Thnx <3

No, they do triangulation via several towers.

Great, now it's stuck with a stupid name.

Losers will always lose. Can't we just let the idiots that accept overvaluations lose all their monies and go on like nothing happened? Someone's got something to gain by this tech bubble hype, and it won't be YOU. Just let the losers lose without causing a massive scene and a blow to the tech industry because someone thought those virtual farms composed of some pixels on your screen are worth money, or that those random "like's" on facebook equal to real data mining value. I am aware that what I say here will be lost like a drop of water in the ocean but mark my words; The sensationalist journalists that think "Tech bubble" equates to big headlines, will cause a huge blow to the rest of us in the tech industry. The rest of us that are literate already understand that the overvalued companies aren't really worth that.

For sandboxing you just need the to run "sandbox somecommand" maybe with parameters.

There are GUIs for selinux, but I don't remember which because I avoid GUIs if possible, and there are tons of tools for it.

The idea with SELinux is that it's the developers of whatever app that should be providing policies and selinux booleans for fast configuration, so that the setroubleshoot GUI can directly display "This was blocked, run this line to allow.", and the sandboxing thing is already covered (As mentioned above).

For the IP traffic, it also has some labeling functionality for traffic, I haven't looked into that.

For comparison, we've all had to learn httpd.conf and other configs at some point too, it's just that users are afraid to touch SELinux in the first place.

Try SELinux. In Fedora 15 it even has sandboxing functionality. I don't think it can get more fine-grained than SELinux.

Must be a specimen from the nearly extinct species of "diggeratus". I, for one, am excited for having spotted one of these out in the wild.

I think you are the first one that made that argument.

Depending on the relations your country has to the one you're leaving for, they can still terrorize one with a flood of letters, or maybe even worse such as beginning to visit one's workplace and neighbors to make sure it is delivered.

It may seem like a no-win situation on both sides, but here's how I think this plays out:

The one suing:
They're making an example of someone, and scaring off other people due to their oh-so-effective tactic.
Case publicity, all they have to do is put some outrageous number on the paper and others will report on it.

The person getting sued:
He is eventually forced to sell off anything of value and live on what they consider to be a minimum standard of living.
His life is virtually wasted, because lets face it, you can't do anything when you've only got money for food, and if one gets a better job or similar, then they'll only take more and the person is still in the same situation.

The more important question that never pops up because talking about debt is such a taboo: Is it right to sentence someone to life in poverty and psychological abuse if they didn't cause anyone harm or emotional damage?. From a debt-based economy's perspective that's a definite yes. Profiting on debtors is just another business.

It sounds similar to huffingtonpost exclusively uses other newspaper's articles.

I think it implies curiosity and early speculation. They're claiming free money here, after all ...

Please refute with specific information.

I suspect you have an interest in making sure bitcoins succeed, or you're just like the 16 year old kids on forums that go and blindly defend potential scammers with ignorant comments; "Stop being paranoid, nobody will scam you without transparency, pffff, I know people I've seen on forums before would never do that since they're nice guys and you're a douche" etc..

The wealth accumulation is the most worrying part, for instance there's a transaction for 140k already, and add 8 zeros to that if the adoption trend goes viral. Then there are the mining pools, which effectively act as banks, only that you put your trust in some guy sitting on some couch. All kinds of strange things are happening in the pools, from roundings, opaque pool operation (You simply have to trust that the pool allocates you the right amount for your work, the pool operators even say this mockingly, ex. "But I'm goofing around for few week and I'm amazed with bitcoin idea, so I don't plan to steal anybody right now :-)." http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1976.0), etc.. A currency system based on trust? Meh, I don't see it happening (But then there are really bad actors on youtube that get really famous, sometimes even because that they're so bad, so you never know).

Let's not forget the large botnets, they can easily be focused on directly stealing the bitcoins, with no sort of security system your bank might have.

They also speak a-lot about the limit on inflation, since only 21 million can be generated (It's unlikely they all will get generated as the difficulty increases exponentially, good luck hitting a hash smaller than 0x000000000 ... 0000100000000, or whatever the difficulty), but this means that those with let's say 5 million each, they will effectively be able to control the bitcoins' value.

And ofcourse the points you mention, such as what if some professional people decide to put in serious effort and money into finding a more equal system, and it ends up replacing bitcoins where many people have invested so much.

Look how well it goes for RIAA to prevent copying and counterfeiting.