Except that decentralized digital cash is inherently flawed, since the tokens will always grow linearly in the number of transactions they are used for. In other digital cash systems, this problem is solved by having an issuing authority (bank, government, etc.) that accepts old tokens and issues fresh tokens. In the case of Bitcoin, no such authority exists, so the tokens are just going to keep getting bigger, and eventually they will be too large to be useful.
I don't think that's actually how it works. When a bitcoin is referred to in a transaction, I believe all that is specified is the ID of the source transaction, and the amount to use. I could be wrong.
Especially with the un-Patriot act, and all the storms in teacups with the "terrorists". Yes, it's time for congress to address the issue of privacy for private citizens
I'm confused. Because Congress has rampantly violated privacy, this gives them justification to go try to "protect" our privacy from others? Or do you feel that Congress' egregious violation of privacy rights makes them qualified as experts in the issue? I don't understand; I'm getting a complete non sequitur here. From where I sit, Congress doesn't know anything about privacy and shouldn't be trusted in the slightest with power to specify standards for privacy in other situations. This is a little bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.
Personally, I think it's an easy way for officials to look like they are "doing something" about a particularly heinous problem while the real child abusers may go completely free. We can probably catch hundreds of people who view such pornographic images, but the people who were actually physically involved in creating the images are not apprehended all that often. (It does happen, though -- there was a bust of a child porn ring in my area a few years back.)
Google homeschooling and unschooling and you'll find out. Buy him a copy of the Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn, and let him start plotting the path to get his own unique educational needs met.
Google the story of Art Robinson for more pointers. I'm sure Robinson's published materials would be beneath him, but the kid might love to try educating himself with some of Robinson's methods.
Bringing such a kid into a classroom would destroy him, just like it does every other kid. Having a popularity contest to decide who is going to make educational decisions for everybody else is an ineffective and suboptimal way to run a school system, especially for motivated and intelligent children.
So very true. I'm sure you're aware as I am that posting anti-copyright comments can get you modded down just as surely as posting pro-Microsoft and pro-IP comments. It depends on who is moderating. It probably depends on a lot of things, and a lot of people probably don't want to admit that to some extent it depends on comment quality.
I believe in the First Amendment. And I believe in the value of libraries funded collectively for the good of all. (Or at least all who will take advantage of them.) What I don't believe in is forcing people to use their money to fund the promulgation of books they disagree with. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in forcing people to fund a war they disagree with.
If you want a book available at a library, pay for it yourself. Don't demand that other people do it for you and then call it censorship if they don't.
You sound upset. I really think that maybe you would be happier if you'd turn off the news a bit more and get out and exercise or something. Take your kids.
In particular, it is news to me that the source of Android 3.0+ is not available. I have been considering learning Android development. It is useful to know what the situation is.
Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?
Is it about time to drop the idea of "rule of law" and replace it with "subjective decisions by authorities," then? Hail to the King!
Well, that's the idea, isn't it? The sum is more than the total of its parts. The sum value is far greater than the total effort that was put in, and because of this created value many, many people are able to benefit.
Thank you, Michael Hart, and many people like you, people with big contributions and people with small contributions. Thanks to the multiplying effects of your efforts, I have been greatly benefitting for many years, and thanks to your inspiration, I have contributed where I felt myself capable.
Demonstrate using the Logo turtle to draw graphics. Write simple programs. Maybe get the kids to pretend to be turtles and walk around the room following your instructions, or draw on the chalkboard following your instructions.
But somebody has to decide what risks children will or will not be subjected to. Life is inherently risky. And evaluating the risks of individual actions is always going to be somewhat subjective, somewhat open to debate. What's the risk of not taking Calculus? What's the risk of having a child at home instead of at the hospital?
You can let individual parents evaluate these risks, and we have a distributed solution to a distributed problem, constituting a gigantic data-collecting experiment that can provide massive amounts of feedback for those who make the decision after others.
Or you can let people vote on representatives who will make the decision for everybody. A lot of people seem to think that this voting process helps allow collective wisdom to intervene and make sure that truly insane decisions don't happen as often. For those who do believe that a popularity contest is a good way to make decisions, especially decisions about children, I encourage you to look over the last 43 Presidents of the United States and ask yourself how many of them were really winners. Judging by the last two or so, I'd say that even if majority rule did well a long time ago, it doesn't seem to have a very good track record in the present.
The headline makes it sound like this is a plan of the Chinese government, or a desire of the Chinese people as a whole. Instead, according to the article, it's an idea from two researchers at a Chinese university. It is just an idea at this stage, not something anybody has expressed a desire to do.
If it was "black people" or "the Jews" instead of "the Chinese," we would be offended by this headline. But since the Chinese government is unpopular in America, it's a good chance to take a subtle and unwarranted jab at "those crazy Chinese, who will probably kill us all."
That's right â" Steve Jobs, worth $5.1 billion, has no public record of philanthropy.
I am all for encouraging charitable giving, but this is not a respectful way to do it. This is attempting to impose a value judgment ("People should have a public record of philanthropy") rather than talking about why charitable giving is a good idea and why the potential donor might be interested.
Regardless of whether he has given or not, Steve Jobs has served the public admirably. He has created wonderful products that people are willing to pay for, so obviously his service must have been valuable to some people. We live in a Jetsons age thanks to Steve Jobs. I haven't even bought an Apple product in eight years, but I'm still benefiting from the impact his company's designs have had on the industry.
I think it would be spectacular if Steve's billions were now spent looking for a cure for the medical conditions that are plaguing him. Doing so might seem "selfish," but would in fact serve the public yet again. Extending Jobs' lifespan would be a wonderfully fitting reward for the valuable service he has already provided for the world.
And nobody's stopping anyone from doing everything on UTC. I know at least one person who sets his schedule that way.
I did that myself for several years. I liked it, overall, but it sometimes got confusing. The best thing was that it eliminated Daylight Saving Time!:)
You can still turn on the old style discussion system, although some of the alignment looks a little "unmaintained" to me. I forgot how I did it, but I turned it on a couple of weeks ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that decentralized digital cash is inherently flawed, since the tokens will always grow linearly in the number of transactions they are used for. In other digital cash systems, this problem is solved by having an issuing authority (bank, government, etc.) that accepts old tokens and issues fresh tokens. In the case of Bitcoin, no such authority exists, so the tokens are just going to keep getting bigger, and eventually they will be too large to be useful.
I don't think that's actually how it works. When a bitcoin is referred to in a transaction, I believe all that is specified is the ID of the source transaction, and the amount to use. I could be wrong.
The theory backing bitcoins is largely based on the (non-mainstream) ideas of Austrian economics
Actually, most Austrian economists I know disclaim bitcoin because it has not arisen from a good which had prior value.
Especially with the un-Patriot act, and all the storms in teacups with the "terrorists". Yes, it's time for congress to address the issue of privacy for private citizens
I'm confused. Because Congress has rampantly violated privacy, this gives them justification to go try to "protect" our privacy from others? Or do you feel that Congress' egregious violation of privacy rights makes them qualified as experts in the issue? I don't understand; I'm getting a complete non sequitur here. From where I sit, Congress doesn't know anything about privacy and shouldn't be trusted in the slightest with power to specify standards for privacy in other situations. This is a little bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
In our legal system, possession of child porn is considered to make the possessor culpable for the abuse of the child.
Personally, I think it's an easy way for officials to look like they are "doing something" about a particularly heinous problem while the real child abusers may go completely free. We can probably catch hundreds of people who view such pornographic images, but the people who were actually physically involved in creating the images are not apprehended all that often. (It does happen, though -- there was a bust of a child porn ring in my area a few years back.)
Sure, man can love a robot, no problem. Just have to build a robot that can do these things.
Google homeschooling and unschooling and you'll find out. Buy him a copy of the Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn, and let him start plotting the path to get his own unique educational needs met.
Google the story of Art Robinson for more pointers. I'm sure Robinson's published materials would be beneath him, but the kid might love to try educating himself with some of Robinson's methods.
Bringing such a kid into a classroom would destroy him, just like it does every other kid. Having a popularity contest to decide who is going to make educational decisions for everybody else is an ineffective and suboptimal way to run a school system, especially for motivated and intelligent children.
First I want to see a study where we find out if rights should even be decided by academics and studies, or not.
So very true. I'm sure you're aware as I am that posting anti-copyright comments can get you modded down just as surely as posting pro-Microsoft and pro-IP comments. It depends on who is moderating. It probably depends on a lot of things, and a lot of people probably don't want to admit that to some extent it depends on comment quality.
I believe in the First Amendment. And I believe in the value of libraries funded collectively for the good of all. (Or at least all who will take advantage of them.) What I don't believe in is forcing people to use their money to fund the promulgation of books they disagree with. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in forcing people to fund a war they disagree with.
If you want a book available at a library, pay for it yourself. Don't demand that other people do it for you and then call it censorship if they don't.
You sound upset. I really think that maybe you would be happier if you'd turn off the news a bit more and get out and exercise or something. Take your kids.
Many of us find RMS's concept of freedom useful.
In particular, it is news to me that the source of Android 3.0+ is not available. I have been considering learning Android development. It is useful to know what the situation is.
Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?
Is it about time to drop the idea of "rule of law" and replace it with "subjective decisions by authorities," then? Hail to the King!
they know they've won, we've announced our intentions to leave(surrender) and they attack almost daily
I vote for leaving. I don't care if it's a loss or not. I vote for leaving. I don't care if they think they've won or not. I vote for leaving.
Service is a duty
Likewise, fuck you for promoting slavery. People died to prevent us from having to give forced "service" as a "duty."
but to be honest I got more than I gave
Well, that's the idea, isn't it? The sum is more than the total of its parts. The sum value is far greater than the total effort that was put in, and because of this created value many, many people are able to benefit.
Thank you, Michael Hart, and many people like you, people with big contributions and people with small contributions. Thanks to the multiplying effects of your efforts, I have been greatly benefitting for many years, and thanks to your inspiration, I have contributed where I felt myself capable.
leaving us short-changed
Who is this "us" you speak of?
Demonstrate using the Logo turtle to draw graphics. Write simple programs. Maybe get the kids to pretend to be turtles and walk around the room following your instructions, or draw on the chalkboard following your instructions.
I'm sure Gosling will be laughing all the way to the bank, too.
Google buying this project seriously wouldn't surprise me. Or becoming a customer and purchasing the data.
But somebody has to decide what risks children will or will not be subjected to. Life is inherently risky. And evaluating the risks of individual actions is always going to be somewhat subjective, somewhat open to debate. What's the risk of not taking Calculus? What's the risk of having a child at home instead of at the hospital?
You can let individual parents evaluate these risks, and we have a distributed solution to a distributed problem, constituting a gigantic data-collecting experiment that can provide massive amounts of feedback for those who make the decision after others.
Or you can let people vote on representatives who will make the decision for everybody. A lot of people seem to think that this voting process helps allow collective wisdom to intervene and make sure that truly insane decisions don't happen as often. For those who do believe that a popularity contest is a good way to make decisions, especially decisions about children, I encourage you to look over the last 43 Presidents of the United States and ask yourself how many of them were really winners. Judging by the last two or so, I'd say that even if majority rule did well a long time ago, it doesn't seem to have a very good track record in the present.
The headline makes it sound like this is a plan of the Chinese government, or a desire of the Chinese people as a whole. Instead, according to the article, it's an idea from two researchers at a Chinese university. It is just an idea at this stage, not something anybody has expressed a desire to do.
If it was "black people" or "the Jews" instead of "the Chinese," we would be offended by this headline. But since the Chinese government is unpopular in America, it's a good chance to take a subtle and unwarranted jab at "those crazy Chinese, who will probably kill us all."
Now he's just doing Google Streetview underwater!
That's right â" Steve Jobs, worth $5.1 billion, has no public record of philanthropy.
I am all for encouraging charitable giving, but this is not a respectful way to do it. This is attempting to impose a value judgment ("People should have a public record of philanthropy") rather than talking about why charitable giving is a good idea and why the potential donor might be interested.
Regardless of whether he has given or not, Steve Jobs has served the public admirably. He has created wonderful products that people are willing to pay for, so obviously his service must have been valuable to some people. We live in a Jetsons age thanks to Steve Jobs. I haven't even bought an Apple product in eight years, but I'm still benefiting from the impact his company's designs have had on the industry.
I think it would be spectacular if Steve's billions were now spent looking for a cure for the medical conditions that are plaguing him. Doing so might seem "selfish," but would in fact serve the public yet again. Extending Jobs' lifespan would be a wonderfully fitting reward for the valuable service he has already provided for the world.
And nobody's stopping anyone from doing everything on UTC. I know at least one person who sets his schedule that way.
I did that myself for several years. I liked it, overall, but it sometimes got confusing. The best thing was that it eliminated Daylight Saving Time! :)
You can still turn on the old style discussion system, although some of the alignment looks a little "unmaintained" to me. I forgot how I did it, but I turned it on a couple of weeks ago.
What if I only want to extend my life by 2 years? Why is 3 years the quantum, here?