Wow, I can't even imagine how that is possible.

If I have agreed to these terms, then that's fine.  But I haven't.  I paid for the black box with the functionality of the white box, and did not agree to your terms concerning the white box.  Or, alternatively, I did but the guy I sold it to second hand certainly did not.  If I agreed not to resell it, or to only resale it under the same terms, then you have a contract beef with me; but not with the next owner.  Your business secret is gone.  IP is the attempt to assert control on the next guy, which is the problem because he had no arrangement with you and whatever agreement you had between yourself and me is our problem.  You can claim that the idea is your property all you like, but it's not.  It's just data, information that allows the black box device to operate in a particular manner.  If the next guy has the means to replicate the white box, you have no honest claim on what he does.  IP is all about creating a monopoly on that data, but it cannot exist without the force of government.  What you refuse to acknowledge is the gun that is in the room, and that it may grant you the ability to compel others to your will but it cannot grant you the right.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/236218-Cash-Transactions-Banned-by-Louisiana-Government-Takes-Private-Property-Without-Due-Process

I see a growing bitcoin niche in Louisiana.

We are going about this all wrong...

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Whenever speaking of free and voluntary societies I’m often asked, “What would we do about this”, or, “who would take care of that.”  I used to rattle off answers to these questions that were supplied by minds sharper than mine without even examining the questions. Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong part of the question. I was simply explaining how a different system would work, and hoping the ones asking the question would be won over with the clever and well thought out answers I had either memorized, or thought of myself. I have been trying to persuade people away from their system using the promise of a new and improved system. I realized I was no different than any other philosophical political peddler, and I would no longer tempt people with “our system.”

The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would do. I would honor my contracts; I would defend myself; I would choose to help others in need; I would expect no one to support me; and I would plan accordingly. I want to be very clear here, I do not disagree with the theory that is being presented on how the logistics of society would be handled. There is no doubt that these organizations and such would arise and be needed in a voluntary society. I disagree with the fact that these theories are being pushed as answers before addressing the only real and true problem; collectivist thought. When those who are curious about voluntarism ask the “we” questions, the underlying collectivist philosophy is still there, and this is what needs to be addressed first before any practical questions can or should be answered. Otherwise, you are just trying to get them to abandon their system for your system."

http://zerogov.com/?p=2334

Basicly, old Testament slavery was closer to indentured servitude, wherein some people were indentured because they lost a battle.

The concept of prisoners of war as presented in the old Hebrew law, although commonly translated as slavery, isn't comparable to modern slavery.  First off, the Hebrew law makes it plain that such prisoners of war have rights under God that must be respected.  They also must be released after 7 years of faithful servitude, and offered a daughter of their 'master' in marriage.  Slavery of the modern context is highly dependent upon distinct class division, by race or otherwise, that prohibited intermarriage.  The offering of a daughter to the faithful servant undermined the cultural and racial distinctions between the conquering tribe and those of the losing tribe, which is the point of such marriage arrangements, until there is no discernable differences between one tribe and the other.  The Hebrew tribes didn't really have much of a concept of "owning" a slave like one owned a sheep, although this was common enough in nearby cultures such as the Egyptions.  Perhaps this was a reflex against the generations of true slavery in Egypt, perhaps just a means of preventing the Hebrews that came after from the temptations of claiming prisoners of war, for the risks of actually having to follow through with making this prisoner your next son-in-law.

DOSing the major pools isn't what I think of as a "51% attack", but whatever.  Whether or not the pools are under attack or not is of little concern to myself.  The overall security of the network is not really under threat, since 10 Terahashes per second isn't a mark reachable by any known network or supercomputer.  This does highlight the risks to the bitcoin network at large associated with pool mining.  Concentrating the mining to a single server for the purpose of income stability also creates central points of failure/attack.  I don't mine in pools for this exact reason, and don't think anyone with any substantial hashing ability should do so.  10K small lights are harder to shoot out than a dozen really big ones.

Damn, I wish I had thought of that one!

Actually, it is.  Perhaps if you had bothered to read the well thought out and written blog post that was presented to yourself, you'd now see the association.  The differences between a "positive right" and a slavemaster's priviliages are simply a matter of degree.  It is your claim that you have a right to an income at my expense based solely on my possession of a particular set of data that you may have created.  Very recently a Democratic candidate for the US Senate was quoted as saying that no one gets rich alone, which is actually true.  But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else.  Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers.  Do they have a claim on your income as well?  How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?

Not to mention the obvious bias I hold against Wiccans, Druids and other related Anglosaxon pagen religions.

No.  The 'other' category is all the blocks produced by miners not known to be associated to a pool, including all of the pools that bitcoinwatch is not yet aware of.  It doesn't, in fact, mean anything at all other than that more than 50% of the current hashing power is anonymous.

Once upon a time, dozens of little girls said that dozens of adults in the area were bewitching them in their sleep.  The town's elders and local judge felt the same way you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Mostly likely a latent cultural influence of Anglican moral code.  I'm sure he'll see the error of his ways once Sharia law dominates in the UK.  After all, The Prophet married an eight year old in his 50's; what right does he have to intervene when the law says that a man of the Koran can take the child daughter of an infidel such as himself?


(I have no doubt that the sarcasm will be entirely missed by Hawker, the cognative dissonance must be terrrible.)

That's not an answer, it's a link.  Even if you believed it word for word, there are at least three different definitions of that one term in that article, which are all loose definitions and generally mutuall exclusive.  If society gets to decide, how does one decide what society actually is?  If it is the voting public, then children are not part of society?  If it is parliment, then are you part of society?  If society is defined by established national borders, do you still think you have a valid opinion about anything in mine?

Hawker, please define the term "society" in this context.

The United Kingdom isn't a democracy either, it's a parlimentary republic superimposed upon a constitutional monarchy.  And it's still a constitutional monarchy.  After all, where do the royals get their income?

Yes, and so is projection. 

Mine did, at three.  "Stay away from that blue flame, son, it's hot and it will hurt you."  Worked fine the first time. 

As I am sure that you are already aware, this is what grown ups say to teens when they are losing an argument due to being unable to respond to a rational and thought out position.  They likely think that you are nieve, but if you asked them if they believed as you do when they were your age, they will invariablely say no.