Proper grammar used to hold that the first time something is referenced, it should always be spelled out, but is OK to abbreviate from that point forward.
Problem is, a lot of people seem to take that statement, "the first time something is referenced," to mean the first time ever.
They can mine any crypto that uses SHA256, so, not only BTC. Also, it still may be possible to earn profit from some devices, it all depends on price/GH/s, power/GH/s and delivery time.
Judging from this list of cryptocurrencies, BTC is the only "active" cC that uses SHA256; the other two listed, Peercoin and Namecoin, are apparently 'proof-of-concept' only.
If someone in a plane flying overhead *happens* to glance out the window and see me sunbathing nude in my private yard, well, that's life - shit happens.
Conversely, if someone is using technology to intentionally circumvent the obvious and reasonable privacy measures I've put up, then they are violating my civil rights and I will do everything in my power to make sure they pay the legal price.
Add a roof to your fence
OK, I've heard some terribly ridiculous suggestions in my day, but this one ranks up near the top.
Ever hear the term, "reasonably prudent?" Yea, it's a jurisprudence thing, and one I'd be sure to know by heart before making silly statements like that one.
CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV.
CCTV is a stationary system that monitors only what the people who own the property have a right to monitor.
Comparing Google Glass to CCTV is like comparing a cheap, Walmart brand telescope to the Square Kilometer Array - the only thing they have in common is the fact they're both telescopes.
Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades.
No, smashing cameras would be 'luddite behavior.' Smashing faces because of technological apprehension, while stupid IMO, doesn't exactly fit that definition.
If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.
That statement is equally legitimate to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."
In that, it's not legitimate at all. Every major intersection in my city, for example, has CCTV cameras attached. So to "not go places that have CCTV" would mean to not go places, and that's just stupidly unreasonable.
So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times?
When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.
When it's in their pocket, or they're obviously on a call? Don't be obtuse.
What person goes through life assuming that every camera that's pointing at themis recording their every move
Celebrities and other values of person who put value on their privacy.
Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.
Don't use that term. You obviously don't know what it means, and just insulted every person who either suffers from the affliction or at least knows what that term means.
I guess maybe I'm the odd duck here, but I just don't see what's so appealing about paying Google to become one of their pet, Snow Crash style gargoyles.
> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.
I sure hope you never go outside.
Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'
That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think I would have spent the money on an 8-foot privacy fence, if I didn't want a little privacy in my backyard? Of course not. So don't be a douche about it.
Yes, you might be able to *legally* park a bucket truck on the street, extend it all the way, and look into my backyard, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a nosy asshole who should be universally shunned for doing it.
Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.
So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?
What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?
Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.
Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value. Just seems reasonable to me.
I'll grant that threatening to cause people harm because they're doing something you don't like, but isn't explicitly prohibited, is a rather prehistoric attitude to have.
As it always happens, the only sure winners from a gold rush are sellers of shovels. In this case, plenty of money was made by ASIC miner manufacturers, and by utilities. Everyone else has to fight for survival.
I considered buying a couple ASIC miners myself, until I did the research and discovered that they can only mine BTC. Then I brought up the calculators, and that's when I figured out that it was far too late to get into the BTC game.
So now, they're talking about ASIC devices that can mine Litecoins instead, but something tells me they'll be too late to that party as well.
If we really wanted to improve the situation, we would set the system up so that there is no such thing as buying favors, er, I mean "campaign donations," and instead have all 'bona fide candidates,' i.e. people who get on enough state ballots, get X amount from the Federal Campaign Commission, not a penny less, not a penny more.
Is it really a failure of one currency if it only fills in a niche?
BTC does not fill any niche. What is it that BTC allows me to do that I cannot do through the bank, using any currency of my choice?
Buy illegal stuff from certain websites, lose half your wealth in an instant when some random nation decides to ban them, waste metric shit-tonnes of electricity for little to no fiscal gain...
Yea, I loved how my parents did everything out in the open; made it a heck of a lot easier to work around all those restrictions since I knew what they were.
(This actually isn't true - my parents were smart enough to know better)
Your problem appears to be that you are conflating parenting with running a government, when the two couldn't be further opposed. A parent has every cause and need to secretly monitor their legal charges, AKA kids, for reasons that should be made obvious by the use of the term, "legal charges." Since the government has no vested interest in making sure every citizen follows every law (much the opposite, in fact: the government depends on law-breaking for fund-raising purposes), they do not have the same cause nor need.
Nevermind the fact that spaying and neutering is essential to keeping pet populations in check.
What about vasectomy and tubectomy? All the benefits of population control without the negative side effects.
Sure, whatever.
I don't know a whole lot about animal genital manipulation, and really have no desire to change that fact. Just fix 'em, so I can stop spending my weekends bummed out because the shelter I volunteer at is always filled to capacity.
Slashdot could only be defined as a "community" in the same respects as "people who visit the mall" could be called a "community".
Politicians, or rather people with political machinations, regularly use the term "community" to refer to any group of people they feel like lumping together arbitrarily.
To that end, AC could post a question of something, er, questionable here, an AC could answer it (maybe even the same AC who asked), and Senator Dumbfuck would spend the next day pontificating how Slashdot is a den of terrorists, and that every member of the site should be extra-judicially 'dealt with.' And the MSM would jump right in behind him.
Like I said, before the days of questionable LEO techniques such as parallel construction, I too would have found such a theory too left-field to take seriously, but now...
I've got 2 theories about whoever posted this question (submitted as AC? Shocked, I tell you, shocked.):
1) They want to commit industrial espionage for whatever reason, but aren't smart enough to do it themselves
2) They work for some sort of group or agency that has an inherent interest in getting internet communities to accidentally help someone commit a crime, thus creating an illusion of culpability for said internet communities.
5 years ago, #2 would have been too tin-foil-hat crazy even for me; today, I just don't know.
I need it to work on files I am not allowed to take out when leaving.
Are your bosses going to be cool with you transmitting all that data over innumerable, unsecured pipes they have no control over? Because if they don't want you sneaker-netting the stuff out...
Or *gasp* I have interacted with hunters who complain about problems with ATVs driving around during hunting season, including complaining about other hunters doing it.
Inconsiderate douchebag != intentionally interfering with the hunt. Also, if they're telling you about it, but not telling their local game warden, they're getting what they deserve. Granted, I'll entertain a slim chance that the local game officials don't give a shit, but I find that unlikely.
Then there's the standard fallback of, 'those guy are actually really, really shitty hunters, but don't have the balls to admit how much they suck, so they make shit up about ATVs scaring off prey.'
Regardless, nothing changes the fact that you dismissed a reasonable, realistic explanation (supported by other things PETA has done in the past), and substituted an absolute fantasy for which you cannot, apparently, provide a scrap of evidence to verify.
Your entire post was about liberals making excuses for "their guy". You don't get to play the victim here. Oh, poor you. I'm accusing you of singling out liberals.... Which is what you did. So stuff your call for introspection
Then you fail, by virtue of the fact you obviously didn't read the second-to-last sentence of my post:
Unless, of course, you're a self-proclaimed "conservative," in which case letting "your guy's" laws fall into the hands of the "other guy" is the worst fucking thing to happen in American history.
See? I called both sides out. That you failed to notice something so obvious is a fault of your own predilections, not mine.
Slashdot Mirror
Proper grammar used to hold that the first time something is referenced, it should always be spelled out, but is OK to abbreviate from that point forward.
Problem is, a lot of people seem to take that statement, "the first time something is referenced," to mean the first time ever.
SIG (So It Goes).
They can mine any crypto that uses SHA256, so, not only BTC.
Also, it still may be possible to earn profit from some devices, it all depends on price/GH/s, power/GH/s and delivery time.
Judging from this list of cryptocurrencies, BTC is the only "active" cC that uses SHA256; the other two listed, Peercoin and Namecoin, are apparently 'proof-of-concept' only.
Better idea: don't intentionally violate people's privacy.
If someone in a plane flying overhead *happens* to glance out the window and see me sunbathing nude in my private yard, well, that's life - shit happens.
Conversely, if someone is using technology to intentionally circumvent the obvious and reasonable privacy measures I've put up, then they are violating my civil rights and I will do everything in my power to make sure they pay the legal price.
Add a roof to your fence
OK, I've heard some terribly ridiculous suggestions in my day, but this one ranks up near the top.
Ever hear the term, "reasonably prudent?" Yea, it's a jurisprudence thing, and one I'd be sure to know by heart before making silly statements like that one.
CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV.
CCTV is a stationary system that monitors only what the people who own the property have a right to monitor.
Comparing Google Glass to CCTV is like comparing a cheap, Walmart brand telescope to the Square Kilometer Array - the only thing they have in common is the fact they're both telescopes.
Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades.
No, smashing cameras would be 'luddite behavior.' Smashing faces because of technological apprehension, while stupid IMO, doesn't exactly fit that definition.
If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.
That statement is equally legitimate to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."
In that, it's not legitimate at all. Every major intersection in my city, for example, has CCTV cameras attached. So to "not go places that have CCTV" would mean to not go places, and that's just stupidly unreasonable.
So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times?
When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.
When it's in their pocket, or they're obviously on a call? Don't be obtuse.
What person goes through life assuming that every camera that's pointing at themis recording their every move
Celebrities and other values of person who put value on their privacy.
Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.
Don't use that term. You obviously don't know what it means, and just insulted every person who either suffers from the affliction or at least knows what that term means.
I guess maybe I'm the odd duck here, but I just don't see what's so appealing about paying Google to become one of their pet, Snow Crash style gargoyles.
> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.
I sure hope you never go outside.
Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'
That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think I would have spent the money on an 8-foot privacy fence, if I didn't want a little privacy in my backyard? Of course not. So don't be a douche about it.
Yes, you might be able to *legally* park a bucket truck on the street, extend it all the way, and look into my backyard, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a nosy asshole who should be universally shunned for doing it.
Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.
So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?
What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?
Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.
Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value. Just seems reasonable to me.
I'll grant that threatening to cause people harm because they're doing something you don't like, but isn't explicitly prohibited, is a rather prehistoric attitude to have.
As it always happens, the only sure winners from a gold rush are sellers of shovels. In this case, plenty of money was made by ASIC miner manufacturers, and by utilities. Everyone else has to fight for survival.
I considered buying a couple ASIC miners myself, until I did the research and discovered that they can only mine BTC. Then I brought up the calculators, and that's when I figured out that it was far too late to get into the BTC game.
So now, they're talking about ASIC devices that can mine Litecoins instead, but something tells me they'll be too late to that party as well.
Isn't the point to try and improve the situation?
If we really wanted to improve the situation, we would set the system up so that there is no such thing as buying favors, er, I mean "campaign donations," and instead have all 'bona fide candidates,' i.e. people who get on enough state ballots, get X amount from the Federal Campaign Commission, not a penny less, not a penny more.
Or something to that effect.
Considering that what you wrote looks like something the bastard child of Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn would say, you should be sorry.
Is it really a failure of one currency if it only fills in a niche?
BTC does not fill any niche. What is it that BTC allows me to do that I cannot do through the bank, using any currency of my choice?
Buy illegal stuff from certain websites, lose half your wealth in an instant when some random nation decides to ban them, waste metric shit-tonnes of electricity for little to no fiscal gain...
Yea, I loved how my parents did everything out in the open; made it a heck of a lot easier to work around all those restrictions since I knew what they were.
(This actually isn't true - my parents were smart enough to know better)
Your problem appears to be that you are conflating parenting with running a government, when the two couldn't be further opposed. A parent has every cause and need to secretly monitor their legal charges, AKA kids, for reasons that should be made obvious by the use of the term, "legal charges." Since the government has no vested interest in making sure every citizen follows every law (much the opposite, in fact: the government depends on law-breaking for fund-raising purposes), they do not have the same cause nor need.
Plus that whole, pesky "Constitution" thing.
True; necessity being the mother of invention, and all.
Nevermind the fact that spaying and neutering is essential to keeping pet populations in check.
What about vasectomy and tubectomy? All the benefits of population control without the negative side effects.
Sure, whatever.
I don't know a whole lot about animal genital manipulation, and really have no desire to change that fact. Just fix 'em, so I can stop spending my weekends bummed out because the shelter I volunteer at is always filled to capacity.
Slashdot could only be defined as a "community" in the same respects as "people who visit the mall" could be called a "community".
Politicians, or rather people with political machinations, regularly use the term "community" to refer to any group of people they feel like lumping together arbitrarily.
To that end, AC could post a question of something, er, questionable here, an AC could answer it (maybe even the same AC who asked), and Senator Dumbfuck would spend the next day pontificating how Slashdot is a den of terrorists, and that every member of the site should be extra-judicially 'dealt with.' And the MSM would jump right in behind him.
Like I said, before the days of questionable LEO techniques such as parallel construction, I too would have found such a theory too left-field to take seriously, but now...
I've got 2 theories about whoever posted this question (submitted as AC? Shocked, I tell you, shocked.):
1) They want to commit industrial espionage for whatever reason, but aren't smart enough to do it themselves
2) They work for some sort of group or agency that has an inherent interest in getting internet communities to accidentally help someone commit a crime, thus creating an illusion of culpability for said internet communities.
5 years ago, #2 would have been too tin-foil-hat crazy even for me; today, I just don't know.
Facist
Fascist is but one of the duties of a parent who actually cares about his children's upbringing. Obviously, a duty your parents failed to fulfill.
Shame, that.
I need it to work on files I am not allowed to take out when leaving.
Are your bosses going to be cool with you transmitting all that data over innumerable, unsecured pipes they have no control over? Because if they don't want you sneaker-netting the stuff out...
and the Medal of Honor, just for starters. Snowden has done more for this country than our "Nobel Peace Prize" winning President!
You don't have to use quote.
Well, you can, but it would be more appropriate around "winning" rather than "Nobel Peace Prize."
Good or bad, the US spies on everyone. No one's cell phone is out of the question. No one.
Oh, I dunno about that... after all, while they were busy listening in to Angela Merkel's calls, they let these guys slip through nigh undetected.
Or *gasp* I have interacted with hunters who complain about problems with ATVs driving around during hunting season, including complaining about other hunters doing it.
Inconsiderate douchebag != intentionally interfering with the hunt. Also, if they're telling you about it, but not telling their local game warden, they're getting what they deserve. Granted, I'll entertain a slim chance that the local game officials don't give a shit, but I find that unlikely.
Then there's the standard fallback of, 'those guy are actually really, really shitty hunters, but don't have the balls to admit how much they suck, so they make shit up about ATVs scaring off prey.'
Regardless, nothing changes the fact that you dismissed a reasonable, realistic explanation (supported by other things PETA has done in the past), and substituted an absolute fantasy for which you cannot, apparently, provide a scrap of evidence to verify.
Your entire post was about liberals making excuses for "their guy". You don't get to play the victim here. Oh, poor you. I'm accusing you of singling out liberals.... Which is what you did. So stuff your call for introspection
Then you fail, by virtue of the fact you obviously didn't read the second-to-last sentence of my post:
Unless, of course, you're a self-proclaimed "conservative," in which case letting "your guy's" laws fall into the hands of the "other guy" is the worst fucking thing to happen in American history.
See? I called both sides out. That you failed to notice something so obvious is a fault of your own predilections, not mine.