Slashdot Mirror

http://https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products/Did not know of all of these, recognize some of them. But the list is defiantly shorter than what they have killed.

Same is the thing that I've read so far somewhere else. But I was looking deep into the profession of Bookselling on Amazon . And here your post stuck my mind.

Yes you can creat new fiat currencies however typically there are only 1 per country.. However you can create as many alt coins as you want and as with any new software they are built to be better than the last. So what stops users changing from one alt coin to the next? You dont have this option when you are using the local currency. If your in Australia you can only use the australian dollar and that dollar is backed by the government so unless the government goes broke your fiat is perfectly fine.

I agree, but this still does not equate to inflation (that was the claim). There is little barrier to entry (almost none) and the market can become saturated. But that's fine, market leaders and products with relevance will survive and the others will become irrelevant, like a lot of emerging markets. It's a bit like saying that a website can't be successful because the are no barriers to creating a competing site. Other factors play.

Yes smart contracts are a good utility, howeve there is no lock in unless one crypto becomes the default way to do contracts. What stops me changing to a new smart contract provider? The issue is it is too easy to create another coin/smart contract/blockchain thing. The only defining asset a crypto has is the amount of people using it.

There's always going to be competition to any product. Smart contracts are a good utility, and they're not the only one. My point was that "has no utility and hence no value" when referencing crypto is not a true statement.

Fiats are not a failure, there is a reason for fiat, yes governments can and do abuse it by printing billions which can turn into inflation (or even worse: hyperinflation) . On the other hand having it locked to a physical asset like gold can cause the money supply to dry up which is another set of problems. see Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts I think having any blockchain as currency and its limited nature is like having a gold standard, which means your screwed in recessions. So I dont think any government is going to allow cryptos as a standard medium of exchange unless they are allowed to increase its supply ( Then cryptos are basically fiat. )

I suppose their success depends on how you measure it.

Fiat is not a store of value. In fact it's become one of the worst stores of value.

Fiat's ability to employ quantitative easing is its biggest failure. Recessions are not something that need fixing, they are a natural part of the system, they're supposed to run their course. Bucking against them gets us to where we are today - a big colossal cluster fuck of financial shit. You can't fix a recession, but you can kick it down the road a little and let it grow some on the way. We need more recessions and more frequently, avoiding them makes them worse. Humans seem to do this for just about every "discomfort" we see approaching. It's nearly always better to face it head on than avoid it and let it fester.

Limited supply is not an inherent issue unless your chosen monetary system relies on unlimited supply. Redistribution is the real issue. Redistribution is not a currency issue, its a policy issue.

I fail to see how fiat has succeeded unless you're willing to ignore everything being swept under the carpet.

Nonsense argument in the context of inflation. That's like saying that if I sit at home creating new fiat currencies that will inflate existing fiat currencies. Huh? There is an similarly infinite supply of fiat currencies.

Yes you can creat new fiat currencies however typically there are only 1 per country.. However you can create as many alt coins as you want and as with any new software they are built to be better than the last. So what stops users changing from one alt coin to the next? You dont have this option when you are using the local currency. If your in Australia you can only use the australian dollar and that dollar is backed by the government so unless the government goes broke your fiat is perfectly fine.

Many cryptos have utility. Ever heard of smart contracts?

Yes smart contracts are a good utility, howeve there is no lock in unless one crypto becomes the default way to do contracts. What stops me changing to a new smart contract provider? The issue is it is too easy to create another coin/smart contract/blockchain thing. The only defining asset a crypto has is the amount of people using it.

How is "garbage in garbage out" a problem? (that's a typical trait of most systems)

Agree, garbage in garbage not a problem if you are using a coin that has a decent following. If its full of garbage no one would be using it.

No you can't .... well not in the same way cryptos can. The blockchain provides a layer of trust and mechanisms for transactions (that maintain this trust relationship). The fact it uses "numbers" is an implementation detail.

Again you could make the same argument for fiat currency (a piece of paper with a number on it, heck I'll print you some now!).

The parent was saying that he could create a new alt coin and sell coins in it for bugger all capital investment. A lot harder to create a fiat currency and sell it. Yes it is next to impossible to forge a bitcoin and very hard and illegal to forge fiat.

You've changed from discussing "crypto currencies" to now being specific about BTC.

There are many 'anonymous' cryptos if you're wanting one. BTC is not one.

Agree.

Fiat currencies are a flat out failure and will collapse at some point. Something will replace them, it may be crypto currency, it may not.

Ask yourself: Why does a currency need an underlying asset of value? (yes it's a common trait, but not a required one). What is the underlying asset behind fiat currencies? There's not a whole lot of difference between either except one was here first and the other provides a bunch of additional features (think inflation).

Fiats are not a failure, there is a reason for fiat, yes governments can and do abuse it by printing billions which can turn into inflation (or even worse: hyperinflation) . On the other hand having it locked to a physical asset like gold can cause the money supply to dry up which is another set of problems. see Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts I think having any blockchain as currency and its limited nature is like having a gold standard, which means your screwed in recessions. So I dont think any government is going to allow cryptos as a standard medium of exchange unless they are allowed to increase its supply ( Then cryptos are basically fiat. )

Try mine then
its a unique sword fighting game

Of violence against bald men in the park ever since the release of this game

>not mandatory
But we're getting there.
I had to start a huge fight to be allowed to not be on Facebook for a required university course.
I can't contribute to a number of sites (e.g. addic7ed.com ) because they make it a requirement.
When US immigration asks for people's "social" accounts, do you think they will take "none" for an answer?

Speaking of RISC-V and its instruction set, I recently read an interesting & informative blog post on the topic by Adam Langely at his blog Imperial Violet

There have only been three Presidents without any previous political experience: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, all three have military experience. There has never been someone elected President without political or military experience.

There's that XKCD comic about Electoral Precedent. "No woman has ever been elected President" vs. "No one without political or military experience has ever been elected President". Which streak will break now?

Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat â" red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter, such as animal-derived rennet and gelatin.

http://www.vegsoc.org/FAQs/:

The Vegetarian Society defines a vegetarian as: "Someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with, or without, the use of dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish* or by-products of slaughter."

So, where do I need to look to find anything supporting your "entire lifestyle" view?

Look, "Resistant" in this case means "Such a attack is not possible to execute". It is, by design, impossible to carry out the kind of attack you are proposing against today's secure hash functions (e.g. SHA2). That's the whole point of a secure hash function.

It sounds like you're insinuating that it is trivial to generate hash collisions for a 128 bit secure hash, I don't know where you're getting that. There are 128 bit hash functions susceptible to hash collision attacks (MD5 comes to mind), but you don't attack them by trying the whole 128 bit keyspace. You do it by utilizing weaknesses in the algorithm, reducing the keyspace and making the attack feasible.

What you describe is a vulnerability of the rather new, cheap domain-certificates. Instead of verifying whatever entity requested it and issuing accordingly, these certificates will be given out happily to anybody with the matching domain.
The classic flavour of certificates were issued only to verified companies and people. Check, for example, PayPal vs. a cheapskate ISP's web interface. Any good browser will display "PayPal Inc. (US)" or "*.ngz-server.de (DE)" in the status or address bar. With the former, a quick glance allows me to clearly identify that I am, indeed, talking to a company called PayPal, incorporated in the U.S. The latter doesn't tell me more than looking at the address bar would. Typosquatting becomes as easy as it is for domain names (some $10 of extra cost required). Creating a typosquat company, OTOH, is much more difficult, takes way longer, usually requires participation of at least one lawyer.

Unfortunately both IE6 (I don't have IE7 here, anybody care to check that?) and Firefox 2 go great lengths to hide this crucial information from their users. (Firefox turns the web into green meadows with BUNNIES and makes browsing veryvery SECURE!) Also, over 80% (according to a recent study to which I can't seem to find TFS; will get back if I do) of users will get fooled by padlock icons within the page they're visiting, ignoring indicators in the browser chrome.

Kerberos and NTLM turned off by default.

When I ran a Mac Network I could turn these on by editing the bundle I put in /Network/Applications. However, with no tools to distribute Firefox in a corporate setting, it's a pain in the butt.

I can put a Linux Server with mod_auth_kerb on my network, tease a Keytab out of Active Directory, and IE and Safari will automatically authenticate with my Kerberos Tickets. Firefox has it built in but I have to put the URL in the allowed domains for auth-negotiate. I assume NTLM has the same problems, but I've never played with it.

The most moronic part? IE makes it easy to add/define intranet locations, the pattern matching on Firefox starts from the left (maybe it does both now).

So if I want Negotiate on *.intranet.mycompany.com, I couldn't do it. But I could turn it on everywhere by typing http://https//. I found that rather foolish. It's a better, faster browser, but unless the IT guy wants to install it everywhere (or has real network management tools like the big boys, but then Firefox settings are still a pain), it doesn't go into small businesses in the 10-50 employee range.

The tools wouldn't be hard to create, and I bet that the raw form of them exists in many companies, but with a nice GUI, easy to setup, it just doesn't exist.

And yet....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_multiplier
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force+multiplier
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/green.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/4012.pdf
http://https//www.maxwell.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm

The first five hits in Google for Force Multiplier are directly referring to combat operations, with the exception of the article talking about Wesley Clark - who just happens to be a General.

It seems to me that I'm perfectly aware of its proper usage. It also seems to me that some people delight in using $5 words when a nickel word would have been perfectly sufficient, or to claim credibility by using professional jargon in every-day discussions.

Just recently, I did try an Ubuntu Edgy combo backend/frontend setup on another machine (my main box runs KnoppMyth).

I found it to be incredibly easy to setup, and there are some pretty good guides ready for anyone with the interest:

http://https//help.ubuntu.com/community/MythTV/

For what it's worth, I did try setting up my backend about 1.5 years ago with Debian, but the dependencies and everything proved to be a bit too painful for my use. I settled on using KnoppMyth and I have to give the guys credit--it's hard to imagine getting a MythTV setup much easier than it provides. Great scripts and utilities, plus the most important thing--a good community with lots of helpful folks in the forums.

As easy as Edgy was to get going, I wouldn't be surprised to see something along the lines of MythUbuntu or UbuMyth showing up sometime soon.

Open Standard - OpenGIS.org (Open Geospatial Consortium - OGC) (will redirect to the PDF version of the Web Feature Service (WFS) specification for GeoSpatial services).

Customer desires open standard compliant projects where economically feasible.

Customer desires Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products with minimal integration code.

Customer uses ESRI's ArcGIS product as the predominant geospatial application. (NOTE: ESRI is essentially the Microsoft of the Geographic Information System market.)

ESRI does not "fully" support OGC. Their data/service formats are pretty much the industry standard but are not totally "open".

Complying with the WFS standard through a COTS product adds a minimum cost of $50,000 USD to the project.

Free or Open Source alternatives were not mature enough to consider
While generally I agree that open standard is the right way to go, one must consider all factors.

FYI - My employer is a business partner to ESRI and we frequently request that they impliment their software to support the OGC standards from both a server and a client side (they currently impliment most of the client side but very little on the server side).

This may not be as far away as you think:

MSI packages for Firefox

You can share your requirements for better network deployability in Bug ID # 231062 in Bugzilla (I'm not gonna link directly to the bug since Bugzilla just blocks traffic from Slashdot anyway). That would help the devs improve the packages and get you the sort of thing you're talking about.

I've also had no problems with Firebird at Wells Fargo and Fidelity Investments.