Slashdot Mirror

What would be alarming is if Antarctica melted. That's something everyone can understand.

I sense that you think the stable door being open isn't alarming until after all the horses have bolted...

Agree.

My boss snuck up behind me one time while I had my feet propped up, and I was in a brown study.

He said, "Aha! Caught you goofing off!"

I said, "And you're doing ...?"

Huh. How convenient it must be for you to ignore the things you cannot refute like the credit card fraud and illegal access to email systems and try to hang your argument on making bogus claims like...

They just made up new names to use when talking to people and created a company to further the deception.

In the real world that the rest of us live in, we call that "fraud". Here's the legal test:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

All five of the above elements exist. Oops. Illegal. Now, I'm not going to do something as stupid as, say, predicting the future like you have and say that "the whole think likely won't make it to court" (especially since now that charges have been filed, it IS in court), but the facts of the case are undisputed and clear, and Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General was just appointed and inherited the case from his predecessor and isn't up for re-election until 2018. So much for your latest round of doubt and speculation.

As I said, you have no interest in an honest discovery of fact. You want to push your agenda.

Say what?!? Crapping on about out sourcing is great fun because regardless of all the marketing bullshit, we will be able to scream out 'I TOLD YOU SO' and laugh. For that alone it is worth it and we will be saying, I told you so and we will be laughing. Stupid is as stupid does and those outsources will know more about your companies than you do and they will insider trade and they will pass the information off to competitors (via the corrupt executive team).

Once you can afford a team, you create one, you only really outsource the overload, to keep your staff busy and active. Else your start paying through the nose and losing huge amounts of staff labour, as each contact has to be paid for and people need to be first available and then make their way across the city and then park and then find you (instead of taking elevator from basement and walking down corridor) and the executives can no longer rely on privacy when they hand over their broken contaminated notebooks.

This before said outsourcers start doing bean counter spreadsheets and implementing shorts cuts and unknown nobodies turn up at your door because they are cheap. Idiots will look at lame spreadsheets that do not properly analyse risks because that is real hard and some executive is due for retirement and is looking to pump up their bonus with stupid savings and who gives a fuck what happens after they are gone. Save a penny to spend a pound http://idioms.thefreedictionar....

We should run betting book on how long it will take to blow up in those idiots faces (I'd bet not much more than three years, although complaints will start pretty early on).

Maybe he is using the word in this manner:

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
(3a)

See, I can post links too!
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
http://idioms.thefreedictionar...
https://www.collinsdictionary....

See, I can post links too!
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
http://idioms.thefreedictionar...
https://www.collinsdictionary....

I looked it up, and "marching orders" more generally means "orders to move on". Microsoft wants laptop makers to move on from excessive focus on feature-poor laptops toward making PCs that take advantage of new features in Windows 10.Anniversary.

No.

The battery is too big and using one would be battery.

A definition of "clemency" says:

Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner.

Clemency is considered to be an act of grace. It is based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. It is not a right but rather a privilege, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in Amnesty, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Clemency is similar to pardon inasmuch as it is an act of grace exempting someone from punishment.

Barring contrary definitions, the President granted her clemency. I strongly suspect Assange is far too little to live up to his promise, but this is exactly the situation the Wikileaks tweet described.

you will find that ransomware doesn't actually fall under this definition

Only under strict-common law. If you read further down:

Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person.

How was it NOT extortion before the law?

See for example this definition of extortion: http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

If you read the definition carefully, you will find that ransomware doesn't actually fall under this definition.

From this link:

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution.

There are plenty of other examples. To commit treason, there must be an Enemy. For an Enemy to exist, war must be declared.

Really? That's your question?
I'll give you a hint: staffing is not the issue.
you should look up weeding - this should help. http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

They should send out an email to everyone advising them not to reply.... Oh and don't reply to this one either or we might be forced to send another in a similar vain.

Sending messages in a similar vein would be in vain.

And that's why we have a court system. ;^)

@ http://legal-dictionary.thefre..., they say this (among many other things):

"The [entrapment] defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it."

If someone has never seen a child porn site, but stumbles upon one, and is curious about why someone would find such things sexual, and stumbles upon such a site due to their being over 300% more sites (due to police running them), they might satisfy their curiosity, whereas if they had to search for such a site, they wouldn't have ever visited -- as that would be too much work.

It really depends on how such sites are found and how much a 300% increase in site availability would affect those who only have idle curiosity about such matters.

I can't help but think about how the feds, at one point, told the states that they couldn't allow legal, intrastate cannabis, as it would affect prices outside of the state and would thus be affecting interstate commerce. It was seen as a simple matter of supply & demand, with higher supply resulting in lower prices.

That was considered to be a "given". Here, if the cop-operated sites were a significant percentage of all such sites, I can't help but feel they would attract people that would otherwise have not been planning or willing to put in the work to find such a site and would have not, otherwise, visited such a site.

But I can see you firmly disagree and like I said -- that's why we have
judges (and juries).

You fell for the, "Look, RUSSIAN squirrel!!!!" crap egested from the Clinton campaign.

Congrats.

You're not even smart enough to qualify as a hunting dog.

Sovereign Nation

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

What is the "special benefit" to society of allowing false advertising?

Why should I "turn the question upside down"? Ours is a free country — what is not prohibited is allowed, not the other way around. For you to limit/ban an activity, you and/or other proponents of the ban have to present (good) reasons, not the other way around.

When the activity is speech, no such bans are legal for as long as the First Amendment remains unamended.

A 2/3rd majority in congress and the senate plus 38 state legislatures and they can just amend the constitution to allow them to make any adjustment they like.

Absolutely! And that is, indeed, how Prohibition was passed — and then repealed. That would be acceptable, but our ruling class has found constitutional amendments to be too difficult/messy since then... (Indeed, some Presidents don't bother even with laws, relying on executive orders instead.)

And so, that is not, how the laws you defend as not unconstitutional were passed — these are simply federal laws. Sometimes even less than that — regulations by the federal "agencies", themselves of dubious constitutionality.

the "meaningfulness" of the first amendment is represented by the fact that these cases are routinely decided by the supreme court.

No one wishes to go on record as "racist" — by defending the racists' rights to racist speech. That does not mean, the laws in question do not contradict the Constitution, just that no case has made it to the Supreme Court yet.

You called it a 'slippery slope'... the first amendment adds quite a bit of friction.

I gave you some examples of dangerous attacks on that friction. Sadly, college-students are at the forefronts of them — which means, in another 10 years, what you call "friction" is likely to become smooth/slippery (pick one depending on spin).

I'll take ineffective self government over abdicating the responsibility entirely.

Sure. Which brings us right back — efforts to fight racism via legislation have summarily failed to both a) bring about racial harmony; b) elevate the earlier-oppressed minority to observable equality.

The laws against perjury, intellectual property theft, etc. may stand, because they can be said to have been grandfathered-in, when the Amendment was written. But any further infringements on the Freedom of Speech should be rejected with derision.

An action was taken that affected others. It's not a 'thought crime'.

What made the action illegal is the thought held by the "perpetrators". That makes it a thought-crime.

limitations on making death threats

Perhaps unlike "grabbing pussy", credible death threats are assaults.

committing slander

Slander has been a tort (not a crime) since well before the First Amendment was written. It was never in conflict with the Bill of Rights.

leaking intelligence to foreign governments

People gaining legitimate access to such intelligence voluntarily give up the right to this speech.

yelling fire in a theater

Should not be illegal either.

printing bootleg copies of movies and selling them

About half of Slashdot feels, this is a bogus prohibition too... More importantly, the concept of "intellectual property" has been with us since the Constitution was written, its authors still alive.

perjury

Speech under oath is different. And, like the above, it has been since before the First Amendment was passed — never seen as conflicting with it by the contemporaries.

So is the first amendment is only the most important thing when it supports the thing you want to support?

Contrary to your suspicions, I am not a racist. Let's keep the present company outside of the conversation.

Would that be your right to be a racist and actively discriminate against other citizens?

Yes, racists are no less entitled to the Constitutional protections than the rest of us — please, make sure to explicitly state, whether or not you agree with this, in any follow-up.

Pointing out her corruption and lying isn't "character assassination." Is it "weather assassination" when the meteorologist tells you it's raining?

Of course it is. What have you got against the weather?

Facts are useless or contraindicative (this is really not a word? it follows all of the guidelines of how words are made. Did I just make a new word or is Mozilla not actually capable of implementing a full dictionary. time to research it i guess, i do this soooo often. wtf Mozilla? http://www.thefreedictionary.c...) when we are this deep in corruption. Reality does not matter. it only matters which narrative you choose... and NONE of the narratives are based on reality.

Have a nice life. This will NOT end well. Nuclear Armageddon? Biological weapon released? When reality is ignored, the worst things tend to happen.

No your comment is pure unadulterated idiocy. Go learn what hyperbole means.

Hmmm. Hyper-bole. I know that "bole" is a tree trunk, and that "hyper" is when a kid is running around and screaming cause his mom won't smack him and tell him to settle down.

So, with those two items in mind, "hyper-bole" seems to be referring to that scene in that elf movie where the trolls were getting the shit kicked out of them by the walking forest. That Treebeard fellow was awesome, by the way.

Didn't the guy you were talking to say "rigging" isn't necessarily "electoral fraud?"

The definition of rigged in this context is "To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain." Doesn't a debate where one side gets the questions ahead of time count as manipulated, dishonestly, and for personal gain? How about the DNC hiring thugs and the mentally ill to pose as Bernie supporters and start fights with Trump supporters at his Chicago rally, dishonestly manipulating the media narrative and public opinion of both campaigns? That one had me fooled. I honestly thought it was Bernie fans starting that shit, but it was really Hillary's thugs. What about the New York DNC guy admitting they bus people around to different precincts to vote multiple times? Is that rigging?

What would somebody have to do, in your mind, for an electoral process to be rigged?

"But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss."

Try an actual legal dictionary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

"an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."

That's ALL that's required for assault.

An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery; since there was unwanted ('offensive') physical contact too.

try a quick google search in the future prior to submitting statements like "there is no such thing as english law"...

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Was the reference to long knives intentional or coincidence?

It was coincidence to the link you posted. I was thinking more in the lines of The Treachery of the Long Knives, from which I assume we get the phrase the knives are out.

Specifically, I was referring to something powerful that one keeps in reserve, ready to be pulled out at the appropriate time.

The Wikipedia article you reference includes this line:

The phrase "Night of the Long Knives" in the German language predates the massacre itself and refers generally to acts of vengeance.

So it would seem that the phrase isn't necessarily a Nazi reference in any event.

No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.

Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war.

The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was June 5, 1942. Authorizations of military force (not to trivialize them) do not rise to the level of a declaration of war.

Therefore, Chelsea Manning, no matter what else you think of her, and no matter how deserving she is of punishment for leaking sensitive information, did not commit treason. Ditto for Edward Snowden.

Manning, while clearly a Traitor, chose his bed by aiding the enemy while in active duty. He was tried not for Treason but for aiding the enemy under Section 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Even if War was outright declared as per your "1942" definition then Manning would still remain a Traitor to the country. Just like the Rosenbergs as mentioned prior clearly your statements are besides reality and merely conjecture.

No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.

Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war.

The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was June 5, 1942. Authorizations of military force (not to trivialize them) do not rise to the level of a declaration of war.

Therefore, Chelsea Manning, no matter what else you think of her, and no matter how deserving she is of punishment for leaking sensitive information, did not commit treason. Ditto for Edward Snowden.

Just wondering, but I don't think a DMCA request provides immunity from fraud nor libel laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.

18 U.S.C 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by the separate specification of intent in 18 U.S.C 793 (a), 18 U.S.C 793 (b)

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

Right, your ignorance of words do not do anything to change the words.

You actually think that dick-waving over how many places you visited has some sort of protective power that causes you to be less ignorant while not knowing about shit?

You don't know about a common term, and yet you claim to have had every opportunity to learn conversational English, well guess what? Maybe you're just not very good at vocabulary. Did you think of that, Sherlock? Fuck an A, talk about clowning yourself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Figure it out, Charlie Brown. Being ignorant in multiple countries does not grant mystical knowledge of anything.

Right, your ignorance of words do not do anything to change the words.

You actually think that dick-waving over how many places you visited has some sort of protective power that causes you to be less ignorant while not knowing about shit?

You don't know about a common term, and yet you claim to have had every opportunity to learn conversational English, well guess what? Maybe you're just not very good at vocabulary. Did you think of that, Sherlock? Fuck an A, talk about clowning yourself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Figure it out, Charlie Brown. Being ignorant in multiple countries does not grant mystical knowledge of anything.

That person could be the neighbor, it could be the owner of a stolen cell phone, it could be the administrative contact for a domain the IP address is in. "Someone" is not "the person who posted the link", but that someone could help identify who that really was, using other information in addition to the IP address.

The chance that "someone", not being whoever posted the link or uploaded the file, could identify who did either of those things is exceedingly small.

Fishing Expedition
noun 1 : a legal interrogation or examination to discover information for a later proceeding
2 : an investigation that does not stick to a stated objective but hopes to uncover incriminating or newsworthy evidence

Well, this isn't a legal interrogation or examination, so definition #1 is right out. Definition #2, on the other hand...

Now, if you want a legal definition, I've got that covered, as well.

Also known as a "fishing trip." Using the courts to find out information beyond the fair scope of the lawsuit. The loose, vague, unfocused questioning of a witness or the overly broad use of the discovery process. Discovery sought on general, loose, and vague allegations, or on suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses. The scope of discovery may be restricted by protective orders as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Emphasis mine, pay special attention to the italicized bold. In this case, they're not using the courts, but they are seeking information based on suspicion, surmise, and vague guesses. Once they seek a court order, their actions will be converted from a dictionary-defined fishing expedition to a legally-defined fishing expedition. Either way, it is what it is.

Does that mean I'm supporting the uploader of the file, or the link sharer? Certainly not. Nor does the preceding statement mean I'm not supporting either, or both; I'm simply calling things what they are. None of this means, either, that I am attacking Atlantic or their efforts. Yes, this is a warranted fishing expedition, they were harmed (and here I am pro-copyright-reform) and have every right to seek restitution; however, they also have a responsibility to do so within existing legal frameworks.

That is to say, they must seek a court order for the information. Reddit is under no obligation to cooperate without one and would be irresponsible to do so; and, as we're talking about Reddit, I'm honestly surprised they've done the right thing here. Once Atlantic obtains a court order, which they very certainly should do and I fully believe they can do very easily given the evidence they have already, they'll get the information they seek through legal means.

This framework is in place for the protection of all parties, not just the accused. It certainly benefits the accused, especially when the accused is actually innocent, which is a primary reason for it. However, it also protects the accuser and any parties who provide them information or services; that court order essentially says "a Judge agrees that we have a case here" and shields the accuser and their sources from liability should their investigation lead to the wrong person.

While Atlantic certainly can try to press forward without a court order, it would be unwise to do so, just as it was unwise to approach Reddit without one in the first place. It shows disregard for the legal system, which is not a position you want to be in when you intend to prosecute someone in the near future. Judges tend not to appreciate disrespect.

Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours:

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Fig. You do a favor for me and I'll do a favor for you.; If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. I'll grab the box on the top shelf if you will creep under the table and pick up my pen. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.

http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

You are a perfect illustration of the problem Tesla faces. You think you know what an airplane's autopilot does, based solely on the name, but you have no real clue.

To do something on autopilot to mean "without thinking" has been an idiom much longer than Tesla has used it. This is not some kind of unexpected misunderstanding.

Etymology: based on the literal meaning of automatic pilot (a system that flies a plane without human effort)

There are many less boasting terms like adaptive cruise control, lane assist etc. that could have been used and have been used by other car companies. They picked autopilot because it sounds new and revolutionary. He's a perfect illustration of the impression Tesla's marketing division wanted to give, while the execs call it beta (as in, will be self-driving soon we're just knocking out a few bugs) and their legal department provides the disclaimers. And disclaimer are everywhere for legal CYA, like if you read your average EULA the software is not usable for anything. That's not what people really expect, even if that's what it says.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Let's look at the legal definition since we are talking about legal.

So I guess the question might be if it was deceptive of the DNC to pretend to be having a fair and open primary that was seemingly legitimate while maneuvering to favor one candidate and did any supporters of other candidates (i actually liked Jim Webb) suffer financial losses when they contributed to those campaigns under the impression of a legitimate chance of winning.

I'm not sure that is easily answered.

Fraud.

Nope, it's not. Specifically, there is no intent to deprive a person of their legal right and the person was in no worse position than when they started. Simply saying, "Bernie is better" does not a true statement make. That is an opinion.

So nope, not fraud. If it was fraud then pretty much every political organization and member therein would be guilty of it at some point.

Verizon has ZERO obligation to do anything for you if you're off plan, not thing one.

Verizon has lots of obligations, including some to society in general (i.e., people who aren't even Verizon customers at all). Operating with good faith and fair dealing is one of those obligations.

You don't need to make up "incentivized".

Incentivize.

various definitions, but they all revolve around the right of an individual or group of individuals or a citizen.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict. For instance, if the head of government of a country were to refuse to enforce a decision of that country's highest court, it would not be civil disobedience, since the head of government would be acting in her or his capacity as public official rather than private citizen"

You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise.

In a narrow technical sense you are right.

But in common use, the word "autopilot" has come to mean all the automated systems that work together to fly an aircraft with little or no involvement of the pilot.

"Autopilot" has taken on another meaning which makes it even more dangerous in this situation:

Noun 1. autopilot - a cognitive state in which you act without self-awareness; ''she went about her chores on automatic pilot''; "she talked and he dozed and my mind went on autopilot"

a state lacking normal awareness of the self or environment

autopilot

The legal definition of "gross negligence" sounds pretty damned close to "intent" to me.

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

All roads are highways. Try again moron.

Sounds like dicta. Not as big a deal as it could be then, since dicta are not binding.

From the link I gave: "[dicta] therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."

Hack: To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

A third party is a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation. In this case the first party and the second party are conversing by phone. http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Only in maturity. There are no Bitcoin savings accounts yet, no currency-style regulation of it, and the Bitcoin money supply is equal to the amount of Bitcoin issued.

Legally, Bitcoin is currently treated that way gold or stamps are: a collectable with a objectively measurable value (even if one that changes fairly often). Today that makes sense. But if banks stared offering Bitcoin-denominated savings accounts, that would be exactly the same as a non-EU bank offering Euro-denominated savings accounts, called euroeuros, for historical reasons. That could happen with either Bitcoins or gold, and in both cases the money supply would become much larger than the "physical" supply.

Not in any context that I have ever heard it used. To "publish" is to make public, or to make available to the public. To "disclose" is to communicate results privately to a third-party. http://legal-dictionary.thefre... is a very crappy two-minute reference to back this up - do you have a link to backup your definition as I have never heard used in that way.

> they are not a "taxi" service in any definition of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

> These ideas do not exist in a vacuum ...

I need to say this *really* carefully lest I be completely misunderstood and you (or anyone else) ascribe things to me that I did not say nor even hint at.

And that is this:

Nor do stereotypes exist in a vacuum.

Yup. I said it. I'll point out, again, that I'm part black and very clearly not white. The problem is that ignorant people believe that stereotypical folks, those belonging to that group, are *all* like that and are that way because of some genetic make-up. Other problems are that they'll see the differences as inferiorities. It should be noted that this is being said *in addition to* your post and is not meant to contradict it in any way.

You, you personally, are just as guilty of prejudice as anyone else. Would you like me to prove it to you? I will...

What do you think of when I say the word, "Grandmother?"

Unless you thought of one particular person, you're guilty of prejudice and stereotyping. The problem is when it's bigotry and stereotypes become hate or an excuse to oppress or, still, an excuse to remain ignorant or dishonest.

You just view your prejudices as being good. I mean hey, who doesn't like grandmothers? Insert any other word in there you want. You know you're guilty of it - every single human on the planet is guilty of it. Why? Because stereotypes exist for a reason.

What I did not say, and what I have not said, is that the KKK is populated by good members. In fact, I've not opined on that at all but it's pretty obvious that I'm not a fan of them - nor would they be a fan of mine. Instead, what I have opined on is that there's a part to this that people do not like to acknowledge. That part is that we're innately prejudiced and that we naturally want to belong to a group. So, we emulate other members of that group.

I think, now that I have thought about it a bit more, that it's better to say that life does not live in a vacuum. Really, the majority of grandmothers are nice old ladies who will make you chocolate chip cookies and give you a glass of milk. Well, the majority of grandmothers that I know are like that. Unfortunately, this is one of those knee-jerk topics and I must dance around it because we have people who truly look for reasons to be offended. I'm not sure I understand their thought process but there it is. Reactionary, angry, and seeing perceived slight where none was intended is surely no way to go through life.