iand

I've never intentionally shared my contacts with LinkedIn and yet I get shown names from my address book. One was my teenage son and I tried to connect thinking he'd signed up for some reason. Nope, he'd never even considered it.

I don't know where LinkedIn got my contacts from but I suspect I must have missed a setting when I briefly installed the mobile app a few years ago. Some of the email addresses they have are out of date so that adds weight to my theory.

Singularity

On the contrary, we need fewer countries, fewer borders and more decentralization.

People aren't backing out, they are reducing their pledge. Do same anti-trolling measures deal with that?

Unlikely. Siri was an acquisition for example.

You can choose not to use these services. There are other forms of transportation.

There are some people who have argued for infinite copyright terms or perpetual ownership over every utterance they make. Rand argued for IP, saying (roughly) "a man has rights to the product of his mind."

In general though, I think the modern consensus in Libertarian circles has fallen on the side of opposing or greatly limiting IP in general. See http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property for a reasonable overview.

Copyright (patents/intellectual property) is one of Benjamin Tucker's Four Great Monopolies[1] that give rise to monopoly capitalism[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism

Without seeing the actual paper I don't think it's fair to assume that no adjustment is made to an organisations funding to account for their level of involvement with climate change debate. The methodology paper appears to categorise them into 4 levels of involvement which could be used in the paper to weight the funding amounts.

The sad state of climate change debate is that we now have the vested interests of the fossil fuel economy pitted against the vested interests of the subsidised clean fuel economy, with their guaranteed feed-in tariffs. Not to mention the dozens of research facilities that are grant supported and would be closed down if the science and solutions were deemed to be entirely settled. All these players are fighting an existential war.

The methodology accounts for varying degrees of involvement in climate change.

Even though the underlying research is paywalled, the methodology is openly available and very interesting. It lists all the organisations in the study and their funding sources, plus the structure used for categorising their involvement. Look under Supplementary Material here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7

I grew up in the seventies and my greatest fear was nuclear attack. That might be because I'm British and we're only 4 minutes from the USSR.

I didn't feel weary of the doom mongering and I'm not at all cynical about the current risks. I believe they are very small but non zero for certain areas of Asia.

In don't believe it did. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri...

A cache

My recollection was that the judge in this case pursued a very clever strategy. There were two questions to be decided: are APIs copyrightable and did Google infringe. The jury were asked to assume the API was copyrighted and then decide whether Google infringed that copyright. The jury found no infringement. Then the judge ruled that APIs were not copyrightable.

So even if the judge's decision is overturned the jury's decision still stands and there was no infringement.

> 1. Software that he uses actually encrypts wallets (BitcoinQT by default does not!).

Are you sure about that? Can you point to a discussion where it says BitcoinQT doesn't encrypt by default. Googling found me nothing.

Items on the front page reflect the interests and preferences of the community. This is not broadcast media force feeding you.

We don't know any of those things. That's why it would be higher risk to start mining it. The rewards might be huge or they might be nil.

The computing power directed at bitcoin is already huge. You would need to persuade those miners (who also verify transactions don't forget) to switch to your new coin. If they stop mining bitcoins then they fall behind their competitors. They then have to swallow the risk of mining a new coin that has no users yet.

I was thinking along similar lines today, but geared more towards proof of title.

i := 3 means declare i to be an "int", which is the default numeric type. The size of that int will vary from platform to platform. See http://golang.org/ref/spec#Numeric_types

Typo in title.

You have these backwards. The definition I gave of introvert is the accepted/technical/actual definition. Myers Briggs use the word introversion to capture a concept that is much wider than introvert. For example it makes claims and assertions about the mechanism of "drawing and rebuilding energy" which is clearly a metaphor, not an actually measurable quantity.

Note that this is from 2009. Although the main details have not changed, the int type is more commonly 64 bits now (since 64 bit architectures are much more common)

Maybe you are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of trying to "unlearn" Aspergers, perhaps you should accept it and fight for understanding by others.

Breaking the encryption on bitcoin is like the hunt for the philosopher's stone. We know it's possible to transmute elements into gold, but doing it on a scale capable of disrupting the market is beyond our reach currently.

That's the first I've heard of Aspergers being a learned behaviour. Can you link somewhere that I can read more about that.

I disagree and the article is based on a category error. The words introvert and extrovert are defined to be classifications of people not particular traits exhibited by those people.

extrovert: an outgoing, socially confident person

introvert: a shy, reticent person

They are defined in terms of particular traits:

shyness: the quality or state of being shy

confidence: the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something.

People can have differing degrees of each trait and differ in how they exhibit those in different social situations. However, by definition, if a person is predominantly shy and reticent in most social situations then we're justified in calling them an introvert.

Deposits for USD are fine. If that gets stolen then their insurers and their bank's insurers will rectify the situation. Perhaps namecheap are offering the same protections for bitcoin deposits, I haven't looked at their TOS.