How ? I could point to a random blockchain entry, and say that it was used to purchase a car. How would you verify ?
Generally, Google. Bitcoin addresses often have some detail attached to them. From someone on a forum asking for donations to an address a company uses for recieving payments etc.
If someone is being honest, then their large quantites of data to back it up can be determined valid through the use of the law of large numbers after searching each instance. Depending on how the blocks are transfered, it can be possible to find other identifiers too or are too random.... If they don't match what has been presented, well; you get the idea.
It is easy now. Just not convenient. As it becomes more universally available, the ease of use increases.
But the inconvinience grows. Waiting weeks to process a block chain on my netbook to have a functioning local wallet is insane. Ether took me a week and Zcash took two days.
You missed the most important part that the votes themselves are not binding. They do not reflect the out come. If voted "no" for a particular directive, the order to implement a directive can still take place regardless.
It's important to further distinguish the difference between directives and law because how directives are implemented and treated are different between each country. Countries that are brutally 'correct' end up taking on the negatives while other countries decide to ignore bits when it's convenient. You will find certain things such as the European Arrest Warrant's abuse issues are not an issue in Germany due to ignoring implementing the directive in whole for example.
If you're going to promote or hate the EU, regardless of which side, do it for the real reasons; not made up ones.
The EU parliament works like any parliament. The MoPs are voted in by citizens.
There is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative in the European Parliament. The 'MoP' do not get final say on issues outside of treaty issues as originally described.
To understand the democratic situation a bit more, consider that the President of the European Commission is nominated by the European Council and they are not required to nominate a candidate that has received majority votes either and is selected through a 'secret' voting that is not visible to general public. It should be noted that the European Commission is what holds the legislative power, not the European Parliament.
Basically, UK just lost its voice at the EU table - its share of sovereignty.
Basically, you're wrong.
1) The UK has not left the EU yet, even though article 58 has been triggered. 2) The 'voice' the UK and other countries have are only opinions relating to topics that the EU parliament have decided to discuss and have ultimate authority to decide even with opposition of all countries. 3) Any changes that require a modification to a treaty needs to be ratified by all countries unanimously, which rarely happens. 4) A citizen has no proper recourse in the EU parliamentary system to remove a bad power (voting or otherwise). They are separated to the point that EU citizens have no powers and there is a lack of sufficient checks and balances.
In summary, the EU in it's current state is no democratic and as far as voice goes, it doesn't really do much as can has been seen by the EU parliament video streams repeatedly.
Which sounds ironic, when a good chunk of the campaign's argument was something along the lines of "we want to be in charge of our own".
In comparison Switzerland and Norway do not receive EU mandates in their directives for laws to be implemented in their country... Taking the above scenario into account, the process is technically undemocratic. They are only requirements for trade and compatible relations. Trying to twist that into saying that the UK would have less sovereign control over it's own laws is ludicrous.
What source did you even use to get this information? You've displayed such terrible insight, it astounds me.
I have nothing against Scotland and Wales; however, I've never heard of the demand being that great for people in either country to get to the other and with the lack of available opportunities in both countries, I'm not really understanding the purpose of this...
Since it's been proposed, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what they intend to accomplish? I feel like I am missing something.
I have a couple of very active female contributor accounts with female pictures etc. on Github despite being male in real life. Yet, I don't experience any new problems, same with Twitter, Steam etc.
Yet, I never really get anything particularly sexist that happens to me when I participate online under those accounts... At best, people on Call of Duty call me a "bitch" instead of "fag" and I don't get really anything negative etc. in other games and so on. But, on stuff like Bitbucket, Github, FOSS mailing lists? Nothing, no difference at all.
I get the impression there is a reason why these articles never tell you to just create a female account and see for yourself and it isn't because people will become traumatized by creating a female alias.
Anyone who thinks that purchasing is such a great financial choice needs to think about why purchasing property is available. Could it be because purchasing property is worth more than the sum of the building a property from scratch? If this isn't the case, expect either the purchasing new properties to increase until it is or the availability of purchasable accommodation to plummet. If it is, then you might want to rethink you notion that you're so smart to be making money for someone else.
The fact that they're always being openly challenged nowadays shows how times have changed.
My general experience on Twitter, Mastodon, Tumblr and Facebook is usually the opposite...
And that's one thing trolls can't stand - failing to generate any really visceral emotional reaction that they can play on.
Most level 1 trolls in my experience are just happy to get responses out of people and see if it leads somewhere. They don't use wit, they use quantity.
focus on Manning's gender transition
They actually don't care about the focus, they're just hunting "lolcows".
once again shines a spotlight on bigotry
It pushes bigotry into a non-issue because people redefine the issue as trolling, except for those who have an agenda such as Briana Wu, who would like to make it about 'sexism'. You are starting to tread that line too. This fuels certain sides against you because they can identify you're being trolled and you're reusing it to sell a narrative and in their view, 'making shit up'. This is providing further "lulz" while the situation then escalates to stuff like the Berkeley protests of Yiannopoulos.
Many are, there is very little intellectual wit involved anymore, although Slashdot rarely saw any of that trolling either.
Still, once in a while they'll raise a point that needs to be thought through so that it can be quickly and properly smacked down in the future... so why not? It's not like they're capable of embarrassing me or anything.
Shia Labeouf wasn't "triggered" or messed with through the use of doxing or knowing his real name. It was through messing with his personality which resulted in him producing campaigns that ended up twisted and embarrassing himself when they would manipulate other individuals into wrecking those campaigns and succeeding.
You may have noticed that every once in a while, one or another of the trans women will also throw in their two cents - we really have nothing to be ashamed of, and we're becoming bolder about it every day.
That's sort of what I what I was warning you about in the previous posts to a certain extent.
So the more they throw rocks, the more it indirectly helps the cause.
They're not interested in damaging or helping the cause, they're looking for entertainment.
Besides, the current generation of trolls just doesn't get it. For example, they can't do subtlety. Or lay the groundwork for 6 months before the great chain yanking.
They don't need to, there are plenty of "lolcows".
Anyway, I feel I've sufficiently informed you regarding the type of nefarious motives being used here. It's up to you to choose what you do with that information. My only motive in my posts was to get you to step back and identify what types of comments these were as you didn't appear to be handling them for what they were.
Embolden them to be as out in their hate as they can be - it's the best way to expose them for what they are, rather than having people give them the benefit of the doubt.
That may work if your harasser isn't a troll that isn't motivated at all by what they're saying.
As a level 97 troll with +61 perception, +9 intelligence and -4 Dexterity, I am telling you, these are troll posts by people that don't care by what they are spouting at you. The hate here and now in this thread does not actually exist, take a step back and reassess the situation for what it is.
They can't hurt me. What are they going to do - out me?
Possibly nothing or alternatively, you'll be the next "Shia Labeouf" they start manipulating.
And the only way to change that is to so embolden them that the general public sees the haters for what they are and gets enraged enough to demand that the law be changed.
The problem here is that you're making an assumption they hate you. They don't, they don't even believe in the things they're talking about. It's about getting you to do something meme/lulz worthy.
I think you should take a step back a moment and reassess the situation going on in these posts.
Look at how many of you h8ters have to hide your identities, because you know that there would be real-world consequences if you came out of the closet with your bigotry against trans-women.
This is exactly what this type of troll want you to think about them, they really don't give a shit and are just trying to get a rise out of people like you. By responding in any form, you are encouraging them further. It is no different from when they would post anti-Semitic content to get a rise out of Jews despite genuinely not holding any beliefs being described.
Not that I really give a shit - I'm secure enough in who I am that I've done news interviews on tv and radio, and I go by my legal name here, unlike you.
I suggest you don't give them fuel for them to belittle and criticize you further. This sort of thing is what generates what maybe hurtful memes for you in communities like 4chan.
As long as the industry is driven by complex updates that don't enhance the actual use of the product for most people, they will cling to old versions which remain for the user, feature complete.
People very quickly get upset about signficiant upgrades, just see what happens with Blender.
In many ways the software industry stopped really advancing and just started iterating with the same thing in a different package to collect upgrade dollars.
In many ways, the software industry is forced into this position and the reality is that many institutions poorly implement IT and aren't held to accountability despite the fact they force the industry to go down this path.
To make the Slashdot car analogy, support is available for 1950s automobiles, too, but that doesn't mean we don't let GM off the hook after 10 years and stop requiring them to maintain spare parts for 1950s cars.
This is still readily available for Microsoft. Signing up to be a partner is litterally free, paying Microsoft to back port fixes etc. isn't. But neither is upgrading software. The cost to maintain older systems constantly rises in the Windows world as life cycles expire, but there is not a single Windows operating system Microsoft does not offer a higher tier of paid support for currently (including Windows 1.1).
There's a twofold problem -- vendors iterate their OS to drive sales, even when the existing product more or less meets the feature requirements of the end user. End users don't want to buy upgrades because the systems in question still work, and not only do the upgrades cost money but they inevitably inflict transition costs and business disruption.
End users don't want to pay for maintenance either, so this is a really irrelevant argument.
There needs to be some kind of regulation imposed on vendors which both increases their security patching disclosure and oversight and allows them to more aggressively obsolete a product at the end of that product's support window, forcing users past the point of obsolescence to disruptively and affirmatively acknowledge they are running a version which is obsolete.
There are quite a large chunk of end users that simply do not want to pay for anything. They don't want to pay for their own staff to fix it (open source), they don't want to pay Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc. to update and maintain their systems, they don't want to use cloud services to handle all of this. They simply, do not want to pay. This suggestion changes nothing in that regard.
There are more than enough XP users in the world for Microsoft to dedicate resources and turn a profit supporting it.
You say that, but considering Microsoft offer services to partners (and becoming a partner is trivial) for back porting certain fixes at your own cost. You rarely see the vast majority of bug fixes and vulnerabilities getting back ported for XP these days.
and turn a profit supporting it.
It doesn't appear to work for the vast majority of vulnerabilities out there.
You do realize this very support is available from Microsoft for older versions of Windows? It's just rarely anybody is willing to pay for it. It's just the free patching and cheaper partnership offerings that have been terminated support wise.
You do know that Microsoft do still offer support for Windows 3.11 even? It's just not the free kind.
or pay someone who can.
If that were true, we'd see more people taking these support options from Microsoft.
I've personally still got XP boxes and can't upgrade as the attached, expensive, hardware I use to run my business doesn't have drivers post XP. And the hardware is exteremely good, extremely reliable and just works. The software I use to control it also just works. Modern versions of both the hard and soft ware are crap in comparison (lots of removed features etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, Google. Bitcoin addresses often have some detail attached to them. From someone on a forum asking for donations to an address a company uses for recieving payments etc.
If someone is being honest, then their large quantites of data to back it up can be determined valid through the use of the law of large numbers after searching each instance. Depending on how the blocks are transfered, it can be possible to find other identifiers too or are too random .... If they don't match what has been presented, well; you get the idea.
Slashdot costs 0BTC to ask.
Name them and the 'things of value' along with the blockchain.info link. Bitcoin makes it easy to verify you're telling the truth, proceed.
But the inconvinience grows. Waiting weeks to process a block chain on my netbook to have a functioning local wallet is insane. Ether took me a week and Zcash took two days.
The fees are actually worth at least $50 now. Some people are spending $255,000 worth of Bitcoin for transaction fees now.
You missed the most important part that the votes themselves are not binding. They do not reflect the out come. If voted "no" for a particular directive, the order to implement a directive can still take place regardless.
It's important to further distinguish the difference between directives and law because how directives are implemented and treated are different between each country. Countries that are brutally 'correct' end up taking on the negatives while other countries decide to ignore bits when it's convenient. You will find certain things such as the European Arrest Warrant's abuse issues are not an issue in Germany due to ignoring implementing the directive in whole for example.
If you're going to promote or hate the EU, regardless of which side, do it for the real reasons; not made up ones.
1) Directives aren't law.
2) The votes aren't binding outside of treaty changes.
It doesn't and I'm done explaining.
There is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative in the European Parliament. The 'MoP' do not get final say on issues outside of treaty issues as originally described.
To understand the democratic situation a bit more, consider that the President of the European Commission is nominated by the European Council and they are not required to nominate a candidate that has received majority votes either and is selected through a 'secret' voting that is not visible to general public. It should be noted that the European Commission is what holds the legislative power, not the European Parliament.
Basically, you're wrong.
1) The UK has not left the EU yet, even though article 58 has been triggered.
2) The 'voice' the UK and other countries have are only opinions relating to topics that the EU parliament have decided to discuss and have ultimate authority to decide even with opposition of all countries.
3) Any changes that require a modification to a treaty needs to be ratified by all countries unanimously, which rarely happens.
4) A citizen has no proper recourse in the EU parliamentary system to remove a bad power (voting or otherwise). They are separated to the point that EU citizens have no powers and there is a lack of sufficient checks and balances.
In summary, the EU in it's current state is no democratic and as far as voice goes, it doesn't really do much as can has been seen by the EU parliament video streams repeatedly.
In comparison Switzerland and Norway do not receive EU mandates in their directives for laws to be implemented in their country... Taking the above scenario into account, the process is technically undemocratic. They are only requirements for trade and compatible relations. Trying to twist that into saying that the UK would have less sovereign control over it's own laws is ludicrous.
What source did you even use to get this information? You've displayed such terrible insight, it astounds me.
I have nothing against Scotland and Wales; however, I've never heard of the demand being that great for people in either country to get to the other and with the lack of available opportunities in both countries, I'm not really understanding the purpose of this...
Since it's been proposed, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what they intend to accomplish? I feel like I am missing something.
Sorry, I had meant to respond to you instead of religionofpeas.
I have a couple of very active female contributor accounts with female pictures etc. on Github despite being male in real life. Yet, I don't experience any new problems, same with Twitter, Steam etc.
Yet, I never really get anything particularly sexist that happens to me when I participate online under those accounts... At best, people on Call of Duty call me a "bitch" instead of "fag" and I don't get really anything negative etc. in other games and so on. But, on stuff like Bitbucket, Github, FOSS mailing lists? Nothing, no difference at all.
I get the impression there is a reason why these articles never tell you to just create a female account and see for yourself and it isn't because people will become traumatized by creating a female alias.
It doesn't cost anything to make another account...
Whooosh.
Anyone who thinks that purchasing is such a great financial choice needs to think about why purchasing property is available. Could it be because purchasing property is worth more than the sum of the building a property from scratch? If this isn't the case, expect either the purchasing new properties to increase until it is or the availability of purchasable accommodation to plummet. If it is, then you might want to rethink you notion that you're so smart to be making money for someone else.
My general experience on Twitter, Mastodon, Tumblr and Facebook is usually the opposite...
Most level 1 trolls in my experience are just happy to get responses out of people and see if it leads somewhere. They don't use wit, they use quantity.
They actually don't care about the focus, they're just hunting "lolcows".
It pushes bigotry into a non-issue because people redefine the issue as trolling, except for those who have an agenda such as Briana Wu, who would like to make it about 'sexism'. You are starting to tread that line too. This fuels certain sides against you because they can identify you're being trolled and you're reusing it to sell a narrative and in their view, 'making shit up'. This is providing further "lulz" while the situation then escalates to stuff like the Berkeley protests of Yiannopoulos.
Many are, there is very little intellectual wit involved anymore, although Slashdot rarely saw any of that trolling either.
Shia Labeouf wasn't "triggered" or messed with through the use of doxing or knowing his real name. It was through messing with his personality which resulted in him producing campaigns that ended up twisted and embarrassing himself when they would manipulate other individuals into wrecking those campaigns and succeeding.
That's sort of what I what I was warning you about in the previous posts to a certain extent.
They're not interested in damaging or helping the cause, they're looking for entertainment.
They don't need to, there are plenty of "lolcows".
Anyway, I feel I've sufficiently informed you regarding the type of nefarious motives being used here. It's up to you to choose what you do with that information. My only motive in my posts was to get you to step back and identify what types of comments these were as you didn't appear to be handling them for what they were.
That may work if your harasser isn't a troll that isn't motivated at all by what they're saying.
As a level 97 troll with +61 perception, +9 intelligence and -4 Dexterity, I am telling you, these are troll posts by people that don't care by what they are spouting at you. The hate here and now in this thread does not actually exist, take a step back and reassess the situation for what it is.
Possibly nothing or alternatively, you'll be the next "Shia Labeouf" they start manipulating.
The problem here is that you're making an assumption they hate you. They don't, they don't even believe in the things they're talking about. It's about getting you to do something meme/lulz worthy.
Oh hi, I'm Ash!
I think you should take a step back a moment and reassess the situation going on in these posts.
This is exactly what this type of troll want you to think about them, they really don't give a shit and are just trying to get a rise out of people like you. By responding in any form, you are encouraging them further. It is no different from when they would post anti-Semitic content to get a rise out of Jews despite genuinely not holding any beliefs being described.
I suggest you don't give them fuel for them to belittle and criticize you further. This sort of thing is what generates what maybe hurtful memes for you in communities like 4chan.
People very quickly get upset about signficiant upgrades, just see what happens with Blender.
In many ways, the software industry is forced into this position and the reality is that many institutions poorly implement IT and aren't held to accountability despite the fact they force the industry to go down this path.
This is still readily available for Microsoft. Signing up to be a partner is litterally free, paying Microsoft to back port fixes etc. isn't. But neither is upgrading software. The cost to maintain older systems constantly rises in the Windows world as life cycles expire, but there is not a single Windows operating system Microsoft does not offer a higher tier of paid support for currently (including Windows 1.1).
End users don't want to pay for maintenance either, so this is a really irrelevant argument.
There are quite a large chunk of end users that simply do not want to pay for anything. They don't want to pay for their own staff to fix it (open source), they don't want to pay Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc. to update and maintain their systems, they don't want to use cloud services to handle all of this. They simply, do not want to pay. This suggestion changes nothing in that regard.
You say that, but considering Microsoft offer services to partners (and becoming a partner is trivial) for back porting certain fixes at your own cost. You rarely see the vast majority of bug fixes and vulnerabilities getting back ported for XP these days.
It doesn't appear to work for the vast majority of vulnerabilities out there.
You do realize this very support is available from Microsoft for older versions of Windows? It's just rarely anybody is willing to pay for it. It's just the free patching and cheaper partnership offerings that have been terminated support wise.
You do know that Microsoft do still offer support for Windows 3.11 even? It's just not the free kind.
If that were true, we'd see more people taking these support options from Microsoft.
Which wouldn't be covered under what you propose.