You know what? Fuck all this "no expectation of privacy" bullshit!
Sure, anything people do in public could be observed. But those are the keywords: "anything could." Not "everything will." And certainly not "everything will be observed and then get stored forever in an instantly-searchable government database!"
So what you're saying is that it's time to found the Open Keyboard Alliance?
(Actually it probably is, considering the fact that you could fit an entire SoC, complete with wireless connection to the NSA, in a keyboard these days.)
The only difference is that one makes sure I don't exceed my rights, while the other makes sure I can't execute my rights without paying ransom.
Both DRM and cryptolocker encrypt your data with a key you don't know.
The difference is that DRM attempts to let you use that key (to decrypt your data under the conditions that the DRM-imposer "allows") while simultaneously hiding the key from you (so that you can't decrypt your data under other conditions).
Cryptolocker, on the other hand, just gives you the key (after paying the ransom, obviously) -- there is none of the "simultaneously allowed and disallowed" nonsense that's inherent to DRM.
In other words, DRM tries to restrict your access to your data (which is inherently impossible). Cryptolocker essentially "steals" your data by encrypting it so that it stops being yours until you pay to get it back.
Natural resources, sure. Creativity (expressed as both techology and art), however, is infinite.
In other words, even when we've hit carrying capacity (because population growth rates are logistic, not exponential as many seem to think) and we're all using a rationed, subsistence level of material goods, there will still be an ever-increasing supply of new art to consume. Plus, given that advances in technology will continue to make us more efficient, that point is so far in the future that it's not worth considering (except that lack of investment due to deflation might cause us to peak at a lower point, sooner).
Finally, you also need to consider the rate of deflation, vs the yield on reasonably safe investments. If you can make 8% investing vs deflation of 3%, only an idiot would choose to hold the currency instead of the investment.
I made an argument similar to that in another reply. I would argue that a greater-than-3% yield on a reasonably safe investment (where "reasonably safe" would mean "similar risk to a savings account" in this context) would be extremely rare.
if the government did treat Bitcoin in the same way as currency, subject to laws, (which mrchaotica seems to infer would solve the problems)
I inferred no such thing. Bitcoin's deflationary nature is inherent in its design, and the government can't do anything about that (except ban its use entirely).
Hoarding a currency is natural when its purchasing power is increasing and there's nothing worth spending it on.
If the purchasing power is increasing by more than the risk-adjusted return on investment for all the things you might spend it on, then it's never worth it.
Let me give an example: say the real rate of return on US dollars is assumed to be -3%, with zero risk. It is easy to find investments whose risk-adjusted rates of return exceed that (e.g. US treasuries risk-free at 0%, stocks with risk at 7%, venture capital with a lot of risk at (some big number)%, etc.). And the key thing about all of these is that they're investments, not commodities -- i.e., paying people to create something, rather than stockpiling something that already exists.
In contrast, if the real rate of return on Bitcoins is +3% with zero risk, then it's a lot harder to find an alternative investment worth making. Therefore, much less investment gets done (i.e., much fewer new things get created) and economic and technical progress is stifled.
They always have friends. And an armada of satellite wannabe bullies.
On the contrary, my point is that everyone the bully thinks is in the former group is actually in the latter. Once the bully weakens, his former "friends" will inevitably betray him.
Blame government for treating Bitcoin as a commodity instead of as a currency, subject to the same laws as cash. Oh, wait, it basically is subject to the same laws as cash, except it's a whole lot easier to carry and the government can't create more of it out of thin air (which is a good thing, if you want your money to have the same or better purchasing power tomorrow as it did today).
Don't you realize that the latter argument invalidates the former?
Since Bitcoin is deflationary, it makes more sense to stockpile (or hoard) it than to spend it. That is also what makes it more like a commodity than a currency.
I was in a Comcast office trying to trade in a set-top box for a CableCard (which is a whole separate pile of bullshit by itself). As you might expect, this inevitably resulted in the rent-a-deputy (not just a security guard, but a damn officer of the state!) that Comcast had hired to deal with irate customers (i.e. all of them) taking notice of the situation. First he told me to leave for "disturbing the peace." Then, he followed me out the door and stopped me, which is when I asked "am I being detained?" After waffling on the question, he told me to go back in the store and deal with the customer service rep because otherwise they wouldn't count the set-top-box I'd put on the counter as "returned" and keep charging me for it (as if Comcast's incompetence is his problem).
I almost should have suggested that if Comcast did fail to log the return then I could just cite him as a witness to prove it and then left anyway, but -- like I said -- I genuinely wasn't sure if he would have arrested me if I tried.
The last time I asked a sheriff's deputy that (which incidentally was yesterday -- not to imply that it happens often), his answer was "you're about to be!"
So, is that a "yes" or a "no?" 'Cause I wasn't sure.
Apparently, law enforcement officers are trained to be tricky bastards.
The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.
The state should lose the same amount of money, but it should only be distributed the citizens who refused to take the $50. It's the only way they will ever learn!
Beef for burgers is $3+ per pound (usually more like $4+ if you don't want mechanically-separated). Fresh vegetables tend to be $1-$3 per pound, unless you want to buy something weird out of season (e.g. asparagus in September). Not to mention, frozen vegetables -- either store-bought or frozen yourself -- "keep" and retain most/all of their nutritional value (unlike canned).
(By the way, if you're on a budget, switch to chicken instead of beef. Whole chickens cost less than $1 per pound.)
You make the implicit assumption that government creates more good laws than bad ones. I suspect that the person who proposed expanded use of sunset laws doesn't believe that to be the case.
(Personally, I agree with him -- the goal of the government should be to have the minimum amount of laws and regulation necessary.)
US diesel fuel has been "low sulfur" (500 PPM) for quite a while now. Recently -- and by "recently" I mean since 2006, not "a few years" -- the US switched from "low sulfur" to "ultra-low sulfur" (15 PPM).
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? Fuck all this "no expectation of privacy" bullshit!
Sure, anything people do in public could be observed. But those are the keywords: "anything could." Not "everything will." And certainly not "everything will be observed and then get stored forever in an instantly-searchable government database!"
This Orwellian shit needs to stop.
But then you'd just end up with the keylogger in the PS2->USB converter instead.
Plus, you'd be missing the meta key. (Oooh, maybe the Open Keyboard Alliance should produce a modern version of the Space Cadet keyboard...!)
So what you're saying is that it's time to found the Open Keyboard Alliance?
(Actually it probably is, considering the fact that you could fit an entire SoC, complete with wireless connection to the NSA, in a keyboard these days.)
"Asshole?" No. "Extremist?" I'd say so. (But that's a feature, not a bug!)
And FISA wasn't "intended" to allow the NSA to spy on Americans. But you can see how that worked out!
Both DRM and cryptolocker encrypt your data with a key you don't know.
The difference is that DRM attempts to let you use that key (to decrypt your data under the conditions that the DRM-imposer "allows") while simultaneously hiding the key from you (so that you can't decrypt your data under other conditions).
Cryptolocker, on the other hand, just gives you the key (after paying the ransom, obviously) -- there is none of the "simultaneously allowed and disallowed" nonsense that's inherent to DRM.
In other words, DRM tries to restrict your access to your data (which is inherently impossible). Cryptolocker essentially "steals" your data by encrypting it so that it stops being yours until you pay to get it back.
Natural resources, sure. Creativity (expressed as both techology and art), however, is infinite.
In other words, even when we've hit carrying capacity (because population growth rates are logistic, not exponential as many seem to think) and we're all using a rationed, subsistence level of material goods, there will still be an ever-increasing supply of new art to consume. Plus, given that advances in technology will continue to make us more efficient, that point is so far in the future that it's not worth considering (except that lack of investment due to deflation might cause us to peak at a lower point, sooner).
I made an argument similar to that in another reply. I would argue that a greater-than-3% yield on a reasonably safe investment (where "reasonably safe" would mean "similar risk to a savings account" in this context) would be extremely rare.
I inferred no such thing. Bitcoin's deflationary nature is inherent in its design, and the government can't do anything about that (except ban its use entirely).
If the purchasing power is increasing by more than the risk-adjusted return on investment for all the things you might spend it on, then it's never worth it.
Let me give an example: say the real rate of return on US dollars is assumed to be -3%, with zero risk. It is easy to find investments whose risk-adjusted rates of return exceed that (e.g. US treasuries risk-free at 0%, stocks with risk at 7%, venture capital with a lot of risk at (some big number)%, etc.). And the key thing about all of these is that they're investments, not commodities -- i.e., paying people to create something, rather than stockpiling something that already exists.
In contrast, if the real rate of return on Bitcoins is +3% with zero risk, then it's a lot harder to find an alternative investment worth making. Therefore, much less investment gets done (i.e., much fewer new things get created) and economic and technical progress is stifled.
Nah, it's just regular cryptography. The definition of DRM requires that the owner of the data and the attacker be the same entity.
On the contrary, my point is that everyone the bully thinks is in the former group is actually in the latter. Once the bully weakens, his former "friends" will inevitably betray him.
Don't you realize that the latter argument invalidates the former?
Since Bitcoin is deflationary, it makes more sense to stockpile (or hoard) it than to spend it. That is also what makes it more like a commodity than a currency.
Bullies have no friends.
LOL, you've never heard of civil forfeiture, have you?
I was in a Comcast office trying to trade in a set-top box for a CableCard (which is a whole separate pile of bullshit by itself). As you might expect, this inevitably resulted in the rent-a-deputy (not just a security guard, but a damn officer of the state!) that Comcast had hired to deal with irate customers (i.e. all of them) taking notice of the situation. First he told me to leave for "disturbing the peace." Then, he followed me out the door and stopped me, which is when I asked "am I being detained?" After waffling on the question, he told me to go back in the store and deal with the customer service rep because otherwise they wouldn't count the set-top-box I'd put on the counter as "returned" and keep charging me for it (as if Comcast's incompetence is his problem).
I almost should have suggested that if Comcast did fail to log the return then I could just cite him as a witness to prove it and then left anyway, but -- like I said -- I genuinely wasn't sure if he would have arrested me if I tried.
Congratulations, you've just described fixed-point arithmetic.
The last time I asked a sheriff's deputy that (which incidentally was yesterday -- not to imply that it happens often), his answer was "you're about to be!"
So, is that a "yes" or a "no?" 'Cause I wasn't sure.
Apparently, law enforcement officers are trained to be tricky bastards.
The state should lose the same amount of money, but it should only be distributed the citizens who refused to take the $50. It's the only way they will ever learn!
A thermostat is a bimetallic spring attached to a switch. If that's a robot, everything is.
Beef for burgers is $3+ per pound (usually more like $4+ if you don't want mechanically-separated). Fresh vegetables tend to be $1-$3 per pound, unless you want to buy something weird out of season (e.g. asparagus in September). Not to mention, frozen vegetables -- either store-bought or frozen yourself -- "keep" and retain most/all of their nutritional value (unlike canned).
(By the way, if you're on a budget, switch to chicken instead of beef. Whole chickens cost less than $1 per pound.)
I know, right? My fluorine & chlorine tap is totally contaminated with the stuff, and the city utility department refuses to do anything about it!
Perhaps new laws should sunset once or twice, and then become permanent if renewed.
Put the main thermostat near the TRV-less radiator, but turn down that radiator's valve so that it's only open a little bit and heats up slowly?
You make the implicit assumption that government creates more good laws than bad ones. I suspect that the person who proposed expanded use of sunset laws doesn't believe that to be the case.
(Personally, I agree with him -- the goal of the government should be to have the minimum amount of laws and regulation necessary.)
US diesel fuel has been "low sulfur" (500 PPM) for quite a while now. Recently -- and by "recently" I mean since 2006, not "a few years" -- the US switched from "low sulfur" to "ultra-low sulfur" (15 PPM).
By the way, you know biodiesel? 0 PPM sulfur.