No special powers, but it gives you the option to try.

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gp... 'Selective Availability' has always existed though it was turned off in 2000.

Everthing public says there is no mechanism to disarm / abort a strategic ICBM once it leaves the silo. It makes some sense too as otherwise you'd never really know if the opponent has stolen those codes and is in effect immune to a strike.

> include the IP address/CIDR block of the authenticating client
IP randomization / privacy extensions, corporate proxies with individual outbound IPs etc make relying on client IPs to remain stable for longer than a single TCP connection a disaster. It used to be popular to maintain session affinity based on client IP, but the realities of the internet made that worse than useless.

I'm pretty sure Escrow companies states they don't accept cash anyway, they don't want that liabilty either.

It is already undermined. You need courts or some other enforcement mechanism to enforce the rights supposedly conveyed by the tokens. Coins don't show up and punish you when you violate copyright, the state/courts do. If a court says the token is wrong and Seth still owns it -- that is all that matters as nothing can force an alternate reality. The fact that the blockchain says otherwise and there is no technological mechanism to reconcile the chain with reality is irrelevent.

Hence the concept of NFTs is fundamentally flawed in any scenario where you'd need a real-world court to enforce that 'whatever' conferred by the token. With BTC then coin is the coin, and its own identity is all that matters.

This is the beauty of bitcoin vs the fuzziness of other 'blockchain' based systems.

For btc, the value is in the coin itself -- it is its own asset. Yes we can argue if it is worth anything, but you don't need an outside party to tell you that your 1 btc is actually worth 1 btc.
With NFT's, the value is that it supposedly 'represents' some other thing, but that is only true if the rest of the worlds legal / contract system agrees with you. A court somewhere can state that the asset underlying the NFT actually belongs to someone else, or the object may be destroyed, or someone else may create a parallel NFT and there's no way to enforce uniqueness.

The heat has to go somewhere though; you can't just dump it into the air inside the sub and leave it there.

Does the NFT inherently describe the clip, or is it a reference to a database owned by the NBA? IE could the NBA redefine what that NFT actually 'is' ?

Probably a long time, but if this repository is being referenced then a large enough disaster has occurred that it'll be worth it.

>storage ain't free
The bill for their _unused_ subscription must more than cover the storage cost of their billing data, and it isn't generating any usage data that has to be stored. Otherwise Netflix would already be bankrupt.

When I heard about Uber originally it sounded like it was pitched as 'I'm already going this way, I can pick someone up along the way + a slight detour for some extra $'. That makes more sense as a ride-hailing service that is distinct from a taxi service. When it grew into tons of people being full time drivers it sure looks a lot like a mundane taxi service.

Thie whitepaper covers that:

>The association is the only party able to create (mint) and destroy (burn) Libra. Coins are only minted when authorized resellers have purchased those coins from the association with fiat assets to fully back the new coins. Coins are only burned when the authorized resellers sell Libra coin to the association in exchange for the underlying assets.

Though that can change:
>These activities of the association are governed and constrained by a Reserve Management Policy that can only be changed by a supermajority of the association members.

A malware encrypting a file is fairly indistinguishable from a legitimate application rewriting the contents of a file. A program is going to have a _very_ hard time determining that the write to the .doc file is actually a malware encrypting the file.

Many return / rebate / warranty processes require presenting the original receipt. It is these requirements that make systems like Neat Receipts suspect -- a retailer won't accept a scanned copy of the receipt. I hope this triggers a change in that thinking.