I doubt it will be phased out any time soon. While this particular care of abuse is getting a lot of attention and ranting that it should be fixed immediately, it is no worse then how stores handled (and continue to handle) checks for decades now. If retailers and banks have not closed the hole that allows check fraud in all that time, I doubt they are going to rush to make this process more secure either. Last time I checked, writing bad checks is as easy as ever.
The bank supplies an API that people connect to, or at minimal the intermediate network provides an API. All the bank does is plug in to the same network.
When consumers flock to the lowest cost items even if they are only a few cents cheaper, this is pretty predictable. We can try to blame companies, but really it is the consumer who is obsessed with 'finding deals' and getting 'the most for the least'. People want cheap stuff, damn the effect.
It depends on what exactly the laws are. Right now BTC is in a bit of a grey area, it is unclear which laws apply to it and which do not. Chances are the bulk of the 'regulation' will simply be saying what BTC counts as and thus which pre-existing laws apply to it. So making it explicit as opposed to something 'new' and thus both citizens and law enforcement have a clear guide about how to apply existing rules to something new.
Though keep in mind, part of the burden of the audit is on the individual or business the IRS is looking at. They do not need to trace everything, but one does need to be able to account for the things they claim on their income tax form. One can hide a certain amount as part of disposable income, but if one can not make things like rent or utilities without utilizing the additional income then the IRS can say 'show us how you are paying for your lifestyle'.
Looking at the 'paper trail' is not automated, it involves a human sitting down and examining an individual or business. It is a little harder to audit BTC, but no harder then companies that work primarily in cash which are taxed just like anything else.
You are thinking criminals, not outcasts. For the people who are actually outside the financial system by situation BTC does not help them. It is a great toy for middle class technically inclined people who have the resources to maintain both BTC and local currency, people who can access banks but then make the lifestyle choice not to, but it is too unstable, too limited, and too expensive for actual outcasts and outsiders to find utility in.
Of course it can be taxed. The IRS does not troll through your bank accounts and purchases to produce a list of what you owe, they pretty much use an honor system of self reporting where people tell them how much they made and how much they owe. One can hide their assets with BTC, but one can do that with USD too, but one still gets in trouble if they get audited. In the case of taxes, BTC or USD makes no difference in terms of 'can it be taxed', only how it is taxed.
Cryptocurency is not magically exempt from regulation simply because people hope it is. How does one regulate anything? You make rules, when people are caught breaking the rules they get in trouble.
People focus too much on the idea of dragnets or detection, of technological solutions, and that that if there is no technology that can automatically scour something it somehow makes it unregulatable. Such currencies make automated tracking difficult, but people are still people and businesses are still businesses, and the ease of hiding things does not change this.
Whether you agree with legalization or not, one of the problems the anti-drug movement has slammed into is unfortunately they do lie quite a bit, and when people compare what their teachers say to actual examples they can see in their lives, the truth the programs is going over becomes suspect. The programs and teachers mean well, but they use a bit too much exaggeration and selective examples to be effective.
Eh, does not work that way. Only the really expensive drugs get sympathy, poorer addicts are still considered morally inferior. After all, rich stressed people actually NEED the drugs, poor people are just weak.
*nod* something we did in the past was when moving stuff to "cloud" infrastructure we mirrored all the input going to the cloud version back to the physical rigs. Not only did it give us a hot failover, but it also provided a good production-like environment for doing performance testing and wargames with realistic loads and data. If nothing else, having a production scale staging area to test things out in was a godsend since some stuff only starts going wrong when you have a lot of big systems talking to each other.
This is why I kinda miss realpolitik, yeah it was cynical and calculating, but at least it was honest about it. The problem with a population focused on morality is ethics are a lot easier to twist and tug on emotions then pragmatism.
There are also a few edge cases (in windows) where accepting a self signed certificate requires fiddling with the registry. Microsoft designed a few of its services with the idea that everyone would have a CA signed certificate.
Not thriving? The energy industry in the US is insanely profitable. Profitable enough that they do not want to risk new technologies and the companies that support them taking off, so they push this crap you are spewing.
To be honest, I am not even sure where to begin with pointing out the problem with your reasoning. At minimal I can point out that a circular devices of 1km can be used as a 1km track, 2km track, 10, 20, 100, etc. A 1km linear one is only 1km, it is more efficient then a 1km path on a 1km circular track, but it is limited to 1km. You could build a 100km one, but it would be far less efficient then the 1km circular track.
I can comment though that the people who spend their life designing, building, and using these devices probably know more about feasibility and limits then random internet posters. Even on small scales I have watched lab demonstration equipment get good energies out of circular accelerators that would take much larger linear ones to get the same output. What you are describing is some abstract idealized situations where materials are perfect (resistance is an issue with large linear accelerators) and issues of engineering or space do not need to be taken into account. So yeah, the people who build these for a living have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when it comes to the math.
As an abstract problem maybe (though that is debatable). As an engineering problem when you actually have to build the thing, no. Actually, even as an abstract, still no.
Not really. If nothing else, with a circular collider the beam can go around multiple times, increasing energy on every pass. The amount of energy you impart is only limited by how strong of a magnetic field you can create to twist the beam. With a linear collider when you run out of collider, well, run out. If you have 1km of linear collider you get 1km of acceleration, no more. They do not build all the big colliders as circles for the fun of it, they really are the most efficient design.
What we see in western democracies matches up pretty well with the theory, at least when you talk about actual political theories backed up with solid mathematical models as opposed to philosophical texts or armchair pundits.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it will be phased out any time soon. While this particular care of abuse is getting a lot of attention and ranting that it should be fixed immediately, it is no worse then how stores handled (and continue to handle) checks for decades now. If retailers and banks have not closed the hole that allows check fraud in all that time, I doubt they are going to rush to make this process more secure either. Last time I checked, writing bad checks is as easy as ever.
The bank supplies an API that people connect to, or at minimal the intermediate network provides an API. All the bank does is plug in to the same network.
It is about the same amount of security as writing a check. It is probably a hold over from just that.
That is a good point. Adult businesses face a similar problem when it comes to payment processors.
When consumers flock to the lowest cost items even if they are only a few cents cheaper, this is pretty predictable. We can try to blame companies, but really it is the consumer who is obsessed with 'finding deals' and getting 'the most for the least'. People want cheap stuff, damn the effect.
It depends on what exactly the laws are. Right now BTC is in a bit of a grey area, it is unclear which laws apply to it and which do not. Chances are the bulk of the 'regulation' will simply be saying what BTC counts as and thus which pre-existing laws apply to it. So making it explicit as opposed to something 'new' and thus both citizens and law enforcement have a clear guide about how to apply existing rules to something new.
Though keep in mind, part of the burden of the audit is on the individual or business the IRS is looking at. They do not need to trace everything, but one does need to be able to account for the things they claim on their income tax form. One can hide a certain amount as part of disposable income, but if one can not make things like rent or utilities without utilizing the additional income then the IRS can say 'show us how you are paying for your lifestyle'.
Looking at the 'paper trail' is not automated, it involves a human sitting down and examining an individual or business. It is a little harder to audit BTC, but no harder then companies that work primarily in cash which are taxed just like anything else.
You are thinking criminals, not outcasts. For the people who are actually outside the financial system by situation BTC does not help them. It is a great toy for middle class technically inclined people who have the resources to maintain both BTC and local currency, people who can access banks but then make the lifestyle choice not to, but it is too unstable, too limited, and too expensive for actual outcasts and outsiders to find utility in.
Of course it can be taxed. The IRS does not troll through your bank accounts and purchases to produce a list of what you owe, they pretty much use an honor system of self reporting where people tell them how much they made and how much they owe. One can hide their assets with BTC, but one can do that with USD too, but one still gets in trouble if they get audited. In the case of taxes, BTC or USD makes no difference in terms of 'can it be taxed', only how it is taxed.
Cryptocurency is not magically exempt from regulation simply because people hope it is. How does one regulate anything? You make rules, when people are caught breaking the rules they get in trouble.
People focus too much on the idea of dragnets or detection, of technological solutions, and that that if there is no technology that can automatically scour something it somehow makes it unregulatable. Such currencies make automated tracking difficult, but people are still people and businesses are still businesses, and the ease of hiding things does not change this.
Whether you agree with legalization or not, one of the problems the anti-drug movement has slammed into is unfortunately they do lie quite a bit, and when people compare what their teachers say to actual examples they can see in their lives, the truth the programs is going over becomes suspect. The programs and teachers mean well, but they use a bit too much exaggeration and selective examples to be effective.
Pain killers are a problematic example since you can get addicted to them even following doctor's orders on dosage and time.
Eh, does not work that way. Only the really expensive drugs get sympathy, poorer addicts are still considered morally inferior. After all, rich stressed people actually NEED the drugs, poor people are just weak.
*nod* something we did in the past was when moving stuff to "cloud" infrastructure we mirrored all the input going to the cloud version back to the physical rigs. Not only did it give us a hot failover, but it also provided a good production-like environment for doing performance testing and wargames with realistic loads and data. If nothing else, having a production scale staging area to test things out in was a godsend since some stuff only starts going wrong when you have a lot of big systems talking to each other.
Yeah, but part of the economics of running ads is number of eyeballs, so the people clicking or not is not always that important.
Pretty much.
This is why I kinda miss realpolitik, yeah it was cynical and calculating, but at least it was honest about it. The problem with a population focused on morality is ethics are a lot easier to twist and tug on emotions then pragmatism.
Not much point in comparing consider the CIA often outsourced its torture to such countries.
There are also a few edge cases (in windows) where accepting a self signed certificate requires fiddling with the registry. Microsoft designed a few of its services with the idea that everyone would have a CA signed certificate.
Not thriving? The energy industry in the US is insanely profitable. Profitable enough that they do not want to risk new technologies and the companies that support them taking off, so they push this crap you are spewing.
To be honest, I am not even sure where to begin with pointing out the problem with your reasoning. At minimal I can point out that a circular devices of 1km can be used as a 1km track, 2km track, 10, 20, 100, etc. A 1km linear one is only 1km, it is more efficient then a 1km path on a 1km circular track, but it is limited to 1km. You could build a 100km one, but it would be far less efficient then the 1km circular track.
I can comment though that the people who spend their life designing, building, and using these devices probably know more about feasibility and limits then random internet posters. Even on small scales I have watched lab demonstration equipment get good energies out of circular accelerators that would take much larger linear ones to get the same output. What you are describing is some abstract idealized situations where materials are perfect (resistance is an issue with large linear accelerators) and issues of engineering or space do not need to be taken into account. So yeah, the people who build these for a living have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when it comes to the math.
Keep in mind, this represents the FCC _talking_ like a regulator, not _acting_ like one.
As an abstract problem maybe (though that is debatable). As an engineering problem when you actually have to build the thing, no. Actually, even as an abstract, still no.
Not really. If nothing else, with a circular collider the beam can go around multiple times, increasing energy on every pass. The amount of energy you impart is only limited by how strong of a magnetic field you can create to twist the beam. With a linear collider when you run out of collider, well, run out. If you have 1km of linear collider you get 1km of acceleration, no more. They do not build all the big colliders as circles for the fun of it, they really are the most efficient design.
What we see in western democracies matches up pretty well with the theory, at least when you talk about actual political theories backed up with solid mathematical models as opposed to philosophical texts or armchair pundits.