If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works
That's the part of this Newsweek story that makes no sense. The Bitcoin Satoshi took his privacy pretty seriously. People have been over and over his public and private communications over a couple years- and gleaned virtually no private information. Nobody could even agree on what country he lived in. And it's not a case where he created the account/identity when he didn't care about privacy and then did the bitcoin thing. That identity shows up on the internet specifically to reveal the bitcoin protocol. It doesn't fit at all that he would use his full first and last birth name as his username. People do weird stuff, and this Dorian guy seems like a fairly odd bird (but aren't all engineers?). It's not impossible, but it just doesn't fit the rest of the story.
But when they do their job in a way that people disagree with, it's somehow time for impeachments and pitchforks and tomatoes.
Last week someone here referred to something as "unconstitutional". I pointed out that the Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine the constitutionality of things, felt otherwise. They stated that those 5 Supreme Court judged should be arrested and tried for Treason. Seriously.
Not a single someone, he's probably mention it. But how about 100,000 individual someones, each of whom mined (on average) 10 or so coins? That's a few thousand bucks these days, not something that would make headlines beyond your Facebook page.
No. I don't think that 100,000 people were mining bitcoins in early 2009. Actually, I'm quite sure of it.
I find it hard to believe that someone else mined a million coins (6% of the total), lost their private key, and never mentioned it on the internet after they became worth a billion dollars.
From the blockchain records, someone mined almost a million coins in the very very early days. There were a few small outgoing transactions, and then haven't been touched since Satoshi disappeared in 2011. It doesn't make much sense for those bitcoins to belong to anyone else.
Sure is if you count that my health insurance cost is now double what it was before, along with twice the deductible. Thanks Obama, wish I hadn't voted for you.
Did you actually shop around or did your insurance company just tell you that your costs would double?
And how exactly is Obama responsible for the actions of 6 Senators?
That's essentially what Obama first proposed and what was passed by the House. It was blocked by a handful of Democrats in the Senate- namely Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu. To be fair to the last three, the bill was not popular in their rather red states and voting for it would have probably cost them their jobs.
After that failed, they went to Plan B which was the shitty compromise that we have now. It's still a nice step up from what we had before.
"Public performance" has the same definition it did 80 years ago. The ways that content can be delivered to the public has changed a lot, but it's all still public performance.
Besides I Love Lucy reruns, all of the content shown on TV has been copyrighted in the last few years. So I'm not sure where you were going with that paragraph.
Your basic grasp of 80 year old copyright law has no place here. Please get on board with the "Big Evil Government hates innovation" party line. Thank you for your cooperation.
You think "governmental actors" care about $615,000? That's adorable.
Did those "governmental actors" prevent Mt. Gox from ever auditing their accounts? It's been obvious for a year that Gox was amateur hour. Or was that part of the elaborate conspiracy?
For the past decade, Apple has been showing off 2 year old technology wrapped in a fancy new package and declaring it cutting edge innovation. Steve Jobs had enough charisma to make people believe it. Tim Cook does not.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad that one person here gets it.
The second amendment is a complete mess. It contains two contradictory statements separated by a comma.
If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works
That's the part of this Newsweek story that makes no sense. The Bitcoin Satoshi took his privacy pretty seriously. People have been over and over his public and private communications over a couple years- and gleaned virtually no private information. Nobody could even agree on what country he lived in. And it's not a case where he created the account/identity when he didn't care about privacy and then did the bitcoin thing. That identity shows up on the internet specifically to reveal the bitcoin protocol. It doesn't fit at all that he would use his full first and last birth name as his username. People do weird stuff, and this Dorian guy seems like a fairly odd bird (but aren't all engineers?). It's not impossible, but it just doesn't fit the rest of the story.
That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
The first amendment says that I can shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The second amendment says that I can own an ICBM.
You seriously think that the constitutionality of everything is self-evident?
Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the rules, not me.
That is their job.
But when they do their job in a way that people disagree with, it's somehow time for impeachments and pitchforks and tomatoes.
Last week someone here referred to something as "unconstitutional". I pointed out that the Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine the constitutionality of things, felt otherwise. They stated that those 5 Supreme Court judged should be arrested and tried for Treason. Seriously.
Not a single someone, he's probably mention it. But how about 100,000 individual someones, each of whom mined (on average) 10 or so coins? That's a few thousand bucks these days, not something that would make headlines beyond your Facebook page.
No. I don't think that 100,000 people were mining bitcoins in early 2009. Actually, I'm quite sure of it.
I find it hard to believe that someone else mined a million coins (6% of the total), lost their private key, and never mentioned it on the internet after they became worth a billion dollars.
According to Newsweek, he hasn't had a job since 2001.
From the blockchain records, someone mined almost a million coins in the very very early days. There were a few small outgoing transactions, and then haven't been touched since Satoshi disappeared in 2011. It doesn't make much sense for those bitcoins to belong to anyone else.
What's the point?
If nobody is ever charged with anything like this again, then the EFF have won.
If someone is charged for the same circumstances, then the EFF can fight the battle in that case.
Sure is if you count that my health insurance cost is now double what it was before, along with twice the deductible. Thanks Obama, wish I hadn't voted for you.
Did you actually shop around or did your insurance company just tell you that your costs would double?
And how exactly is Obama responsible for the actions of 6 Senators?
That's essentially what Obama first proposed and what was passed by the House. It was blocked by a handful of Democrats in the Senate- namely Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu. To be fair to the last three, the bill was not popular in their rather red states and voting for it would have probably cost them their jobs.
After that failed, they went to Plan B which was the shitty compromise that we have now. It's still a nice step up from what we had before.
"Public performance" has the same definition it did 80 years ago. The ways that content can be delivered to the public has changed a lot, but it's all still public performance.
Besides I Love Lucy reruns, all of the content shown on TV has been copyrighted in the last few years. So I'm not sure where you were going with that paragraph.
Your basic grasp of 80 year old copyright law has no place here. Please get on board with the "Big Evil Government hates innovation" party line. Thank you for your cooperation.
Is there no audit log on that code? It should be obvious whose code is responsible.
Even if the NSA put an exploit into the library in 2005, why didn't those millions of eyes I've heard so much about find the problem for 9 years?
Slashdot's response to a devastating bug in a GNU library?
Let's speculate about Microsoft's security and mention Snowden for no reason.
but that was before nVidia and AMD were the major players.
Who were the major players?
I think Maps has been out of beta for years.
Mt Gox was the billion dollar mega project.
When your worldview is dominated by hated of the State, it blinds you to the obvious.
I'd bet it was them
Do you have any evidence to support that? Or is your existing worldview proof enough?
Because I have a ton of evidence that Mt. Gox's management were a bunch of idiots that shouldn't have been trusted with a lemonade stand.
You think "governmental actors" care about $615,000? That's adorable.
Did those "governmental actors" prevent Mt. Gox from ever auditing their accounts? It's been obvious for a year that Gox was amateur hour. Or was that part of the elaborate conspiracy?
innovation != invention.
Tell that to Apple's marketing department, fanboy.
That's a much smaller lag time than usual. 1 to 2 days is more typical.
For the past decade, Apple has been showing off 2 year old technology wrapped in a fancy new package and declaring it cutting edge innovation. Steve Jobs had enough charisma to make people believe it. Tim Cook does not.