That's not exactly right. You aren't producing the bitcoins, the chain is. You're simply awarded bitcoins for doing work. Not once in this transaction do you ever actually create the coins. Besides, bitcoins are being made a a far slower rate than the USD or Euro.
That actually sounds like it could be a good idea, as long as you don't give it directly to the teachers/professors. I can see too many of them going "reading the book is worth n% of your final grade". I'm not sure I could actually support that.
What if I'm already in the highest level classes I can take, but I need the degree to move on? Granted, I've always found the actual class part engaging. I just rarely need the book.
Who said anything about president? And there is the real problem, the people are only looking at the president, but when it comes to the people in the house/senate, they just vote for the guy who has the right letter behind them. Remember kids, the president doesn't make the laws. Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.
You know, if drugs and other victimless crimes were legalized, we wouldn't have to worry about whether they were communicating about it secretly, would we? I know you think you're advocating helping good law enforcement, but unnecessary spying seems, well... unnecessary. Someone below used a Ben Franklin quote, and I think I'll use another. "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Personally, I'd rather have a few more drug dealers around than have to worry about how many agencies could be spying on me for my "protection".
Value is based *only* on what people are willing to pay for it. If the algorithm says it's worth $1000, but you can't get anybody to pay $1000 for it, guess what? It isn't worth $1000.
So, are you saying that bitcoins are impervious to normal market forces? Strangely, that's what people suggested about the things on that list. (Remember "too big to fail"?) Everything falls. Period. People get very rich knowing when the thing will fall.
This is true. They would most definitely call the same level of frequencies pink when communicating with us. It is also possible that their brains could interpret some wavelengths in the ultraviolet spectrum as the same color they see when we call it pink. Therefore, if they saw a unicorn that reflected that wavelength and attempted to explain it to us they could say, "the unicorn is pink, but you can't see it." This would still fit the definition of "invisible pink unicorn."
What if, instead of reflecting visible light, it reflected ultraviolet light? And what if, animals who are equipped to see ultraviolet light see it as what we call pink? This could satisfy both the invisible and pink requirements. (Biblical literalist thinking in action)
Both username and password are something you know. Perhaps you can claim the username is something you have, but I'm pretty certain they mean physically with that. Also, I think it has to have two of the three things (ie. Something you know and something you have as opposed to two things you know). I may be wrong, but I think that's how it's measured...
I must admit, I admire the amount of dedication you've shown by placing almost all the responses to your copypasta *into* the copypasta.
But in the same vein, I hate myself because I read them all...
So, you're saying that France should be able to file random requests against speech they don't like on twitter until they randomly hit on somebody from France? Seems like something that could be easily abused, don't you think?
The internet's a bad neighborhood. If you're in a bad neighborhood and don't lock your doors, then you do deserve some of the blame. Yes, the people that actually did it are horrible and should never have done it, but you knew where you were, and you knew the potential consequences for leaving your door unlocked.
I think that statement stands pretty well. I'm thinking Mozilla would be more than happy to allow adblockers into the addons section for Firefox Android.
I think you're misunderstanding the system the propose. Essentially, both Amazon and Apple want to create the same type of marketplace in the digital realm as currently exist in the physical one. It won't be "sell one copy to Amazon and they copy and sell that one infinitely". The system they're proposing would create the artificial scarcity needed for a second hand market. It will be, I buy a book from Amazon (who will send royalties to you), when I don't want the book anymore, *I'll* sell it to someone else, with no more access to the material myself. There are no more copies created, just a license moving around. At the same time Amazon will continue selling the "new" books alongside the "used" ones, but they will have a finite supply of "used" ones (only however many people decide to sell theirs at that exact time). Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it.
As apposed to the situation now?
While I honestly can't figure out what the purpose of used digital goods would be, they certainly won't harm anybody. There's already a huge market of "used" digital goods out there today on various sites. So, then, why would I buy a "used" copy for $3 when I can go to TPB and get a copy for $0?
It seems unlikely. Fragmentation is the natural state of things in general. Spoken language constantly changing, fragmenting in new and fun ways. When computers stop fragmenting, it'll be because one group (most likely with government approval) controls the entire chain, and no other groups/people/companies are allowed to contribute to the computer world without approval. If it ever happens, the real productive work will have effectively ended...
I disagree. Put a large enough Excel spreadsheet and try to perform calculations on it. That kind of work even taxes modern i3-i7 systems. The people at my workplace that do the most with Excel and the like have proper workstations with Xeons in them. The rest simply wish they did.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not exactly right. You aren't producing the bitcoins, the chain is. You're simply awarded bitcoins for doing work. Not once in this transaction do you ever actually create the coins. Besides, bitcoins are being made a a far slower rate than the USD or Euro.
So you're saying we should all run FSF approved operating systems?
That actually sounds like it could be a good idea, as long as you don't give it directly to the teachers/professors. I can see too many of them going "reading the book is worth n% of your final grade". I'm not sure I could actually support that.
What if I'm already in the highest level classes I can take, but I need the degree to move on? Granted, I've always found the actual class part engaging. I just rarely need the book.
And yet, I understood every word of that. Clear definitions are only useful if everybody agrees on them.
Who said anything about president? And there is the real problem, the people are only looking at the president, but when it comes to the people in the house/senate, they just vote for the guy who has the right letter behind them. Remember kids, the president doesn't make the laws. Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.
This seems like it would be pretty easy to route around. Just don't patent it. (Apparently FLOSS really is the way we want to do things these days)
You know, if drugs and other victimless crimes were legalized, we wouldn't have to worry about whether they were communicating about it secretly, would we? I know you think you're advocating helping good law enforcement, but unnecessary spying seems, well... unnecessary. Someone below used a Ben Franklin quote, and I think I'll use another. "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Personally, I'd rather have a few more drug dealers around than have to worry about how many agencies could be spying on me for my "protection".
Yes... So do I get to be a biblical literalist now?
Value is based *only* on what people are willing to pay for it. If the algorithm says it's worth $1000, but you can't get anybody to pay $1000 for it, guess what? It isn't worth $1000.
So, are you saying that bitcoins are impervious to normal market forces? Strangely, that's what people suggested about the things on that list. (Remember "too big to fail"?) Everything falls. Period. People get very rich knowing when the thing will fall.
This is true. They would most definitely call the same level of frequencies pink when communicating with us. It is also possible that their brains could interpret some wavelengths in the ultraviolet spectrum as the same color they see when we call it pink. Therefore, if they saw a unicorn that reflected that wavelength and attempted to explain it to us they could say, "the unicorn is pink, but you can't see it." This would still fit the definition of "invisible pink unicorn."
Perhaps this is true of Baptists, but I can say from experience that Methodists share no such compulsion.
What if, instead of reflecting visible light, it reflected ultraviolet light? And what if, animals who are equipped to see ultraviolet light see it as what we call pink? This could satisfy both the invisible and pink requirements. (Biblical literalist thinking in action)
Both username and password are something you know. Perhaps you can claim the username is something you have, but I'm pretty certain they mean physically with that. Also, I think it has to have two of the three things (ie. Something you know and something you have as opposed to two things you know). I may be wrong, but I think that's how it's measured...
I must admit, I admire the amount of dedication you've shown by placing almost all the responses to your copypasta *into* the copypasta. But in the same vein, I hate myself because I read them all...
So, you're saying that France should be able to file random requests against speech they don't like on twitter until they randomly hit on somebody from France? Seems like something that could be easily abused, don't you think?
The internet's a bad neighborhood. If you're in a bad neighborhood and don't lock your doors, then you do deserve some of the blame. Yes, the people that actually did it are horrible and should never have done it, but you knew where you were, and you knew the potential consequences for leaving your door unlocked.
Methinks you might not know what "amoral" means....
I think that statement stands pretty well. I'm thinking Mozilla would be more than happy to allow adblockers into the addons section for Firefox Android.
I think you're misunderstanding the system the propose. Essentially, both Amazon and Apple want to create the same type of marketplace in the digital realm as currently exist in the physical one. It won't be "sell one copy to Amazon and they copy and sell that one infinitely". The system they're proposing would create the artificial scarcity needed for a second hand market. It will be, I buy a book from Amazon (who will send royalties to you), when I don't want the book anymore, *I'll* sell it to someone else, with no more access to the material myself. There are no more copies created, just a license moving around. At the same time Amazon will continue selling the "new" books alongside the "used" ones, but they will have a finite supply of "used" ones (only however many people decide to sell theirs at that exact time). Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it.
As apposed to the situation now? While I honestly can't figure out what the purpose of used digital goods would be, they certainly won't harm anybody. There's already a huge market of "used" digital goods out there today on various sites. So, then, why would I buy a "used" copy for $3 when I can go to TPB and get a copy for $0?
It seems unlikely. Fragmentation is the natural state of things in general. Spoken language constantly changing, fragmenting in new and fun ways. When computers stop fragmenting, it'll be because one group (most likely with government approval) controls the entire chain, and no other groups/people/companies are allowed to contribute to the computer world without approval. If it ever happens, the real productive work will have effectively ended...
True, but we really don't have much choice in the matter. Too many policies getting in the way (both ours and our sources).
I disagree. Put a large enough Excel spreadsheet and try to perform calculations on it. That kind of work even taxes modern i3-i7 systems. The people at my workplace that do the most with Excel and the like have proper workstations with Xeons in them. The rest simply wish they did.