How, pray tell, do you propose fracking operations are supposed to continue without a supply of water? Maybe he likes fracking on idealogical grounds, but he clearly can't deal with the reality of having it happen near him.
So, he likes fracking but does not want to put up with the crap that goes along with it. He's happy to make other people put up with that crap but doesn't want it himself. If they can come up with a way to do fracking without inconveniencing Mr. Tillerson they can still do it?
To be fair though, Bitcoin has survived "every single one of these major issues" up to this point while continuing to be used more and accepted by more people after each issue.
The trick is owning something people want: people only want bitcoin on the assumption that other people also want it. Once we realise that no one else really wants it it'll be worthless again. Pretty stuff made out of shiny metals might not be terrifically useful but you can be fairly certain that a lot of people want it.
Since you didn't read what JDG1980 wrote and just pasted in your reply, I'll try to break it down and make it a little easier for you to understand:
The currency itself is not affiliated with the crashing "bank". so you have seen exchange rates dip somewhat, there is no fundamental crash for the cryptocurrency
In a similar fashion to the bank runs of the late 1800s not crashing the US dollar. The 1929 crash was far more than just a bank run.
Numerous exchanges and other pseudo-exchanges have stayed open and operational for this whole saga, allowing liquididty in and out of the cryptocurrency
As numerous other banks can continue to operate while some banks crash. Even the depression wasn't a complete cessation of any economic activity, it just slowed to a crawl.
Use/Exchange of cryptocurrency does not require blind trust in the fundamental sense, so those who kept their balances in trust exchanges minimal to nil, lost nothing
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "trust exchange" but the people who kept their money under their mattress during the depression also lost nothing (unless you consider the reduced spending power (which Bitcoin also experienced.)
This "crash" was not sudden or mysterious. Those with the slightest modicum of common sense got out long ago. Other's with a taste for danger kept in or bought in up to the last minute. But just like playing with penny stocks, the risk was very high.
People have said this about every crash. If people really could see it coming everyone would have gotten out of the way and there wouldn't have been a crash. Sure a couple of people might have seen it coming and made out like bandits but clearly the majority of people didn't.
MtGOX itself was a form of ponzi scheme. You could also have a ponzi scheme based on chicken eggs, or bottle caps. This does not mean that eggs themselves are a ponzi scheme, and neither are bitcoins.
I'll not comment on whether MtGOX was or was not operating a ponzi scheme. I'm not sure why you would extrapolate from that to bitcoin being a ponzi scheme. From my perspective, bitcoin as a whole looks a lot more like a ponzi scheme than MtGOX did.
On the other side of the coin, any form for exchange is backed with trust. So long as people continue to trust in the cryptographic and stability of the network itself. Those appear to remain strong, and merchants accepting the currency semi-directly continue to operate.
A true statement but how will you convince people to trust the exchanges again. There are no assurances that any other exchange won't turn over tomorrow and do exactly the same thing as MtGOX.
The lesson learned: crypto currency can sustain major scandals denominated in itself and not be fundamentally broken. Also, its possible for exchanges and reserve banks to prove solvency cryptographically, and doing so will become the "FDIC" equivalent for the crypto currency world.
The thing is: with fractional reserve banking, no bank is really "solvent". The whole point of a bank is to collaborate it into one area where it can be balanced.
I know they all went out and bought Prius when they came out for the eco-sheik-ness. I didn't hear about the same thing happening with Tesla's though...
I do blended highway/city driving in a huge sprawl city, and I get about 86. [That's 3.9 miles per kWh, which jives with what a lot of people will tell you.] Even under the worst possible conditions (all freeway) I get the 70 miles necessary to go to my office and back.
I do think that electric cars are a good thing overall, but I would be worried doing a 70 mile commute with 86 miles of range. Also, as the car gets older the battery life will very likely degrade somewhat reducing your range. With petrol cars; the engines themselves will degrade, somewhat reducing your range but when you're coming down from a 400 mile range that isn't as much of an issue.
He's either an idiot who doesn't know how to count, or he's trying to say that we already have a concentration of land near the north pole, so there are only three things left to happen.
Just because you don't like the politics of science doesn't mean it can't be true. It may well be shown that this research is flawed and their conclusions are wrong. Likewise, the fact that there is one study that seems to indicate it doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon to do whatever people see as the logical outcome of this finding.
When the Mt Gox collapse(s) didn't make it to/. I thought that the flood of bitcoin stories was over, but it seems that it was only the shills who were submitting the stories and only submitting positive stories.
When I first got into safety engineering I always imagined myself explaining the concept of a SIL level or the ALARP principle to a grieving widow. On an academic level I know exactly why it makes sense and that it's the best thing overall but it took a while to get rid of that feeling in my gut that it wasn't right.
That's fairly accurate. Calling it a "law" makes it seem as if it is some truth about the universe that is constant, whereas calling things "theories" reflects the fact that we can never be 100% sure. F=ma is indeed close enough that most instruments can't detect it, but following from the discoveries of quantum theory and relativity we know that it is not exact. Equations are created from theories, in much the same way as the Ideal Gas Law was created using molecular theory, but calling these "laws" is just shorthand and in no way indicates that it should be held in higher regard than an theory.
You are very confused. You give the example of gravity as something that's set in stone but then continue to talk about GPS satellites, which rely on the Theory of General Relativity, the equations from which differ from those described by Newton. Newton's laws will get you close enough for what you want to do, but they do not describe the world as accurately as more recent theories. No matter how sure we get about relativity, it will never be promoted to a "law"; even if the equations derived from it are used as rules of thumb and kids might learn them in school under the name of someone's-law.
As the helpful AC pointed out, that's not exactly the way science worked. Calling things "laws" is a bit of a historical artifact. When Newtonian motion was worked out and the laws of thermodynamics were being nutted out the scientists involved thought that they had finally gotten to the bottom of it and they could write laws to codify the way things always behaved. We now realise that they jumped the gun a little. To be elevated to the status of theory is as close to sure as you can get, there is not extra step where we elevate it to a law.
Slashdot Mirror
How, pray tell, do you propose fracking operations are supposed to continue without a supply of water? Maybe he likes fracking on idealogical grounds, but he clearly can't deal with the reality of having it happen near him.
So, he likes fracking but does not want to put up with the crap that goes along with it. He's happy to make other people put up with that crap but doesn't want it himself. If they can come up with a way to do fracking without inconveniencing Mr. Tillerson they can still do it?
I think this is appropriate here: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...
To be fair though, Bitcoin has survived "every single one of these major issues" up to this point while continuing to be used more and accepted by more people after each issue.
The trick is owning something people want: people only want bitcoin on the assumption that other people also want it. Once we realise that no one else really wants it it'll be worthless again. Pretty stuff made out of shiny metals might not be terrifically useful but you can be fairly certain that a lot of people want it.
We have had fewer fatalities due to safer cars etc. I'm quite dubious about your "fewer accidents" idea though.
Since you didn't read what JDG1980 wrote and just pasted in your reply, I'll try to break it down and make it a little easier for you to understand:
The currency itself is not affiliated with the crashing "bank". so you have seen exchange rates dip somewhat, there is no fundamental crash for the cryptocurrency
In a similar fashion to the bank runs of the late 1800s not crashing the US dollar. The 1929 crash was far more than just a bank run.
Numerous exchanges and other pseudo-exchanges have stayed open and operational for this whole saga, allowing liquididty in and out of the cryptocurrency
As numerous other banks can continue to operate while some banks crash. Even the depression wasn't a complete cessation of any economic activity, it just slowed to a crawl.
Use/Exchange of cryptocurrency does not require blind trust in the fundamental sense, so those who kept their balances in trust exchanges minimal to nil, lost nothing
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "trust exchange" but the people who kept their money under their mattress during the depression also lost nothing (unless you consider the reduced spending power (which Bitcoin also experienced.)
This "crash" was not sudden or mysterious. Those with the slightest modicum of common sense got out long ago. Other's with a taste for danger kept in or bought in up to the last minute. But just like playing with penny stocks, the risk was very high.
People have said this about every crash. If people really could see it coming everyone would have gotten out of the way and there wouldn't have been a crash. Sure a couple of people might have seen it coming and made out like bandits but clearly the majority of people didn't.
MtGOX itself was a form of ponzi scheme. You could also have a ponzi scheme based on chicken eggs, or bottle caps. This does not mean that eggs themselves are a ponzi scheme, and neither are bitcoins.
I'll not comment on whether MtGOX was or was not operating a ponzi scheme. I'm not sure why you would extrapolate from that to bitcoin being a ponzi scheme. From my perspective, bitcoin as a whole looks a lot more like a ponzi scheme than MtGOX did.
On the other side of the coin, any form for exchange is backed with trust. So long as people continue to trust in the cryptographic and stability of the network itself. Those appear to remain strong, and merchants accepting the currency semi-directly continue to operate.
A true statement but how will you convince people to trust the exchanges again. There are no assurances that any other exchange won't turn over tomorrow and do exactly the same thing as MtGOX.
The lesson learned: crypto currency can sustain major scandals denominated in itself and not be fundamentally broken. Also, its possible for exchanges and reserve banks to prove solvency cryptographically, and doing so will become the "FDIC" equivalent for the crypto currency world.
The thing is: with fractional reserve banking, no bank is really "solvent". The whole point of a bank is to collaborate it into one area where it can be balanced.
I know they all went out and bought Prius when they came out for the eco-sheik-ness. I didn't hear about the same thing happening with Tesla's though...
I do blended highway/city driving in a huge sprawl city, and I get about 86. [That's 3.9 miles per kWh, which jives with what a lot of people will tell you.] Even under the worst possible conditions (all freeway) I get the 70 miles necessary to go to my office and back.
I do think that electric cars are a good thing overall, but I would be worried doing a 70 mile commute with 86 miles of range. Also, as the car gets older the battery life will very likely degrade somewhat reducing your range. With petrol cars; the engines themselves will degrade, somewhat reducing your range but when you're coming down from a 400 mile range that isn't as much of an issue.
He's either an idiot who doesn't know how to count, or he's trying to say that we already have a concentration of land near the north pole, so there are only three things left to happen.
Just because you don't like the politics of science doesn't mean it can't be true. It may well be shown that this research is flawed and their conclusions are wrong. Likewise, the fact that there is one study that seems to indicate it doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon to do whatever people see as the logical outcome of this finding.
So bats are birds, pi = 3 and a man is able to sustain an erection while asleep?
You'd need a nose-hole to be able to snort the coke though.
I'd post a link to Bang Bus, but I'm at work right now...
Alternately, make them ride in the dark. Naked.
I think that's why they want to prevent pictures, to encourage this kind of behaviour.
When the Mt Gox collapse(s) didn't make it to /. I thought that the flood of bitcoin stories was over, but it seems that it was only the shills who were submitting the stories and only submitting positive stories.
What do you mean by evolve?
When I first got into safety engineering I always imagined myself explaining the concept of a SIL level or the ALARP principle to a grieving widow. On an academic level I know exactly why it makes sense and that it's the best thing overall but it took a while to get rid of that feeling in my gut that it wasn't right.
But why would you want to migrate from the UK to some shitty country?
That's fairly accurate. Calling it a "law" makes it seem as if it is some truth about the universe that is constant, whereas calling things "theories" reflects the fact that we can never be 100% sure. F=ma is indeed close enough that most instruments can't detect it, but following from the discoveries of quantum theory and relativity we know that it is not exact. Equations are created from theories, in much the same way as the Ideal Gas Law was created using molecular theory, but calling these "laws" is just shorthand and in no way indicates that it should be held in higher regard than an theory.
You are very confused. You give the example of gravity as something that's set in stone but then continue to talk about GPS satellites, which rely on the Theory of General Relativity, the equations from which differ from those described by Newton. Newton's laws will get you close enough for what you want to do, but they do not describe the world as accurately as more recent theories. No matter how sure we get about relativity, it will never be promoted to a "law"; even if the equations derived from it are used as rules of thumb and kids might learn them in school under the name of someone's-law.
So, it's like if you park your car in your garage, but then something else in your garage catches fire. The fire spreads and burns down your car.
As the helpful AC pointed out, that's not exactly the way science worked. Calling things "laws" is a bit of a historical artifact. When Newtonian motion was worked out and the laws of thermodynamics were being nutted out the scientists involved thought that they had finally gotten to the bottom of it and they could write laws to codify the way things always behaved. We now realise that they jumped the gun a little. To be elevated to the status of theory is as close to sure as you can get, there is not extra step where we elevate it to a law.
I thought a merkin was like a wig, but for pubic hair.
Well, Flappy Bird was pretty popular, and it had even less story than Pac Man.