"Bitcoin's lack of regulation is not a Bitcoin deficiency, but rather a legal one. Blame government for treating Bitcoin as a commodity instead of as a currency, subject to the same laws as cash. Oh, wait, it basically is subject to the same laws as cash, [...]"

Bitcoin is not legal tender in the USA. This means that no one is obligated to accept it to clear debts. Other commodities, like say gold, or even cheetos, have some inherent value.

"the government can't create more of it out of thin air (which is a good thing, if you want your money to have the same or better purchasing power tomorrow as it did today)." I think this is a fair argument for anyone who has a fair chunk of cash in a savings account. But I don't see anyone having ever made an effort to change this through political means. If you don't like something your government is doing, a patriot would try to change what the governement is doing. If instead you try to undermine the government and the value of our mutual resources, that's not being a patriot - in fact, it's the opposite.

Google creates and then discards so many little initiatives at such a quick cadence - you'd have to be a fool to wire your house up with one, without some guarantee as how many years it will be supported.

TL

APL should get the top honors - but they hadn't invented the expression WTF what that was still in use.

If your working ~35 hours/week, you're really not applying your full attention to a university education. The idea is to go there, full-time, and invest your effort and intellect in learning. If the experience is adulterated by all of this $10/hour work, how can it be sufficiently rigorous that you can come out of it ready to compete with the 'best and the brightest' students in the world?

I sense a reasonable pride in having gotten through, and having earned some of the $$ in order to do that, but if you were a parent of a kid looking to get an education, you'd much rather they be studying full time (and sufficiently challenged to do so) rather than washing dishes, installing modems, laying cable, minding the circulation desk, whatever kids do for money.

... of rats.

Everybody uses the word 'draconian' but nobody uses an actual dragon.

This is not a vote on an amendment to the Constitution, but instead a vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill in the House. The OP could be much clearer.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that using the term "liberal idiots" undermines the credibility of your technical argument. But I'll also invite you to post or cite actual data here rather than just ranting.

Can I just say, that RT article provided no context whatsoever to this quote? Does Mr. Carter believe "America has no functioning democracy at this moment" because
a.) intrusive, pervasive domestic spying supresses minority views
b.) gerrymandering, incessant filibusters, etc have thwarted the evident will of the majority
c.) astroturfing, the Citizens United decision, opacity in finance of politics have warped the nature of small-d democracy in America?
d.) limiting access to the ballot, mandating ID at polling stations, etc have eroded the enfranchisement of voters?
e.) both major political parties are beholden to corporate and private money such that the outcome, whoever wins, is largely the same?
f.) the press, beset by false equivalencies, threatened constantly by acquisitions and downsizing, discouraged from publishing radical stances or asking difficult questions of the politicians on whose access its livelihood rests, has broken its compact with the public?
g.) all of the above?

Surely Mr. Carter is an expressive and thoughtful speaker, whether you agree or disagree with his views. I'm certain if you found the full content of what he said around his "no functioning democracy" statement, it would be far more illuminating than what was included in RT.

How about the Washington Post? Is the Army also blocking access to 'the newspaper of record for the Federal government"?

Yes, I think Mr. Wilson could have calculated the likely outcomes better than he apparently did. On the one hand, the environment around Newtown, the Boston bombings, an endless stream of kids-shooting-siblings on the news, etc etc creates a favorable moment in legislative (sp?) history for getting gun control enacted. Everyone on that side of the fence wants to see some, any, tangible results. On the other hand, the NRA really is funded largely by gun manufacturers - these guys have no manifest interest in seeing everyone printing guns at home, and surely don't want to give ground on what they consider to be the more substantive issues (background checks, national registry, large-capacity magazines, bans on certain types of weapons.) Who was always going to be the first one thrown off the island here?

The parent should be modded up. It's factual, relevant, and worth remembering.

"There are two paths through a career like his." - This is the exact definition of a reductionist argument. I don't believe every IT guy working in the intelligence industry much choose one of the two paths you outlined. Is it perhaps possible that some of them could be doing what they do with a clear conscience, and actually believing in what they do?

Snowden sees some Swiss banker shmoozed up and boozed up by a CIA agent, the banker wrecks his car, ends up being recruited (approximately what is described in the Guardian article.) Snowden is aghast, it sounds absolutely terrible on the face of it, no? Uhh, maybe? If in the end, billions of dollars of international criminal transactions are exposed, which closes off a safe haven and laundering mechanism or all kinds of 'bad guys' around the world, who is to judge the real moral value of the outcome?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say some IT/security guy operating at the periphery of the enterprise simply doesn't have the full story. He doesn't have the full perspective to make that call, not for all of us. If he witnessed specific things that bothered him, there are other ways he could have attempted to address it first. He should have gone to the inspector general. He should have gone to the CSC. He could have approached Congress. In truth, by his own admission, he did none of these things.

"Thankfully, all it takes is for one to blow the whistle" you write. I think it is worth turning that question around. If thousands of people are engaged in this enterprise, all of them also acting earnestly and also possessing eyes and consciences, what gives Edward Snowden the right to presume his moral judgements are more correct than everyone else's? It seems to me a particularly self-aggrandizing and hubristic act.

At least Bradley Manning had video footage of innocents being killed. All Snowden had was some powerpoint slides he objected to.

Insurance from whom, against whom? Like, Valve is going to call in its favor and get the FBI to get off his case, for fear of their DRM being compromised? I can totes see that happening.