I posted something similar, but wish I could have retracted it... since the bet, as stated, is in USD. AFAIK, the contracts part of bitcoin can only manipulate bitcoin.
Ooops. Just not in USD... ouch..
> Since it would be almost impossible to take the parent up on this offer, what would you call it?
No, once the "contracts" part of bitcoin reaches adoption, it should be trivial... I think.
> It's stunningly good for microtransactions.
My understanding of the situation is that in the long term (because of the cap on the total amount of bitcoin), there is a limit to how small bitcoin microtransactions can be (and still be practical), because transaction fees for mining blocks will need to replace the current incentive to mine (which is the production of new bitcoin).
Am I wrong?
He said "I MIGHT [emphasis mine] want you to die a painful death..."
I see the elegance of producing a terrific strawman troll by merely omitting one word, but really, this doesn't qualify for Insightful mods, puh-leeze!
Or (for those who think there shouldn't be the death penalty) triage.
Based on a tweet by one of Zerocoin's developers, they have decided to launch it as an independent currency, therefore requiring that one or more Bitcoin / Zerocoin exchanges will spring up to enable increased Bitcoin anonymity.
> Since mixing services have fundamental problems of a non-technical nature, it just won't work.
OK, interesting. What are these problems? Isn't Tor just a "mixing service", yet the documents from the NSA which have been revealed up to now claim that even that bastion of binary processing power is capable of de-anonymizing only a small fraction of the Tor network's throughput?
Zerocoin should be launched soon. It uses zero-knowledge proofs to add in a lot of anonymity that bitcoin lacks.
> It's worth nothing that the broadcaster
I think you meant "It's worth noting", no?
And while I have the chance, thanks for all of your innovations, and best of luck in your endeavors (including in court). The original mp3.com site rocked; I can only speak for myself, but it was totally eye-opening for me to understand how many good, unknown, indie musicians there are, and to partially glimpse (what I believe is) the future direction of music.
Last time I checked, it's possible to write spaghetti code in any language. Of course, there are some languages in which it is impossible to write anything _but_ spaghetti code, but he wasn't talking about them.
The answer to your question
If google are allowed to do it, why can't I? I only want to make one copy of each book from the library.
is addressed in the decision. On page 21, Judge Chin addresses the first of the four traditional criteria for fair use, whether the unauthorized copy is used in a transformative manner:
Google Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books.
Instead, it "adds value to the original" and allows for "the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings." Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. at 1111. Hence, the use is transformative.
So there's your answer. You're (probably) 100% OK if you make those copies of those library books, as long as you don't use them as you would use a library book (your use should also be such that others would be prevent from using them as such, also --- oh, and IANAL, and TINLA (this is not legal advice)).
Of course, the fact that you would be 100% in the right wouldn't help you pay lawyers licensed for Federal courts. If the facts of your case corresponded closely to those of this one, you might be able to squeeze by representing yourself "pro se", and hope for quick summary judgment, but I think that would be dangerous, since the other side would probably start the whole thing by arguing about everything which distinguished your case from this one.
Google was guilty of breaking into facilities they don't own, hacking a computer network, and releasing every page of every book ever printed???
Last time I checked, the facts were that: (1) Swartz had free and open access to both the building and the closet in which he placed his computer, (2) any hacking he did amounted to (possibly) changing his MAC address and violating terms of service, and (3) none of the material he downloaded was released by him to the public. Have any reliable sources to contradict this?
So you are also implying that there do not exist any people who use drugs over the course of their whole lifetime without getting addicted? I rather doubt that, especially considering that alcohol is a (legal) drug.
As for lucky or not lucky, it has no relevance to the topic, which is whether my comment on that post made sense. I stated no claim that taking drugs is totally safe.
Last time I checked: taking drugs != being addicted to drugs, especially since our everything-is-a-crime-happy society has made drugs a lot less addictive than nicotine illegal... As for a false dichotomy, the way I read it, the post implies that there are only two alternatives: not taking drugs, or having them totally mess up your life.