Because Bitcoins @ $5 is the same as Bitcoins @ $10,000?

You don't seriously think that were bitcoin to be successful, the Internet trolls posting a message would have the same effect as that same message would have now?

You're correct there is risk trading with Bitcoin right now; but as the market grows that risk reduces. As the risk reduces it becomes a more attractive currency. It remains to be seen of course, but "never legit" is just hyperbole.

You can exchange bitcoins for legal tender at any one of the exchanges.

You can use bitcoins to buy amazon products (there is a bitcoin trader who will make the order for you).

The grocery thing is not common yet, but there are food stores for bitcoin and one of the most famous early transactions in Bitcoin was someone bought a pizza for 10,000 BTC. If the pizza guy kept those coins, he would now be worth $300,000.

http://lpuk.org/

I stumbled across this website last year. It is a very small (at present) political party. As far as I know, the only one who actively states they will scrap this state monitoring nonsense.

Hopefully, some of the other parties will realise that people don't want to be monitored, and there are votes to be had out of it.

Your arithmetic is up the shoot.

64 ASCII characters translates to 128 hex digits.

128 hex digits (four bits each) is 512 bits.

I don't disagree with your sentiment here.

This is analogous to film classification. I am very very much in favour of films being classified. Everyone should have enough information to make a choice about what films they want to watch. However, when people start talking about banning films, my skin starts to crawl. Who are these people to decide what the rest of us should be allowed to view?

Similarly with food. Foods should, unquestionably, be held to a high standard, they should be very clearly labelled. If you want, put cigarette-style warnings on them - this food will make you fat and ugly and no one will ever sleep with you - but banning food? Madness. Nanny state going mad.

In Scotland, there are some local governments who are paying nurses (bearing in mind how dreadfully under resourced the NHS is) to go to shopping centres and tell fat people they are fat. They are paying these highly qualified nurses with my tax money. I find it utterly ridiculous.

Ad hominem now. You're doing very well.

What I think about machine guns and where I live has nothing to do with my original point (which I notice you chose not to address): why should a government tell me what I can eat?

As it seems to matter to you: relaxed gun laws have an effect on others than the owner. Most people are idiots (as you are so adequately demonstrating), and so letting them own dangerous weapons would be bad for the rest of us. Letting them eat burgers - not so much.

News flash: Police have been called in after a 30 stone man has been seen walking the streets brandishing a kebab. So far no one has been injured, but police say that at this time they can't be sure at the fat bastards mental state, so they are taking a precautionary stance. The police have brought in a nutritionist to try to talk the pieman into trading his kebab for a nice salad, but so far he has continued to put on weight.

P.S. I am not American.

Nice straw man.

You say you want the government to regulate what you can eat.
I say I don't want to be regulated.
You say that I am therefore in favour of eating arsenic-laced, asbestos-wrapped dog food.

For the hard of thinking then: regulating what goes in food is not the same as regulating what foods are available. Further, if a company wanted to sell "NEW: CRUNCHY BURGERS WITH ADDED DOG FOOD, ARSENIC AND ASBESTOS", as long as it says it in big letters on the bag I should be allowed to eat it if I want. I doubt it would be a successful company, but it is not the place of government to decide that.

And yes, I would prefer a little more libertarian attitude from my government, who seem to think they are entitled to run my entire life. In my scheme I get to eat what I choose, in your scheme you want someone to tell you what to eat... like a six year old. On the other hand, your jibe that I am a six year old because I am libertarian with strong political views was right on the money - that was a metaphor that's going to sting later.

"regulate our food"? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you six? If you don't want to eat something, don't eat it. If you don't have any self-control then check yourself into an addiction clinic. Please don't suggest that this already utterly invasive, privacy-destroying hydra of a government start regulating what the rest of us can eat.

I work hard, and pay my taxes. If I want to come home and eat twenty chocolate bars, that I bought with the dregs of my salary that the government have left me with, then I damned well will.

Talking about advertisment, and other such things. I find it incredibly funny how here, in the middle of the page on /. is a bloody great Microsoft banner...


Anyone else find this ironic..?