Right. It's Gemini, the other bitcoin project of theirs. The one they say they is not distracting them from launching the COIN ETF.

IÂve been reading "Winklevoss Twins close to launching bitcoin ETF" stories since mid-2013. It has always just about cleared the last regulatory hurdle and it is always going to launch in a month or two and it is always "still on track." Slashdot just seems to be an amplifier of the latest publicity blitz.

OK, fine. Maybe it will happen and maybe it won't. No particular reason I know to pay attention to it until it does.

Funniest thing I've read about it appeared in January, 2015: "We believe that anyone who believes that gold is an important asset to hold in their portfolio should seriously consider adding bitcoin to their portfolio. When we consider all of the qualities that make money money, Bitcoin when compared to gold matches or surpasses gold in every measure of money. This is why we and others call bitcoin 'gold 2.0' or 'digital gold,' Winklevoss explained in his email."

If I have to be subjected to ads, I want them to be irrelevant. I'd rather be bored than tempted to spend money.

Of course, in reality I just avoid ads altogether (including rejecting services that have them, such as cable TV).

Where did it "rule" that? I'm not looking for an interpretation - if they ruled it, they must have actually said it. Where?

Governments don't always suck at providing services, you know. The BBC is one of the only major news outlets that does actually try to be unbiased, even if they aren't always perfect at it.

Nope. You're just documenting your own failure to understand how our kind of legal system works.

What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.

I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.

It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.

How how about the Fukushima bottled water company products as well?

No, because bottled water is mind-bogglingly wasteful. I avoid drinking it whether it's radioactive or not!

Also, either the produce is safe, or it isn't. If it's safe, it's irrelevant that it came from Fukushima.

How do you quantify resemblance?

There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.

There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?

I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.

Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.

If you can still see the food, there's not enough butter.

No.

QR codes encode arbitary text (in one of several character sets). There is no central registry of what that text means so QR codes in general can't "run out". The ammount of text that can be encoded depends on the size (in "modules") of the QR code, the character set and the desired error correction level.

QR codes used for taking people to websites generally encode URLs. Even a quite long URL can be encoded in a reasonable size QR code though shorter URLs are certainly preferable for more reliable scanning due to stronger error correction and/or larger "modules".

Not entirely true. the real speed of actual data devliery depends on many factors including

1: the speed of your client hardware and software
2: the speed of your local network
3: the speed of your customer premisis equipment
4: any congestion/shaping/prioritisation on your ISPs network
5: any congestion between your ISP and the server host.
6: any congestion on the server hosts network
7: the speed/congestion of the servers connection to it's hosts network
8: the ability of the server itself to keep up
9: TCP issues. Older TCP stacks had a limited window size which limited the bandwidth at a given latency. Even modern stacks have "slow start" which means it will take a while to get up to the full bandwidth on a "long fat network".

Some of these factors are under your ISPs control, many are not.

Afaict speedtest measures about the best case, it uses a nearby fast test server and it waits for the speed to stabalise to allow for TCP slow start.

I couldn't get numion to work so I can't comment on that.

Also, a "linux geek" would have already have taken dm-crypt as an alternative, or performed the instructions in some Full Disk Encryption Howto.

Isn't it built into the installer nowadays? I installed Debian recently and it offered to encrypt my system, but maybe it skipped the partition that holds /bin and whatnot...