Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
This little "bitcoin" debit card with a fooking Visa logo on it just goes to show that bitcoin has become the dragon it was meant to slay.
These do NOT work: Chess/Go tournaments, model railroading conventions, civil war re-enactments.
Voice of experience?
If they wind up breeding with the feral hogs, they might just reduce the size (and thus hazard) of those things.
....as long as they improve the taste!
[ I gots my buh bebbe bebbe bebbe bebbe back ribs]
WOW! I am impressed! That's a lot of rant about stuff I didn't even mention!
Their political advocacy for starters.
Sad. You fail at basic economics. "Public Good" is defined as a material that satisfies human wants where consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual. (Wikipedia)
For example, they have funded quite a number of NGOs. Now, it sounds like you might disagree with them on the value of those public goods, but so would a number of people disagree with those ancient wealthy Athenians on the value of their respective public goods too.
Ugh. If you really want to continue to display your ignorance about what constitutes a public good, keep posting.
I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations.
That would be because I didn't single out corporations, Dutchmaan (GGP) did. Since you sought fit to respond to Dutchmaan, I thought I might challenge your response.
So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough? Because that was the gist of the post to which you responded.
There is no difference between a citizen voting for a candidate to get free cell-phone and a corporation helping a candidate win in exchange for government's cheap loans and other help.
As a practical matter, there is a great difference between your two scenarios. I would elaborate, but the fact that you equate the two tells me not to waste my time debating you.
But, anyway, here's a couple of clues (assuming you wish to educate yourself): 1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones. 2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations that own the US government.
Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?
Why would I? I'm not trying to change the subject and I'm not going to argue over definitions. You say "confiscate", I say "collect". Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate. If you're going to have government, it has to have a mechanism to fund itself. Got a better idea than the IRS for "confiscating your monies"? Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)
Diversity remains an issue in tech firms across the nation, with executives and project managers publicly upset over a lack of women in engineering and programming roles.
Yeah...uh, some executives may have expressed dismay over the lack of women in E & P roles, but if a "project manager" expressed anything on the matter publicly, s/he would be looking for new employment lickety split. Expressing an opinion in the public square just isn't a part of the job description of a "project manager" (at least in the corporate world).
In any event, I'm not seeing anyone *upset* about this issue. Call me when there's a protest or picket or sumpthin.
And they do. You wouldn't hear about Soros and the Koch brothers otherwise.
Please name ONE *public good* that Soros/Koch has given the country. Because that's the definition of the terms used by GP.
Furthermore those people would probably want to eat somewhere while in town and maybe even visit a shop or two which would further boost the local economy.
That's a great theory, but the spaceport is a one hour drive from the town of Truth or Consequences. And "those people" are the extremely wealthy who have flown into the spaceport on their private jets. "Those people" aren't going to be driving for an hour to reach a town that has literally nothing to offer them.
Virtually ALL the (theoretical) revenue generated by the spaceport would never touch the local economy.
And true. Or are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?
Nice try switching the conversation to "corporations", but the truth is, most Americans now receive government benefits of some kind.
Sorry, the article you cite is 90% ideology coupled with 10% speculation. In the future you may want to avoid citing opinion pieces written by ideologues when attempting to support your positions. But nice try switching the conversation to government employees "confiscating the monies".
So, show how I am wrong.
The same people who were looking under Bush finally got a break, Obama, as president, ordered the mission to go ahead, and Osama was captured. What more effort did Obama put into finding Osama?
Bush admitted that OsamaBinLaden (tm) wasn't a priority during his time in office. Do I have to Google it for you? Or are you one of those that clasps your hands to your ears and shouts "NA NA NA" when confronted with reality?
Real programs don't eat cache.