You appear to think that there is a need for cryptocurrency among common people. They're used to dealing in dollars or Euros or whatever, and their current systems work pretty well. Most people don't care about their financial transactions being traceable, and if they do wouldn't be convinced that cryptocurrencies will do a better job of providing privacy. Most people aren't going to know what to do with a private key. In the US, for example, I have to deal with the government in dollars, and if the court awards something it will be in dollars. I need to do accounting in dollars, so I can fill out my income taxes. If I have to use dollars for all that, why would I want to use another currency in addition?
If cryptocurrencies go anywhere, it won't be with most people.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Yeah, everybody thinks that quote applies to their pet cause. What they don't know is that the process can end at any comma.
It's made heaps of millionaires.
So do Ponzi schemes. This isn't a recommendation.
Speculation will continue to power it. Wheter it's backed by anything means nothing. It's a store of wealth.
The first and last sentence there contradict each other. A currency powered by speculation is highly unstable, depending on where the speculation is going, and is therefore really bad at being a store of wealth. In particular, any cryptocurrency has the potential of people losing confidence in it, or speculators turning elsewhere, and the value of the cryptocurrency can go to zero fairly fast, in which case it definitely isn't a store of value.
So, what's required to eliminate other sources of death? In this case, it looks like emission regulations that aren't cheated on would save 5K lives a year. Is it worth it?
Yeah, all deaths worth doing anything about are premature deaths, since the death rate over history is about 93%, and we have reason to suspect that everybody now alive will die.
However, if it's just a matter of better enforcement of existing regulation saving 5K lives, it may well be worth it to do. No matter what, knowing the number of lives ended prematurely is useful for planning.
Actually, it works out poorly. The US pays far more for medical care per capita than literally any other country on the planet, and it's nowhere near close. The difference between 2014 US per capita medical costs and the runner-up Swiss per capita medical costs comes to a little under a trillion dollars a year that the US would save if it only had the second most expensive medical care on the planet.
You can also look at public health measures, and see that the US doesn't do very well compared to other developed countries.
It this is "very well actually", I'd hate to see something you considered merely above average.
Tobacco taxes are not to raise money for general revenue. They discourage smoking and provide some revenue to pay for what the smoke does. Gasoline and diesel fuel taxes are not in the same category, since people have to use them or the economy collapses.
There is still no proof of second hand cigarette smoke causing a single death
What you mean is that there is not a single death that can be positively attributed to second-hand smoke. This is true of first-hand smoke as well. It's largely statistical, and based on health studies of people who share quarters with smokers, as well as what we know the crap in second-hand smoke can do.
There's lots of things in public health that have to be statistical, because not everything that kills kills immediately all the time..
During my divorce, my goal was to get out of that relationship as fast as possible, figuring that I had the rest of my life to make up any losses, and I'd prioritize my mental health.
The air rushing in isn't moving that fast compared to the train if it comes from behind, so it doesn't give it much of a push. Then it gets beyond the train, and the train slows down because it's no longer in a near-vacuum. If it comes from in front, it slows the train and then rushes past to slow down the follow-on train. I don't see a catastrophic failure mode here.
The car would have to have ways to deal with slight deflections, which could be caused in a number of ways (partly dependent on exactly how it stays suspended and moves), and a leak next to the car would probably deflect it a very small amount.
If the leak is behind the vehicle, the air isn't going to catch up any time soon. The speed of sound at normal temperatures is 750-780 mph, and the train is 700mph, so it won't add a significant push either, assuming the car doesn't take up the whole tube.
You paid $150 for a phone that, apparently, isn't anything special to you. Some people will pay $1K for a phone they really like. Given that I use my phones for at least three years, $1K is less than a dollar a day for something I use a lot, so it's not much at all.
They did in fact wage a quite successful campaign against streetcars, in order to sell more buses. You don't need magic when you've got good-sounding deceit and likely bribes.
I believe that decision allowed third-party phones that were certified for the phone network. I don't believe it allowed unlimited individual phone hacking.
There's only a few million voters in my state, so it's much better than one in sixty million. It's also not going to be decisive. We've had two very close statewide elections, and in neither case would a single ballot going missing have affected the outcome. My vote for President is utterly ineffectual, since I don't live in a swing state. If Minnesota goes Republican, the country has already. It's a factor in the popular vote, which has no legal effect. Eliminate the Electoral College and count all our votes equally and I'll feel better about voting for President.
Not to mention the influence of corporate money in large-scale political campaigns. If I contribute money to a candidate, I'm doing more than most people, so if the corporations stayed neutral that would be effective.
Where my vote makes the most difference is at the local level, where I vote for the mayor and my representative on the city council. Lots of people don't bother with that election, which I suppose makes my vote more significant.
I know that everyone should be cared for, to some extent. I'm extremely unlikely to see that happen in this country in my lifetime. In the meantime, if I'm going to be saddled with lots of student debt that is not dischargeable by bankruptcy, I'm going to need to look after myself, because nobody else is going to do anything about it.
It used to be that the desktop was consumer space. It no longer is. My mother-in-law has started using her tablet for all sorts of things, neglecting her laptop. (We weren't sure she wanted one, so we got a low-end Samsung on sale. She loves it.)
Android is now the dominant OS in consumer space, followed by Windows and iOS in some order. Microsoft seems to have given up on dominating the mobile space.
Outlook is an horrible unusable mess, no idea how you can think otherwise.
It's basically required at work. I use it for email and scheduling, and it works just fine. It's got its points of irritation, just like every other piece of software I've ever seen, but it does what I need very nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to think that there is a need for cryptocurrency among common people. They're used to dealing in dollars or Euros or whatever, and their current systems work pretty well. Most people don't care about their financial transactions being traceable, and if they do wouldn't be convinced that cryptocurrencies will do a better job of providing privacy. Most people aren't going to know what to do with a private key. In the US, for example, I have to deal with the government in dollars, and if the court awards something it will be in dollars. I need to do accounting in dollars, so I can fill out my income taxes. If I have to use dollars for all that, why would I want to use another currency in addition?
If cryptocurrencies go anywhere, it won't be with most people.
Sigh.
Yeah, everybody thinks that quote applies to their pet cause. What they don't know is that the process can end at any comma. It's made heaps of millionaires.
So do Ponzi schemes. This isn't a recommendation.
The first and last sentence there contradict each other. A currency powered by speculation is highly unstable, depending on where the speculation is going, and is therefore really bad at being a store of wealth. In particular, any cryptocurrency has the potential of people losing confidence in it, or speculators turning elsewhere, and the value of the cryptocurrency can go to zero fairly fast, in which case it definitely isn't a store of value.
So, what's required to eliminate other sources of death? In this case, it looks like emission regulations that aren't cheated on would save 5K lives a year. Is it worth it?
Electrical motors are much more efficient than internal combustion engines, and there are ways of generating electricity that don't involve coal.
Yeah, all deaths worth doing anything about are premature deaths, since the death rate over history is about 93%, and we have reason to suspect that everybody now alive will die.
However, if it's just a matter of better enforcement of existing regulation saving 5K lives, it may well be worth it to do. No matter what, knowing the number of lives ended prematurely is useful for planning.
Actually, it works out poorly. The US pays far more for medical care per capita than literally any other country on the planet, and it's nowhere near close. The difference between 2014 US per capita medical costs and the runner-up Swiss per capita medical costs comes to a little under a trillion dollars a year that the US would save if it only had the second most expensive medical care on the planet.
You can also look at public health measures, and see that the US doesn't do very well compared to other developed countries.
It this is "very well actually", I'd hate to see something you considered merely above average.
And you're prepared to lie about conditions in Europe to suit your ideology. Right.
Tobacco taxes are not to raise money for general revenue. They discourage smoking and provide some revenue to pay for what the smoke does. Gasoline and diesel fuel taxes are not in the same category, since people have to use them or the economy collapses.
Is anyone talking about getting into a fit of hysterics here? It's useful to know what's killing people, even if it isn't the biggest killer.
What you mean is that there is not a single death that can be positively attributed to second-hand smoke. This is true of first-hand smoke as well. It's largely statistical, and based on health studies of people who share quarters with smokers, as well as what we know the crap in second-hand smoke can do.
There's lots of things in public health that have to be statistical, because not everything that kills kills immediately all the time..
In the US, this is state by state. In my state, buildings that aren't residences are non-smoking.
During my divorce, my goal was to get out of that relationship as fast as possible, figuring that I had the rest of my life to make up any losses, and I'd prioritize my mental health.
Taking the notes to nearby restaurants does seem odd in that case.
Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.
The air rushing in isn't moving that fast compared to the train if it comes from behind, so it doesn't give it much of a push. Then it gets beyond the train, and the train slows down because it's no longer in a near-vacuum. If it comes from in front, it slows the train and then rushes past to slow down the follow-on train. I don't see a catastrophic failure mode here.
If it's a slow leak, wouldn't the air expand in the tube, cool off, and slow down?
The car would have to have ways to deal with slight deflections, which could be caused in a number of ways (partly dependent on exactly how it stays suspended and moves), and a leak next to the car would probably deflect it a very small amount.
If the leak is behind the vehicle, the air isn't going to catch up any time soon. The speed of sound at normal temperatures is 750-780 mph, and the train is 700mph, so it won't add a significant push either, assuming the car doesn't take up the whole tube.
So at least you can feel smug.
You paid $150 for a phone that, apparently, isn't anything special to you. Some people will pay $1K for a phone they really like. Given that I use my phones for at least three years, $1K is less than a dollar a day for something I use a lot, so it's not much at all.
They did in fact wage a quite successful campaign against streetcars, in order to sell more buses. You don't need magic when you've got good-sounding deceit and likely bribes.
I believe that decision allowed third-party phones that were certified for the phone network. I don't believe it allowed unlimited individual phone hacking.
I was referring to my vote for President. My other votes have a (very small) effect on who wins.
There's only a few million voters in my state, so it's much better than one in sixty million. It's also not going to be decisive. We've had two very close statewide elections, and in neither case would a single ballot going missing have affected the outcome. My vote for President is utterly ineffectual, since I don't live in a swing state. If Minnesota goes Republican, the country has already. It's a factor in the popular vote, which has no legal effect. Eliminate the Electoral College and count all our votes equally and I'll feel better about voting for President.
Not to mention the influence of corporate money in large-scale political campaigns. If I contribute money to a candidate, I'm doing more than most people, so if the corporations stayed neutral that would be effective.
Where my vote makes the most difference is at the local level, where I vote for the mayor and my representative on the city council. Lots of people don't bother with that election, which I suppose makes my vote more significant.
I know that everyone should be cared for, to some extent. I'm extremely unlikely to see that happen in this country in my lifetime. In the meantime, if I'm going to be saddled with lots of student debt that is not dischargeable by bankruptcy, I'm going to need to look after myself, because nobody else is going to do anything about it.
Ah, I see, you want competent editing of Slashdot stories. Sorry about that.
It used to be that the desktop was consumer space. It no longer is. My mother-in-law has started using her tablet for all sorts of things, neglecting her laptop. (We weren't sure she wanted one, so we got a low-end Samsung on sale. She loves it.)
Android is now the dominant OS in consumer space, followed by Windows and iOS in some order. Microsoft seems to have given up on dominating the mobile space.
It's basically required at work. I use it for email and scheduling, and it works just fine. It's got its points of irritation, just like every other piece of software I've ever seen, but it does what I need very nicely.