First of all it is incorrect to say that Nintendo gets all the ad revenue. The majority of ad revenue goes to Google. The remaining portion they pay out to the content creators is now going to Nintendo.
Whether you agree with this or not, its fairly clear that Nintendo owns the rights to videos created primarily with content scraped from their video game. If there is a lot of additional footage or commentary, then the ownership is more questionable. However, Nintendo probably reserves the right to have these videos taken down if they are not receiving any of the ad revenue in videos which contain content from their video games.
Movie distributors do the exact same thing. I have serveral youtube videos that are edited versions of hollywood movies. In all cases, the advertising rights and profits have been claimed by the distributors of the movies they are based on. I have no problem with this and I think it is entirely ethical for them to be paid because without their content, these videos wouldnt exist.
I think youtube should provide for more ad profit splitting. For example, music owners should be able to instruct youtube to split ad revenue with video creators so that both audio and video creators earn revenue for their efforts. Perhaps youtube should provide automatic splitting of revenue based on the portions of audio and video that are owned by different parties. For example, if a video game has voice commentary over the entire video, perhaps 1/2 should go to the video game creator and 1/2 goes to the owner of the audio content.
I make music videos for music that is licensed "CC attribution"... because this is the only way I can get any revenue from advertising on these. I would be willing to share revenue with music creators, but youtube provides no mechanism for this.
when we people learn that hollywood movie are not very good and not at all worth the trouble of watching them? Freely available content is getting better and better and doesnt come with all the legal ramifications of having to watch it in the cold manner someone else forces you to do it and under threat of legal lawsuits at bankrupting expense. The answer to hollywood is to actively ignore hollywood. Take a moral stand for yourself and your children. Stop watching movies at the theatre and do not allow yourself to be enticed by the advertising by stealing it. You want to watch movies at home, on your own schedule and for free. Well dont look to hollywood. They are simply too far behind to match the manner in which we all consume content. And they make you a criminal for behaving in a purely natural, modern and comfortable way. If we all just ignored them, maybe we will get lucky and they will go away.. or maybe they will fix their issue with limiting our media consumption. Downloading "real" movies is not a crime. Downloading hollywood movies is stupid and immoral because it plays into the myth that doing so is a crime. Take a stand and stop paying for the crap they put in the theatres. We all know that the best part of a hollywood movie is the tv commercial you can access online for free. Watch that alone and be satisfied, because we all know the movie wont be half of what they show you in the ads.
Take Mexico, a country with a 100% ban on guns, you can't even one a 22 in that country...are the criminals throwing rocks at each other?
My guess is that violent criminals in Mexico are primarily fighting over the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico to the US. Maybe if the US removed the profit incentive there would be less violence in Mexico.
It seems ridiculous to regulate a product that doesnt produce a real reliable and functional item that criminals would employ for making weapons. Especially when it is so easy to get real guns in the US with minimal traceability that actually function well when committing crimes of violence. The 3d printed guns dont even look like guns, so their value as a mere threat is greatly reduced. A criminal would probably have a better result by printing a completely non functional gun that has the identical shape as a real gun (replica). But real replicas are cheap and easy to find.
Suggesting a regulation or registration system for 3d printers has no security benefit. To me this seems like an attempt to appear to be doing something to curb gun violence, but in fact does nothing except play on the paranoid fears about a problem that does not exist yet. While the real potential solutions to gun violence are ignored
Defect density (defects per 1,000 lines of software code) is a commonly used measurement for software quality. The analysis found an average defect density of.69 for open source software projects, and an average defect density of.68 for proprietary code.
If its that easy to determine which lines of code are defective, then why not simply allow the detection software to make the fix? For example, if you are certain the code is incorrect, then you certainly must know what is the correct code, or you cannot say for sure that it is wrong.
I mean the guys could make a mint that got in on the ground floor, because mining was super duper easy, but as more and more enter it becomes harder and harder and now I seriously doubt anyone that isn't stealing the electricity will ever break even.
When a business owner incorporates a company, they own 100% of the company. Over time they may sell shares of the company to raise funds. But as the company grows bigger, the number of shares given away is a smaller and smaller portion of the total, and the price is usually more and more expensive for each one. So how is this not a pyramid scheme?
Now don't get me wrong, I like the IDEA of a completely non traceable currency...
Bitcoin is not untraceable. Bitcoin is the most open transaction processing system in the world (I think). Imagine if the credit card company or banks release details of every single transaction to the public. Every transaction from one bank account to another. Every internet credit card purchase to ebay was made public. How can you call that untraceable? The only untraceable part of bitcoin is the fact that most of the information of who owns which account has been removed. But still this is minimal compared to the information provided by banks and card companies. Bitcoin is very open and traceable. The anonymous part is the bare minimum required in order to be reasonable... not paranoid or secretive.
If you want privacy... talk to a banker. They can sell musch better privacy to you.
Unless, say, you discover either an unexpected new easily exploitable source of gold or a new mechanism of extracting gold efficiently
And if they find a way to transport an american dollar bill through a computer, while other currencies cannot, I think the value of the US dollar bill would skyrocket as the people begin to discover this. There might even be wild speculation on what value the US dollar bill could attain with this new found use.
I think there should be a default setting where all your information is made public after 100 years and immediately becomes public domain. All our photos, and most private conversations become publicly searchable and usable in any way whatsover. This will provide future generations with a wealth of historical and research information like we have never seen. Besides the historical value... this may also assist in other research such as disease and mental illness or just understanding human behaviour. I think it is very selfish to be concerned about privacy 100 years after youre dead.
Yes. The title is meant to be tongue in cheek, but it allows the reader to think that Bing notices more malware and therefore will not present them to the browser. Its not clear from the title that Bing is actually missing malware on sites and issuing them back to you as valid search results. Also, the article itself is not clear because it seems that the number of malware pages found was roughly the same, but the search size was greater on Google. The article would have been more useful if it offered some percentages in order to make the comparison more clear.
it. This situation is analogous to your PC phoning home to Microsoft for updates, then having a special version sent to your machine at the request of the FBI. No matter how careful you are about what software you run or what security software you employ, Microsoft can compromise your machine.
And the EULA you signed means you agree that Microsoft can do this and that Microsoft will not be held responsible for the consequences
If the astronaut gets across the event horizon, then he will never die relative to us. So, there really isn't a problem here as far as I can tell.
I think you are mistaking light for present reality. Just because you could see the astronauts image falling in an dimming and red shifting out of our ability to observe it, doesnt mean that she still exists. That is like claiming that the big bang never finished, because we can still observe it red shifted on the outer regions of the observable universe.
long before the astronaut gets to the event horizon. Both can be correct.
...or none. The event horizon of a very large black hole could be passed through without notice by an astronaut, if the black hole was the size of our universe. But if the black hole was extremely small, then you would be torn apart by tidal forces long before the event horizon is reached. Like if the black hole was the size of a golfball at your feet, then your feet would feel much stronger accelleration twords it then your head.
the size of the black hole would be relevant to the discussion
The trouble is that "what we know about black holes" is all theoretical and mathematical. No one has ever directly observed a black hole and thereby shown that these things even exist in the real world. Black holes were invented to explain present-day theories about the motion of stars and galaxies. The same is true of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and other dark fictions.
There doesnt seem to be a lot of good evidence yet for many of the dark fictions. But there is good evidence of a black hole at the center of our own galaxy. The stars orbit near the center of our galaxy in a strange way. To orbit in this manner, we expect to see a large mass in the center, but there is no visiable object there. Im not saying it is perfect evidence, but it really does fit the bill for now. So we do have some compelling real world evidence, where a black hole is the best possible explanation and we didnt invent the theory of a black hole to match that observation.
I hate when people say "hi-fidelity". Fortunately, not many people use it now. I only hear people use this to imply: "I paid more for my speakers then you did". The word doesnt have any meaning and in fact makes me think of products from the 50's to 70's. It like finding a tuner that says "In Stereo" on it... as if this is some soft of selling point. It would be more interesting if I was told it was recording in quadrophonic sound or captured on reel to reel, because then I would at least know what hi-fidelity was referring to.
Also, none of these sounds have any meaning. Sound doesnt travel without a medium and the big bang did not occur in a medium. So you could play a sound from the radiation of a star and tell me "the stars are singing in the heavens"... but it doesnt have any real meaning. I guess you could take timelaps video of ice melting and then call it "HD video of the SUN"... but its not really is it.
Who knows? Encryption is based on the assumption that it would take a very very long time to break. When you virtually infinite resources to crack it, all bets are off.
Virtually infinite resources is INFINITELY less than infinite resources. Every bit added to an encryption keep takes twice as long to break. Or twice as many computers, assuming 2 computers are twice as powerful as one, which it is not. The difference between an 256 bit encryption key and a 512 bit encryption key is 2^256 or a number with about 77 digits in it (too long to write here). So if you have enough computers to break a 256 bit encryption key, you only need approximately an "infinite" amount times as many to break a key that is twice as long. The solution to this is not more computer power. That would be futile. It is in installing keyloggers to monitor your keystrokes, or putting back door directly in the software.
The only serious use of computers to break strong cryptography is if the agency knows some secret mathematical shortcut to break known ciphers in linear time. This would be a surprise for some cryptography such as RSA which use methods suspected/believed to be "mathematically hard".
If you suspect that the large computing systems are by agencies are out to crack strong encryption... then I have news for you. They are being used to sift through everything you do that is not encrypted. Because that is a lot easier and it includes almost everything you do all day long. The scarier truth is that these agencies have "the dirt" on every one of us. The only good news being, that there is safety in numbers and as long as you keep your head down, they may not choose to use it against you.
So what is this saying... is OTR cracked? Unless iMessage is a voice service, off-the-record would be a far better option for privacy since it is open sourced. Also, dont be confused with Google chat feature called "off the record" which simply doesn't store a log on your local computer and instructs the remote client to also not store a local log... if the remote client bothers to observe this request. Because for google everything you type is clear text. If your interested in a real encryption option, check out Pidgin chat client with the crypto OTR plugin. Its open source so you can trust it has no back doors compiled into the binary... unless you actually trust this "report" that apple doesnt want to sell your information to law enforcement for profit.
Also, please let me know if OTR has been broken. That would be a shocker to me.
The US makes dollar bills, knowing full well that it will be used to pay for smuggling drugs, paying terrorist activities, fund human trafficking, gambling, paying for stolen goods and other crimes. And in the case of HSBC, we know full well that managers were directly aware of many of these transactions.
Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it.
I dont think your "easy" solution would be easy to make into law. What possible motivation could the government have to tell its citizen what it can and can not accept in an agreement of trade. I think they would need to show some sort of danger or reason to protect citizens from it. Its unclear what danger that would be.
its because its rose above 90$ a coin duo the run on them because of that bank having troubles. once the run on them ends and the new rigs get shipped i bet they will drop back down to below 11$.
I dont think people in countries where the banks are stealing their deposits are running to bitcoin. Is that what you would do? Take out your money and invest it into a speculative digital commodity that you cant use to pay rent or buy clothes and is difficult to deposit into a foreign bank and may rise or drop 10% in a single day? Is that what you would do with your families savings in times of trouble? Or would you be getting your money out in the form of cash and other stable commodities which can be transported and deposited elsewhere? The world news about the behaviour of banks in Europe and the US may be driving speculation into bitcoin, but I dont think it is coming from Cyprus or Greece.
Also, the production of bitcoins is not determined by the "new rigs". The production level is flat: http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins. There is a built in moderation to the difficulty of mining which predetermines the output to a set amount. As the link shows... its very predictable and not likely to cause significant change no matter how much mining power is used.
I just received 10 BTC for $50. What's my next move? I go to MtGox and cash it out into USD immediately.
BTC may not be devalued through arbitrary printing of it, but it can be rapidly devalued through people dumping it (which has happened a few times).
Bitcoin has dropped quickly a few times. Mostly due to dumping, but it keeps coming back. There are a fair number of people who see a large drop as a good thing as it would allow them to capture more bitcoins at what they believe is an undervalued price. For those who believe in the long term value of bitcoin, a big price drop is not really a bad thing.
...It has no national economy behind it, there are no taxes you can pay with it...
I cannot pay taxes in gold, but given the choice between a ten dollar bill and a lump of gold, I would take the gold. Despite the limitation that I might have to find another way to pay my taxes.
I don't really see how that will help. Laundering Bitcoins is incredibly easy compared to actual money. In addition, as more websites begin to accept Bitcoin, exchanges will become less important.
Can you elaborate on this. How do you launder bitcoins?
This can currently be estimated to be $150.000 to $250.000 each day (using price of $90), and this amount of fresh money must enter the exchanges every day, or the price will go down
I believe new blocks are created every 10 minutes. Each block assigns 12.5 new bitcoins into the system. So every day there is 144 new bitcoins mined. At about $90/bitcoin, this is about $13k USD. Meaning that the the about $13k USD should be purchased in bitcoin every day. But price is not that liquid. Because I think this would assume that every miner is immediately trying to sell their coins on the exchange. So the real price is always whatever people are willing to buy or sell them for.
I do not feel that speculation is wrong. I think that bitcoin is a viable alternative for online payment systems. The reason is that it is about 3% cheaper for merchants to accept them. So either prices go down, or merchants make more profit. So there is incentive for merchants to offer this as an option. Secondly, the fact that you cannot commit bitcoin fraud means that businesses do not have to worry about chargebacks and all the costs that go along with that.
I may be wildly optimistic, but I believe that bitcoin will be offered on a fair number of merchant checkout sites within one year. I am also estimating that 1 in 1000 online purchases will go through bitcoin. Credit card companies process trillions of dollars online each year. A 0.1% stake of this would be billions of dollars. The daily flow of bitcoins would be multiple millions. In order to create the liquidity required to satisfy all of these transactions, the rate of bitcoin trading will have to go way up. Since there simply isnt enough bitcoins to meet this need, the value of each bitcoin will also go up and the bitcoin will be divided into smaller pieces in order to meet the demand as required. Fortunately bitcoin can be divided down into slivers of 0.00000001 parts. Similar to the way a dollar is divided down to 0.01 parts (cents). This is why I think bitcoin is not in a bubble, but rather it will continue to rise over the next year. There is no question that much of its current value is due to speculation, but what do you think that speculation is based on? nothing? Maybe some people really believe in the value of bitcoin as a viable currency option and see it as a valuable commodity that people will really need and demand more in the future.
Also, there are novell and interesting things you can do with bitcoin. Check this out: http://youtu.be/3UmynaPg8hw. This would be a way safer way to collect payments on the street... like if you are having a yard sale, or running a block party and selling burgers, or your kids are selling lemonade. Because bitcoin has a lot of cash like features... and it also has credit card like features. Its just a lot safer then walking around with and exchanging cash and its a lot cheaper and more available to people then credit card and their transaction fees. I dont know exactly all the ways bitcoin will be used in the future, but the reality is it does work and there are far more options for people to use it in unique ways then you can with a bank card or credit card.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont see any issue with this
First of all it is incorrect to say that Nintendo gets all the ad revenue. The majority of ad revenue goes to Google. The remaining portion they pay out to the content creators is now going to Nintendo.
Whether you agree with this or not, its fairly clear that Nintendo owns the rights to videos created primarily with content scraped from their video game. If there is a lot of additional footage or commentary, then the ownership is more questionable. However, Nintendo probably reserves the right to have these videos taken down if they are not receiving any of the ad revenue in videos which contain content from their video games.
Movie distributors do the exact same thing. I have serveral youtube videos that are edited versions of hollywood movies. In all cases, the advertising rights and profits have been claimed by the distributors of the movies they are based on. I have no problem with this and I think it is entirely ethical for them to be paid because without their content, these videos wouldnt exist.
I think youtube should provide for more ad profit splitting. For example, music owners should be able to instruct youtube to split ad revenue with video creators so that both audio and video creators earn revenue for their efforts. Perhaps youtube should provide automatic splitting of revenue based on the portions of audio and video that are owned by different parties. For example, if a video game has voice commentary over the entire video, perhaps 1/2 should go to the video game creator and 1/2 goes to the owner of the audio content.
I make music videos for music that is licensed "CC attribution"... because this is the only way I can get any revenue from advertising on these. I would be willing to share revenue with music creators, but youtube provides no mechanism for this.
when we people learn that hollywood movie are not very good and not at all worth the trouble of watching them? Freely available content is getting better and better and doesnt come with all the legal ramifications of having to watch it in the cold manner someone else forces you to do it and under threat of legal lawsuits at bankrupting expense. The answer to hollywood is to actively ignore hollywood. Take a moral stand for yourself and your children. Stop watching movies at the theatre and do not allow yourself to be enticed by the advertising by stealing it. You want to watch movies at home, on your own schedule and for free. Well dont look to hollywood. They are simply too far behind to match the manner in which we all consume content. And they make you a criminal for behaving in a purely natural, modern and comfortable way. If we all just ignored them, maybe we will get lucky and they will go away.. or maybe they will fix their issue with limiting our media consumption. Downloading "real" movies is not a crime. Downloading hollywood movies is stupid and immoral because it plays into the myth that doing so is a crime. Take a stand and stop paying for the crap they put in the theatres. We all know that the best part of a hollywood movie is the tv commercial you can access online for free. Watch that alone and be satisfied, because we all know the movie wont be half of what they show you in the ads.
Take Mexico, a country with a 100% ban on guns, you can't even one a 22 in that country...are the criminals throwing rocks at each other?
My guess is that violent criminals in Mexico are primarily fighting over the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico to the US. Maybe if the US removed the profit incentive there would be less violence in Mexico.
It seems ridiculous to regulate a product that doesnt produce a real reliable and functional item that criminals would employ for making weapons. Especially when it is so easy to get real guns in the US with minimal traceability that actually function well when committing crimes of violence. The 3d printed guns dont even look like guns, so their value as a mere threat is greatly reduced. A criminal would probably have a better result by printing a completely non functional gun that has the identical shape as a real gun (replica). But real replicas are cheap and easy to find.
Suggesting a regulation or registration system for 3d printers has no security benefit. To me this seems like an attempt to appear to be doing something to curb gun violence, but in fact does nothing except play on the paranoid fears about a problem that does not exist yet. While the real potential solutions to gun violence are ignored
Defect density (defects per 1,000 lines of software code) is a commonly used measurement for software quality. The analysis found an average defect density of .69 for open source software projects, and an average defect density of .68 for proprietary code.
If its that easy to determine which lines of code are defective, then why not simply allow the detection software to make the fix? For example, if you are certain the code is incorrect, then you certainly must know what is the correct code, or you cannot say for sure that it is wrong.
I mean the guys could make a mint that got in on the ground floor, because mining was super duper easy, but as more and more enter it becomes harder and harder and now I seriously doubt anyone that isn't stealing the electricity will ever break even.
When a business owner incorporates a company, they own 100% of the company. Over time they may sell shares of the company to raise funds. But as the company grows bigger, the number of shares given away is a smaller and smaller portion of the total, and the price is usually more and more expensive for each one. So how is this not a pyramid scheme?
Now don't get me wrong, I like the IDEA of a completely non traceable currency...
Bitcoin is not untraceable. Bitcoin is the most open transaction processing system in the world (I think). Imagine if the credit card company or banks release details of every single transaction to the public. Every transaction from one bank account to another. Every internet credit card purchase to ebay was made public. How can you call that untraceable? The only untraceable part of bitcoin is the fact that most of the information of who owns which account has been removed. But still this is minimal compared to the information provided by banks and card companies. Bitcoin is very open and traceable. The anonymous part is the bare minimum required in order to be reasonable... not paranoid or secretive.
If you want privacy... talk to a banker. They can sell musch better privacy to you.
Unless, say, you discover either an unexpected new easily exploitable source of gold or a new mechanism of extracting gold efficiently
And if they find a way to transport an american dollar bill through a computer, while other currencies cannot, I think the value of the US dollar bill would skyrocket as the people begin to discover this. There might even be wild speculation on what value the US dollar bill could attain with this new found use.
I think there should be a default setting where all your information is made public after 100 years and immediately becomes public domain. All our photos, and most private conversations become publicly searchable and usable in any way whatsover. This will provide future generations with a wealth of historical and research information like we have never seen. Besides the historical value... this may also assist in other research such as disease and mental illness or just understanding human behaviour. I think it is very selfish to be concerned about privacy 100 years after youre dead.
Yes. The title is meant to be tongue in cheek, but it allows the reader to think that Bing notices more malware and therefore will not present them to the browser. Its not clear from the title that Bing is actually missing malware on sites and issuing them back to you as valid search results. Also, the article itself is not clear because it seems that the number of malware pages found was roughly the same, but the search size was greater on Google. The article would have been more useful if it offered some percentages in order to make the comparison more clear.
it. This situation is analogous to your PC phoning home to Microsoft for updates, then having a special version sent to your machine at the request of the FBI. No matter how careful you are about what software you run or what security software you employ, Microsoft can compromise your machine.
And the EULA you signed means you agree that Microsoft can do this and that Microsoft will not be held responsible for the consequences
...making about 7 dollars per hour...maybe 70 dollars per hour...that seems pretty good to me.
Your hourly rate for federal crime is very reasonable. I will contact you, should I need ur services
If the astronaut gets across the event horizon, then he will never die relative to us. So, there really isn't a problem here as far as I can tell.
I think you are mistaking light for present reality. Just because you could see the astronauts image falling in an dimming and red shifting out of our ability to observe it, doesnt mean that she still exists. That is like claiming that the big bang never finished, because we can still observe it red shifted on the outer regions of the observable universe.
long before the astronaut gets to the event horizon. Both can be correct.
...or none. The event horizon of a very large black hole could be passed through without notice by an astronaut, if the black hole was the size of our universe. But if the black hole was extremely small, then you would be torn apart by tidal forces long before the event horizon is reached. Like if the black hole was the size of a golfball at your feet, then your feet would feel much stronger accelleration twords it then your head.
the size of the black hole would be relevant to the discussion
The trouble is that "what we know about black holes" is all theoretical and mathematical. No one has ever directly observed a black hole and thereby shown that these things even exist in the real world. Black holes were invented to explain present-day theories about the motion of stars and galaxies. The same is true of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and other dark fictions.
There doesnt seem to be a lot of good evidence yet for many of the dark fictions. But there is good evidence of a black hole at the center of our own galaxy. The stars orbit near the center of our galaxy in a strange way. To orbit in this manner, we expect to see a large mass in the center, but there is no visiable object there. Im not saying it is perfect evidence, but it really does fit the bill for now. So we do have some compelling real world evidence, where a black hole is the best possible explanation and we didnt invent the theory of a black hole to match that observation.
I hate when people say "hi-fidelity". Fortunately, not many people use it now. I only hear people use this to imply: "I paid more for my speakers then you did". The word doesnt have any meaning and in fact makes me think of products from the 50's to 70's. It like finding a tuner that says "In Stereo" on it... as if this is some soft of selling point. It would be more interesting if I was told it was recording in quadrophonic sound or captured on reel to reel, because then I would at least know what hi-fidelity was referring to.
Also, none of these sounds have any meaning. Sound doesnt travel without a medium and the big bang did not occur in a medium. So you could play a sound from the radiation of a star and tell me "the stars are singing in the heavens"... but it doesnt have any real meaning. I guess you could take timelaps video of ice melting and then call it "HD video of the SUN"... but its not really is it.
Who knows? Encryption is based on the assumption that it would take a very very long time to break. When you virtually infinite resources to crack it, all bets are off.
Virtually infinite resources is INFINITELY less than infinite resources. Every bit added to an encryption keep takes twice as long to break. Or twice as many computers, assuming 2 computers are twice as powerful as one, which it is not. The difference between an 256 bit encryption key and a 512 bit encryption key is 2^256 or a number with about 77 digits in it (too long to write here). So if you have enough computers to break a 256 bit encryption key, you only need approximately an "infinite" amount times as many to break a key that is twice as long. The solution to this is not more computer power. That would be futile. It is in installing keyloggers to monitor your keystrokes, or putting back door directly in the software.
The only serious use of computers to break strong cryptography is if the agency knows some secret mathematical shortcut to break known ciphers in linear time. This would be a surprise for some cryptography such as RSA which use methods suspected/believed to be "mathematically hard".
If you suspect that the large computing systems are by agencies are out to crack strong encryption... then I have news for you. They are being used to sift through everything you do that is not encrypted. Because that is a lot easier and it includes almost everything you do all day long. The scarier truth is that these agencies have "the dirt" on every one of us. The only good news being, that there is safety in numbers and as long as you keep your head down, they may not choose to use it against you.
So what is this saying... is OTR cracked? Unless iMessage is a voice service, off-the-record would be a far better option for privacy since it is open sourced. Also, dont be confused with Google chat feature called "off the record" which simply doesn't store a log on your local computer and instructs the remote client to also not store a local log... if the remote client bothers to observe this request. Because for google everything you type is clear text. If your interested in a real encryption option, check out Pidgin chat client with the crypto OTR plugin. Its open source so you can trust it has no back doors compiled into the binary... unless you actually trust this "report" that apple doesnt want to sell your information to law enforcement for profit.
Also, please let me know if OTR has been broken. That would be a shocker to me.
The US makes dollar bills, knowing full well that it will be used to pay for smuggling drugs, paying terrorist activities, fund human trafficking, gambling, paying for stolen goods and other crimes. And in the case of HSBC, we know full well that managers were directly aware of many of these transactions.
Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it.
I dont think your "easy" solution would be easy to make into law. What possible motivation could the government have to tell its citizen what it can and can not accept in an agreement of trade. I think they would need to show some sort of danger or reason to protect citizens from it. Its unclear what danger that would be.
its because its rose above 90$ a coin duo the run on them because of that bank having troubles. once the run on them ends and the new rigs get shipped i bet they will drop back down to below 11$.
I dont think people in countries where the banks are stealing their deposits are running to bitcoin. Is that what you would do? Take out your money and invest it into a speculative digital commodity that you cant use to pay rent or buy clothes and is difficult to deposit into a foreign bank and may rise or drop 10% in a single day? Is that what you would do with your families savings in times of trouble? Or would you be getting your money out in the form of cash and other stable commodities which can be transported and deposited elsewhere? The world news about the behaviour of banks in Europe and the US may be driving speculation into bitcoin, but I dont think it is coming from Cyprus or Greece.
Also, the production of bitcoins is not determined by the "new rigs". The production level is flat: http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins. There is a built in moderation to the difficulty of mining which predetermines the output to a set amount. As the link shows... its very predictable and not likely to cause significant change no matter how much mining power is used.
I just received 10 BTC for $50. What's my next move? I go to MtGox and cash it out into USD immediately.
BTC may not be devalued through arbitrary printing of it, but it can be rapidly devalued through people dumping it (which has happened a few times).
Bitcoin has dropped quickly a few times. Mostly due to dumping, but it keeps coming back. There are a fair number of people who see a large drop as a good thing as it would allow them to capture more bitcoins at what they believe is an undervalued price. For those who believe in the long term value of bitcoin, a big price drop is not really a bad thing.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/wan/3712081353.html
...It has no national economy behind it, there are no taxes you can pay with it...
I cannot pay taxes in gold, but given the choice between a ten dollar bill and a lump of gold, I would take the gold. Despite the limitation that I might have to find another way to pay my taxes.
I don't really see how that will help. Laundering Bitcoins is incredibly easy compared to actual money. In addition, as more websites begin to accept Bitcoin, exchanges will become less important.
Can you elaborate on this. How do you launder bitcoins?
This can currently be estimated to be $150.000 to $250.000 each day (using price of $90), and this amount of fresh money must enter the exchanges every day, or the price will go down
I believe new blocks are created every 10 minutes. Each block assigns 12.5 new bitcoins into the system. So every day there is 144 new bitcoins mined. At about $90/bitcoin, this is about $13k USD. Meaning that the the about $13k USD should be purchased in bitcoin every day. But price is not that liquid. Because I think this would assume that every miner is immediately trying to sell their coins on the exchange. So the real price is always whatever people are willing to buy or sell them for.
I do not feel that speculation is wrong. I think that bitcoin is a viable alternative for online payment systems. The reason is that it is about 3% cheaper for merchants to accept them. So either prices go down, or merchants make more profit. So there is incentive for merchants to offer this as an option. Secondly, the fact that you cannot commit bitcoin fraud means that businesses do not have to worry about chargebacks and all the costs that go along with that.
I may be wildly optimistic, but I believe that bitcoin will be offered on a fair number of merchant checkout sites within one year. I am also estimating that 1 in 1000 online purchases will go through bitcoin. Credit card companies process trillions of dollars online each year. A 0.1% stake of this would be billions of dollars. The daily flow of bitcoins would be multiple millions. In order to create the liquidity required to satisfy all of these transactions, the rate of bitcoin trading will have to go way up. Since there simply isnt enough bitcoins to meet this need, the value of each bitcoin will also go up and the bitcoin will be divided into smaller pieces in order to meet the demand as required. Fortunately bitcoin can be divided down into slivers of 0.00000001 parts. Similar to the way a dollar is divided down to 0.01 parts (cents). This is why I think bitcoin is not in a bubble, but rather it will continue to rise over the next year. There is no question that much of its current value is due to speculation, but what do you think that speculation is based on? nothing? Maybe some people really believe in the value of bitcoin as a viable currency option and see it as a valuable commodity that people will really need and demand more in the future.
Also, there are novell and interesting things you can do with bitcoin. Check this out: http://youtu.be/3UmynaPg8hw. This would be a way safer way to collect payments on the street... like if you are having a yard sale, or running a block party and selling burgers, or your kids are selling lemonade. Because bitcoin has a lot of cash like features... and it also has credit card like features. Its just a lot safer then walking around with and exchanging cash and its a lot cheaper and more available to people then credit card and their transaction fees. I dont know exactly all the ways bitcoin will be used in the future, but the reality is it does work and there are far more options for people to use it in unique ways then you can with a bank card or credit card.