So, bitcoins are money and not an investment. You should explain that to the people in the other threads who are talking like bitcoins are investments.
This is the attitude of someone who is poor or broke.
No, that is the attitude of people who are rich. Someone who is financially successful doesn't have time to learn an entire professional level skillset just to do simple financial transactions, especially when there are much better and easier alternatives.
If you are investing your hard earned savings it is prudent.
Investing? Is Bitcoin a currency or an investment vehicle? Currencies aren't investments or investment vehicles, they are mediums of exchange. One can make money currency trading but that is not investing, it is speculating on a change in value in the short term.
As an investment vehicle, they are a poor choice because they are volatile and easy to steal. As a currency, they are a poor choice if one has to implement the security measures the parent posts suggest. Either way, it is a poor choice.
Which goes to show you are missing the point of using it as a currency. A real currency is something you hold onto, not exchange at first opportunity.
Um, no. A currency is, by definition, a medium of exchange. "Something you hold onto" is an investment vehicle, not a currency. Bitcoin is supposed to be a currency, not an investment vehicle.
As others have said, one reason is to tailor the requirements to a specific internal or external candidate. Another is HR people who don't know the technology or the jobs and rely on system and/or internal documentation. They then punch the info into the requirements. They also punch them into the resume screening software. Now you know why it is so hard to get an interview.
Isn't it lucky that anti-ship missiles capable of speeds and maneuvers as great or greater, and equipped with explosive warheads and hostile intent aren't reasonably commonly available?
This was an exercise to test the ship's radar systems and not a combat operation. During combat operations, the ships Phalanx anti-missile system would have been active and is specifically designed to counter the threats you have mentioned.
If they used a proxy serve up the malware and to deliver the images, logos, comments, etc. then you have a very weak case and end up with interesting unintended consequences if you win.
What evidence do you have that you didn't steal it?
How to you prove that the person you got it from was the person who reported it stolen?
If you personally know the person, what is to prevent him from claiming that you stole it because he was negligent in securing his "wallet" while you were over and you made an unauthorized transfer?
Finally, by reporting a bitcoin as "stolen", the value of the bitcoin would be destroyed. If there is a finite number of bitcoins, it would be theoretically possible to do a kind of DoS by reporting many random bitcoins stolen. That would destroy the not only the value of the bitcoins reported but it would make all bitcoins questionable. This would be easy for a government to do, especially one that seizes a large number of bitcoins. They transfer the coins to a straw man, spend the bitcoins, then weeks or months later report use the strawman to report the bitcoins as stolen.
Well, technically, yes, they could. They could also sell the tanks and missiles to the highest bidder. Or, say, "Come and get it, if you can." Just think about what the U.S. could get for the strategic oil reserve or the various national parks. The U.S. government could possibly even sell U.S. territories in various parts of the world to other countries. The U.S. government has many assets and resources with which to back up the dollar.
I don't think you understand what Auernheimer did. The database wasn't "available for public download" It was exposed due to poor design and poor security. This is directly counter to purpose of P2P software which is to make accessible files and/or information on one's computer.
Except that the U.S. Government has lots of assets to back up those "vague promise" including but not limited to guns, ships, planes, tanks, bombs, oil, land, vehicles, gold, platinum, diamonds, uranium, plutonium, research installations, etc. On top of those assets, it also has the ability to collect taxes from the populace.
What does bitcoin have to back it up? Oh, yeah, "internet vapors".
Actually, no. All it would take is a Bitcoin exchange geared towards financial institutions. Seeing as the customers of the exchange are quite capable of creating their own exchange and that said exchange would almost be guaranteed to only be for said financial institutions and/or high frequency traders, there would be zero risk of what happened in the article happening with the exchange I described.
No, this is not like what happened in the early 1900s. This is not a bank that had a run on it. In fact, this was not a run at all. A run involves people trying to withdraw their money from the bank and the bank not having enough cash reserves on hand to pay the customers.
This is the equivalent of the executives of a small bank emptying out the safe in the dead of night and disappearing then the customers finding out that the bank was actually in a different country and no one actually met or saw the executives or employees of the bank and there is no record of any of them ever actually existing.
It's almost exactly like how a bank will hold cash for you, except these banks are typically uninsured, unregulated, run by person or persons unknown, possibly in an unknown location, and probably in one or more different countries creating a jurisdictional nightmare if he/they disappear with your bitcoins
The real risk is not one of these exchanges disappearing, but getting broken in - tons of them ask so much personal information that you're at a real risk of identity theft or having your bank account drained.
Broken into? Don't be silly. The real threat is that one or more of these exchanges could be set up to act as information gathering machines by person or group intending to sell the information or drain bank accounts.
If they are going to give it away for free, why shouldn't they give away the bugfix for free? After all, as so many FLOSS supporters tell me, the developers of FLOSS projects are working on the project because they use the project's product. If one fixes it for one's self, shouldn't one release the fix for all, for free?
So, we should assume that the regimes that don't work with us don't have intelligence operations and that those that do work with us tell us everything they are doing?
We only know what we get from working with our allies and what we can glean from spying on other countries. At best, we have a very incomplete picture of the surveillance capabilities of many other countries including Russia and China.
An AC made a snide comment about China. I guess he forgets how many Chinese citizens are working in IT in the U.S. and how much of our infrastructure equipment is provided by Chinese companies, and that includes equipment used by the U.S. government. Think about all the Indian contractors in the U.S. as well. How many of those contractors could be covertly gathering intelligence simply by having access to the servers of Google, Microsoft, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
So, bitcoins are money and not an investment. You should explain that to the people in the other threads who are talking like bitcoins are investments.
Also, don't throw away the hard drive with the wallet on it.
This is the attitude of someone who is poor or broke.
No, that is the attitude of people who are rich. Someone who is financially successful doesn't have time to learn an entire professional level skillset just to do simple financial transactions, especially when there are much better and easier alternatives.
If you are investing your hard earned savings it is prudent.
Investing? Is Bitcoin a currency or an investment vehicle? Currencies aren't investments or investment vehicles, they are mediums of exchange. One can make money currency trading but that is not investing, it is speculating on a change in value in the short term.
As an investment vehicle, they are a poor choice because they are volatile and easy to steal. As a currency, they are a poor choice if one has to implement the security measures the parent posts suggest. Either way, it is a poor choice.
Which goes to show you are missing the point of using it as a currency. A real currency is something you hold onto, not exchange at first opportunity.
Um, no. A currency is, by definition, a medium of exchange. "Something you hold onto" is an investment vehicle, not a currency. Bitcoin is supposed to be a currency, not an investment vehicle.
As others have said, one reason is to tailor the requirements to a specific internal or external candidate. Another is HR people who don't know the technology or the jobs and rely on system and/or internal documentation. They then punch the info into the requirements. They also punch them into the resume screening software. Now you know why it is so hard to get an interview.
People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maximize ratings.
FTFY
You are now no better than those you despise and for the exact same despicable things for which you claim they do.
Isn't it lucky that anti-ship missiles capable of speeds and maneuvers as great or greater, and equipped with explosive warheads and hostile intent aren't reasonably commonly available?
This was an exercise to test the ship's radar systems and not a combat operation. During combat operations, the ships Phalanx anti-missile system would have been active and is specifically designed to counter the threats you have mentioned.
If they used a proxy serve up the malware and to deliver the images, logos, comments, etc. then you have a very weak case and end up with interesting unintended consequences if you win.
What evidence do you have that you didn't steal it?
How to you prove that the person you got it from was the person who reported it stolen?
If you personally know the person, what is to prevent him from claiming that you stole it because he was negligent in securing his "wallet" while you were over and you made an unauthorized transfer?
Finally, by reporting a bitcoin as "stolen", the value of the bitcoin would be destroyed. If there is a finite number of bitcoins, it would be theoretically possible to do a kind of DoS by reporting many random bitcoins stolen. That would destroy the not only the value of the bitcoins reported but it would make all bitcoins questionable. This would be easy for a government to do, especially one that seizes a large number of bitcoins. They transfer the coins to a straw man, spend the bitcoins, then weeks or months later report use the strawman to report the bitcoins as stolen.
No, because the copyright holder didn't put the material out there.
This. Apparently Hatta doesn't understand what what Auernheimer did as well.
How do you prove it was a false report?
Well, technically, yes, they could. They could also sell the tanks and missiles to the highest bidder. Or, say, "Come and get it, if you can." Just think about what the U.S. could get for the strategic oil reserve or the various national parks. The U.S. government could possibly even sell U.S. territories in various parts of the world to other countries. The U.S. government has many assets and resources with which to back up the dollar.
I don't think you understand what Auernheimer did. The database wasn't "available for public download" It was exposed due to poor design and poor security. This is directly counter to purpose of P2P software which is to make accessible files and/or information on one's computer.
You misunderstand. It is only impossible WITHOUT an exchange. If an exchange exists, then it is quite possible.
What is to stop someone from giving you bitcoin then filing a theft report and getting it blacklisted?
Except that the U.S. Government has lots of assets to back up those "vague promise" including but not limited to guns, ships, planes, tanks, bombs, oil, land, vehicles, gold, platinum, diamonds, uranium, plutonium, research installations, etc. On top of those assets, it also has the ability to collect taxes from the populace.
What does bitcoin have to back it up? Oh, yeah, "internet vapors".
Actually, no. All it would take is a Bitcoin exchange geared towards financial institutions. Seeing as the customers of the exchange are quite capable of creating their own exchange and that said exchange would almost be guaranteed to only be for said financial institutions and/or high frequency traders, there would be zero risk of what happened in the article happening with the exchange I described.
No, this is not like what happened in the early 1900s. This is not a bank that had a run on it. In fact, this was not a run at all. A run involves people trying to withdraw their money from the bank and the bank not having enough cash reserves on hand to pay the customers.
This is the equivalent of the executives of a small bank emptying out the safe in the dead of night and disappearing then the customers finding out that the bank was actually in a different country and no one actually met or saw the executives or employees of the bank and there is no record of any of them ever actually existing.
It's almost exactly like how a bank will hold cash for you, except these banks are typically uninsured, unregulated, run by person or persons unknown, possibly in an unknown location, and probably in one or more different countries creating a jurisdictional nightmare if he/they disappear with your bitcoins
FTFY
The real risk is not one of these exchanges disappearing, but getting broken in - tons of them ask so much personal information that you're at a real risk of identity theft or having your bank account drained.
Broken into? Don't be silly. The real threat is that one or more of these exchanges could be set up to act as information gathering machines by person or group intending to sell the information or drain bank accounts.
If they are going to give it away for free, why shouldn't they give away the bugfix for free? After all, as so many FLOSS supporters tell me, the developers of FLOSS projects are working on the project because they use the project's product. If one fixes it for one's self, shouldn't one release the fix for all, for free?
Isn't that what so many FLOSS supporting slashdotter complain about when companies charge for patches and upgrades?
So, we should assume that the regimes that don't work with us don't have intelligence operations and that those that do work with us tell us everything they are doing?
We only know what we get from working with our allies and what we can glean from spying on other countries. At best, we have a very incomplete picture of the surveillance capabilities of many other countries including Russia and China.
An AC made a snide comment about China. I guess he forgets how many Chinese citizens are working in IT in the U.S. and how much of our infrastructure equipment is provided by Chinese companies, and that includes equipment used by the U.S. government. Think about all the Indian contractors in the U.S. as well. How many of those contractors could be covertly gathering intelligence simply by having access to the servers of Google, Microsoft, etc.?