What of the air in the atmosphere? Is that not an international resource? Should we not have a market for use of what the atmosphere will bear, perhaps to preserve CO2 (and particulates, and VOCs, etc) at pre-industrial-revolution levels? We now literally have cars whose exhaust is cleaner than their intake in "polluted" cities, where the value of "polluted" is vastly exceeded by some cities. I'd be looking at Beijing if I could see it.

Economics is all well and good if you don't get to ignore externalities. Perhaps we institute a system of eco-economics (see: Mars trilogy) before we find ourselves unacceptably mired in debt to physics.

The idea is to keep the oil in the US, for strategic reasons. If we burn up all the world's oil and keep ours in reserve, we're going to be in good economic (if not ecologic) shape in the endgame. That assumes, of course, that burning all those fossil fuels doesn't doom us first — the ecopalypse outpacing the singularity, if you like, though both labels are sensational. All life will not end, but equally, intelligence (and output) will not reach infinity.

The world runs on long-chain hydrocarbons. They could come from the air, but instead the entrenched base of oil barons is making sure we keep burning every drop of oil:

I think it's more likely you'll end gasping, or perhaps wheezing before rattling.

By "Ha ha ha" do you mean "If your nation can be destroyed by YouTube and Facebook, your nation is fairly described as pathetic?" Because if so, I agree completely.

A Typical Mix-Maxer response. The rules _technically_ allow this, so I will ruin the game for everyone by twisting/optimizing them to the limit to win even if I have to destroy the game to do it.

Future generations will see the mass influx of STEM geeks into the finance and business arena as a catastrophic social development in early 21st century industries.

Obviously, I imagine an upskirt picture does not reveal any more than what you would see at a beach in any western country.

It's not about what is visible and what isn't. It's about technologically equipped perverts intimidating women on public streets and public transport, for their own personal kicks. It's about people doing something wrong because it offends another person. If you allow this kind of behavior to go unchecked, worse will follow.

(A) If it's visible in public, it's fair game. (This is the only way really to square this with so many other free-speech issues.)

Wait; Do you literally live in a sewer drain?

He flew a model next to a helipad and wonders why the FAA are stomping on him. They apparently overreached a bit when going into the commercial motivations for flying the model, but he was being a dick and the FAA is not entirely wrong to stomp on people who are flying like a dick.

You sir are a unapolagetic "moocher", obviously ignorent of the Galt-ian philosophies of liberty which divinely entitle -- nay, oblige -- this man to use his superior intellect and skills to pilot and above all profit by flying this cheap, personal risk-less drone in an environment which should be free of all oppressive government regulations, no matter how many leechers walk or crash into the path of his unfiled flight-plan. The world's creative and productive elites will not be held back by the like of you and your FAA -- they'll strike!

That's what the media is supposed to do.

Actually the media is supposed to speak truth to power, an to perform these investigation and exposes on corrupt and criminal bankers, politicians, civil servants, etc, etc. Needless to say, this isn't happening.

Whoever Dorian Nakamoto is, it's clear he's not a powerful person. So this isn't journalism; it's exploitation.

I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is.

The problem here is false positives. If you slowly go through all the Satoshi Nakamoto's in the entire world, what is the probability that you _won't_ find one who fits the profile of a secretive computer geek? Chances are that that is basically what we are seeing here.

The list of circumstantial evidence is fairly convincing, but it must be weighted against the odds of _not_ finding such a person. If you look for a person with the name "David O'Neill" who could fit Bitcoin Satoshi's profile, odds are you will also find such a man, with just such a set of circumstantial evidence.

On top of all that, there are details of the story which, bluntly, make it seem fabricated. The line about the cop who knew about "the guy who invented bitcoin" reads conspiculously like either an embellishment or an outright fabrication

"What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life."

I don't think the story has much credibility. Then again, I have a pretty low opinion of journalists anyway.

P.S.

*Stands up* I'm Satoshi!!

So what does it change? Nothing!

Apart from Newsweek's ad revenue, which probably skyrocketed after publishing this story.

Really? How about back when it was impossible to plot a simple pixel on a D3D window without using GDI?

Shouldn't a loosely-associated cluster of crap have a different name from a solid object? Or should that just wait until we can reliably tell the difference remotely

This is also not entirely accurate. Yes, the rate of gun ownership is lower in cities, but urban gun owners tend to be more wealthy, and have significantly bigger gun collections as a result. Basically, a rural area might had a dozen rednecks with a shotgun and a rifle each (both several decades old), whereas the city will have two RFWGs each with a dozen guns with an average price tag of $800-900.

Anyway, the point is that, apparently, catering to the gun crowd doesn't actually piss the urbanites off all that much. If it did, we'd see way more membership in and funding of gun control organizations, way bigger demonstrations against guns etc. On the other hand, the gun crowd tends to be very touchy (which shouldn't come as a surprise, as many are clinically paranoid and live in their own reality where the government is out to take their guns and freedoms, and everything that can even tentatively be connected to that is a part of the grand master plan).

So they'll probably do what organizations usually do: adopt a few symbolic and largely meaningless measures that are enough to get the gun owners talking but not quite fuming, while also allowing MDA and MAIG to publish nice press releases about "somebody finally did something! yay us!".

Some US states actually do have a gross receipts tax, which is kinda like that, and the economy seems to be doing fine regardless.