6k/yr, seriously? Where can you live on 6k/yr? You'd need to increase that at least five fold.
The funding is simple, every share of stock in publicly held companies goes into a non-voting public trust, every new share issued thereafter is duplicated with a share going into public trust. No matter how many layers of paper or indirection are used the same is applied to foreign arms and interests of companies held by US citizens so that folding and reopening in another nation doesn't escape the policy.
In this manner as society phases out work and automated away jobs, centralizes, takes advantage of foreign labor pools, etc. Those who actually built all that technology and processes, efficiencies etc and their children are taken care of and their interests and support remain tied to progress and innovation even if their contribution isn't directly in the form of labor. Additionally, the net result may result in some shift of wealth but maintains proportion of wealth so that it doesn't trample upon the portion of wealth which has followed merit.
Yes, there is a lot of reform that everybody agrees needs fixed and a lot the courts have assumed over the years. Pretending amending the Constitution is some insurmountable barrier and spreading the myth that it requires congress is something all those unlimited term congressmen want you to believe, it helps boost federal power and especially that of congress beyond what the Constitution gives it, pretending their laws are the highest in the land.
There are already 22 states coming together and passing things through their legislature to fight net neutrality, letting the rest know they'd have a chance at a say in these other matters as well could very easily bring together enough to have the convention. I'd love for them to fix things, but even having the convention without ratifying anything would still send a powerful message and remind them they CAN.
Per Article 5 of the Constitution, 34 states are required to convene a convention and 37 to pass the amendment. Yes, the internet and network neutrality is that important.
But they could take the opportunity to fix a few other overreaches of federal power as well, reign in the commerce clause, clarify the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, force the federal government to shrink and limit strongarming states with strings attached funding by diverting income tax to the states, put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
Don't forget it can be authenticated and exchanged globally in minutes. Resistant to tamper, durable, hoardable, counterfeit proof, near instant global transactions, not subject to the will of a third party, not needed for other practical uses that would interfere with valuation and skew it's economic predictions... hmmm it almost sounds like this was designed from the bottom up to be the perfect token for trade.
"The idea of a blockchain-based monetary exchange system probably has some value. Problem is, the speculation has probably killed that. Mindy Mom isn't going to buy any bitcoin to send to her kid at college because she's read about how much of a shit show it is. Perhaps some stable government will introduce a blockchain currency, peg it's value, and call it something else that people will trust."
Bitcoin (or the current version, bitcoin cash) is pretty solidly entrenched in a number of countries where the governments are not so stable and in black markets created by overreaching governments. It will take cryptocurrency time to make headway where things are stable but it will. The US is riper for this than most believe. Official inflation is low while actual inflation, particularly where it matters today in commodity electronics, is off the charts. The price of a middle class smartphone has tripled within less than a decade. Misinformation campaigns spreading fake news about tech labor shortages alongside record level technology layoffs are at an all time high.
You've just described pretty much all technology. People are not supposed to be investing and getting rich in the long term and there is nothing wrong with rewarding those who took the burden of investing in mining systems or time, yes it didn't cost heavy cash investment but it wasn't nearly so simple to mine and get set up when you could do it with a cpu. It cost time and effort, it cost a great deal of time and effort to develop the system. Early adopters profited because they took risk and gambled on something when it wasn't certain it would catch on.
If you are a speculator whose interest is just making a quick buck I agree with you, this isn't the right place to do it. If you are a people looking for a superior solution to currency this is exactly where you should look.
People have voted and crypto-currency isn't going anywhere. In the US most of the adopters have been financial and other institutions wanting to flip the blockchain on its head to destroy privacy and outliers thus keeping our nobles in power and speculators who wanted a quick buck. These are exactly the people who should lose by betting on Bitcoin.
The tech is solid. This wasn't pumped and dumped by the early adopters of bitcoin, it was pumped and dumped by the same people who pump and dump all the speculative markets.
Which has nothing to do with the merit or value of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency and everything to do with investors and suckers.
Those who opposed bitcoin from the start ignored this and instead declared that early investors making money automatically translated into a Ponzi scheme. They are good with Zuckerberg making insane money for his early Facebook investment but somehow it isn't okay for the bitcoin guys to do it because venture capital firms didn't get a piece?
The value will go up over time just like the S&P 500 has gone up an average 15% or so over time... but depending on when you bought in the S&P 500 could actually be WAY down.
The speculative market will go up, it will bubble, it will pop. Bubble and pop with steady gain over time has been the constant cycle of Bitcoin. I say it when it's down, I say it when it's up, I say it because the speculative market doesn't define the value of Bitcoin (or the current iteration, bitcoin cash).
Yes, and you pop your head up every down cycle and during every up cycle you proclaim Ponzi!!! It's been going on for 10+ years now. Nobody gives a damn about the speculative market and its booms and crashes.
It is not and was never a Ponzi scheme. Cryptocurrency is a gift to the people and doesn't disappear just because a few investors do. I suppose facebook, google, and microsoft were ponzi schemes as well? I mean their early adopters got insanely rich after all. Speculation can pump, dump, and cycle all day long but the cryptocurrency (bitcoin is the only real one, bitcoin cash is the current version though) isn't going anywhere. This is no different than the popularity cycles of the open software ecosystem vs closed software ecosystem. Cryptocurrency will beat fiat currency in the end, it is inevitable.
75% of the coins are not and were never held by 5 people, that is nonsense.
Of course the outcome is unsurprising... seriously it is the normal mathematical trend for Bitcoin over time. This is how you weed out the idiots who are trying to make a quick buck betting on crypto-currencies and the technically illiterate business math types who frankly are taking entirely too long to put in their appropriate merit-based place managing fast food chains rather than holding executive positions in important societal structures like corporations.
There is only one cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, Bitcoin cash is actually just the latest revision of that original cryptocurrency. It's importance and value according to speculators comparing it with fiat currencies at the moment isn't really particularly important.
Remember that dusty document that is largely ignored these days? There is enough support to amend it and thereby start the path of making it relevant again.
"while race is an artificial concept, there are biological realities underpinning it and those are what makes 'racism' an emergent feature of single-payer systems"
Why is that? There are correlations with racial identification and some diseases but there aren't any significant genetic illnesses being passed, at least not to a degree that they are more than statistical noise relative to the cost of healthcare.
"It's cool that you have more insight into what's best for those companies than all the people involved in making decisions there. It must be frustrating to be so smart and have all the answers regarding a subject where you have absolutely no direct involvement or experience."
In other words you have absolutely no logical rebuttal to my argument and therefore you attack me. The messenger has no logical impact on the validity on argument, the validity of the message is independent of any qualification or lack thereof of the messenger.
Also, not everything is about what is best for those companies. Literally every other individual and company uses DRAM, FLASH, or both and therefore none of us have an interest in supporting this philosophy. There is no oversupply if there are still devices being shipped below their max dram and ssd capacity. There is no oversupply unless you are selling at cost and the memory still won't move.
And yet, here I sit with my home rack filled with previous gen dc gear, I've got 20ports of 10gbe on a switch and 10gbe nics in everything. I mean sure, it might undermine charging the enterprise $5000-$10000 on that switch when you sell it to the consumer for $200. We have individual chips running 70 or more 10g interfaces.
For $500 the consumer could easily have a private cloud in a box at this point. The major moves seem to be to ramp us prices until only the wealthy and enterprise can afford technology instead of the glorious low margin race to the bottom that lead to everyone having access to tech.
"It also avoids getting a system that has unavoidable inherent racism"
Given that race is an artificial concept, any racial bias or lack thereof should be completely ignored as the irrelevant coincidence it is in an objective system doing anything else is racist. Being racist is bad, things that happen to impact one of our arbitrary made up races more than another aren't racist. Having brown skin that resists sunburn or lighter skin that is less resistant means you should relate to someone who shares that traits to the extent they enjoy your privilege or lack thereof with regard to the sun. Otherwise they have nothing in common with you and neither of you have anything to do with someone who historically happened to share your sun resistance or what any of them did to any of the others. Being born rich or poor is an accident of birth that has nothing to do with any statistical arbitrary made up race correlation.
Opposing a public option isn't about racism. The reason all those people in small towns are opposing your measures is because where they live businesses are owned by individuals and are small and they literally watch your expensive measures and requirements designed with city scale massive corporations (even what rate as "small business" in cities are massive corps relative to most of the country where nearly half the population lives) put their neighbors out of business or force them to close down or scale down business. I'm sorry, but the practical reality is that what conservatives preach (as opposed to practice, both parties screw normal people in practice) makes sound economic sense. The difference is mega corps have larger profits and cash flow to absorb and buffer those costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Healthy fresh food? Not really but it doesn't go very far for shelter.
That isn't much of a standard to replace the middle class jobs paying 60-150k/yr working people have now though.
6k/yr, seriously? Where can you live on 6k/yr? You'd need to increase that at least five fold.
The funding is simple, every share of stock in publicly held companies goes into a non-voting public trust, every new share issued thereafter is duplicated with a share going into public trust. No matter how many layers of paper or indirection are used the same is applied to foreign arms and interests of companies held by US citizens so that folding and reopening in another nation doesn't escape the policy.
In this manner as society phases out work and automated away jobs, centralizes, takes advantage of foreign labor pools, etc. Those who actually built all that technology and processes, efficiencies etc and their children are taken care of and their interests and support remain tied to progress and innovation even if their contribution isn't directly in the form of labor. Additionally, the net result may result in some shift of wealth but maintains proportion of wealth so that it doesn't trample upon the portion of wealth which has followed merit.
Yes, there is a lot of reform that everybody agrees needs fixed and a lot the courts have assumed over the years. Pretending amending the Constitution is some insurmountable barrier and spreading the myth that it requires congress is something all those unlimited term congressmen want you to believe, it helps boost federal power and especially that of congress beyond what the Constitution gives it, pretending their laws are the highest in the land.
There are already 22 states coming together and passing things through their legislature to fight net neutrality, letting the rest know they'd have a chance at a say in these other matters as well could very easily bring together enough to have the convention. I'd love for them to fix things, but even having the convention without ratifying anything would still send a powerful message and remind them they CAN.
Per Article 5 of the Constitution, 34 states are required to convene a convention and 37 to pass the amendment. Yes, the internet and network neutrality is that important.
But they could take the opportunity to fix a few other overreaches of federal power as well, reign in the commerce clause, clarify the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, force the federal government to shrink and limit strongarming states with strings attached funding by diverting income tax to the states, put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
Don't forget it can be authenticated and exchanged globally in minutes. Resistant to tamper, durable, hoardable, counterfeit proof, near instant global transactions, not subject to the will of a third party, not needed for other practical uses that would interfere with valuation and skew it's economic predictions... hmmm it almost sounds like this was designed from the bottom up to be the perfect token for trade.
They wouldn't know if it was a sophisticated attack.
"The idea of a blockchain-based monetary exchange system probably has some value. Problem is, the speculation has probably killed that. Mindy Mom isn't going to buy any bitcoin to send to her kid at college because she's read about how much of a shit show it is. Perhaps some stable government will introduce a blockchain currency, peg it's value, and call it something else that people will trust."
Bitcoin (or the current version, bitcoin cash) is pretty solidly entrenched in a number of countries where the governments are not so stable and in black markets created by overreaching governments. It will take cryptocurrency time to make headway where things are stable but it will. The US is riper for this than most believe. Official inflation is low while actual inflation, particularly where it matters today in commodity electronics, is off the charts. The price of a middle class smartphone has tripled within less than a decade. Misinformation campaigns spreading fake news about tech labor shortages alongside record level technology layoffs are at an all time high.
You've just described pretty much all technology. People are not supposed to be investing and getting rich in the long term and there is nothing wrong with rewarding those who took the burden of investing in mining systems or time, yes it didn't cost heavy cash investment but it wasn't nearly so simple to mine and get set up when you could do it with a cpu. It cost time and effort, it cost a great deal of time and effort to develop the system. Early adopters profited because they took risk and gambled on something when it wasn't certain it would catch on.
If you are a speculator whose interest is just making a quick buck I agree with you, this isn't the right place to do it. If you are a people looking for a superior solution to currency this is exactly where you should look.
People have voted and crypto-currency isn't going anywhere. In the US most of the adopters have been financial and other institutions wanting to flip the blockchain on its head to destroy privacy and outliers thus keeping our nobles in power and speculators who wanted a quick buck. These are exactly the people who should lose by betting on Bitcoin.
The tech is solid. This wasn't pumped and dumped by the early adopters of bitcoin, it was pumped and dumped by the same people who pump and dump all the speculative markets.
Which has nothing to do with the merit or value of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency and everything to do with investors and suckers.
Those who opposed bitcoin from the start ignored this and instead declared that early investors making money automatically translated into a Ponzi scheme. They are good with Zuckerberg making insane money for his early Facebook investment but somehow it isn't okay for the bitcoin guys to do it because venture capital firms didn't get a piece?
The value will go up over time just like the S&P 500 has gone up an average 15% or so over time... but depending on when you bought in the S&P 500 could actually be WAY down.
The speculative market will go up, it will bubble, it will pop. Bubble and pop with steady gain over time has been the constant cycle of Bitcoin. I say it when it's down, I say it when it's up, I say it because the speculative market doesn't define the value of Bitcoin (or the current iteration, bitcoin cash).
Yes, and you pop your head up every down cycle and during every up cycle you proclaim Ponzi!!! It's been going on for 10+ years now. Nobody gives a damn about the speculative market and its booms and crashes.
It is not and was never a Ponzi scheme. Cryptocurrency is a gift to the people and doesn't disappear just because a few investors do. I suppose facebook, google, and microsoft were ponzi schemes as well? I mean their early adopters got insanely rich after all. Speculation can pump, dump, and cycle all day long but the cryptocurrency (bitcoin is the only real one, bitcoin cash is the current version though) isn't going anywhere. This is no different than the popularity cycles of the open software ecosystem vs closed software ecosystem. Cryptocurrency will beat fiat currency in the end, it is inevitable.
75% of the coins are not and were never held by 5 people, that is nonsense.
Of course the outcome is unsurprising... seriously it is the normal mathematical trend for Bitcoin over time. This is how you weed out the idiots who are trying to make a quick buck betting on crypto-currencies and the technically illiterate business math types who frankly are taking entirely too long to put in their appropriate merit-based place managing fast food chains rather than holding executive positions in important societal structures like corporations.
There is only one cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, Bitcoin cash is actually just the latest revision of that original cryptocurrency. It's importance and value according to speculators comparing it with fiat currencies at the moment isn't really particularly important.
2/3 to propose an amendment and 3/4 to pass, 34 and 37 respectively. Yes, the states can amend the constitution under article 5 of the Constitution.
No, you don't need the legislature. To call a constitutional convention requires 34 states (2/3rd) and 3/4 to ratify the result (37).
Remember that dusty document that is largely ignored these days? There is enough support to amend it and thereby start the path of making it relevant again.
No, there is a way to overturn this. The states can amend the constitution.
"while race is an artificial concept, there are biological realities underpinning it and those are what makes 'racism' an emergent feature of single-payer systems"
Why is that? There are correlations with racial identification and some diseases but there aren't any significant genetic illnesses being passed, at least not to a degree that they are more than statistical noise relative to the cost of healthcare.
Oh yes, ~half the population are redneck retards.
Or I could do something more likely to be effective and seed ideas among a wide and influential technical audience.
No they've released double the capacity, they've produced 50x capacity.
"It's cool that you have more insight into what's best for those companies than all the people involved in making decisions there. It must be frustrating to be so smart and have all the answers regarding a subject where you have absolutely no direct involvement or experience."
In other words you have absolutely no logical rebuttal to my argument and therefore you attack me. The messenger has no logical impact on the validity on argument, the validity of the message is independent of any qualification or lack thereof of the messenger.
Also, not everything is about what is best for those companies. Literally every other individual and company uses DRAM, FLASH, or both and therefore none of us have an interest in supporting this philosophy. There is no oversupply if there are still devices being shipped below their max dram and ssd capacity. There is no oversupply unless you are selling at cost and the memory still won't move.
And yet, here I sit with my home rack filled with previous gen dc gear, I've got 20ports of 10gbe on a switch and 10gbe nics in everything. I mean sure, it might undermine charging the enterprise $5000-$10000 on that switch when you sell it to the consumer for $200. We have individual chips running 70 or more 10g interfaces.
For $500 the consumer could easily have a private cloud in a box at this point. The major moves seem to be to ramp us prices until only the wealthy and enterprise can afford technology instead of the glorious low margin race to the bottom that lead to everyone having access to tech.
"It also avoids getting a system that has unavoidable inherent racism"
Given that race is an artificial concept, any racial bias or lack thereof should be completely ignored as the irrelevant coincidence it is in an objective system doing anything else is racist. Being racist is bad, things that happen to impact one of our arbitrary made up races more than another aren't racist. Having brown skin that resists sunburn or lighter skin that is less resistant means you should relate to someone who shares that traits to the extent they enjoy your privilege or lack thereof with regard to the sun. Otherwise they have nothing in common with you and neither of you have anything to do with someone who historically happened to share your sun resistance or what any of them did to any of the others. Being born rich or poor is an accident of birth that has nothing to do with any statistical arbitrary made up race correlation.
Opposing a public option isn't about racism. The reason all those people in small towns are opposing your measures is because where they live businesses are owned by individuals and are small and they literally watch your expensive measures and requirements designed with city scale massive corporations (even what rate as "small business" in cities are massive corps relative to most of the country where nearly half the population lives) put their neighbors out of business or force them to close down or scale down business. I'm sorry, but the practical reality is that what conservatives preach (as opposed to practice, both parties screw normal people in practice) makes sound economic sense. The difference is mega corps have larger profits and cash flow to absorb and buffer those costs.