Yup, when people are scared of their other options, they pile into gold, then gold goes up, and a profit is to be had for the first group to predict a scare.
My question is, and this is an open question that I'm not sure if there is an answer to or not is: Is there still a lot of gold in Fort Knox compared to when we were on the gold standard. My guess would be that the nation used that gold for covert ops when we went fiat. Once the money was found solvent, suddenly that was like having a Fort Knox worth of free money! And knowing modern day politicians and the people sponsoring modern day politicians, they all want a bunch of money if they can get to it.
Does anyone know if there is gold in Fort Knox still? Or is this one of those questions that isn't supposed to be asked or answered? If so, I apologize for asking it, but I'd be enlightened to know anything about this situation.
We would have called 911 automatically, but Samsung patented that technology. Instead we automatically tweeted for you,"Help! I've been run over by a car."
Okay, you're saying the United Nations is wrong in that World Hunger is a problem that has been going away steadily, but could use an infusion to fix. So either you're wrong or the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization is. Hold your thought at that.
Lets focus on your other notion," Food is free, so they cannot afford to even try to produce food themselves. " You're both right and wrong here. You're right that food dumping destroys economies making the people worse off than when you're started. This is because it puts the farmers out of business when no one is buying food. You're wrong in thinking that this is how it is typically done anymore. From what I hear the programs are more tailored to helping the local farmers through giving demand for food to the people, and micro loans to jump start economies. Food dumping is still done during times of emergency, crisis and unrest though.
Lets just say the most of the world's industry food industry was done by robots. Then either stockholders in food held the world hostage to do work in other labors, there would be a style of welfare so everyone at least had enough food to survive, or a combination of the two. Sure, a man's job might be taken by a robot, but what was produced doesn't go away. If the owner of the robot wants to be nice, suddenly this man is free to study or work elsewhere and still have enough to eat. If the robot owner wants to be a prick, this man needs to work elsewhere asap or he won't have enough food to eat.
That is just how things are set up in today's society. We generally place a lot of demand on getting work accomplished in order to maximize producing stuff. In the first world countries, even the poor can generally manage to find a place to get food and a shelter. This is a sign that the system works to a degree.
Where things really break down is in the third world countries. In third world countries, people are starving to death! Really, 30 cents a day is the difference between growing up healthy and dying without a chance in third world countries. FAO did a study that says world hunger would for a large part go away if 30 billion a year could be donated. 30 billion a year adds up to about 5$/yr per person on Earth. Since some people can't give 5$/yr, it is the responsibility of us in civilized worlds to give the best we can. There's no justice in the world when millions of kids are starving to death.
So to conclude: Agricultural automation allows the world to produce more by freeing someone to do other work. There is no less food made. The problem lies in how to distribute the food at that point.
Actually I think P2P could work easily if someone set up a single routing server for it. Then all the NAT breakthroughs could be done automatically. Hey, you could even host a server on your home network, behind a router. I'm sure someone has done this already, but it just isn't popular for some reason.
That'd be a hard decision if I had to pick if I was 20% cooler or live 20% longer. I guess it is the same decision for people who think cigarettes are cool(hint: they're not).
The fact is that a lot of my ideas require a team and a lot of years to accomplish since they're expanding games that might already exist. I figured I'll give my ideas out for free a few months ago, and maybe it will inspire other people to make better games. I'm so tired of MMORPGS where you gain lots of power during the game and it is pretty fun, then BAM, you're at level max with all the best gear, and there is simply nothing else to do but quit. A lot of my blog revolves around how to make end game MMORPG fun. But I also cover other marketable designs.
One of my favorite ideas lately is expanding upon minecraft to allow for bots. Not a lot of people remember the game Cholo for commodore 64. Essentially in Cholo, you play the man of a guy in the bunker, and the storyline in the instruction book is one of the best stories I've read in an instruction book. You need to acquire bots on the surface to be able to test the radiation if it is safe to come out of the bunker. Well there are all kinds of bots that do different things. In Cholo everything is a waldo(manually piloted bot), but imagine porting this to Minecraft with scripted bots.
Scripted bots in Minecraft with premade diagrams of structures you want to build from creative mode would result in: You start out just like normal minecraft, but when you make your bunker, you can build bots. The AI for the bots could be stuff you start with, stuff you wrote, or code found in game in vaults. The bots would mine for you, build for you, scout for you, hack other robots, or fight for you. The goal would be to create a solid robot army to seek out and kill your opponents on the map. The game could form up to 64 players at once, and when you die, you get thrown in a queue for the next game. There would have to be code to deal with stalemates after a few hours. If you also add ladder ratings on top of this, I think the game could get popular.
TR:DR The reason I give out ideas now is that I'm not just a greedy guy. I actually like playing fun video games, and there just isn't enough innovation lately.
You know that effect when you accidentally look into a light source and you see a hazy form that obscures your vision for a bit? I get that when I look at white text on black backgrounds. After reading it, I see lines of blur in my eyes. That can't be good.
Jetsons ran from 63-64. Asimov's predictions were from 64. So did Asimov get a kick out of Rosie? Heh. There's not enough information available to know this, but that's the first thing I thought of.
Agreed, what we see here is an evil plot by NASA to get more funding. They pick up an asteroid from the belt. They have it coming towards Earth, but will deliberately have the towing craft go out of control. Suddenly Bruce Willis is our only chance, and Congress will have to approve emergency spending.
The end of nuclear power as something the public wants to invest in? Sure nuclear power is cleaner than coal. Coal guarantees health problems and death through air pollution. Nuclear power only poses a problem when things go wrong. This is half a century old technology, and a lot has changed. This is basically my same post as reddit, but I'm glad solar power is catching up, otherwise when electric cars get economical, the power grid would be taxed beyond its means.
I think if the thing self drives, a community car could deliver itself to your door if you order it with a phone. Sure vandalism is possible, but cameras + the next user reporting the problem can track down criminals.
The robot is the body. Once you have a mind, you can place it into many different types of body to navigate the world. The robot needs to understand the objects around it to know how to interact with the world.
We have better physics engines. Make the most complicated physics engine you can make that can still do processing on modern computers. You don't have to simulate the internal pressure of a basketball every second until it is collided with. Then at that point, see if the geometry of the object colliding is sharp, solid, or soft in combination with the force to determine if it explodes, bounces good, or bounces light. I think physics people in general would love a system that at least tries to model systems.
Once you have this system, start databasing real objects in them(another time consuming task), and see how they interact. Natural language processing follows though since you have a bunch of nouns(the objects you databased), and verbs(actions on the objects). The thing is,"Even if AI has a complex imagination space possible of imagining and simulating scenarios", it still wouldn't talk like a guy you meet off the street at first. I think sci fi has this covered with social awkward Data and such.
Yup, entry level is HARD to get into. I've been trying to get any job to start my career for close to a decade. I even graduated from Carnegie Mellon, and my hobbies are playing video games and programming. I'm doing the Indie scene now since I have no choice of getting an actual job. I code extremely well, but I have a very difficult time getting interviews. I chalk it up to graduating at the dot com bust when they only hired people with experience, and then having not getting any experience, no one ever was interested in me. I'm a 90-120k+ yr quality software engineer, and I'd be willing to work for 35k/yr since my family isn't rich, but I can't find anyone in the world to give me the time of day. I've only had 7 interviews in the past 10 years, but sent out about 5000 resumes and had about 250 recruiters looking for positions for me.
They could be making lots of money just by showing their stations online for a world wide audience and showing advertisements.
But they choose not to do it because they aren't informed enough. HULU makes money, and every broadcasting station should have their own site or use HULU.
Look how bad NBC screwed up with the Olympics. They could have shown every event live, and kept a recorded version for people who don't see it live. They'd have solved the olympic television problem of,"How do we let people watch what event they want, when they want and not cut anything off?". But no, they just treated it like television again. And not only that, they forced people to jump through hoops to verify they owned a cable or sattellite package! Look I have cable, but your verification program was too difficult to navigate through. So instead of me watching Olympics and watching some advertisements which would make NBC money, I just said,"NBC sucks." and went and played computer games.
Don't they know they're shooting themselves in the foot by not letting us watch their advertisements? I mean they could dig through all their archives of old shows, and put everything online with ads, and make a ton of money. They have the technology to region lock you out. So they have the technology to play advertisements that would cater to a world wide audience, or even localized advertisements for those zones if they want to put some effort in to make more money.
Old dumb suits are just shooting themselves in the foot by not letting people give them money. I mean look at TV, they make money on cable, and they make money on advertisements. They make so much money on TV, they could pay you to watch TV and still make money. So if they got creative, they could even run an online network that let you win prizes as you watch television. I'm not saying they should do that because the technology to verify if a person is behind their computer still can be cracked if not implemented intelligently. But what I'm saying is instead of trying hard, they're not even trying a little bit.
I will say one thing, I was able to watch the NBA on what was it TNT? You could watch from multiple camera angles and customize your views. Yet other networks like to black out their sports from online. If they show their sports online, they'd make more advertising revenue. If they black out their sports online, they should really have to answer to their stockholders because they're saying,"We take offense at taking money from people who use the Internet." And in today's day and age of greedy corporations, why would someone say no to easy money? The only thing I can think up is that they really are stupid people in charge of their companies.
Gamers stay out of the streets, which conserves precious gasoline that is in short supply.
Gamers like stoners, have a tendency to actually enjoy their life, so they're not as likely to go screw around and hurt other people's lives.
But on the flip side:
Gamers are satisfied with their life of gaming and don't care what goes on in the world around them as much. This generation has its bread and circuses and isn't likely to revolt. But why should we get upset with government anyway? It is always screwing people over so it isn't like there is anything new there. Best is to live in your gaming community and have fun while the rest of the world is busy trying to screw each other over.
If gamers really wanted to save the world, this is all they'd have to do:
Play the latest and greatest MMO where you can sell lewt and make real money. Then donate a portion of the money you make playing video games to the poor. I'm sure a lot of them do this now.
The only thing I really worry about is if gaming communities start getting like what happened to League of Legends. You can get cursed out just by joining games and choosing your character. People have such a short fuse there. And people who are jerks to others triggers other people to backlash and become jerks in a way too. LOL is pretty fun and kinda easy compared to Starcraft, but the toxic community means it is unplayable for pubbies.
Coming from the arcade generation where everyone was pretty cool in person. Except from the rare time when someone doesn't pay up on a gambling wager and gets throttled, I never saw anyone rage on someone else. The worst I saw apart from that in 20 odd years in arcades is people calling other people cheesers for doing the same move over and over in fighting games. The best was when I was under 10 and a highschool kid used to give me quarters to play asteroids, or other forging of friendships.
To me, the gaming communities can forge the general population's personalities. And today you had people like Idra and other streamers making it seem cool to rage on other players because they get more views. That stuff isn't cool, it is childish. I wonder how much rubs off on League of Legends players thinking it is okay to rage on strangers as a result. Probably not at all, it is probably just the fact that 5 strangers are being forced to play as a disciplined team. I guess this is the same premise that gets ratings on Survivor, but people have a reason to at least appear to be nice to each other there.
Anyway, these are just some observations. For the most part, I think gamers help society by sponsoring tech. Would we have as cool as computers today if there weren't people churning quarters into pong and pacman back in the day? I'm happy with my fellow man being satisfied with life. Gaming really ups the quality of my life as it gives an outlet for my desire to do problem solving and combat related thinking. I'd say in general that gamers aren't really a problem for society even though Congress always wants to paint them as a scapegoat for problems that have been around as long as man has existed. Are we going to unite like they did back to protest Vietnam, no, we won't... Probably not unless they go and shut off the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, when people are scared of their other options, they pile into gold, then gold goes up, and a profit is to be had for the first group to predict a scare.
My question is, and this is an open question that I'm not sure if there is an answer to or not is: Is there still a lot of gold in Fort Knox compared to when we were on the gold standard. My guess would be that the nation used that gold for covert ops when we went fiat. Once the money was found solvent, suddenly that was like having a Fort Knox worth of free money! And knowing modern day politicians and the people sponsoring modern day politicians, they all want a bunch of money if they can get to it.
Does anyone know if there is gold in Fort Knox still? Or is this one of those questions that isn't supposed to be asked or answered? If so, I apologize for asking it, but I'd be enlightened to know anything about this situation.
We would have called 911 automatically, but Samsung patented that technology. Instead we automatically tweeted for you,"Help! I've been run over by a car."
Okay, you're saying the United Nations is wrong in that World Hunger is a problem that has been going away steadily, but could use an infusion to fix. So either you're wrong or the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization is. Hold your thought at that.
Lets focus on your other notion," Food is free, so they cannot afford to even try to produce food themselves. " You're both right and wrong here. You're right that food dumping destroys economies making the people worse off than when you're started. This is because it puts the farmers out of business when no one is buying food. You're wrong in thinking that this is how it is typically done anymore. From what I hear the programs are more tailored to helping the local farmers through giving demand for food to the people, and micro loans to jump start economies. Food dumping is still done during times of emergency, crisis and unrest though.
I like what Bill Gates is doing. There is room for curing diseases too. We should be striving to cure diseases and make sure everyone in the world has food. To these ends is what we should strive for as human beings. Bill Gates does work towards ending starvation in Africa as well though, not just disease research
Lets just say the most of the world's industry food industry was done by robots. Then either stockholders in food held the world hostage to do work in other labors, there would be a style of welfare so everyone at least had enough food to survive, or a combination of the two. Sure, a man's job might be taken by a robot, but what was produced doesn't go away. If the owner of the robot wants to be nice, suddenly this man is free to study or work elsewhere and still have enough to eat. If the robot owner wants to be a prick, this man needs to work elsewhere asap or he won't have enough food to eat.
That is just how things are set up in today's society. We generally place a lot of demand on getting work accomplished in order to maximize producing stuff. In the first world countries, even the poor can generally manage to find a place to get food and a shelter. This is a sign that the system works to a degree.
Where things really break down is in the third world countries. In third world countries, people are starving to death! Really, 30 cents a day is the difference between growing up healthy and dying without a chance in third world countries. FAO did a study that says world hunger would for a large part go away if 30 billion a year could be donated. 30 billion a year adds up to about 5$/yr per person on Earth. Since some people can't give 5$/yr, it is the responsibility of us in civilized worlds to give the best we can. There's no justice in the world when millions of kids are starving to death.
So to conclude: Agricultural automation allows the world to produce more by freeing someone to do other work. There is no less food made. The problem lies in how to distribute the food at that point.
Actually I think P2P could work easily if someone set up a single routing server for it. Then all the NAT breakthroughs could be done automatically. Hey, you could even host a server on your home network, behind a router. I'm sure someone has done this already, but it just isn't popular for some reason.
Once this happens, there would be a big incentive to find out the device that finds you MPH, and make it read you're going 50% of your actual speed.
That'd be a hard decision if I had to pick if I was 20% cooler or live 20% longer. I guess it is the same decision for people who think cigarettes are cool(hint: they're not).
I was lucky if I could get 1 minute before I got dropped on Verizon. These lucky people get to talk for a whole 5 minutes.
The fact is that a lot of my ideas require a team and a lot of years to accomplish since they're expanding games that might already exist. I figured I'll give my ideas out for free a few months ago, and maybe it will inspire other people to make better games. I'm so tired of MMORPGS where you gain lots of power during the game and it is pretty fun, then BAM, you're at level max with all the best gear, and there is simply nothing else to do but quit. A lot of my blog revolves around how to make end game MMORPG fun. But I also cover other marketable designs.
One of my favorite ideas lately is expanding upon minecraft to allow for bots. Not a lot of people remember the game Cholo for commodore 64. Essentially in Cholo, you play the man of a guy in the bunker, and the storyline in the instruction book is one of the best stories I've read in an instruction book. You need to acquire bots on the surface to be able to test the radiation if it is safe to come out of the bunker. Well there are all kinds of bots that do different things. In Cholo everything is a waldo(manually piloted bot), but imagine porting this to Minecraft with scripted bots.
Scripted bots in Minecraft with premade diagrams of structures you want to build from creative mode would result in: You start out just like normal minecraft, but when you make your bunker, you can build bots. The AI for the bots could be stuff you start with, stuff you wrote, or code found in game in vaults. The bots would mine for you, build for you, scout for you, hack other robots, or fight for you. The goal would be to create a solid robot army to seek out and kill your opponents on the map. The game could form up to 64 players at once, and when you die, you get thrown in a queue for the next game. There would have to be code to deal with stalemates after a few hours. If you also add ladder ratings on top of this, I think the game could get popular.
TR:DR The reason I give out ideas now is that I'm not just a greedy guy. I actually like playing fun video games, and there just isn't enough innovation lately.
You know that effect when you accidentally look into a light source and you see a hazy form that obscures your vision for a bit? I get that when I look at white text on black backgrounds. After reading it, I see lines of blur in my eyes. That can't be good.
Google: Wikipedia Jetsons
Jetsons ran from 63-64. Asimov's predictions were from 64. So did Asimov get a kick out of Rosie? Heh. There's not enough information available to know this, but that's the first thing I thought of.
Agreed, what we see here is an evil plot by NASA to get more funding. They pick up an asteroid from the belt. They have it coming towards Earth, but will deliberately have the towing craft go out of control. Suddenly Bruce Willis is our only chance, and Congress will have to approve emergency spending.
All I use is alt+s on firefox, and click one of the last places I was at.
The end of nuclear power as something the public wants to invest in? Sure nuclear power is cleaner than coal. Coal guarantees health problems and death through air pollution. Nuclear power only poses a problem when things go wrong. This is half a century old technology, and a lot has changed. This is basically my same post as reddit, but I'm glad solar power is catching up, otherwise when electric cars get economical, the power grid would be taxed beyond its means.
I think if the thing self drives, a community car could deliver itself to your door if you order it with a phone. Sure vandalism is possible, but cameras + the next user reporting the problem can track down criminals.
There are a few SF books that use long-term "storage" as punishment for the criminal, and they have it right.
Maybe they just really enjoy Taco Bell.
The robot is the body. Once you have a mind, you can place it into many different types of body to navigate the world. The robot needs to understand the objects around it to know how to interact with the world.
We have better physics engines. Make the most complicated physics engine you can make that can still do processing on modern computers. You don't have to simulate the internal pressure of a basketball every second until it is collided with. Then at that point, see if the geometry of the object colliding is sharp, solid, or soft in combination with the force to determine if it explodes, bounces good, or bounces light. I think physics people in general would love a system that at least tries to model systems.
Once you have this system, start databasing real objects in them(another time consuming task), and see how they interact. Natural language processing follows though since you have a bunch of nouns(the objects you databased), and verbs(actions on the objects). The thing is,"Even if AI has a complex imagination space possible of imagining and simulating scenarios", it still wouldn't talk like a guy you meet off the street at first. I think sci fi has this covered with social awkward Data and such.
Thank you for your advice. I like that people give me advice. The Internet is a helpful place.
Thank you. My online life sort of blends like most people. I realized one thing on my resume linked directly to something.
Yup, entry level is HARD to get into. I've been trying to get any job to start my career for close to a decade. I even graduated from Carnegie Mellon, and my hobbies are playing video games and programming. I'm doing the Indie scene now since I have no choice of getting an actual job. I code extremely well, but I have a very difficult time getting interviews. I chalk it up to graduating at the dot com bust when they only hired people with experience, and then having not getting any experience, no one ever was interested in me. I'm a 90-120k+ yr quality software engineer, and I'd be willing to work for 35k/yr since my family isn't rich, but I can't find anyone in the world to give me the time of day. I've only had 7 interviews in the past 10 years, but sent out about 5000 resumes and had about 250 recruiters looking for positions for me.
Pop is somewhat unhealthy, so good parents will limit their kid's intake of it. Bad parents don't care, so they'll let their kids have it.
Is this accounted for in the study?
Old idiot suits is right!
They could be making lots of money just by showing their stations online for a world wide audience and showing advertisements.
But they choose not to do it because they aren't informed enough. HULU makes money, and every broadcasting station should have their own site or use HULU.
Look how bad NBC screwed up with the Olympics. They could have shown every event live, and kept a recorded version for people who don't see it live. They'd have solved the olympic television problem of,"How do we let people watch what event they want, when they want and not cut anything off?". But no, they just treated it like television again. And not only that, they forced people to jump through hoops to verify they owned a cable or sattellite package! Look I have cable, but your verification program was too difficult to navigate through. So instead of me watching Olympics and watching some advertisements which would make NBC money, I just said,"NBC sucks." and went and played computer games.
Don't they know they're shooting themselves in the foot by not letting us watch their advertisements? I mean they could dig through all their archives of old shows, and put everything online with ads, and make a ton of money. They have the technology to region lock you out. So they have the technology to play advertisements that would cater to a world wide audience, or even localized advertisements for those zones if they want to put some effort in to make more money.
Old dumb suits are just shooting themselves in the foot by not letting people give them money. I mean look at TV, they make money on cable, and they make money on advertisements. They make so much money on TV, they could pay you to watch TV and still make money. So if they got creative, they could even run an online network that let you win prizes as you watch television. I'm not saying they should do that because the technology to verify if a person is behind their computer still can be cracked if not implemented intelligently. But what I'm saying is instead of trying hard, they're not even trying a little bit.
I will say one thing, I was able to watch the NBA on what was it TNT? You could watch from multiple camera angles and customize your views. Yet other networks like to black out their sports from online. If they show their sports online, they'd make more advertising revenue. If they black out their sports online, they should really have to answer to their stockholders because they're saying,"We take offense at taking money from people who use the Internet." And in today's day and age of greedy corporations, why would someone say no to easy money? The only thing I can think up is that they really are stupid people in charge of their companies.
Gamers stay out of the streets, which conserves precious gasoline that is in short supply.
Gamers like stoners, have a tendency to actually enjoy their life, so they're not as likely to go screw around and hurt other people's lives.
But on the flip side:
Gamers are satisfied with their life of gaming and don't care what goes on in the world around them as much. This generation has its bread and circuses and isn't likely to revolt. But why should we get upset with government anyway? It is always screwing people over so it isn't like there is anything new there. Best is to live in your gaming community and have fun while the rest of the world is busy trying to screw each other over.
If gamers really wanted to save the world, this is all they'd have to do:
Play the latest and greatest MMO where you can sell lewt and make real money. Then donate a portion of the money you make playing video games to the poor. I'm sure a lot of them do this now.
The only thing I really worry about is if gaming communities start getting like what happened to League of Legends. You can get cursed out just by joining games and choosing your character. People have such a short fuse there. And people who are jerks to others triggers other people to backlash and become jerks in a way too. LOL is pretty fun and kinda easy compared to Starcraft, but the toxic community means it is unplayable for pubbies.
Coming from the arcade generation where everyone was pretty cool in person. Except from the rare time when someone doesn't pay up on a gambling wager and gets throttled, I never saw anyone rage on someone else. The worst I saw apart from that in 20 odd years in arcades is people calling other people cheesers for doing the same move over and over in fighting games. The best was when I was under 10 and a highschool kid used to give me quarters to play asteroids, or other forging of friendships.
To me, the gaming communities can forge the general population's personalities. And today you had people like Idra and other streamers making it seem cool to rage on other players because they get more views. That stuff isn't cool, it is childish. I wonder how much rubs off on League of Legends players thinking it is okay to rage on strangers as a result. Probably not at all, it is probably just the fact that 5 strangers are being forced to play as a disciplined team. I guess this is the same premise that gets ratings on Survivor, but people have a reason to at least appear to be nice to each other there.
Anyway, these are just some observations. For the most part, I think gamers help society by sponsoring tech. Would we have as cool as computers today if there weren't people churning quarters into pong and pacman back in the day? I'm happy with my fellow man being satisfied with life. Gaming really ups the quality of my life as it gives an outlet for my desire to do problem solving and combat related thinking. I'd say in general that gamers aren't really a problem for society even though Congress always wants to paint them as a scapegoat for problems that have been around as long as man has existed. Are we going to unite like they did back to protest Vietnam, no, we won't... Probably not unless they go and shut off the Internet.
You need to be able to look around once in a while to have vision. So look out, its Outlook.