While bad for deliberate poisoning, poor handling or disposal of it can be pretty toxic. If I recall correctly that is why it is regulated, not because people can use it for harm, but because it is too easy to harm others due to mishandlement. It is also generally only regulated in terms of large scale usage for mining or other such activities where the quantities are large enough to have significant impact, at which point it makes sense for the using entity to get the proper certification/oversight/underwriting.
No, it does not produce anything useful, it is just a mechanism to throttle the increase in supply.
If I recall correctly, and maybe someone can describe this better, there is another area for growth that comes out of the math behind handling transactions. So having a machine sit and help wrangle the chains, which is critical for bitcoin working, can also produce new coins, which is computationally useful (at least within the ecosystem).
At this point it is closer to futures or commodities, its value is derived from what traders are willing to pay each other for them with a certain percentage of people exchanging them for goods and services instead.
The 'mining' sounds stranger then it really is. There are an end number of bitcoins that will exist, but instead of having a central system that hands them out (like when the fed increases the money supply), there is a set of mathmatical problems that produce valid coins when being solved. It is kinda gimcky but has the same net effect, increasing the supply over time to hopefully match the ecosystem.
Drugs are always a tricky issue when it comes to legality. There is always this tricky balance between personal freedom and social good, esp when it comes to the highly addictive ones.
A while back there was a research group trying to devise a chemical cocktail that had the pleasant recreational elements of various drugs (they were working on booze specifically) but without the addiction or health issues. Now there would be a blockbuster that could change the world....
Well, that depends on the details of what the transaction actually was. SilkRoad was involved in a lot of things besides harmless recreational drugs, including quite a few products and services that were intended to hurt people.
Just like being illegal does not automatically make something unethical, being illegal but in demand does not automatically make something ethical either.
I doubt it would pan out that way. If someone was in the US that the US did not want to hand over, I would wager there would be enough press supporting the person's case for being here that the public perception would be that Russia's need was not good enough. After all, if Russia had a true ethical claim on the person's life, why would the US government block extradition?
With Pakistan, I do not think it was that they understood.. there were significant protests there and people are still pretty upset. It was more that their government, which is weak and unstable, could not risk being upset. They are too dependent on the US for keeping their power base, esp with India looming right next to them.
This is true, they are far from being a panacea. There are a whole bunch of political and military factors that go into such an equation, and in the end the US just didn't care what Pakistan thought.
'Great Men' benefit far more from society then others, thus I would say yes they owe plenty back. Apple would not have the success it did if not for the society that it exists in, complete with infrastructure, education, and a well paid customer base to support its products.
Thing is, every company kinda hopes that OTHER companies will pay taxes and create jobs, while they minimize their own. It is a race to the bottom and only a certain degree of taxing and regulation keeps corporate america from imploding. Look at any country where the government is completely hands off and you find a complete decimated economy.
Part of the problem is 'creators' often feel a massive sense of entitlement, all the things society owes them but THEY own their own profits.
I think it is less that people misinterpret Rand, and more that they view her fictional works through the lens of her non-fiction writings. When one writes a work of fiction they have complete control over the environment and characters, the ability to bundle behaviors to demonize or elevate based off artificial archetypes. Kinda like Chick Tracs....
They spy, but they are also supposed to follow the rules. In theory they are bound by the constitution just like the rest of our government and thus there are limits on what they can and can not do. The outrage is generally over the perception that they were working outside the law or at minimal the law was adjusted in unconstitutional ways to give them power outside what they should have. This was amplified by the revelation that other parts of our government knew what they were doing and not only did they not stop them but are actively protecting the NSA. So if nothing else there is outrage over the idea that a powerful government group was violating the law and or constitution and, unlike ordinary citizens, are not going to be punished for it.
I agree more outrage should be directed at congress, but it appears only a select 'inside' group within congress actually had knowledge of their actions. Even with that though, even if they had a mandate from congress, the NSA took various actions, and 'but they said I could!' is not an excuse.
*nod* a single assassin is a quiet thing, both countries can fend off public inquiry about it to some degree. A military attack through is harder to ignore without loss of face and public backlash. If Russia sent a team into Chicago or the US sent a team into Moscow, either of our publics would be up in arms demanding something be done.
Exactly. The US has been willing to send special forces into countries who really can not do anything back to us, but I doubt they would be so foolish as to send the military into a country that can actually DO something about it.
Which is another good example of why one can not fault NK and Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. The US happily violates other countrie's sovereignty when they do not get what they want through law or diplomacy.
I had a similar thought. I have found that while people need to exercise discretion in how they handle incoming texts/messages/etc, depending on what one's role in a company is there can often be an expectation that one will keep an eye on people trying to get a hold of them in case something is blowing up. PMs, leads, managers, support people, all of them might need to keep an ear to the ground in case something time critical comes up that would preempt the meeting.
Given that these people specialized in social engineering, it would not surprise me if they managed to BS their way into multiple legitimate offers quickly. They could probably make a good side business out of teaching those skills to job seekers. If I recall correctly they did fabricate some impressive credentials and used her connections to other known figures to lend authority to them.
Well, yes and no. The checks and balances that were put in place primarily addressed power sharing within the federal government and state's ability to disproportionally control the federal level. However in terms of weak vs strong, we have always had a 'strong' federal government (weak was tried in a limited form and the delegates agreed it did not work well), it has just been a matter of how strong.
The legal restrictions on the NSA are pretty much theoretical, they exist on the books but there is no real oversight or consequences for breaking the rules. Google, for all of it's potential dangers, is much more likely to be called to task if it breaks the rules then the NSA. Historically it has been difficult to actually enforce laws between institutions within our government, with the more powerful institutions not really being prosecutable.
Given how easy it is for tech companies to uproot and move their entire operation elsewhere, we might be looking at a slow end to the effectiveness of state level taxes. Over the last few decades we have been seeing a 'race to the bottom' in some industries, with regions dropping corporate taxes to near nothing or even investing public money in encouraging companies to move there, while shifting the burden of paying for it onto the middle/low end workers. If a state tries to stand up and tax an industry, companies move to another state. The net result is a steady decrease in state's ability to fund themselves and an increasing reliance on federal money (since companies have a harder time escaping those taxes easily).
Long term we might simply be looking at a situation where it is pointless to even try to tax some industries at a local level.
Well, that is pretty well established history. The expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause is pretty well documented. What is less clear and often debated is if this was a good or bad thing on the whole. There are advantages and disadvantages in having a strong or weak federal system, and most of them are related to a specific culture and economic situation.
Sadly, those purposes are not even all that dramatic or impactful. Much of what the NSA does can be described as a big game of status with their counterparts in other nations. An extremely expensive pissing contest masquerading as national security.
"Good" is relative. If nothing else, I am much less concerned at what Google might do with such data.... they can be creepy, they can serve up slightly different ads, but push comes to shove they are pretty limited in what they can do. If nothing else, they have to stay within the law and if they go to far legal force can be used against them.
NSA? They can do a lot more to hurt you, and you do not really have any recourse against them. Just talking to the 'wrong' person can get you on their expletive list and all of a sudden find yourself locked out of a lot of stuff.
Depending on the school, it is often still taught. Many modern constructs originated in Ada so if you are teaching fundamentals and want to give students an appreciation for how languages evolved and came together (as opposed to simply how to use them) Ada is a pretty important piece.
Slashdot Mirror
While bad for deliberate poisoning, poor handling or disposal of it can be pretty toxic. If I recall correctly that is why it is regulated, not because people can use it for harm, but because it is too easy to harm others due to mishandlement. It is also generally only regulated in terms of large scale usage for mining or other such activities where the quantities are large enough to have significant impact, at which point it makes sense for the using entity to get the proper certification/oversight/underwriting.
No, it does not produce anything useful, it is just a mechanism to throttle the increase in supply.
If I recall correctly, and maybe someone can describe this better, there is another area for growth that comes out of the math behind handling transactions. So having a machine sit and help wrangle the chains, which is critical for bitcoin working, can also produce new coins, which is computationally useful (at least within the ecosystem).
At this point it is closer to futures or commodities, its value is derived from what traders are willing to pay each other for them with a certain percentage of people exchanging them for goods and services instead.
The 'mining' sounds stranger then it really is. There are an end number of bitcoins that will exist, but instead of having a central system that hands them out (like when the fed increases the money supply), there is a set of mathmatical problems that produce valid coins when being solved. It is kinda gimcky but has the same net effect, increasing the supply over time to hopefully match the ecosystem.
Drugs are always a tricky issue when it comes to legality. There is always this tricky balance between personal freedom and social good, esp when it comes to the highly addictive ones.
A while back there was a research group trying to devise a chemical cocktail that had the pleasant recreational elements of various drugs (they were working on booze specifically) but without the addiction or health issues. Now there would be a blockbuster that could change the world....
Well, that depends on the details of what the transaction actually was. SilkRoad was involved in a lot of things besides harmless recreational drugs, including quite a few products and services that were intended to hurt people.
Just like being illegal does not automatically make something unethical, being illegal but in demand does not automatically make something ethical either.
When they speak of 'failure' they are referring to fashion, not business. At least they should be.....
Itanium was not popular, it was not fashionable, it was not sexy, it didn't have geek credit, but it made a lot of money.
I doubt it would pan out that way. If someone was in the US that the US did not want to hand over, I would wager there would be enough press supporting the person's case for being here that the public perception would be that Russia's need was not good enough. After all, if Russia had a true ethical claim on the person's life, why would the US government block extradition?
With Pakistan, I do not think it was that they understood.. there were significant protests there and people are still pretty upset. It was more that their government, which is weak and unstable, could not risk being upset. They are too dependent on the US for keeping their power base, esp with India looming right next to them.
This is true, they are far from being a panacea. There are a whole bunch of political and military factors that go into such an equation, and in the end the US just didn't care what Pakistan thought.
'Great Men' benefit far more from society then others, thus I would say yes they owe plenty back. Apple would not have the success it did if not for the society that it exists in, complete with infrastructure, education, and a well paid customer base to support its products.
Thing is, every company kinda hopes that OTHER companies will pay taxes and create jobs, while they minimize their own. It is a race to the bottom and only a certain degree of taxing and regulation keeps corporate america from imploding. Look at any country where the government is completely hands off and you find a complete decimated economy.
Part of the problem is 'creators' often feel a massive sense of entitlement, all the things society owes them but THEY own their own profits.
I think it is less that people misinterpret Rand, and more that they view her fictional works through the lens of her non-fiction writings. When one writes a work of fiction they have complete control over the environment and characters, the ability to bundle behaviors to demonize or elevate based off artificial archetypes. Kinda like Chick Tracs....
They spy, but they are also supposed to follow the rules. In theory they are bound by the constitution just like the rest of our government and thus there are limits on what they can and can not do. The outrage is generally over the perception that they were working outside the law or at minimal the law was adjusted in unconstitutional ways to give them power outside what they should have. This was amplified by the revelation that other parts of our government knew what they were doing and not only did they not stop them but are actively protecting the NSA. So if nothing else there is outrage over the idea that a powerful government group was violating the law and or constitution and, unlike ordinary citizens, are not going to be punished for it.
I agree more outrage should be directed at congress, but it appears only a select 'inside' group within congress actually had knowledge of their actions. Even with that though, even if they had a mandate from congress, the NSA took various actions, and 'but they said I could!' is not an excuse.
*nod* a single assassin is a quiet thing, both countries can fend off public inquiry about it to some degree. A military attack through is harder to ignore without loss of face and public backlash. If Russia sent a team into Chicago or the US sent a team into Moscow, either of our publics would be up in arms demanding something be done.
Exactly. The US has been willing to send special forces into countries who really can not do anything back to us, but I doubt they would be so foolish as to send the military into a country that can actually DO something about it.
Which is another good example of why one can not fault NK and Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. The US happily violates other countrie's sovereignty when they do not get what they want through law or diplomacy.
The trick is not not be rude, but to look responsible.
I had a similar thought. I have found that while people need to exercise discretion in how they handle incoming texts/messages/etc, depending on what one's role in a company is there can often be an expectation that one will keep an eye on people trying to get a hold of them in case something is blowing up. PMs, leads, managers, support people, all of them might need to keep an ear to the ground in case something time critical comes up that would preempt the meeting.
Given that these people specialized in social engineering, it would not surprise me if they managed to BS their way into multiple legitimate offers quickly. They could probably make a good side business out of teaching those skills to job seekers. If I recall correctly they did fabricate some impressive credentials and used her connections to other known figures to lend authority to them.
Well, yes and no. The checks and balances that were put in place primarily addressed power sharing within the federal government and state's ability to disproportionally control the federal level. However in terms of weak vs strong, we have always had a 'strong' federal government (weak was tried in a limited form and the delegates agreed it did not work well), it has just been a matter of how strong.
Ah, memories of Doom ^_^
The legal restrictions on the NSA are pretty much theoretical, they exist on the books but there is no real oversight or consequences for breaking the rules. Google, for all of it's potential dangers, is much more likely to be called to task if it breaks the rules then the NSA. Historically it has been difficult to actually enforce laws between institutions within our government, with the more powerful institutions not really being prosecutable.
Given how easy it is for tech companies to uproot and move their entire operation elsewhere, we might be looking at a slow end to the effectiveness of state level taxes. Over the last few decades we have been seeing a 'race to the bottom' in some industries, with regions dropping corporate taxes to near nothing or even investing public money in encouraging companies to move there, while shifting the burden of paying for it onto the middle/low end workers. If a state tries to stand up and tax an industry, companies move to another state. The net result is a steady decrease in state's ability to fund themselves and an increasing reliance on federal money (since companies have a harder time escaping those taxes easily).
Long term we might simply be looking at a situation where it is pointless to even try to tax some industries at a local level.
Well, that is pretty well established history. The expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause is pretty well documented. What is less clear and often debated is if this was a good or bad thing on the whole. There are advantages and disadvantages in having a strong or weak federal system, and most of them are related to a specific culture and economic situation.
Nor does it account for the behavior of some observed galactic collisions.
Sadly, those purposes are not even all that dramatic or impactful. Much of what the NSA does can be described as a big game of status with their counterparts in other nations. An extremely expensive pissing contest masquerading as national security.
"Good" is relative. If nothing else, I am much less concerned at what Google might do with such data.... they can be creepy, they can serve up slightly different ads, but push comes to shove they are pretty limited in what they can do. If nothing else, they have to stay within the law and if they go to far legal force can be used against them.
NSA? They can do a lot more to hurt you, and you do not really have any recourse against them. Just talking to the 'wrong' person can get you on their expletive list and all of a sudden find yourself locked out of a lot of stuff.
Depending on the school, it is often still taught. Many modern constructs originated in Ada so if you are teaching fundamentals and want to give students an appreciation for how languages evolved and came together (as opposed to simply how to use them) Ada is a pretty important piece.