Fear is a great manipulation tool. Used by almost every ruling class. Telling young children that they will be tortured forever after death if they dont believe a tale you just told them, is probably the most common way young minds are set.
Seems you got that wrong. They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops so they won't buy them or eat them. So they starve with plenty of food available.
Let the market decide who eats and who starves. And let that market be dominated by one company. And let the courts support their decisions of life and death. amen
I think you forgot the most important aspect of being in a team: CAN you communicate clearly your programming ideas and understand what others mean when they are discussing their programming ideas? I have met many great programmers who could not do this. They were excellent solo programmers, but not team players because of their inability to express themselves or their ideas and/or they would not understand exactly how others were planning to code their protions. This is a team problem.
I do not think that the computer science education system spends enough time training students on clear communication.
Also you will need to be able to understand code you did not write. Some people can write code in their own way but have a lot of trouble using existing code from others. Finally, you will need to write code in the way the existing code is written. This means that you must be willing to lower or raise your level of coding and documentation in order to fit in to the existing group.
One last thought... if you want to excel in an business, then you will need to work on your social skills. Most advancement in a company does not go to the best programmers, but rather the programmers that get along best in a social manner with the managers and owners of the company. The education system does not focus at all on the social requirements of succeeding in business. This is something you will need to keep in mind and learn on your own.
What a load of crap. 99.9% of computing jobs do not require 3rd order differential equations. It is a lie to pretend that extensive math is required for most computer programming jobs. Basic math with an understanding of algebra and logic is enough.
Computer programming requires you to know algebra. Even if you dont know that is what you know.
In almost every case, your job will not require you to know or use everything you were forced to learn in school. So just do what you can to get through it if you feel you need a degree as a badge in order to get the job you want. Most companies value similar work experience over education. Unless the field is highly technical. Most computer science jobs are not highly specialize or technical. If you are not excellent at mathematic, then you will not want one of these jobs anyways.
Just do what you have to in order to graduate. This means that you will go to the library and pull up all the old examinations and memorize every questions from the past. You will get the correct solution for each one and practice this over and over again. Even if you dont understand it completely, you will have the process down and you can probably pass a test without really understanding it. It doesnt matter if you know it, because generally, you wont have a job that requires it. But you will end up with a degree to show an employer that you are willing to buckle down and work hard and complete a task over multiple years.
After saying all of this... I think a computer science degree is a waste of time. You can now learn more online then they will ever teach you in a college or university. Most employers will value work experience and practical knowledge over a degree. Most software tools are completely free to download, test, use and learn. All of this can be done for free and you can do it while working at a very easy computing job that does not ask for a degree. And you will not start life with a large debt.
Doesn't matter, you're still paying a Microsoft tax for your Android device. MS makes more money (last I heard) in patent fees per Android device than they do for a Windows Phone device.
please provide a link to back up what you last "heard". Im fairly certin that adobe gets an unreasonable portion of any device with flash installed. But I would like to know what other companies are using patents to stifle the software market.
Yeah, that Microsoft tax is a bitch. I beat it by buying demo units where possible. The Acer S3 ultra I'm typing this right now is a demo. Got it for $400 under msrp.
You dont seem to get it. The cost is irrelivent. The Microsoft tax is about knowing that every time you purchase a computer, you are actively supporting a computer company you have nothing to do with, do not benefit from, and actually believe has no purpose except to hidder the value of operating systems.
If you purchase a product which includes a Microsoft OS, then you can be sure that Microsoft was paid for that license regardless of the amount you paid for the product. This is a bad and anti-competitive process.
If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Profits are not a bad thing. However it is bad to use energy and materials to create anything and then reduce its functionality through software limitations. I suggest to you that Canon and all other photo/video hardware manufacturers are actively engaged in limiting the functionality of the physical products they sell in order to create artificial pricing scales and force consumers into purchasing more hardware then is required.
For example, if an owner of this camera want to start taking video, according to Canon, he should purchase a new product. This is great for Canon, but bad for the consumer who already owns something that can physically do what he wants. And it is bad for the environment which encourages waste instead of reuse.
Now you can easily claim that Canon did not intend this and may not have envisioned this feature when the camera was designed. But I am not the naive. And even if I was, there is a real case that hardware with open sourced software is good for the enviroment and consumer product reuse.
I think it is funny the way that many camera experts actually take pride in the fact that their equipment is so outrageously priced. Like their disposable income allows them to enter an elite group and the price is their to limit the masses from competing with them in a feild. Perhaps most photographers realize that if the playing feild was level and all consumers had access to the advanced equipment they can afford, that their "talent" would be exposed as really simply a side effect of much more functional equipment. I mean if everyone had access to the hardware you can afford... maybe your photos would be lost in a sea of equal or better photographs produced by the masses.
The excessive price of good camera equipment is not a good thing for humanity. If you believe that photos and video are more important then the photographer who took it. There are some cases of photographers and cinematographers that excel beyond others. But face reality... your probably just not one of them. Most great historical photography and video is about location and timing (imo). So limiting access to cheap quality equipment only serves to reduce the amount of great historical media we capture for future generations.
To defend a corporate practice of limiting the functionality of photographic hardware only serves to defend the bottom line profits of a corporation.
So you are telling us that it is a good and neccessary thing for manufactures to limit the functionality of the physical hardware you paid for in order to allow them to gouge consumers and maximize profits in order to pay for past research and future developments?
I think you are wrong. I think that hardware should always be designed to function at its maximum capabilities. To do less is to encourage consumers to repurchase products to get the functionality that their existing products are already capable of. This causes waste and the earth is not designed for infinite human product waste.
Perhaps if companies cannot recoup the cost of R&D through ethical production and sales of the product and technology they actually developed, then the company deserves to be exposed to a loss on that product line to discourage them from making bad decisions in the future.
Why are you defending the concept of allowing consumers to have more options over the features of their hardware products? Does the idea of limiting manufacturer profits upset you? Do you prefer to purchase products that are intentionally crippled by software to not allow you to achieve the full potential out of the products you paid for?
Think very generally. How would you feel if you needed to purchase three shovels... one for digging in dirt, another for sand and one for digging gravel? This is not possible with a shovel, because only software allows a manufacture to actively cripple the physical item you paid for in a way which limits its functionality. But if a shovel manufacturer could limit its function in this way... you can be sure that they would do it. And all competitors would do it too... and the reason isnt to compete for a better shovel, but rather to increase the total market space for demand of shovels. Even if they did produce a shovel that would dig all in all three areas, you can be sure that that uncrippled shovel would cost you more then all 3 shovels... because carrying only one multi purpose shovel is more convenient then carrying all 3.
Now, if you cannot see how the camera industry is using this shovel principal in order to limit the functionality of their camera lines, then you have far more money then me. Because I can clearly see that some features are left out of some cameras when there is no reasonable technical limitations other then not including the feature in the software. I can tell you that the still camera, compact camera and video camera could all be one camera, but no manufacturer will provide all the advanced features of each on one single camera. The current limitations are far less technical and more profit based then you may be willing to admit.
Making non-free software is unethical. If the camera is controlled by non-free software then making that camera is unethical.
I agree that in a time where we are trying to reduce human consumption of earths resources, that it is unethical to create products that do not allow the consumer to obtain the full potential out of physical materials used to make it. This is similar in the router industry where multiple routers of varying functions and cost are the same physical product. The unethical part is that the company actively cripples an identical product in order to artificially create artificial scales of value. What happens when a customer decides that they need a feature that is not available in the crippled version? They dispose of the crippled product to buy the exact same product with non-crippling software. Good for company profits, but bad for human consumption and waste.
I think there should be a law against producing hardware products with closed source software. It would be best if the manufacture did not even provide any software pre-installed on their products. This would encourage re-use of older products and provide the option for new features on products that the manufacturer did not envision at the time of sale.
I originally learned programming from my family and then taught in school and then primarily from reading books. But now, the majority of languages I (somewhat) know comes from Internet guides, samples, documents and training courses.
In the future, I expect the majority of the world programmers will exclusively learn to program through Internet based sources. Especially in the poorer coutries around the world.
The Internet provides more information than any programming book you can buy and you can learn at an excellerated pace and further information and assistance is available to improve your skills. Stackoverflow is one of my primary sources for programming delemas now.
It is time to stop watching movies and listening to music with standard copyright restrictions. It is hard, but you can do this. The first step is to avoid and ignore the brainwash advertising, that makes you want something that you would otherwise be indifferent to.
Simply avoid these corporations which make criminals out of their own market. Choose creative commons and free entertainment only. If you pay for content, then you are only perpetuating a system which will make criminals out of your children. Because this is the channel through which they consume media and the existing distributors are not up to the task of providing it in a legal manner.
Stand up for the freedom of your children. Stop paying for media and stop downloading content with restrictive licenses. Otherwise, your children deserve the fines, criminal records and jail time that your actions force upon them.
Are you suggesting that the banking system does not launder money for criminals and terrorists??? The International banking system is known to launder billions and billions. Far more then the total market value of all bitcoins combined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18880269
Highlights: HBMX (mexico) shipped $7bn to HSBC's US operation for high-profile clients involved in drug trafficking. 28,000 undisclosed sensitive transactions between 2001 and 2007... The vast majority of those transactions - worth $19.7bn - involved Iran. Between 2005 and 2008, HBUS cleared $290m worth of US dollar travellers' cheques which were being presented at a Japanese bank... without proper anti-money laundering controls, despite evidence of suspicious activity. HSBC did business with Saudi Arabia's biggest financial institution, Al Rajhi Bank... even after they knew... evidence emerged that Al Rajhi and some of its owners had links to financial organisations associated with terrorism.
I really hate to snap you back into reality here, but in the eyes of every single bank in the world, all possible ways to obtain Bitcoins is shady.
Of course, the real irony here is we're going after this guy for "laundering" while trillions sit in offshore accounts, untouched and unaccounted for, under massive tax shelters, as everyone in power simply laughs it off as if it were some kind of old-school ringknocker tradition, while the rest of us pay their taxes.
Exactly. If you want to launder money or transact payments for black market goods, then you better use the international banking system. Otherwise, you will upset people and you will be arrested.
On the other hand, the banking system will appreciate your work in helping them make all digital currency transactions appear shady. It will help them in their efforts to brand bitcoin as a currency of the criminals
The same kind of fucking moron who has always done that kind of shit with the markets. A greedy cocksucker. The kind that cannot profit fast enough.
Well actually, the bots trading on the false twitter post could not lose money fast enough. They were the only ones quick enough to sell during the brief crash they created for themselves. The other bots that bought at the reduced rates where likely not following the twitter feeds.
And what fucking moron decided it would be good for their stock market bot to monitor twitter?
Its really very brilliant. If you know other bots are using twitter to make market bidding decisions, then your bot can use this knowledge to trick the other bots into doing your bidding. Its a bot eat bot world out there
A better place to start would be to explain why I should put up with a switch to a bunch of mostly unfamiliar measures of distance, volume, and temperature?
Youre doing it for your children. Its too late for you. You have been convinced that a less convenient system is better and simpler for everyone... simply because you were forced to learn it and it is all you know. But it is much easier for children to learn metric systems of measure over Imperial. I know this because I was in the last class in Canada to be taught both. It was clear to me and all my classmates which was better (as in... easier to learn and use).
You are doing it for your country. Why force your repair shops to have twice the tools and parts in order to service domestic and international products? Why force your children to learn metric anyways if they want to work internationally. Why make your building and product blueprints twice in order to sell internationally? Imperial units force your country into a weaker positioning for international sales. And it forces other countries to support your unique system of measure.
Why?...so you can "feel" more comfortable with your limited understand of it?
Because honestly, the "big problem" for imperial measures (lots of weird measures with odd conversions) really has never been a problem for me. It doesn't matter what a rod or a hogshead is (or a bushel, or a dram, or how many teaspoons in a gallon, or inches in a mile) because I pretty much never need to know (and if I do need to know, I can just google it).
Its not like this is going to change your life. In your lifetime, you will always have the option to see Imperial units. You simply set your thermostat or scales to show Imperial and when your in your car, there is a perminanent conversion chart in front of you on your spedometer. Continue to use feet and inches for your height... everyone in your lifetime will know exactly what you mean.
Stopping thinking this is all about you and start considering what is good for your people and your country for the future.
You do realize that metric uses decimal and that your money is decimal? Would you prefer to have kept traditional systems for money like: the pound was made up of 240 pence, with 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day]. Because that is the sort of rediculousness you are defending.
I was in the last class to be taught both metric and imperial measurements. We were the last students in Canada to ever be tested on knowing how many centimeters are in a foot and how a meter compares to a yard. I will confirm that learning metric was far easier then learning imperial. Especially when you need to resize units or multiply various units like calculating units of energy. It is an unfair burden on the children to force them to learn an outdated system of measure just to support the fears and misconceptions of the adults.
That's why you need a transition plan. Officially Canada went metric over 30 years ago, but you can still buy tools with Imperial measures and almost all our materials are sold in feet and inches because we share the worlds longest unprotected border with the Neathertals to the south who refuse to evolve.
Thats because many products in Canada have been constructed in America. It has nothing to do with a desire for Canadians to purchase twice as many tools in order to keep Imperial measurements. We also have screw bolts and washers in both metric and imperial in all hardware stores. But its not like we enjoy having so many incompatible components. This is a cost, not a benefit. I dont know, but I would guess that all hardware stores in America have both imperial and metric tools and components. Otherwise, how do you repair any products made outside of the US?
I use google XMPP because it supports OTR. Allowing me to privately chat with others supporting this protocol. Removing XMPP will likely mean that all my chat messages are stored by google. I dont know what googles real intent is here, but it will force me to find a new chat service that supports OTR.
Ive been suspicious about google wanting to get rid of OTR, ever since they installed their own version of "OTR"... which isnt the secure version of OTR at all, but rather an optional client based instruction to not store logs. It really bothered me that Google would select the acroymn OTR for something that is definately not OTR. It seemed that they were trying to create brand confusion and lul average users into a sense of security that did not exist. My theory is that one reason Google is moving away from true XMPP is that they can get rid of all encrypted chat communication and can apply all of their demographic tools on every message we send.
Thanks for reminding us that english sucks. Why do we bother to spell these words differently when context clearly allows you to differentiate their/there/they're meaning? I guess the only benefit is that people like you can correct others, because if the intended word was not obvious from the context, you wouldnt have anything to say here.
And please dont bother to correct my grammar or spelling. Nobody cares about your desire to appear superior
Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
This is all Googles fault. Because they dont want to properly monitor copyright requests, they simply take the side of the one with the least personal liability for them. This means that they will normally trust the one who claims copyright infringement and take down the link to the work. This often happens to me on youtube, where I use music tracks with the attribution creative commons license. More then 1/2 the time some agency will claim to own the rights to the musical track and begin making money off my work through advertising. I believe many of these requests come from fraud and not by accident. But since google doesnt spend the time to track fraudulent infringement requests, these companies continue to work the system.
Google should start tracking these incorrect requests and begin to ignore companies who continue to make incorrect claims. As a minimum they should have a whitelist of valid links and ignore massive lists where any of the claims are known to not be infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Fear is a great manipulation tool. Used by almost every ruling class. Telling young children that they will be tortured forever after death if they dont believe a tale you just told them, is probably the most common way young minds are set.
I mean to say... maximum profits do not occur when the whole world is fed. Starvation create great demand.
Seems you got that wrong. They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops so they won't buy them or eat them. So they starve with plenty of food available.
Let the market decide who eats and who starves. And let that market be dominated by one company. And let the courts support their decisions of life and death. amen
I think you forgot the most important aspect of being in a team: CAN you communicate clearly your programming ideas and understand what others mean when they are discussing their programming ideas? I have met many great programmers who could not do this. They were excellent solo programmers, but not team players because of their inability to express themselves or their ideas and/or they would not understand exactly how others were planning to code their protions. This is a team problem.
I do not think that the computer science education system spends enough time training students on clear communication.
Also you will need to be able to understand code you did not write. Some people can write code in their own way but have a lot of trouble using existing code from others. Finally, you will need to write code in the way the existing code is written. This means that you must be willing to lower or raise your level of coding and documentation in order to fit in to the existing group.
One last thought... if you want to excel in an business, then you will need to work on your social skills. Most advancement in a company does not go to the best programmers, but rather the programmers that get along best in a social manner with the managers and owners of the company. The education system does not focus at all on the social requirements of succeeding in business. This is something you will need to keep in mind and learn on your own.
What a load of crap. 99.9% of computing jobs do not require 3rd order differential equations. It is a lie to pretend that extensive math is required for most computer programming jobs. Basic math with an understanding of algebra and logic is enough.
Computer programming requires you to know algebra. Even if you dont know that is what you know.
In almost every case, your job will not require you to know or use everything you were forced to learn in school. So just do what you can to get through it if you feel you need a degree as a badge in order to get the job you want. Most companies value similar work experience over education. Unless the field is highly technical. Most computer science jobs are not highly specialize or technical. If you are not excellent at mathematic, then you will not want one of these jobs anyways.
Just do what you have to in order to graduate. This means that you will go to the library and pull up all the old examinations and memorize every questions from the past. You will get the correct solution for each one and practice this over and over again. Even if you dont understand it completely, you will have the process down and you can probably pass a test without really understanding it. It doesnt matter if you know it, because generally, you wont have a job that requires it. But you will end up with a degree to show an employer that you are willing to buckle down and work hard and complete a task over multiple years.
After saying all of this... I think a computer science degree is a waste of time. You can now learn more online then they will ever teach you in a college or university. Most employers will value work experience and practical knowledge over a degree. Most software tools are completely free to download, test, use and learn. All of this can be done for free and you can do it while working at a very easy computing job that does not ask for a degree. And you will not start life with a large debt.
Doesn't matter, you're still paying a Microsoft tax for your Android device. MS makes more money (last I heard) in patent fees per Android device than they do for a Windows Phone device.
please provide a link to back up what you last "heard". Im fairly certin that adobe gets an unreasonable portion of any device with flash installed. But I would like to know what other companies are using patents to stifle the software market.
Yeah, that Microsoft tax is a bitch. I beat it by buying demo units where possible. The Acer S3 ultra I'm typing this right now is a demo. Got it for $400 under msrp.
You dont seem to get it. The cost is irrelivent. The Microsoft tax is about knowing that every time you purchase a computer, you are actively supporting a computer company you have nothing to do with, do not benefit from, and actually believe has no purpose except to hidder the value of operating systems.
If you purchase a product which includes a Microsoft OS, then you can be sure that Microsoft was paid for that license regardless of the amount you paid for the product. This is a bad and anti-competitive process.
If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Profits are not a bad thing. However it is bad to use energy and materials to create anything and then reduce its functionality through software limitations. I suggest to you that Canon and all other photo/video hardware manufacturers are actively engaged in limiting the functionality of the physical products they sell in order to create artificial pricing scales and force consumers into purchasing more hardware then is required.
For example, if an owner of this camera want to start taking video, according to Canon, he should purchase a new product. This is great for Canon, but bad for the consumer who already owns something that can physically do what he wants. And it is bad for the environment which encourages waste instead of reuse.
Now you can easily claim that Canon did not intend this and may not have envisioned this feature when the camera was designed. But I am not the naive. And even if I was, there is a real case that hardware with open sourced software is good for the enviroment and consumer product reuse.
I think it is funny the way that many camera experts actually take pride in the fact that their equipment is so outrageously priced. Like their disposable income allows them to enter an elite group and the price is their to limit the masses from competing with them in a feild. Perhaps most photographers realize that if the playing feild was level and all consumers had access to the advanced equipment they can afford, that their "talent" would be exposed as really simply a side effect of much more functional equipment. I mean if everyone had access to the hardware you can afford... maybe your photos would be lost in a sea of equal or better photographs produced by the masses.
The excessive price of good camera equipment is not a good thing for humanity. If you believe that photos and video are more important then the photographer who took it. There are some cases of photographers and cinematographers that excel beyond others. But face reality... your probably just not one of them. Most great historical photography and video is about location and timing (imo). So limiting access to cheap quality equipment only serves to reduce the amount of great historical media we capture for future generations.
To defend a corporate practice of limiting the functionality of photographic hardware only serves to defend the bottom line profits of a corporation.
So you are telling us that it is a good and neccessary thing for manufactures to limit the functionality of the physical hardware you paid for in order to allow them to gouge consumers and maximize profits in order to pay for past research and future developments?
I think you are wrong. I think that hardware should always be designed to function at its maximum capabilities. To do less is to encourage consumers to repurchase products to get the functionality that their existing products are already capable of. This causes waste and the earth is not designed for infinite human product waste.
Perhaps if companies cannot recoup the cost of R&D through ethical production and sales of the product and technology they actually developed, then the company deserves to be exposed to a loss on that product line to discourage them from making bad decisions in the future.
Why are you defending the concept of allowing consumers to have more options over the features of their hardware products? Does the idea of limiting manufacturer profits upset you? Do you prefer to purchase products that are intentionally crippled by software to not allow you to achieve the full potential out of the products you paid for?
Think very generally. How would you feel if you needed to purchase three shovels... one for digging in dirt, another for sand and one for digging gravel? This is not possible with a shovel, because only software allows a manufacture to actively cripple the physical item you paid for in a way which limits its functionality. But if a shovel manufacturer could limit its function in this way... you can be sure that they would do it. And all competitors would do it too... and the reason isnt to compete for a better shovel, but rather to increase the total market space for demand of shovels. Even if they did produce a shovel that would dig all in all three areas, you can be sure that that uncrippled shovel would cost you more then all 3 shovels... because carrying only one multi purpose shovel is more convenient then carrying all 3.
Now, if you cannot see how the camera industry is using this shovel principal in order to limit the functionality of their camera lines, then you have far more money then me. Because I can clearly see that some features are left out of some cameras when there is no reasonable technical limitations other then not including the feature in the software. I can tell you that the still camera, compact camera and video camera could all be one camera, but no manufacturer will provide all the advanced features of each on one single camera. The current limitations are far less technical and more profit based then you may be willing to admit.
Making non-free software is unethical. If the camera is controlled by non-free software then making that camera is unethical.
I agree that in a time where we are trying to reduce human consumption of earths resources, that it is unethical to create products that do not allow the consumer to obtain the full potential out of physical materials used to make it. This is similar in the router industry where multiple routers of varying functions and cost are the same physical product. The unethical part is that the company actively cripples an identical product in order to artificially create artificial scales of value. What happens when a customer decides that they need a feature that is not available in the crippled version? They dispose of the crippled product to buy the exact same product with non-crippling software. Good for company profits, but bad for human consumption and waste.
I think there should be a law against producing hardware products with closed source software. It would be best if the manufacture did not even provide any software pre-installed on their products. This would encourage re-use of older products and provide the option for new features on products that the manufacturer did not envision at the time of sale.
I originally learned programming from my family and then taught in school and then primarily from reading books. But now, the majority of languages I (somewhat) know comes from Internet guides, samples, documents and training courses.
In the future, I expect the majority of the world programmers will exclusively learn to program through Internet based sources. Especially in the poorer coutries around the world.
The Internet provides more information than any programming book you can buy and you can learn at an excellerated pace and further information and assistance is available to improve your skills. Stackoverflow is one of my primary sources for programming delemas now.
It is time to stop watching movies and listening to music with standard copyright restrictions. It is hard, but you can do this. The first step is to avoid and ignore the brainwash advertising, that makes you want something that you would otherwise be indifferent to.
Simply avoid these corporations which make criminals out of their own market. Choose creative commons and free entertainment only. If you pay for content, then you are only perpetuating a system which will make criminals out of your children. Because this is the channel through which they consume media and the existing distributors are not up to the task of providing it in a legal manner.
Stand up for the freedom of your children. Stop paying for media and stop downloading content with restrictive licenses. Otherwise, your children deserve the fines, criminal records and jail time that your actions force upon them.
Are you suggesting that the banking system does not launder money for criminals and terrorists??? The International banking system is known to launder billions and billions. Far more then the total market value of all bitcoins combined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18880269
Highlights: HBMX (mexico) shipped $7bn to HSBC's US operation for high-profile clients involved in drug trafficking. 28,000 undisclosed sensitive transactions between 2001 and 2007... The vast majority of those transactions - worth $19.7bn - involved Iran. Between 2005 and 2008, HBUS cleared $290m worth of US dollar travellers' cheques which were being presented at a Japanese bank... without proper anti-money laundering controls, despite evidence of suspicious activity. HSBC did business with Saudi Arabia's biggest financial institution, Al Rajhi Bank... even after they knew... evidence emerged that Al Rajhi and some of its owners had links to financial organisations associated with terrorism.
I really hate to snap you back into reality here, but in the eyes of every single bank in the world, all possible ways to obtain Bitcoins is shady.
Of course, the real irony here is we're going after this guy for "laundering" while trillions sit in offshore accounts, untouched and unaccounted for, under massive tax shelters, as everyone in power simply laughs it off as if it were some kind of old-school ringknocker tradition, while the rest of us pay their taxes.
Exactly. If you want to launder money or transact payments for black market goods, then you better use the international banking system. Otherwise, you will upset people and you will be arrested.
On the other hand, the banking system will appreciate your work in helping them make all digital currency transactions appear shady. It will help them in their efforts to brand bitcoin as a currency of the criminals
The same kind of fucking moron who has always done that kind of shit with the markets. A greedy cocksucker. The kind that cannot profit fast enough.
Well actually, the bots trading on the false twitter post could not lose money fast enough. They were the only ones quick enough to sell during the brief crash they created for themselves. The other bots that bought at the reduced rates where likely not following the twitter feeds.
And what fucking moron decided it would be good for their stock market bot to monitor twitter?
Its really very brilliant. If you know other bots are using twitter to make market bidding decisions, then your bot can use this knowledge to trick the other bots into doing your bidding. Its a bot eat bot world out there
A better place to start would be to explain why I should put up with a switch to a bunch of mostly unfamiliar measures of distance, volume, and temperature?
Youre doing it for your children. Its too late for you. You have been convinced that a less convenient system is better and simpler for everyone... simply because you were forced to learn it and it is all you know. But it is much easier for children to learn metric systems of measure over Imperial. I know this because I was in the last class in Canada to be taught both. It was clear to me and all my classmates which was better (as in... easier to learn and use).
You are doing it for your country. Why force your repair shops to have twice the tools and parts in order to service domestic and international products? Why force your children to learn metric anyways if they want to work internationally. Why make your building and product blueprints twice in order to sell internationally? Imperial units force your country into a weaker positioning for international sales. And it forces other countries to support your unique system of measure.
Why? ...so you can "feel" more comfortable with your limited understand of it?
Because honestly, the "big problem" for imperial measures (lots of weird measures with odd conversions) really has never been a problem for me. It doesn't matter what a rod or a hogshead is (or a bushel, or a dram, or how many teaspoons in a gallon, or inches in a mile) because I pretty much never need to know (and if I do need to know, I can just google it).
Its not like this is going to change your life. In your lifetime, you will always have the option to see Imperial units. You simply set your thermostat or scales to show Imperial and when your in your car, there is a perminanent conversion chart in front of you on your spedometer. Continue to use feet and inches for your height... everyone in your lifetime will know exactly what you mean.
Stopping thinking this is all about you and start considering what is good for your people and your country for the future.
You do realize that metric uses decimal and that your money is decimal? Would you prefer to have kept traditional systems for money like: the pound was made up of 240 pence, with 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day]. Because that is the sort of rediculousness you are defending.
I was in the last class to be taught both metric and imperial measurements. We were the last students in Canada to ever be tested on knowing how many centimeters are in a foot and how a meter compares to a yard. I will confirm that learning metric was far easier then learning imperial. Especially when you need to resize units or multiply various units like calculating units of energy. It is an unfair burden on the children to force them to learn an outdated system of measure just to support the fears and misconceptions of the adults.
That's why you need a transition plan. Officially Canada went metric over 30 years ago, but you can still buy tools with Imperial measures and almost all our materials are sold in feet and inches because we share the worlds longest unprotected border with the Neathertals to the south who refuse to evolve.
Thats because many products in Canada have been constructed in America. It has nothing to do with a desire for Canadians to purchase twice as many tools in order to keep Imperial measurements. We also have screw bolts and washers in both metric and imperial in all hardware stores. But its not like we enjoy having so many incompatible components. This is a cost, not a benefit. I dont know, but I would guess that all hardware stores in America have both imperial and metric tools and components. Otherwise, how do you repair any products made outside of the US?
I use google XMPP because it supports OTR. Allowing me to privately chat with others supporting this protocol. Removing XMPP will likely mean that all my chat messages are stored by google. I dont know what googles real intent is here, but it will force me to find a new chat service that supports OTR.
Ive been suspicious about google wanting to get rid of OTR, ever since they installed their own version of "OTR"... which isnt the secure version of OTR at all, but rather an optional client based instruction to not store logs. It really bothered me that Google would select the acroymn OTR for something that is definately not OTR. It seemed that they were trying to create brand confusion and lul average users into a sense of security that did not exist. My theory is that one reason Google is moving away from true XMPP is that they can get rid of all encrypted chat communication and can apply all of their demographic tools on every message we send.
Thanks for reminding us that english sucks. Why do we bother to spell these words differently when context clearly allows you to differentiate their/there/they're meaning? I guess the only benefit is that people like you can correct others, because if the intended word was not obvious from the context, you wouldnt have anything to say here.
And please dont bother to correct my grammar or spelling. Nobody cares about your desire to appear superior
Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
This is all Googles fault. Because they dont want to properly monitor copyright requests, they simply take the side of the one with the least personal liability for them. This means that they will normally trust the one who claims copyright infringement and take down the link to the work. This often happens to me on youtube, where I use music tracks with the attribution creative commons license. More then 1/2 the time some agency will claim to own the rights to the musical track and begin making money off my work through advertising. I believe many of these requests come from fraud and not by accident. But since google doesnt spend the time to track fraudulent infringement requests, these companies continue to work the system.
Google should start tracking these incorrect requests and begin to ignore companies who continue to make incorrect claims. As a minimum they should have a whitelist of valid links and ignore massive lists where any of the claims are known to not be infringement.