Perhaps, but the OED is generally pretty good at getting earlier usages of words, if not always at getting the very first use.  The examples from the OED generally reflect standard use of the time, not oddball uses that would have been out of the norm even then.

And to the idiot before you, of course I know what etymology is.  I also know what the ignore button is, and it's been used.  I was discussing usage, since that was being discussed, not etymology, since that wasn't.

I believe the "should" question pertains to whether it is, pragmatically, a good idea to do this.  I think the answer to this is so obvious (fuck no) that there hardly needs to be a thread, but here it is, and here I am in it.  A general discussion of the differences between morality, ethics and legality is pretty off-topic for that.

Even this is a pretty speculative discussion, since none of the miners who would actually have to be involved to perpetrate this atrociously silly act are, so far as I can tell, remotely interested in doing something this dumb.

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.


From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

That's not what it's meant throughout its history as a word in the English language.  In fact, the word having any positive connotations at all is a novelty.

If your sole security against capture and prosecution is anonymity, you'd best get that part of it right.  And if you're going to do that and make voluminous public statements, they'd best not be in exact accordance with things you have said under your real name.  The Unabomber got caught largely because he insisted on publishing a manifesto, which his brother recognized as being in his writing style.  Otherwise, he probably would have remained a free man indefinitely.

DPR not only made voluminous public statements on the Internet as DPR, but had made very similar statements under his real name, also to the Internet.  That combined with more blatant errors, like using an email address that actually consisted entirely of his real name and gmail, made his discovery inevitable.

This is probably true in most places.  However, there isn't just a bureaucratic issue, which would be bad enough.  Often the "regulatory" bodies for gambling are utterly corrupt.  It's not for nothing that one of the largest corruption scandals in recent memory involved Indian casinos, which basically involved extorting bribes from casinos to shut their competitors down, while playing both sides of the fence.  I.e. "Christian" crook Ralph Reed would have his "Christian" group attack casinos, but not the ones who were paying the cartel.

In the US, a common formulation is "anything of value."  So whether you're betting dollars, doughnuts, or tea-cakes, it comes under the law.  The authorities aren't necessarily very consistent about enforcement, though.  An example is a children's restaurant chain, Chuck E. Cheese's, which runs blatant games of chance offering prizes of value. There is no way this is legal, at least in jurisdictions that ban other games of chance run for profit, but you don't see the police knocking down their doors.  This is pretty silly, considering that if the addictive potential of gambling is why it's banned, it's utterly absurd to let children gamble.  It would be like banning cigarettes for adults, but then ignoring cigarettes marketed directly to children.

(Not that I think either is a good idea.)

Sort of like the way we burn huge piles of currency if we find out they've been involved in illegal activities?  Perhaps we should start doing that, too.  Just test every piece of currency for drug residue, and if it tests positive, we should burn it, because that dirty money can't be trusted.

(Hint:  Virtually every piece of currency in the U.S. is "tainted" with drug residue.)

Why DPR is in trouble is not that he designed a website, but that he personally and directly facilitated illegal black market activity, publicly promoted it under his name, making it clear that this was his intention, and directly took a commission from activity he made it very clear he knew was illegal, and was illegal on purpose.

Someone who designed a p2p system that allowed the creation of online markets and either remained mum on their intentions or, for that matter, actually had no intention but to create an anonymous online market, would have much less chance of running afoul of the law.

DPR's bust (whether or not it is legit) has done one good thing, and that is to provide an example of how not to do it.  I.e. a centralized market under the control of a megalomaniacal ideologue who, moreover, directly participated in illegal activity himself and profited vastly from it.

darkmule, daily

This.  And in this case, DPR's multiple blunders make it entirely plausible that they actually caught him with completely mundane investigative techniques.  But it shouldn't be ruled out entirely, even though a hidden capacity to compromise TOR is not necessary to explain DPR being busted.

Because established currencies like USD are never, ever used in black markets.

Not really.  25% of the people who bothered to vote in a poll in the most moronic thread in Bitcoin history said that. 

The only "votes" that count in this are the votes of the mining pools, really.  And in this case, good.  The miners supporting this appear to be at about 0%.

Definitely.  I also hear it's possible to contract to hire someone to murder someone else.

How well does this kind of thing usually turn out when someone tries it in reality, though?

Article hidden behind bullshit paywall.

Actually, there are many places drugs are decriminalized, and many like pot are entirely legal.  The United States is not the world.

That's up to the defense lawyer to magic up.  It's a relevant consideration as to flight risk.  The "community" is also which one, exactly?  The defense should argue it's to whichever community he's being released to, rather than necessarily where he lived.  After all, he lived in California, is charged in New York, and would be released on bail to where?  Into the home of a close family member who is the one posting the bail or signing the bail bond would probably be the best option (if he actually wants to get bailed out).  He should also do his best to appear willing and eager to appear at trial and confident of the likelihood of acquittal on at least the most serious charges, so as to appear to be less of a flight risk.

I'd be surprised if any of that happened without someone other than a federal public defender, though.  In that situation, I'd expect either onerous bail or no bail at all.  The fact most of his funds are subject to forfeiture would mean he's likely to have to appeal to third parties for a defense.  He may be effectively destitute without those funds.

So far, he isn't implicated in an actual murder of any sort, but an attempt to contract for two, at least one of which might have involved some degree of entrapment.  The prosecutors will of course argue blah blah blah violent drug criminal, kingpin, facing life without parole so likely to flee, able to obtain false IDs, etc.  Defense, if it is competent, will argue something like strong ties to the community, perhaps offer to put DPR in custody of some family member who ensures appearance, blah blah even actual murderers are entitled to bail, prosecution has failed to show any signs of flight risk other than just the crimes they're accusing him of.  Also that he's not a drug dealer, but just ran a website, this isn't Al Capone here, and these "hitman" contracts are cartoonishly ridiculous.  Defendant doesn't pose a threat, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's denied bail, but I think the most likely event is that he is granted bail, but it is high, and perhaps too high for him to meet.

The vast majority of hydrogen is generated by processing natural gas, a fossil fuel.  The remnant is generated by hydrolysis, which uses electricity.  Obviously, of course, electric cars use electricity.

How do we generate electricity?  Largely by burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal (or fuel oil), and nuclear power.  Of those, only nuclear power is carbon-neutral, although it has its own issues.  Without replacing our sources of electricity, electric cars are not really a solution.  (Also, the batteries in electric cars contain highly toxic compounds.)

So while electric and hydrogen cars are a good idea and we should be using them to some degree, at present, they are just another way of consuming fossil fuels.

This.  He strikes me as the kind of "genius" who thinks he can defend himself, being so much smarter than everyone else and all, but I'd hope (for his own sake) that he isn't stupid enough to give them jack without something, in writing, for himself.  Cops can't give you shit, whatever they say verbally.  It needs to be the prosecutor, it needs to be in writing, and it needs a real criminal lawyer to look at it to make sure it isn't packed with "gotchas."  (Better call Saul!)