Posts by Charles 9 16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I don't think the US is treating Bitcoin as a currency per se. They just consider it a tradable good or commodity, much like a foreign currency. They know it's there, they know people sometimes handle it, but it's not the norm within the US, so at some point you have to get it back to dollars, and once that happens, it's back in their control and they can go from there.
So they're not so much legalizing it as simply lumping it together with all the other foreign currencies out there. It's not legal tender in the US (only the dollar; that's specified by law), but you can pass it around like scrip if it's your bag.
"If the mafia decide to only trade in "mafia bucks", does it make their trade exempt from tax?"
Where would their mafia bucks come from, then? And how do they turn around and use it to acquire real-world goods? At SOME point, you're going to have to go back to government-backed currency to interact with the real world, and THAT'S when they get you.
That's why countries like the US aren't all that concerned about Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin is not the official US currency, at some point if you want to do things like shop at Walmart (which can ONLY really work with dollars), you're going to have to convert back to dollars, which under US laws is a taxable event.
As legal tender, no, only the Dollar and Cent, especially when it comes to debts (which is the main reason for the Legal Tender Act--to ensure a means of settling debts). Now, if a private enterprise wishes to accept other forms of currency as part of its business (say a currency exchange), then that's up to it, though there may be international agreements in place concerning how they go about their business. And since they're still handling dollars, the US government's going to want to check them out now and then as well.
"Because the law doesn't yet recognise it as a legal form of tender?"
Does the US have to recognize the UK Pound to be able to trade with it? Not really. That's usually up to the banks and currency exchanges, who make the necessary arrangements. The government gets involved when its own currency gets handles, and that's usually sufficient, given transacting in the home country usually requires home currency.
Similarly, the US government takes the stance that as long as US dollars are used to exchange for Bitcoin, it has a say in the matter. That's why places like Coinbase register with the government to maintain legitimacy. Whether you consider Bitcoin as a currency, a commodity, or something else, as long as US dollars are involved, the US government, by default, is involved.
It also neglects to note that most currency as we know it is virtual anyway. First, they're fiat currencies, backed only by government word. Second, most transactions are electronic in narure, not requiring the physical transfer of bills/notes or coinage.
So, apart from a lack of sovereign backing, how is an e-currency any different?
(Incoming ballistic trajectory)
They'd have a point. The attack is OUTSIDE the LAN, on the greater Internet. It's not like they're using RTP to get INTO the LAN, which is why they're against having any kind of knowable structure available, not realizing the ISP can always route past the router onto your LAN in any event, as your connection rides on theirs.
The problem isn't starting from scratch, as there are relatively simple ways to do it and ensure you get a result.
The NP-complete problem is to start with a partial board and determine whether or not it's possible to complete that board. It's the existing pieces that complicate the matter since now you have the possibility of no solution and the problem specifically asks yes/no to that. This makes it impossible to use a programmatic approach since the initial layout is random. This puts it in the realm of Traveling Salesman in that the only solution is brute force, which reaches infeasible levels quickly due to its factorial complexity.
A USB cable is more than a charging cable as well. In fact, it's a data cable FIRST, a charging cable SECOND. And it doesn't need sophisticated stuff in the cable to do its thing. In fact, its philosophy has been that the complicated bits should be at the socket ends; make the cable simple and easy to replace and let the ends do the hard work (that's one reason the latches in the Micro USB spec are on the cable where they were in the socket in Mini USB--lot easier to switch out a cable than to reinstall a socket). In response to your overcharging issue, the sockets in the devices should carry the ability to sense out-of-bound electricals and shut the socket off as needed to protect itself. Is it really that hard to do that without resorting to the complexity of a chip in the cable?
Well, at least one can see the mindset. It's like I said; they didn't want inventors priced out of patents and hassled with red tape, but everything has a catch. Easier patents mean more junk patents, but OTOH tougher patent standards discourage garage inventors. You really can't have it both ways. Do you want to give garage inventors a chance ("The American Dream!") or do you want to keep frivolity out of the patent office? Pick your poison.
Well, you can't have everything. For the USPTO to work properly, they need funding, and Congress is against using the general revenues, so the only way it could work is to raise patent fees. A LOT. Which means the little guy who just wants to protect his neat invention is priced out of the market.
"If the troll gets major backing then the defendant will get that too - after all they stand a very high chance of getting their money back* after the patent is invalidated."
Not necessarily, if it becomes a case of two gorillas in the courtroom. Consider the MPEG-LA v. Google dispute over video codecs. They eventually settled the case because neither side wanted it to go nuclear (Google could lose claim to VP8 being unencumbered, MPEG-LA could lose vital patents related to MPEG-4 codecs).
This trick only works because the troll had no backing. If the troll was being backed by another major firm, then the firm may not just be out for money (could be seeking an injunction to interfere with the defendant's business) so would be willing to gamble on the courts and/or appeals process.
Sure you can. Just require the use of it if you want lucrative government (some run in the BEEELIONS) contracts, many of which can be make-or-break-ers for companies. Think about it. ALL states set their alcohol minimum ages to 21 (IN SPITE of the age being determined by the states in the years following the 21st Amendment) because setting any lower means no federal highway funds for you (BY LAW). Same tactic.
"Well, I agree, totally open hardware well performing graphics is a problem ... yet, without graphics, how do you use a browser ? I know, lynx, curl ... tedious ... that was part of my point ... we need totally open graphics, hence my call ... we can do it!"
As one commenter noted, no we can't. It's been tried already. People just aren't that interested in security when it interferes with productivity. Why do you think "hoop jumping" has such a negative connotivity? Get in the way of people's jobs and people will find a way around you. It's practically part of the human condition.
Quite a few people, actually, given gaming is one of the few things that keeps the likes of nVidia and AMD busy. You're just in the minority, which us part of the problem. As noted, the unwashed masses will willingly give up security for performance and value. We frankly need a better human being first.
OK, so what graphics manufacturer do you trust. ALL of them IINM release their state of the art as blobs because they're all in competition with each other and don't want to Give Information To The Enemy. Any manufacturer you could find that is willing to divulge probably isn't sought out for its performance, meaning your graphics are going to be seriously underpowered.
The thing is, no one ever FINISHES the quote. There's a second part.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Persistence is doing the same thing over and over and actually getting a different result.
So, you see, it's only insane until something different happens. Then it becomes persistence...and praiseworthy.
"With the accelerating move to web-based SaaS applications and things like tablets and Google Chromebooks, combined with ubiquitous high-speed network access (even when away from home/office, i.e. HSPA, LTE,) local storage for the bulk of consumers and even business end-user devices is becoming rapidly less relevant."
ORLY? Have you seen the data allowances these stingy providers foist upon you? Cloud seems fine and dandy until you learn you can only partake a teaspoon at a time without incurring massive overage fees. Plus what if you CAN'T access the Internet due to being in a not-spot or whatever? No, the only source you can really trust is one YOU control end to end.
I thought about when I rolled over the word Scammell in my head and then looked it up and realized it's a British truck maker. Figures, must be a British version of the song. The one I quoted was the original by C. W. McCall (also covered by Kris Kristofferson, I think). Inspired a movie with its own lyrics.
"If they all do belong to the same company, implying that a company sends multiple 44t HGVs along the same route at the same time, shouldn't they be investigating rail freight?"
To anyone proposing a rail route, remember one reason lorries are preferred over trains. Unlike trains, lorries can go the last mile. That's the thing about trucking convoys. Once each truck reaches its destination, it can break off to go that last mile.
Not from most people's experience. Kind words tend to be met with fingers, and once ONE starts cheating and spoiling all the fun...
Perhaps TOR should instead recode their system such that relays and exit nodes CAN'T determine destinations. If there's no way to do that, they should just say so, declare there's no real way to be anonymous on the Internet, and drop the project.
If trigonometry really were about circles, then why the "tri"?
I will agree with you, though, that there's a surprisingly strong connection between circles and triangles. Thus if you were to plot a graph of the Pythagoream Theorem (x^2 + y^2 = z^2), you get a perfect circle of radius z.
PS. Interestingly, if you generalize the equation to x^n + y^n = z^n and plot their graphs for greater values of n, you find the graph morphs from a circle to a square as n approaches infinity.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
