Relevant: It is a little-known fact that Duke Nukem actually has a tattoo on his left buttock (visible when you sit on the photocopier in E4L5 of Duke Nukem 3D: Atomic Edition). (EDIT: pic possibly NSFW, depending on how your boss feels about photocopied butts)

No, what you loved was Duke Nukem 3D, which was the third game in the series. The original game was quite different.

I had a partial impaction of one of my wisdom teeth that got horribly infected. The dentist wanted to extract it, but I decided to wait and see what happened. A week of antibiotics later, and the infection's gone and the tooth came through perfectly fine. And that's the story of how despite the best efforts of my dentist, I still have all my teeth.

I'm not sure you understand how a trust works. The trust doesn't own bitcoins, it merely holds them. The shareholders own the bitcoins, even though they never actually hold them. All shares are fully backed by actual bitcoins held by the trust, and the trust can't issue shares if it doesn't have the bitcoins to back them. This whole thing is merely a way for the trust to "sell" its massive collection of bitcoins without any bitcoins actually trading hands, thereby avoiding a massive price crash (at least, that's the theory). Aside from the lack of a price crash, the trust doesn't make any money that it wouldn't make by simply selling its bitcoins the conventional way (and anyone looking to sell less than 10 million dollars or so worth of bitcoins should do it the conventional way, rather than going to the ridiculous trouble of creating another ETF).

I'm also just a private individual. That's why I don't have a massive, impenetrable vault in my basement for storing my gold, instead I just buy gold ETFs. Similarly, although I have the technical experience to safely store my bitcoins, most people do not. These people will certainly not buy actual bitcoins, but they may be willing to invest in a bitcoin ETF where they don't have to worry about that. That's the advantage.

No, that's not what they're doing at all. It is not a company and in no way resembles a company. It is a trust that holds bitcoins and issues shares that represent a claim of ownership on those bitcoins and can be redeemed for those bitcoins by any trustor at any time (conversely, the trust will "buy" bitcoins from trustors by issuing new shares in exchange). The basic idea is that investors will buy the shares from the trustors and then trade them on a public exchange such as NASDAQ, but no bitcoins will actually change hands until the shares are redeemed or new shares are issued (which will happen due to arbitrage if the share price deviates too far from the price of actual bitcoins). This is pretty much exactly the same way commodity ETFs are issued and traded.

EDIT: Typo

It would not be cheaper. Simply selling that many coins will cause the price to crash, which is bad news for the seller. When you want to make a ton of money out of a multi-million dollar asset that can't easily be liquidated, an IPO is usually the standard "exit strategy", as difficult and time consuming as it may be.

Actually, the filing never refers to their holdings as just "math-based assets", it specifically refers to their holdings as "Bitcoins", defined as "a type of a Digital Math-Based Asset". The filing does refer to altcoins as examples of alternative Digital Math-Based Assets and Bitcoin's competion, though the Trust does not deal in anything other than bitcoins specifically.

The FLOPS conversion is useful in the sense that it provides an accurate indication of how powerful a general-purpose computer would have to be in order to carry out a 51% attack. The fact that the network is neither entirely composed of general-purpose computers nor even executes any floating-point operations at all is irrelevant to that question.

Let me see if I've got this straight: you intend to report your step-dad's crime to the police (and that's all you can do at this point; you do not get a say in whether or not he will be charged) and give evidence against him if it goes to trial, unless he agrees to help with your charity? That's called blackmail. Better call your criminal defence attorney again. Tell him you may have a case for him to take after all.

What punishment? He hasn't even been tried yet, let alone sentenced. 13 years is the maximum penalty for 13 counts of vandalism. If his lawyer is smart enough to argue that he didn't do any permanent damage (though that's a big if), he'll almost certainly be let off with a small fine, if that.

No shit. For those of you who don't get it, the reason the Vandalism Statute doesn't mention the right to free speech is because freedom of speech only applies to what you do with your own property, not other people's. You're free to put anti-bank messages on a sign in front of your house, on a T-shirt, on a billboard you paid to advertise on; but you're not free to put your message on other people's property without their permission. Tom Tosdal is either a complete retard or batshit insane if he doesn't understand that.

Huh? The highlighted part is not actually grammatically incorrect, though it's not for lack of trying. The error is actually "thread after thread of pretty much a waste of server space", which should be "thread after thread of what is pretty much a waste of server space" or even "what is rapidly becoming pretty much a waste of server space" to keep the author's style of needless verbosity.

Also, there were no delays in the development of Duke Nukem 3D. Presumably, they mean its five-time Wired Vaporware of the Year Award-winning sequel Duke Nukem Forever.

What are you talking about? You can 3D print literally any simple machine. Wheels, screws, gears, you name it; if it's simple, you can print it. You can even print a few complex machines like cams and bearings and such. And we've been printing circuits since before 3D printing was even a thing. What did you think the P in PCB stood for?

Fail article.

The entire premise of the article falls apart completely here. The author apparently failed to realise what many GPU miners are currently finding out the hard way: Bitcoin, far from being "intrinsically valueless", has a very high cost of production. That cost goes towards providing security for the network, and the fact that Bitcon spends more on its security than its competitors is one of the main reasons for its higher value. Friedman wasn't wrong, only the people who misinterpret him.

10/10

That's easy. But watching a good movie for every day of the year is less easy, though it would be more bearable.

Erm, larger notes will not have to be destroyed; if you think this is the case, you don't understand how money printing works. When people talk about money printing causing inflation, they're not talking about literal money printing, but instead arbitrarily increasing the number of dollars in the banks' accounts. Actual printing and minting of notes and coins is an entirely different process: for every dollar printed, a dollar is deducted from the bank's account in a balanced trade of digital dollars for physical dollars (conversely, dollars are credited to the bank's account whenever worn-out notes are taken out of circulation and destroyed). Literal printing and destruction of currency makes absolutely no difference as far as inflation is concerned.

Nah, I've got a better idea. I'm going to gradually replace pieces of my brain with ASICs, so that at no point during the process is my brain completely destroyed or exists as multiple copies, thereby conveniently avoiding the legal and ethical conundrums that that would entail. Then I'll transplant my ASIC-brain once my genetically-engineered fox body is ready. This way I get to become immortal while keeping all the "advantages" (if you know what I mean) of a wetware interface. Of course, if my past experience with the future is anything to go by, I STILL WON'T HAVE A DAMN JETPACK!

This a Bad Idea. The file's internal metadata (which is what anyone searching for a needle in a stack of needles will be looking at) will be a dead giveaway. Renaming a file with a different extension will not conceal it at all, and may actually make it even more conspicuous with tools that automatically flag files whose filename extension doesn't match the internal metadata. Security through obscurity doesn't work at all.

Well, I don't get where you're coming from. Ammunition and its components are nowhere near as tightly regulated as firearms. People make their own ammo all the time, simply because it's cheaper than factory ammo. In most places you can walk into any gun shop and just buy bullets, gunpowder, primers, and shell casings by the thousands, no questions asked. If nobody was scared by that before, why would they be scared now?