I think you meant:
..After all, he's been on their sofa so long, he's now almost a cushion...
3864 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
..After all, he's been on their sofa so long, he's now almost a cushion...
Presumably he's not on the electoral roll? Hence he can't stand. Which is his fault, not theirs. After all, he was allowed to stand last time. For all the good it did him. Or would have done any voters foolish enough to elect him, given that he's not able to take his seat, due to the minor matter of hiding inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in order to avoid questioning in Sweden for alleged rape.
So I vote no to the banana repulic thing, and yes to the it's more likely he screwed up his paperwork thing. If you can't fill out a couple of forms correctly, and in a timely manner, you're probably not fit for office. Reminds me of a party who said they accidentally filled their voting preference forms out incorrectly, potentially passing their second preferences to the wrong parties... Now who could that be?
He's not so much running, as sitting on his arse on someone else's sofa.
Perhaps his plan is to eat so many microwaved readymeals and tasty snacks, that he can't fit through the embasy door anymore, and is therefore permanently safe from extradition.
How about, Titanium Cranium Brainium Retainium Man?
Is the price pogoing though? Or just dropping? If you look at charts of Bitcoin history, you see the price burbling along at not very much for a very long time. Then suddenly in December last year, it zooms up to over $1,000. Since then it's gradually declined. There was a quick drop in January to $500, which I think was when China tightened up on it last time, then a bounce, and then it's slowly dropped back down to $500 again.
Of course it could be that Bitcoin's just taken off, and this is natural fluctuation in price after a major change. Or it could be that something set this bubble off in December, and the price is slowly going to decline back to the $100-200 range - as before.
Myself, I'm for the bubble theory. The only major changes I'm aware of in the last few months are that ransomware that was encrypting people's hard drives and taking payment in BTC and the collapse of MtGox. Although there may have been a few people launching funds to invest in Bitcoins, like the Winklevoss twins, but I thought most of those announcements were earlier.
Ah SCO. When they make the film, it'll be called 'The McBride of Dracula'.
Oops! I said it again. It rises... It rises! The horror! The horror!
I don't think most people can tell the difference. It's like VHS to DVD to blu-ray. Everyone could tell how much better DVD was than video, because of the blurriness and the wonky audio. A lot fewer can spot if blu-ray beats DVD, and even fewer care.
The same being true of tape to CD to whatever. We've actually accepted a drop in quality since CD, despite the industry's attempts to go for DVD audio and SACD. mp3 is still better than tape - and that's good enough for most.
I remember the first time I heard mp3. A friend of mine who had a decent-ish sound system, had got 100s of tracks on one CD from somewhere. They were really horrible, must have been a terrible bit rate to get so many on. It put me off looking at digital music for years. And yet he didn't even notice how crap it sounded. The fact that people are happy to use the bundled headphones with mp3 players shows this too.
People's knowledge, talents and interest are just different. I've mixed live music. So I always spot those little mistakes, eg. when people fade up the mic too slow on live telly or radio. Or when the system is ringing and about to feed back (which it always seems to be whenever I hear X Factor). Most people don't notice, because they haven't trained themselves to. Why would they?
A £500 system of half decent stereo gear would urinate all over the overpriced Sonos rubbish.
Depends on your criteria.
On sound quality, I don't doubt it. My brother has sunk a quite silly amount of cash into Sonos' pockets. Although they sound good enough at parties. Especially with his crap taste in music... I've not had a chance to compare them to anything better. But I'm pretty sure that he'd struggle to tell the difference even in a blind audio test. Some people neither notice, nor care about this stuff, past a certain point.
On wiring the Sonos wins hands down. It's one box wired to the telly. Then the option of using some other speakers in the set-up if you want. Obviously they need power, but you don't have to run wires round the room to satellite speakers. And you can easily move stuff, when you move the furniture.
On flexibility Sonos wins hands down and massively. In fact it's a slaughter. If, like my brother, you've gone the Sonos route, then you can have a big family party. The kids have got something horrible playing on the speakers that he's moved out into the garden. Maybe the cricket's on telly, just using the soundbar. But brother is cooking something, so has slaved the speaker in the kitchen to the soundbar, so he can hear what's going on, and come in to see any wickets. Then there's another in the dining room - for whoever's sitting in there stuffing their faces. All can be playing the same, or different, things - and change at the flick of a switch on a laptop, a tablet, or anyone's phone who's downloaded the app.
Or they can all be taken into the sitting room, and set up for surround sound on the telly. Or any other combination.
Simplicity: Once you've set up your Sonos, you don't need to muck around with another remote. It takes its sound off the telly. And stays set up how you did it, until you change something with phone, tablet, PC. Or you turn on device, and fling sound at chosen speaker.
Me, I'd have something cheaper, with better audio quality for a reasonable price. When I've got the time, I'll do some research into this as I've no idea what to get. But then I don't have a garden, house or kids, or frequently have 20 people round at once. There's only one sitting/dining room in my flat, so unless I exile guests to the bedrooms, we're all stuck with the same music. But for ease of use I find the Sonos stuff quite impressive. Even my brother can work it. I'll take a bit more complication for lower price and nicer sound quality.
It worked OK for Knight Rider. His car didn't try to take over the world and enslave all humans. Or at least I don't remember that particular episode...
How many parsecs is that ?
I'd say you've got your units confused there. Parsecs is dependent on soil quality, weather, the skill of the allotment holder, etc.
Oh sorry, you didn't mean parsnips per second...
Don't bother with a camera. That's too much effort, leads to confrontation, and is unsatisfying. Negative re-inforcement is a far better motivator.
The answer (as so often) is explosives. You need a switch that works on weight. If the coffee pot is put back empty, then kaboom! Word will soon get around...
Well if you can have any limerick, I have to use my favourite, which I heard from Peter Jones:
There was a young man from Torbay,
Who sailed off to China one day.
He was lashed to the tiller,
By a sex-crazed gorilla.
And the far East's a very long way...
When forced to sign-in for his bail,
In Limerick nick's poxy gaol,
The penless parolee
Lost all self-control, he
Tried to 'punch-in' instead. Gardai Fail!
Yup, one of my co-workers bought some chocolate with him when he flew over from Belgium.
He couldn't understand the crazed herd charge toward it, so we enlightened him with a bite from a Hershey's "chocolate" bar. He spit it out.
Yup. Know that one. I used to live in Belgium. And I became increasingly aware on my visits to good old Blighty that the sequence of events would go like this:
1. Me walks into room with friends / family / colleagues
2. Expectant hordes would say, "Got any chocolate?"
3. Then, and only then, would they bother to say hello to me.
I didn't attempt a corellation between the warmth of the greeting I'd (eventually) receive and whether I'd bought choccies or not, as this would probably have been too depressing...
And this is the UK, where decent choccy is easily available. And the Cadbury's stuff is at least not as horrible as Hersheys. I can only imagine the reaction in the US. Although, saying that, you'll only prize my Cadbury's Wispa bars from my cold, dead hands...
But there's no accounting for taste. On one visit to Blighty I found myself buying Curly Wurlys. For months I'd been overwhelmed with a desire for them, presumably becasue they weren't available. Homesickness can do strange things to you, given that I lived within 200 yards of a branch of Neuhaus (yum), with a less amazing shop even closer. I bought a pack of 4, and ate them all the afternoon after I'd got home from the airport. I don't think I've had one since.
Tried some 100% cocoa stuff recently. And I wasn't massively impressed. It was interesting, and a strange texture (as there was no fat/oil to make it pliable), but no sweetness whatsoever. And seemed to suck all the moisture out of your mouth as well.
It's a good job these giant chickens occured in places where the potato also grew. I know there was some nice giant vegetation back then, I really hope someone finds a fossilized giant 'tater.
Chickens will go as bonkers as any shark to the smell of blood and the taste of raw meat.
Why, oh why, oh why haven't the James Bond producers used this/
"Number 2, you have failed me for the last time!" [presses switch on desk, trapdoor opens]
What would Bond's line be, as he pushes a henchmen into the chicken pen, during his escape from the evil lair I wonder?
"What a fowl trick?"
"They were looking a bit peckish"
I'd better stop now, before I go pun-crazy.
But, but, but! You've got to have the green stuff in the plans!
Otherwise the architects all sulk, the poor dears. Then they get smears on their weird designer glasses, and get tear stains on their pristine hi-vis jackets.
Of course when the engineers get involved in the spec later, the green stuff might actually be made to work. With a following wind and a bit of hope. But that's OK, as then the beancounters come along, they'll take it all off the spec anyway. But none of us begrudge the effort, because a happy architect is worth all the wasted time and effort. Oh yes.
[But like the Murphy's, I'm not bitter.]
Hmmm, quicklime and a shovel you say? Forest up in Scotland? Hmmm. interesting. Checks diary... tappity... tappity... change meeting location... now onto the next... New meeting request accepted. Excellent! Books hotel in Scotland... do we need meeting facilities? Oh no, I don't think we'll use those... I plan by the green agenda. All meetings to be outdoors, to inspire us with nature... tappity... tappity... quicklime.co.uk? It's just possible you could save my life...
It also leads to some interesting speculations on the original size of the average male scrotum.
Oh dear. I really shouldn't have typed that, but I just couldn't stop myself. Is that a space-hopper in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me...
On the other hand, many others could. And for them, a bigger screen is likely to be better than a smaller one - also for obvious reasons.
Very few blind people can't see at all. Total blindness is incredibly rare.
Admittedly there are also a lot of people with so little functional vision, that a touch screen would be of no practical use. But there are many conditions where a white cane or guide dog would be appropriate, but where people could still use large prompts on a screen. Or even read some text (if large enough).
Plus there are also plenty of totally blind people who use touch screen phones. Everything is hard when you're blind, so they just get used to dealing with it. I think the high cost and relatively low speed of development of the specialist kit, tempts them to use the mainstream stuff. So the RNIB recomment (or used to) the iPhone, and people get used to being very disclipline as to moving their fingers to select icons (which they've placed so know the layout of) - and using the audio feedback.
I notice that certain staff members sneaked off early, in order to avoid their share of the drinking. Shame!
Or are the El Reg overlords a bit more evil than that, and it was their share of the tab they were avoiding...
However the noble editor (Dear Leader Kim Jong Page) took one for the team, and was still there propping up the bar, whisky in hand, when I had to run for the train.
Perhaps these modern hacks, just can't... hack it? I did ask whether journalism was still the drink-sodden profession of olden days. Most agreed that things had eased-off in recent years, but Lewis said that he'd come to journalism from the navy, so the drinking seemed positively light to him.
It was a fun evening, and I was grateful for the invite. I'm not sure if the Register got any business value out of it. All they've done is expose their poor put-upon staff to even more of the dregs of humanity than they usually meet at media events and trade shows.
Here is the critical fault with fractional-reserve banking that rarely gets discussed. When someone deposits a good it is not because he does not want to use it. Nor does that good represent some idle resource until it is asked for. People who support fractional-reserve banking of both the centralized and “free” varieties are both of the opinion that deposits are idle cash and no one is harmed when a bank puts them to good use.....
Destroy all Monsters,
This is nothing to do with fractional reserve banking. Mt Gox wasn't a bank. It was an exchange or a broker. It wasn't licenced as a bank, nor was it regulated as such. Although it wasn't regulated as a broker either. It also didn't operate as a bank. It only had a fraction of the Bitcoins that it claimed to hold on behalf of its customers either through monumental stupidity and incompetence, or internal fraud. Or possibly both. Losing some of the money was probably inevitable in any complex company, but not noticing and continuing to lose all their assets was incompetence at best.
The reason that banks are allowed to get away with only holding a fraction of their depositors money in cash, is that they pay interest. Current accounts in the UK don't, but then they don't charge fees either (which is quite unusual). But people have savings, as well as current accounts. Banks need to expect people to spend the cash in their current accounts, over the month, but they wouldn't expect their savers to do so. And in fact generally pay higher rates of interest, if you promise to lock your money in a savings product for longer. Also banks lend cash (hopefully) they don't lose it. That loan is an asset. So although they've lent out the cash you deposited with them, they still have something to show for it (unlike Bitcoin). Often a mortgage, backed by a house, or a business loan with collaterol. Also they hold cash reserves, to meet withdrawal requests, and they have capital reserves (their shareholders' money), to cover losses and protect their depositors. Not that it's perfect. But totally different to Bitcoin. And anyone who lends a bank cash at interest is specifically asking the bank to invest it in something. Or thinks the banks are charities, that just pay interest out of niceness...
You can't make an omelette without breaking... metaphors.
Bloody hell! You guys are patient, if you don't zap accounts where you've already rejected 375 posts!
What kind of cynical, embittered, angry mods must you be - if you've had to read all that. Suddenly it doesn't seem so safe meeting you... This is beginning to sound like a cunning plan to assassinate your more troublesome commentards.
I must check my posting history to see if I have blasphemed against the Vulture God.
Playmobil reconstruction, surely?
For proper cheap beer, available a short rail journey away, that's also incredibly strong... May I propose Brussels. Yummy food as well.
Everyone could just have a label saying I'm Spartacus...
Or wear V for Vendetta masks perhaps?
Exactly. I'd walk from Australia for the chance to drink free beer.
Although as I live in Blighty, that wouldn't be a problem in this case. And I'm not sure I'd walk to Australia, given some of what they sell as beer...
a free and frank exchange of views.
Isn't that diplomat speak for a virtual fight? So the poster above who's suggesting you're going to gather all your critics in one place for some cattle-prod re-education may be correct after all.
Or perhaps you should kill them with kindness. Go for another post-pub deathmatch, comparing deep-fried polonium against kebabs for half-life and lethality...
Surely this is an opportunity for another badge for commentards as well? To act as a memorial, when nostalically viewing their old posts from before The Cull.
Other drinks are available. Particularly as they're going to hold this beanfeast in that thar poncy London. So you could have a small sherry instead.
Or perhaps be more traditional and have a large gin...
If you wish not to have your family see your private stuff after you're dead, then don't make them executors of your will. Pick a friend instead.
There's going to be private stuff when you die. It won't be embarrassing though, as you're dead, so won't notice. But that's why you pick an executor you trust. They then get to decide what to do with stuff, not random companies who just happen to be holding onto it at the time you happened to die.
Good Grief! What absolute fuckwits downvoted BongoJoe's post? There are 6 of you (so far), who need to seriously re-assess you pathetic fanboi attachment to a giant corporation that really couldn't care less about you. It's not like his criticism was in any way unfair, or unreasonable.
Yes, Apple make some very good kit. However their approach to the law in some of the countries they operate in sucks farts from dead cats (to borrow a descriptive phrase from a friend of mine).
If a death certificate and proof that you're executor is enough to open up access to bank accounts, then it should be damned well good enough for Apple. They really do need to sort themselves out, and stop being such idiots.
Paypal deals with "fiat" and has the same problem of being unregulated
Paypal has a banking license. At least in Europe. Registered in Luxembourg.
Well if a major bank had lost 12% of its assets, I'd expect them not to admit it in public. At least not straight away. They'd go to the Central Bank and try to organise a rescue. In good financial times that's traditionally been a consortium of banks loaning them the cash to survive - or someone taking them over. In times when the other banks are in the poo as well, the Central Bank will do the loaning, or the government takes them over.
What you don't do, is suspend withdrawals. Because then your dead. At that point it becomes your customers' top priority to run away from you, as fast as is humanly possible - taking their money with them, and sealing your fate.
So he's been commendably honest.
As Bitcoin doesn't have a Central Bank, they probably need some kind of co-operative mechanism between the exchanges. If they put a portion of their profits into some kind of slush-fund, they could bail out the reasonably well-run ones, in exchange for equity/loans and take over and try to save the crap ones. But that would require the exchanges to trust each other, which I suspect they don't - and some of them to be well run, which I suspect they aren't.
Well I keep reading stories about the e-Cat. Maybe once a month at the moment? I believe you can now buy one. Though if you do, you aren't allowed to look inside.
Just in case you find you've bought a containerful of AA batteries perhaps...
Seriously, you've got to love a headmaster willing to support this. And a kid willing to suggest it, then do it. Hooray for all involved.
I dread to think what his A Level experiments will be like. "Please Mr Headmaster, I only want to dig up the playground and surrounding main roads to build a small underground particle accelerator/collider."
Indeed. When will we have nuclear powered aircraft and buses, like in that documentary series I used to watch. What was it called again? Ah yes,
Tomorrow's World Thunderbirds.
There's no chance of that. We just don't have the extinct volcano cones that can be turned into secret bases for it. Geology is against us - and therefore we will lose potential-top-evil-genius talent like this to foreigners, who have.
And don't give me any of that rubbish about his genius being used for good. He's playing with noocular, so there was no chance of that, even before the irradiation.
I hope the headmaster spent some of that £3,000 on a white cat...
As the saying goes, 'the markets can stay irrational, longer than you can stay solvent'.
It's probably a bubble, because the current price of Bitcoin isn't sustainable. It's artificially boosted by 'investors'. When it stops being volatile, they'll have no incentive to stay. But because the Bitcoin market is so small, they have a disproportionate effect on the price.
So if you're in it as a cheeky high-risk investment, then good luck to you. I've no sympathy if you lose your shirt, and you've got to time it so that you aren't the last one holding the parcel if Bitcoin does collapse. Which it could well do.
But if you're some kind of utopian libertarian wanting to build an international medium of exchange not subject to government whims, then watch out. As the hot money may all bugger off at once - taking a lot of your cash with them.
Yet given that each low is far higher than the height of the previous bubble
That's not true either. Hasn't it been down at $20 within the last 12 months? Or was that a few months before? One of the problems with Bitcoin is we don't have any figures as to what the economy is. Another thing governments are useful for. So we don't know how much real trade happens in BItcoin, how much it gets used for drugs, and how much it's just being hoarded. Without that it's only guesswork that it's a bubble. But good guesswork when you consider that there are several people who've publicly said they're investing tens of millions of dollars into it, and yet daily turnover rarely gets even close to the million mark.
Bitcoin trading volumes are pretty low. So it's relatively easy to manipulate the price. Particularly if you make your transactions on days when trading volume is particularly low, as it's also quite volatile.
I also wonder about the stats. Is somone checking to make sure the exchanges aren't price-fixing, or mis-reporting?
Also when trading volumes are listed, is that for several thousand Bitcoins per day i.e millions of dollars? Or is it transactions per day? As last time I looked at Bitstamp's prices, it listed the last 10 transactions, and the biggest was for 0.3 BTC. Also those 10 transactions moved the price from something like $618 to $622, in a few minutes. So that's a nearly 1% change in price - on transactions totalling less than $1,000.
But which state?
The state of denial. Which is the state most Bitcoin fans seem to be permanently in...
Right. That's it. This is getting ridiculous! But don't worry! Help is at hand. I'm launching into the Bitcoin business myself. I admit, all my past scepticism was wrong.
Today I'm launching SpartaCoin. I can give a 100%, cast-iron guarantee that no scammers will get their filthy hands on our coins. It'll all be laid out in the Ts&Cs, fair-and-square.
I promise to steal all the cash and Bitcoins entrusted to our site myself. That way there can be no doubts, no worries, and no sick feeling of dread, as you see the website failing to load.
What are you waiting for? Get online NOW, and open your account on SpartaCoin!
Yeah. The days of mining to get cheap Bitcoins are over. The way to do it now, is just to start up your own exchange...
I presume the lawyers must be charging a fee to 'register' with them for the case. I guess they feel that it shouldn't just be Bitcoin that can take the unwary punters' money, that's traditionally lawyers' work!
It's not like there's any realistic chance of getting anything back.
Actually I agree. The Daily Mail is a brilliantly put together product. It's designed to get its readerships' blood boiling ever so often. Along with news, celeb stories, human interest type stuff etc. I believe they've been the paper that's lost the least circulation consistently for the last decade. So they're doing something right.
Personally I hate reading it. Sadly a whole bunch of the editorial staff seem to have gone off to the Telegraph, and taken that in a similar direction.
How come the entire readership and staff of The Daily Mail haven't dropped dead yet?
I guess we can answer for the staff. You can't have a heart attack, if you don't have a heart...
What do you mean emus are mythical! I've seen that fly-on-the-wall documentary in The Pink Windmill. Emus are real I tell you! Yes real!!!!
...Sorry, got to go... There's somebody at the door.
There's no tangible asset behind any government debt. QE is just governent debt, which hasn't been sold to anyone yet. You unwind it, by selling that debt into the market.
QE was also used to buy corporate debt, but I think that was mostly in the US, and in short term bonds, so will get paid back quite quickly, as the Fed stops QE. That was basically identical to a central bank being a lender of last resort, but to other companies as well as banks. So it's reversible money printing, by design. In time, some of the government debt will probably get cancelled, but I'd imagine some will get sold to reduce market liquidity.
You need to remember that money isn't backed by assets either.
Bitcoins have no more "deflation", or perhaps more accurately "de-valuation" than any other currency
I'm not sure what you mean here. Bitcoin is deflationary, because there are a fixed number of coins. Thus as time goes by Bitcoins will buy more goods. That's the opposite to de-valuation, so it has less 'devaluation' than any other currency, not more, by design. This makes banking impossible. Because it costs more to repay a loan than the original loan was worth - as the value of each Bitcoin increases over time. Interest on loans is designed to protect the bank from inflation, plus to give them a profit. Without loans, you can't have investment. So you can't have a successful Bitcoin only economy.
In order to maintain the financial illusion that an economy is growing new money must be continually created
This is the wrong way round, mostly (I'm not a monetarist). Most money isn't notes and coins - which get printed. The money supply goes up when the economy is growing. Because the economy is growing. Money doesn't pool with the rich, because money keeps on circulating. Sure, some people hold on to physical notes and coins, but only a limited amount. Most people shove it in the bank, or invest on the stock market. The banks lend that money out, and the people who borrow it, spend it, and the people they spend it with bung it in the bank (or pay other people who do), and the banks then lend to different people. And the more people who are willing to borrow, the higher the money supply - but the banks aren't printing money, the money's just moving round. Because each time they lend, they have to have the money to lend with, which means someone's lent it to them.
Economics is weird. Money isn't what most people think it is. The job of banks is to recycle it into the economy. We're not on the gold standard anymore, so money doesn't just build up in rich peoples' safes.