Incorrect.

You can literally deposit $170 to GDAX (coinbase) right now (if it were not crashing) and buy 0.01 BTC, there is no minimum to open a trading account on coinbase.

To trade on equity markets you could go open an account with Fidelity, Schwab, or Robinhood (if app only is your thing) right now with no minimum and go trading to your hearts content.

No one knows what it will crash to though, it could run up to 50k and crash back to 20k, which would be a sizeable crash, but would mean the bubble hasn't actually started yet.

People said that at 100, and at at 1000. Reality is no one knows where this is going to end up. I could just as easily see it be at 10 or 100,000 by the end of next week.

If you have a crystal ball, feel free to short BTC right now and make a fortune. My point remains, it is easier to say it will crash than say when it will crash or what fair value is.

You can buy in at any fraction of a BTC, you don't have to buy/sell a whole bitcoins. Just watching the ticker on GDAX you can see there are a lot of trades sized less than 0.1 BTC.

You sell it on a BTC exchange for USD or EUR and then send the proceeds to a bank.

Knowing it will crash, and knowing when it will crash are two very different feats. Saying it will crash is practically axiomatic, and in the mean time if your sitting on the sidelines you may have missed opportunities that may have led to profits even if you held through a crash.

It would be different if he was meeting all his goals and requirements. Gundecking is a serious offense being a breach of trust and can be straight up dangerous. It should generally always be met with termination if not a lawsuit or fraud complaint.

You can add any block device you want to a vdev. The recommendation is that it be a physical drive, but there is no software limitation.

It doesn't, but it allows discovery to proceed so the a person can be identified, for instance by subpoenaing ISP records. This part of the case isn't assigning liability it deciding whether there is enough substance to warrant proceeding with discovery.

The single largest source of credit card fraud losses is card cloning either via skimming, or database compromise. Chips will prevent that. The PIN as you mention only stops stolen card fraud which by comparison is a tiny amount of losses and is generally detected quickly. Shutting down a stolen card is easy.

Banks probably did the math and figured that customer support issues and infrastructure for PINs were not worth it, so they'd rather continue to eat the losses on it.

The chip protects from the biggest source of credit card fraud, card cloning. The pin only additionally protects from stolen card fraud which is by comparison a tiny amount of losses.

Calling it little security is hugely inaccurate.

You laugh, but David Mitchell made a point on one of his soap box youtubes about durable goods on a subscription model might yield better quality than the model we have now. The exact example he used was a table I think (or possible a chair, either way link below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Enough circumstantial evidence will secure a conviction (without something exculpatory in defense), at some point it stops being a just series of coincidences. People do get convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence all the time. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt".

AES-GCM is derived from CTR mode. CTR mode turns a block cipher in to a keystream generator (thus a stream cipher). I haven't fully read the paper though, so I don't know whether this attack applies to block cipher used as stream ciphers.

This is a unicode code point, 1F602 specifically. Your user-agent doesn't download the resource, it is like any other character and rendered with your local font assuming it has a glyph for this code point.