Whoever wrote that...
Ben Carson wrote it. It says so right there...
Whoever wrote that...
Ben Carson wrote it. It says so right there...
I would actually like to short BTC now. At this rate of acceleration it could pop before the day is out.
You can, but we know you won't because we know your type. All talk, no action....
Much of Pai's reasoning seems to be "the market will take care of it", but the problem is that there is no real market pressure on ISPs.
While that's one issue, the bigger one is that one of the requirements for a market to function well is free flowing price information. Without that, how do actors make rational decisions? Even if we had 12 ISPs in every market, this is exactly the kind of step that makes it almost impossible for a customer to make a good choice.
People complain when I mention Tulip Mania,
The problem is that so many people who know nothing about either Tulip Mania or Cryptocurrency throw this phrase around like it's some sort golden pass to predicting the future. And it's getting tedious.
It's at the point where I soon as someone mentions tulips it's like a big flashing sign that says I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about but I'll offer my opinion anyway.
The stupid "it takes carbon to make it" argument is a cookie-cutter way of trashing any manufactured product.
Well, it does take carbon to make stuff. So long as we power factories with coal and trucks with diesel fuel it takes carbon to make and move stuff. One argument I hear is that once we move to solar power and electric vehicles then the "it takes carbon" argument goes away. Well, we don't have widespread solar power and electric vehicles yet.
To get solar power takes carbon to make it. So, let's make that solar investment so the next generation is lower in carbon. That's fine, but what if we have an energy source that is even lower in carbon, costs less, and is available right now? Impossible? It's not. In fact this energy source is used right now to propel ships at sea. It's got a spotless safety record in the USA. The range and longevity of this ship propulsion system is incredible, 25 to 30 years on one filling is commonplace. We can expect 50 to 60 years on one fill in the next generation. So then why aren't we using it everywhere?
I guess it's because then the "greenies" wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Seems to me these people don't want to actually solve the problem. They just want to complain about the problem, complain about how no one in interested in fixing the problem, and if someone actually proposes a solution they complain about how this medicine is worse than the disease. Really? What could be worse than the end of human civilization? My guess is having nothing to complain about.
It's well known that the EU has laws offering relatively strong protection for personal data -- some companies say too strong. Possible support for that viewpoint comes from a new data protection case in the UK, which follows EU law, where the judge has come to a rather surprising conclusion. Details of the case can be found in a short post on the Panopticon blog, or in the court's 59-page judgment (pdf), but the basic facts are as follows.
In 2014, a file containing personal details of 99,998 employees of the UK supermarket chain Morrisons was posted on a file-sharing Web site. The file included names, addresses, gender, dates of birth, phone numbers (home or mobile), bank account numbers and salary information. Public links to the file were placed elsewhere, and copies of the data sent on a CD to three local newspapers, supposedly by someone who had found it on the Internet. In fact, all the copies originated from Andrew Skelton, a Senior IT Auditor in Morrisons, as later investigations discovered. According to the court, Skelton had a grudge against the company because of a disciplinary process that took place in 2013. As a result of the massive data breach in 2014, Skelton was sentenced to eight years in prison.
The current case was brought by some 5,500 employees named in the leaks, who sought compensation from Morrisons. There were two parts to the claim. One was that Morrisons was directly to blame, and the other that it had "vicarious liability" -- that is, liability for the actions or omissions of others. The UK judge found that Morrisons was not directly liable, since it had done everything it could to avoid personal data being leaked. However, as the Panopticon blog explains:
having concluded that Morrisons was entirely legally innocent in respect of Skelton's misuse of the data, the Judge held that it was nonetheless vicariously liable for Skelton's misdeeds
That is a legal bombshell as far as UK privacy law is concerned, since it means that a company that does everything it reasonably can to prevent personal data being revealed can nonetheless be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee, even a malicious one. That clearly offers an extremely easy -- if potentially self-damaging -- route for disgruntled employees who want to harm their employers. All they need to do is intentionally leak personal data, and the company they work for will have vicarious responsibility for the privacy breach. In fact, even the judge was worried by the implications of his own decision:
The point which most troubled me in reaching these conclusions was the submission that the wrongful acts of Skelton were deliberately aimed at the party whom the claimants seek to hold responsible, such that to reach the conclusion I have may seem to render the court an accessory in furthering his criminal aims.
As a result, the judge granted leave for Morrisons to appeal against his judgment that it was vicariously liable. Hundreds of thousands of companies around the UK will now be hoping that a higher court, either nationally or even at the EU level, overturns the ruling, and sets a limit on those super-strong data protection laws.
By leaving the videos up and just demonetized no one can say "Google's trying to silence me man!".
They can, and do. They just call it "soft censorship", saying that Google is silencing them by refusing to pay them.
It depends. It's a great problem to have, but it's still a problem. Imagine being subject to a class-action by people who you've been unable to deliver to. Imagine the stock price dropping because production cannot scale.
Or, just think of this. It would be great to design an app that was getting a million downloads a day. It's better than most apps will ever do, and by orders of magnitude, every day. Yet, if it requires server resources, it's entirely possible that your app will implode because the server keeps failing. See also: slashdot effect. And if the code needed to be rewritten from scratch, the fad may be over before you can upgrade the server to scale.
Actually, I'm Prethbyterian.
Finally, a reason to spend billions more on missile defense. The arms industry will be very happy indeed.
This is going to crash hard, and probably fairly soon, and people will react with "We could not have foreseen this at all!"
And I will be over here, laughing at them.
In the mean time we're all laughing at you. How does that make you feel?
Yes, your lack of it is in spite of its desirability, not due to it.
"Crypto" is a well-established short form for "cryptography". It has nothing to do with "crypto currency", except that the latter uses the former, nicely demonstrating what was first. Stop abusing the language for desperate attempts to sound cool.
How much environmental damage did this cause? Quantify it. If you're going to assert that he should be killed for his crime, you should be able to identify exactly what his crime was.
This seems like a silly argument. Sort of like telling the traffic court judge that you didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage, so the running the red light ticket should be dismissed.
It's not at all analogous to running a red light. Running a red light creates a probabilistic bifurcation - a chance that someone will suffer dire or fatal consequences if you run a red light. Exceeding emissions standards raises the average pollution levels (unless you're standing directly behind the vehicle and taking deep breaths of its fumes)
To address GP, the environmental damage varied by vehicle model year. Some of the older vehicles were especially egregious in exceeding the EPA and CARB standards. But the 2015 vehicles were actually within EPA limits and just barely exceeded CARB limits. In particular, the emissions were under the EPA/CARB limits in previous years, and (for the large part) within EU limits (they have much more lax diesel emissions standards than the U.S., while the U.S. uses the same limits for both gas and diesel).
But that is not the point. You can argue that the limits are arbitrary or unnecessarily low. But the venue for making that argument is in the political arena - by electing the politicians who help decide those limits and/or sending them letters/phone calls expressing your opinion, or voting out the politicians who enacted the law. Once those limits are codified into law, it is the responsibility of citizens and companies to abide by the law even if you disagree with it. The only time violating the law in protest of it (civil disobedience) is justified is when all political avenues of protesting the law have been cut off or rendered ineffective.
It's perfectly possible that the rich people are offering large sums for small quantities of Bitcoin to push up the price then dumping large quantities when everybody sees it.
(aka: "Pumping and Dumping")
It's possible, but this is true for any market. And you can check volumes one any exchange, so unless you think 'small quantities' is billions of dollars, you hypothesis isn't matching the observations
For like 2 seconds.
Yea I think the guy is an idiot too, but don't stup to mentioning every little thing like this. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples where Obama did the same.
We all agree that despite the implemented guidelines and existing safety precautions when driving on the road, unwanted accidents happen due to reckless or undisciplined driving. Honestly, I cannot just believe that an accident did not just happen unexpectedly because there is surely a reason why it occurred. For me driver’s negligence is one of  http://fatalcaraccidents.video/fatal-accident-cause-by-sudden-swerving/
I call bullshit. There is no way you could stare at the sun and go blind. First, the pain would be immense. You'd have to be high on tons of morphine.
Second, you can't go blind. If you started at an eclipse, you'd burn a pinprick hole and get a permanent black spot in your rods and cones. It's a very focused beam (really what happened to this girl if you look at the photographs).
Actually, probably not. The behavior patterns we medicalize as "psychological problems" are largely by-products of industrial (and now, cybernetic) civilization. Kind of like a form of pollution.
Despite their appalling lack of smartphones and Netflix, our pre-industrial forebears were almost certainly "mentally healthier" than we are.
Yet you can make a very good living if you know Cobol.
"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama