No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
Money is speech in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that education should be separate but equal, or that Dred Scott was property.
No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
Oops, that was supposed to be a response to The Cat (19816).
Money is speech in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that education should be separate but equal, or that Dred Scott was property.
No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
How is what he was doing different from printing a stock certificate?
If you are talking about the publicly traded variety of stock, you have to go through all sorts of government hoops (that link is just the tip of the iceberg) and get all manner of government approval. Bitcoin should not require any of that, for one because you are not possessing a share of equity in a large entity, but you are possessing one bit of something that has value in itself. Before going into what constitutes value, let's just stipulate that the Subjective Theory of Value applies here.
In other words, the physical Bitcoin is no different that tossing around serial numbered lug nuts, vs. tossing around shares of AC Automobile Corporation. At least it should be, but now the SEC is acting like this is their business.
Bitcoin, until now, is still an UNREGISTERED and totally UNRECOGNIZED entity, according to the laws of the United States of America (since it's the US treasury we are talking, let's limit the discussion to the US laws).
The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are telling a U.S. Senate committee that Bitcoins are legitimate financial instruments, boosting prospects for wider acceptance of the virtual currency.
Representatives from the agencies told the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ahead of a hearing Monday that the digital money offers benefits and carries risks, like any other online-payment system, according to letters they released before the meeting.
That was just last month and that is the problem. It truly puzzled me that the BTC community was all atwitter about US government recognition. If it was not recognized as a form of money by the feds, it would be no problem at all tossing about BTC denominated trinkets or trading them for anything else. Now that the fed nose is in the tent, the rest of the feds will follow.
You're not the one who gets to decide what is unacceptable; prospective employers do. If employers see something that is, to you, completely innocuous or just a tad embarrassing, and they find it offensive or unacceptable, it's not really going to matter how minor you believe it is. Using your real name is just stupid.
I keep getting published under my real name for my inflammatory views, but The Nation keeps ignoring me for a position as their libertarian columnist. Is that what you are talking about?
I always liked seeing the sign for Grace Hopper Park in Arlington, VA, in front of the apartment complex where she lived for years. Sadly, they did not put "Admiral" on the sign.
They're not infiltrating anything; some of the sharper razors there have scammed their PHB's into letting them play WoW all day and get paid for it....
Now THAT is a theory that meshes with my bureaucratic experience!
I thought there was a story a while back about the games communication channels (sorry, I am not a gamer so please forgive my terminology) being used by some actual terrorist types? No telling if it is true, of course, since it seems to be no more than security through obscurity, which is no security really. Anybody else recall anything of the like?
Lots of weird stuff happens with FBI, and other, cases and has been happening for years. A case I am researching now, from the early 1970s, the suspect (later plead guilty) had a fingerprint card with the US Army from the 1950s. He had another Army fingerprint card from 1971, under an alias. His first bomb exploded in a bank while he was in basic training, under the false enlistment. His fingerprints were all over the bank documents and bombs. His latent prints were not matched to his known prints until after the FBI linked the alias and address he used for renting the bank boxes to his real name. That linkage came from a mail forwarding card he left in Chicago, to forward his alias addressed mail to a boarding house in Berkeley, where he rented under his real name. Also, his US Army alias identity may not have been discovered if he had not gone AWOL and that card sent to the FBI because of that crime. He had an FBI file for at least three years before becoming a bombing suspect too.
This is the same FBI that was claiming it could match any latent print to a known, classified print in 3 minutes. Oh, also he was issued at least three passports, one under his real name and two under aliases. One was his US Army alias, using his US Army ID, and another under the alias he used in Los Angeles for the 14 years he escaped apprehension.
The patent specifically suggests using inferred income for targeting mortgage offers, which the Wikipedia article notes has been a ripe area for abuse: "Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable majority consumer whose business is more sought after"
That is even more of a stretch. The Facebook scheme is nothing more than presenting advertising to people based on viewing habits, not some scheme to deny people the opportunity to risk future treasure on real property.
Not sure how redlining applies here, seems like much of a stretch from the 1934 National Housing Act* proscribing to the FHA to create redlining three decades before it got that name, to displaying advertisements based on viewing habits.
I know this is a scary issue that needs to be properly addressed before I can't by a dummy car anymore (I'm currently 100% immune to remote hacking).
I also realize that the senator has an election to win in 11 months.
My vehicles are in the same category as yours. When I get that '72 Charger back on the road it might have some fancy stuff throughout the vehicle, but it will not have any go/stop systems that need to phone home for anything. Hopefully the government will stay out of my life enough to keep it that way too.
the US sank it and then pretended that they forgot where they sank it so that they didn't have to give it back and have the Soviets study it.
Had nothing to do with "giving it back".
The USA and USSR had an agreement during the War that they would share in the spoils of war (like this submarine), and the USA didn't want to turn two of them over to the USSR (because the USSR didn't enter the war against Japan until after the Nagasaki bombing, but more importantly because we didn't want the USSR to get any "free" technology transfers). The USSR was a land power and not a sea power, we wanted to keep things that way....
Which is all a bunch of diplomatic nonsense on top of diplomatic nonsense. The Soviets were suppose to do all sorts of things that they never followed through on, that is how Poland ended up enslaved by them and North Korea too.
I am happy to report that Google's YouTube branch is slightly better. I got an IP challenge for a video composed of short clips from multiple Bob Dylan interviews (it is amazing how often that guy got asked the same thing for over 42 years). I was actually able to challenge it both times, both currently under review. It was a little bit of a blurry process, since one challenge it was not immediately clear to me where I was using anything from "Bob Dylan-Conversation II", then I discovered that was another name for a Studs Terkel interview I was using a short clip from, from another source. BTW, all of the clips are credited on the video.
Anyway, hopefully the obvious fair use will prevail and anybody interested in what the guy has to say about himself can watch the thing.
Let's be honest here, OCZ customer service could never have been as bad as Toshiba.
I have never had a Toshiba warranty/customer service problem and all of my home computers have been Toshiba since the early 1990s. Even my first one, a used T-1100, they sent me a still shrink-wrapped fresh DOS copy when I needed it. My only gripes have been with places where I bought one, not with the manufacturer.
If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.
Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.
That was one of the rumors as to why the ban went into effect in the first place, "Big Telco" didn't like it. Never saw anything factual to support that theory,* just what people were saying, even the owners of the cell phone store where I worked briefly in the 1990s.
*Not that it can't be true, I just never saw any documentation supporting it, and I never really looked.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sokal affair was an academic exercise, comparing this to it is not adequate. On the other hand, indeed it's just like Jesux.
And this is a more direct link to it. The one in the article goes to Sokal's main page.
Bots need to catch up on their favorite shows too, you insensitive clod!
They sure seem to like my little old blogs. I am guessing 90% of my traffic is from stinking Vampirestat, 7secretsearch, and adsensewatchdog.
No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
Money is speech in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that education should be separate but equal, or that Dred Scott was property.
No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
Oops, that was supposed to be a response to The Cat (19816).
Money is speech in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that education should be separate but equal, or that Dred Scott was property.
No, spending money is speech. Coining money is covered in Article I of the Constitution. That said, people should be free to exchange in whatever they mutually define as money and save that dirty federal coined variety for the tax man.
More aptly, how is this different than printing out a paper wallet for a friend?
No different really, other than the jackboot of the SEC has not stomped on anybody's paper wallet yet, at least not that I am aware of.
How is what he was doing different from printing a stock certificate?
If you are talking about the publicly traded variety of stock, you have to go through all sorts of government hoops (that link is just the tip of the iceberg) and get all manner of government approval. Bitcoin should not require any of that, for one because you are not possessing a share of equity in a large entity, but you are possessing one bit of something that has value in itself. Before going into what constitutes value, let's just stipulate that the Subjective Theory of Value applies here.
In other words, the physical Bitcoin is no different that tossing around serial numbered lug nuts, vs. tossing around shares of AC Automobile Corporation. At least it should be, but now the SEC is acting like this is their business.
Well, that is not entirely accurate. Bitcoin gets Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission endorsements
That was just last month and that is the problem. It truly puzzled me that the BTC community was all atwitter about US government recognition. If it was not recognized as a form of money by the feds, it would be no problem at all tossing about BTC denominated trinkets or trading them for anything else. Now that the fed nose is in the tent, the rest of the feds will follow.
*published at The Freeman.
You're not the one who gets to decide what is unacceptable; prospective employers do. If employers see something that is, to you, completely innocuous or just a tad embarrassing, and they find it offensive or unacceptable, it's not really going to matter how minor you believe it is. Using your real name is just stupid.
I keep getting published under my real name for my inflammatory views, but The Nation keeps ignoring me for a position as their libertarian columnist. Is that what you are talking about?
You expect Americans to understand these subtle distinctions?
Those "subtle distinctions" are distinctions without a difference. Hong Kong's foreign policy comes directly from Beijing.
As does command of their military, since 1997.
Her Commodore/Admiral rank was only honorary.
No, it was not merely honorary. However, 40 of her degrees were (see same link).
I always liked seeing the sign for Grace Hopper Park in Arlington, VA, in front of the apartment complex where she lived for years. Sadly, they did not put "Admiral" on the sign.
They're not infiltrating anything; some of the sharper razors there have scammed their PHB's into letting them play WoW all day and get paid for it....
Now THAT is a theory that meshes with my bureaucratic experience!
I thought there was a story a while back about the games communication channels (sorry, I am not a gamer so please forgive my terminology) being used by some actual terrorist types? No telling if it is true, of course, since it seems to be no more than security through obscurity, which is no security really. Anybody else recall anything of the like?
Lots of weird stuff happens with FBI, and other, cases and has been happening for years. A case I am researching now, from the early 1970s, the suspect (later plead guilty) had a fingerprint card with the US Army from the 1950s. He had another Army fingerprint card from 1971, under an alias. His first bomb exploded in a bank while he was in basic training, under the false enlistment. His fingerprints were all over the bank documents and bombs. His latent prints were not matched to his known prints until after the FBI linked the alias and address he used for renting the bank boxes to his real name. That linkage came from a mail forwarding card he left in Chicago, to forward his alias addressed mail to a boarding house in Berkeley, where he rented under his real name. Also, his US Army alias identity may not have been discovered if he had not gone AWOL and that card sent to the FBI because of that crime. He had an FBI file for at least three years before becoming a bombing suspect too.
This is the same FBI that was claiming it could match any latent print to a known, classified print in 3 minutes. Oh, also he was issued at least three passports, one under his real name and two under aliases. One was his US Army alias, using his US Army ID, and another under the alias he used in Los Angeles for the 14 years he escaped apprehension.
One thing I am absolutely not arguing is the ridiculous notion that anything like this should be eligible for a patent at all.
The patent specifically suggests using inferred income for targeting mortgage offers, which the Wikipedia article notes has been a ripe area for abuse: "Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable majority consumer whose business is more sought after"
That is even more of a stretch. The Facebook scheme is nothing more than presenting advertising to people based on viewing habits, not some scheme to deny people the opportunity to risk future treasure on real property.
Not sure how redlining applies here, seems like much of a stretch from the 1934 National Housing Act* proscribing to the FHA to create redlining three decades before it got that name, to displaying advertisements based on viewing habits.
*See first paragraph in the History section of submitters link on redlining.
I know this is a scary issue that needs to be properly addressed before I can't by a dummy car anymore (I'm currently 100% immune to remote hacking).
I also realize that the senator has an election to win in 11 months.
My vehicles are in the same category as yours. When I get that '72 Charger back on the road it might have some fancy stuff throughout the vehicle, but it will not have any go/stop systems that need to phone home for anything. Hopefully the government will stay out of my life enough to keep it that way too.
North Korea was enslabed by ... a north korean dictator, or by China, but certainly not by Russia!
In 1945, who took the surrender of the Japanese in North Korea? Stalin's Soviets. Who was busy resuming a civil war in China? Mao.
Had nothing to do with "giving it back".
The USA and USSR had an agreement during the War that they would share in the spoils of war (like this submarine), and the USA didn't want to turn two of them over to the USSR (because the USSR didn't enter the war against Japan until after the Nagasaki bombing, but more importantly because we didn't want the USSR to get any "free" technology transfers). The USSR was a land power and not a sea power, we wanted to keep things that way....
Which is all a bunch of diplomatic nonsense on top of diplomatic nonsense. The Soviets were suppose to do all sorts of things that they never followed through on, that is how Poland ended up enslaved by them and North Korea too.
I am happy to report that Google's YouTube branch is slightly better. I got an IP challenge for a video composed of short clips from multiple Bob Dylan interviews (it is amazing how often that guy got asked the same thing for over 42 years). I was actually able to challenge it both times, both currently under review. It was a little bit of a blurry process, since one challenge it was not immediately clear to me where I was using anything from "Bob Dylan-Conversation II", then I discovered that was another name for a Studs Terkel interview I was using a short clip from, from another source. BTW, all of the clips are credited on the video.
Anyway, hopefully the obvious fair use will prevail and anybody interested in what the guy has to say about himself can watch the thing.
Let's be honest here, OCZ customer service could never have been as bad as Toshiba.
I have never had a Toshiba warranty/customer service problem and all of my home computers have been Toshiba since the early 1990s. Even my first one, a used T-1100, they sent me a still shrink-wrapped fresh DOS copy when I needed it. My only gripes have been with places where I bought one, not with the manufacturer.
If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.
Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.
That was one of the rumors as to why the ban went into effect in the first place, "Big Telco" didn't like it. Never saw anything factual to support that theory,* just what people were saying, even the owners of the cell phone store where I worked briefly in the 1990s.
*Not that it can't be true, I just never saw any documentation supporting it, and I never really looked.