Bitcoin is regulated. There are laws in place for all valuable assets, regardless of whether they're tangible or not. Of course, many folks who "invest" in Bitcoin don't actually understand those laws or even realize that they should try to. They often don't realize that large transfers (regardless of currency) require documentation, they don't know that capital gains often must be reported for taxes, and they often don't bother keeping the documentation that they'll need when the various government authorities start asking questions. The even-more-naive don't even realize that theft or abuse is just as possible with Bitcoin as with cash.
The point of this statement is to remind people that digital currencies are still currencies. You don't get to escape the rules and risks of reality by using quatloos instead of dollars.
The purpose of the nation is freedom. The purpose of the NSA's actions is to oppose freedom. Therefore, those who perpetrate these actions are enemies of the nation...
There is no direct connection (despite the Slashdot hivemind's assumptions) between surveillance and oppression. Even merely opposing freedom does not, in itself, make someone an enemy of the United States. In fact, as I recall, there are a few other goals for the country besides just generic liberty, such as "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare". Of course, having to acknowledge multiple goals, which are all interpreted differently by the different branches of government, makes it harder to write vitriolic Slashdot posts calling for killing other humans.
While that might indeed be true (though I'd substitute "may" for "will"), having a blanket prohibition as the counter force just drives the abuse to be buried deeper. Mass surveillance is a genie that won't easily be put back in the bottle. If the NSA isn't doing it, the CIA, FBI, or foreign agencies will.
Rather than fight in vain against our technology, I'd rather use it. I'd like to see judges reviewing every single query to the NSA's database, and I'd like to see it available as a resource for exculpatory evidence. Ubiquitous recording does bring great power, and I think we should be harnessing that power for the public good. Unfortunately, rather than discussing the possibility of benefits and ways to mitigate the risk of abuse, the majority of the caring population seems to want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and shout about the Almighty Privacy.
It's actually rather surprising to get an eloquent response in this thread. I appreciate that.
The moon landing is an excellent example... have we actually used those great big rockets to nuke the other side of the planet? Are we likely to do so any time soon?
Surveillance is a tool, and yes, it can be and has been used to support some very harmful actions, by governments, organizations, and individuals. In every case, though, the surveillance has been used to enforce other discriminatory or oppressive policies. I say we should be fighting those other policies, and using the surveillance and analysis infrastructure to enforce the policies society and the Supreme Court approve of. Anything else stays locked away in the database which, being public knowledge, is itself a large red flag if it's ever accessed.
That's not the surveillance harming you. It's the driver of the black SUV, the corrupt arresting officer, or even the flag-raising system, none of which should ever have access to the database without judicial review.
How is surveillance, in itself, harmful? What actual harm does a citizen suffer if their data (or metadata) goes into a warehouse, never to be seen again?
If these systems were not in place in 2012 and 2013, 3,000 people would be dead and 317 million people would be free from government surveillance.
Sounds terrible.
You're begging the question of whether government surveillance is a bad thing. The Nazi genocidal regime and the Communist oppressive dictatorships were indeed enabled by surveillance, but they are separate issues.
Well yes, but that's a rational response. We don't like those much here.
If the NSA's stopped this time, the CIA will be running the operation next time, and of course every other country is running their equivalent programs while chastising the US for getting caught. As Bruce Schneier so often has pointed out, modern technology presents incredible power, but we must be careful how that power is used. In my opinion, we should use this situation to establish a baseline procedure for modern surveillance of any kind. Gathering information on an individual is no longer a major undertaking, and that individual isn't really inconvenienced at all. There is little reason to prevent the initial gathering, but we must have restrictions on how the collected information may be used later.
I absolutely agree... except about the "right away" part. I'd say give it a week or two for politics' sake.
I have ADHD, so while working I feel a mental compulsion to jump around between three or four projects at once. I know that one of those projects is always going to end up being the one preempted by everything else, because I usually have enough competence for three projects, but feel most comfortable juggling four. I keep Slashdot as that fourth.
When starting with a new team, I'll usually spend a week figuring out the team dynamics and demonstrating my abilities to the rest of the team. Yes, I keep Slashdot open on my computer, but I'm not slacking off. My projects still meet deadlines and work as promised. Once I can show that, I'll mention to people, often individually, that I have ADHD, and I'll explain with a few prepared sentences how I'm very uncomfortable being limited to focusing on a single task. Some folks will ask questions, others will just accept it, but generally speaking everyone is open by then to the idea that even though I'm mentally different, I can still be a productive member of the team.
I have met one person who was concerned about my capability. He was under the impression that having ADHD meant I would be unable to focus on anything, which is an unfortunate persistent myth. By explaining my condition at the end of a productive week, I was able to give clear and specific examples of when my ADHD was an asset, and describe my mitigation techniques when it was a liability. We ended up working well together.
From reading TFAs, it seems T3 is getting an "exclusive license to charge for access", which isn't really a legal concept AFAIK. It looks like T3 is taking public-domain DoD images and videos, digitizing and cataloging them, then charging for access to the digital form. They're exclusively selling that access to the digital catalog, but the images and videos themselves are still public domain. I'm not sure whether digitizing counts as creating a new work for copyright purposes.
As I recall, the US workforce is about 155 million people, so 40 million is about a quarter of that. That means 75% of jobs don't rely on IP, according to the USPTO. Per this survey, that figure is 10% of businesses. TFA notes that larger businesses are more likely to value IP, so it makes sense that 10% of businesses could employ 25% of employees.
Not a very big wrench. To me, it looks like the figures likely corroborate each other. The message I get is that we shouldn't start panicking whenever we see a big number.
dictatorship nations have been voted into UN human rights commissions
This is unacceptable, because my idea of human rights is the only one that matters! Those dictatorships don't deserve a vote; they'll just screw it up. Just leave this whole decision to me, and I'll take care of it.
I used to work in finance, managing accounts for those "tax dodge" charities. It's pretty clear you don't actually know how they work.
You're right on the surface, of course... as long as you control your own foundation, you have control over those voting rights and the development of that lot. The devil's in the details, though. You don't have control as you, but as an agent of the foundation. That means that the donated assets are not a part of your own estate, and you personally don't own them any more. You can't transfer money back to yourself (as those "fat fees" run afoul of the charity's tax-free status), you can't build a vineyard on those 40 acres, and you can't pass on the charity to your heirs.
Those foundations are their own entities, and they must be managed separately. It's actually pretty hard to use them for your own financial gain. You can, however, use them to improve your standing in the community, but you don't really need money for that.
That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.
Having a spouse means you're forced to consider another perspective, which in turn makes it easier to understand and empathize with others you're not related to. Life isn't just about pursuing your own goals any more, but suddenly there's a concern for helping everyone. Perhaps not all the way to meeting their goals, but at least living long and well enough to have a chance.
They should be fine. While working on a mirror, its mounting slipped and I got a defective laser aimed right at my eye. I'm assuming that's when the damage happened. "Pointer" lasers are supposed to be limited to 5mW, so they can't cause damage before the blink reflex reacts. I am curious now whether cats' eyes have the same limits, though.
Correctly-low visible emission, but too much infrared. I didn't notice until I tried taking a picture of my setup and realized that my CCD camera saw everything far brighter than I did. I realized a few days later that I had a new spot in my vision.
Last year, in an unfortunate accident involving lasers and unexpected reflections, I burned a nice dark spot right near the center of my field of vision.
With this new technology, in only 50 years I'll be able to repair that damage!
7% of the workforce is in a union... but what percentage of the workforce has to deal with their presence? If union contracts weren't exclusive, how many members would jump ship and leave?
I'm not suggesting that collective bargaining shouldn't be allowed. Quite the contrary; I think it's a necessity. Participation in that collective group, though, I think should be wholly optional. We would indeed find it strange if a town mandated that everyone living within its limits must buy stock in a particular company.
I'm not familiar with Germany's unions specifically. If they're better, that's good. I certainly wouldn't place the blame for America's troubles wholly on the employers, though, or the unions. I see it as a mutual problem... the unions and the companies are both throwing their weight around to undermine each others' power, rather that working together to reach an agreement. Neither will give up anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin is regulated. There are laws in place for all valuable assets, regardless of whether they're tangible or not. Of course, many folks who "invest" in Bitcoin don't actually understand those laws or even realize that they should try to. They often don't realize that large transfers (regardless of currency) require documentation, they don't know that capital gains often must be reported for taxes, and they often don't bother keeping the documentation that they'll need when the various government authorities start asking questions. The even-more-naive don't even realize that theft or abuse is just as possible with Bitcoin as with cash.
The point of this statement is to remind people that digital currencies are still currencies. You don't get to escape the rules and risks of reality by using quatloos instead of dollars.
The purpose of the nation is freedom. The purpose of the NSA's actions is to oppose freedom. Therefore, those who perpetrate these actions are enemies of the nation...
There is no direct connection (despite the Slashdot hivemind's assumptions) between surveillance and oppression. Even merely opposing freedom does not, in itself, make someone an enemy of the United States. In fact, as I recall, there are a few other goals for the country besides just generic liberty, such as "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare". Of course, having to acknowledge multiple goals, which are all interpreted differently by the different branches of government, makes it harder to write vitriolic Slashdot posts calling for killing other humans.
While that might indeed be true (though I'd substitute "may" for "will"), having a blanket prohibition as the counter force just drives the abuse to be buried deeper. Mass surveillance is a genie that won't easily be put back in the bottle. If the NSA isn't doing it, the CIA, FBI, or foreign agencies will.
Rather than fight in vain against our technology, I'd rather use it. I'd like to see judges reviewing every single query to the NSA's database, and I'd like to see it available as a resource for exculpatory evidence. Ubiquitous recording does bring great power, and I think we should be harnessing that power for the public good. Unfortunately, rather than discussing the possibility of benefits and ways to mitigate the risk of abuse, the majority of the caring population seems to want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and shout about the Almighty Privacy.
You're going in circles, begging the same question. I assert that surveillance alone is not injurious. Prove me wrong.
It's actually rather surprising to get an eloquent response in this thread. I appreciate that.
The moon landing is an excellent example... have we actually used those great big rockets to nuke the other side of the planet? Are we likely to do so any time soon?
Surveillance is a tool, and yes, it can be and has been used to support some very harmful actions, by governments, organizations, and individuals. In every case, though, the surveillance has been used to enforce other discriminatory or oppressive policies. I say we should be fighting those other policies, and using the surveillance and analysis infrastructure to enforce the policies society and the Supreme Court approve of. Anything else stays locked away in the database which, being public knowledge, is itself a large red flag if it's ever accessed.
What part in particular? Is there any instance where surveillance alone caused actual measurable harm?
[citation needed]
That's not the surveillance harming you. It's the driver of the black SUV, the corrupt arresting officer, or even the flag-raising system, none of which should ever have access to the database without judicial review.
That's terribly unfair.
My warehouse is more than 50 yards from my desk.
History also shows us that nobody will ever walk on Mars, cancer is incurable, and apart from a few recent outliers, nobody lives past the age of 60.
Surveillance is indeed a tool of oppressive regimes, but it does not create them on its own. Prejudice and fear do that.
How so?
How is surveillance, in itself, harmful? What actual harm does a citizen suffer if their data (or metadata) goes into a warehouse, never to be seen again?
If these systems were not in place in 2012 and 2013, 3,000 people would be dead and 317 million people would be free from government surveillance.
Sounds terrible.
You're begging the question of whether government surveillance is a bad thing. The Nazi genocidal regime and the Communist oppressive dictatorships were indeed enabled by surveillance, but they are separate issues.
Well yes, but that's a rational response. We don't like those much here.
If the NSA's stopped this time, the CIA will be running the operation next time, and of course every other country is running their equivalent programs while chastising the US for getting caught. As Bruce Schneier so often has pointed out, modern technology presents incredible power, but we must be careful how that power is used. In my opinion, we should use this situation to establish a baseline procedure for modern surveillance of any kind. Gathering information on an individual is no longer a major undertaking, and that individual isn't really inconvenienced at all. There is little reason to prevent the initial gathering, but we must have restrictions on how the collected information may be used later.
I absolutely agree... except about the "right away" part. I'd say give it a week or two for politics' sake.
I have ADHD, so while working I feel a mental compulsion to jump around between three or four projects at once. I know that one of those projects is always going to end up being the one preempted by everything else, because I usually have enough competence for three projects, but feel most comfortable juggling four. I keep Slashdot as that fourth.
When starting with a new team, I'll usually spend a week figuring out the team dynamics and demonstrating my abilities to the rest of the team. Yes, I keep Slashdot open on my computer, but I'm not slacking off. My projects still meet deadlines and work as promised. Once I can show that, I'll mention to people, often individually, that I have ADHD, and I'll explain with a few prepared sentences how I'm very uncomfortable being limited to focusing on a single task. Some folks will ask questions, others will just accept it, but generally speaking everyone is open by then to the idea that even though I'm mentally different, I can still be a productive member of the team.
I have met one person who was concerned about my capability. He was under the impression that having ADHD meant I would be unable to focus on anything, which is an unfortunate persistent myth. By explaining my condition at the end of a productive week, I was able to give clear and specific examples of when my ADHD was an asset, and describe my mitigation techniques when it was a liability. We ended up working well together.
From reading TFAs, it seems T3 is getting an "exclusive license to charge for access", which isn't really a legal concept AFAIK. It looks like T3 is taking public-domain DoD images and videos, digitizing and cataloging them, then charging for access to the digital form. They're exclusively selling that access to the digital catalog, but the images and videos themselves are still public domain. I'm not sure whether digitizing counts as creating a new work for copyright purposes.
Shouldn't post just after waking up.
Per this survey, that figure is 10% of businesses.
"That figure" refers to the 25% of jobs that do rely on IP.
Quick calculations...
As I recall, the US workforce is about 155 million people, so 40 million is about a quarter of that. That means 75% of jobs don't rely on IP, according to the USPTO. Per this survey, that figure is 10% of businesses. TFA notes that larger businesses are more likely to value IP, so it makes sense that 10% of businesses could employ 25% of employees.
Not a very big wrench. To me, it looks like the figures likely corroborate each other. The message I get is that we shouldn't start panicking whenever we see a big number.
dictatorship nations have been voted into UN human rights commissions
This is unacceptable, because my idea of human rights is the only one that matters! Those dictatorships don't deserve a vote; they'll just screw it up. Just leave this whole decision to me, and I'll take care of it.
I used to work in finance, managing accounts for those "tax dodge" charities. It's pretty clear you don't actually know how they work.
You're right on the surface, of course... as long as you control your own foundation, you have control over those voting rights and the development of that lot. The devil's in the details, though. You don't have control as you, but as an agent of the foundation. That means that the donated assets are not a part of your own estate, and you personally don't own them any more. You can't transfer money back to yourself (as those "fat fees" run afoul of the charity's tax-free status), you can't build a vineyard on those 40 acres, and you can't pass on the charity to your heirs.
Those foundations are their own entities, and they must be managed separately. It's actually pretty hard to use them for your own financial gain. You can, however, use them to improve your standing in the community, but you don't really need money for that.
That's actually far more insightful than I think you intended.
Having a spouse means you're forced to consider another perspective, which in turn makes it easier to understand and empathize with others you're not related to. Life isn't just about pursuing your own goals any more, but suddenly there's a concern for helping everyone. Perhaps not all the way to meeting their goals, but at least living long and well enough to have a chance.
They should be fine. While working on a mirror, its mounting slipped and I got a defective laser aimed right at my eye. I'm assuming that's when the damage happened. "Pointer" lasers are supposed to be limited to 5mW, so they can't cause damage before the blink reflex reacts. I am curious now whether cats' eyes have the same limits, though.
Correctly-low visible emission, but too much infrared. I didn't notice until I tried taking a picture of my setup and realized that my CCD camera saw everything far brighter than I did. I realized a few days later that I had a new spot in my vision.
And don't buy cheap laser pointers.
Last year, in an unfortunate accident involving lasers and unexpected reflections, I burned a nice dark spot right near the center of my field of vision.
With this new technology, in only 50 years I'll be able to repair that damage!
7% of the workforce is in a union... but what percentage of the workforce has to deal with their presence? If union contracts weren't exclusive, how many members would jump ship and leave?
I'm not suggesting that collective bargaining shouldn't be allowed. Quite the contrary; I think it's a necessity. Participation in that collective group, though, I think should be wholly optional. We would indeed find it strange if a town mandated that everyone living within its limits must buy stock in a particular company.
I'm not familiar with Germany's unions specifically. If they're better, that's good. I certainly wouldn't place the blame for America's troubles wholly on the employers, though, or the unions. I see it as a mutual problem... the unions and the companies are both throwing their weight around to undermine each others' power, rather that working together to reach an agreement. Neither will give up anything.