The deflation rate has been about 50% for the last couple of years with bitcoin, but you're right it'll be in the teens or something in the future, still horrible. This is it's flaw by design and the reason I never invested. This is the same reason we don't use gold anymore, even though it's supply is still growing, but less than that of GDP growth. Any deflation, even a few percent, is unwanted in your money because it promotes hoarding and discourages lending. There's a reason why the billionaires promote the gold standard, it's so they can just stockpile gold and not bother investing. Any money used today grows exponentially, to match or outpace the growth of GDP. This is the entire point of money, it's not meant to be an investment, that just hurts the rest of the economy. Your iphone analogy is pointless, it has nothing at all to do with investment in new companies or the stickiness of wages, it's just a talking point made by gold advocates. The point of deflation being bad is that banks would just save your money, instead of loaning it out. If it was bitcoins with a 10% deflation rate, they'd have to make a 10% return just to break even. You're confusing personal finances with money in large markets, and you sound like every other gold advocate that's been bought and paid for.

did he really say "if get, they will use it" ?

Almost as stealthy as the way fox had horrible polling data.

You're actually less likely to vote if your candidate seems to be winning in your state, I don't know how he could be more wrong. This also ignores the fact that spending a large amount of money in others ways, like advertising, actually works.

People that use internet while driving or outside their house have a cell phone connection which is probably faster than poor wifi reception outside a house. I don't see the use at all at this point, it would have been useful 5 years ago.

Itunes and google music and Amazon music exist because of Napster. Sure they were almost a decade late, and it's completely their own fault for not having competition to Napster, but now more people use them for music. It's still cheaper to go rent a physical DVD from a Redbox than to rent one online, that's absurdity. Without piracy the monopolies will continue to abuse the customer, and with piracy, they might abuse them somewhat less.

Except there's actually no money missing at all. Copying something digitally is completely different that stealing something of scarcity, it's absurd to compare the two.

Stealing your food means you can't eat, copying a digital picture you have doesn't affect you at all.

I thought the point of the regulators was to regulate uncompetitive industries, you know, where I can count all the players on one hand.

T Mobile offers the bring your own plan for $20 less a month, the other carriers don't.

Good point.

If statistics work, those numbers are very comparable. 11.3 concussions / 100 player-seasons = 11.3% concussions per player per season. I don't know how I could make it more simple to see the equality of those statements.

How can you start the discussion that football is too dangerous to partake in by the millions. You cannot convincingly get across the point that this sport causes more suffering than joy created by spectating. This is what the sensors are for, gathering scientific data showing the causes of future mental issues. Then the discussion can begin.

Stopping multiple concussions from occurring within a short time will stop unnecessary injury, as you suggest, so there will be immediate gains.

It's less, but not by much.

11.3% for high school rugby

15.3% for high school football

Professional injuries don't bother me nearly as much as the amount of injuries that occur in high school and even earlier. I don't see how you could reasonable argue that either concussion rate is acceptable at all, and the uncertainties in these studies actually overlap.

Isn't this an unstable state, it wouldn't last for long? The experiment in the article claimed to have made an unstable state, similar to the one you describe, stable.

And you go on like this, but the universe is expanding and accelerating away from us in all directions and there is no absolute reference frame, yet GR works just fine. Dark energy is responsible for this and was put into the equation as the cosmological constant by Einstein himself, although he removed it and it wasn't put back in until dark energy was discovered in the 90s.