He does have a point though, and I don't understand why people haven't seen it before.

If you create a currency that is backed by nothing but knowing a very large number, then you can back a infinitely large number of currencies by an infinitely large number of different large numbers (or even the same large numbers). That means that there are inherently infinitely many alt coins out there, and these things are inherently worthless.

It's not really that alt coins destroy bitcoin's credibility, it's that bitcoin itself has no credibility in the first place, and neither do these alt coins.

Actually, compromised Linux systems are in high demand because they make great botnet command and control servers. They're far more valuable than a compromised Windows box.

Also, the assumption behind your assertion is easily demonstrated to be untrue. MacOS had major virus problems, in spite of being much less popular than Windows. OS X has almost no viruses, in spite of being much more popular than MacOS. Android is a great case study: The dominant Android versions, using the Google Play store only, have no significant virus problems, while the much, much less popular Chinese devices have lots. iOS, of course, has basically none, and it's a far more attractive and profitable target than Chinese Android devices. It's less popular than mainstream Android, but given the demographics of the platforms is probably more attractive.

Market share has basically nothing to do with vulnerability to malware.

You know when gun deaths were really low? Before guns were invented. The homicide rate, however, was about an order of magnitude higher than it is now.

Your statement is true, but utterly irrelevant to the question of where the safest places to live are. Does it matter what weapon is used to kill you? Or rob you or, rape you, or... Of course it doesn't. You have fallen victim to (or else are disingenuously pushing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're foolish, not malicious) to a very clever stratagem pushed by advocates of gun control: Focusing only on gun crime and ignoring other crime.

The statistic that matters isn't the number of gun deaths, it's the number of homicides, assaults, rapes, robberies, etc., total. And on any one of those scales, those states with strict gun laws don't do particularly well. To make them look good you have to do exactly what you did: arbitrarily exclude much of the violence.

I'll never know. The very first thing I do when I get a new Thinkpad is to disable the touchpad on it completely. The trackpoint is greatly superior to any touchpad, even an Apple touchpad.

It works because slashdot recognised the URL, and automatically made it clickable, rather than because of any design. You need to use html to get it a link to work correctly.

No, not really. In the UK at least, a car that's done over 100,000 miles is considered basically worthless. They sell for £3-500 each, because their engine and transmission is likely to be on its last legs.

Um, the main point of the post *is* that the US DoD is involved. I quote the GGGGP:

Man On Pink Corner said the DoD's influence was the issue, essentially that the DoD is brainwashing kids through Call of Duty, and that he'd address that point with his kids.

But there is no evidence that the DoD had anything whatsoever to do with Call of Duty.

Not really, in fact, 125,000 miles is a pretty long way after you'd expect to see major issues with most of the seals on the engine, and quite possibly complete failure on some cars.

Why do people assume that any disease that they can't physically see the scars of isn't actually a disease at all?

But what is the connection with the US DoD?

Sometimes, but not always. It really depends on the post.

I think real names do help, but only some. I think you can divide the population into three groups:

1. The people who will be civil, at least most of the time, regardless of anonymity.

2. The people who will be civil if they have to attach a name they care about (which may be a pseudonym).

3. The people who just don't care. Most, if not all, of these are asses in real life, too. We all know some.

I think the majority of people fall into group 1. Group 2 is a minority. Group 3 is a tiny minority... but on the Internet the relevant population of even a moderate-size site is enormous, so a tiny minority can do enormous damage.