Select Page ::

Native Americans are getting cheated again by a white president … – Los Angeles Times

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

To the editor: I am a Japanese American who was born at the Manzanar internment camp during World War II, so although I am not a Native American, I can empathize with them in their betrayal by the federal government over the Bears Ears National Monument proclamation. (Shrinking Utah's Bears Ears National Monument would be one more broken promise to Native Americans, Opinion, June 19)

The Trump administrations plan to shrink the Utah monument, one that native communities worked with the Obama administration to create in 2016, fits into a pattern of broken treaties by the federal government against many Native American nations throughout U.S. history.

The push westward and the establishment of communities by white settlers supported militarily by the U.S. government resulted in the killing and forced evacuation of Native American nations. During this period, treaties were signed by the U.S. but broken to meet the needs and demands of the encroaching settlers.

Please fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address below. Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. This information is seen only by the letters editors and is not used for any commercial purpose. We generally do not publish...

It took a black president to establish Bears Ears, and now a white president and a white Interior secretary want to scale it back.

Larry Naritomi, Monterey Park

To the editor: I am optimistic that the people of Utah will continue to evolve in the understanding of their shared history of Bears Ears National Monument. There is a sacred history in Utah that is not smeared with hate and should be valued beyond extraction of resources.

Im betting on conscious evolution.

Patti Blair, Coronado

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Continue reading here:

Native Americans are getting cheated again by a white president ... - Los Angeles Times

Elon Musk Releases Detailed Plans for Colonizing Mars and Other Planets – Big Think

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Having previously teased that he'd like to put one million people on Mars, tech billionaire and serial enterpreneur Elon Musk released the specifics of his plan to colonize space. His paper "Making Humans a Multi-Planetary Species" outlines what kind of technology humans will need to make that dream a reality, including how to build a city on Mars, as well as the timeline for this endeavor.

Musk proposes that it's a necessity to make humans a space-faring civilization, citing the inevitable "doomsday event" that will befall us sooner or later. One big goal in making us a "multi-planetary species" would be to create a city on Mars that works not just an outpost but as a self-sustaining settlement that will drive the planet's colonization.

The SpaceX, Neuralink, and Tesla Motors CEO sees Mars as the best destination for such a city because it has conditions better suited for a human colony than other planets - it has atmosphere, it's rich in resources, its day is 24.5 hours, similar to Earth's. In fact, the red planet is so similar to Earth that "if we could warm Mars up, we would once again have a thick atmosphere and liquid oceans," writes Musk.

Here's how Musk compared Earth and Mars head to head:

The big problem in getting people to Mars now? Exorbitant costs of about $10 billion per person, if we were to use traditional "Appolo-style" approaches. Musk wants that number to go down by 5 million percent. If the number is closer to $200,000 per person (a median house price in the U.S.), Mars colonization would become a reality. Musk sees this number dropping even lower eventually, to below $100,000 per person.

How would Musk bridge that gap? Most of the improvement would come from rocket reusability, while other cost savings would lie in figuring out how to refill in orbit and produce propellant on Mars. Choosing the right propellant is also important. Musk says methane would be easier and cheaper to harvest on Mars than, for example, hydrogen.

Getting people to Mars and other planets would be the job of the Interplanetary Transport System, which will feature a booster and a spaceship powered by the Raptor engine, currently in development by SpaceX. It will be 3 times more powerful than the engine currently powering the Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX.

The booster, which Musk aims to make reusable up to a 1,000 times, would have 42 Raptorengines, making it the most powerful rocket in history. The booster would also be capable of launching 300 metric tons into low Earth orbit. Compare that to NASA's Saturn V moon rocket which could lift 135 metric tons.

Here's how the whole system that SpaceX is looking to implement would operate:

Musk also gives some details on how a trip to Mars aboard one of his ships would look like - a trip he estimates would take about 115 days. It's important to make such a journey "fun and exciting," with zero-gravity games, movies, lecture halls, cabins and a restaurant, Musk writes.

Once we figure out how to get humans to Mars in an efficient and consistent manner, Musk imagines that the colony there would need a million people for a self-sustaining city. To get them there would require 1,000 ships, each carrying 100 people. With travelling to the red planet possible every 26 months thanks to having to wait for favorable alignment with Earth, the whole process of colonizing Mars would take about 40-100 years after the first ship goes, which is currently planned for 2023.

Musk also considers going to other parts of the solar system by envisioning a system of planet or moon hopping. Besides creating and improving spacecraft, the key for further colonization of space would be to establish propellant depots in the asteroid belt or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. That would enable flights to these and other planets.

How realistic are Musk's plans? The prolific enterpreneur has a proven track record in methodically carrying out his visions. He also sees the colonization of Mars as such a personal priority that he says he's making money primarily for that purpose:

"I should also add that the main reason I am personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this. I really do not have any other motivation for personally accumulating assets except to be able to make the biggest contribution I can to making life multi-planetary," writes Musk.

Scott Hubbard, the editor-in-chief of New Space, a peer-reviewed space exploration journal that published the paper, thinks Musk's paper is a great jumping-off point for further discussion:

"In my view, publishing this paper provides not only an opportunity for the spacefaring community to read the SpaceX vision in print with all the charts in context, but also serves as a valuable archival reference for future studies and planning. My goal is to make New Space the forum for publication of novel exploration conceptsparticularly those that suggest an entrepreneurial path for humans traveling to deep space, said Hubbard.

You can read Musk's paper here.

Here is the original post:

Elon Musk Releases Detailed Plans for Colonizing Mars and Other Planets - Big Think

NATO jet intercepts Russian minister’s plane – CNN

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Correspondents for RIA and TASS both reported the incident based on what they saw from the minister's plane. They said the NATO jet was "driven off" by a Russian Su-27 fighter, which "demonstrated" its armament by swinging its wings.

A NATO official confirmed that three Russian aircraft, including two fighters, were tracked over the Baltic Sea Wednesday.

"As the aircraft did not identify themselves or respond to air traffic control, NATO fighter jets scrambled to identify them, according to standard procedures. NATO has no information as to who was on board. We assess the Russian pilots' behaviour as safe and professional," the official said.

The same NATO official added that all sides involved acted in a safe and professional manner,

When asked by CNN if the NATO jet was chased away, the official said: "Once identification of the aircraft was complete, our jets broke away as it is standard procedure."

The Russian Defense Ministry has not responded to requests for comment from CNN. A television network run by the ministry released a video online that it described as showing the incident.

Shoigu was on his way to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which is between Moscow and Poland.

Russian state media also reported that a NATO jet shadowed Shoigu's plane when he departed Kalingrad, but did not approach as closely as in the prior incident.

Wednesday's encounter with a NATO jet comes just two days after a Russian Su-27 fighter jet flew within five feet of a US Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft in the skies above the Baltic Sea.

US officials deemed that intercept "unsafe" as the armed Russian jet flew "erratically," in close proximity to the American spy plane.

Russia disputed claims that its aircraft was at fault during the encounter and said it intercepted two US reconnaissance aircraft as they "approached the Russian state border."

There have been more than 30 interactions between Russian and US aircraft and ships near the Baltic Sea since the beginning of June, a US official told CNN. The vast majority of these encounters have been safe and professional, the official added -- a point that adds to the significance of Monday's incident.

"Russia is certainly within its right to exercise within international airspace, but we want them to respect international standards for safety to prevent accidents," said Pentagon spokesperson Capt. Jeff Davis.

"The vast majority of interactions we have, intercepts that occur when we fly and that are intercepted by the Russians are safe. This is an exception, not the norm, but we were again operating in international airspace and did nothing to provoke," Davis said.

These recent intercepts occurred amid rising tensions between Russia and members of NATO -- particularly the US.

Earlier this month, the US Air Force deployed long-range B-52 bombers and 800 airmen to the United Kingdom in support of joint exercises with NATO allies and partners across Europe.

Those exercises have primarily taken place in the Baltic Sea, the Arctic and along Russia's border with several NATO partners.

Over the weekend over 1,000 US and NATO troops conducted a defensive drill in the Suwalki Gap in the border area between Poland and Lithuania. That area is seen by most experts as a likely Russian target in the event of a NATO-Russia military confrontation.

CNN's Oksana Brown, Mary Ilyushina, Pamela Boykoff, Emma Burrows and Ryan Browne contributed to this report.

NATO jet intercepts Russian minister's plane - CNN

NATO jet approached plane carrying Russian defense minister, reports say – Washington Post

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

MOSCOW A NATO F-16 fighter jet approached and was then warned away from a jet carrying Russias defense minister, Russian media reported Wednesday, the latest in a string of aerial incidents that have marked rising tensions between the West and Russia.

The incident occurred over the Baltic Sea in northeastern Europe, according to reporters traveling with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, in international airspace crowded with Russian and NATO jets testing one anothers nerve in sometimes dangerous proximity.

But no incidents yet had involved aircraft with high-ranking Russian or U.S. government officials aboard.

NATO confirmed the intercept, saying in an emailed statement that three Russian aircraft, including two fighters, had been tracked over the Baltic Sea. As the aircraft did not identify themselves or respond to air traffic control, NATO fighter jets scrambled to identify them, according to standard procedure, the statement read. NATO has no information as to who was on board. We assess the Russian pilots behavior as safe and professional.

The brush comes after days of close calls over the Baltics, as well as the first downing of a Syrian government plane by U.S. forces in that war-torn country. In response to the shoot-down, Russia said it would begin tracking U.S. aircraft in Syria as potential targets.

[U.S. aircraft shoots down Syrian warplane, Pentagon says]

Despite expectations that relations would warm under President Trump, a vocal admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, geopolitical hot spots from the Baltics to the Middle East have continued yielding tensions where U.S. and Russian military assets are in proximity.

The Ukrainian conflict has also remained a point of tension. The U.S. government on Tuesday introduced new sanctions against Russia, aimed at a shadowy paramilitary group called Wagner accused of fighting in Ukraine and Syria, as well as a company tied to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Putin associate sometimes called Putins chef.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Wednesday that he was canceling an upcoming meeting with the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, Thomas A. Shannon Jr., in St. Petersburg because of the new round of sanctions, which target 38 Russian individuals and firms.

We regret that Russia has decided to turn away from an opportunity to discuss bilateral obstacles that hinder U.S.-Russia relations, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement Wednesday. ... If the Russians seek an end to these sanctions, they know very well the U.S. position: Our sanctions on Russia related [to] Russias ongoing aggression against Ukraine will remain in place until Russia fully honors its obligations under the Minsk Agreements. Our sanctions related to Crimea will not be lifted until Russia ends its occupation of the peninsula.

Trump and Putin were expected to meet for the first time next month during a Group of 20 summit in Hamburg. The meeting has been highly anticipated, a first encounter between two men who believe they can make use of each other despite a U.S. establishment livid over Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

But on Wednesday, Dmitry Peskov, Putins press secretary, said that there were no plans yet for a meeting.

It has not been prepared in any way for now, and nothing has been planned for July 7 so far, he told journalists, adding that the Kremlin does not rule out a meeting between Putin and Trump on the sidelines of the conference.

Peskov had previously said that the G-20 summit would be a good occasion to meet.

Asked by a Washington Post reporter whether his remarks Wednesday indicated doubt that a meeting would take place, he replied, It is still a good occasion.

There are concerns that the U.S.-Russian tensions could be playing out in the Baltics.

[Russian fighter intercepts U.S. heavy bomber over Baltic Sea]

On Tuesday, the Pentagon said that an armed Russian Su-27 buzzed an American RC-135 reconnaissance plane, closing to a distance of five feet. U.S. officials told Fox News that the maneuver was provocative. Russian officials blamed the pilot of the U.S. spy plane.

On Wednesday, Shoigus jet was bound for the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad when it was intercepted by an F-16, the Russian reports said.

The NATO jet closed in and began flying parallel to Shoigus plane, video shot on board and released by the Defense Ministrys Zvezda news agency showed.

A Russian Su-27 fighter accompanying Shoigus plane then approached from behind and rocked its wings to show that it was armed. Then, the F-16 veered off.

NATO and Russia are building up their defenses in the Baltic region, where former Soviet states (and now NATO members) Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia border Russia.

Since 2016, NATO has deployed four battalion-size battle groups to the Baltic states and Poland as part of what a NATO statement calls the biggest reinforcement of Alliance collective defense in a generation.

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

See original here:

NATO jet approached plane carrying Russian defense minister, reports say - Washington Post

Bipartisan House leaders unveil resolution endorsing NATO’s Article 5 – The Hill

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Bipartisan House leaders have introduced a measure reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations mutual defense clause after President Trump declined to do so in a speech abroad last month.

Top leaders, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanDems point fingers after crushing loss Savor the flavor of Georgia win, GOP. Midterms will be different. Bipartisan House leaders unveil resolution endorsing NATOs Article 5 MORE (R-Wis.), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), unveiled the resolution on Wednesday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are also co-sponsors.

Hoyer's office noted he had been working on the resolution since visiting Denmark, Belgium, Lithuania, and Estonia to reaffirm NATO commitments around the time of Trump's speech. He spearheaded the measure upon his return to Washington and collaborated with McCarthy and other top Republicans to garner bipartisan support.

With Russia continuing its aggression in Eastern Europe and its cyberwar against the worlds democracies, NATO is as relevant as it ever was during the Cold War. I hope the House will take a strong, bipartisan vote to pass this resolution soon, he added.

During a speech before NATO leaders in late May, Trump scolded U.S. allies for not spending enough on defense.

Trump also declined to explicitly endorse NATOs Article 5, which states that a threat to one member nation is a threat to all.

NATO allies found Trumps omission particularly striking given that his speech was delivered at the dedication of a memorial dedicated to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. That has been the only time NATO invoked Article 5.

Vice President Pence and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley have since said that the U.S. still supports NATOs Article 5.

Bipartisan House leaders unveil resolution endorsing NATO's Article 5 - The Hill

Threats, NATO Demands Underpin Global Arms Demand – Voice of America

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

PARIS

Military conflicts and growing threats around the world continue to underpin demand for weapons, but industry and government leaders from the United States, Europe, Russia and the Middle East say they don't see a huge near-term spike in arms orders.

Executives report being busier than ever at this year's Paris Airshow, the oldest and biggest aerospace expo in the world, which featured aerial acrobatics by Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 fighter jet.

But they caution that foreign arms sales take years to complete, and NATO governments must get through lengthy budget and bureaucratic processes before they can raise military spending to meet a NATO target for members to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

No big spurt seen

"We're seeing some growth, but I like to be pragmatic. I'm not seeing a big tick up in defense spending across the board," Leanne Caret, who heads Boeing's defense business, told Reuters in an interview. Her division generates about 40 percent of its revenues overseas, a big change from just several years ago.

Boeing officials expect steady gains in weapons sales, but warn against expectations for any kind of "gold rush" despite U.S. President Donald Trump's pledge to boost military spending, saying there may be more of a shift in what platforms and weapons programs are in demand.

Recent increases in tensions between Russia and the United States have raised concerns about another arms race, but top officials in both countries agree that there will not be a mad rush to bulk up on weapons.

Moscow's top arms trade official, Dmitry Shugaev, told reporters at the show that Russian weapon makers remained competitive despite Western sanctions, but the cyclical nature of the business and budget constraints are dampening prospects for a big surge in global arms sales.

He also expressed skepticism that NATO members would rapidly increase their military budgets, despite pledging to move toward the 2 percent goal.

Trump position

Trump's public declarations that NATO members are not pulling their weight may have had some impact. Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics business leader, Orlando Carvalho, said national security budgets and military systems' demand outside the United States are beginning to increase, "especially with the focus that the president has put on NATO."

In 2016, total world military expenditure rose 0.4 percent to $1.69 trillion, according the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The European Union's economic and financial affairs commissioner, Pierre Moscovici, also cited that risk, warning that European countries needed to match political pledges to boost military spending with actual resource commitments.

"There is now a window of opportunity for investing more in European defense ... but as with all windows, a window closes if you don't go through it," he said.

Gradual increases in Europe

Germany and other European countries are boosting military spending, concerned about terrorism and Russia's increasingly assertive military stance after its annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, but the increases are likely to be more gradual than dramatic.

In the missile defense arena, Western concerns about rapid advances in technology by North Korea, China and Iran, as well as Russia's increased military activities, are driving orders for a range of defensive systems, according to U.S. and European executives.

"The threat is absolutely increasing and it's increasing rapidly," said Tim Cahill, vice president of air and missile defense systems at Lockheed. "In every region around the world, the level of interest in integrated air and missile defense has been going up in the last few months."

Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems, said he was meeting with officials from countries that had not shown any interest in missile defense systems just four or five years ago.

"Back then, they didn't see a ballistic missile threat, or they didn't see Russia as a threat, but now that has changed," he said.

Threats, NATO Demands Underpin Global Arms Demand - Voice of America

US says F-35 shows NATO commitment as rumors fly of massive deal – CNBC

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

The U.S. Department of Defense says the presence of the world's most expensive fighter jet in Paris is a clear sign of the U.S. commitment to NATO.

The F-35A took to the skies above the French capital on Monday, wowing the crowd with a series of high- and low-speed maneuvers.

Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said the exhibition was an example of the willingness of the U.S. Air Force to work with allies.

"The presence of the U.S. F-35A at this Paris Air Show shows a degree of cooperation with our partners. And the NATO region will very soon further embrace the F-35Bs in the United Kingdom," he said in a panel presentation Monday. "The more we sit together side by side and think through ways to better integrate the better. That is exactly what is happening at this air show."

Wolters added that training allies in the operation of the F-35 was part of the wider goal to create a strong NATO force.

"I'm the NATO air chief. We wake up and our goal is to train and exercise like there is no tomorrow and our purpose is to take that NATO force and with each and every hour, minute, second we want a gradual improvement in our readiness.

"And that means that we will be ready for every occurrence that could take place in the region with the aim of protecting the sovereign land and skies of NATO members," he added.

The F-35 has been criticized for being too expensive, but news agency Reuters is reporting that people familiar with the matter say the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is on the brink of a huge $37 billion deal to sell 440 F-35 fighter jets to 11 nations.

U.S. President Donald Trump has called NATO obsolete and has rebuked European allies for not spending enough on defense.

Speaking at the same presentation, Heidi Grant, deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for International Affairs, said it is clear that NATO countries have been getting the message for some time.

"My observation is that years ago many countries depended on the U.S. but I think that in the last several years our partners are realizing that our stocks and munitions aren't what they used to be," she said.

Follow CNBC International on Twitter and Facebook.

Watch: Inside the F-35

Read the original post:

US says F-35 shows NATO commitment as rumors fly of massive deal - CNBC

Honda shuts down factory after finding NSA-derived Wcry in its networks – Ars Technica

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

The WCry ransomware worm has struck again, this time prompting Honda Company to halt production in one of its Japan-based factories after finding infections in a broad swath of its computer networks, according to media reports.

Honda officials didn't explain why engineers found WCry in their networks 37 days after the kill switch was activated. One possibility is that engineers had mistakenly blocked access to the kill-switch domain. That would have caused the WCry exploit to proceed as normal, as it did in the 12 or so hours before the domain was registered. Another possibility is that theWCry traces in Honda's networks were old and dormant, and the shutdown of the Sayama plant was only a precautionary measure. In any event, the discovery strongly suggests that as of Monday, computers inside the Honda network had yet to install a highly critical patch thatMicrosoft released in March.

In May, it was hard to excuse so many companies not yet applying a two-month-old patch to critical systems that were vulnerable to advanced NSA exploit code put into the public domain. The failure is even harder to forgive five weeks later, now that WCry's wake of destruction has come into full view.

Read the original:

Honda shuts down factory after finding NSA-derived Wcry in its networks - Ars Technica

The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? – Psychiatric Times

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

The use of the death penalty in the Americas dates to the 15th century when European settlers brought with them the practice of capital punishment. Because nowhere in the US Constitution is capital punishment explicitly addressed, the death penalty was imbued with intrinsic constitutionality by the Founding Fathers. The Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment (due process clause) of the Bill of Rights have attempted to provide guidelines on how capital punishment should be handled. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital [crime], unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, while the Eighth Amendment states that nor cruel and unusual punishments [be] inflicted.

Although the death penalty was viewed as an acceptable form of punishment at the time the US Constitution was created, it did not take long for various states to begin to limit or even ban such practices. The first state to do so was Michigan in 1846. Today, 31 states still permit capital punishment. Although this number may represent a majority of the states, it may not represent the true national mood regarding capital punishment because many of these states have not had an execution in more than 10 years.

Evolving standards

Over the years, the US Supreme Court has ruled on many cases that have addressed the topic of evolving standards of decency in regards to the Eighth Amendment. The 1910 Supreme Court case Weems v US helped define the notion of evolving standards as a basis to view historically accepted punishments as no longer acceptable in modern society. In the Weems case, a man was sentenced to multiple years of hard and painful labor [in chains] for the crime of falsifying documents.

Although the use of irons was common in the 1700s, the Court found that its use was not appropriate for a sentence in the 1900s. The term evolving standards of decency was coined by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Trop v Dulles (1958) when he noted that, when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, evolving standards of decency . . . mark the progress of a maturing society.1,2

The 1972 case of Furman v Georgia (1972) resulted in a brief national moratorium on the death penalty because of a 5 to 4 ruling that [the death penalty] could not be imposed under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.3 In an unusual scenario, each justice wrote his own opinion, with Justices Brennan and Marshall citing evolving standards of decency to explain why they believed the death penalty was unconstitutional.

The landmark cases of Atkins v Virginia (2002) and Roper v Simmons (2005) determined that because of evolving standards of decency, certain definable groups such as individuals with intellectual disability and minors could not be sentenced to death.4,5 In both instances, the Court, within a relatively short period, revisited the issue of an evolving standard after already having ruled on the issue, ie, execution of people with intellectual deficiencies previously addressed in Penry v Lynaugh (1989) and certain youths in Stanford v Kentucky (1989).6,7 The majority opinion for Atkins v Virginia, written by Justice Stevens, noted that the consistency of the direction of change, but not so much the number of these States [prohibiting the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities], was important in determining an evolving standard.4

The cases of Atkins v Virginia and Roper v Simmons are particularly interesting because the opinions were based on legal as well as scientific and medical principles. The legal principles that were discussed included whether the death penalty had a deterrent effect for these populations and whether these populations were at a fundamental disadvantage in defending themselves in the court system against the ultimate irreversible punishment. In Atkins v Virginia, Justice Stevens wrote, . . . frequently [individuals with intellectual disability] know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial . . . [but] because of their impairments . . . by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others.4

The Death Penalty and Mental Illness: An Evolving Standard? - Psychiatric Times

Marty Daniel We Have a Pro-Second Amendment President: Now What? – Breitbart News

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Yet despite things seemingly going our way, I cant help but keep asking myself one question: Now what?

What should we freedom lovers who believe so strongly in defending our Second Amendment rights do next? Should we rest on our laurels? Or should we continue to fight, while we have the numbers, to not only maintain the status quo but gain back some of the valuable ground weve lost over the years? I strongly believe its the latter, and that maintaining and gaining ground requires a three-pronged approach: (1) keep giving, (2) keep communicating and voting, and (3) keep recruiting.

Keep Giving

Its human nature to figure that, since things seem to be going our way, we dont need to give quite as much money, time, and effort to support the organizations on the front lines of the battle for our Second Amendment rights. In reality, people get comfortable and dont feel their way of life is at risk, so they scale back their contributions. For those that are aware of this, and are willing, we need to dig deeper, and give more to compensate the natural decline.

Im guilty of feeling this way myself. But I know that now, more than ever, organizations like the NRA, the NSSF, and ASA need our support, especially financially. If donations go down, those who seek to curtail our gun rights only gain strength and momentum. So I encourage you all to continue supporting the organizations that do much of the heavy lifting in support of the Second Amendment.

Keep Communicating and Voting

We need to stay vigilant in communicating not only with each other but also with our legislators. Second Amendment supporters now have the pulpit, but if we stop conveying our desires to those who make and enforce our nations laws, we could lose ground even though we hold most of the cards. I implore all of you to stay on top of your legislators and let your voice be heard. Believe me when I tell you the other side will do all they can to make sure their voices, and wishes, dont fall on deaf ears.

We have two bills that should get voted on this year that take back some of the freedoms we have lost over the years: The Hearing Protection Act and the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. I encourage you to vote for Representatives that support these two bills and to vote against those who do not.

Keep Recruiting

I dont know if recruiting is the best word, but I do know this: Were going to ultimately lose the battle if we dont introduce more people to shootingespecially the younger generation. At age 54, I still vividly recall the day and the experience as a youth, when I took a hunter safety course and got a chance to shoot skeet for the first time. This is an opportunity for you to take someone you know shooting. It will be an experience they will always remember.

Formative experiences like this go a long way toward encouraging younger people to learn about and develop an affinity toward firearms and Second Amendment rights. And its precisely these young people well need to carry on the fight. Along with introducing younger people to shooting, supporting organizations such as the Friends of the NRA, which raises funds for the future of shooting sports, is very important.

Lets not forget the importance of introducing women to shooting. Its definitely something women can, and should, enjoy as well. This is evidenced by my wife, Cindy. She recently told me, I think its important, when introducing a new female shooter into the sport, that they are comfortable with the environment and the trainer, as well as the equipment. Its all part of the experience. Having equipment that best fits the new shooter, a respected and inviting range, and the right people, will make for a better experience.

I would encourage every shooter, male or female; to take a lady shooting and expose them to the activity/sport you enjoy so much yourselves. Maybe even teach them on a suppressed weapon, so they dont react to the bang and the recoil, which the suppressor helps mitigate. We need their support, and getting themas well as our youthaboard ensures the Second Amendment will remain strong. This will also create opportunities the whole family can enjoy.

So remember, the stakes are simply too high to let up. Even though the pendulum seems to be swinging our way at the moment, we need to play to win. Had the Falcons been playing to win-instead of playing not to lose in the second half of the Super Bowl they would be champions today! We have not won this battle. It is only half-time and we must play to win. We have to continue to give and give big; we have to communicate with our legislators and vote for our issues; we must make every effort to recruit and bring new people to the shooting sports. Lets play to win!

Marty Daniel is the president, CEO, and founder of Daniel Defense and a guest columnist for Bullet Points with AWR Hawkins.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post:

Marty Daniel We Have a Pro-Second Amendment President: Now What? - Breitbart News

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is a hypocrite on the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

What can powerless, concerned citizens do in response to President Trump's move to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement?

Here's a pretty good answer from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.:

If you haven't joined an environmental group, join one. If your voice needs to be heard, get active. If you are a big corporation with good climate policies that has shied away from engaging politically, it's time to engage.

Taken from his official statement on the withdrawal, Whitehouse describes exactly the type of activity the First Amendment was written to protect. When government takes action that citizens find objectionable, the First Amendment protects their right to organize, petition, and speak out. In other words, it protects the right to "get active."

Unfortunately, Whitehouse has spent his political career promoting efforts to hamper just this sort of civic engagement.

He uses the megaphone that comes with his position of power to rail against the rights of advocacy groups that choose to respect the privacy of their donors. And he supports bills that would cripple all but the most well-funded groups.

Whitehouse has introduced the so-called "DISCLOSE Act" multiple times now. DISCLOSE is a contrived acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."

Whitehouse and his allies say this bill would increase transparency. But the "light" that would be cast would not shine on those in power, such as senators. We wouldn't know anything about what groups or persons he meets with behind closed doors.

Rather, the bill targets citizen groups that seek to hold those in power accountable. Whitehouse would like us to believe that the legitimate interest in government transparency necessitates exposing the personal information of private citizens who choose to join groups and advocate for social change.

Disclosing the names, addresses, occupations, and employers of citizens who give to advocacy groups exposes people to potential intimidation and harassment. So if his bill became law, fewer are likely to want to join an environmental group. The loss of privacy increases the costs of civic engagement.

The laws drive up compliance costs for groups too. Disclosure laws are very complex. They require groups to file frequent, detailed reports to government agencies. To stay in compliance, groups must hire expensive lawyers and spend resources on exhaustive record-keeping. As a result, Whitehouse is promoting laws that would directly hinder citizens' willingness and ability to "get active."

The DISCLOSE Act is just one part of Whitehouse's endless crusade against the free speech rights of groups he likes to call "dark money" organizations. The pejorative term "dark money" refers to money spent on speech by groups that do not have to publicly report the private information of their donors to the government.

One such "dark money" group is the Sierra Club. Among the most well-known environmental advocacy groups in the nation, it is presumably one of the groups Whitehouse would encourage concerned citizens to join.

The Sierra Club explicitly offers to protect the privacy of its donors, including corporate donors. So, it clearly has supporters who desire anonymity and with good reason. Surely, some of those supporters would choose not to donate if they no longer had this option.

Whitehouse's call for increased political engagement from corporations highlights his apparent myopic view that the First Amendment only applies to advocacy he agrees with as well.

Whitehouse makes no attempt to hide his animus toward corporate political speech. He has repeatedly co-sponsored a constitutional amendment that, among other abominations it would do to the First Amendment, seeks to grant Congress unlimited power to prohibit any corporate entity from spending money on political speech.

No word on whether he favors an exception for corporations with "good" policies on climate change.

It is heartening to see that Whitehouse is now encouraging citizens (and corporations) to engage in political speech instead of yet again attempting to silence opposing viewpoints.

His statement demonstrates that he does indeed understand the value of First Amendment-protected advocacy. However, the statement is also an example of the far too common tendency among many politicians to view only friendly advocacy as legitimate.

The First Amendment protects the right of every American to privately support an environmental group. It also supports the right of every corporation to speak in opposition to the president's actions regarding climate policy.

But Whitehouse must realize that the First Amendment also protects the right of citizens, nonprofit groups, and corporations to engage in political speech he opposes. In the end, his anti-speech objectives will harm the First Amendment rights of his allies as much as his opponents.

Alex Baiocco is a Communications Fellow at the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Virginia.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

Continued here:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is a hypocrite on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Can words kill? Guilty verdict in texting suicide trial raises questions – ABC News

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Michelle Carter's involuntary manslaughter conviction on Friday for sending texts urging her then-boyfriend to commit suicide may be a First Amendment violation, according to experts on free speech.

In announcing his decision, Massachusetts Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz described Carter's behavior three years ago, when she was 17 years old, as "reckless." Her then-boyfriend, Conrad Roy, was 18 years old when he died in July 2014 of carbon monoxide poisoning after locking himself in his truck following the texts from Carter, including one telling him to get back in the car when he got out. Before his death, Roy had searched online for ways to commit suicide, a digital forensic analyst testified in the trial, and he had a history of previous suicide attempts, according to The New York Times.

Carter's case is the first of its kind in which someone has been convicted of manslaughter for using his or her words, First Amendment experts told ABC News.

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.

Here's what experts had to say about the ruling and the First Amendment:

Under the First Amendment, speech cannot be criminalized, except in situations where the speech itself is a crime, such as hate speech or solicitation, Longwood, Florida-based First Amendment attorney Lawrence Walters told ABC News. Walters added that the prosecutors in Carter's case essentially tried to criminalize her words and speech.

Walters said that while "there's no question" that the speech used in Carter's texts was "abhorrent," there's no statute that says you can't encourage someone to commit suicide.

"The First Amendment is there to protect vile and repugnant speech," he said.

The ACLU said in a statement that Carter's conviction "exceeds the limits" of criminal law and "violates free speech protections by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions."

"Mr. Roy's death is a terrible tragedy, but it is not a reason to stretch the boundaries of our criminal laws or abandon the protections of our constitution," said Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts does not have a law making it illegal for someone to encourage or persuade an individual to commit suicide, Segal added.

Prosecutors argued that Carter was reckless when she told Roy to get back in the vehicle, saying that Roy didn't want to die, and therefore Carter caused his death.

Marc John Randazza, free speech attorney and president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, disagreed with the ACLU, saying that the First Amendment "does not simply say that if words are involved, you cannot be held responsible for their consequences."

"That's not how it works," he said. "If that's how it works, how would we ever have the crime of extortion? Extortion is always made of words unless you're really good at inferring what you're gonna do to someone."

Randazza cited the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which states that speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and if it is likely to incite or produce such action.

Randazza said that if there is "clear and present danger of imminent lawless action, and you incite that action, and you know that your incitement will cause that action, you can be held liable for that."

He added that Carter's case isn't different from standing next to a suicidal person on a bridge and encouraging them to jump.

Another issue with Carter's conviction is that prosecutors may have taken her texts out of context by not taking every text into consideration, said First Amendment attorney Jennifer Kinsley, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University.

Kinsley said she read through all of the texts Carter sent to Roy and that their meanings were "all over the place."

"In previous texts, she was encouraging the young man to get help and seek counseling and to not commit suicide," she said. "I think the messages that were used to convict her were pulled out of context."

Speech is to be taken into consideration as a whole, Kinsley said, adding that she believes that was not done in Carter's case.

"This is a very dangerous case in terms of the right of free speech," she said.

Randazza feels that Carter "obviously had no idea how to deal with mental health issues" and speculated that she became "exasperated," which led her to encourage Roy to get back in the truck.

Carter's conviction could have a "very disturbing" and "chilling effect" on free speech, Walters said.

"A condition like this will scare people from speaking their mind -- having a conversation or robust debate -- out of fear that their words will encourage someone to commit criminal behavior," Walters said.

Walters called the ruling a "slippery slope" that may encourage prosecutors and law enforcement to apply laws across the country to criminalize speech.

The ACLU said that if the conviction is "allowed to stand," it could impede "important and worthwhile end-of-life discussions between loved ones across the Commonwealth."

Rather than the historical categorization of the First Amendment, which looks at the speech itself, courts may be trending toward a harm-based interpretation of the First Amendment, which is about how someone may feel when hearing speech, Kinsley said.

Even in cases of slander, the "categories have never been defined by the feeling of the listener," she added.

Carter's case could also have an effect on how cyberbullying on social media is dealt with in the future, Randazza said.

"In the social media age, we are seeing cases like this -- where the emotional harm of the person is being used to define the extent of free speech protection," Kinsley said.

If someone were to commit suicide as a result of online bullying, prosecutors may try to "shoe-in" on the person who did the cyberbullying for manslaughter, Randazza said.

Carter maintained her innocence throughout her trial, and her lawyers argued that Roy was on the "path to take his own life for years."

Both Walters and Kinsey said it is likely that the ruling will be reversed on appeal.

"If the traditional First Amendment analysis is applied, the case should be reversed," Walters said.

"It's a pretty clear First Amendment violation for this young woman to be convicted," Kinsley said.

ABC News' Emily Shapiro contributed to this report.

Read the original:

Can words kill? Guilty verdict in texting suicide trial raises questions - ABC News

Ted Cruz: The First Amendment is not about opinions you agree with. – Caffeinated Thoughts

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Yesterday, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) participated in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

During his opening remarks he offered a passionate defense of the First Amendment which you can watch below:

Below is the transcript of his remarks:

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this very important hearing. Free speech matters. Diversity matters. Diversity of peoples backgrounds, but also diversity of thought. Diversity of ideas. Universities are meant to be a challenging environment for young people to encounter ideas theyve never seen, theyve never imagined, and that they might passionately disagree with. If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused on inculcating and indoctrinating, rather than challenging, we will lose what makes universities great.

The First Amendment is not about opinions you agree with. Its not about opinions that are right and reasonable. The First Amendment is about opinions that you passionately disagree with and the right of others to express them. Its tragic, what is happening at so many American universities where college administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police, deciding what speech is permissible and what speech isnt. You see violent protests the senior Senator from California referred to. In acting effectively, a hecklers veto, where violent thugs come in and say, This particular speaker I disagree what he or she has to say and therefore I will threaten physical violence if the speech is allowed to happen. And far too many colleges and universities quietly roll over and say, Okay, with the threat of violence, we will effectively reward the violent criminals and muzzle the First Amendment.

I saw a recent study from the Knight Foundation that said a majority of college students believe the climate on their campus has prevented people from saying what they believe out of fear of giving offense. What an indictment of our university system. And what does it say about what you think about your own ideas? If ideas are strong, if ideas are right, you dont need to muzzle the opposition. You should welcome the opposition. When you see college faculties and administers being complicit or active players in silencing those with opposing views, what they are saying is they are afraid. They are afraid that their ideas cannot stand the dialectic, cannot stand opposition, cannot stand facts or reasoning or anything on the other side, and it is only through force and power that their ideas can be accepted.

I am one who agrees with John Stewart Mill the best solution for bad ideas, for bad speech, is more speech and better ideas. Are there people with obnoxious ideas in the world? Absolutely. The Nazis are grotesque, and repulsive, and evil. And under out constitution they have a right to speak and the rest of us have a moral obligation to denounce what they say. The Ku Klux Klan are a bunch of racist, bigoted thugs, who have a right to express their views. And we have an obligation then to confront those views which are weak, poisonous, and wrong, and confront them with truth. We dont need to use brute force to silence them because truth is far more powerful than force. This is an important hearing. I thank the witnesses for being here and I thank the chairman for hosting.

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.

View original post here:

Ted Cruz: The First Amendment is not about opinions you agree with. - Caffeinated Thoughts

Mozilla’s new Android browser blocks ads and trackers – Boing Boing

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Mozilla has extended and improved its Firefox Focus browser, heretofore an Ios product, bringing it to Android, with auto-blocking of trackers and ads and making it easy to erase your browser history.

It's the latest entry into the burgeoning market for privacy-oriented mobile browsers that boast performance improvements and battery savings, especially for older devices -- a market that includes Brave, an innovative ad-blocking mobile browser from Mozilla alumnus Brendan Eich, as well as Orfox/Orbot, the Firefox-based Tor browser for Android.

Google has announced that future versions of Chrome will automatically block ads from ad platforms that compete with Google's own ads.

Ad blocking is in Mozilla's DNA: the browser rose to prominence by breaking with Netscape and Internet Explorer's quiet complicity with pop-up ads, once the scourge of the web (and a must-have from the perspective of web publishers and their advertisers), shipping the first popular browser that blocked pop-ups by default.

On iOS, Firefox Focus is basically just a web view with tracking protection. On Android, Firefox Focus is the same, with a few additional features (which are still under consideration for iOS):

* Ad tracker counter Lists the number of ads that are blocked per site while using the app.

* Disable tracker blocker For sites that are not loading correctly, you can disable the tracker blocker to fix the issues.

* Notification reminder When Firefox Focus is running in the background, a notification will remind you so you can easily tap to erase your browsing history.

Firefox Focus uses the same blocking list as Firefoxs Private Browsing mode on Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android.

This list, published under the General Public Licence, is based on the tracking protection rules laid out by the anti-tracking startup Disconnect. Anyone can view that open-source blocklist over on GitHub.

Mozilla launches Firefox Focus for Android [Emil Protalinksi/Venturebeat]

(via /.)

The Kaonashi No-Face Piggy Bank makes the most out of one of the coolest characters in Studio Ghiblis storied history but getting one exported to you from Japan costs an astounding $164. (via Kadrey)

Elly Blue (previously) writes, Bikequity is the 14th issue of my long-running (since 2010) feminist bike zine, Taking the Lane.

Randy Bryce wants to challenge Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan for the First District of Wisconsin, where Ryan beat his most recent Democratic challenger by 35 points.

The Bragi Dash Truly Wireless Smart Earphones are far more than your run of the mill Bluetooth earbuds. While the earpiece design makes these earbuds ideal for exercise and activity, and passive noise cancelling is conducive to a more serene listening experience, these buds go well beyond just playing music.First of all, they can actually []

The Coding Powerhouse eBook Bundlecomprises 9 titles covering everything from front-end web frameworks to cross-platform mobile application development, and its available now in the Boing Boing Store.These books give a detailed overview of current technologies and programming languages. Youll learn how to write modern code for the web using modular JavaScript, as well as application []

COGZ is a game where up to six players compete to see who can fix a mad scientists color-coded machine, and its currently available in the Boing Boing Store.In this Mensa-endorsed tabletop game, players take turns laying gear tiles to connect like-colored segments. Points are scored when complex paths are finished, but your unfinished arrangements []

Original post:

Mozilla's new Android browser blocks ads and trackers - Boing Boing

Nvidia Bear Now Bullish on Cryptocurrency Mining – Investopedia

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Chipmaker Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), which has had a good run in the stock market this year, just added another Wall Street bull to its corner thanks to the rise of cryptocurrency and the need for high-end graphic cards to mine the digital currency.

Pacific Crest Securities, which downgraded Nvidias shares a couple of months ago, reversed itself Tuesday, raising its rating to sector weight from underweight all because of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin. "Meetings with desktop graphics card manufacturers indicated a sharp reversal in sales trends expected for the seasonally weaker 2Q, with surging demand from cryptocurrency miners in China and Eastern Europe," analyst Michael McConnell wrote in a research note to clients Tuesday that was covered by CNBC. "The sharp increase in demand from cryptocurrency miners has rapidly depleted excess channel inventory carried into the quarter."

The analyst also pulled his $99 price target on shares which closed at $157.09. NVDA stock is up more than 55% since the start of the year and, as CNBC pointed out, is about 45% higher since Pacific Crest Securities downgrade it in early April. (See also: Why AMD and Nvidia Are Poised For Their Biggest Drops.)

Pacific Crest isnt the only Wall Street firm that is bullish on Nvidias prospects. People mining for the coins use high-end graphic cards, with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) seeing the most demand. The computer-created coins can either be held or sold for a profit. (See also: What is Bitcoin Mining?)

Earlier this month, RBC Capital analyst Mitch Steves was prompted to reiterate his outperform rating on shares of the chipmaker after running a "thought test" to see how its graphic processor compared with AMD's. Using the GTX 1070, a graphic processor Nvidia introduced last year, and putting it up against AMDs Radeon 580 semiconductor, the analyst set out to see how the chips would perform while mining for Bitcoin and Ethereum, two popular cryptocurrencies. Based on his experiment, Steves found there isnt much difference between the two while mining for Ethereum, but while building a data center environment for Bitcoin, where the cost of electricity becomes more important, the older Nvidia chip performed better than the AMD processor over the course of a year.

With the price of the two currencies skyrocketing in recent weeks, it is not surprising analysts are getting more bullish. Pacific Crest warned in the research note the euphoria could be short lived. "In terms of demand sustainability from the cryptocurrency market, desktop graphics card manufacturers are skeptical, referring to the one-quarter demand surge in 2013, which was followed by an inventory correction," McConnell wrote. "Most desktop graphics card manufacturers surveyed expect strong demand to last until late-July or August, but visibility is extremely low given the volatility in cryptocurrency prices."

Op Ed: How Cryptocurrency Holders Can Diversify While Deferring Taxes – Bitcoin Magazine

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Bitcoin Magazine

Op Ed: How Cryptocurrency Holders Can Diversify While Deferring Taxes
Bitcoin Magazine
With the historic rally in Bitcoin and Ethereum, there are more investors than ever seeking to diversify their newly expanded cryptocurrency holdings. Whether this diversification involves exchanging cryptocurrency for fiat, other cryptocurrencies or a ...
Cryptocurrency Hedge Funds Generate Huge Returns As Bitcoin SurgesValueWalk
Payza Adds 50 Bitcoin Alternatives to its Cryptocurrency ExchangeFinance Magnates
Cryptocurrencies: the world beyond bitcoinsLivemint
MyBroadband -CoinTelegraph -SMN Weekly (blog)
all 40 news articles »

Op Ed: How Cryptocurrency Holders Can Diversify While Deferring Taxes - Bitcoin Magazine

Quantave enters closed beta for unified cryptocurrency liquidity gateway – CryptoNinjas

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Quantave, a London-headquartered company developing trade life-cycle infrastructure for digital assets, officially entered their closed beta-testing phase today. The infrastructure aims to openthe digital asset market to institutional traders and investors, transforming the way they engage and transact, while ensuring the safety and security of their assets. Quantave is now testing the model with its initial partners.

The existing trade-lifecycle infrastructure that underpins the cryptocurrency market has, until now, been largely unsuitable for institutional investors. Accessing liquidity has been complex due to the fragmented nature of the market requiring repetitive onboarding and capital management processes.

Quantaves solution simplifies access to liquidity in the market by providing a secure trade-lifecycle structure that is tried and tested in traditional markets.

For the first time, institutional participants such as family offices, fund managers, hedge funds, FX brokers, market makers and authorized participants will be able to access multiple broker-dealers and exchanges via a unified gateway, reducing complexity and resulting in a deeper pool of liquidity.

To reassure investors that they can engage in the market without conflicts of interest, Quantaves infrastructure incorporates independent, EU regulated intermediaries to provide a clear distinction between the execution and asset safeguarding functions.

Traditional markets have evolved with key roles isolated from each other with the objective of reducing risk and creating healthy competition. We aim to emulate this with our infrastructure. Both institutional investors and liquidity venues will benefit; investors will be able to transact confidently across multiple venues through independent asset safeguarding and execution functions, ultimately reducing risk. Liquidity venues will benefit from an increase in order flow as investors are able to enter the market via a proven channel. This is a very exciting time for this industry and marks a first step to accessing and unlocking liquidity in this increasingly sought after asset class.

Follow this link:

Quantave enters closed beta for unified cryptocurrency liquidity gateway - CryptoNinjas

Top 3 Cryptocurrency Lending Platforms – The Merkle

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

A lot of cryptocurrency users are looking for ways to make their coins generate more revenue. One could argue trading other currencies and assets is the right way to go. Then again, not everyone wants to take this route. Lending Bitcoin on exchanges is another way to generate a small profit over time. Below are three of the main platforms where cryptocurrency lending is quite popular these days.

Surprisingly enough, Japanese exchanges do not shy away from lending services. To many people, this will come as a big surprise. Then again, the open regulation in the country allows for more leniency when it comes to these types of services. Coincheckintroduced cryptocurrency lending quite some time ago, and they recently improved the service even further. As of right now, lenders will earn a maximum interest rate of 5%, which is quite generous.

It is evident the main focus of Coincheck lies on Bitcoin lending. However, the platform also supports additional currencies, including Monero, Factom, Augur, Ether, and XRP. All loans will be refunded together with the usage fee when the loan period ends. It is not possible to exchange currencies by lending them, which is only normal. No lending platform supports that functionality at this time.

Storing funds long-term in an exchange wallet is never a good idea, and the Bitfinex users found that out the hard way about a year ago. That being said, the platform still provides lending services, referred to as Margin Funding. This feature effectively allows users to provide funding in the form of multiple currencies to Bitfinex traders. Users can determine their own return rate, duration, and amount, as is the case with any of these three platforms.

It is rather interesting to note Bitfinex users can lend money in fiat currency as well. Most platforms only support cryptocurrency, yet this exchange is quite different. It is possible to borrow USD as well, which is quite interesting. It is unclear how popular lending is on Bitfinex right now ever since the platform got hacked last year, though. Then again, it is an option well worth considering for everyone who wants to explore lending options in the world of cryptocurrency.

No one will be surprised to learn most of the cryptocurrency-oriented lending is taking place on Poloniex right now. The company has been a great source of lending services over the past few years. Poloniex also supports a wide range of currencies, which certainly helps to move things along. Right now, the platform supports currencies including Bitcoin, Ether, Doge, Dash, Litecoin, and others. There is no fiat currency lending on Poloniex, though, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

There appears to be quite the market for lending on Poloniex, which is good to see. Then again, more competition also means a lot of people will earn a lot less money as a result. Competition in cryptocurrency lending is both a blessing and a curse, depending on how you want to look at it. Right now, the loan offers for Bitcoin are at around 0.15%, which is quite decent. Do keep in mind the loan offers often outweigh the loan demands, though.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Read the original post:

Top 3 Cryptocurrency Lending Platforms - The Merkle

How big is bitcoin, really? This chart puts it all in perspective – MarketWatch

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

Not all money is created equal.

Bitcoin burst into our financial consciousness like a fiery comet, setting the internet ablaze with visions of upending the existing global money system. Yet, by its nature as a cybercurrency, whose legitimacy only exists in the ether, its credibility leaves much room for debate.

HowMuch.net on Wednesday put things into perspective and demonstrated that for all the buzz and excitement bitcoin has generated, it still has a long way to go to be even remotely relevant.

The current value of all the bitcoin in the world is worth about $41 billion, according to the cost-estimating website.

That is undoubtedly more money than most Americans will ever see in their lifetime. But when it comes to bragging rights, bitcoin really is the poor relation.

Also see: Teenage bitcoin millionaire can see the cryptocurrencys value shooting as high as $1 million

As the HowMuch chart shows, the fattest bubble is for all the money in the world including bank deposits which comes out to $83.6 trillion.

See larger chart

The second biggest is for all the stocks trading across the globe, totaling $66.8 trillion, and more than double all the physical money in the world.

A run towards or away from stocks would thoroughly deregulate the global economy, and nothing more dramatic than a minus sign in front of that amount would lead to the collapse of global civilization, said Raul Amoros at HowMuch.net.

For all its glitter, the total value of gold is a distant fourth, at only about $8.2 trillion, while U.S. dollars in circulation add up to $1.5 trillion.

The next bubble is for Apple Inc. AAPL, +0.59% valued at about $730 billion, followed by Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +0.97% at $402 billion.

Meanwhile, the value of all the cryptocurrencies in existence, such as Litecoin and Monero, checks in at $100 billion, slightly ahead of Bill Gates MSFT, +0.51% who claims a net worth of $86 billion as the richest man in the world.

Larry Page, co-founder of tech giant Google GOOGL, +0.99% and the 12th-richest on Forbes billionaires list, alone is worth all the bitcoin floating around in cyberspace, with a net worth of $41 billion.

Money is about trust. Hence, the U.S. dollar DXY, -0.03% as the monetary representation of the biggest economy in the world is also the reserve currency of choice for many foreign governments.

As of yet, bitcoin does not enjoy that level of respect given its wild swings recently. Nonetheless, the rise of cryptocurrencies in of itself suggests that people may be slowly losing faith in money and other traditional measures of wealth, according to Amoros.

See the article here:

How big is bitcoin, really? This chart puts it all in perspective - MarketWatch

Teenage bitcoin millionaire can see the cryptocurrency’s value shooting as high as $1 million – MarketWatch

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Danzig

If this teen entrepreneur, high-school dropout and bitcoin millionaire has any predictive powers at all, then weve hardly seen the top of the market for the hot cybercurrency.

Meet Erik Finman, who started picking up bitcoin at $12 apiece back in May 2011, when he was just 12, riding a hot tip from hits brother Scott and a $1,000 gift from his grandmother, he told CNBC. Hes now the owner of a reported 403 bitcoins, and while the cybercurrency has been on a bit of a bumpy ride lately, at a Wednesday morning price BTCUSD, +0.25% of $2,773.54 each, the now 18-year-old Idahoans stash is worth $1.1 million and change.

Finman cashed out his first bitcoin investment back in 2013 and started Botangle, an online education company that provides tools for locating instructors in subjects they need or wish to learn about.

Read: All the digital money in the world in one chart

He wasnt a fan of high school and convinced his parents, both Ph.D.s, to let him drop out at 15.

His teachers clearly werent seeing his potential. One teacher told me to drop out and work at McDonalds because that was all I would amount to for the rest of my life. I guess I did the dropout part, the young bitcoin millionaire said. He didnt really want to go to college, either, and won a bet with his parents that if he was worth a million dollars by 18, he could skip it. He was, and so he did.

Check out: How the cryptocurrency ethereum looks set to overtake bitcoin in one chart

Finman encountered discouragement from an Uber executive, who, instead of listening to his Botangle pitch, told him he should count on college rather than racking up millions. But the teen did end up successfully selling his companys technology, for a cool price of 300 bitcoin, reportedly. He has said he turned down a $100,000 offer.

Read: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick steps down after shareholder revolt

Bitcoin prices have soared more than 300% in the span of a year, with the bulk of the gain coming during May and June. Ethereum, one of its chief rivals, has also seen big gains. Bitcoin tapped $3,000 last week, before a pullback last week that saw it shed billions in market cap.

Read: Nvidia upgraded as cybercurrency miners go bonkers for its chips

Plus: Bitcoin needs government regulation to rise further, Morgan Stanley says

Link:

Teenage bitcoin millionaire can see the cryptocurrency's value shooting as high as $1 million - MarketWatch

Select Page ::