You can't fix politics, until you fix the people voting for the politicians. We get exactly what we deserve as an electorate. However, there are signs on the wall (CANTOR), that given enough crap, voters will out vote incumbents even as they spend millions to hold onto a seat. I see more potential in the (R) side right now in outing politicians who deserve it. However, I don't see ANY such on the (D) side. There is no (D) grassroots with any power, including OWS (noisy, but otherwise ineffective) threatening Harry, Nancy, or any of the others who need to go as much as Cantor did.

But I actually blame the liberal mentality for this, because they like abusive power of Government butting into everyone's business and telling everyone how to live, rather than leaving us the hell alone. Liberal fixation on people like Sarah Palin (who doesn't hold an elected office), because she talks funny, while accepting Sheila Jackson Lee (a complete loon) is a prime example of duplicity that is amazing.

It is short sighted indeed. It is way more expensive to replace good workers than it is to retain them. But they don't teach this in Business school any longer.

That is not how money laundering looks like. Here is what Money Laundering Looks like

Illegal gained money is given to a Legitmate enterprise (Gambling) and is returned as "profit" or whatever from the enterprise. In a very simple case, mob money is put into a slot machine, and 98% of it is returned when the jackpot is hit. The gains, now washed (legitimate) are taxed and are clean for use elsewhere (deposit into a bank). Where if you just stuck the gains in the bank would trigger all sorts of investigations. This is part of the reason why deposits of $10,000 or more in banks are automatically reported to treasury, for an audit of the money trail.

The trick in money laundering is to hide the input (initial gains being laundered) well enough that it doesn't trigger the reporting requirement of transactions of 10K or more. A series of 5000 "high risk" transactions where you lose most of the time, but win big occasionally, is typically how money is laundered. The inputs are not traceable, and the earnings become legitimate.

The goal is always to hide the initial input, obfuscate the long trail of transactions and end up with legitimate money on the back end. The transaction you describe is used to obfuscate the buyer and seller from each other, and the authorities, not the transaction. Money laundering still has to occur with the seller, as the bitcoin to currency exchange still has dirty money written all over it.

No, that is not a show stopper for Bitcoin. It is what is going to drive Bitcoin to full currency status faster, where people trade money for the more usable Bitcoin.

Here is the issue, anything that makes something less utilitarian and causes restrictions will fall into disfavor eventually. Laws and Restrictions and fees and taxes all have the unintended consequence of driving economy deeper under the table. There is a whole class of people who now work off the books, bartering and trading and whatnot, and they don't pay taxes on anything they earn, simply because the government cannot track their activities. They work very hard at staying under the radar, dealing in CASH and trades, and as a result, have a better income than someone that is legitimate.

If I earn 2000 under the table, it is worth 3000-4000 in legitimate earnings that people pay taxes on. And as more people realize how much the government seizes in taxes, even on the "poor", this will start happening more and more. Bitcoin(and similar), has the ability to really change this equation faster than it is happening now.

The more they squeeze their fists, the more people will slip through their fingers (paraphrase of Princes Leia)

The problem is, it is going to be really hard for the Government to trace money laundering with Bitcoin, if the people take a few simple steps.

1) Use unique wallet for each transaction
2) Use a washing service every time one acquires new coins in a normal transaction.
3) ???
4) Profit

The government is going to try to regulate "coin washing", but since it is a decentralized currency, with no government boarders, it is going to be really hard to pull off well.

You're right. But the problem is, loyalty is a two way street. If an employer doesn't value existing employees to pay them what the market rate is, or even reasonably close, deserve to lose them to people willing to pay for it all. If my boss hired someone to do what I do, with less skill and experience than me, for more than I make, while being unwilling to even negotiate with me on a raise .... see ya boos!

I blame (D) and (R) who are so stuck on bringing home bacon, that they screw the people they clam they serve while getting all sorts of re-election donations for the very people they should be de-funding.

How is that for what to blame?

You get a better job, by becoming better at your job, and either you move up, or on. This is especially true in IT, where if you stay in your job, you don't get any raises or improvements in benefits. The proven method is to change your job, work somewhere else where they will pay you more, a lot more. I just read where people who change jobs do get raises, because they leave places that do not offer wages, but offer new employees more money than the people who have been there a while.

Which is something I never considered before, and now, I'm actively seeking new employment, and will continue to do so for the rest of my career. If people don't value what they have, they will lose it. Pay me what I am worth, or the marketplace will take me away from you.

Credible doubt ... the Antarctic Ice Sheet being larger than average, during the "hottest years in the last century", and violating the entire climate change model being used to predict catastrophic sea-level changes!

Thesis is made
Antithesis is rendered
Experiments are conducted (Climate Change SuperComputer Models)
Results are measured. (Ice Sheets should be shrinking, but are growing)

Conclusion, AWG isn't producing the results actually seen compared to the various climate models. The Thesis is flawed, and therefore MUST be reconsidered, but that isn't happening. Why?

The new answer is "global warming is changing currents in the oceans, causing ice sheet growth". So, by example, the global cooling should make the ice sheets smaller? But that doesn't work either, does it?

Hurricanes, Tornadoes, drought, flooding, etc are all about the same or LESS than years before, counter to all the AGW predictions about "massive" change to the climate.

I can cast credible doubt, but it will be ignored by the likes of you, simply because you WANT to believe AGW.

How is this a strawman? This is exactly the point. Here is a guy, who views exceptionalism, as "injustice" and "exclusion". Being really good at something is not an "injustice" period. It is exclusive, but that is kind of the point, as being really good at something does make your talent and skill exclusive. But that is the problem with LeftWingers, who want equal outcome, regardless of ability.

Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.

Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.

And when I see words like "injustice" and "excluded" I see a typical liberal who views skill, talent, dedication and mastery as bad things. Misapplying words like this, in ways exactly like this, cheapens real injustice, and real exclusion. Normal Humans are excluded from exceptionalism, not because of some "injustice" but rather that is what makes the exceptional so great (mostly hard work and dedication).

How about, instead of deriding the exceptional among us, we inspire others to exceptionalism?

Tools are simpler and easier to use, and yet a Master can make those tools do things your average user cannot. And that makes the world of difference. A spreadsheet "can" be used as a simple Database, but actual real databases are more complex and can do things a Spreadsheet simply cannot handle. Is the difference "database" or something else? Is it the tool or something else?

The problem isn't where the author thinks it is, masters always make their work look easy, but it takes skill and talent both. Skill is practice, talent is skill with artistry.

Okay, Libertarians complain, about government interference in the lives of people. Why does every busy body think it is their right and responsibility to get involved in the daily affairs of the serfs? And I'm talking about both the (D) and (R) type micromanaging of people and telling us all how to live.

Sophistry.

When "cutting the growth" of a program equates to "throwing grandma over the cliff, Draconian Measures and evil", the result is the same. You are paying attention, aren't you?