That's often not the case. Most raw materials come from parts of the world where there is much poverty. Huge amount of value. But it's not distributed to those people. There's a small percentage of usually corrupt people in the country that do very well, but most of the value of those materials is generally taken by foreign multinationals aided by international organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF.
You're just delaying the day that they will go into landfill. Even if you hoard them for the rest of your life, whoever clears your effects will most likely dump them in landfill.
Plus the quality of AC posts is mostly extremely low. The occasional decent one doesn't make it worth while reading ACs, let alone answering them.
Slashdot would be a significantly better place if AC wasn't an option.
Poverty is just what we call people who get the narrow end of the distribution stick. Money is merely a token by which distribution is made.
Losing the additional security that closed source gives over open source.
Note that the phrase "There's no such thing as security through obscurity" is a nonsense. Security through obscurity alone is poor security. But it does indeed add a level of security when combined with other security practices.
Same thing happens here.
Most people buying an iMac get the base version, not the 5k display one.
You complain about anecdotes, then pull that out of your ass?
Even most of those getting an iMac really want a real tower (such as a Mac Pro) but are stuck with the iMac because they can't afford it.
This isn't true. Marco Arment for example bought a Mac Pro, then traded it in a year later to get an iMac. Clearly he could afford the Pac Pro, but the year later iMac offered a better display, without compromising the speed.
The question is not whether D-Day was right, but whether it's right for 15 year olds to be fighting in wars. Any wars. It's not.
It's still not the right thing regardless of your admiration. 15 year olds should not be fighting in wars, D-Day or otherwise.
Dad: "I faked my age to enlist at fifteen and fight at D-Day."
That was neither a good thing, nor the right thing. Just because your dad believed something doesn't mean it should dictate your view on life.
A medium that doesn't deflate value by randomly printing more paper.
And yet is less stable than those currencies that do.
In a rational market, the stable price of any commodity will be slightly more than the cost of production + distribution.
That's a no true Scotsman definition. For any number of examples that contradict the idea, you can just say "well they aren't rational markets."
For example, where I come from bottled water is more expensive than soda, and about the same price as milk. Has been for years, probably decades now. That makes no sense from the production+distribution side, and is stable. So you'd just say it's irrational. Without having defined rational other than the implied "doesn't conform to your model."
I don't disagree with you that "The peak price of Bitcoin was pretty much a classic case of a bubble caused by irrational speculation". But I'd take it further and say that ALL of the value of Bitcoin is speculation. Without a government backing it, it's worthless, other than to speculators.
Sorry, but the other poster is right. 1997/8 was essentially a reverse takeover of Apple by NeXT. Not just Jobs, but the rest of the XeXT management team also. And Jobs had plenty of time when he knew he was dying to put the company into a state where it would continue in a good direction. None of your examples come from the last 16 years, and there's no reason to think that current Apple would ever become anything like the mismanaged company of the late 80s early 90s.
Google Glass is real, completed, and released.
It's none of those things. If it was, Google certainly would not have stopped selling the developer prototype. They'd have ramped it up into full production.
Google Glass is dead in the the form demoed. There's a chance they might come up with some different concept. But there's a bigger chance that this removal of the Glass team from the Google incubator is a first step to selling it off or closing it down.