You are mitigating risk, you are not eliminating it. You can go to the absurd extreme or do less, like running your wallet through TOR for example. The idea here is to minimize your exposure...but the very act of using Bitcoin is risky, so you have to make choices based on risk factors.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Just generate a new address whenever you buy illegal things if that's what you are into, or have several wallets that you rotate between to perform your transactions. If you reuse an address over and over again, of course you can be tracked. The safety factor is directly proportional with your ability to understand how this works and how you can be tracked
...how would anyone feel if some corporation indexes every words that comes out of your fingers, searches your emails to serve you ads and even turn them to government when they ask for it, and uses cars equipped with cameras to drive around and take pictures of your house?? What the hell? Regulate this shit...NOW!
You are better off powering off all the unused machines at night and saving your company quite a bit of money.
I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."
Why is this bad? It sounds to me like the population will control itself and there is built in limitations to the growth rate...who gives a shit what a little lobster does? They don't feel anything anyways!
Exactly...this has been happening for million of years on this planet. When one area becomes unsuitable, another area becomes perfect. Adapt or die...
All these plans to "find life" on Mars will inevitably result in humans putting life on Mars...which we will find later. How much "contaminants" do we put on a planet's surface before we realize that something will eventually slip through the cracks?
Link to Original Source
The fact that it's subject to interpretation is in itself showing how ridiculous the whole argument is. It's a piece of paper...it will mean whatever the government employees, judges and cops want it to mean.
Yeah - agreed. This is the argument the police use to justify warrantless searches: "If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" The point is not what I have to hide...the point is that I own myself, that I have an actual constitutional right to not be searched and tracked without a warrant, and just because your douche-bag policy attitude gets offended when I exercise these rights, it doesn't make them less real.
Agreed...I was just being sarcastic
Bad analogy. Just because the Internet was created by Government, it doesn't mean the economic need was not there to develop faster, better and more efficient means of communication. The Internet was built on the work of people like Bell and others who created the early telegraph and telephone systems. All private individuals motivated by personal and economic reasons. If the State did not do it, someone else would have...it's the nature of human achievement. The only difference between the two is this: The State does it with money they steal from me; the individuals do it with their own funds, which allows them to manage risk and expense much more effectively, introducing efficiencies that you will never find in government research labs.
The P word....you must be a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.
Are you talking about the private ownership of land or about how mountains look from the distance? I imagine if a private entity would buy Yellowstone, the pictures you'd take from the side of the road would look identical.