Because in the USA, at least, you can't patent an interface. You can patent all sorts of other stuff, but interface patents are one of the few things you can't patent? That's why AMD and Compaq were able to waltz in and kick IBM's and Intel's ass when it came to pin-socket compatible PC's.

http://thepiratebay.se/

Seems legit to me :)

I don't see why he can't be let go. Name the people he's harmed. Sure he's embarrassed a bunch of government bureaucrats, but since they work for me - the tax paying citizen, I can hardly see a problem with that.

I suppose what he did was treason, violated the government's legal edicts, but seriously here. This US is a man made institution, not a god, not an ends in itself. Freedom is the ends, the state is supposed to be the means to protect that. Letting him go is going to harm everybody how?

In the science of praxeology, they don't claim to know the mechanisim of what makes humans tick. They just presume that the mechanisims behind human behavior is too complicated to prefectly predict in many areas, and then work from there. Even though this is not hard science, you can still make extremely usefull predictions about human behavior in society and in large groups, and what kinds of social structures favor optimum desired outcomes.

Anyhow, the point is that praxeology implies free markets for optimum economic success, and public benefit, and many of the AGW proposals addressing global warming fly directly in the face of this. So obviously something is screwed up somewhere. Especialy when they say that disaster is immenent, and that we need to have insane taxes, regulations, and global government right this second to fix it. Also, predictions about AGW fly all over the place ranging from 1 degree in 100 years to a catistrophic heating event in the next decade. Also, every time a new discovery is made ... like the amount plankton plays a role in the oceans, like methane generation in the soil ... their computer models go to hell, and they all go running back to redo them and recalculate. Even with people screaming loudly that the debate is closed. Also, why does the UN have a pannel on climate change? This is not a science orginisation, it is a political one ... at times there seems almost to be a desparate push as in, fuck it all to hell right now we must have a big co2 tax, or something similar this minute.

For decades I have heard fear mongering about immigrants taking away IT jobs, and without fail just the opposite has been true, every time. In fact, what usually happens is that a bunch of cheap immigrants end up working for a start-up, a certain percentile of those start-ups that wouldn't have existed otherwise make it big, and then they hire 10000 engineers driving demand for IT talent through the roof, and pushing demand for even more immigrants. While I keep hearing these stories that the immigrants are going to push me out of a job, just the opposite has happened to the extreme. Talented people from a low freedom and low capital environment end up moving to a high capital high freedom environment, and creating wealth that never existed before - a lot of wealth.

In truth, software and most IT is global. But notice how things like Linux flourish in silicon valley the most, even though they can afford MS windows a lot easier than the 3rd world. That's because when you mix freedom with capital, it creates growth.

Solar flares lead to more cloud formation which leads to more reflection of regular light, which leads to colder temperatures.

So what are you saying? that the private sector doesn't think it's worth it, and so we need to ream the tax payers for it, or are you saying that the private sector isn't as forward seeing as the government sector? Uh huh.

You make my point. Peoples faith in the ability of government to solve problems, and their ignorance of the ones it causes, is astounding. Why don't you cross out the words "our country" up there, and put in the words "the catholic church". At least then, you are intellectually honest about the faith and ignorance.

If you have to ask, you don't get it.

Is there anything the government can't keep it's paws out of?

because there is a FINITE amounts of goods out there

I don't know if bitcoin is a good store of value, but I do know that it is worth considering as a transaction currency, because it is unregulated and range-bound.

We all know bitcoins can't go to infinity, because there is a infinite amounts of goods out there, but we also should know that bitcoin will unlikely go to zero. In fact, I can guarantee that it will not go to zero, because I can take a few K of my own money and guarantee an exchange value for all the bitcoins in existence. Now, why would somebody do that? Well, because bitcoin can be useful as a private transaction currency. As long as it is useful for transactions, it will probably be worth it for somebody somewhere to back it, for something.

I don't know if it is in a bubble, or how volatile it will be, but as long as it's range bound, the market will be able to compensate for that and make it useful. Even if the nature of bitcoin makes it deflationary, and susceptible to wild fluctuation. As long as it's range-bound, and useful for transactions, I don't believe the market will fail. However, it may change its pricing structure. People may price their stuff dollars, euros, or gold, and then complete the transaction in bitcoins. Even if that's the best that bitcoin can do, its still a major improvement.

Another very important thing. When governments screw with the currency, they almost always accompany it with things like capital controls, legal tender laws, limited withdraws, forced exchange rates, and so on. Bitcoin has none of that getting in the way, meaning the market will probably be extremely flexable about bitcoin use.

The risk of the ponzi scheme going to hell is 1000 time's greater than the risk of a tornado.

I think people are losing sight of the big picture here, taxes are violent and coercive by their very nature. Optimisation, efficiency, and simplicity at doing that are not necissairly a good thing. Maybe the Germans were efficient at cremating Jewish bodies too, perhaps it saved them a lot of money freeing up more capital for the German government. Whopie ! Yeah I know, gresham's law, ... sue me.

In truth, IPv6 for an internal network doesn't make any sense at all, it's not worth the switch for most people. For the internet, it may make some sense if the cost of a fixed IP address is too much, and you provide or use a service that can't use NAT, and the people who are trying to reach you are from a new audience who are not IPv4 bound, and other means like dynamic DNS are not practical. The key question, isn't the number of IPv4 addresses available, but the number that absolutely must be fixed for people to go about their business ... and that number is probably closer to a few million, than to 4 billion.

IMHO, the key problem here is that the powers that be are not letting IP addresses be allocated by the market, but rather by assignment. The market would automatically adjust supply, and demand, and once the cost reached a certain threshold (if ever) ... that would determine when people think it's worth it to switch.

I remember a few years ago, I talked about how IPv6 was overrated on slashdot and in the tech community, and promptly got blown off and down voted. They may have had a fundamental understanding about the technology, but didn't jack fuck about the marketplace.