But the bitcoin isn't leaving the cloud; The bitcoin is being transferred between bitcoin addresses like any other bitcoin transaction, recorded in the same global ledger. Even if the token gets sent to someone other than the owner of the original bitcoin address, effectively 'transmitting' money, this is no different than every other bitcoin transaction.
So perhaps every bitcoin transaction needs to be regulated. Perhaps the software should be illegal and using bitcoin should require a State granted license. After all, bitcoin was originally designed and implemented by anarchists for the express purpose of undermining the State.
Because one of the advantages of living in a civilized society is we can depend on the system to keep us protected (to a degree).
Sure, but there's a large body of philosophical and economic work arguing both that these ends don't justify any and all means (and specifically not the means you are advocating for) and that there are alternative, humane means for achieving these ends.
Whether he likes it or not, by engaging in the business he is in, he now falls into a regulated area. Tough shit. That's the cost of doing his business.
that's not an argument that it's right.
And as a consumer, you should be grateful that such systems are in place and you can do all the things I listed above without any thought.
Why should one be grateful for these specific institutions and not advocate for a more humane way of achieving such goals?
If you don't like it, there are plenty of places in the world that do not have such protections. Either him or you are welcome to vote with your feet and pursue a different philosophy of consumer protection.
The problem with the 'love it or leave it,' position is that it seems to me that, philosophically, it should be the aggressors that leave, not the victims.
Those two things are different. In one case the intervention by a third party is prior restraint for the sake of bad consequences not known to be occurring; that is, the third party is involved even when money laundering is not occurring and the individuals transacting are innocent victims of the third party*. In the other situation the two people are actively violating the neighbor's rights.
*(Although a more radical point is that money laundering is entirely legitimate for anyone not under contractual obligations not to engage in it.)
That is an utterly ridiculous way to look at a transaction. All people that at some point in the future get the materials have rights over all previous transactions involving them? That makes no sense and just sounds like a weak attempt at rationalization.
the rules are to protect consumers and other participants
There are two people involved: the guy printing the token and the guy who wants the token printed. If neither of these people want to be protected, or they've taken other measures on their own, why should they be protected by a third party that neither of them wants involved? To me that sound a bit like a 'protection' racket.
Bitcoin -> Currency has and always will be the choke point the government(s) control.
In this case is that the guy is being paid in Bitcoin and is effectively mailing Bitcoin back; That is, it's not a transfer between Bitcoin and another currency that's being regulated here.
There's some controversy over whether the static_if proposal is really right, and modules is a major change which was never expected to get into C++14. As I understand it the current plan is for the committee to release modules as a technical specification separate from the overall C++ spec and then perhaps it will get rolled into C++17 or later.
LLVM no longer stands for 'low level virtual machine'. It's simply random letters used as an umbrella name for a collection of different projects. The LLVM backend and libc++ are separate projects, but libc++ is also separate from clang.
Clang is an open source project; People want OpenMP so they're implementing it. The OpenMP work on clang is being done by Intel engineers. I believe it was Intel that also did an initial prototype of C++AMP on Clang as well.
If an abstraction is being properly used in C++ then a C version program would probably be best with the same abstraction. If C++ has some language support for that abstraction which C lacks and which allows the program intent to be expressed more directly then there's no reason to imagine that whatever hand-built layers are used for that abstraction in C are necessarly going to be better than the more direct expression in C++.
For example, if a program should use dynamic dispatch then a compiler is likely to do better optimizing C++'s virtual functions (using common techinques such as devirtualization) than it will do with some hand-rolled dynamic dispatch systen in C.
The only way C comes out ahead is when comparing well written C to poorly written C++, e.g. a C program that properly does not use dynamic dispatch to a C++ program that uses virtual functions gratuitously.
The decoys aren't for confusing a dumb heat seeking missile, they're for confusing opponents' signals analysis departments, which are full of smart people that can see how much reaction mass an object is putting out at what velocity and how much acceleration is resulting from it, along with lots of other passively observable information.
Not to mention that they'll have telescopes so they can just look at the objects. To go back to your analogy, flares really don't look very much like airplanes.
The bottom line is that decoys probably need to be pretty much the same as actual spacecraft.
I think it was Thomas Sowell who likened the question "What should the Federal Reserve be replaced with?" with the question "What should a cancerous tumor be replaced with?"
Paul's actual plan is to repeal the laws that revent competition with the Federal Reserve. As a gold bug he then expects that people will choose to transact using using gold and silver. (In fact he was instrumental in getting the Federal government to start minting gold and silver coins again in the 80s.) If he's wrong and there's no currency collapse coming then people can just keep on using Federal Reserve notes and nothing happens. If he's right then there's an escape hatch available to everyone, and the economy can keep on working without resorting to black markets. (Of course the very rich have the resources and government connections to protect themselves either way.)
A free market can't solve all problems, but it can do a good deal better at solving many problems than unjust violence. Furthermore the market is only a single institution of a free society. For example the Civil Rights movement was working; many businesses had already changed their policies before the Civil Rights Act. One of the worst things about the Civil Rights Act is that in some ways it stopped the Civil Rights Movement in its tracks. People got the idea that they'd won into their heads, so many stopped fighting. (Sort of like President Obama's election was a huge setback for the anti-war movement.)
Civil Rights legislation was needed to roll back government abuses like Jim Crow and local law enforcement covering up and even participating in crimes against minorities. It wasn't needed to make the world fair.
A free society will never be a perfect, utopian society. But it will be far more just, peaceful, and prosperous than what we've got.
You forgot to capitalize "Serious".
One of Glen Greenwald's articles about Unserious people: The parade of “shrill, unserious extremists” on display at today’s impeachment hearings