I'm not fixating on it as a replacement for anything, I'm fixating on it being a money laundering pyramid scheme. And block chains are only interesting until you try to scale them to real world applications. Then they show what a piece of shit technology they really are.
Maybe I'm just lucky but I live a block from a really nice Smith's, it's always clean and well stocked and they pride themselves on never having lines at the checkout. Like, if there's more than three people in any line they will open another register. I asked and they are a union store that pays pretty well, so I don't quite know how they manage, but it's always super busy.
You know, only about one percent of the population has any sort of autism spectrum disorder, yet nearly 100% of assholes claim they aren't really assholes, they just have Aspergers.
Bitcoin is not the future, it is a scam. Some people will make a lot of money off it, at the expense of other people who will lose a lot of money. Nothing of value will be created or destroyed in the process. Money needs to be fiat, and elastic. Something like bitcoin can't work to represent the economic value of an economy, and neither can gold. It needs to be something that can be adjusted to represent the current state of the economy. Economies are not static, so currency can't be based off something with intrinsic value, like gold and they also can't be represented by something with no controls or backing, like bitcoin.
When you think too big it just means your head is full of fluff. Silly tech bro libertarians are simply too ignorant of the real world of economics to make any sensible choices about it.
Money has three primary functions, a unit of account, a store of value and a medium of exchange. Your examples only function as a very limited medium of exchange, they do not provide a way to store value and they certainly can't be used sensibly as a unit of account. The volatility of Bitcoin is neither here nor there when using it as a medium of exchange, but it is most definitely a relevant consideration if you are using it as a store of value or unit of account. Here's a little primer on what money actually is: https://www.boundless.com/busi...
It is not moral to force anyone to broadcast speech someone else has made. It is not moral to force someone to run their business in the way you want. Capitalism and the free market provide you with an adequate means of expressing your displeasure: don't buy their product, or work for their company. Your true fascist ideals are showing, you want the freedom to use violence to force others to do your bidding.
If you are fine with people forcing Google to broadcast someone else's hate speech, you should be fine with me coming on your property at 4am and screaming loudly about you having sex with chickens. If you respond in any way, you are silencing my free speech. If you are fine with forcing Google to act in a certain way, you should be fine with me forcing you to run your household in a certain way.
Either you believe in private property, or you're a communist. Or, I guess you could just be a garden variety hypocrite,
Of course the majority of US politicians are warmongers. Have you seen our military budget? Let me ask you a question: when was the last year the US was not involved in a war? But Hillary is especially war like. She considers Henry Kissinger to be a close, personal friend and mentor. I assume you've heard of war criminal Henry Kissinger.
Oh gramps, you so silly. Descriptivism is dead, long live prescriptivism. Language is not, nor should it be, static. Stasis is for losers who are too old to live with the fact that everything changes. Get with the times, old man. Or don't, you'll be dead soon enough anyhow.
Hardly. I used to be like you, but then i learned about the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism and decided it just wasn't worth it to keep harping on the "begging the question" thing.
Stop trying to dictate what language means when the world has clearly moved on at this point. You are simply invoking this shibboleth to try to make yourself look smarter, but you posted this AC so it doesn't matter. Language changes over time, and no amount of whining by pseudo intellectuals will ever change that. As Winston Churchill famously said, "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
It's all imaginary, but there are orders of magnitude more people imagining that the US dollar has value than there are imagining that bitcoin has value. And even people with a great imagination aren't all that convinced of bitcoin's value. They have a vague daydream that bitcoin has value. Meanwhile, people are building whole universes in their head out of US dollars. It's like comparing pictures of apples with vague childhood recollections of oranges.
I am not a damn ISP routing traffic for all and sundry, so net neutrality laws don't apply to me. Saying "Maybe in the future something bad will happen as a consequence" is not a good argument against trying to regulate bad behavior that actually exists now. Nobody has EVER been saying that you can't block or shape traffic on your own network, and no amount of fear mongering on your part will change that.
You just basically start from the premise that anything that we, the people choose to do through our government will always turn out bad. Then you argue backwards from your desired conclusion to reach a set of statements that support it. That's called self justification, not an argument.
For that to be a good analogy, you would have to have included something left wing as well as the centrist, libertarian, and right wing sources you mentioned. No, Huffpost and Mother Jones are not leftist, they are both pro-corporate centrist organizations.
Most of us don't really have any problems in that department, skippy. It's just you and the other losers who even have to think about things like that. The rest of us have wives, girlfriends, or significant others. When you aren't an anti-social wreck of a human being, getting laid is simple and easy.
It doesn't work like that. I can give you some lessons if you want. Lesson one: you just responded to my troll, therefore, I won. See how that works? That'll be tree fiddy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not fixating on it as a replacement for anything, I'm fixating on it being a money laundering pyramid scheme. And block chains are only interesting until you try to scale them to real world applications. Then they show what a piece of shit technology they really are.
It's called a joke, son. Damn, maybe they all really DO have Asperger's...
Maybe I'm just lucky but I live a block from a really nice Smith's, it's always clean and well stocked and they pride themselves on never having lines at the checkout. Like, if there's more than three people in any line they will open another register. I asked and they are a union store that pays pretty well, so I don't quite know how they manage, but it's always super busy.
You know, only about one percent of the population has any sort of autism spectrum disorder, yet nearly 100% of assholes claim they aren't really assholes, they just have Aspergers.
Bitcoin is not the future, it is a scam. Some people will make a lot of money off it, at the expense of other people who will lose a lot of money. Nothing of value will be created or destroyed in the process. Money needs to be fiat, and elastic. Something like bitcoin can't work to represent the economic value of an economy, and neither can gold. It needs to be something that can be adjusted to represent the current state of the economy. Economies are not static, so currency can't be based off something with intrinsic value, like gold and they also can't be represented by something with no controls or backing, like bitcoin.
When you think too big it just means your head is full of fluff. Silly tech bro libertarians are simply too ignorant of the real world of economics to make any sensible choices about it.
Money has three primary functions, a unit of account, a store of value and a medium of exchange. Your examples only function as a very limited medium of exchange, they do not provide a way to store value and they certainly can't be used sensibly as a unit of account. The volatility of Bitcoin is neither here nor there when using it as a medium of exchange, but it is most definitely a relevant consideration if you are using it as a store of value or unit of account. Here's a little primer on what money actually is: https://www.boundless.com/busi...
It's a right wing cesspit, what are you even talking about?
It is not moral to force anyone to broadcast speech someone else has made. It is not moral to force someone to run their business in the way you want. Capitalism and the free market provide you with an adequate means of expressing your displeasure: don't buy their product, or work for their company. Your true fascist ideals are showing, you want the freedom to use violence to force others to do your bidding.
If you are fine with people forcing Google to broadcast someone else's hate speech, you should be fine with me coming on your property at 4am and screaming loudly about you having sex with chickens. If you respond in any way, you are silencing my free speech. If you are fine with forcing Google to act in a certain way, you should be fine with me forcing you to run your household in a certain way.
Either you believe in private property, or you're a communist. Or, I guess you could just be a garden variety hypocrite,
Of course the majority of US politicians are warmongers. Have you seen our military budget? Let me ask you a question: when was the last year the US was not involved in a war? But Hillary is especially war like. She considers Henry Kissinger to be a close, personal friend and mentor. I assume you've heard of war criminal Henry Kissinger.
Not anymore.
Oh gramps, you so silly. Descriptivism is dead, long live prescriptivism. Language is not, nor should it be, static. Stasis is for losers who are too old to live with the fact that everything changes. Get with the times, old man. Or don't, you'll be dead soon enough anyhow.
Hardly. I used to be like you, but then i learned about the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism and decided it just wasn't worth it to keep harping on the "begging the question" thing.
Stop trying to dictate what language means when the world has clearly moved on at this point. You are simply invoking this shibboleth to try to make yourself look smarter, but you posted this AC so it doesn't matter. Language changes over time, and no amount of whining by pseudo intellectuals will ever change that. As Winston Churchill famously said, "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
It's all imaginary, but there are orders of magnitude more people imagining that the US dollar has value than there are imagining that bitcoin has value. And even people with a great imagination aren't all that convinced of bitcoin's value. They have a vague daydream that bitcoin has value. Meanwhile, people are building whole universes in their head out of US dollars. It's like comparing pictures of apples with vague childhood recollections of oranges.
The difference engine is not a computer, no matter how much Victorians think it is...
So point me to anything with Bill Gates name on it. What did he "engineer?"
The Young Turks and The Intercept are my go to sources for lefty news. The UK Guardian is also decent.
The movie that lives up to its name!
Hi Kent. Have you been touching yourself?
I am not a damn ISP routing traffic for all and sundry, so net neutrality laws don't apply to me. Saying "Maybe in the future something bad will happen as a consequence" is not a good argument against trying to regulate bad behavior that actually exists now. Nobody has EVER been saying that you can't block or shape traffic on your own network, and no amount of fear mongering on your part will change that.
You just basically start from the premise that anything that we, the people choose to do through our government will always turn out bad. Then you argue backwards from your desired conclusion to reach a set of statements that support it. That's called self justification, not an argument.
So you are just speculating about a possible future scenario based on your cynical view that all government regulation must be bad. Got it.
For that to be a good analogy, you would have to have included something left wing as well as the centrist, libertarian, and right wing sources you mentioned. No, Huffpost and Mother Jones are not leftist, they are both pro-corporate centrist organizations.
We were talking about killing lawyers, not people.
Most of us don't really have any problems in that department, skippy. It's just you and the other losers who even have to think about things like that. The rest of us have wives, girlfriends, or significant others. When you aren't an anti-social wreck of a human being, getting laid is simple and easy.
It doesn't work like that. I can give you some lessons if you want. Lesson one: you just responded to my troll, therefore, I won. See how that works? That'll be tree fiddy.