Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | stretchwithme's comments login

It should only matter to you if you think you or someone you care about will die some day.

> It should only matter to you if you think you or someone you care about will die some day.

Why? When I'm dead, anything that anybody does will no affect me. (assuming I had an iPhone) Apple shouldn't not-unlock it because I might not want that. I want nothing, since I'm dead.

Hopefully, our loved ones' digital lives will hang around forever. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, after all.

My half brother, who we just found in 2005, started a Facebook account before he died. He added me and never got around to adding anybody else. I can post things on his wall, but no one sees them.

Both my parents have passed away and pass by them in my contacts. I won't deleting them, ever. I did update my Dad's location, though, just so I can always use that for directions to their grave.

Ah, finally everybody can work on their personal projects instead of an annoying job.

But won't someone have to pay all those annoying taxes? And when we go to spend other people's money, won't someone have to be there earning that money?

If it weren't possible to impose obligations on taxpayers, this adventure would never have happened.

By the way, using a common currency does not require that the debts of those using it should be the responsibility of all who are using that currency. California's debts are California's problem and the problem of those who buy its bonds. Other states aren't obligated to bail it out.

> California's debts are California's problem and the problem of those who buy its bonds.

French and German banks had bough Greek bonds. France and Germany didn't want their banks to default, even though the banks had made these bad investments.

And they SHOULD let their banks suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

That's the only way a bank will learn to properly weigh benefits versus risks. If they get bailed out whenever a bad risk blows up, they won't learn to avoid or charge rates appropriate to the level of risk.

And depositors should also think twice about where they put their money.

If we want banks that don't default, we should have banks that only issue mortgages for less than 80% of a home's pre-bubble price. Let the buyer or another lender be on the hook for the risky part of the loan.

And if this bank fails, let its assets be turned over to a corporation owned by all the depositors, whose shares they can buy and sell. There's no reason to make the taxpayers pay to recapitalize the bank and keep the unwise bankers in business.

If there's a demand for that level of risk and the low rates it pays, that will solve the problem who want that level of security.

But we want to be insulated from risks and have them spread around to other people when dumb investments blow up. So even wise investors are stuck paying the costs. And we DO eventually have to face these costs despite all the borrowing and money creation we do to paper them over.

This isn't exactly the case - see Puerto Rico. For that matter, the debt (of Greece/Puerto Rico) is owned by other states/countries either directly or indirectly.


I also do not fully understand, why this is so. But before the Euro started our politicians drummed the big drums for it and repeated like machine guns, that such a situation could never, never ever (I swear!) happen ... But after Greece nearly went bankrupt in 2010, I guess, our chancellor said that this would be the "one and only alternative".

The problem is (as much I understood), that when one Euro country is going bankrupt, this will damage the confidence in the currency as such. But I don't fully understand the reasoning, as I said.

It also could be, that it was the "one and only alternative", because some big German banks would have been severely damaged back then (back then, they held a big amount of the Greek debts) ... Today, only the tax payers will be damaged, what is not so bad ...

Yes, but it really shines as a pork barrel generator.

I'd rather see a swarm of drones one tenth the size and one twentieth the price fight our dog fights.

You had to pay a fee? To create things for free?


Hackathons are not free to run at any significant scale. (especially when prizes are involved)

Usually, the costs are covered by sponsors, and I can't find any indication that there were sponsors for this event.

EDIT: Comment is incorrect; there were sponsors, see child comment.


The event was sponsored. Local folks and some national brands like Comcast and 5-hour energy. Winner gets a $5k prize.

Here is the event detail. http://www.automationalley.com/Events/Calendar/Event-Detail....


And the organizers have deleted the event details here (10pm EST)


Sure but hiring developers is also not free, the price is just more evenly distributed.


Freeze it and drop it in an antarctic glacier that will take a long time to melt.

Bury where there's already plenty of radioactivity. It does occur in nature, I hear.

The more radioactive it is, the shorter the half-life, right?


The half life is 12.3 years. If the amount of water was not growing it wouldn't be a huge problem. The tanks they are building will probably last at least 40+ years before having to be replaced, at which point we're talking about water that is not all that dangerous. If you release a tiny bit at a time it shouldn't be a problem.

However the water keeps accumulating. I don't think that part is sustainable. Until they fix the root cause of a seemingly endless amount of water that needs to be stored, this is going to be a problem.


The half-life of Tritium is 12.3 years. So as long as substantially everything with longer half-life has been removed, storage for a century or so would suffice.

Maybe put it in a bunch of large bags and tow it to Antarctica. But you'd need to avoid the bits that are already collapsing.


Makes me appreciate the Chrysler build all the more.


Its even more common for companies to prove their business models without making taxpayers pay for it.

It's generally easier to influence politicians to give away other people's money than it is to convince customers to use their own. EVERY business should have to do that without special help.


It sounds like it wasn't his second choice anyway.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact