that to happen).
Basically yes. There are a few other pretty obvious properties that high school economics/commerce would cover and no doubt wikipedia lists somewhere, but those can all be handled via "backing" rather than actual gold coins.
An economy based on the gold standard would have stopped the bailouts from happening, yes.
Whether you think that would have been a good thing or the end of the world is another matter of course.
It likely would also have prevented the bubble itself (rather than just avoiding the pop) since the cheap money wouldn't have been as easy to generate. Again whether that is a goo thing or a bad thing is another matter (and the view as to which probably correlates to the earlier view).
So set a nanogram of gold to be $1 trillion. Is there enough supply now? The current price of gold is completely irrelevant - it currently isn't backing currencies, obviously if it was its value would skyrocket to match the money supply.
And yes a gold standard would give you deflation if gold production was lower than economic growth. However jumping to "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recession" is ridiculous - the industrial revolution happened on the gold standard. Here's US GDP growth, I can't seem to seem se the amazing change in growth you seem to be claiming should have happened when the US transitioned from "no commerce, no jobs, and a massive recision" gold standard to the current system.
tactile feedback is a good thing, right?
Benefits won't pile up - they have a ten year limit and only apply to people who die while employed. That's very different than pension/health benefits that pay out for years after retirement (so you can't even get out of them by sacking your current workforce, since that triggers them for your current workforce).
They aren't a mining company or some other industry with above average worker death rates, they can just drop the benefits once their workers age enough that the payment probabilities get too high. I doubt (though could be wrong since I can't be bothered checking) that google's employees are unionized to any great extent.
Insurance is not always a scam.
Sure averaged out over everyone insurance better cost more than the benefits it delivers (or else your insurance company is going broke and not going to be able to pay you anyway). But for unlikely events that have huge financial impacts insurance can be perfectly rational.
Insuring my TV against being stolen/destroyed would be silly - it's cheap enough that I can just buy another one and I can live without it easily enough too. Insuring my car against being stolen/destroyed would also be silly - though possibly for someone with a low enough income who relies on their car for that income it might be worthwhile or someone with a ridiculously expensive car. Insuring my house against being stolen/destroyed (not sure how you steal house, but they do burn down) is reasonable - the probability is low but the impact is huge so spending a small amount on insurance is probably a good idea (though it will depend on how your wealth, your income, and the house replacement cost compare).
So typical life insurance is better than this deal? Or are you no-typical? $35k *0.5 * 10 = $175k which is less than the $250k you mention.
Large chunks of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, maybe even Canada (though I've never really looked) meet your criteria and are a tad more realistic than Mars. Of course living and working legally elsewhere isn't cheap or easy. And freeing yourself from the claws of the IRS is even less easy and cheap (you'll need to get citizenship elsewhere before you can ditch the US citizenship).
That it is worse than insurance is compeletely orthogonal to whether it is a generous benefit on google's part.
Do you often get things like this confused? If I say "buy 1 get 2 free" is better than "buy 1 get 1 free" can you not help yourself from somehow interpreting me as saying "buy 1 get 1 free is crap"?
Ah ok. I understand. You think smartphones and dumbphones are the same market and hence they are. It doesn't matter if "the smartphone market" is commonly used by both businesses and regulators involved in the field, you trump all of them.
No it doesn't. It means production has peaked, no more, no less.
Sure when inventory starts to shrink that might result in production peaking, but it doesn't have to. Production could peak earlier or it could peak later (planning for the long term is not high up on the list of things humans are good at). But peak oil is the peaking of production and the definition has nothing to do with inventory.
I'm not sure what any of that had to do with anything I wrote.
I didn't "burn on Obama", I didn't compare his errors with Bush's. In fact I didn't mention Obama at all. I merely responded to a ludicrous claim with the obvious counter example that what was claimed clearly is not happening.
But sure bring out the insults, calling me stupid will shut me right up I guess.
Yes, a law. The answer to all the world's problems.
But yes if the security question is used for anything other than accessing you account after having lost your password the storing it with your password makes sense.