|
Four votes so far, but already interesting. I'll wait a bit longer before commenting further.
Also, the first post has a link to the specific definition of "culpable" that I'm using; no legal obligation or warranting of an aggressive response is meant by it.
|
|
|
|
For this hypothetical, let us presume that you have a child, around 6 years of age. Scenario: You and your child are walking on the sidewalk right past a playground. Near the sidewalk are a group of children around your child's age. Their backs are turned to you, as they are all apparently fascinated by something on the ground in front of them.
Your child creeps up behind the group, and looks back to confirm that you're watching. When inches away from the group, he yells, "Run, there's a dog!"
Screams come from some of the kids as they run forward. In the commotion, a little girl is bumped by a larger child, subsequently falls, and skins her knee. She starts to cry. Your child is rolling on the ground laughing.
Simple question: Is your child at all morally culpable for the little girl being hurt?(It may make a difference if you stop to consider if you would attempt to correct the child's behavior in such a scenario.) If you aren't sure, or think it primarily depends on other factors, then there is no need to vote, as only "Yes" and "No" are options, and your vote can't be changed afterwards. Comments and/or explanations encouraged, regardless of your vote (or non-vote.) Also, if you vote "No" but would still attempt to correct the child's behavior, a brief explanation of your thinking would probably be helpful to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
It strikes me as obvious that someone who intends to create a stampede, takes action to do so, and as a result of his action has a stampede occur, is at least partially responsible for the stampede.
Whether one wishes to ban the specific speech he used is one thing, but to claim the person has no moral culpability for his action seems pretty indefensible. I'm fairly certain no one actually lives their life as if they believe that (at least when such actions are directed at them.)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Quite a read--wasn't expecting a 73-page booklet, but it wasn't dense, and was intriguing enough that I actually finished it.
I'll give you some feedback, both the negative and the positive, when I have more time.
|
|
|
|
http://www.billstclair.com/second-realm-strategy.pdfI found this article to be especially insightful food for thought for those of us considering the full ramifications of crypto-currencies and the promise of achieving greater liberty. This article is comprehensive in all manner of practical and philosophical considerations of taking our crypto-graphic hobby into every area of life without jumping the shark into wishful thinking. Comments welcome. Reading the article; watching the thread. |
|
|
|
wow i dint expect so many woman on this forum
Where are you getting that data from? :p I believe the joke is that a significant number of us must be lying about our age. |
|
|
|
It gets even worse when you consider that people can (and I'm sure some actually do) transfer bitcoins by simply transferring private keys. In theory, you might send someone funds, and they don't even move from the address, but ownership and possession still gets transferred.
But if you do that you have to trust the one who gave you his priv key, because he could have a copy of it enabling him to spend the coins too. So it's not a very safe way and i doubt many people are using this method. Yeah, I can't imagine it's very common; I'd think it would likely only be with people who trust each other significantly. But then, you never know. Casascius publicly advertises his physical bitcoins; someone could claim they do the same on occasion for a few folks, and as long as the private keys aren't kept in a wallet they frequently use, one couldn't prove that they hadn't done this. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, AFAIK, most flash drives have a limited number of writes before going bad.
Not sure if this is your situation though. Have you tried examining the drive from another computer?
|
|
|
|
I agree. However, we should keep in mind that the laws are not always right.
I think the laws in question are wrong, but how to change this I do not know.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960's is a great example. It was not until the blacks started boycotting that real change got done. You have to starve the vampire squid. Everyone understands the pocketbook. Governments and banks around the world are scared to death that they will lose control of the medium of exchange in the Information Age. This. Yet breathe a word about not paying taxes or about non-compliance, and suddenly people think you're a selfish bastard who doesn't care if the world devolves back to the stone ages. When enough people both understand that it's possible to ignore a government to death, and decide to do so, then change will happen. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Mining Enhancers, Inc.We improve your performance! For a small fee (payable in bitcoins!) we'll assign a team of specialists to meditate and focus on improved performance for YOUR mining rig. All we'll need is a picture of your setup and the name you've given it, and we can get to work immediately.
Or are you instead very concerned about the power of large pools? For the same price, we'll assign our team toward lowering the performance of the major pool of your choice!
BME. Trust us, it works!
Results not guaranteed. No warranties included. All payments are non-refundable.
Hmmm.... Didn't Art Bell try something like this, only with a hurricane?
|
|
|
|
For instance, after withdrawing bitcoins from an exchange service, I know a Bitcoin address of that exchange service. I could enter that information in the wiki, and then find out what other addresses belong to the exchange service, how many bitcoins they probably hold in total, etc..
i guess the only problem with this is that no one would want to contribute to a wiki if that address could then lead back to themselves. and then you'd probably have ppl entering in real addresses with bogus ownerships to obfuscate the linkages or even to target enemies. it could turn into a real mess. Yes. If this were to be done, there'd be no point to the wiki. Just allow people to explore the interconnections between addresses (they can already do this with blockexplorer, it's just pretty slow.) They'd be responsible for determining any public ID connected to a specific address themselves, since this is where things could get messy and unprovable anyway. (Just because Jane puts an address on a website and says its hers doesn't mean she's the one who owns the private key, or even that the private key to it exists.) |
|
|
|
In his "final thoughts" video, Jared Loughner (the Tuscon gunman) wrote, "Every human who is mentally capable is always able to be the treasurer of their new currency."
That... sounds like a tautology. The guy's not saying anything of particular value. |
|
|
|
|
It gets even worse when you consider that people can (and I'm sure some actually do) transfer bitcoins by simply transferring private keys. In theory, you might send someone funds, and they don't even move from the address, but ownership and possession still gets transferred.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds exciting. Definitely watching.
|
|
|
|
These patches also don't do what they claim to do— they'll still apply fees in some cases. (Though at least thats a good thing)
Of course, it wasn't my intention for the patch to remove ALL fees. It only removes the necessity of paying the fee which started around 0.3.23. It reverts the client behavior to the one from 0.3.20. I'm not quite happy with that, why not eliminate forced transaction fees altogether? Because some fees are mandatory, and the network rejects transactions without those fees as being spam. I suspect the transaction you mentioned above won't ever be confirmed.  |
|
|
|
...snip...
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
You are assuming to know what anyone making that statement means by it and I'm the one deluding myself because I'm not making assumptions. OK then. I say we can't know intention simply by a statement alone (even if it seems obvious) and it would be dangerous to outlaw it because of the unintended consequences. You say you know with full certainty what the speakers intentions are and are ready and willing to charge him for it. I would bet far, far more statements like these result in nothing criminal at all than actually result in someone's murder. Saying stupid shit is common, contracting murder not so much. "Which of the following is the limit statements below and including which should be punished by the state (or otherwise justifiably responded to with violent force) and statements above which should be allowed? " Unless the OP meant some weird legal system with its own criminal law, then intent is part of the poll. You don't need to say "What if he is kidding?" because that's the point of making something a crime. So the 75% who voted for ordering a killing being legal did so knowing that intent to kill would be part of the prosecution. Again, I'd wager that the vast majority of those voting for that statement did so without presuming it meant "intent to kill." Voting for not throwing people in jail for making a statement isn't the same as voting for allowing people to "order a killing." Your presumption doesn't even make sense. If there's going to be a system of law at all, few people, even in libertarian circles, are going to agree with "ordering a killing" being legal. Certainly not 75%. Perhaps you should start a new poll clarifying the issue, and see what the response is? One bitcoin says the results will prove your presumption wrong. Do you accept? |
|
|
|
|
The obvious answer is "No," but there will always be exception cases (primarily plays/performances. Angry shouting spouses will need to assess for themselves how serious the threat was after cooling down, but if we're going to have laws, I wouldn't be too bothered by a law that even punished such a "heat of the moment" statement.)
|
|
|
|
|
I stand out of respect for the crowd, just like I would if at an event that was hosting a group from another country and their flag was shown and their national anthem played. But placing my hand over my heart, or pledging allegiance to the thing? No, I concluded that was inappropriate (at least for myself) some time ago.
|
|
|
|
You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.
75% think this is OK. And the best excuse you can come up with is "Murder is just an example - some people think homosexuality is just as bad." You keep saying this. 75% think there should be no law banning the statement. I would wager the percent of people on this forum that "think it's OK" would be lower than the general population of any given society. The difference is, most people on this forum don't believe a law should exist just because they don't think something is OK. Consider: in a forum full of committed pacifists, the number of people who would not agree with a law banning the statement would be 100%. |
|
|
|
simonk83, follow Jan's advice. I'd like to second it.
A wallet is not safe on any computer or smartphone, as long as there is a risk of malware getting installed on it. And I'll third it. Really, with the freedom of utility bitcoin gives you, there's no reason to only have one bitcoin-spending device if you can afford one or more additional ones. If you have a cheaper non-smart phone that can browse the web reasonably enough, you can even use it as a bitcoin-spending device by using an online private-key-encrypted wallet. And if you also make use of paper/CD/whatever wallet backups you can easily "decentralize" your funds and reduce any losses even if one or two (or all) devices are compromised. On that note, I hadn't really given much thought before of using BitcoinSpinner's backup ability to create *multiple* offline wallets that can each easily be restored, but that could well be all the decentralization one needs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
