Do the ISP's simply get together and say 'get stuffed'?
Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy? If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?
Why is it always the little guy who has to stand up to the overzealous government hoping to get a 'new toy' to frighten the public into reaction? Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?
I cannot shake the thought that Facebook is putting up this energy consumption dashboard for the purpose to divert attention away from Facebook's ongoing privacy issues
Expect advertisements for psychological counseling the next you log in.
If the value of labor goes down, so does the value of the debt traded for it. If the value of labor goes up, so goes the value of debt.
That's backwards. If the debt has already been incurred and the value of labour goes down.. the value of the debt is higher because the labour costs have decreased. The value of debt decreases as the value of the dollar (ie. value of labour) increases because the debt is worth less for each dollar recorded.
It's really not very hard to understand and artificially scarce resources like gold really have no place in the system.
No argument from me. I'm not suggesting they do. I'm actually suggesting that they should have a place in the system. That's the whole point of the post.. the current system doesn't have the backing of a scarce commodity, hence it's unstable and it's value is unreliable. That's why people choose to invest in housing over the share market.. the values have greater stability because everyone needs to live somewhere so demand doesn't fluctuate on perception alone. I hope that makes sense.
If you think that gold has an intrinsic value other than it's utility as a conductor and it's nature as a noble element, well enjoy your delusion
Gold has always been viewed as having an intrinsic value and despite the modern currency system, that's still the case. In fact.. gold has never had a higher value has it? So despite it's utility as a conductor and it's nature as a noble element and the fact that everyone agrees upon it's value I totally agree with you. It has no value. What about corn? wheat? beef? lamb? Would a currency backed by these have value, or would these be considered valueless apart from their uses as a source of food and energy?
BTW exactly the same as the metal coins you referred to
It seems that you missed the point.
The serial number is nothing more than a shorthand contract
So you're saying that it's the agreement that the paper has value which defines the value of the paper. I think you're right
So many flaws in your argument
I do see your point. Unfortunately, you seem to have a vested interest in believing what you want to believe. Which is fine. Apparently the vast majority of the planet agrees with you. Or at least, the vast majority of people on the planet.
Bitcoin is worth more than the effort it took to produce the required energy
Worth? In what? Food?
So if you spend (for example) $10 worth of energy to find (is that the correct description?) $100 worth of Bitcoins
What if you spent 10 bitcoins worth of energy to find 100 bitcoins worth of bitcoins? Now that would be a bargain
That's just a demonstration of how valueless bitcoin really is. It's no more valuable than the current 'floating' currencies which are floating on a sea of perception. As long as the currency isn't backed by anything (ie. gold, wheat, copper, horse poo.. whatever) then it's not actually worth anything.
That's the problem with the current monetary system. Historicaly, currency was worth it's weight. It was made out of silver, gold, copper, bronze. It didn't matter what was stamped on the currency or whether it was issues by Rome or Carthage, it was still worth it's weight in gold. Then governments started printing paper currency and storing big piles of gold in fortresses saying "Don't worry! It's still valuable because we have the gold to back it". This allowed currencies to grow without the need to for the absolute value in gold. It allowed the countries to print more currency than they had gold. Then, the private bankers came into the picture and the government gave them the right to print the money. After that.. the governments sold the gold.
Modern currency is only as valuable as it's perceived to be. This is the core of the problem and bitcoin is no more immune to this than any other un-backed currency. As long as it's not backed by something of value, it's irrelevant.
So we take a controlled monetary system and try to create a better monetary system and then spend effort analyzing how it fails?
The problem with the existing monetary system isn't that it's controlled by a small group of people, it's that those people are corrupt and are manipulating the system. Bitcoin has the same problem, it's just obscured because the people 'mining' the system aren't a central group, they're a distributed group.
This is crowd sourced corruption, nothing more. If you didn't expect there to be costs related to tens of thousands of people running resource intensive software to game a system designed to protect people from responsibility.. you're kidding yourself. Quit wasting time analyzing why bitcoin isn't going to get anywhere and just accept it.
If you're able to game the monetary system, then it's lost it's value.
What value on human life? At what point does money become secondary to life?
Money is just perception and power, if human health can't be exempt from the pull of money then what can be exempt? The health of the environment has become secondary to calculating who owns it, and now human health is directly subordinate to ownership and control. At what stage in human evolution do people with common sense stop and say "If we don't stop behaving like crazy people, we're going to become extinct".
Right before the sky did fall right on their big ignorant heads
You can insight hated, troll to your hearts content, insult humanity, hope for our blissful destruction, deride every person on this planet, predict world ending events and judge blind people all you want, but I draw the line at insulting dinosaurs.. that aint right!
1. Make a documentary about trolls suing people for downloading copyrighted material
2. Release the copyrighted documentary on bittorrent
3. File lawsuits against people who download it
4. Profit!!!
The detractors said they'd never make it, but in the end they pulled through.
This is what happens when visionary leaders dare to dream. It's the result of countless hours of boardroom discussions and those not meeting the mark stepping down to allow more effective leadership to take the helm. It's the result of true commitment to an honest goal. It's an arousing endorsement over the likes of Monsanto and Bank of America. For a mere gaming company to inspire such customer dedication proves without a shadow of a doubt how effective EA has become.
But in all seriousness, this is a great idea for crowd sourcing.
Acquire startup funding and open a website for sponsors and volunteers. You could run it on TOR and pay the volunteers via bitcoin.
Donations are weighted depending on the amount donated, people could vote for the target they most wanted addressed first. The balances could just continue to grow until a volunteer accepts the job. Of course it would have to be a COD service and some sort of clear proof would be required, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
You could probably even get corporate sponsorship.
Slashdot Mirror
i for one cannot take the idea that americans have enough money to give to other countries
Pffft, America borrowed the money from other countries .. why shouldn't it pay it forward?
This is EXCITING news
Damn, I ran out of troll points.
Do the ISP's simply get together and say 'get stuffed'?
Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy? If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?
Why is it always the little guy who has to stand up to the overzealous government hoping to get a 'new toy' to frighten the public into reaction? Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?
When can we expect the calendar!!
I cannot shake the thought that Facebook is putting up this energy consumption dashboard for the purpose to divert attention away from Facebook's ongoing privacy issues
Expect advertisements for psychological counseling the next you log in.
"False Flag" .. it's undemocratic.
Who do you trust more, really?
Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?
Well I definitely who I trust more, but I still wouldn't shake their hand.
The person has no clue what the hell he was talking about
Welcome to /.
OMG, it's not altruistic? And here I was thinking that Japanese investors threw money around for the good of the planet.
Phew! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up. I'm going to rip up my loan application immediately.
If the value of labor goes down, so does the value of the debt traded for it. If the value of labor goes up, so goes the value of debt.
That's backwards. If the debt has already been incurred and the value of labour goes down .. the value of the debt is higher because the labour costs have decreased. The value of debt decreases as the value of the dollar (ie. value of labour) increases because the debt is worth less for each dollar recorded.
It's really not very hard to understand and artificially scarce resources like gold really have no place in the system.
No argument from me. I'm not suggesting they do. I'm actually suggesting that they should have a place in the system. That's the whole point of the post .. the current system doesn't have the backing of a scarce commodity, hence it's unstable and it's value is unreliable. That's why people choose to invest in housing over the share market .. the values have greater stability because everyone needs to live somewhere so demand doesn't fluctuate on perception alone. I hope that makes sense.
If you think that gold has an intrinsic value other than it's utility as a conductor and it's nature as a noble element, well enjoy your delusion
Gold has always been viewed as having an intrinsic value and despite the modern currency system, that's still the case. In fact .. gold has never had a higher value has it? So despite it's utility as a conductor and it's nature as a noble element and the fact that everyone agrees upon it's value I totally agree with you. It has no value. What about corn? wheat? beef? lamb? Would a currency backed by these have value, or would these be considered valueless apart from their uses as a source of food and energy?
BTW exactly the same as the metal coins you referred to
It seems that you missed the point.
The serial number is nothing more than a shorthand contract
So you're saying that it's the agreement that the paper has value which defines the value of the paper. I think you're right
So many flaws in your argument
I do see your point. Unfortunately, you seem to have a vested interest in believing what you want to believe. Which is fine. Apparently the vast majority of the planet agrees with you. Or at least, the vast majority of people on the planet.
Bitcoin is worth more than the effort it took to produce the required energy
Worth? In what? Food?
So if you spend (for example) $10 worth of energy to find (is that the correct description?) $100 worth of Bitcoins
What if you spent 10 bitcoins worth of energy to find 100 bitcoins worth of bitcoins? Now that would be a bargain
.. whatever) then it's not actually worth anything.
.. the governments sold the gold.
That's just a demonstration of how valueless bitcoin really is. It's no more valuable than the current 'floating' currencies which are floating on a sea of perception. As long as the currency isn't backed by anything (ie. gold, wheat, copper, horse poo
That's the problem with the current monetary system. Historicaly, currency was worth it's weight. It was made out of silver, gold, copper, bronze. It didn't matter what was stamped on the currency or whether it was issues by Rome or Carthage, it was still worth it's weight in gold. Then governments started printing paper currency and storing big piles of gold in fortresses saying "Don't worry! It's still valuable because we have the gold to back it". This allowed currencies to grow without the need to for the absolute value in gold. It allowed the countries to print more currency than they had gold. Then, the private bankers came into the picture and the government gave them the right to print the money. After that
Modern currency is only as valuable as it's perceived to be. This is the core of the problem and bitcoin is no more immune to this than any other un-backed currency. As long as it's not backed by something of value, it's irrelevant.
So we take a controlled monetary system and try to create a better monetary system and then spend effort analyzing how it fails?
.. you're kidding yourself. Quit wasting time analyzing why bitcoin isn't going to get anywhere and just accept it.
The problem with the existing monetary system isn't that it's controlled by a small group of people, it's that those people are corrupt and are manipulating the system. Bitcoin has the same problem, it's just obscured because the people 'mining' the system aren't a central group, they're a distributed group.
This is crowd sourced corruption, nothing more. If you didn't expect there to be costs related to tens of thousands of people running resource intensive software to game a system designed to protect people from responsibility
If you're able to game the monetary system, then it's lost it's value.
What value on human life? At what point does money become secondary to life?
Money is just perception and power, if human health can't be exempt from the pull of money then what can be exempt? The health of the environment has become secondary to calculating who owns it, and now human health is directly subordinate to ownership and control. At what stage in human evolution do people with common sense stop and say "If we don't stop behaving like crazy people, we're going to become extinct".
Because that's where this ends.
Right before the sky did fall right on their big ignorant heads
You can insight hated, troll to your hearts content, insult humanity, hope for our blissful destruction, deride every person on this planet, predict world ending events and judge blind people all you want, but I draw the line at insulting dinosaurs .. that aint right!
Obviously advertising is Google's main business
Not if they can start selling $1500 sunglasses.
they suck balls when it comes to consumers
Not yet, but don't lose all hope. Ballmer will try just about anything.
don't get jack shit from google
Yeah, those greedy bastards just take take take. I visit their website and they 'take' my search from me!!!
I should charge them for the privilage of accepting my search terms and running my e-mail client.
But I'm sure there's some folks that like Metro
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Suddenly they've given their core customers a reason to look at their competition that they didn't have before
Yeah .. Shuttleworth was probably bribed.
it only makes sense. Shitty product = shitty sales.
But why now suddenly? After all, it's been ~25 years.
My laptop has win8, I only use it in desktop mode and works just like win7 did.
I'm sorry, my /. interpreter may be broken .. are you saying that you wish you hadn't upgraded?
Given the quality of retail laptops these days, I'm suprised that it's only 7.5% of Mac's being purchased to be used as Windows machines.
1. Make a documentary about trolls suing people for downloading copyrighted material
2. Release the copyrighted documentary on bittorrent
3. File lawsuits against people who download it
4. Profit!!!
The detractors said they'd never make it, but in the end they pulled through.
This is what happens when visionary leaders dare to dream. It's the result of countless hours of boardroom discussions and those not meeting the mark stepping down to allow more effective leadership to take the helm. It's the result of true commitment to an honest goal. It's an arousing endorsement over the likes of Monsanto and Bank of America. For a mere gaming company to inspire such customer dedication proves without a shadow of a doubt how effective EA has become.
I (for one) congratulate EA on thier achievement.
But in all seriousness, this is a great idea for crowd sourcing.
Acquire startup funding and open a website for sponsors and volunteers. You could run it on TOR and pay the volunteers via bitcoin.
Donations are weighted depending on the amount donated, people could vote for the target they most wanted addressed first. The balances could just continue to grow until a volunteer accepts the job. Of course it would have to be a COD service and some sort of clear proof would be required, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
You could probably even get corporate sponsorship.