Yes, capital gains, sorry. :) I was speaking loosely. I'd have gotten it right on my Schedule D, come tax time.

Yep, capital gains, sorry. :) I was speaking loosely. I'd have gotten in right on my Schedule D.

I haven't heard any libertarians espousing bitcoin as a means of evading taxes. I just sold mine from 2010, and I am well aware of the need to pay income tax on the net proceeds. Just like anything else.

Maybe what is needed is some software that can remember to download for you? And alert you on those occasions where it fails to do so? I'm not saying that is superior to your suggestion... just, more likely to actually happen.

It's not as bad as that. BTC is the wrong unit of measurement here. It's only being used because we are still at the beginning of the BTC inflation ramp. BTCs are divisible down to 8 decimal places, meaning there are 100,000,000 satoshis per BTC. Eventually, at these valuations, prices will be quoted in satoshis (or, if you prefer, decimal fractions of BTC.)

We already deduced that, from your other (stated) behaviors.

Get off my lawn.

Yes, that was my point. My recollection was untrue.

Oh, nuts, please disregard what I posted above. Somehow, I got it into my memory that-- in addition to what my GP posted-- Google had also opted to use the dot at the end of your email address as a replacement for the + functionality called out in the RFCs (and explicitly disallowed the plus.) But looking back through early news discussions of gmail, I can't find mention of that, so likely it is a fabrication of my mind.

So what happens if...
1. Alex registers "alleycat@gmail.com"
2. Alexandra registers "alley@gmail.com"
3. Alexandra decides to give her pet's veterinary the dotted address "alley.cat@gmail.com"

... And those who thought this was going to be a ternary joke.

While you may be correct in stating that a 32-bit wide bus can address 2^32 memory positions, I fail to see how that makes TFA wrong. TFA has naught to do with bus width. Under discussion here is 2^30 being 1 GiB, vs 10^9 being 1 GB. Why are you bringing 4 GiB into the discussion?

It can be both, and I believe it is. We are used to parodies changing the words and keeping the music essentially the same. This song changes the music, and keeps the lyrics largely the same, I believe that still meets the definition of parody that wikipedia proffers.

However, I was apparently incorrect in asserting that the legal sticking point had anything to do with parody. Instead the legal sticking point is that it is licensed as a cover, just as you alluded. (Though there seems to be some question about the wholly new parts that JC added, such as the duck quack.) The fact that the cover is parodical is not really a material fact. My bad.

The difference is, Glee ripped off JC's parody, not an original work. Parodies are expressly denied most of the protections afforded to original works. On the other hand, from your description I'm guessing VP was not parodying parodies, but rather parodying non-parodical original works.