If Facebook is getting so many writs for personal data that it has to automate the process, and the senders are creating so many that they need access via an API so they can send them programatically, I don't think you're talking about subpoenas in any more than the strictest technical sense.
It literally isn't your money in this case: part of putting your money in a Bitcoin exchange involves performing a crytographic transaction that makes the exchange its rightful owner (as far as the Bitcoin network is concerned) and you've basically got their word that they'll then let you have it back, or use it to pay for something, or exchange it for cash.
The floor in the demand for certain goods (food, shelter, heat, healthcare) means there is a corresponding minimum possible price, which is what you would call that good's intrinsic value. People need it.
If the difference between high solar activity and low solar activity is just a slowing of warming, how do you conclude that we would be in "an ice age" were the warming not present?
That's what I'm trying to convey, yes. (Whether that's an accurate picture, well...) You can see from this analogy why buying thousands of dollars worth of those and giving them to some random organisation in China might not be the savviest business move, while having one or two around for when you need them might be useful.
You're supposed to buy it, use it as payment, and never think about that particular bitcoin again. Not hoard them like Scrooge McDuck in the mistaken belief that they're a thriving growth industry as almost every Bitcoin user seems to want to do.
Bitcoin is like a little gold coin that you can magically transpose over the internet. If it's in your hands, it's as safe as any other valuable you own, with the perk that you can readily transact with it over the intertubes. However like any other valuable, if you send it halfway across the world to a complete stranger for safekeeping, then you're going to have a bad time.
It has no inherent dependencies of the types you describe, but there's no barrier to people adding them in because they simply don't understand what was supposed to be so advantageous about it in the first place.
The purpose - the very designed-in function - of Bitcoin is not to create wealth but to be an ephemeral unit of transaction, which is why investors get eaten alive but also why it's not a flaw. It's like the difference between investing in US treasury bonds and investing in big piles of ones.
You're joking, surely? For all that's wrong with it, it's as elegant as a decentralised digital transactions system could be. The issue is rather whether decentralised digital transactions systems, much less ones that also act as a novel unit of trade, are a good idea.
Well I would've thought it was patently obvious that any action to prevent antitrust (even the existence of a Competition Commission) was contrary to laissez-faire principles, but the GP did ask what the objection was.
It's ultimately the product of people's computer time in WoW, which is a service provided by Blizzard through their paid-for and taxed-up business. If you're buying it with real cash, you pay for it through some perfectly ordinary, fully-taxed transaction. It's not a medium of barter outside of WoW so it strikes me that you're essentially trading some nominal portion of Blizzard's net worth.
Basically it's no more legally problematic than those vouchers towns put out that can only be spent at local businesses, or Mickey dollars. Although if I've missed something I'd like to know about it.
You have just completely not read my post, have you? I mean literally the only thing it says is that you don't have to be a monopoly to be engaged in actionable anticompetitive behaviour.
don't break the law when done by a "not too big" company
Yes, because effects scale with the size of the actor and correspondingly different laws apply to a five-man operation in a basement than to a multinational with 90% market share. Would you be equally surprised if I told you that I'm allowed to fry food in my kitchen with impunity, but I'd need to install specialised ventilation equipment to open a fried chicken restaurant?
He's begging the question so nobody is under any obligation to answer it. He might as well have said "Is it a crime for Google to save orphaned puppies?" because it would've had as much relevance to what Google is being prosecuted for.
If you're a corporation, yes. Free-market globalisation implies that companies should weigh restrictive markets like they would weigh any other aspect of doing business with a nation, and conversely a nation should view the restrictiveness of its markets in line with the penalties in lost business from multinationals.
If you're not a corporation, then you have this thing called a "vote" instead.
The case isn't about restricting alternatives, but about promoting oneself and one's partners. The US tends to only concern itself with the former while the EU tends to make sure that the latter isn't allowed to go too far.
To address your first question, the European settlement with MS required that they offer a screen when the PC first boots, with a choice of browsers in random order. The user clicks on one and their browser is downloaded and installed. No hoops.
Slashdot Mirror
If Facebook is getting so many writs for personal data that it has to automate the process, and the senders are creating so many that they need access via an API so they can send them programatically, I don't think you're talking about subpoenas in any more than the strictest technical sense.
It literally isn't your money in this case: part of putting your money in a Bitcoin exchange involves performing a crytographic transaction that makes the exchange its rightful owner (as far as the Bitcoin network is concerned) and you've basically got their word that they'll then let you have it back, or use it to pay for something, or exchange it for cash.
The floor in the demand for certain goods (food, shelter, heat, healthcare) means there is a corresponding minimum possible price, which is what you would call that good's intrinsic value. People need it.
If the difference between high solar activity and low solar activity is just a slowing of warming, how do you conclude that we would be in "an ice age" were the warming not present?
That's what I'm trying to convey, yes. (Whether that's an accurate picture, well...) You can see from this analogy why buying thousands of dollars worth of those and giving them to some random organisation in China might not be the savviest business move, while having one or two around for when you need them might be useful.
As a component of a Beowulf cluster, obviously.
They also routinely give you things "for free" like roads, healthcare, and a legal system. What's your point?
You're supposed to buy it, use it as payment, and never think about that particular bitcoin again. Not hoard them like Scrooge McDuck in the mistaken belief that they're a thriving growth industry as almost every Bitcoin user seems to want to do.
Bitcoin is like a little gold coin that you can magically transpose over the internet. If it's in your hands, it's as safe as any other valuable you own, with the perk that you can readily transact with it over the intertubes. However like any other valuable, if you send it halfway across the world to a complete stranger for safekeeping, then you're going to have a bad time.
It has no inherent dependencies of the types you describe, but there's no barrier to people adding them in because they simply don't understand what was supposed to be so advantageous about it in the first place.
The purpose - the very designed-in function - of Bitcoin is not to create wealth but to be an ephemeral unit of transaction, which is why investors get eaten alive but also why it's not a flaw. It's like the difference between investing in US treasury bonds and investing in big piles of ones.
You're joking, surely? For all that's wrong with it, it's as elegant as a decentralised digital transactions system could be. The issue is rather whether decentralised digital transactions systems, much less ones that also act as a novel unit of trade, are a good idea.
Yes, mining performs the cryptographic operations that the entire Bitcoin transaction network depends upon.
Holy misnegation Batman.
Well I would've thought it was patently obvious that any action to prevent antitrust (even the existence of a Competition Commission) was contrary to laissez-faire principles, but the GP did ask what the objection was.
Google Experience - which is now the only way to get the current releases of things like the messages app - does have a licencing fee.
Antitrust law disagrees.
It's ultimately the product of people's computer time in WoW, which is a service provided by Blizzard through their paid-for and taxed-up business. If you're buying it with real cash, you pay for it through some perfectly ordinary, fully-taxed transaction. It's not a medium of barter outside of WoW so it strikes me that you're essentially trading some nominal portion of Blizzard's net worth.
Basically it's no more legally problematic than those vouchers towns put out that can only be spent at local businesses, or Mickey dollars. Although if I've missed something I'd like to know about it.
When the EU took action against Microsoft, IE had about a 60% share in Europe... and falling.
You have just completely not read my post, have you? I mean literally the only thing it says is that you don't have to be a monopoly to be engaged in actionable anticompetitive behaviour.
don't break the law when done by a "not too big" company
Yes, because effects scale with the size of the actor and correspondingly different laws apply to a five-man operation in a basement than to a multinational with 90% market share. Would you be equally surprised if I told you that I'm allowed to fry food in my kitchen with impunity, but I'd need to install specialised ventilation equipment to open a fried chicken restaurant?
He's begging the question so nobody is under any obligation to answer it. He might as well have said "Is it a crime for Google to save orphaned puppies?" because it would've had as much relevance to what Google is being prosecuted for.
If you're a corporation, yes. Free-market globalisation implies that companies should weigh restrictive markets like they would weigh any other aspect of doing business with a nation, and conversely a nation should view the restrictiveness of its markets in line with the penalties in lost business from multinationals.
If you're not a corporation, then you have this thing called a "vote" instead.
The case isn't about restricting alternatives, but about promoting oneself and one's partners. The US tends to only concern itself with the former while the EU tends to make sure that the latter isn't allowed to go too far.
To address your first question, the European settlement with MS required that they offer a screen when the PC first boots, with a choice of browsers in random order. The user clicks on one and their browser is downloaded and installed. No hoops.