Reminds me of the speech that Nixon would've given had the Apollo 11 astronauts been stranded on the Moon:
"Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.
These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.
They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by the nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.
In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.
In ancient days, men looked at the stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.
Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.
For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind."
"When President Donald Trump closed a nearly $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on Saturday, his deputies’ spirits soared...The weapons sale was one of the largest in history, totaling close to $110 billion worth of tanks, artillery, radar systems, armored personnel carriers, and Blackhawk helicopters. The package also included ships, patrol boats, Patriot missiles, and THAAD missile defense systems.
Much of that military hardware will likely be pressed into service in the Saudi fight against its neighbor Yemen, where more than 10,000 people have been killed over more than two years of heavy airstrikes and fighting."
If she's really paying $300/week, then absolutely. Checking Enterprise's website shows that my local Enterprise would rent me a small car for a week starting tomorrow for $225 (including taxes and fees).
But in the long run, this won't significantly affect the supply of bitcoin because the hash difficulty will just adjust, right? That's in contrast to cocaine, where the crackdown may very well lead to long-term supply shifts, causing the price to rise. But I guess maybe if a significant amount of coins get trapped in accounts held by Chinese citizens, it would make a difference.
This is because some corporations make a lot more profit than others.
"Amazon's corporate income tax bill is so small, though, because its corporate income (aka profit) is so small. Wal-Mart's pretax income since 2008 has totaled $209 billion, Amazon's less than $11 billion. So while Amazon's rise to fifth-biggest market cap in the world on the strength of such small earnings is a fascinating and perhaps disturbing phenomenon, it doesn't necessarily signal a problem with our system of corporate taxation."
Do you happen to have a good source on this experiment being part of MK Ultra? As far as I can tell this article doesn't mention MK Ultra at all, and I can't seem to find much else that explicitly says this experiment was part of MK Ultra.
From 2011, and he means 259684 BTC for under $3000 total instead of for under $3000 each. If he was hodling until now and didn't get burned by Gox going under, he's insanely rich (assuming he can cash out without crashing the market).
Indeed, and yet the market cap of these cryptocurrencies has grown much faster than that of almost any company you could name over the last few years. (Yes, I know that's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but apparently a lot of people, myself not included, are willing to take the risk.)
Which is why most publicly-traded companies would get the SEC seal of approval in my hypothetical scenario--institutional investors (which I think own most of the U.S. stock market) would demand it.
I'm not terribly happy with the decision, though I can't say I'm surprised. I enjoy the drama of the Wild West that is Ethereum and the rest of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Minimal regulation encourages innovation, while regulated markets can exist for people who want stability and certain guarantees to prevent fraud (or at least make it difficult).
I wonder what would happen if financial regulations became more "optional". I.e. the SEC exists to provide guarantees if a given company wanted to get the SEC's seal of approval but does not enforce most regulations on entities that don't seek SEC approval (and thus investors would know such entities are riskier). I suppose eventually a "too big to fail" company would avoid regulation and consequently go under, and that would be the end of that.
What exactly does "signature management" mean in this context? Cloaking?