You have to take into account the cost of the mining rig as well.
I was operating under the assumption that the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the machine would be much greater, but doing the math, I don't think that is the case.
I stand by my statement that the only people that make money from bitcoin mining are the people that make the mining equipment.
Do you also stand by your statement that the makers are deliberately selling their product "at a cost that means you will invariably lose money". My point is that even in the face of sincere manufacturers, the costs of bitcoin mining will stabilize a bit below the expected return in bitcoins.
It doesn't take long before you realize that your magic money printing device was sold to you at a cost that means you will invariably lose money. Which makes sense. If I have a magic money printing device, why the hell would I sell it to you instead of running it myself?
No, what happened is that the cheap bitcoins went away. A cursory examination of the dynamics of the thing would have revealed that mining bit coins increases in computational/electricity cost over time. So as long as value of bit coins exceeds the electricity cost of mining them, then there will be massive computational resources thrown at them.
"Have no data" is a pseudo-science accusation (particularly given that I did have data, contrary to the assertion). I'm not going to waste my time on bullshit accusations especially when the people making them gave a blank check to the people I replied to earlier who just pulled assertions out of their asses.
Data is the only objective decision support. I make around 150K per year as a PhD statistician workin in industrial quality control, and I also have significant savings in retirement accounts as well as investments in the stock market.
And I'm a time traveling Caribbean pirate from the year 2304, arrrrrr. Emphasizing an imaginary "data" over objective reasoning indicates to me that if you really are credentialed as you say, you didn't learn so much from those credentials.
. I am in favor of higher income taxes and higher capital gains taxes to improve the financial stability of the US economy over the recent brinkmanship and posturing adopted by the House of Representatives.
Why would that improve the financial stability of the US economy? We ignore also the obvious problem that financial stability is not all that advantageous. For example, short term thinking, such as the phenomenon of businesses not looking past the next quarter, is due to financial stability. And we still have recessions and such, they just tend to get bigger before they overcome the financial stability mechanisms.
Why is my lack of "data" relevant? I notice the posters jumping on the tax-the-rich bandwagon just made up a lot of shit. Meanwhile we have these facts. First, I presented data indicating that the wealthiest 0.01% haven't seen a significant change in their tax burden over the past 37 years.
Second, I presented the fact that the US is experiencing labor competition from the developing world. Rudimentary economics indicates this would explain most phenomena alleged to be the result of an overly low rate on the highest tax bracket (such as US capital growing in valuation at a higher rate than US labor).
We also have a strong implication of envy present here such as you posting at the emotional level of a two year old. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't your first fact-free turd in this thread.
I wonder whose talking point that is? For example, any economic damage at this point of Brexit is self-inflicted (and I don't refer to the voters here). And I'm not completely sold on the idea that Trump will be more harmful economically than Clinton. Sure, if Clinton follows in the footsteps of her husband's compromise positions (including budget balancing and trade liberalization), then sure, she'll probably be better.
Let's blow off the self-serving bullshit and consider an inadvertently interesting question. What would a "Sputnik moment" look like in CS and is it possible to have one?
The Pinkertons got as big as they did due to government contracts such as being the equivalent of the FBI for the US government for thirty years. They also made sure they were legally covered and backed by local law enforcement when they did things like strikebreaking.
And then of course, there's using the Colorado National Guard for strikebreaking.
is why I'd like to see a return to the old tax rates from the 50s,60s and 70s before "Reganomics" took hold.
This is a classic case of cargo cult economics. There are several deep problems with this outlook. First, the prosperity of the past had nothing to do with the tax rate. Second, the problems of today have nothing to do with the tax rate. Third, most of the rich never had to pay that tax rate. And fourth, this is a brazen case of envy which completely disregards the harm it would cause and should have no place in economic policies that affect hundreds of millions of people.
So let's start with the first point. The prosperity of the US was generated by a combination of several factors, such as a mostly free society of well over a hundred million people and economy, being the only major power after the Second World War which didn't have to rebuild its economy, and massive industrial and commercial base. Why are we to assume that the tax rate on the highest tax bracket is more relevant than having a huge economic base, for example?
When someone proposes a one-size-fits-all policy like this as a cure-all, they implicitly are assuming that the policy is more important than any other economic factor. I note elsewhere that a replier which claimed a correlation between cutting that tax rate and "stock market bubbles" fails hard in assuming that there was an actual correlation between the tax rate and recessions (which relatively speaking are more serious problems than stock market bubbles),
Second, there is this assumption that the current problems of the US are due to the much lower tax rate of the highest tax bracket. This completely ignores globalization and the fact that US workers compete with billions of workers who can often do the same job for a small fraction of the cost. Increasing the tax rate on the highest income bracket isn't going to make those billions of workers disappear and magically duplicate the unique economic conditions of an era that is now firmly in the past. That fantasy of replicating some irrelevant or even harmful aspect to generate prosperity is what makes this cargo cult economics.
Then there's the issue of the wealthy not paying those exorbitant tax rates.You may have heard of "tax loopholes". There were plenty during this era of high tax rates. This resulted in the extremely wealthy not actually having a huge difference in the effective tax they paid from the past to the present. For example, this letter cites a change for the 0.01% most wealthy from almost 43% in 1979 (when the highest income tax bracket was 70%) to 32% in 2005 (when it was 35%).
Finally, there's the matter of this being a brazen case of envy with no business intruding on a matter that affects hundreds of millions of people. It's a stick-it-to-the-rich fantasy which ignores that the "solution" sticks it to employers. Which in turn is economically suicidal in light of the fact that the biggest problem facing the US is labor competition with the developing world. Nor do we see any sort of well developed rationale for why higher taxes would do anything productive. It's merely assumed to work.
My view is that employers are far more valuable presently in the US economy than skilled workers without a job. Punitive income taxes and the like discourage employment of people by taking away much of the incentive to grow a business to employ more people and by taking away funds that would be used to employ people and squandering it on typically grotesquely inefficient or harmful government program. It's time to try something that works.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Here, we don't have a mechanism by which the rich paying less taxes results in stock market bubbles (ignoring here that we don't really have a reason to care about stock market bubbles in the first place). It's just some AC wanting to find any rationalization no matter how tenuous for sticking it to the rich, which is not something I care about.
I doubt we have a correlation either. For example, the New Deal tax increases correlate with the second US recession of the Great Depression. And that was the first of six recessions which happened during the highest (91%) taxation of the highest bracket. So no correlation there.
Nor does the 1969-1970 recession correlation with the tax reductions of the mid-60s. The 1973-75 and 1980 recession didn't happen during any decline in tax rate. And the tax declines of the 80s, which are by far the greatest tax declines of the entire period, saw considerable economic growth both before and after the 1990 recession with nothing comparable before until you get before the drag of the Vietnam War and oil shocks.
This data damns the fantasies of the wealthy that they are the best users of funds gained at such disproportionate rates compared to the population.
So no correlation. But then again, you have to be pretty dumb to think that excessively taxing the employers of the US (who tend to fall to a degree in that highest tax bracket) results in economic growth.
Except property rights almost caused the collapse of Western civilisation in the 1920s/30s.
I think the Great Depression has turned into a mirror which merely reflects the viewer's opinions. The obvious rebuttal is that property rights have been around forever, and they haven't caused the Great Depression before or since. The second obvious rebuttal is that you never refer to property again. For example:
Without proper moderation of the economy through sensible market regulations including Trust Busting/Anti-Monopoly/pro-competition government action.
No reference to property rights.
What should be happening is the largest companies should be getting taxed to shit and the money should be being pumped into the small business economy. That's how you create economic growth that benefits the entire economy.
No reference to property rights.
By having money influencing politics. A perverse reversal of economics occurs where the largest businesses capture the political class and most of society's wealth.
No reference to property rights.
To belabor a point that you should have agreed with in the first place, you can't have small businesses without property rights. You can't have "proper moderation of the economy" or "sensible market regulations". You can have small businesses being the "real drivers" of the economy. But you can have money influencing politics and "perverse reversal" of economics, if you don't have property rights.
Nope. The fastest and cheapest way to become a monopoly in an unregulated economy is to bring in the Pinkertons [wikipedia.org], establish a company town [wikipedia.org], and extract all of the profit for any and all economic activity for yourself. Rockefeller reduced his costs by murdering strikers [wikipedia.org] using every armed force he could get his hands on, which was most of them. The tricks and techniques utilized by unregulated monopolies to extend and enhance their dominance are many and varied, and it is historical fact that a sufficiently advanced monopoly can and will arrogate the nominal government monopoly on force unto itself, either explicitly using some organization like the Pinkerton Agency or covertly, in the case of Rockefeller getting the Colorado National Guard called out for his benefit.
All this babble about the perils of unregulated markets and then you trot out an example which uses government force to enforce the monopoly.
No, we have the numbers. I was talking about the arms race, as in development of weapons and technology. And we do have the whole of western civilization to rely on in developing technology.
Nonsense. You don't have the whole of western civilization packed on that ship.
Nobody said it's the dead who keep popping up pirate bases. Living non pirates become pirates when they find themselves lacking alternatives in the real world.
They'll find other alternatives fast, if being dead is a consequence of being a pirate. Plus, there's a learning curve.
For example, what ended the Golden Age of Piracy isn't just European navies going around hunting down pirates. The incentives (the "whatevers") for piracy started to dry up. First, the plunder isn't as good, as the Spanish Empire was on decline. Second, European nations are less keen to hire privateers, and instead put sailors into the navy proper. Third, the rise of America and the West in general created more opportunities for people so they have less incentive to turn to piracy.
Another example is the Barbary Pirates. The US killed some pirates in the first war, but as soon as US/Europe turned their attention elsewhere the pirates returned, leading to the second Barbary War. Just killing pirates doesn't solve the underlying problem (that is, the Barbary states being dicks). Long term, piracy faded because European powers gained control of the region, the Ottoman in decline, and also because European ships becoming more advanced (read: winning the arms race)
You know, this is what I said all along. You mention in multiple places the harsh response to pirating and just treat it as if it were a minor factor. The "incentives" dried up says it all. Global trade massively exploded, yet somehow there was little of value on those ships to steal? Yea right.
To me it sounds like waters that the Chinese and others are fishing from aren't "the commons", but waters that ought to belong to the locals.
It's still a commons because the "belonging" doesn't keep out the foreigners. If I have a deed to property, but there are a zillion squatters on the land and I have no power to evict or extract rent from them, then I don't really own the land.
No, an arms race favors us. We have the numbers. We have access to the economic, scientific, and engineering capacity that is mainstream society. They have to rely on underground channels.
No, they have the numbers. Those pirates aren't fighting the whole of western civilization, they're fighting whatever you choose to cram on a single ship in place of valuable cargo.
As to ending piracy via attacking pirate bases... as above, the way I see it, those foreign ships aren't supposed to be there. You can keep on destroying pirate bases, but if you don't deal with the foreign ships making life difficult for the locals, new pirate bases will continue to pop.
Because dead pirates will keep popping pirate bases, eh? Doesn't work that way in the real world. If the consequences to attempted piracy are harsh and sure, then they'll find something else to do, even in the face of illegal fishing or whatever.
Then we look for another way, like we always have. You know, we used to only have to worry about pirates with swords, but then those pirates got guns. So we had to adapt and the arms race goes back and forth.
Which is dumb because this arms race favors the pirates who can ambush at their choosing with whatever they feel like bringing and an information asymmetry. It also raises the cost of shipping in areas affected by piracy without reducing the incidence of piracy.
Historically, piracy ended when the powers of the day started attacking and destroying the bases of the pirates rather than merely put more stuff on the ships that were being attacked.
ssible hearing damage is a lot better than them being killed. You are really bad at this "being a human" thing. To you, humanity seems a weakness.
I think instead a lot more people will die because the world refuses to stop regular piracy. But I'm sure those sonic weapons will sell well for a time.
As to your complaint about me having trouble with "being a human", I'm used to this bullshit moralizing from people who don't have rational or relevant points to make. The problem here is not that I'm failing to toe your vapid morality, but rather that people are dying due to piracy, either directly through the usual violence or indirectly through poverty caused by this piracy.
Humans can improve themselves as well, yet here we are. What the hell makes you think an artificial construction would have any advantage over us?
Artificial construction already has immense advantages over us. It can handle orders of magnitude more data and I/O (we don't have to resort to external I/O like pen and paper, or words on a computer screen), it can do a variety of computations so much faster that a single, normal desktop computer can outcompute the entire human race by orders of magnitude (for example, computing Mersenne primes which are highly parallel), and you can complete swap its brain in seconds to minutes (meaning any software-based intelligence advantages discovered can be rapidly applied to existing AI brains).
but if the problem is indeed foreigners coming in and fishing all the places dry, this isn't a tragedy of the commons situation
To the contrary, this is exactly a tragedy of the commons situation when nomadic outsiders can overgraze on the commons in question and move on when the resources in question are exhausted.
When you are talking about large populations it actually does work that way.
Oh look, another zero evidence opinion on the internet. I was so worried that we'd run out of them.
Maybe by teaching them to properly manage their own home fisheries.
You have triggered a pet peeve of mine. It's not a matter of teaching or learning to properly manage a fishery. It's a matter of having a system in place that enforces a sustainable approach. No amount of learning can compensate for a tragedy of the commons situation.
How much dogfighting do you imagine will ever happen? Most combat will remain missile combat.
Most missiles (namely, the ones that aren't nuclear tipped) have to do some rudimentary dogfighting in order to get close enough to blow something up. If your plane is an exceptional dogfighter, then it can dogfight incoming missiles too.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to take into account the cost of the mining rig as well.
I was operating under the assumption that the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the machine would be much greater, but doing the math, I don't think that is the case.
I stand by my statement that the only people that make money from bitcoin mining are the people that make the mining equipment.
Do you also stand by your statement that the makers are deliberately selling their product "at a cost that means you will invariably lose money". My point is that even in the face of sincere manufacturers, the costs of bitcoin mining will stabilize a bit below the expected return in bitcoins.
It doesn't take long before you realize that your magic money printing device was sold to you at a cost that means you will invariably lose money. Which makes sense. If I have a magic money printing device, why the hell would I sell it to you instead of running it myself?
No, what happened is that the cheap bitcoins went away. A cursory examination of the dynamics of the thing would have revealed that mining bit coins increases in computational/electricity cost over time. So as long as value of bit coins exceeds the electricity cost of mining them, then there will be massive computational resources thrown at them.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
"Have no data" is a pseudo-science accusation (particularly given that I did have data, contrary to the assertion). I'm not going to waste my time on bullshit accusations especially when the people making them gave a blank check to the people I replied to earlier who just pulled assertions out of their asses.
Data is the only objective decision support. I make around 150K per year as a PhD statistician workin in industrial quality control, and I also have significant savings in retirement accounts as well as investments in the stock market.
And I'm a time traveling Caribbean pirate from the year 2304, arrrrrr. Emphasizing an imaginary "data" over objective reasoning indicates to me that if you really are credentialed as you say, you didn't learn so much from those credentials.
. I am in favor of higher income taxes and higher capital gains taxes to improve the financial stability of the US economy over the recent brinkmanship and posturing adopted by the House of Representatives.
Why would that improve the financial stability of the US economy? We ignore also the obvious problem that financial stability is not all that advantageous. For example, short term thinking, such as the phenomenon of businesses not looking past the next quarter, is due to financial stability. And we still have recessions and such, they just tend to get bigger before they overcome the financial stability mechanisms.
And yet you have no data,
Why is my lack of "data" relevant? I notice the posters jumping on the tax-the-rich bandwagon just made up a lot of shit. Meanwhile we have these facts. First, I presented data indicating that the wealthiest 0.01% haven't seen a significant change in their tax burden over the past 37 years.
Second, I presented the fact that the US is experiencing labor competition from the developing world. Rudimentary economics indicates this would explain most phenomena alleged to be the result of an overly low rate on the highest tax bracket (such as US capital growing in valuation at a higher rate than US labor).
We also have a strong implication of envy present here such as you posting at the emotional level of a two year old. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't your first fact-free turd in this thread.
and the economic damage is immense
I wonder whose talking point that is? For example, any economic damage at this point of Brexit is self-inflicted (and I don't refer to the voters here). And I'm not completely sold on the idea that Trump will be more harmful economically than Clinton. Sure, if Clinton follows in the footsteps of her husband's compromise positions (including budget balancing and trade liberalization), then sure, she'll probably be better.
Let's blow off the self-serving bullshit and consider an inadvertently interesting question. What would a "Sputnik moment" look like in CS and is it possible to have one?
The Pinkertons got as big as they did due to government contracts such as being the equivalent of the FBI for the US government for thirty years. They also made sure they were legally covered and backed by local law enforcement when they did things like strikebreaking.
And then of course, there's using the Colorado National Guard for strikebreaking.
There are ten countries beating the US in R&D spending / GDP which is not the way to win this war.
And the US spends as much as those ten countries combined. It's even more one-sided when you don't play the PPP game and use actual GDP.
Why can't libertarians grasp that unregulated markets naturally devolve into authoritarian governments?
Because it isn't true.
is why I'd like to see a return to the old tax rates from the 50s,60s and 70s before "Reganomics" took hold.
This is a classic case of cargo cult economics. There are several deep problems with this outlook. First, the prosperity of the past had nothing to do with the tax rate. Second, the problems of today have nothing to do with the tax rate. Third, most of the rich never had to pay that tax rate. And fourth, this is a brazen case of envy which completely disregards the harm it would cause and should have no place in economic policies that affect hundreds of millions of people.
So let's start with the first point. The prosperity of the US was generated by a combination of several factors, such as a mostly free society of well over a hundred million people and economy, being the only major power after the Second World War which didn't have to rebuild its economy, and massive industrial and commercial base. Why are we to assume that the tax rate on the highest tax bracket is more relevant than having a huge economic base, for example?
When someone proposes a one-size-fits-all policy like this as a cure-all, they implicitly are assuming that the policy is more important than any other economic factor. I note elsewhere that a replier which claimed a correlation between cutting that tax rate and "stock market bubbles" fails hard in assuming that there was an actual correlation between the tax rate and recessions (which relatively speaking are more serious problems than stock market bubbles),
Second, there is this assumption that the current problems of the US are due to the much lower tax rate of the highest tax bracket. This completely ignores globalization and the fact that US workers compete with billions of workers who can often do the same job for a small fraction of the cost. Increasing the tax rate on the highest income bracket isn't going to make those billions of workers disappear and magically duplicate the unique economic conditions of an era that is now firmly in the past. That fantasy of replicating some irrelevant or even harmful aspect to generate prosperity is what makes this cargo cult economics.
Then there's the issue of the wealthy not paying those exorbitant tax rates.You may have heard of "tax loopholes". There were plenty during this era of high tax rates. This resulted in the extremely wealthy not actually having a huge difference in the effective tax they paid from the past to the present. For example, this letter cites a change for the 0.01% most wealthy from almost 43% in 1979 (when the highest income tax bracket was 70%) to 32% in 2005 (when it was 35%).
Finally, there's the matter of this being a brazen case of envy with no business intruding on a matter that affects hundreds of millions of people. It's a stick-it-to-the-rich fantasy which ignores that the "solution" sticks it to employers. Which in turn is economically suicidal in light of the fact that the biggest problem facing the US is labor competition with the developing world. Nor do we see any sort of well developed rationale for why higher taxes would do anything productive. It's merely assumed to work.
My view is that employers are far more valuable presently in the US economy than skilled workers without a job. Punitive income taxes and the like discourage employment of people by taking away much of the incentive to grow a business to employ more people and by taking away funds that would be used to employ people and squandering it on typically grotesquely inefficient or harmful government program. It's time to try something that works.
I doubt we have a correlation either. For example, the New Deal tax increases correlate with the second US recession of the Great Depression. And that was the first of six recessions which happened during the highest (91%) taxation of the highest bracket. So no correlation there.
Nor does the 1969-1970 recession correlation with the tax reductions of the mid-60s. The 1973-75 and 1980 recession didn't happen during any decline in tax rate. And the tax declines of the 80s, which are by far the greatest tax declines of the entire period, saw considerable economic growth both before and after the 1990 recession with nothing comparable before until you get before the drag of the Vietnam War and oil shocks.
This data damns the fantasies of the wealthy that they are the best users of funds gained at such disproportionate rates compared to the population.
So no correlation. But then again, you have to be pretty dumb to think that excessively taxing the employers of the US (who tend to fall to a degree in that highest tax bracket) results in economic growth.
Except property rights almost caused the collapse of Western civilisation in the 1920s/30s.
I think the Great Depression has turned into a mirror which merely reflects the viewer's opinions. The obvious rebuttal is that property rights have been around forever, and they haven't caused the Great Depression before or since. The second obvious rebuttal is that you never refer to property again. For example:
Without proper moderation of the economy through sensible market regulations including Trust Busting/Anti-Monopoly/pro-competition government action.
No reference to property rights.
What should be happening is the largest companies should be getting taxed to shit and the money should be being pumped into the small business economy. That's how you create economic growth that benefits the entire economy.
No reference to property rights.
By having money influencing politics. A perverse reversal of economics occurs where the largest businesses capture the political class and most of society's wealth.
No reference to property rights.
To belabor a point that you should have agreed with in the first place, you can't have small businesses without property rights. You can't have "proper moderation of the economy" or "sensible market regulations". You can have small businesses being the "real drivers" of the economy. But you can have money influencing politics and "perverse reversal" of economics, if you don't have property rights.
Nope. The fastest and cheapest way to become a monopoly in an unregulated economy is to bring in the Pinkertons [wikipedia.org], establish a company town [wikipedia.org], and extract all of the profit for any and all economic activity for yourself. Rockefeller reduced his costs by murdering strikers [wikipedia.org] using every armed force he could get his hands on, which was most of them. The tricks and techniques utilized by unregulated monopolies to extend and enhance their dominance are many and varied, and it is historical fact that a sufficiently advanced monopoly can and will arrogate the nominal government monopoly on force unto itself, either explicitly using some organization like the Pinkerton Agency or covertly, in the case of Rockefeller getting the Colorado National Guard called out for his benefit.
All this babble about the perils of unregulated markets and then you trot out an example which uses government force to enforce the monopoly.
No, if something belongs to you,
"IF".
No, we have the numbers. I was talking about the arms race, as in development of weapons and technology. And we do have the whole of western civilization to rely on in developing technology.
Nonsense. You don't have the whole of western civilization packed on that ship.
Nobody said it's the dead who keep popping up pirate bases. Living non pirates become pirates when they find themselves lacking alternatives in the real world.
They'll find other alternatives fast, if being dead is a consequence of being a pirate. Plus, there's a learning curve.
For example, what ended the Golden Age of Piracy isn't just European navies going around hunting down pirates. The incentives (the "whatevers") for piracy started to dry up. First, the plunder isn't as good, as the Spanish Empire was on decline. Second, European nations are less keen to hire privateers, and instead put sailors into the navy proper. Third, the rise of America and the West in general created more opportunities for people so they have less incentive to turn to piracy.
Another example is the Barbary Pirates. The US killed some pirates in the first war, but as soon as US/Europe turned their attention elsewhere the pirates returned, leading to the second Barbary War. Just killing pirates doesn't solve the underlying problem (that is, the Barbary states being dicks). Long term, piracy faded because European powers gained control of the region, the Ottoman in decline, and also because European ships becoming more advanced (read: winning the arms race)
You know, this is what I said all along. You mention in multiple places the harsh response to pirating and just treat it as if it were a minor factor. The "incentives" dried up says it all. Global trade massively exploded, yet somehow there was little of value on those ships to steal? Yea right.
To me it sounds like waters that the Chinese and others are fishing from aren't "the commons", but waters that ought to belong to the locals.
It's still a commons because the "belonging" doesn't keep out the foreigners. If I have a deed to property, but there are a zillion squatters on the land and I have no power to evict or extract rent from them, then I don't really own the land.
No, an arms race favors us. We have the numbers. We have access to the economic, scientific, and engineering capacity that is mainstream society. They have to rely on underground channels.
No, they have the numbers. Those pirates aren't fighting the whole of western civilization, they're fighting whatever you choose to cram on a single ship in place of valuable cargo.
As to ending piracy via attacking pirate bases... as above, the way I see it, those foreign ships aren't supposed to be there. You can keep on destroying pirate bases, but if you don't deal with the foreign ships making life difficult for the locals, new pirate bases will continue to pop.
Because dead pirates will keep popping pirate bases, eh? Doesn't work that way in the real world. If the consequences to attempted piracy are harsh and sure, then they'll find something else to do, even in the face of illegal fishing or whatever.
Then we look for another way, like we always have. You know, we used to only have to worry about pirates with swords, but then those pirates got guns. So we had to adapt and the arms race goes back and forth.
Which is dumb because this arms race favors the pirates who can ambush at their choosing with whatever they feel like bringing and an information asymmetry. It also raises the cost of shipping in areas affected by piracy without reducing the incidence of piracy.
Historically, piracy ended when the powers of the day started attacking and destroying the bases of the pirates rather than merely put more stuff on the ships that were being attacked.
ssible hearing damage is a lot better than them being killed. You are really bad at this "being a human" thing. To you, humanity seems a weakness.
I think instead a lot more people will die because the world refuses to stop regular piracy. But I'm sure those sonic weapons will sell well for a time.
As to your complaint about me having trouble with "being a human", I'm used to this bullshit moralizing from people who don't have rational or relevant points to make. The problem here is not that I'm failing to toe your vapid morality, but rather that people are dying due to piracy, either directly through the usual violence or indirectly through poverty caused by this piracy.
Humans can improve themselves as well, yet here we are. What the hell makes you think an artificial construction would have any advantage over us?
Artificial construction already has immense advantages over us. It can handle orders of magnitude more data and I/O (we don't have to resort to external I/O like pen and paper, or words on a computer screen), it can do a variety of computations so much faster that a single, normal desktop computer can outcompute the entire human race by orders of magnitude (for example, computing Mersenne primes which are highly parallel), and you can complete swap its brain in seconds to minutes (meaning any software-based intelligence advantages discovered can be rapidly applied to existing AI brains).
but if the problem is indeed foreigners coming in and fishing all the places dry, this isn't a tragedy of the commons situation
To the contrary, this is exactly a tragedy of the commons situation when nomadic outsiders can overgraze on the commons in question and move on when the resources in question are exhausted.
So you limit it to select accredited universities. Problem solved.
Accreditation has already been heavily compromised in order to suck up student loan money.
When you are talking about large populations it actually does work that way. Oh look, another zero evidence opinion on the internet. I was so worried that we'd run out of them.
Maybe by teaching them to properly manage their own home fisheries.
You have triggered a pet peeve of mine. It's not a matter of teaching or learning to properly manage a fishery. It's a matter of having a system in place that enforces a sustainable approach. No amount of learning can compensate for a tragedy of the commons situation.
How much dogfighting do you imagine will ever happen? Most combat will remain missile combat.
Most missiles (namely, the ones that aren't nuclear tipped) have to do some rudimentary dogfighting in order to get close enough to blow something up. If your plane is an exceptional dogfighter, then it can dogfight incoming missiles too.
The universal rule wouldn't even be applied absolutely.
Then it's not universal.