Do you also support contract killings? Because he ordered hits on a few people.
The U.S. government that is prosecuting Ross pays for killings every day. Why should they have a monopoly?
Sure, I'll give you a call. You have a land line number?
Jets and ships are still reasonably compelling uses of carbon, since it's so easy to run around with as a concentrated source of energy. Transcontinental truck deliveries, eh, maybe, although there are other options like rail, and trucks can conceivably be powered by energy dense fuels like hydrogen that release comparable amounts of energy upon oxidation, even if producing them requires investments of electrical power as opposed to cheap mining. But things like stationary power generation facilities don't need to be carbon-based at all, and those are responsible for far greater emissions than vehicles.
Did you read the link? Look, there is ZERO connection with Fracking and contamination of ground water.... They've looked for it, and haven't found it.
In one single well in Western Pennsylvania. The Duke University scientist quoted in that article- that *you* posted the link to and are yelling at people to read- specifically notes that "the single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation," which proves you haven't read your own link yourself! See how easy it is to prove a negative?
"This is good news," said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, who was not involved with the study. He called it a "useful and important approach" to monitoring fracking, but he cautioned that the single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
Here's a tip: if you post a URL to a story, read it first.
Plant a tree, move closer to your work, sell your car and instead use car sharing services and transit. Stop telling "us" what to do and make definitive changes yourselves. I am not a greenie and I don't tell others what they should or should not do
</fail>
Bit Coins are actually more real then the US Dollar. Sure we get a paper or coin note stating that this represents so much. But at least bit coin is connected to something in limited supply thus needs to be shared.
I've never understood the logic behind statements like this. There are an infinite possible number of cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency is nothing but a mathematical algorithm being run on a lot of computers. By its very nature, it can't be in limited supply. Saying that Bitcoin is valuable because it's scare is like saying that digital music or digital video must be valuable because they're scarce. Any one, at any time, can create his own blockchain and create a Bitcoin clone. After that, all he need to do is persuade other people to adopt his blockchain, and a new standard has been created, with the originator becoming "wealthy". In fact, I suspect that this idea may suddenly occur to the operators of one of the big idled mining centers over the next few months. And before anyone says, "But Bitcoin was first!", let me reply, "Friendster and MySpace".
A Bitcoin is a unit of account in a specific ledger. The number of units of account in that ledger is finite. Additional ledgers can be created, and have been. But the value of units of account in those ledgers is not equal to the value of the unit of account in the Bitcoin ledger.
It's a little bit like comparing seats at a concert. Yes, we can put more seats in the back, but they are not valued the same as seats in other sections. We can create more seats, but we can't create more seats in the front row.
Considering Pope Francis will never allow women priests or stop using the stupid, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" when referring to gays, the AC is correct.
Has Pope Francis been documented to say this somewhere? My understanding is that his position has been described as "Who am I to judge?"
Parts of the US government hold that Bitcoin is property, namely the IRS. However, the government certainly counts it as money with regard to money laundering - just ask Charlie Shrem.
Laundering can be done with any tangible asset, from cash to diamonds to Bitcoin. That's hardly news and doesn't suggest the Government considers Bitcoin to be a currency. Bitcoin can be considered a currency when it's legal tender for all debts, public and private. Until then it's merely an asset. The fact that some people are willing to trade it for goods and services does not make it a currency. You could exchange everything from beer to securities for goods and services. Maybe I'll start charging people shares of GOOG for my labors....
.... the more they stay the same.
I keep telling my friends that "cloud computing" is not a new concept. We used to call them "dumb terminals." Not a precise analogy of course but close enough for our purposes. You just know that's going to come full circle in another decade or so.
"Little else matters than to write good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer