Not quite true. Nobody has lost any insured money in a bank failure. Up to the FDIC limit. Plenty of people have lost money due to bank failures who had more than the insured amount in their account.
Strangely enough, very few people with balances over the FDIC limit actually lost any money due to the larger bank failures which occurred in 2008 and 2009, because the U.S. government brokered agreements with other large banks to buy their assets whole in exchange for some big tax breaks. Wells Fargo's purchase of Wachovia, for example.
Wells Fargo took on almost $30B in liabilities which would normally have made the purchase impossible, but the U.S. government relaxed some laws and allowed Wells to declare those liabilities against future profits to reduce their tax bill. Essentially, the U.S. government bailed out the bank customers of Wachovia.
However, a good chunk of the bank failures since 2008 were liquidations and any customer with a balance greater than the FDIC limit will have lost the difference.
What regulations surrounding the dollar? Perhaps you mean regulations on banks and brokerages. Unfortunately, MtGox was neither a bank nor a brokerage. Plus they are run out of Japan, so they are hardly going to be subject to U.S. law.
Customers who got creamed by MtGox were idiots. I feel sorry for them, but sometimes it takes a hard lesson to punch through blind idealism.
If you are looking for a riskless investment that maintains your buying power over time then no such beast exists anywhere in the world.
I haven't paid a single dime in bank fees in over 30 years. If you are, then you don't have the minimal amount of sense required to avoid it. It isn't rocket science. Or perhaps you are just parroting what the media heads are shoveling into your head?
The stock market in 2008 crashed. And it recovered. Big difference between that and something crashing and not recovering ever. My parent's retirement portfolios dropped 40% in 2008. And 2 years later they had recovered completely.
Hey, that would be great... because, ya know, all the MF Global customers are likely to get all of their money back (if you haven't been keeping track of it). But the victims of MtGox and other exchanges that have gone dark probably never will.
I'd say MF Global is a case that shows just how good regulation can be when the shit hits the fan. Even if they didn't follow the law, there was enough there to make it recoverable for the customers, including the freezing of funds at the target institutions that had already been transfered out of MF Global.
Half a billion dollars has been stolen. Where's the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department? This is their job. It's embarassing that they haven't made any arrests.
I think you are confusing Intel's under-powered mobile cpu's with the cpu's they are stuffing into the Chromebox and Chromebooks. These cpu's are MUCH faster than anything ARM has on offer.
You can DD the whole disk... but unless you have another machine that can take a M.2 form factor SSD you have no easy way to restore it from the image.
The Acer c720 laptop will boot the Acer/Google recovery image from a USB stick but all it can do is completely wipe the M.2 SSD, so you'd lose whatever you had on there. If you do not follow the BIOS directions properly you might also get into a situation where it refuses to boot from the USB stick while the M.2 drive is installed with the non-conformant OS.
I read a bit more on the ASUS Chromebox. There are three cpu choices. The 2955U, The i3-4010U, or the I7-4600U. The I7-4600U is very similar to the I7-4700MQ that I have in one of my laptops, and that is a very respectable cpu and very suited for desktop use.
The only one I see on Amazon is the one with the 2955U (1.4 GHz single-core/2-thread celeron).
From what I can google the chromebox uses an internal M.2 form factor SSD (16GB), which means you can potentially upgrade it to e.g. a 128GB SSD by buying it on newegg (another $100). This will be considerably faster than a SD card.
So this chromebox (with the i3 or i7) would definitely be powerful enough as a desktop.
It just comes down to whether the BIOS will allow third-party OS installs or not and I don't know the answer to that.
The Acer c720 works great as a small laptop and will run Linux. It isn't quite a replacement for a workstation, it's not as fast as a desktop cpu but it is certainly much faster than the much-aligned netbooks from a few years ago. The keyboard and touchpad are pretty good considering the form factor.
Booting and setup is a bit hokey due to the minimal BIOS but it works. The c720 has a M.2 form factor SSD internally and it's *easy* to take apart the back (just a lot of screws) and replace it with a bigger one. I bought a 128GB M.2 SSD for mine.
For the Acer c720 my recommendation is to not overwrite the 16GB SSD in the machine. Instead buy a (bigger) replacement and leave chrome on the original. Also find the acer/google restore disk image (you should be able to google, it's officially supplied) which you can throw onto a USB stick. You need your chromebook's serial number. Always good to have a restore image handy in case you flub the instructions.
Read the instructions on how to install linux very carefully and do not skip any steps. Worst case you brick the laptop and have to put the original M.2 16GB SSD back into it to get back on track (which is why I suggest not overwriting the original SSD).
I'm not sure of that. It is on my Acer C720 chromebook (laptop). If it's M.2 you may be able to just buy a bigger SSD on e.g. newegg, load linux or a BSD onto it, and throw it in. Google for instructions, not all chromebook BIOS's allow non-chrome OS installs.
So, government creates a problem (employer involvement in health insurance), makes it worse (subsidizes employer involvement with health insurance) and then tries to fix it by making it illegal for employers to provide insurance that is too good, and illegal to provide insurance that is too bad, and too expensive to provide any insurance at all, with the predictable effect that lots of employers are simply dropping insurance.
So, it is a fantastic outcome that some peoples insurance situation is being divorced from their employer / employment situation -- this is goodness -- but it is costing people more money, in many cases.
In my case, if I tried to buy health insurance on the BCBS ND exchange, it would be hugely expensive compared to the reduced, employer subsidized coverage I have, and, it would be much worse coverage.
In my state, many more people have lost their existing coverage than have gained coverage due to ACA.
Basically, if the feds hadn't gotten involved in this mess in the first damn place, back during WW2, I think a lot of teeth gnashing could have been avoided.
Instead, the feds are trying to claim a great achievement for maybe partially a little bit addressing a problem that is their own damn fault.
... then Ms. Feinstein should have no problem with a FOIA request for the metadata for her cellphone.
I bet it would take about an hour to find a call from a lobbyist, received during a break in a legislative session.
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.