Right - the protocol only fails for anonymity when someone can log the IP addresses associated with every bitcoin transaction ever, and get the physical address associated with every IP address. So, yeah, here on Earth it's not anonymous, but it looks great on a whiteboard.

If you keep logs, you out your users when the government gets the logs - that's hardly news. And bitcoin "keeping logs" is fundamental to the protocol. It's still a neat protocol, and it's probably easier to anonymize (or steal) an IP address than a credit card, but don't think you're hidden from the NSA by the power of bitcoin.

On Facebook, sharing is spamming. That's how Facebook gets traffic driven to junk pages.

(Hint: if anyone sharespams commercial stuff at you, demote them from "close friend" to "friend".)

I am really glad this came up, because my WiFi at my house hasn't been working as well lately, and it gives me something to try... maybe manually placing it on a different channel will help.

Calling it a British company is debatable, but more defensible than calling it "British Petroleum (BP)". British Petroleum isn't even its previous name.

No idea what you're talking about. Here's the top line from Wikipedia:

BP plc, sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I have gotten so sick of companies dodging the intent of the law lately.

You're talking about Aereo, right?

No?

Awkward...

Nice analogy... You know those cheesy ads BP is always running since the Gulf Coast disaster to rehabilitate their image? You could help them make a new one - "BP! We're just like paint huffers!!! You'll never stop us! BhaaHaHaHaHaaaa!!!"

Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement instead of just linking to an entire fucking library for people to sift through for weeks themselves - however at least you've made far more effort than the AC.
Besides - the militia bit looks pretty obvious. It would be hard to weasel past that, although the civilians that try hard to look like military running the NRA have spent a lot on PR trying.

It looks almost as if they looked up a phone book and found the first match with a computer background, then published the guy's address before he was positively identified as the author.

Really? Please explain.

First question on the quiz: "When I share music with someone I feel a special connection with that person."

Are they thinking friendship, love, or co-defendant in a copyright infringement case?

"Software Defined Networking", as Stanford uses the term, means a centrally controlled virtual circuit switching system. Every time someone makes a "call" (a new IP/port IP/port tuple), the first packet is routed to Master Control, which decides if they get to make the call, logs the call, decides whether the call gets wiretapped or filtered, and chooses the priority given to the call. All the routers involved are then issued instructions from Master Control on how to route that call.

(Yeah, they don't use the term "call". But that's what it is, really.) Goodbye, "net neutrality". Goodbye, flat rate billing. Goodbye, distributed control. This puts everything you do on the Internet under central control and makes it billable.

Let's say you live in an apartment building and you can see 16 different SSIDs. Is it slow because there's a lot of data in total being transferred, or does CSMA just collapse (gridlock) so hardly anybody is getting anything? It seems like back when ethernet was actually used as a shared medium (hubs) throughput was good up to about 85% and then it would just die.

When you make laws such that nobody knows where the line is, people will step over it. Always. They do.

That is all laws all the time, ever. From the 10 commandments on down to modern meat processing regulations.

According to this, a woman in a miniskirt with no underwear is not 'partially nude'. Now, don't try to tell me "But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.

Unless all your clothes make an air tight seal around all the openings for your limbs, there will be angles and circumstances where we'll be able to see what's inside.

That possibility doesn't constitute permission to manufacture those circumstances and then exploit them.

"But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.

And then on top of that there is 'infrared' cams and other clothing penetrating photography? So now unless all your clothes are made of thick wool with airtight seals then any creep can put closeups of your genitals online? Hardly. Its pretty clear to any reasonable person that the infrared or upskirt photographer is effectively stripping them of (some of) their clothing for the purposes of the photo, rendering them 'partially nude' even if they don't actually take anything off.

Frankly I'm actually surprised the the judges didn't see it this way. There was quite an uproar about the TSA 'nudie scanners' after all; but apparently those security (theatre!) photos weren't (partial?) nudes after all, so what was everyone whining about?

rational people DO draw lines

Right, but they draw them where they want them to be, not where its most convenient to interpret them. Your argued that the only place we should draw lines are such that they be easy to rule on instead of reflecting what people actually want.

He's speaking just of federal income tax rates (which is only one of several income taxes). But if you include the other income-based taxes (such as the ones on Social Security and Medicare) it would be a somewhat smaller fraction increase.

As long as the tax loopholes of the 50s are there. Else, you're just creating yet another job-destroying dynamic. But we could get the same effect of that 50s tax rate by merely doing nothing. Actual taxes paid haven't changed that much - the silly higher rates went down and the loopholes got closed.

What has changed since the 50s is that the developed world worker is not the only game in town. There are billions of people willing to do a developed world worker's job for much less. So there are other advantages that keep those jobs than merely an overpriced worker. One of those advantages is not making it ridiculously hard to employ people or become wealthy.

Now, maybe you're one of those people who can't or won't work with rich people. No problem! There are a billion people throughout the developed world who are willing and competently able to work with rich people. Just let them make the sacrifices that keep developed world societies, developed.