Soon, there will be other heads-up displays. This is one of the more useful applications for them. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works.
The thing that got me excited in TFS was the mention of a left-eye version of Glass (it does not exist, the writer is as uninformed as he is hyperbolic).
"Cannarella and Spechler decided to use the frequency with which "Facebook" is typed into Google as their main dataset"
This is probably too obvious of a hole to poke in a scientific work, but... How do they know that it doesn't mean that users are either a) giving up using Google or b) remembering where the fuck to find facebook.com? It would be interesting if they tried the same trick on GMail (a service that grew fast from word of mouth but is decidedly not in decline last i checked) and see what their prediction says.
It goes without saying that I wish this experiment were not occurring, but since it is, may as well collect data from it (though there are issues with informed consent probably).
You can always reduce things. They can sell a smaller subsets.
This. Thefuck is this article? The guy who broke the breach also pointed out where the cards were getting sold at too. This article is a muse on a blog by a supposed "pundit" (pundit, n.: one whose insistence of credibility is the only thing greater than their ignorance).
How long before we're hiring kids to go pick up nano pore condoms off the beach so we can recycle them in to materials to keep the nanobots off our lawns?
Probably never, but I finally get to make the reference!
It's probably because I just finished Snow Crash last week, but when I read the headline I envisioned the scene where dread pirate Bruce Lee is randomly inspecting his men's condoms prior to mass-buggering Hiro.
I wonder how Neil Stephenson would feel if he knew that articles about scientific innovation in the field of fucking invoked thoughts of his writings...
These Russian hackers know their shit.. almost as good as the NSA.
There's a good case to be made for the NSA to go after them at this point.
Who's against the NSA now??
Ah, er, if it were actually the NSA that engaged in protecting against/pursuing/prosecuting these types of things, then yes not as many people would be "Against" them. Alas, they don't (and make no promises to) do anything of the sort. Continuing to snoop on unsuspecting people around the world? That IS in their wheelhouse.
With reference to the charter schools in my state your point about funding is exactly backwards. When a student is accepted at a charter school the entire state per pupil funding goes to the charter school.
State funding is often only about half (it varies widely per district and state) of what is spent on a student, so you have nicely reinforced my argument. Thanks. The state money goes with the pupil (subject to certain conditions, like you point out, but this varies per state), the local money always (with very few exceptions) stays at the school the student would have been assigned to, in effect raising their per pupil budget.
I'd like to have a word with your English instructors.
Hey, he got enough of that post *right* to warrant a solid B+. Just because he didn't get 100% of it right doesn't mean he failed, unless we are using "union rules" for charter school ranking.
So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?
Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?
You have it backward compared to the current way Charter schools are funded: as students move to charter schools they can not take all of their funding with them (they often get just half) and that money stays in the public school that they left. So, in effect, as students self-select and leave for charter schools, if they are indeed in need of less help they will do OK with half the money. Then, the students that "need more" will get even money per pupil to try to get an education (whether or not it actually helps is anyone's guess, but present evidence suggests it will not). What's not to like? Oh yeah, some charters are doing well enough to attract attention calling into question the validity of the unionized education model...
If charter schools are allowed to operate, then they shouldn't benefit from special privileges that public schools don't have. They should have to accept any students in the area (regardless of academic level, just like the public schools). They also should be required to have all students take the standardized tests (instead of finding reasons to exclude children who they know won't do as well, so the school looks better ranked in comparison).
If charter schools aren't cheating and they are showing an improvement that is one thing. But too often they are cheating to make themselves look better compared to public schools.
The problem is that charter schools are lucky to get 75% funding per student compared to public schools, and many operate closer to 50%. How effective would you be at work if your boss said you had to do the same job for half the pay? Would you even keep coming in?
The current system of charter schools is amounting to nothing more than a pawn of the edu unions, they fought just hard enough to make sure charter schools wouldnt have any real chance (through lack of funding, among other things) and now they are just sitting back watching them crumble. When that happens, everyone will be glad when the unions graciously offer to educate our kids for 3 times more per student (inflation adjusted) than they did just 30 years ago. 15 or 20 years from now, someone will come up with a plan to educate without getting raked by the unions, give it a different name, and the "charter" dance will start again.
The most that could be done is "if you stop putting me in, the Republicans will probably cut off everybody's food stamps, including yours"...but that applies to every public-spending decision.
Ding! You figured out how anyone on the "receiving" end of government spending votes.
"Vote Republican or those Democrats will raise your taxes" is exactly the same proposition, and seems to be pretty legitimate.
Right again! Thats how anyone who values their income (perhaps rightly) over the social benefits of government spending will cast their ballot. Man, you must be from around here. Have you thought of running for office?
"Obesity is inversely related to income because healthy foods cost more than unhealthy ones."
I hate this "myth". It is absolutely false and untrue that healthy foods cost more.
You can go to the store and get eggs, potatoes, chicken, carrots and any canned vegetable and milk very inexpensively.
What are the unhealthy foods that cost less than these items? Doritoes? No. Cookies? Not Oreos and such.
My observation is that lower income people generally view food as "an escape" and one of the few creature comforts they have access to.
Is isn't really the price.
Studies have shown that overweight people choose to buy foods of convenience (fast food, open and eat packaged food, microwave and eat food) and avoid difficult to prepare foods (ones that require 15-30 minutes of preparation).
You are mostly right, but when you look at pure dollars/calorie the $2 (less in some areas) McDouble from Mcdonalds at 390 calories does better than most anything you can get a grocery store that would fit even a loose definition of "healthy" (no, eating 3 eggs for dinner does not count). Almost all processed corn-infused products (junk food, sodas, etc) come cheaper per calorie than do canned vegetables. When it comes to filling your belly, calories count. You should also look at the density of grocery stores vs fast food stores in poor areas. If the choice is to drive 15 minutes out of the way just to get real food to cook for dinner, or to stop at the fast food place that is literally on the drive home from work, the distinction isn't as clear as "you're too fucking lazy".
a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger in an increase of $15 billion in medical costs for over the next decade
$2 billion/year x 10 years = $20 billion > $15 billion
So you are OK with "only" $15 billion in additional medical care being spent, on top of the fact that those people went hungry too? Nice. Save $5bn so people can starve themselves sick. Good choice.
Wow, as much as I would like to work in the "big leagues" of the tech world, I guess I'm happy to be in flyover country where the mortgage on my 3 bedroom 2.5 bath house is just over 1000 a month.
You share that sentiment with a lot of people (including myself) but it is bad because it stratifies the industries that can afford to pay for gentrified workers vs those that prefer to go after the best cost workers. For example, why should your talent not be brought to bear at Google? Just because you find it unconscionable to pay $3000 a month to rent a meager apartment barely big enough for 2 to live comfortably (forget having an actual family)? Google (like many large, mobile companies before it) is setting itself up to become topheavy and inefficient with all those overpaid, overspending d-bags. Sure, the free market will sort it out, but in the long run the destruction that is left when bubbles like that grow/pop is bad for the country.
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do. But, for the other 99.5% of the time, the self-driving car will make the best decisions and always be completely alert.
Self-Driving cars, I believe, have the ability to drastically reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents...one of the highest causes of death in the USA.
You are right but the question was based on this assertion: "the dream of a self-driving car is futile since the law requires that the driver is responsible for the operation of the vehicle."
This is begging the question (finally!) since the driver of a self driving car is *the car*. The person inside (maybe the owner, maybe not) is a passenger, not a driver. The real question should be "will the owner of a self driving car be responsible for anything that happens to/by their car, regardless of whether they are in the car, out of the car, or in the car but incapacitated/unconscious/inebriated?"
The other important question/quandary will be what happens when self-driving cars don't have drivers *or* conventional owners, but instead are assets of corporations (since they will just rent/lease them based on price/capacity in given areas for significant cost savings.)
A trusted executor is really the way to go here. Store the passwords in an encrypted format and then give the key to a trusted party that will only unseal the encrypted database in the event that you are incapacitated. For added security, split the key into multiple parts and give it to multiple parties. It would probably be best to transport the key in a physical format and make it clear that the importance of the document.
In a work place setting, give the keys to supervisors that are mutually responsible for the systems in question. In a personal setting, give the keys to family members that are trusted. Be sure to provide step-by-step instructions as to how to decrypt your data. If you are so unfortunate to not have trusted family or friends, pay a law firm to administrate this service and act as your executor. For a fee, the law firm can be instructed to only unseal the data in the event that certain standards are met (such as a declaration of incompetence by N medical professionals).
Don't forget the part of your plan where you gin up a reason for anyone to give fuck all what your passwords are. Banking or other money matters? Call the bank, verify your identity, reset your passwords. Want someone to be able to post on your facebook wall after you're dead? Something is wrong with you.
And then, whenever you need your password, just "ask Slashdot"! Of course there will then be some jokers who post incorrect passwords, but they will be modded down rapidly since anyone can check whether the password is correct or not. Just go with the "+5 informative" one.
Im glad for all the completely joke responses here, it gives this discussion some actual merit. The actual answer is so fucking obvious that an Ask Slashdot is kind of pathetic. Safety deposit boxes were designed for this exact thing. If that's too expensive, put them in an actual safe in your basement. If you forget the code/combo, just destroy the safe to get inside. The odds of either of these things being exploited by an opportunistic hacker are precisely 0. The odds of them being exploited by even a determined thief are pretty much 0 as well (they would rather just steal your car and a few other valuables in your house, or if they are into computers they will just steal your identity electronically to commit credit fraud). So, let the jokes continue!
Automakers have a lot of economic disinterest in adequate security measures:
1: Once the vehicle is purchased, aftermarket updates are a cost center.
Not as big of a cost center as warranty fixes and recalls are... Just make sure enough vulnerability testing gets done in the first 3 years/36,000 miles!
As a resident of Michigan, I can concur that this is the worst weather I have ever seen in my life. I am under 40, but I seem to remember getting hit by something similar back in the mid 90s. I am one of 10 people in the I.T. department at work that made it in today. Considering we have a staff of around 150 people, that's a lot of folks stuck in their homes.
And you dont even have the worst of it. Michigan was protected nicely by warm air coming off Lake Michigan; it was more than 10F colder in Indiana than it was in Michigan this morning.
The thing about a currency is that, as a store of value, it's overall value has to go up if people want to store more in it (ipso facto, right). So, as the world economy produces more output, and hence there is more value "out there" to store, if your currency is in fixed supply (much like Bitcoin, kind of like gold since its only slightly hard to recycle/mine) then as more people pour value into it, it's price needs to go up. So the tighter the supply the faster the value goes up and it deflates. [begin rant] Now to people who live in bunkers waiting for The Collapse, this is a good thing since they don't see a need to ever spend any money on anything but food, guns/ammo, and the occasional repair to their bunker so if the value goes up they are happy. To the rest of us who like participating in a global economy, a skyrocketing value (deflating it) is a bad thing.[end rant]
I bought in 2 weeks ago and I'm already up. I'm getting in line before the: big banks, the billionaires, wall street, and finally main street catches on. Once the madness starts I will be well positioned to get rich. And quick!
Do you like tulips? I have some real pretty ones. One BTC per bulb, get in while you can. Historically, prices have never been better!
I hope we move back to the gold standard and someday soon the asteroid mining companies start flooding the markets with more gold than has been mined in the entirety of human existence. Or a bunch of special new uses for gold are discovered and drive the demand up 10x what it is today. This illusion that gold has an inherently fixed value is just ludicrous.
No gold advocate suggests it is a fixed value, only that it is a fixed _supply_ which is good (the argument goes) because it stabilizes the value and prevents inflation by meddling governments.
Now, whether or not single-digit inflation (that happens with prudent monetary policy) is a good thing is an exercise left up to the reader.
You are the first person I've seen that realizes even "precious" metals are fiat currencies as well. I was trying to explain this to a Randtard recently and he just couldn't grasp how his go-to argument against fiat currencies was fallacious.
Yes and no. "Fiat" currency is commonly used to describe a currency that is 100% made up (a piece of paper with some dead guys pic on it being worth a week's hard labor), as opposed to one that is only partly made up (a piece of shiny, relatively hefty metal worth one week's hard labor). Your argument is more in line with the definition of "currency" which is anything that has some stored (agreed/decreed) value beyond just the intrinsic one (intrinsic like your ability to make wedding rings out of it and sell it at the local bazaar to wide-eyed bridegrooms in exchange for a day of hard labor, but i digress).
Yes, time is the most stable currency (at least until FTL travel is perfected) but second to that a "precious material" currency that is stable (gold resists corrosion nicely) is as stable as the population (and the population's ability to generate value to store in said currency).
If you want to get out of talking economics with a gold nut, ask them how much lead will be worth after "the collapse". Most will immediately digress into their gun/ammo collection, their "god bag" or some other prepper talk. Then you can just nod and sneak away.
rather than Nature regulating it with a fixed amount of, say, gold, or any other naturally occurring element that has it's own value (gold is a super-conductor).
I know you meant "gold is a super good conductor" (gold has not been demonstrated to be a superconductor under any condition) but either way that raises one pointed problem; what happens to semiconductor manufacturing if the value as a currency (in other words the need to store value in it) gets too great? Are we supposed to just stop making CPUs (or make CPUs that are 5x or 10x more expensive) just because someone decided that gold was pretty enough to base an economy off of? Or do we just give up having fast CPUs and go back to (shudder) copper?? It is this very property (its central place as a commodity) that would give me the strong opinion that it should not be used as a currency at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon, there will be other heads-up displays. This is one of the more useful applications for them. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works.
The thing that got me excited in TFS was the mention of a left-eye version of Glass (it does not exist, the writer is as uninformed as he is hyperbolic).
"Cannarella and Spechler decided to use the frequency with which "Facebook" is typed into Google as their main dataset"
This is probably too obvious of a hole to poke in a scientific work, but... How do they know that it doesn't mean that users are either a) giving up using Google or b) remembering where the fuck to find facebook.com? It would be interesting if they tried the same trick on GMail (a service that grew fast from word of mouth but is decidedly not in decline last i checked) and see what their prediction says.
It goes without saying that I wish this experiment were not occurring, but since it is, may as well collect data from it (though there are issues with informed consent probably).
"issues"? You might want to at least skim the rather large collection of information on what most people would consider ethically appropriate experimentation, and for a fun contrast you can start by reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Modern_ethical_issues
You can always reduce things. They can sell a smaller subsets.
This. Thefuck is this article? The guy who broke the breach also pointed out where the cards were getting sold at too. This article is a muse on a blog by a supposed "pundit" (pundit, n.: one whose insistence of credibility is the only thing greater than their ignorance).
How long before we're hiring kids to go pick up nano pore condoms off the beach so we can recycle them in to materials to keep the nanobots off our lawns?
Probably never, but I finally get to make the reference!
It's probably because I just finished Snow Crash last week, but when I read the headline I envisioned the scene where dread pirate Bruce Lee is randomly inspecting his men's condoms prior to mass-buggering Hiro.
I wonder how Neil Stephenson would feel if he knew that articles about scientific innovation in the field of fucking invoked thoughts of his writings...
Not as bad as Neal Stephenson would feel (ducks)
DOOM is one of the most ported pieces of software in history, so it's only natural...
http://www.techdigest.tv/2013/10/10_gadgets_that.html
These Russian hackers know their shit.. almost as good as the NSA.
There's a good case to be made for the NSA to go after them at this point.
Who's against the NSA now??
Ah, er, if it were actually the NSA that engaged in protecting against/pursuing/prosecuting these types of things, then yes not as many people would be "Against" them. Alas, they don't (and make no promises to) do anything of the sort. Continuing to snoop on unsuspecting people around the world? That IS in their wheelhouse.
With reference to the charter schools in my state your point about funding is exactly backwards. When a student is accepted at a charter school the entire state per pupil funding goes to the charter school.
State funding is often only about half (it varies widely per district and state) of what is spent on a student, so you have nicely reinforced my argument. Thanks. The state money goes with the pupil (subject to certain conditions, like you point out, but this varies per state), the local money always (with very few exceptions) stays at the school the student would have been assigned to, in effect raising their per pupil budget.
This school expected it's students to graduate
I'd like to have a word with your English instructors.
Hey, he got enough of that post *right* to warrant a solid B+. Just because he didn't get 100% of it right doesn't mean he failed, unless we are using "union rules" for charter school ranking.
So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?
Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?
You have it backward compared to the current way Charter schools are funded: as students move to charter schools they can not take all of their funding with them (they often get just half) and that money stays in the public school that they left. So, in effect, as students self-select and leave for charter schools, if they are indeed in need of less help they will do OK with half the money. Then, the students that "need more" will get even money per pupil to try to get an education (whether or not it actually helps is anyone's guess, but present evidence suggests it will not). What's not to like? Oh yeah, some charters are doing well enough to attract attention calling into question the validity of the unionized education model...
If charter schools are allowed to operate, then they shouldn't benefit from special privileges that public schools don't have. They should have to accept any students in the area (regardless of academic level, just like the public schools). They also should be required to have all students take the standardized tests (instead of finding reasons to exclude children who they know won't do as well, so the school looks better ranked in comparison).
If charter schools aren't cheating and they are showing an improvement that is one thing. But too often they are cheating to make themselves look better compared to public schools.
The problem is that charter schools are lucky to get 75% funding per student compared to public schools, and many operate closer to 50%. How effective would you be at work if your boss said you had to do the same job for half the pay? Would you even keep coming in?
The current system of charter schools is amounting to nothing more than a pawn of the edu unions, they fought just hard enough to make sure charter schools wouldnt have any real chance (through lack of funding, among other things) and now they are just sitting back watching them crumble. When that happens, everyone will be glad when the unions graciously offer to educate our kids for 3 times more per student (inflation adjusted) than they did just 30 years ago. 15 or 20 years from now, someone will come up with a plan to educate without getting raked by the unions, give it a different name, and the "charter" dance will start again.
The most that could be done is "if you stop putting me in, the Republicans will probably cut off everybody's food stamps, including yours"...but that applies to every public-spending decision.
Ding! You figured out how anyone on the "receiving" end of government spending votes.
"Vote Republican or those Democrats will raise your taxes" is exactly the same proposition, and seems to be pretty legitimate.
Right again! Thats how anyone who values their income (perhaps rightly) over the social benefits of government spending will cast their ballot. Man, you must be from around here. Have you thought of running for office?
"Obesity is inversely related to income because healthy foods cost more than unhealthy ones."
I hate this "myth". It is absolutely false and untrue that healthy foods cost more.
You can go to the store and get eggs, potatoes, chicken, carrots and any canned vegetable and milk very inexpensively.
What are the unhealthy foods that cost less than these items? Doritoes? No. Cookies? Not Oreos and such.
My observation is that lower income people generally view food as "an escape" and one of the few creature comforts they have access to.
Is isn't really the price.
Studies have shown that overweight people choose to buy foods of convenience (fast food, open and eat packaged food, microwave and eat food) and avoid difficult to prepare foods (ones that require 15-30 minutes of preparation).
You are mostly right, but when you look at pure dollars/calorie the $2 (less in some areas) McDouble from Mcdonalds at 390 calories does better than most anything you can get a grocery store that would fit even a loose definition of "healthy" (no, eating 3 eggs for dinner does not count). Almost all processed corn-infused products (junk food, sodas, etc) come cheaper per calorie than do canned vegetables. When it comes to filling your belly, calories count. You should also look at the density of grocery stores vs fast food stores in poor areas. If the choice is to drive 15 minutes out of the way just to get real food to cook for dinner, or to stop at the fast food place that is literally on the drive home from work, the distinction isn't as clear as "you're too fucking lazy".
$2 billion/year x 10 years = $20 billion > $15 billion
So you are OK with "only" $15 billion in additional medical care being spent, on top of the fact that those people went hungry too? Nice. Save $5bn so people can starve themselves sick. Good choice.
Really?
Wow, as much as I would like to work in the "big leagues" of the tech world, I guess I'm happy to be in flyover country where the mortgage on my 3 bedroom 2.5 bath house is just over 1000 a month.
You share that sentiment with a lot of people (including myself) but it is bad because it stratifies the industries that can afford to pay for gentrified workers vs those that prefer to go after the best cost workers. For example, why should your talent not be brought to bear at Google? Just because you find it unconscionable to pay $3000 a month to rent a meager apartment barely big enough for 2 to live comfortably (forget having an actual family)? Google (like many large, mobile companies before it) is setting itself up to become topheavy and inefficient with all those overpaid, overspending d-bags. Sure, the free market will sort it out, but in the long run the destruction that is left when bubbles like that grow/pop is bad for the country.
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do. But, for the other 99.5% of the time, the self-driving car will make the best decisions and always be completely alert.
Self-Driving cars, I believe, have the ability to drastically reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents...one of the highest causes of death in the USA.
You are right but the question was based on this assertion: "the dream of a self-driving car is futile since the law requires that the driver is responsible for the operation of the vehicle."
This is begging the question (finally!) since the driver of a self driving car is *the car*. The person inside (maybe the owner, maybe not) is a passenger, not a driver. The real question should be "will the owner of a self driving car be responsible for anything that happens to/by their car, regardless of whether they are in the car, out of the car, or in the car but incapacitated/unconscious/inebriated?"
The other important question/quandary will be what happens when self-driving cars don't have drivers *or* conventional owners, but instead are assets of corporations (since they will just rent/lease them based on price/capacity in given areas for significant cost savings.)
A trusted executor is really the way to go here. Store the passwords in an encrypted format and then give the key to a trusted party that will only unseal the encrypted database in the event that you are incapacitated. For added security, split the key into multiple parts and give it to multiple parties. It would probably be best to transport the key in a physical format and make it clear that the importance of the document.
In a work place setting, give the keys to supervisors that are mutually responsible for the systems in question. In a personal setting, give the keys to family members that are trusted. Be sure to provide step-by-step instructions as to how to decrypt your data. If you are so unfortunate to not have trusted family or friends, pay a law firm to administrate this service and act as your executor. For a fee, the law firm can be instructed to only unseal the data in the event that certain standards are met (such as a declaration of incompetence by N medical professionals).
Don't forget the part of your plan where you gin up a reason for anyone to give fuck all what your passwords are. Banking or other money matters? Call the bank, verify your identity, reset your passwords. Want someone to be able to post on your facebook wall after you're dead? Something is wrong with you.
And then, whenever you need your password, just "ask Slashdot"! Of course there will then be some jokers who post incorrect passwords, but they will be modded down rapidly since anyone can check whether the password is correct or not. Just go with the "+5 informative" one.
Im glad for all the completely joke responses here, it gives this discussion some actual merit. The actual answer is so fucking obvious that an Ask Slashdot is kind of pathetic. Safety deposit boxes were designed for this exact thing. If that's too expensive, put them in an actual safe in your basement. If you forget the code/combo, just destroy the safe to get inside. The odds of either of these things being exploited by an opportunistic hacker are precisely 0. The odds of them being exploited by even a determined thief are pretty much 0 as well (they would rather just steal your car and a few other valuables in your house, or if they are into computers they will just steal your identity electronically to commit credit fraud). So, let the jokes continue!
Automakers have a lot of economic disinterest in adequate security measures:
1: Once the vehicle is purchased, aftermarket updates are a cost center.
Not as big of a cost center as warranty fixes and recalls are... Just make sure enough vulnerability testing gets done in the first 3 years/36,000 miles!
As a resident of Michigan, I can concur that this is the worst weather I have ever seen in my life. I am under 40, but I seem to remember getting hit by something similar back in the mid 90s. I am one of 10 people in the I.T. department at work that made it in today. Considering we have a staff of around 150 people, that's a lot of folks stuck in their homes.
And you dont even have the worst of it. Michigan was protected nicely by warm air coming off Lake Michigan; it was more than 10F colder in Indiana than it was in Michigan this morning.
The thing about a currency is that, as a store of value, it's overall value has to go up if people want to store more in it (ipso facto, right). So, as the world economy produces more output, and hence there is more value "out there" to store, if your currency is in fixed supply (much like Bitcoin, kind of like gold since its only slightly hard to recycle/mine) then as more people pour value into it, it's price needs to go up. So the tighter the supply the faster the value goes up and it deflates. [begin rant] Now to people who live in bunkers waiting for The Collapse, this is a good thing since they don't see a need to ever spend any money on anything but food, guns/ammo, and the occasional repair to their bunker so if the value goes up they are happy. To the rest of us who like participating in a global economy, a skyrocketing value (deflating it) is a bad thing.[end rant]
I bought in 2 weeks ago and I'm already up. I'm getting in line before the: big banks, the billionaires, wall street, and finally main street catches on. Once the madness starts I will be well positioned to get rich. And quick!
Do you like tulips? I have some real pretty ones. One BTC per bulb, get in while you can. Historically, prices have never been better!
I hope we move back to the gold standard and someday soon the asteroid mining companies start flooding the markets with more gold than has been mined in the entirety of human existence. Or a bunch of special new uses for gold are discovered and drive the demand up 10x what it is today. This illusion that gold has an inherently fixed value is just ludicrous.
No gold advocate suggests it is a fixed value, only that it is a fixed _supply_ which is good (the argument goes) because it stabilizes the value and prevents inflation by meddling governments.
Now, whether or not single-digit inflation (that happens with prudent monetary policy) is a good thing is an exercise left up to the reader.
You are the first person I've seen that realizes even "precious" metals are fiat currencies as well. I was trying to explain this to a Randtard recently and he just couldn't grasp how his go-to argument against fiat currencies was fallacious.
Yes and no. "Fiat" currency is commonly used to describe a currency that is 100% made up (a piece of paper with some dead guys pic on it being worth a week's hard labor), as opposed to one that is only partly made up (a piece of shiny, relatively hefty metal worth one week's hard labor). Your argument is more in line with the definition of "currency" which is anything that has some stored (agreed/decreed) value beyond just the intrinsic one (intrinsic like your ability to make wedding rings out of it and sell it at the local bazaar to wide-eyed bridegrooms in exchange for a day of hard labor, but i digress).
Yes, time is the most stable currency (at least until FTL travel is perfected) but second to that a "precious material" currency that is stable (gold resists corrosion nicely) is as stable as the population (and the population's ability to generate value to store in said currency).
If you want to get out of talking economics with a gold nut, ask them how much lead will be worth after "the collapse". Most will immediately digress into their gun/ammo collection, their "god bag" or some other prepper talk. Then you can just nod and sneak away.
rather than Nature regulating it with a fixed amount of, say, gold, or any other naturally occurring element that has it's own value (gold is a super-conductor).
I know you meant "gold is a super good conductor" (gold has not been demonstrated to be a superconductor under any condition) but either way that raises one pointed problem; what happens to semiconductor manufacturing if the value as a currency (in other words the need to store value in it) gets too great? Are we supposed to just stop making CPUs (or make CPUs that are 5x or 10x more expensive) just because someone decided that gold was pretty enough to base an economy off of? Or do we just give up having fast CPUs and go back to (shudder) copper?? It is this very property (its central place as a commodity) that would give me the strong opinion that it should not be used as a currency at all.
Serious answers only, please.