The point isn't really to single out people who make jokes about a bomb. It's to single out people who aren't behaving normally. And joking about a bomb in your bag simply isn't normal behavior (as witnessed by how few cases have been recorded)
A significant percentage of normal people will joke in tense situations. Many of them are used to joking inappropriately in tense situations. By now, most people know better than to treat the TSA as sane, but that doesn't make those who don't abnormal.
(And yes, ditto to your disclaimer, with the caveat that "consistent" cannot not be read as an excuse.)
I've not used DeepFreeze personally, but I've read about it. From what I've heard, If you want to make changes you boot the system to get a clean state, and then "thaw" it. Then any changes you make will be permanent. You reboot to get back into a frozen state.
It seems to me that using DeepFreeze probably requires doing manual updates every once in a while, but it's not as onerous as making a whole new disk image.
There are people who make things - It would be appropriate to call them makers... And then there are people who subscribe to the philosophy that this is somehow new and brilliant. This rubs some people the wrong way, and they may decide to call attention to it by placing "maker" in quotes.
Personally, I think the maker movement is a good thing, but they've attracted some of the lunatic fringe. Some "makers" are neither making useful things, nor are they as cool as they'd like to believe. Yet they're part of a "movement" and get to feel self important about it.
....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Public use! Public use!
Roads, schools, bridges, freeways, military bases... not shopping malls, golf courses and housing tracts. There's been a longstanding tradition of "interpreting" "just compensation" as being pennies on the dollar (rarely fought against successfully). When the government can take stuff at the price that it dictates and "sell" it to private interests, it has become a full fledged corruption mechanism.
Well, in theory by creating money and using it to buy government debt the money they've injected into the system will be destroyed as the government pays off those debt obligations.
That's the kool-aid. This is actually slightly worse than printing money, intending to later tax it back out of the money supply. (Keeping a negative balance on the sheets is one thing, but debt has interest.) Sometimes in politics, reframing a bad idea in slightly more complex terms makes it more palatable.
I think we've passed the point where that could actually happen, though. The government can only pay off old debt obligations only by issuing new debt, so there's no way to get the money back out of the economy.
That's the real pitfall with any kind of compounding interest. The point of no return sneaks up on you, and is painful (costly) to back away from.
I hope we're not too far gone, but we certainly look like that way. I'm beginning to think that the sooner the US defaults and causes a real depression, the sooner we'll recover. (Also assuming the State of California doesn't default and cause a panic that triggers the US and other states defaulting. If you think the federal government has budget problems, CA is possibly worse.)
A good question. Either the Mexican Army isn't sufficiently in their pockets, or more likely, they're only in the pocket of one cartel, and not all of them. Cartels need weapons to compete with each other too, remember.
By way of illustration, it's well known that there are gun bounties south of the border, trying to encourage people to buy them in the US and run them south to the cartels. If some cartels didn't need more guns, they wouldn't be buying them at a premium from anyone they can.
It might, if each was sufficiently greedy. Remember, miners don't have to be owners. If a significant % of mining operations owned no bitcoins, they'd jump at the chance to mint new coins.
It has the same basic shape as a speculation bubble. It has some controls to keep supply in check, but all the value per item is based on speculation of future prices. It might take as long as a decade or two, but it will eventually pop, and go away. Then everyone will look back on it with nostalgia.
The only way this can be avoided is if it is given value independent from speculation. That's not impossible, but it is improbable. For instance, if a country somewhere declared it be their national currency and refused to deal in anything else (taxes, tariffs, national budget, etc). Again, it's improbable. Very, very improbable.
I predict a lull followed by sudden catastrophic hyper-inflation (devaluing) from which it will not recover. (don't know how far off this is, but probably not this year)
My primary point was that they cannot be manufactured *in response to* a growing market.
But they are growing at an established rate to fill a projected market. That's splitting the hair pretty darn thin.
I would argue that if there was a serious supply glut that the major players would all come together and retune the system to produce fewer coins. I'm under the impression that Bit Coin is designed with that ability intentionally. Thus, it could still be said that they are (and can be) manufactured in response to a growing market. (at least up to the pre-established cap, which will probably also turn out to be negotiable)
It is possible to be elected to local office (sometimes even state office) without selling your soul or mortgaging your mansion. (You do have a mansion to mortgage, don't you?) But it takes a whole lot of work. Higher office, though? Not without outside funding and corporate support (or unions, or other moneyed special interest consortiums).
Politicians have a small army of qualified staff to ensure the bill meets their expectations, that's not negligence it's proper due diligence.
(1) They have fewer than you'd think.
(2) Even they don't often read everything.
(3) Often staff members have $$$ jobs lined up for when their boss leaves office. ("We're not being bribed! We swear!" - This is a real problem, even for the rare honest politician or two.)
(4) They should STILL read each bill all the way through at least once before being briefed by their staff. Even if they don't know the exact language, they should know everything in every bill they vote on. (They don't. Not even close.) Thus, I have absolutely no qualms about the term "negligence" being used.
Alright, riddle me this, then: Let's say you have two miners declare a workable hash at the same time. The problem is, they don't contain the same transactions for the same bitcoin. You have two legitimized routes that the coin has taken. Which is accepted?
Maybe this is an off-base question. If I really cared to learn all that much about Bit Coin, I would eventually find the uncomfortable question.
I came across this without even trying, which is better than my scenario because people who know the system inside and out came up with it. They point out some possible ways to handle it, but it won't be the last vulnerability found.
Actually, they're designed to be relatively easy to make. It's an ingredient of the snake-oil part of bitcoin.
People needed to use CPU cycles to "mine" them, thus they feel like they've accomplished something. They feel like they've contributed. They have earned something of value. It's a very nice, exciting, warm and fuzzy feeling. Having gotten something from nothing, they go from being skeptics, to converts.
There is a semi-legitimate social (not technological) reason for this. If I say I wanted to start an online currency, but I'm starting with all the cash, nobody is going to buy from me. On the other hand, if I say that other-people-not-me are the originating parties, people don't assume it's a thinly veiled money grab.
(To be perfectly clear, I do not believe Bit Coin to be a thinly veiled money grab. I do believe it to be ephemeral. I just can't figure out if it's unthinking zealotry, a complex scam, or an inevitable part of our zeitgeist - a word I swore I would never use.)
You don't have to be a crank to see the US government is madly increasing the money supply.
I wish you were wrong, but it certainly looks that way.
What do you suppose is going to happen when the economy starts growing again?
Honestly, I think that's the lottery ticket the FED is trying to buy. They probably think that they can guide the hurricane into blowing over, and then slowly buy back the currency. (see: deflationary spiral; aka the financial bogey-man)
You can't spend an "invalid bitcoin". There is no such thing as counterfeit or otherwise invalid currency in bitcoin. Perhaps you should study what you are trying to mock and deride.
With the right hack it is possible to have two copies of a bitcoin in circulation. It's possible to make this very hard to do, but it is impossible to prevent in an absolute sense.
You have a bitcoin. Great! Now how do you know that it's unique? The transaction was signed? Fine. But how do you know that it was legit before you received it?
No matter how you slice it, there must be a central authority to indicate which are real, and which are false. A hack there can cause all flavors of theft, fraud, and forgery. If you have no central authority, then you risk fracturing your money supply at the exchange level, with each exchange becoming its own authority.
Just another example of why Slashdot needs to get rid of ACs, if they don't have the balls to stand by their comments they should probably STFU.
Nah, we'd just have more sock-puppets. At least this way we've got a really good clue about which posts are probably shallow (or outright inflammatory).
(Disclaimer, I do use AC from time to time, but not for trolling.)
I'm not certain, but I hear that's the reason Hollywood is in California. The patent-ignoring producers moved cross country to prevent litigation (back when that was feasible).
Anyhow, isoHunt did the Google defense, which the judge ruled invalid as isoHunt was doing "editorial content" and pointing out specific torrents that were to be of interest. This invalidates any DMCA safe harbour because the site is no longer neutral - the site operators were looking at the site and point out what might be of interest.
DMCA safe harbour only applies when the site treats everything the same.
Were they pointing out blatantly illegal torrents, or only legal and interesting torrents? Or maybe torrents that looked legit, and weren't. Just because they were occasionally glancing at their own site doesn't imply liability. Did they ever fail to respond to a DCMA takedown notice?
You've made an interesting point, but it's kinda in the grey area for my liking. Assuming the defendants were guilty after this manner, I'm hoping the judge didn't word the ruling loose enough to be used as a bad precedent.
I don't agree with him, or his condescension, but at least he makes a valid point. Unless they're careful, lawyers do think that way (and judges are even more prone to such). It may be unjustified in this case, but it's still a valid point.
And which of these do you believe enjoys the relationship?
Before you answer too quickly, ponder which ones would continue selling Windows exclusively if there was a viable mainstream alternative? They tolerate the conditions imposed upon them because they feel they must, not because they feel like "partners".
Slashdot Mirror
And what if you were a musician in a band called "The Terrorists"... and you were on tour with a bag full of CDs of your first album titled "Bombs"?
That sounds like a publicity stunt, if ever I heard one.
A significant percentage of normal people will joke in tense situations. Many of them are used to joking inappropriately in tense situations. By now, most people know better than to treat the TSA as sane, but that doesn't make those who don't abnormal.
(And yes, ditto to your disclaimer, with the caveat that "consistent" cannot not be read as an excuse.)
I've not used DeepFreeze personally, but I've read about it. From what I've heard, If you want to make changes you boot the system to get a clean state, and then "thaw" it. Then any changes you make will be permanent. You reboot to get back into a frozen state.
It seems to me that using DeepFreeze probably requires doing manual updates every once in a while, but it's not as onerous as making a whole new disk image.
*sigh* Yet another way Linux is mimicking Microsoft...
There are people who make things - It would be appropriate to call them makers... And then there are people who subscribe to the philosophy that this is somehow new and brilliant. This rubs some people the wrong way, and they may decide to call attention to it by placing "maker" in quotes.
Personally, I think the maker movement is a good thing, but they've attracted some of the lunatic fringe. Some "makers" are neither making useful things, nor are they as cool as they'd like to believe. Yet they're part of a "movement" and get to feel self important about it.
They might not be able effect changes on the system, but they can certainly regulate any actors they can find and reach with law enforcement.
Public use! Public use!
Roads, schools, bridges, freeways, military bases... not shopping malls, golf courses and housing tracts. There's been a longstanding tradition of "interpreting" "just compensation" as being pennies on the dollar (rarely fought against successfully). When the government can take stuff at the price that it dictates and "sell" it to private interests, it has become a full fledged corruption mechanism.
Well, in theory by creating money and using it to buy government debt the money they've injected into the system will be destroyed as the government pays off those debt obligations.
That's the kool-aid. This is actually slightly worse than printing money, intending to later tax it back out of the money supply. (Keeping a negative balance on the sheets is one thing, but debt has interest.) Sometimes in politics, reframing a bad idea in slightly more complex terms makes it more palatable.
I think we've passed the point where that could actually happen, though. The government can only pay off old debt obligations only by issuing new debt, so there's no way to get the money back out of the economy.
That's the real pitfall with any kind of compounding interest. The point of no return sneaks up on you, and is painful (costly) to back away from.
I hope we're not too far gone, but we certainly look like that way. I'm beginning to think that the sooner the US defaults and causes a real depression, the sooner we'll recover. (Also assuming the State of California doesn't default and cause a panic that triggers the US and other states defaulting. If you think the federal government has budget problems, CA is possibly worse.)
A good question. Either the Mexican Army isn't sufficiently in their pockets, or more likely, they're only in the pocket of one cartel, and not all of them. Cartels need weapons to compete with each other too, remember.
By way of illustration, it's well known that there are gun bounties south of the border, trying to encourage people to buy them in the US and run them south to the cartels. If some cartels didn't need more guns, they wouldn't be buying them at a premium from anyone they can.
I've got a tower in London that I'd like to sell you. Or Paris, if you'd prefer.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars didn't come out of his pockets.
It might, if each was sufficiently greedy. Remember, miners don't have to be owners. If a significant % of mining operations owned no bitcoins, they'd jump at the chance to mint new coins.
It's unlikely, but possible.
It has the same basic shape as a speculation bubble. It has some controls to keep supply in check, but all the value per item is based on speculation of future prices. It might take as long as a decade or two, but it will eventually pop, and go away. Then everyone will look back on it with nostalgia.
The only way this can be avoided is if it is given value independent from speculation. That's not impossible, but it is improbable. For instance, if a country somewhere declared it be their national currency and refused to deal in anything else (taxes, tariffs, national budget, etc). Again, it's improbable. Very, very improbable.
I predict a lull followed by sudden catastrophic hyper-inflation (devaluing) from which it will not recover. (don't know how far off this is, but probably not this year)
But they are growing at an established rate to fill a projected market. That's splitting the hair pretty darn thin.
I would argue that if there was a serious supply glut that the major players would all come together and retune the system to produce fewer coins. I'm under the impression that Bit Coin is designed with that ability intentionally. Thus, it could still be said that they are (and can be) manufactured in response to a growing market. (at least up to the pre-established cap, which will probably also turn out to be negotiable)
No, not really.
It is possible to be elected to local office (sometimes even state office) without selling your soul or mortgaging your mansion. (You do have a mansion to mortgage, don't you?) But it takes a whole lot of work. Higher office, though? Not without outside funding and corporate support (or unions, or other moneyed special interest consortiums).
(1) They have fewer than you'd think.
(2) Even they don't often read everything.
(3) Often staff members have $$$ jobs lined up for when their boss leaves office. ("We're not being bribed! We swear!" - This is a real problem, even for the rare honest politician or two.)
(4) They should STILL read each bill all the way through at least once before being briefed by their staff. Even if they don't know the exact language, they should know everything in every bill they vote on. (They don't. Not even close.) Thus, I have absolutely no qualms about the term "negligence" being used.
(after some brief research)
Alright, riddle me this, then: Let's say you have two miners declare a workable hash at the same time. The problem is, they don't contain the same transactions for the same bitcoin. You have two legitimized routes that the coin has taken. Which is accepted?
Maybe this is an off-base question. If I really cared to learn all that much about Bit Coin, I would eventually find the uncomfortable question.
I came across this without even trying, which is better than my scenario because people who know the system inside and out came up with it. They point out some possible ways to handle it, but it won't be the last vulnerability found.
Actually, they're designed to be relatively easy to make. It's an ingredient of the snake-oil part of bitcoin.
People needed to use CPU cycles to "mine" them, thus they feel like they've accomplished something. They feel like they've contributed. They have earned something of value. It's a very nice, exciting, warm and fuzzy feeling. Having gotten something from nothing, they go from being skeptics, to converts.
There is a semi-legitimate social (not technological) reason for this. If I say I wanted to start an online currency, but I'm starting with all the cash, nobody is going to buy from me. On the other hand, if I say that other-people-not-me are the originating parties, people don't assume it's a thinly veiled money grab.
(To be perfectly clear, I do not believe Bit Coin to be a thinly veiled money grab. I do believe it to be ephemeral. I just can't figure out if it's unthinking zealotry, a complex scam, or an inevitable part of our zeitgeist - a word I swore I would never use.)
I wish you were wrong, but it certainly looks that way.
Honestly, I think that's the lottery ticket the FED is trying to buy. They probably think that they can guide the hurricane into blowing over, and then slowly buy back the currency. (see: deflationary spiral; aka the financial bogey-man)
With the right hack it is possible to have two copies of a bitcoin in circulation. It's possible to make this very hard to do, but it is impossible to prevent in an absolute sense.
You have a bitcoin. Great! Now how do you know that it's unique? The transaction was signed? Fine. But how do you know that it was legit before you received it?
No matter how you slice it, there must be a central authority to indicate which are real, and which are false. A hack there can cause all flavors of theft, fraud, and forgery. If you have no central authority, then you risk fracturing your money supply at the exchange level, with each exchange becoming its own authority.
Nah, we'd just have more sock-puppets. At least this way we've got a really good clue about which posts are probably shallow (or outright inflammatory).
(Disclaimer, I do use AC from time to time, but not for trolling.)
I'm not certain, but I hear that's the reason Hollywood is in California. The patent-ignoring producers moved cross country to prevent litigation (back when that was feasible).
In 2013? Seriously? Do you know just how easy it is to do a cookie white-list?
Were they pointing out blatantly illegal torrents, or only legal and interesting torrents? Or maybe torrents that looked legit, and weren't. Just because they were occasionally glancing at their own site doesn't imply liability. Did they ever fail to respond to a DCMA takedown notice?
You've made an interesting point, but it's kinda in the grey area for my liking. Assuming the defendants were guilty after this manner, I'm hoping the judge didn't word the ruling loose enough to be used as a bad precedent.
Who are you shilling for, Mr AC?
I don't agree with him, or his condescension, but at least he makes a valid point. Unless they're careful, lawyers do think that way (and judges are even more prone to such). It may be unjustified in this case, but it's still a valid point.
And which of these do you believe enjoys the relationship?
Before you answer too quickly, ponder which ones would continue selling Windows exclusively if there was a viable mainstream alternative? They tolerate the conditions imposed upon them because they feel they must, not because they feel like "partners".