I'm pretty sure state-actors with an interest, for whatever reason, in bitcoin will have there own hardware and wont need to rely on infected machines. Countries like the USA, China, Israel, UK,... all have there systems.
Maybe I should take up my research into quantum computers and quantum cryptography again:-). When I was still working in that field, I didn't think it might give me some money/power someday.I wonder how difficult the bitcoin cryptography is for a quantum algorithm...
I haven't read the Science article yet, but from the BBC report it seems that the differences between the isotope ratios in moon rocks and earth are still a lot smaller than expected. This would suggest the Theia hypotheses to not be true, contrary to what the title says. I'm going to track down the original paper, because this BBC article has me somewhat confused.
I agree mostly with this article, but I have one comment on something said in the final paragraph: "But they're borne from a similar mindset: one in which financial returns are the priority, independent of whether they're associated with something innovative or useful in the real world." The main point of businesses is, and always has been and always will be, to make money. They're producing something people want or need only because that is the way to get money. Otherwise, it would be a governmental subsidy or a charity, rather than a company. I think, instead, the actual dichotomy is between short term and long term gains. The examples the author gives of CEOs that have been successful by resisting the pressure from the financial markets are of companies that did make money, lots of it. There is an interesting article by investor J. Kennon that summarizes it as impatience robbing speculators of much higher gains they could have earned by investing in the long run. So, I think it is more a problem of speculators trying to get rich quickly; investors trying to become rich, in itself, is not so problematic.
Recently, I have started wondering: would it be advantageous for the stability of our economy and financial markets if there was a minimum holding time for shares, options, etc.? For example one day? That would make high frequency trading, which I agree is not really productive to the general economy, disappear. I don't think a rule like that would hinder real investors, because as you say, they hold for a longer time anyway. But it would stop speculators trying to squeeze some money by day trading without contributing anything to the economy.
I am very skeptical to any such announcements. I would like it better if every one would keep the exited reporting for after the demo. Especially/., which considers itself to be well educated on scientific and technological matters. As a physicist (PhD) working on radio science in relation to astrophysics I have seen a lot of people proposing a lot of awesome inventions, that never worked...
Why is this `the frankenstorm of the century? What does that even mean? And why is it relevant that there are power plant's in its path? And how would a storm cause a meltdown (not to mention that US nuclear power plants are designed to safely melt down)? And most importantly: why is crap like this getting posted on/.?
I think all real software developers and users just got a goo laugh. This is probably the same person who thinks there is such a thing as a 'post-PC-era' coming.
the whole patent system is going to come crashing down. The way these companies are going, it will not take much longer before people start realizing the current system is no longer viable. Maybe a decade or so, but not much more.
In contrast to what many people think, passing peer review is not all that important. Among scientists, there is no such thing as 'ratified science'. This is only something that needs to be done to get a paper published in an scientific journal. That would be important if the publishers were trying to make other scientist aware of their findings or if they need publications in peer reviewed journals in order to secure money. Neither of those is really the case here.
If this is true, and there is actual causation and not only correlation (both these things are not clear to me at the moment), my first hypotheses would probably have to do with the quantum Zeno effect, rather than gravity. Although an explanation using gravity variations is also a valid hypotheses. But I agree that speculative hypes like this do not belong on/.
(disclaimer: PhD in physics, working in space-science)
The trolls very rarely get away with this stuff in a courtroom. Most of the time they settle out of court, because the defendant does not have the resources (in case of a small company) or it's just cheaper for them (in case of larger companies defending). Patent trolls are, most of the time, very scared of actually having to go to court. If this happens they will probably lose. And if they lose a dangerous, at least for them, precedent would be set.
Is there anyone who was thinking something else would happen? Didn't the RIAA do exactly the same? The institutes work like the mafia. They claime to 'protect' the artists but in fact their only purpose is raking in as much money for themselves as they can.
Even on/. this kind of hyperbole gets credit? I'm disappointed in the scientific standards. Now this site has stooped to the level of mass media. As an actual scientist (partially involved in research concerning atmospheric processes, by the way) I find this very sad...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure state-actors with an interest, for whatever reason, in bitcoin will have there own hardware and wont need to rely on infected machines. Countries like the USA, China, Israel, UK,... all have there systems.
Maybe I should take up my research into quantum computers and quantum cryptography again :-). When I was still working in that field, I didn't think it might give me some money/power someday.I wonder how difficult the bitcoin cryptography is for a quantum algorithm...
Someone read to much xkcd, I see.
The Alamo Drafthouse does not fuck around when it comes to theatre etiquette and rules.
They don't really care about your privacy, they care about knowing more about you than their competitors do.
Also, you can totally take LEGO figurine apart and reassemble them with a female head on a doctor body...
I haven't read the Science article yet, but from the BBC report it seems that the differences between the isotope ratios in moon rocks and earth are still a lot smaller than expected. This would suggest the Theia hypotheses to not be true, contrary to what the title says. I'm going to track down the original paper, because this BBC article has me somewhat confused.
I agree mostly with this article, but I have one comment on something said in the final paragraph: "But they're borne from a similar mindset: one in which financial returns are the priority, independent of whether they're associated with something innovative or useful in the real world." The main point of businesses is, and always has been and always will be, to make money. They're producing something people want or need only because that is the way to get money. Otherwise, it would be a governmental subsidy or a charity, rather than a company. I think, instead, the actual dichotomy is between short term and long term gains. The examples the author gives of CEOs that have been successful by resisting the pressure from the financial markets are of companies that did make money, lots of it. There is an interesting article by investor J. Kennon that summarizes it as impatience robbing speculators of much higher gains they could have earned by investing in the long run. So, I think it is more a problem of speculators trying to get rich quickly; investors trying to become rich, in itself, is not so problematic.
Recently, I have started wondering: would it be advantageous for the stability of our economy and financial markets if there was a minimum holding time for shares, options, etc.? For example one day? That would make high frequency trading, which I agree is not really productive to the general economy, disappear. I don't think a rule like that would hinder real investors, because as you say, they hold for a longer time anyway. But it would stop speculators trying to squeeze some money by day trading without contributing anything to the economy.
Did they try putting an ad within an ad on this article about a star within a star?
If they did, they would earn an exception filter in AdBlock from me.
I am very skeptical to any such announcements. I would like it better if every one would keep the exited reporting for after the demo. Especially /., which considers itself to be well educated on scientific and technological matters.
As a physicist (PhD) working on radio science in relation to astrophysics I have seen a lot of people proposing a lot of awesome inventions, that never worked...
Why is this `the frankenstorm of the century? What does that even mean? And why is it relevant that there are power plant's in its path? And how would a storm cause a meltdown (not to mention that US nuclear power plants are designed to safely melt down)? And most importantly: why is crap like this getting posted on /.?
I think all real software developers and users just got a goo laugh. This is probably the same person who thinks there is such a thing as a 'post-PC-era' coming.
there was a huge, worldwide drop in productivity today. Especially at universities, research labs, software development companies etc.
the whole patent system is going to come crashing down. The way these companies are going, it will not take much longer before people start realizing the current system is no longer viable. Maybe a decade or so, but not much more.
In contrast to what many people think, passing peer review is not all that important. Among scientists, there is no such thing as 'ratified science'. This is only something that needs to be done to get a paper published in an scientific journal. That would be important if the publishers were trying to make other scientist aware of their findings or if they need publications in peer reviewed journals in order to secure money. Neither of those is really the case here.
"...alters DNA...", no. No, it does not. This is a completely wrong headline.
If this is true, and there is actual causation and not only correlation (both these things are not clear to me at the moment), my first hypotheses would probably have to do with the quantum Zeno effect, rather than gravity. Although an explanation using gravity variations is also a valid hypotheses. But I agree that speculative hypes like this do not belong on /.
(disclaimer: PhD in physics, working in space-science)
The trolls very rarely get away with this stuff in a courtroom. Most of the time they settle out of court, because the defendant does not have the resources (in case of a small company) or it's just cheaper for them (in case of larger companies defending). Patent trolls are, most of the time, very scared of actually having to go to court. If this happens they will probably lose. And if they lose a dangerous, at least for them, precedent would be set.
Seriously? When did /. begin copying idiotic and arbitrary predictions from mass media mediums?
But it's no surprise that a political science prof doesn't understand this.
Is there anyone who was thinking something else would happen? Didn't the RIAA do exactly the same? The institutes work like the mafia. They claime to 'protect' the artists but in fact their only purpose is raking in as much money for themselves as they can.
Even on /. this kind of hyperbole gets credit? I'm disappointed in the scientific standards. Now this site has stooped to the level of mass media. As an actual scientist (partially involved in research concerning atmospheric processes, by the way) I find this very sad...
I'm quite sure the thirteen warmest years all happened around the beginning of the mesozoic era...
Seconded.