agree, but it's difficult to argue that it's Orwellian to monitor that which could be visually monitored if only you were a savant.
Red herring. It's not difficult to argue at all, because it's the aggregation that's Orwellian, not the mere monitoring. Even savants are not omniscient.
incidentally, you can by cnc machines and cnc lathes for making it for cheaper than the metal printer used for this.
I'd like to see a subtractive-manufacturing machine that's FOSS in the same way that a RepRap is. Does such a thing exist?
With that much corn, you could build a palace!
The pharmacy billing software company I work for hires people like you to be product owners.
You know what? Fuck all this "no expectation of privacy" bullshit!
Sure, anything people do in public could be observed. But those are the keywords: "anything could." Not "everything will." And certainly not "everything will be observed and then get stored forever in an instantly-searchable government database!"
This Orwellian shit needs to stop.
But then you'd just end up with the keylogger in the PS2->USB converter instead.
Plus, you'd be missing the meta key. (Oooh, maybe the Open Keyboard Alliance should produce a modern version of the Space Cadet keyboard...!)
So what you're saying is that it's time to found the Open Keyboard Alliance?
(Actually it probably is, considering the fact that you could fit an entire SoC, complete with wireless connection to the NSA, in a keyboard these days.)
"Asshole?" No. "Extremist?" I'd say so. (But that's a feature, not a bug!)
And FISA wasn't "intended" to allow the NSA to spy on Americans. But you can see how that worked out!
The only difference is that one makes sure I don't exceed my rights, while the other makes sure I can't execute my rights without paying ransom.
Both DRM and cryptolocker encrypt your data with a key you don't know.
The difference is that DRM attempts to let you use that key (to decrypt your data under the conditions that the DRM-imposer "allows") while simultaneously hiding the key from you (so that you can't decrypt your data under other conditions).
Cryptolocker, on the other hand, just gives you the key (after paying the ransom, obviously) -- there is none of the "simultaneously allowed and disallowed" nonsense that's inherent to DRM.
In other words, DRM tries to restrict your access to your data (which is inherently impossible). Cryptolocker essentially "steals" your data by encrypting it so that it stops being yours until you pay to get it back.
We have a finite amount of resources on-planet.
Natural resources, sure. Creativity (expressed as both techology and art), however, is infinite.
In other words, even when we've hit carrying capacity (because population growth rates are logistic, not exponential as many seem to think) and we're all using a rationed, subsistence level of material goods, there will still be an ever-increasing supply of new art to consume. Plus, given that advances in technology will continue to make us more efficient, that point is so far in the future that it's not worth considering (except that lack of investment due to deflation might cause us to peak at a lower point, sooner).
Finally, you also need to consider the rate of deflation, vs the yield on reasonably safe investments. If you can make 8% investing vs deflation of 3%, only an idiot would choose to hold the currency instead of the investment.
I made an argument similar to that in another reply. I would argue that a greater-than-3% yield on a reasonably safe investment (where "reasonably safe" would mean "similar risk to a savings account" in this context) would be extremely rare.
if the government did treat Bitcoin in the same way as currency, subject to laws, (which mrchaotica seems to infer would solve the problems)
I inferred no such thing. Bitcoin's deflationary nature is inherent in its design, and the government can't do anything about that (except ban its use entirely).
Hoarding a currency is natural when its purchasing power is increasing and there's nothing worth spending it on.
If the purchasing power is increasing by more than the risk-adjusted return on investment for all the things you might spend it on, then it's never worth it.
Let me give an example: say the real rate of return on US dollars is assumed to be -3%, with zero risk. It is easy to find investments whose risk-adjusted rates of return exceed that (e.g. US treasuries risk-free at 0%, stocks with risk at 7%, venture capital with a lot of risk at (some big number)%, etc.). And the key thing about all of these is that they're investments, not commodities -- i.e., paying people to create something, rather than stockpiling something that already exists.
In contrast, if the real rate of return on Bitcoins is +3% with zero risk, then it's a lot harder to find an alternative investment worth making. Therefore, much less investment gets done (i.e., much fewer new things get created) and economic and technical progress is stifled.