It's also just wrong. From 3G onwards phones authenticate the cell towers. Even with a full stack running you wouldn't be easily able to force a phone to associate to your tower, at least not without jamming all the other towers in your vicinity.
For example, scaling the network up to 2000 transactions per second would result in a Bitcoin node downloading about 1 MB per second. No big deal, until you realize that means each node will need about 2.6 TB of bandwidth each month, and that's just to handle the needs of 10% of the population of the United States, assuming 5 transactions per person per day.
As pointed out by another poster, 2.6 TB of transfer quota per month is trivial even by today's standards: anyone can afford that. And should Bitcoin ever scale to those levels it won't be relying on today's resources, it'll be relying on tomorrow's. So your own example falls apart almost immediately.
Also, rather than just guessing what the US population "needs" why not take a look at existing networks? 2000tps is about a fifth of VISA traffic for the whole world. Of course not every transaction goes via VISA, but it should indicate to you that maybe your numbers are once again a bit sketchy.
You can read an article I wrote a long time ago here: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability. It goes over the various ways the system scales up. Performance is unintuitive, there's no substitute for just working it out on the back of an envelope. Bear in mind we live in a world where single websites can generate a large fraction of total internet traffic and not go bankrupt.
I hate to be snarky, but did it ever wind up?
You're making up numbers. We've had billions of transistors on chips for some time now. The XBox One's main chip has five billion transistors. And that's just one chip. The Titan supercomputer has nearly 200 trillion transistors.
If the transistor doubling time remains about the same, you can equate any number of transistors you like to a neuron and Kurzweil's prediction still won't be off by much. Such is the nature of exponential curves. Sophisticated objections to his predictions don't involve transistor counts.
Nobody knows how much of a neuron you need to build a brain. If you actually have to simulate it, possibly at the quantum level, then no number of transistors may be sufficient. You can probably get around that problem by not using regular transistors though. Sufficient artificial neurons might actually be easier to build - noise and interference are probably not as harmful as they are in regular computing, and may actually be beneficial.
1300 times as massive.
Punched paper tape does not age well - in a few years it starts to crack on characters that are mostly 1's, and then you have a mess.
(No joke - when I was in grad school they hired an undergrad for the summer to recover punched paper tape data. The tape, about 5 years old, had broken into ~4 foot long stretches, and he was paid to feed each stretch through a reader, figure out and type the character punched at each break, and do that full time for 3 months.)
Punched cards are much more robust (as long as you don't get them wet) and you can put 120 kB in a box not much larger than a shoe box.
20 Terabytes would only require 463,910 m^3 of cards! That's only 320 kilotons of cardboard.
Or the guy could just buy 20 TB of hard drive, and be done with it.
Isn't there a city in your "midwest" (which is actually pretty far east, no?) that's called the windy city? Seems like wind power might be a reasonable thing in that region.
You know you can use electricity to produce heat, right?
You could go further with this idea. Maybe have an expert in the topic present to help people. You could even gather a bunch of meetups for different courses under one organization. Provide equipment, develop new courses, etc. You could call it I don't know a college maybe?
I do not like Feinstein much, but I do not think that people here are getting just what a big deal this is.
Senator Dianne Feinstein just went nuclear on the CIA.
Just savor that for a minute.
What you call "out of circulation" could also just as well be called "savings". By forcing savings to be spent via taxes on them, all you actually do is artificially move spending that would have happened in future into the present day.
This is terrible outcome for two reasons. One is that it results in huge liabilities for future spending - we can see this in the various insolvent pension schemes that are looming on the horizon (e.g. CALPERS which will never catch up to where it needs to be by now).
The second is that the so-called "growth" in the economy that results is in reality merely some arbitrary economic activity: the fact that it took place can be measured, hence growth, but whether it was actually useful or increased societies wealth is harder to measure and often explicitly ignored. If by taxing savings you force people to instead put their money into a housing bubble, that then triggers a construction boom, this appears to central bankers/planners to be successful economic growth whereas in reality it's merely a gross misallocation of resources towards investments that wouldn't normally make any kind of economic sense.
You can't have a printing press controlled by humans and not have it be ultimately end up abused for political purposes. Central bankers are not somehow magically immune from bad decision making just because they're unelected and unaccountable: they are explicitly given their mission by politicians and their mission is economic growth at any cost, even if it means sacrificing long term stability for short term gain: exactly the same thing as the politicians mission.
We can easily see this in recent times, with central banks desperately trying to jack their economies via free money in order to try and solve political problems, like recessions or possible Eurozone breakups. Does this really make long term sense? No - running the printing presses at full speed in order to make something, anything, happen is not a sensible economic policy. Nor is doing so to bail out profligate and badly managed countries to achieve the entirely emotional and political goal of keeping them inside the Eurozone. And indeed Draghi resisted the latter for a long time, but eventually the public pressure being heaped on him daily ("Draghi will destroy the euro" etc) got too much and he caved.
This is why Bitcoin has the most sensible economic policy of all. Long term, it's meant to have no inflation and no deflation. It's meant to provide a stable monetary base. And critically, it's independent of any individuals who will inevitably give into temptation to try and shape things through money creation.
I used to explain computers in terms of an office workspace. Your desktop (memory) is the display of what you are currently working on, if you want to write a letter, you get your typewriter (application) out of your drawer (storage). Your desktop can only hold so many things at one time, so sometimes you need to put something away before you can access then next thing. Some application need more room than others - say a drawing application might need more space. At the end of the day when you switch off the computer, the desktop is wiped clear, but what ever is in your drawer is available to be used again. If you want to be able to use something again you need to make sure you save a copy to the drawer.
I've yet to find someone who can't be made to understand basic principles on how a computer operates conceptually by that metaphor.
Haha, yeah, anyone who can take on the US Government and win is by definition an expert in national security. By now he probably also read more documents on national security than even the most highly cleared guys. He had everything from the minutiae of NSA tech to reports written for the inspector general. Given the rampant lying that occurs inside the security state he's probably the only guy with any clarity on how things really work at all, especially because judging from previous behaviour around the Wikileaks incidents, a lot of the NSA/DoD guys will have refused to read any of the public reports in case they get "contaminated" by classified materials!
Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.
But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.
That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.
So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.