I think the people who look at fools are those investing in an "asset" that has less tangible value than just about anything, including the fiat currencies that many of them condemn. Bitcoin will never be a currency as such, because it will never be accepted for "all debts, public and private." It's an asset, with nothing backing it up, and you'd arguably be better off buying something tangible (real estate, firearms, precious metals, works of art, jewels, and so on) if you're unwilling to store wealth in a fiat currency. There are also intangible assets (blue chip stocks) that are arguably a better bet for storing wealth than bitcoin, unless of course your primary motivation is hiding wealth from the authorities, but even in that instance there are things you can do that are a safer bet than bitcoin.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And to be fair didn't USA more or less invented freedom?
The Western concept of freedom probably started with the Greeks. Of course, they weren't perfect, they owned slaves (as did the young American Republic) but Western civilization has never been and never will be perfect. The Romans added a great deal to the mix, as did the British, and the United States is really just built on all that came before it.
Incidentally, I've never been to Sweden, but I've spent some time in Finland. I'm actually headed back there for a month this summer and have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do....
Most likely he would be tried under a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, which means he is already guilty no matter what evidence is presented.
Our country can't even move forward with the military tribunals of unlawful combatant foreign nationals captured aboard, even though such tribunals are explicitly allowed under both domestic and international law. You think we'd be able to do it against an American citizen, for crimes allegedly committed on American soil? Give me a break. This is the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that makes internet discussions a complete waste of time. Study how the real world works, it's a lot more boring and bureaucratic than you think.
You'll forgive me if I decline to discuss my views of the relevant NSA programs, since
All I'll say on the subject is that there are mechanisms in place for people who feel their Government is doing wrong. He could have gone to the relevant Congressional committees or the Inspector General at NSA. He could have used the whistleblower act. He ignored all of those options and leaped straight to leaking, then further threw the baby out with the bathwater by leaking details of programs that had no bearing whatsoever on domestic civil liberties, like NSA's activities against China. In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates.
In spite of everything I may have retained some understanding of his choices had he opted to selectively leak the details of NSA's domestic activities. He didn't do that though, he took as much as he possibly could and leaked it all, with no consideration for the damage it would do to American interests and national security. That may not mean anything to you but such actions have far reaching ramifications and I don't recall seeing Mr. Snowden's name on the ballot when I was selecting the people who would wield that power on my behalf.
I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole.
You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.
Here's an interesting statistic that speaks volumes about corruption in Russia: The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country.
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine
I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for. There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?
It's not Finnish.
I've already had to turn down a couple of high-prestige projects for some remote stuff because of this.
If they're "high-prestige" why aren't you willing to move? It's not like you own that apartment you're renting. Move out when your lease comes up and make sure you tell management why you're doing it. Good tenants are hard to find, if you complain infrequently and pay your rent on time (less common than you'd think) they'll be sorry to see you go and will listen to your reasons for doing so.
Doesn't solve your problem in the short term but it's more effective for long term change than griping about the problem on Slashdot.
Because corporations bad, mmm'kay?
That's really the crux of it. Any argument against this ruling is immediately shouted down. I posited this question on another forum and received the equivalent of -1, Troll: Why is everybody cheering a ruling that attacks hypothetical problems (the oft discussed "fast lane" has yet to actually happen) while ignoring the actual problems that are impeding innovation? The "killer app" that started this whole argument is streaming video, so ask yourself which of these two things are a greater threat to that: The data caps that are currently being imposed or the fast lane that only exists on paper?
Last Halloween I got suckered into running a 13k in costume; since the only costume I own is a TNG uniform and one of my friends wore a TOS redshirt it wasn't much of a leap to get smashed afterwards on Romulan Ale. Alas, I found out the hard way that my Playmates Type II Phaser doesn't work on the bouncer at our local pub. He's a big guy, so maybe I just needed to bump it up to maximum stun....
I've seen a lot of recipes over the years; the one that comes the closest to the effects of the "real" thing is equal parts Everclear, Bacardi 151, and Blue Curacao. It kind of tastes like gasoline but that's part of the appeal, along with pretending it was smuggled across the neutral zone after you've consumed too much of it....
Human beings are one of the few (the only?) species on this blue marble that can override their baser instincts in favor of reason. I personally know several people who quit smoking cold turkey after many years. It's simply a matter of will power. Don't whine about the "tobacco" companies if you can't summon it even when you know the consequences.
Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet)
That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything. Some States have decided as a matter of public policy not to engage in public solid waste collection but rather to rely on the private sector for such services. Can Uncle Sam override such decisions?
I would agree with the FCC's action if it was limited to overriding laws that preclude people from starting co-ops. I think it's a bridge too far for the FCC to tell a State that it must allow a political subdivision into the telecommunications business.
*shrug*, Rush makes his living by being a showman. I don't really care for the show, though as a human being I have respect for anyone that can laugh at himself, which Rush does (he has played himself on Family Guy, amongst other things), so there's that. If you're looking for an in-depth and impartial analysis of the issues you're probably not tuning into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Conservatives see a slippery slope here to further regulation. I don't entirely discount that argument and it's hard to escape the fact that the internet became what it is today by being unregulated and free of top-down mandates that impede innovation.
I'm generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to accomplish but I think the means they're using is questionable at best. They're also going after hypothetical impediments to innovation (the oft-discussed fast lane hasn't actually happened) while ignoring real threats (data caps) to innovation. Frankly I'd rather see them in the business of regulating tariffs than telling the ISPs how to run their networks (*), because I view data caps as a far more serious threat to internet video (the "killer app" that started this whole conversation) than a fast line that has yet to come to fruition.
(*) Here's a hypothetical for you: Is it "reasonable network management" to prioritize one's voice service over other applications? Keep in mind that circuit switched voice is fast becoming a thing of the past, on both wireless and wireline. On the wireline side you've got the cable company's VoIP service running on the same DOCSIS node as your neighbor's bittorrent download. On wireless you've got VoLTE replacing circuit switched voice, so voice is just another data application there as well, one that's competing for bandwidth on an increasingly congested wireless data network.
If the answer is "Yes" then you've advantaged Time Warner/Verizon/et. al's voice product over Skype and similar offerings. If the answer is "No" then you're placing phone calls at the same "best effort" level as your neighbor's porn addiction.
There's a cost for the "pipe", but how much does the "water" cost? If the cost is negligible, than it makes more sense to pay for the size of the pipe & not the amount of water flowing through it.
That model does make sense for the internet and very few people argue with pricing broke down by speed tiers. It breaks down when people expect that they can utilize 100% of their pipe 100% of the time. In my area Time Warner sells 50mbit/s connections and has eight DOCSIS channels on their coax plant. At ~42mbit/s per channel that's a maximum of 336mbit/s shared amongst all users on a particular node. Some simple division will reveal that less than seven users subscribing to the highest speed tier are enough to completely saturate that pipe. You can translate this into your water analogy easily enough by observing what happens to your water pressure when the fire department decides to flush the hydrants in your neighborhood.
Caps really aren't the best way to manage this "problem" because they ignore the actual limiting factor of bitrate. 95th percentile billing would make more sense but good luck explaining that to the masses.