You realize, you don't actually purchase your vehicle. Even people who pay cash do not get the MSO of the car, it goes to the state (or destroyed) in which the car was sold, and replaced with a "certificate of title" which people assume is "title" but it is not, it is just a certificate that the title has been handed to the state. if you were to gain the MSO for the vehicle you're driving, you would not need to put a license plate on your vehicle as it is not tied to the state in any way shape or form.
We hand over so much power and authority to the "state" by our normal actions that we are not aware of. We are wards and slaves to the state.
One can counter this by increasing the requirement from 50% confidence (or whatever) to 75% (or whatever). Further, this is solvable by replacing Mining operations with plain old processing for a fee operations. From what I understand, one does not have to "mine" coins to process transactions, one can simply process for a part of the transaction, as a fee. Higher Fees mean faster transaction processing. (and if it isn't part of the protocol, it should be)
I am not afraid of the Monopoly, as much as I am over reaching governments. Monopolies will eventually fail, over reaching governments just keep over reaching.
Microsoft was a Monopoly. It has failed. It was replaced by something Microsoft couldn't buy, sell, or legislate against (Linux). Now we have a vibrant ecosystem of computers that Microsoft never even imagined until it was too late. All without government intervention.
The problem with Monopolies is that it often takes longer to fail than people are willing to wait for. It is part of the "Something must be done, this is something (even if it is the wrong thing to do), therefore it must be done" mentality that is short sighted.
Monopolies are natural, so is their demise. Laws that deal with Monopolies last forever, and have terrible unintended consequences.
My understanding, is that Deflation benefits those that acquire assets, in so much as "a penny saved, is a penny earned". Right now, saving money is a fool's game, as a "Dollar saved is.98 in a year". Inflation is a hidden tax on savings, pure and simple. Inflation is what allows a country to deficit spend indefinitely, because inflation helps remove the value of today and replace it with the value of tomorrow. It is also the danger of deficit spending, and centralized currency (like the USD), as the temptation to hyper inflate currency rises with the debt increases.
And I personally don't put it past the current (D) and (R) parties to collude long enough to screw the people by turning on the faucet with something like "Quantitative Easing"... oh wait...
In addition to what the Parent said, there is going to be increased stability in BitCoins as the currency gains acceptance. That stability will cause the currency's value to rise as stability increases, to the point where it becomes THE currency people barter for, rather than USD or EURO. At that point, you'll see sudden decrease in value of the other FIAT currencies, and deflationary nature of BitCoin to start happening.
There is your problem. You're still thinking limited. Rules for flying cars (on roads) is the same for every other vehicle on the road. We already have rules for air transportation, we don't need new rules for "flying cars" either on the roads (road laws) or in the air (Air Transportation laws).
Should we repeal horse riding laws as soon as the car was being produced?
What was the "horse riding laws" purpose(s)? If it was to avoid horse crap on the streets, then create a law regarding horse crap on the streets. THAT law doesn't depend on technology. But a BETTER law, would be to make a general law about crap/trash/pollution on the streets, THEN it would apply to any means of transportation on the streets, including cars.
The problem is, we want to fix A, but A is a subset of Z, so we write a law about A and not B, but need to create additonal laws B, C, D and E which are essentially the same laws as A but deal with specifics that could have been solved if we wrote the law for Z.
This is because people can't abstract the core away from the specifics enough. This is just lack of foresight.
I am reminded of the classic blunder, of a Rail Road Executive from the 1870's who was asked what industry he was in, and he replied "Rail Road". This was extremely short sighted and narrow visioned. While technically correct, his short sightedness kept him from seeing that he was in the "Transportation" industry, and when cars, trucks and highways came, he was stuck moving people and goods via Rail Road Cars and not embracing the new technology.
So, I never said that no "new technology" will be created. I said that shortsighted laws that don't account for the unknown are bad laws. And they are. Laws regarding gloves" in glove boxes where bad laws. We don't need governmnet, not matter how well intentioned, telling us what we must do, exactly, when other options are available, such as abstracting them "safe driving" or whatever the purpose was.
Current Law not appropriate for Future Technology = Poorly designed law. Such a law should be repealed immediately. Replacement should be technology neutral. There are always flaws in every system, we cannot eliminate all flaws, but we can mitigate against them.
At some point, it would be better to assume the flaws, build in common structure for handling "no fault" accidents (technology failures) financially so that we remove the "get rich quick" aspects of tort litigation, and incorporate those costs into the system.
I guarantee that transition to driverless cars will be quick and efficient when it is proven (statistically) that technologies are better drivers than humans. It will be too expensive to allow humans to drive.
Think of it this way, No More Drunk Drivers.... period.
Actually, The is now an increase the market for his images, because I have seen them, and want one. Whether I can afford one or not, is besides the point. And having seen his 12 second clip, the thing that struck me the most was how three dimensional it was, and I could easily imagine adapting the technique to normal cinematography sequences or even real (improved) 3D sequencing.
This value you do not perceive doesn't mean that there is "ZERO market" for his images, it simply means you do not see the value where others do. And to be honest, that is your view, and that is okay. I just don't share that view.
What do you call it when AGW proponents use information they know to be incorrect? You call it the "Global Warming Scandal" from a few years ago, however that never stopped the AGW crowd from saying "but their conclusions were correct, even if they manufactured the data"
Only problem is, I haven't manufactured anything, and you call me a liar. It is interesting how AGW proponents are completely hypocritical about who is "lying";)
I use voice typing for quick texts. "Text ____ I'm running late be there in a few" sends a text message "I'm running late be there in a few" to whomever. Enunciate for excellent results.
Your loss. 30 Seconds isn't enough. Heck a full day isn't enough. I used swype for a week and was hooked. Micro Keyboards were barely functional for me, and now, I can't even stand not having swype. I picked up an iPad and instinctively tried to swype and was horrified to go back to hunt n peck typing.
Well, considering the AGW propoents use 25-30 years of satellite pictures to make their proclamations, a blip on the geological scale, I'd say that is fair. The Sat pictures of both polar regions is relatively recent. And there is actual proof that both polar regions had a lot less ice even relatively recently. Blaming it all on Man is the flaw, not that there are fluctuations. Remember, it was Al Gore saying that in five years the ice caps would be gone. Well, they are bigger than they have been for a few years. Ooops.
Well, you're being extremely bigoted against anything that doesn't fit your own belief system, and hardly rational in the process. You postulate that people who believe __________ are responsible, at least "partially culpable" for everyone that does harm in the name of that cause. In your case, you state that those that believe Abortion is murder.
Do you not know that there are Atheists that have killed (also via atheist government decree) people because they had religion? THAT makes you, according to your own "rational thought" at least partially culpable. (see Reign of Terror, France)
“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?” - Jeffry Dahmer - atheist
Good People can be swayed to do horrible things... period. It doesn't need religion, nor does religion stop them. Correlation does not equal causation.
The one thing I have learned is that we humans have a wonderful knack of being able to justify anything, given the right set of circumstances. As you have stated, people do things in the name of religion that are horrible, but you have failed to say that religion itself is bad, or makes most of the followers of religion bad or even a small number of them is equal to the whole.
In logical fallacy terms you're using "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" (correlation = causation fallacy), because you're equating all the evils committed in the name of religion, to ALL religions and religious people, which is clearly not the case. If this were true, then the greatest death toll in history is caused by "atheistic governments" (USSR, China, Vietnam, Korea...). Yes, these governments are declared "atheistic" (no god) and have persecuted and killing millions of people, simply because they had "religion". Which, if I were to say is caused by "atheism" you would no doubt protest as also being "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", and rightly so.
People are rational. Most people are rational most of the time. I know plenty of "rational people" who are bat shit crazy, but mask it very well. Which brings me back to my point, people are fully capable of doing very irrational things, because we humans are exceptional at rationalizing very irrational things, given the right circumstances.
When atheists (via their government) kill religious people for their religion, then yeah, we can blame Atheism. If one wants to lump all "religious people" into those that "kill abortion doctors", then the reciprocal is also true. Unless of course your a hypocrite atheists that has one set of values for atheists, that aren't applied to everyone.
And I have run into more than a few militant atheists that DO condone violence against people of religion, simply for having religion (these are the same people persecuting Christians, Jews and Falung Gong in Atheist countries via government fiat). While YOU may not be one of them, I will lump you into that crowd for the same reason many atheists lump all Christians (and religions) in with the Abortion Doctor Killers. What is good for one ought to be good enough for all.
How does one defend against not believing in something? I do not feel compelled to defend against my non-belief in Pink Unicorns. How does that even work?
I've read the bible, in several versions, a few times. I remain faithful because of the narrative that most people miss. Man is flawed. ALL of us. None are perfect. And yet, we can strive to do better, and that striving has its own rewards. And yet, the greatest thing I've come away with, is that YHVH doesn't compel people to obedience, except those that choose to obey. We should all learn this lesson, that we should not compel others to our own "morals" (which is why I am also a Libertarian). None of us are capable of even keeping our own moral values, except those that have none (and even they are often hypocritical)
Most of today's Christianity misses that point. Even Jesus didn't condemn the hookers, while he DID condemned the "religious authorities" of his times, calling them hypocrites and vipers.
And when they say "WWJD" I tell them, making a scourge and acts of destruction are still on the table;)
This has less to do with Security than it does with over regulation to the point of removing ALL ability to use judgement. Absence of judgement is just as bad as bad judgement, as the results are nearly identical. There will ALWAYS be off cases where following absolute rules results in horrible consequences, just as allowing judgement in the first place.
To me, this is just another example of the horrors of "zero tolerance" laws, like the ones that toss a six year old out of school for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun.
I often speak against over regulation in my Libertarian rants, and this is exactly the kind of things that I mean about over regulation. And in this case, I can here the proponents of over regulation say "we need a new regulation to avoid these matters", and they won't understand, that they aren't solving the problem, but simply moving it to a different place in the decision making chain.
With properly managed devices, USB is disabled. This is an option, even in windows. And it is even an option at the BIOS/UEFI level on some systems. However, I wonder why they aren't using some soft of VDI for protecting the ATMS. This would prevent any direct access to the hardware running windows.
I don't know why Android Security Model doesn't include the option for apps to request trading features for permissions. If you want to use cool feature X it needs location services. Or Feature Y needs access to your SMS/Contacts. If you don't enable X or Y, those features are not available.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize, you don't actually purchase your vehicle. Even people who pay cash do not get the MSO of the car, it goes to the state (or destroyed) in which the car was sold, and replaced with a "certificate of title" which people assume is "title" but it is not, it is just a certificate that the title has been handed to the state. if you were to gain the MSO for the vehicle you're driving, you would not need to put a license plate on your vehicle as it is not tied to the state in any way shape or form.
We hand over so much power and authority to the "state" by our normal actions that we are not aware of. We are wards and slaves to the state.
One can counter this by increasing the requirement from 50% confidence (or whatever) to 75% (or whatever). Further, this is solvable by replacing Mining operations with plain old processing for a fee operations. From what I understand, one does not have to "mine" coins to process transactions, one can simply process for a part of the transaction, as a fee. Higher Fees mean faster transaction processing. (and if it isn't part of the protocol, it should be)
Perfect analysis. I prefer random people to organized crime .... er ... government. Thank you.
I am not afraid of the Monopoly, as much as I am over reaching governments. Monopolies will eventually fail, over reaching governments just keep over reaching.
Microsoft was a Monopoly. It has failed. It was replaced by something Microsoft couldn't buy, sell, or legislate against (Linux). Now we have a vibrant ecosystem of computers that Microsoft never even imagined until it was too late. All without government intervention.
The problem with Monopolies is that it often takes longer to fail than people are willing to wait for. It is part of the "Something must be done, this is something (even if it is the wrong thing to do), therefore it must be done" mentality that is short sighted.
Monopolies are natural, so is their demise. Laws that deal with Monopolies last forever, and have terrible unintended consequences.
My understanding, is that Deflation benefits those that acquire assets, in so much as "a penny saved, is a penny earned". Right now, saving money is a fool's game, as a "Dollar saved is .98 in a year". Inflation is a hidden tax on savings, pure and simple. Inflation is what allows a country to deficit spend indefinitely, because inflation helps remove the value of today and replace it with the value of tomorrow. It is also the danger of deficit spending, and centralized currency (like the USD), as the temptation to hyper inflate currency rises with the debt increases.
And I personally don't put it past the current (D) and (R) parties to collude long enough to screw the people by turning on the faucet with something like "Quantitative Easing" ... oh wait ...
In addition to what the Parent said, there is going to be increased stability in BitCoins as the currency gains acceptance. That stability will cause the currency's value to rise as stability increases, to the point where it becomes THE currency people barter for, rather than USD or EURO. At that point, you'll see sudden decrease in value of the other FIAT currencies, and deflationary nature of BitCoin to start happening.
"written to accommodate flying cars"
There is your problem. You're still thinking limited. Rules for flying cars (on roads) is the same for every other vehicle on the road. We already have rules for air transportation, we don't need new rules for "flying cars" either on the roads (road laws) or in the air (Air Transportation laws).
Next
I will use your example as a "bad law"
Should we repeal horse riding laws as soon as the car was being produced?
What was the "horse riding laws" purpose(s)? If it was to avoid horse crap on the streets, then create a law regarding horse crap on the streets. THAT law doesn't depend on technology. But a BETTER law, would be to make a general law about crap/trash/pollution on the streets, THEN it would apply to any means of transportation on the streets, including cars.
The problem is, we want to fix A, but A is a subset of Z, so we write a law about A and not B, but need to create additonal laws B, C, D and E which are essentially the same laws as A but deal with specifics that could have been solved if we wrote the law for Z.
This is because people can't abstract the core away from the specifics enough. This is just lack of foresight.
I am reminded of the classic blunder, of a Rail Road Executive from the 1870's who was asked what industry he was in, and he replied "Rail Road". This was extremely short sighted and narrow visioned. While technically correct, his short sightedness kept him from seeing that he was in the "Transportation" industry, and when cars, trucks and highways came, he was stuck moving people and goods via Rail Road Cars and not embracing the new technology.
So, I never said that no "new technology" will be created. I said that shortsighted laws that don't account for the unknown are bad laws. And they are. Laws regarding gloves" in glove boxes where bad laws. We don't need governmnet, not matter how well intentioned, telling us what we must do, exactly, when other options are available, such as abstracting them "safe driving" or whatever the purpose was.
Current Law not appropriate for Future Technology = Poorly designed law. Such a law should be repealed immediately. Replacement should be technology neutral. There are always flaws in every system, we cannot eliminate all flaws, but we can mitigate against them.
At some point, it would be better to assume the flaws, build in common structure for handling "no fault" accidents (technology failures) financially so that we remove the "get rich quick" aspects of tort litigation, and incorporate those costs into the system.
I guarantee that transition to driverless cars will be quick and efficient when it is proven (statistically) that technologies are better drivers than humans. It will be too expensive to allow humans to drive.
Think of it this way, No More Drunk Drivers .... period.
Actually, The is now an increase the market for his images, because I have seen them, and want one. Whether I can afford one or not, is besides the point. And having seen his 12 second clip, the thing that struck me the most was how three dimensional it was, and I could easily imagine adapting the technique to normal cinematography sequences or even real (improved) 3D sequencing.
This value you do not perceive doesn't mean that there is "ZERO market" for his images, it simply means you do not see the value where others do. And to be honest, that is your view, and that is okay. I just don't share that view.
What do you call it when AGW proponents use information they know to be incorrect? You call it the "Global Warming Scandal" from a few years ago, however that never stopped the AGW crowd from saying "but their conclusions were correct, even if they manufactured the data"
Only problem is, I haven't manufactured anything, and you call me a liar. It is interesting how AGW proponents are completely hypocritical about who is "lying" ;)
I use voice typing for quick texts. "Text ____ I'm running late be there in a few" sends a text message "I'm running late be there in a few" to whomever. Enunciate for excellent results.
Your loss. 30 Seconds isn't enough. Heck a full day isn't enough. I used swype for a week and was hooked. Micro Keyboards were barely functional for me, and now, I can't even stand not having swype. I picked up an iPad and instinctively tried to swype and was horrified to go back to hunt n peck typing.
"A keyboard ... how quaint!"
Don't need a router for NAS or sharing and there are plenty of cheap GB switches out there. The router usually on the edge.
Fluctuations. Like there have always been. More ice, then less ice. Blaming it on Man is the problem, not the fluctuations.
Well, considering the AGW propoents use 25-30 years of satellite pictures to make their proclamations, a blip on the geological scale, I'd say that is fair. The Sat pictures of both polar regions is relatively recent. And there is actual proof that both polar regions had a lot less ice even relatively recently. Blaming it all on Man is the flaw, not that there are fluctuations. Remember, it was Al Gore saying that in five years the ice caps would be gone. Well, they are bigger than they have been for a few years. Ooops.
Except for the fact that it isn't decreasing except. New evidence is that the arctic ice mass is much bigger. From the latest report
"It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978. "
Of course that doesn't fit the narrative.
Well, you're being extremely bigoted against anything that doesn't fit your own belief system, and hardly rational in the process. You postulate that people who believe __________ are responsible, at least "partially culpable" for everyone that does harm in the name of that cause. In your case, you state that those that believe Abortion is murder.
Do you not know that there are Atheists that have killed (also via atheist government decree) people because they had religion? THAT makes you, according to your own "rational thought" at least partially culpable. (see Reign of Terror, France)
“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?” - Jeffry Dahmer - atheist
You just won the Internet for the day sir. Excellent work!
Good People can be swayed to do horrible things ... period. It doesn't need religion, nor does religion stop them. Correlation does not equal causation.
The one thing I have learned is that we humans have a wonderful knack of being able to justify anything, given the right set of circumstances. As you have stated, people do things in the name of religion that are horrible, but you have failed to say that religion itself is bad, or makes most of the followers of religion bad or even a small number of them is equal to the whole.
In logical fallacy terms you're using "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" (correlation = causation fallacy), because you're equating all the evils committed in the name of religion, to ALL religions and religious people, which is clearly not the case. If this were true, then the greatest death toll in history is caused by "atheistic governments" (USSR, China, Vietnam, Korea ...). Yes, these governments are declared "atheistic" (no god) and have persecuted and killing millions of people, simply because they had "religion". Which, if I were to say is caused by "atheism" you would no doubt protest as also being "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", and rightly so.
People are rational. Most people are rational most of the time. I know plenty of "rational people" who are bat shit crazy, but mask it very well. Which brings me back to my point, people are fully capable of doing very irrational things, because we humans are exceptional at rationalizing very irrational things, given the right circumstances.
When atheists (via their government) kill religious people for their religion, then yeah, we can blame Atheism. If one wants to lump all "religious people" into those that "kill abortion doctors", then the reciprocal is also true. Unless of course your a hypocrite atheists that has one set of values for atheists, that aren't applied to everyone.
And I have run into more than a few militant atheists that DO condone violence against people of religion, simply for having religion (these are the same people persecuting Christians, Jews and Falung Gong in Atheist countries via government fiat). While YOU may not be one of them, I will lump you into that crowd for the same reason many atheists lump all Christians (and religions) in with the Abortion Doctor Killers. What is good for one ought to be good enough for all.
How does one defend against not believing in something? I do not feel compelled to defend against my non-belief in Pink Unicorns. How does that even work?
I've read the bible, in several versions, a few times. I remain faithful because of the narrative that most people miss. Man is flawed. ALL of us. None are perfect. And yet, we can strive to do better, and that striving has its own rewards. And yet, the greatest thing I've come away with, is that YHVH doesn't compel people to obedience, except those that choose to obey. We should all learn this lesson, that we should not compel others to our own "morals" (which is why I am also a Libertarian). None of us are capable of even keeping our own moral values, except those that have none (and even they are often hypocritical)
Most of today's Christianity misses that point. Even Jesus didn't condemn the hookers, while he DID condemned the "religious authorities" of his times, calling them hypocrites and vipers.
And when they say "WWJD" I tell them, making a scourge and acts of destruction are still on the table ;)
This has less to do with Security than it does with over regulation to the point of removing ALL ability to use judgement. Absence of judgement is just as bad as bad judgement, as the results are nearly identical. There will ALWAYS be off cases where following absolute rules results in horrible consequences, just as allowing judgement in the first place.
To me, this is just another example of the horrors of "zero tolerance" laws, like the ones that toss a six year old out of school for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun.
I often speak against over regulation in my Libertarian rants, and this is exactly the kind of things that I mean about over regulation. And in this case, I can here the proponents of over regulation say "we need a new regulation to avoid these matters", and they won't understand, that they aren't solving the problem, but simply moving it to a different place in the decision making chain.
With properly managed devices, USB is disabled. This is an option, even in windows. And it is even an option at the BIOS/UEFI level on some systems. However, I wonder why they aren't using some soft of VDI for protecting the ATMS. This would prevent any direct access to the hardware running windows.
I don't know why Android Security Model doesn't include the option for apps to request trading features for permissions. If you want to use cool feature X it needs location services. Or Feature Y needs access to your SMS/Contacts. If you don't enable X or Y, those features are not available.