I think you missed my point: it is cost competitive with existing, competitive solutions.
It gets even more competitive when you already have a quantity of bitcoins or don't plan on withdrawing them from an ATM, or when comparing with international rates for services like Paypal.
In most states recording a conversation is a felony without the other party knowing and agreeing to it
If by most, you mean "twelve": California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
You sell things on eBay. You have a Paypal account that can accept credit cards. When you sell you item, you pay Paypal 2.9% + $0.30 for merchant fees.
Or, you sell things on eBay. You accept BitCoin. When you pull the money out of the ATM, you pay 1% + $1.50.
For a $100 item, BitCoin costs you $2.50 and Paypal costs you $3.20.
I've seen where some of the sites that accept and trade bitcoins were hacked, but AFAIK the bitcoin system itself has never been hacked. Many, many more dollar and euro based websites are hacked, and dollars are printed freely even in countries that aren't supposed to print them (the dollar "system" has been hacked).
Meh. I guess. But then why doesn't rape or torture carry the death penalty? Who cares who is the worst guy in the room when you are sitting in hell? Pissing contest in a rainstorm? Any other funny analogies?
I know some people who went to jail, and they also used drugs - but most people use drugs. I can't say whether there is any correlation.
I will say that some people just don't function very well when addicted. I've seen alcohol completely destroy lives. I've seen a person destroyed by, and then remarkably recover from, a heroin addiction. I've seen some people use drugs recreationally forever and not seem to suffer for it (other than looking 50 when they are 35). I think it is very personality-dependent. I think I'd have to defer to statistics, of which I have none:)
In any case, crime is only a small portion of my argument. My wife works in health care and sees what drugs do to health on a regular basis. The counter-argument is that these people will die earlier and not use as many healthcare dollars overall - but of course if they were drug-free and productive the whole time they might not be using charity care in the first place.
You also have intoxicated people on the roads, operating machinery, building and designing infrastructure, etc. There are ways to deal with these areas of concern (drug tests, etc), but there is no denying that it costs society. We would be much better off without drug addiction, but then we would also be better off without murder and that isn't going anywhere either.
If the drugs were legal they would be far cheaper and people wouldn't need to steal to support their habit.
Let's say we let the drug price fall to the natural price, effects be damned. I'm not certain that you are correct that people would not need to steal. How is a junkie making a living? Certainly a long-time heroin user is not holding down a job? Wouldn't the junkie just need to steal less?
But even if I accept your reasoning, it wouldn't help the public health problems created by drug use.
And of course there is the social burden of millions of additional drug addicts.
You are right, a partnership is sort of like a corporation - but the partners still have full liability for their actions. If the partnership were to default, then the debtor would come after the partners.
I agree. All the billions we spend on trying to eradicate drugs, and all we accomplish is pushing the street price up. At some point you have to ask if what you are trying to do is even possible... are our goals even realistic? I have come to realize that no matter what the arguments are for or against, a reasonable person has to conclude that we are not going to eradicate drugs - the best we can hope for is reducing the problem.
At that point, you might as well make "reducing the problem" the goal instead of "stopping the problem". We can keep the street price high with taxes and keep use lower with education and rehab programs financed with the tax.
If someone wants to shoot heroin, let him shoot heroin. Your drug use is not my business.
I agree with you as an ideal, but realistically we do need to worry about drug users. Yes, you can throw them in jail when they steal, but then you have a large portion of society in jail - which does affect me, both in taxes to keep people in jail and in lost productivity dragging down society as a whole (this is the situation now, BTW). But also there is the issue of disease, which tends to thrive in drug communities. Tuberculosis would be all but eradicated by now if not for drug use.
I'm certainly open to something "radical" like you propose - but I don't pretend to be smart or knowledgeable enough to know the answers.
I know that I want the NY Times to exist with free speech rights.
I know that I don't want corporations to be allowed to lobby or get involved in the political sphere.
Those are two things that are very hard to reconcile, but I think it must be possible.
One idea I have is this: corporations should only be allowed to advertise a product that they sell. If the NY Times wants to publish a newspaper that endorses a certain candidate, that's fine. They also can advertise said newspaper. But Purina cannot sell puppy chow and then buy commercial airtime or ads that "educate" the consumer about a politician.
Lobbying is easy - just forbid it. The only problem with this is that it puts lobbying strictly in the hands of the rich, so it might not make any difference at all (since the rich tend to own corporations). You can't forbid lobbying altogether, since it will certainly happen anyway and then it would be opaque.
I would also argue that the ramifications of the latter are far worse than the former.
I would argue that they are almost the same thing... a corporation is just an extension of government. It gets it's charter from the government, and it can only exist because of government. The government can make almost completely arbitrary rules to regulate the corporation, and in fact the very laws that create the corporation are themselves a form of regulation.
Then the corporation uses a portion of it's revenue to lobby the government. This is similar to the way that government-funded and government-mandated public unions use a portion of their revenue to lobby the government. In my opinion we need to cut off this kind of feedback cycle... it leads to exactly the kind of problems that you describe.
--Nope. With RAIDZ, you can add (2) same-sized extra disks at a time to the pool and expand it almost automagically; with RAIDZ2 I'll have to test the theory in a VM, but I believe you can add (1) disk at a time to expand it.
If that is indeed possible, you will lose the 2-disk redundancy since a large disk could fail and the smaller disks can't replicate it. I could see how it would work with the formula being: new_disks = 1 + level_of_redundancy. So in your case, if you wanted to expand your array (by replacing) you would need to buy 3 disks.
--I've already jacked in an extra PCI-E 4-port SATA controller; if I wanted to expand, I could just buy +1 extra SATA controller and 4x2TB disks, and copy everything over (or create the 4x2TB pool on another box that has the SATA ports.) It might be worth doing just with a PCBSD live-dvd over the network.:-)// mental note: buy another UPS to handle all these disks...:b
Yes, I think you are right. Probably by the time I need to expand, I'll just build a whole new box. At the most I'll probably upgrade it once (and just toss the older 300 and 400GB drives). Expansion turns out to be not all that important of a consideration.
No, it can't. Unless you are on the Canadian/Mexican border or something, there is no such thing as roaming charges on T-Mobile, prepay or post-pay. All they do is limit the amount of data you can use when roaming:
Will I be charged for domestic data roaming?
No, T-Mobile does not charge for domestic data roaming. However, once your domestic data roaming allotment has been reached your data services will be unavailable until you return to a T-Mobile coverage area, your bill cycle starts over or you increase your data plan. If you have a Wi-Fi capable device, you may use Wi-Fi to access unlimited data.
TRS-80 was probably the first single company with significant market share. Atari briefly rose to challenge them, along with Apple. Then Commodore and the PC dominated growth until the PC finally dominated everything else in the early 80s.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - hell, if it is mission critical you probably want redundant microphones.
I think you missed my point: it is cost competitive with existing, competitive solutions.
It gets even more competitive when you already have a quantity of bitcoins or don't plan on withdrawing them from an ATM, or when comparing with international rates for services like Paypal.
Ripping someone off and then hiding is age-old. We call them con-men, grifters, etc. They almost certainly predate any kind of government.
Having a legal framework in place that protects a person from their own actions requires government.
If it is mission-critical it would be trivial to split the microphone wire and record through two devices.
In most states recording a conversation is a felony without the other party knowing and agreeing to it
If by most, you mean "twelve": California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Careful, you might not want the boardroom audio available to all.
The safest path might be to replace the tape deck with a solid state recorder with removable storage. I've hooked ours up to an iPod in the past.
Here's one scenario:
You sell things on eBay. You have a Paypal account that can accept credit cards. When you sell you item, you pay Paypal 2.9% + $0.30 for merchant fees.
Or, you sell things on eBay. You accept BitCoin. When you pull the money out of the ATM, you pay 1% + $1.50.
For a $100 item, BitCoin costs you $2.50 and Paypal costs you $3.20.
I've seen where some of the sites that accept and trade bitcoins were hacked, but AFAIK the bitcoin system itself has never been hacked. Many, many more dollar and euro based websites are hacked, and dollars are printed freely even in countries that aren't supposed to print them (the dollar "system" has been hacked).
Yet we use dollars and euros.
Meh. I guess. But then why doesn't rape or torture carry the death penalty? Who cares who is the worst guy in the room when you are sitting in hell? Pissing contest in a rainstorm? Any other funny analogies?
In this case, "web" is a synonym for "internet". The context made it very clear.
I know some people who went to jail, and they also used drugs - but most people use drugs. I can't say whether there is any correlation.
I will say that some people just don't function very well when addicted. I've seen alcohol completely destroy lives. I've seen a person destroyed by, and then remarkably recover from, a heroin addiction. I've seen some people use drugs recreationally forever and not seem to suffer for it (other than looking 50 when they are 35). I think it is very personality-dependent. I think I'd have to defer to statistics, of which I have none :)
In any case, crime is only a small portion of my argument. My wife works in health care and sees what drugs do to health on a regular basis. The counter-argument is that these people will die earlier and not use as many healthcare dollars overall - but of course if they were drug-free and productive the whole time they might not be using charity care in the first place.
You also have intoxicated people on the roads, operating machinery, building and designing infrastructure, etc. There are ways to deal with these areas of concern (drug tests, etc), but there is no denying that it costs society. We would be much better off without drug addiction, but then we would also be better off without murder and that isn't going anywhere either.
LOL, you didn't click on the pictures, did you? :)
If the drugs were legal they would be far cheaper and people wouldn't need to steal to support their habit.
Let's say we let the drug price fall to the natural price, effects be damned. I'm not certain that you are correct that people would not need to steal. How is a junkie making a living? Certainly a long-time heroin user is not holding down a job? Wouldn't the junkie just need to steal less?
But even if I accept your reasoning, it wouldn't help the public health problems created by drug use.
And of course there is the social burden of millions of additional drug addicts.
What would prevent it?
You said it yourself: limited liability.
You are right, a partnership is sort of like a corporation - but the partners still have full liability for their actions. If the partnership were to default, then the debtor would come after the partners.
Because it will be trivial for a spammer to check his posts from another account?
Decriminalization is NOT the answer.
I agree. All the billions we spend on trying to eradicate drugs, and all we accomplish is pushing the street price up. At some point you have to ask if what you are trying to do is even possible... are our goals even realistic? I have come to realize that no matter what the arguments are for or against, a reasonable person has to conclude that we are not going to eradicate drugs - the best we can hope for is reducing the problem.
At that point, you might as well make "reducing the problem" the goal instead of "stopping the problem". We can keep the street price high with taxes and keep use lower with education and rehab programs financed with the tax.
If someone wants to shoot heroin, let him shoot heroin. Your drug use is not my business.
I agree with you as an ideal, but realistically we do need to worry about drug users. Yes, you can throw them in jail when they steal, but then you have a large portion of society in jail - which does affect me, both in taxes to keep people in jail and in lost productivity dragging down society as a whole (this is the situation now, BTW). But also there is the issue of disease, which tends to thrive in drug communities. Tuberculosis would be all but eradicated by now if not for drug use.
Corporations are not extension of the government.
I cannot agree. Absent a government, can a corporation exist? If so, how?
Once you get into total war, there is no moral high ground. Just be glad your side won and move on.
I'm certainly open to something "radical" like you propose - but I don't pretend to be smart or knowledgeable enough to know the answers.
I know that I want the NY Times to exist with free speech rights.
I know that I don't want corporations to be allowed to lobby or get involved in the political sphere.
Those are two things that are very hard to reconcile, but I think it must be possible.
One idea I have is this: corporations should only be allowed to advertise a product that they sell. If the NY Times wants to publish a newspaper that endorses a certain candidate, that's fine. They also can advertise said newspaper. But Purina cannot sell puppy chow and then buy commercial airtime or ads that "educate" the consumer about a politician.
Lobbying is easy - just forbid it. The only problem with this is that it puts lobbying strictly in the hands of the rich, so it might not make any difference at all (since the rich tend to own corporations). You can't forbid lobbying altogether, since it will certainly happen anyway and then it would be opaque.
I would also argue that the ramifications of the latter are far worse than the former.
I would argue that they are almost the same thing... a corporation is just an extension of government. It gets it's charter from the government, and it can only exist because of government. The government can make almost completely arbitrary rules to regulate the corporation, and in fact the very laws that create the corporation are themselves a form of regulation.
Then the corporation uses a portion of it's revenue to lobby the government. This is similar to the way that government-funded and government-mandated public unions use a portion of their revenue to lobby the government. In my opinion we need to cut off this kind of feedback cycle... it leads to exactly the kind of problems that you describe.
--Nope. With RAIDZ, you can add (2) same-sized extra disks at a time to the pool and expand it almost automagically; with RAIDZ2 I'll have to test the theory in a VM, but I believe you can add (1) disk at a time to expand it.
If that is indeed possible, you will lose the 2-disk redundancy since a large disk could fail and the smaller disks can't replicate it. I could see how it would work with the formula being: new_disks = 1 + level_of_redundancy. So in your case, if you wanted to expand your array (by replacing) you would need to buy 3 disks.
--I've already jacked in an extra PCI-E 4-port SATA controller; if I wanted to expand, I could just buy +1 extra SATA controller and 4x2TB disks, and copy everything over (or create the 4x2TB pool on another box that has the SATA ports.) It might be worth doing just with a PCBSD live-dvd over the network. :-) // mental note: buy another UPS to handle all these disks... :b
Yes, I think you are right. Probably by the time I need to expand, I'll just build a whole new box. At the most I'll probably upgrade it once (and just toss the older 300 and 400GB drives). Expansion turns out to be not all that important of a consideration.
Well there you go...
No, it can't. Unless you are on the Canadian/Mexican border or something, there is no such thing as roaming charges on T-Mobile, prepay or post-pay. All they do is limit the amount of data you can use when roaming:
TRS-80 was probably the first single company with significant market share. Atari briefly rose to challenge them, along with Apple. Then Commodore and the PC dominated growth until the PC finally dominated everything else in the early 80s.
There's some data here.
Oh, almost forgot - mirrored pairs are also seen as one big pool :)
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
mega_pool ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad4 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad6 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad8 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad10 ONLINE 0 0 0