Yeah. Because a currency that is infinitely reproducible without any "artificial" limitation would be so useful. Try another unsubstantiated personal attack - maybe you'll have better luck with that one.
Yeah. Sorta like the early miners in the goldrush got all the advantage. Sorta like the first people to register domain names made out like bandits when this interweb thing took off. Your point?
That's known as the "first mover advantage". It doesn't make anything it applies to a pyramid scheme.
If people expect Bitcoin to catch on then that means there's going to be a lot more people mining
Why? You don't have to mine gold to engage in transactions using a gold-backed currency. Why would uptake of BitCoins results in an increase in mining? The opposite should happen - as mining continues, it gets increasingly harder to find new BitCoins, meaning the profit margin of mining operations continually drops. Sooner or later, it's going to drop to zero until some new technology (quantum computing, worldwide cheap energy, etc) comes along.
The usual reason given for privatizing is the old canard "the private corporations can do this at a much lower cost".
That's one of the reasons. The other is that, since the government has extraordinary powers (the ability to arbitrarily take what it wants from its citizens, imprison them, execute them), any tasks that do not require those extraordinary powers should not be performed by the government, in order to reduce the ability to abuse those powers.
Most of the problems you iterate only come about if you privatize a monopoly (indispensibility, keeping costs down, etc); monopolies are going to be problematic, regardless of whether they're private or public.
You can not trust every single piece of code you see while at the same time reusing other people's code, it's naive to make the leap of logic you did.
And I never said you did; the leap of "logic" was on the part of the GP, not me. He said, and I paraphrase, if you install code you haven't reviewed, you deserve whatever you get. I said that, sooner or later, you must trust some code, not that every random piece of code is worthy of trust.
And in this case, it's quite possible that people did perform a review of this plugin; after all, it hasn't been spamming the whole time it's been available. They performed an update on their plugin without vetting the update. Sure, that's not best practice, but I do the same thing on my personal computer at home all the time, even if I don't do it on my production systems. If I hosted a podunk little blog on Wordpress? I probably wouldn't vet every "security patch" for every plugin I used either.
GP is a great big case of "blame the victim" mentality. Someone was malicious. They deliberately inserted malicious code into a trusted repository.
I know! We'll write everything in-house instead! Once I've got my custom language compiling, I'll start work on the relational database engine. We should have the site finished some time in 2030.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to trust someone else's code. I guarantee you, whatever projects you work on, you're using someone else's code for something, and probably sight-unseen.
The idea of laws applying equally to everyone is a HUGE DEAL. It's the practical application of the whole "all men are created equal" thing.
Yeah, which the OP said - it is one aspect of justice. The others are, of course, that that universal law must itself be just. Also, that it be universally applied before it gets to the courtroom (no selective enforcement).
"Libertarian" covers a whole gamut of political opinions, ranging from anarcho-capitalists (think Ayn Rand) to anarcho-communism (abolishing of private property), weaving between straight up-anarchists (no rules) and closer-to-mainstream minarchists (less rules). It's largely a meaningless term, unless further qualified.
Minarchists (what the GP is most probably referring to) generally enumerate the functions government should provide, and limit regulations to those functions. Which particular functions they believe government should provide varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but often includes things like military, border security, justice and police, contract enforcement, responsibility for the commons, and regulation of natural monopolies (roughly in order from most accepted to least).
Patents and copyrights have different rules, and different issues. The never-expiring issue is copyrights; the problem with patents is the massive increase in scope, and lowering of the bar, of what can be patented, so that now, even obvious and trivial modifications result in being granted a monopoly.
Or why their "always on" DRM doesn't give them enough control nip this in the bud. Unless, of course, they don't add the DRM until just before it goes to market, because it makes it too much of a PITA to develop/test with (but not enough of a PITA that consumers can't be expected to put up with it, naturally)
What other functional use does it have? Please think carefully, because I hear baseball bats are actually no good for doing things like opening locks, unjamming factory mechanisms from across the room, closing doors, fixing cars, and a host of other silly, jackass things movie makers have actors pretend to do with baseball bats, but the simple fact is the only thing a baseball bat is good at is killing another living being.
But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement.
I don't buy that. If police involvement ruins lives, then it is entirely and directly the screwed up so-called justice process that is to blame. Calling in the authorities is what you're supposed to do when there's a crime. Your supposed to put your faith in due process and the judicial system; that's not the problem. The problem is that that faith is entirely misplaced.
Not informing authorities doesn't fix the root of the problem; it just shifts the burden of dealing with it onto private individuals with far less experience, and fewer resources. It's unlikely this will result in a just outcome.
Pity it didn't see fit to step between Aaron Swartz and Cameron Ortiz. It's that double-standard that inspires vigilatism. People don't want vigilante justice. But when it's the only sort on the table, they'll take it.
False. Vigilante justice rarely if ever determines if a person is innocent before coming down with full force.
You can test this for yourself. Have your friends report you for kiddy porn in a completely unfounded way and watch hilarity ensue as you're put through months of shit. If you're lucky enough they'll put you straight on the sex offender list and inform your neighbourhood and THEN investigate your case.
The hilarious thing is, the example you quote isn't vigilante justice - it's what passes for official justice. It's not a case of vigilante justice being wrong, and due process being right - it's a case of due process being indistinguishable from knee-jerk crowd-mentality mob justice.
Because there are other false gods. Genesis was written much after the event; a recording of a previously oral tradition. At the point that it was written, the Hebrews were surrounded by other people, with other gods.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no. Some random slashdotter doesn't consider it legitimate. Whatever, you're probably not a true Scotsman anyway.
Yeah. Because a currency that is infinitely reproducible without any "artificial" limitation would be so useful. Try another unsubstantiated personal attack - maybe you'll have better luck with that one.
Yeah. Sorta like the early miners in the goldrush got all the advantage. Sorta like the first people to register domain names made out like bandits when this interweb thing took off. Your point?
That's known as the "first mover advantage". It doesn't make anything it applies to a pyramid scheme.
What's the cost of electricity usage for that beast over 9 months?
If people expect Bitcoin to catch on then that means there's going to be a lot more people mining
Why? You don't have to mine gold to engage in transactions using a gold-backed currency. Why would uptake of BitCoins results in an increase in mining? The opposite should happen - as mining continues, it gets increasingly harder to find new BitCoins, meaning the profit margin of mining operations continually drops. Sooner or later, it's going to drop to zero until some new technology (quantum computing, worldwide cheap energy, etc) comes along.
The usual reason given for privatizing is the old canard "the private corporations can do this at a much lower cost".
That's one of the reasons. The other is that, since the government has extraordinary powers (the ability to arbitrarily take what it wants from its citizens, imprison them, execute them), any tasks that do not require those extraordinary powers should not be performed by the government, in order to reduce the ability to abuse those powers.
Most of the problems you iterate only come about if you privatize a monopoly (indispensibility, keeping costs down, etc); monopolies are going to be problematic, regardless of whether they're private or public.
GP made no such qualification. He was speaking in general about how stupid it was to reuse code you hadn't written yourself.
You can not trust every single piece of code you see while at the same time reusing other people's code, it's naive to make the leap of logic you did.
And I never said you did; the leap of "logic" was on the part of the GP, not me. He said, and I paraphrase, if you install code you haven't reviewed, you deserve whatever you get. I said that, sooner or later, you must trust some code, not that every random piece of code is worthy of trust.
And in this case, it's quite possible that people did perform a review of this plugin; after all, it hasn't been spamming the whole time it's been available. They performed an update on their plugin without vetting the update. Sure, that's not best practice, but I do the same thing on my personal computer at home all the time, even if I don't do it on my production systems. If I hosted a podunk little blog on Wordpress? I probably wouldn't vet every "security patch" for every plugin I used either.
GP is a great big case of "blame the victim" mentality. Someone was malicious. They deliberately inserted malicious code into a trusted repository.
I know! We'll write everything in-house instead! Once I've got my custom language compiling, I'll start work on the relational database engine. We should have the site finished some time in 2030.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to trust someone else's code. I guarantee you, whatever projects you work on, you're using someone else's code for something, and probably sight-unseen.
The idea of laws applying equally to everyone is a HUGE DEAL. It's the practical application of the whole "all men are created equal" thing.
Yeah, which the OP said - it is one aspect of justice. The others are, of course, that that universal law must itself be just. Also, that it be universally applied before it gets to the courtroom (no selective enforcement).
"Libertarian" covers a whole gamut of political opinions, ranging from anarcho-capitalists (think Ayn Rand) to anarcho-communism (abolishing of private property), weaving between straight up-anarchists (no rules) and closer-to-mainstream minarchists (less rules). It's largely a meaningless term, unless further qualified.
Minarchists (what the GP is most probably referring to) generally enumerate the functions government should provide, and limit regulations to those functions. Which particular functions they believe government should provide varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but often includes things like military, border security, justice and police, contract enforcement, responsibility for the commons, and regulation of natural monopolies (roughly in order from most accepted to least).
Patents and copyrights have different rules, and different issues. The never-expiring issue is copyrights; the problem with patents is the massive increase in scope, and lowering of the bar, of what can be patented, so that now, even obvious and trivial modifications result in being granted a monopoly.
Any confidently-stated opinion is indistinguishable from fact
We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality
Only if you buy Apple. This is what you get when you buy into a system with a gatekeeper. Stuff gets kept out.
Except that for previous even more graphic heterosexual content in the same comic, they didn't.
Or why their "always on" DRM doesn't give them enough control nip this in the bud. Unless, of course, they don't add the DRM until just before it goes to market, because it makes it too much of a PITA to develop/test with (but not enough of a PITA that consumers can't be expected to put up with it, naturally)
Check the gender of the people doing the sending first.
Oh no! You mean we'll have to start supporting multiple browsers? What a shock. We should go back to the utopian days of web monoculture and IE6.
In America, the people vote in their representatives.
From a pool presented to them by the major parties, who take their cues from large corporations.
And, they might help write the law because they are the de facto experts on it.
And Al Capone was a de facto expert on customs excise and taxation.
What other functional use does it have? Please think carefully, because I hear baseball bats are actually no good for doing things like opening locks, unjamming factory mechanisms from across the room, closing doors, fixing cars, and a host of other silly, jackass things movie makers have actors pretend to do with baseball bats, but the simple fact is the only thing a baseball bat is good at is killing another living being.
Outlaw baseball bats!
But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement.
I don't buy that. If police involvement ruins lives, then it is entirely and directly the screwed up so-called justice process that is to blame. Calling in the authorities is what you're supposed to do when there's a crime. Your supposed to put your faith in due process and the judicial system; that's not the problem. The problem is that that faith is entirely misplaced.
Not informing authorities doesn't fix the root of the problem; it just shifts the burden of dealing with it onto private individuals with far less experience, and fewer resources. It's unlikely this will result in a just outcome.
Pity it didn't see fit to step between Aaron Swartz and Cameron Ortiz. It's that double-standard that inspires vigilatism. People don't want vigilante justice. But when it's the only sort on the table, they'll take it.
False. Vigilante justice rarely if ever determines if a person is innocent before coming down with full force.
You can test this for yourself. Have your friends report you for kiddy porn in a completely unfounded way and watch hilarity ensue as you're put through months of shit. If you're lucky enough they'll put you straight on the sex offender list and inform your neighbourhood and THEN investigate your case.
The hilarious thing is, the example you quote isn't vigilante justice - it's what passes for official justice. It's not a case of vigilante justice being wrong, and due process being right - it's a case of due process being indistinguishable from knee-jerk crowd-mentality mob justice.
Chapter one does not specify that.
Because there are other false gods. Genesis was written much after the event; a recording of a previously oral tradition. At the point that it was written, the Hebrews were surrounded by other people, with other gods.