Oh come on you insensitive clod. Are you really calling me nonsensical because I don't need a tablet?
At home the netbook is always within reach for looking up wikipedia and playing games the ipad could never dream of supporting. For reading books and some webpages, and of course watching youtube, I have an htpc. For productivity and gaming nothing beats my desktop. When outside, my phone can help me find info on the net in a much *much* more portable and convenient form than a tablet.
I don't want to carry a tablet everywhere. Oh and I haven't yet read all the books I already own in dead tree format. Realistically speaking a tablet would simply replace my netbook half of the time.
It would be an improvement, but hardly worth $600.
Wanting to play pirate games is not the only reason to say "Fuck you, Sony".
As a freedom and free software enthusiast, the thing that bothers me to no end about Sony, and all consoles for that matter, is how their games are becoming thiner and thiner in content, expecting more and more content to be "purchased" --which now means something similar to renting-- online.
People every year own less and less what they pay for and more remains in the control of the corporation. It has come to the point where even first sale rights are being denied because for all they whine that piracy is illegal, they don't give a shit about legality when they smell money to be made in abusing another illegal niche.
People should really vote with their wallets. There are hundreds of exciting free games, and hundreds of indie games that don't use these dirty tactics. And there is of course, human interaction, books, etc.
Veeeery interesting opinion, I'm not complaining, just mean to learn when I say, what again?
Ok, the bank can be controlled even without control of the actual currency, but how do you say the government can alter the money supply by issuing loans in BTC? In BTC you can't give out (we are talking about lending, but lending isn't explicitly supported, just giving) a coin you don't own. Unlike most currencies, where two bills of the same value are perfectly interchangeable, two bitcoins are not the same, they are unique.
You say the government or banks willingness to lend out BTC is not limited by the actual number of BTC, but it has to be immediately dependent on the number of coins they own and ultimately dependent on the total number of coins.
The way I understand fractional reserve is this:
Clients A, B and C deposits in bank M, $10,000 each.
M has $30,000
M lends to Clients X and Y $10,000 each
M has $10,000, 1/3 of the money necessary to return to A, B, C shall they decide to dispose of their money.
X and Y both make horrible investments that render them unable to pay out their debt. At this point the $20,000 belong to other people who provided services or products to X and Y.
What can the Government do? A, B and C have surely lost their investment haven't they? Incarcerating X and Y (and why not M) may help some but it's far from a solution. The government can take X's and Y's (and M's?) assets an distribute them to A, B, C, or it can sell or auction them for BTC or DLS (EUR, ETC...). What I just can't do is sign a paper and say, you own these BTCs now. I'll cash them later.
I mean, they could, but those wouldn't be BTCs, they would be BTC promises, a different currency, one that can't be traded through the regular BTC channel.
And by "You" you probably mean the government. But assuming this as a cryptoanarchist currency with no central authority what happens? More over, in this system a bank can't lend the same coin twice, at least not until it gets the coin back.
We shouldn't have left them get all the gold in the first place, but we were blinded by the shiny gold we imagined hoarding ourselves if we supported this system. Besides must of us are too stupid to think anything other than what our leaders say we should, whom we'll follow as long as they feed our prejudices and claim to fight the fears they sowed in us. .
Why else did we ever allowed community, society and equality to become taboo words? Why else would we have taboo words anyway? And why oh why do you layout paragraphs like... .
I absolutely disagree that patents should cover independent and accidental discoveries. Its crazy that I can not use something I invented because someone else somewhere else invented something similar. We were better off in the time of guilds and trade secrets.
The Bitcoin system is basically twofold. Let's draw an analogy.
Let say you are small web hosting provider, I sell manure. I need a web store to promote and sell my product. But we live in China, and I don't want to deal with physical money, so we agree on using Eve Online's ISK as currency. So I arrage for a realtive to pay real money to Eve Online's company, CCP to get some ISK for me to pay you.
Later, a man who home grows vegetables uses your web page to buy manure from me. Since I'm lacking in ISK since our last transaction, I take my payment in ISK. Next week while browsing through the local market for vegetables you find this man who accepts ISK too, you pay him using the ISK I gave you, closing the loop.
So far, I hope this is uncontroversial. The system works as long as it remains closed. It breaks down as soon as someone absolutely needs to pay using something other than ISK, it can be any producer of real work or goods or simply the government asking for exTArXion money. But it can coexist with real money has long as at least some of us keep this as a side business. In this example, it is assumed we all get money from other sources too.
Ok, so, the system depends on the continued existence of CCP and it's transaction services. Once you pay them to get ISK, the only reason you can claim to own that ISK is because CCP acknowledges this. Besides someone had to pay CCP with something other than ISK for CCP to summon it into existence.
You can replace CCP and ISK with any central authority and its desired currency.
Enters Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a distributed platform. Nobody controls it, nobody runs it. The client is OSS so there can be multiple providers, but the mesh is one. The existence of the mesh is guaranteed to exist as long as the Internet exists and people run the client. Transactions are handled by peers. Authority comes from consensus. The only reason you can claim to own any BTC is because the mesh acknowledges this. Paying BTC to someone basically consists of telling everybody you give up ownership of a coin to someone else. You can't pay with the same coin a second time because everybody knows you don't own that coin anymore. The person you gave that coin can now use it because everybody knows that person is the current owner of that coin.
Everything is the same than with CCP and ISKs, except it is more secure robust and durable. But there's the question of how BTCs are summoned into existence. How do you pay "The Bitcoin Company" to get a coin? What currency does "The Bitcoin Company" accepts and who set's the exchange rate?
So who is "The Bitcoin Company" and what does it want? "The Bitcoin Company" is the mesh itself and it requires computational cycles. The coins are not simply summoned into existence, they already exist as crypto keys waiting to be found and claimed, but that costs money, in the shape of CPU cycles.
So you pay the mesh by finding the coins and the mesh acknowledges your possession of the coin as a reward.
Loans are possible in this system, but the bank can't give you more money that it has. Further more, there is a maximum number of coins awaiting to be found. For the same reason inflation and deflation due to banks or government printing money or destroying it can't happen.
I'm not sure there is a way for inflation and deflation to happen in a fixed currency system. That's way over my area of expertise.
The public election system is suboptimal and should be eliminated. Firstly it self-selects power hungry individuals who have more incentive in their political careers than public good, this drives them to such stupidities as pursuing dumb actions just to "look busy" including security theaters. Overspending to look good then passing the bill to the next major, etc. And there are, of course, the lobbies.
I propose a system of random selection instead of popular election. Randomly select a group of able citizens as representatives of their community, not unlike the jury system for criminal trials, have them overlook the work of public servants and take charge of administrative actions.
I suspect astroturfing has taken over slashdot by over 50%.
Lately I've seen opinions that have no basis in either ethics or even the f-leter of the law. The only purpose now seems to be corporate encroachment. Tetris -the concept- does not belong to the tetris company, the ruleset is not copyrightable. The trademark is not confusing. Tey have no right to this except the right that is bought.
If you mean the Fox News crowd sure, that's news to them and they wouldn't bite it, everyone knows Assange is a baby eating rapist and Anonymous are hackers on steroids clocking the series of tubes.
Slashdot Mirror
When you said good tablets I was think something like this.
Oh come on you insensitive clod. Are you really calling me nonsensical because I don't need a tablet?
At home the netbook is always within reach for looking up wikipedia and playing games the ipad could never dream of supporting. For reading books and some webpages, and of course watching youtube, I have an htpc. For productivity and gaming nothing beats my desktop. When outside, my phone can help me find info on the net in a much *much* more portable and convenient form than a tablet.
I don't want to carry a tablet everywhere. Oh and I haven't yet read all the books I already own in dead tree format. Realistically speaking a tablet would simply replace my netbook half of the time.
It would be an improvement, but hardly worth $600.
Sorry, that was the work of the *middle* easter bunny.
Anonymous wasn't DDoSing Wikileaks.
Wanting to play pirate games is not the only reason to say "Fuck you, Sony".
As a freedom and free software enthusiast, the thing that bothers me to no end about Sony, and all consoles for that matter, is how their games are becoming thiner and thiner in content, expecting more and more content to be "purchased" --which now means something similar to renting-- online.
People every year own less and less what they pay for and more remains in the control of the corporation. It has come to the point where even first sale rights are being denied because for all they whine that piracy is illegal, they don't give a shit about legality when they smell money to be made in abusing another illegal niche.
People should really vote with their wallets. There are hundreds of exciting free games, and hundreds of indie games that don't use these dirty tactics. And there is of course, human interaction, books, etc.
So fuck Sony.
Firefox's Autopager does the same thing, I guess. Haven't tried Safari since leaving Windows.
Veeeery interesting opinion, I'm not complaining, just mean to learn when I say, what again?
Ok, the bank can be controlled even without control of the actual currency, but how do you say the government can alter the money supply by issuing loans in BTC? In BTC you can't give out (we are talking about lending, but lending isn't explicitly supported, just giving) a coin you don't own. Unlike most currencies, where two bills of the same value are perfectly interchangeable, two bitcoins are not the same, they are unique.
You say the government or banks willingness to lend out BTC is not limited by the actual number of BTC, but it has to be immediately dependent on the number of coins they own and ultimately dependent on the total number of coins.
The way I understand fractional reserve is this:
Clients A, B and C deposits in bank M, $10,000 each.
M has $30,000
M lends to Clients X and Y $10,000 each
M has $10,000, 1/3 of the money necessary to return to A, B, C shall they decide to dispose of their money.
X and Y both make horrible investments that render them unable to pay out their debt. At this point the $20,000 belong to other people who provided services or products to X and Y.
What can the Government do? A, B and C have surely lost their investment haven't they? Incarcerating X and Y (and why not M) may help some but it's far from a solution. The government can take X's and Y's (and M's?) assets an distribute them to A, B, C, or it can sell or auction them for BTC or DLS (EUR, ETC...). What I just can't do is sign a paper and say, you own these BTCs now. I'll cash them later.
I mean, they could, but those wouldn't be BTCs, they would be BTC promises, a different currency, one that can't be traded through the regular BTC channel.
And by "You" you probably mean the government. But assuming this as a cryptoanarchist currency with no central authority what happens? More over, in this system a bank can't lend the same coin twice, at least not until it gets the coin back.
I mean, we have to accept at some point that we are all in a public place.
No we don't. We don't have to be lazy, defeatist or sell outs. Don't project your apathy onto everybody.
m is absolutely the bestD
A
wq
And without a central bank, what do these banks do when they can't pay out debts?
We shouldn't have left them get all the gold in the first place, but we were blinded by the shiny gold we imagined hoarding ourselves if we supported this system. Besides must of us are too stupid to think anything other than what our leaders say we should, whom we'll follow as long as they feed our prejudices and claim to fight the fears they sowed in us.
.
Why else did we ever allowed community, society and equality to become taboo words? Why else would we have taboo words anyway? And why oh why do you layout paragraphs like...
.
This?
I absolutely disagree that patents should cover independent and accidental discoveries. Its crazy that I can not use something I invented because someone else somewhere else invented something similar. We were better off in the time of guilds and trade secrets.
...and beyond, I consider the extended territory the new nation of Usptostan.
No, they don't.
The Bitcoin system is basically twofold. Let's draw an analogy.
Let say you are small web hosting provider, I sell manure. I need a web store to promote and sell my product. But we live in China, and I don't want to deal with physical money, so we agree on using Eve Online's ISK as currency. So I arrage for a realtive to pay real money to Eve Online's company, CCP to get some ISK for me to pay you.
Later, a man who home grows vegetables uses your web page to buy manure from me. Since I'm lacking in ISK since our last transaction, I take my payment in ISK. Next week while browsing through the local market for vegetables you find this man who accepts ISK too, you pay him using the ISK I gave you, closing the loop.
So far, I hope this is uncontroversial. The system works as long as it remains closed. It breaks down as soon as someone absolutely needs to pay using something other than ISK, it can be any producer of real work or goods or simply the government asking for exTArXion money. But it can coexist with real money has long as at least some of us keep this as a side business. In this example, it is assumed we all get money from other sources too.
Ok, so, the system depends on the continued existence of CCP and it's transaction services. Once you pay them to get ISK, the only reason you can claim to own that ISK is because CCP acknowledges this. Besides someone had to pay CCP with something other than ISK for CCP to summon it into existence.
You can replace CCP and ISK with any central authority and its desired currency.
Enters Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a distributed platform. Nobody controls it, nobody runs it. The client is OSS so there can be multiple providers, but the mesh is one. The existence of the mesh is guaranteed to exist as long as the Internet exists and people run the client. Transactions are handled by peers. Authority comes from consensus. The only reason you can claim to own any BTC is because the mesh acknowledges this. Paying BTC to someone basically consists of telling everybody you give up ownership of a coin to someone else. You can't pay with the same coin a second time because everybody knows you don't own that coin anymore. The person you gave that coin can now use it because everybody knows that person is the current owner of that coin.
Everything is the same than with CCP and ISKs, except it is more secure robust and durable. But there's the question of how BTCs are summoned into existence. How do you pay "The Bitcoin Company" to get a coin? What currency does "The Bitcoin Company" accepts and who set's the exchange rate?
So who is "The Bitcoin Company" and what does it want? "The Bitcoin Company" is the mesh itself and it requires computational cycles. The coins are not simply summoned into existence, they already exist as crypto keys waiting to be found and claimed, but that costs money, in the shape of CPU cycles.
So you pay the mesh by finding the coins and the mesh acknowledges your possession of the coin as a reward.
Loans are possible in this system, but the bank can't give you more money that it has. Further more, there is a maximum number of coins awaiting to be found. For the same reason inflation and deflation due to banks or government printing money or destroying it can't happen.
I'm not sure there is a way for inflation and deflation to happen in a fixed currency system. That's way over my area of expertise.
I'm still waiting for the zombies, there are gonna be zombies in this movie, right?
The public election system is suboptimal and should be eliminated. Firstly it self-selects power hungry individuals who have more incentive in their political careers than public good, this drives them to such stupidities as pursuing dumb actions just to "look busy" including security theaters. Overspending to look good then passing the bill to the next major, etc. And there are, of course, the lobbies.
I propose a system of random selection instead of popular election. Randomly select a group of able citizens as representatives of their community, not unlike the jury system for criminal trials, have them overlook the work of public servants and take charge of administrative actions.
* Denied. Non-notable.
I suspect astroturfing has taken over slashdot by over 50%.
Lately I've seen opinions that have no basis in either ethics or even the f-leter of the law. The only purpose now seems to be corporate encroachment. Tetris -the concept- does not belong to the tetris company, the ruleset is not copyrightable. The trademark is not confusing. Tey have no right to this except the right that is bought.
In other words WP:DONTBITE and WP:EDIT have been thrown out of the window in favor of deletionism and wikilawyering.
What advertisers?
is forced.
Obligatory "Obligatory xkcd link" http://xkcd.com/391
If you mean the Fox News crowd sure, that's news to them and they wouldn't bite it, everyone knows Assange is a baby eating rapist and Anonymous are hackers on steroids clocking the series of tubes.