to conceal the obvious... that the viral-growth medium they've been distributing for decades is the -real- problem.
You can't fix politics, until you fix the people voting for the politicians. We get exactly what we deserve as an electorate. However, there are signs on the wall (CANTOR), that given enough crap, voters will out vote incumbents even as they spend millions to hold onto a seat. I see more potential in the (R) side right now in outing politicians who deserve it. However, I don't see ANY such on the (D) side. There is no (D) grassroots with any power, including OWS (noisy, but otherwise ineffective) threatening Harry, Nancy, or any of the others who need to go as much as Cantor did.
But I actually blame the liberal mentality for this, because they like abusive power of Government butting into everyone's business and telling everyone how to live, rather than leaving us the hell alone. Liberal fixation on people like Sarah Palin (who doesn't hold an elected office), because she talks funny, while accepting Sheila Jackson Lee (a complete loon) is a prime example of duplicity that is amazing.
Damnit. I have that stuck in my head now. Not the song, just that one line.
I think you're mischaracterizing both philosophy and science. If we accept the definition of philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" then most sciences are a subset of philosophy. And simply because there is a hierarchal structure to their categorization or origins does not give one authority over the other, any more than the first mammal has authority over lions. Neither do we say that lions have "far exceeded" the limits of mammals. Arguments that pit philosophy against science are just as nonsensical.
To be fair to the GP, the output of any human is predictable and explainable if we accept determinism. The only way the Lovelace Test can be valid is if we accept that people have souls (or some other attribute not subject to physical law) that in some way affect natural brain function, and find a way to reproduce that artificially.
Indeed, the whole idea of "unpredictable, unexplainable output" seems contradictory. When people do not behave somewhat predictably, when we cannot explain their actions, we typically label them as crazy. Intelligent actions are not inexplicable after analysis, even if they appear to be in the moment. The only way to satisfy that condition is to generate random output, which is the opposite of intelligence.
It is short sighted indeed. It is way more expensive to replace good workers than it is to retain them. But they don't teach this in Business school any longer.
That is not how money laundering looks like. Here is what Money Laundering Looks like
Illegal gained money is given to a Legitmate enterprise (Gambling) and is returned as "profit" or whatever from the enterprise. In a very simple case, mob money is put into a slot machine, and 98% of it is returned when the jackpot is hit. The gains, now washed (legitimate) are taxed and are clean for use elsewhere (deposit into a bank). Where if you just stuck the gains in the bank would trigger all sorts of investigations. This is part of the reason why deposits of $10,000 or more in banks are automatically reported to treasury, for an audit of the money trail.
The trick in money laundering is to hide the input (initial gains being laundered) well enough that it doesn't trigger the reporting requirement of transactions of 10K or more. A series of 5000 "high risk" transactions where you lose most of the time, but win big occasionally, is typically how money is laundered. The inputs are not traceable, and the earnings become legitimate.
The goal is always to hide the initial input, obfuscate the long trail of transactions and end up with legitimate money on the back end. The transaction you describe is used to obfuscate the buyer and seller from each other, and the authorities, not the transaction. Money laundering still has to occur with the seller, as the bitcoin to currency exchange still has dirty money written all over it.
Fortunately we have laws that define those pieces of paper as legal tender, which differentiates them from little bits of hash solutions and things that people define in internet forums.
Except the IRS has declared that bitcoin is property, not currency.
Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes?
A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax
principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual
The money laundering statute applies to the below:
(4) the term âoefinancial transactionâ means
(A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce involving
(i) the movement of funds by wire or other means or
(ii) one or more monetary instruments, or
(iii) the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or
(B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution...
Note that "real property," is real estate, not any personal property whatsoever, and the term "monetary instrument" is likewise defined by the FDIC:
(1) Monetary instruments include:
(ii) Traveler's checks in any form;
(iii) All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of Sec. 1010.340), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
(iv) Incomplete instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) signed but with the payee's name omitted; and
(v) Securities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.
So yes, there are very different regulations depending on whether bitcoin is or is not currency. Absent legislation specifically addressing "virtual currency," the courts will have to hash out this disagreement, which is what will happen here, I'm sure, but I think it's regrettable that someone can be punished for law that isn't yet decided. If I drive 55, should I be punished for skirting speeding laws? Are racetracks circumventing legislation against street racing? The problem with calling this money laundering isn't that this guy is punished (if he's guilty of running the Silk Road); it's that it opens up a whole other class of individuals for prosecution just because they were using bitcoin to conduct transactions -- namely everyone who conducts transactions in bitcoin.
No, that is not a show stopper for Bitcoin. It is what is going to drive Bitcoin to full currency status faster, where people trade money for the more usable Bitcoin.
Here is the issue, anything that makes something less utilitarian and causes restrictions will fall into disfavor eventually. Laws and Restrictions and fees and taxes all have the unintended consequence of driving economy deeper under the table. There is a whole class of people who now work off the books, bartering and trading and whatnot, and they don't pay taxes on anything they earn, simply because the government cannot track their activities. They work very hard at staying under the radar, dealing in CASH and trades, and as a result, have a better income than someone that is legitimate.
If I earn 2000 under the table, it is worth 3000-4000 in legitimate earnings that people pay taxes on. And as more people realize how much the government seizes in taxes, even on the "poor", this will start happening more and more. Bitcoin(and similar), has the ability to really change this equation faster than it is happening now.
The more they squeeze their fists, the more people will slip through their fingers (paraphrase of Princes Leia)
The problem is, it is going to be really hard for the Government to trace money laundering with Bitcoin, if the people take a few simple steps.
1) Use unique wallet for each transaction
2) Use a washing service every time one acquires new coins in a normal transaction.
The government is going to try to regulate "coin washing", but since it is a decentralized currency, with no government boarders, it is going to be really hard to pull off well.
You're right. But the problem is, loyalty is a two way street. If an employer doesn't value existing employees to pay them what the market rate is, or even reasonably close, deserve to lose them to people willing to pay for it all. If my boss hired someone to do what I do, with less skill and experience than me, for more than I make, while being unwilling to even negotiate with me on a raise
I blame (D) and (R) who are so stuck on bringing home bacon, that they screw the people they clam they serve while getting all sorts of re-election donations for the very people they should be de-funding.
How is that for what to blame?
You get a better job, by becoming better at your job, and either you move up, or on. This is especially true in IT, where if you stay in your job, you don't get any raises or improvements in benefits. The proven method is to change your job, work somewhere else where they will pay you more, a lot more. I just read where people who change jobs do get raises, because they leave places that do not offer wages, but offer new employees more money than the people who have been there a while.
Which is something I never considered before, and now, I'm actively seeking new employment, and will continue to do so for the rest of my career. If people don't value what they have, they will lose it. Pay me what I am worth, or the marketplace will take me away from you.
Thesis is made
Antithesis is rendered
Experiments are conducted (Climate Change SuperComputer Models)
Results are measured. (Ice Sheets should be shrinking, but are growing)
Conclusion, AWG isn't producing the results actually seen compared to the various climate models. The Thesis is flawed, and therefore MUST be reconsidered, but that isn't happening. Why?
The new answer is "global warming is changing currents in the oceans, causing ice sheet growth". So, by example, the global cooling should make the ice sheets smaller? But that doesn't work either, does it?
Hurricanes, Tornadoes, drought, flooding, etc are all about the same or LESS than years before, counter to all the AGW predictions about "massive" change to the climate.
I can cast credible doubt, but it will be ignored by the likes of you, simply because you WANT to believe AGW.