Really doubt you've got any risk there. The law is really designed to target, for example, senior management of companies that do business with Iran. Then again, I'm not a sanctions specialist.
If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.
Not that easy a solution, since, in some cases, the US can go after the employees or management of non-US companies that violate US sanctions. Not sure it'd apply in this case, but there's certainly a risk.
If they were doing what they are alleged to have been doing using Yen, or Dollars, or Pounds, or whatever, it would still have been money laundering. Bitcoin doesn't change that.
I think you are too harsh on Lenovo. I am using the Thinkpad X series and T series for the last 12 years...from the IBM days to the current iteration. I am yet to see a significant drop in quality on those two lines after Lenovo started rebranding. I am not sure about their entry models though.
Agreed. The X and T series (which are the descendents of the old Thinkpad lines) have held up nicely. The other series, which don't have the same "genes," I don't really care for.
Out of curiousity, does anybody know what the number for chess that compares to the 3e15 number for pentago is? In other words, how much "bigger" is chess?
All the more reason that we should have loser pays for all civil lawsuits in the US, as they do in the UK. If you sue someone, and lose, you're on the hook for their legal fees.
I agree, it's not that much in the grand scheme of things. Somehow, though, $2/month seems more "reasonable" to me than $4/month. Can't give a specific justification, though.
Used it to control my HTPC from my iPad. I think their pricing is just a wee bit too high, though. If it were, say, $25 a year (rather than $50), I'd probably say that it was worth it to avoid having to find an alternative. As it is, I'll find something else.
They didn't say that in so many words; they simply said that they wouldn't expend the resources to send agents if there wasn't property of at least $50,000 value to be seized.
1. This definitely isn't what you said before. 2. You still haven't provided any evidence that this memo exists, and isn't just urban legend.
1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).
2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded about it (i.e. not saying "Netflix is fine, but no HBO Go, since Netflix is paying us and HBO isn't").
While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.
The DEA actually had put out a memo a few years back that said they will not bother to raid properties where persons are using drugs if the property is worth less than $50,000. It was the memo about how landlords forfeit their right of ownership if they knowingly allow the usage of drugs on their property--which was attached particularly to people having some kind of pot-smoking parties in states that had legalized or had planned to legalize marijuana. They directly stated that action would not be taken--no raids, no arrests, no seizure--on properties valued at under $50,000.
Please provide a citation for this assertion. I certainly believe that DEA might decide that forfeiture proceedings weren't worth the effort for properties worth under $50k, but I really doubt that there's an official document that says, in effect, that if you're on property worth less than $50k, you can smoke/have pot with impunity.
kidnapping=detaining in a small room without consent
incarceration of Charles Manson=detaining in a small room without consent
therefore:
Charles Manson has been kidnapped.
You arguments about Bitcoin's level of acceptance can be equally applied to PayPal in 1999. There where almost no sites accepting PayPal balance and you certainly could not pay your groceries and rent with PayPal. If someone sent you money with PayPal, all you could do was withdraw it to your bank account in local currency and that was about it.
This is exactly why PayPal is a completely inaccurate analogy. Paypal wasn't a currency, it was a payment method - you knew that, if you accepted Paypal, you had a guaranteed way to turn $X in Paypal balance into $0.95X in your checking account. For bitcoins to be in any way similar, you'd have to have a reliable third party willing to exchange them for USD/EUR/JPY at a fixed, or close to fixed rate.
If the police, TSA, government or even my mother want to see what is on data storage I have encrypted then they can sit down and crack it, I have no reason to ever decrypt that drive, if you want inside of it then get inside of it but I'm not going to help, after all I didn't encrypt the drive so you could just freely go in and look around.
They can't make you decrypt it, but they can make it quite uncomfortable for you if you don't. Obstruction of justice, contempt citation, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Really doubt you've got any risk there. The law is really designed to target, for example, senior management of companies that do business with Iran. Then again, I'm not a sanctions specialist.
If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.
Not that easy a solution, since, in some cases, the US can go after the employees or management of non-US companies that violate US sanctions. Not sure it'd apply in this case, but there's certainly a risk.
Exactly. Big block of single-issuer voters in a hugely important swing state.
Interesting, maybe the issue's been resolved (last tried it probably a year ago). Thanks!
Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves
It's not just can't root. If I root, I lose access to (at least) Netflix, if not others, so there's a tradeoff.
Go to jail due to his conviction on what charge? Please be specific as to the law he's broken.
If they were doing what they are alleged to have been doing using Yen, or Dollars, or Pounds, or whatever, it would still have been money laundering. Bitcoin doesn't change that.
Another game of that is something up with which I will not put.
I think you are too harsh on Lenovo.
I am using the Thinkpad X series and T series for the last 12 years...from the IBM days to the current iteration. I am yet to see a significant drop in quality on those two lines after Lenovo started rebranding. I am not sure about their entry models though.
Agreed. The X and T series (which are the descendents of the old Thinkpad lines) have held up nicely. The other series, which don't have the same "genes," I don't really care for.
Out of curiousity, does anybody know what the number for chess that compares to the 3e15 number for pentago is? In other words, how much "bigger" is chess?
All the more reason that we should have loser pays for all civil lawsuits in the US, as they do in the UK. If you sue someone, and lose, you're on the hook for their legal fees.
Lots of precedent for this, look at Bluebird from American Express, for example. Essentially the same services.
I agree, it's not that much in the grand scheme of things. Somehow, though, $2/month seems more "reasonable" to me than $4/month. Can't give a specific justification, though.
Or, you could actually pay for the product you use. Just sayin.
Used it to control my HTPC from my iPad. I think their pricing is just a wee bit too high, though. If it were, say, $25 a year (rather than $50), I'd probably say that it was worth it to avoid having to find an alternative. As it is, I'll find something else.
They didn't say that in so many words; they simply said that they wouldn't expend the resources to send agents if there wasn't property of at least $50,000 value to be seized.
1. This definitely isn't what you said before.
2. You still haven't provided any evidence that this memo exists, and isn't just urban legend.
Couple of things:
1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).
2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded about it (i.e. not saying "Netflix is fine, but no HBO Go, since Netflix is paying us and HBO isn't").
While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.
The DEA actually had put out a memo a few years back that said they will not bother to raid properties where persons are using drugs if the property is worth less than $50,000. It was the memo about how landlords forfeit their right of ownership if they knowingly allow the usage of drugs on their property--which was attached particularly to people having some kind of pot-smoking parties in states that had legalized or had planned to legalize marijuana. They directly stated that action would not be taken--no raids, no arrests, no seizure--on properties valued at under $50,000.
Please provide a citation for this assertion. I certainly believe that DEA might decide that forfeiture proceedings weren't worth the effort for properties worth under $50k, but I really doubt that there's an official document that says, in effect, that if you're on property worth less than $50k, you can smoke/have pot with impunity.
kidnapping=detaining in a small room without consent incarceration of Charles Manson=detaining in a small room without consent therefore: Charles Manson has been kidnapped.
You arguments about Bitcoin's level of acceptance can be equally applied to PayPal in 1999. There where almost no sites accepting PayPal balance and you certainly could not pay your groceries and rent with PayPal. If someone sent you money with PayPal, all you could do was withdraw it to your bank account in local currency and that was about it.
This is exactly why PayPal is a completely inaccurate analogy. Paypal wasn't a currency, it was a payment method - you knew that, if you accepted Paypal, you had a guaranteed way to turn $X in Paypal balance into $0.95X in your checking account. For bitcoins to be in any way similar, you'd have to have a reliable third party willing to exchange them for USD/EUR/JPY at a fixed, or close to fixed rate.
If the police, TSA, government or even my mother want to see what is on data storage I have encrypted then they can sit down and crack it, I have no reason to ever decrypt that drive, if you want inside of it then get inside of it but I'm not going to help, after all I didn't encrypt the drive so you could just freely go in and look around.
They can't make you decrypt it, but they can make it quite uncomfortable for you if you don't. Obstruction of justice, contempt citation, etc.
Clearly there's a job opening for a grammer nazi in my life.
Do you also have budget for a Spelling Stalinist?
Fair enough.
The NK nukes are pretty much there as a doomsday device to make sure the US and its allies doesn't attack them again, and they're doing exactly that.
Agree with you on everything but the "again." North Korea invaded the South, not the other way around. Minor quibble, though.