So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

This argument has got to stop. I am 100% against the death penalty, and this statement hurts my position by associating me with morons.

Raping and killing a 6-year-old != Killing a rapist murderer who makes society a worse place

If you honestly can't see why some people would see a difference, please shut up simply as a favour to me. If you can understand the difference but think your argument still has merit, you'll need to write a lot more than a pithy one-liner to sway people to your point of view.

Presumably, this means that Criminal A destroyed twice as much property breaking in, endangered twice as many people during getaway, had a gun in twice as many people's faces. Sounds fair to me.

Yeah, it seems they're always trying to reduce the power of the state.

"Take a look at the commits"?! I barely read the summary, and like it that way!

..but yeah - thanks for providing a reality check on my knee-jerk reaction. From your description, it doesn't sound like the crazy-commit-fest I'd envisioned from the headline.

Does anyone else think that hundreds of commits in a week is a BAD thing?

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this reaction. Maybe I'm just a bad coder who's only worked with bad coders, but I've never seen a hundred commits that didn't introduce their fair share of bugs - let alone a hundred commits in a single week.

t;d

Excellent counterargument with examples. Gold star for you, too, sir.

I have a son. I allow him to play hockey even though it could result in a serious injury or even death. I let him date girls even though he could get his heart broken. When he was two, I let him work his way up and down flights of steps. And yet I love him and would give up my life for him. I see the big picture even when he doesn't.

You are not God. You cannot see all possible outcomes. If you could see the future and know for certain your son would die in his next hockey game, would you let him play?

God allows people to die in ridiculous misfortunes every day, and is ostensibly capable of preventing them. You say that God may have a different definition of "evil" than we do. That may be true. But the riddle was written in our language, using our definition, and I still fail to see a flaw.

Pretty sure it's not a left wing one either.

I still see people espousing all 3 viewpoints, and they're all still true. The collapse of the latest scam doesn't change what BitCoin is. It's just as trustworthy as before. Vendors are just as trustworthy (or untrustworthy) as before. And the math is the same as before.

I wouldn't judge BTC against the other currencies of the world. It's clearly not the same, and it's not trying to be the same. People who use it don't (or shouldn't, if they're smart) consider it to be the same. But that doesn't mean it's without merit or useless. It's just got a different risk profile than other currencies, but it also comes with different benefits.

That's true for all goods, and all currencies. If you order a book on Amazon.com and they suddenly disappear, taking all your money with them - what recourse do you have? If you sell something on eBay and send out goods before you receive payment, that's just like completing a BitCoin transaction before you get your dollars. How are you better protected?

You must trust the other party in all transactions, no matter what you're exchanging. And if you don't trust them, go through an escrow service...assuming you can trust them.

Wha...? The only "exchange" you have to go through to get a Bitcoin is exchanging dollars for an encrypted key. If the Bitcoin isn't sent, you can reverse the charge.

Why the hell are you keeping Bitcoins in a "bank", rather than keeping them in a wallet that you control?

The part of a "home network" that is connected to the 'net is the biggest threat?

It's also the part that's doing the simplest thing (assuming you haven't networked your light switches). No bumbling grandma clicking every popup in sight, no kids downloading their warez. A router should be a rock-solid appliance that shouldn't be able to be "hacked" in any meaningful way without physical access.

Bottom line, it's surprising - or at the very least troubling - that routers are such a security problem.

I can think of some future-tech that might work too. A directed camera-sensing laser that differentiates between camera lenses and eyes with 100% accuracy could do it by saturating only the lenses that aren't allowed to see.

So I guess my answer to the submitter is to develop this tech.

Even ants don't need this piece of crap - they produce billions of TeV every day! Call me when there's some real power behind it.