I agree with you that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi Scheme. It might also be an example of “Greater Fool Theory” as you suggest, but at the same time I see it as a bit of a victim - of the scammers in the “traditional” investment management industry.

If we go back to first principles and look at Bitcoin, it is [can be] used as a translation mechanism to move accumulated value from one fiat currency to another without going through traditional exchange mechanisms like banks. I can buy Bitcoin with US Dollars, fly to somewhere in Europe and sell my Bitcoin for Euros. I now have Euros and I haven’t had to pay a bank’s exchange rates. Banks make literally trillions of dollars every year from the international movement of funds, thanks to the “spread” on these transactions. In this example, Bitcoin is operating as if it were a fiat currency, because using it I can exchange something of value - US Dollars - for the equivalent value in Bitcoin.

The problem is that, today, investment banking is so desperately searching for “the next big thing” that the principles of speculative investment are everywhere. The investment banks quickly understood the principle of designed-in scarcity to Bitcoin and thanks to simple market economics, a large number of investors chasing a small number of resources resulted in the perceived value of the “asset” spirally upwards in value.

But anyone with access to the internet can find examples of “perceived scarcity investing” such as vintage wine, classic cars, works of art, even tulips [yes, the flowers].

To me, this illustrates the dichotomy of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general - the difference between the use of Bitcoin as a mechanism to circumvent some of the most egregious excess charges that the banking industry levies against us and its use as a mechanism to allow speculative investment.

What really interests me is the way that the “speculative investment” half of Bitcoin’s existence has resulted in wild swings in value, driven by nothing more than market sentiment. It shows us just how pointless, false and even harmful speculative investment and investment banking can be. That’s where I see the Greater Fool Theory coming in to play. Not from Bitcoin per se, but from the adoption of Bitcoin by the “investment industry”.

Those are staggering numbers, no doubt about it.

On the other hand... the SLS is currently being forecasted to cost something in the region of $21.2 billion to develop, with an additional cost of $2 billion per launch. Block 1 of SLS is expected to put 95 tons [209 000lb] to LEO.

By comparison, Falcon Heavy can deliver 63.8 tons [141 000lb] to LEO, for a launch cost of $90 million for a reusable launch [and I think it's fair to say that an LEO launch should be reusable, or $150 million for an expendable launch. Musk has publicly stated that FH cost "more than $500 million" to develop but was done without government financing. Falcon Heavy is operational now and took a fraction of the time to develop.

Appreciate that these aren't apples-to-apples comparisons, but when SLS takes so much longer and costs IRO 40x more to complete - whilst re-using existing technologies - like the Shuttle Main Engines - then you have to start wondering what all the money is being spent on...

I'd be the first to agree with you that it looks like a bunch of Roscosmos employees or contractors have had their fingers in the pie. But they can't hold a candle to what the SLS consortium have achieved.

Mostly idle curiosity here, but I wonder what amount of (refined/processed) rare earth minerals have been simply dumped in a "hole in the ground" without plan or any clear indication of what went where?

As a species, we've been using landfills to manage large-volume waste since the days of the Industrial Revolution. Now obviously, it's only been as we've seen technology move towards widespread adoption of rechargeable devices that some of the rare earth minerals have become important... but at the same time I'd much rather we put some effort in to recycle old waste, where feasible, before we wreck the few remaining parts of the planet that are still relatively un-touched.

There must be literally thousands (maybe millions) of tons of batteries, old hard drives, aluminium and plastics that we have been burying - for decades - that we could consider recycling. Yes, someone is going to argue that it might be more energy-intensive than digging up raw minerals... but even if so, it might help us in the long run to preserve as much of the planet as we can.

You make a really good point.

Perhaps a better way for Apple to have configured ApplePay would be to make the ability to pay with a locked phone [or not] a user-selectable option, within the application. So if you're someone who uses the subway all the time and likes to walk through the gates with your phone in your pocket, you can.

Obviously, it would be even better if you could actually select which "transaction terminals" (sorry, I don't know the correct term for a contactless "access point") you wanted to permit to use "phone locked authorization"...

There's definitely a scale of risks associated with the different operating models here; and Apple are notoriously reluctant to put too many configurable options in front of their users. But it should be possible to allow a user to specify what level of risk they are comfortable with, then work from there.

If you go read the linked article, it contradicts itself in the first two paragraphs. Literally.

The first paragraph says, ” someone could use a stolen, unlocked iPhone”.

The second paragraph says, ” An attacker who steals a locked iPhone”.

So which is it? Locked or unlocked?

A much more interesting question to ask would be why is Visa’s integration with ApplePay vulnerable when, say, MasterCard’s is not?

And if it is accurate to say that this vulnerability only applies to Visa, isn’t it a bit click-baitey for ThreatPost to title this with “ApplePay” ? Wouldn’t it be more truthful and accurate to say something like, “Visa’s implementation of ApplePay is vulnerable”? I note that others have implied that Apple don’t care about security I’m not in a position to comment on that, but it seems a bit much if only the Visa implementation of ApplePay is vulnerable to describe this as an Apple problem.

Lastly, with reference to the claim of the opening paragraph, concerning the vulnerability being used to pay for “thousands of dollars of goods or services” most of the shops and retail outlets where I see options for contactless payment - not just ApplePay but all contactless - also have a sign that says something like, “Maximum contactless transaction value $50”. Which rather feels like the author believes that after they put the word “theoretically” in their article, they can claim pretty much whatever they like, no matter how preposterous.

You’re entirely right. I had no idea that arguing with a judge was possible for us minions. But you know what, that makes me all the more insistent that this is fundamentally wrong. Justice is supposed to be blind - meaning that the imposition of justice needs to be consistent and objective. Clearly we have strayed a long way from that path.

But: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”

It's worth us all paying very close attention to this. Not because it's Google. Not because of the size of the fine.

But because this is a golden opportunity for us to understand just how far we have all fallen from the notion that we are all equal before the law.

How many private individuals, charged with an offence and ordered to pay a fine, would have the temerity to turn back to the court and argue with the judge?

How many of us would demand a discount?

How many of us could afford to delay and argue for the sake of it - could afford to pay lawyers to do so for us, hoping that if the delay is long enough, a change in administration might bring a more friendly judge to a case?

Or how many might not even bother with that, and instead bank on the idea that since the worst case is that the fine stands, then the longer we can delay agreeing to pay it, the more inflation will eat away at the value of the fine, reducing it in real terms when we do finally concede that we have to abide by the law?

Let's be realistic here. As private individuals, we simply couldn't dream of acting like that. Yet Google do all this and more. A significant part of the reason for this is the litigious nature of US Shareholders, who will not hesitate to file another suit against Google if they think they have the tiniest chance of arguing that Google "gave up too easily".

But this is insane.

Perhaps we need a new approach to the imposition of fines against the largest companies. A simpler set of laws and calculations on penalties that make it easier to ensure that the fines are punitive in nature - but more than that, a scheme in which the size of the fine is incrementally increased by every calendar month that passes from the moment the fine is handed down to the moment it is paid.

OK, there might be some way of refining this to make it fair - for example if the company wishes to file an appeal and wins the appeal, things get pegged back to the start or vacated completely. But there has to be some form of powerful incentive to stop these global corporations from being so abusive.

It's like they think the law doesn't apply to them.

Perhaps the other option would be for the European General Court to say, "OK, here are your choices: either pay up in full in 30 days, or we will deploy a preliminary injunction to outlaw all Google services in the EU until the fine is paid. You can carry on negotiating over the final amount - in good faith - if you want. But if you want to do that, you have to deposit the full amount of the fine in escrow as a precondition. So either pay up - in full - or have your entire business operation suspended in the EU until agreement is reached. Your call..."

Oh, without any shadow of a doubt this won't happen. The US Government would suffer a fit of collective apoplexy and it would become a major international incident. But I'm starting to think that Google believe that anything less than that counts as a win. And they really don't care what their arrogance does to international relations.

Remember - the whole point of sanctions against companies is to ensure that neither they nor other companies feel it is in their interests to continue with the actions that invited the sanction in the first place. This is going to have no disincentive effect whatsoever. So yeah.

Add another $100 million a day until the cheap bastards pay up.

Fair. But then again, trying to choose between Bezos and Trump is a bit like trying to choose between chickenpox and the measles.

I might have this backwards, but I read somewhere that at least a part of NASA used the Kepner-Tregoe Decision-Analysis process for stuff like this.

In that model, you set up separate teams. One of them sets out their requirements, splitting them in to mandatory and desirable elements. The desirable elements are then given an importance rating.

A second team then takes each bid and uses the scoring model set up by the first team [that had no sight of the bids]. First, they check each bid against the mandatory requirements - any gaps and the bid is automatically rejected. Then they take each optional bid and score the bid on say a 1-10 scale based on the quality of their response. Lastly, they take the ‘importance rating’ of the desirable-but-not-mandatory elements and multiply that by the scores awarded. Highest score wins.

If you follow the process diligently, not only to you get a clean audit trail of working, which means you can show you were not applying bias but you also get, objectively, to the best result.

Which might be why Bezos is suing.

This. One thousand times this. If you look at the way that Musk developed reusable first stage boosters, all of it was done “on the customer’s dime”. He offered competitive prices to put satellite payloads in orbit, but he used every single paying launch to extend his own development and testing.

He doubtless has plans to do the same thing with this program

Yeah, but if I option Prime with that, do I still get free, next-day Lunar deliveries?

Don’t ever change. The only conscience you have to live with is yours.

No but it looks like he’s going to give it a try.

And who knows when he loses this appeal, his lead counsel might be the first guy to make it to LEO without the aid of a space suit - or a rocket

I’m not sure it was jealousy, exactly. But the Orange Orangutan definitely didn’t like the fact that Bezos owns the Washington Post.

The problem with your approach is: how do you establish the validity of your baseline.

You mention that you scan your network when you add a new device, and periodically thereafter. OK, that seems like a good place go start. But does “new device” include the installation of a new piece of software on your network? How do you handle silent installs?

The most interesting question for me, however, might be how you establish a valid baseline. Suppose that today you were to install your first Windows 10 device You monitor activity and you identify a bunch of Microsoft IP addresses where your W10 machine is exchanging data. It looks to be associated with the Windows Update feature. It seems legitimate. But what you don’t spot is that every now and then, at pseudo-random intervals, your W10 machine is pushing gigabytes of data to Microsoft. They might not do so in the same real-time way that Amazon does, but then maybe Microsoft’s use case is a bit different.

I applaud you for your diligence - you already do more than 99% of the population - but it’s always good to challenge assumptions from time to time.