If the government gave me a ton of free money, I could *totally* create jobs too, by going on a spending binge. Why doesn't anyone ever consider that solution?
Why doesn't anyone consider how fortunate the economy would be to give me free stuff?
A computer is useful in a way a bitcoin isn't. You can do useful and fun stuff with a computer, but all you can do with a bitcoin is exchange it for something useful. Money is just a way of keeping track of value in order to facilitate an open market. It plays a vital role, but it isn't actually a good or service.
So you agree money provides a useful service -- indirect exchange -- and thus produces real value by enabling people to be better off than if they could not conduct indirect exchanges via money. (Though you don't quite appreciate the implications thereof.)
And Bitcoin is (trying to be a generally-accepted kind of) money with advantages over other moneys.
So you already agree this is different from on Ponzi scheme in that Bitcoin provides value (or at least the honest potential to). All you have to add in response, to attempt to substantiate your position, is that you're personally dismissive of the benefits. And that certainly is your right, just as others are every day finding genuine use cases for it where it really does better than other currencies. (And many think Macs are crap and everyone using them is just deluded.)
But it does not at all substantiate your claim that Bitcoin is some "Ponzi scheme", wholly dependent on more people putting more money in while producing no valuable product.
Indeed, Bitcoin adoption could stop right now without a single person "holding the bag" as in a Ponzi scheme -- for example, if it stabilizes as the medium of exchange for a niche market (*cough* online illegal drugs) in which people prefer to swap in/out of Bitcoin (from/to another currency at a varying exchange rate) than try to trade using a "standard" medium like USD.
What you've described applied to every business venture of earth, no matter what the legitimacy of the product or business model. Yes, early adopters of innovative ventures get the biggest shares in that ventures, which become the most valuable when the general public appreciates it.
The founders and early investors at Facebook, Google, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, etc etc etc all own the most of those respective and thus most of their capitalized values. Were they scams too? No, because at bottom, they all produced something useful.
You don't see the use in Bitcoin? Great, but that's a different argument than saying it's structured as a Ponzi scheme.
I don't know, but judging by job listings hiring for IT positions, they care more about what you can actually do. Every single time you see a degree mentioned it's, "or equivalent work experience".
If they actually cared about what you can *do*, that clause would be more like
- or equivalent [demonstrable] capability
or even
- "equivalent work or personal experience".
Seriously, I don't qualify for the job that I actually have per the posting for it! It requires 2 years with Django... I had none when I started (as a contractor before going full time a few weeks later).
The only reason anyone gets a job at all is because employers don't even take their own postings seriously.
I think what you mean is they *go through the motions* of questioning and critical examination, but ultimately rig the outcome, ultimately avoiding their belief systems' real weak points.
The problem is that, by supposition, the machines will eventually also have literacy, the ability to use [arbitrary] tools, the ability to communicate, the ability to learn and think abstractly.
So the comparison to the fate of horses is still relevant -- machines will replicate the supposed human-unique abilities.
The whole beef I have with prosecuting for "hacking" in this manner is that he merely asked AT&T's server for information, and it merrily complied
I'm not defending Auernheimer's treatment, obviously, but I don't think you're giving it a fair framing either. A spammer could likewise claim that they "merely" asked your server to store an email from them, and it "merrily complied".
Or someone who stole your private key to break into your account could claim that it "merely" provided the appropriate credentials and "merrily complied" with future requests.
Isn't that why they executed Thomas More? "Hey, he didn't comment on the King's new marriage, but *if* he did, whoa Nelly, he sure would have some choice things to say about divorce!"
The GP was asking about portable systems, where hacking the hardware yourself isn't really an option, given how immodular laptops are. Maybe you can swap out or add RAM or the HD, but that's about it.
The reality is that all these sites are using Bitcoin for is a transaction mechanism. They are not keeping their rake in bitcoins, they are exchanging it for cash because that is what the real world operates in. Similarly, the people making the wagers are exchanging their cash for bitcoins in order to play the game. In essence bitcoins are just being used as a payment processor for these sites.
If you were trying to trivialize what Bitcoin has accomplished, I think you've fallen short. Another way to say what you just did is that Bitcoin has added a layer that allows anyone using it to transact financially with anyone else even despite banking system incompatibility or inconvenience.
It's not far off from saying, "Okay guys, you realize, no CPU actually reads C. It's just a form people store their program in. When they want to actually give instructions to the computer, they all convert it back to an instruction set that a REAL-world computer actually *uses*..."
What does Bitcoin have to do with provably fair wagering? Bitcoin just handles the money(-equivalent) side of the gambling.
Its cryptographic protocols might be (I haven't checked) equivalent in some sense to protocols that ensure uncheatable group random number generation and similar things that you need for trustworthy online betting, but you can do that completely independent of whether you use Bitcoin.
To produce perceptually neutral noise, you need to apply the inverse of the human ear's perceptual loudness curve to white noise, which results in grey noise
For similar reasons, to produce a smell that perceptually blends out and obscures other smells, you would have to take into account the receptors of nose you want to obscure it from, and what molecules it's most sensitive to.
This means "olfactory grey" would be different between species, possibly between individuals.
"If you detect someone robbing your home, is it legal for you to follow them back to where they came from and place a bad-luck curse on it that residence/business that causes all kinds of things there to go wrong?"
Agreed. You don't need an real-money experiment to tell us that "public goods problems exist regarding the environment, so you can't expect any subset of players to solve the problem with unilateral disarmament".
So ridiculous -- that's the reason they discuss treaties (a kind of assurance contract) in the first place: because everyone has to be on board!
I just hope they extend this culture of carefulness to the rest of their operations.
Next up: double -- perhaps *triple* -- checking launch calculations. Or expressing quantities with units so that others don't wrongly guess inches versus meters.
your comment is wrong in too many levels. It's like deciding that you don't like sport because the first day you have pain in your muscles.
But it's a lot *more* like deciding you're not going to spend significant effort to *modify* your preferences, once you've *already* tried something, several times, and found it not to your liking.
Seriously dude, you probably don't have a large enough budget that you've exhausted all the things you like, and now have to create new things to like.
But even if that were the case, and you've indeed decided to go down the road of "I will hammer my preferences to go in a certain direction", it's unclear that the road will take you to a place where you teach yourself to like listening to Schoenberg, rather than, say, teach yourself to like solving problems in the 3rd world.
It probably requires some getting used to, stretching the limits of what you listen to, to appreciate it.
Alternatively, you could just listen to stuff you like. It seems kind of backwards to go through effort just to make yourself like something, and then spend the time liking it with your new preferences?
If you're going to modify your preferences at all, why not modify them in a way that's actually useful, like making chores more enjoyable or something.
What would you think of someone who played World of Warcraft and decided he didn't like it, but make sure to play to level 20 anyway, just to make sure he got the full experience? Same idea.
Romney has an MBA and a JD from Harvard and has proven success in business management, having shown consistent ability to move into a business he barely knows, learn the ropes, and implement amazing, efficiency-amplifying reforms that clear out the deadwood, or salvage the remaining valuable assets for more productive enterprises, so it's clear it wasn't Romney's lack of management expertise that was the point of failure.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like working from home is their scapegoat instead of refusing to admit to extremely incompetent management.
Probably so, but sometimes you don't have the option to turn around management fast enough to solve the problems caused by abuse of the system.
If the government gave me a ton of free money, I could *totally* create jobs too, by going on a spending binge. Why doesn't anyone ever consider that solution?
Why doesn't anyone consider how fortunate the economy would be to give me free stuff?
Really? Tell me all about semiconductor manufacturing in Bangladesh.
A computer is useful in a way a bitcoin isn't. You can do useful and fun stuff with a computer, but all you can do with a bitcoin is exchange it for something useful. Money is just a way of keeping track of value in order to facilitate an open market. It plays a vital role, but it isn't actually a good or service.
So you agree money provides a useful service -- indirect exchange -- and thus produces real value by enabling people to be better off than if they could not conduct indirect exchanges via money. (Though you don't quite appreciate the implications thereof.)
And Bitcoin is (trying to be a generally-accepted kind of) money with advantages over other moneys.
So you already agree this is different from on Ponzi scheme in that Bitcoin provides value (or at least the honest potential to). All you have to add in response, to attempt to substantiate your position, is that you're personally dismissive of the benefits. And that certainly is your right, just as others are every day finding genuine use cases for it where it really does better than other currencies. (And many think Macs are crap and everyone using them is just deluded.)
But it does not at all substantiate your claim that Bitcoin is some "Ponzi scheme", wholly dependent on more people putting more money in while producing no valuable product.
Indeed, Bitcoin adoption could stop right now without a single person "holding the bag" as in a Ponzi scheme -- for example, if it stabilizes as the medium of exchange for a niche market (*cough* online illegal drugs) in which people prefer to swap in/out of Bitcoin (from/to another currency at a varying exchange rate) than try to trade using a "standard" medium like USD.
One word: retroviral engineering.
Hey, just because you got the New York Times editorial in advance doesn't mean you can violate the embargo.
What you've described applied to every business venture of earth, no matter what the legitimacy of the product or business model. Yes, early adopters of innovative ventures get the biggest shares in that ventures, which become the most valuable when the general public appreciates it.
The founders and early investors at Facebook, Google, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, etc etc etc all own the most of those respective and thus most of their capitalized values. Were they scams too? No, because at bottom, they all produced something useful.
You don't see the use in Bitcoin? Great, but that's a different argument than saying it's structured as a Ponzi scheme.
I don't know, but judging by job listings hiring for IT positions, they care more about what you can actually do. Every single time you see a degree mentioned it's, "or equivalent work experience".
If they actually cared about what you can *do*, that clause would be more like
- or equivalent [demonstrable] capability
or even
- "equivalent work or personal experience".
Seriously, I don't qualify for the job that I actually have per the posting for it! It requires 2 years with Django ... I had none when I started (as a contractor before going full time a few weeks later).
The only reason anyone gets a job at all is because employers don't even take their own postings seriously.
I think what you mean is they *go through the motions* of questioning and critical examination, but ultimately rig the outcome, ultimately avoiding their belief systems' real weak points.
No. The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops.
Who immediately failed to apply it to their own dogma, and in fact, propagated memes against doing so.
Thanks.
The problem is that, by supposition, the machines will eventually also have literacy, the ability to use [arbitrary] tools, the ability to communicate, the ability to learn and think abstractly.
So the comparison to the fate of horses is still relevant -- machines will replicate the supposed human-unique abilities.
The whole beef I have with prosecuting for "hacking" in this manner is that he merely asked AT&T's server for information, and it merrily complied
I'm not defending Auernheimer's treatment, obviously, but I don't think you're giving it a fair framing either. A spammer could likewise claim that they "merely" asked your server to store an email from them, and it "merrily complied".
Or someone who stole your private key to break into your account could claim that it "merely" provided the appropriate credentials and "merrily complied" with future requests.
Isn't that why they executed Thomas More? "Hey, he didn't comment on the King's new marriage, but *if* he did, whoa Nelly, he sure would have some choice things to say about divorce!"
The GP was asking about portable systems, where hacking the hardware yourself isn't really an option, given how immodular laptops are. Maybe you can swap out or add RAM or the HD, but that's about it.
The reality is that all these sites are using Bitcoin for is a transaction mechanism. They are not keeping their rake in bitcoins, they are exchanging it for cash because that is what the real world operates in. Similarly, the people making the wagers are exchanging their cash for bitcoins in order to play the game. In essence bitcoins are just being used as a payment processor for these sites.
If you were trying to trivialize what Bitcoin has accomplished, I think you've fallen short. Another way to say what you just did is that Bitcoin has added a layer that allows anyone using it to transact financially with anyone else even despite banking system incompatibility or inconvenience.
It's not far off from saying, "Okay guys, you realize, no CPU actually reads C. It's just a form people store their program in. When they want to actually give instructions to the computer, they all convert it back to an instruction set that a REAL-world computer actually *uses*..."
What does Bitcoin have to do with provably fair wagering? Bitcoin just handles the money(-equivalent) side of the gambling.
Its cryptographic protocols might be (I haven't checked) equivalent in some sense to protocols that ensure uncheatable group random number generation and similar things that you need for trustworthy online betting, but you can do that completely independent of whether you use Bitcoin.
To produce perceptually neutral noise, you need to apply the inverse of the human ear's perceptual loudness curve to white noise, which results in grey noise
For similar reasons, to produce a smell that perceptually blends out and obscures other smells, you would have to take into account the receptors of nose you want to obscure it from, and what molecules it's most sensitive to.
This means "olfactory grey" would be different between species, possibly between individuals.
Oooh! Analogy refinement! I like this!
He's my first improvement:
"If you detect someone robbing your home, is it legal for you to follow them back to where they came from and place a bad-luck curse on it that residence/business that causes all kinds of things there to go wrong?"
[assuming such curses are possible]
could care less --> couldn't care less
Cut the guy a break.
Cut the guy a break -> give the guy a break OR cut the guy some slack
j/k
Agreed. You don't need an real-money experiment to tell us that "public goods problems exist regarding the environment, so you can't expect any subset of players to solve the problem with unilateral disarmament".
So ridiculous -- that's the reason they discuss treaties (a kind of assurance contract) in the first place: because everyone has to be on board!
I just hope they extend this culture of carefulness to the rest of their operations.
Next up: double -- perhaps *triple* -- checking launch calculations. Or expressing quantities with units so that others don't wrongly guess inches versus meters.
Yes, NASA must remain the innovator in this area.
your comment is wrong in too many levels. It's like deciding that you don't like sport because the first day you have pain in your muscles.
But it's a lot *more* like deciding you're not going to spend significant effort to *modify* your preferences, once you've *already* tried something, several times, and found it not to your liking.
Seriously dude, you probably don't have a large enough budget that you've exhausted all the things you like, and now have to create new things to like.
But even if that were the case, and you've indeed decided to go down the road of "I will hammer my preferences to go in a certain direction", it's unclear that the road will take you to a place where you teach yourself to like listening to Schoenberg, rather than, say, teach yourself to like solving problems in the 3rd world.
It probably requires some getting used to, stretching the limits of what you listen to, to appreciate it.
Alternatively, you could just listen to stuff you like. It seems kind of backwards to go through effort just to make yourself like something, and then spend the time liking it with your new preferences?
If you're going to modify your preferences at all, why not modify them in a way that's actually useful, like making chores more enjoyable or something.
What would you think of someone who played World of Warcraft and decided he didn't like it, but make sure to play to level 20 anyway, just to make sure he got the full experience? Same idea.
So it's not a free market unless it's at a long-term equilibrium. Whatever, crank.
Romney has an MBA and a JD from Harvard and has proven success in business management, having shown consistent ability to move into a business he barely knows, learn the ropes, and implement amazing, efficiency-amplifying reforms that clear out the deadwood, or salvage the remaining valuable assets for more productive enterprises, so it's clear it wasn't Romney's lack of management expertise that was the point of failure.
*jerk off gesture*