The problem is of course the flip side where folks like you will endless apologize for big government and the status quo.
We have seen lots of governments respond in ways that are hostile to Bitcoin, we have seen several of our legislators tirade about it. We have watched as the proof our Security Agencies have repeatedly over stepped and target Americans, and foreign business; they have a long established history of currency manipulation in South America in particular but really around the world.
In what way isn't the hypothesis our government or at least certain parts of it actively sought to destroy Bitcoin reasonable? The fact is nobody knows much of anything about what went on at Mt. Gox; except maybe its operators and I suspect even they don't really know what happened because had they been doing any sort of half way correct book keeping they should have caught the thefts a long time ago. So my bet is even they don't know the details of what happened or they were in on it.
In those markets, people's time is expected to be worthless. Every person is expected to spend lots of time reading up on all sorts of stuff that is irrelevant in a well-regulated market.
No its not worthless its an investment in risk management. Your alternative is they invest tax dollars in paying a small army of regulators and politicians to in theory look out for their interests instead. Look how well the events of 2008-2013 show that works.
And don't try say it was because of "deregulation" it was because of changed and stupid regulations not deregulation which has essentially never happened in finance. Real deregulation would mean repealing laws without replacements. When most of our politicians say "deregulation" what they really mean is we are giving a select group of already successful incumbent operators a license to steal.
It would definitely have the effect of reorganizing markets. I would go farther and make the shareholders responsible for companies debts as well in a bankruptcy. If you don't want to risk getting on the other side of financial sell the company bonds which will now be safer because I'll be back by the shareholders pocketbooks, of course you can't get all the upside only whatever the preagreed amount of interest is.
The current system that really is socialized risk and losses and private gains. While it has the effect of driving a lot of investment capital I'm not sure it's ultimately win for society. I'm not even sure it's really free-market in spirit
Gee and here I thought the point of punishing people is to get them to change their behavior. Clearly the difference between punishment and restitution is too complex for Slashdot grasp
Good parenting is not sharing your financial affairs good or bad with your children.
Really you think not sharing some details about things like house and car buying with children is good parenting? I sure have benefited from the knowledge I got by sitting in with my parents on those vary activities as teenager. My dad would even talk to me afterward about how he thought he might have negotiated better or why he decided to take a home equity loan to buy the car rather than just get an auto loan, for tax advantages etc. One of the things parents absolutely should do is try to pass on useful information.
Even as kid I was made to understand there were times that were perhaps leaner and more uncertain than others and sometimes we had to make trades, like well we can't go out to eat as much because we are saving to take a trip, but neither of those things is more important than saving for future rainy days etc. You can share information with kids in age appropriate way.
Honestly thinking like yours is why we probably have a nation of people up to their eyeballs in debt with barely any understanding of how money works.
Seems like prior art should be easy to find, people have had relays on things longer than 43 years, or is this patent going to try and distinguish between electronic and electromechanical controls?
The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25
Fully developed also does not need to be the universal one size fits all standard for deciding is someone is responsible for their actions or not.
Its not like this girl was six, she is 19 now. So would have been in her middle to late teens the entire time this was going on. I agree with other posters who have pointed out it would have been impossible for her parents to not let her in on at least the basics. They can't reasonably have hidden the existence a major legal dispute from their daughter they live with, they can't reasonably have nor let her know it was settled. Normal families communicate a little more than that.
Still at say 15 it should absolutely be possible for a parent to tell a kid "look we are in a legal dispute about our employment and we will tell you the basic facts but you need to understand its nobodies business but ours and you don't talk about it with your friends, write about it on Facespace etc. If you do we won't be able to keep you in the loop, as things go forward."
Upon reaching a settlement with a NDA like they did you probably also have fill your late teens daughter in on something like that; for family and human reasons. You again reminder her she can't talk about it, and you couch her on what she can say if anyone starts asking questions, you tell her just say something like "My parents came to an agreement with them, but I don't know the details".
The girl is either tragically stupid and or the parents are. The not fully developed brain is in pretty much the optimal condition for learning behaviors. Parents absolutely should be teaching kids things like discretion. Its more true and necessary in today's world of Facespace than ever. My parents taught me some things you keep to yourself, somethings you keep in the family, somethings are not private but also not for polite company, some stuff you share. A middle to late teenager while probably still working some of that out should have had a good enough handle to correctly navigate this rather unambiguous situation. Either she wasn't given all the facts or wasn't raised right.
All of these cars can speak Bluetooth now. The only thing the cable needs to do is charging.
Where I work I know they check the plant floor guys and they get sent home if they have not shaved thoroughly because it could cause mask fit/seal issues.
You are right but the structural reason for that otherwise the loans would be totally unsecured; no collateral is put up and you can't repo and education for non payment.
Because most high school grands looking for college loans don't have anything of sufficient value to put up the loans must be unsecured in order to get lenders to the table they had to be given special rights that trump bankruptcy protections.
Why can a community college offer actual college classes for that little, but a 4 year school can charge $10,000, $20,000 or more for largely the same education? Its just insane.
I agree with most of what you have to say, and its borne out by the massive increase in the price of undergraduate educate over the rate of inflation, during the last 40 years as more and more loan subsidies and grants have been created.
That said to some degree the community colleges can afford to what they do because the other schools exist. Lots of community college staff is part time, there academic involvement begins and ends with teaching. They are not creating the texts and such that get used. Professors at more traditional institutions usually also do things like conduct studies, author texts or articles etc. Some (although very little of) of the higher prices at the traditional schools goes to subsidize the costs of these other academic efforts, without which there would be little to talk about in the CC class room.
Not to say that Community College is not a really great option for lots of people, or that its role is not important or even that it should not be expanded.
Those who have the most ownership should have the most say. What seems to really bother people (lefties) about this is that it makes it appear that even the scary baby devoting, banker types who they think cut down forests for laughs might be willing to do the right thing without be shackled and forced by government.
The problem is the Think Tank guys have left the reservation. Conservatives used to believe that most people were basically good and when given choices they will do the right thing. They also used to believe it was wrong to force people to do things and because of that first belief it was also unnecessary to force people to do things. Let the market work, let people become more affluent, which leads to more choices and they will make good choices. They also at one point thought people rational.
Rational people understand money is not the only form of wealth. Its also good to have clean air to breath, safe water to drink, and quality food to eat. In that sense environmentalism is actually a conservative issue. These things are of course a matter of degree. Its much easier to decide to spend more on the same amount of energy because its at least ostensibly "greener" when you are having most of your other needs thoroughly satisfied. Affluence should make us better people; something I still believe. Which is why as a conservative or libertarian or whatever you want to call me I am thrilled to see companies like Apple doing this stuff of there own will.
It validates my beliefs. They are making choices freely that can benefit not just their future but potentially the future of others. They are doing so against a back drop of wild success, in one of the least regulated industries (tech).
And the truth is the boys at the Washington Think Tank ought to be thrilled. This is a free enterprise owned by free and private people who voted on how to run the enterprise they own. They made a decision to "go green" without some regulator forcing them to do so. Its a shining example about how FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM can work. Its evidence that with success and affluence people and even legal fictions like corporations "do the right thing".
Apples energy police IS a case against regulation.