Nukes?! I prefer to use Chinese Needle Snakes.
Okay, but kiddy porn is abuse. Not the same thing. It's fucked up that kids (15-17) get prosecuted for sending/receiving nudes, though. And I think I will stay away from your kids anyway. They'll probably try to steal my candy and video games.
I find kids are always on my lawn. I yell at them, but they ignore me
"We're grandfathering existing accounts that signed up before day X", duh.
Advanced notice doesn't mean there's a frenzy of new signups; it just means existing users are treated fairly.
Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.
This is easily prevented by not allowing direct download links. For example, by requiring a hashcode in the HTTP request string accompanied by a cookie which is only set by answering a prompt.
and by restricting the files that can be made downloadable to
If someone tries to hide by creating a new wallet, you can also see that money from a known account got transferred to a wallet for which no previous transactions exist. Perhaps this is a different person, but when you see the same transaction patterns in the new account you can start narrowing your assumptions.
You could generate a large number of holding wallets in advance of any transaction, and retain a set amount of money in each wallet.
Then when you are planning to make another transaction, you generate a new transaction-specific wallet, and execute some sequence of transfers from a random assortment of your holding wallets to your transaction wallet, and then execute the transaction.
You could also have multiple layers of holding wallets and transaction wallets, and conduct some bitcoin rotations with friends to shuffle things around.
I envision if a few people are doing that, it could be very difficult indeed to correlate transaction to holder; now, I won't say impossible, because there are probably bound to be some patterns that might be detected through statistical analysis...
Not general problems, but implementation-specific problems that would be likely to occur.
There is also the issue about transaction cost, since the 'holding' and temporary/thorwaway wallets generates spurious non-transactions that look like transactions, and therefore, would use part of the bitcoin network's capacity.
That exchange will never be anonymous.
I wouldn't say that... I would say that exchange will sometimes not be anonymous. Especially when that exchange is made from bitcoins to a currency, and one of the trading partners is a large institution with regulatory requirements to meet.
But there will be other cases where it could be nearly anonymous. Mainly when neither of the trading partners keeps records of the identity of the other trading partner; or when they trade without learning the identity of whom they are trading with in the first place -- probably for intangible goods like data.
Perhaps I missed it, but how was this murder terrorism?
I thought everyone was familiar with the process thanks to the Saturday morning cartoons, but perhaps some of you Delinquent Terrorees need it spelled out.
After a crime or crime-like event, what'll happen is that someone on the Terroree Committee announces their IBA (Intent to Become Afraid). Another committee member seconds this, possibly after some out-of-band side-dealing. This brings the terror (small "t") to the floor, where a wider discussion ensues. If seven ninths of the committee supports Afraidity, then goes to the larger Terroree Assembly for more debate and ultimately a straight majority vote. (I'm oversimplifying here, but I'm not sure how much detail you were requesting.)
If it wins the vote, it is promoted to a Terror (large "T"). A Terror's actors become "terrorists" and the action "terrorism" and so on. If no motive for the terrorism is found (no one comes forth and explains their demands and that they performed the act in order to persuade the public to see things their way, the classic boilerplate being "I committed that violent action in order to prove that my views are the wisest views") then something can be made up -- technically after being sent back to the Terroree Committee. To save time, the original committee's meeting may come with a non-binding suggested motive, and after the assembly's Terror vote, a popular Terror will often immediately proceed to a vote on the suggested Terror Motive.
All members of the Terroree Assembly agree, as a condition for joining the assembly, that they will comport Afraidity with any and all Terrors, without exception, and regardless of however they voted upon the original terror (the "Mandated Afraidity"). This helps to address charges of illegitimacy, so that we don't have a repeat of the Cole incident (where it languished in Terror Court after passing the assembly (with high absenteeism) and a poll of the assembly members found that 87% of its members hadn't been Afraid).
The Mandated Afraidity, while once thought of as draconian and overburdensome, is now widely accepted thanks to a notification network which helps to keep assembly members up-to-date and informed about exactly what to fear, how to persuade the public to comport Afraidity, etc.
A private cloud would be a single physical server on-premises, or uplinked to the clients office from a datacenter via MPLS circuit
The private/public distinction seems totally artificial then.
Does it really matter whether their internet service is residing in a VRF, with IP space routed to a VLAN on the virtualization cluster, or whether the end user has a site-to-site VPN solution, as if a VPN suddenly makes it public?
Is the distinction private/public not totally artificial?
Of course there should be a scalable cluster and a large storage array, as shared storage is required for high availability. If you don't have a cluster, then you have a single physical server... not a cloud, where things are distributed and protected.
I see no reason OpenStack, CloudStack, OpenNebula would be required.. right... those are essentially APIs to optionally enable developers to do a lot of fancy things. just create a user in vCenter for the admins in each organization, with read access and remote console/power/reboot to only their vApp, and a couple orchestrator workflows for setup/teardown, which is more than most need -- when most people are reliant on the technology provider support department to do all their planning and provisioning anyhow.
Corporate personhood is an American concept and only applies to certain situations.
The amount of "I know nothing" coming out of DC the last two weeks rivals Sgt. Schultz
They're trying to fix that so please stop resisting.