Agreed. Option 1) is out of the question. Assange simply isn't important enough to mess up diplomatic relations so much.
I also think the UK wants to make Ecuador suffer a little for their actions here, option 3) forces them to put up with an unwanted house-guest. Ecuador made a rod for their own backs here, so let them have it.
He wasn't, and still isn't. The idea that embassies are sovereign territory of the embassy's country is a myth. There are various treaty obligations that give the nation a lot of rights, which is why the British police can't just go in and arrest Assange, but it doesn't make the embassy foreign territory.
There's no owner registration, as such, except for the V5 form that tracks the registered keeper. You need to have a copy of that and fill in your and the new user details when you sell it. You can't register it without the V5 document.
In practice though, the registered keeper is typically the owner. If you contest ownership of a car, you'd need some pretty strong evidence.
Don't see a problem with this. I'm happy to leave it for the people to decide on a case by case basis, especially something like this where opinions are strongly divided.
He still exists. The fact that he's now a she does not mean this is a different person. just means we're using a different set of pronouns to refer to the same person.
Sounds good. We should increase the minimum wage further.
I guess those people who have aspiration of being a cashier will be a little upset and it's sad for them, but I assume most people are simply doing it because they need money. A minor inconvenience for them until they get a new job. But there will be more jobs, as automation increases, costs go down, and people have more to spend. And those jobs will be at least at the minimum wage.
If they don't, then that's even better. We can run society with only a small fraction engaged in required work, and switch to basic income. Have the robots fund a life of leisure for the rest of us.
It is rather a shame though. I was quite fond of my netbook. I'd take it away with me on trips, for blogging, checking websites for local attractions, and keeping in touch with family by email. It was good enough to do most of what I needed, and cheap enough that I didn't mind the risk of losing it. These days it's just too slow for most websites.
I've replaced it with a tablet but I miss the keyboard, and I miss a lot of the functionality that comes with a windowing GUI. Don't really want to take two devices just for the small extra utility.
He called Hillary Clinton a traitor. Treason is punishable by death.
Seriously? Is that the best example you can come up with? An implicit indication that something could conceivably result in a legal death is not quite the same as something like "I'm going to kill Hillary Clinton"
He also famously stated, "If she gets to pick her judges: Nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I donâ(TM)t know. But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day.â
That's a little better. Although it's pretty abstract for a threat.
He has called for the death penalty to be used on specific people (NYC truck terrorist) and on general classes of people (those who kill policemen).
I don't think Twitter's policy is meant to cover advocation of a fairly common legal position. They do want to allow some political discussion.
Do we need to go on?
Well, something that might be considered a threat rather than a political position might be a little better. These really seem to be reaching, and going for a very pedantic interpretation of the letter of the rules rather than the obvious intent.
A fire stick is $39.99, comes with a remote, and works out of the box with minimal configuration required. It's small enough to be easily hidden behind the TV, or reasonably unobtrusive coming out of side port.
Blocking it would be abuse of monopoly though. Not supporting an app is legal - no company is expected to make an active effort to support every platform - but actively preventing another company's products from working would be illegal.
It's not clear if they're discontinuing the Windows version. Hopefully that will remain. It makes sense. It's possible that someone will come up with a use for it.
Bitcoin doesn't have a hope of competing with Visa though. Visa is way faster and way cheaper, and a lot more reliable.
The $2 billion is current estimates. By the time governments become dependent on blockchain, they'll be running a good chunk of the mining operation, and the cost will be higher.
But how do you make $2 billion profit from destroying Bitcoin? It's not causing Wells Fargo or Visa any serious problems. And that's assuming you can with 24 hours of control. Also, lot of disgruntled bitcoin owners would have good cause to sue for any losses, as well as potential fines in the very likely case that this is illegal.
A government could destroy it if they wanted but there's not a lot to gain, and even for a fairly large country, that's enough money to do something useful with. It's more than enough for a naval destroyer.
The only reason there hasn't been a 51% attack is that nobody has worked out a way to do it cheaply enough to make a profit. According to one estimate, you'd need somewhere in the region of $2 billion in hardware and power costs for 24 hours mining. That sort of spending is difficult to hide.
would a single company collapsing cause the entire stock market to crash?
Well, VW or Exxon collapsing probably would cause a bit of panic. They have the same sort of market cap as bitcoin.
I guess they're different in that they'd pull down a bunch of other companies with them, whereas bitcoin will just take coinbase and a few other similar companies.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not completely meaninglessness though. I mean it's gobbledygook, but gobbledygook with Latin sentence structure and vocabulary.
Agreed. Option 1) is out of the question. Assange simply isn't important enough to mess up diplomatic relations so much.
I also think the UK wants to make Ecuador suffer a little for their actions here, option 3) forces them to put up with an unwanted house-guest. Ecuador made a rod for their own backs here, so let them have it.
He wasn't, and still isn't. The idea that embassies are sovereign territory of the embassy's country is a myth. There are various treaty obligations that give the nation a lot of rights, which is why the British police can't just go in and arrest Assange, but it doesn't make the embassy foreign territory.
Good! I don't want idiots like you there. You think your phone's backlight is something only you can see, or something?
A lot of concert goers get pretty irritated with the idiots on phones. You can tweet about it later.
There's no owner registration, as such, except for the V5 form that tracks the registered keeper. You need to have a copy of that and fill in your and the new user details when you sell it. You can't register it without the V5 document.
In practice though, the registered keeper is typically the owner. If you contest ownership of a car, you'd need some pretty strong evidence.
It's not net neutrality but the same principle applies. Providers of internet services shouldn't discriminate based on the browser I use.
I don't think private companies are even at the Sputnik level yet.
This is what they do. The summary was wrong here (writer didn't understand how rounding works)
Don't see a problem with this. I'm happy to leave it for the people to decide on a case by case basis, especially something like this where opinions are strongly divided.
He still exists. The fact that he's now a she does not mean this is a different person. just means we're using a different set of pronouns to refer to the same person.
But bitcoin has done this sort of thing dozens of times. Last June it was almost at $3000, before falling to $2,200.
It is a bubble, but speculation about when it will burst is wild guessing.
The volatility is a serious problem. Variation of 10% in a day is not uncommon. A sudden plummet in reaction to this news is pretty typical.
The value is so speculative. It rather reminds me of this parable about wisdom of crowds. People speculate it has value because everyone else is.
Sounds good. We should increase the minimum wage further.
I guess those people who have aspiration of being a cashier will be a little upset and it's sad for them, but I assume most people are simply doing it because they need money. A minor inconvenience for them until they get a new job. But there will be more jobs, as automation increases, costs go down, and people have more to spend. And those jobs will be at least at the minimum wage.
If they don't, then that's even better. We can run society with only a small fraction engaged in required work, and switch to basic income. Have the robots fund a life of leisure for the rest of us.
It is rather a shame though. I was quite fond of my netbook. I'd take it away with me on trips, for blogging, checking websites for local attractions, and keeping in touch with family by email. It was good enough to do most of what I needed, and cheap enough that I didn't mind the risk of losing it. These days it's just too slow for most websites.
I've replaced it with a tablet but I miss the keyboard, and I miss a lot of the functionality that comes with a windowing GUI. Don't really want to take two devices just for the small extra utility.
Seriously? Is that the best example you can come up with? An implicit indication that something could conceivably result in a legal death is not quite the same as something like "I'm going to kill Hillary Clinton"
That's a little better. Although it's pretty abstract for a threat.
I don't think Twitter's policy is meant to cover advocation of a fairly common legal position. They do want to allow some political discussion.
Well, something that might be considered a threat rather than a political position might be a little better. These really seem to be reaching, and going for a very pedantic interpretation of the letter of the rules rather than the obvious intent.
It may well be. But it's not shit enough to justify buying a media PC to replace it just because it no longer supports youTube.
YouTube's market share is massive. Hulu has never had more than about 3%. You need a monopoly before anti-monopoly laws come into play.
A fire stick is $39.99, comes with a remote, and works out of the box with minimal configuration required. It's small enough to be easily hidden behind the TV, or reasonably unobtrusive coming out of side port.
And people who want one already have one.
Blocking it would be abuse of monopoly though. Not supporting an app is legal - no company is expected to make an active effort to support every platform - but actively preventing another company's products from working would be illegal.
It's not clear if they're discontinuing the Windows version. Hopefully that will remain. It makes sense. It's possible that someone will come up with a use for it.
Bitcoin doesn't have a hope of competing with Visa though. Visa is way faster and way cheaper, and a lot more reliable.
The $2 billion is current estimates. By the time governments become dependent on blockchain, they'll be running a good chunk of the mining operation, and the cost will be higher.
But how do you make $2 billion profit from destroying Bitcoin? It's not causing Wells Fargo or Visa any serious problems. And that's assuming you can with 24 hours of control. Also, lot of disgruntled bitcoin owners would have good cause to sue for any losses, as well as potential fines in the very likely case that this is illegal.
A government could destroy it if they wanted but there's not a lot to gain, and even for a fairly large country, that's enough money to do something useful with. It's more than enough for a naval destroyer.
The only reason there hasn't been a 51% attack is that nobody has worked out a way to do it cheaply enough to make a profit. According to one estimate, you'd need somewhere in the region of $2 billion in hardware and power costs for 24 hours mining. That sort of spending is difficult to hide.
Well, VW or Exxon collapsing probably would cause a bit of panic. They have the same sort of market cap as bitcoin.
I guess they're different in that they'd pull down a bunch of other companies with them, whereas bitcoin will just take coinbase and a few other similar companies.