Of course, neither political party is anything like they were when Abe was around. In most issues they have swapped position.

Actually, in most places people have been propagandized to THINK they swapped position. But when you look at how they actually voted on various subjects (civil rights laws and Internet censorship, for two of a host of examples) or how the programs they produced actually worked out (The Great Society for just one in a host of examples), expect to find that the alleged swap is mostly smoke, mirrors, and very effective political propaganda.

^^ This what all the "see you do need regulations, I told you so" crowd does not get.

A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they will cheat you using unregulated BitCoins, just the same way they will cheat you using regulated dollars.

It isn't as if regulations create some magical inviolate barrier. Madoff ran a ponsi scheme masquerading as a hedge fund with SEC reporting requirements and everything. Much of the monies were never recovered. The subprime crisis is another example the brokers just faked all the paperwork and wrote the liar loans.

The only differences in the end is possibly if someone goes to jail or not. FRAUD however is still a crime even if there are no specific securities statues that apply to BitCoin. So these guys certainly could be charged as criminals too. This has NOTHING to do with regulations.

Common Core is not perfect. Not much is. But the language used in this post was well and truly slanted. I suggest that, in the future, you avoid politicking in your posting, and instead be an objective reporter of facts. Words like "acknowledge" strongly imply an associated guilt. Likewise, the rest of the OP's slant.

The Russians had a solution for that: Doomsday device. Forget launch capabilities et al, just build one bomb deep underground and well protected but so big it will kill the entire planet.

Right I just don't get this, does not matter if we are talking tablets, media pcs, or phones. All of these machines are big powerful enough now that the possibilities are essentially unlimited. Yet rather than embracing the best of the 90's PC era opening up and trying stuff out; its a rush back the narrow vision that was the Macintosh in 83.

No he was very much running a regulated business. Was he violating regulations, yes, but there is the point it isn't as if something being against the rules creates some magic inviolate barrier to doing it.

Yes the SEC shut him down, just like the bankruptcy court is going to be shutting down Mt.Gox. In both cases after much of the money is long gone.

A cheat is a cheat, using Dollars or Bitcoins. Getting conned sucks for the victim and a slightly longer list of criminal complaints against the conman, beyond say simple Fraud, does not make it suck less.

Except he does not buy health insurance. Why because unlike the good old days when you could your Insurance agent and by an individual catastrophic plan any time you wanted now their an enrollment period to keep people from just signing up after something goes wrong. (Sure if something did go wrong before and you tried to buy a plan you'd be denied for per-exhisting condition) but for anyone without a 'condition' you had no need to do COBRA, you just got a cheap catastophic plan before the end of the month.

So now this employee is destine to pay COBRA for the rest of the year, or if they choose not to do so be slapped with the tax penalty. Those rates are not going be subsidized and are likely absurdly expensive. So really there is one situation where even this bassackwards Obamacare apologist thinking in the above quote works out well for someone.

Worker gets laid off on after October 1st, loses employer-provided health plan. Worker can't find full-time employement; becomes consultant to pay bills; buys health insurance sometime in January. Conclusion: buying health insurance motivates worker to become consultant!

The defenders of this law are guilty of more spin than the Iraqi Information Minister some years back.

Give it a rest, you gave your money to Madoff. He lost it and nobody can prove where it went. Oh the joys of a regulated currency.

Good news though you also got to caught up a bunch of money in Taxation to support the SEC that didn't save you...

I just wasn't pulling them on 12/31/99, which is the date I think of when I think of "Party like it's 1999." 'Cause everyone *else* (except a few closet survivalists) that I knew was out having fun. I got to work until roughly 4:00 a.m. (1:00 a.m. PST, but I was east coast) to make sure that Cisco wasn't experiencing systemic Y2K issues. And... it didn't. The rest of the time, I was Joe Sysadmin, pulling cables, bitching about Windows, and trying (successfully, as it turned out) to get Cisco to accept Linux.

P.D. Se habla español?

Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.

Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.

Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.

No you don't understand capitalism.

In a free market people don't exchange something of lessor value for something of greater value or vice versa, one of the parties would never agree. What happens is we meet and discover we value things differently.

If I hire you do a job, I do so because I value the "work" less than my money. That might be for any number of reasons: maybe I don't have time to do it myself despite the need; maybe I have a lot of money I don't need for anything else; maybe I don't know how to do the work and so If I chose to invest time instead of dollars the costs would be much greater; etc.

You on the other hand have offered to do the work because you have time, and want something else more and believe that you could satisfy that if you had more money. You value your time and labor less than my dollars.

My "party" in '99 was sitting in a room with two other engineers, eating Chinese food, playing video games, and seeing if the internal Cisco infrastructure suddenly up and died.

It didn't.

That being said, your UID is perilously close to mine; might wanna watch who you hit with the "old timer" stick. ;-)

nslookup
>server 8.8.8.8
>hostname
>exit

You can 8.8.8.8 is google but you could just any valid dns server.

No it will try them in the order listed until it gets a 'response'; I think if it gets a response like SRVFAIL it will also continue trying the remaining servers, but if gets a incorrect NXDOMAIN it will trust that value and not try the remaining servers.