You make a credible point, but then take it too far. The exchanges are the problem and the algorithms, which are the only security provided in the process, cannot address that. Therefore to assume the algorithms can provide the necessary level of security to the entire process, is fallacy.
It was not that long ago that banks generally were subject to little or no regulation. Banks would fail, investors would lose all, only for the process to repeat itself again, and again. Eventually, in an effort to protect their economies, governments stepped to limit the risks that banks could take with their investors' money and, often, to insure the investors against loss, thereby engendering confidence.
Bitcoin has made its stock in trade the fact that it is unregulated by anything but a few algorithms. Like Adam Smith'e "invisible hand", we are to trust to these algorithms to provide a certain Deus ex Machina for providing security.
The reality is that until Bitcoin exchanges are regulated by credible authorities, security will be a fantasm.
... if we had seriously tried to limit petroleum consumption and develop alternatives since 1979, we might not have to embrace either risky proposition.
From Shuttleworth on down the line, Canonical is suffering a meltdown from the frustration of failure and loss.
Once the golden boy of the Linux revolution, Shuttleworth himself has devolved in the public eye to a petulant bully. Of course, he has only himself to thank for that, but such is frequently the trajectory of a highly driven personality, when denied the victories, fanfare and spoils they see themselves as deserving.
The Ubuntu project was founded on a "build it and they will come" approach to business. While that may work in the movies, it is a poor business model. In reality, "build it, package it, promote it and support it" are the pillars of success in the commercial world. Having failed to recognize the enormity of that task, Shuttleworth and company led themselves down a garden path, in regard to desktop Linux.
More recently, Canonical has sought to establish a vein of exclusivity in its offerings, at the expense of true Open Source principles. In so doing they have tried to make an end run approach to what Red Hat has done more openly, though recent times have seen suggestions that RH is, now, also taking more liberties with the spirit of "free and open".
Of course, Red Hat took its fair share of abuse when first it abandoned the desktop. Canonical seems headed down the same path, but in a slow, drawn out fashion, guaranteed to prolong the ordeal.
Do not compromise the integrity of your submissions to pursue the filthy lucre of "success". This is just a ploy to stifle your creative spontaneity by actually suggesting you think first. Clearly, if that were applied to all the content here, this would just be another, run-of-the-mill, tech news site. Yawn. (Really, I think the editors just want less work to do.)
True, it is a delicate balance that is required. Nonetheless, I don't think it hurts to remind practitioners and prospective practitioners that there is more in Heaven and Earth than they can wrap their heads around.
Well, no, I simply feel it is courteous to provide a response to clarify my position and acknowledge another's post. Of course, your specious assertions also demanded a response, lest they be construed as the last word on the subject.
Of course, you appear to feel differently about proper conduct, assuming an air of insulting superiority to reinforce insubstantial contentions and give the impression yours is the final word on the matter. You should be apprised of the fact that this behavior does nothing but portray you as a pompous, self-impressed twit.
It has apparently escaped your notice that you argued giving a signed piece of paper to someone essentially transferred your right of identity to them, so that they might "... do anything I could do."
In the case of the Twitter accounts, the authors of the tweets usurped the identity of the actual account holder. They did not state, "This post was made by Comic Con on the behalf of so-and-so." They impersonated the account holder.
By the way, you seem to conflate a signature with identity. They are not the same thing. When you empower someone to act in your behalf, with a signature, they must do so under their own identity. To assume your identity is still a prosecutable malfeasance. If you conspire with them toward that end, you may be prosecuted, as well.
While you may have a point regarding the act of giving such permission being an indictment against one's judiciousness, that has no immediate bearing on whether one has such a reputation in the first place.
Obviously, significance is in the eye of the reputation holder, potentially to be determined by the court.
The real point is making this an expensive enough episode for the perpetrators to discourage such behavior in the future. By most accounts, it came as a surprise to the victims that postings had been made without their approval. This creates considerable question as to whether the perps made a good-faith effort to inform them of what they were agreeing to.
Garnering misplaced trust may not be actionable in and of itself, but deceit to gain and or abuse of that trust can be. A material question, then, is whether the attendees so exploited actually had a "100x cooler" experience or whether they felt betrayed, ripped-off and demeaned. Evidence suggests the latter and actionable misconduct by Comic Con.
Astroturfing is reprehensible enough without hijacking peoples' identities to do it.
Harm to one's reputation or public image is a demonstrable and prosecutable harm. If one were to enjoy a reputation as a sensible and judicious person, some of the comments I've seen, which were purported to be the postings in question, would do harm to it.
Your comment does draw further attention to the potential harm that might befall the readers of such postings, who would have been wilfully mislead.
In ghost writing the individual for whom the writing service is provided has knowledge of the product and editorial rights over it. The people whose identities were abused, here, had no such opportunity to control what was published under their names.
To suggest that I "cheapen the meaning of everything" is offensive, cheap, and wrong. It is you who cheapen the milieu of rational discourse at Slashdot. You should be ashamed.
No, that was just an example of a right you can't sign away. Indeed, a closer analogy would be indentured servitude, a contract that was "freely" entered into, but wherein one relinquished one's rights as an individual, for a specified period. Note that it was the same stroke of the pen that eliminated slavery, which also eliminated indentured servitude .
Slashdot Mirror
... all of this is based on our billions of years of precise records. Oh, wait ...
You make a credible point, but then take it too far. The exchanges are the problem and the algorithms, which are the only security provided in the process, cannot address that. Therefore to assume the algorithms can provide the necessary level of security to the entire process, is fallacy.
... we will perfect the exercise pill, as well. After all, there's no reason anyone should be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions.
I'll just sit back, enjoy a GMO meal, a glass of nuohol, and do a VR hike of the Pacific Crest Trail.No actual backbone required.
It was not that long ago that banks generally were subject to little or no regulation. Banks would fail, investors would lose all, only for the process to repeat itself again, and again. Eventually, in an effort to protect their economies, governments stepped to limit the risks that banks could take with their investors' money and, often, to insure the investors against loss, thereby engendering confidence.
Bitcoin has made its stock in trade the fact that it is unregulated by anything but a few algorithms. Like Adam Smith'e "invisible hand", we are to trust to these algorithms to provide a certain Deus ex Machina for providing security.
The reality is that until Bitcoin exchanges are regulated by credible authorities, security will be a fantasm.
... if we had seriously tried to limit petroleum consumption and develop alternatives since 1979, we might not have to embrace either risky proposition.
That is the title of an excellent BBC series from 2004, that addresses this topic. The contention is that fear has replaced promises of a better tomorrow as the leverage point politicians exploit to persuade the masses. It is available on Netflix, here: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Power-of-Nightmares/70035190?strkid=2097735933_4_0&strackid=4c753cb9c81ba8d_4_srl&trkid=222336
From Shuttleworth on down the line, Canonical is suffering a meltdown from the frustration of failure and loss.
Once the golden boy of the Linux revolution, Shuttleworth himself has devolved in the public eye to a petulant bully. Of course, he has only himself to thank for that, but such is frequently the trajectory of a highly driven personality, when denied the victories, fanfare and spoils they see themselves as deserving.
The Ubuntu project was founded on a "build it and they will come" approach to business. While that may work in the movies, it is a poor business model. In reality, "build it, package it, promote it and support it" are the pillars of success in the commercial world. Having failed to recognize the enormity of that task, Shuttleworth and company led themselves down a garden path, in regard to desktop Linux.
More recently, Canonical has sought to establish a vein of exclusivity in its offerings, at the expense of true Open Source principles. In so doing they have tried to make an end run approach to what Red Hat has done more openly, though recent times have seen suggestions that RH is, now, also taking more liberties with the spirit of "free and open".
Of course, Red Hat took its fair share of abuse when first it abandoned the desktop. Canonical seems headed down the same path, but in a slow, drawn out fashion, guaranteed to prolong the ordeal.
... another day, another story.
Do not compromise the integrity of your submissions to pursue the filthy lucre of "success". This is just a ploy to stifle your creative spontaneity by actually suggesting you think first. Clearly, if that were applied to all the content here, this would just be another, run-of-the-mill, tech news site. Yawn. (Really, I think the editors just want less work to do.)
True, it is a delicate balance that is required. Nonetheless, I don't think it hurts to remind practitioners and prospective practitioners that there is more in Heaven and Earth than they can wrap their heads around.
... I can attest that anything that keeps them humble is not a bad thing. Yes, my dear MD, you are human, too.
Simple fix: clue 'em to Slashdot.
... enjoyed by Blu-ray over DVD presages the inevitable success of 4K. Oh, wait ...
We should behead Zuckerberg and see if they carry that.
... but there's a certain economic gravity to the weightless experience.
Well, no, I simply feel it is courteous to provide a response to clarify my position and acknowledge another's post. Of course, your specious assertions also demanded a response, lest they be construed as the last word on the subject.
Of course, you appear to feel differently about proper conduct, assuming an air of insulting superiority to reinforce insubstantial contentions and give the impression yours is the final word on the matter. You should be apprised of the fact that this behavior does nothing but portray you as a pompous, self-impressed twit.
It has apparently escaped your notice that you argued giving a signed piece of paper to someone essentially transferred your right of identity to them, so that they might "... do anything I could do."
In the case of the Twitter accounts, the authors of the tweets usurped the identity of the actual account holder. They did not state, "This post was made by Comic Con on the behalf of so-and-so." They impersonated the account holder.
Black's Law Dictionary's definition of identity: http://thelawdictionary.org/identity/
I don't need to further assert what is demonstrable, legal fact. A signature is not an identity, it is nothing more than a legal instrument. Period.
By the way, you seem to conflate a signature with identity. They are not the same thing. When you empower someone to act in your behalf, with a signature, they must do so under their own identity. To assume your identity is still a prosecutable malfeasance. If you conspire with them toward that end, you may be prosecuted, as well.
... we need to address the blasphemy of secret courts. This is the greater stain on the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
Physically they can illicitly take your signature and manipulate the resulting document, but legally they cannot. That is the point here.
While you may have a point regarding the act of giving such permission being an indictment against one's judiciousness, that has no immediate bearing on whether one has such a reputation in the first place.
Obviously, significance is in the eye of the reputation holder, potentially to be determined by the court.
The real point is making this an expensive enough episode for the perpetrators to discourage such behavior in the future. By most accounts, it came as a surprise to the victims that postings had been made without their approval. This creates considerable question as to whether the perps made a good-faith effort to inform them of what they were agreeing to.
Garnering misplaced trust may not be actionable in and of itself, but deceit to gain and or abuse of that trust can be. A material question, then, is whether the attendees so exploited actually had a "100x cooler" experience or whether they felt betrayed, ripped-off and demeaned. Evidence suggests the latter and actionable misconduct by Comic Con.
Astroturfing is reprehensible enough without hijacking peoples' identities to do it.
Harm to one's reputation or public image is a demonstrable and prosecutable harm. If one were to enjoy a reputation as a sensible and judicious person, some of the comments I've seen, which were purported to be the postings in question, would do harm to it.
Your comment does draw further attention to the potential harm that might befall the readers of such postings, who would have been wilfully mislead.
In ghost writing the individual for whom the writing service is provided has knowledge of the product and editorial rights over it. The people whose identities were abused, here, had no such opportunity to control what was published under their names.
To suggest that I "cheapen the meaning of everything" is offensive, cheap, and wrong. It is you who cheapen the milieu of rational discourse at Slashdot. You should be ashamed.
No, that was just an example of a right you can't sign away. Indeed, a closer analogy would be indentured servitude, a contract that was "freely" entered into, but wherein one relinquished one's rights as an individual, for a specified period. Note that it was the same stroke of the pen that eliminated slavery, which also eliminated indentured servitude .