I think it depends *where* you insure. Like insuring consumer deposits is a good idea because you personally losing all your money to a collapsing bank is catastrophic for you, and it's not like banks would act irresponsibly because they know their *customers* were safe, like they care about their customers. Insuring the entire organisation, which is what we effectively got with TooBigToFail, does make them irresponsible yes because then the existence of the bank itself that employs the people that might act recklessly, is at risk.

With the massive caveat that real money banks are backed and insured at the state-level (atleast in Europe, where most governments guarantee a certain amount of savings), while who the hell knows how well these websites are capitalised and secured.

So who still thinks Bitcoin is a usable practical idea?

I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades...
People still want to see films, but forcing all films through the cinema is just backwards. The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately! Big films that benefit from it will still play in cinema, but we simply don't need to push every single film through a centralised viewing venue anymore. Cinemas will still exist but they will be fewer, and for special occasions rather than the only route.

So, what you're saying is... his right to tell you things is trumped by your wish to not hear things? Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means...

That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.

Actually the laws here are biased towards the consumer. If the price is reasonable believed to be not a mistake (which this clearly wasn't) then the offer has to be honoured by the shop because otherwise you'd have a million bait-and-switch false adverts by shops. The consumer does still get 7 days to cancel.

Far as I know this isn't an enforcable condition, consumer protection laws in the UK are strong and the price on the website is considered a shopfront, and therefore an offer and something they have to honour.

*Unless* it's obviously a mistake, which this clearly is, and then they don't.

The GP is slightly wrong misleading in that the price on Amazon *is* considered an offer (nomatter what they put in their T&C) and that your acceptance of it does make it binding, *unless* it's obviously a mistake. This was obviously a mistake therefore they don't have to honour it.

You cannot use 'slippery slope' argument and then complain about other people making 'either/or' arguments! They are *the same* concept! You saying that this is a slippery slope is exactly an either/or proposition: That we should not do this thing because it *will* lead to this other thing.

Yeah, if you think it's that easy then you're a fool...

Raspberry Pi A+?

Luxury! You trust a compiler? When I were a lad we inputted the hex codes directly.
/
Well of course we had it tough... tape and a magnetised pin was all we needed.
/
You kids don't know you were born... we used to program using a cigarette end to burn holes in the punch cards.
/
etc...

You guys are reminding me of my manager that thinks 2 things can both be 'number one' priority. He's asking *which* to concentrate on, and for someone new to the field I think it's reasonable to only start with only one language.

Just because you know someone's going to bring it up again for no apparent reason with armchair justification. Thought I'd get it out of the way...