And it is a silly argument. What backs up ANY asset is nothing more than the belief by people that it has value. What makes you think the promise to deliver the material backing up the currency is in any way an iron-clad guarantee? How can you be sure the other party actually has the gold to back up their dollars? Backing a currency with another asset like gold gives some people a (misplaced) degree of comfort but only because they really haven't thought it through. Having one asset (fiat currency) based on the value of another asset (gold) doesn't change what gives either one value (belief). Worse it makes it difficult to adjust policy to deal with economic ups and downs.

There are many important things that backers of the gold standard tend to overlook. The foremost is that the promise to (theoretically) exchange some amount of gold for a dollar is nothing more than a promise that can be broken. There is no way to force an unwilling government to actually hand over gold in exchange for dollars. Worse there is no way to truly be certain the other party actually has the gold they say they do. The "backing" is just theoretical. It's an IOU, no different than your "we're good for it" of a fiat currency AND it introduces a host of logistical, policy and administrative challenges.

A gold standard (or equivalent fixed monetary base) does not prevent a government from doing irresponsible things nor does it prevent bad things from happening. Worse it does prevent governments from doing many necessary and responsible things especially during a financial crisis.

Theoretically true but not necessarily a good idea. The equipment installed is already known to work and whatever issues it has are probably very well understood. Any installation of new hardware is going to bring new bugs and a nuke plant isn't exactly a place you want to beta test things if you don't have to. Plus there are a host of operational certification issues in play. I get why they haven't "upgraded" the hardware.

On the other hand I'm a little bit surprised (only a little) that doing things this way is the most economical method available, even accounting for the risk involved with updating systems.

There is one more possible reason which is if it makes the information somehow more comprehensible or easier to work with to someone appropriately trained. I'm not a chemist so I can't really speak to the difficulty or failings of the current periodic table versus this proposed one. However if this proposed version is somehow easier to work with and gives equivalent (or better) results then that could be a credible reason to use it. If it saves time or mental horsepower then that could be a good reason to use it.

Not remotely true. Bitcoins have a market value and can be exchanged for cash. The rules are no different than those for barter. If you mine bitcoins you are realizing taxable income in the form of an asset with value and I promise you that the IRS will consider it taxable. You can be taxed on income in the form of assets other than cash. If you give someone (not family) a car they have to pay tax on the value they received. Happens all the time to winners of prizes.

Doesn't have to be a currency to be an asset. As long as it has a market value the IRS can consider it income. Bitcoins might be a bad idea (I think they are) but they can be exchanged for cash or other assets. The IRS will not remotely care whether you can buy beer with them directly or not.

Then he is in violation of the tax code. Specifically his income is supposed to be declared on Line 21 of the 1040 which exists specifically for cases like this. That is how they put Al Capone in jail - they nailed him for tax evasion. Income is supposed to be declared regardless or source or legality.

Not necessarily true. The IRS may consider it income if it has a market value which Bitcoins do. Whether the asset is tangible or intangible is not relevant. You could receive an intangible asset like a copyright and in some circumstances that could be considered income.

Right now the numbers are small enough that the IRS doesn't much care but technically speaking mining bitcoins IS income and has to be declared on your 1040. Line 21 if nowhere else. In fact you have to declare income from any source, even illegal drug sales which is why Line 21 exists.

Precisely speaking that is an unrealized gain because it has not been coverted into cash or some other asset.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value". There is either a market for an asset or there is not. Bitcoins have a market value (there are exchanges after all) and that is what the IRS would consider when evaluating how much income you made from mining bitcoins. Items are valued (usually) at the lesser of either cost or market value. That doesn't necessarily make mining or using bitcoins a good idea but they clearly do have a (volatile) market value.

That's for the long term capital gains rate. There is a short term capital gain rate too.

There are ways to do it if you do it through a business. You could deduct some expenses and you could do the home office deduction. The computer would need to be owned by the business and used primarily for business purposes. There also could be depreciation and other fun involved. Frankly I doubt there would be much profit in it but that's a separate issue.

Note that claiming a home office deduction significantly increases your chance of being audited. It's one of the items the IRS looks for because it is abused so often.

Note the weasel word "typically" in there. That means that they do not guarantee you will not experience a degradation in service.

Do you seriously think Comcast is going to send lawyers to protect me and pay my legal bills? If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. (pun slightly intended)

That does not protect the users from liability due to the actions of other users. I don't give a crap about Comcast's liability, I care about MINE.

While it's a moot issue where I live (I'm too remote for public wifi to be useful to anyone else) I doubt I'd sign up for a program like this just due to the potential legal uncertainty. There is a small but non-zero chance of this resulting in problems for me. Plus it chews up bandwidth that I am paying a lot of money for and I get little in return. It's not like public wifi hotspots are difficult to find these days. Now if Comcast wants to reduce my bill while providing a safe harbor protection for ME, then we can talk.

Incorrect. She has the right to not be forced to incriminate herself. She is perfectly free to incriminate herself if she so chooses. She may incriminate herself with her actions or words even if that was not her intent. The 5th amendment ONLY prohibits the government from forcing an admission from you.

And the NSA can do all sorts of surveillance not available to the police. Big deal. You are missing the point. The precise techniques used are not important here. What is important is who is watching the watchmen. I don't give a damn THAT the NSA is listening and generally don't care much HOW. I do however care about WHO they are listening to and WHY and most importantly WHAT is preventing them from abusing their power. A secretive organization operating a secret program to to spy on unknown parties under secret directives which is overseen by a secret court that issues secret rulings is not what I would call accountable.

Quite frankly I have FAR more to fear from the NSA than I do from any terrorist. My government has a very recent history of torturing individuals, indefinite imprisonment without trial, targeted assassinations, justification of doing so again US citizens, "extraordinary rendition" and more.

That is NOT even remotely clear. We don't know what the NSA is targeting. We know barely any meaningful details and none appear forthcoming. We also have no transparent oversight. The only thing that is clear is that we don't know very much and that is what is worrying. An unaccountable government agency is a very dangerous thing.

You do realize that is EXACTLY how David Petraus (the former head of the CIA) was caught cheating on his wife, right? If it is online, it can be seen. Only an idiot would think an unsent draft in a gmail account was somehow secure against anything.

That is an incredibly naive view of how things work. If these bad guys truly are so dumb that they would only secure their communications if we admit we are listening to them then it should be very easy to find them. Some of them may be that stupid but any of them worth worrying about probably are not. They KNOW the NSA is listening and it's not hard to guess how they might be doing it. That does not however mean that the NSA has a right to hide that fact from the very people they are supposed to protect. NOTHING is gained by keeping the mere existence of this program secret and there MUST be some means by which the actions of the NSA are made accountable to the citizens.

It is vastly different because the NSA is monitoring ME without probable cause. I don't give a crap if my 4th amendment rights are inconvenient for the NSA. They are there because power gets abused if left unchecked.

It can be done. What you do is give him challenges that his powers and decency are limited to help. How does he stop us from killing each other for example? How does he protect us from our own bad decisions? How does he protect other species from humans when we are behaving badly?

Put him in situations where there is no obviously correct moral choice. You humanize him. Heck make him a bad guy for a while.

You have a guy who is something close to perfect and yet seeks to be "normal" among us imperfect humans. Why? What are the consequences? There has to be some interesting tension and character development somewhere in there.