Yeah! Now all these people in the developing world have to do is chop down even more trees. Deforestation, YAY!. Oh, wait....
Well, at least this will help people living in slums and favelas in places like Manila, Rio, etc. because sapwood is free, cheap, and highly available there. Oh.... wait...
You underestimate the possible downside. People who sold things for BitCoins (BTC) and haven't moved them into a hard currency have just lost two thirds the value which may very well be greater than their margin. This should cause every single retailer to rethink accepting BTC. And, just think what will happen if retailers go out of business because they had money tied up in MtGox? If that kind of news gets play, it will be hard to get new retailers to accept BTC, especially small business.
That completely skips over the idea that shareholders may demand companies not accept or stop accepting BTC calling it fiduciary irresponsibility.
And, what if the governments get involved? Governments could start regulating the exchanges. Governments could issue onerous orders concerning BTC transactions. Imagine being a business and selling something for 1BTC and having the value drop by half before you have shipped the item. Do you continue the transaction as is, ask for more money, or cancel it? What if the government says you must continue with the transaction?
Now, image buying something for 1BTC and then having to pony up another the next day because the value dropped over night and the company will not ship unless you pay for the change in value? What if the government says you either pay or the transaction is canceled AND the business can charge you a fee for cancelling the transaction?
Finally, anyone who got BTC back in November have lost about 1/2 the value. Think about the people who have been talking up BTC to their family, friends, etc. who now get to answer about how this has effected them.
What I have noticed is that BitCoin supporters change what they say BitCoin is depending on who is talking to whom. One day it is a currency, the next it is an investment, then back to a currency.
As an investment, it sucks because it is basically a very volatile speculation vehicle. It is all over the place with no rhyme or reason.
As a currency, it sucks because the value can change dramatically between the time the transaction is made and the value transferred. One buys a TV worth, say $400.00 with two BitCoins, and the next day it is selling for one BitCoins but is still $400.00. Or, one sells a product that is $400.00 for one BitCoin and the next day it the exchange rate for U.S. dollars to Bitcoins is $200 per BitCoin.
And, this is on top of the 14GB blockchain, having to trust an exchange, etc.
Currently, the blockchain is 14GB, and it size should grow at a rate proportional to the transaction rate. What happens as the blockchain grows to ever larger sizes? Rely on a lightweight client that uses a blockchain stored on someone else's server?
If the blockchain is pruned, what is to keep someone from creating duplicate/counterfeit BitCoins that descend directly from the prune section?
2) Joe Public now knows about BitCoin ("no such thing as bad PR" and all that); and
There is such a thing as bad PR. It is when the first impression is negative. Joe Public is learning about BitCoin in the context of "million of dollars have been lost because BitCoins have been stolen". The general public now knows about BitCoin as "That thing that people keep losing their money in because it is always getting stolen". People don't want to lose money.
Yes, yes, I have. I have had cops come to my place several times. Once they were looking for a woman I was involved with because she skipped parole. The last time they were banging on my door at 0500 looking for someone I had never didn't know. But, not once was I intimidated because I wasn't worried if I had done something wrong or not. If you are intimidated, then you either know or are worried you did something illegal.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact
Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.
That is a false statement. The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search. The person who allowed the search was not a suspect in any crime. The person who allowed the search was, however, the live-in girlfriend of the person arrested and was arguing with the person at the time the police arrived. She was pissed enough that when the police came back, she allowed the search even though she knew he didn't want it and she was able to allow the search because she lived at the residence.
Not so. If your estranged cousin is staying with you but you both have separate rooms, then your cousin can only authorize a search of your cousin's room and the common areas. YOUR room can't be searched because your cousin can't give permission to search that room because it is your private space. This is actual case law and has been used to have evidence tossed out.
Actually, the cops almost always ask if the person lives at the residence. If they say yes and consent to the search, the cops are generally golden. If not, the cops enter a gray area where that person may or may not be authorized to allow the search.
visiting relative or friend can allow the police to search your place
Depends on the circumstances and what you have said to the person.
certainly think owners listed on a deed or listed tenants on a lease/rental agreement would be the only ones authorized to do that, not just somebody living there.
No. The owner of a lease/rental does not have the authority to authorize a search if it is currently leased and the owner is not a tenant unless specifically stated in the lease AND not barred by law. A contract can't override state law. By definition, "just somebody living there" would be a tenant, even if temporary or short term, such as a visiting relative or friend staying on your couch. The "somebody" can generally only authorize a search of common areas and where he is staying. This is why one roommate can authorize the search of a house or apartment but the police, but the police can search only the common areas and the authorizor's room and not any other roommate's room, regardless of whether the other are present or not. To search those rooms, the police would need a warrant. Of course, if they see your bong and weed sitting on your desk through the open door, that is cause to get a warrant because it is in plain sight. (This is why you should always keep your door closed).
Not exactly. If one has told one's housekeeper and/or baby sitter they are not to allow anyone in the house, they do not have authority to authorize a search. They also don't have the authority to allow a search if they are not present and no one is at the home or if they are present and an actual resident is at the home. Even if one has not given explicit instructions to domestic help, it is a gray area as to whether one's help can give consent to a search.
If you live with someone, that person also lives there and it is also his home. That person can give permission to search the domicile. That you said no is irrelevant if you are not there to object because you were arrested for a crime. Remember, he was not arrested for saying no to the search, he was arrested for robbery.
You do not have final say if the place you live can be searched if you are not the only person who lives there.
Walter Fernandez, the person who said refused to allow the search, was arrested in connection with the street robbery that the police were investigating. The sounds of an argument led the police to the apartment. Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez's girlfriend answered the door and Fernandez told the police they couldn't search the place. About an hour after Fernandez was arrested, the police returned to the apartment and asked the other person who lived there, Fernandez's girlfriend, if they could search the apartment and she said yes.She could have hidden or moved anything incriminating between the time Fernandez was arrested and the time the police returned. She could have said no and that would have been the end of it because she wasn't a suspect in any crime.
Really, the take away of this is "Don't piss off your girlfriend if you just robbed someone and don't want her to let the police search the apartment."
It cant be better if you are losing income in the process.
Depends on where one's priorities are. Is getting paid an extra $10,000.00 a year if one has to work consistent 60+ hour weeks, get called on the weekend and on vacation, and is generally treated like a slave?
If one is making more money, but is also destroying one's life and health, one may never get to enjoy the extra income. Money is not everything and won't necessarily buy one happiness.
My answer is simple: when taking the job will improve your life more than having the extra money. I get more respect, have more time off, am happier, and am still able to pay my bills and put money away.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Then, why does Assange's "need" outweigh the needs and rights of his alleged victims and the people/government of Sweden to have the allegations against him investigated?
What I have noticed with main-stream sci-fi is that it doesn't involve actual science. Oh, it might have a shiny, modern or even futuristic veneer, but it is really just fantasy. Firefly was really a western set in space in a very different solar system. Even Star Trek seems to often resorts to magical thinking and the "lone hero" narrative, devolving into a morality play or social drama with a futuristic backdrop and technobabble.
The biggest offenders are the modern science fiction movies. Think about how often in science fiction movies the plot is "clueless mainstream scientists ignore dangers and the warnings of lone genius who spent his whole career pushing an unsupported theory leading to impending disaster requiring said lone genius to do 'science' and save the day".
I think the closest thing I have seen to an actual science fiction movie in the last 30 yeas is "Deep Impact".
TFS says "problem of distributing necessities gets closer to being solved every day". Sorry the subject of my post isn't as clear as it could be but I ran into character limits. As I say in my post, no, we are not nowhere to being close to solving it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! Now all these people in the developing world have to do is chop down even more trees. Deforestation, YAY!. Oh, wait....
Well, at least this will help people living in slums and favelas in places like Manila, Rio, etc. because sapwood is free, cheap, and highly available there. Oh.... wait...
You underestimate the possible downside. People who sold things for BitCoins (BTC) and haven't moved them into a hard currency have just lost two thirds the value which may very well be greater than their margin. This should cause every single retailer to rethink accepting BTC. And, just think what will happen if retailers go out of business because they had money tied up in MtGox? If that kind of news gets play, it will be hard to get new retailers to accept BTC, especially small business.
That completely skips over the idea that shareholders may demand companies not accept or stop accepting BTC calling it fiduciary irresponsibility.
And, what if the governments get involved? Governments could start regulating the exchanges. Governments could issue onerous orders concerning BTC transactions. Imagine being a business and selling something for 1BTC and having the value drop by half before you have shipped the item. Do you continue the transaction as is, ask for more money, or cancel it? What if the government says you must continue with the transaction?
Now, image buying something for 1BTC and then having to pony up another the next day because the value dropped over night and the company will not ship unless you pay for the change in value? What if the government says you either pay or the transaction is canceled AND the business can charge you a fee for cancelling the transaction?
Finally, anyone who got BTC back in November have lost about 1/2 the value. Think about the people who have been talking up BTC to their family, friends, etc. who now get to answer about how this has effected them.
What I have noticed is that BitCoin supporters change what they say BitCoin is depending on who is talking to whom. One day it is a currency, the next it is an investment, then back to a currency.
As an investment, it sucks because it is basically a very volatile speculation vehicle. It is all over the place with no rhyme or reason.
As a currency, it sucks because the value can change dramatically between the time the transaction is made and the value transferred. One buys a TV worth, say $400.00 with two BitCoins, and the next day it is selling for one BitCoins but is still $400.00. Or, one sells a product that is $400.00 for one BitCoin and the next day it the exchange rate for U.S. dollars to Bitcoins is $200 per BitCoin.
And, this is on top of the 14GB blockchain, having to trust an exchange, etc.
Currently, the blockchain is 14GB, and it size should grow at a rate proportional to the transaction rate. What happens as the blockchain grows to ever larger sizes? Rely on a lightweight client that uses a blockchain stored on someone else's server?
If the blockchain is pruned, what is to keep someone from creating duplicate/counterfeit BitCoins that descend directly from the prune section?
2) Joe Public now knows about BitCoin ("no such thing as bad PR" and all that); and
There is such a thing as bad PR. It is when the first impression is negative. Joe Public is learning about BitCoin in the context of "million of dollars have been lost because BitCoins have been stolen". The general public now knows about BitCoin as "That thing that people keep losing their money in because it is always getting stolen". People don't want to lose money.
Yes, yes, I have. I have had cops come to my place several times. Once they were looking for a woman I was involved with because she skipped parole. The last time they were banging on my door at 0500 looking for someone I had never didn't know. But, not once was I intimidated because I wasn't worried if I had done something wrong or not. If you are intimidated, then you either know or are worried you did something illegal.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact
Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.
So, anyone who lives with someone else or is a woman is "weak-willed" or a simpleton"?
That is a false statement. The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search. The person who allowed the search was not a suspect in any crime. The person who allowed the search was, however, the live-in girlfriend of the person arrested and was arguing with the person at the time the police arrived. She was pissed enough that when the police came back, she allowed the search even though she knew he didn't want it and she was able to allow the search because she lived at the residence.
Not so. If your estranged cousin is staying with you but you both have separate rooms, then your cousin can only authorize a search of your cousin's room and the common areas. YOUR room can't be searched because your cousin can't give permission to search that room because it is your private space. This is actual case law and has been used to have evidence tossed out.
Actually, the cops almost always ask if the person lives at the residence. If they say yes and consent to the search, the cops are generally golden. If not, the cops enter a gray area where that person may or may not be authorized to allow the search.
visiting relative or friend can allow the police to search your place
Depends on the circumstances and what you have said to the person.
certainly think owners listed on a deed or listed tenants on a lease/rental agreement would be the only ones authorized to do that, not just somebody living there.
No. The owner of a lease/rental does not have the authority to authorize a search if it is currently leased and the owner is not a tenant unless specifically stated in the lease AND not barred by law. A contract can't override state law. By definition, "just somebody living there" would be a tenant, even if temporary or short term, such as a visiting relative or friend staying on your couch. The "somebody" can generally only authorize a search of common areas and where he is staying. This is why one roommate can authorize the search of a house or apartment but the police, but the police can search only the common areas and the authorizor's room and not any other roommate's room, regardless of whether the other are present or not. To search those rooms, the police would need a warrant. Of course, if they see your bong and weed sitting on your desk through the open door, that is cause to get a warrant because it is in plain sight. (This is why you should always keep your door closed).
Not exactly. If one has told one's housekeeper and/or baby sitter they are not to allow anyone in the house, they do not have authority to authorize a search. They also don't have the authority to allow a search if they are not present and no one is at the home or if they are present and an actual resident is at the home. Even if one has not given explicit instructions to domestic help, it is a gray area as to whether one's help can give consent to a search.
If you live with someone, that person also lives there and it is also his home. That person can give permission to search the domicile. That you said no is irrelevant if you are not there to object because you were arrested for a crime. Remember, he was not arrested for saying no to the search, he was arrested for robbery.
You do not have final say if the place you live can be searched if you are not the only person who lives there.
Walter Fernandez, the person who said refused to allow the search, was arrested in connection with the street robbery that the police were investigating. The sounds of an argument led the police to the apartment. Roxanne Rojas, Fernandez's girlfriend answered the door and Fernandez told the police they couldn't search the place. About an hour after Fernandez was arrested, the police returned to the apartment and asked the other person who lived there, Fernandez's girlfriend, if they could search the apartment and she said yes.She could have hidden or moved anything incriminating between the time Fernandez was arrested and the time the police returned. She could have said no and that would have been the end of it because she wasn't a suspect in any crime.
Really, the take away of this is "Don't piss off your girlfriend if you just robbed someone and don't want her to let the police search the apartment."
If you believe that, you will probably end up a lonely, sad, bitter person.
1. Don't like law
2. move and/or get them changed.
3. Reform!!
I think you mean Islam and Scientology.
Careers are all about money.
Maybe, but life isn't all about one's career.
It cant be better if you are losing income in the process.
Depends on where one's priorities are. Is getting paid an extra $10,000.00 a year if one has to work consistent 60+ hour weeks, get called on the weekend and on vacation, and is generally treated like a slave?
If one is making more money, but is also destroying one's life and health, one may never get to enjoy the extra income. Money is not everything and won't necessarily buy one happiness.
My answer is simple: when taking the job will improve your life more than having the extra money. I get more respect, have more time off, am happier, and am still able to pay my bills and put money away.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Then, why does Assange's "need" outweigh the needs and rights of his alleged victims and the people/government of Sweden to have the allegations against him investigated?
So, stop acting like Assange is an angel who could never have committed the crimes of which he is accused.
"People are stupid."
What I have noticed with main-stream sci-fi is that it doesn't involve actual science. Oh, it might have a shiny, modern or even futuristic veneer, but it is really just fantasy. Firefly was really a western set in space in a very different solar system. Even Star Trek seems to often resorts to magical thinking and the "lone hero" narrative, devolving into a morality play or social drama with a futuristic backdrop and technobabble.
The biggest offenders are the modern science fiction movies. Think about how often in science fiction movies the plot is "clueless mainstream scientists ignore dangers and the warnings of lone genius who spent his whole career pushing an unsupported theory leading to impending disaster requiring said lone genius to do 'science' and save the day".
I think the closest thing I have seen to an actual science fiction movie in the last 30 yeas is "Deep Impact".
TFS says "problem of distributing necessities gets closer to being solved every day". Sorry the subject of my post isn't as clear as it could be but I ran into character limits. As I say in my post, no, we are not nowhere to being close to solving it.