There are 10,952,975 Bitcoins in circulation. (With a digital currency you can be specific.) Bitcoin isn’t about to replace hard currency—with a market cap of $864 million—but it’s bigger than anyone expected. And many people will tell you that the emergence of a virtual global money supply beyond the reach and control of any government is very real and that it’s time we take it seriously. As long as the Internet remains turned on, Bitcoin will be there—to its adherents, it’s the Platonic currency.
A Bitcoin’s not so much a thing as an understanding, a balance in a decentralized general ledger, or “account log.” Bitcoins are created as the side effect of a great deal of meaningless computational work. That is, the computer could be working on processing images, or doing something else with its time, but instead it’s being used to “mine” Bitcoins—searching for mathematical needles in a networked haystack. Once the needle is found, a “block” of Bitcoins is born. Bitcoins live in a bit of software known as your “wallet.”
How did they get there? Perhaps you minted them by mining, or bought them on an exchange, or received them as part of a barter transaction. Once you have Bitcoins, you want to buy something. How do you spend them? Clicking around your wallet app, you set up a payment and put in the Bitcoin address of the recipient. A few minutes later, after the peer-to-peer network has authorized the transaction as legitimate, the recipient’s wallet, wherever it is, will show that you’ve paid up.
Bitcoins are not pegged to anything, and there are no regulations. It’s a supercomputer-size chore to counterfeit. The key thing to understand is that there’s no bank, no Federal Reserve, in the middle (can you say, "Screw the Fed." ;). It’s not unlike an exchange-traded fund—a mix of non-U.S. currencies—designed as a hedge against the dollar. Bitcoin is a hedge against the entire global currency system. And no exchange is needed, unless you want to convert your Bitcoin into an actual hard currency.
I happen to be in the industry and we are currently working on the 4D printer. The 3D printer can only send plans over the 3G network and Apple's new iPhone 5 does not support 3G anymore. They are using 4G, thus making the 3D printer obsolete. Besides, transmitting 4D plans over a 4G network is much faster and all you have to do is start with a 3D printer and add one more D. The early adopters of 3D printers were fooled into thinking that those machines are not version one (i.e., first generation) but they are; which is why people should wait for the 4D models being released late in the 4th quarter.
Every once in a while people complain about the site and say that the level of debates and arguments are sub par.
Examples:Some people complain about too many religious debates.Others about personal attacks and trolls.They talk about leaving the site.etc.
But the problem is not the site. The site attracks very many different types of people with different styles and level of debating skills. There are different age groups, nationalities, political persuations, religions, education, etc. You are bound to meet a lot of people you don't like and/or agree with.
This site has mechanisms in place that allow you to find the people you enjoy debating with. You can use the site's capability to search for the the types of debates that interest you. You can read through the arguments and identify people you want to argue with. You can then use the site's capability to create your own community and use the site's message capability to invite those people to your community. If undesirebles show up, the site offers the capability to ban them.
There's no reason to look for another site; build the site you envision and moderate it the way you think it ought to be run using the capabilities provided by the site.
If you build it, they will come.
Hopefully not in your eye.
Human rights activists and environmentalists will love this story.
The Ecuadorean Constitution declares that their lands are “irreducible and intangible,” that the state guarantees their voluntary remove from the rest of the world, and that any extractive activities on lands of the uncontacted tribes is to be considered ethnocide.
Four decades of drilling by foreign companies in the oil-rich province of Sucumbíos left behind little but an 85 percent poverty rate, cancer rates of 31 percent and a 20-year-old class-action lawsuit against Chevron for profligate pollution that still hasn’t been resolved.
Since Correa’s “21st century socialism” government was elected in 2007, the state has spent more than $1 million to promote the Yasuni ITT Initiative: a scheme for foreign governments and corporations to pledge money to spare the ITT from oil extraction. The Initiative hyped the ITT land as “the most biodiverse place on Earth” and home to thousands of endangered species, as well as uncontacted tribes. Here was the audacious offer to the world: If the ITT fund reached $3 billion by this year, half of what the 845 million barrels of crude underground Yasuni ITT is said to be worth, then Ecuador would not drill there.
When the deadline for the initiative came and went this summer, Correa announced that “the world failed us.” In August, he officially asked the National Assembly to approve drilling in Yasuni ITT, and they did.
Although Correa (the Ecuadorian president) may have jumped from “Save the Yasuni and the Taromenane!” to “Drill, baby, drill,” in a matter of weeks, most Ecuadoreans weren’t ready to make that leap.
Ogaz saw the Yasuni ITT initiative as a promise to Ecuadoreans that the country could end its dependency on oil for income, and find an alternate (and sustainable) way to develop. If that promise is broken, he says, Correa’s radical reform is a lie. “The rich are getting richer in this country, now more than ever,” he says. “Why can’t we get the money from them, instead of putting more pressure on the most vulnerable people?”
OkCupid, match.com and eHarmony promise the world, but are actually incentivised to keep you alone, furiously and miserably clicking through thousands of profiles in the hope of finding love.
We should change the definition of the N-Word to something that is not offensive to anyone. Change it to something like "a very dear and close friend."We have changed the definitions of, "Looter," "Marriage," "Man," "Woman," "Gender," etc.. Changing the definition of the N-Word would just be one more word in the mix of words that have been redefined.