They've been doing "random shelving" of their items since their very first fulfillment center that wasn't Jeff Bezos's garage. It isn't particularly new, revolutionary, or a big secret.
Your headline is more true than you realize... although you don't realize it.
Something like 2/3rds of the population that we would consider to die of "old age" (generally defined as dying of a condition that predominately kills the elderly, and doing so at around, or greater, than the average lifespan for a developed country), have been discovered, upon death, to have cancer of some sort, but cancer that did NOT contribute to their death. IIRC, the most "popular" are Prostate, Breast, and Brain tumors. Some of those tumors may have been decades old, but slow-growing and non-aggressive enough to simply not be an issue.
Not all cancer is worth detecting if it's almost inevitable that you'll die from simply "wearing out" first.
Some screening tests for cancer byproducts already exist, like the PSA test for prostate cancer. Other early-detection tests abound, such as Mammograms and Colonoscopies. While some of the screening tests, such as the Pap Smear, have shown to dramatically reduce cancer deaths, others, such as the PSA and Mammogram have detected a lot of cancers, but done absolutely bupkis to reduce death rates when given to populations not otherwise at high risk. Colonoscopies work, but are extremely expensive vs. the benefit they provide. (As in, it'd be a lot more efficient to spend healthcare dollars elsewhere, and there are other screening tests nearly as effective that are much cheaper.) Apparently they don't do a good job detecting aggressive cancers in those populations early enough to make a difference. With how fast some aggressive cancers work, the tests might have to be administered several times a year (at the cost of countless billions) to make any difference.
In addition, the PSA and Mammogram HAVE caused billions to be spent on procedures with quite severe side effects to further diagnose, and treat, problems that almost certainly would not have killed their "victims." Most Prostate tumors grow slowly enough that you could leave it alone for the rest of your life, and die of something else instead; meanwhile, prostate cancer treatment almost always causes problems with incontinence and impotence; two major quality of life issues. Most "breast cancers" detected by mammograms are Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, another type of cancer that is unlikely to kill you any time soon.
We need to think VERY carefully before rolling out any MORE widespread cancer screening tests, since many of the ones we have now simply don't work.
It's all well and good that he received all these notes from thousands of well-wishers, but has he actually FOUND anything useful for his case? Awake brain surgery is neither particularly new nor innovative; it's been in use for years. It beggars belief that his current treatment team was unaware of the technique. And I don't think all the kooks trying to cure his cancer by nutrition, spiritual healing, yoga, homeopathy, "Chinese Medicine", etc., really have that much to contribute, cure-wise.
You cannot avoid a lawfully issued subpoena (or warrant) by pointing at a contract saying you are obligated not to turn over the requested discovery/evidence. There are certain very limited communications not subject to subpoenas/warrants, and online posts with your friends aren't on that list. (Personal communications with doctors, lawyers, spouses, mental health professionals, and religious ministers are.)
I can think of all sorts of malfeasance that could be hidden if a TOS magically inhibited the discovery process.
The idea of a TOS is legally valid (although that does not stop it from containing invalid terms) but it does not override a court order.
The data is available, and broadcast, alongside ATSC signals via the PSIP system. But this particular box chose to use the proprietary system instead; I believe it provided data much farther out than the PSIP data.
The 60-page printout was not a list of "people to call"; it was a voter list to be used for check-offs at a polling place (not a home) if the app didn't work. The campaign is supposed to use the check-off information to generate call lists that get issued to local campaign offices, but the poll worker doesn't deal with any of that.
There were two paths to the front entrance of my polling place: One involved going through the gauntlet of electioneers, the other right through the door. (Guess which one I chose.)
Once inside, there were all of two people in line in front of me in the voter look-up line. While most of the voting booths were taken (crazy-long ballot today... lots of judicial and minor statewide positions up for election) there was no wait for one.
Electronically scanned paper ballot; that's the format that makes the most sense to me. Electronic scanning for efficiency, paper backup for posterity.
Groups geared towards IT pros are "rare"? In what universe? Off the top of my head I can think of the IEEE Computer Society, the Association of Computing Machinery, SAGE, User Groups (most large technology platforms have one), etc.
If you think they are rare, you haven't been looking very hard.
And yes, there are practically unions for lawyers and doctors. Almost every lawyer is a member of their local Bar Association, and most doctors belong to the AMA. Architects and Civil Engineers have the NSPE, Realtors have the NAR, etc. Those groups have immense influence over public policy regarding their professions. (Far more so than say the IEEE or ACM anyway...)
The M2 shipped with the PS/1 (according to your own link), a VERY different beast from the PS/2. Other than the fact that both computers were made by IBM, DOS-compatible, and butt-ugly, the machines have nothing to do with each other.
The PS/1 was a home machine, the PS/2 a business line.
When people say "Model M" they aren't referring to the M1/2.
Have you ever heard of an extension cord? And it was only necessary if you couldn't procure a straight-through cord to attach to the models with detachable cords (which was most of them.)
And, of course, you can get a brand-new Model M today with USB if you like.
The true evolution of the computer keyboard stopped with the mighty, never-equaled, IBM Model M. Every "innovation" since then has been a poor compromise in comparison.
In all seriousness, you have it about right. 3D printing is still only good for things that can exist in isolation. Once one thing has to fit with another to tight tolerances, it's rough going... At best, 3D printed tolerances are a couple centuries behind modern tooling. That said, things are advancing rapidly.
However, the output of a MakerBot is so poor, it'd make the most ham-handed 18th century mold-maker hang his head in shame... although he'd be green with envy at how fast it can produce what it is capable of making. Pro-quality printers can produce pieces that are about even with what you can make with even modern sandcasting; maybe a little better... they require extensive file-work to fit together in a precision assembly, but can serve as an acceptable starting point for that re-work. Of course, we won't discuss how well such parts would hold together...
To be blunt, the MakerBot is a "toy" 3D printer, capable of producing nothing more than small, low-quality, toys. It's imprecise and produces rather crude pieces. It's not bad for a build-it-yourself kit, and the price isn't bad at all, but as far as 3D printers go overall... well, you get what you pay for. The build platform is small, the tolerances poor, and the finished pieces rather rough.
You can make some REALLY nice stuff with 3D printing. You can't with the MakerBot. To see what's really possible, check out shapeways.com The stuff there (user-submitted designs printed on professional printers) is light-years ahead of the MakerBot. I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.
When you say that every dollar held in reserve must be traceable to a physical dollar in a vault somewhere, you are kind of on the right track, but led astray by your fixation on physical currency.
Every dollar held in reserve must be held in either cash or an account traceable to the Federal Reserve. Small banks have an account with a Federal Reserve "correspondent bank." Larger banks have an account directly with the Federal Reserve. Neither type of account has to correspond to an actual printed Federal Reserve Note held by anyone, anywhere.
Certainly a bank doesn't have to participate in this system, and is more than welcome to hold their entire reserves in physical cash, but no bank actually operates that way, because it's inefficient, expensive, cumbersome, and unnecessary.
It's not. (Yes, I know it's called the "Federal Reserve Bank." But...) Unlike like regular banks, the Fed CAN generate money out of thin air. They have no reserve (or deposit) requirement whatsoever. They do not need $1M in deposits to issue $1M in loans. If a bank wants $1M, the Fed loans them $1M (at interest.) No reserves or cash of any kind at the Fed is required to issue this loan. The dollars lent do not have to consist of printed Federal Reserve notes (although they could); that'd be really cumbersome and stupid. If a Fed branch has too much physical cash than they need, they simply change the bar for when they decide to shred it and/or they reduce their next order with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. (As a side-note, the Fed purchases paper currency for the cost of physically printing it, but must pay for coins at face value (by issuing a credit to the US Govt's Fed account.) The government could, in theory, pay off the entire national debt by issuing a single coin with a face value equal to that of the national debt. The Fed would be required to treat it as legal tender when deposited and credit the US Govt. accordingly. It'd be a freaking disaster due to the sudden increase in the money supply and would make a mockery of the Federal Reserve System, but it is possible.)
Moving the cash from one bank's vaults to another bank's vaults doesn't really change anything.
Errr... one bank then has less cash, the other has more?
Your local bank still needs physical assets held in their name in someone's vaults as a reserve in order to loan out their virtual money at interest.
No, they don't. It makes no difference if the money is physical cash or electronically transferred! It's still considered "cash." No matter if my employer makes a $10,000 electronic deposit into my checking account or hands me a fistful of cash, my credit union is then free to loan out approx. 90% of that money. They can loan it out electronically, in the form of a check, or, less likely, actual cash. No actual physical cash has to exist anywhere for this to work. No vault is necessary anywhere. You know what is in the big, impressive, walk-in vault at your local bank? Safe deposit boxes. At most branch banks, the cash-on-hand is held in a sturdy, sheet-steel-lined closet instead and the bank's central office is not likely to have a vault at all. (Eliminates the possibility that a customer of the safe deposit box could rob a teller if the teller doesn't go anywhere near the large vault to get cash.)
When it comes to paying their debts, they would much rather hand out claims on virtual money than the physical cash which contributes to their reserves.
Huh? Both electronic and physical cash on-hand counts towards the reserve requirement. Loans (the "virtual" money) don't count as reserves at all... reserves consist of the money the bank hasn't lent! (The reserve can consist of either deposits or funds borrowed from elsewhere; either another bank or the Fed.) Plenty of banks exist with no physical cash, anywhere, at all.
Anyway, the important point was the second one, that saving ("hoarding") is economically equivalent to a loan. Granted, not a fractional-reserve bank loan, since there is no change in the money supply, but those have their own issues.
How is stuffing money under the mattress like a loan? If I loan money to somebody, it's highly likely most of it will be spent, thereby stimulating economic activity and increasing Gross Product. (And this is, in fact, how it works; credit is the lifeblood of every single modern economy.) Money stuffed under the mattress does nothing, and results in zero economic activity.
When you lend someone else (not a fractional-reserve bank) your money, you rent them your share of consumption for a time in exchange for interest. When you "hoard" your money, that same share of consumption becomes available to everyone else. The rema
Only physical cash is "dollars"? If a bank wants $1M, they get $1M from the Fed (or a Fed member bank.) It doesn't matter if it's a wire transfer, a truckload of cash, or a pile of coins; the net effect, a $1M debit to their Fed (or Fed member) account is the same.
And only a tiny fraction of a bank's reserves are physical cash. Electronic cash is just as good as physical cash, and it's a lot easier for the bank to handle.
If I were to drop $1B in Benjamins off at my local bank branch this afternoon I can guarantee that that virtually all of that cash is going to be on a truck to the Fed the next day to get it off their hands and converted into the far more convenient electronic form. They won't hold onto any of that cash in cash form as reserves.
Banks try to keep as few actual dollars (either electronic or physical) as possible. (I believe such behavior would be considered the opposite of hoarding.) This is why Reserve Requirements are minimums; no bank WANTS to keep dollars on hand; dollars in the "vault" (electronic or physical) are utterly unproductive; they earn the bank nothing. (In fact, dollars on-hand and not lent COST the bank money, as interest must be paid to depositors (or the Fed, if they are borrowed dollars.)) The money the bank lends out is quite real; it's the loan that remains on the books afterwards that is "virtual." (And its value is recorded at a discount to it's face value to account for loss reserves.)
While hoarding deflationary currency works out for the hoarder (that's why all those BitCoins are missing, after all), it doesn't work out so well for the viability of an economy. Hoarded currency is non-productive currency. While deferring spending on consumption is not a horrible thing, deferring spending on investment also IS.
The vast bulk of dollars are NOT hoarded. They are mostly stored in banks, which in turn lend them to others. They should have covered this concept (Fractional Reserve Banking) back in middle school... you need a refresher.
These BitCoins aren't being stored in a lending bank, they are being stored under the metaphorical mattress.
This has been the biggest flaw in BitCoins since day 1, and one which it's backers stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. (Either that, or they believe that a deflationary spiral is a good thing.)
With a "normal" currency (i.e. a much-maligned "fiat" currency, like the dollar), in the face of such massive deflationary pressure, the central bank injects additional currency into the market by lowering overnight lending rates, buying govt. bonds, and lowering bank reserve requirements. The ensuing inflation provides incentive for people to spend their money instead of banking it.
BitCoins, by design, have no such mechanism. This, combined with a stupidly-designed expansion curve, means that deflationary currency hoarding was 100% predictable.
I agree that the cost of reliable transportation is a huge hurdle for many families trying to make their way out of poverty.
But what he was rambling about was some mythical vehicle that costs $8,500 a year to maintain. $8,500 a year in total transportation costs, I could believe, if you have a long commute. But not $8,500 a year in maintenance.
Please tell me what car, any car, (outside an "exotic") requires $8,500 a year in maintenance. (50% a $17,000 paycheck.) I'm having trouble figuring out what you could possibly spend that much money on. That'd be more than enough for a brand-new engine, transmission, tires, and brakes, every single year. Even the most pathetic, rusted out, smoke-belching, heap won't set you back nearly that much.
Many cars easily make it to 100k-200k with nothing but exactly what the manual calls for, along with occasional brakes and tires.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been doing "random shelving" of their items since their very first fulfillment center that wasn't Jeff Bezos's garage. It isn't particularly new, revolutionary, or a big secret.
Your headline is more true than you realize... although you don't realize it.
Something like 2/3rds of the population that we would consider to die of "old age" (generally defined as dying of a condition that predominately kills the elderly, and doing so at around, or greater, than the average lifespan for a developed country), have been discovered, upon death, to have cancer of some sort, but cancer that did NOT contribute to their death. IIRC, the most "popular" are Prostate, Breast, and Brain tumors. Some of those tumors may have been decades old, but slow-growing and non-aggressive enough to simply not be an issue.
Not all cancer is worth detecting if it's almost inevitable that you'll die from simply "wearing out" first.
Some screening tests for cancer byproducts already exist, like the PSA test for prostate cancer. Other early-detection tests abound, such as Mammograms and Colonoscopies. While some of the screening tests, such as the Pap Smear, have shown to dramatically reduce cancer deaths, others, such as the PSA and Mammogram have detected a lot of cancers, but done absolutely bupkis to reduce death rates when given to populations not otherwise at high risk. Colonoscopies work, but are extremely expensive vs. the benefit they provide. (As in, it'd be a lot more efficient to spend healthcare dollars elsewhere, and there are other screening tests nearly as effective that are much cheaper.) Apparently they don't do a good job detecting aggressive cancers in those populations early enough to make a difference. With how fast some aggressive cancers work, the tests might have to be administered several times a year (at the cost of countless billions) to make any difference.
In addition, the PSA and Mammogram HAVE caused billions to be spent on procedures with quite severe side effects to further diagnose, and treat, problems that almost certainly would not have killed their "victims." Most Prostate tumors grow slowly enough that you could leave it alone for the rest of your life, and die of something else instead; meanwhile, prostate cancer treatment almost always causes problems with incontinence and impotence; two major quality of life issues. Most "breast cancers" detected by mammograms are Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, another type of cancer that is unlikely to kill you any time soon.
We need to think VERY carefully before rolling out any MORE widespread cancer screening tests, since many of the ones we have now simply don't work.
It's all well and good that he received all these notes from thousands of well-wishers, but has he actually FOUND anything useful for his case? Awake brain surgery is neither particularly new nor innovative; it's been in use for years. It beggars belief that his current treatment team was unaware of the technique. And I don't think all the kooks trying to cure his cancer by nutrition, spiritual healing, yoga, homeopathy, "Chinese Medicine", etc., really have that much to contribute, cure-wise.
You cannot avoid a lawfully issued subpoena (or warrant) by pointing at a contract saying you are obligated not to turn over the requested discovery/evidence. There are certain very limited communications not subject to subpoenas/warrants, and online posts with your friends aren't on that list. (Personal communications with doctors, lawyers, spouses, mental health professionals, and religious ministers are.)
I can think of all sorts of malfeasance that could be hidden if a TOS magically inhibited the discovery process.
The idea of a TOS is legally valid (although that does not stop it from containing invalid terms) but it does not override a court order.
The data is available, and broadcast, alongside ATSC signals via the PSIP system. But this particular box chose to use the proprietary system instead; I believe it provided data much farther out than the PSIP data.
The 60-page printout was not a list of "people to call"; it was a voter list to be used for check-offs at a polling place (not a home) if the app didn't work. The campaign is supposed to use the check-off information to generate call lists that get issued to local campaign offices, but the poll worker doesn't deal with any of that.
There were two paths to the front entrance of my polling place: One involved going through the gauntlet of electioneers, the other right through the door. (Guess which one I chose.)
Once inside, there were all of two people in line in front of me in the voter look-up line. While most of the voting booths were taken (crazy-long ballot today... lots of judicial and minor statewide positions up for election) there was no wait for one.
Electronically scanned paper ballot; that's the format that makes the most sense to me. Electronic scanning for efficiency, paper backup for posterity.
Groups geared towards IT pros are "rare"? In what universe? Off the top of my head I can think of the IEEE Computer Society, the Association of Computing Machinery, SAGE, User Groups (most large technology platforms have one), etc.
If you think they are rare, you haven't been looking very hard.
And yes, there are practically unions for lawyers and doctors. Almost every lawyer is a member of their local Bar Association, and most doctors belong to the AMA. Architects and Civil Engineers have the NSPE, Realtors have the NAR, etc. Those groups have immense influence over public policy regarding their professions. (Far more so than say the IEEE or ACM anyway...)
The M2 shipped with the PS/1 (according to your own link), a VERY different beast from the PS/2. Other than the fact that both computers were made by IBM, DOS-compatible, and butt-ugly, the machines have nothing to do with each other.
The PS/1 was a home machine, the PS/2 a business line.
When people say "Model M" they aren't referring to the M1/2.
Have you ever heard of an extension cord? And it was only necessary if you couldn't procure a straight-through cord to attach to the models with detachable cords (which was most of them.)
And, of course, you can get a brand-new Model M today with USB if you like.
A company called Unicomp still makes the Model M. They purchased the original tooling from IBM/Lexmark and make the keyboards in Lexington, Kentucky.
The true evolution of the computer keyboard stopped with the mighty, never-equaled, IBM Model M. Every "innovation" since then has been a poor compromise in comparison.
Touche...
In all seriousness, you have it about right. 3D printing is still only good for things that can exist in isolation. Once one thing has to fit with another to tight tolerances, it's rough going... At best, 3D printed tolerances are a couple centuries behind modern tooling. That said, things are advancing rapidly.
However, the output of a MakerBot is so poor, it'd make the most ham-handed 18th century mold-maker hang his head in shame... although he'd be green with envy at how fast it can produce what it is capable of making. Pro-quality printers can produce pieces that are about even with what you can make with even modern sandcasting; maybe a little better... they require extensive file-work to fit together in a precision assembly, but can serve as an acceptable starting point for that re-work. Of course, we won't discuss how well such parts would hold together...
To be blunt, the MakerBot is a "toy" 3D printer, capable of producing nothing more than small, low-quality, toys. It's imprecise and produces rather crude pieces. It's not bad for a build-it-yourself kit, and the price isn't bad at all, but as far as 3D printers go overall... well, you get what you pay for. The build platform is small, the tolerances poor, and the finished pieces rather rough.
You can make some REALLY nice stuff with 3D printing. You can't with the MakerBot. To see what's really possible, check out shapeways.com The stuff there (user-submitted designs printed on professional printers) is light-years ahead of the MakerBot. I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.
When you say that every dollar held in reserve must be traceable to a physical dollar in a vault somewhere, you are kind of on the right track, but led astray by your fixation on physical currency.
Every dollar held in reserve must be held in either cash or an account traceable to the Federal Reserve. Small banks have an account with a Federal Reserve "correspondent bank." Larger banks have an account directly with the Federal Reserve. Neither type of account has to correspond to an actual printed Federal Reserve Note held by anyone, anywhere.
Certainly a bank doesn't have to participate in this system, and is more than welcome to hold their entire reserves in physical cash, but no bank actually operates that way, because it's inefficient, expensive, cumbersome, and unnecessary.
You speak as if the Fed isn't a bank.
It's not. (Yes, I know it's called the "Federal Reserve Bank." But...) Unlike like regular banks, the Fed CAN generate money out of thin air. They have no reserve (or deposit) requirement whatsoever. They do not need $1M in deposits to issue $1M in loans. If a bank wants $1M, the Fed loans them $1M (at interest.) No reserves or cash of any kind at the Fed is required to issue this loan. The dollars lent do not have to consist of printed Federal Reserve notes (although they could); that'd be really cumbersome and stupid. If a Fed branch has too much physical cash than they need, they simply change the bar for when they decide to shred it and/or they reduce their next order with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. (As a side-note, the Fed purchases paper currency for the cost of physically printing it, but must pay for coins at face value (by issuing a credit to the US Govt's Fed account.) The government could, in theory, pay off the entire national debt by issuing a single coin with a face value equal to that of the national debt. The Fed would be required to treat it as legal tender when deposited and credit the US Govt. accordingly. It'd be a freaking disaster due to the sudden increase in the money supply and would make a mockery of the Federal Reserve System, but it is possible.)
Moving the cash from one bank's vaults to another bank's vaults doesn't really change anything.
Errr... one bank then has less cash, the other has more?
Your local bank still needs physical assets held in their name in someone's vaults as a reserve in order to loan out their virtual money at interest.
No, they don't. It makes no difference if the money is physical cash or electronically transferred! It's still considered "cash." No matter if my employer makes a $10,000 electronic deposit into my checking account or hands me a fistful of cash, my credit union is then free to loan out approx. 90% of that money. They can loan it out electronically, in the form of a check, or, less likely, actual cash. No actual physical cash has to exist anywhere for this to work. No vault is necessary anywhere. You know what is in the big, impressive, walk-in vault at your local bank? Safe deposit boxes. At most branch banks, the cash-on-hand is held in a sturdy, sheet-steel-lined closet instead and the bank's central office is not likely to have a vault at all. (Eliminates the possibility that a customer of the safe deposit box could rob a teller if the teller doesn't go anywhere near the large vault to get cash.)
When it comes to paying their debts, they would much rather hand out claims on virtual money than the physical cash which contributes to their reserves.
Huh? Both electronic and physical cash on-hand counts towards the reserve requirement. Loans (the "virtual" money) don't count as reserves at all... reserves consist of the money the bank hasn't lent! (The reserve can consist of either deposits or funds borrowed from elsewhere; either another bank or the Fed.) Plenty of banks exist with no physical cash, anywhere, at all.
Anyway, the important point was the second one, that saving ("hoarding") is economically equivalent to a loan. Granted, not a fractional-reserve bank loan, since there is no change in the money supply, but those have their own issues.
How is stuffing money under the mattress like a loan? If I loan money to somebody, it's highly likely most of it will be spent, thereby stimulating economic activity and increasing Gross Product. (And this is, in fact, how it works; credit is the lifeblood of every single modern economy.) Money stuffed under the mattress does nothing, and results in zero economic activity.
When you lend someone else (not a fractional-reserve bank) your money, you rent them your share of consumption for a time in exchange for interest. When you "hoard" your money, that same share of consumption becomes available to everyone else. The rema
Only physical cash is "dollars"? If a bank wants $1M, they get $1M from the Fed (or a Fed member bank.) It doesn't matter if it's a wire transfer, a truckload of cash, or a pile of coins; the net effect, a $1M debit to their Fed (or Fed member) account is the same.
And only a tiny fraction of a bank's reserves are physical cash. Electronic cash is just as good as physical cash, and it's a lot easier for the bank to handle.
If I were to drop $1B in Benjamins off at my local bank branch this afternoon I can guarantee that that virtually all of that cash is going to be on a truck to the Fed the next day to get it off their hands and converted into the far more convenient electronic form. They won't hold onto any of that cash in cash form as reserves.
Wow. Just wow.
Banks try to keep as few actual dollars (either electronic or physical) as possible. (I believe such behavior would be considered the opposite of hoarding.) This is why Reserve Requirements are minimums; no bank WANTS to keep dollars on hand; dollars in the "vault" (electronic or physical) are utterly unproductive; they earn the bank nothing. (In fact, dollars on-hand and not lent COST the bank money, as interest must be paid to depositors (or the Fed, if they are borrowed dollars.)) The money the bank lends out is quite real; it's the loan that remains on the books afterwards that is "virtual." (And its value is recorded at a discount to it's face value to account for loss reserves.)
While hoarding deflationary currency works out for the hoarder (that's why all those BitCoins are missing, after all), it doesn't work out so well for the viability of an economy. Hoarded currency is non-productive currency. While deferring spending on consumption is not a horrible thing, deferring spending on investment also IS.
The vast bulk of dollars are NOT hoarded. They are mostly stored in banks, which in turn lend them to others. They should have covered this concept (Fractional Reserve Banking) back in middle school... you need a refresher.
These BitCoins aren't being stored in a lending bank, they are being stored under the metaphorical mattress.
This has been the biggest flaw in BitCoins since day 1, and one which it's backers stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. (Either that, or they believe that a deflationary spiral is a good thing.)
With a "normal" currency (i.e. a much-maligned "fiat" currency, like the dollar), in the face of such massive deflationary pressure, the central bank injects additional currency into the market by lowering overnight lending rates, buying govt. bonds, and lowering bank reserve requirements. The ensuing inflation provides incentive for people to spend their money instead of banking it.
BitCoins, by design, have no such mechanism. This, combined with a stupidly-designed expansion curve, means that deflationary currency hoarding was 100% predictable.
I agree that the cost of reliable transportation is a huge hurdle for many families trying to make their way out of poverty.
But what he was rambling about was some mythical vehicle that costs $8,500 a year to maintain. $8,500 a year in total transportation costs, I could believe, if you have a long commute. But not $8,500 a year in maintenance.
Please tell me what car, any car, (outside an "exotic") requires $8,500 a year in maintenance. (50% a $17,000 paycheck.) I'm having trouble figuring out what you could possibly spend that much money on. That'd be more than enough for a brand-new engine, transmission, tires, and brakes, every single year. Even the most pathetic, rusted out, smoke-belching, heap won't set you back nearly that much.
Many cars easily make it to 100k-200k with nothing but exactly what the manual calls for, along with occasional brakes and tires.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. It can help you to look at life in a different way...