Carve out twenty minutes to listen to it again. They specifically address your points, such as whether gold "just made it" or whether it was "destined to make it as the only good choice". They come down on the latter conclusion.
Diamonds aren't malleable nor (easily) divisible nor can they be recombined.
There are lots and lots of characteristics that make a good commodity store of value. Gold has a heck of a lot of them, not just one or two.
No, there are not a lot of other really great substances we could have chosen.
But you are right about one thing, we didn't choose gold for the industrial properties, unless you count the making of jewelry.
Mmm hmm. And most gun owners are responsible like that, perhaps such a large majority that gun control is mostly unnecessary. Perhaps. But we don't have laws only for the majority who use dangerous things in a safe way, we also have laws to keep the jackass minority from fucking it up for the rest of us. It's a balance. In my opinion we are currently a little bit out of balance and I think we could get into a better balance with some minor efforts around the edges.
For instance, making it illegal to market deadly firearms to children (this, shockingly, is not already the law); requiring insurance against the mis-use of a gun (which would incentivize people to use locks without having government agents knocking on your door); and offering firearm classes in public schools (like we used to with rifles, except expand that to handguns as well). Also I don't think we need a "ban" on assault rifles but I'd like them to be kept at armories (private gun clubs) instead of in homes where suicidal asshole children of nutters can't grab them for a quick bit of ultraviolence before they kill themselves.
I am totally right and you are totally wrong. Wherever gun control has been effective, gun deaths (and violence) have reduced substantially -- every single time, 100% success, with zero failures -- ineffective gun control notwithstanding.
Does that make gun-ownership-reduction a "Good" policy for the United States? Statistics don't answer that question, but they do answer the question of whether it would "work" to reduce gun violence.
Platinum is the second most appropriate metal for value storage, according to the podcast. The characteristics that make it less good than gold are that it is more rare, perhaps too rare to be a useful currency; that it has a melting point too high for pre-industrial societies to make use of it; and that it looks too much like other non-precious metals, whereas gold is "obviously" gold.
"Really ?? Haven't seen any whales at the local fishin' hole."
I don't know you, but my guess is that's because you don't live near the ocean. Where I previously lived, in Juneau, Alaska, there were whales in the local fishing hole. Now I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and there are no whales in the local fishing hole.
You're pretty sure? Well I'm pretty sure you didn't listen to the podcast. They cover iridium (too rare) and copper (not rare enough). There are other important characteristics too, such as melting point and testability. In the end they qualify gold as the only element left standing as the best precious metal for trade.
"But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms."
It's disingenuous of you to focus on 100 deaths when gun regulation would affect all gun deaths, not just mass shootings. It would probably affect mass shootings less than other gun deaths. There are a hell of a lot more than 100 gun deaths per year, plus much more still carnage wrought short of death.
Nevertheless you are totally right about the cost-benefit analysis, notwithstanding being wrong about the costs of widespread gun ownership.
Because "knowingly decrease their ability to drive" is an unattainably high standard. No radio? No seat warmers? No passengers? No uncomfortable clothes? All these things decrease your ability to drive by more than zero. It is untenable to apply a zero-threshold to alcohol.
I was converted away from your opinion by this podcast. There are not, in fact, "lots of other materials" with all those properties. In fact, there is only gold. I listened to that with an open mind and I was convinced.
You want me to just speculate? Okay, I'll speculate. It would make it easier to verify citizenship in the variety of places we do so with federal implication, such as crossing borders, voting, receiving federal benefits, or buying large amounts of fertilizer. Today we have, basically, the passport as a stand-in for federal identification like that so an actual ID-style card would be similar to a passport, but used like an ID. This would improve over the current situation which is to let the states handle IDs for most cases, but they fuck it up pretty badly when they give the 9/11 terrorists state IDs, or give illegal immigrants IDs that are only supposed to be held by citizens. It would obviate the need for the Real-ID Act.
Is my speculation helpful? I don't think it's necessary. My point is that you seem to be really hopped up over a triviality. Today we have biometric databases of citizen data, for good reasons, and over time those databases will come and go and change, and there's nothing scary about the one in this story.
If you have a drivers license (or permit, or non-permit ID) then you have a biometric ID linked to a centralized database. So what the heck is so scary about this one?
I don't know why I even bother to ask since you think "having an ID is a step toward a police state". That's a loony belief.
Of course there is reason to tie it into a national database. Why would anyone propose to do it if there were no reason? What am I supposed to understand the difference between? The difference between the biometric databases you have no problem with (state-issued biometric drivers licenses, federally-issued biometric passports) and the ones you do (scary new ones that you fear for some reason)?
Good, it's about time we finally have something like this. Let's do it right and have an actual, official national identity registry. It can help us with voting, getting on airplanes, and crossing borders. Stop it with the nonsense about the mark of the beast and tyranny. If you think "having a photo ID" is "tyranny" then you need to get some perspective.
Britons love to call themselves a Constitutional Monarchy but that is not true. They don't have a Constitution (if they do, then they can point to it; if you can't point to it, then it doesn't exist) and their Monarchy is more specifically described as a Theocracy.
Britain is a Theocracy, which is so preposterously anachronistic in Western Civilization that even though their Theocracy doesn't become an issue very often, it is extremely embarrassing that they haven't tidied up that bit of their structure yet.
If they want to have a Constitution then they should WRITE ONE. If they don't want to be a Theocracy then they should REPEAL THE NATIONAL RELIGION. While they are at it, they should step cautiously into the 18th century by abolishing the monarchy, too.
Ceremonial power is real. All power is real. There is no such thing as "fake power", that is total nonsense. If she has no power then she isn't a queen. The basis of the problem is that Britons (and others) accept the concept that their leaders can be born into the role. That is an immoral belief. Moral people reject birthright. If you like the queen (and who wouldn't? she seems dandy) then vote for her.
If she "has no power", then she isn't a queen. Do you all listen to her when she makes a speech? Then she has power. Do taxes support her lifestyle? Then she has power. Does she in fact, as you say, "do the ceremonial guff"? Then she has power. It is complete nonsense to say she is powerless.
If you want a "powerless" head of state who you can treat with honour and respect then VOTE FOR HER.
You accept the idea that some people are born better than other people. That is a disgusting belief.
Your queen appears to be a super duper nice lady so I suggest you all get together and do what enlightened societies do: vote for her. Vote for her over and over again if you want her to be your leader for her whole life.
I bet it's less than 1%, and this gun at this time isn't the real problem. The real problem is the gun that can be printed five years from now using metal epoxy that will have a MTBF high enough to be used in attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a Flamebait for that comment? That's a bullshit mod right there.
Carve out twenty minutes to listen to it again. They specifically address your points, such as whether gold "just made it" or whether it was "destined to make it as the only good choice". They come down on the latter conclusion.
Diamonds aren't malleable nor (easily) divisible nor can they be recombined.
There are lots and lots of characteristics that make a good commodity store of value. Gold has a heck of a lot of them, not just one or two.
No, there are not a lot of other really great substances we could have chosen.
But you are right about one thing, we didn't choose gold for the industrial properties, unless you count the making of jewelry.
Mmm hmm. And most gun owners are responsible like that, perhaps such a large majority that gun control is mostly unnecessary. Perhaps. But we don't have laws only for the majority who use dangerous things in a safe way, we also have laws to keep the jackass minority from fucking it up for the rest of us. It's a balance. In my opinion we are currently a little bit out of balance and I think we could get into a better balance with some minor efforts around the edges.
For instance, making it illegal to market deadly firearms to children (this, shockingly, is not already the law); requiring insurance against the mis-use of a gun (which would incentivize people to use locks without having government agents knocking on your door); and offering firearm classes in public schools (like we used to with rifles, except expand that to handguns as well). Also I don't think we need a "ban" on assault rifles but I'd like them to be kept at armories (private gun clubs) instead of in homes where suicidal asshole children of nutters can't grab them for a quick bit of ultraviolence before they kill themselves.
I am totally right and you are totally wrong. Wherever gun control has been effective, gun deaths (and violence) have reduced substantially -- every single time, 100% success, with zero failures -- ineffective gun control notwithstanding.
Does that make gun-ownership-reduction a "Good" policy for the United States? Statistics don't answer that question, but they do answer the question of whether it would "work" to reduce gun violence.
Platinum is the second most appropriate metal for value storage, according to the podcast. The characteristics that make it less good than gold are that it is more rare, perhaps too rare to be a useful currency; that it has a melting point too high for pre-industrial societies to make use of it; and that it looks too much like other non-precious metals, whereas gold is "obviously" gold.
"Otherwise, what's the point?"
Murder, presumably, or more specifically assassination.
"Really ?? Haven't seen any whales at the local fishin' hole."
I don't know you, but my guess is that's because you don't live near the ocean. Where I previously lived, in Juneau, Alaska, there were whales in the local fishing hole. Now I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and there are no whales in the local fishing hole.
You're pretty sure? Well I'm pretty sure you didn't listen to the podcast. They cover iridium (too rare) and copper (not rare enough). There are other important characteristics too, such as melting point and testability. In the end they qualify gold as the only element left standing as the best precious metal for trade.
"But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms."
It's disingenuous of you to focus on 100 deaths when gun regulation would affect all gun deaths, not just mass shootings. It would probably affect mass shootings less than other gun deaths. There are a hell of a lot more than 100 gun deaths per year, plus much more still carnage wrought short of death.
Nevertheless you are totally right about the cost-benefit analysis, notwithstanding being wrong about the costs of widespread gun ownership.
Because "knowingly decrease their ability to drive" is an unattainably high standard. No radio? No seat warmers? No passengers? No uncomfortable clothes? All these things decrease your ability to drive by more than zero. It is untenable to apply a zero-threshold to alcohol.
I was converted away from your opinion by this podcast. There are not, in fact, "lots of other materials" with all those properties. In fact, there is only gold. I listened to that with an open mind and I was convinced.
Fraud is theft by deception, which well describes advertising.
You want me to just speculate? Okay, I'll speculate. It would make it easier to verify citizenship in the variety of places we do so with federal implication, such as crossing borders, voting, receiving federal benefits, or buying large amounts of fertilizer. Today we have, basically, the passport as a stand-in for federal identification like that so an actual ID-style card would be similar to a passport, but used like an ID. This would improve over the current situation which is to let the states handle IDs for most cases, but they fuck it up pretty badly when they give the 9/11 terrorists state IDs, or give illegal immigrants IDs that are only supposed to be held by citizens. It would obviate the need for the Real-ID Act.
Is my speculation helpful? I don't think it's necessary. My point is that you seem to be really hopped up over a triviality. Today we have biometric databases of citizen data, for good reasons, and over time those databases will come and go and change, and there's nothing scary about the one in this story.
If you have a drivers license (or permit, or non-permit ID) then you have a biometric ID linked to a centralized database. So what the heck is so scary about this one?
I don't know why I even bother to ask since you think "having an ID is a step toward a police state". That's a loony belief.
Of course there is reason to tie it into a national database. Why would anyone propose to do it if there were no reason? What am I supposed to understand the difference between? The difference between the biometric databases you have no problem with (state-issued biometric drivers licenses, federally-issued biometric passports) and the ones you do (scary new ones that you fear for some reason)?
Maybe they're going outside to get some exercise.
Ha! Just kidding.
Did you just equate "having an ID" with "a police state", or did I misunderstand?
You want to know what a police state looks like? This. It looks like this. You know, with ARMED POLICE literally watching you as you go about your business. That's a police state. Stop it with the nonsense about how normal, unremarkable aspects of government are "police state".
Good, it's about time we finally have something like this. Let's do it right and have an actual, official national identity registry. It can help us with voting, getting on airplanes, and crossing borders. Stop it with the nonsense about the mark of the beast and tyranny. If you think "having a photo ID" is "tyranny" then you need to get some perspective.
I like politics. It's like sports, but it matters.
Britons love to call themselves a Constitutional Monarchy but that is not true. They don't have a Constitution (if they do, then they can point to it; if you can't point to it, then it doesn't exist) and their Monarchy is more specifically described as a Theocracy.
Britain is a Theocracy, which is so preposterously anachronistic in Western Civilization that even though their Theocracy doesn't become an issue very often, it is extremely embarrassing that they haven't tidied up that bit of their structure yet.
If they want to have a Constitution then they should WRITE ONE. If they don't want to be a Theocracy then they should REPEAL THE NATIONAL RELIGION. While they are at it, they should step cautiously into the 18th century by abolishing the monarchy, too.
Ceremonial power is real. All power is real. There is no such thing as "fake power", that is total nonsense. If she has no power then she isn't a queen. The basis of the problem is that Britons (and others) accept the concept that their leaders can be born into the role. That is an immoral belief. Moral people reject birthright. If you like the queen (and who wouldn't? she seems dandy) then vote for her.
If she "has no power", then she isn't a queen. Do you all listen to her when she makes a speech? Then she has power. Do taxes support her lifestyle? Then she has power. Does she in fact, as you say, "do the ceremonial guff"? Then she has power. It is complete nonsense to say she is powerless.
If you want a "powerless" head of state who you can treat with honour and respect then VOTE FOR HER.
You accept the idea that some people are born better than other people. That is a disgusting belief.
Your queen appears to be a super duper nice lady so I suggest you all get together and do what enlightened societies do: vote for her. Vote for her over and over again if you want her to be your leader for her whole life.
I give you a +5, Insightful. Your Flamebait mod is completely unfair.
The entire notion of royalty is antithetical to individual freedom. People who accept royalty even as a concept are buffoons.
I bet it's less than 1%, and this gun at this time isn't the real problem. The real problem is the gun that can be printed five years from now using metal epoxy that will have a MTBF high enough to be used in attacks.