Don't worry, NuPlayer is sure to have its own unique collection of buffer overflows!

Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie Sanders is just as good, and actually running.

Wait, so besides the obvious defamation, conspiracy, and direct attack on a large business not to simply comment on their business in earnest, but to negatively affect their stock price by manufactured slander and libel, this attorney general is also guilty of obstruction of justice?

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.