It finds all the pictures on Instagram with the hashtag #forsale, post them on Craigslist, and contact the seller through Instagram when a buyer emails the Craigslist contact info.
there is a lot of activity in this sector right now, including some VC funded startups, the approach they are taking is to grab instagram #forsale pics then post it on their own storefront site
Yes; for people participating in an employee stock purchase program, it is called a Disqualifying Disposition. It puts you in the short-term capital gains bracket (with about 15% higher tax).
However, it's still a VERY good idea to do if you plan on holding stock.
I know stories of several people who were exercised options on 7 figures of stock, only to see the price collapse before they were able to sell. The taxes they owed because of that eclipsed their net worth several times over.
It's an excellent idea if you can do it - but sometimes you can't - e.g. If you are in the 6 month lockup period following an IPO or grant or other SEC rule 144 event. It runs afoul of said law to even hedge with options or on the open market.
Agreed. His argument is essentially that you can't meet deadlines with Scrum, because you must always be in a 'shippable' state at the end of each sprint.
I'd argue that if you can't meet deadlines with scrum, there's no way you'd meet them without it. His definition of 'shippable' is very narrow--like you said, just because it doesn't meet console certifications doesn't mean that it's not "doing scrum".
I wouldn't put the app I've got after the first dev sprint on the app store, either. It's not done.
On the contrary: in a world filled with a cacophony of malicious and intentionally misleading statements, the silence caused by the criminalization of lies seems welcome.
It seems obvious to me that such a law would have a dramatically chilling effect on public discussion, leading, inevitably, toward a North Korea or Iran type of situation, where you dare not say anything at all. After all, who decides what is a lie, and what is not? Remember that the people who make this determination will almost certainly change in the future.
That this is aimed squarely at "lies" about political elite (people running for political office), is even more troubling.
How can anybody who values freedom at all, think this is a good idea?
Kudos for raising the 'chilling effect'. People who agitate for -insane- laws which can be applied to speech (whether lying, name-calling or whatever) have no concept of the chilling effect that laws have on discourse.
A lot of people seem to agitate for the ability to use the power of the state to shut up their enemies or critics, failing to realise that when they silence their enemies, they also silence themselves.
In many cases, the process itself is the punishment. Who wants to go to court, hire lawyers, stress and time to defend themselves against an accusation, even when you are overwhelmingly correct? The far easier choice is to shut it and say nothing. That is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. Even well-known journalists and opinion writers with the legal resources of large media companies have better things to spend their money and time on.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of all freedoms. Yes, that means the freedom to lie, the freedom to say nasty things, the freedom to be unpatriotic. Grant the freedom of speech and you can use it to defend all other freedoms.
The best defense against lies is the freedom to stand up and call it as one.
Because lies are detrimental. Ideally, we would be able to outlaw lies in public discourse, and humanity would be better off for it. Practically, of course, it is nigh impossible.
The Bush administration told lies to go to war. If they knew there might be criminal repercussions to such a thing it might have very well saved lives. Hence, in this context it is a good idea.
But again, the practically of the situation makes such laws difficult to craft, to say the least.
> If they knew there might be criminal repercussions to such a thing it might have very well saved lives.
A war of aggression is already a crime against humanity, which is a capital crime.
It's really a matter of enforcement. From the "Least untruthful" to the people who unleashed multi-trillion dollar wars on a pack of lies, the laws are there already.
What would that be? Iran has a semi-independent press, open elections, publishing and popular culture export and import, and industrial work outside government blacklists. North Korea is more like one giant concentration camp than a country in the usual sense. They have little in common.
North Korea is an executive dictatorship. Iran, to the extent they are a dictatorship, is a judicial one. One could argue that ancient Athens was a legislative dictatorship. Iran has more in common with classical Greece than they do with North Korea though. And you can see the influence (albeit filtered through Islamic commentaries) of Plato's Republic on the form of government.
> seems obvious to me that such a law would have a dramatically chilling effect
Why would that seem obvious to you? Are you in the habit of lying about politicians in order to influence elections? Do you believe most people are?
If you believe few people lie in this context, then there's not much chilling effect. And if you believe a lot of people lie in this context, it would seem that the law would be sorely needed.
> And if you believe a lot of people lie in this context, it would seem that the law would be sorely needed.
can you explain why a law against lying would stop people from lying? Feel free to use examples such as the wildly successful america experiment with prohibition, or perhaps the ongoing wars on drug and terrorism to prove your point.
I believe politicians will claim that unfavorable facts are lies, placing the burden of proofs and costs of defense on me, even though they're the ones lying.
This is true, and I would fully support this law if politicians would be fully charged with under the law after every campaign speech....
This still seems like a non-solution to me. It seems like if we accept that governments are by nature corrupt, then the question is how to have a theory and structure of government that appropriately cabins that corruption.
And Ebay was the first mover in the online auction space. I'm sure we can cherrypick counterexamples all day, but in general the first mover enjoys an advantage those that come after do not.
MtGox should absolutely have known about this issue. Everyone building anything related to BTC should know not to make assumptions about the protocol, and to treat every input as hostile.
You'd think they'd have at least one guy dedicated to nothing but breaking their software. They make my salary every day with transaction fees (well, maybe until recently) so you can't say they're unable to afford it.
Edit: Rereading this, it sounds more accusatory than I intended. I think your clarification was perfect, but at the same time that MtGox is at fault.
