The post says that they had two accounts, one with Yubikey, another without, and that they were trying to get the limits of the one without Yubikey raised...

I thought a verified account could only transfer large sums to bank accounts of their own. Didn't some guy from this forum had issues with a wire he sent to his wife's account or something?

Anyone, I wish you good luck tracking this criminal.
This whole thing is way too awful. I'm sorry for everyone involved.

I had to clear my browser's (Chrome) cookies in order to log in back again. Was it to be expected?

Pardon, mon erreur alors, c'était exactement ça que j'ai voulu dire, interdire quelqu'un d'entrer chez toi. Dans son message il dit d'abord "action de contraindre" et après "interdire l'accès" et j'ai fini pour interpréter comme la même chose.

Non mais j'ai dit s'il me contraint d'entrer à sa maison à lui, pas la mienne bien sûr.

Donc si tu me contraint d'entrer à ta maison, je suis victime d'une coercition de ta part?

Si tu veux aller aux dictionaires, regardes wiktionary:
1. (Droit) Droit qu’on a d’empêcher quelqu’un d’agir contre son devoir ou de le contraindre à faire son devoir.
2. (Par extension) Action exercée contre quelqu’un pour le forcer à agir ou l’amener à s’en abstenir.

(1) parle évidement de la coercition légitime, applicable dans un cas de contrat par ex. (2) c'est justement le terme dont on parle ici, vu qu'Apple n'a pas une obligation contractuelle d'accepter tout ce qu'on lui fourni.


Si Le Monde ou Figaro refusent de publier un article que je leur ai écrit et envoyé pour publication, tu vas me dire que c'est de la censure? Bien sûr que non. Au pire, c'est de l'auto-censure, le choix volontaire de ne pas exprimer/publier quelque chose. Mais comme j'ai dit antérieurement je n'aime pas ce terme, "auto-censure".

Mais non, à aucun moment Apple est en train de menacer ou d’agresser ces éditeurs.


Bah, tu sais jamais non plus quelles nouvelles types de viandes non-halal vont être créées demain. Au Brésil il y a certains coupes de viande que je ne jamais vu en France par exemple. (ça sans compter la possibilité de l'ingénierie génétique de carrément développer des nouveaux animaux )


Tu as eu des fausses expectatives. Je m'en doute vraiment que le contrat dit que tout nouvelle application inventée par n'importe qui sera acceptée dans leur marché. Même pas Google doit faire ça.


Aucun besoin que ça existe.


Ce n'est pas de la coercition. Personne n'est agressée ou menacée.

Certains appellent ça d'auto-censure, quand tu volontairement exclu un contenu de ta publication. Je trouve un peu bizarre comme terme, vu que la censure est forcement quelque chose imposée par quelqu'un d'autre. Dire auto-censure pour moi c'est comme dire "auto-assassinat" pour parler d'un suicide, mais bon, le terme est utilisé comme ça, peut-être à cause d’absence d'un terme spécifique.
Ce n'est absolument pas de la censure tout court, par contre.

C'est vrai ça. Je crois avoir lu quelque part qu'Apple se réserve des droits même sur ce que tu produit avec certains de ses logiciels. C'était du jamais vu ça. Genre, ce serait l'équivalent à Microsoft exiger que, au cas où tu écris ton bouquin avec Microsoft Word, tu dois leur verser une pourcentage sur chaque copie vendue.

La plateforme appartient légitimement à Apple, donc elle peut refuser ce qu'elle veut d'y entrer. Je ne peux pas entrer à ta maison si tu me le refuses, ou te forcer à accepter des "propositions" par rapport à son design ou quoi que ce soit, peux-je?

Ne pense pas par contre que je suis en train de défendre leur attitudes. Je trouve stupide. Mais ce ne sont pas des attitudes coercitives, elles sont légitimes d'un point de vue éthique.


Si le contrat disait explicitement que ces applications ne seraient pas refusées donc là oui ça change tout. Mais je m'en doute vraiment que ce soit le cas.


Décision stupide.
Mais pas coercitive, non.

Attention aux mots. Apple ne t'oblige pas d'acheter ni d'utiliser leur produits. Il n'y a donc rien de coercitive, c'est un contrat volontaire. Rien de comparable à la vrai coercition imposée par la sécurité sociale ou tous les autres "services" dites "publics".

Cela dit, l'image posté par grondilu résume bien l'affaire. Je n'ai jamais acheté quoi que ce soit de cette entreprise et jusqu'à là je n'en ai aucune envie de le faire.

It's naive to believe that gun control laws will take the guns out of the hands of those who don't care about the laws. I'm sure they won't. They'll just take the guns out of those who care about following the law.

I live in France, but I've grown up in Brazil. Both have draconian laws regarding gun-control, it's hard to tell which government is stricter on the matter. France criminality rates are much lower than Brazil. And I'm pretty sure that this has nothing to do with gun laws. For multiple reasons which I'll not try to speculate here, average people in France are just less prone to initiate violence themselves than average people in Brazil. They are more "honest", we may say. It really isn't a matter of France having better security forces or practices, of that I'm sure. Most buildings here have no security, I'm yet to see electric fences around houses, people carelessly leave their cars to sleep on the street, I see less policemen on the streets here than what I see in my home town in Brazil, private security is almost non-existent etc.


Although I believe the best path to "world peace" is free trade, I'll just quote what I've written above again:


I'm pretty sure that all governments who don't yet have nukes, don't lack them because they "follow the anti-gun-arguments", but more likely because either they aren't capable of building them, or they are afraid of international retaliation - which, by the way, is as hypocritical as the state saying that citizens cannot have guns, only state employees can.

I agree you "deserve", but you don't get to force the seller to tell if he doesn't want to. Just don't trust him and don't buy from him if you find it suspicious.
I believe the law in question was about forcing a label. The simple fact that some people want to force others to put a particular label on their products is already suspicious too.

Thanks, I'll take a look.
This subject looks quite interesting.

What does it mean then?

Btw, do you know where I can learn more about the subject? Besides blogs I've been reading and all, is there a "big 3D printing forum"?

I'd say it's precisely people wanting to coercively control other people's lives, like you, who desperately need to learn their limits.


It's not me who's taking their options to buy these!


Nuclear bombs cannot be used for self-defense. Their usage will inevitably hurt innocents.
Plus, relax, even in a truly free society, nobody would be able to buy weapons of mass destruction in a super-market. Not only it's totally unfeasible, as absurds like this can be prevented without coercive institutions. You can even have some level of "voluntary gun control" in free societies, and I believe you'd probably have the option of living in a "gun free" place if that's what you wanted.

Finally, "my society" (which?) hasn't decided anything, because that's impossible. Societies don't make decisions. You seem to confuse societies with governments, that's a serious mistake.

Biodegradable plastic?? Why would I want to produce objects that would "rot" spontaneously? I hope you have the option of using durable plastic too...

Recently I found out these printers are becoming more accessible to end users. Until a couple weeks ago, I thought they were industrial grade equipment, not something one could have at home.

Does anyone know if there's a "main 3D printing" forum, something like bitcointalk.org for 3D printing? I've googled a little but all forums I found were almost "ghost forums", with just a couple dudes posting something once in a while...
The subject is quite interesting, I'd like to learn more.

It might not change the nature of criminals, but it might change at least the way they would proceed. In Brazil, as criminals know people are mostly defenseless, they don't burglar your house. They just wait for you to come back from work, point a gun at you, and rob you with the convenience of you telling where things are, giving your bank card for some withdraws while others watch you and so on.
In places where lots of people have guns, criminals tend to prefer furtive burglaries, when nobody's at home.


Off-topic, but that's why the human action should be studied praxeologically, not empirically.


Here you are just saying poor people tent to be more criminal. Hooray to prejudice!

I wonder if all these hackers stealing from bitcoin owners are also from poor families who lacked education...

I don't believe the level of income or education influences a person moral values. What it does influence, is how criminals will act. Those who have criminal intends but lack education, will probably resort to violent crimes, as that's all they know how to do. Smarter immoral people will resort to elaborate scams, cybercrime, creating "new religions", political career etc, that is, ways to take other people's money that are more efficient, call less attention and are much less risky - sometimes not even ethically/legally criminal, but immoral for any person capable of understanding what's going on.
Summarizing, IMHO being poor/uneducated doesn't influence the chances of being immoral, it just influences the kind of attitudes and immoral person will have.


It's not just self-defense in dangerous situations. An armed society is also a strong dissuasion against some types of crimes. The idea is that you never really have to pull the gun.


There's no such thing as a free lunch.
These services are financed with money stolen from the productive sector. That's just another disguised, massive crime. If massively increasing theft is your technique to reduce criminality rates, you're doing it wrong.


There's nothing wrong with selling drugs, it should be allowed. And nobody needs to steal to survive.


Ok if you want to dedicate effort to that. But you should realize societies cannot be engineered.


Why not both?


It's perfectly fine to have one's opinion on that matter, and not wanting a gun. The problem is that normally those who advocate gun control want to impose their opinions on others, by forcing them not to have guns.

The thing is that you don't get to tell what other Canadians should be doing, at least not in an authoritarian manner. If a single innocent person, Canadian or not, wants to own a firearm, the rest of the entire planet has no ethical right to stop him/her.