the weaknesses and failures of bitcoin tell us about the potential weaknesses and failures of blockchains in general
the weaknesses and failures of bitcoin tell us about the potential weaknesses and failures of blockchains in general
there isn't a technology made by man that cannot also be broken by another man. meaning the technology is never, can never be, a "fix" for human nature. the only real fix to a bad intentioned human is a well-intentioned one. there is no technology that can safeguard against bad intent for you
but wild-eyed technophilia imagines that all the bad and failures of human nature can be overcome with a technological fix. so Mt Gox happens
there is nothing about bitcoin that magically fixes all of the problems with traditional money, even though those problems drive the gullible and naive to bitcoin. every evil you hate about traditional money, is true about bitcoin too. Mt. Gox teaches the most basic failure: simple theft. all of the other, more twisted schemes that have befallen traditional money in the past are still possible too with bitcoin. give it time and see!
the most hilarious part were all those demanding from the japanese government some accountability and protection from the events of Mt. Gox's demise
"If there were instances of mismanagement or fraud like this carried out by Mark Karpeles, then he should be held accountable," bitcoin investor Kim Nilsson said. "[But] if these charges against [him] don't adequately explain where all the bitcoin
... money went, then there are still unresolved questions, quite possibly additional crimes and criminals, that must be investigated further."
"i hate government and regulation, let's use bitcoin!"
(the inevitable happens)
"waaaaaah, please government, help us invesitgate and enforce laws on bitcoin!"
they want to escape regulation, government. and then they want regulation, government after they find out what no accountability really means
morons: if people can do bad things to you, they will. only a system of regulation backed by a government can protect you from that. there is no technological fix for that. now: welcome to reality
Backing a republican is understandable...but risky in this day and age. This is a political party that has shut down the US Government twice.
No, the Democrats are the ones that "shut it down" - to the extent that a "government shutdown" actually shuts anything down - and the Replublicans caved both times and gave them what they wanted.
The "power of the purse" is SUPPOSED to be the House of Representatives' check on a runaway executive branch. When the executive does something Congress doesn't want it to do, Congress is supposed to cut off the money for that, to make the executive branch stop. (This is why military appropriations, in particular, have a constitutional limit of two years: If the President, as Commander in Chief decides to go to war without a declaration, congress can stop the war within a couple years by stopping the money for the military.) This is also supposed to work when the majority of either house of congress is opposed to something.
But in these recent "government shutdowns" the Democratic majority in the Senate, along with the President, held all the services of the government hostage when the Republicans tried to defund the no-longer-popular Obamacare. The Republican-controlled house split the funding for various sections of the government into several bills, and passed essentially all of them, with the idea that Obamacare would be in its own bill which could then be voted on separately - both likely failing to pass it in the House and giving a recorded vote showing which senators and reps supported it, to use in the next election's campaigns.
The Senate leadership and Democratic majority then refused to pass ANY of the fund-a-part-of-the-government bills, holding the popular parts of the government's operations hostage: Give up the House's prerogative to originate all funding bills, pass an omnibus bill including Obamacare, or the government will be shut down - and our pet media will blame YOU for it!
The Republicans tried several iterations, from an everything-but-Obamacare bill, through several sets that added up to funding everything but Obamacare, to a bunch of little fund-somethng-really-important bills, and the Democrats bounced pretty much all of them.
Eventually the old budget timed out. Then the President ordered his people, not to go on vacation for lack of money to pay them, but to do things like actively blockade federal parks and roads. And for days the Democrats and the media said that it was the Republicans who had "shut down the goverment" (when they'd passed bills to fund pretty much all of it).
Eventually the Republican leadership threw in the towel and let an Everything Including Obamacare bill through. But people like you are STILL fooled into thinking it was the Rs, not the Ds, that made it uncomfortable for them by "shutting it down".
(I'd be a lot more impressed, by the way, if cutting off the money actually DID shut down the government, rather than just 17% or so of it, leaving the remaing 83% running full-bore. It would be interesting to try actual anarchy for a change, just to see what would happen.
The birds that figure out NOT to eat plastic (or how to get their body to deal with plastic after it's consumed) will survive to breed
There are clouds of seagulls constantly hanging out at the landfills in the San Francisco Bay Area, picking food out of the trash as it's dumped. Lots of plastic in the same load (even now that the plastic grocery bags are banned.) Why haven't THEY gone extinct yet?
Do the "environmentalists" think these gulls are better at distinguishing, or surviving ingestion of, plastic than the ones at sea? Or do we have to put roofs over our landfills to protect these endangered avian pests?
Somehow I'm not convinced this is a real problem.
I'm with Trump on this one.
When the government, or any other gang of crooks, steals your resources, and you get the opportunity to take some of them back, letting them keep it (and potentially use it to harm others), rather than taking the "tainted money", isn't "principled", it's "stupid".
I'm following the law as written. If you want to help me change the laws so:
- I don't get the Social Security and
- I don't get Medicare, but
- I also don't have to pay income tax when I earn money in the free market or liquidate my 401(k)s (money earned honestly that hasn't been taxed yet) and
- can buy medical care and insurance, for myself and my family, on an open market, from providers that aren't forced to give free care to all comers and gouge people like me to cover it.
I'd be ECSTATIC to work with you.
But if you just want to eliminate the first pair without enabling the second, you're just trying to loot me further and can take a hike.
I see your problem. The benefits don't trickle down from the ruling class. They don't "trickle down" from anywhere. They are shared. If anything, in US late-stage capitalism, the benefits trickle UP to the financial elite.
We're in agreement there - except for the characterization: It's late stage mercantalism, where government supports a handful of the established rich and vice-versa.
Like "True Communism", Capitalism hasn't really been tried, at least within the last century in the US. What aspects had been tried have been subverted by tie-ins among the financial and governmental elites. (And, yes, I agree that actually trying it, in the presence of the perverse incentive systems of governmental/political power, is very difficult.)
A group of people pulling together will always be stronger than one person pulling.
And a group of people pulling together voluntarily, because they each decided for themselves that pulling together helps meet their own goals, will always be stronger than a similarly-sized group being forced to pull by their masters.
Ayn Rand was
Ah HA! You are far enough away from the subject that you have Objectivism confused with libertarianism and Libertariansim. Oh, my...
Libertarianism (small or large L) is a very big tent. It can include every idea system that contains some variant of "don't hit first" and has at least some recognition of ownership of property.
Objectivism is important - because it is an internally-consistent philosophy, accessible to high-function Psychopaths that teaches them that playing nice with others has big benefits for them. This leaves a high-function compensated psychopath - who thinks he knows the one true way to be free (much like a religious fanatic thinks he knows the one true faith). He gets along with the giant crowd of other sorts, (perhaps seething much of the time at, or pitying them for, how they're "getting it wrong"), because Objectivism includes that same principle. So he has to let them run their own lives as long as they don't try to run the lives of others.
Teaching Objectivism is the one "treatment" that the Canadian prison system's research showed actually DID reduce recidivism - drastically. But Objectivists are just one club in the vast, chaotic, circus that is the union of the (Ll)ibertarians and the "freedom movement".
Yep Xerox got the UI right.
you should read what someone writes
then form a response
rather than regurgitating canned crap that has nothing to do with what someone said
if you just want to have arguments with boogeymen that only exist in your head, you don't even need the internet for that
In many countries, it is illegal for a company to unfairly exploit its dominance in one market to gain advantage in another market.
But Google aren't doing that.
The argument of these complaining companies boils down to "our business is so crappy and generic that we have no customer loyalty at all, and as such our customers simply click on whatever result comes first when they search". Therefore they argue "we should be first because otherwise it's not faaaaaaaair".
If the only justification for your existence is that hapless customers end up at your website due to an accident of ranking, why should anyone care about your business? Facebook, for most of its history, wasn't crawlable at all - the entire site was behind the login screen. Literally the only search term they showed up for was Facebook. Guess what - it didn't hurt them at all, because their customers wanted to go there.
I've been trying to keep my job skills fresh so I can keep up with the "next big thing". But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell IoT really is and why it's taking off. Yes, I know it's connecting things to the internet. But to what end?
It will allow Apple, Microsoft, Google, the US Government, and others to turn every device in your home into a governance/surveillance device. It won't just be your TV watching you a la 1984, it will be your thermostat, your keyboard, your couch, your bedside lamp, hell, not just your bed but your baby's crib and the baby's rattle.
That is why they are so keen on the "Internet of Things." What? You thought it was to benefit you? Really? Then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
It amazes me the people that defend game and software maker immorality. Good for you!
You think way too small. You can buy decommissioned aircraft carriers for cheap.
Time to go all snowcrash and build a floating nation.
Then do it cheaper, show up with a private contractor militia, local official wants a kickback? give it to him in 5.56 rounds from your bodyguard named bubba.
Declare you are setting up a private police force to clean up the corruption, horribly gruesome wipe out several of the top dirty cops and the rest will fall in line.
i have found another way. work within the parameters of a fallible human nature
your "way" is to insist we all become saints first
you're a moron. socially retarded. not a baseless insult, an objective description of the quality of your "thinking" on this topic
Rich people don't think that way. the richer you get the more greedy, unless the money is attached to their name for "immortality" reasons.
I have done work for billionaires, the assholes cant pay their bills within 180 days.
Real Users hate Real Programmers.