True, but unlike hard currency BTC keeps a record of every owner it's ever had. I'm not saying it's easy to trace but as a criminal how do you propose I hide my identity? Keep a wallet for each coin? Yea that makes it really difficult to keep things straight for both the criminal and the investigator, but the rubber meets the road when the BTC is converted to hard currency. That's where you have to catch a criminal anyway, but once you have him made, it's MUCH easier to tie transactions to the criminal and really hard for the criminal to hide because the transaction records are public.

Who says they cannot be traced? The problem we have with ransomware is that it usually involves an area of the world where the authorities don't care so even if you trace it, nothing will be done.

The only way to make everybody equally rich/poor is to just take everything away from everybody and make us all wards of the state. We tried that a few times in history, it's not a pretty outcome. Besides, there is always those capitalist types that end up holding more than their fair share of the wealth for one reason or another...

EXACTLY...

For instance, there is a whole generation in North Korea where starvation was common during the second Kim's reign and they show marked problems with mental development if they where malnourished during specific phases of their development. They will NEVER recover, nor will they reach their potential but the real tragedy is that this will affect their children too. So you loose not one but two generations. (According to the documentary I remember watching once.)

The REAL question is did the defense know. If the defense knew, there isn't much else to be said but "see you at the big house DPR".

If the prosecutors knew, you can BET the defense would know as it is misconduct to withhold evidence from the defense. Literally NOTHING is really left to chance at a trial. Everybody KNOWS what the evidence is or isn't, where it came from, how it was collected and who did the collecting. So if the prosecutors knew but didn't tell the defense, they are going to loose their license and likely go to jail.

The facts seem to indicate that this was discovered AFTER the trial. Which tells me TWO things (at least). ONE, they are still following the evidence and there are other charges which are pending, or at least they have strong reason to believe they can bring others up on charges. TWO, they switched investigation teams for some reason, which indicates that somebody caught something suspicious with these two and it was serous enough to investigate further even given the risk that they might have to retry the original case.

Seems the process works..

These days, even more than that. Seems everybody has a camera phone now and many whip them out and start taking video of anything they see out of the ordinary. Then there are all the dash cams, body cams and such that are literally an unblinking eye on the police. Not to mention of all the crazy eye witnesses who are more than willing to recount their version of any event you might be interested in...

Said the two investigators just before they got perpwalked in handcuffs..

People cannot be serious. BTC is very traceable, it's in the blooming design. What do people think the block chains are for? They are a complete history of the coin. Yea, you might need a map of what wallet matches with what person, but once you can tie someone to a transaction, the mapping becomes obvious for the rest of that wallet's coins. After that it's a game of connect the dots by going back though all the publicly known block chains... It's a blooming PUBLIC transaction log, easy to trace, publicly published to the miners every time a coin changes hands. It's like a bank published every transaction processed every day by account number. Yea you might not know who is account # 2011025, but you know they transferred $1 Million to that offshore account.... Eventually you can figure out who that is.

There are bad apples in all the barrels. I've known good and bad Linux admins, good and bad Windows admins and a whole series of admins who don't know enough to realize they are making problems for themselves and others....

Gee, most of what you claim is not possible truly IS possible on Linux/Unix solutions IF you know what you are doing.

With the possible exception of the Active Directory vrs OpenLDAP gripe of yours (and I'm just not prepared to argue that point with you, I think it's possible if properly managed and configured that OpenLDAP would scale just fine) everything you complain about are not issues without solutions, but solutions that you may not understand how to setup and use.

Linux generally has solutions to the above problems which do work and work well for the back of house stuff. What Linux doesn't have though is the developed "tribal knowledge" of skilled administrators who understand the solutions and how to properly implement them. (Not that the tribe of Windows administrators always understand their OS of choice either.)

Your complaints seem more born of frustration with people who didn't know what they where doing or what tools did what you are accustom to seeing than being actual limitations with Linux. Or perhaps you have had some bad experiences with Linux because somebody thought it was going to be cheaper to forget the license costs of Windows and run some half baked Unix solution instead. I can tell you that if you do the Linux thing because it is cheaper up front, you are sadly mistaken and wasting your time and money. Usually Linux requires as much budget up front as the Microsoft solution and only saves you money in years to come. Much pain is caused by half understood, improperly implemented and under funded efforts in either Microsoft or Linux worlds...

You know, that's a great idea except... Usually there is no way to map from the source code you are given to the executable you where provided unless you have instructions on how to *build* the executable for your self.

What a jaded view. Let's discuss another right we have and then apply the same logic. What of "freedom of speech"? This right says that you have the right to have and express any opinion you choose. Where you are "free" to say something, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. There ARE limits to this freedom too. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mine, as does inciting riots. These boundaries have usually been carefully defined by our courts and ALWAYS error on the side of freedom. Indeed, proving that someone actually crossed the line into non-protected speech is extremely hard.

Now, lets discuss freedom of religion. I've never said there are "no limits" to what you can do in the name of religion in this country. There ARE limits. However, these limits are clearly defined and must error on the side of freedom. You cannot kill somebody say sacrifice your first born male child, or kill your sister for being pregnant out of wedlock. Both will get you a murder charge and a "it was my religion" is not a valid defense. However, other things are not so clear cut. It is these "other things" that we are discussing. In these cases my right to freely exercise my religion and conduct my life according to MY moral values must be protected and the burden of any laws upon this must be the minimum necessary to achieve a valid governmental purpose. (Reference the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS majority ruling).

Oh, and I'd like to point out that the law we are discussing was passed and signed into law by the FEDERAL government way back during Clinton's terms in office, was also adopted by 20 individual states including Illinois where B. Obama was serving at the time (and offered no objections to at the time). The only reason we are discussing this in Indiana is political theater....

On that note, I'm pretty much done with you on this.... I have better things to do than argue about your definition of what cannot be religious freedom in your view, because in reality your framework of reason is really more of an authoritarian "Government knows best" solution that is not about preserving freedom, but about something else....

So I cannot say, not do business with people who have pink underwear? Private businesses are FREE to discriminate based on you appearance, your smell, or even your gender as they see fit. They also have the right to refuse entry to individuals if they run a retail store. (No kids in the china shop for instance), "No shirt, no shoes, no service!" etc. Yes there are protected classes codified into law (as well there should be) but the first amendment is abundantly clear that government does NOT have the right to insert itself by law into the religious beliefs or expression of these beliefs and that includes how a business chooses to conduct it's business. You don't give up your religious freedom just because you have a business.

Actually what is wrong is those who UNDER COLOR OF LAW attempt to force businesses to act or do things outside their religious values. That Gay couple that sued the bakery for refusing to make them a wedding cake (you've heard the stories) when the owners objected to participating in the wedding in any way. Having the courts order them to violate their moral values is doing exactly what you say shouldn't be done. My religious freedom trumps your right to force My business UNDER COLOR OF LAW to do what you decide is right. Or we really have no religious freedom...

It's in the constitution, first amendment actually. It's also discussed in the declaration of independence. But Just so you know what I'm talking about:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which was promulgated to include the states by the 14th which states in part: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Seems pretty clear that what I'm advocating for is constitutional. Where I wish laws like this where unnecessary, unfortunately there are those who UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW seek to limit others religious rights and I don't see a constitutional issue with making a state law that protects such rights.

How is one's "private business" now "public"? If it's MY business, it's my business how it is run and if I don't want to serve people w/o shoes or who wear pink underwear it's legal. (or it SHOULD be legal). If I choose to only serve people who have specific beliefs, why is that a problem? It is my PRIVATE business and if I want to say open a place that is segregated by gender based on my religious belief that men and women should not be together in public unless they are related, why do YOU care?

I can tell you are not thinking clearly about the unintended consequences of what you are advocating. Yea, you might solve something that YOU define as a problem, but once you get the camel's nose in the tent on this the whole thing is coming in and all you need to do is open a business and you forfeit all your rights to holding and acting on your religious beliefs while you are doing your business. Do a bit of critical thinking about what regulations like you would advocate for would actually do to the free practice of religion and remember our forefathers paid for this freedom in blood. We should be VERY careful not to just give it all away because some nut case abuses his freedom on religious grounds.

I'm not saying this is a PERFECT approach, but it certainly was inspired genius that brings us to this "more perfect union" where your right to practice religion is codified in the constitution.

And YOUR answer is to legislate that people must violate their religious beliefs because YOU don't think what they are doing is moral? I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black here but in reality the people who have your view are missing the point.

We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom, We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..

Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.

No, we are not discussing mixing church and business. We are discussing an Individual's right to express their religion when they do business, to believe something and actually act according to what they believe.

Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?

We either have freedom of religion or we don't. I believe that almost 200 years ago that question was settled for the people of the United States.