ewillbefull

The problem with that, IMHO, is that payout is always for the previous month, so if they ban you right before payout, they're taking ~2 months worth of ad revenue from you.

I don't understand how 3 weeks before payout is not enough time to analyze the previous month's clicks/impressions for fraud.

Can GNU units or anything like it accept a string such as "100F to C" and understand what I'd like? If so I'd love to use that instead.

Funny; back in 2010 this exact thing happened to a company I worked at. The day before payout (for the previous month) our AdSense account was banned. So we lost 2 months worth of ad revenue. They completely ignored all of our emails and we had to move to another ad provider immediately.

The conversation you're talking about is always happening, on IRC channels and mailing lists where work is actually discussed and merit trumps speculation.

If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general population and their lack of skepticism and poor decision making. It would just create a new game of regulations that rich individuals could play around and avoid to get the result they want anyway.

It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.

"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform

The most money does not win, the most votes does. Advertisements, books, DVDs... do not translate into votes. They are a part of public discourse that can be as easily celebrated as ignored.

This is very much a speech issue.

Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.

After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate.

Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.

Citizens United and other campaign "finance" rulings are poorly understood by the public still today. Most Americans probably still believe Citizens United had anything to do with contribution limits, or stating "money is speech", or that corporations are people.

A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.

> There is a tendency for something to seem "easy" or "obvious" after the fact, but this is ignoring all the insight, effort, and risk it took to find that initial successful path to the solution to begin with.

He carefully said "without ever reading the patent" to avoid your counter-argument.

I used to know people who performed these types of DDoS attacks.

Usually it was because they were hired to do so by a competitor. Every time they would claim to demand a ransom, although they didn't expect for it to be paid. It just made people less suspicious.

Didn't godaddy recently seize a mexican protest website because ICE asked them to?

ICE/DOJ have been committing all sorts of nasty prior restraint. They got away with domain seizures against innocent websites simply accused of hosting copyrighted content. Over a year later they return the domains and don't even apologize. (Dajaz1.com is a great example of this.)

Prior restraint is one of the worst constitutional abuses with regards to the first amendment, because it causes irreparable harm. Hopefully defenses can be made in the courts against this behavior.

Likely in this case, ICE simply intimidated GoDaddy, which is a terrible company in the first place.

I truly hope you aren't an American; having the right to offend others is a good test of whether you live in a free society or not. And twisting legal justifications to fit your perspective of what's okay is even more messed up.

To be fair, most of the downturn you see starting in Feb is due to this issue, it just came to a head when bankruptcy was inevitable. Not really a blip.

It's hard to overstate how much of a bad apple MtGox was.

In 2011 they were hacked causing the first huge bitcoin crash -- probably still the largest crash ever in bitcoin's history. Yet because they had the most reserves, people kept the volume there.

In 2012 their tech was incapable of supporting new volume and caused flash crashes. Yet because they had the most reserves, people kept the volume there.

For most of 2013 nobody could withdraw anything from MtGox. Yet because they had the most reserves, people kept the volume there.

No other exchange was this bad. Now you see why a lot of us are happy this company is gone. It just sucks they had to take so many people down with them.

If mtgox recovers there will not be a crash, the price of bitcoin will skyrocket as people scramble to withdraw BTC by selling USD, since USD withdrawals are still pretty much impossible.

> and that simultaneously raised the number of transactions allowed in a block so that more could be processed

Source? I don't believe the hard limit in blocks has ever been changed; bitcoin's devs are currently struggling to convince people to let them do it. The soft limit will NOT cause hard forks.

The only reason that fork happened was an unknown limit that existed with one database in one version and which didn't exist with an improved database in another version. It was a bug.

Here's an evaluation of the chainfork: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...

There is no evidence Disney is canning movies because they won't be able to profit from them 60 years from now. They are not thinking that far ahead (because they can't); you are deluded.

You keep bringing up fair use, but that does not apply to public performances.

There are no business models which depend on a revenue stream existing 30 years from now to encourage the creation of works. In fact I can't think of any business models that are dependent upon such lengths of time; patents don't even exceed 20 years.

You are not encouraging any additional creation by making the copyright indefinite, you are simply handing creators exclusivity enforcement forever at the expense of the public.

As a creator you are not entitled to ownership of information, it is given to you by the government. It is not relinquished from you to the people. Copyright is a social contract, not an inalienable right arbitrarily given to creators simply for the act of creation.

In the first Supreme Court case on Copyright, they ruled:

“Congress… by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right… created it.”

The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points.

What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public.

Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically, or as it becomes culturally embedded.

Nothing you wrote tries to justify indefinite copyright protections.

The distinguishing factor should be how the government protects net neutrality. Should the FCC have a limitless authority to regulate the Internet, which they happen to apply to net neutrality for now? Or should the FTC have authority to bring suits against monopolistic ISPs to discourage these behaviors?

The only thing that needs to be enforced is anti-trust law. Monopolies are what give ISPs the ability, and perhaps the incentive, to filter and editorialize the Internet. The FTC should be involved in defending consumers against those behaviors.

Net neutrality arises naturally. It didn't need enforcement 30 years ago. In some contexts, like exotic network protocols, it may not even make sense.

I wouldn't care much if it was a limited authority granted to the FCC, but they are claiming an authority which is limitless in scope and using net neutrality as an excuse to exercise it.

Yup, they can block your domain from embedding if they want.

Are near-block-headers a likely improvement or would they make this vulnerability worse?

Wouldn't the pre-render based on useragent be penalized because Google doesn't like being shown pages differently than non-Googlebot useragents?

I would happily donate bitcoins.

Depends on what you define as 'small'. The smallest amount you can send (right now) is about $0.007 at current prices, which is pretty small for most purposes, especially content monetization. It is smaller than any alternatives by a large margin.

This article has already been disputed. As bitcoin has grown businesses like Bitpay are starting to handle payments for merchants, and exchanges and other businesses are beginning to coalesce bitcoins into wallets. That is why bitcoins are starting to become more concentrated, not because some individuals are earning more.

It's actually very difficult to make bitcoins with bitcoin investment, there's only risky bets and day trading right now. There are no reliable interest-bearing instruments.

Liberal licenses like BSD are enormously free for everybody involved. The people putting work into software using the open-source code can contribute if they want, which encourages more businesses (who would otherwise be working with proprietary alternatives) to work with the software in the first place.

The increased amount of participation probably far outweighs whatever benefit is involved from the "freedom" in forcing others to publish their changes, which actually just discourages participation from the industry and only marginally improves the ecosystem in the process.