Slashdot Mirror

Obviously people who are holding crypto are hyping it, in hopes they can cash out for a large return.

So some people are definitely making money on it.

As Paul Krugman said, "People who got on in Bernie Madhoff's investments in the beginning made nice returns too..."

But there's plenty of evidence that crypto currency is very fraud-esque

Caveat Emptor Crypto Peeps

It doesn't resemble a pyramaid scheme..

in some cases Crypto currency is a ponzi scheme - take a look at crypto like Etherium... that crypto increases its public pool of shares by up to 18 million units each year.... yet people are investing in it. It makes no sense... this is the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme - a growth/return curve that is not-sustainable.

Here's a good article on why crypto may not be the most solid thing to invest in.

The original idea of crypto was for micro-payments. I do not get where investing in crypto currencies themselves makes sense? And holding crypto in an exchange seems anti-thetical to the original idea of it being a completely peer-to-peer monetary system.

... is a good PR campaign to convince people that the problem is imminent.

> That's a common myth: gold-backed currency has "real value" and fiat currency has no "real value".

That's because people don't understand (hyper) inflation or what causes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_dollar

> The thing is: money serves as an exchange medium of value.

Ok, you understand the first meaning of money ...

> Since the usefulness (or value) of gold (or just about anything else physical) depends on many factors, the only sane option is fiat.
... but not the 2nd or 3rd meaning.

With all due respect, you are either insane, an idiot, or ignorant of history. Try google "Local Currency", and research specifically, "LETS", for one.
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems

Second, read this white paper:
"What Has Government Done to Our Money? " by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

Third, at least watch "The Corporation"
http://www.thecorporation.com/

May I remind you of a famous quote:
    "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. â" Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century"

Other links that may be of interest ( I don't particular agree with them, but they do provide some perspectives.)

Money as Debt by Paul Grignon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

The Corruption that is Modern Banking - Money as Debt
http://bsalert.com/news/2085/The_Corruption_That_Is_Modern_Banking_Money_As_Debt.html?r3

You don't need fiat currency, and you don't need usary to have an economic model. The only reason economic systems fail is for one reason only: greed.

Until we either have 1 global currancy,

eBay feedback

They'll nix feedback just like other sites nix reviews, if they determine that in their judgement, they think the item was bought for the sole purpose of entering negative feedback, for example.

And an expansive, ever increasing list of reasons.

sellers will no longer be able to leave negative/neutral feedback for buyers

And a comprehensive feedback removal policy.

Examples:

• they removed my feedback to him even though it was the truth
• eBay now removes feedback automatically from buyers

But at least they are honest enough and tell you (somewhat) what they will remove.

Most people casually browsing the site however (just as most people browsing retailers sites) have no idea that sites provide policies that allow negative ratings to be stricken from the record, and their effects on "stars" and rating score to be removed, at the whim of someone whose interests are in more sales.

That's only going to happen via a two-step process:

1. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which was responsible for allowing the media to snowjob the public in the first place to pass provisions that needed to be repealed (#2)

2. Undo the media deregulation that was embedded in the Telco Act Of 1996, and provided for consolidation of networks.

His stance on the Iraq war and his position on constitutional issues is admirable, but it's a shame more people aren't familiar with Ron Paul's brand of Libertarianism - it's a real eye-opener.

So how much gold do YOU have? If we moved over to the gold standard, would you be more or less rich? Oh wait, you think you'll be allowed to exchange your dollars for gold? Really? How many dollars per ounce of gold? Oh gold is at ~$800/oz so you think that's what you'd be trading at? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how much virtual "dollars" there are in circulation and what the price of gold would go to if there was ANY realistic talk of moving to a gold standard? You need to learn a little more about the monetary system before you start jumping on Ron Paul's goofy gold standard bandwagon. It makes about as much sense as any of his other fundy libertarian rantings. Seriously. Do your research. Ask yourself if we abolished half the government agencies Ron Paul proposes, what that would do to society? Ask yourself if you REALLY, HONESTLY believe that privatizing everything in creation would result in better, more efficient service? Seriously? Think about it.

I appreciate Ron Paul's attention and respect for the Constitution, but that doesn't mean I can forgive the fact that he's a raving nutty, fundamentalist, evangelical who believes the earth is 6000 years old. We already tried a fundy evangelical in the white house who slid into power by hoodwinking single-issue voters once. We don't need it again.

If you're going to look into Ron Paul, look into all of him. Not just the romantic idea that he thinks pot should be legal and nobody should pay taxes. Look at whether he could get anything done; whether his ideology can become dangerous (like it has with Bush) and whether or not his ideas make sense. Aside from a few abstract, conceptual notions such as Constitutionalism, most everything else he suggests is wildly unrealistic. The guy has no plan, only a few buttons that seem to give his supporters instant hardons.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he's clearly admitted he is a creationist and rejects the theory of evolution, and aside from that there's no substantive evidence in the history of human civilization that his brand of anarcho capitalist libertarianism would work in our society.

Other than that, what's there not to like about Ron Paul?

What's wrong with TV news in two words: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

It really is as simple as that. In 1987 news media was crippled. And that was the beginning of the end.

I still prefer the more understated FSM Holiday Display.

I couldn't help but notice the huge, annoying, "Jesus is the reason for the season" in those Xmas lights. Maybe if the architect did as much research into history as he did lighting, he might realize that Christmas was appropriated from earlier pagan traditions and has very little, if virtually nothing to do with "Jesus". Historians also generally agree (among those that actually think there was a historial Jesus figure) that Jesus was not born on December 25th in the first place. He was more likely born in the Spring or Summer. It's one thing to believe something that's erroneous. It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood. Happy Saturnalia!

If you want to know more about this anarcho-capitalist libertarian agenda Ron Paul is pushing, listen to this this podcast. It's an interview with one of Paul's supporters with tough questions about how much of government and society would function in a scenario where there was a minimalist government centered around the U.S. Constitution.

Required reading on this issue: How the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act screwed up the media. This gives you a good introduction into what happened to our system of media and regulation.

It's been going on for awhile, but the two-tiered attack began with Reagan eradicating the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which paved the way for partisan talk radio which were basically paid mouthpieces for various corporate interests who could sway public opinion on key issues, and also stations no longer being obligated via the FCC rules to report news of critical interest to the public, so they could sneak all sorts of legislation, including relaxed ownership rules which were stuffed into the 1996 telco act. Check out the link above for all the gory details.

The video of this protest, along with a more substantive interview can be found here.

The whole story is basically one long advertisement.

These days there is no distinction between editorial and advertising, thanks to the Fairness Doctrine being eliminated. While the FD never affected specialty print publications like PC World, the fact that for the most part, all mainstream media shamelessly panders to their advertisers has made the notion of objective reviewing almost nonexistent.

I agree with you as well. There are plenty of important issues affecting peoples' privacy and this is not one of them.

They couldn't bring a case against the men simply for the fact that it would violate habeas corpus.

Thank goodness Habeas Corpus is still intact.

With the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine, it has been a slow decline in the integrity of journalism. The idea that wire services are now asking people to provide content for them is testimony to the pathetic state of affairs in journalism.

I look forward to this going full circle, and wire services and news networks becoming completely obsolete in favor of citizens reporting the news to other citizens, devoid of heavy-handed corporate or political bias.

In a word: media.

The majority of Americans are not as shallow and ignorant as the mainstream media might lead others to believe. It's just that the American media is terminally sleazy and likes to display extremists as if they're more normal than they are - just for entertainment purposes.

Then there is a large faction of people who basically sit mesmerized at whatever appears on the television and are largely programmed to regurgitate the outlandish crap being suggested, which explains the epidemic of conservative republicans who don't really think for themselves and are convinced all the world's problems are the exclusive responsibility of the "other team."

If we could somehow get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, the world would see that there are many intelligent Americans who at this time are not allowed to have appropriate public representation, mainly because their views do not align with the agenda of corporate America.

The Daily Show is substantive because there's a lot of substance in current events not being outlined by the mainstream media.

The reason why The Daily Show is so popular is because it offers a more cynical, less corporate-controlled perspective on current events. Some may call that "liberal" but the whole notion of "liberal" was coined by conservatives as a way to marginalize any opposing viewpoint. The tired, "attack the messenger" rather than refute the message that has been elevated to an art form by the right wingers.

The reason for this mess is because of Ronald Reagan veto'ing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Reagan destroyed the balance that was mandated in network television and radio by doing away with FCC rules that:
    a) Forced networks to report news of interest to their audience, and
    b) Gave people a right to petition to have opposing viewpoints heard on these networks.
If you're old enough, you may remember a time when editorial was contained to its own compartment in news, and there was always a message that said, "If you disagree you're invited to express your own opinion." Once Reagan destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, the broadcast networks were free to unleash a torrent of special interest-centric broadcasting that turned news into info-tainment and thinly-veiled corporate propaganda.

And that's what we have now. Thanks to Ronald Reagan. And that's why one of the best news programs in the entire nation is a parody comedy show that by its own admission, can't take itself seriously.

Again, thank you Republicans. Great job. This shit is going to come back to bite you on the ass too... just you wait. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine hurts everybody. It's not a partisian issue. It's a freedom issue.

Keith Olbermann has an incredibly poignant video response on this issue. This is probably what motivated some conservative nutjob to send him a letter full of soap powder. Sometimes I wonder about people.

By all accounts based on this testimony there's one person we probably can't depend on helping "save the world."

The sad part is that we're all going to lose because the media control public opinion and they can spew lies and lobby for whatever is in their interests.

This was done with the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act which paved the way for even more corporate control.

I fear the only way to protect peoples' rights is to create some sharp-toothed PAC that is modeled after the NRA that goes after politicians who threaten to take away neutrality rights and promote media consolidation, not unlike how the NRA fights tooth and nail against any form of gun control.

This is just one of many, many issues of privacy violations that have happened in the last year. And the feds seem mainly interested in letting states regulate and report on security breaches. So far only a few states have legislation to notify consumers of database compromises, which is a shame. The sad part is many people may have had their information stolen and they will never know until the information has been exploited, all the while the corporations have been aware of this for a long time and choose not to reveal the violations in fear of a negative PR.

In addition to the other dubious honors, it hasn't been mentioned that Ted Stephens was a principal architect of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which paved the way for the insane consolidation of news, network, print and radio communication companies. The eradication of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act are to blame for the sorry state of affairs with mainstream media right now, and why things will not get any better until those two laws are corrected.

It's about time we all evolved.

It's about time we drop religion. It's obsolete. It's a remnant from another time when man looked up at the sky and didn't see planets, stars, water vaper, and atmospheric events, but instead the "hammer of Thor" or "Ra", or the "firmament of heaven."

Religion has value in society, but should be as far away from science as possible. Belief in supernatural is the quickest way to neuter the progress of mankind, and history has demonstrated this over and over, and over, and over and over.

Print this and share it among your friends (also pdf version). Stick this on your car. Let's encourage others to evolve beyond the dark ages of cowering under the rock at the angry gods that are now called "weather."

After his ball-busting appearance at the National Press Club Dinner, Colbert should have a destroyer named after him.

As if Louisiana or the South are the only places where there's goofy legislation!

How about Chicago banning fois gras?

There are stupid politicians who pander to fringe PACs all over the place, especially in Washington D.C.

First and foremost, the whole nature of the design of Unix/Linux provides a means by which software systems can be updated without any service outage. You cannot do this with any version of Windows. Most Windows-based patches and upgrades require a system reboot, which is downtime. Most unix-based upgrades merely require a quick stop/start/HUP of the services. If their main claim is that updating system components is the basis for downtime, they're smoking crack. Maybe their methodology for testing involved taking the entire system down while they upgraded? Unix doesn't require such drastic measures - Windows probably does, as you probably can't update a running service. By design, Windows is exponentially more prone to downtime in the process of patches and upgrades. It's virtually impossible for them to compare the two OSes on this issue and not be dramatically manipulating the test methods to create bogus results that are in no way reflective of how sysadmins patch and manage their server resources. I call BULLSHIT.

I have unix servers right now with uptime measured in YEARS. There are no Windows boxes that can make that claim. Period. I've had outages on occasion due to DDOS or system probes that caused a process to terminate over the years, but I've never had any type of wholesale outage that you'd typically get with most Windows installations. Does anyone have any details on the methodology of the testing? It's obviously bogus.

Links to more info on the Best Buy incident here.

The whole notion of "neutrality" was destroyed when the Fairness Doctrine was shot down by Ronald Reagan in 1987 since then, the media's idea of "equal time" has been to give equal time to various extremists who represent wildly disparate sides of an issue that in no way represent the more moderate positions held by average people. That is not "fair" nor "objective." When you are debating environmental issues and you have an oil company executive at one end, and a patchoulli-wearing hippy kid who lives chained to a tree in Washington state, that is not a "fair" or "equal" airing of all sides of an issue.

I like your diatribe, however, ironically, you are part of the problem, like in a larger sense, all of us are.

You have a gmail address. You use the services of these big companies. The consolidation of corporate America into a small OPEC-like coalition of PACs is what allowed the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine to go down in the 80s without even a whimper, the emasculation of journalists and political candidates, bringing about the scenario where the people don't feel they have much power to effect change or stand up for their rights. And ultimately, merely as a symptom of its submission to big business, your fixation with Government's negligence in protecting the rights of the people.

If you want to really fix things. You have to stop feeding the behemoths. Microsoft, Comcast, Google, Fox, Time-Warner, Sony, Wal-Mart, Clear Channel, etc. The bigger these companies become, the less chance any of us have of protecting our individual rights.

When you're dealing with small companies, you're dealing with people who are more in touch with their nature of their business, industry and their customers. When you deal with big corporations, it's a hyper-detached hierarchy of people whose primary concern has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with keeping their job. Google's decision to fight "for the privacy of their customers" is a load of bullshit. It was strictly a PR move. If Google really respected their customers' privacy, they wouldn't retain personal information indefinitely, so it is an inevitability that Google will eventually, completely compromise the trust and privacy of their clientele. The bigger the company becomes, the less authority anyone has with any conscience to "to the right thing." Look at history. You will not find a single example of any entity with market share or absolute power that didn't end up completely corrupted. Why people think that Google will be any different, or their surprise at the government's inconsistent motives, is a testimonial to how naive our society has become.

If you don't like the direction in which things are going, then don't feed the beast.

With all due respect, I call bullshit. There are plenty of ISPs who have better things to do than archive users' e-mail correspondence. Some of us actually respect our customers' privacy. We may take snapshots of the servers and there may current mailbox contents, but there are lots of ISPs out there that delete web and e-mail logs and archives after a suitable period.

IMO, it is more suspicious if you keep unnecessary data around, as if it can be used as a weapon later. Would you record all your phone calls in case you needed to use these recordings later? Wouldn't that make you more suspicious than not?

If I didn't know better, I'd suggest you might be Bush or someone in his cabinet. I didn't think there were many left who still were unconditional administration sycophants. Then again, maybe you work for Halliburton or some other defense contractor. I know you're not Bush. He can't read well, much less use a computer. He's still looking for the "any key".

The Office of Homeland Security has done such a bang-up job managing taxpayer funds, with billions disappearing into black holes, and boondoggles, we should streamline the procurement process so there are less checks and balances? Even if you work for Lockeed, can you still really make such a statement without an accompanying evil smirk? I don't think so.

This is because there's virtually no regulation of the advertising industry any more. It used to be you couldn't say something was "free" unless there was some real "free" component of substance, but nowadays, about 95% of most claims are bullshit.

One reason why there are so many polarized ideals is due to the eradication of The Fairness Doctrine. There will never be a moderate position that is truly moderate in the United States; there will never be equitible debate on a grand scale in the media, until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated.

In 1987 Reagan destroyed this precious aspect of democracy, which performed two very important things: it acknowledged that holders of valuable broadcast licenses had a duty to report news of interest to their constitutients, and it also gave citizens a right to peititon to have their side of a story heard in the media. When Reagan shot down this law, he paved the way for the new breed of media we see now, where editorial is intermixed with journalism, and we have 24-hour propaganda networks and extremist talk radio. This is why we now have a highly politically polarized populace who is incapable of recognizing 'facts.'

Nothing will change. Nothing. Until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. Every other attempt to alter the current course of corporate-dominated political policy will fail until there is a means by which more than one side gets a chance to air their issues in a fair manner.

People really need to understand this. It's THAT simple. It's all about the Fairness Doctrine. You can't organize an opposition party when the media has an interest in discrediting you. You can't even talk about important issues when the media won't report them. You can't create your own extremist broadcast network to counter another extremist broadcast network -- that doesn't work. The mainstream media must be forced to revert back to responsible journalism and giving equal time to opposing points of view. Without the Fairness Doctrine, nothing will change, and nothing else matters.

Sorry, you are wrong.

First off, the "Hurricane Pam" exercise estimated at best, they'd evacuate 70% of the population. In reality, state and local officials evacuated 80% of the population. The fact is the action on the part of state and local officials was much better than even the study indicated. This is the single most significant reason behind the low fatality rate: unparalleled success in implementing the initial evacuation.

Furthermore, the report made it clear that in the aftermath of the storm, state and local officials would be overwhelmed and it was recognized by all that the Feds would need to act quickly to help with post-disaster evacuations and other critical elements. FEMA recognized this and assured those involved it could react quickly. It didn't.

The reports, including the testimony by people involved in the study clearly show who dropped the ball on this, and it WAS NOT state and local officials.

Let me reiterate this: The initial evacuation of New Orleans and the surrounding areas was the most successful large scale evacuation ever implemented in the history of the United States. Period. It was tremendously successful (compare this with Houston, who had substantive federal presence BEFORE Rita even came ashore, sat and watched what happened with Louisiana, and still horribly botched their own evacuation plan). It's highly questionable whether anyone, any state, any officials could have executed a better initial evacuation than the people of Louisiana. PERIOD.

Now there were some problems with evacuees left in the city, but it was made VERY CLEAR, everyone was to evacuate and there were no places to run to. Additional resources could have been made available in retrospect to deal with this situation, but it is trivial in comparison to the fact that the state and local authorities executed an evacuation plan that was dramatically better than all the research indicated was even possible!

To blame local officials is RIDICULOUS. FEMA commissioned the study. The study predicted exactly what would happen. On the state and local levels officials OUTPERFORMED what was expected of them. On the Federal level, it was EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. These are the facts.

For only $50k you too can impress your friends by pretending to embrace alternative energy sources while you squader a disproportionate amount of electricity.

I contend that this, like so many other issues which fall in favor of corporate interests, are due to the control large companies have over the media. The voices and arguments that would have changed opinions and made elected/appointed officials more weary over cowling to special interests never get heard from. This is because the one device which guaranteed important news couldn't be stifled, and people had a right to petition to get alternative voices heard in mainstream media has been eradicated. This is the Fairness Docrine.

If the Fairness Doctrine were still being enforced by the FCC, groups that opposed this issue would have had a better opportunity to educate the public on this issue. Virtually anything that happens these days, from the Downing Street Memo, to ignored world crises, could be re-prioritized in the hearts and minds of people and their leaders if we had the Fairness Doctrine back in place.

With all due respect, this isn't newsworthy, any more than it's a revelation that the stuff people don't sell at a yard sale end up in the trash, free-for-the-picking, the next day.

If anyone knows better, it's the online community, who recognizes that the mainstream media is so marginalized in terms of content, it's not worth paying attention to. This can be traced back to Reagan's veto of Fairness Doctrine. Now mainstream media and news is basically one long infomercial for cars, pills and unoriginal theatrical releases.

If any of the news networks want to make useful video available, they should remove the commentary and show the whole raw feeds, so that people without ADD can get more of the story before it gets approved for publication by their advertisers.

The notion of movies requiring $xx Million to produce is a farce as well, mainly because various countries are involved in nefarious tax schemes where the cost of movie production is wildly exagerated in order to generate additional revenue for the studio.

Ironically, this is the reason why it's easier to produce a $60 million flop, than it is a $2 million indy/artistic "sideways-type" movie that the public would probably appreciate more.

I don't know what the fuss is about. It's not like Star Wars merchandising has gotten out of hand.

Sites like howstuffworks are stooping so low as to produce articles on How Lightsabers Work mingled among what is considered to be more credible material.

Recent headlines about our state of science and technology are backing up my theory that in the U.S. there are many people who are not intersted in progress.

I think that the country has basically abandoned science and technology, but it's not a question of whether or not they're "interested in progress."

This is an issue of the hyperactive media and its emphasis on promoting consumerism as a means to an end, competing with itself to the point where nobody can focus any more due to the plethora of mixed messages. Our society is no longer a manufacturing society; we are no longer creating things. We are slowly becoming a complete user-consumer society, and there is no place for futuristic or highly-focused thinking in this type of reactive society. As the media has positioned itself to answer all of our questions via consumerism, religion is trying to reestablish its similar foothold in society.

If our leaders made it a priority to glamorize science and technology, this would be a priority within our country, but instead, the media focuses on distractions and consumerism, and science and technology are considered uninteresting unless they're related to an episode of CSI.

Myth: 70 percent of the merchandise sold at our stores comes from China.

Fact: The special interest group who makes this claim doesn't tell you where it got that statistic. In actuality, Wal-Mart's business with U.S. suppliers remains strong and healthy. In 2004, Wal-Mart spent more than $137 billion for U.S. products and services sold at our stores. A single company with sales of that magnitude would rank #5 on the Fortune 500. You can count on this fact, too: The products and services from US suppliers sold at Wal-Mart stores provide good jobs to more than 3.5 million employees at 68,000 suppliers in states across America.

After reading all this it seems that Slashdot and Ziff Davis have been punked by a sleazy group trying to hawk "Linux litigation insurance" by spreading FUD over MS's encroaching patent processes. The actual patent is nothing like IPv6 in the first place.