So instead of last year being the hottest, you're saying that there's a chance that it was only unusually hot. So it's either unusually hot, or the hottest.
If we're stating numbers though, we might as well make an effort to be accurate, right? NOAA claims 48% accuracy, and NASA claims 38% accuracy, with the difference being 0.04 degrees Celcius hotter than the next warmest years (2010 and 2005). Various satellite systems have also ranked 2014 at fourth or sixth place.
I do it because I'm only one link in that chain. I'm not the guy with a bunch of BTCs wondering who I can sell them to, I'm just doing a single transaction that involves converting to the local currency before making my purchase. In this particular situation, using dollars isn't an option in the first place when BTC is the only currency accepted.
How is it any different than the government printing dollars which make the claim that they are legal tender? Should you just take their word for it? You have a piece of paper in your pocket that you can exchange for quite a bit of food, but the paper isn't valuable. It's not magic paper, it can't cure hemorrhoids. It's just paper, with little pieces of thread and stuff. It would take several thousand pieces of it to equal the value of 1 log of firewood.
Like anything else, be it little pieces of paper or metal, or hashes and algorithms, or bottle caps, barbie doll heads, marbles, whatever; the true value of something is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. The prices on the exchanges are actual prices, that is what people are actually willing to pay. That is what a bitcoin is actually worth. Just like dollars and coins.
That being said, a lot of time needs to pass before anyone should seriously consider converting the majority of their wealth to a currency like bitcoins. If the US dollar or any other state-sponsored currency were seeing volatility like what you see with BTC then no one would be keeping their fortune there, either. The reason USD is a better currency at this point to store your money is because right now it is much more stable than BTC. That's really the only reason though.
I think you missed my point. If I want to buy $200 USD worth of goods, and I want to pay in bitcoins, I go out and buy $200 USD in bitcoins (however many BTC that works out to be at the time), I do my transaction, and that's it. It doesn't matter to me if the value of BTC goes up or down the next day. I buy them, and immediately transfer them back out. It's not a currency to hold on to considering the volatility that it sees. But its usefulness as an anonymous currency is still there, I can still go buy my BTC and transfer them out to purchase whatever I want within an hour or however long it takes the transfers to go through. If I do that, then I am immune to everything except the most extreme volatility (huge swings in under an hour).
In other words, when I'm ready to make a purchase using bitcoins it does not matter to me at all what the current value of BTC are. I have used them when they were $100 each, and I've used them when they were $1000 each. I still got what I wanted either way, the system still worked.
So BitCoins are not suitable as an investment? Interesting....
What idiot would invest in bitcoins once they saw the price go up to over $1000 and then crash back down? The only people who were smart about "investing" in bitcoins are the people who bought them for fractions of a cent during the first year.
Bitcoins are not an investment. They are an anonymous currency (for certain values of anonymous). Period. Just because some people try to speculate and make money trading in them does not change what their purpose is.
1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services. 2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
That's rather over-simplified, isn't it? I'm not aware of any laws which are written with the purpose of outlawing consenting adults from exchanging goods and services. It's the goods and services that are outlawed. I'm sure there's some law which is akin to outlawing specifically and knowingly providing a place for people to engage in otherwise illegal behavior.
Bitcoins have not lost any of their utility, at all. If I want to buy something that costs $200 in bitcoins, I go get $200 in bitcoins and then buy it. It doesn't matter how many bitcoins I get for $200, the system is still working exactly like it always has. If someone decides that they want to buy $1000 in bitcoins, spend a fifth of it, and save the rest for another purchase later, they might find out that they don't have enough for another purchase whenever they get around to it. The volatility of bitcoins is just proof that you shouldn't horde them, there's no reason to do that. But the system in general has lost exactly zero amount of usefulness.
Check your math. The flaw exists in Android 4.3 and older. 4.4 has 39.1% share, and whatever version number version L is has 0.1%. The remainder is 4.3 and older.
The military and political leaders conveniently used the defacto religion of their time to further their own selfish ambitions. Their underlings simply did what they were told. Nowhere does Jesus command his followers to kill or even use violence in his name. That contrasts starkly with what the prophet Mohammad taught, and that is where the real issue lies.
I'm talking about individuals rather than nations. When someone goes and bombs an abortion clinic, for example, they typically do it because they think they are serving their god, they are doing it for their religion. The Islamists in Paris were following similar beliefs. I'm not trying to argue whether or not the official doctrine of any religion includes killing people. Self-proclaimed members of both Christianity and Islam would both argue for and against their religion allowing them to kill people under certain circumstances, I'm not trying to get into that debate.
The difference being that a religion like Islam commands it
I see that you, on the other hand, are in fact trying to have that debate. I'm not your opponent for that debate though, there are plenty of web pages that give arguments on both sides.
I think that was during his speech in the Philippines.
"I call on Islamic radicals to enter the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and kill 12 people with automatic weapons." - Barack Hussein Obama II
My god, you're right. It's exactly what he actually called for. Good call on that, thankfully you're here to point out things that other people would have missed.
DHKP-C says it is fighting corruption. The DHKP-C statement said the motive was to protest at government corruption and avenge the death of a boy fatally injured by police.
I'm missing the part where they say their goal is to spread atheism.
But they were fighting for the removal of organized religion.
That's about as intelligent as saying that Kim Il-Sung's goal was to nationalize the lumber industry. You're stating individual pieces like they're the entire goal. The purpose of the fighting was not the removal of organized religion, it was a much larger issue that they were fighting for.
You seem to fail to understand that was part of the ideology and a vital part.
You seem to fail to understand that it was one piece of a much larger issue.
As I said it is stupid to blame Atheists for the mass murders done by Atheists trying to spread an Atheist ideology
It's stupid to even claim that anyone has ever fought a war to spread "an Athiest ideology" in the first place. The defining quality of revolutionary socialism is not the lack of religion, it is control of the means of production. It is not an Atheist ideology, it is a socialist ideology. But you're busy trying to build a case that these people were fighting for Atheism as a religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Sorry if you are offended by the idea of not being bigoted.
Wow. Yeah, you *nailed* me there, didn't you? Yeah pal you're exactly right, I am absolutely offended that anyone would not be a bigot. Thank you for stating my position so eloquently, and you've got my permission to debate with yourself from here on out, because I'm not going to be a party to this crap. Your agenda is obvious.
Shinto has been around since before 600BC and is "the way of the gods", not "the divinity of the Emperor." And you're trying to tell me that the goal of the Imperial Japanese military was to spread Shinto, rather than their own influence? That the soldiers in battle were not fighting for their nation, but for their religion?
"For Atheism!" They did but
No. They didn't. If you disagree, cite a source that quotes someone engaging in a battle in name of atheism, for the purpose of spreading atheism. Not Marxism, atheism. Marxism and atheism are not the same thing. People fighting revolutions are not fighting to bring about atheism, that is not their goal. Their goal is an entire political, social, and economic ideology, not just the removal of organized religion.
But, really, you don't care about any of this, do you? You just want to throw out some phrases about how Atheism itself (as some sort of organized thing which you imagine it to be) is responsible for the greatest number of deaths throughout history so that you engage people in meaningless debates where you pull out examples of people who were atheist and try to claim that their actions were done specifically in the name of atheism. We both know that's bullshit, but looking at your other comments that's obviously your goal. Good luck fighting your war against what you believe Atheism to be.
Don't confuse people of a certain religion killing people, versus people being killed for a religion. I doubt that anyone ever ran into battle shouting "For Shinto!" "For Atheism!"
The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism. That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion, or Islamist killers who have done the same.
I don't think the program necessarily is the art, as far as the artists are concerned. The exhibition isn't the software necessarily, it is the collection of all of the items that the software "decided" to purchase. That means that the drugs themselves are part of the art exhibit. The full quote shows that they are aware of the fact that the drugs aren't legal on their own.
"We are the legal owner of the drugs - we are responsible for everything the bot does, as we executed the code," says Smoljo. "But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free."
So, in this context, it is legal for them to be in possession of the otherwise-illegal drugs. Or, at least they think so.
Then Sony should have stood their ground and let those theaters take the heat instead. Other smaller theaters would have probably stepped up and shown it, and the public probably would have responded by going out to see a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise seen just to give a big middle finger to the attackers.
Any one sane doesn't like armed-to-the-teeth wanna-be vigilantes walking around with an axe to grind.
I agree, and it's difficult to find a practical reason why someone would need to walk around with more than 1 gun on them, or a long arm that isn't easy to handle. I live in Arizona, and it's not all that uncommon to see people walking around with a handgun in the open (and I imagine far more people have them concealed), but I've never seen anyone walking around with a rifle or shotgun outside of hunting. There's just no reason for it. Not that it necessarily needs to be illegal, but people just don't have a daily reason to do it. If someone was walking around with an assault rifle slung across their back they're more likely to get made fun of by people with a little P228 or.38 or something in their pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
So instead of last year being the hottest, you're saying that there's a chance that it was only unusually hot. So it's either unusually hot, or the hottest.
If we're stating numbers though, we might as well make an effort to be accurate, right? NOAA claims 48% accuracy, and NASA claims 38% accuracy, with the difference being 0.04 degrees Celcius hotter than the next warmest years (2010 and 2005). Various satellite systems have also ranked 2014 at fourth or sixth place.
I'm speaking about the dark web. You cannot purchase products there with dollars.
I do it because I'm only one link in that chain. I'm not the guy with a bunch of BTCs wondering who I can sell them to, I'm just doing a single transaction that involves converting to the local currency before making my purchase. In this particular situation, using dollars isn't an option in the first place when BTC is the only currency accepted.
So in other words bitcoins are just a proxy for dollars.
In as much as any given currency is a proxy for any other given currency, correct.
If you want to by $200 worth of something why not just use...you know...dollars?
For the same reason that when I go to Switzerland I exchange my dollars for Swiss Francs. Bitcoins are the local currency where I shop.
How is it any different than the government printing dollars which make the claim that they are legal tender? Should you just take their word for it? You have a piece of paper in your pocket that you can exchange for quite a bit of food, but the paper isn't valuable. It's not magic paper, it can't cure hemorrhoids. It's just paper, with little pieces of thread and stuff. It would take several thousand pieces of it to equal the value of 1 log of firewood.
Like anything else, be it little pieces of paper or metal, or hashes and algorithms, or bottle caps, barbie doll heads, marbles, whatever; the true value of something is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. The prices on the exchanges are actual prices, that is what people are actually willing to pay. That is what a bitcoin is actually worth. Just like dollars and coins.
That being said, a lot of time needs to pass before anyone should seriously consider converting the majority of their wealth to a currency like bitcoins. If the US dollar or any other state-sponsored currency were seeing volatility like what you see with BTC then no one would be keeping their fortune there, either. The reason USD is a better currency at this point to store your money is because right now it is much more stable than BTC. That's really the only reason though.
I think you missed my point. If I want to buy $200 USD worth of goods, and I want to pay in bitcoins, I go out and buy $200 USD in bitcoins (however many BTC that works out to be at the time), I do my transaction, and that's it. It doesn't matter to me if the value of BTC goes up or down the next day. I buy them, and immediately transfer them back out. It's not a currency to hold on to considering the volatility that it sees. But its usefulness as an anonymous currency is still there, I can still go buy my BTC and transfer them out to purchase whatever I want within an hour or however long it takes the transfers to go through. If I do that, then I am immune to everything except the most extreme volatility (huge swings in under an hour).
In other words, when I'm ready to make a purchase using bitcoins it does not matter to me at all what the current value of BTC are. I have used them when they were $100 each, and I've used them when they were $1000 each. I still got what I wanted either way, the system still worked.
So BitCoins are not suitable as an investment? Interesting....
What idiot would invest in bitcoins once they saw the price go up to over $1000 and then crash back down? The only people who were smart about "investing" in bitcoins are the people who bought them for fractions of a cent during the first year.
Bitcoins are not an investment. They are an anonymous currency (for certain values of anonymous). Period. Just because some people try to speculate and make money trading in them does not change what their purpose is.
1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services.
2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
That's rather over-simplified, isn't it? I'm not aware of any laws which are written with the purpose of outlawing consenting adults from exchanging goods and services. It's the goods and services that are outlawed. I'm sure there's some law which is akin to outlawing specifically and knowingly providing a place for people to engage in otherwise illegal behavior.
Bitcoins have not lost any of their utility, at all. If I want to buy something that costs $200 in bitcoins, I go get $200 in bitcoins and then buy it. It doesn't matter how many bitcoins I get for $200, the system is still working exactly like it always has. If someone decides that they want to buy $1000 in bitcoins, spend a fifth of it, and save the rest for another purchase later, they might find out that they don't have enough for another purchase whenever they get around to it. The volatility of bitcoins is just proof that you shouldn't horde them, there's no reason to do that. But the system in general has lost exactly zero amount of usefulness.
Calculating value on something you never had and losing said value is the same balloon American financial system has been pumping over and over again.
Right, and no one ever made any money in the American financial system.
Check your math. The flaw exists in Android 4.3 and older. 4.4 has 39.1% share, and whatever version number version L is has 0.1%. The remainder is 4.3 and older.
Are you suggesting that the current version of Apple's iOS developer agreement does not contain the 6 items that the EFF highlighted?
The military and political leaders conveniently used the defacto religion of their time to further their own selfish ambitions. Their underlings simply did what they were told. Nowhere does Jesus command his followers to kill or even use violence in his name. That contrasts starkly with what the prophet Mohammad taught, and that is where the real issue lies.
I'm talking about individuals rather than nations. When someone goes and bombs an abortion clinic, for example, they typically do it because they think they are serving their god, they are doing it for their religion. The Islamists in Paris were following similar beliefs. I'm not trying to argue whether or not the official doctrine of any religion includes killing people. Self-proclaimed members of both Christianity and Islam would both argue for and against their religion allowing them to kill people under certain circumstances, I'm not trying to get into that debate.
The difference being that a religion like Islam commands it
I see that you, on the other hand, are in fact trying to have that debate. I'm not your opponent for that debate though, there are plenty of web pages that give arguments on both sides.
This is exactly what Obama actually called for.
I think that was during his speech in the Philippines.
"I call on Islamic radicals to enter the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and kill 12 people with automatic weapons." - Barack Hussein Obama II
My god, you're right. It's exactly what he actually called for. Good call on that, thankfully you're here to point out things that other people would have missed.
Thanks, self-proclaimed Archangel!
DHKP-C says it is fighting corruption.
The DHKP-C statement said the motive was to protest at government corruption and avenge the death of a boy fatally injured by police.
I'm missing the part where they say their goal is to spread atheism.
But they were fighting for the removal of organized religion.
That's about as intelligent as saying that Kim Il-Sung's goal was to nationalize the lumber industry. You're stating individual pieces like they're the entire goal. The purpose of the fighting was not the removal of organized religion, it was a much larger issue that they were fighting for.
You seem to fail to understand that was part of the ideology and a vital part.
You seem to fail to understand that it was one piece of a much larger issue.
As I said it is stupid to blame Atheists for the mass murders done by Atheists trying to spread an Atheist ideology
It's stupid to even claim that anyone has ever fought a war to spread "an Athiest ideology" in the first place. The defining quality of revolutionary socialism is not the lack of religion, it is control of the means of production. It is not an Atheist ideology, it is a socialist ideology. But you're busy trying to build a case that these people were fighting for Atheism as a religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Sorry if you are offended by the idea of not being bigoted.
Wow. Yeah, you *nailed* me there, didn't you? Yeah pal you're exactly right, I am absolutely offended that anyone would not be a bigot. Thank you for stating my position so eloquently, and you've got my permission to debate with yourself from here on out, because I'm not going to be a party to this crap. Your agenda is obvious.
Really? Shinto aka the divinity of the Emperor
Shinto has been around since before 600BC and is "the way of the gods", not "the divinity of the Emperor." And you're trying to tell me that the goal of the Imperial Japanese military was to spread Shinto, rather than their own influence? That the soldiers in battle were not fighting for their nation, but for their religion?
"For Atheism!" They did but
No. They didn't. If you disagree, cite a source that quotes someone engaging in a battle in name of atheism, for the purpose of spreading atheism. Not Marxism, atheism. Marxism and atheism are not the same thing. People fighting revolutions are not fighting to bring about atheism, that is not their goal. Their goal is an entire political, social, and economic ideology, not just the removal of organized religion.
But, really, you don't care about any of this, do you? You just want to throw out some phrases about how Atheism itself (as some sort of organized thing which you imagine it to be) is responsible for the greatest number of deaths throughout history so that you engage people in meaningless debates where you pull out examples of people who were atheist and try to claim that their actions were done specifically in the name of atheism. We both know that's bullshit, but looking at your other comments that's obviously your goal. Good luck fighting your war against what you believe Atheism to be.
Don't confuse people of a certain religion killing people, versus people being killed for a religion. I doubt that anyone ever ran into battle shouting "For Shinto!" "For Atheism!"
The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism. That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion, or Islamist killers who have done the same.
Because we're bothered that he's not found.
iTunes on Windows has also gone downhill over the last few years, and they've completely abandoned Safari on Windows.
You think that's bad?? I'm still stuck on IE5 on my Mac!
I don't think the program necessarily is the art, as far as the artists are concerned. The exhibition isn't the software necessarily, it is the collection of all of the items that the software "decided" to purchase. That means that the drugs themselves are part of the art exhibit. The full quote shows that they are aware of the fact that the drugs aren't legal on their own.
"We are the legal owner of the drugs - we are responsible for everything the bot does, as we executed the code," says Smoljo. "But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free."
So, in this context, it is legal for them to be in possession of the otherwise-illegal drugs. Or, at least they think so.
I believe it is obvious
Oh, well why didn't you just say that you believe that it's obvious? That's all the proof I need.
So what you're saying is, every time there's an op-ed piece, someone get's to have a retort published?
Aaargh, what kind of a diseased mind sticks an apostrophe in the words "gets"? What's that short for, "get is"?
We can ignore the appeal to authority, a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's."
It's not? Let's check the definition of "charlatan":
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
In that case, I would say that a well-respected anything has an opinion more valid than a fraud falsely claiming to have special knowledge.
Sarah Palin deserves to have quite a few letter to the editor's published.
Letters to the editor.
Then Sony should have stood their ground and let those theaters take the heat instead. Other smaller theaters would have probably stepped up and shown it, and the public probably would have responded by going out to see a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise seen just to give a big middle finger to the attackers.
Any one sane doesn't like armed-to-the-teeth wanna-be vigilantes walking around with an axe to grind.
I agree, and it's difficult to find a practical reason why someone would need to walk around with more than 1 gun on them, or a long arm that isn't easy to handle. I live in Arizona, and it's not all that uncommon to see people walking around with a handgun in the open (and I imagine far more people have them concealed), but I've never seen anyone walking around with a rifle or shotgun outside of hunting. There's just no reason for it. Not that it necessarily needs to be illegal, but people just don't have a daily reason to do it. If someone was walking around with an assault rifle slung across their back they're more likely to get made fun of by people with a little P228 or .38 or something in their pocket.