Fine, then. "Not obscure". Better? (The obscurity of the aboriginal tribe wasn't central to my point)
From a culture wipeout perspective, yes it is a bigger loss.
I'm surprised to see you admit that there could be a greater loss than that which was suffered by the Jews during WW2. In my anecdotal experience, most people that insist on the primacy of the Jewish Holocaust engage in mental gymnastics to explain how this lonely aborigine's death is (even in relative terms) insignificant in comparison.
However, I guess there's nobody left to feel offended if that particular tragedy is played down, don't you think?
I'd argue that one need not be a fellow tribesman of this aborigine to appreciate the tragedy of the situation, and therefore all the non-aborigines left behind are still left there to feel offended (if they have any compassion, that is). However, you seem to be implying the opposite. In that case, let me ask you: if Hitler had killed all the Jews instead of "only" as many as he did, would this have been less "offensive"?
But you're abusing a logical fallacy.
I'm not aware that I've committed any logical fallacy or abused any that you yourself made. Perhaps you identifying the fallacy could help us move along on this front. Nonetheless, I'll address your other points.
We're discussing WW2 happenings in this particular thread and more specifically my statement that "Jews were affected the most" - which, from this "targeted group" perspective, is a correct statement.
In relative terms, perhaps. In absolute terms, clearly that's not a correct statement. I was clear in my insistence on absolute terms. Feel free to insist on relative terms, but then you have to demonstrate that there were no small populations of genes that were totally wiped out. Perhaps a genetically distinct family existed somewhere in Nazi Europe, consisting of only a few members, who were wiped out entirely. This is similar to (but more relevant and likely than) the hypothetical aborigine situation I set forth in my previous post. The existence (and murder) of such a family would constitute a "100%" in relative terms, which is "greater than" your "~50%", which according to your relative logic would mean that indeed Jews were not affected the most. This further illustrates why generally speaking, we look at absolute numbers. Dealing with relative numbers is unreliable (or not meaningful) in the context of small populations.
They were targeted for extinction (the Chinese weren't).
Oh, you! Read a fucking book, for fuck's sake, you white ass motherfucker.
They suffered the greatest losses from a % of total population perspective, as much as over 90% in each of the top 5 countries where the Holocaust happened.
Well, those are some impressive numbers. Almost as impressive as when the Jews slaughtered exactly 100% of the Midianites. Almost as impressive as the countless other instances in human history where one group totally wipes out another, in its entirety. But I suppose those weren't "during WW2", so they "don't count", right? I suppose if the Jews were totally wiped out today, it also "wouldn't count" as genocide or a holocaust, since WW2 is long over?
This does give them the right to be sensitive, hell I would be if I were them, these sort of scars go deep and probably never heal.
The fact that the Jews are sensitive to their history and unable to heal from the injustices they have suffered is no excuse for denying the greater horrors that have befallen others. Acknowledging the absolutely larger yellow holocaust need not detract from the horrors of the Jewish one. It doesn't have to be a competition of who got fucked worse. You don't have to hate Jews to feel compassion for the Chinese. Your insistence on relative terms can be as offensive to others as if I had lost 4 out of 5 family members to a bigoted madman and insisted that this was "worse than the Jewish holocaust".
I'm no Putin apologist; I was granted political asylum by the USA some decades ago when I fled communist oppression with my family.
That being said, you're oversimplifying a sadly complex situation which I myself don't completely understand. Don't expect a few minutes of reading to clear things up, either. Some things to keep in mind:
- A large ethnically-Russian population has existed in Ukraine for many years, many decades. Most "Russians" in Ukraine are not Russian commandos that snuck across the border in the past year, but instead are normal people who been living happily in Ukraine for their entire lives.
- Most of these ethnically-Russian Ukrainians do identify closely with Russia and feel that their own interests would be best served by a Ukraine that seeks closer ties with Russia, not the EU.
- The local component to this 'seperatist movement' does indeed contain local criminals looking to cash in, but this should not excessively taint the legitimacy of the movement.
- Cossacks are not Russians. They're Cossacks. Don't slander them by associating them with the Putin regime.
That being said, fuck Putin and the crumbling Russia he rode in on.
Gaza is targeting civilians while hiding their rockets behind civilians.
Unless you're privy to some unreleased intelligence, Gaza does not have the capability to target civilians or anything else.
The rockets being fired from Gaza are crude by any standard. They don't have targeting capabilities. There are no guidance systems. There are no control surfaces.
If Israel apologists are so concerned about civilian casualties as a result of these unguided rockets, perhaps they can start exporting rocket guidance systems to Gaza. Until then, can you kindly shut the fuck up about "targeting civilians"? Thank you.
My point was that you and people like you apply arbitrary criteria to this issue of genital mutilation. You claim that male "circumcision" is fine, because "the organ is fully functional... unlike the mutilation done to females in Africa". Well, I'll have to ask you, in what way does female "circumcision" render organs nonfunctional? Are females subject to "circumcision" unable to conceive children? Are they unable to give birth? Or does female "circumcision" prevent them from experiencing certain sensory phenomena that they would otherwise be able to? If the latter, then how does male "circumcision" not prevent males from experiencing certain sensory phenomeny that they would otherwise be able to?
If you take a step back and critically examine your own beliefs, you'll find that the only explanation you have for opposing female "circumcision" while supporting male "circumcision" is entirely subjective and a result of your own upbringing. It's genital mutilation without informed consent, literally, in either case. The only differences are the extent of the mutilation and the gender of the victim, neither of which can support a rational argument in favor of one practice but opposed to the other.
There was no noteworthy hostility between Jews and Arabs until approximately one century ago. Prior to large-scale efforts to create a Jewish state by a coordinated Zionist movement, the Jews that remained throughout the Arab world were treated better than their fellow Jews in Europe. The idea that there is some 2000-year-old conflict between Arabs and Jews is not founded in reality.
So in that sense, when the last member of some obscure aboriginal tribe is killed somewhere in the Amazon, that tragedy dwarfs the Jewish holocaust because 100% of the tribe's total population has been killed at once?
Genital mutilation is common to all Abrahamic religions. It is nearly universal for males in Judaism and Islam, though highly dependent on geographic location for males in Christianity.
Oh, wait. That's right, I forgot. The primary criterion for genital mutilation is not that the genitals are mutilated, but that they are done so in a way that is not common in one's own culture. My apologies, carry on.
In response, the IDF announced that it is opening an investigation “into Palestinian allegations that soldiers opened fire and killed two children who were waving a white flag during Operation Cast Lead”
Oh, that's great. The IDF will investigate their own actions. Good thing this investigative process isn't readily subject to manipulation. Good thing IDF officials don't lack professional credentials (?) or have a clear bias (!).
The world as a whole is now claiming that Israel has a credibility gap. That perception won't be changed by internal audits, and any third party investigation tends to portray Israel in an even worse light. Let's check another source indeed.
Sure, two years after the end of World War 2. Or, as others might describe it, a half-century after the Zionist movement first moved to earn the hatred, envy, and general ill-will of the then-residents of Palestine. Context, sir. Context.
During WW2, multiple nations and groups were savagely "victimized" (that's an understatement but we'll go with that as an euphemism): Jews, Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, etc. It is clear that the most affected were the Jews.
Number of civilian Jews killed during WW2: 4.2 to 6.0 million
Number of civilian Chinese killed during WW2: 7 to 11 million
While I agree with the overwhelming majority of the sentiment you expressed, I must say, read a fucking book. For every innocent Jew that was brutally murdered during WW2, two innocent Chinese were brutally murdered. However, your cracker-centric worldview completely omits that little detail from the history books. Every time someone sheds tears over the Jewish Holocaust, I invite you to consider why nobody sheds a tear for the Chinese Holocaust that dwarfs it. Furthermore, I invite Jews, or more specifically Israeli Jews, to summon the strength that the Chinese have. Despite the fact that Japanese leadership periodically pays tribute to 14 class A war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni, the Chinese people somehow restrain themselves from engaging in retaliatory genocide. Perhaps the Israeli leadership could find inspiration in this.
Disclaimer: I'm white. Born in Poland. Lost family in WW2. But people like you blowing things out of proportion have got to get some perspective. Just because you learned about the holocaust doesn't mean it was the only one, or even the most reproachable one.
They will produce their way out of poverty and buy the damn land back.
You've apparently never been to Camden. These people have failed to produce their way out of poverty for decades. Hint: they're not Jews.
Also, you're an asshole. Jews are doing well in all free countries, so that's why the Palestinians in Gaza are so poor? It's because they're not Jews? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they're living in a concentration camp? Non sequitur much?
I wonder... what if we borrowed Tel Aviv for a few decades, cleared out all the Israelis and instead filled it with the current residents of Camden, NJ, then forced them into ever-worsening poverty, then subjected them to airstrikes and ground assaults.... and then offered to return the territory to Israel?
As much as I have sympathy for the Israelis, their moral justification is gone and it isn't coming back, no more than the Ghengis Khan is going to make reparations to a large swath of the planet and regain the respect and sympathies of those whose families he slaughtered.
Is it fair that the moral high ground has left the hands of the Israelis? Probably not. Did it happen? Yes. Will they ever get it back? Not in any meaningful way.
For their own sake, it is time to move on. If their answer is to keep killing Arabs, I'd think even unconditional surrender and capitulation would be preferable to any group that is actually concerned about ethical action.
The Arabs are angry. They aren't going anywhere, and they don't like the rhetoric that has been thrown at them about being crammed into concentration camps. They remember genocide, and they aren't going back to having even more of their land annexed. The airstrikes and ground assaults will only increase the resolve of a people who have the history that the Palestinians have.
Peaceful protest did not work, especially with a country that embraces apartheid mentality like Israel does. Israel holds a hard line while rockets are shooting at their cities, and they quietly continue encroaching on Palestinian land whenever the rockets stop falling. Violence has been the only way the Palestinians have been able to preserve the integrity of their territory for 66 years, and that isn't going to change now.
The time for what is "just" has never existed. It is now time to do what we have always done. The bombs and rockets need to stop falling, and the political will to stop them simply does not exist in Israel. It's clear that the Palestinians would be subject to continually escalated injustice and land grabs by ending the struggle and bending over for the Israelis. If Israel persists in extremist settlements, as they have continually done for decades, particularly during peacetime, they will never lose the support of their chief ally, the United States. Painful as it would be, there is no military option for Palestine worth considering, but even the military option that is not worth considering is superior to the alternatives: demographic suicide as Arabs gain a majority, or official disenfranchisement of non-Jewish segments of the population.
See how that works? You're basically advocating that they just give up on life, abandon all hope, and tape their ass cheeks open for their Jewish masters. Probably about as offensive as someone suggesting that the Jews just save Hamas the trouble and go marching into the ocean on their own. If you could only take a minute to step back and see how intractable this disagreement is, you'd come to the same conclusion I did:
There's one solution that's guaranteed to shut these idiots up. Nuke Jerusalem. Hell, nuke the British Mandate of Palestine. All of it. A lot. Until it's below sea level. Of course, give plenty of advance notice. Even a year or two. There's no need to kill anyone. "Clear out, guys. We're nuking." Then if there's still some religious zealots that want to fight over their little corner of Biblical land, they can do so in wetsuits, and we won't have to hear about rockets and settlers anymore. When two kids aren't willing to share a toy, eventually their bickering gets annoying enough that the responsible adults just take away the fucking toy. The fact that my suggested solution doesn't draw much popular support is explained one of two ways: Either the conflict in the Middle East isn't sufficiently annoying yet, or we're not responsible adults.
It would probably have some effect on confidence in BTC. I have no idea how significant the effect would be.
However, were BTC to achieve universal adoption as some sort of de facto global currency, it's not unreasonable to think that it would at least be possible for him to cash out (or rather, buy 7% of everything in the world) without totally destroying the BTC economy.
People like Bill Gates are personally responsible for the absurd wealth disparity in this country.
But Bill only has a few tens of billions. Satoshi owns over 7% of the total number of BTC that will ever exist. If BTC become the world's primary currency, then the $240T in global wealth will be spread over the 21M total possible BTC, leaving Satoshi wealthy to the tune of $17T, or several orders of magnitude more wealthy than Bill (without even accounting for the expansion of the economy between now and then).
I think it's safe to say that if one person had $17T today, they'd have more power than any other entity on the planet, to be used for good or for ill. Considering that we know very little about Satoshi, I don't believe it's wise to go too far down this path.
IOW, nobody should use $new_tech until it's conclusively demonstrated that universal buy-in won't result in one individual (or group of individuals) owning trillions of dollars in wealth.
Funny joke but most senior citizens are better than average drivers with increasingly lower accident rates until they are over 75.
If you think being a better than average driver is synonymous with having lower accident rates, you may be surprised to learn that professional race car drivers are by your metric considerably worse than average drivers.
Being a good driver involves more than just not getting in accidents. Otherwise, the best drivers in the world are the ones that never put their cars into gear.
The sad part is, I live in Edison, NJ. Formerly Menlo Park, Raritan, NJ, renamed in 1954 in honor of Thomas Alva Edison, who did much of his work here in the late 19th century (invented the phonograph, "invented" the light bulb). It's especially sad that a fuckwit like Edison gets a whole town of over 100,000 named after him but Tesla is virtually forgotten, being eclipsed by an electric car bearing his name.
Make them get a warrant for the correct place first—if they can.
So according to your interpretation, if you played a game like this with sufficiently many cups [the cloud] and the thing to be seized instead of the green ball, you should be pretty much safe from any legal search?
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to define "obscure"?
Fine, then. "Not obscure". Better? (The obscurity of the aboriginal tribe wasn't central to my point)
From a culture wipeout perspective, yes it is a bigger loss.
I'm surprised to see you admit that there could be a greater loss than that which was suffered by the Jews during WW2. In my anecdotal experience, most people that insist on the primacy of the Jewish Holocaust engage in mental gymnastics to explain how this lonely aborigine's death is (even in relative terms) insignificant in comparison.
However, I guess there's nobody left to feel offended if that particular tragedy is played down, don't you think?
I'd argue that one need not be a fellow tribesman of this aborigine to appreciate the tragedy of the situation, and therefore all the non-aborigines left behind are still left there to feel offended (if they have any compassion, that is). However, you seem to be implying the opposite. In that case, let me ask you: if Hitler had killed all the Jews instead of "only" as many as he did, would this have been less "offensive"?
But you're abusing a logical fallacy.
I'm not aware that I've committed any logical fallacy or abused any that you yourself made. Perhaps you identifying the fallacy could help us move along on this front. Nonetheless, I'll address your other points.
We're discussing WW2 happenings in this particular thread and more specifically my statement that "Jews were affected the most" - which, from this "targeted group" perspective, is a correct statement.
In relative terms, perhaps. In absolute terms, clearly that's not a correct statement. I was clear in my insistence on absolute terms. Feel free to insist on relative terms, but then you have to demonstrate that there were no small populations of genes that were totally wiped out. Perhaps a genetically distinct family existed somewhere in Nazi Europe, consisting of only a few members, who were wiped out entirely. This is similar to (but more relevant and likely than) the hypothetical aborigine situation I set forth in my previous post. The existence (and murder) of such a family would constitute a "100%" in relative terms, which is "greater than" your "~50%", which according to your relative logic would mean that indeed Jews were not affected the most. This further illustrates why generally speaking, we look at absolute numbers. Dealing with relative numbers is unreliable (or not meaningful) in the context of small populations.
They were targeted for extinction (the Chinese weren't).
Oh, you! Read a fucking book, for fuck's sake, you white ass motherfucker.
They suffered the greatest losses from a % of total population perspective, as much as over 90% in each of the top 5 countries where the Holocaust happened.
Well, those are some impressive numbers. Almost as impressive as when the Jews slaughtered exactly 100% of the Midianites. Almost as impressive as the countless other instances in human history where one group totally wipes out another, in its entirety. But I suppose those weren't "during WW2", so they "don't count", right? I suppose if the Jews were totally wiped out today, it also "wouldn't count" as genocide or a holocaust, since WW2 is long over?
This does give them the right to be sensitive, hell I would be if I were them, these sort of scars go deep and probably never heal.
The fact that the Jews are sensitive to their history and unable to heal from the injustices they have suffered is no excuse for denying the greater horrors that have befallen others. Acknowledging the absolutely larger yellow holocaust need not detract from the horrors of the Jewish one. It doesn't have to be a competition of who got fucked worse. You don't have to hate Jews to feel compassion for the Chinese. Your insistence on relative terms can be as offensive to others as if I had lost 4 out of 5 family members to a bigoted madman and insisted that this was "worse than the Jewish holocaust".
I'm no Putin apologist; I was granted political asylum by the USA some decades ago when I fled communist oppression with my family.
That being said, you're oversimplifying a sadly complex situation which I myself don't completely understand. Don't expect a few minutes of reading to clear things up, either. Some things to keep in mind:
- A large ethnically-Russian population has existed in Ukraine for many years, many decades. Most "Russians" in Ukraine are not Russian commandos that snuck across the border in the past year, but instead are normal people who been living happily in Ukraine for their entire lives.
- Most of these ethnically-Russian Ukrainians do identify closely with Russia and feel that their own interests would be best served by a Ukraine that seeks closer ties with Russia, not the EU.
- The local component to this 'seperatist movement' does indeed contain local criminals looking to cash in, but this should not excessively taint the legitimacy of the movement.
- Cossacks are not Russians. They're Cossacks. Don't slander them by associating them with the Putin regime.
That being said, fuck Putin and the crumbling Russia he rode in on.
Gaza is targeting civilians while hiding their rockets behind civilians.
Unless you're privy to some unreleased intelligence, Gaza does not have the capability to target civilians or anything else.
The rockets being fired from Gaza are crude by any standard. They don't have targeting capabilities. There are no guidance systems. There are no control surfaces.
If Israel apologists are so concerned about civilian casualties as a result of these unguided rockets, perhaps they can start exporting rocket guidance systems to Gaza. Until then, can you kindly shut the fuck up about "targeting civilians"? Thank you.
My point was that you and people like you apply arbitrary criteria to this issue of genital mutilation. You claim that male "circumcision" is fine, because "the organ is fully functional ... unlike the mutilation done to females in Africa". Well, I'll have to ask you, in what way does female "circumcision" render organs nonfunctional? Are females subject to "circumcision" unable to conceive children? Are they unable to give birth? Or does female "circumcision" prevent them from experiencing certain sensory phenomena that they would otherwise be able to? If the latter, then how does male "circumcision" not prevent males from experiencing certain sensory phenomeny that they would otherwise be able to?
If you take a step back and critically examine your own beliefs, you'll find that the only explanation you have for opposing female "circumcision" while supporting male "circumcision" is entirely subjective and a result of your own upbringing. It's genital mutilation without informed consent, literally, in either case. The only differences are the extent of the mutilation and the gender of the victim, neither of which can support a rational argument in favor of one practice but opposed to the other.
Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Iraeli citizens and they won't even say a word.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You think these are targeted?
Mid-east fighting, 2000 years and going strong.
There was no noteworthy hostility between Jews and Arabs until approximately one century ago. Prior to large-scale efforts to create a Jewish state by a coordinated Zionist movement, the Jews that remained throughout the Arab world were treated better than their fellow Jews in Europe. The idea that there is some 2000-year-old conflict between Arabs and Jews is not founded in reality.
So in that sense, when the last member of some obscure aboriginal tribe is killed somewhere in the Amazon, that tragedy dwarfs the Jewish holocaust because 100% of the tribe's total population has been killed at once?
Proposals for some of the larger vehicles indeed featured fusion-boosted fission bombs. These are generally called fusion bombs.
Genital mutilation is common to all Abrahamic religions. It is nearly universal for males in Judaism and Islam, though highly dependent on geographic location for males in Christianity.
Oh, wait. That's right, I forgot. The primary criterion for genital mutilation is not that the genitals are mutilated, but that they are done so in a way that is not common in one's own culture. My apologies, carry on.
In response, the IDF announced that it is opening an investigation “into Palestinian allegations that soldiers opened fire and killed two children who were waving a white flag during Operation Cast Lead”
Oh, that's great. The IDF will investigate their own actions. Good thing this investigative process isn't readily subject to manipulation. Good thing IDF officials don't lack professional credentials (?) or have a clear bias (!).
The world as a whole is now claiming that Israel has a credibility gap. That perception won't be changed by internal audits, and any third party investigation tends to portray Israel in an even worse light. Let's check another source indeed.
Sure, two years after the end of World War 2. Or, as others might describe it, a half-century after the Zionist movement first moved to earn the hatred, envy, and general ill-will of the then-residents of Palestine. Context, sir. Context.
During WW2, multiple nations and groups were savagely "victimized" (that's an understatement but we'll go with that as an euphemism): Jews, Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, etc. It is clear that the most affected were the Jews.
Number of civilian Jews killed during WW2: 4.2 to 6.0 million
Number of civilian Chinese killed during WW2: 7 to 11 million
While I agree with the overwhelming majority of the sentiment you expressed, I must say, read a fucking book. For every innocent Jew that was brutally murdered during WW2, two innocent Chinese were brutally murdered. However, your cracker-centric worldview completely omits that little detail from the history books. Every time someone sheds tears over the Jewish Holocaust, I invite you to consider why nobody sheds a tear for the Chinese Holocaust that dwarfs it. Furthermore, I invite Jews, or more specifically Israeli Jews, to summon the strength that the Chinese have. Despite the fact that Japanese leadership periodically pays tribute to 14 class A war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni, the Chinese people somehow restrain themselves from engaging in retaliatory genocide. Perhaps the Israeli leadership could find inspiration in this.
Disclaimer: I'm white. Born in Poland. Lost family in WW2. But people like you blowing things out of proportion have got to get some perspective. Just because you learned about the holocaust doesn't mean it was the only one, or even the most reproachable one.
They will produce their way out of poverty and buy the damn land back.
You've apparently never been to Camden. These people have failed to produce their way out of poverty for decades. Hint: they're not Jews.
Also, you're an asshole. Jews are doing well in all free countries, so that's why the Palestinians in Gaza are so poor? It's because they're not Jews? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they're living in a concentration camp? Non sequitur much?
Cue cries of "These people?!?! These people?!?!"
And nothing of value was lost...
Just kidding. l <3 fark. Hooray, beer.
So, I have to ask, what's the point?
The point, for consumers:
- File server
- Torrents
- VNC/RDP
- Web server
- DoS
The point, for Verizon:
- Counterpoint in argument with Level3
I wonder... what if we borrowed Tel Aviv for a few decades, cleared out all the Israelis and instead filled it with the current residents of Camden, NJ, then forced them into ever-worsening poverty, then subjected them to airstrikes and ground assaults.... and then offered to return the territory to Israel?
Do you think Israel would want it back?
As much as I have sympathy for the Israelis, their moral justification is gone and it isn't coming back, no more than the Ghengis Khan is going to make reparations to a large swath of the planet and regain the respect and sympathies of those whose families he slaughtered.
Is it fair that the moral high ground has left the hands of the Israelis? Probably not. Did it happen? Yes. Will they ever get it back? Not in any meaningful way.
For their own sake, it is time to move on. If their answer is to keep killing Arabs, I'd think even unconditional surrender and capitulation would be preferable to any group that is actually concerned about ethical action.
The Arabs are angry. They aren't going anywhere, and they don't like the rhetoric that has been thrown at them about being crammed into concentration camps. They remember genocide, and they aren't going back to having even more of their land annexed. The airstrikes and ground assaults will only increase the resolve of a people who have the history that the Palestinians have.
Peaceful protest did not work, especially with a country that embraces apartheid mentality like Israel does. Israel holds a hard line while rockets are shooting at their cities, and they quietly continue encroaching on Palestinian land whenever the rockets stop falling. Violence has been the only way the Palestinians have been able to preserve the integrity of their territory for 66 years, and that isn't going to change now.
The time for what is "just" has never existed. It is now time to do what we have always done. The bombs and rockets need to stop falling, and the political will to stop them simply does not exist in Israel. It's clear that the Palestinians would be subject to continually escalated injustice and land grabs by ending the struggle and bending over for the Israelis. If Israel persists in extremist settlements, as they have continually done for decades, particularly during peacetime, they will never lose the support of their chief ally, the United States. Painful as it would be, there is no military option for Palestine worth considering, but even the military option that is not worth considering is superior to the alternatives: demographic suicide as Arabs gain a majority, or official disenfranchisement of non-Jewish segments of the population.
See how that works? You're basically advocating that they just give up on life, abandon all hope, and tape their ass cheeks open for their Jewish masters. Probably about as offensive as someone suggesting that the Jews just save Hamas the trouble and go marching into the ocean on their own. If you could only take a minute to step back and see how intractable this disagreement is, you'd come to the same conclusion I did:
There's one solution that's guaranteed to shut these idiots up. Nuke Jerusalem. Hell, nuke the British Mandate of Palestine. All of it. A lot. Until it's below sea level. Of course, give plenty of advance notice. Even a year or two. There's no need to kill anyone. "Clear out, guys. We're nuking." Then if there's still some religious zealots that want to fight over their little corner of Biblical land, they can do so in wetsuits, and we won't have to hear about rockets and settlers anymore. When two kids aren't willing to share a toy, eventually their bickering gets annoying enough that the responsible adults just take away the fucking toy. The fact that my suggested solution doesn't draw much popular support is explained one of two ways: Either the conflict in the Middle East isn't sufficiently annoying yet, or we're not responsible adults.
Someone with $17T can probably afford enough security to make hiring a hit man impractical, to say the least.
It would probably have some effect on confidence in BTC. I have no idea how significant the effect would be.
However, were BTC to achieve universal adoption as some sort of de facto global currency, it's not unreasonable to think that it would at least be possible for him to cash out (or rather, buy 7% of everything in the world) without totally destroying the BTC economy.
I agree.
People like Bill Gates are personally responsible for the absurd wealth disparity in this country.
But Bill only has a few tens of billions. Satoshi owns over 7% of the total number of BTC that will ever exist. If BTC become the world's primary currency, then the $240T in global wealth will be spread over the 21M total possible BTC, leaving Satoshi wealthy to the tune of $17T, or several orders of magnitude more wealthy than Bill (without even accounting for the expansion of the economy between now and then).
I think it's safe to say that if one person had $17T today, they'd have more power than any other entity on the planet, to be used for good or for ill. Considering that we know very little about Satoshi, I don't believe it's wise to go too far down this path.
IOW, nobody should use $new_tech until it's conclusively demonstrated that universal buy-in won't result in one individual (or group of individuals) owning trillions of dollars in wealth.
Here's looking at you, Satoshi Nakamoto.
Funny joke but most senior citizens are better than average drivers with increasingly lower accident rates until they are over 75.
If you think being a better than average driver is synonymous with having lower accident rates, you may be surprised to learn that professional race car drivers are by your metric considerably worse than average drivers.
Being a good driver involves more than just not getting in accidents. Otherwise, the best drivers in the world are the ones that never put their cars into gear.
/me shudders.
The sad part is, I live in Edison, NJ. Formerly Menlo Park, Raritan, NJ, renamed in 1954 in honor of Thomas Alva Edison, who did much of his work here in the late 19th century (invented the phonograph, "invented" the light bulb). It's especially sad that a fuckwit like Edison gets a whole town of over 100,000 named after him but Tesla is virtually forgotten, being eclipsed by an electric car bearing his name.
YANAL
Make them get a warrant for the correct place first—if they can.
So according to your interpretation, if you played a game like this with sufficiently many cups [the cloud] and the thing to be seized instead of the green ball, you should be pretty much safe from any legal search?