Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Submission + - Wired Thinks It Knows Who Satoshi Nakamoto Is (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In a lengthy expose, Wired lays out its case that Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto is actually Australian CEO Craig Wright. As evidence, Wired cites both leaked documents and posts on Wright's blog from 2008 and 2009 establishing a connection between him and the launch of Bitcoin. Wright is also known to have amassed a significant Bitcoin fortune early on. Wired tried to contact Wright and got some perplexing responses, and they admit that it could all be a (long and extremely elaborate) hoax. But hours after publishing, Gizmodo followed up with the results of their own investigation, which came to the conclusion that Satoshi is a pseudonym for two men: Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman, a computer forensics expert who died in 2013. After questioning (read: harassment) from both publications, Wright seems to have withdrawn from public comment. Regardless, both articles are quite detailed, and it will be interested to see if the leaked documents turn out to be accurate.

Comment Re:How about take away their guns. (Score 1) 369

The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.

That's the most retarded thing I've read on this topic. Citizens can be criminals (or not), and arming citizens by definition includes arming criminals. If you have come up with some fascinating way of identifying criminals vs everyone else, please do start Minority Report Inc and I'll invest.

Seriously ...

Comment Re:Citizen of Belgium here (Score 1) 1307

I thought it was the promise of pensions to all and retirement at 50. Hint: you need to balance your books, whether you're a mom-and-pop store or a nation.

On a different note, I'm voting NO on my next CC bill. That will work, right?

Man - people without any inherent understanding of economics need to shut the fuck up about these things. A country is not a household, and there is no rationale which makes it so. A country, unlike an entity that doesn't tax itself for revenue or have a currency, is ok as long as it grows fast enough to service its debt. The problem now, quite simply, is that unlike every other country this has happened to, Greek creditors are insisting on not taking a haircut an making this about morality.

The banks (from France and Germany) were repaid in full by the EMU in 2010, instead of telling them that they need to take a haircut, which was idiocy #1. Now they're trying to force Greece into agreeing to cut down their growth even further, after a 25% reduction in GDP already, which means the country is under extreme stress, negative growth and huge social unrest. Which actually stops Greece from actually repaying its debts. It's asinine to think this is smart, even more asinine to think this is some kind of a morality play of bad loans and screwed bankers.

This is fairly straightforward, and mostly political with a veneer of morality and debt being used as negotiating tactics. And in the end, this has fuck-all to do with your credit card, so stop bringing this up !

Comment Re:$30,000 per year (Score 2) 1040

What if you weren't educated enough because your parents were drunk douchebags? That your fault too? What about if the rents in your area went up 200% because IT idiots moved in, and you have to move to a place that requires a 3 hour commute?

Blaming everything on the individual assumes that everything that happens in an individual's life is under their control. It's the biggest fucking mistake on the planet to assume this ...

Comment Categorical imperative on supporting assholes (Score 1) 1448

You cannot legitimately be aware of the sellers intentions with the proceeds of the sale prior to a purchase. Whether your baker is selling crack cocaine on the side, or Orson is a bigoted gay-bashing asshole who supports anti-gay parades, it should be divorced from content. Otherwise, normatively, we are placing an insurmountable burden on ourselves of ascertaining people's intentions and morality prior to any commercial transaction. Question is, once you know their intentions, should you re-evaluate the purchase. And the answer is, obviously yes! If you're talking about economic sanctions, and that's what a boycott is, it needs to be directed against the core of this bigotry. If you legitimately believe that your contribution to Card via the movie is primarily going to lead to increased anti-gay activity, and that is reprehensible enough to you, then screw it. However if you think that out of your ticket cost, the tiny portion that goes to Card, and the tinier portion that goes towards his activism, is a worthwhile price to pay for the pleasure of watching the movie adaptation of a truly awesome book, the answer is less clear cut. Therefore, my position: YMMV. I personally will watch the movie - because the short sum that goes from my ticket to Card is easily offset. Doesn't work from a categorical imperative perspective, but as I often say, fuck Kant!

Submission + - Supercharge your brain, literally (springwise.com)

marquisdepolis writes: www.foc.us has released its tDCS headset, ostensibly aimed at gamers. tDCS has been clinically trialled and shown to improve memory and problem solving ability. Is this the beginning of widescale biohacking? Or just quackery to help fools part with their money?

Comment Re:Oy. (Score 1) 408

What industry offers consumers a perfect combination of freedom of choice and customer service?

Pretty much any that doesn't involve government-enforced monopolies. Just imagine how much worse buying gasoline would be if certain companies purchased rights to supply all gasoline to individual cities, locking out competition.

Usually any industry which requires a massive investment upfront has some component of regulation attached to it, because otherwise the self-interested private companies don't feel the incentive to go ahead and put in that kind of money. Laying down fiber across a country is one of those. As is, by the way, the ability to drill for oil, where your freedom of choice and customer service have combined to give you the BP spill, amongst others.

Some monopolies are useful, some aren't. Has very little to do with government, as can be seen by any cross-sectional analysis across industries and other countries.

Comment Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (Score 1) 1059

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Are people abusing the system? Absolutely. Where we differ is in understanding how big a problem this actually is, in $$ values if need be, compared with benefits of increasing social safety nets. There are two arguments here - a philosophical one, and an economic one. Philosophically you have a perfect right to your argument that abusers of the system need to be punished. However, pragmatically, perfectionism should not be the reason to not do things that make society incrementally better. You need to look at the rate of change of things (d/dx in other words) and not X itself. It feels like the Republicans argue on a philosophical basis (I'm assuming the best here), and Democrats argue in pragmatic terms. It's a never ending debate unless they're both at least on the same frickin page.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].

Working...