And you're going to convert those paper Euros to bitcoins how exactly? Other than, you know, mailing the bills in an envelope.

If you had your Euros in a bank outside of Greece, you could write a check, transfer money through paypal or engage in most any other transactions with them, capital controls be damned. Without having to convert the Euros to bitcoin.

Basically, all these things you can magically do by converting your Euros to bitcoin, you can do without bitcoin.

Right. The article makes no sense. The Euro isn't collapsing, Greece and its banks are. If you have the Euros with which to buy bitcoins, you're better off keeping the Euros. Just don't deposit them in a Greek bank.

It's a healthy thing to see in a large company. Use the best components available for a product, even if they're not the ones produced by your sister division.

The problem is that mixed paper is worth less than the cost to collect and recycle it. Cheaper to plant trees and bury used paper. Though the article only alludes to it with "dual stream recycling," the rest of the materials on their own (glass, plastic, metal) recycle profitably.

"Source sorting" consumes vastly more manpower than the mechanized sort at the recycling center. That manpower has a cost either way. Even if you coercively steal the manpower, that doesn't make it free.

So what's the article trying to say? That a toy which inspires a child's interest in science and technology is BAD unless it inspires boys and girls in equal proportions? Get outta here.

I already practice dual stream recyling: paper goes to the dump while plastic and metal goes in the blue bin.

Maybe it's time to stop treating mixed paper products that come from renewable resources as if they are worth recycling.

Trump is pretty good at enriching himself. Not so good at enriching his investors. If it's the economy you care about, pick someone else.

https://www.legalzoom.com/arti...

Exactly. Favoring PBS' superb programming and supporting donation and sponsorship to keep it going is a separate issue from disapproving of government funding.

Ron Paul supporters are against government funding for a lot of activities they strongly support. That's kinda the whole idea of libertarianism: personally support the stuff you like but get the government out of it.

Div by zero means my program encountered an error. If it continues anyway, it could corrupt its database or misbehave in other destructive ways. Worse, it could provide the operator with incorrect results leading to real-world destruction.

So yeah, I want divide by zero to throw an exception and I don't wish to ignore the exception.

Stephen Cole Kleene and Ken Thompson

https://en.wikipedia.org/?titl...

Your reasoning does not make sense. If each packet benefits each side equally then the benefit from all of the packets is exactly equal. Direction ratios, length of travel and phase of the moon are all irrelevant bits of information that don't apply to the question.

In a functional free market, Time Warner and Comcast would be paying Netflix the same way they pay ABC and CBS. Let's not have any delusions about the current monopoly/duopoly state of affairs being a functional free market.

That sounds so reasonable. Just one problem: those customers you took where you found them paid you to take them where you found them and connect them to the Content networks. Refusing to provide that paid-for service (or throttling it) until the Content networks _also_ pay you is fraudulent double-billing.

That's a half-truth.

At any connection with the source network, you advertise the destinations you're willing to accept traffic for. Nothing requires you to accept packets for your entire global network at every location where you interconnect; that's something you choose (or choose not) to do.

Sending packets for destinations you did not advertise has long been deemed a violation of any peering agreement, subjecting the transgressor to disconnection.

Likewise, most service providers respect the destination network's advertised priority for each of its destinations. If the "AS path" is "shorter" at the distant connection point, packets are sent to the distant interconnection, not the nearby one. When offered at the same priority from each interconnection point, the packets do of course travel to the nearer one.

The few networks who disregard these advertised priorities and just send to the nearest interconnect tend to suffer from greater malfunction and customer ire.

That's totally disingenuous. The postal systems are sender-pays systems. Of course a portion of that payment must be passed forward to each of the postal systems in the delivery chain.

The Internet is a meet-in-the-middle system in which both sender and receiver pay to reach any of the midpoints where packets are exchanged. Regardless of any ratios, the packets transiting those interconnects have already been paid for in both directions.

If you want to convert to a sender-pays system where everybody gets free gigabit fiber in their homes but Netflix has to pay for access then sure, your example would make sense.

Which AT&T? The rebranded Cingular or the old one that collapsed to nothing allowing Cingular to buy them? Nortel, of course is in bankruptcy. And you wrote the software that managed their money you say? Did it round off the pennies?