The simple solution is for Bitcoin to halve in exchange value, relative to fiat currencies. then you can double spend, but get similar value.
But why bother? Why not just use smaller units of one Bitcoin as they become more valuable? One Bitcoin can be divided to eight decimal places. 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC.
You don't have to spend one Bitcoin all at once.
No, because it is not simply the opinion of Scalia, it is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on the most comprehensive examination of the second amendment in history and therefore the law of the land when it comes to the *individual* right to bear arms.
Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it) then you should read the entirety of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There is a similar procedure in California called a "998 Offer" (based on Code of Civil Procedure sec. 998) whereby one party can make a binding settlement offer to the other party. If the other party refuses the 998 offer but at trial fails to do better than the 998 offer, then even if they technically win the case the offering party will be awarded costs.
It's a very good procedure to induce parties to settle and avoid further litigation.
I practice law in California in one of the few areas where the prevailing party as a practical matter is entitled to recover it's attorneys' fees and costs. It is the best possible method to discourage meritless litigation as people generally think very carefully before filing a lawsuit. This should absolutely be the norm for most civil cases.
Exactly. And the people who believe Microsoft should "do the right thing" and "pay their fair share" assume that the government will do more good with the money than Microsoft will.
I am not convinced of the accuracy of that assumption.
Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.
Be that as it may, we will never have a free country again. Ever. So I thank those of you who can educate us on how to keep our communications private for legitimate reasons.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"
You may not be a lawyer, but you are correct. From the ruling:
The circumstances of some traffic stops, particularly when the detained individual is armed, might justify a safety measure -- for example, a command that bystanders disperse -- that would incidentally impact an individual's exercise of the First Amendment right to film. Such an order, even when directed at a person who is filming, may be appropriate for legitimate safety reasons. However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties.
The properties of gold make it valuable for several different purposes. One of those purposes is its value as a conductor in electronic components. It's rarity, malleability, and resistance to corrosion make it valuable as a medium of exchange. The fact that one of these purposes is use as a "money" isn't any different than another type of purpose.
Supply and demand for gold for for these purposes (e.g., dentistry, jewelry, money, electronics) dictate the price of gold. The supply is relatively stable, inflating slowly as more gold is mined. Demand is more volatile and is what accounts for most of the fluctuation in the price of gold.
Bitcoin has properties which make it suitable only as a medium of exchange; it fulfills that role quite well, if not perfectly. Just like gold, supply and demand dictate the price of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's primary deficiency at this point is it's price fluctuation in price vs. major fiat currencies, which make it inconvenient to use as a medium of exchange.
If you think 14 year terms are sufficient "representation" for such a powerful entity then you are far too trusting in opinion. Warning: QE infinity may betray that trust.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you sir, I truly appreciate it.
Do you have any suggestions for cold storage? Thanks.
But why bother? Why not just use smaller units of one Bitcoin as they become more valuable? One Bitcoin can be divided to eight decimal places. 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC. You don't have to spend one Bitcoin all at once.
https://youtu.be/cOdzhQS_MMw
Who believes this shit? Terrists! Be afraid bitches!
No, because it is not simply the opinion of Scalia, it is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on the most comprehensive examination of the second amendment in history and therefore the law of the land when it comes to the *individual* right to bear arms.
Yet you can't be bothered to even read it.
I hope for your sake that you are just a troll.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it) then you should read the entirety of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There is a similar procedure in California called a "998 Offer" (based on Code of Civil Procedure sec. 998) whereby one party can make a binding settlement offer to the other party. If the other party refuses the 998 offer but at trial fails to do better than the 998 offer, then even if they technically win the case the offering party will be awarded costs.
It's a very good procedure to induce parties to settle and avoid further litigation.
I practice law in California in one of the few areas where the prevailing party as a practical matter is entitled to recover it's attorneys' fees and costs. It is the best possible method to discourage meritless litigation as people generally think very carefully before filing a lawsuit. This should absolutely be the norm for most civil cases.
Thank you, danheskett.
But it is it not truly naivete to not understand that every phone and every computer of every congressperson is not *closely* monitored?
I have an HTC M8 on Sprint and installed Lollipop two weeks ago.
Similarly, when I play (shorter) poker tournaments I drink a beer an hour. Keeps me from playing too tightly.
And always has been.
Exactly. And the people who believe Microsoft should "do the right thing" and "pay their fair share" assume that the government will do more good with the money than Microsoft will.
I am not convinced of the accuracy of that assumption.
Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.
(What, thy spell checker hath not the finesse?)
Be that as it may, we will never have a free country again. Ever. So I thank those of you who can educate us on how to keep our communications private for legitimate reasons.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"
Great, more Mericans who believe whatever the media-military complex tells them.
Ummm ... "middle class" = "little people' ... did you think otherwise?
Especially believing in that fairy tale starring "Osama Bin Laden" ... if you have believed that much then it is probably too late for you anyway.
The properties of gold make it valuable for several different purposes. One of those purposes is its value as a conductor in electronic components. It's rarity, malleability, and resistance to corrosion make it valuable as a medium of exchange. The fact that one of these purposes is use as a "money" isn't any different than another type of purpose.
Supply and demand for gold for for these purposes (e.g., dentistry, jewelry, money, electronics) dictate the price of gold. The supply is relatively stable, inflating slowly as more gold is mined. Demand is more volatile and is what accounts for most of the fluctuation in the price of gold.
Bitcoin has properties which make it suitable only as a medium of exchange; it fulfills that role quite well, if not perfectly. Just like gold, supply and demand dictate the price of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's primary deficiency at this point is it's price fluctuation in price vs. major fiat currencies, which make it inconvenient to use as a medium of exchange.
So Slashdotters are quoting Gary North, king of the Y2K hype? Yeah, he's real insightful.
If you think 14 year terms are sufficient "representation" for such a powerful entity then you are far too trusting in opinion. Warning: QE infinity may betray that trust.