Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Federal money service business regulations cont (Score 1) 396

"other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means."

Vague and meaningless phrase that invalidates everything preceding it. Technically this part of the phrase is about "intent" and not about anything else. Because, everything can be a substitute for currency. Gold, Silver, pigs, chicken eggs. Hell, I'd classify all investment grade artwork as qualifying, meaning any art dealership would qualify.

All it takes is for a good lawyer to make the case for arbitrary prosecution to invalidate the law.

Comment Re:No 'run-on-the-bank' with bitcoin (Score 1) 396

One thing to remember, as a currency, BitCoins are highly deflationary, something we haven't seen in a long long time, and I'm not sure anyone really understands the potential issues with deflationary currency. Loaning money on deflationary currency is very hard. It is one of the reasons why they got rid of the US banking system and replaced it with the FED.

Now, when you hear "Penny saved is a Penny earned*", it makes more sense.

*Poor Richards Almanac, Benjamin Franklin

Comment Re:Future regulation (Score 2) 396

" progressive taxes based on total annual income"

All taxes are regressive. The rich can always avoid some or most of the taxes imposed on them. It is one of the reasons they are rich.

And if you count all the taxes and fees and whatever else government takes as its pound of flesh, it approaches 50% of wages for middle class. Progressive my ass.

Comment Re:Context is everything (Score 5, Insightful) 396

"newly created "Federal Bureau of Narcotics" (precursor to the DEA) which had been created partially to fight illegal alcohol, had precious little left to do"

And people expect the IRS to disappear if/when we get rid of Income taxes. Once created, no government entity willingly disappears. Which is why we should be VERY careful about assigning new powers to a government agency. That beast will never cease to eat.

Comment Re:Vaporware... (Score 1) 315

What will compete with XBOX and PS/4 is a whole new class of games, proved by #ingress. Those being engaging games that get you off the computer and out in the real world meeting people and seeing things you'd never would have met or seen any other way.

I mean, how many FPS can you play before all the elements start to resemble each other? How many RPGs can you place before you've can predict the decision tree ending long before reaching it?

This is a new class of games that has nearly as many possibilities as one can imagine. ingress is just the beginning.

Comment Re:Why Your Sysadmin Hates You (Score 1) 572

Good IT takes a lot of money. Everything in IT is dependent upon infrastructure. AND taking personal view of Infrastructure protects it from idiots who think that you can run 100 laptops off a single WAP, while complaining that it is "too slow" (duh). We actually realize, probably better than the PHBs that the infrastructure is critical, while the PHB wants to install Cat3 and then expect to run 10GB networking on it, or run Cat 6 cable 200 meters strapped to a power conduit and expect it to work reliably.

The point being, good IT doesn't operate on a shoestring, and if you want to do things right (and I won't do it otherwise) takes planning, skill and understanding of industry standards. People don't care about IT until things go horribly wrong. And that usually happens when people don't care about IT in the first place.

Comment Re:If it ain't broke... (Score 1) 336

I am convinced of the "need". I was convinced in 1998 when I ran an ISP and had to process a huge database. Stick with me for a minute please. When I first started processing the database, it took a few minutes, as time went on, and our business grew it took increasing amount of time, and eventually I was unable to process the database to summarize the data in a timely manner. I upgraded the computer and the data processing went from over 1 hour to three minutes.

That is when I realized that speed doesn't equate to how fast things get done, but rather whether or not you actually can do something. This is key, because if you cannot do something because the computer cannot do it or at least cannot do it in a reasonable amount of time, you end up not doing something, so that something doesn't get done. It is a loss of productivity.

Computers, above all else, don't offer us Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Databases, Presentations or whatever. They offer productivity increases that are almost invisible to casual observers. Pulling data from a database, inserting it dynamically into a Presentation Slide is productive. Giving that presentation using Live data is amazing. In 2000, that was nearly impossible to pull off with Office 2000.

And now, instead of having to prove the data in a static presentation, all you have to do is approve the source, and let the data present itself, dynamically.

Do most people, not use this capability? Probably. Does it mean that the powerful hardware doing multiple things (Presentation, Processing live data simultaneously) isn't necessary, hardly. Do not limit me by what "most people" do or need. I am not "most people" and in fact, "most people" aren't like "most people" in some form or another.

Comment Re:just FYI (Score 1) 116

Talk about moving goal posts. I'm nuts because I point out facts that you can't seem to grasp because you're hung up on the nuances of written communication styles and equating them to being legalese. You're the kind of guy who says Clinton was correct when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", because he didn't put his dick in her pussy, but rather put his dick in her mouth, when everyone else knows he was lying his ass off. He and Monica had sex, oral sex, and if that isn't "sexual relations" in the legal sense that may be accurate, but this was not a legal proceeding, it was common speech, and has more variation and isn't as nuanced. He lied.

So, while you may be "technically right" in the sense that I said "clubs and bats" and that isn't perfectly accurate in the legal sense, I wasn't talking to a judge, court or jury. I was talking in a more generalized form and that should have been clear from the context. But since it wasn't, I clarified what was meant for you specifically using the actual statistics of "blunt objects" for reference. That is hardly "moving the goal posts".

And you're right, I am nuts. I keep responding to insanity with logic, as if the insane person might actually get clued.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.