I highly doubt Tim Cook is posting on here as "Rivaldy".
Practice makes permanent.
Can you not cross-reference the IP address of known transactions (booking a flight with credit card/personal info), with unknown transactions (emails intended to be sent anonymously, visits to "offensive/dangerous/terrorist" sites etc) to determine who is doing what?
Yes, there are ways around masking your IP source and identity if you go to the trouble, but that doesn't mean everyone takes those measures.
XKCD put it quite well:
Maybe the reason we can't see anyone is the only ones left surviving are the ones that blend in with the background.
The title reminded me of a story of another set of mystery underwater circles that was solved recently:
Speculator. Investment is something else entirely. You have something at the end of the day when you are investing, there is simply no way to lose your capital. Risk is kept to a minimum. Speculation on the other hand is, well, roll the dice again let's see what happens... The difference is subtle - so subtle that most people don't get it. But it's the difference between buying a piece of land or a barrel of crude oil versus buying, well - Bitcoin... It doesn't matter if you made millions with bitcoin - you did it by speculating rather than rather than investing? Why? Because not a person on earth can tell you or me why exactly bitcoin is the price that it is today, or the price it will be next week. It's extraordinarily volatile, no one is sure how many bitcoins there actually are, no one is sure how many bitcoins to charge for a given product (why should I sell you something for 1 bitcoin today that you might have to pay 2 bitcoin for tomorrow?), etc. Until someone can work out that bitcoin is not responding simply to low volume, DDOS attacks on the exchanges, and price manipulation by a few wealthy people, it's just gambling plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with gambling if you're into that sort of thing, but you have to be aware that it is very possible that suddenly end up with nothing at all. Like the guy who sold his house for one tulip, right before the tulip market crashed (forever).
A tulip is a "something", and no matter what the "something" is that you buy, you can most definitely lose your capital if the value of that something disappears to virtually nothing. Your entire argument is shot down by your last sentence.
Which part of that suggests that GPs $1000 "sucker" can't make a short-term profit and get out by selling at the right time?
An investor who bought in at $500 and sold at $1000 isn't a sucker and it isn't necessarily dumb luck either. You don't have to believe in the underlying principles or long term prospects of a company/stock/currency/anything to be able to make a quick buck off it off the back of short term investor behavior or market conditions.
that's probably fast enough for most purposes
There is one major problem with this statement that I saw summed up in a comment on this article pretty well:
"1925: Here's our new plan for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It'll be a bit cheaper and we'll finish it sooner. And 2 lanes will be plenty..."
Going cheap on the NBN is just another case of a political party fucking things up for future generations for short term political gain (i.e. a better bottom line in their budget). Their justification being that the previous government forced their hand into doing so by economic mis-management is cop out at best.
Damn. I guess I'll cancel my shotgun order then. Or maybe downgrade to glock.
When* one of them gets fucked in the ass it will be a lesson to the rest of them not to make waves and to stick to the program.
*assuming it hasn't happened already. There sure don't seem to be many waves being made despite all the shit that has come out so far, so perhaps it has.
It's not "Amateur Porn" if neither/none of the parties being watched/recorded don't know that they are being recorded.
And who is going to be doing the prosecuting/burning of the NSA?
Anyone that makes moves to do so will be burned by the NSA first with any and all the dirt they have on them.
They are good examples of material that the NSA would legitimately not want getting out into the wild. The release of that type of information would indeed be detrimental to the safety and security of the USA as a whole.
But it is not the type of information that Snowden has released so far though. The releases so far have revealed the NSA to be up to some pretty nasty shit so I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that he only has information that would hurt the USA left. It will almost certainly hurt the NSA, but that is not necessarily a bad thing from what we have seen so far.
But they would have been better off if THEY had been legally able to carry a gun (not all of his victims were children, some of them were people whose job it was to keep those children safe).
Are you actually arguing that if Norway had similar gun laws/ownership levels to that of USA then Breivik would have been stopped/shot before he could kill and injure some or most of his victims?
It sure as shit doesn't seem to work out that way in all those instances in the USA.