I agree with you pretty much completely, but you have to admit, it's still an effective package. You can dislike something and still admire its ability to perform some task. It's the kind of respect that an atheist who works for an advertising agency might have.

Not only unethical, but kind of pointless. Western religions aren't exactly subtle -- if you've reached adulthood and don't follow any, then you're probably not the kind of person who ever would.

p.s. Law only applies to headlines, but still funny.

But to have a sense of purpose in a meaningless world, it needs to be packaged properly. Religion is just a very effective and time-tested vessel for purpose.

Separation of state and federal responsibilities was put into the constitution for one reason: to allow the unification to occur, period. Since then, it has evolved to allow a decent amount of legal experimentation as well as giving individuals options under the same national umbrella. The local distinction mostly allows for small communities to define their own unique ways of life at a finer level. Local police have been phasing out of this role for some time and tend to be just copies of the local police on the other side of the state. With microcultures disappearing from the US, it's not unthinkable that they could some day be phased out in some states and merged with the state police.

Somehow I got off on a tangent there but when people talk about federal and state redundancy, they typically aren't talking about the front facing organizations. Instead they are referring to multiple welfare programs targeting the same disadvantage, or internal administrative organizations that do the same task and/or conflict with each other, or multiple organizations that enforce the same law or similar laws. Many of the overlaps don't even need to include both federal and state.

Don't ask me to list too many examples since I'm on a phone, though I have heard horror stories about Federal and CA ADA/disability laws conflicting with each other.

The Soviet ruble was converted at varying exchange rates to the new local currencies.
The eastern mark was converted to deutsche marks.
A better example would be Zimbabwe but even that didn't happen overnight.

I'm not arguing against diversification here, I'm just arguing that the USD would take a lot of work to be rendered worthless. (understatement of the thread right there)

By the way, my original concern was that organizations with clout like EFF are being distracted by Bitcoin, away from better designed alternatives. Just a mindshare concern...not alleging that Bitcoin is standing high on a cliff, bellowing "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

Thanks for bringing these up. I never heard of any of them, as I'm not "in the know" and searching for alternatives to bitcoin mostly brings up "bitcoin is the new shiny alternative to evil rotten fiat currency", as well as direct Bitcoin clones like Litecoin which suffer from the same flaws. I will definitely do my homework with your alternatives!

That's a foolish and tired cliche. It has centuries of history. People realize that society would collapse if we just gave up on the dollar overnight. I'm no fan of our current president but I certainly know that the checks and balances in our system would make it virtually impossible for his administration to ruin the currency. (fears which propped up gold) There is apocalyptic military might backing it up. People have been making that argument since we went off the gold standard (not the first time in U.S. history, btw...was a common practice during wartime) and most realize these things (at least subconsciously) and rest easy that their fellow citizens will not allow the economy to spontaneously combust and return to the barter system.

Unless you're a college student who is just waking up to how the world works, it's ridiculous to make that statement. Adults will simply reply: We know, and we don't care.

Damnit sladhdot, phone users like me need an edit function.

"...the pro-bitcoin crowd takes a massive problem..."

Once again, the pro-bitcoin problem takes a massive problem and attempts to diminish it. The combination of unregulated markets and deflationary currency creates a huge problem with regards to human nature. If we were all robots and behaved how the currency wants us to, it wouldn't be a problem. But we're not. We will speculate. We will hoard. We will look at the currency late and go "fuck you, I'm not going to make the early adopters rich" which was one of the flaws of the original design. The problems with Bitcoins and its alternatives was in the design phase. I'll be the first to admit (as a certifiable hater) that it was brilliantly engineered, from a technical standpoint alone. It was poorly socially engineered.

sadly we might need some entity with a record on privacy (i.e. EFF) to regulate a currency similar to a fiat for some of the benefits of Bitcoin to be in a future viable currency, but sadly EFF is in love with Bitcoins. I guess part of the reason I'm a hater is because Bitcoins are holding back the alternative(s) we truly need.

I'm a certifiable Bitcoin hater and I agree with DiSKiLLeR. I feel that Bitcoin was brilliantly engineered but poorly designed, the designers and many of its proponents write off human nature as a small problem (rather than the ultimate cause of its instability), but it is indeed a fascinating concept. As long as Slashdot stays on the level and reports fairly on the bubblings and crashes, it doesn't bother me.

Try looking at a yearly or lifetime graph. $90 isn't the mean, it's the denial phase before it drops back down to the real mean, which is 20-25. Though we may get a double bubble if enough people believe 250 is a sign of its legitimacy.