Germans pay about $0.38/kWh. At those prices, you can't make a profit. So, Bitcoin and European coal is a red herring, trying to distract from Europe's generally broken energy policy.
Note that as Europe shut down nuclear power plants they have had to increase their usage of coal despite their massive investment in renewables. Last year coal exports from the US to Europe doubled.
And you can't blame Bitcoin for that, because Bitcoin mining has already been priced out of the European market. People mine for Bitcoins where electricity is cheap, and that's not Europe.
Odds are that individual scientists with decent publication records are competent and credible
You just go on believing that.
Science isn't a field you get into for the money
Neither is cleaning toilets. What's your point?
If they agree on something, it's because there has been sufficiently strong evidence to convince everybody.
Like, for example, eugenics and scientific racism.
I suspect that you have a lot less ability to predict competence in scientific fields than you think you do,
Well, be that as it may, the good thing is: I don't have to predict competence in scientific fields because I don't rely on competence in scientific fields for decision making.
and that the average cat or dog are more competent at finding bogus scientific fields than you are
Now you're veering into dumb insults. Keep going, you're showing just what kind of person you are.
yup, it's definitely better to live in a land that has no social safety net [...] Yup, no matter where you look, American individualism has been a resounding success when compared with other western nations
What "American individualism" are you talking about? The US ranks near the top in the world in terms of absolute per capita government spending and social welfare spending, it has an extensive social safety net, and it ranks in 11th place (behind many European nations) in terms of economic freedoms. The decline of the US is in large part linked to the growth of the US government.
For example, the US spends more public money per high school student than most other countries but only achieves mediocre results. That's not a failure of "American individualism", it's a failure of US government programs to deliver results. Ditto with our healthcare system: the US government alone spends more per American than most European systems, yet doesn't even cover 1/3 of Americans with that money.
Wonder why these countries didn't spring to your mind as examples for these horrible, horrible socialist ideas.
Because they aren't socialist. In fact, many of them have more economic freedoms than the US and less per capita government spending, and that's today. Those countries actually became rich, like the US, while they were much more free market oriented than today and they are now squandering the wealth accumulated since WWII.
Yes, it's minimum wage, labor unions and a strong social security system that ruined Venezuela. Along with the other countries that have these things, like Austria, Germany, Sweden, France, Britain...
Those countries generally became rich with free market economics and limited government benefits. They are also vastly different from each other. Germany, for example, didn't use to have minimum wage at all, and now only has a limited form with exemptions, German labor unions are nothing like US labor unions (and socialist states usually don't have labor unions), and it has nothing like US Social Security or Medicare. Several of those countries are also in deep trouble.
Really, people, knock off this stupid "but European countries are socialist and rich" idea; it is utterly divorced from reality.
If you think the current system provides for efficient allocation of resources, you are well and truly mistaken.
I don't know of anybody who claimed that the current system provides for an efficient allocation of resources. One huge inefficiency is the fact that 40% of our economy is government spending. But even free markets are far from the theoretical optimum: free markets are simply the best we can achieve.
We throw away enough food to feed entire countries, there are millions of properties that sit vacant,
Both of those are largely due to government regulations and restrictions.
and a few hundred people at the top of the food chain have as much worth as a few million at the bottom
That's actually better than it is historically, and the reason things have gotten better is because of free markets. But inequality per se shouldn't matter much anyway; what matters is how well the poorest are actually doing in absolute terms, and they are doing quite well compared to the past.
Looking at "worth" is also misleading because welfare states like the US take away money from individuals and "invest"/"save" it in government programs. For example, people who receive Social Security effectively have several hundred thousand dollars "saved", but that money doesn't show up in "net worth" statistics.
Most software engineers don't produce anything. They code intangible goods
So they do, in fact, produce something: "intangible goods".
How many millions of lines of code are produced every day that will never be used, never be seen and never add value to anything. Yet people are paid good money to do it.
The fire extinguisher in my kitchen has never been used; nevertheless, it has value to me which is why I paid for it. Insurance is usually never used, yet it has value and costs money. Risk, opportunity, and potential all translate directly into costs and values, even if they are never realized.
"We could hold Google and Facebook and all those big multinationals accountable; we could make sure that people, like those who are currently 'voluntarily' contributing their data to pump up companies' profits, are given something that is adequate to support their livelihoods in exchange."
The reason companies want someone's data is to sell to them. If you don't have any money to spend, your data is of little interest to them.
To be blunt: we should make Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other such AI companies pay for it with a simple data tax.
Any profit they derive from data is already taxed. Congress actually just reduced that tax massively because people realized that if you tax corporations too much, they move overseas, hide their profits, and/or just close down.
No, it's not. The only option available to me is a single wire - a phone line. I'm glad that it runs ADSL at least. "Thanks" to geography, I have no other choice. Any upgrade would require digging up half the neighborhood, including a part of a main street.
Well, you evidently picked a poor place to live. Why should anybody else care? In any case, when it comes to DSL, you probably already have multiple ISPs offering services over the same line, because that's how DSL is usually set up.
And your smart idea is what, to subscribe to as many ISPs as is the number of networks that I need to access and bond them?
No, not at all. If there is a demand for the kind of unrestricted service you want in your neighborhood and there are no government-imposed restrictions on line usage, then some ISP will supply it at market rates. That's how markets function.
Evidently, what you want is multiple Internet providers to cater to your whims wherever you find it desirable to live, with no restrictions on content, at below market rates, and you want to force others to subsidize your preferences by passing laws like net neutrality. To which I can only say: you're a greedy prick and you can GFUS.
I've lived in places where the only ISP choice was fixed wireless with restrictions on streaming, and unlike you, I didn't go around trying to bully others into subsidizing my Internet service.
Yes, the single set of wires carries ASDL, VSDL, cable TV, fiber signals
That's a "set of wires" isn't it? And if you feel like you don't get enough options with that "set of wires", as you seem to because you justify net neutrality based on not having enough provider choices, then that "set of wires" could be either shared by, or connected to, different providers.
You can always look up somebody's publication record, or, failing that, look at the job title, if you want to know if they're a scientist in the field.
Neither of those tells you whether they are competent or credible.
Climate science is interdisciplinary. So's a lot of other scientific fields, such as astronomy. That doesn't mean you should go to a particle physicist to get starts explained.
I suspect the average astronomer and the average particle physicist are both more competent at climate science than the average climate scientist; climate science is full of dunces and scientific wannabes.
Like link every house to four more sets of wires and pipes in addition to the existing one? Sure, we'll get right onto it!
(I'm sorry, I forgot how provincial and dull-witted some people are on Slashdot, so let me explain.)
No, a single set of wires is sufficient. The way this is handled in some places is that the wires from each house go to a common junction box, where they can be connected to the desired provider. In other places, this is simply done virtually, meaning the last mile wires are shared by different ISPs.
Words can be infectious to a population that isn't taught to be critical thinkers.
Well, yes, that's what government-run public education systems across the world do, including the US. It's so that people can be easily manipulated into giving governments more power. In Europe, this works nearly perfectly, because government also (until recently at least) largely controlled the media. In the US, this doesn't work so well because if you make your people easily manipulable, it's not just government that can manipulate them, it's anybody who can reach them.
Of course, governing elites in both the US and Europe like to send their kids to schools that do teach critical thinking, because you actually need it in order to run a country.
The law is strongly on Cloudflare's side here. Internet infrastructure providers like Cloudflare have broad legal immunity for content created by their customers. But legal rights may not matter if Cloudflare comes under pressure from customers to take down content.
Solution: you can enjoy "broad legal immunity" as long as you don't remove content based on your own beliefs; as soon as you start removing contents based on your own belief, you are taking responsibility for what is going through your platform, and hence you can and should be held responsible for everything that goes through.
Lol. If you look at the history of Telecomm, they consistently try to screw customers. Having worked in Telecomm, that is exactly how the top execs think.
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks. Don't add more corruption (net neutrality) on top of existing corruption (telecom regulations and local monopolies).
While there is corruption in both parties, sadly, it doesn't remain "equally true". Democrats are a far greater engine of corruption than Republicans, if not for any other reason than because Democrats want to grow the size of government.
And that has to do with net neutrality... exactly nothing.
Really, you people are grasping at straws, and all because you want to defend the Google/YouTube/Facebook/Netflix oligopolies that many of you work for or depend on.
Last we checked, supermarkets, clothing stores don't have monopolies.
Well, and where ISPs have monopolies, they are largely due to government. If you want to get rid of those monopolies get rid of those monopolies. What you're proposing to do instead is to leave those monopolies in place and then add even more regulations on top of it that will ensure that Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. maintain their monopolies as well.
What is it you do not get about monopolies
What is it that you don't get about monopolies? They are government-created... by people like you.
Under Mr. Pai's proposal, telecom companies would effectively be allowed to sell you a basic internet plan that might include only limited access to Google and email.
Next you know, supermarkets will be allowed to sell you only Monsanto-derived foods, and clothing stores will be allowed to sell you only clothes made by Old Navy! Quick, we need some "store neutrality"!
All I need to understand is that people who have $100K to invest in stocks seem to do dramatically better in a relative sense than people who have $50 to invest.
In what way? They both get the same return on their investment: around 7% on average.
If you start saving $200/month in your 20's, you'll have $100000 to invest in your 40's.
Slashdot Mirror
Germans pay about $0.38/kWh. At those prices, you can't make a profit. So, Bitcoin and European coal is a red herring, trying to distract from Europe's generally broken energy policy.
And you can't blame Bitcoin for that, because Bitcoin mining has already been priced out of the European market. People mine for Bitcoins where electricity is cheap, and that's not Europe.
You just go on believing that.
Neither is cleaning toilets. What's your point?
Like, for example, eugenics and scientific racism.
Well, be that as it may, the good thing is: I don't have to predict competence in scientific fields because I don't rely on competence in scientific fields for decision making.
Now you're veering into dumb insults. Keep going, you're showing just what kind of person you are.
And why exactly can't Bitcoin miners and networks run on clean energy?
What "American individualism" are you talking about? The US ranks near the top in the world in terms of absolute per capita government spending and social welfare spending, it has an extensive social safety net, and it ranks in 11th place (behind many European nations) in terms of economic freedoms. The decline of the US is in large part linked to the growth of the US government.
For example, the US spends more public money per high school student than most other countries but only achieves mediocre results. That's not a failure of "American individualism", it's a failure of US government programs to deliver results. Ditto with our healthcare system: the US government alone spends more per American than most European systems, yet doesn't even cover 1/3 of Americans with that money.
Because they aren't socialist. In fact, many of them have more economic freedoms than the US and less per capita government spending, and that's today. Those countries actually became rich, like the US, while they were much more free market oriented than today and they are now squandering the wealth accumulated since WWII.
Those countries generally became rich with free market economics and limited government benefits. They are also vastly different from each other. Germany, for example, didn't use to have minimum wage at all, and now only has a limited form with exemptions, German labor unions are nothing like US labor unions (and socialist states usually don't have labor unions), and it has nothing like US Social Security or Medicare. Several of those countries are also in deep trouble.
Really, people, knock off this stupid "but European countries are socialist and rich" idea; it is utterly divorced from reality.
I don't know of anybody who claimed that the current system provides for an efficient allocation of resources. One huge inefficiency is the fact that 40% of our economy is government spending. But even free markets are far from the theoretical optimum: free markets are simply the best we can achieve.
Both of those are largely due to government regulations and restrictions.
That's actually better than it is historically, and the reason things have gotten better is because of free markets. But inequality per se shouldn't matter much anyway; what matters is how well the poorest are actually doing in absolute terms, and they are doing quite well compared to the past.
Looking at "worth" is also misleading because welfare states like the US take away money from individuals and "invest"/"save" it in government programs. For example, people who receive Social Security effectively have several hundred thousand dollars "saved", but that money doesn't show up in "net worth" statistics.
So they do, in fact, produce something: "intangible goods".
The fire extinguisher in my kitchen has never been used; nevertheless, it has value to me which is why I paid for it. Insurance is usually never used, yet it has value and costs money. Risk, opportunity, and potential all translate directly into costs and values, even if they are never realized.
The reason companies want someone's data is to sell to them. If you don't have any money to spend, your data is of little interest to them.
Any profit they derive from data is already taxed. Congress actually just reduced that tax massively because people realized that if you tax corporations too much, they move overseas, hide their profits, and/or just close down.
Well, you evidently picked a poor place to live. Why should anybody else care? In any case, when it comes to DSL, you probably already have multiple ISPs offering services over the same line, because that's how DSL is usually set up.
No, not at all. If there is a demand for the kind of unrestricted service you want in your neighborhood and there are no government-imposed restrictions on line usage, then some ISP will supply it at market rates. That's how markets function.
Evidently, what you want is multiple Internet providers to cater to your whims wherever you find it desirable to live, with no restrictions on content, at below market rates, and you want to force others to subsidize your preferences by passing laws like net neutrality. To which I can only say: you're a greedy prick and you can GFUS.
I've lived in places where the only ISP choice was fixed wireless with restrictions on streaming, and unlike you, I didn't go around trying to bully others into subsidizing my Internet service.
These are champions of net neutrality. How about we send the FTC after them to force them to honor "app neutrality"?
I have a lot less choice in terms of streaming sticks than I have in terms of ISPs.
Ah, RationalWiki, the place where wannabe scientists and armchair philosophers gather. You fit right in.
That's a "set of wires" isn't it? And if you feel like you don't get enough options with that "set of wires", as you seem to because you justify net neutrality based on not having enough provider choices, then that "set of wires" could be either shared by, or connected to, different providers.
Neither of those tells you whether they are competent or credible.
I suspect the average astronomer and the average particle physicist are both more competent at climate science than the average climate scientist; climate science is full of dunces and scientific wannabes.
(I'm sorry, I forgot how provincial and dull-witted some people are on Slashdot, so let me explain.)
No, a single set of wires is sufficient. The way this is handled in some places is that the wires from each house go to a common junction box, where they can be connected to the desired provider. In other places, this is simply done virtually, meaning the last mile wires are shared by different ISPs.
All of them, through combinations of regulations, public rights-of-way, and local last mile restrictions.
Well, yes, that's what government-run public education systems across the world do, including the US. It's so that people can be easily manipulated into giving governments more power. In Europe, this works nearly perfectly, because government also (until recently at least) largely controlled the media. In the US, this doesn't work so well because if you make your people easily manipulable, it's not just government that can manipulate them, it's anybody who can reach them.
Of course, governing elites in both the US and Europe like to send their kids to schools that do teach critical thinking, because you actually need it in order to run a country.
Solution: you can enjoy "broad legal immunity" as long as you don't remove content based on your own beliefs; as soon as you start removing contents based on your own belief, you are taking responsibility for what is going through your platform, and hence you can and should be held responsible for everything that goes through.
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks. Don't add more corruption (net neutrality) on top of existing corruption (telecom regulations and local monopolies).
While there is corruption in both parties, sadly, it doesn't remain "equally true". Democrats are a far greater engine of corruption than Republicans, if not for any other reason than because Democrats want to grow the size of government.
And that has to do with net neutrality... exactly nothing.
Really, you people are grasping at straws, and all because you want to defend the Google/YouTube/Facebook/Netflix oligopolies that many of you work for or depend on.
Well, and where ISPs have monopolies, they are largely due to government. If you want to get rid of those monopolies get rid of those monopolies. What you're proposing to do instead is to leave those monopolies in place and then add even more regulations on top of it that will ensure that Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. maintain their monopolies as well.
What is it that you don't get about monopolies? They are government-created... by people like you.
Well, the local last mile monopolies certainly are crony capitalism.
Adding net neutrality on top of local last mile monopolies is adding more crony capitalism on top of crony capitalism.
Free market capitalism means: no net neutrality and abolishing last mile monopolies.
Next you know, supermarkets will be allowed to sell you only Monsanto-derived foods, and clothing stores will be allowed to sell you only clothes made by Old Navy! Quick, we need some "store neutrality"!
How do you know whether someone is a scientist? How do you know whether they are "in the field"?
Climate change? It's interdisciplinary. What does "in that field" actually mean, and how do you think it correlates with authoritativeness?
In what way? They both get the same return on their investment: around 7% on average.
If you start saving $200/month in your 20's, you'll have $100000 to invest in your 40's.