Sure, I'll buy that. Obviously, that means there are tons of TVs that support "tru2way" CableCards these days, since it's been a standard for 6 years now.
And of course, the cable industry HATES CableCard because they want you to rent a box, which is (apparently) why they made it hard for TV manufacturers to support it.
That works when you've got one big, well-known city and one little random town (for example, Atlanta, GA vs. Atlanta, TX). However, there's also a relatively significant Portland in Maine so in that case it helps to specify.
You're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback. Unless you've tarted it up with bric-a-brac (spoilers, coffee can exhaust, stickers, etc) or you're a leadfoot the police think you're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback.
Evos come tarted up with bric-a-brac from the factory.
Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs are Lepidosaurs (the group containing lizards and snakes), which is a different branch off Diapsids from Archosaurs (the group containing dinosaurs and birds and crocodiles). Megalodon is a shark, which is a kind of fish and therefore not even a Diapsid.
Why did you bother to reply if you weren't going to even slightly address the point I made?
The point I made was not that requiring surety money is unreasonable -- it is reasonable. The point I made was that 3000-bitcoin blocks, which requires every bidder to have $1.5M in liquid assets in order to participate, is unreasonable when it would be almost as easy and much more democratic to sell them either individually or in 10-coin blocks. You could still have a surety -- again, that's completely reasonable! -- but the surety would be something like $200 (for coins sold individually) or $2000 (for 10-coin lots).
You're not allowed to profit from an illegal venture. If your assets from an illegal venture like gambling, drugs, counterfeiting, etc., then why should you be allowed to keep them to defend yourself?
Because the assets haven't been proven to be gained from an illegal venture yet! That doesn't happen until the conviction occurs.
Right now the government is just auctioning off abandoned property, because no owner of the assets has come forward to make a claim. If you think Ulbricht should get the coins for his defense then you have already decided he's guilty or at least that his defense should be that Silk Road was legit. However, his defense is that he didn't run Silk Road.
I agree that Ulbricht shouldn't get the assets unless he claims them (and that claiming them would be bad for his defense). However, that doesn't mean the government should derive benefit from them either! Instead, the assets should be held until all legal actions related to them have been concluded.
Far better for them to use their existing process of auctioning off random shit they seize.
So, you're saying that when they seize some drug dealer's $5000 car they wait until they have a lot of 3,000 cars to sell off at once?
I ask because that's exactly as stupid and unfair as what they're doing here, which is excluding all "normal person" bidders by aggregating the bitcoins into huge lots instead of selling them individually for no good reason.
The problem is not putting up surety money, the problem is auctioning off the assets in blocks so large that only very wealthy people or institutional investors can participate. That's what's antidemocratic about it.
"A process" and "due process" are not the same thing. "Due process" is a specific legal term of art with a particular meaning, in this case referring to civil remedies for wrongful termination. Tenure has nothing to do with the courts, therefore it is not the same thing as "due process."
What do you mean? Greens and Libertarians have a lot in common, especially their support of Federalism in the sense of giving control back to state and local jurisdictions and strong support for civil liberties. A Green/Libertarian coalition (where they agreed to disagree on taxes) could be a valuable and strong counter to the authoritarian Democrat/Republican coalition.
That's a bit of a dangerous precident to be setting.
No, it's exactly the opposite of a dangerous precedent. Remember, we're talking about the government here, not the people, and the relationship between the government and the people (and other parts of the government) is explicitly adversarial (hence "checks and balances").
If it's appropriate for people to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, then it's equally appropriate for the government to be presumed guilty until proven innocent!
So what? Nothing about that invalidates the grandparent's point, which is that if you as a government entity cannot prove that you have a legal basis for doing something, then it is assumed that you don't have a legal basis for it and you must stop doing it.
Any and every technological argument is irrelevant.
Id LOVE for highways in america to implement digital speed limit signs that they can adjust according to traffic
The northern half of I-285 in Atlanta is getting those soon.
the problem isnt with the signs, its with the techs who dont lock the access panels when they are done setting them up
The signs aren't "setup and forget," they're controlled in real-time from a central office. They have to be remotely accessible.
The real issue is that DOTs are not like ecommerce or tech startups; they just don't have the right kind of expertise (or budget, probably) to think about cybersecurity in the way that they need to.
The primary solar array should be put to the orbit to reduce the maintenance, and beamed back to the surface. Same goes to the primary communication array. This way the amount base on the surface should be minimized, and a replacement units could be sent from Earth.
The Pamama Canal would need locks whether the sea levels were the same or not because Lago Gatun / Rio Chagres (which makes up most of the canal route) is at an even higher elevation.
In fact, they charge money for a device making light, who needs that? We have a fusion reactor in the center of our solar system that delivers us with light. So why pay money for something you get for free?
You jest, but my bike's headlight is a Harbor Freight LED flashlight that I got for free (with a coupon).
Wouldn't you just lower your trust level between you and that person, then? In other words, if you have a trust network A - B - C where B reports trusting C 100% but A thinks B is lying, then A reduces his trust in B to zero and the amount that B trusts C no longer matters.
I don't see why people get their panties in a knot about companies presenting their point of view publicly; you can listen to their arguments and either agree with them or disagree with them.
Excuse me, but this is NOT "companies presenting their point of view publicly." You know how I can tell? Because Comcast felt the need to create a separate[ish] entity called "Broadband for America" for the express purpose that the name "Comcast" wouldn't be directly attached to the goddamn speech!
If Comcast wants to speak, then "Comcast" should speak for its own damn self!
That's how it already works for individuals! In fact, that's exactly why these SuperPACs and whatnot exist: so that the people who control them can gain an unfair advantage over Joe Schmuck who has to stand accountable for his political speech.
What about citizens grouping together, pooling their money, and then using the pooled money to speak? What organizational form should that take, if not a corporation (usually not-for-profit)?
Let's turn that around for a minute: Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, including things like limited liability and favorable tax treatment?
If all the groups advocating for this "organized" free speech were general partnerships where each member was actually responsible for the group's actions and kept on a level playing field with individuals, that would be one thing. But that's not what's going on here! Instead, the assholes who control these groups want special treatment that places them above individual citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I'll buy that. Obviously, that means there are tons of TVs that support "tru2way" CableCards these days, since it's been a standard for 6 years now.
Oh, wait...!
And of course, the cable industry HATES CableCard because they want you to rent a box, which is (apparently) why they made it hard for TV manufacturers to support it.
That works when you've got one big, well-known city and one little random town (for example, Atlanta, GA vs. Atlanta, TX). However, there's also a relatively significant Portland in Maine so in that case it helps to specify.
Evos come tarted up with bric-a-brac from the factory.
Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs are Lepidosaurs (the group containing lizards and snakes), which is a different branch off Diapsids from Archosaurs (the group containing dinosaurs and birds and crocodiles). Megalodon is a shark, which is a kind of fish and therefore not even a Diapsid.
Why did you bother to reply if you weren't going to even slightly address the point I made?
The point I made was not that requiring surety money is unreasonable -- it is reasonable. The point I made was that 3000-bitcoin blocks, which requires every bidder to have $1.5M in liquid assets in order to participate, is unreasonable when it would be almost as easy and much more democratic to sell them either individually or in 10-coin blocks. You could still have a surety -- again, that's completely reasonable! -- but the surety would be something like $200 (for coins sold individually) or $2000 (for 10-coin lots).
Because the assets haven't been proven to be gained from an illegal venture yet! That doesn't happen until the conviction occurs.
I agree that Ulbricht shouldn't get the assets unless he claims them (and that claiming them would be bad for his defense). However, that doesn't mean the government should derive benefit from them either! Instead, the assets should be held until all legal actions related to them have been concluded.
So, you're saying that when they seize some drug dealer's $5000 car they wait until they have a lot of 3,000 cars to sell off at once?
I ask because that's exactly as stupid and unfair as what they're doing here, which is excluding all "normal person" bidders by aggregating the bitcoins into huge lots instead of selling them individually for no good reason.
The problem is not putting up surety money, the problem is auctioning off the assets in blocks so large that only very wealthy people or institutional investors can participate. That's what's antidemocratic about it.
If by "rather than" you mean "in addition to," then yes.
"A process" and "due process" are not the same thing. "Due process" is a specific legal term of art with a particular meaning, in this case referring to civil remedies for wrongful termination. Tenure has nothing to do with the courts, therefore it is not the same thing as "due process."
What do you mean? Greens and Libertarians have a lot in common, especially their support of Federalism in the sense of giving control back to state and local jurisdictions and strong support for civil liberties. A Green/Libertarian coalition (where they agreed to disagree on taxes) could be a valuable and strong counter to the authoritarian Democrat/Republican coalition.
Tenure is not due process.
No, it's exactly the opposite of a dangerous precedent. Remember, we're talking about the government here, not the people, and the relationship between the government and the people (and other parts of the government) is explicitly adversarial (hence "checks and balances").
If it's appropriate for people to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, then it's equally appropriate for the government to be presumed guilty until proven innocent!
So what? Nothing about that invalidates the grandparent's point, which is that if you as a government entity cannot prove that you have a legal basis for doing something, then it is assumed that you don't have a legal basis for it and you must stop doing it.
Any and every technological argument is irrelevant.
The northern half of I-285 in Atlanta is getting those soon.
The signs aren't "setup and forget," they're controlled in real-time from a central office. They have to be remotely accessible.
The real issue is that DOTs are not like ecommerce or tech startups; they just don't have the right kind of expertise (or budget, probably) to think about cybersecurity in the way that they need to.
And you don't have to worry about landing it.
The Pamama Canal would need locks whether the sea levels were the same or not because Lago Gatun / Rio Chagres (which makes up most of the canal route) is at an even higher elevation.
That's what locking skewers (link is an example, not a suggestion) are for.
You jest, but my bike's headlight is a Harbor Freight LED flashlight that I got for free (with a coupon).
Wouldn't you just lower your trust level between you and that person, then? In other words, if you have a trust network A - B - C where B reports trusting C 100% but A thinks B is lying, then A reduces his trust in B to zero and the amount that B trusts C no longer matters.
Like a mixed metaphor whooshing over an Anonymous Coward's head.
Excuse me, but this is NOT "companies presenting their point of view publicly." You know how I can tell? Because Comcast felt the need to create a separate[ish] entity called "Broadband for America" for the express purpose that the name "Comcast" wouldn't be directly attached to the goddamn speech!
If Comcast wants to speak, then "Comcast" should speak for its own damn self!
That's how it already works for individuals! In fact, that's exactly why these SuperPACs and whatnot exist: so that the people who control them can gain an unfair advantage over Joe Schmuck who has to stand accountable for his political speech.
Let's turn that around for a minute: Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, including things like limited liability and favorable tax treatment?
If all the groups advocating for this "organized" free speech were general partnerships where each member was actually responsible for the group's actions and kept on a level playing field with individuals, that would be one thing. But that's not what's going on here! Instead, the assholes who control these groups want special treatment that places them above individual citizens.