2008 coincided with a massive financial crisis. And if you double your time horizon, back around 2000 oil was more like $10 a barrel.

All a currency really needs is reliability; that it was here, yesterday, today, and will be here tomorrow. Sure, it has no inherent backing, but then neither does Peru's little fiat currency. The problem that I see is that despite all the talk, there's no real evidence of a Bitcoin economy emerging; people use it to settle payments but people aren't running entire businesses in Bitcoin and paying salaries in Bitcoin.

As soon as people want transactions confirmed faster, they'll start adding transaction fees. Simples.

I suggest you review the UK's CS curriculum, and the curriculum it replaced. You might just be in for a surprise.

childish, fanciful and ridiculous dream

Kind of a sweeping claim there. Hint: the 1% would like you to have a decent income so you can afford their products, as otherwise their companies will go bust (like the Romans did).

Or indeed any process which carries a relatively constant risk, accident being the most obvious. Personally, I can't wait for the headline "121 billionaire breaks neck skiing".

Also AI can't currently walk and speak a coherent sentence. I'm currently confident of my ability to outsmart it for the forseeable.

It's a generally unpopular thing to say in these discussions, but American cops are by world standards incredibly badly trained, equipped, and managed. I know UK cops who have done exchange programs and the like and they are dumbfounded by how bad things are.

Well, let's make it simple. Harassment is when you continue to communicate with someone who has expressed the wish that you stop.

What you are talking about is threats, and again the test is simple. Is a reasonable person receiving such a threat likely to believe that the threat is to be carried out?

Because it is an initial study, I would guess. Wait till they replicate it (if they do) with Kinect.

one bonus when it comes to childbirth!

And nine months previously ^_^

So much kneejerk in this thread. Here is the paper and blogpost.

Protip: this research is being done by some of the best people in inter-disciplinary security, so reading and understanding what they are saying is a good idea before you spout off about how whack polygraph testing is.

(1) This is not a polygraph. It is an alternate technique with a similar aim. (2) It is an initial study whose purpose is to show there is an effect worth investigating. (3) You clearly have no idea who the people involved actually are. Hint: Ross Anderson knows a lot more about snake oil than you do.

For fuck's sake. Read the damned paper. This was written by a team led by Ross Anderson, who kind of knows what he's talking about.

No, you're just saying words without knowing anything about the law or how it is interpreted.

Cases like this turn quite precisely on the the law as written and the practice of the courts in interpreting them. It's not a degree of responsibility thing; it's a 'have you broken the letter of the law' thing, and a 'will the courts just shit on you anyway' thing.