Blogs do not have the journalistic integrity that "the press" had and generally still does have. Granted, mainstream journalism is slowly sliding down to match the blogosphere's integrity and journalistic standards, but they aren't quite there yet.
While everyone posting would be verified an adult via CC, one does not have to pay to read posts. Therefore, it is probable that posts will be reviewed for content.
Remember, a vast majority of the smart phone buying public just want the smart phone features and apps; they don't care if they can mod the phone or not.
'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.'
In other words, the law shouldn't be enforced because ordinary people are too stupid to know the law and follow it.
No, "RIAA executives are idiots" is an opinion and a subjective opinion at that.
That unauthorized copiers of copyrighted material who refer to themselves as "sharers" are law breaking assholes is objective facts. They are breaking the law, know they are breaking the law, refuse to stop breaking the law, and are angry when they are prosecuted and sued under the law.
How about the fact that hundreds of NASA employees will not be thrown out of work? How about the fact that hundreds if not thousands of current commercial suppliers to NASA will not be thrown out of work? How about the fact that there will still be jobs created because there will still be development outsourced from NASA?
How about the fact that these people are basically complaining because they won't get any corporate welfare?
There may be facts, but the facts are incomplete. This article is not written to high journalistic standards. It is, in fact, a spin piece more appropriate as an editorial rather than actual journalism.
Seeing as I live in central Florida, I happen to know that the newspaper in question is also in central Florida. The article gets its "potential effect on the North Florida economy" from people who have a personal interest in presenting a negative effect. The people listed and the their income will be negatively effected and from that these people have stated that the impact will be negative. "I won't be able to exploit the government and workers so this bill sucks." That is the sum total of their evidence.
So, what you are saying is that U.S. space policy should be decided by an engineer who would rather be working as a research engineer rather than a practical engineer.
"He really wants to work on experimental stuff" as opposed to practical stuff that can be used today. Why doesn't he start his own experimental space technology company or go to work for a company is that is doing that kind of work rather than working for the government?
What I noticed was that the article is against the new spending bill and that all the quoted sources in the article benefit from the current spending plan.
Every single one of the named sources is attached to and gets money from commercial space interests in some way.
Bitcoins have no value, therefore I have made a generous exchange rate for something that has no value. In doing so, I have set the exchange rate for them.
Nickel and tin have an intrinsic value. The metal can be and is used for other things. Bitcoins have no intrinsic value and can be used for nothing else.
The solution to a mathematics problem has no intrinsic value, but rather only has a value in a specific situation. Math can not back the medium of exchange because it has no intrinsic value and provides no guarantee of payment.
Why should anyone trust a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value and is not backed by the faith and credit of anyone or anything?
It has intrinsic value.. the same intrinsic value of fiat currencies. It is easier than barter.
Fiat currency has little intrinsic value. The value of fiat currency comes from the central backing authority. The U.S. dollar is a fiat currency. It has value because the government of United States says it has value and that it will recognize the dollar as the medium of exchange of the United States. Bitcoins has no central backing authority so has no value as fiat money. There is no one to declare it as money by fiat.
Why should I or anyone accept bitcoins when there is no guarantee bitcoins will be redeemable for anything of value?
Unless you condone slavery or expropriation of wealth by force, there's no guarantee any other currency will be redeemable for anything of value either. And, in that case, why bother with currency anyways? Just pillage instead.
That is a false dichotomy. Either the money has intrinsic value, such as gold coins or the money is fiat money and said money is backed by the government which guarantees the money is good. If someone refuses to accepts a government's fiat money in said governments jurisdiction, said someone can not turn to the government to be paid as said someone has refused payment in the legal tender of the government.
Where does the value of bitcoins come from?
The same place all value comes from: thermodynamics.
Bitcoins have no value because nothing backs them as fiat money and they have no intrinsic value as they do not have a physical existence.
Linden dollars have a value as fiat money because they can be spent in Second Life for virtual items and they can be bought or sold for other currency. However, without Second Life, Linden dollars have no value. As there is not bitcoins equivalent of Second Life, bitcoins have no value.
Please demonstrate that bitcoins have value by listing where and what one can currently purchase with bitcoins.
If there is no central authority backing the currency and the "limited resource" that is bitcoins has no intrinsic value, why should anyone exchange something that has intrinsic value or fiat money for bitcoins?
Slashdot Mirror
As a demonstration of printing, maybe. But as a general demonstration, not so much.
Blogs do not have the journalistic integrity that "the press" had and generally still does have. Granted, mainstream journalism is slowly sliding down to match the blogosphere's integrity and journalistic standards, but they aren't quite there yet.
While everyone posting would be verified an adult via CC, one does not have to pay to read posts. Therefore, it is probable that posts will be reviewed for content.
Of course we are happier in the morning. We haven't gone to work, had to deal with idiots, listened to the news tell us how everything sucks.
The best day is the day where one does not listen to the news, drive in rush hour traffic, or have to deal with one's boss or cow-irkers.
Remember, a vast majority of the smart phone buying public just want the smart phone features and apps; they don't care if they can mod the phone or not.
'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.'
This just in, people prefer to believe things that conform to their own biases regardless of the facts.
In other news, religion is still popular even though the facts indicate religion is just self-delusion and wishful thinking.
No, "RIAA executives are idiots" is an opinion and a subjective opinion at that.
That unauthorized copiers of copyrighted material who refer to themselves as "sharers" are law breaking assholes is objective facts. They are breaking the law, know they are breaking the law, refuse to stop breaking the law, and are angry when they are prosecuted and sued under the law.
People, generally the loser, pays court costs. So, when you cheer the people who refuse to pay, you are cheering the "waste".
More importantly, these suits are but a drop in the ocean of legal wrangling. Just ask the ambulance chasing shyster who submitted this blogspam.
How about the fact that hundreds of NASA employees will not be thrown out of work?
How about the fact that hundreds if not thousands of current commercial suppliers to NASA will not be thrown out of work?
How about the fact that there will still be jobs created because there will still be development outsourced from NASA?
How about the fact that these people are basically complaining because they won't get any corporate welfare?
There may be facts, but the facts are incomplete. This article is not written to high journalistic standards. It is, in fact, a spin piece more appropriate as an editorial rather than actual journalism.
Seeing as I live in central Florida, I happen to know that the newspaper in question is also in central Florida. The article gets its "potential effect on the North Florida economy" from people who have a personal interest in presenting a negative effect. The people listed and the their income will be negatively effected and from that these people have stated that the impact will be negative. "I won't be able to exploit the government and workers so this bill sucks." That is the sum total of their evidence.
I see that the moderation of "troll" has now come to mean "I do not agree with you." Isn't that just lovely?
So, what you are saying is that U.S. space policy should be decided by an engineer who would rather be working as a research engineer rather than a practical engineer.
"He really wants to work on experimental stuff" as opposed to practical stuff that can be used today. Why doesn't he start his own experimental space technology company or go to work for a company is that is doing that kind of work rather than working for the government?
Yes, I am sure they slapped his hands for talking about it.
Last time I checked, business executives whose main goal is make a profit are not rocket scientists either.
Since when do a bunch of business executives know dink about the best cost solution to any technical problem?
What I noticed was that the article is against the new spending bill and that all the quoted sources in the article benefit from the current spending plan.
Every single one of the named sources is attached to and gets money from commercial space interests in some way.
Because most people are lame, unimaginative, and stupid. They can't help but to allude to a 40 year old political scandal.
Bitcoins have no value, therefore I have made a generous exchange rate for something that has no value. In doing so, I have set the exchange rate for them.
If it is a fiat currency, then you should have no problem buying a pint with it at the local pub. Let me know how that works out for you.
And, who sets the exchange rate? I have offered US$1.00 for all 21 million bitcoins. That is the exchange rate: 1 bitcoin = 1/21,000,000 of a dollar.
Nickel and tin have an intrinsic value. The metal can be and is used for other things. Bitcoins have no intrinsic value and can be used for nothing else.
And, yet, there is no reason to accept for anyone bitcoins as currency. It is a unwanted solution in search of a problem.
In fact, please list all places and sites where one can exchange bitcoins for U.S. dollars or Euros and what the current exchange rate is.
The solution to a mathematics problem has no intrinsic value, but rather only has a value in a specific situation. Math can not back the medium of exchange because it has no intrinsic value and provides no guarantee of payment.
Fiat currency has little intrinsic value. The value of fiat currency comes from the central backing authority. The U.S. dollar is a fiat currency. It has value because the government of United States says it has value and that it will recognize the dollar as the medium of exchange of the United States. Bitcoins has no central backing authority so has no value as fiat money. There is no one to declare it as money by fiat.
That is a false dichotomy. Either the money has intrinsic value, such as gold coins or the money is fiat money and said money is backed by the government which guarantees the money is good. If someone refuses to accepts a government's fiat money in said governments jurisdiction, said someone can not turn to the government to be paid as said someone has refused payment in the legal tender of the government.
Bitcoins have no value because nothing backs them as fiat money and they have no intrinsic value as they do not have a physical existence.
Linden dollars have a value as fiat money because they can be spent in Second Life for virtual items and they can be bought or sold for other currency. However, without Second Life, Linden dollars have no value. As there is not bitcoins equivalent of Second Life, bitcoins have no value.
Please demonstrate that bitcoins have value by listing where and what one can currently purchase with bitcoins.
If there is no central authority backing the currency and the "limited resource" that is bitcoins has no intrinsic value, why should anyone exchange something that has intrinsic value or fiat money for bitcoins?