I'm sorry but 400 mishaps hardly justifies 3,999,600 potentially false cases of paternity. You wouldn't suggest we don't screen for breast cancer because of that error rate, why would you support the horrific consequences of a false pregnancy under that tiny failure rate? We have very very few medical tests/procedures with reliability as high as 99.99%...
"It is the woman's body, which is why it's her decision. "
It IS my body, which iS why it's my decision whether I risk it by allowing them to take my blood to determine if I'm intoxicated... Oh wait, no, no I actually it has been determined that my right to the sanctity of my body is outweighed by the rights of others. The fundamental rights of 40% of our population with regard to the single most important thing in any parents life is a pretty damn huge thing to weigh against the risks of carrying a baby or having an abortion. Those risks were not always so low and there are still high risk situations and I would never suggest a doctor should not be able to object if one is a factor but by and large pregnancy and abortion are routine and safe medical practices.
All that leaves is that she doesn't want the hassle or the responsibilities which are consequences of her actions just as much as the father. Women are no more entitled to a get out of jail free card than the father.
"There is plenty of medical legal precedent."
Which would only be relevant if we were discussing what the law is rather than it being broken and needing changed. Laws can and do change and precedents go out the window.
"It seems reasonable to me that the man should bear reduced (or even zero, depending on the case) personal financial burden if he can somehow prove that he was lied to about birth control status for the purpose of conception. But that's about as far as that reasonably goes."
Once upon a time "I'm pregnant" was final and responsibility for a baby was an automatic consequence both parties shared responsibility for and this would have made sense at that time. Today there are morning after pills, abortion, and adoption. Setting aside the implementation details and ramifications. If we support the ethical right of a woman to prevent a pregnancy she doesn't want for any reason at the very least we should support that father ethically would have the same right. Even if we don't support the rights of fathers to veto a pregnancy physically because of the mother's right to her body, there is no justification for not recognizing the fathers right to legally abort if she refuses to consent to the procedure.
"Fetus is part of her body. If she dies it dies, just like every other organ. "
Her body isn't defined as what dies if she dies, it is defined by DNA. You can apply a reductio ad absurdum and talk about cancer, damaged cellular DNA, organ transplants, etc if you like but having different models for macro physics and micro physics that don't mesh hinders the relevance of such an argument.
"The father isn't the sperm donor, the father is the mother's significant other, whoever that may be. If the most significant other of that woman is a guy from a bar, he is the father. If she slept with the guy from the bar while married to you, tough shit that's your baby now, you're the father. Society decided this already."
Ahh the tyranny of the majority. But pointing out the current legal policy contradicts the proposal is not a valid logical rebuttal of an argument that proposes changing the current legal policy.
And ruin sex, which is then with a rubber sex toy rather than a person. Besides that isn't responsibility it is due diligence or self-defense.
We have birth control, morning after pills, and abortion. The argument that we can't require women to take the absolutely minimal risk associated with the morning after pill or an abortion or even carry to term if the father doesn't consent to an abortion is a weak one when we require individuals to risk death just to determine if their blood alcohol level is too high. The current system of treating a pregnant woman as the patient rather than the fetus which is 50% part of the fathers body is unjustifiable. Keeping paternity testing as taboo rather than standard and automatic procedure during pregnancy to establish fatherhood as soon as possible is unjustifiable now that it can be done early and as simply as establishing gender with a 99.9% reliable bloodtest from the mother.
Even if you aren't willing to require minimal and reasonable levels of accommodation from women to provide something approaching equitable rights for expecting fathers, given that pro-creation is the least common motive for intercourse the father should at least have the right to waive parental responsibility while an abortion is still possible and later if the mother was negligent and didn't inform him during that time. In the case of rape the attacker should lose all related rights obviously, a man who rapes a woman has no rights to a resulting fetus and the same if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, she loses her rights and must go along with whatever decisions.
Saying it is a woman's body it impacts and so it is all her decision ignores that the fetus is NOT part of her body any more than a piece of stolen jewelry she swallows. It ignores that carrying and birthing or the risks of outpatient abortion are the least of the risks, suffering, and responsibility that comes with a child. Are we really going to say it is okay for a woman to use her innate physical womb to take total control of lifelong decisions that impact another person at least as much as themselves? How can we reconcile that with the way we treat men who are even slightly assertive because women might fear the physical advantages they theoretically could take advantage of?
Women make up about 60% of the population in the United States. They hold so much power in our society they were able to push through a constitution amendment (prohibition) that men opposed even when they didn't have suffrage. They make up 60% of the potential voters and have an even disproportionately greater representation at the polls. Politically we pretend women are disadvantaged because they have the political and social power to push that standard when in reality they hold almost all of the actual power and our policies and laws are all designed to give them all the advantages while guaranteeing no advantage can ever be given to males.
Intel is likely looking at this in terms of market size, potential income, etc. That's like using only technical analysis (looking exclusively at the random charts trying to find patterns in the noise) for your stock trades.
The people they are talking about are the more technically proficient users among consumers, their perceptions of the superiority of one platform vs another are what drive the decisions everyone else makes and repeats to those who think they are the "technical guy" and it spreads from there... if that consensus lasts for 2-3 years in AMD's favor the consumer market will have shifted by at least 60%. Right now AMD has the technically superior platform both on the consumer side AND the server side (which is a first for them) not only are their chips faster, they are also cheaper. If they can largely maintain that for 3 years, and can at least maintain parity for another 2-4 years beyond that they will have made a similar dent in the server market where the real money is. Intel's methods for calculating TDP result in lower numbers vs average power actually consumed than those of AMD, if AMD picks up on this trick and begins using a comparable TDP calculation Intel will be at serious risk.
That should scare the crap out of intel. AMD has had a massive almost cult-like mindshare among this class of users who remember well when AMD was on top and how much nicer it was to interact with AMD culture than Intel's, this type of user has been silently lurking waiting to pounce on the opportunity to praise AMD again. These are technical users, they haven't denied Intel has ruled the processing platform since the core 2 duo but AMD similarly owned the market while Intel milked higher priced and slower Pentium II/III/IV chips for years counting on their brand and server market clout prior to that. A fundamental AMD architecture revamp that puts them in the lead is just what many have been certain would happen eventually.
P.S. Ignorant people who traded AMD stock down to $2/share with intel at $55/share, the earnings potential was never that significant regardless of the current marketshare of Intel. Analyst look at AMD "growth" to $13-14/share in the past year and freak out about the "bubble", that isn't a bubble, it is a partial market correction recognizing the potential of the brand. Everyone I know making recommendations in the Enterprise space was shocked at that discrepancy and most recognized the opportunity and purchased AMD stock when they saw how underpriced it was before AMD even announced it's new architecture. It was always just a matter of time before AMD released an update ahead of Intel and we all buy the superior technology at purchase time.
P.S.S. We were mining bitcoin with AMD GPUs six years ago... congrats stock market drones on discovering this after mining had already moved on to custom ASICs years before and trading on the news as if it were just happening today.
Isn't it time to stop persecuting those engaged in the oldest profession and let them come into the light of day where they can actually enjoy the protections of law enforcement like anyone else engaged in business? All this serves to do is allow people to abuse sex workers with the safety of mutually assured destruction.
Pick one, I lean toward the first myself. An accountable internet would be useful to a few thousand governments and corporations which pretend to represent the interests of billions. An anonymous internet would actually be in the interest of billions of people, including the idiots foolish enough to drink the koolaid of those governments and corporations.
All of those extra steps are not actually part of the bitcoin, there are measures you can take to be anonymous with any currency.
It is possible to trace despite that in many cases. Just like almost everything you see on CSI rarely happens in the real world because real police can't spare the lab resources (which are typically FBI, not in house).
That said, when it comes to evidence police and courts have a tendency to ignore the innocent until proven guilty thing. Claim you don't have the key to decrypt your laptop after a court orders to supply it. Wait and see if the court assumes you are innocent and don't have the key until the prosecution proves otherwise. You'll see the same thing when you claim that other address wasn't you, or that middle address in the forensic chain which bought the drugs wasn't you. Forensic accounting is almost never possible to actually prove or verify, just patterns that create the appearance of something happening, yet it is accepted anyway.
All true but none of it changes what I said. Laundering $2000 is difficult and so is laundering $4 billion. A shopping mall with complete staff and no working shops is millions, not billions. And it is a great deal more difficult than you make it seem. Having a legitimate business and operating in a manner that doesn't cost you haf of it in taxes is difficult, creating a back trail and cover for billions in a way that doesn't eat everything in the tax mill is very challenging indeed.
"Bitcoin is currently only a competitor to PayPal, not the dollar or euro."
Fair enough. I still maintain that is a function of the size of the market more than anything. The smaller market makes the impact of speculators more evident. Dollars and Euros have much bigger markets so it takes a lot more to move them an appreciable amount. Also, the value of your dollars relative to euros might have moved enough to buy your kid a car for graduation last night due to speculators but you probably wouldn't know because the units traded on are smaller than the smallest units in circulation, car dealers take longer than that to update prices, and your balance is only going to be shown in one or the other.
Currency isn't primarily a store of value though, it is a unit for the exchange of value, bitcoin has a number of advantages over dollars and euros in this department. The ultimate killer feature is that bitcoin can't be counterfeited or manipulated by a central authority. That makes it ideal for the exchange of value between national governments, banks, and just people who live in places under different currencies.
"How would a cryptocurrency work without a limit on the number of units in circulation?"
Central banks don't use voodoo to determine whether or not to raise rates. They use fairly simple math wrapped up in a lot of subjective nonsense that is only there to leave lots of lots of wiggle room for manipulation to serve personal agendas.
But there is no reason you couldn't use an algorithm to keep transactions fluid and even assign credit scores to bitcoin addresses and distribute new coin through the credit system. Attach some sort of simple feedback mechanism, say thumbs up/thumbs down, the person sending funds pays a small fee for the transaction based on the current rate and this is how funds are removed from the system. Each payment made is a raffle ticket in the distribution of new coin when the algorithm looking at transaction volume determines that is needed. Not only does everyone have a better chance of breaking even on the currency adjustments but you automatically put money into the hands of those who are most active and are most likely to spend it.
If you have nothing to hide you won't mind if we take a look? Pass.
I think we should make everything which is convenient like digital deposits and spending for example available with all the convenience features, including universal or near universal acceptance at merchants and vending systems available in a completely anonymous and untraceable format divorced from all government oversight. Then provide the same stuff in a completely identified and traced format and let people vote by choosing which they prefer.
Same thing for phone/internet/gps/etc. Everything that the government puts hooks in and claims people choose the hooks, give people all the same features, capabilities, and conveniences without the hooks.
Just because I take a flight to get somewhere faster doesn't mean I'm choosing to get molested in the TSA security dog and pony show, nobody can be said to be choosing that unless you offer all the same flights sans TSA and people still choose to TSA flights.
My guess is that if the options were truly made equal you wouldn't find many people using your banks, internet, phones, and flights if they could have the same services without your TSA, NSA, IRS, etc. Those would effectively be votes from the majority of the population and in a democracy that is supposed to mean those things go away.
Every single digital fragment of bitcoin from origin to current holder is completely and totally recorded in a ledger that anyone can connect to the network and download and analyze. However, every step on the path is essentially a massive random account number. Nothing in the system tells you who has what number, which sets of numbers are the same etc. However tracking known addresses and monitoring transaction activity can paint a picture pretty quickly. That is what "metadata" is all about.
It's easy to launder some money, but at the extremes it becomes challenging. It is actually quite difficult to launder ten grand because it'll cost you most or all of it to get set up properly. It is also quite difficult to launder $4 billion.
Exactly, and a company which embraces hopping is far more likely to even have people around who know the why and what of the bad decisions biting them in the ass.
I guess that depends on your idea of competent. That only really works at the beginning of your career when there are a lot of gaps to fill. More advanced tiers with mandatory experience require someone to have that level of "competence" in multiple disciplines as a baseline.
For example, anyone with a brain expects an enterprise architect level resource to be capable of stepping into the role of a sys admin, coder, network admin, dba, rack and stack, professional services, analyst, etc with the same 1-2yrs to refresh and learn the tools fingerprint of their org that someone they would hire into those roles would take. The architect is expected not just to have reached that proficiency but to have stepped into a few of those roles in a dedicated capacity. You just can't navigate well without understanding all the pieces and having had a chance to see where the various flavors of decisions lead several years down the road.
Of course, there are no shortage of people who can learn what is needed to do a job and do just that well enough to keep a seat, especially at enterprise scale. Those people can pack on years while their brains rot and just look good on paper anywhere but where you are (although you likely do have a lot of house specific knowledge that has fallen through documentation cracks pilled up in your head). Good resources aren't like that, good resources are people who have ripped apart, reverse engineered, and owned to a master level every trade you call them a jack of before moving on. Do that for 10-15yrs and anyone sane should be dying to hire you well into six figures for pretty much anything technical even if you haven't touched most of the toolset they've implemented.
"Indeed. Churn is good. Job hopping employees bring good ideas and new perspectives."
lol It takes at least a year to begin to be competent in a new environment, another 3-4 to actually know which way the wind blows. With each employee who leaves the house knowledge gaps grow and grow. Sure, lots of change, most of it to solve problems you don't have with newer and buggier solutions while the legacy solutions nobody knows about occupy that server that everyone is afraid to admit they don't know the purpose of and which still does two or three things magically... a little churn later nobody will even know those get done at all. As fewer and fewer people have ever narrower understanding of your org all the while it still growing you'll eventually become crippled to the point where nobody can effect any sort of change because nobody knows enough about the environment and your bloated inefficient organization will be replaced by a startup.
Or, you could toss out agism and actually retain competent employees who already know your organization and grew with that infrastructure and the startup can be crushed under your weight and momentum.
I would say both are true in this case. It is unlikely we'll be getting to the mantle of the earth or the moon anytime soon. We've barely reached the lower points of the surface of the Earth's crust and there is plenty of profitable incentive to reach the resources we believe are contained there.
As a bit of a foodie who makes fresh mozzarella often I have to interject that it adds a lot in texture, body, and "freshness" and very little in the flavor department. The more fresh and wet the more true this is. Whether it is leaving it in the fridge longer, salt, or cooking it, removing liquid is the key to concentrating the flavor.
That's a bold claim. What makes you assume George Bush's will hasn't resulted in at least one of his staff taking out a journalist before? In the US you have to be more subtle than Russia but plausible deniability is easy. You have policies against such and then set standards that are impossible to meet without violating those policies. You simultaneously cultivate the most despicable practices while having absolute deniability and cultivate the most discrete execution of those policies because you'll act on any violation you can't pretend not to have noticed. Putin can just order what he wants.
But then I'm not actually in Russia, I'm in the US, if nothing the corruption and bias in the media has become painstakingly obvious and overt since at least the Sanders Clinton primary showdown so it is unlikely the news we get with regard to Russia is accurate and what we "know" about Russia is likely largely propaganda.
Nonsense, the governments, especially intelligence communities and arms industry of the US have enjoyed a wonderful symbiotic relationship with Russia. What do you think the cold war was? The leaders of both nations were able to use it as an excuse to keep other nations weaker, build their arsenals, pump and dump illegal arms deals (becoming the largest global arms dealers means nobody else will have superior arms), polarize their nations and divide them, justify expanding their reach and power for the sake of "national security."
Why do you think it flit from cold war to war on drugs and then jumping into the fray on a nice holy war? What else do you do when your cold war doesn't last if not jump into a holy war with staying power? Now it would seem a faction wants us to get on board with a new war that allows the above, cyber war.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry but 400 mishaps hardly justifies 3,999,600 potentially false cases of paternity. You wouldn't suggest we don't screen for breast cancer because of that error rate, why would you support the horrific consequences of a false pregnancy under that tiny failure rate? We have very very few medical tests/procedures with reliability as high as 99.99%...
"It is the woman's body, which is why it's her decision. "
It IS my body, which iS why it's my decision whether I risk it by allowing them to take my blood to determine if I'm intoxicated... Oh wait, no, no I actually it has been determined that my right to the sanctity of my body is outweighed by the rights of others. The fundamental rights of 40% of our population with regard to the single most important thing in any parents life is a pretty damn huge thing to weigh against the risks of carrying a baby or having an abortion. Those risks were not always so low and there are still high risk situations and I would never suggest a doctor should not be able to object if one is a factor but by and large pregnancy and abortion are routine and safe medical practices.
All that leaves is that she doesn't want the hassle or the responsibilities which are consequences of her actions just as much as the father. Women are no more entitled to a get out of jail free card than the father.
"There is plenty of medical legal precedent."
Which would only be relevant if we were discussing what the law is rather than it being broken and needing changed. Laws can and do change and precedents go out the window.
"It seems reasonable to me that the man should bear reduced (or even zero, depending on the case) personal financial burden if he can somehow prove that he was lied to about birth control status for the purpose of conception. But that's about as far as that reasonably goes."
Once upon a time "I'm pregnant" was final and responsibility for a baby was an automatic consequence both parties shared responsibility for and this would have made sense at that time. Today there are morning after pills, abortion, and adoption. Setting aside the implementation details and ramifications. If we support the ethical right of a woman to prevent a pregnancy she doesn't want for any reason at the very least we should support that father ethically would have the same right. Even if we don't support the rights of fathers to veto a pregnancy physically because of the mother's right to her body, there is no justification for not recognizing the fathers right to legally abort if she refuses to consent to the procedure.
"Fetus is part of her body. If she dies it dies, just like every other organ. "
Her body isn't defined as what dies if she dies, it is defined by DNA. You can apply a reductio ad absurdum and talk about cancer, damaged cellular DNA, organ transplants, etc if you like but having different models for macro physics and micro physics that don't mesh hinders the relevance of such an argument.
"The father isn't the sperm donor, the father is the mother's significant other, whoever that may be. If the most significant other of that woman is a guy from a bar, he is the father. If she slept with the guy from the bar while married to you, tough shit that's your baby now, you're the father. Society decided this already."
Ahh the tyranny of the majority. But pointing out the current legal policy contradicts the proposal is not a valid logical rebuttal of an argument that proposes changing the current legal policy.
And ruin sex, which is then with a rubber sex toy rather than a person. Besides that isn't responsibility it is due diligence or self-defense.
We have birth control, morning after pills, and abortion. The argument that we can't require women to take the absolutely minimal risk associated with the morning after pill or an abortion or even carry to term if the father doesn't consent to an abortion is a weak one when we require individuals to risk death just to determine if their blood alcohol level is too high. The current system of treating a pregnant woman as the patient rather than the fetus which is 50% part of the fathers body is unjustifiable. Keeping paternity testing as taboo rather than standard and automatic procedure during pregnancy to establish fatherhood as soon as possible is unjustifiable now that it can be done early and as simply as establishing gender with a 99.9% reliable bloodtest from the mother.
Even if you aren't willing to require minimal and reasonable levels of accommodation from women to provide something approaching equitable rights for expecting fathers, given that pro-creation is the least common motive for intercourse the father should at least have the right to waive parental responsibility while an abortion is still possible and later if the mother was negligent and didn't inform him during that time. In the case of rape the attacker should lose all related rights obviously, a man who rapes a woman has no rights to a resulting fetus and the same if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, she loses her rights and must go along with whatever decisions.
Saying it is a woman's body it impacts and so it is all her decision ignores that the fetus is NOT part of her body any more than a piece of stolen jewelry she swallows. It ignores that carrying and birthing or the risks of outpatient abortion are the least of the risks, suffering, and responsibility that comes with a child. Are we really going to say it is okay for a woman to use her innate physical womb to take total control of lifelong decisions that impact another person at least as much as themselves? How can we reconcile that with the way we treat men who are even slightly assertive because women might fear the physical advantages they theoretically could take advantage of?
Women make up about 60% of the population in the United States. They hold so much power in our society they were able to push through a constitution amendment (prohibition) that men opposed even when they didn't have suffrage. They make up 60% of the potential voters and have an even disproportionately greater representation at the polls. Politically we pretend women are disadvantaged because they have the political and social power to push that standard when in reality they hold almost all of the actual power and our policies and laws are all designed to give them all the advantages while guaranteeing no advantage can ever be given to males.
Intel is likely looking at this in terms of market size, potential income, etc. That's like using only technical analysis (looking exclusively at the random charts trying to find patterns in the noise) for your stock trades.
The people they are talking about are the more technically proficient users among consumers, their perceptions of the superiority of one platform vs another are what drive the decisions everyone else makes and repeats to those who think they are the "technical guy" and it spreads from there... if that consensus lasts for 2-3 years in AMD's favor the consumer market will have shifted by at least 60%. Right now AMD has the technically superior platform both on the consumer side AND the server side (which is a first for them) not only are their chips faster, they are also cheaper. If they can largely maintain that for 3 years, and can at least maintain parity for another 2-4 years beyond that they will have made a similar dent in the server market where the real money is. Intel's methods for calculating TDP result in lower numbers vs average power actually consumed than those of AMD, if AMD picks up on this trick and begins using a comparable TDP calculation Intel will be at serious risk.
That should scare the crap out of intel. AMD has had a massive almost cult-like mindshare among this class of users who remember well when AMD was on top and how much nicer it was to interact with AMD culture than Intel's, this type of user has been silently lurking waiting to pounce on the opportunity to praise AMD again. These are technical users, they haven't denied Intel has ruled the processing platform since the core 2 duo but AMD similarly owned the market while Intel milked higher priced and slower Pentium II/III/IV chips for years counting on their brand and server market clout prior to that. A fundamental AMD architecture revamp that puts them in the lead is just what many have been certain would happen eventually.
P.S. Ignorant people who traded AMD stock down to $2/share with intel at $55/share, the earnings potential was never that significant regardless of the current marketshare of Intel. Analyst look at AMD "growth" to $13-14/share in the past year and freak out about the "bubble", that isn't a bubble, it is a partial market correction recognizing the potential of the brand. Everyone I know making recommendations in the Enterprise space was shocked at that discrepancy and most recognized the opportunity and purchased AMD stock when they saw how underpriced it was before AMD even announced it's new architecture. It was always just a matter of time before AMD released an update ahead of Intel and we all buy the superior technology at purchase time.
P.S.S. We were mining bitcoin with AMD GPUs six years ago... congrats stock market drones on discovering this after mining had already moved on to custom ASICs years before and trading on the news as if it were just happening today.
Isn't it time to stop persecuting those engaged in the oldest profession and let them come into the light of day where they can actually enjoy the protections of law enforcement like anyone else engaged in business? All this serves to do is allow people to abuse sex workers with the safety of mutually assured destruction.
Pick one, I lean toward the first myself. An accountable internet would be useful to a few thousand governments and corporations which pretend to represent the interests of billions. An anonymous internet would actually be in the interest of billions of people, including the idiots foolish enough to drink the koolaid of those governments and corporations.
All of those extra steps are not actually part of the bitcoin, there are measures you can take to be anonymous with any currency.
It is possible to trace despite that in many cases. Just like almost everything you see on CSI rarely happens in the real world because real police can't spare the lab resources (which are typically FBI, not in house).
That said, when it comes to evidence police and courts have a tendency to ignore the innocent until proven guilty thing. Claim you don't have the key to decrypt your laptop after a court orders to supply it. Wait and see if the court assumes you are innocent and don't have the key until the prosecution proves otherwise. You'll see the same thing when you claim that other address wasn't you, or that middle address in the forensic chain which bought the drugs wasn't you. Forensic accounting is almost never possible to actually prove or verify, just patterns that create the appearance of something happening, yet it is accepted anyway.
All true but none of it changes what I said. Laundering $2000 is difficult and so is laundering $4 billion. A shopping mall with complete staff and no working shops is millions, not billions. And it is a great deal more difficult than you make it seem. Having a legitimate business and operating in a manner that doesn't cost you haf of it in taxes is difficult, creating a back trail and cover for billions in a way that doesn't eat everything in the tax mill is very challenging indeed.
"Of course, they got their FSB/ KGB/ WTF... Plus, you might get your ass frozen a bit."
Yup, same shit plus frozen testicles. Like I said, no options.
Agreed. US rules for entities which exchange currency for fiat should not apply anywhere but the US.
"Bitcoin is currently only a competitor to PayPal, not the dollar or euro."
Fair enough. I still maintain that is a function of the size of the market more than anything. The smaller market makes the impact of speculators more evident. Dollars and Euros have much bigger markets so it takes a lot more to move them an appreciable amount. Also, the value of your dollars relative to euros might have moved enough to buy your kid a car for graduation last night due to speculators but you probably wouldn't know because the units traded on are smaller than the smallest units in circulation, car dealers take longer than that to update prices, and your balance is only going to be shown in one or the other.
Currency isn't primarily a store of value though, it is a unit for the exchange of value, bitcoin has a number of advantages over dollars and euros in this department. The ultimate killer feature is that bitcoin can't be counterfeited or manipulated by a central authority. That makes it ideal for the exchange of value between national governments, banks, and just people who live in places under different currencies.
"How would a cryptocurrency work without a limit on the number of units in circulation?"
Central banks don't use voodoo to determine whether or not to raise rates. They use fairly simple math wrapped up in a lot of subjective nonsense that is only there to leave lots of lots of wiggle room for manipulation to serve personal agendas.
But there is no reason you couldn't use an algorithm to keep transactions fluid and even assign credit scores to bitcoin addresses and distribute new coin through the credit system. Attach some sort of simple feedback mechanism, say thumbs up/thumbs down, the person sending funds pays a small fee for the transaction based on the current rate and this is how funds are removed from the system. Each payment made is a raffle ticket in the distribution of new coin when the algorithm looking at transaction volume determines that is needed. Not only does everyone have a better chance of breaking even on the currency adjustments but you automatically put money into the hands of those who are most active and are most likely to spend it.
If you have nothing to hide you won't mind if we take a look? Pass.
I think we should make everything which is convenient like digital deposits and spending for example available with all the convenience features, including universal or near universal acceptance at merchants and vending systems available in a completely anonymous and untraceable format divorced from all government oversight. Then provide the same stuff in a completely identified and traced format and let people vote by choosing which they prefer.
Same thing for phone/internet/gps/etc. Everything that the government puts hooks in and claims people choose the hooks, give people all the same features, capabilities, and conveniences without the hooks.
Just because I take a flight to get somewhere faster doesn't mean I'm choosing to get molested in the TSA security dog and pony show, nobody can be said to be choosing that unless you offer all the same flights sans TSA and people still choose to TSA flights.
My guess is that if the options were truly made equal you wouldn't find many people using your banks, internet, phones, and flights if they could have the same services without your TSA, NSA, IRS, etc. Those would effectively be votes from the majority of the population and in a democracy that is supposed to mean those things go away.
Every single digital fragment of bitcoin from origin to current holder is completely and totally recorded in a ledger that anyone can connect to the network and download and analyze. However, every step on the path is essentially a massive random account number. Nothing in the system tells you who has what number, which sets of numbers are the same etc. However tracking known addresses and monitoring transaction activity can paint a picture pretty quickly. That is what "metadata" is all about.
It's easy to launder some money, but at the extremes it becomes challenging. It is actually quite difficult to launder ten grand because it'll cost you most or all of it to get set up properly. It is also quite difficult to launder $4 billion.
"We tried it and all it's brought us is pain for everyone including and especially those that didn't play the game."
What pain? Bypassing things governments don't approve of that could generate money to launder is part of the point and isn't pain for actual people.
Exactly, and a company which embraces hopping is far more likely to even have people around who know the why and what of the bad decisions biting them in the ass.
I guess that depends on your idea of competent. That only really works at the beginning of your career when there are a lot of gaps to fill. More advanced tiers with mandatory experience require someone to have that level of "competence" in multiple disciplines as a baseline.
For example, anyone with a brain expects an enterprise architect level resource to be capable of stepping into the role of a sys admin, coder, network admin, dba, rack and stack, professional services, analyst, etc with the same 1-2yrs to refresh and learn the tools fingerprint of their org that someone they would hire into those roles would take. The architect is expected not just to have reached that proficiency but to have stepped into a few of those roles in a dedicated capacity. You just can't navigate well without understanding all the pieces and having had a chance to see where the various flavors of decisions lead several years down the road.
Of course, there are no shortage of people who can learn what is needed to do a job and do just that well enough to keep a seat, especially at enterprise scale. Those people can pack on years while their brains rot and just look good on paper anywhere but where you are (although you likely do have a lot of house specific knowledge that has fallen through documentation cracks pilled up in your head). Good resources aren't like that, good resources are people who have ripped apart, reverse engineered, and owned to a master level every trade you call them a jack of before moving on. Do that for 10-15yrs and anyone sane should be dying to hire you well into six figures for pretty much anything technical even if you haven't touched most of the toolset they've implemented.
"Indeed. Churn is good. Job hopping employees bring good ideas and new perspectives."
lol It takes at least a year to begin to be competent in a new environment, another 3-4 to actually know which way the wind blows. With each employee who leaves the house knowledge gaps grow and grow. Sure, lots of change, most of it to solve problems you don't have with newer and buggier solutions while the legacy solutions nobody knows about occupy that server that everyone is afraid to admit they don't know the purpose of and which still does two or three things magically... a little churn later nobody will even know those get done at all. As fewer and fewer people have ever narrower understanding of your org all the while it still growing you'll eventually become crippled to the point where nobody can effect any sort of change because nobody knows enough about the environment and your bloated inefficient organization will be replaced by a startup.
Or, you could toss out agism and actually retain competent employees who already know your organization and grew with that infrastructure and the startup can be crushed under your weight and momentum.
It did have life, in the mantle swimming pools. Try to keep up.
I would say both are true in this case. It is unlikely we'll be getting to the mantle of the earth or the moon anytime soon. We've barely reached the lower points of the surface of the Earth's crust and there is plenty of profitable incentive to reach the resources we believe are contained there.
As a bit of a foodie who makes fresh mozzarella often I have to interject that it adds a lot in texture, body, and "freshness" and very little in the flavor department. The more fresh and wet the more true this is. Whether it is leaving it in the fridge longer, salt, or cooking it, removing liquid is the key to concentrating the flavor.
That's a bold claim. What makes you assume George Bush's will hasn't resulted in at least one of his staff taking out a journalist before? In the US you have to be more subtle than Russia but plausible deniability is easy. You have policies against such and then set standards that are impossible to meet without violating those policies. You simultaneously cultivate the most despicable practices while having absolute deniability and cultivate the most discrete execution of those policies because you'll act on any violation you can't pretend not to have noticed. Putin can just order what he wants.
But then I'm not actually in Russia, I'm in the US, if nothing the corruption and bias in the media has become painstakingly obvious and overt since at least the Sanders Clinton primary showdown so it is unlikely the news we get with regard to Russia is accurate and what we "know" about Russia is likely largely propaganda.
Nonsense, the governments, especially intelligence communities and arms industry of the US have enjoyed a wonderful symbiotic relationship with Russia. What do you think the cold war was? The leaders of both nations were able to use it as an excuse to keep other nations weaker, build their arsenals, pump and dump illegal arms deals (becoming the largest global arms dealers means nobody else will have superior arms), polarize their nations and divide them, justify expanding their reach and power for the sake of "national security."
Why do you think it flit from cold war to war on drugs and then jumping into the fray on a nice holy war? What else do you do when your cold war doesn't last if not jump into a holy war with staying power? Now it would seem a faction wants us to get on board with a new war that allows the above, cyber war.