And then the fault would start to develop either seawards or landwards of the section that you've locked. Big progress. Not.
Sure... after thousands of years.
What's next on your agenda for repairing? The steady brightening of the Sun due to accumulation of helium in the core?
OK..... orbit massive translucent film around earth; completely enclosing upper atmosphere in "transitions" lenses sunglasses material, that darken as the sun brightens.
You know, when it goes outside of the established parameters it shocks the user...
I was thinking more along the lines of: "activates mag locks", sealing your refrigerators, freezers, pantry, and cupboard doors for a few hours, until you are in a better mood.
Yeah, let's make it build up more pressure before release - that'll work juuuuust fine!:)
In 100 years or so, there will probably be even better technology available to more effectively add friction to the fault line, or transfer the kinetic energy from the release, so the fault begins to form in some safer place.
There is no perfect solution here. I'm not saying companies should erect wind turbines in the middle of nesting areas, but the truth is, there is no risk-free, cost-free
No, but there are solutions that seek to internalize all the costs, and do no environmental harm.
There is a monetary price to pay to make the windfarms do no harm to eagles, but it is possible.
Bitcoin may or may not be a good investment, but it certainly is not a Ponzi Scheme
Suggest an addendum to Godwin's law.
If a discussion continues long enough of any new kind of intangible asset that appears to bring in speculators and exhibits S-curve like growth, there will eventually be mention of Ponzi Schemes.
Of course a key difference with a Ponzi Scheme; is that, in a Ponzi Scheme, the person running the scheme gets paid immediately, after soliciting investors, AND there is a formal promise of an outrageously good return on the original investment, used to promote/solicit investors, There is often deception in the form of statements with false returns, and existing capital, or funds provided by soliciting more investors are used to meet the payouts of return to earlier investors..
Since Bitcoin doesn't work like that... BTC itself is not a Ponzi scheme.
Of course.... you might claim one or more of the BTC exchanges are "Ponzi schemes"; if they are promoting Bitcoin, and suggesting that people "convert their dollars to Bitcoin" at a certain rate, with a promise of a return ---- then the people who convert Bitcoins back to dollars are paid, using the funds provided from earlier investors, while the exchange takes out a fee in dollars and a fee in Bitcoins every time an exchange happens.
However, in this respect..... all FOREX brokers could be thought of as Ponzi schemes, if they promote any currency, to inhabitants of a country that use a different currency.
A mid-level corporate manager at McDonalds probably makes more money than some lab technician.
By that logic, you could look at the IP they are connecting to Facebook from.... if they have been connecting from Google's IP address space, then you might infer they are an office worker who gets the privilege of surfing the internet at work -- which puts them in a higher bracket than someone who connects from a dial-up only ISP or AOL.
Question, if BOA holds your wallet, and receives a large (lets say $1,000,000 value transfer into the account). is there any regulatory requirements to the government?
I suspect; in the long run, the rules for BOA don't change, just because the transaction is denominated in Bitcoin.
If the large value transfer is from another bank, then it's the same as wiring or writing a check $1M dollars.
If the large value transfer is from a non-financial institution, then it's the same as bringing a briefcase into the bank with $1M in 100 dollar bills, and requesting the bank deposit this into a specific account.
An APR of %0 in bitcoins based against a 2% USD inflation would be a equivalent to a 4% APR in USD against the same inflation rate.
What possible motivation could you find for a bank to make a 0% APR in bitcoins and incur risks of nonrepayment? The bank can hold the BTC themselves, and still enjoy the deflation's benefits.
It would only make sense if it were possible to loan out bitcoins that don't physically exist but only on paper, a.l.a. fractional reserve banking, that the customer would still have to repay.
But since the federal reserve can't just will more bitcoin notes into existence: that won't work.
I do think that some of the other cryptocurrencies that incorporate a simply determined inflation rate are more likely to achieve a stable value.
Perhaps.... banks such as BOFA; should love a deflationary cryptocurrency; if that is indeed what Bitcoin turns out to be.
The problem is; much economic activity is unlikely to happen, if the currency is indeed deflationary
For folks borrowing money (E.g. Borrowing Bitcoins) ---- many consumers with credit cards;
A deflationary currency sucks, because over time, you will be paying back your loans over time in deflating BTCs that are worth more and more in real money terms, than the money you borrowed.
Credit cards, bank accounts, etc. that offer me asset protection and such will be just as useful for Bitcoins as they are for cash, but they will be denominated in a currency independent of any given country.
That makes sense for joe average consumer. Let a third party "bank" do the heavy lifting of keeping your wallet and private keys; the bank is responsible for security and providing convenient access.
When you want to go to a store and buy something; you do something that directs your bank to execute the bitcoin transfer.
By the same token; you can go online, withdraw some bitcoins from your bank account to a local wallet -- and pay the vendor.
The thieves probably (wrongly, of course) assumed this was something similar: drugs, money, or something else valuable labeled with radioactive symbols to discourage theft.
Probably. This is why it should also be a crime to label shipping containers as hazardous, toxic, or radioactive that are not.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death
Carjacking a van from the driver at gun point warrants potential death. Especially a van containing an extremely hazardous payload, such as radioactive material --- or such as a nuclear weapon.
Had the driver been armed; it may have happened by the robbers dying after being shot in self-defense.
In this case; they stole something that could be extremely dangerous to the public.
And in this case inflicted upon themselves.
I don't cheer their death, but the outcome does fit the crime.
Your analogy sucks. Walmart has PUBLIC restrooms. That means they are offering its services, usage and water for free.
Maybe so, but you won't see that advertised anywhere. They sometimes even have "Employees Only" signs, that some folks ignore.
People use restrooms all the time, without getting permission from anyone, or there being a sign that restrooms are free as a courtesy to the public.
More so even than water... Electricity is an intangible asset; not an "object" that is capable of being stolen.
Electricity is not a "thing", like a coke bottle, or even a glass of water; it is the presence of a charge that is enabled to produce a current.
It makes about as much sense to say "took someone's electricity" as it does to say "took their light", by staring at their lightbulb.
They don't even "own" it when it's not in use ---- the OUTLET is their property.
Electricity is a metered utility that flows through their property, not a thing that someone's taken.
If someone breaks into your outdoor outlet... and plugs something in; they have not "Stolen" your outlet.
They have trespassed on your premises, and committed a fraud by using a metered service in your name.
Don't forget that an action that saves a few thousand dollars, that has a 10% chance of costing a million, is still a very bad risk
When it comes to security; an action that saves a few thousand dollars, that has a 0.01% chance of costing a million, is still a very bad risk.
Remember.... something that happens 0.01% of the time, is still essentially guaranteed to eventually happen, after approximately 10000 times on average.
To save that few thousand dollars; the risk scenario has to pan out in your favor every time ------- an attacker only has to get lucky once.
Per the law of very large numbers...... statistics is totally stacked against you; with a large enough sample size (attacks, or days);
the probability of an attacker getting lucky approaches 100% pretty darn quickly, even if only 0.01% of the time you expect to incur that cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists discover writing on the side of the jar saying "Instant canned fruit drink, type 3 field ration, just add beer"
To get rid of the cat? I think this size should work:
If your cat is a fully grown lion, maybe.
remember a few years ago, the govt cracked down on lavish parties.
It was just for show. The folks in power still have lavish parties.
The crackdown was on lavish parties not setup with with the right contractors who are buddy-buddy with the powers that be.
Yep, well, if you're a guy wearing a bra then you know you already need to stop eating.
Operant conditioning..... if you eat anyways... embarrasing pictures of you will be posted as Tweets and Facebook status updates.
And then the fault would start to develop either seawards or landwards of the section that you've locked. Big progress. Not.
Sure... after thousands of years.
What's next on your agenda for repairing? The steady brightening of the Sun due to accumulation of helium in the core?
OK..... orbit massive translucent film around earth; completely enclosing upper atmosphere in "transitions" lenses sunglasses material, that darken as the sun brightens.
Seriously..... then it wouldn't be restricted to women!
You know, when it goes outside of the established parameters it shocks the user...
I was thinking more along the lines of: "activates mag locks", sealing your refrigerators, freezers, pantry, and cupboard doors for a few hours, until you are in a better mood.
I wonder what the Stasi and the Gestapo did to bolster employee morale.
Most likely: Lavish parties, with women and copious amounts of liquor.
Yeah, let's make it build up more pressure before release - that'll work juuuuust fine! :)
In 100 years or so, there will probably be even better technology available to more effectively add friction to the fault line, or transfer the kinetic energy from the release, so the fault begins to form in some safer place.
How about we get kids excited about solving maths problems without having kids solving maths problems?
We can give kids a ruler, a compass, and a protractor instead: and just see what neat things they can create
There is no perfect solution here. I'm not saying companies should erect wind turbines in the middle of nesting areas, but the truth is, there is no risk-free, cost-free
No, but there are solutions that seek to internalize all the costs, and do no environmental harm.
There is a monetary price to pay to make the windfarms do no harm to eagles, but it is possible.
Bitcoin may or may not be a good investment, but it certainly is not a Ponzi Scheme
Suggest an addendum to Godwin's law.
If a discussion continues long enough of any new kind of intangible asset that appears to bring in speculators and exhibits S-curve like growth, there will eventually be mention of Ponzi Schemes.
Of course a key difference with a Ponzi Scheme; is that, in a Ponzi Scheme, the person running the scheme gets paid immediately, after soliciting investors, AND there is a formal promise of an outrageously good return on the original investment, used to promote/solicit investors, There is often deception in the form of statements with false returns, and existing capital, or funds provided by soliciting more investors are used to meet the payouts of return to earlier investors..
Since Bitcoin doesn't work like that... BTC itself is not a Ponzi scheme.
Of course.... you might claim one or more of the BTC exchanges are "Ponzi schemes"; if they are promoting Bitcoin, and suggesting that people "convert their dollars to Bitcoin" at a certain rate, with a promise of a return ---- then the people who convert Bitcoins back to dollars are paid, using the funds provided from earlier investors, while the exchange takes out a fee in dollars and a fee in Bitcoins every time an exchange happens.
However, in this respect..... all FOREX brokers could be thought of as Ponzi schemes, if they promote any currency, to inhabitants of a country that use a different currency.
Plate tectonics can push Mt. Everest to 29000 feet, and we are going to fix it with concrete and rebar?
Plate tectonics can do that, but over hundreds of millions of years -- not overnight.
The idea isn't to stop plate tectonics.... it's to delay the sliding a couple hundred years :)
Perhaps by drilling millions of holes; and driving millions of rods of steel rebar into the clay, to reinforce the fault line.
A mid-level corporate manager at McDonalds probably makes more money than some lab technician.
By that logic, you could look at the IP they are connecting to Facebook from.... if they have been connecting from Google's IP address space, then you might infer they are an office worker who gets the privilege of surfing the internet at work -- which puts them in a higher bracket than someone who connects from a dial-up only ISP or AOL.
Question, if BOA holds your wallet, and receives a large (lets say $1,000,000 value transfer into the account). is there any regulatory requirements to the government?
I suspect; in the long run, the rules for BOA don't change, just because the transaction is denominated in Bitcoin.
If the large value transfer is from another bank, then it's the same as wiring or writing a check $1M dollars.
If the large value transfer is from a non-financial institution, then it's the same as bringing a briefcase into the bank with $1M in 100 dollar bills, and requesting the bank deposit this into a specific account.
I should of read the preview. bicycle busses
To the passive rider problem.
Replace all transit vehicles with bicycle busses!
An APR of %0 in bitcoins based against a 2% USD inflation would be a equivalent to a 4% APR in USD against the same inflation rate.
What possible motivation could you find for a bank to make a 0% APR in bitcoins and incur risks of nonrepayment? The bank can hold the BTC themselves, and still enjoy the deflation's benefits.
It would only make sense if it were possible to loan out bitcoins that don't physically exist but only on paper, a.l.a. fractional reserve banking, that the customer would still have to repay.
But since the federal reserve can't just will more bitcoin notes into existence: that won't work.
I do think that some of the other cryptocurrencies that incorporate a simply determined inflation rate are more likely to achieve a stable value.
Perhaps.... banks such as BOFA; should love a deflationary cryptocurrency; if that is indeed what Bitcoin turns out to be. The problem is; much economic activity is unlikely to happen, if the currency is indeed deflationary
For folks borrowing money (E.g. Borrowing Bitcoins) ---- many consumers with credit cards;
A deflationary currency sucks, because over time, you will be paying back your loans over time in deflating BTCs that are worth more and more in real money terms, than the money you borrowed.
Credit cards, bank accounts, etc. that offer me asset protection and such will be just as useful for Bitcoins as they are for cash, but they will be denominated in a currency independent of any given country.
That makes sense for joe average consumer. Let a third party "bank" do the heavy lifting of keeping your wallet and private keys; the bank is responsible for security and providing convenient access.
When you want to go to a store and buy something; you do something that directs your bank to execute the bitcoin transfer.
By the same token; you can go online, withdraw some bitcoins from your bank account to a local wallet -- and pay the vendor.
The thieves probably (wrongly, of course) assumed this was something similar: drugs, money, or something else valuable labeled with radioactive symbols to discourage theft.
Probably. This is why it should also be a crime to label shipping containers as hazardous, toxic, or radioactive that are not.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death
Carjacking a van from the driver at gun point warrants potential death. Especially a van containing an extremely hazardous payload, such as radioactive material --- or such as a nuclear weapon.
Had the driver been armed; it may have happened by the robbers dying after being shot in self-defense.
In this case; they stole something that could be extremely dangerous to the public.
And in this case inflicted upon themselves.
I don't cheer their death, but the outcome does fit the crime.
Your analogy sucks. Walmart has PUBLIC restrooms. That means they are offering its services, usage and water for free.
Maybe so, but you won't see that advertised anywhere. They sometimes even have "Employees Only" signs, that some folks ignore.
People use restrooms all the time, without getting permission from anyone, or there being a sign that restrooms are free as a courtesy to the public.
More so even than water... Electricity is an intangible asset; not an "object" that is capable of being stolen.
Electricity is not a "thing", like a coke bottle, or even a glass of water; it is the presence of a charge that is enabled to produce a current.
It makes about as much sense to say "took someone's electricity" as it does to say "took their light", by staring at their lightbulb.
They don't even "own" it when it's not in use ---- the OUTLET is their property. Electricity is a metered utility that flows through their property, not a thing that someone's taken.
If someone breaks into your outdoor outlet... and plugs something in; they have not "Stolen" your outlet. They have trespassed on your premises, and committed a fraud by using a metered service in your name.
Don't forget that an action that saves a few thousand dollars, that has a 10% chance of costing a million, is still a very bad risk
When it comes to security; an action that saves a few thousand dollars, that has a 0.01% chance of costing a million, is still a very bad risk.
Remember.... something that happens 0.01% of the time, is still essentially guaranteed to eventually happen, after approximately 10000 times on average.
To save that few thousand dollars; the risk scenario has to pan out in your favor every time ------- an attacker only has to get lucky once.
Per the law of very large numbers...... statistics is totally stacked against you; with a large enough sample size (attacks, or days); the probability of an attacker getting lucky approaches 100% pretty darn quickly, even if only 0.01% of the time you expect to incur that cost.