Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I admire their spunk, but... (Score 1) 275

by sylvandb (#46593653) Attached to: Operation Wants To Mine 10% of All New Bitcoins

I think it would have been better to encourage inflation. In an inflationary system, currency essentially expires. The longer you hold it, the less value it holds. This is an excellent feature because it encourages the use of the currency, ... I would encourage Bitcoin developers to look at modern economics with a more critical eye. I think many people are unwisely discarding a lot of economic theory without really understanding it properly.

You are obviously the one who needs to "look at modern economics with a more critical eye" especially re. that thoroughly debunked view of inflation.

The view of inflation espoused by modern Keynesian economics is wrong and benefits primarily the issuers of money and those nearest to them. Inflation hurts everybody else.

If all you see are the economic papers supporting your view of inflation, you need to broaden your horizons -- try a different school.

Comment: Re:I admire their spunk, but... (Score 1) 275

by sylvandb (#46593583) Attached to: Operation Wants To Mine 10% of All New Bitcoins

You really need to read at least the white paper or the code. It's been out for years now. The obvious questions like this are long since easily answered and so far the non-obvious ones also.

I don't think it correct to say the "hash" is "mined" but rather the block is mined. But whatever.

The hash validates the block, and in turn the hash must be valid or the other miners will refuse to accept the block.

The block contains a time stamp, a nonce, transactions, etc. Time stamps are required to be in sync within specified tolerance, and the earliest block wins.

Comment: Re:I admire their spunk, but... (Score 1) 275

by sylvandb (#46593491) Attached to: Operation Wants To Mine 10% of All New Bitcoins

During that "career in banking" Oligonicella must have been too close to the forest to see the trees. Either that or his verbage is careful sophistry...

Of course banks "implement security" for the right definition of "security", that was never the issue. The issue is how much security. Banks at best are just like any business -- they determine the minimum to get by, maybe add a little for show, and that is all they implement.

Banks do the normal cost vs. benefit analysis on their security. They implement the minimum security to balance the equation. If they implemented all possible security they could not afford to operate (cost and convenience) so they always implement less than the maximum security.

Before any further denial, or any more vapid claims of bank security, to have any credibility you have to excuse/explain existing bank security flaws. The first that come to mind include why have U.S. banks not yet switched to chip and pin or at least some similar or better level of proof that the user of the credit card is authorized? And why do they not require an auth token (e.g. secureID or other hardware/software equivalent) for online access?

Comment: Re:Want Proper Science, Funding is there, However, (Score 1) 279

by sylvandb (#46499563) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

Your concept essentially reduces to only taxpayers can vote, and rich people's votes count more than others'. This is exactly what this country has been against from day one.

You stopped learning history beyond about 5th grade?

Only white male landowners could vote.

In these enlightened times, we should change that to only those who own their primary residence in the area can vote.

Comment: Re:Particle Physics (Score 2) 279

by sylvandb (#46499529) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

Theorists who did thought experiments. Now, how about a particle physicist that needs a multibillion dollar collider that may discover something that has absolutely no economic value - at least in the near term?

You believe then, that since you are unable to conceive of its value and articulate that vision sufficient to convince people (the rich and the corporations) to fund it, that instead you should use guns to force them to pay for it?

Comment: Re:What they're really afraid of, I think... (Score 0) 279

by sylvandb (#46499497) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

The commenters are CERTAIN that these guys stole the money that they have, not MADE it, but stole it. They probably believe those guys stole it from them personally, no less. OMFG, I wish I could collect these types of people specifically onto one continent, while the rest could live on another continent and we would have a WALL between us, a wall so tall, they would never have to see the other side again. ... There can be no fair exchange with those people, they produce nothing,

Yup. It's about that time. The question is, where do we go to get away from those who have nothing better to do than occupy space and complain that others have more than they?

Comment: Re:What they're really afraid of, I think... (Score 0) 279

by sylvandb (#46499479) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

process of peer review is significantly more rigorous for the NIH, for example, than it is for philanthropic organizations or "billionaires"

It had better be. The NIH is spending MY money that they acquired by THREAT and FORCE.

It's none of your or my business what some random philanthropic org or "billionaire" chooses to spend their money on.

Comment: Re:Science for Profit (Score 1) 279

by sylvandb (#46499419) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

In summary, this is neither that new or surprising. Government funding for science (especially at NIH) is way down.

There is no such thing as "government funding."

All funding is private until the government appropriates it and calls it their own.

If you don't like how other private parties allocate their funds, allocate yours differently.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score 1) 279

by sylvandb (#46499363) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

you have to pick comparable countries or the comparison will mean nothing. So looking at North Korea versus South Korea is fine

Really? Make that comparison then. Do you like it?

But the rest of your spew is populist crap. There is no way to "pick comparable countries" because different policies will lead to different outcomes and the countries become not comparable. Compare U.S. in 1900 with Mexico in 1900. Look at the different policies and practices over the years and make the same comparison in 1950 and 2000. Compare Rhodesia and South Africa in 1979 then compare again in 1990, 2000 and 2010. See what happens when you change policies and practices in order to limit inequality? Compare China in 1970 vs. China in 2010. See what happens when you change policy and practice to instead let accomplishment be its own reward?

Look at U.S. policies and practices in 2000 compared to 1900. The expected outcome by 2100 is not good. It's probably time to get out and let the "occupy WS" find their own way.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score 1) 279

by sylvandb (#46499253) Attached to: The Billionaires Privatizing American Science

Don't like food stamp allowable lists? Forget food stamps then. There should just be a cafeteria where they can get food. Plain sustenance food, and plenty of it. Nobody should go hungry.

And nobody should waste my sustenance. Absolutely there should be a list of allowed goods purchasable with food stamps. And the penalty for repeated violation should be no more food stamps - either as a recipient or as a store. If I'm helping somebody, I get to set the terms.

And there should not be any school vouchers beyond what the non-local gov't would pay anyway. Non-local gov't has no business taking or providing money for school. You use my money? I get a voice. As long as they take my money I will fight just like any rational actor to leverage their action to my intended outcome as much as possible.

Research? Sounds like it is finally getting back to normal after the distortions in the last half of the 20th century. If you pay for it, you can choose it. If YOU don't like what THEY spend THEIR money on, YOU should pay for what YOU like using YOUR money.

If you want to give larger handouts, then you give them. As long as you force me to give them, you have to take what you get.

+ - 70% Of U.S. Government Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals ->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Investor's Business Daily reports, "Buried deep in a section of President Obama's budget, released this week, is an eye-opening fact: This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high. In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others. These government transfers now account for 15% of GDP, another all-time high. In 1991, direct payments accounted for less than half the budget and 10% of GDP. What's more, the cost of these direct payments is exploding. Even after adjusting for inflation, they've shot up 29% under Obama.""
Link to Original Source

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau

Working...