Surprised it took me this long to find a post talking about the vast media conspiracy to discredit Ron Paul. This, in spite of the fact that Paul has gotten much more attention than his polling levels could possibly justify. But yeah, there is a "media blackout" and the establishment is out to get him. Shit, the news media even treat this kook with kid gloves. He just doesn't appeal to most people. Sorry. Get over it.
It seems to me like Paul's "competing currencies" idea would do nothing but introduce an astonishing level of inefficiency to economic transactions.
"What is this Upper New Jersey quatloo worth?" "I dunno, how many Purple Floridians will you give me for it?" "I think one of those is worth fifteen CitiBucks, but I haven't checked since last week."
A standard currency is a very strong normalizing force on the economy--people don't have to worry about their medium of exchange because it's well-understood and everybody's using the same one. In daily life, this is essential. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to keep track of a dozen or more different exchange rates/valuations to figure out what my money is worth. Might as well turn every private citizen into a currency speculator.
I'll do you one better: labor. Work. Be it done by a human, an animal, or a machine, work has value. Its value is not set in stone, of course, but it is the absolute most basic unit of trade. "I'll do this for you if you'll do this for me."
Incidentally, this is why I think the money supply must inevitably increase over time, because the amount of work being done is also always increasing (due to a rising population/larger workforce/better technology.) However, this also debases the value of work, since like anything else, greater supply means less value. Result: inflation.
This is the basic reason why I think tying the value or form of currency to a specific, finite resource is nonsensical.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The market isn't some natural thing that conveniently sorts everything out. It will always be regulated to some extent, and it should be designed to serve us, not the other way around. No one's saying we've got the perfect solution (there most likely isn't one), but it makes no sense to go back to a system that has failed time and time again, when our current system has produced more prosperity (with some admitted caveats) than any other system in human history. Kind of hard to argue with that degree of success, in spite of its shortcomings.
I would argue that we should work to address those shortcomings, not throw out the whole system. But the "throw it out and start from scratch" model seems to be the strategy Paul wants to use for everything.
I see the Paultards are out in force, modding down comments like the above for daring to besmirch the good name of St.Paul of Pittsburgh.
Ron Paul has a lot of ideas, unfortunately none of them are novel. He seems to think the past was better than the present (it really wasn't, by virtually any measure.) And while he talks about "freedom" and "liberty," in reality he is primarily a states' rights supporter. The "freedom" you'd get is freedom from the federal government, but never mind that the states would have free rein to screw you over. If states want to codify various kinds of oppression and discrimination, well, that's their right. He just wants to turn the US into 50 small countries, instead of a union of 50 states.
His ideas about things like going back to the gold standard would disrupt the economy so badly, it'd make the Great Depression look like a day at the circus. He doesn't seem to care about the consequences of his policy goals, he just wants to see them happen, no matter the cost. He has no sense of what's practical or reasonable. He's an dyed-in-the-wool idealist, and giving a person like that genuine power is frightening. You need people in government who understand that it's not "my way or the highway," but rather that government is made up of different people with different goals serving different interests, who need to cooperate and compromise so that everybody gets some of what they want, even if nobody gets all of what they want. They also understand the proverb, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Paul wants to live in a "perfect" world, by his definition of "perfect." And he doesn't seem to care who'd get hurt by it.
CEOs are also easy targets because they seem to get paid handsomely whether they succeed or fail. If Joe Worker screws up his job, at best he gets let go and can collect unemployment, and maybe he gets a tiny bit of severance; worst case, he's fired for cause and doesn't get a damn thing. But when Joe CEO drives a company into the ground? Not to worry, he's still gonna get his multi-million dollar golden parachute, which he'll ride right over to the next company. It's no wonder people get pissed about that disparity.
Unless I am totally mistaken, the people who view the scanner images aren't even within sight of the screening area, precisely for this reason (so people can't be forced through the scanner to satisfy the prurient interests of creeps.) Granted, there are probably ways around it, but this sounds more like rank stupidity than unchecked ephebophilia.
Given that this sort of radiation is not typically encountered in everyday activity, why would anyone think to defend against it? Casual use of millimeter-wave scanners is quite a recent phenomenon. Hard to fault the pump's engineers for not foreseeing that one.
That sort of logic is quite silly in light of the fact that copyright holders have enough to money to buy laws that favor longer copyright terms and stronger enforcement of copyright laws. Piracy is not theft; copyright infringement is not unequivocally wrong or immoral.
I'm sure there is a discussion to be had about how long copyright terms should be and whether the public good is served by having stiff penalties for infringement, but the notion that just because something is illegal it is therefore wrong doesn't hold much traction with me.
At the end of the day, copyright law proscribes artificial scarcity, and the purpose of that scarcity is to support certain kinds of business models. The purpose of that is to foster a prosperous creative sector that also expands the collective culture. But those interests are also supposed to be kept in balance; the profit motive should not override all else.
Saying "piracy is theft" is quite beside the point, and little more than a distraction in the overall debate over what form copyright laws should have.
The 9/11 plot wasn't designed to maximize casualties but for maximum psychological impact--that's why they went for the spectacular image of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers. How many people can still easily recall the images of that day? That was the whole point. The number of people killed was a bonus for AQ, it just wasn't the point of the attack.
How is this any different from licensing a commercial development library? All of those have their own licensing terms, too--except they cost money, and may even result in a per-unit royalty for your final product.
Open source licenses, at least, don't require you to pay someone for every unit you ship. You just have to make sure your own code is in compliance with the licensing terms. Don't like that a library you want is GPL, because it would force your company to open proprietary code? Then that library is not right for your company/project.
You can:
1. Write your own library. 2. Purchase one and figure out how the licensing works on that. 3. Use an open-source one and make sure you're in compliance with the license.
This past weekend, I rented a late model Ford Focus. (I wasn't picky about the car, I just wanted a small, cheap one to get around in.)
It had two interactive displays: one in the dash (which mostly showed fuel economy information) and one in the center console (used for media functionality.) Both had such brain-damaged interfaces I felt like I'd have to read a 100-page manual just to figure out how to change the radio station. Nothing about them was the least bit intuitive, feedback was poor, menu navigation was nonsensical, and some features just failed for no apparent reason. I couldn't believe it was that difficult to design a halfway-decent interface, especially for such limited functionality! Maybe Apple could teach auto makers a thing or two here, and I say that as someone who doesn't even like Apple.
It's funny how governments facing domestic unrest always claim it's being fomented by outsiders. Well, except in the US. We seem happy to take responsibility for our own unrest.
If Slashdot users are any indication, programmers (and other engineering/analytical types) seem to have no faith in anything they don't easily understand. Governments (and, indeed, political processes) are large, complex, and dynamic, and certainly not understood from a cursory glance. The desire for "small government" that comes from this type of individual isn't motivated by a rationally-acquired conclusion that smaller government is better, but rather that a smaller government would be easier to understand therefore easier to approve of. But, by default, if they can't understand it, they can't approve of it. Why belief in outlandish conspiracy theories tends to go hand-in-hand with this is beyond me, though. They also tend to view the Constitution as an eminently clear and precise document that enumerates in no uncertain terms what government can and can't do, which it quite emphatically does not--otherwise, we wouldn't need people to interpret it.
Governments are complex by their very nature, and a government being large is not intrinsically bad. Government, ideally, represents the collective will of the society that formed it. To do its job effectively, it can't be too small or have its power too drastically limited. That large governments tend toward abusing their power isn't an argument against large governments, it's an argument for more accountability and transparency. Turning the US into 50 small countries, as Ron Paul would like to do, simply isn't practical, and doesn't even make sense in terms of how modern political bodies (nation-states) are formed.
Not to say there aren't areas of government worth cutting or eliminating, just that this whole idea of shrinking the federal government down to early 19th century levels and devolving virtually all power to the states is fanciful and what concerns me more is that it will inflict a great deal of harm to a great many people.
Well, that's really the problem when your political system mandates frequent election cycles. Politicians have no incentive to talk about anything more than a couple years into the future, except to scare up support for something they want to do right now. If you look at the Social Security situation in the US, ensuring its long-term solvency isn't even that hard with a few small tweaks, but no one's going to do anything about it until the checks stop coming. So it is with climate change: until the weather has gone completely out of control and there's a devastating drought/famine in the US, our politicians won't stake any real political capital on addressing it. It's difficult to ask people to suffer some slight pain now with the promise that it will avoid some severe (but hypothetical) pain in the future.
The only exception is when a particular initiative isn't politicized and all major parties support it. Then you could get long-term buy-in and implementation, assuming it doesn't become politicized at some point in the future. But these days, it seems so few things aren't politicized, there's little to no chance of undertaking any huge, multi-decade projects that will have a major impact.
Given that its (eventual) deflation is a key feature of the protocol, I would think it merits mentioning up front. I mean, hell, they wouldn't have to say much about it, since you can assume a Forbes reader knows what currency deflation is. Something simple like:
The supply of Bitcoins is not infinite. After a set number of transactions (estimated to be reached around the year 2140), no more Bitcoins will be generated, making the currency permanently deflationary from that point forward.
There you go, summed up in 36 words. Could probably even be trimmed a bit for space, if necessary.
You really think the average Forbes reader knows even a fraction as much about what Bitcoin is and how it works as the typical Slashdotter? Sure, we don't need the background--we know it--but the Forbes reader does.
Slashdot Mirror
Surprised it took me this long to find a post talking about the vast media conspiracy to discredit Ron Paul. This, in spite of the fact that Paul has gotten much more attention than his polling levels could possibly justify. But yeah, there is a "media blackout" and the establishment is out to get him. Shit, the news media even treat this kook with kid gloves. He just doesn't appeal to most people. Sorry. Get over it.
LaRouche is a perfectly apt comparison. He and Paul are both cult-of-personality extremists who engage in rank tinfoilhattery.
Why should the money supply not grow with the economy? Why should we force ourselves into a deflationary spiral?
It seems to me like Paul's "competing currencies" idea would do nothing but introduce an astonishing level of inefficiency to economic transactions.
"What is this Upper New Jersey quatloo worth?"
"I dunno, how many Purple Floridians will you give me for it?"
"I think one of those is worth fifteen CitiBucks, but I haven't checked since last week."
A standard currency is a very strong normalizing force on the economy--people don't have to worry about their medium of exchange because it's well-understood and everybody's using the same one. In daily life, this is essential. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to keep track of a dozen or more different exchange rates/valuations to figure out what my money is worth. Might as well turn every private citizen into a currency speculator.
I'll do you one better: labor. Work. Be it done by a human, an animal, or a machine, work has value. Its value is not set in stone, of course, but it is the absolute most basic unit of trade. "I'll do this for you if you'll do this for me."
Incidentally, this is why I think the money supply must inevitably increase over time, because the amount of work being done is also always increasing (due to a rising population/larger workforce/better technology.) However, this also debases the value of work, since like anything else, greater supply means less value. Result: inflation.
This is the basic reason why I think tying the value or form of currency to a specific, finite resource is nonsensical.
Indeed, if civilization collapses, having gold won't matter--he who has the guns can just take the gold.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The market isn't some natural thing that conveniently sorts everything out. It will always be regulated to some extent, and it should be designed to serve us, not the other way around. No one's saying we've got the perfect solution (there most likely isn't one), but it makes no sense to go back to a system that has failed time and time again, when our current system has produced more prosperity (with some admitted caveats) than any other system in human history. Kind of hard to argue with that degree of success, in spite of its shortcomings.
I would argue that we should work to address those shortcomings, not throw out the whole system. But the "throw it out and start from scratch" model seems to be the strategy Paul wants to use for everything.
I see the Paultards are out in force, modding down comments like the above for daring to besmirch the good name of St.Paul of Pittsburgh.
Ron Paul has a lot of ideas, unfortunately none of them are novel. He seems to think the past was better than the present (it really wasn't, by virtually any measure.) And while he talks about "freedom" and "liberty," in reality he is primarily a states' rights supporter. The "freedom" you'd get is freedom from the federal government, but never mind that the states would have free rein to screw you over. If states want to codify various kinds of oppression and discrimination, well, that's their right. He just wants to turn the US into 50 small countries, instead of a union of 50 states.
His ideas about things like going back to the gold standard would disrupt the economy so badly, it'd make the Great Depression look like a day at the circus. He doesn't seem to care about the consequences of his policy goals, he just wants to see them happen, no matter the cost. He has no sense of what's practical or reasonable. He's an dyed-in-the-wool idealist, and giving a person like that genuine power is frightening. You need people in government who understand that it's not "my way or the highway," but rather that government is made up of different people with different goals serving different interests, who need to cooperate and compromise so that everybody gets some of what they want, even if nobody gets all of what they want. They also understand the proverb, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Paul wants to live in a "perfect" world, by his definition of "perfect." And he doesn't seem to care who'd get hurt by it.
CEOs are also easy targets because they seem to get paid handsomely whether they succeed or fail. If Joe Worker screws up his job, at best he gets let go and can collect unemployment, and maybe he gets a tiny bit of severance; worst case, he's fired for cause and doesn't get a damn thing. But when Joe CEO drives a company into the ground? Not to worry, he's still gonna get his multi-million dollar golden parachute, which he'll ride right over to the next company. It's no wonder people get pissed about that disparity.
I said it's not the fault of the engineers, so how does that turn into me blaming the engineers? Obviously, I place the blame with the TSA.
Unless I am totally mistaken, the people who view the scanner images aren't even within sight of the screening area, precisely for this reason (so people can't be forced through the scanner to satisfy the prurient interests of creeps.) Granted, there are probably ways around it, but this sounds more like rank stupidity than unchecked ephebophilia.
Your bloodstream: the perfect place to hide drugs!
(Getting them back out might be a tad difficult.)
Given that this sort of radiation is not typically encountered in everyday activity, why would anyone think to defend against it? Casual use of millimeter-wave scanners is quite a recent phenomenon. Hard to fault the pump's engineers for not foreseeing that one.
That sort of logic is quite silly in light of the fact that copyright holders have enough to money to buy laws that favor longer copyright terms and stronger enforcement of copyright laws. Piracy is not theft; copyright infringement is not unequivocally wrong or immoral.
I'm sure there is a discussion to be had about how long copyright terms should be and whether the public good is served by having stiff penalties for infringement, but the notion that just because something is illegal it is therefore wrong doesn't hold much traction with me.
At the end of the day, copyright law proscribes artificial scarcity, and the purpose of that scarcity is to support certain kinds of business models. The purpose of that is to foster a prosperous creative sector that also expands the collective culture. But those interests are also supposed to be kept in balance; the profit motive should not override all else.
Saying "piracy is theft" is quite beside the point, and little more than a distraction in the overall debate over what form copyright laws should have.
The 9/11 plot wasn't designed to maximize casualties but for maximum psychological impact--that's why they went for the spectacular image of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers. How many people can still easily recall the images of that day? That was the whole point. The number of people killed was a bonus for AQ, it just wasn't the point of the attack.
How is this any different from licensing a commercial development library? All of those have their own licensing terms, too--except they cost money, and may even result in a per-unit royalty for your final product.
Open source licenses, at least, don't require you to pay someone for every unit you ship. You just have to make sure your own code is in compliance with the licensing terms. Don't like that a library you want is GPL, because it would force your company to open proprietary code? Then that library is not right for your company/project.
You can:
1. Write your own library.
2. Purchase one and figure out how the licensing works on that.
3. Use an open-source one and make sure you're in compliance with the license.
Take your pick.
Ain't that the truth.
This past weekend, I rented a late model Ford Focus. (I wasn't picky about the car, I just wanted a small, cheap one to get around in.)
It had two interactive displays: one in the dash (which mostly showed fuel economy information) and one in the center console (used for media functionality.) Both had such brain-damaged interfaces I felt like I'd have to read a 100-page manual just to figure out how to change the radio station. Nothing about them was the least bit intuitive, feedback was poor, menu navigation was nonsensical, and some features just failed for no apparent reason. I couldn't believe it was that difficult to design a halfway-decent interface, especially for such limited functionality! Maybe Apple could teach auto makers a thing or two here, and I say that as someone who doesn't even like Apple.
It's funny how governments facing domestic unrest always claim it's being fomented by outsiders. Well, except in the US. We seem happy to take responsibility for our own unrest.
If Slashdot users are any indication, programmers (and other engineering/analytical types) seem to have no faith in anything they don't easily understand. Governments (and, indeed, political processes) are large, complex, and dynamic, and certainly not understood from a cursory glance. The desire for "small government" that comes from this type of individual isn't motivated by a rationally-acquired conclusion that smaller government is better, but rather that a smaller government would be easier to understand therefore easier to approve of. But, by default, if they can't understand it, they can't approve of it. Why belief in outlandish conspiracy theories tends to go hand-in-hand with this is beyond me, though. They also tend to view the Constitution as an eminently clear and precise document that enumerates in no uncertain terms what government can and can't do, which it quite emphatically does not--otherwise, we wouldn't need people to interpret it.
Governments are complex by their very nature, and a government being large is not intrinsically bad. Government, ideally, represents the collective will of the society that formed it. To do its job effectively, it can't be too small or have its power too drastically limited. That large governments tend toward abusing their power isn't an argument against large governments, it's an argument for more accountability and transparency. Turning the US into 50 small countries, as Ron Paul would like to do, simply isn't practical, and doesn't even make sense in terms of how modern political bodies (nation-states) are formed.
Not to say there aren't areas of government worth cutting or eliminating, just that this whole idea of shrinking the federal government down to early 19th century levels and devolving virtually all power to the states is fanciful and what concerns me more is that it will inflict a great deal of harm to a great many people.
Well, that's really the problem when your political system mandates frequent election cycles. Politicians have no incentive to talk about anything more than a couple years into the future, except to scare up support for something they want to do right now. If you look at the Social Security situation in the US, ensuring its long-term solvency isn't even that hard with a few small tweaks, but no one's going to do anything about it until the checks stop coming. So it is with climate change: until the weather has gone completely out of control and there's a devastating drought/famine in the US, our politicians won't stake any real political capital on addressing it. It's difficult to ask people to suffer some slight pain now with the promise that it will avoid some severe (but hypothetical) pain in the future.
The only exception is when a particular initiative isn't politicized and all major parties support it. Then you could get long-term buy-in and implementation, assuming it doesn't become politicized at some point in the future. But these days, it seems so few things aren't politicized, there's little to no chance of undertaking any huge, multi-decade projects that will have a major impact.
SketchUp isn't cloud-based, moron.
Cool story, Internet tough guy.
The Department of Redundancy Department approves the above comment.
Please moderate this comment "Redundant," as well.
Given that its (eventual) deflation is a key feature of the protocol, I would think it merits mentioning up front. I mean, hell, they wouldn't have to say much about it, since you can assume a Forbes reader knows what currency deflation is. Something simple like:
The supply of Bitcoins is not infinite. After a set number of transactions (estimated to be reached around the year 2140), no more Bitcoins will be generated, making the currency permanently deflationary from that point forward.
There you go, summed up in 36 words. Could probably even be trimmed a bit for space, if necessary.
You really think the average Forbes reader knows even a fraction as much about what Bitcoin is and how it works as the typical Slashdotter? Sure, we don't need the background--we know it--but the Forbes reader does.