"It is unclear how Japanese law would treat any such diversion of customer funds as Mt. Gox was not regulated as a financial institution. As a private firm in which Karpeles held an 88 percent stake with no declared debt, Mt. Gox was under no obligation to share any details on its finances."
The lack of regulation means that they cannot prosecute the *lack of disclosure* but the article makes it sound like it implies they cannot prosecute the fund diversion itself. Of course you can, it's embezzlement, there are laws on the book against it, and no you don't need to be "regulated" for these laws to apply.
Financial regulation is something that can make such frauds harder to perpetrate, it's not what makes is illegal. Sheesh.
If you want to make high resolution true holograms, you'll need to square the pixel density (intuitively, each pixel has to contain an entire high resolution image which would correspond to the hologram as seen though a pinhole placed on this pixel).
This type of law is just made up by a bunch of lobbyist and self interested politicians who were shrewder than their competitors and managed to get elected. Why show so much reverence for it?
Many plants (I'm thinking of passiflore for instance) will not flower unless they are stressed. Why reproduce sexually when you just grow? Because your life might be threatened and forming flower / fruit / seed maybe your only chance to spread your genes.
Bitcoin was built to evade controls. Sure you can regulate that transactions above a certain amount must be reported, but good luck enforcing it. Transactions can be split into thousand of components at no cost, be dispatched through mixers to thousands of wallets. If the government become savvy enough to track such movements, then anonymous internet banking with chaumian cash can be implemented on top of bitcoin.
So if regulation gives the government the temporary illusion that it's controlling bitcoin, then by all means start regulating. The alternative is government trying to kill bitcoin, which it might be able to pull off at this stage by targeting the exchanges.
Ah then I'm surprised you're not mentioning the horrible record of Woodrow Wilson, probably the worst president of the US ever. One time member of the KKK, when he became the dean at Princeton he *re*segregated the school.
Also, in the pursuit of democracy, he encouraged the Russian revolution which eventually led to the rise of the Soviets, he pushed for the harsh conditions of the Versailles treaty which became fertile ground for Nazism. Also he created the Federal Reserve, the first permanent income tax, instituted a draft.
What are the odds of a sociopath like him being elected president? Quite good, because being a sociopath *helps you* win elections. In fact it gives you a tremendous advantage. Given how competitive elections are, it would be astonishing if presidents weren't sociopaths.
Republicans understand that destroying due process and giving all power to the executive branch is a higher cause than party rivalries. It's so moving to see bipartisan agreement on this.
First of, the economy isn't a machine, it's organic, and this engineering approach generally fails. Companies react to regulation, and regulation itself is the result of government, another organic entity. When this type of laws are enacted, the first thing that happens is that concentrated business interest will make sure they actually benefit from the regulation. It can take many forms. Maybe some corporations will be grandfathered in and therefore manage to keep at bay competitors who can't reach a competitive size, maybe the law will have exemptions that only politically connected firms can obtain. It's misguided to push for a law without taking into account the way it will be distorted by the political process. Contrast this to the viral - hence organic - approach the GPL took.
Second, too big to fail is about the systemic risk that some financial firms exhibited. Walmart is big, Google is big, but they're not too big to fail in the sense that their failure wouldn't particularly cause havoc. If Walmart fails, many different sellers can buy the stores and keep supplying them with goods. In the case of financial companies, the argument went as follow: if a bank fails, many other financial companies may be in trouble if they hold financial instruments whose collateral ultimately is guaranteed by that bank. Unfortunately, it can take a long time to sort out who is really it, and during that time, it becomes very risky to lend to anyone, for fear that they might be exposed to the failing institution. This in turns cause more financial companies to fail in a domino effect. That's the theory at least. I don't know if I buy it, but at any rate, it makes the case that the banks were too heavily interconnected to fail, not too big. Columbia professor Rama Cont has suggested that the solution to this problem is to emphasize clearing houses to bring in transparency in who holds what.
That's not how one should measure the value of letters. Here's a more serious approach:
1) Get a large sample of games by running a scrabble playing program against itself. 2) Assume each letter has a latent fair-point value, model the score differential as as a function of the difference of the sum of the fair-point value of the letters received by each side. 3) Fit fair point values with MCMC
This makes sense if you believe property is a privilege granted by the government. Then sure, if the government gives you a larger share of the wealth, you ought to pay a proportional share right?
That's not the way things are though. Most wealth is created, not transferred. Why on earth should one tax burden then be proportional to wealth or income? If taxes represent payment for government "services", then just charge everyone the same amount (not percentage) for government services.
The federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in tax revenues per year. Want to make it "fair"? Just charge everyone $8,000 a year and abolish all other taxes. Thats fair.
The reasonable statement would be that while Onity cannot guarantee the lock won't be hacked, it will offer a free replacement if such a hack were to be found. This puts the incentive in the right place. Onity could even have a third party insurer cover the risk if they don't want this exposure on their balance sheet.
Right, because every other electronic device - the prices of which keep falling - are produced by not-for profits.
Among many reasons are the high costs of medical regulation, liability insurance, the fact that paying with insurance seriously blunts the pressure on prices. But no, let's just say it's "greed" and feel self-content with a non explanation.
Like all socialist leaders eventually do, Allende would have denied its citizen the right to leave the country. Again, I don't see how the adjective "democratically" changes anything.
What does it matter if he was democratically elected? Allende threatened to dispossess Chileans, to imprison then in the borders of the country, to draft them as slaves in the army, to create mass starvation by adopting a socialistic economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Add in a battery or a flywheel and recover the energy on the way down.
"It is unclear how Japanese law would treat any such diversion of customer funds as Mt. Gox was not regulated as a financial institution. As a private firm in which Karpeles held an 88 percent stake with no declared debt, Mt. Gox was under no obligation to share any details on its finances."
The lack of regulation means that they cannot prosecute the *lack of disclosure* but the article makes it sound like it implies they cannot prosecute the fund diversion itself. Of course you can, it's embezzlement, there are laws on the book against it, and no you don't need to be "regulated" for these laws to apply.
Financial regulation is something that can make such frauds harder to perpetrate, it's not what makes is illegal. Sheesh.
I agree, it gets you 98% there, but an eyeball isn't a pinhole either.
If you want to make high resolution true holograms, you'll need to square the pixel density (intuitively, each pixel has to contain an entire high resolution image which would correspond to the hologram as seen though a pinhole placed on this pixel).
Bring on the 1M PPI displays.
Put them in the dome:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/movie_theater_layout
Actually if *anything* remains it might be the concept of "want", having goals is pretty central to the definition of intelligence.
Deniable encryption
This type of law is just made up by a bunch of lobbyist and self interested politicians who were shrewder than their competitors and managed to get elected. Why show so much reverence for it?
Many plants (I'm thinking of passiflore for instance) will not flower unless they are stressed. Why reproduce sexually when you just grow? Because your life might be threatened and forming flower / fruit / seed maybe your only chance to spread your genes.
Seriously why is this even worth fighting for? It'll be broken within a month and an unofficial patch will be available for open source browsers.
Bitcoin was built to evade controls. Sure you can regulate that transactions above a certain amount must be reported, but good luck enforcing it. Transactions can be split into thousand of components at no cost, be dispatched through mixers to thousands of wallets. If the government become savvy enough to track such movements, then anonymous internet banking with chaumian cash can be implemented on top of bitcoin.
So if regulation gives the government the temporary illusion that it's controlling bitcoin, then by all means start regulating. The alternative is government trying to kill bitcoin, which it might be able to pull off at this stage by targeting the exchanges.
Ah then I'm surprised you're not mentioning the horrible record of Woodrow Wilson, probably the worst president of the US ever. One time member of the KKK, when he became the dean at Princeton he *re*segregated the school.
Also, in the pursuit of democracy, he encouraged the Russian revolution which eventually led to the rise of the Soviets, he pushed for the harsh conditions of the Versailles treaty which became fertile ground for Nazism. Also he created the Federal Reserve, the first permanent income tax, instituted a draft.
Pretty evil guy.
What are the odds of a sociopath like him being elected president? Quite good, because being a sociopath *helps you* win elections. In fact it gives you a tremendous advantage. Given how competitive elections are, it would be astonishing if presidents weren't sociopaths.
http://imgur.com/iDdNnNk
nope...
Republicans understand that destroying due process and giving all power to the executive branch is a higher cause than party rivalries. It's so moving to see bipartisan agreement on this.
First of, the economy isn't a machine, it's organic, and this engineering approach generally fails. Companies react to regulation, and regulation itself is the result of government, another organic entity. When this type of laws are enacted, the first thing that happens is that concentrated business interest will make sure they actually benefit from the regulation. It can take many forms. Maybe some corporations will be grandfathered in and therefore manage to keep at bay competitors who can't reach a competitive size, maybe the law will have exemptions that only politically connected firms can obtain. It's misguided to push for a law without taking into account the way it will be distorted by the political process. Contrast this to the viral - hence organic - approach the GPL took.
Second, too big to fail is about the systemic risk that some financial firms exhibited. Walmart is big, Google is big, but they're not too big to fail in the sense that their failure wouldn't particularly cause havoc. If Walmart fails, many different sellers can buy the stores and keep supplying them with goods. In the case of financial companies, the argument went as follow: if a bank fails, many other financial companies may be in trouble if they hold financial instruments whose collateral ultimately is guaranteed by that bank. Unfortunately, it can take a long time to sort out who is really it, and during that time, it becomes very risky to lend to anyone, for fear that they might be exposed to the failing institution. This in turns cause more financial companies to fail in a domino effect. That's the theory at least. I don't know if I buy it, but at any rate, it makes the case that the banks were too heavily interconnected to fail, not too big. Columbia professor Rama Cont has suggested that the solution to this problem is to emphasize clearing houses to bring in transparency in who holds what.
That's not how one should measure the value of letters. Here's a more serious approach:
1) Get a large sample of games by running a scrabble playing program against itself.
2) Assume each letter has a latent fair-point value, model the score differential as as a function of the difference of the sum of the fair-point value of the letters received by each side.
3) Fit fair point values with MCMC
This makes sense if you believe property is a privilege granted by the government. Then sure, if the government gives you a larger share of the wealth, you ought to pay a proportional share right?
That's not the way things are though. Most wealth is created, not transferred. Why on earth should one tax burden then be proportional to wealth or income? If taxes represent payment for government "services", then just charge everyone the same amount (not percentage) for government services.
The federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in tax revenues per year. Want to make it "fair"? Just charge everyone $8,000 a year and abolish all other taxes. Thats fair.
Killing an aggressor in self-defense is a perfectly valid purpose.
Yes, hunting, deterrence and self-defense come to mind.
Obligatory: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1817
The reasonable statement would be that while Onity cannot guarantee the lock won't be hacked, it will offer a free replacement if such a hack were to be found. This puts the incentive in the right place. Onity could even have a third party insurer cover the risk if they don't want this exposure on their balance sheet.
for-profit healthcare
Right, because every other electronic device - the prices of which keep falling - are produced by not-for profits.
Among many reasons are the high costs of medical regulation, liability insurance, the fact that paying with insurance seriously blunts the pressure on prices. But no, let's just say it's "greed" and feel self-content with a non explanation.
Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Allende, take your pick:
Nationalizations, land seizure, raising the minimum wage, hyperinflation...
Like all socialist leaders eventually do, Allende would have denied its citizen the right to leave the country.
Again, I don't see how the adjective "democratically" changes anything.
What does it matter if he was democratically elected? Allende threatened to dispossess Chileans, to imprison then in the borders of the country, to draft them as slaves in the army, to create mass starvation by adopting a socialistic economy.