I'm not aware of broadcasts in 50 FPS. AFAIK, they're being evaluated, but basically material is broadcast at 25 or 30 fps, depending on the standard used. These conform to the old PAL/NTSC/SECAM framerates. Interlaced formats, however, can be 50 or 60, but that's because each frame is essentially split into two frames of alternating horizontal lines, "fields".
Which centralized control body is going to do this ? The bloody UN ? The lack of centralized control (control which this would require) is the point for many of the users. Why should I as an individual Bitcoin user have to pay for history making when "the system works already" ?
People do choose to pay transaction fees. It's a feature already implemented and in use. You can choose not to pay a fee, but your transactions will likely take longer to be processed.
There's no promise of any kind. That's rather important.
A ponzi scheme would be where an operator enrolls investors by promising high interest rates on their investments, lacking the ability to actually pay everyone in full. Such a scheme typicalyl runs until enough people decide to withdraw their investment that the operator decides they can't afford the payouts and instead defaults and runs off with the money.
Bitcoin has no operator making promises. The protocol itself makes no promise of profits for investors. The developers have quite explicitly stated treating Bitcoin as an investment is risky. Furthermore, while the experiment that is Bitcoin may well fail some time in the future, it is not obvious to an impartial observer that it will. A Ponzi scheme is inherently unsustainable, in a way obvious to anyone willing to ignore their greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is an unknown, a risky investment, but openly so.
I get the feeling you have a beef with how early adopters are rewarded more than later users, and that's why you're saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi. Early adopters *are* rewarded, assuming the system doesn't crash and burn. That's no secret. It's part of the design. The idea is that there needs to be an incentive to get people to commit to the system, to make it costly to let it fail. The longer the system runs and grows, the less risky it should get to pump funds into it. Accordingly, the rewards for doing so will diminish as well.
Whether the rewards reaped by old-timers are reasonable or not is a matter of constant debate, and several forks of the system exist largely because of disagreements on this point. Personally, I don't think in the long run it will matter much. If Bitcoin fails for one reason or another, the early adopters will lose their investment. If it doesn't, they'll be rich, but continued operation of the system will be proof it didn't make much of a difference that a few individuals got very wealthy off the backs of later adopters.
That some may profit at the expense of others doesn't make anything into a Ponzi. But don't take my word for it, here's what the European Central Bank's analysts have to say on why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme:
"On the one hand, the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there
is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users
buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it
seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate
evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are
therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole."
"Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may
try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle,
just a medium of exchange. On the contrary, Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin
virtual currency project, does not hesitate to say that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you
would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that
investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky”. In addition, Bitcoin supporters claim
that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party."
Can you lose your shirt if you invest heavily in Bitcoin? Yes. Can you get scammed by other users? Yes. Is the whole thing a Ponzi scheme? No.
I don't see how you could have a decentralized currency with mandatory verification of identity. You can do that with a central authority, but then your currency is dependent on the whims and survival of that authority, which hasn't worked out very well for e-currencies in the past.
You don't say anything about how long you've been exercising, or what kind of exercise you're getting (I hope it includes resistance training). Did you alter your diet? Anyway, significant weight loss is a long road. No way around it.
"Stretching" is also a very general term. Are we talking about long, static stretches, PNF stretching, dynamic exercises where you go through the maximum range of motion? These are different things with different functions. Generally, I'd emphasize dynamic stretching over static, as usually people who train need to get their muscles to relax, not stretch their muscle fibres.
I think it's actually even worse than that. As per the summary, Facebook is said to be involved in 33% of behaviour divorces. As far as I can tell, these are the cases where one party petitions for divorce on the grounds of misbehaviour on the part of the other party. I don't know how big a portion of divorces that accounts for, but surely not all of them. So more accurately, in 33% of a particular subset of divorces, Facebook is brought up in the courtroom
Here we go again, talking of Anonymous as a unified group.
What makes someone a member of Anonymous? It seems claiming to be one suffices. So, someone posted a threat to the Zetas in the name of Anonymous, and another person posted a notice saying Anonymous will not be taking action against the Zetas. That's about all that can be said about this.
You mainly get distortion when you view a spherical panorama with the "wrong" field of vision. If you keep the FOV low enough, around the amount of degrees of the viewer's vision your display covers, you should be fine.
There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me. I'd say being able to advertise and invite people to parties and events is the single biggest reason I use Facebook, and I can't see myself explaining why someone should use G+ as long as that is missing. Being able to post a link to Google Calendar just doesn't cut it.
I was kind of thinking the same, but with a different conclusion. This is a great way to teach kids to disrespect the law. Punishments are much more frightening before you've experienced them. All this will do is trivialize getting in trouble with the law, and show kids it's not the end of the world. As someone who's spent his share of time in prison, I know it made me much more willing to bear that burden again if the cause was right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of broadcasts in 50 FPS. AFAIK, they're being evaluated, but basically material is broadcast at 25 or 30 fps, depending on the standard used. These conform to the old PAL/NTSC/SECAM framerates. Interlaced formats, however, can be 50 or 60, but that's because each frame is essentially split into two frames of alternating horizontal lines, "fields".
Which centralized control body is going to do this ? The bloody UN ? The lack of centralized control (control which this would require) is the point for many of the users. Why should I as an individual Bitcoin user have to pay for history making when "the system works already" ?
People do choose to pay transaction fees. It's a feature already implemented and in use. You can choose not to pay a fee, but your transactions will likely take longer to be processed.
There's no promise of any kind. That's rather important.
A ponzi scheme would be where an operator enrolls investors by promising high interest rates on their investments, lacking the ability to actually pay everyone in full. Such a scheme typicalyl runs until enough people decide to withdraw their investment that the operator decides they can't afford the payouts and instead defaults and runs off with the money.
Bitcoin has no operator making promises. The protocol itself makes no promise of profits for investors. The developers have quite explicitly stated treating Bitcoin as an investment is risky. Furthermore, while the experiment that is Bitcoin may well fail some time in the future, it is not obvious to an impartial observer that it will. A Ponzi scheme is inherently unsustainable, in a way obvious to anyone willing to ignore their greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is an unknown, a risky investment, but openly so.
I get the feeling you have a beef with how early adopters are rewarded more than later users, and that's why you're saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi. Early adopters *are* rewarded, assuming the system doesn't crash and burn. That's no secret. It's part of the design. The idea is that there needs to be an incentive to get people to commit to the system, to make it costly to let it fail. The longer the system runs and grows, the less risky it should get to pump funds into it. Accordingly, the rewards for doing so will diminish as well.
Whether the rewards reaped by old-timers are reasonable or not is a matter of constant debate, and several forks of the system exist largely because of disagreements on this point. Personally, I don't think in the long run it will matter much. If Bitcoin fails for one reason or another, the early adopters will lose their investment. If it doesn't, they'll be rich, but continued operation of the system will be proof it didn't make much of a difference that a few individuals got very wealthy off the backs of later adopters.
That some may profit at the expense of others doesn't make anything into a Ponzi. But don't take my word for it, here's what the European Central Bank's analysts have to say on why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
"On the one hand, the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole."
"Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange. On the contrary, Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin virtual currency project, does not hesitate to say that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky”. In addition, Bitcoin supporters claim that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party."
Can you lose your shirt if you invest heavily in Bitcoin? Yes. Can you get scammed by other users? Yes. Is the whole thing a Ponzi scheme? No.
It IS Mastercard. I'm surprised the fees are that low, the bitcoin-to-card solutions out there now are several percentage points more expensive.
I think there's a big middle ground: Incredibly great, but only if you're in the small niche it appeals to.
Sounds like socialism to me!
East (or was it NE?) of the White House, for one.
If you had that kind of money in digital currency, I'd hope you'd store most of it offline.
I don't see how you could have a decentralized currency with mandatory verification of identity. You can do that with a central authority, but then your currency is dependent on the whims and survival of that authority, which hasn't worked out very well for e-currencies in the past.
Don't forget "Funny".
You can't answer the question "how much exercise do I need" before you know what the goal is.
You don't say anything about how long you've been exercising, or what kind of exercise you're getting (I hope it includes resistance training). Did you alter your diet? Anyway, significant weight loss is a long road. No way around it.
"Stretching" is also a very general term. Are we talking about long, static stretches, PNF stretching, dynamic exercises where you go through the maximum range of motion? These are different things with different functions. Generally, I'd emphasize dynamic stretching over static, as usually people who train need to get their muscles to relax, not stretch their muscle fibres.
They'll learn, alright... And in prison, they certainly won't repeat their mistakes!
But how uninformed do you have to be to blame Kakkar for something he didn't write?
I think it's actually even worse than that. As per the summary, Facebook is said to be involved in 33% of behaviour divorces. As far as I can tell, these are the cases where one party petitions for divorce on the grounds of misbehaviour on the part of the other party. I don't know how big a portion of divorces that accounts for, but surely not all of them. So more accurately, in 33% of a particular subset of divorces, Facebook is brought up in the courtroom
Here we go again, talking of Anonymous as a unified group. What makes someone a member of Anonymous? It seems claiming to be one suffices. So, someone posted a threat to the Zetas in the name of Anonymous, and another person posted a notice saying Anonymous will not be taking action against the Zetas. That's about all that can be said about this.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how you can de-shred documents for your country.
One person's "nefarious" is another's "good".
You mainly get distortion when you view a spherical panorama with the "wrong" field of vision. If you keep the FOV low enough, around the amount of degrees of the viewer's vision your display covers, you should be fine.
Just more noise, like that "story" tag that is attached to, well, everything, as far as I can tell.
Don't you mean "enter beta"?
There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me. I'd say being able to advertise and invite people to parties and events is the single biggest reason I use Facebook, and I can't see myself explaining why someone should use G+ as long as that is missing. Being able to post a link to Google Calendar just doesn't cut it.
I was kind of thinking the same, but with a different conclusion. This is a great way to teach kids to disrespect the law. Punishments are much more frightening before you've experienced them. All this will do is trivialize getting in trouble with the law, and show kids it's not the end of the world. As someone who's spent his share of time in prison, I know it made me much more willing to bear that burden again if the cause was right.