|
Yup, largely that's it; it may fluctuate a bit due supply and demand, but is mostly stable. Not subjective, but the lowest price all people in the region pay for it (in resources or otherwise).
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: One of the best conductors too, outside gold. Hence, best USB cables have gold plated connectors; still a lot of silver in modern phones.
Wrong. Silver is THE best conductor of electricity and gold is no where close. Copper and Aluminum, as common metals (and thus actually useful) come next. Copper truly better but Aluminum, being considerably less dense, can be made into much thicker wires for power transmission (its main use as a conductor). The thicker lines offer less resistance. Obligatory: "Resistance is Futile!".
As far as your analysis, there's too much personal opinion. Gold and Silver (as my personal opinion) have value because they available to ancients (native gold and silver). It was shiny. It wasn't useful. Think of it this way: gemstones. Valued for the same reason long before they (or the noble metals) had any actual use. Copper, which could be found native, on the other hand, was useful: hence the bronze age.
Take platinum as a relatively modern example: It used to be considered comparatively worthless - implicitly of negative value as an impurity in gold.* and was even used to protect valuable metals (such as gold) in certain types of transit. Now there's platinum jewelery. Why? Well, when it became expensive it became beautiful. It really isn't.
The intrinsic value of a metal like gold, silver, or platinum [before the modern era where the latter two, in particular, had industrial value (catalysis, photograph, for example)] was only the demand of ego - and rightly so. When you're hungry, no amount of gold makes a nourishing meal. It's a luxury, by implication, as it's possession (and that of silver) was only for those who had resources in excess. Like jewelry. With time, it evolved to a medium of exchange (when there was finally enough) that it could pass around a bit. Like all "money", it's really a bookmark for useful things.
My son bough a "Nolan Ryan" baseball card for US$5 when he was about 12 years old. It's value/cost when produced was about $0.01 and that included a stick of gum. With time, as the desire for possession by adults with more money than brains, it was quoted at US$50. No dealers would buy it, however, always finding some obscure (invisible) defect. I told him, and he listened, that if he could even get half the latest quote he should take it and be glad. He did get $35 for it. We learned, from that "dealer" that there are lawyers and doctors buying hoards of sets of baseball cards in the expectation that they'd shoot up in value - but, unlike real commodities, they are manufactured in any amount and with so many available they'd never be worth much. Similarly, as a child/stamp collector, I was amazed I could pay only a few cents above face value for a brand new condition stamp that was 60 years old. But things like cards and stamps? There only true value (aside for use as coasters and mailing letters) is based on greed. Which brings us back to gold and silver and their original cause of valuation. Shiny gifts to purchase a lady's favors, perhaps?
* Wikipeida: Quote: From their first encounters with platinum, the Spanish generally saw the metal as a kind of impurity in gold, and it was treated as such. It was often simply thrown away, and there was an official decree forbidding the adulteration of gold with platinum impurities.[51]
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Two properties that made gold stand out: it was supremely malleable and did not corrode.
With time on their hands, due in part to agriculture, they took to jewelry making.
It wasn't the nugget that fascinated as much as what an artisan could do with it.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Another facet of what I was saying.
The not-corroding part is why it was known to the most ancient civilizations. The Mayans had no metal tools or weapons to speak. What gold they found they traded. Something I did learn today: for the Mayans, Jade was more precious than gold, and of course, because the worked it into jewelry and had religious significance[^].
Food is valuable everywhere, especially when there isn't much around.
As for (locally defined) precious metals and stones - probably more cultural than pragmatic, and, of course, attracting females for breeding purposes by offering gifts.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The ancient Egyptians disagreed. A small nugget hammered paperthing could protect large sculpters from corrision. And in medieval times, we learned the body does not reject it, hence gold teeth.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm curious (presumption: you meant a nugget of gold into gold leaf):Eddy Vluggen wrote: A small nugget hammered paperthing could protect large sculpters from corrision.
Just what was this sculpture made from that it needed protections? They decorated stone with gold but stone doesn't need any particular protection (acid rain's a modern thing). So what would gold leaf protect the rock from?
Or wood, perhaps? Like, for example, a sarcophagus? They had some gold-work as well - but they weren't covered in it so it couldn't have been for protection, there.
Logical conclusion: the gold was just for decoration.
As for the use of gold for tooth fillings? Malliable though gold may be, modern "fillings" made from gold are cast - and the tech involved to make it fit is not trivial (hot/cold shrinkage taken into account at each step so final product fits even if not cements). Hammering into place? Really? Without breaking the jaw? Actually, I lost the link, but the Etruscans used gold for their teeth: decorative - which implies either gold leaf veneer or a prosthetic - and it was purely for decorative purposes. True, however, that besides being shiny and showing off wealth, gold was all they had that wouldn't be corroded by food.
That practice, of shiny gold teeth for cosmetic purposes, is still practiced - along with inlaid jewels for some.
Trivia for you: gold is so malleable that it can be beaten into a sheet only six atoms thick (transparent green if held up to a light).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Just what was this sculpture made from that it needed protections? They decorated stone with gold but stone doesn't need any particular protection (acid rain's a modern thing). So what would gold leaf protect the rock from?
Depending on the stype, erosion for one.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Or wood, perhaps? Like, for example, a sarcophagus?
Not purely; read on.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: As for the use of gold for tooth fillings? Malliable though gold may be, modern "fillings" made from gold are cast - and the tech involved to make it fit is not trivial (hot/cold shrinkage taken into account at each step so final product fits even if not cements). Hammering into place? Really? Without breaking the jaw?
Prolly more by pulling the tooth, crafting one that's similar shape and putting that in the hole. The Romans used copper for that, sounds even more difficult.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: That practice, of shiny gold teeth for cosmetic purposes, is still practiced - along with inlaid jewels for some.
And complete drawings; but for early "denistry", gold was ideal. Well, besides the torture. An early Hebrew text references a woman who wore an artificial eye made of gold. Iran has a toe-prosthetic for a toe. But to stay with the teeth;
Several centuries passed between the dawn of dentistry and early prosthetics, but gold made it’s debut around 2,500 years ago. And dentistry made extensive use of gold for a long time after. Historians disagree on the particulars of diagnosis and treatment, but one find from Egypt in the third millennium B.C. suggests one of the earliest uses of gold wire to hold teeth in place. So far for your hammering-argument.
And since then, we kept finding more uses for gold.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Trivia for you: gold is so malleable that it can be beaten into a sheet only six atoms thick (transparent green if held up to a light).
Yeah, seen such an antique vase that shouldn't exist.
Another nice anecdote for you then; you know how people would bite into gold to verify if it is "real"? A friend of mine had heard that too and tried biting into a 99,9% silver coin. So, cried stop and started explaining how silver is a bit harder than gold.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the whole thing in perspective, gold was used for some of its properties (let's ignore cosmetic show of wealth).
1 - it was available. One of the few metals found native. That's why it, along with silver, are the ancient metals. Copper, also found native, ushered in the bronze age. Iron required smelting.
2 - it was malleable enough to be easily worked into useful shapes
3 - it (in its metallic form) is extremely inert (== non-toxic).
4 - at least by the 18th century, prosthetic teeth were made out of ivory or even wood.
5 - Egyptians using gold for holding together a prosthesis is a far cry from forming a filling! all they have in common is use in the mouth (accidentally, fitting criterion 3, above).
Aside (for your friends teething habits):
The reason for gold jewelry being "18 karat" or less is not to cheapen the jewelry by reducing the gold content but to make it harder and so actually more suitable for jewelry (wouldn't deform as easily). It maintained its major properties (almost totally corrosion resistant and the same color). The normal gold content for jewelry was 14/24 (14 gold to 10 iron, by weight) (i.e. 14K) for a long time. When the price of gold became the venue of speculators and the prices went quite insane, much jewelry dropped down to 10K; gold-plated became the even thinner gold-fill. That bite test of your friend would only be useful for very pure gold.
Also, a much earlier statement of yours about using gold to coat electronic connectors because it was such a good conductor: not so! It's used to prevent corrosion and, insofar as it last, it will. However, the fact of it making an interface between metals is an increase in resistance and thus an overall loss in conductivity (tiny). The extra cost (and waste of gold) is rarely worth it for the consumer's own connectors. Maybe on some circuit boards it's sensible but on your HDMI connector? I suppose so, if you live in a salt mine (or shipboard).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Putting the whole thing in perspective, gold was used for some of its properties (let's ignore cosmetic show of wealth).
Not just that; and will come back to our previous topic, but sorry, this is more interesting to me. Will come back to that, got that conversation marked and I want to learn about it what is not schooled here. I have this stupid idea that European "truth" and yours may vary. Yours as valuable as mine.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 1 - it was available. One of the few metals found native. That's why it, along with silver, are the ancient metals. Copper, also found native, ushered in the bronze age. Iron required smelting.
And in some centuries before this dude they call Christ, they already had alternative uses, as documented. As for copper, no, they found bronze, an alloy. Pure copper is harder to tame. And still, Romans made teeth from it. Yes, been to Rome, because "everyone" has to before they die, no? Not going to Egypt ever, if I see there what I saw in Rome, I will loose faith in history.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 2 - it was malleable enough to be easily worked into useful shapes
Not arguing there; but also means metal working before we did any actual metal-working.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 3 - it (in its metallic form) is extremely inert (== non-toxic).
Not just non-toxic. Lots of sh*t isn't toxic, but our immune system will react since it is recognized as not part of our body. For some dumb reason, it ignores gold. I no doctor, no explanation there. And it is chemically inert. Meaning it doesn't react with most stuff.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 4 - at least by the 18th century, prosthetic teeth were made out of ivory or even wood.
I just posted you a link on how Egyptians, long before this Christ, already did dental procedures using gold. You're "at least" is valid, nonetheless, just as "at least" in the 20th century is. This one is a filler argument, not a reasonable one and you didn't research. Fact is, we repaired teeth (with all humanity hating the idea) some time ago.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 5 - Egyptians using gold for holding together a prosthesis is a far cry from forming a filling! all they have in common is use in the mouth (accidentally, fitting criterion 3, above).
"Hammering it, breaking the jaw" you said. And why would they use gold, if bronze more plentifull? So, you want more "proof" that it is a resource, not just some ancient form of BitCoin? And glad I not a Roman with a bloody toothache.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: The reason for gold jewelry being "18 karat" or less is not to cheapen the jewelry by reducing the gold content but to make it harder and so actually more suitable for jewelry (wouldn't deform as easily).
I know, my seal-ring isn't 24 karat, because it'd deform due to natural movement of the hand. Asked for silver as a filler. And it's "just" 14k, because the jeweler said that would last longer. Due to friction, it is still getting thinner.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: The normal gold content for jewelry was 14/24 (14 gold to 10 iron, by weight) (i.e. 14K) for a long time.
So my jeweler knows his stuff. Not very surprised. And used it to seal letters. Didn't work, eventually did, but that's another story entirely.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Also, a much earlier statement of yours about using gold to coat electronic connectors because it was such a good conductor: not so! It's used to prevent corrosion and, insofar as it last, it will.
It is a good conductor, just not the ideal one. And it conducts heat like a champ too. The point that it doesn't rust, makes it the ideal spray on any connector. Because, you know, only the out layer needs be. Inside is prolly copper.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: However, the fact of it making an interface between metals is an increase in resistance and thus an overall loss in conductivity (tiny). The extra cost (and waste of gold) is rarely worth it for the consumer's own connectors. Maybe on some circuit boards it's sensible but on your HDMI connector? I suppose so, if you live in a salt mine (or shipboard).
And there it is; Einsteins idea on interest.
"Waste" of gold in those quantaties adds to the money, but to me as a consumer, worth it. But the amount of gold is finite, and a lot is used by industry each year. And one day, the amount we mine and discover will be less than what industry needs. Central Banks not going to part with theirs, in exchange for rediculous amounts. It's value, as a resource and thus as a currency, is doomed to rise.
And that's just gold. Now, silver, is far more complicated. Go there. I'm curious what you'd say about silver.
If I ever behave disrespectfull; quote it and I apoligize public. I also can't do two discussions at a single time. Choose between this an NATO; we can always go back if we finish one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
This created a great discussion.  for Eddy & Greg.
For those that want a summary: BC is BS.
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing its history, one might even think GameStop had "value".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
It was fun, so don't mention it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The intrinsic value of any currency is what others around you agree it is. This includes physical and virtual currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
The ancients, universally, tried to take it with them ... I doubt that anyone will ever find someone buried with their BTC.
Put another way, if someone owed you $40,000 now, would you take it in BTC (at its height), or take gold.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: The intrinsic value of any currency is what others around you agree it is. This includes physical and virtual currencies.
No.
Fiat's value is leglislation, and then further controlled by a central bank.
Currencies like salt and gold, is not something we agree upon each week in secret. They have value because they are resources - and that makes them usuable as a currency.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I stumbled upon this book in my APress account today and it is so nicely written that in 10 minutes I wrote my first Assembly language program and ran it.
Beginning x64 Assembly Programming: From Novice to AVX Professional: Van Hoey, Jo: 9781484250754: Amazon.com: Books[^]
Over the years I've looked at Assembly and tried it out a little, but it's never been easier to try than now.
I have Debian running in a VirtualBox so I quickly:
1. installed nasm (Netwide assembler).
2. Installed GCC tools
3. installed make
4. created a makefile as led by the book
5. typed in the sample program
6. let the makefile build and link the program.
7. ran it.
That's very cool. This author is obviously really good because he gets right to the point and explains things clearly. I am impressed and I always like to read a good book that is so well-written.
modified 9-Feb-21 15:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
To whom it may concern, here is a list with some alternatives: x86-x64-assemblers[^]
FASM looks like fun too 
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: here is a list with some alternatives: x86-x64-assemblers[^]
The author mentions many assemblers also: YASM, FASM, GAS, MASM (Microsoft)
NASM (netwide assembler) is nice because it runs on all 3 major platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't written any in over 40 years, since writing it on a PDP-10 while at university. But it definitely has a charm to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Haven't written any in over 40 years, since writing it on a PDP-10
Wow, that is cool. I believe that might be the hardware that Gates and Allen began with.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a great system, but maybe I remember it much as one remembers a first love. 
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: It was a great system, but maybe I remember it much as one remembers a first love
Yeah, that's how we all are with our first OSes. I even remember DOS 3.3 / Windows 3.1 fondly now.  Well, maybe not. But Win95, for sure. Pre-emptive multitasking was dreamy. Format a 3.5" disk while playing minesweeper was really cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed.
My first brush with assembler was writing little games etc in Z80 code on a self-built NASCOM1 computer.
My first major contract was porting MSDOS 1.25 to an IBM PC Clone. The disk drivers etc were all written in 8086 assembler. I can still see the thousands of pages of printed listing that I had to work on! (Filled with useless comments of the sort: "-- add 23 to AX")
|
|
|
|
|
Me too, also NASCOM1. No assembler, only machine language. I remember things like 3E 00 41 05 ...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes - you soon learned the various opcodes 8)
I used to write it out as assembler on a coding sheet, write out the opcodes and then key them in!
All these years later, despite the higher level languages and huge compute power, things haven't really changed as much as you might think. I just spent a whole day trawling through the code for a framework I'm using because its documentation tells you how to pass some data through to a sub-system, but absolutely nowhere, in text or examples, does it specify the format that data has to take!
Doubly annoying because it isn't in the same format as you pass exactly the same data to the parent code 8)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
