Again, maybe spend less time trying to make other people use their property the way you want to them and more time doing what you can do entirely on your own and relocating to a place where it just isn't an issue for you.
Sorry but you could just as easily have someone move in who likes to party all the time. If you don't like hearing the sound of other people you shouldn't have packed yourself like a sardine into condo tower with them. There is a great big world out there, in most of it even a townhouse is just an apartment and you'd ONLY buy one as part of the building full of them you were buying in order to rent it out to others.
Ridiculous, rules against discrimination make sense when you are talking about a large corporation like a property management company or the like, when you are talking about an individual choosing who they trust in their home they should be entitled to select people on any basis they like.
"AirBNB is further annihilating affordable housing in the urban core in many cities."
Good, people need to spread out a bit more. The urban core of most cities is far far too dense with ridiculous ideas of what counts as healthy. If you spread out a bit in this massive country we've got here you might find you can buy a home that is detached from your neighbors with walls and an airgap that makes what they are doing far less big a deal.
"A useful currency transacts within seconds, not hours."
Last I checked bitcoin transactions take a few minutes and not hours. That is a little slow for local transactions unless you count the time you wait to be able to pay and extremely fast for international transactions. If you count the real time a transaction takes, which includes the time during which it could be reversed by one party it is much faster than CC payments and is generally faster than the time it takes to go to the atm to do a cash transaction.
If you think transactions take hours you must be waiting for the maximum number of confirmations before counting any transaction. That is completely unnecessary. Unless you a transacting hundreds of thousands of dollars or more three confirmations is plenty of security, if you are engaging in transactions typically under $500 one is generally sufficient since the person paying you has no control over who will validate the transaction.
"But is in the control of the Chinese miners. I for one prefer a local elected body."
Elected doesn't mean much with rigged elections like we have in the US. But there is nothing stopping governments and/or major banks from mining investments of the scale they spend on financial networks and infrastructure they build now. That would dramatically speed transaction times and solidly put an end to worries about some upstart being able to get a controlling interest in mining power. Now that the hardware has made all the easy gains it's really the same problem as market volatility, small scale equals a volatile market.
Bitcoin doesn't have a market the size of the pound or the euro. Huge shifts are common in small markets because a single large trader can shift them around.
While the shifts are a legitimate factor to consider if looking at bitcoin from a speculation standpoint today they aren't really a valid indicator at this point of the viability of the instrument itself. If the equivalent of the US economy were using bitcoin as the currency then I highly doubt you'd see shifts larger than you do with any major currency.
Gold derives it's value from being scarce and pretty. Bitcoin derives its value from being extremely easy to transact even at global scale, outside the control of any central body, and being the only potential currency that can't be counterfeited. Having a fixed number of whole units is just something required to make the math work, unlike gold bitcoin is infinitely divisible. Instead of new units being created by a central bank new units go into common use by people in the market deciding to start transacting smaller bits. The word "coin" in bitcoin is unfortunate, it has made any people think of the whole unit as coins when wide adoption of bitcoin always meant the common unit transacted would be a tiny fraction of a "bitcoin"
" People think gold standard is great because it's a relatively fixed amount of mineral to peg your currency against which gives it a fixed volume of currency. Bitcoin has the same property"
You are correct in saying this is a problem with gold. It is not a problem with bitcoin, yes there is a fixed number of whole bitcoin, but unlike gold bitcoin is digital and you can create more units simply by moving the decimal place and trading smaller units. If bitcoin were used as a global currency for example, whole units of bitcoin would likely be a unit only exchanged between nations or on a balance sheet for the wealthiest individuals.
As someone else pointed out, the price of gold actually is set on a free market, if you fixed your currency against a gram of gold that would automatically determine the value vs other currencies.
But more to the point, wth does bitcoin have to do with gold?
Not just sarcasm, thinking and saying are two different things and saying and doing are also two very different things. I guarantee you've said something today you won't do and thought many things today you won't even say let alone do.
That is part of why speech is protected. I very much dislike both Trump and Hillary and I've said more than a few times that someone should just shoot them and the world would be a better place. That isn't sarcasm it is just exasperation, I would never REALLY condone violence and wouldn't support someone who did. Every day friends and colleagues say "I hate that x" and "I could kill x" and none of them actually mean it. It isn't that sometimes you don't mean extreme and inappropriate statements it's that 99.999% of the time an extreme statement is made the person doesn't mean it.
He doesn't need a defense. We are all two faced when it comes to work and home. He can be a racist bigoted prick in his head, if it doesn't translate into inappropriate comments and actions at work it is nobody's business. If he has complaints against him at work, his facebook could be brought out to corroborate and show consistency between the two for what that is worth but no, you don't initiate real action because of something someone said on facebook.
No but you are being very dense. An engineer can't become unqualified to be an engineer when he walks out of the office, nor can a doctor, nor can a lawyer, nor a plumber, nor a burger flipper. In fact, the professional bodies you refer to can take away their license but can not stop them from being qualified.
The woman IS a nurse, her education and experience doesn't disappear when she walks out of the office nor when she forms her opinion. Her legal obligation and liability for the consequences of sharing her opinion however should disappear insofar as it is no greater than anyone who could easily also have knowledge on a subject but doesn't get paid to employ that knowledge in their day job.
If I ask a doctor or lawyer friend their thoughts on something related to their profession at a party there is a very good chance I'll get a different answer than I would if I'd paid them for a consulation. I'm aware of their education yes, but they are not giving a professional response with all that entails, I'm a friend asking for their real opinion without the constraints of covering their ass professionally attached and also with the understanding they haven't had the opportunity to review the situation in full depth. Similarly, if I ask a friend who is a mechanic his thoughts on what I've seen happening with my car and a rough ballpark of what it would take to fix it, I don't expect that to carry the same weight as an actual inspection and quote. In a personal setting he might tell me the chances of something breaking are ridiculously low with very high costs and he wouldn't bother on his own vehicle, in a professional setting he might need to cover his rear and recommend fixing that same thing so he wouldn't be liable on the off chance this was the one time in a thousand something went wrong.
The personal opinion of someone who happens to be a professional is a different thing than the professional opinion of that same person.
Unless he is saying on the department page or some similar affiliated page, No, I don't. Trolling and talking shit on Facebook does not equate to really thinking or doing those things. Neither does doing the same in person when not at work.
You could just as easily be punishing the one guy who doesn't really feel that way and is saying what he thinks his co-workers will find funny to establish and maintain a work relationship. It could even be he and his co-workers all say such things not knowing the others secretly feel the same way and are afraid of breaking from the group.
"They have to agree to follow the professional standards to be registered as nurses."
Refer to my comment about what someone says on Facebook. At work they acting as nurses, most importantly by being paid, outside of work they are just people expressing their personal opinions which are free to differ from those of established bodies. If they are forced to sign an agreement indicating otherwise that is something a governing body should put a stop to.
Of course the anti-vaccination thing is ridiculous but that is irrelevant. First of all nobody should face any repercussion for something they say on Facebook, at least not beyond more words from people who read it. Second, people are entitled to hold and share whatever misguided and incorrect view they please particularly when doing so as a private citizen speaking to their friends even when we apply that concept as loosely as in Facebook and no we don't have to pretend we aren't a nurse or doctor when doing so. Finally, they are going the final step and requesting everyone's neighbors inform on them. Terrible. You may not know your neighbor well, you may not like your neighbor, but neighbors should still be allies against common enemies like government and police. Police look for any and every excuse they can think of to ruin someone's life and livelihood when they get called unless something requires half-cocked and rabid armed wolves decending on your neighborhood because you lack the firepower to protect yourself, you shouldn't call them. Snitches are still bad m'kay.
Onstar is a voluntary add on network service that is supposed to require your request to disable the vehicle. There is nothing happening in a Tesla beyond basic software updates that requires any interaction with Tesla servers at all, disabling that connectivity should not disable any features on the vehicle. Any sort of remote control feature would be a trojan horse on par with a malicious attack.
Anyone attaching use restrictions beyond distribution controls onto something they sell should be run over by a Tesla... which should be acquired for free via eminent domain.
Being a big business doesn't make it something most people can relate to. A judge and jury aren't likely to relate well to some issue with some tractor, the idea someone sold a car and then subsequently vandalized it and rendered it inoperable because they didn't like how the buyer used it... that they can understand. They likely own zero tractors and two cars a piece.
Actually, if they intentionally retain the ability to remotely disable the car that would likely result in them being hauled in court even if they never used it.
I have no objection to that logic as long as they don't try to lock down the system and prevent me from adding software to power capabilities on my own. After all, it is still my car.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, maybe spend less time trying to make other people use their property the way you want to them and more time doing what you can do entirely on your own and relocating to a place where it just isn't an issue for you.
Sorry but you could just as easily have someone move in who likes to party all the time. If you don't like hearing the sound of other people you shouldn't have packed yourself like a sardine into condo tower with them. There is a great big world out there, in most of it even a townhouse is just an apartment and you'd ONLY buy one as part of the building full of them you were buying in order to rent it out to others.
Ridiculous, rules against discrimination make sense when you are talking about a large corporation like a property management company or the like, when you are talking about an individual choosing who they trust in their home they should be entitled to select people on any basis they like.
"AirBNB is further annihilating affordable housing in the urban core in many cities."
Good, people need to spread out a bit more. The urban core of most cities is far far too dense with ridiculous ideas of what counts as healthy. If you spread out a bit in this massive country we've got here you might find you can buy a home that is detached from your neighbors with walls and an airgap that makes what they are doing far less big a deal.
"A useful currency transacts within seconds, not hours."
Last I checked bitcoin transactions take a few minutes and not hours. That is a little slow for local transactions unless you count the time you wait to be able to pay and extremely fast for international transactions. If you count the real time a transaction takes, which includes the time during which it could be reversed by one party it is much faster than CC payments and is generally faster than the time it takes to go to the atm to do a cash transaction.
If you think transactions take hours you must be waiting for the maximum number of confirmations before counting any transaction. That is completely unnecessary. Unless you a transacting hundreds of thousands of dollars or more three confirmations is plenty of security, if you are engaging in transactions typically under $500 one is generally sufficient since the person paying you has no control over who will validate the transaction.
False, that is an arbitrary setting in the code not a hard limit.
"But is in the control of the Chinese miners. I for one prefer a local elected body."
Elected doesn't mean much with rigged elections like we have in the US. But there is nothing stopping governments and/or major banks from mining investments of the scale they spend on financial networks and infrastructure they build now. That would dramatically speed transaction times and solidly put an end to worries about some upstart being able to get a controlling interest in mining power. Now that the hardware has made all the easy gains it's really the same problem as market volatility, small scale equals a volatile market.
Bitcoin doesn't have a market the size of the pound or the euro. Huge shifts are common in small markets because a single large trader can shift them around.
While the shifts are a legitimate factor to consider if looking at bitcoin from a speculation standpoint today they aren't really a valid indicator at this point of the viability of the instrument itself. If the equivalent of the US economy were using bitcoin as the currency then I highly doubt you'd see shifts larger than you do with any major currency.
Which has little to nothing to do with bitcoin. Gold and Bitcoin are both deflationary but the similarities end there.
On another note.
Gold derives it's value from being scarce and pretty. Bitcoin derives its value from being extremely easy to transact even at global scale, outside the control of any central body, and being the only potential currency that can't be counterfeited. Having a fixed number of whole units is just something required to make the math work, unlike gold bitcoin is infinitely divisible. Instead of new units being created by a central bank new units go into common use by people in the market deciding to start transacting smaller bits. The word "coin" in bitcoin is unfortunate, it has made any people think of the whole unit as coins when wide adoption of bitcoin always meant the common unit transacted would be a tiny fraction of a "bitcoin"
" People think gold standard is great because it's a relatively fixed amount of mineral to peg your currency against which gives it a fixed volume of currency. Bitcoin has the same property"
You are correct in saying this is a problem with gold. It is not a problem with bitcoin, yes there is a fixed number of whole bitcoin, but unlike gold bitcoin is digital and you can create more units simply by moving the decimal place and trading smaller units. If bitcoin were used as a global currency for example, whole units of bitcoin would likely be a unit only exchanged between nations or on a balance sheet for the wealthiest individuals.
As someone else pointed out, the price of gold actually is set on a free market, if you fixed your currency against a gram of gold that would automatically determine the value vs other currencies.
But more to the point, wth does bitcoin have to do with gold?
Apparently these things happen even with much larger volume fiat currencies as well.
Not just sarcasm, thinking and saying are two different things and saying and doing are also two very different things. I guarantee you've said something today you won't do and thought many things today you won't even say let alone do.
That is part of why speech is protected. I very much dislike both Trump and Hillary and I've said more than a few times that someone should just shoot them and the world would be a better place. That isn't sarcasm it is just exasperation, I would never REALLY condone violence and wouldn't support someone who did. Every day friends and colleagues say "I hate that x" and "I could kill x" and none of them actually mean it. It isn't that sometimes you don't mean extreme and inappropriate statements it's that 99.999% of the time an extreme statement is made the person doesn't mean it.
He doesn't need a defense. We are all two faced when it comes to work and home. He can be a racist bigoted prick in his head, if it doesn't translate into inappropriate comments and actions at work it is nobody's business. If he has complaints against him at work, his facebook could be brought out to corroborate and show consistency between the two for what that is worth but no, you don't initiate real action because of something someone said on facebook.
"Is it THAT hard to understand?"
No but you are being very dense. An engineer can't become unqualified to be an engineer when he walks out of the office, nor can a doctor, nor can a lawyer, nor a plumber, nor a burger flipper. In fact, the professional bodies you refer to can take away their license but can not stop them from being qualified.
The woman IS a nurse, her education and experience doesn't disappear when she walks out of the office nor when she forms her opinion. Her legal obligation and liability for the consequences of sharing her opinion however should disappear insofar as it is no greater than anyone who could easily also have knowledge on a subject but doesn't get paid to employ that knowledge in their day job.
If I ask a doctor or lawyer friend their thoughts on something related to their profession at a party there is a very good chance I'll get a different answer than I would if I'd paid them for a consulation. I'm aware of their education yes, but they are not giving a professional response with all that entails, I'm a friend asking for their real opinion without the constraints of covering their ass professionally attached and also with the understanding they haven't had the opportunity to review the situation in full depth. Similarly, if I ask a friend who is a mechanic his thoughts on what I've seen happening with my car and a rough ballpark of what it would take to fix it, I don't expect that to carry the same weight as an actual inspection and quote. In a personal setting he might tell me the chances of something breaking are ridiculously low with very high costs and he wouldn't bother on his own vehicle, in a professional setting he might need to cover his rear and recommend fixing that same thing so he wouldn't be liable on the off chance this was the one time in a thousand something went wrong.
The personal opinion of someone who happens to be a professional is a different thing than the professional opinion of that same person.
Unless he is saying on the department page or some similar affiliated page, No, I don't. Trolling and talking shit on Facebook does not equate to really thinking or doing those things. Neither does doing the same in person when not at work.
You could just as easily be punishing the one guy who doesn't really feel that way and is saying what he thinks his co-workers will find funny to establish and maintain a work relationship. It could even be he and his co-workers all say such things not knowing the others secretly feel the same way and are afraid of breaking from the group.
"They have to agree to follow the professional standards to be registered as nurses."
Refer to my comment about what someone says on Facebook. At work they acting as nurses, most importantly by being paid, outside of work they are just people expressing their personal opinions which are free to differ from those of established bodies. If they are forced to sign an agreement indicating otherwise that is something a governing body should put a stop to.
Of course the anti-vaccination thing is ridiculous but that is irrelevant. First of all nobody should face any repercussion for something they say on Facebook, at least not beyond more words from people who read it. Second, people are entitled to hold and share whatever misguided and incorrect view they please particularly when doing so as a private citizen speaking to their friends even when we apply that concept as loosely as in Facebook and no we don't have to pretend we aren't a nurse or doctor when doing so. Finally, they are going the final step and requesting everyone's neighbors inform on them. Terrible. You may not know your neighbor well, you may not like your neighbor, but neighbors should still be allies against common enemies like government and police. Police look for any and every excuse they can think of to ruin someone's life and livelihood when they get called unless something requires half-cocked and rabid armed wolves decending on your neighborhood because you lack the firepower to protect yourself, you shouldn't call them. Snitches are still bad m'kay.
Onstar is a voluntary add on network service that is supposed to require your request to disable the vehicle. There is nothing happening in a Tesla beyond basic software updates that requires any interaction with Tesla servers at all, disabling that connectivity should not disable any features on the vehicle. Any sort of remote control feature would be a trojan horse on par with a malicious attack.
Anyone attaching use restrictions beyond distribution controls onto something they sell should be run over by a Tesla... which should be acquired for free via eminent domain.
Who cares anymore? See "Tesla Bans Customers From Using Autonomous Cars To Earn Money Ride-Sharing" a few stories down.
"Up until 5 minutes ago, I was a Tesla fan. Now I'm saying anyone who buys a Tesla is a complete idiot."
I'm with you.
Being a big business doesn't make it something most people can relate to. A judge and jury aren't likely to relate well to some issue with some tractor, the idea someone sold a car and then subsequently vandalized it and rendered it inoperable because they didn't like how the buyer used it... that they can understand. They likely own zero tractors and two cars a piece.
Actually, if they intentionally retain the ability to remotely disable the car that would likely result in them being hauled in court even if they never used it.
I have no objection to that logic as long as they don't try to lock down the system and prevent me from adding software to power capabilities on my own. After all, it is still my car.