Given that I have no horse in this race (I have no bit coins, and no plans of getting any) you're falling back to accusations that don't make sense. Also it doesn't fit the "pyramid scheme", because the value isn't dependent on new users taking loses. Throwing around terms like that weakens your point.
I think that's a pedantic argument of the limits of currency. You don't want to call it a currency, that's fine. Lots of people disagree with you and use it as a currency. But the equivalency you draw to "pony plates" is intended to be demeaning and offensive in a gender-normative way. It seems like your issue isn't with the definitions of a currency, but that the argument of a currency's limit has become the vehicle to discuss your dislike of BitCoins. That's fine too. You could save a lot of effort just by saying that from the start; "I don't like BitCoins."
This is an argument that the USD is worth MORE than the BTC, and not that the BTC is inherently worthless. If we agree on that, good. But the statement "X makes the USD valid, while other invented currencies are invalid" is absolute bullshit. No, fucker, it's all made up.
You're asserting that all opinions are equal, that because there is not a unanimous opinion that an opinion can't be a binding legal obligation -- allow me correct you there. A court's opinion is more important in this case, it has ruled the patent to be without merit. Fines to dissuade further abuse of the patent system are in order.
While systemic changes to reduce the ability for abuse are needed, this isn't a time for better planning -- it's about responding to abuse that has already happened. You don't ignore that and merely lament that you need to better the system.
(i.e. You broke the rules, you receive a punishment. The system is, by poor design, promoting the breaking of rules, you fix it. Both can be true.)
ESRB conformity is a voluntary action on all sides; the concept of "more penalties for video game stores that sell them to kids" doesn't make sense in the current system.
First, they're enraged over a kidnapping, iirc, of their eggs.
Second, it's because the game is about cartoon animals - there's a lot to be said for evoking social issues, like your jihad example. It wouldn't be a 1 for 1 swap.
It is the site operators and their site with the security flaw, not the bitcoin itself. Not to claim that the bitcoin structure is perfectly solid, but once again people are arguing the wrong point. ( i.e. If your local bank is robbed they have a security problem, but that doesn't demonstrate a failure of the dollar. )
Honestly after the whole Swartz case we knew it wasn't a 'free network.' You know, it would have been nice if they "secured it" to their liking before they harassed someone to death for using it.
The fact that the doctors were trusted as both the authenticating-client and the key-holder was the issue here. Not biometric authentication. There was no promise that the doctors were not the malicious users themselves, but rather the authenticating-client here had an inherent incentive (getting paid without working) to help defeat the system. So, for all the criticism of biometric systems here -- we're missing the point, the implementation was incorrect to start. Attacking the medium is misguided, and also composed of (mostly) stupid arguments.
If this was a story of doctors having others falsify their time-cards or sharing keys it wouldn't have the same "people who like x auth method are idiots", but since it involves some slightly higher tech punch-in... well, here we are.
There's no such thing as a secure system. Just an inconvenient-to-defeat system; the weakest link/low-hanging fruit and all that. Biometric merely provides another authentication factor that can be used - so pointing to cases where people helped defeat their own locks is akin to saying that your buddy let me make copies of his keys, just look insecure keys are! It's silly. Correct implementation is key before you judge a system.
I have a completely secure computer for you, it's called a rock.
Yes, running a no-script browser is techincally safer, but it's also technically useless as you're missing out on the content provided by those scripted services. Do you manually type in captcha hashes? Do you ignore all video posted anywhere? You'll never run a single script, ever? A browser is inherently insecure as it's entire purpose is to download and render remote scripts.
It's very ignorant to insist that you're bullet-proof, or to insist that it's a Java only (or even worse a "browser plugin") issue. Java is not uniquely bad, it's just the latest target. The correct approach to security is mitigation of threat, not summary denial of vulnerability.
This is a good reminder that with web-security you're only as secure as the weakest link. A new exploit pushed from a popular dev site on a trusted platform like Java is going to hit you hard and you can't avoid it directly. The real story here is how quickly / properly people responded, and how well defensive infastructure and policy stopped the intrusion. There's months and months of good security analytical reading right here. We can also compare company to company as it hit more than one.
Slashdot Mirror
A better user experience is unique and amazing.
Given that I have no horse in this race (I have no bit coins, and no plans of getting any) you're falling back to accusations that don't make sense. Also it doesn't fit the "pyramid scheme", because the value isn't dependent on new users taking loses. Throwing around terms like that weakens your point.
I think that's a pedantic argument of the limits of currency. You don't want to call it a currency, that's fine. Lots of people disagree with you and use it as a currency. But the equivalency you draw to "pony plates" is intended to be demeaning and offensive in a gender-normative way. It seems like your issue isn't with the definitions of a currency, but that the argument of a currency's limit has become the vehicle to discuss your dislike of BitCoins. That's fine too. You could save a lot of effort just by saying that from the start; "I don't like BitCoins."
There's an actual thriving market of collectibles and antiques; so, yeah, there's that.
This is an argument that the USD is worth MORE than the BTC, and not that the BTC is inherently worthless. If we agree on that, good. But the statement "X makes the USD valid, while other invented currencies are invalid" is absolute bullshit. No, fucker, it's all made up.
One step further; if you mention that 'bitcoin' isn't a real currency. The whole argument chain is fucking tired.
Spoilers! Spoilers!
You're asserting that all opinions are equal, that because there is not a unanimous opinion that an opinion can't be a binding legal obligation -- allow me correct you there. A court's opinion is more important in this case, it has ruled the patent to be without merit. Fines to dissuade further abuse of the patent system are in order.
While systemic changes to reduce the ability for abuse are needed, this isn't a time for better planning -- it's about responding to abuse that has already happened. You don't ignore that and merely lament that you need to better the system.
(i.e. You broke the rules, you receive a punishment. The system is, by poor design, promoting the breaking of rules, you fix it. Both can be true.)
I'll take that bet. Digital representations count.
Um, that's exactly the right way.
ESRB conformity is a voluntary action on all sides; the concept of "more penalties for video game stores that sell them to kids" doesn't make sense in the current system.
First, they're enraged over a kidnapping, iirc, of their eggs.
Second, it's because the game is about cartoon animals - there's a lot to be said for evoking social issues, like your jihad example. It wouldn't be a 1 for 1 swap.
It is the site operators and their site with the security flaw, not the bitcoin itself. Not to claim that the bitcoin structure is perfectly solid, but once again people are arguing the wrong point. ( i.e. If your local bank is robbed they have a security problem, but that doesn't demonstrate a failure of the dollar. )
Honestly after the whole Swartz case we knew it wasn't a 'free network.' You know, it would have been nice if they "secured it" to their liking before they harassed someone to death for using it.
If anything, nanny-state filters are a leftist thing. See: Iceland.
Congratulations, you've just landed aninstall contract AND a software support contract. Jesus, are you new to capitalism?
Actually, yes it does. We have limited resources to go after and fix problems, and sometimes the cost of oversight is higher than the amount recouped.
True. But when you have a pinhole leak and a gaping hole in the hull they're not equatable.
The fact that the doctors were trusted as both the authenticating-client and the key-holder was the issue here. Not biometric authentication. There was no promise that the doctors were not the malicious users themselves, but rather the authenticating-client here had an inherent incentive (getting paid without working) to help defeat the system. So, for all the criticism of biometric systems here -- we're missing the point, the implementation was incorrect to start. Attacking the medium is misguided, and also composed of (mostly) stupid arguments.
If this was a story of doctors having others falsify their time-cards or sharing keys it wouldn't have the same "people who like x auth method are idiots", but since it involves some slightly higher tech punch-in... well, here we are.
There's no such thing as a secure system. Just an inconvenient-to-defeat system; the weakest link/low-hanging fruit and all that. Biometric merely provides another authentication factor that can be used - so pointing to cases where people helped defeat their own locks is akin to saying that your buddy let me make copies of his keys, just look insecure keys are! It's silly. Correct implementation is key before you judge a system.
Terrible sit-com.
Confirmation that Tyler Perry fans are idiots.
How does melting ice and world flooding equal arid land and scarce water?
Best post in this thread, right here.
I have a completely secure computer for you, it's called a rock.
Yes, running a no-script browser is techincally safer, but it's also technically useless as you're missing out on the content provided by those scripted services. Do you manually type in captcha hashes? Do you ignore all video posted anywhere? You'll never run a single script, ever? A browser is inherently insecure as it's entire purpose is to download and render remote scripts.
It's very ignorant to insist that you're bullet-proof, or to insist that it's a Java only (or even worse a "browser plugin") issue. Java is not uniquely bad, it's just the latest target. The correct approach to security is mitigation of threat, not summary denial of vulnerability.
This is a good reminder that with web-security you're only as secure as the weakest link. A new exploit pushed from a popular dev site on a trusted platform like Java is going to hit you hard and you can't avoid it directly. The real story here is how quickly / properly people responded, and how well defensive infastructure and policy stopped the intrusion. There's months and months of good security analytical reading right here. We can also compare company to company as it hit more than one.