It's because the Patent office is completely understaffed and underfunded. If they had more funding, they could afford to hire decent people from industry, even if only on a contract basis, and many of these patents wouldn't hold up, because most people in industry would say that's not a new invention.
Yes. Because I recognize your "barter" idea is retarded, which is why it was phased out thousands of years ago, apparently I hate freedom./sarcasm
Maybe before you go after people who you think "hate freedom", you should actually examine those ideas for the huge glaring problems they have. Like, for instance, if the auto shop had no use for IT work.
Depends on who you're talking about. Personally, I value my freedom far more than I value an ISP's freedom. And my freedom includes being able to access the content on the internet I want without being hindered by the ISP for not going with their "preferred partners".
No it's not. They don't support BitCoin themselves. They would probably defend someone using it, if said case aligned with their mission, but that doesn't mean they have to accept them.
But going up to someone and saying "Hey, I printed up these cute pieces of plastic let's use them as currency" is not a scam. Otherwise cheques and credit cards would cease to exist overnight. What actually is the "value" of a big number on a piece of plastic in your wallet? The only good thing about it is that it's backed by a name like VISA or MASTERCARD or AMEX, and there's a perception of value. The merchant knows he's going to be paid. You have a feeling of security, and a monthly statement you can review. And that's it - a new currency is born.
That's not really a new currency, just a different exchange medium. It's still using US Dollars as the currency, just electronic representations of them.
Actually, I think it's no longer legal to pay your employees in alternative currencies either, unless they agree to it. It also cannot be a stipulation of employment that you accept it.
Because unlike jackasses like you, he realizes that bartering has other huge problems associated with it, that currency very nicely resolves. For instance, in your example, what if the shop had no use for IT work? Then you'd be out of luck until you can find something that they do need, and in the exact quantity that they'd be needing.
Problem is the Federal Reserve was given too much power by the US government so they continue to crush any alternatives like the Liberty dollar....
You mean the currency that was not only designed to look very much like an actual US Legal Tender coin, so as to be confused with one, but also was bought and sold for values much different than the value of the silver it was made of, because it was just a scam to make profit for the guy making them?
If someone is defrauded, it should be possible to put some sort of temporary or disputable "fraud alert" out on the funds, that wouldn't positively stop that money being transferred, but would alert people that they shouldn't accept that money and would help people identfiy bad actors.
If you're going to go that far, then why not just stop it from being used altogether?
Well, presumably the guy you're selling them to now is either that guy, or will try to sell them to that guy. If people don't think they'll be able to unload the BitCoins, they're going to stop accepting them.
That it's a bubble is completly irrelevant if you are just transacting and not ever holding.
Until you're stuck with hundreds of worthless BitCoins that you paid for.
What if donating bitcoins is someone's preference. Why refuse it?
What if I, as the receiver, don't want BitCoins? That's like saying, if I'm buying services from you, and my preference is to pay in BitCoins, why refuse it?
White men earn substantially more for the same work as either women or non-white men.
I can't speak for minorities, but the reason men tend to earn more than women is because men are much, much, much more likely to negotiate salary than women.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be the difference between offensive and defensive patent use.
It's because the Patent office is completely understaffed and underfunded. If they had more funding, they could afford to hire decent people from industry, even if only on a contract basis, and many of these patents wouldn't hold up, because most people in industry would say that's not a new invention.
If that really is prior art, then the patent either shouldn't have been granted, or it just won't survive the first challenge.
Unlike any other company on the planet? They're doing what everyone else is doing, yet you single out Apple for hate.
Yes. Because I recognize your "barter" idea is retarded, which is why it was phased out thousands of years ago, apparently I hate freedom. /sarcasm
Maybe before you go after people who you think "hate freedom", you should actually examine those ideas for the huge glaring problems they have. Like, for instance, if the auto shop had no use for IT work.
"Real" in that you want a company to be able to do whatever the fuck they want.
Ahh, so now we get to the crux of your position: The environment is "anti-free market". Good to know.
Maybe if that externality was actually priced it, it wouldn't need to be added in the form of a tax.
The rest of your post is a bunch of anti-government, paranoid, pseudo libertarian bullshit.
So wait, considering the bias present in an article is an ad hominem now?
And if a location can only support one company? Should they just be beholden to whatever that company wants?
Public property should not exist.
Why not? Why should every square inch of the world be owned by someone? Why should public parks and nature reserves not exist?
Do not punish people who have taken advantage of an unjust situation
Why not? They knew exactly what they were getting into.
Depends on who you're talking about. Personally, I value my freedom far more than I value an ISP's freedom. And my freedom includes being able to access the content on the internet I want without being hindered by the ISP for not going with their "preferred partners".
That only works if you consider property rights to be the be-all, end-all of rights. Many of us don't.
No it's not. They don't support BitCoin themselves. They would probably defend someone using it, if said case aligned with their mission, but that doesn't mean they have to accept them.
But going up to someone and saying "Hey, I printed up these cute pieces of plastic let's use them as currency" is not a scam. Otherwise cheques and credit cards would cease to exist overnight. What actually is the "value" of a big number on a piece of plastic in your wallet? The only good thing about it is that it's backed by a name like VISA or MASTERCARD or AMEX, and there's a perception of value. The merchant knows he's going to be paid. You have a feeling of security, and a monthly statement you can review. And that's it - a new currency is born.
That's not really a new currency, just a different exchange medium. It's still using US Dollars as the currency, just electronic representations of them.
Actually, I think it's no longer legal to pay your employees in alternative currencies either, unless they agree to it. It also cannot be a stipulation of employment that you accept it.
And so you would be denying their freedom to take donations in the form of their choice by demanding they take your volatile, fly-by-night currency?
Because you hate freedom?
Because unlike jackasses like you, he realizes that bartering has other huge problems associated with it, that currency very nicely resolves. For instance, in your example, what if the shop had no use for IT work? Then you'd be out of luck until you can find something that they do need, and in the exact quantity that they'd be needing.
Problem is the Federal Reserve was given too much power by the US government so they continue to crush any alternatives like the Liberty dollar....
You mean the currency that was not only designed to look very much like an actual US Legal Tender coin, so as to be confused with one, but also was bought and sold for values much different than the value of the silver it was made of, because it was just a scam to make profit for the guy making them?
If someone is defrauded, it should be possible to put some sort of temporary or disputable "fraud alert" out on the funds, that wouldn't positively stop that money being transferred, but would alert people that they shouldn't accept that money and would help people identfiy bad actors.
If you're going to go that far, then why not just stop it from being used altogether?
Who cares abou the guy who owns them next week.
Well, presumably the guy you're selling them to now is either that guy, or will try to sell them to that guy. If people don't think they'll be able to unload the BitCoins, they're going to stop accepting them.
That it's a bubble is completly irrelevant if you are just transacting and not ever holding.
Until you're stuck with hundreds of worthless BitCoins that you paid for.
What if donating bitcoins is someone's preference. Why refuse it?
What if I, as the receiver, don't want BitCoins? That's like saying, if I'm buying services from you, and my preference is to pay in BitCoins, why refuse it?
White men earn substantially more for the same work as either women or non-white men.
I can't speak for minorities, but the reason men tend to earn more than women is because men are much, much, much more likely to negotiate salary than women.
And as its unpopular to actually verify citizenship in border states for elections, millions of illegals vote every year.
[Citation Needed]
Wrong. Maybe in civil court, but in most cases, such a long wait would be a violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial.