I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilotsâ"the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying
Of course security theater would still be in effect regardless, considering he didn't even need any weapon. Maybe as 'ongoing efforts to strengthen air transport security', cockpits should have private restrooms;)
The problem is that people are too busy trying to create companies which create millionares rather than actually do work
Where are you seeing the millionaire VFX artists?
While I have no doubt that the very top of ILM et al are living a reasonably cozy life, the bottom ranks - be that the modelers, riggers or rotoscopers - are almost all jobhopping between studios not because they enjoy it, but because the studios themselves can ill-afford to pay them. And they can't ill-afford them because they're too expensive, but because the studios themselves see very little in return for what is done.
I encourage you to check out the very recently (today) released short documentary Life After Pi. It's more of an industry look at the problems being faced, but is based on the story of the VFX studio behind the effects work in Life of Pi - the movie that so far has a gross of $609M on a $120M budget (boxofficemojo numbers) and won the Academy Award for visual effects - Rhythm and Hues, and their ultimate demise.
It is one of several documentaries being made on this subject - along with several protest actions calling attention to the issue (if you've ever seen people's profile pictures be a blank green square, odds are they're in VFX).
Note that I don't disagree with you - in the end VFX jobs can be outsourced, so they will be outsourced. But that is just shifting the problem of extremely skewed compensation between various elements behind a movie from one geographical location to another.
Payment as ratio to box office performance is something that the industry direly needs - and despite popular opinions that artists should just get paid once for their work created and not charge royalties, I think the other popular opinion that Hollywood Accounting is screwing everybody but the big wigs (the heads of production studios, distributors - the actual millionaires) over could bring some reasonable debate to the floor.
No, $16B ($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?) for:
the mobile messaging platform used by over 450 million people
( plus underlying tech, as simple as it is )
And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.
Agreed. Fortunately they are facing other struggles in that department due to homogenization on the EU level. While each 'rights' defender/licensor for states or even substates fights for its own survival, they will eventually have to deal with the fact that for media licensing they are a pain in the ass, which is putting the EU at a great disadvantage when it comes to securing new services. E.g. Netflix's tiered roll-out is largely in part due to having to negotiate with multiple parties in each country (another part is language, of course).
On the down side (well, for some), an EU-level organisation would also be much more difficult to deal with as a 'pirate'. While downloading of movies/music in NL is legal, the EU has judged that this should not be the case. An EU-level organisation would hasten a change in NL law; even if they don't know 'what to' (given that 3-strikes laws don't work, or at least aren't executed correctly - and correct execution will ultimately result in gross invasions of privacy)./rant:)
Of course, that's just more evidence that if only the industry made their material legally accessible in unrestricted forms (and save themselves some money by leaving subtitling to the masses, not bothering with behind-the-scenes and extras that aren't exactly the target of 'pirates', etc.), they could have had this revenue instead.
*flips coin on whether or not such a legal offering would end up costing more on lost sales and licensing from those who choose the legal path for legal path sake now, which would have to be substituted by ad revenue then*
I find the juxtaposition of "you have no privacy in public" and "glassholes invade my privacy" by many a peculiar one. Not just based on the premise alone, but because most of them will complain that if they see a glasshole, they'll do/feel X.
But how many people with smartphones whipped out recording video do they not care about because they can't easily see them? How many security cameras do they not care about because they're squirreled away? And how often do they wonder to themselves whether that vest button is really a button or a $15 480p spycam off of ebay?
Ignorance truly is bliss in the context of ubiquitous recording, it seems, with suggestions like "if only it had an indicator LED" pandering to their placebo sense of security.
The point is that these aren't sites you would normally visit out on the interwebs. It's a bit like saying "oh but what if I somehow stumbled upon udashdiasd.dashbduiqidasdjkasd.dasbdaskd.hdasuida.something.com?" when the only known vector for ever hitting up udashdiasd.dashbduiqidasdjkasd.dasbdaskd.hdasuida.something.com is through a piece of malware, and complaining that your anti-malware package threw up a red flag.
More specifically, your comment's subject:
"So basically it wasn't pulling DNS for the entire machine but only looking for that one particular phone home call the cheat did? So merely looking at a cheat site won't get you banned?" - ava_ati
Add to that that this check only occurs if VAC has already detected something fishy going on. So even if you did deliberately hit up these DRM servers (for science / research / because you want to lower the SNR for VAC).. unless you're actually using the cheat, VAC doesn't much care.
That's some terrible formatting - mixing billions and millions and straight dollar amounts.
After some simple parsing: 33 companies total, 19 filed for bankruptcy, 14 did not.
Of the 19 that filed for bankruptcy, Solyndra was easily the largest with $535M.
Of the 14 that did not, Brightsource is easily the largest with $1600M.
Brightsource alone constitutes more money involved than the total for those that filed for bankruptcy; $1598M.
The total money involved for those that did not: $5837M
Ultimately these numbers don't mean a whole lot without looking at the complete effects, but I thought I'd at least make that list a little easier to work with; numbers in millions.
1600,Brightsource 1460,First Solar 1200,SunPower 529,Fisker Automotive 299,Johnson Controls 178,Babcock and Brown 151,LG ChemÃTM 126.2,ECOtality 100,Mascoma Corp. 98.5,Nevada Geothermal 50,Vestas 39,Navistar 5.9,Amonix 0.5,GreenVolts
535,* Solyndra 400,* Abound Solar 279,* A123 Systems 118.5,* EnerDelÃ(TM 80,* Range Fuels 43,* Beacon Power 33,* Raser Technologies 25,* Evergreen Solar 20,* Konarka Technologies Inc. 16,* Nordic Windpower 13.3,* Energy Conversion Devices 10,* OlsenÃ(TM 7,* Stirling Energy Systems 6.5,* Thompson River Power 5.4,* Azure Dynamics 3,* Satcon 2,* Mountain Plaza 0.700981,* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group 0.5,* SpectraWatt
but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.
Could you explain a little further exactly what it is you're hoping for, then?
Right now it seems like you're asking for Google's Android, which inherently means Google's Services and thus Google Play, etc. - but without exactly those things. At that point, it's not Google's Android anymore.
So let's say you meant regular ol' Android. Okay, that's fine too, go grab AOSP. But then that's really no different from a custom ROM when seen from the viewpoint of 'Google's Android'. It's just that it's a rather barren one.
So if you have to go with a ROM in the first place, Cyanogen is, once installed, fairly hands-off. Nobody's forcing you to delve into the nightly builds, say.
But maybe you just don't want to deal with having to look up, download, install, custom roms at all. Well, you could get any number of phones that have it or, just as an example, MIUI pre-installed - with OTA updates so you don't have to 'nurse' it. But then you'd have to get a different phone.
Seems to me that with your desires, you're going to either just have to live with the Google Play integration bits, or ignore the part where you wanted Android to begin with, and jump ship to iOS, Windows Phone, FireFox OS, Sailfish, etc.
So is flappy bird. But to compare it to, say, The Last of Us would be bordering on the ridiculous; they are completely different types of games.
we forget that all those perfect pixels doesnt improve the story nor the gameplay
While they might not improve story or gameplay, they may improve the experience. Take any reasonably modern game with 'perfect pixels', and force it to be completely lighting and texture-less - I doubt it would be quite as good. That isn't to say that those 'perfect pixels' are the game's only saving grace - or that there aren't titles produced that are complete turds despite all the graphical polish they receive - but the fact that those 'perfect pixels' can be used does allow game designers to make these games in ways they otherwise could not. They would have to make 'the next pac man' instead.
Right, I'm not arguing that local scarcity (or regional scarcity (or national scarcity)) in general is not a thing - or that distribution is even the way to deal with that scarcity (shipping water to the desert isn't going to do a whole lot of good).
I'm arguing that in the case of homeless people, it isn't so much a thing. Of course you could be homeless and in the desert. But usually that's when you start getting called a nomad.. and it tends to be by choice:)
.'no longer constrained by scarcity of materialsâ"food, energy, shelter, etc.
Tell that to: - The homeless in our streets
In all fairness, most homeless in the streets aren't homeless in the streets because of a scarcity of food, energy and shelter. There's more than enough space, more than enough energy, and way more than enough food. The problem is that these things aren't getting to them. Whether that's because society doesn't care about them, or because a fat cat doesn't want to pay to help them out (so that the people blowing through savings to stay warm don't have to), or because the homeless themselves are refusing the help, or... is another matter. You could suggest that it's still scarcity, but defining scarcity on an individual or even local level is a bit strange given the fairly globally connected world we live in.
I had a long reply here but a fat-fingering of ctrl+r made it disappear.
The tl;dr of it is this: I may have misinterpreted your stance, could you clarify if you believe that the technical solution on the pilots' side is sufficient, or whether those who do aim laser pointers at cockpits should be punishable (just not 'seriously') as well?
pilots could wear anti-laser glasses at those times
They could (see others' comments for technical issues with that), but should they? Or rather, should they have to?
While it might be a reasonable precaution, I don't think that validates turning the tables around. Otherwise you might as well conclude that pilots should don bullet proof vests to deal with the people who discharge a firearm in the direction of a plane taking off/landing. Obviously that is already covered by other laws. Laser pointer use may or may not be. Regardless, I'm not sure where your stance (if I'm interpreting it correctly) of "attempting to harshly punish those pointing laser pointers at planes, is a bad idea" is coming from.
Is it necessary to prosecute everyone who aims a laser pointer at a plane, or only those who aim multiwatt devices at cockpit windows?
I understand that it's the land of the free, with freedom generally held high to the point of "I don't need a reason" - but what reason would you have for aiming a laser pointer - of any wattage - at a plane?
I'm not referring to accidentally pointing it at one - that could easily happen with a group of stargazers with somebody pointing it at a plane that - for whatever reason - isn't running the indicators (and all you see if steady 'white' light streaking across), let alone waving a laser pointer around and at some point technically having it be pointed at an airplane.
I'm talking about aiming, as per your comment. That sounds pretty willful.
While prosecuting them might go a bit far in many cases, they could do with a stern talking to.
Thus the minting cost per transaction for that penny is actually very small. What you're really paying is the cost of the convenience of having pennies available for transactions, and judged per transaction it ain't looking that bad.
Good, good, thinking beyond just the material value vs face value issue - very good.
Now calculate the costs involved with issuing them, recycling them, transporting them, handling them, the cost per transaction in using them because cashiers have to dig them out of the drawers, the value of time wasted by people waiting in line as somebody in front of them who has received those pennies and goshdarnit will spend four them again to make exact change for that $9.99 item (convenience, you say...), cleanup from pennies wasting away into the environment, and material loss that could otherwise have been used for more appropriate purposes. And then of course counter that with the reduced happiness in some people's lives as they can no longer fill entire jars with pennies and reduced income from places that run 'wishing wells' which tend to be another dumping ground for pennies.
Maybe then we can actually start looking at the cost of a penny in an all-encompassing manner. Or we can just accept that the penny in general is a dumb idea at this - time no matter how much any associated costs are stretched out over the lifetime of a single penny.
The way some sites handle this is by using the dfn element (or abbr) to actually explain what a term means or expands to. The regular reader just sees the term, but (typically) hovering over it will show the full definition / expanded form. That has always seemed like fair compromise to me.
True, and of course you can do this for small and big amounts.
However, for the latter, it seems as though you in fact run afoul of some laws, depending on state, etc. See also a comment of mine further down.
Businesses accepting non-local currency is a bit different, as they tend to sell goods - rather than another currency. However, that prompts further questions again which...is also in that other comment:D
I'm not a Bitcoin advocate.. At least, not of the currency - the technology is marvelous, however. Nevertheless, here's a shot at answering your question...
I think one of the issues here is that it concerns a very specific type of money laundering - if it can even be called that.
Basically the seller is acting as a money services business, without being licensed to do. As such, they do not formally have AML (anti-money laundering) and KYC (know-your-customer) compliance anywhere on their radar. That, in turn, can lead to the actual money laundering allegation.
I say allegation, because there's no 'money laundering' going on when you decide to sell your PS3 for $100 to buy some BTC with that somebody just mined on their rig. Nowhere in that entire exchange chain would there be an illicit aspect.
That explains one aspect of why 'money laundering' seems to pop up relatively often.
Another aspect is that you, me, and everybody can fairly easily buy, and sell, Bitcoin to whoever we want. If you want to buy Euros, you'll have to go to an exchange bureau. If you want to sell them again, you'll have to go to an exchange bureau. Those are, of course, licensed money services, but there's also far fewer of them - generally only at major international ports (be that airport or seaport and maybe the odd exchange bureau at border towns). Loosely tied into this is the fact that in the U.S. you really don't have much use for alternative currencies. Sure, you can buy some Canadian dollars or some Pesetas. But why would you, unless you were to go to those countries? You can't exactly spend it at a website. With Bitcoin, you can. So there's far fewer such exchanges occurring 'in the wild' to begin with.
And, lastly (well there's a few more, but I see these as the major ones) - well, let's face it.. Bitcoin em used for quite a few illicit purposes. Be that the well-known Silk Road aspect, or people in other criminal circuits trying to look clean, or even just people who want to hide some of their money from the IRS.
Oh, and also, it's actually a fair bit easier to identify the parties in these cases. If you're a major Bitcoin exchange, you undoubtedly have a business address or have some other way to be found. If you're a user of localbitcoins.com then you can simply be invited for an exchange and could be arrested on the spot. Finding out money laundering operations, locations, etc. in the traditional movie-/TV-show-popularized sense is, quite frankly, a lot harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod anon parent up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Of course security theater would still be in effect regardless, considering he didn't even need any weapon. Maybe as 'ongoing efforts to strengthen air transport security', cockpits should have private restrooms ;)
Where are you seeing the millionaire VFX artists?
While I have no doubt that the very top of ILM et al are living a reasonably cozy life, the bottom ranks - be that the modelers, riggers or rotoscopers - are almost all jobhopping between studios not because they enjoy it, but because the studios themselves can ill-afford to pay them. And they can't ill-afford them because they're too expensive, but because the studios themselves see very little in return for what is done.
I encourage you to check out the very recently (today) released short documentary Life After Pi. It's more of an industry look at the problems being faced, but is based on the story of the VFX studio behind the effects work in Life of Pi - the movie that so far has a gross of $609M on a $120M budget (boxofficemojo numbers) and won the Academy Award for visual effects - Rhythm and Hues, and their ultimate demise.
It is one of several documentaries being made on this subject - along with several protest actions calling attention to the issue (if you've ever seen people's profile pictures be a blank green square, odds are they're in VFX).
Note that I don't disagree with you - in the end VFX jobs can be outsourced, so they will be outsourced. But that is just shifting the problem of extremely skewed compensation between various elements behind a movie from one geographical location to another.
Payment as ratio to box office performance is something that the industry direly needs - and despite popular opinions that artists should just get paid once for their work created and not charge royalties, I think the other popular opinion that Hollywood Accounting is screwing everybody but the big wigs (the heads of production studios, distributors - the actual millionaires) over could bring some reasonable debate to the floor.
No, $16B ($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?) for:
( plus underlying tech, as simple as it is )
And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.
Agreed. Fortunately they are facing other struggles in that department due to homogenization on the EU level. While each 'rights' defender/licensor for states or even substates fights for its own survival, they will eventually have to deal with the fact that for media licensing they are a pain in the ass, which is putting the EU at a great disadvantage when it comes to securing new services. E.g. Netflix's tiered roll-out is largely in part due to having to negotiate with multiple parties in each country (another part is language, of course).
On the down side (well, for some), an EU-level organisation would also be much more difficult to deal with as a 'pirate'. While downloading of movies/music in NL is legal, the EU has judged that this should not be the case. An EU-level organisation would hasten a change in NL law; even if they don't know 'what to' (given that 3-strikes laws don't work, or at least aren't executed correctly - and correct execution will ultimately result in gross invasions of privacy). /rant :)
http://torrentfreak.com/torren...
Of course, that's just more evidence that if only the industry made their material legally accessible in unrestricted forms (and save themselves some money by leaving subtitling to the masses, not bothering with behind-the-scenes and extras that aren't exactly the target of 'pirates', etc.), they could have had this revenue instead.
*flips coin on whether or not such a legal offering would end up costing more on lost sales and licensing from those who choose the legal path for legal path sake now, which would have to be substituted by ad revenue then*
Really, an article from December...2011?
Not only that, but this was actually regarding Buma/Stemra - the media had initially fingered BREIN, but later retracted that.
Not to suggest that BREIN are saints, but at least you could attribute correct and more timely wrongdoings to them.
Exactly this.
I find the juxtaposition of "you have no privacy in public" and "glassholes invade my privacy" by many a peculiar one. Not just based on the premise alone, but because most of them will complain that if they see a glasshole, they'll do/feel X.
But how many people with smartphones whipped out recording video do they not care about because they can't easily see them? How many security cameras do they not care about because they're squirreled away? And how often do they wonder to themselves whether that vest button is really a button or a $15 480p spycam off of ebay?
Ignorance truly is bliss in the context of ubiquitous recording, it seems, with suggestions like "if only it had an indicator LED" pandering to their placebo sense of security.
The point is that these aren't sites you would normally visit out on the interwebs. It's a bit like saying "oh but what if I somehow stumbled upon udashdiasd.dashbduiqidasdjkasd.dasbdaskd.hdasuida.something.com?" when the only known vector for ever hitting up udashdiasd.dashbduiqidasdjkasd.dasbdaskd.hdasuida.something.com is through a piece of malware, and complaining that your anti-malware package threw up a red flag.
More specifically, your comment's subject:
- http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming...
Add to that that this check only occurs if VAC has already detected something fishy going on. So even if you did deliberately hit up these DRM servers (for science / research / because you want to lower the SNR for VAC).. unless you're actually using the cheat, VAC doesn't much care.
At least, them's the claims.
I didn't check sources - that's on the parent poster to take responsibility for (or rather the site they sourced it from) :)
At least it's a lot easier to point out discrepancies with the list reformatted, right? :D
That's some terrible formatting - mixing billions and millions and straight dollar amounts.
After some simple parsing: 33 companies total, 19 filed for bankruptcy, 14 did not.
Of the 19 that filed for bankruptcy, Solyndra was easily the largest with $535M.
Of the 14 that did not, Brightsource is easily the largest with $1600M.
Brightsource alone constitutes more money involved than the total for those that filed for bankruptcy; $1598M.
The total money involved for those that did not: $5837M
Ultimately these numbers don't mean a whole lot without looking at the complete effects, but I thought I'd at least make that list a little easier to work with; numbers in millions.
1600,Brightsource
1460,First Solar
1200,SunPower
529,Fisker Automotive
299,Johnson Controls
178,Babcock and Brown
151,LG ChemÃTM
126.2,ECOtality
100,Mascoma Corp.
98.5,Nevada Geothermal
50,Vestas
39,Navistar
5.9,Amonix
0.5,GreenVolts
535,* Solyndra
400,* Abound Solar
279,* A123 Systems
118.5,* EnerDelÃ(TM
80,* Range Fuels
43,* Beacon Power
33,* Raser Technologies
25,* Evergreen Solar
20,* Konarka Technologies Inc.
16,* Nordic Windpower
13.3,* Energy Conversion Devices
10,* OlsenÃ(TM
7,* Stirling Energy Systems
6.5,* Thompson River Power
5.4,* Azure Dynamics
3,* Satcon
2,* Mountain Plaza
0.700981,* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
0.5,* SpectraWatt
Could you explain a little further exactly what it is you're hoping for, then?
Right now it seems like you're asking for Google's Android, which inherently means Google's Services and thus Google Play, etc. - but without exactly those things. At that point, it's not Google's Android anymore.
So let's say you meant regular ol' Android. Okay, that's fine too, go grab AOSP. But then that's really no different from a custom ROM when seen from the viewpoint of 'Google's Android'. It's just that it's a rather barren one.
So if you have to go with a ROM in the first place, Cyanogen is, once installed, fairly hands-off. Nobody's forcing you to delve into the nightly builds, say.
But maybe you just don't want to deal with having to look up, download, install, custom roms at all. Well, you could get any number of phones that have it or, just as an example, MIUI pre-installed - with OTA updates so you don't have to 'nurse' it. But then you'd have to get a different phone.
Seems to me that with your desires, you're going to either just have to live with the Google Play integration bits, or ignore the part where you wanted Android to begin with, and jump ship to iOS, Windows Phone, FireFox OS, Sailfish, etc.
So is flappy bird. But to compare it to, say, The Last of Us would be bordering on the ridiculous; they are completely different types of games.
While they might not improve story or gameplay, they may improve the experience. Take any reasonably modern game with 'perfect pixels', and force it to be completely lighting and texture-less - I doubt it would be quite as good. That isn't to say that those 'perfect pixels' are the game's only saving grace - or that there aren't titles produced that are complete turds despite all the graphical polish they receive - but the fact that those 'perfect pixels' can be used does allow game designers to make these games in ways they otherwise could not. They would have to make 'the next pac man' instead.
Right, I'm not arguing that local scarcity (or regional scarcity (or national scarcity)) in general is not a thing - or that distribution is even the way to deal with that scarcity (shipping water to the desert isn't going to do a whole lot of good).
I'm arguing that in the case of homeless people, it isn't so much a thing. Of course you could be homeless and in the desert. But usually that's when you start getting called a nomad.. and it tends to be by choice :)
In all fairness, most homeless in the streets aren't homeless in the streets because of a scarcity of food, energy and shelter. There's more than enough space, more than enough energy, and way more than enough food. The problem is that these things aren't getting to them. Whether that's because society doesn't care about them, or because a fat cat doesn't want to pay to help them out (so that the people blowing through savings to stay warm don't have to), or because the homeless themselves are refusing the help, or ... is another matter. You could suggest that it's still scarcity, but defining scarcity on an individual or even local level is a bit strange given the fairly globally connected world we live in.
I had a long reply here but a fat-fingering of ctrl+r made it disappear.
The tl;dr of it is this: I may have misinterpreted your stance, could you clarify if you believe that the technical solution on the pilots' side is sufficient, or whether those who do aim laser pointers at cockpits should be punishable (just not 'seriously') as well?
They could (see others' comments for technical issues with that), but should they? Or rather, should they have to?
While it might be a reasonable precaution, I don't think that validates turning the tables around. Otherwise you might as well conclude that pilots should don bullet proof vests to deal with the people who discharge a firearm in the direction of a plane taking off/landing.
Obviously that is already covered by other laws. Laser pointer use may or may not be. Regardless, I'm not sure where your stance (if I'm interpreting it correctly) of "attempting to harshly punish those pointing laser pointers at planes, is a bad idea" is coming from.
I understand that it's the land of the free, with freedom generally held high to the point of "I don't need a reason" - but what reason would you have for aiming a laser pointer - of any wattage - at a plane?
I'm not referring to accidentally pointing it at one - that could easily happen with a group of stargazers with somebody pointing it at a plane that - for whatever reason - isn't running the indicators (and all you see if steady 'white' light streaking across), let alone waving a laser pointer around and at some point technically having it be pointed at an airplane.
I'm talking about aiming, as per your comment. That sounds pretty willful.
While prosecuting them might go a bit far in many cases, they could do with a stern talking to.
A Benjamin jar.. I like that! But only if the U.S. adopts polymer notes.
And yes, it tends to change rather slightly when it's no longer about a single penny :)
Good, good, thinking beyond just the material value vs face value issue - very good.
Now calculate the costs involved with issuing them, recycling them, transporting them, handling them, the cost per transaction in using them because cashiers have to dig them out of the drawers, the value of time wasted by people waiting in line as somebody in front of them who has received those pennies and goshdarnit will spend four them again to make exact change for that $9.99 item (convenience, you say...), cleanup from pennies wasting away into the environment, and material loss that could otherwise have been used for more appropriate purposes.
And then of course counter that with the reduced happiness in some people's lives as they can no longer fill entire jars with pennies and reduced income from places that run 'wishing wells' which tend to be another dumping ground for pennies.
Maybe then we can actually start looking at the cost of a penny in an all-encompassing manner. Or we can just accept that the penny in general is a dumb idea at this - time no matter how much any associated costs are stretched out over the lifetime of a single penny.
The way some sites handle this is by using the dfn element (or abbr) to actually explain what a term means or expands to. The regular reader just sees the term, but (typically) hovering over it will show the full definition / expanded form. That has always seemed like fair compromise to me.
Could always sell a fraction of a Bitcoin, of course :)
True, and of course you can do this for small and big amounts.
However, for the latter, it seems as though you in fact run afoul of some laws, depending on state, etc. See also a comment of mine further down.
Businesses accepting non-local currency is a bit different, as they tend to sell goods - rather than another currency. However, that prompts further questions again which...is also in that other comment :D
And you don't even have modpoints? You brave soul.
I'm not a Bitcoin advocate.. At least, not of the currency - the technology is marvelous, however. Nevertheless, here's a shot at answering your question...
I think one of the issues here is that it concerns a very specific type of money laundering - if it can even be called that.
Basically the seller is acting as a money services business, without being licensed to do. As such, they do not formally have AML (anti-money laundering) and KYC (know-your-customer) compliance anywhere on their radar. That, in turn, can lead to the actual money laundering allegation.
I say allegation, because there's no 'money laundering' going on when you decide to sell your PS3 for $100 to buy some BTC with that somebody just mined on their rig. Nowhere in that entire exchange chain would there be an illicit aspect.
That explains one aspect of why 'money laundering' seems to pop up relatively often.
Another aspect is that you, me, and everybody can fairly easily buy, and sell, Bitcoin to whoever we want. If you want to buy Euros, you'll have to go to an exchange bureau. If you want to sell them again, you'll have to go to an exchange bureau. Those are, of course, licensed money services, but there's also far fewer of them - generally only at major international ports (be that airport or seaport and maybe the odd exchange bureau at border towns).
Loosely tied into this is the fact that in the U.S. you really don't have much use for alternative currencies. Sure, you can buy some Canadian dollars or some Pesetas. But why would you, unless you were to go to those countries? You can't exactly spend it at a website. With Bitcoin, you can. So there's far fewer such exchanges occurring 'in the wild' to begin with.
And, lastly (well there's a few more, but I see these as the major ones) - well, let's face it.. Bitcoin em used for quite a few illicit purposes. Be that the well-known Silk Road aspect, or people in other criminal circuits trying to look clean, or even just people who want to hide some of their money from the IRS.
Oh, and also, it's actually a fair bit easier to identify the parties in these cases. If you're a major Bitcoin exchange, you undoubtedly have a business address or have some other way to be found. If you're a user of localbitcoins.com then you can simply be invited for an exchange and could be arrested on the spot. Finding out money laundering operations, locations, etc. in the traditional movie-/TV-show-popularized sense is, quite frankly, a lot harder.