The old tautology, "if you outlaws firearms, only outlaws will have firearms" applies to Tor. (In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that many cryptographic mechanisms are covered by the second amendment, especially if you consider cryptography's military purpose, and that some ciphers have been regulated by the DOD as munitions. They cover the same role in protecting your property, identity and reputation from aggression, and as the "well regulated militia" clause demands, pseudonymous discussions are necessary tools to help people discuss political matters.)

The simple truth is you can shut down all the law-abiding people with Tor nodes, and the botnet creators will just run Tor nodes on their network. It would be absolutely trivial for botnet owners to get together and set up huge Tor networks and put access up for pay on the black market.

Just drive with your other hand, then.

You might try wet wipes for that.

That's because .exe stands for 'execrable'.

["/", "\\"]

This creates an array of strings.

rand(2)

This picks a number 0 or 1.

[...]->[...]

That gets an element from the array, which since it's a string has to be ASCII. (Strictly there's some funky stuff with references going on there, too, which is unnecessary.)

And get rid of pennies, too.

Just to be clear, then, do you agree that the state has an obligation to act in this case since people really are being robbed? Because that's why I don't see this as turning us into a "show us your papers society". This action, being an admittedly imperfect remedy to a concrete crime against someone's livelihood, is fundamentally different from all the safety inspections, cartels, stimulus, fake jobs, wealth transfers, price fixing, drugs wars and such that are the hallmarks of the modern welfare/police state.

That doesn't even make sense. People who want to feel rich cash their paycheck in $100 bills, they don't get a stack of singles.

To quote my earlier comment:

Now, if you disagree that this is an issue, please explain why we don't simply get rid of all cash except for $100 bills. After all, carrying around 5 $20 bills is simply a waste of paper.

There's a whole website devoted to these motherfuckers. I flip through it and, jaded as I am, I still occasionally see one that has me picking my jaw up off the floor.

But is that ops manager doing this:

That makes me think the "businesses" making these complaints are small operations run by some nut. There are an awful lot of them, and they, especially, assume that anything on a computer ought to be free.

The individuals whose copper is being stolen are being injured by being trespassed, burglarized and robbed, right, often with additional destruction of their property? Again, this is not a victimless crime like drugs. Their material rights are being harmed and the state has and obligations to defend their rights.

Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.

I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.

The initial complaint is only relevant to a government managed currency, since they have to provide enough money for the entire economy. Bitcoin only has to sustain a portion of the economy, and if it becomes too small, it will simply be less competitive with other currencies.

What do you mean "stock splits aren't based in economics"? The whole premise behind economic activity is a balance sheet, and you can draw one up for a stock split quite easily. Before the split, the company's equity might be $10,000,000, with 100,000 stocks at $100 each. After the split the equity is the same, but there are now 1 million stocks at $10 each.

So for any given shareholder, they each hold the same amount of equity.

If by economics you're talking about supply and demand, a high stock price is obviously a classic diseconomy of scale: it's just easier to find buyers who might want $80 of stuff instead of $100.

Not even close. For useful limits you need L'hopital's rule, which is not at all obvious from what they knew. Even then, that gets you derivatives, but you then have to go through many iterations to work out the notation. But the Greeks were working mostly with compass and edges, so they still needed to flesh out the functional notation to have the building blocks for differential calculus as we know it.

Don't forget the shitty book reviews!

So, first, you do something that a handful of people like, and they hardly buy any merchandise or CDs because they're broke moochers. But they tell some other people how cool they are that they listen to you.

Over time you refine your act so that a lot of people now like it and they buy a lot of your merchandise and CDs. The original handful of fans assume that because they were your fans first that they own you. When they start to see that other people like you, they demand that you never alter your product from how they first heard it. When you ignore them, you have "sold out".

This has been happening at least since outraged hippies threw shit at folk bands for experimenting with instruments other than guitars, and probably far before that.