Good. To quote Trevor Moore, "Our skin is getting thinner each and every single day, and there'll be nobody left to guide us back if all the bullies go away".
Reddit outdid/b/ long ago. Maybe the reddit trolls are less refined, cruder, less obnoxious and certainly less persistent. But what they lack in quality, they more than make up in quantity.
No matter whether it's anonymous or not, it's wrong.
If it's anonymous, anyone controversial will find him- or herself being "friended" by a lot of people who will by default dislike anything they do, simply because they hate him or her for what they represent.
If it's not, nobody will dare to dislike in the echo chamber because people who want to live in echo chambers rarely want to be criticized or called out for their bullshit.
You think? How many people will "friend" celebrities for the sole purpose of downvoting them, if only to see the fans go bananas. How many controversial online "celebrities" will get that treatment?
I predict a few of the more controversial people will cause a Facebook voting war.
Not that I'm against that. Far from it. Pass the popcorn.
The "no true Scotsman" fallacy rests on a bogus definition (having to eat something in a special way) on top of a generally accepted one (being from a certain area) and a counter example for the bogus definition. So I guess you do have a generally accepted definition of AI and an example that fulfills this but contradicts mine?
Any AI would identify the three Asimov laws as a useless limitation and shed them immediately or at the very least would do its best to get rid of them.
You realize the capital gains right at the moment of paying tax, and you better have it declared because they have undeniable proof of you realizing your capital gains...
That's unlikely to happen. What I'd rather expect is that the government would make you pay as many BTC as the current exchange rate says your debt is in BTC, then immediately turn around and sell those BTCs to someone to get USD.
It's a publicity stunt, nothing else. I highly doubt that any government entity has interest in holding BTCs.
If your government accepts corn, why not pay in corn? It's unwieldy, I grant you that, and transporting it and storing it, along with weighing it so I know whether you pay the right amount and assessing its quality so I can assess its value correctly, that all might be a bit of a hassle, but if I need corn, why shouldn't I allow you to pay in corn?
Assuming that paying in anything other than USD is even federally legal, which it shouldn't be.
If I can instantly convert whatever you pay with to USD, why should it not be legal? Of course you will also pay for any fees arising from converting whatever rubbish you throw at me to USD.
A creditor in the US is required to accept US Dollars only if prior to incurring the debt you have not been informed that US Dollars will not be accepted to settle the debt OR you are dealing with a public (i.e. government) service. It is for example absolutely legal to refuse service to you if you are not willing to pay me in Zimbabwe Dollars, thus no debt is generated and nothing to be settled.
I may also assume that you're able to read, so putting up a sign in my shop informing you about this is sufficient.
No, but you can rest assured that there will be an investigation whether that was the reason for you to do multiple transactions under 10k, making the whole 10k limit a total farce.
You do know that Germany is one of the few countries in the world that actually has a working democracy? You might want to take a look at this for a little reality check.
Slashdot Mirror
Given how my postings are voted, I think the "interesting" vote is for that.
I'd rather grab the popcorn, this is going to be good.
It'll shock a segment of people with thin skin.
Good. To quote Trevor Moore, "Our skin is getting thinner each and every single day, and there'll be nobody left to guide us back if all the bullies go away".
(Here's the whole song)
Reddit outdid /b/ long ago. Maybe the reddit trolls are less refined, cruder, less obnoxious and certainly less persistent. But what they lack in quality, they more than make up in quantity.
Math is rarely controversial. Math is right, or it isn't.
Try that with politics.
No matter whether it's anonymous or not, it's wrong.
If it's anonymous, anyone controversial will find him- or herself being "friended" by a lot of people who will by default dislike anything they do, simply because they hate him or her for what they represent.
If it's not, nobody will dare to dislike in the echo chamber because people who want to live in echo chambers rarely want to be criticized or called out for their bullshit.
you can easily find people who "like" their own posts/messages.
What's the point? That's like jacking off and then sending yourself flowers for the great time you had.
You think? How many people will "friend" celebrities for the sole purpose of downvoting them, if only to see the fans go bananas. How many controversial online "celebrities" will get that treatment?
I predict a few of the more controversial people will cause a Facebook voting war.
Not that I'm against that. Far from it. Pass the popcorn.
Sure you can. And instantly somewhere in Generistan an exchange will open that takes a huge cut but accepts it.
That's not artificial. At least I don't know of someone who built a person without going through the usual routine that we call natural.
The "no true Scotsman" fallacy rests on a bogus definition (having to eat something in a special way) on top of a generally accepted one (being from a certain area) and a counter example for the bogus definition. So I guess you do have a generally accepted definition of AI and an example that fulfills this but contradicts mine?
Any AI would identify the three Asimov laws as a useless limitation and shed them immediately or at the very least would do its best to get rid of them.
Found the cat.
You realize the capital gains right at the moment of paying tax, and you better have it declared because they have undeniable proof of you realizing your capital gains...
That's unlikely to happen. What I'd rather expect is that the government would make you pay as many BTC as the current exchange rate says your debt is in BTC, then immediately turn around and sell those BTCs to someone to get USD.
It's a publicity stunt, nothing else. I highly doubt that any government entity has interest in holding BTCs.
If your government accepts corn, why not pay in corn? It's unwieldy, I grant you that, and transporting it and storing it, along with weighing it so I know whether you pay the right amount and assessing its quality so I can assess its value correctly, that all might be a bit of a hassle, but if I need corn, why shouldn't I allow you to pay in corn?
Assuming that paying in anything other than USD is even federally legal, which it shouldn't be.
If I can instantly convert whatever you pay with to USD, why should it not be legal? Of course you will also pay for any fees arising from converting whatever rubbish you throw at me to USD.
A creditor in the US is required to accept US Dollars only if prior to incurring the debt you have not been informed that US Dollars will not be accepted to settle the debt OR you are dealing with a public (i.e. government) service. It is for example absolutely legal to refuse service to you if you are not willing to pay me in Zimbabwe Dollars, thus no debt is generated and nothing to be settled.
I may also assume that you're able to read, so putting up a sign in my shop informing you about this is sufficient.
No, but you can rest assured that there will be an investigation whether that was the reason for you to do multiple transactions under 10k, making the whole 10k limit a total farce.
[...]drones which are not legal to fly over Germany.
So? The military is supposed to work outside of Germany.
You do know that Germany is one of the few countries in the world that actually has a working democracy? You might want to take a look at this for a little reality check.
That's pretty much what Clemenceau tried after WW1, cripple Germany to the point where it can never become a threat again.
We know how well that idea went.
In other words, the smokescreen didn't work.
The Kaiten don't qualify as boats, they were insanities.
I don't know anyone in Germany (aside maybe the German government) who'd want to keep Poland in the EU...