No, there is a known process for deciding what to worry about that you seem to be ignoring. It's based on actual evidence. It's called science.
People who go off and advocate that things should be banned just because they can think up stuff that sounds like it might be worth worrying about while ignoring the evidence that it's actually a weird fantasy are what I worry about.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF CRAP ALL SCIENCE DENIERS COME UP WITH.
Some lefties deny GMO research and vaccine effectiveness. Some righties deny global warming and evolution.
Both groups are wrong. I worry that we have a society where it's considered to be ok to make decisions based on ideas that are known to be completely crackpot.
"The Royal Society of Medicine declared that the study is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysisâ(TM) and that no conclusions should be drawn from it."
Congratulations for what will no doubt be the most idiotic comment attached to this story. Something we've come to expect from right wing science deniers.
1. The Akademik Shokalskiy was retracing the Douglas Mawson expedition conducted a century ago. The glacier in their vicinity was named after Xaviar Metz who died on the expedition. It's notable this original expedition was not by ship. It is the subject of David Roberts's book "Alone on the Ice: The Greatest Survival Story in the History of Exploration"
2. The ozone layer hole issue has been ameliorated because the nations of the world got together and banned the CFCs that were causing it. Amazing how science works, eh?
3. You must have a really bad memory. Or maybe you are just a liar. Nobody was predicting loss of rain forests by 1995. Brazil has 5.4 km sq of rain forest, since 1970 they have lost about 10%. Long term it's an issue, which is being addressed by legislation.
No, you cannot have a meaningful trade of x to y where x is a store of value and y is not. So unless bitcoins are perceived as a store of value nobody would trade them for gold or a commodity or anything else that has value.
You can't prove safety. Logical impossibility to prove the lack of harmful effects.
If proving safety was the criteria for adopting technologies fire would have been rejected and we would still be living in dark cold caves eating our meat raw.
> And don't suffer a major illness which takes you out of the workforce for several years.
Most people avoid that, so really it takes some quite bad luck for that to happen. It isn't particularly lucky to avoid that. With the PPACA it shouldn't happen at all.
> And don't invest is supposedly safe things that tank during a major economic recession.
I referenced John Bogle in my comment. If you were to read his advice you would realize that it's not hard to avoid the scenario you proposed. One of the things he points out is that high-paid investment advisors don't know shit. They are salesmen selling useless services, the cost of which materially depletes the efficiency of investing. This has been known for 80 years. cf "Where are the Customer's Yachts", a classic book on the investment industry. Do you due diligence for crying out loud.
> And don't find your previously well-paying job shipped offshore, leaving you working at McDonalds.
That happened to me except I avoided the McDonald's part and found another good job. It did take some effort. I don't think there was any luck involved other than perhaps the part where I worked hard when I was a student to get a good education.
> There's no reasonable excuse why the various pension schemes couldn't have been managed in a responsible way so that the promises made to these ordinary working people would be honored.
I used these various pension schemes. Because I was careful about debt and not buying into keeping up with the Jones and actually thinking about what I was doing I am going to have a comfortable retirement.
Seriously, the whining in your post is really pretty sad. Luck is what happens when you are prepared for life and tackle it head on.
Seriously. The whole science of agriculture has rather drastically modified various food plants over the last 5000 years. All of the stuff you eat, even if it hasn't been gene-spliced in a lab, is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the same plants your ancestors were eating before the development of agriculture and civilization.
Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.
The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.
Primary references available in Wikipedia article.
Yes, I think this is possible. However BTC doesn't have the general acceptance as a store of value that gold had at the time fractional reserve banking was invented. So it's pretty unlikely that anyone would go along with the idea of BTC script issued by Joe's Cryptocurrency Repository.
So BTC has quite the hill climb in front of it.
I do think cryptocurrency has some future to it though. Not exactly bitcoin though. It would have to have a sovereign (i.e. government) behind it, and also get some of the issues with criticisms re: inflationary death spirals addressed.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a story because celebrity.
No, there is a known process for deciding what to worry about that you seem to be ignoring. It's based on actual evidence. It's called science.
People who go off and advocate that things should be banned just because they can think up stuff that sounds like it might be worth worrying about while ignoring the evidence that it's actually a weird fantasy are what I worry about.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF CRAP ALL SCIENCE DENIERS COME UP WITH.
Some lefties deny GMO research and vaccine effectiveness. Some righties deny global warming and evolution.
Both groups are wrong. I worry that we have a society where it's considered to be ok to make decisions based on ideas that are known to be completely crackpot.
Notice the word 'reputable'.
From the Wikipedia article:
"The Royal Society of Medicine declared that the study is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysisâ(TM) and that no conclusions should be drawn from it."
Here is the BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/464416.stm
About 90% of studies on GMO are NOT funded by Monsanto.
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693
The idea that this work is all Monsanto funded is a huge lie.
You can find reasons to worry about anything.
If you applied that sort of logic to say, fire, we would still be living in dark unheated caves eating raw meat.
This is not winning a victory. It's winning a defeat.
is old age. So as other diseases are solved we have cancer moving up the list.
Ordinary people get treated like that too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ALNW-USCG.jpg
Relief efforts = protecting citizens. And it wasn't just National Guard. It was regular Army, Navy and Air Force too.
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/airpower/Pages/box090505katlist.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Navy
http://www.army.mil/article/45029/The_Army_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina/
Calling me a liar on this is complete bullshit. You got caught spewing ignorance and stupidity. Take your medicine.
Congratulations for what will no doubt be the most idiotic comment attached to this story. Something we've come to expect from right wing science deniers.
1. The Akademik Shokalskiy was retracing the Douglas Mawson expedition conducted a century ago. The glacier in their vicinity was named after Xaviar Metz who died on the expedition. It's notable this original expedition was not by ship. It is the subject of David Roberts's book "Alone on the Ice: The Greatest Survival Story in the History of Exploration"
2. The ozone layer hole issue has been ameliorated because the nations of the world got together and banned the CFCs that were causing it. Amazing how science works, eh?
3. You must have a really bad memory. Or maybe you are just a liar. Nobody was predicting loss of rain forests by 1995. Brazil has 5.4 km sq of rain forest, since 1970 they have lost about 10%. Long term it's an issue, which is being addressed by legislation.
O RLY?
There are a lot of people in New Orleans who would disagree with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel_L._Honor%C3%A9#Hurricane_Katrina_and_Hurricane_Rita
Since when do other nations not engage in foreign intelligence gathering?
The idea that it's unusual is ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Notable_cases
I was going for a Thrint in stasis.
Which activities? We won't know what's worthwhile without doing the science.
Remember, it's Ready, Aim, Fire.
In that order.
Rare earth magnets aren't likely to contain back doors either.
No, you cannot have a meaningful trade of x to y where x is a store of value and y is not. So unless bitcoins are perceived as a store of value nobody would trade them for gold or a commodity or anything else that has value.
You can't prove safety. Logical impossibility to prove the lack of harmful effects.
If proving safety was the criteria for adopting technologies fire would have been rejected and we would still be living in dark cold caves eating our meat raw.
> And don't suffer a major illness which takes you out of the workforce for several years.
Most people avoid that, so really it takes some quite bad luck for that to happen. It isn't particularly lucky to avoid that. With the PPACA it shouldn't happen at all.
> And don't invest is supposedly safe things that tank during a major economic recession.
I referenced John Bogle in my comment. If you were to read his advice you would realize that it's not hard to avoid the scenario you proposed. One of the things he points out is that high-paid investment advisors don't know shit. They are salesmen selling useless services, the cost of which materially depletes the efficiency of investing. This has been known for 80 years. cf "Where are the Customer's Yachts", a classic book on the investment industry. Do you due diligence for crying out loud.
> And don't find your previously well-paying job shipped offshore, leaving you working at McDonalds.
That happened to me except I avoided the McDonald's part and found another good job. It did take some effort. I don't think there was any luck involved other than perhaps the part where I worked hard when I was a student to get a good education.
> There's no reasonable excuse why the various pension schemes couldn't have been managed in a responsible way so that the promises made to these ordinary working people would be honored.
I used these various pension schemes. Because I was careful about debt and not buying into keeping up with the Jones and actually thinking about what I was doing I am going to have a comfortable retirement.
Seriously, the whining in your post is really pretty sad. Luck is what happens when you are prepared for life and tackle it head on.
If you don't, well, you were warned.
So anyone who contradicts your evidence-free position is a Momsanto shill?
Talk about ad-hominem.
Seriously. The whole science of agriculture has rather drastically modified various food plants over the last 5000 years. All of the stuff you eat, even if it hasn't been gene-spliced in a lab, is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the same plants your ancestors were eating before the development of agriculture and civilization.
FTFY.
Recent EPA regulatory actions have been to allow INCREASES in glyphosate residues in food because of proven long term safety.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.
The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.
Primary references available in Wikipedia article.
Yes, I think this is possible. However BTC doesn't have the general acceptance as a store of value that gold had at the time fractional reserve banking was invented. So it's pretty unlikely that anyone would go along with the idea of BTC script issued by Joe's Cryptocurrency Repository.
So BTC has quite the hill climb in front of it.
I do think cryptocurrency has some future to it though. Not exactly bitcoin though. It would have to have a sovereign (i.e. government) behind it, and also get some of the issues with criticisms re: inflationary death spirals addressed.
On reading the original I think it is amazingly accurate.
Thanks for the link.
> How is this different from what we have now, I insist and ask ?
It's not. Just read Slashdot and you will see plenty of malaise.
It isn't that hard if you reject consumerism and learn how to invest properly (see John Bogle).
Speaking from personal experience.