I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them.
It's the difference between a fiat currency and a representative currency. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.
I understand perfectly well the difference between fiat currency and representative currency. That doesn't change the fact that all currencies derive their value primarily from their exchangeability rather than their intrinsic worth.
The real difference is that there is a way fiat currency is commonly abused that doesn't happen with representative currency.
There is a built-in unsustainability caused by the private companies that issue fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve. When they create fiat money out of nothing, they loan it to the US Government in exchange for what is basically an IOU from the US Government. But they attach interest to each dollar they create. That means there are not enough total dollars in the system to pay back all of the debt.
There was never enough gold in the US gold reserves to pay back all of the debt represented by gold-backed dollars either.
Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt.
What else is new? The US Government had debt it could not pay off long before Nixon took us off gold.
It can't ever do that, not even if the total federal budget were less than the tax revenues, because the money is loaned at interest the moment it's created. The US Government has to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, to make payments on the existing interest. Therefore, not only can it never get out of debt, the debt must also continue to increase.
The Fed, from whom we are borrowing money at interest, is principally owned by the government and remits its profits to the US treasury (after doling out the appropriate share to member banks). I wish we only had to borrow from them.
Thus, fiat currency dollars don't represent wealth. They represent debt. If all debts were somehow paid off then there would be no money in circulation.
I'm pretty sure that's true of all moneys, everywhere. A piece of currency in my pocket represents somebody else owing me a debt, and it always has. Sometimes this debt has been denominated in a specific amount of a specific metal.
Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.
The difference is that representative currency dollars directly represent a specified amount of a tangible asset. They can be redeemed for that amount of that asset at any time. Their value cannot be lower than the value of that tangible asset.
It can if there's a crisis of confidence in the issuing agency's ability to cover their redemption.
They represent wealth, not debt.
All money represents debt. By definition money represents a promise to pay by somebody else; if it didn't, it wouldn't be money.
What I mean by that is that the term 'unoriginal' in this context is vague. You have to ignore the fact that the gameplay is distinct in order to call the unoriginal. You could call Super Mario 64 unoriginal using the same rationale.
I guess I don't find the gameplay of Sonic to be that distinct. I do find the gameplay of Super Mario 64 distinct. Sonic is just far more similar to SMB in how it plays than any of the other pairs of things you've mentioned are similar to each other. Including Angry Birds. OP's comparisons to Scorched Earth and Tank Wars had me wondering if OP has ever actually played Angry Birds. Shooting objects on parabolic trajectories where one only needs to hit the enemy is very different from shooting objects on parabolic trajectories to impact a structure and cause its collapse; analyzing the structure that needs collapsing is basically a puzzle game unto itself. So I was in total agreement with your main point, I just didn't think Sonic vs. SMB was the best illustration of that point.
Yeah, small businesses in America will be really hurt by their inability to legally scam investors. Real lack of competitiveness on our part, right there. Shit! We're missing out on the investment scam market!
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to say the US is losing competitiveness. This is not one.
Not really. It would be more appropriate to say that about all the people pointing out that GS is basically doing us a favor by not offering it here because it's almost certainly a scam. GP is basically saying "Oh Noes! We are losing investment competitiveness b/c our gov'mint won't allow scams!" but without admitting the scam part.
Is anyone else noticing that all of those subhuman corporate entities and economists have been freaking out a lot lately? Making weird decisions, hiding under the table, chasing their tail, moving investments out of the US?
If by "lately" you mean "for the last 30 years", then sure.
Don't confuse us with mere facts! We enjoy bitchin' about financial institutions. Of course none of this would be happening if we still had the gold standard!
I think this is the likely scenario. Cue the cries of "Goldman Sachs is plotting to screw Joe the Inverstor over."
Here's my advice to Joe: Don't buy into Facebook, and let GS lose out from being unable to find anyone to dump it to.
I agree with your advice. Sadly, you and I both know there will at least just enough Joes for GS to be able to dump.
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them. Just as "worth less" != "worthless", so too "lacking intrinsic worth" != "worthless". Money always has extrinsic worth. That's what makes it money. Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.
Angry Birds is fun and cute, but hardly anything more. It isn't even original.
Yeah, because firing projectiles to kill an enemy on contact is totally the same as firing projectiles to knock down a complex structure that would be a puzzle in itself even if the ballistic aspect were taken out of the game.
You could use the same argument to say that men and women are virtually identical.
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal", which is true of the design of women, because God basically used the same blueprint and only made enough changes for Eve to serve as a companion creature to Adam.
I'm wondering if he's ever seen a game of cricket, because if the bowler's sending it in a noticeable parabola he's doing it wrong. And is probably Australian.
So clearly he's only seen amateur Australians play cricket. Riddle solved.
Why the hell would states restrict usage to conflicts that they're already prepared to engage in with conventional militaries? Dr. Brown himself admits that it's hard to tell the source of an attack, which creates plausible deniability for a state actor to engage in all sorts of conduct they otherwise might not get away with, including (potentially) both of the attacks Brown mentions which might have involved Russia, and all of the Chinese attacks against the US for the past 2 or 3 years, and of course Stuxnet. Why would countries turn down an opportunity to use these types of attacks on their enemies? Just because they're not officially fighting? Yeah, right. Granted cyber-warfare is much more likely to be used for black ops than for a full-scale long-term attack on another country's infrastructure, but that's warfare too. It's "unconventional warfare", but warfare nonetheless.
And there's no real threat of me being blown by an airplane terrorist.
Well, no, I think nearly all airplane terrorists are men who don't swing that way. But it would be an interesting experience right before getting blown up.
I never said they were fighting against an occupation.
Sure, but that's the standard meaning of "[subject] is fighting [object]" except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?
(slashcode eliminated the variables from the other post)
I never said they were fighting against an occupation.
Sure, but that's the standard meaning of " is fighting " except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?
If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
I'm guessing the Iranian nuclear program is not one of Microsoft's core revenue streams.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the difference between a fiat currency and a representative currency. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.
I understand perfectly well the difference between fiat currency and representative currency. That doesn't change the fact that all currencies derive their value primarily from their exchangeability rather than their intrinsic worth.
The real difference is that there is a way fiat currency is commonly abused that doesn't happen with representative currency. There is a built-in unsustainability caused by the private companies that issue fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve. When they create fiat money out of nothing, they loan it to the US Government in exchange for what is basically an IOU from the US Government. But they attach interest to each dollar they create. That means there are not enough total dollars in the system to pay back all of the debt.
There was never enough gold in the US gold reserves to pay back all of the debt represented by gold-backed dollars either.
Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt.
What else is new? The US Government had debt it could not pay off long before Nixon took us off gold.
It can't ever do that, not even if the total federal budget were less than the tax revenues, because the money is loaned at interest the moment it's created. The US Government has to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, to make payments on the existing interest. Therefore, not only can it never get out of debt, the debt must also continue to increase.
The Fed, from whom we are borrowing money at interest, is principally owned by the government and remits its profits to the US treasury (after doling out the appropriate share to member banks). I wish we only had to borrow from them.
Thus, fiat currency dollars don't represent wealth. They represent debt. If all debts were somehow paid off then there would be no money in circulation.
I'm pretty sure that's true of all moneys, everywhere. A piece of currency in my pocket represents somebody else owing me a debt, and it always has. Sometimes this debt has been denominated in a specific amount of a specific metal.
The difference is that representative currency dollars directly represent a specified amount of a tangible asset. They can be redeemed for that amount of that asset at any time. Their value cannot be lower than the value of that tangible asset.
It can if there's a crisis of confidence in the issuing agency's ability to cover their redemption.
They represent wealth, not debt.
All money represents debt. By definition money represents a promise to pay by somebody else; if it didn't, it wouldn't be money.
What I mean by that is that the term 'unoriginal' in this context is vague. You have to ignore the fact that the gameplay is distinct in order to call the unoriginal. You could call Super Mario 64 unoriginal using the same rationale.
I guess I don't find the gameplay of Sonic to be that distinct. I do find the gameplay of Super Mario 64 distinct. Sonic is just far more similar to SMB in how it plays than any of the other pairs of things you've mentioned are similar to each other. Including Angry Birds. OP's comparisons to Scorched Earth and Tank Wars had me wondering if OP has ever actually played Angry Birds. Shooting objects on parabolic trajectories where one only needs to hit the enemy is very different from shooting objects on parabolic trajectories to impact a structure and cause its collapse; analyzing the structure that needs collapsing is basically a puzzle game unto itself. So I was in total agreement with your main point, I just didn't think Sonic vs. SMB was the best illustration of that point.
This mostly-Republican thinks that's actually a fine proposal.
RINO!
Yeah, small businesses in America will be really hurt by their inability to legally scam investors. Real lack of competitiveness on our part, right there. Shit! We're missing out on the investment scam market!
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to say the US is losing competitiveness. This is not one.
Wow, a voice of reason in the middle of a mob
Not really. It would be more appropriate to say that about all the people pointing out that GS is basically doing us a favor by not offering it here because it's almost certainly a scam. GP is basically saying "Oh Noes! We are losing investment competitiveness b/c our gov'mint won't allow scams!" but without admitting the scam part.
Is anyone else noticing that all of those subhuman corporate entities and economists have been freaking out a lot lately? Making weird decisions, hiding under the table, chasing their tail, moving investments out of the US?
If by "lately" you mean "for the last 30 years", then sure.
Jeez, WTF is with all you guys
Don't confuse us with mere facts! We enjoy bitchin' about financial institutions. Of course none of this would be happening if we still had the gold standard!
I am all for a return to the Spanish Dollar standard.
Not confused at all. They owe more than MONEY. You don't get that.
The fed isn't a fucking bank, we had to bail them out because of their own actions, and actions of like banks.
You're right, the fed is a group of 12 FUCKING BANKS.
And I didn't know that the right to pay US federal taxes was one reserved for American Citizens.
No, but people who come to our country ought to learn the language. *duck*
I think this is the likely scenario. Cue the cries of "Goldman Sachs is plotting to screw Joe the Inverstor over." Here's my advice to Joe: Don't buy into Facebook, and let GS lose out from being unable to find anyone to dump it to.
I agree with your advice. Sadly, you and I both know there will at least just enough Joes for GS to be able to dump.
If the sense of humor falls Slashdot will be SOL. No one to sell to and all those nice currency puns up in smoke.
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them. Just as "worth less" != "worthless", so too "lacking intrinsic worth" != "worthless". Money always has extrinsic worth. That's what makes it money. Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal"...
That's not exactly a big distinction. Any inspired piece of work would not be considered 'original' then.
???????????
Angry Birds is fun and cute, but hardly anything more. It isn't even original.
Yeah, because firing projectiles to kill an enemy on contact is totally the same as firing projectiles to knock down a complex structure that would be a puzzle in itself even if the ballistic aspect were taken out of the game.
You could use the same argument to say that men and women are virtually identical.
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal", which is true of the design of women, because God basically used the same blueprint and only made enough changes for Eve to serve as a companion creature to Adam.
I'm wondering if he's ever seen a game of cricket, because if the bowler's sending it in a noticeable parabola he's doing it wrong. And is probably Australian.
So clearly he's only seen amateur Australians play cricket. Riddle solved.
A simple puzzle game. That's the allure. Let's try not to over-analyze.
Yeah, but there are thousands of simple puzzle games. Why should this one be so much more popular?
It's like saying Sonic the Hedgehog is unoriginal because Super Mario Bros. preceded it.
Actually it kinda is. Very little in that game that hadn't been done before.
Can't anything just be fun anymore?
Says the dude that broke the zodiac. Thanks a lot, pal...
Why the hell would states restrict usage to conflicts that they're already prepared to engage in with conventional militaries? Dr. Brown himself admits that it's hard to tell the source of an attack, which creates plausible deniability for a state actor to engage in all sorts of conduct they otherwise might not get away with, including (potentially) both of the attacks Brown mentions which might have involved Russia, and all of the Chinese attacks against the US for the past 2 or 3 years, and of course Stuxnet. Why would countries turn down an opportunity to use these types of attacks on their enemies? Just because they're not officially fighting? Yeah, right. Granted cyber-warfare is much more likely to be used for black ops than for a full-scale long-term attack on another country's infrastructure, but that's warfare too. It's "unconventional warfare", but warfare nonetheless.
And there's no real threat of me being blown by an airplane terrorist.
Well, no, I think nearly all airplane terrorists are men who don't swing that way. But it would be an interesting experience right before getting blown up.
I never said they were fighting against an occupation.
Sure, but that's the standard meaning of "[subject] is fighting [object]" except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?
(slashcode eliminated the variables from the other post)
I never said they were fighting against an occupation.
Sure, but that's the standard meaning of " is fighting " except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?
If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
I'm guessing the Iranian nuclear program is not one of Microsoft's core revenue streams.
Exactly this.
The new york times editors "almost certainly" rape little children on weekends.
I guess this only goes to show, as long as it is a slow news day, they have no issues with me reporting that "fact" online for all to see.
Yeah, but nobody will believe your "fact" because you didn't cite "anonymous sources" who are "experts" on the matter.