aric

19 ms·

121.
by aric 13y ago
Turn on your cam, citizen.
122.
by aric 13y ago
> Will they start sending SWAT teams to people's homes for pirating movies... This happens already. When government institutions aren't victimizing everyday people for engaging in nonviolent behavior, such as duplicating on
123.
by aric 13y ago
Such is the case for decades. They call that tentacle the CIA.
124.
by aric 13y ago
An individual is not a hive. Law will always have less basis than personal morality. How anyone could think to the contrary is troubling, especially in light of a history replete with oppression and tyranny backed through "law." T
125.
by aric 13y ago
Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that resul
126.
by aric 13y ago
Yes. The more classical term "liberal," unfortunately, has been steadily eroding into a term used by people who espouse much the opposite of any form of liberation or freer society. Both major political wings amount to funnels for
127.
by aric 13y ago
> Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing I've written says that there aren't people who shun such fallacy and always think critically. However, there are a great deal of people who use Krugman as a crutch in thoug
128.
by aric 13y ago
It's important to note that he wasn't merely wrong about technology. He was more so breathtakingly wrong about understanding the economics of societies in which freer-flowing information and pervasive connection between people e
129.
by aric 13y ago
Considering a person's history of astounding lack of understanding isn't a fallacy. It's telling. It's far more telling than any award given to a person for work that circularly adheres to the vision and acceptance of
130.
by aric 13y ago
Fair enough. It'd be more explicit in context with the words "consistent" or "inconsistent." Legitimacy is generally a duality between claims and personal consent. I immediately associate legitimacy by legal framewo
131.
by aric 13y ago
And... The system should be viewed as illegitimate (read: as a system to be peacefully turned to dust or forever changed) by those who find deep ethical fault with it. You're alluding to conscientious objectors negatively. They are o
132.
by aric 13y ago
For any Weeds fans: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665013/how-weeds-became-a-marke...
133.
by aric 13y ago
...and often the worst. Greenspan's criticism of Bitcoin is reminiscent of the same pontification he had about Facebook. It competed with his houseSYSTEM. Later, in an open letter for publicity, he advised Zuckerberg to either keep Fac
134.
by aric 13y ago
No. They are still there, accounted to that address in the blockchain. In the rare event that someone discovers the private key used to derive that address: happy days. In the near term, practically speaking, you can negate them from circul
135.
by aric 13y ago
No one should have "ownership" over the word bitcoin in trade. The Bitcoin Foundation was ostensibly created to protect bitcoin. The duty of handling Whac-A-Mole® annoyances like this is expected of them.
136.
by aric 13y ago
No one should own the name. Bitcoin was put into this world to be decentralized and for everyone. Use it as you wish in your trade. Claiming exclusivity to "Bitcoin" in most industries now would be like claiming exclusivity to the
137.
by aric 13y ago
I posted it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=346005.0
138.
by aric 13y ago
The Bitcoin Foundation needs to make itself useful and quickly challenge/oppose this application.
139.
by aric 13y ago
Thank you. I truly appreciate your kind words.
140.
by aric 13y ago
It depends on the form of democracy. The word "democracy" is used a lot. Usually people aren't mindful of what an arbitrary term like democracy represents in context. They have static perception. Unfortunately, due to the way
141.
by aric 13y ago
> "capitalist corporations" "Capitalist corporations" are the direct result of corporate states serving corporate law. The irony in your comment is strong. Blackwater and its derivations became powerful specifically
142.
by aric 13y ago
I agree with your underlying sentiment. However, it's narrow to use a term like leftist. An arbitrary left vs. right political spectrum is completely fallacious and antiquated. There are only cosmetic differences for beliefs built upon
143.
by aric 13y ago
It's not disingenuous. You misunderstood. He was concerned about floating prices between BTC:USD. You don't have to implement your own waiting period to accept bitcoin into a static USD price with either service. If you do that, t
144.
by aric 13y ago
You don't need a waiting period to accept bitcoin converted to USD. https://bitpay.com/ https://coinbase.com/
145.
by aric 13y ago
No, the characterization borders on reality. Reality is absurd; I'll give you that.
146.
by aric 13y ago
They can endorse it the same way they endorsed the hysteria of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and helped pound the drumbeat to war. It's the New York Times. EFF is being rhetorical, of course. May they continue t
147.
by aric 13y ago
Certainly. It's always exhausting to explain basic logic to people who grow up believing that gold and the basic legal frameworks they're forced into at birth are some how "divinely" deserving of high demand or of contin
148.
by aric 13y ago
Sure. I doubt he'd mind the praise. :) https://github.com/FellowTraveler
149.
by aric 13y ago
That's likely. Gold treads that line occasionally in certain parts of the world; and it depends on whether future technologies disrupt the high demand for it. I mean 'greater' in the philosophical sense. Attributing worth by
150.
by aric 13y ago
Open Transactions, among other things.

More ›