Why should I bother with bitcoin when the market can be driven around with wash trades and manipulation due to low volume? The manipulation on mtgox is plain to see for anyone with experience in other markets. Buckets, nay, truckloads of paint for painting the tape.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when the only real demand for it is money laundering for buying drugs on silkroad? The evidence for this is the big crash when silkroad went down last Friday.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when I can lose my shirt on the currency exchanges that are not even regulated to ensure a level playing field? Lose half value in 12 hours? The volatility is insane.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when exchanging bitcoins for cash after a trade takes days?
Why should I bother with bitcoin when it doesn't translate into anything in the real world except a speculative market based upon illegal activity?
These and other problems make me wonder how far the scam goes.
Why does everything about bitcoin point at a scam?
>'Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library,' explains Agger. 'In the children's section, the only "inappropriate" stuff to be found was Judy Blume's Forever,
What a bunch of hooey.
Judy Blume was never in the Children's Section. She was in the Young Adults section. YA
Also... YA books?
Pfft.... Amateurs. Why bother when you can cruise on over to the Adult section and read the "real books"? I had my own library card at 7, the minimum age. I could check out whatever I wanted. When I hit the tween and teen years, I skipped right over the YA section.
Adult authors warp a young mind? Yes, yes they did. So did Isaac Asimov and a bunch of SF authors among others (I was hot for the "Golden Age" SF stuff at the time), but I certainly found my way over to the books my mom would disapprove of. It's not like there's a Chinese wall between the kid section and the adult sections. It's not like a librarian is going to stop you from checking out the other side. Indeed, all the good SF was on the adult side, and my librarian (RIP, Mrs. Griffith, you are fondly remembered) is the one that turned me on to that genre. My first reference to oral sex in literature was in Poul Andersen's book "Gateway." Larry Niven's permissive sex in the Ringworld saga gave me a new vocabulary word for interspecies sex.
As for "inappropriate," try Virginia Andrews. The incest sex scenes in "Flowers in the Attic" were... interesting to a 13 year old boy.
Ain't no censorship in a library, parents. If your kid is quiet, he/she can go anywhere and read any ol' thing. It's encouraged.
From what I've heard is that everyone hates them, that they're forever screwing over both sellers and shoppers, day-in, day-out, 24/7 on Ebay, but since Ebay is a captive market, there aren't any real alternatives.
Why, on Gawd's Green Earth, would you want to take their abuses and expand them out into meatspace?
Credit card companies, as much maligned as they are, treat their customers (both vendors and shoppers) far better than Paypal has ever done for their own customers.
As a purchaser, you are better off with a regular or secured credit card and pay it off at the end of the month (this is key) than ever dealing with Paypal. You get extra warranties, cash-back, fraud protection, frequent flier miles, etc. Indeed, just comparing credit card fraud protection to Paypal's version of "fraud protection" and the differences are staggering. Only a fool would pick Paypal.
The NWS is going around fucking begging for fucking GOES replacements and those are the fucking sats we use to predict the fucking weather, you know, fucking hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc? You know, the shit that affects our economy? And just like this, understanding how the ocean fucking works will help us understand what happens to fishing stocks and weather and a whole lot of other things so that we may FUCKING PLAN AHEAD FOR THE FUCKING FUTURE.
Fuck you and your FUCKING SHORT TERM OUTLOOK.
HOW ABOUT YOU DIRECT YOUR FUCKING RAGE AT THE FUCKING 5 OR SO UNPRODUCTIVE FUCKING WARS WE'RE FUCKING DOING (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, LIBYA, YEMEN, AND PROBABLY SOME SHIT THAT HASN'T HIT THE FUCKING NEWS YET), YOU FUCKING MORON?
YES, I'M FUCKING MAD. FUCK YOU AND ALL OF YOUR TYPE. WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO DO THIS SHIT, UNLIKE THE FUCKING WARS WHICH ARE A FUCKING WASTE. SINCE YOU'RE SO FUCKING FOND OF THE 50s, WHY DON'T YOU READ IKE'S FUCKING SPEECH?
AND WE ARE NOT FUCKING BROKE. YOU KNOW WHAT'S BROKE? THE FUCKING CUT-TAXES-AND-SPEND-MOAR-ON-FUCKING-WAR DO-NOTHING-ABOUT-REAL-PROBLEMS REPUBLICANS.
Spot measurements that do not encompass an entire ocean with a method that is inefficient, not automated, uses up thousands of gallons of fuel per month, ties up human resources, and gives out-of-date data,
or....
Use a satellite that can measure an entire ocean all at once via spectroscopy and map it in real time with computers.
>Which has precisely what to do with the accusation that the US is arming and funding the narcomafia?
BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IRAN-CONTRA DID!
Keerrrist!
>This time
This is the time to assume the Government is guilty before proven innocent. We've pulled dirty shit like this before multiple times in the past when it "suited us" for various values of "suiting" and various values of "morality."
It is generally accepted by everyone that economies of scale translate into less overhead (less administration per 1000 workers, etc). Smaller companies have higher relative overhead.
This is the argument given/every single time/ for mergers and acquisitions.
If Verizon's relative overhead is larger than that of smaller companines, it's a sure sign that Verizon's overhead is bloated.
So yes, your arguments are silly from any sane economic perspective.
>She was forced to compete against other companies reselling Verizon's own hardware/infrastructure cheaper than Verizon could because Verizon had more overhead as a larger company.
I smell loads of bullshit here, since during the 90s Verizon grew huge, and continued to grow through the next 10 years, and still, even now, continues to grow and rake in money hand-over-fist.
>very rich user experience over the web that was cross platform.
"Runs on all versions of Windows" is not cross-platform.
Ever.
>insane
Yes, yes you are, or a Microsoft shill. Anyone who says "rich user experience" is a shill. It's one of those marketing terms that means absolutely nothing, but market-dweebs think it's important, so they tell everyone to use it to support the company line.
I'm going to disregard much of your message because it is nothing but insult.
The only part that is not insult:
>The quality issue idunno, but I'd rather ticket-buying consumers decided what was a good movie rather than the tomatometer or the ivory tower of aintitcool.
So you're blaming the critics for people not seeing movies, because every Uwe Boll deserves to make a dollar.
Wow. And you talk about the self importance of other people.
Don't get me wrong and assume that I think all copyright is bad.
The copyright rules we had in the early 70s were fine. They were still a good balance between public and private interest. The shenanigans by media companies since then have twisted copyright into something unrecognizable.
>I've seen crowdsourced / Creative Commons projects, and they're awful.
I think you are misunderstanding Creative Commons licenses. They do not put things in the public domain. Such works are not without copyright.
What makes Creative Commons films bad is bad writing, not the license. The license is incidental.
>people hate Hollywood, want to see it dead, and think that the entire craft of filmmaking, in excess of a camcorder, is frivolous and doesn't meet their standard of what's art. Changing copyright is just a smokescreen for censoring the Hollywood aesthetic.
Bullshit. You have a persecution complex. Get rid of the tinfoil.
People hate being stomped on by mega-corps like Universal, Warner, Sony, et al.
Also, Lars Von Trier can make a film with a fucking camcorder and make a buck and win awards. It's not about the tech. It's not about the copyrights. It's not about anything else but good writing and a compelling story. Unfortunately, too many producers in Hollywood think that lens flares make a good movie (the latest Star Trek).
> I don't think copyright in the US is about protecting the particular income of particular people as much as it is about making sure that creative works are still available.
Copyright has nothing whatsoever to do with availability. Indeed, it hinders availability. There are "orphaned" works that lurk in limbo where the publisher has decided that it's not cost-effective to publish, yet it's still under copyright so/nobody else/ can publish it either.
Then there's the "well, nobody would publish it if it's in the public domain" which is entirely false. There is no shortage of old books that have been republished because they are out of copyright and a publisher can make copies to sell. Penguin Publishing does this all the time, it's their entire Penguin Classics line. There is nothing preventing another publisher from doing the same thing, but Penguin has figured out how to make a buck.
Indeed, I have various anthologies of HP Lovecraft stuff and every single last one of his stories are public domain.
>Not about enriching certain people
You haven't paid attention/at all/ to the history of copyright laws since the last 40 years. Life plus 90 years no longer enriches the original author and only encourages rent seeking by his progeny. Corporate copyright is essentially infinite now, because companies like Disney outlive humans.
Ever since Sonny Bono, it's been all about rent-seeking, and the Framers of the Constitution thought this was a bad thing, among other people, like economists. The current state does not inspire the creation of new content. It inspires people to sit on their collective asses and rent-seek.
Let's get something straight. You don't know me. Attributing things to me in your head because you are butthurt is just this side of nuts.
I don't pirate. I'm a Linux guy too, so I've gone as far as completely getting away from the "need" to pirate software just to have a functioning computer without being nickeled-and-dimed to death. It's gotten better over the years with movies too. Between Netflix and better selection of movies on demand through my cable operator, the "need" to pirate doesn't exist for me anymore. And there are more of us every day. Long gone are the days when buying a movie meant you had to shell out 99 bucks for something on VHS or Beta in late 1970 - early 80s dollars.
The market has come around to my needs (finally), and the needs of 90 percent of people out there with moderate disposable cash.
Download off of Filestube or torrent? Too much of a hassle. Seriously. It's like the old cartoon of someone giving up trying to download porn over a modem and just giving up and going to the corner store and buying a Playboy.
The only people who are torrenting and downloading over Filestube are people who don't have the cash to buy or rent a 3 year old movie anyway. Which brings me to the point of the futility of this lawsuit. This is clearly an abuse of the system against people who can't possibly pay the ridiculous out-of-proportion fine. The Expendables was a shitty movie and did poorly at the box office because it's a shitty movie. Trying to make up the difference by suing people is a combination of stupid and arrogance that all too often rears its head in this society. The only reason to follow through with such a thing is the mistaken belief that setting some sort of example is going to stop the tide of copyright infringement. Here's a clue, the only way to effectively end copyright infringement is to adjust to the market, as in my second paragraph up there. If I can sit on the couch and point the remote at the TV and get Dance of the Dead for a 99 cent rental, fuck torrents. Want me to watch it? Get Cox to carry it on pay-per-view.
Those that can't afford the dollar, well, they weren't going to give it to you anyway. There are always people who will hop the turnstile and you can't do a thing about it without looking like a goon (like this lawsuit).
So don't come in here all fucking high-and-mighty and say things about me that you don't know. Remove your head from your nether regions.
>They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.
The thing is, they can't.
Because the court also vacated discovery. No more discovery. That's it. No more subpoenas will be written trying to attach an IP to a name.
They have to work with what they've got. Which ain't much. This dooms USCG, which I hate to type because it's also the initials for a worthwhile institution called the US Coast Guard
US Copyright Group was just told to go suck on lemons by the court.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I bother with bitcoin when the market can be driven around with wash trades and manipulation due to low volume? The manipulation on mtgox is plain to see for anyone with experience in other markets. Buckets, nay, truckloads of paint for painting the tape.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when the only real demand for it is money laundering for buying drugs on silkroad? The evidence for this is the big crash when silkroad went down last Friday.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when I can lose my shirt on the currency exchanges that are not even regulated to ensure a level playing field? Lose half value in 12 hours? The volatility is insane.
Why should I bother with bitcoin when exchanging bitcoins for cash after a trade takes days?
Why should I bother with bitcoin when it doesn't translate into anything in the real world except a speculative market based upon illegal activity?
These and other problems make me wonder how far the scam goes.
Why does everything about bitcoin point at a scam?
--
BMO
I am. Born and raised in New England.
And I am mad as hell at what they've done to my country.
--
BMO
>'Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library,' explains Agger. 'In the children's section, the only "inappropriate" stuff to be found was Judy Blume's Forever,
What a bunch of hooey.
Judy Blume was never in the Children's Section. She was in the Young Adults section. YA
Also... YA books?
Pfft.... Amateurs. Why bother when you can cruise on over to the Adult section and read the "real books"? I had my own library card at 7, the minimum age. I could check out whatever I wanted. When I hit the tween and teen years, I skipped right over the YA section.
Adult authors warp a young mind? Yes, yes they did. So did Isaac Asimov and a bunch of SF authors among others (I was hot for the "Golden Age" SF stuff at the time), but I certainly found my way over to the books my mom would disapprove of. It's not like there's a Chinese wall between the kid section and the adult sections. It's not like a librarian is going to stop you from checking out the other side. Indeed, all the good SF was on the adult side, and my librarian (RIP, Mrs. Griffith, you are fondly remembered) is the one that turned me on to that genre. My first reference to oral sex in literature was in Poul Andersen's book "Gateway." Larry Niven's permissive sex in the Ringworld saga gave me a new vocabulary word for interspecies sex.
As for "inappropriate," try Virginia Andrews. The incest sex scenes in "Flowers in the Attic" were ... interesting to a 13 year old boy.
Ain't no censorship in a library, parents. If your kid is quiet, he/she can go anywhere and read any ol' thing. It's encouraged.
--
BMO
>It's not just the right that feels we'd be better off defaulting but over 63 percent of American's according to a recent article
Then they're dumb. What do you think will happen to the deficit and debt after we default and the interest rates on borrowed money go up?
What, you think defaulting is going to magic it all away?
People like you want to take whatever fragile economy we've got and toss it in the dumper just to satisfy your rage at the Chinese.
>Yes it would hurt lots of corps
No, it would hurt /everyone/.
You're short-sighted and dumb.
--
BMO
>Paypal could be a safer option
For who?
Vendors?
Customers?
From what I've heard is that everyone hates them, that they're forever screwing over both sellers and shoppers, day-in, day-out, 24/7 on Ebay, but since Ebay is a captive market, there aren't any real alternatives.
Why, on Gawd's Green Earth, would you want to take their abuses and expand them out into meatspace?
Credit card companies, as much maligned as they are, treat their customers (both vendors and shoppers) far better than Paypal has ever done for their own customers.
As a purchaser, you are better off with a regular or secured credit card and pay it off at the end of the month (this is key) than ever dealing with Paypal. You get extra warranties, cash-back, fraud protection, frequent flier miles, etc. Indeed, just comparing credit card fraud protection to Paypal's version of "fraud protection" and the differences are staggering. Only a fool would pick Paypal.
--
BMO
The NWS is going around fucking begging for fucking GOES replacements and those are the fucking sats we use to predict the fucking weather, you know, fucking hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc? You know, the shit that affects our economy? And just like this, understanding how the ocean fucking works will help us understand what happens to fishing stocks and weather and a whole lot of other things so that we may FUCKING PLAN AHEAD FOR THE FUCKING FUTURE.
Fuck you and your FUCKING SHORT TERM OUTLOOK.
HOW ABOUT YOU DIRECT YOUR FUCKING RAGE AT THE FUCKING 5 OR SO UNPRODUCTIVE FUCKING WARS WE'RE FUCKING DOING (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, LIBYA, YEMEN, AND PROBABLY SOME SHIT THAT HASN'T HIT THE FUCKING NEWS YET), YOU FUCKING MORON?
YES, I'M FUCKING MAD. FUCK YOU AND ALL OF YOUR TYPE. WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO DO THIS SHIT, UNLIKE THE FUCKING WARS WHICH ARE A FUCKING WASTE. SINCE YOU'RE SO FUCKING FOND OF THE 50s, WHY DON'T YOU READ IKE'S FUCKING SPEECH?
AND WE ARE NOT FUCKING BROKE. YOU KNOW WHAT'S BROKE? THE FUCKING CUT-TAXES-AND-SPEND-MOAR-ON-FUCKING-WAR DO-NOTHING-ABOUT-REAL-PROBLEMS REPUBLICANS.
--
BMO
You have two choices.
Spot measurements that do not encompass an entire ocean with a method that is inefficient, not automated, uses up thousands of gallons of fuel per month, ties up human resources, and gives out-of-date data,
or....
Use a satellite that can measure an entire ocean all at once via spectroscopy and map it in real time with computers.
I know which one I'm picking.
--
BMO
>Which has precisely what to do with the accusation that the US is arming and funding the narcomafia?
BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IRAN-CONTRA DID!
Keerrrist!
>This time
This is the time to assume the Government is guilty before proven innocent. We've pulled dirty shit like this before multiple times in the past when it "suited us" for various values of "suiting" and various values of "morality."
This is not tinfoilhattery. This is history.
Wake the fuck up.
--
BMO
>In her message she says she was using her phone as a flashlight to find her seat
Assuming this is true and not a lie to cover up the fact she was texting:
So she was shining it directly in the eyes of other patrons? Throw her out.
--
BMO
Obviously you don't remember the 80s and Iran-Contra.
--
BMO
>Do my statements look silly now?
It is generally accepted by everyone that economies of scale translate into less overhead (less administration per 1000 workers, etc). Smaller companies have higher relative overhead.
This is the argument given /every single time/ for mergers and acquisitions.
If Verizon's relative overhead is larger than that of smaller companines, it's a sure sign that Verizon's overhead is bloated.
So yes, your arguments are silly from any sane economic perspective.
--
BMO
>She was forced to compete against other companies reselling Verizon's own hardware/infrastructure cheaper than Verizon could because Verizon had more overhead as a larger company.
I smell loads of bullshit here, since during the 90s Verizon grew huge, and continued to grow through the next 10 years, and still, even now, continues to grow and rake in money hand-over-fist.
Poor Verizon.
--
BMO
I find this offensive.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/yatta
Sue itchy guys, uh huh.
--
BMO
This article doesn't scratch the surface, and looks more like an advertisement for Windows 7 and 8.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100101033213/http://toastytech.com/guis/index.html
There's history for ya.
Wayback Machine mirror so as to not nuke the poor guy's site.
--
BMO
Well, maybe I was too harsh.
But in light of true cross-platform frameworks and such (Qt and Java come to mind), declaring Silverlight cross-platform is ridiculous.
Even Flash is more cross platform, and I hate it with a passion.
--
BMO
>very rich user experience over the web that was cross platform.
"Runs on all versions of Windows" is not cross-platform.
Ever.
>insane
Yes, yes you are, or a Microsoft shill. Anyone who says "rich user experience" is a shill. It's one of those marketing terms that means absolutely nothing, but market-dweebs think it's important, so they tell everyone to use it to support the company line.
--
BMO
This is late but...
Have you tried plugging in your IP address to a GeoIP site?
It's ridiculously inaccurate. Up here i the Northeast, where the states are small, you're lucky if it falls within your state border.
Now look at the size of the DC court's jurisdiction.
--
BMO
I'm going to disregard much of your message because it is nothing but insult.
The only part that is not insult:
>The quality issue idunno, but I'd rather ticket-buying consumers decided what was a good movie rather than the tomatometer or the ivory tower of aintitcool.
So you're blaming the critics for people not seeing movies, because every Uwe Boll deserves to make a dollar.
Wow. And you talk about the self importance of other people.
You're a cunt.
--
BMO
Furthermore...
Don't get me wrong and assume that I think all copyright is bad.
The copyright rules we had in the early 70s were fine. They were still a good balance between public and private interest. The shenanigans by media companies since then have twisted copyright into something unrecognizable.
>I've seen crowdsourced / Creative Commons projects, and they're awful.
I think you are misunderstanding Creative Commons licenses. They do not put things in the public domain. Such works are not without copyright.
What makes Creative Commons films bad is bad writing, not the license. The license is incidental.
>people hate Hollywood, want to see it dead, and think that the entire craft of filmmaking, in excess of a camcorder, is frivolous and doesn't meet their standard of what's art. Changing copyright is just a smokescreen for censoring the Hollywood aesthetic.
Bullshit. You have a persecution complex. Get rid of the tinfoil.
People hate being stomped on by mega-corps like Universal, Warner, Sony, et al.
Also, Lars Von Trier can make a film with a fucking camcorder and make a buck and win awards. It's not about the tech. It's not about the copyrights. It's not about anything else but good writing and a compelling story. Unfortunately, too many producers in Hollywood think that lens flares make a good movie (the latest Star Trek).
--
BMO
> I don't think copyright in the US is about protecting the particular income of particular people as much as it is about making sure that creative works are still available.
Copyright has nothing whatsoever to do with availability. Indeed, it hinders availability. There are "orphaned" works that lurk in limbo where the publisher has decided that it's not cost-effective to publish, yet it's still under copyright so /nobody else/ can publish it either.
Then there's the "well, nobody would publish it if it's in the public domain" which is entirely false. There is no shortage of old books that have been republished because they are out of copyright and a publisher can make copies to sell. Penguin Publishing does this all the time, it's their entire Penguin Classics line. There is nothing preventing another publisher from doing the same thing, but Penguin has figured out how to make a buck.
Indeed, I have various anthologies of HP Lovecraft stuff and every single last one of his stories are public domain.
>Not about enriching certain people
You haven't paid attention /at all/ to the history of copyright laws since the last 40 years. Life plus 90 years no longer enriches the original author and only encourages rent seeking by his progeny. Corporate copyright is essentially infinite now, because companies like Disney outlive humans.
Ever since Sonny Bono, it's been all about rent-seeking, and the Framers of the Constitution thought this was a bad thing, among other people, like economists. The current state does not inspire the creation of new content. It inspires people to sit on their collective asses and rent-seek.
--
BMO
>Pardon me, but in what way would a Playboy magazine satisfy a need for porn?
Confirmed as someone about 20 to 25 years old that never had to download anything over a phone line.
Also, confirmed as someone who's never heard of Rusty & Edie's BBS.
--
BMO
Let's get something straight. You don't know me. Attributing things to me in your head because you are butthurt is just this side of nuts.
I don't pirate. I'm a Linux guy too, so I've gone as far as completely getting away from the "need" to pirate software just to have a functioning computer without being nickeled-and-dimed to death. It's gotten better over the years with movies too. Between Netflix and better selection of movies on demand through my cable operator, the "need" to pirate doesn't exist for me anymore. And there are more of us every day. Long gone are the days when buying a movie meant you had to shell out 99 bucks for something on VHS or Beta in late 1970 - early 80s dollars.
The market has come around to my needs (finally), and the needs of 90 percent of people out there with moderate disposable cash.
Download off of Filestube or torrent? Too much of a hassle. Seriously. It's like the old cartoon of someone giving up trying to download porn over a modem and just giving up and going to the corner store and buying a Playboy.
The only people who are torrenting and downloading over Filestube are people who don't have the cash to buy or rent a 3 year old movie anyway. Which brings me to the point of the futility of this lawsuit. This is clearly an abuse of the system against people who can't possibly pay the ridiculous out-of-proportion fine. The Expendables was a shitty movie and did poorly at the box office because it's a shitty movie. Trying to make up the difference by suing people is a combination of stupid and arrogance that all too often rears its head in this society. The only reason to follow through with such a thing is the mistaken belief that setting some sort of example is going to stop the tide of copyright infringement. Here's a clue, the only way to effectively end copyright infringement is to adjust to the market, as in my second paragraph up there. If I can sit on the couch and point the remote at the TV and get Dance of the Dead for a 99 cent rental, fuck torrents. Want me to watch it? Get Cox to carry it on pay-per-view.
Those that can't afford the dollar, well, they weren't going to give it to you anyway. There are always people who will hop the turnstile and you can't do a thing about it without looking like a goon (like this lawsuit).
So don't come in here all fucking high-and-mighty and say things about me that you don't know. Remove your head from your nether regions.
--
BMO
Post them to alt.flame. Deleting your own email address, of course.
--
BMO
You must be lots of fun at parties.
Say hello to your new status. Plonk.
--
BMO
>They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.
The thing is, they can't.
Because the court also vacated discovery. No more discovery. That's it. No more subpoenas will be written trying to attach an IP to a name.
They have to work with what they've got. Which ain't much. This dooms USCG, which I hate to type because it's also the initials for a worthwhile institution called the US Coast Guard
US Copyright Group was just told to go suck on lemons by the court.
--
BMO