First problem, the gambler's fallacy refers to a mistaken belief that a random process that has locally shifted away from its mean somehow "owes" the universe a return to its mean. After a long losing streak, the gambler erroneously believes he has a better chance of a win.
Second, for the gambler's fallacy to apply, you need an independent random process. Specifically, if the randomness in question has a history to it, the gambler's fallacy doesn't apply as a fallacy - The deck of cards with all the non-face cards played out really does "owe" you a 20 or a blackjack (Hmm, do aces count as face cards? Whatever - You get the point).
In this case, you want something more like confirmation bias or a sunk cost fallacy - Though neither of those quite properly applies to what I described, because I haven't ignored evidence contrary to my opinion (quite the opposite, I've weighed it heavily), and I haven't needed to keep pumping more money into my BTC position to keep it afloat (again, contrary to that, I've steadily syphoned money out and what remains just keeps going up in value).
It's a zero sum game, their gain will be matched by the losses of ordinary punters like you.
You have the first clause right, though you use it as though you don't realize that makes it 2.5% per year better than USD, which systematically loses value over time.
As for the second half of that - If BTC entirely collapsed tomorrow, I've already done better than break even on my original investment. Except, haters like you don't seem to get that my "investment" consists of having fun (and $50 in electricity, but hell, I've paid more for a single concert ticket). I got to play a part in the success of the first viable non-commodity non-government currency. I got to learn OpenCL as a result of tweaking miners to squeeze every possible hash out of my GPU. I got to watch my "just for laughs" investment turn into the price of a new car (if I hadn't slowly spent most of what I had over time) - And no, I don't regret spending it at $4/BTC, at $30/BTC, at $200/BTC, because I got involved for the idea, not because I someday hoped to get rich fleecing morons out of their dollars in exchange for worthless ($0.10 each, when I started) bits in a shared transaction record.
Thank you for noticing. Fixed. And back to bed. (Feeling pretty awful this week - diabetes medication change).
That said, I don't pay for prime, because seriously, people can't wait a whoooole week to get their stuff (anything I need now, I simply buy locally)?
Fuck you very much, sir.
I, and the vast majority of Bitcoin users, engage in entirely legitimate commerce with BTC as the medium of exchange. Heck, I even declared my BTC gains on my taxes last year, fer chrissakes.
Now, when I want to score a quarter of weed - You ever actually try to buy anything with BTC, or just mindlessly parroting the FUD about Silk Road? My dealer takes USD only, thanks.
As soon as you entrust them to someone else to store in a pooled account, bam, confirmability lost.
A key philosophy behind the BTC protocol assumes direct person-to-person transactions. If you adhere to that, you don't get screwed by a failed exchange; for that matter, you don't even care about the existence of an exchange... Except insofar as they help define the "worth" of a Bitcoin as a medium of trade. Though, with the likes of Overstock accepting BTC now, the marketplace itself might soon serve that function without needing an external point of reference.
So do I still get to brag, since the handful of BTC I still have currently trade at USD$650, while my initial investment comes out to less than $50 in electricity?
Boo hoo, people who trusted an unregulated exchange got burned - Color me shocked.
And so, TrustyCon -- the Trustworthy Technology Conference -- was born. It was a sellout, with 400 people attending at $50 a head, and another 300 on a waiting list who couldn't get in. Slashdot's Tim Lord managed to get in, and got to speak briefly with several people there, including one of the TrustyCon organizers, Joel Wallenstrom. These were crude interviews, done on a "catch as catch can" basis, and the sound in them is poor. (Google sent a camera crew and shot over seven hours of the conference speakers, which you can watch on YouTube if you want to view TrustyCon presentations in good HD with great sound.). Will there be another TrustyCon next year? According to The Register, "The conference organizers said that, at this point, the plan is to hold another get-together next year, but that a final decision will be made closer to the time."
Don't worry, we're adaptable. We can just find some other way to metabolize glucose into ATP after we kill all the oxygen-producing creatures on the planet. Just one little atom, anyway - And heck, other critters use sulfur instead of oxygen, why can't we?
go home Sean Young, you're drunk
You don't need your own dedicated fab, you just need your own masks. Those will run you on the order of 100-150k per layer (and a modern CPU like the i7 has around 20 layers).
Still not cheap, but a few million vs a few billion means the difference between "not gonna happen" and "bored Silicon Valley millionaire's hobby project".
MtGox tracked account balances in both BTC and USD. Bitcoins may have no legal value, but wouldn't Gox remain on the hook for the dollar-denominated balances in their care?
It has been "in progress" for so long that stationary might be a better term.
Did you look at the link? The last update was in January, and described the current status as depending only on one other piece to be ready for launch.
I see. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the root of the problem. They have conflated a web-browser with an OS. No good will come from it except an unfocussed bloated browser and an anaemic OS.
I can see you've never used it.
So whether or not a bunch of pissy astronomers decide to use Uwingu's names rather than something more poetic like "MC2013B17" has no relevance to the situation.
I come at this from a completely different viewpoint, having only recently dipped my toes into Linux - for me, a package manager is a relatively new concept. The nearest I've come to it previously has been with Apple's App Store, both for iOS and now OSX - plenty of choice, sometimes too much choice.
As far as manually installing apps goes, it usually boils down to double-clicking on the DMG file to mount it, then either running the installation package or dragging the app file to your Applications folder.
In theory, uninstalling apps is as simple as dragging the app file to the Trash. I say 'in theory' because apps do leave behind some detritus formed by using them - thankfully not to the same degree as Windows, but it is there. For suites of apps like Microsoft Office or Adobe Creative Cloud, there tends to be a lot more extra stuff deposited onto your system besides the apps themselves.
Sadly, updates do tend to be on a per-app basis, with the exception of those acquired through the App Store, which handles the update process.