Yeah that was a toe-picking dumb statement. FOSS helps "directly helps [others as] much as it helps us." That's kind of the point - cooperation, helping others as well as yourself.
For fifteen years I haven't bought any proprietary software, except once. I contribute to several open source projects, and my name is in the kernel changelog, so I think I qualify as a FOSS advocate. This FOSS advocate thinks Stallman was smoking something when he said that, unless the quote was taken out of context.
The product you linked to, Codebench lite, is neither proprietary, nor paid. It's simply NOT a "paid version of GCC compiler", because it's not something you pay for - it's free and you can download the source.
That same company ALSO sells support services and an IDE. They don't sell a compiler.
Are you claiming that SNC is a GCC derivative? Citation? The wikipedia article mentions that they ship their compiler, which can be used INSTEAD OF the gcc-dereived compiler provided by the hardware manufacturer.
Thanks for contributing! I've contributed very little code directly to Debian, but it may well be like some open source projects where developers are expected to spend ten times as much time on a feature than it takes to submit a patch.
In Moodle, for example, I added a feature that took about two hours to develop a working patch. Just before submitting the patch, I became an official developer. Seven MONTHS later I was done with that two hour patch. First, I needed to document the proposal for the new feature, then get (documented) community feedback. I had to apply a huge list of style rules to the patch, covering things like variable naming standards, whitespace, etc. Then I needed the component owner to review it. He pointed out that while it complied with the CURRENT standards, it didn't use the newly developed APIs that were chosen for the upcoming release. I recoded it to use the upcoming standards, and some design changes the component owner wanted. This process involved rebasing against master at several times - any time someone else needed to look at it. The new feature required very minor tweaks to some existing classes. Since I had touched those classes, I needed to update those old classes to the new coding standards as well. Then the integrator pointed out I was missing the suites of unit tests, etc.
In all, a two hour patch submission turns out to be 80 hours when you do all of the "official developer" stuff like unit tests and all. So that's one distinction between a developer, who is on the hook for all of that stuff vs. a contributor who graciously submits code.
Please understand I'm in no way devaluing any contributions. For most open source projects, I contribute patches only. I now have a new appreciation for the committed developers who do the grinding work required to have my code integrated into a high quality project.
Ps - a LOT of what I mentioned above are tasks a non-programmer or newbie programmer can help with, if anyone is looking for ways to contribute to projects you enjoy or are interested in.
If the captcha is easy enough for humans, 1 in 256 random chance is fine for many applications. I've designed several very successful captcha systems used on thousands of sites. There are two reasons I say 1 / 256 is often fine.
First, let's consider one typical use case - blog spam. The spammer has a choice. He can spend this evening posting to 1,000 blogs with captchas, or the same amount of time post to 256,000 blogs without captchas. Which would you choose if you were a spammer? You choose the unprotected sites, of course. Sites without captchas get hundreds of times as much spam. Bad guys are by definition lazy, so they go after the low hanging fruit. Don't be low hanging fruit.
In other use cases, there may not be direct competition. Still, there's a cost / benefit analysis. Let's say it costs 1 penny of resources to register and use a snapchat account in a way the generates 12 cents in revenue. Multiply the cost by 256 and it's no longer profitable to abuse the service.
For most of our customers, the captcha is one part of a defense against brute force on the login screen. Assume that due to the other components of the system, you need 10,000 proxies to successfully brute force the login, because IPs banned after a dozen failed attempts. The captcha multiplies that by 256, so you now need over 2.5 MILLION proxies. I suspect that nobody has 2.5 million proxies to use. We have one of the largest lists of open proxies in the world, and even we don't have quite that many.
> I wanted to by a house and no credit history meant I couldn't get a mortgage loan.
If that's still an issue, or may be in the future, message me. I can give you the exact step-by-step plan I used for my mortgage. I even got to write my own mortgage documents, so it's assumable after it's 50% paid, I wrote the terms regarding late fees, etc.
> "I don't use credit so there is nothing to see" is no more valid than my > "I don't talk about terrorist plots so I have nothing to hide" where phone calls or email are concerned.
It's entirely different. In the case of the NSA, there are thousands of records for every person. There IS data being stored about your daily activities. Someone might say that there isn't anything INTERESTING to see about them, but there most certainly is a LOT to see - all of their phone calls, for example.
For the credit reporting agency, there simply isn't any data there if you don't go around borrowing money. You can claim the NSA data about you isn't important, but it is collected. The credit data on me does not EXIST. It's literally nothing (beyond maybe a phone book listing). So you're comparing NOTHING, no data being collected, to a vast database of our daily activities. You're saying the NSA spying is equalivent to - literally - nothing.
Only if you choose to ask the furniture store to give you furniture without you paying for it can they pull your credit. If you ask them to front you some furniture, they can see what happened to other people who loaned you money. My credit report is almost empty, it lists a car loan and that's about it. Nobody sees my report because I don't go around asking people to let me spend money I don't have.
Contrast this with the government. They have thousands of records on me, every phone call I've ever made or received. All of my emails. There's no way to opt out. If I tried hard enough to get away from their prying, they have squadrons of heavily armed men to send after me.
You mean like the programs set up to deal with the drought in the 1930s which continue to cost billions of dollars in excessive food prices and waste farmer's resources?
I WISH government programs that were too expensive would be shut down.
I can't think of ANY significant federal programs that have been shut down.
> if you're suing somebody... you have to "make your case" so to speak.
Until now. Now, if you sue an inventor the burden of proof is on the person being sued. The plaintiff is asking that the court proactively rule that nothing they ever did infringes on any of defendant's patents. SCOTUS ruled that the defendant now has the burden of proof, so they have to figure out which product plaintiff is concerned about, which patent it might infringe and how, or else the court rules that none of the products infringes any patents.
By analogy, it's the same as me petitioning the court to rule that I never stole anything from you. The court agrees, saying that unless you figure out the puzzle and guess what I stole and when, I'll be deemed innocent and you can't come after me later when you realize that your gold watch is missing.
Yep. If you sue someone, you have to prove your case. Until now. Now, with this ruling, if you sue an inventor you don't have to prove anything. It's now up to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff did something wrong. This is insane.
> By deleting the info what the so-called 'security companies" are doing is to depriving the legitimate > business owners a way to beef up their own security measures by learning from the mistakes of Target.
I can only guess that you didn't rtfa? Target's IP addresses, passwords, and other details are of little use to any legitimate business beefing up their own security. To secure YOUR network I need YOUR IP addresses, not Target's IP addresses.
They left the information about HOW Target was breached. They redacted victim-specific details like the IPs of specific vulnerable servers.
> Hackers already know the way to do it, or they > wouldn't be able to break into Target's databases.
99.99% of hackers are not able to break into Target's databases. It would be good to keep it that way.
By deleting the info what the so-called 'security companies" are doing is to depriving the legitimate business owners a way to beef up their own security measures by learning from the mistakes of Target.
Comcast (in most areas) is a government enforced monopoly. That's precisely the opposite of free market.
On the other hand, I pay $30 / month for unlimited everything, no contract, on my cell phone because that's a free market - if Boost Mobile annoys me, I can switch to Virgin mobile ($35 no contract), Walmart Family mobile ($35 no contract), T-Mobile, Cricket, Sprint,AT&T, Metro PCS, etc. etc.
"Cable is a natural monopoly", some people say. It is, in precisely the same way that phone service is. It's "inefficient" to have redundant towers owned by different companies. Yet, that's how you get consumer choice. "The government should own the cables and companies provide customer service", some say. Funny, that's almost exactly what happens in the free market, except without the government bureaucracy, and with actual competition. US wireless service has a couple of networks using competing technology, and many competing companies providing service over those networks. For example, I liked Sprint's network, but not their policies and attitude. With Boost, I can have the same Sprint network, but without the annoying nickel-and-dime policies, or service contracts. If I didn't like Boost's service, some Walmart Family Mobile phones also run on the same network. If I'd prefer a different network, several providers offer service on a different network.
That's the difference between a regulated monopoly (you can choose Comcast or Comcast) and unregulated competition (a dozen phone companies to choose from).
I'll never understand the appeal of completely making stuff up, just pulling something out of your butt, then believing it.
Google a patent troll? You realize Google's basic policy is that they never sue over patents. They eventually filed one case last year. Google has been strongly fighting against patent overreach since AT LEAST 2006. Before that also, but 2006 was the first thing that came up in five second search.
Why do you think they made Google Patents? Their whole goal has been to make the patent system more transparent and fair.
What do you think Google has a monopoly on? Mobile operating systems? Apple will be surprised to find out that iPhone doesn't exist. About a dozen other companies will also be surprised to learn their phones don't exist.
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
Oh, I know. You mean Google+, that's a monopoly on social networking, right? There's no such thing as Facebook, right? Does Google make the only smart TV? The only VoIP service? The only webmail service? In most of the markets Google competes in, there are several credible competitors and Google has less than 50% market share. That makes them the exact OPPOSITE of a monopoly.
Perhaps you just had no idea what the word "monopoly" means.
My wife has about 30 items on her baby registry at Target.com. Target doesn't know which of her friends will buy each item, but they can be pretty sure that most of them will be purchased. It would make sense for Target to go ahead and ship these items to the local store or distribution center and have them sitting by the loading dock.
When I worked at Sonic, we did a good job of starting a customer's order while they were in the turn lane, preparing to pull into the parking lot. Some customers were INDIVIDUALLY identified, including the lady who came by every morning on her way to work. Others were "profiled" - a truck full of construction workers at lunch time was almost always going to order some double meat jalapeno cheeseburgers. A minivan at dinner time driven by a mom-aged woman means get kid's meal packaging ready. Others were more general. Cars pulling in means we start cooking burger patties, toasting buns, and frying some fries.
Often, the food would finish cooking just as the customer was being read their total.
31 US Code 5103 is only a few sentences. Go read it . I never understood why people feel the need to invent imaginary lawyers to read for them and pronounce their guess as correct. Obviously you yourself can read - you read my post.
What 5103 says is that a debt paid with cash is a debt paid. In the case of your hypothetical bar, they couldn't have you charged with dine-and-dash or sue you. If they sued you, they'd be suing for $4 - the value of the drink. You already GAVE them $4.
Note that the bar COULD offer to trade drinks for bitcoins, and refuse to serve you if you offered cash. They don't have to sell you the DRINK for cash. However, if they sell you a drink on credit (running a tab) that's a debt you owe them. Debts are payable with US currency. That's 31 USC 5103.
> in any case it can be used as a precedent for making BC legal (legal as a chair vs pot).
Possessing pot is illegal because the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) says "it is a crime to posses marijuana". There is no such crime as "possession of chairs" or "possession of bitcoin". They are "legal" simply because there is no law saying otherwise. When the police arrest someone, they check off a box on the form indicating which crime they are arresting the person for. "Possession of bitcoin" (or chair) isn't on the form. It simply isn't there. In the statutes, there is no such crime.
The government selling chairs or bitcoin in no way makes it so that there is more "no such checkbox". No such crime existed last year, and no such crime exists this year. It's not more non-existent because the FBI holds yet another property auction.
Your copy and paste must be broken. Somehow your copy and paste from treasury.gov left out the sentence that says they have to accept cash as payment for something you owe them, like the meal check you're replying about. The part your copy-paste removed is:
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor."
If you walk in and say "I'll give you five dollars for a pizza" they can say "sorry, we're closed" or "pizza is $10" or "cash only" or "Paypal only". If you've already eaten the pizza and now it's time to pay the bill, that's a debt. When you hand them a $20 bill, they can't call the police and claim it's a dine-and-dash.
You're ignoring not only the key word in "legal tender for all debts", but also the key sentence is the very paragraph that you quoted. As you yourself quoted, legal tender is for "payment for debts when tendered to a creditor". Debts.. creditor. You don't have to sell me your car, not for credit, not for cash. If you already sold me your car and I still owe you $200 on it, THEN you have to accept cash. Once I hand you $200 cash, I've paid and you can't add on late charges saying I didn't pay because you don't accept cash. For DEBTS, you have to - a payment in cash is a payment of the debt.
You seem to be missing the important word - "debts". The phrase is "legal tender for all debts". If you walk into a convenience store and offer to buy a case of beer for $1 in currency, they can decide not to sell to you.
If you've already consumed a beer at a bar and you owe them $1, paying US currency (legal tender) absolves that debt. They can't claim you didn't pay your bill if you hand them legal tender. They CAN say "no credit cards for purchases under $10" because credit cards aren't legal tender.
You might say "but they don't have to accept a $100 bill to pay a $1 tab, do they? What if they don't have change?" They aren't required to have change on hand. They ARE required to accept US currency to pay an existing tab. So you can (legally) insist that they take your $100 to pay the $1 tab - you just can't insist on getting any change back.
In addition to debts, 5103 specifies that all taxes and government charges can be paid in US currency. Finally, it says that foreign currency is NOT legal tender in the US - I can choose to trade you a watermelon for 500 Jamaican dollars, but if you owe me $500, I don't HAVE to accept Jamaican dollars as payment. As the treasury site notes, I also don't HAVE to sell you the watermelon in exchange for US cash. The law only forces me to accept cash for a DEBT, for the case where you've already eaten the watermelon and now you need to pay for it.
The team that seized them will get credit for an $X million seizure. They can then say "for every $1 the FBI puts in our budget, they get $10 back." Followed "we'd like a budget increase of $3 million please. Remember, for every dollar you put in our budget, you get $10 back."
The agency I work for makes exactly that argument since we sell our services to other states. We bring in more money than we cost, meaning we are a net win for the taxpayer. Our budget doesn't get cut and my job is safe.
The government sells their surplus office chairs. Office chairs aren't tender.
The government sells radio channels. Radio channels aren't tender.
The government sells bitcoins. Bitcoins aren't tender.
Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept. If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.
Office chairs are not a tender because you can't force the restaurant to accept office chairs as payment. The fact that the government sells office chairs has nothing to do with it. They are still chairs, not money. The government can sell toys. Bitcoins are still toys, not money.
> One might also argue in future legal cases involving bitcoin that when the US Government > converted these bitcoins, at that point they acknowledged them as official legal tender,
One might also be an idiot. The government sells their surplus office chairs. Does that mean office chairs are legal tender?
Selling something has nothing whatsoever to do with it being legal tender. Legal tender is whatever you are REQUIRED to accept as payment for debt. You borrow$1,000 from me. I sue for non-payment. You say "I tried to pay him with $1,000 worth of chickens." I win, because you owed me $1,000, not 500 chickens. You say "I tried to pay him with a check". I say "we don't accept checks." I win. I don't have to accept checks. You say "I tried to pay him with ten $100 bills." You win, because US currency is legal tender for all debts, both public and private. It says so right on the bill. If you said "I tried to pay him 0.9 bitcoin, that would be exactly the same as saying "I tried to pay him chickens" - you owe dollars, not chickens or bitcoins.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah that was a toe-picking dumb statement.
FOSS helps "directly helps [others as] much as it helps us."
That's kind of the point - cooperation, helping others as well as yourself.
For fifteen years I haven't bought any proprietary software, except once. I contribute to several open source projects, and my name is in the kernel changelog, so I think I qualify as a FOSS advocate. This FOSS advocate thinks Stallman was smoking something when he said that, unless the quote was taken out of context.
> Except for the multiple paid versions of GCC compilers out there:
> http://www.mentor.com/embedded...
The product you linked to, Codebench lite, is neither proprietary, nor paid.
It's simply NOT a "paid version of GCC compiler", because it's not something you pay for - it's free and you can download the source.
That same company ALSO sells support services and an IDE. They don't sell a compiler.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Are you claiming that SNC is a GCC derivative? Citation? The wikipedia article mentions that they ship their compiler, which can be used INSTEAD OF the gcc-dereived compiler provided by the hardware manufacturer.
Thanks for contributing! I've contributed very little code directly to Debian, but it may well be like some open source projects where developers are expected to spend ten times as much time on a feature than it takes to submit a patch.
In Moodle, for example, I added a feature that took about two hours to develop a working patch. Just before submitting the patch, I became an official developer. Seven MONTHS later I was done with that two hour patch. First, I needed to document the proposal for the new feature, then get (documented) community feedback. I had to apply a huge list of style rules to the patch, covering things like variable naming standards, whitespace, etc. Then I needed the component owner to review it. He pointed out that while it complied with the CURRENT standards, it didn't use the newly developed APIs that were chosen for the upcoming release. I recoded it to use the upcoming standards, and some design changes the component owner wanted. This process involved rebasing against master at several times - any time someone else needed to look at it. The new feature required very minor tweaks to some existing classes. Since I had touched those classes, I needed to update those old classes to the new coding standards as well. Then the integrator pointed out I was missing the suites of unit tests, etc.
In all, a two hour patch submission turns out to be 80 hours when you do all of the "official developer" stuff like unit tests and all. So that's one distinction between a developer, who is on the hook for all of that stuff vs. a contributor who graciously submits code.
Please understand I'm in no way devaluing any contributions. For most open source projects, I contribute patches only. I now have a new appreciation for the committed developers who do the grinding work required to have my code integrated into a high quality project.
Ps - a LOT of what I mentioned above are tasks a non-programmer or newbie programmer can help with, if anyone is looking for ways to contribute to projects you enjoy or are interested in.
If the captcha is easy enough for humans, 1 in 256 random chance is fine for many applications. I've designed several very successful captcha systems used on thousands of sites. There are two reasons I say 1 / 256 is often fine.
First, let's consider one typical use case - blog spam. The spammer has a choice. He can spend this evening posting to 1,000 blogs with captchas, or the same amount of time post to 256,000 blogs without captchas. Which would you choose if you were a spammer? You choose the unprotected sites, of course. Sites without captchas get hundreds of times as much spam. Bad guys are by definition lazy, so they go after the low hanging fruit. Don't be low hanging fruit.
In other use cases, there may not be direct competition. Still, there's a cost / benefit analysis. Let's say it costs 1 penny of resources to register and use a snapchat account in a way the generates 12 cents in revenue. Multiply the cost by 256 and it's no longer profitable to abuse the service.
For most of our customers, the captcha is one part of a defense against brute force on the login screen. Assume that due to the other components of the system, you need 10,000 proxies to successfully brute force the login, because IPs banned after a dozen failed attempts. The captcha multiplies that by 256, so you now need over 2.5 MILLION proxies. I suspect that nobody has 2.5 million proxies to use. We have one of the largest lists of open proxies in the world, and even we don't have quite that many.
> I wanted to by a house and no credit history meant I couldn't get a mortgage loan.
If that's still an issue, or may be in the future, message me. I can give you the exact step-by-step plan I used for my mortgage. I even got to write my own mortgage documents, so it's assumable after it's 50% paid, I wrote the terms regarding late fees, etc.
> "I don't use credit so there is nothing to see" is no more valid than my
> "I don't talk about terrorist plots so I have nothing to hide" where phone calls or email are concerned.
It's entirely different. In the case of the NSA, there are thousands of records for every person. There IS data being stored about your daily activities. Someone might say that there isn't anything INTERESTING to see about them, but there most certainly is a LOT to see - all of their phone calls, for example.
For the credit reporting agency, there simply isn't any data there if you don't go around borrowing money. You can claim the NSA data about you isn't important, but it is collected. The credit data on me does not EXIST. It's literally nothing (beyond maybe a phone book listing). So you're comparing NOTHING, no data being collected, to a vast database of our daily activities. You're saying the NSA spying is equalivent to - literally - nothing.
Only if you choose to ask the furniture store to give you furniture without you paying for it can they pull your credit. If you ask them to front you some furniture, they can see what happened to other people who loaned you money. My credit report is almost empty, it lists a car loan and that's about it. Nobody sees my report because I don't go around asking people to let me spend money I don't have.
Contrast this with the government. They have thousands of records on me, every phone call I've ever made or received. All of my emails. There's no way to opt out. If I tried hard enough to get away from their prying, they have squadrons of heavily armed men to send after me.
See the difference?
You mean like the programs set up to deal with the drought in the 1930s which continue to cost billions of dollars in excessive food prices and waste farmer's resources?
I WISH government programs that were too expensive would be shut down.
I can't think of ANY significant federal programs that have been shut down.
> if you're suing somebody ... you have to "make your case" so to speak.
Until now. Now, if you sue an inventor the burden of proof is on the person being sued. The plaintiff is asking that the court proactively rule that nothing they ever did infringes on any of defendant's patents. SCOTUS ruled that the defendant now has the burden of proof, so they have to figure out which product plaintiff is concerned about, which patent it might infringe and how, or else the court rules that none of the products infringes any patents.
By analogy, it's the same as me petitioning the court to rule that I never stole anything from you. The court agrees, saying that unless you figure out the puzzle and guess what I stole and when, I'll be deemed innocent and you can't come after me later when you realize that your gold watch is missing.
Yep. If you sue someone, you have to prove your case.
Until now. Now, with this ruling, if you sue an inventor you don't have to prove anything. It's now up to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff did something wrong. This is insane.
> By deleting the info what the so-called 'security companies" are doing is to depriving the legitimate
> business owners a way to beef up their own security measures by learning from the mistakes of Target.
I can only guess that you didn't rtfa? Target's IP addresses, passwords, and other details are of little use to any legitimate business beefing up their own security. To secure YOUR network I need YOUR IP addresses, not Target's IP addresses.
They left the information about HOW Target was breached. They redacted victim-specific details like the IPs of specific vulnerable servers.
> Hackers already know the way to do it, or they
> wouldn't be able to break into Target's databases.
99.99% of hackers are not able to break into Target's databases. It would be good to keep it that way.
By deleting the info what the so-called 'security companies" are doing is to depriving the legitimate business owners a way to beef up their own security measures by learning from the mistakes of Target.
Comcast (in most areas) is a government enforced monopoly. That's precisely the opposite of free market.
On the other hand, I pay $30 / month for unlimited everything, no contract, on my cell phone because that's a free market -
if Boost Mobile annoys me, I can switch to Virgin mobile ($35 no contract), Walmart Family mobile ($35 no contract), T-Mobile, Cricket, Sprint,AT&T, Metro PCS, etc. etc.
"Cable is a natural monopoly", some people say. It is, in precisely the same way that phone service is. It's "inefficient" to have redundant towers owned by different companies.
Yet, that's how you get consumer choice. "The government should own the cables and companies provide customer service", some say. Funny, that's almost exactly what happens in the free market, except without the government bureaucracy, and with actual competition. US wireless service has a couple of networks using competing technology, and many competing companies providing service over those networks. For example, I liked Sprint's network, but not their policies and attitude. With Boost, I can have the same Sprint network, but without the annoying nickel-and-dime policies, or service contracts. If I didn't like Boost's service, some Walmart Family Mobile phones also run on the same network. If I'd prefer a different network, several providers offer service on a different network.
That's the difference between a regulated monopoly (you can choose Comcast or Comcast) and unregulated competition (a dozen phone companies to choose from).
I'll never understand the appeal of completely making stuff up, just pulling something out of your butt, then believing it.
Google a patent troll? You realize Google's basic policy is that they never sue over patents. They eventually filed one case last year. Google has been strongly fighting against patent overreach since AT LEAST 2006. Before that also, but 2006 was the first thing that came up in five second search.
Why do you think they made Google Patents? Their whole goal has been to make the patent system more transparent and fair.
What do you think Google has a monopoly on? Mobile operating systems? Apple will be surprised to find out that iPhone doesn't exist. About a dozen other companies will also be surprised to learn their phones don't exist.
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
Oh, I know. You mean Google+, that's a monopoly on social networking, right? There's no such thing as Facebook, right? Does Google make the only smart TV? The only VoIP service? The only webmail service? In most of the markets Google competes in, there are several credible competitors and Google has less than 50% market share. That makes them the exact OPPOSITE of a monopoly.
Perhaps you just had no idea what the word "monopoly" means.
My wife has about 30 items on her baby registry at Target.com. Target doesn't know which of her friends will buy each item, but they can be pretty sure that most of them will be purchased. It would make sense for Target to go ahead and ship these items to the local store or distribution center and have them sitting by the loading dock.
When I worked at Sonic, we did a good job of starting a customer's order while they were in the turn lane, preparing to pull into the parking lot. Some customers were INDIVIDUALLY identified, including the lady who came by every morning on her way to work. Others were "profiled" - a truck full of construction workers at lunch time was almost always going to order some double meat jalapeno cheeseburgers. A minivan at dinner time driven by a mom-aged woman means get kid's meal packaging ready. Others were more general. Cars pulling in means we start cooking burger patties, toasting buns, and frying some fries.
Often, the food would finish cooking just as the customer was being read their total.
The C code while() ends up running cpu microcode, as does for(), printf(), and all other C.
Thus, the microcode is run most often.
The microcode isn't written in assembler, it's written in micro-machine code, which is much lower level than assembler.
31 US Code 5103 is only a few sentences. Go read it .
I never understood why people feel the need to invent imaginary lawyers to read for them and pronounce their guess as correct. Obviously you yourself can read - you read my post.
What 5103 says is that a debt paid with cash is a debt paid. In the case of your hypothetical bar, they couldn't have you charged with dine-and-dash or sue you. If they sued you, they'd be suing for $4 - the value of the drink. You already GAVE them $4.
Note that the bar COULD offer to trade drinks for bitcoins, and refuse to serve you if you offered cash. They don't have to sell you the DRINK for cash. However, if they sell you a drink on credit (running a tab) that's a debt you owe them. Debts are payable with US currency. That's 31 USC 5103.
> in any case it can be used as a precedent for making BC legal (legal as a chair vs pot).
Possessing pot is illegal because the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) says "it is a crime to posses marijuana".
There is no such crime as "possession of chairs" or "possession of bitcoin". They are "legal" simply because there is no law
saying otherwise. When the police arrest someone, they check off a box on the form indicating which crime they are
arresting the person for. "Possession of bitcoin" (or chair) isn't on the form. It simply isn't there. In the statutes, there is
no such crime.
The government selling chairs or bitcoin in no way makes it so that there is more "no such checkbox".
No such crime existed last year, and no such crime exists this year. It's not more non-existent because
the FBI holds yet another property auction.
Your copy and paste must be broken. Somehow your copy and paste from treasury.gov left out the sentence that says they
have to accept cash as payment for something you owe them, like the meal check you're replying about. The part your
copy-paste removed is:
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor."
If you walk in and say "I'll give you five dollars for a pizza" they can say "sorry, we're closed" or "pizza is $10" or "cash only" or "Paypal only".
If you've already eaten the pizza and now it's time to pay the bill, that's a debt. When you hand them a $20 bill, they can't call the police and claim it's a dine-and-dash.
You're ignoring not only the key word in "legal tender for all debts", but also the key sentence is the very paragraph that you quoted. .. creditor. You don't have to sell
As you yourself quoted, legal tender is for "payment for debts when tendered to a creditor". Debts
me your car, not for credit, not for cash. If you already sold me your car and I still owe you $200 on it, THEN you have to accept cash.
Once I hand you $200 cash, I've paid and you can't add on late charges saying I didn't pay because you don't accept cash. For DEBTS,
you have to - a payment in cash is a payment of the debt.
You seem to be missing the important word - "debts". The phrase is "legal tender for all debts".
If you walk into a convenience store and offer to buy a case of beer for $1 in currency, they can decide not to sell to you.
If you've already consumed a beer at a bar and you owe them $1, paying US currency (legal tender) absolves that debt.
They can't claim you didn't pay your bill if you hand them legal tender. They CAN say "no credit cards for purchases under $10"
because credit cards aren't legal tender.
You might say "but they don't have to accept a $100 bill to pay a $1 tab, do they? What if they don't have change?"
They aren't required to have change on hand. They ARE required to accept US currency to pay an existing tab.
So you can (legally) insist that they take your $100 to pay the $1 tab - you just can't insist on getting any change back.
In addition to debts, 5103 specifies that all taxes and government charges can be paid in US currency.
Finally, it says that foreign currency is NOT legal tender in the US - I can choose to trade you a watermelon for 500 Jamaican dollars,
but if you owe me $500, I don't HAVE to accept Jamaican dollars as payment. As the treasury site notes, I also
don't HAVE to sell you the watermelon in exchange for US cash. The law only forces me to accept cash for a DEBT,
for the case where you've already eaten the watermelon and now you need to pay for it.
The team that seized them will get credit for an $X million seizure. They can then say "for every $1 the FBI puts in our budget, they get $10 back." Followed "we'd like a budget increase of $3 million please. Remember, for every dollar you put in our budget, you get $10 back."
The agency I work for makes exactly that argument since we sell our services to other states. We bring in more money than we cost, meaning we are a net win for the taxpayer. Our budget doesn't get cut and my job is safe.
The government sells their surplus office chairs.
Office chairs aren't tender.
The government sells radio channels.
Radio channels aren't tender.
The government sells bitcoins.
Bitcoins aren't tender.
Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept.
If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.
Office chairs are not a tender because you can't force the restaurant to accept office chairs as payment. The fact that the government sells office chairs has nothing to do with it. They are still chairs, not money. The government can sell toys. Bitcoins are still toys, not money.
> One might also argue in future legal cases involving bitcoin that when the US Government
> converted these bitcoins, at that point they acknowledged them as official legal tender,
One might also be an idiot. The government sells their surplus office chairs. Does that mean office chairs are legal tender?
Selling something has nothing whatsoever to do with it being legal tender.
Legal tender is whatever you are REQUIRED to accept as payment for debt. You borrow$1,000 from me. I sue for non-payment. You say "I tried to pay him with $1,000 worth of chickens." I win, because you owed me $1,000, not 500 chickens. You say "I tried to pay him with a check". I say "we don't accept checks." I win. I don't have to accept checks. You say "I tried to pay him with ten $100 bills." You win, because US currency is legal tender for all debts, both public and private. It says so right on the bill. If you said "I tried to pay him 0.9 bitcoin, that would be exactly the same as saying "I tried to pay him chickens" - you owe dollars, not chickens or bitcoins.