The difference with bitcoin is simply that it has already been widely adopted and protocols that are widely adopted are very, very, very hard to replace. IPv4, POP, FTP, Telnet and SMTP all have better replacements and yet they're still used practically everywhere. Being the first protocol to be widely adopted isn't just important, it is by far the single most important factor.
IPv5, IPv6, IPv7, IPv8 and IPv9 are making IPv4 pointless just like all the possible other digital currencies are making bitcoin pointless. I guess that's technically unfair since IPv4 does have to be replaced and look how quickly people are doing that.
The first widely adopted protocol is very, very, very hard to replace. Take IPv4, SMTP, FTP and Telnet as examples. All of them need replaced but they are still used and relied on all over the world.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of ways to print something and call it a "dollar bill."
Is there any other cryptographically signed digital currency with a cumulative value near $6 billion dollars? If there isn't, then the infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies don't matter. Just like there are an infinite number of potential ways to print a new kind of dollar bill, they don't count unless a lot of other people are willing to accept it. If anything, bitcoins are much more difficult to fake.
Bitcoin has value because people use it to hold and exchange value, exactly like any other currency. Of course there are differences and I expect you are right about the future of speculation dying off, but precisely because I expect bitcoin to stabilize in ten years or so.
Oh, and read up on the tulip bulb thing. I thought the same thing you apparently think now until I got an education by somebody who actually knew the history.
All laws should have sunset provisions. No really, I mean it.
Those with strong support should have longer terms, maybe 100 years, but even the "obvious" ones should have sunset provisions. The Constitution? The only reason it has survived so long is because it has been modified, which is the whole point of sunset provisions. Do you think the Constitution would still work today if the three-fifths clause were still in effect or if women couldn't vote? The point of sunset provisions isn't to get rid of laws, but to give people an opportunity to correct problems with them. Yes, we correct problems with laws, but it takes an act of congress (literally) to get a law modified that desperately needs it, and you can forget about improving the hundreds of laws that have lots of problems but aren't on anybody's campaign points.
Or would you argue that there should be sunset provisions on the laws against murder?
Yes, of course there should be! Yes, murder should be illegal, but no, of course the laws we had for murder in the 1800's should not be in effect and they absolutely should be re-evaluated after a reasonable period of time has passed.
1800: Senator Bob: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1800: Senator Kim: No, my constituents think hanging is barbaric and want to switch to the electric chair, so we need to rewrite the law.
1900: Senator Ralph: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1900: Senator Kelly: No, my constituents think murder shouldn't have an automatic death penalty, and some people should just be imprisoned, so we need to rewrite the law.
And the budget? While I'm making imaginary changes to how US law works, I have a fix for the budget problem too. It should be required to be set three years in advance, with Congress and the Senate sequestered, with no other legislative action allowed until they have passed it. Emergency funding for unexpected issues should be what gets debated, not what we could have seen coming three years ago (or 50 for that matter.)
Every new law should have a sunset provision of 1 year to give it a chance at debate every year until (at least) every representative who was present when it was introduced is out of office. After that set a cap of 10 years, then 20, then 40, then 80 and max it at 120 since that's long enough that you can depend on the generation that got it passed to have also passed.
And not just "know where they are going," you can limit them to target=yourAccessTarget from the perimeter so they are limited at least in the first hop.
Good point. There are predictable physiological differences between genders and races and age groups. Understanding the differences is important in medicine and science and should be studied. Unfortunately the differences are also often misused as an excuse for people to mistreat each other.
But if there is a difference that is relevant to your business, is it reasonable to expect people to ignore it?
Actually made me laugh out loud. Then I wondered if your humor was intentional or not.
I've seen this type of comment several times. I wholeheartedly believe that producing valuable services or products is more important than aesthetics, but.... why do people assume they aren't? If you've got a company that is doing what it needs to be doing on the production side, why wouldn't you want to make the environment as comfortable and inviting as you can? Staff that feels comfortable is probably going to be easier to retain and if you have clients who see your workspace, then aesthetics are actually important to the bottom line.
I have a theory. Sometimes when you say "they can't be that stupid" the next thing you should think is "what if they actually aren't that stupid?" What if somebody with a lot of money and a lot if influence is knowingly getting the *AAs to do self destructive things?
You caught me being my own worst editor. I meant "I can say that I don't believe it was totally eliminated in either" but had previously typed "It wasn't totally eliminated in either." When I changed my mind about how to best phrase it, I missed that.
While I agree in general, for the sake of dissoi logoi, allow me to present the counter-argument. (I had to look up dissoi logoi by the way, it's not a phrase I've used before.)
I've worked in environments where drug tests were required and very similar environments where they were not. After working in both for several years and getting to know co-workers well, I feel I have a pretty good idea how common drug use was in both. I can say that I don't believe it wasn't totally eliminated in either, but was less common in the workplaces that at least used it for initial screening. Both had excellent longetivity and reasonable productiveness from their employees. I'd be hard pressed to make the case that the places that screen get better employees, but if your goal is to hire employees that won't use drugs, I think that testing as part of the employee screening process has some success in discouraging applicants that are likely to use drugs.
Further, I can say that in some jobs I've had, drug use was rather common and in those, testing wasn't even considered. In those jobs where drug use was common, I can say that it cost the employer higher turnover as a result. If I were made manager in that type of situation, I can certainly say that I would institute a drug test screen for hiring. If I knew that my company would be more profitable as a result of that type of screening, even if it was only because the less suitable candidates would be less likely to apply if they expected to fail, then certainly I'd seek to do the screening. I suspect that is why minimum wage jobs are more likely to have a screening policy.
If I worked for a government agency where I knew the stable and productive employees were those most likely to be willing to take a voodoo test, why wouldn't I want to screen for those type of employees? I'll agree that the polograph is essentially voodoo so lets take it literally for the sake of discussion. Lets say that I'm in charge of setting hiring policy for the TSA (voodoo is a reasonable connection in my mind for this.) Lets say that my bosses will agree to a voodoo test where I shake a rubber chicken and maracas in a dark room to "test of theiving spirits" and experience has shown employees willing to take the "test" are less likely to abuse their position, then I'd do the test. Even knowing the voodoo test in itself had no real effect, if I also know that the result is better employees, assuming that's my priority, why not?
Wow, not only an arsonist, but also an anachronist!
When I write a program with my own resources, regardless of what is in that program, it doesn't violate anyones rights. Only when I use it is it possible for me to violate someone's rights. If I do something with it in a way that gets me in trouble with the law, then yes, I may loose rights.
I've seen a lot of arguments to my comments, and dismissed most of them, but you actually presented your argument logically enough that I must concede that you have a point. I disagree with the judge's ruling, but not your arguments.
Should I ever have such a restraining order, and cure cancer while saving nuns from a burning orphanage and by doing so violate the terms of the order, and have charges pressed against me for doing so and have a judge decide to punish me by taking away my rights to use, sell or give away programs I've written... then your argument would still be valid and I'd still believe the judgment was a bad one. Why? Because I believe some things are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored.
Free speech, the right to own property and the moral obligation to save nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer if you have the opportunity are among the things that I don't believe someone should be deprived of by a judge without a very strong reason. I don't believe Blizzard's arguments are a strong enough reason for for a judge to deprive someone of any of them. Were I a judge or the defendants' lawyer, I would disagree with this particular judgment for that reason.
I have mod points, but I never use them on a discussion I'm involved in. I don't know if it would work anyway, but I hope somebody else gives your comments a bump up.
- The developers and community for WoW is not the same thing as the legal framework of the United States of America
- Software designed for one purpose usually has many thousands of lines of code that are useful in dozens of potential scenarios
- The US doesn't take away your right to say something because somebody else doesn't like it and it might get repeated... or at least we didn't
Does it say they own rights to something I create on my own computer in my own time? Because otherwise it doesn't have any relevance to my arguments.