i dont even know what the fuck you are talking about today. 'some people studied history and looked down on others' ? so called elites ?
best comeback argument you found was this ?
if you dont think that studying middle ages history is 'the best use of talent', then do NOT comment on arguments that say a particular incident now, has been exactly repeated in history, because YOU DONT KNOW history.
if you do that, leave aside others 'looking down' on you due to 'elitism', people will think that you are either a moron, or obnoxious.
examine western european history in the 300 years in between 300 AD and 600 AD. you will see that the feudalization of economy and politics in that period closely resembles the feudalization of economy, and now intellectual sphere in our modern times.
a concept is like a bridge. once you give the ownership of the bridge to someone, that someone has the control of that bridge, can use it to do anything, toll anyone, deny access to anyone. and buy more bridges. eventually, most of the bridges get concentrated in the hands of minority, which then end up controlling the social, political and economical aspects of life through their power. its the inevitable result of inheritance-supported, unlimited ownership.
markets are already being exploited at all costs by the people in those western economies themselves. to the point of wall street not refraining from a global scam, peddling fake bonds. taking down a stock market for a day to ward off cyber attack is one thing, poisoning the world finance supply with 600 times overvalued, 599 units of fake assets, is another. the latter is not fixable.
stock market has gone way ahead itself, and now has a life on its own, loosely tied to real economy thats going on. money is made there without making any real impact on anything on the economy, money lost. appallingly, when money lost, it affects the economy through morale. when big gains are made, everything goes as it is. not to mention the horrible scam of 2008 and its effects.
you STILL need to pay for the materials to produce and maintain solar cells. and you still have to use that electricity to generate bitcoins, instead of using it elsewhere. since, the reward for generating bitcoins goes down and down with the size of the network, it is already way past the point at which you could be producing bitcoins with solar energy, and remain profitable.
it hasnt been around 'since prehistoric times'. it has been invented in lydia around 600 BC or so, it didnt take hold for a few centuries. even in later days the basis for exchange was still barter, since it was not easy to manufacture and distribute gold/silver/metal coins.
before 600 BC, there was egypt with its > 3000 years history (even at that point in time, leave aside ours. it makes approx 5600 years if you add 2000 years since 0 AD), there was india, china.
and in 'prehistoricity', there was none of that either. for it predates 6000 BC.
you join the network with your computer. the network is a cloud that lives on its own, without noone being able to control it. so, it doesnt have any central point of failure. it also awards you some amount of bitcoins for running the client, because you are contributing to the running of the system. but this is inversely proportional to the amount of computational power the cloud has at that moment - back when bitcoin was small, much more coins were awarded for joining clients. now, the network is nearing seti etc in computational power. it is impossible to generate even a single bitcoin over months with an ordinary computer now. and so on.
system assumes two things :
cost of electricity
computational power.
it is based on the computational power of the network. if the computational power increases, the system arranges bitcoins accordingly. so, even if you join with a huge server farm, you just up the computational power of the network, and the amount of coins you can earn from your participation decreases. hence, you cannot beat the network.
also, the cost of electricity is a factor. if you do the above, you will get hit by a huge cost in electricity.
only way to beat the system, is to be able to have zero cost for the electricity you spend, and then join it with mega server farms.
but, the system says that, at a point where zero cost for electricity is a practical reality anywhere on the planet, there will be no need for money, since cost of producing anything will approximate zero. (and that's right).
..........
the system is also anonymous. noone but you and the person you exchange with, know who sent them what. but, this knowledge is only in the form of awareness of a complex encrypted key existing on the other side - nothing else. it may have been done from china over a netbook, or a mobile device flying somewhere on atlantic ocean.
that is both good, and also a drawback - if you lose the encrypted keys you store on your hard drive, you lose the 'wallet' that contains your cash.
Secondly, the way the system works affords no transaction anonymity.
it has total anonymity. only you, and the person you are sending the money or receiving the money knows about your exchange. noone else.
I have long felt that in order for any currency to work, it must be able to be 'stolen'. In other words, you must be able to use it to engage in transactions that are not legally sanctioned.
the above shows the nonsense of your other comment. being able to be stolen does not mean that something works.
you can lose your wallet however, if you lose the contents of the drive you are keeping it on. if the person is able to decrypt the key, s/he can get your stuff.
it is a distributed cloud that lives on the internet. its sole purpose is to exist independently, without anyone's intervention, to make possible for exchange of units, for transactions.
cannot be controlled, manipulated by any party or even its creators. it has a life on its own.
it is based on computational power that network has. so, even if you attempt to join the network with a huge farm of servers to get rich in an instant, the computational power of the network immediately grows with your own server farm joining it, and you fall short of being able to break the system. not to mention getting huge cost of electricity shoved up in your ass, not justifying your effort.
its also based on electricity cost. for anyone to beat the system, electricity cost must be zero. but, the system assumes that, if a condition in which electricity cost practically becomes zero, the need for money and transactions will end. (rightfully)
you are not using your brain. money, is currently just a tool to allow for production and distribution of goods and services. you can do this in a million different ways, one of which being the below :
there is no relevance in between money and human freedom and incentive. dont be a moron. freedom and incentive were here long before money was ever thought of.
even a lot of fools here, who are supposed to be more cognitively apt and perceptive than the rest of the average population, have started to rail and rage against wikileaks, just because 'it was concentrated on america'. they were not able to smell anything fishy at all, despite all that cognitive power. couldnt see the forest, from the trees.
i think, the reason why it is inevitably concentrated on america and american affairs, is well pictured with the happenings described in the article.
Planning/marketing departments of corporations are filled with mba grads who have been taught to shove a product to public from the maximum price they think they can pay. and hence, depending on their self-judgment, they decide what the selling price of any product should be. since all corporations employ the same mindset, all look to each other, adopt similar price points, and then start thinking that that is a correct price point.
products are produced/sold up to that point. more products are not produced and sold, because that would decrease the 'optimum' point. naturally, as a result, as you can understand too, the 'mass production/competition aspects of capitalism, goes out of the door.
what we are seeing here, is the retort of a corporate man, who is used to corporations determining the price points (even unknowingly) instead of public. had there not been internet, this industry would - if we take gaming for example - just continue forcing a 'reality' which says that a 'decent' game should be worth $40-60. thanks to internet, even if the industry doesnt want to, competition enters the scene. corporate world, naturally, is unable to understand or stomach the situation and is threatened.
however, while gamers can get competition thanks to internet, the situation is to the contrary in almost all other sectors, ranging from auto industry to healthcare. corporations are determining what gets sold from what price range, and because majority of the corps do it, after a time it becomes the 'industry norm'.
i dont know these people who use words like 'staggering', 'shocking', 'outrageous' etc while describing things like these think that they can fool the public into buying their word through that wordage still.
its 21st century. not 19th. pretty much everyone knows that the only one 'staggered' with situations like these, are private interests or governments catering to them.
so its pointless to attempt portraying a self-interest, public-enemy move as something positive and socially acceptable. they should just cut to the chase.
you didnt read attentively. creating 'as an original idea' is what you are talking about. (that is also questionable in the light of various board games that were played in cuba before that). however the features of pretty much what you know as tetris were developed together with these 3 men. moreover, legally in the soviet union noone had copyright, everything you did belonged to state. in transition, it somehow ended up on patjinov.
Alexey Pajitnov is the infringer here. he grabbed what three people have created together for himself, without giving them credit, leave aside their proper shares.
average street pimp has more ethics. it doesnt strike me odd that, the legal system is exploited most by aggressive exploiters to attack others, even though they should be the ones in defense.
because, majority of people on this planet - sorry - whopping majority of people on this planet, have never heard of DIY computers, leave aside gnu/linux.
it is also their right to have a properly working pc with the money they pay, instead of bloatware. and hence, this article, complaint and the problem explained, are valid.
try to think further than your horizon. think of other people too.
i cant find opposing that the immense array of gases and substances we release into atmosphere contributes into climate change greatly, leave aside the activities and heat generation we are doing through our endless array of activities from household consumption to manufacturing, as scientific.
Slashdot Mirror
i dont even know what the fuck you are talking about today. 'some people studied history and looked down on others' ? so called elites ?
best comeback argument you found was this ?
if you dont think that studying middle ages history is 'the best use of talent', then do NOT comment on arguments that say a particular incident now, has been exactly repeated in history, because YOU DONT KNOW history.
if you do that, leave aside others 'looking down' on you due to 'elitism', people will think that you are either a moron, or obnoxious.
after all that you have said, have you studied early middle ages history ?
i would like to see same kind of thing happen in america. or, any other country for that matter.
examine western european history in the 300 years in between 300 AD and 600 AD. you will see that the feudalization of economy and politics in that period closely resembles the feudalization of economy, and now intellectual sphere in our modern times.
a concept is like a bridge. once you give the ownership of the bridge to someone, that someone has the control of that bridge, can use it to do anything, toll anyone, deny access to anyone. and buy more bridges. eventually, most of the bridges get concentrated in the hands of minority, which then end up controlling the social, political and economical aspects of life through their power. its the inevitable result of inheritance-supported, unlimited ownership.
markets are already being exploited at all costs by the people in those western economies themselves. to the point of wall street not refraining from a global scam, peddling fake bonds. taking down a stock market for a day to ward off cyber attack is one thing, poisoning the world finance supply with 600 times overvalued, 599 units of fake assets, is another. the latter is not fixable.
stock market has gone way ahead itself, and now has a life on its own, loosely tied to real economy thats going on. money is made there without making any real impact on anything on the economy, money lost. appallingly, when money lost, it affects the economy through morale. when big gains are made, everything goes as it is. not to mention the horrible scam of 2008 and its effects.
delete the wallet you had, and noone can track you for any transaction. then just assume a new wallet.
and at the point you delete your wallet from your hard drive, or assume a new key, all that information becomes becomes pointless and untrackable.
you STILL need to pay for the materials to produce and maintain solar cells. and you still have to use that electricity to generate bitcoins, instead of using it elsewhere. since, the reward for generating bitcoins goes down and down with the size of the network, it is already way past the point at which you could be producing bitcoins with solar energy, and remain profitable.
it hasnt been around 'since prehistoric times'. it has been invented in lydia around 600 BC or so, it didnt take hold for a few centuries. even in later days the basis for exchange was still barter, since it was not easy to manufacture and distribute gold/silver/metal coins.
before 600 BC, there was egypt with its > 3000 years history (even at that point in time, leave aside ours. it makes approx 5600 years if you add 2000 years since 0 AD), there was india, china.
and in 'prehistoricity', there was none of that either. for it predates 6000 BC.
you join the network with your computer. the network is a cloud that lives on its own, without noone being able to control it. so, it doesnt have any central point of failure. it also awards you some amount of bitcoins for running the client, because you are contributing to the running of the system. but this is inversely proportional to the amount of computational power the cloud has at that moment - back when bitcoin was small, much more coins were awarded for joining clients. now, the network is nearing seti etc in computational power. it is impossible to generate even a single bitcoin over months with an ordinary computer now. and so on.
..........
system assumes two things :
cost of electricity
computational power.
it is based on the computational power of the network. if the computational power increases, the system arranges bitcoins accordingly. so, even if you join with a huge server farm, you just up the computational power of the network, and the amount of coins you can earn from your participation decreases. hence, you cannot beat the network.
also, the cost of electricity is a factor. if you do the above, you will get hit by a huge cost in electricity.
only way to beat the system, is to be able to have zero cost for the electricity you spend, and then join it with mega server farms.
but, the system says that, at a point where zero cost for electricity is a practical reality anywhere on the planet, there will be no need for money, since cost of producing anything will approximate zero. (and that's right).
the system is also anonymous. noone but you and the person you exchange with, know who sent them what. but, this knowledge is only in the form of awareness of a complex encrypted key existing on the other side - nothing else. it may have been done from china over a netbook, or a mobile device flying somewhere on atlantic ocean.
that is both good, and also a drawback - if you lose the encrypted keys you store on your hard drive, you lose the 'wallet' that contains your cash.
but thats no different in the real world either.
Secondly, the way the system works affords no transaction anonymity.
it has total anonymity. only you, and the person you are sending the money or receiving the money knows about your exchange. noone else.
I have long felt that in order for any currency to work, it must be able to be 'stolen'. In other words, you must be able to use it to engage in transactions that are not legally sanctioned.
the above shows the nonsense of your other comment. being able to be stolen does not mean that something works.
you can lose your wallet however, if you lose the contents of the drive you are keeping it on. if the person is able to decrypt the key, s/he can get your stuff.
it is a distributed cloud that lives on the internet. its sole purpose is to exist independently, without anyone's intervention, to make possible for exchange of units, for transactions.
cannot be controlled, manipulated by any party or even its creators. it has a life on its own.
it is based on computational power that network has. so, even if you attempt to join the network with a huge farm of servers to get rich in an instant, the computational power of the network immediately grows with your own server farm joining it, and you fall short of being able to break the system. not to mention getting huge cost of electricity shoved up in your ass, not justifying your effort.
its also based on electricity cost. for anyone to beat the system, electricity cost must be zero. but, the system assumes that, if a condition in which electricity cost practically becomes zero, the need for money and transactions will end. (rightfully)
you are not using your brain. money, is currently just a tool to allow for production and distribution of goods and services. you can do this in a million different ways, one of which being the below :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
there is no relevance in between money and human freedom and incentive. dont be a moron. freedom and incentive were here long before money was ever thought of.
even a lot of fools here, who are supposed to be more cognitively apt and perceptive than the rest of the average population, have started to rail and rage against wikileaks, just because 'it was concentrated on america'. they were not able to smell anything fishy at all, despite all that cognitive power. couldnt see the forest, from the trees.
i think, the reason why it is inevitably concentrated on america and american affairs, is well pictured with the happenings described in the article.
speed trains became a reality in europe. so much that they changed life - people regularly commute to their jobs in paris, from lyon.
http://www.wordtravels.com/images/map/France_map.jpg
you cant do the same thing in america. not even by plane. actually, with plane, it takes longer, even in france.
Planning/marketing departments of corporations are filled with mba grads who have been taught to shove a product to public from the maximum price they think they can pay. and hence, depending on their self-judgment, they decide what the selling price of any product should be. since all corporations employ the same mindset, all look to each other, adopt similar price points, and then start thinking that that is a correct price point.
products are produced/sold up to that point. more products are not produced and sold, because that would decrease the 'optimum' point. naturally, as a result, as you can understand too, the 'mass production/competition aspects of capitalism, goes out of the door.
what we are seeing here, is the retort of a corporate man, who is used to corporations determining the price points (even unknowingly) instead of public. had there not been internet, this industry would - if we take gaming for example - just continue forcing a 'reality' which says that a 'decent' game should be worth $40-60. thanks to internet, even if the industry doesnt want to, competition enters the scene. corporate world, naturally, is unable to understand or stomach the situation and is threatened.
however, while gamers can get competition thanks to internet, the situation is to the contrary in almost all other sectors, ranging from auto industry to healthcare. corporations are determining what gets sold from what price range, and because majority of the corps do it, after a time it becomes the 'industry norm'.
dont answer - it wasnt even a day. a shorter fix would only be possible with a time machine.
i dont know these people who use words like 'staggering', 'shocking', 'outrageous' etc while describing things like these think that they can fool the public into buying their word through that wordage still.
its 21st century. not 19th. pretty much everyone knows that the only one 'staggered' with situations like these, are private interests or governments catering to them.
so its pointless to attempt portraying a self-interest, public-enemy move as something positive and socially acceptable. they should just cut to the chase.
you didnt read attentively. creating 'as an original idea' is what you are talking about. (that is also questionable in the light of various board games that were played in cuba before that). however the features of pretty much what you know as tetris were developed together with these 3 men. moreover, legally in the soviet union noone had copyright, everything you did belonged to state. in transition, it somehow ended up on patjinov.
http://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm
read the true story of tetris.
Alexey Pajitnov is the infringer here. he grabbed what three people have created together for himself, without giving them credit, leave aside their proper shares.
average street pimp has more ethics. it doesnt strike me odd that, the legal system is exploited most by aggressive exploiters to attack others, even though they should be the ones in defense.
because, majority of people on this planet - sorry - whopping majority of people on this planet, have never heard of DIY computers, leave aside gnu/linux.
it is also their right to have a properly working pc with the money they pay, instead of bloatware. and hence, this article, complaint and the problem explained, are valid.
try to think further than your horizon. think of other people too.
when it doesnt fit with your view ? i think we are way too liberal with the distribution of mod points.
i cant find opposing that the immense array of gases and substances we release into atmosphere contributes into climate change greatly, leave aside the activities and heat generation we are doing through our endless array of activities from household consumption to manufacturing, as scientific.