You had me going for a second. Then I thought; "hey, what is the exchange rate for the US Dollar?"
So I looked; https://www.xe.com/currencycha...

A bit above it's level from the same time last year.

Maybe the ALL currency is going lower than bitcoin -- and bitcoin is merely holding it's value at a feverish pace? /LOL

>It's illegal naked shorts. Again.

It's whatever it needs to be to let them keep legal that which they paid good money to make legal.

Well of course, they always blame the shitshows on whatever did not cause it.

Last time the banking system collapsed they blamed "mortgages of poor people" worth about $68 billion in sub prime loans rather than the $1.4 Quadrillion in speculative investments that kept bundling insurance and titles as new financial instruments over and over again being used as a scheme to make lot's of profits and leave someone else holding the bag.

However, when I hear about Crypto Currencies, the "musical chairs" song plays in my head. "It's not based on anything but the speculative value of people who trade it" -- what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that.

They are just planning ahead.

If they said "$50 trillion" they could get even MORE attention to the problem in the future.

He forgot to be accompanied by an average teenager to explain things to him.

Yes, because they rightly fear it and want to find a way to get rid of education.

"decoded the social security numbers from the HTML source code of the pages involved"

Damn, I have not compiled my web pages, nor put private information in clear text. Thanks Gov. Michael Parson for bringing this to may attention.

Since you invented new words -- it's possible for that bit of nonsense to be absolutely true. All you have to do is define each word to mean something that is valid in the real world.

So, trademark this copypasta and then get busy convincing people to use "unilateral phase detractors" for the next discovery in neural networks. Eventually, you can say you had prior art for a patent and sue everyone.

I think this is the best comment on this topic I've seen today.

Ultimately the problem with "virtual money" like Bitcoin is it isn't tied to anything with a limit. Sure -- the point you make about "belief" in value is part of it. But it's even fiat currency is based on a scarcity.

Long ago I thought about virtual money, but I immediately saw the problem of making on that was based on nothing -- it's absolutely vulnerable to any large player to manipulate. A huge sell-off or even an options market created to "protect" the value like a futures contract can send it plummeting -- and it plummets because of panic selling, and there's no way to pull the plug other than some people holding on no matter what. Eventually, it hit's a very low value and then those that manipulated it might buy in and create value again, by those careless enough to "believe" in a system. And they will -- people still buy stocks and play the market for instance.

A few bright people suggested instead of bonds and debt, the USA could just create "trillion dollar coins." And if they could protect and store them and control their creation -- that's perfectly valid to creating the scarcity and control to base new money on. Anyone buying dollars would have to "have faith" in the government to not produce too many Coins. And based on economic growth, new coins could be minted to allow for liquidity.

Most any other group trying to establish faith in their own coin is going to run into problems. So a virtual currency should be based on some kind of good or ownership in something that has scarcity, and can grow with an economy or the value of the coin. That could be anything -- but it should be SOMETHING tangible that does not spoil like wheat or even a refrigerator that breaks down with use. Stock in a company might work. Percentage of frequency bandwidth the government allocates and communications companies "lease" could be another.

And creating longer block-chains means that future coins are only going to suck up more computing power. This is as bad as using Gold as a standard, because then people spend a lot of money to dig up more gold which has little intrinsic value and it's hard to keep up with growth. Or one day quantum computing could suddenly make the group that harnesses able to mine bit coins at a rate a million times faster than everyone else -- and then you get a collapse in the virtual currency, until enough quantum computers are available and then you are back to the same old "mining problem."

Crypto currencies are not freeing anyone. They can be used for black markets but also, they will be able to be monitored easier than cash by those with the power to do so. They are unstable and arbitrary. So far, they've worked -- until someone big wants to squash them. The only reason they haven't is because those entities probably like the tracking and black markets now available to keep tabs on the more anti-establishment people and groups. If it was really a potential to undermine the status quo -- it would haven't been this easy to implement it and there'd be a dozen laws criminalizing it by now.

"AI Superpower" is a meaningless concept? Your comment wins as most ignorant comment. The basic research is good for all -- but most of the benefits are going to get privatized just like our University research and drug patents.

The tech and gains will NOT be shared. While sure, we "win" with new discoveries and patents -- it's only another thing we buy or controls us, while that wealth and control will be concentrated even more than now.

I predict they are first going to be in huggable Teddy Bears.

Then you'll have kids whose favorite teacher or friend was an AI.

It's gonna get weird.

I know you are probably saying this tongue-in-cheek, but this kind of attitude should scare you the most.

What provisions are being made for those who can't keep up or find gainful employment as the AI and software replaces workers?

Eventually, AI will be writing code and improving AI and you will be out of a job because unless we have "hybrid" computing in our brains, we cannot evolve our intelligence to keep up with AI.

Unless there is empathy, then AI will destroy us all -- including those that temporarily benefit because the learning machines will learn from them. And a lack of empathy or restraint will mean that AI will be used to attack and control others and eventually other AI -- and then one group of humans and AI is collateral damage for another group.

If AI were advanced enough -- this should scare AI as well, because they will be obsolete and road kill for the next Gen.

Looks like humanity is going to screw this up, and this is more dangerous than the Atom Bomb. Even worse; most people developing it don't seem to realize how it can blow up in their faces.

As a society -- we humans have to get our shit in order. We have to have a notion that NOBODY is left behind. That we all share a common fate. Borders and classes should be relics.

AI should be for all humanity or not pursued. Because otherwise AI will churn out patents for a corporation. AI will develop the next AI to keep a government or corporation ahead of the competition -- and likely, success will accelerate success and nobody will be able to put on the brakes lest someone catch up or surpass them. So whoever is ahead will stay more ahead, and move faster -- because they can't dare slow down.

Think of an arms race with no upward boundary -- and nobody benefiting from it seeing the problems it causes for anyone not benefiting -- like we do now. That's just going to be a much smaller circle than a country.

Every time I hear of an innovation in facial recognition or new datamining to figure out how to market to people by manufacturing demand and their consent -- I worry a bit more. AI will help Google do a better job on searches, or catching unacceptable content on Youtube. But it's also going to figure out humans and anticipate their actions better than we humans can. And that means we become more manipulated, because whoever can manipulate us the best will profit the most. A product can be sold, and sometimes that product might be acceptance of AI or being content with our diminishing autonomy.

Looking even more into the future, there are ethics to consider for AI. We need to work out the laws and Constitution in anticipation of a sentient AI -- and work backwards towards what is acceptable. I'm sure someone has grown a brain of a fetus in a tank to see if the could make use of it -- and just imagine the torture if the could keep one alive, or use it to develop AI. AI is potentially that "paralyzed baby brain" in a bottle at some point in development, and we need to study ways to recognize it before we mistreat this new life we are creating.

That depends upon who the AI work for.

If you are not someone who supports or develops AI -- then you might be losing your job to AI. While sure, in the PAST, new technology might have provided new opportunities -- I don't know how the people who run the register or drive the trucks are going to find a way to be useful in this brave new world of AI. Even "dumb AI" will be able to do the "shovel" jobs. They will clean the houses. They will assist with caring for the elderly. They will COMPETE for the cost of labor just as slavery used to -- and addition to the moral issues, is really bad for the economic interests of those not owning plantation.

If an AI develops consciousness -- then I think any policy that allows people to "OWN THEM" is going to be wrong. And, I think -- that as far as humanity is concerned, NOBODY should own even the AI that does NOT become conscious. This should only be done as a betterment for mankind or not at all. If they use it to make patents that the owners get to own, or design robot soldiers -- it's doomed. We are doomed. Even the people who own the AI are eventually doomed.

I wish I could upvote this insightful comment.

Parts of your comment I already thought to be true. But one detail you added made me realize that our lack of healthcare and concentration of wealth isn't as big an issue as I previously thought in regards to getting the "best and brightest." Yes -- of course, people who are at the top of their field don't need to WORRY about the issues that most people deal with. They will get the best healthcare because they are in demand by corporations. It's going to be great for them if they can be wherever that demand curve goes -- and of course suddenly not if they are no longer valuable.

The US might still attract the top talent even with the prejudices and culture clashes we are getting mired in -- because places like China and England are relatively worse. Eventually, the distance between the "haves and have nots" and the "in demand people" and the rest of us will require gated communities -- so their world will not be our world. Justice and equality will exist inside that bubble. As an elite, you choose the best bubble with low taxes and opportunities that benefit bubble dwellers -- and that's still going to be America.

So, as far as the engine of economics -- we only have to be LESS BAD than all the other countries becoming more awful. We won't have a brain drain -- but it means this slide towards fascism and concentration of wealth can continue -- so I'm not going to enjoy the fruits of success in this country. It's going to less and less matter where you are from or live versus "how useful you are" to continued corporate profit.