So, the 'patriotic people' want their government to destroy their currency? Help me out here, how does weak currency protect your rights and threaten liberties?
But don't bother answering, you believe my comments are low quality, yet I don't see any value in your comments at all, 0. The only thing your comments do is display the low level of intelligence of some people, who would agree with them, that's all.
It is in fact possible that his intention is to make money by selling silver coins over spot value with a high markup fee, however this is not what he is charged with or was convicted upon. Also nobody is complaining about the dollars, nobody has to buy them, and when exactly have you seen a $50 coin last time and actually accepted it?
He is charged with basically violating the law, that says that the Fed is setting value of money, and the US Attorney on the case is making statements implying that he is a terrorist.
A terrorist. Not a fraudster. Not a counterfeiter. A terrorist.
Pro-government forces are strong at work on this site, as all my comments, whenever I speak about the economics, are being downmoded quickly, and also what's funny, is that they downmode all other comments I make for a good measure, they do it quickly, within 5 minutes and on multiple stories that have no connection between each other.
No, it is an attempt to defraud the users of a legitimate currency with one that so closely resembles the original currency that it could be mistaken for one -- it is the equivalent of currency counterfeiting, which can indeed have severe consequences.
- you just said 'counterfeiting', here is what
U.S. Attorney Tompkins said:
âoeAttempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, while these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,â she added. âoeWe are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.â
So is this terrorism? Because while you are calling this 'counterfeiting', I don't see that. I know what a dollar looks like and this one has words 'dollar' on it, but it's not a US dollar. It's different, it looks different, it's made out of silver, it feels different.
There are other currencies that look like US dollars, they also have words 'dollar' and they are round, etc. So again, how is a currency, that names itself dollar, which is generic, because many countries name their currencies 'dollar', how is that coin, that is made out of silver, which makes it much MORE valuable than whatever crap the Mints of the world are minting, how is that counterfeiting or terrorism?
Now, one thing is true: IF there was no OBLIGATION of merchants by the power of the state to accept the legal tender (whatever crap the Fed is printing and the Mint is coining), then guess what, merchants would NOT accept those crappy fiat currencies, but they would instead accept valuable money.
This is called Gresham's law, which works this way when there is no government, that forces acceptance of 'legal tender'.
You see, I do NOT want to hold fiat currencies, haven't held them in years. I hold actual money and then I convert between that and fiat to buy whatever. So to me, this is the most logical thing in the first place - have money that is valuable, that cannot be printed, created out of thin air by a government.
Also on another note, this man with his 'Liberty Dollars' is now called a terrorist.
Imagine what the government will call Bitcoin if it gets popular enough?
How is government going to control what people use as money?
How are the middle men going to control what people use as money and how would they ever make money on the transactions?
I expect the governments of the world to start a war on any and all currencies, that compete with their own, because at the end, those who print money have the real power.
Printing money is the real power, and if the money you print is not accepted by people as money of any value, then you have no power.
This is the ultimate problem, the way gov't sees it, that's why it's calling this terrorism and not counterfeiting, because excuse me for bringing this up once again: the 'Liberty Dollars' are actually VALUABLE as opposed to fiat crap printed by the Fed.
So then is this a case of copyright violation? Because if it is, then given what MPAA and RIAA are trying to charge people with, I understand that the punishment in this case (15 years + 250K fine + confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver) is even too small.
Obviously he should be charged with like $10000 fine per coin that he released, because clearly, just like Metallica is losing money from the copyright pirates, the Fed here is hurting, right?
(In case somebody has sarcasmometer broken, this is a warning.)
But no, this guy is charged with some weird shit, and AG is implying he is a "non-violent terrorist" no less.
So if some guy, minting SILVER coins, that are remotely resembling US coins (there is a word 'dollar' on it and some variation of 'god'), and they are round, oh my, if he is charged with something like 'terrorism' for THAT, than tell me, what should Bernanke and everybody in the Fed be charged with, for actually counterfeiting fiat currency?
Because you see, his dollars are actually BACKED by silver. They ARE silver. So they are clearly valuable, unlike the garbage that US gov't is flooding the world with.
# Barter clubs or corporate barter organizations are an example of alternative currency systems. # BerkShares........ # Liberty Dollar is a private currency backed by silver, designed to be a nationwide alternative currency in the United States.
The guy is releasing SILVER DOLLARS. By definition they are worth much more than whatever garbage the Fed is printing.
The real counterfeit operation is what the Fed is involved in. This guy wants sound money back, and the Fed is destroying him for it.
According to NASA the glitch happened March 14, right after the spacecraft issued a network interface card (NIC) reset command to implement a computer program update.
- I didn't know they use WI-FI to talk to the satellite, or is there a huge spool of CAT5 on the craft and can it be traced all the way down to NASA's Ames Research Center?
Jesus, another fucking idiot with a cookie cutter response.
Have you used your brain in a year at all?
HTTPS with a self signed cert does not need to be treated as a secure connection by the browser, it does not need the visual cues that connection is secure, no lock on the address bar, nothing.
What is needed is FINGERPRINT near the URL and for the browser to silently encrypt the traffic with the provided cert.
Nobody is asking the browser to ENSURE that the certificate really belongs to the site. Identification security is a secondary question.
The problem is and will remain the same: as long as HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated like some virus, while HTTP is not, HTTPS will not be used.
HTTP and HTTPS are the same, if their identity cannot be established.
CA is only ONE way of establishing identity.
Traffic should be automatically encrypted by the browser if HTTPS connection is made.
No stupid ass warnings should be flashed into the user, that make a site look like some sort of an attack.
HTTPS with self signed cert is no MORE dangerous than HTTP, so don't vilify it, let the user compare the FINGERPRINT if he cares, but encrypt the traffic automatically and do not provide visual cues that the site is supposedly secure (which by the way, presence of a CA also cannot be guarantee of)
I disagree, I VIOLENTLY disagree with this idiocy.
Fuck the non-profit CAs, fuck anybody who wants me to ask them to identify my. Is this understood?
One thing is needed, and as long as the idiots designing browsers do not understand it, HTTPS will not reach any wider audience:
BIG FUCKING FINGERPRINT right near the URL. Fingerprint, that can be looked up. Fingerprint that's all that's needed.
I will have the fingerprint on my site, I will have the fingerprint on all my business cards, I will have the fingerprint in my email, I will have it read to people over the phone, etc.etc.
I do not want any CAs, fuck all CAs, fuck anybody who wants to be identifying me, I will be identifying me.
Fuck the browsers who treat the self signed certs as if they are some bombs about to go off and not just as 'secure' or just as 'insecure' as HTTP.
Put the fucking fingerprint near the URL in the browser and stop with the stupidity and idiocy of incompetent UI design.
Dude, first of all chill. You are gonna have a heart attack by the time you are 40.
- oh, I don't doubt it simply based on the people around.
An argument is that they cannot be treated the same because they are not the same.
- no, HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated WORSE than HTTP.
So as long as HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated worse than an HTTP connection by browser interface, the HTTPS will see no wider use than it sees today.
You fail logic, as do the idiot browser UI 'designers'.
What browsers should do in case of self signed certs, is to treat the connections as 'insecure', the same as it is for HTTP but still use the provided cert for encryption.
NOBODY is asking the browser to treat the connection as 'secure' (with a UI lock icon, etc.), the only thing that should be done is in the UI, where user should not be prompted with a huge 'THIS IS A VIRUS' sign. The user is not prompted with a stupid warning like that for plain HTTP connections, so the difference between HTTP and self signed cert in HTTPS is not security but encryption of traffic.
The question of this story is simple: why are people not using HTTP.
The answer is obvious: browsers, and stupid people, believe that they must display a huge honking: "this is a virus" warning when certificates are not signed by a CA, but instead are self signed.
The browser behavior and behavior of stupid people prevents HTTPS from taking a hold and making a difference.
You are still an idiot for not being able to think past your righteousness, which is completely misplaced, since nobody is asking to identify the site in question as SECURE in the browser interface (the stupid lock icon). Instead of showing a huge "THIS IS A VIRUS" warning to the user, the browser should silently treat this site as insecure but still encrypt the traffic with the provided cert.
So you are, and all the browser designers who think like you, are idiots, standing in the way of wide HTTPS adoption.
Part of this was discussed long ago, with browsers treating self-signed certificates worse than they treat plain unencrypted traffic, even when passwords are passed around in plain text, nothing will change, because it is a major PITA to deal with browser issues as well as with CAs.
Here is a hint: create more incentives to use HTTPS, not fewer, and more people will use them.
This is not going to be fixed until stupid browsers stop treating a new connection to a website, that is using a self-signed certificate as some sort of a virus, while absolutely not doing the same for plain HTTP connections.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the 'patriotic people' want their government to destroy their currency? Help me out here, how does weak currency protect your rights and threaten liberties?
But don't bother answering, you believe my comments are low quality, yet I don't see any value in your comments at all, 0. The only thing your comments do is display the low level of intelligence of some people, who would agree with them, that's all.
It is in fact possible that his intention is to make money by selling silver coins over spot value with a high markup fee, however this is not what he is charged with or was convicted upon. Also nobody is complaining about the dollars, nobody has to buy them, and when exactly have you seen a $50 coin last time and actually accepted it?
He is charged with basically violating the law, that says that the Fed is setting value of money, and the US Attorney on the case is making statements implying that he is a terrorist.
A terrorist. Not a fraudster. Not a counterfeiter. A terrorist.
I have 2 words for Bitcoin developer - watch out.
Pro-government forces are strong at work on this site, as all my comments, whenever I speak about the economics, are being downmoded quickly, and also what's funny, is that they downmode all other comments I make for a good measure, they do it quickly, within 5 minutes and on multiple stories that have no connection between each other.
Silver coins. Use you dumb ass brain for one second - SILVER COINS.
1 ounce of silver is over 36 US dollars now, dumb ass.
No, it is an attempt to defraud the users of a legitimate currency with one that so closely resembles the original currency that it could be mistaken for one -- it is the equivalent of currency counterfeiting, which can indeed have severe consequences.
- you just said 'counterfeiting', here is what
U.S. Attorney Tompkins said:
âoeAttempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, while these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,â she added. âoeWe are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.â
So is this terrorism? Because while you are calling this 'counterfeiting', I don't see that. I know what a dollar looks like and this one has words 'dollar' on it, but it's not a US dollar. It's different, it looks different, it's made out of silver, it feels different.
There are other currencies that look like US dollars, they also have words 'dollar' and they are round, etc. So again, how is a currency, that names itself dollar, which is generic, because many countries name their currencies 'dollar', how is that coin, that is made out of silver, which makes it much MORE valuable than whatever crap the Mints of the world are minting, how is that counterfeiting or terrorism?
Now, one thing is true: IF there was no OBLIGATION of merchants by the power of the state to accept the legal tender (whatever crap the Fed is printing and the Mint is coining), then guess what, merchants would NOT accept those crappy fiat currencies, but they would instead accept valuable money.
This is called Gresham's law, which works this way when there is no government, that forces acceptance of 'legal tender'.
You see, I do NOT want to hold fiat currencies, haven't held them in years. I hold actual money and then I convert between that and fiat to buy whatever. So to me, this is the most logical thing in the first place - have money that is valuable, that cannot be printed, created out of thin air by a government.
Also on another note, this man with his 'Liberty Dollars' is now called a terrorist.
Imagine what the government will call Bitcoin if it gets popular enough?
How is government going to control what people use as money?
How are the middle men going to control what people use as money and how would they ever make money on the transactions?
I expect the governments of the world to start a war on any and all currencies, that compete with their own, because at the end, those who print money have the real power.
Printing money is the real power, and if the money you print is not accepted by people as money of any value, then you have no power.
This is the ultimate problem, the way gov't sees it, that's why it's calling this terrorism and not counterfeiting, because excuse me for bringing this up once again: the 'Liberty Dollars' are actually VALUABLE as opposed to fiat crap printed by the Fed.
So then is this a case of copyright violation? Because if it is, then given what MPAA and RIAA are trying to charge people with, I understand that the punishment in this case (15 years + 250K fine + confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver) is even too small.
Obviously he should be charged with like $10000 fine per coin that he released, because clearly, just like Metallica is losing money from the copyright pirates, the Fed here is hurting, right?
(In case somebody has sarcasmometer broken, this is a warning.)
But no, this guy is charged with some weird shit, and AG is implying he is a "non-violent terrorist" no less.
So if some guy, minting SILVER coins, that are remotely resembling US coins (there is a word 'dollar' on it and some variation of 'god'), and they are round, oh my, if he is charged with something like 'terrorism' for THAT, than tell me, what should Bernanke and everybody in the Fed be charged with, for actually counterfeiting fiat currency?
Because you see, his dollars are actually BACKED by silver. They ARE silver. So they are clearly valuable, unlike the garbage that US gov't is flooding the world with.
Did you even read the wiki page you referred to?
# Barter clubs or corporate barter organizations are an example of alternative currency systems. ........
# BerkShares
# Liberty Dollar is a private currency backed by silver, designed to be a nationwide alternative currency in the United States.
The guy is releasing SILVER DOLLARS. By definition they are worth much more than whatever garbage the Fed is printing.
The real counterfeit operation is what the Fed is involved in. This guy wants sound money back, and the Fed is destroying him for it.
So will he be treated same as this man?
Isn't he still in the office?
According to NASA the glitch happened March 14, right after the spacecraft issued a network interface card (NIC) reset command to implement a computer program update.
- I didn't know they use WI-FI to talk to the satellite, or is there a huge spool of CAT5 on the craft and can it be traced all the way down to NASA's Ames Research Center?
Jesus, another fucking idiot with a cookie cutter response.
Have you used your brain in a year at all?
HTTPS with a self signed cert does not need to be treated as a secure connection by the browser, it does not need the visual cues that connection is secure, no lock on the address bar, nothing.
What is needed is FINGERPRINT near the URL and for the browser to silently encrypt the traffic with the provided cert.
Nobody is asking the browser to ENSURE that the certificate really belongs to the site. Identification security is a secondary question.
The problem is and will remain the same: as long as HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated like some virus, while HTTP is not, HTTPS will not be used.
HTTP and HTTPS are the same, if their identity cannot be established.
CA is only ONE way of establishing identity.
Traffic should be automatically encrypted by the browser if HTTPS connection is made.
No stupid ass warnings should be flashed into the user, that make a site look like some sort of an attack.
HTTPS with self signed cert is no MORE dangerous than HTTP, so don't vilify it, let the user compare the FINGERPRINT if he cares, but encrypt the traffic automatically and do not provide visual cues that the site is supposedly secure (which by the way, presence of a CA also cannot be guarantee of)
another stupid post by somebody who completely missed the point.
Do not treat HTTPS with a self signed cert as secure, do not give visual clues that the site is secure (lock in the address bar, etc.)
Provide the FINGERPRINT near the address bar and encrypt the traffic with the provided cert.
Do not tell the user the site is secure, just encrypt the traffic.
But for fuck sakes, stop with the idiotic messages, that make it look like an https with a self signed cert is somehow WORSE than http.
This is retarded, only fucking idiot retards do not understand this.
And how do you suppose they'd see where they are going then? Ha? Ha? Have you thought about that?
Oh, god, and who asked you to treat the site as less or more 'secure' if it uses HTTPS with a self signed cert?
Who is asking you? It should be treated exactly the same as HTTP and it should use the provided cert for encryption.
Any other type of response from a browser - and nobody will be using HTTPS, because why use it, if browsers treat your sight worse than HTTP?
So that's the answer to the question in this story.
I don't see any science here, only idiots thinking they know something that will move HTTPS into wider use, and all they accomplish is stopping it.
They are stopping it, so fine, they stop it, they shouldn't complain when people don't use it.
I disagree, I VIOLENTLY disagree with this idiocy.
Fuck the non-profit CAs, fuck anybody who wants me to ask them to identify my. Is this understood?
One thing is needed, and as long as the idiots designing browsers do not understand it, HTTPS will not reach any wider audience:
BIG FUCKING FINGERPRINT right near the URL. Fingerprint, that can be looked up. Fingerprint that's all that's needed.
I will have the fingerprint on my site, I will have the fingerprint on all my business cards, I will have the fingerprint in my email, I will have it read to people over the phone, etc.etc.
I do not want any CAs, fuck all CAs, fuck anybody who wants to be identifying me, I will be identifying me.
Fuck the browsers who treat the self signed certs as if they are some bombs about to go off and not just as 'secure' or just as 'insecure' as HTTP.
Put the fucking fingerprint near the URL in the browser and stop with the stupidity and idiocy of incompetent UI design.
Dude, first of all chill. You are gonna have a heart attack by the time you are 40.
- oh, I don't doubt it simply based on the people around.
An argument is that they cannot be treated the same because they are not the same.
- no, HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated WORSE than HTTP.
So as long as HTTPS with a self signed cert is treated worse than an HTTP connection by browser interface, the HTTPS will see no wider use than it sees today.
That's that.
Computer Science arguments
- treat the HTTPS that is using self signed certificate SAME as HTTP and encrypt the traffic.
There, THAT is an argument.
The 'you are an idiot' statement is NOT an argument, it's a fact.
Who is asking anything about PKI? WHO is asking to identify the site as SECURE?
WHO?
The question is: why is a self signed cert via HTTPS is being treated like a VIRUS, being treated worse than HTTP?
The answer: IDIOTS without any understanding of the question that is being asked.
You fail logic, as do the idiot browser UI 'designers'.
What browsers should do in case of self signed certs, is to treat the connections as 'insecure', the same as it is for HTTP but still use the provided cert for encryption.
NOBODY is asking the browser to treat the connection as 'secure' (with a UI lock icon, etc.), the only thing that should be done is in the UI, where user should not be prompted with a huge 'THIS IS A VIRUS' sign. The user is not prompted with a stupid warning like that for plain HTTP connections, so the difference between HTTP and self signed cert in HTTPS is not security but encryption of traffic.
The question of this story is simple: why are people not using HTTP.
The answer is obvious: browsers, and stupid people, believe that they must display a huge honking: "this is a virus" warning when certificates are not signed by a CA, but instead are self signed.
The browser behavior and behavior of stupid people prevents HTTPS from taking a hold and making a difference.
You are still an idiot for not being able to think past your righteousness, which is completely misplaced, since nobody is asking to identify the site in question as SECURE in the browser interface (the stupid lock icon). Instead of showing a huge "THIS IS A VIRUS" warning to the user, the browser should silently treat this site as insecure but still encrypt the traffic with the provided cert.
So you are, and all the browser designers who think like you, are idiots, standing in the way of wide HTTPS adoption.
Concluding, encryption without verification is useless and more dangerous than plain HTTP because the user assumes that the connection is secure.
- you are an idiot.
For you to prove that you are not an idiot, explain why the browsers are NOT displaying huge honking 'THIS IS A VIRUS' sign for HTTP.
Part of this was discussed long ago, with browsers treating self-signed certificates worse than they treat plain unencrypted traffic, even when passwords are passed around in plain text, nothing will change, because it is a major PITA to deal with browser issues as well as with CAs.
Here is a hint: create more incentives to use HTTPS, not fewer, and more people will use them.
This is not going to be fixed until stupid browsers stop treating a new connection to a website, that is using a self-signed certificate as some sort of a virus, while absolutely not doing the same for plain HTTP connections.
Good thing we have three space dimensions now, otherwise it would have gone right into your head.
- aah, so there is a downside to having too many dimensions!
Deep cloning in Java is stupid, so I always implement my own simple way to clone: serialize the object into a byte array, de-serialize it, cast it.
It's not as wonderfully quick as cloning memory via a pointer, but it works.
Yeah, because AT&T is the very definition of a free market competitor, who isn't backed by government left right and center, isn't it?