A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth.
Do you know about soup?
One way to evaluate the value of any given currency is to look at its usefulness.
Paul Krugman, a critic of Bicoin, said:
Gold’s value comes in part because it has nonmonetary uses, such as filling teeth and making jewelry; paper currencies have value because they’re backed by the power of the state, which defines them as legal tender and accepts them as payment for taxes. Bitcoins, however, derive their value, if any, purely from self-fulfilling prophecy...
But what Mr. Krugman doesn't realize is that cryptocurrencies offer a unique advantage over other kind of payments. Instant, unblockable, long distant, anonymous money transfers. No other currency or payment method allows that.
Let's see some possible uses:
- You are a gay man in Uganda. You want to make a donation to an organization defending homosexual rights without disclosing your sexual preferences to the government.
- Some whistleblower revealed some corrupt/shade practices about your government. The government immediately blocks any financial money transfers to that site
- You want to buy any service or intangible asset (eg. porn, software, data) without the transaction recorded in your credit card and without revealing your identity
For the first time it is now possible to do these things. And these things are too valuable to disappear. Cryptocurrencies are here to stay.
The rational decision is to eat the food we have been eating for millennia and leave the experiment to the progressive guys like you who think corporations are acting in people's best interest.
Good luck finding in the supermarket any food that have been eated for milennia. All food have been modified during the centuries trough mutations and selective breeding. If you happen to find a supermarket that sells this kind of food, I hope you enjoy your bananas
Given the consequences of eating bad food, it's like knowing whether the piano teacher of your daughter is a sex offender with tastes for younger people.
We don't know any GMO was harmfull to humans. I would say that putting GMO label on food, is like putting a "possible sex-offender" label to the piano teacher, because he has a cousin who is suspected to be a sex offender.
Come on guys! We are suppossed to be nerds pro-science and technology. Puttng a fear mongering label on foods is not logical. If you are worried about Monsanto Glyphosate herbicides, then put a label that says if that herbicide was used or not. This is not related to GMO foods. It is just another case of herbicides and pesticides.
GMOs have saved many lives, by producing cheaper medicines (like insuline) and increassing supplies of food. If we think regulations for approval of GMO foods are not strong enough, then push for legislating tighter rules.
By putting a GMO label on foods you can make the same informed decision as if the food had a label saying that the president of the company is Taurus.
What an informed or rational decision can a consumer make with a GM label in foods? If there ere any scientific prove these foods may be dangerous, they would be prohibited by governments.
What's next? Putting "GAY" and "JEW" labels in people so we can make an informed decisions who we relate to?
I do not like Monsanto procedures and patents either, but this not make me support irrational legislation.
I usually hear some critics about Android. Mostly in 2 areas. 1) Fragmentation. Both in device hardware, and OS versions. It is difficult to develop for Android because there are too many variants 2) Piracy. Android is too open. It is too easy to pirate software on Android.
How is this different from the PC software market? There were many companies who succeed in the PC software market facing the same problems. From Microsoft, Adobe, Steam, and many small independent developers. Like Humble Indie Bundle and more.