You're missing my point. While a truly catastrophic event such as you describe would probably rapidly erode the value of the US dollar, such valatility is common to Bitcoin even lacking catastrophic events.
If your company started paying you in Pesos (fixed at todays exchange rate), and then continued paying you in Pesos going forward you'd still be subjected to far less volatility than what you'd currently be exposed to with Bitcoin.
Your main issue with being paid is Pesos is because they'd be a pain to exchange for goods and services in a country where they're not legal tender, not beause of any inherent instability in Pesos as a currency. Even most Mexicans would, at this point in time, refuse to have thier wages and salaries paid in Bitcoins.
I think the truest test of whether Bitcoin can be regarded as a currency is: Would you be willing to be paid in it?
I don't speak for everyone, but my answer to that is a resounding no. When I get paid in the old fashioned currency of my land, I have a reasonable expectation that my purchasing power isn't going to vary widly from day to day. What I can buy with my salary today, I will still be able to buy with my salary in a day, or a month, roughly speaking.
The same can't be said of Bitcoin, at least not any time soon. Until then, I won't regard it as a currency.
I hope you're aware that there's no prohibition on carrying liquids in containers exceeding 100ml onto planes, only through the airport security checkpoint. Once through that checkpoint you can quite happily buy and carry on liquids in pretty much any volume you choose. Apart from being unsanitary and degrading to the crew, you're not going to get the reaction you seem to be hoping for when you inform a flight attendant that you're carrying a container with more than 100ml of liquid in it...
It's surprising that games are cheaper to make than movies.
Not really. You don't have actors demanding to be kept in 5 star opulence for the duration of the shoot. You don't need to move film crews and casts from location to location. You don't actually go around blowing up tanks, or crashing $100k sportscars. Granted, I see no same reason why you would want to do any of those if you could get the same result by using CGI (which to be bluntly honest isn't always up to the task - especially when it comes to explosions) but until all CGI is photorealistic there will always be a case for the more expensive option.
Multitasking, in and of itself is not the problem. It's an inability to separate the professional from the personal and to prioritise activities that causes many frustrations.
I'm in my early thirties and I avoid multitasking like the plague. My younger colleagues and siblings seem to have no problems with doing several things at once - but the flip side is they end up doing many things twice simply because they sacrifice focus for versatility. They're so busy trying to do too many things at once that they rarely get anything done properly.
As for being always in contact, I couldn't care less. I'll usually answer as soon as possible, but I have no qualms when it comes to ignoring calls or messages if I'm busy with something, or simply don't feel like talking to someone. I don't expect people to be available on my schedule and see no reason why I am obligated to be always available when it suits them.
The magic mineral didn't appear to occur in veins and was found at or very near the surface, which makes quarrying the most effective method of mining it. I wouldn't go with nukes though - radiation makes it a bit messy.
You're only wrong on how the *current* technology works, but the older tech was based on colour filtering. TV's can handle the older technique but not the newer, since they can't polarise an image yet. There was an episode of "Chuck" broadcast in 3d last year using the old blue/red glasses technique.
I actually took the glasses off a few times while watching Avatar and it wasn't a single blurry image, it was two distinct overlapping images. The polarisation technique allows for a much greater field of depth.
I don't know about status, but being in a position where none of your 10000 users are allowed to contact you is good. When the 20 odd first line support staff that they report issues to aren't allowed to contact you either, it's great. When even your direct co workers have to go through your line manager (who quite understands if you're too busy to assist mere mortals) to speak to you, it's heaven. Having a praise wall dedicated to you is a bit creepy though.
That's a horrible analogy since you're no more doing science than I am when I start my car in the morning. You're not attempting to prove anything, you're relying on a technique based on a theory that has already been proven to produce a known result. In which case it's an entirely reasonable conclusion that it's your technique (or experiment) at fault.
Try defining what liberties fall under the umbrella of being 'essential' in such a manner that everyone agrees with you. (Although on/. you could contend that all liberties are essential and that all safety is temporary and little and find a fair number agreeing with you).
Slashdot Mirror
You mean half a penis length?
The company I work for still has an actively maintained COBOL codebase from the late 1970's that I'm called on to work on from time to time.
AC, please point us mere mortals in the direction in which me may find these DVDs with a storage capacity of 4TB...
You're missing my point. While a truly catastrophic event such as you describe would probably rapidly erode the value of the US dollar, such valatility is common to Bitcoin even lacking catastrophic events.
If your company started paying you in Pesos (fixed at todays exchange rate), and then continued paying you in Pesos going forward you'd still be subjected to far less volatility than what you'd currently be exposed to with Bitcoin.
Your main issue with being paid is Pesos is because they'd be a pain to exchange for goods and services in a country where they're not legal tender, not beause of any inherent instability in Pesos as a currency. Even most Mexicans would, at this point in time, refuse to have thier wages and salaries paid in Bitcoins.
I think the truest test of whether Bitcoin can be regarded as a currency is: Would you be willing to be paid in it?
I don't speak for everyone, but my answer to that is a resounding no. When I get paid in the old fashioned currency of my land, I have a reasonable expectation that my purchasing power isn't going to vary widly from day to day. What I can buy with my salary today, I will still be able to buy with my salary in a day, or a month, roughly speaking.
The same can't be said of Bitcoin, at least not any time soon. Until then, I won't regard it as a currency.
I hope you're aware that there's no prohibition on carrying liquids in containers exceeding 100ml onto planes, only through the airport security checkpoint. Once through that checkpoint you can quite happily buy and carry on liquids in pretty much any volume you choose. Apart from being unsanitary and degrading to the crew, you're not going to get the reaction you seem to be hoping for when you inform a flight attendant that you're carrying a container with more than 100ml of liquid in it...
We don't need new launch technology.
Bill Gates called. He wants his 640k back.
Where does South Dakota come into this story? San Diego on the other hand...
Not until they implement more tactile feedback.
I'd imagine contacting a prison for tech support could be a bit awkward.
(Yes, I know it's lame)
I suppose it's too much to expect people to RTFA. Nowhere in the article is it either stated or implied that e-readers are being banned.
It's surprising that games are cheaper to make than movies.
Not really. You don't have actors demanding to be kept in 5 star opulence for the duration of the shoot. You don't need to move film crews and casts from location to location. You don't actually go around blowing up tanks, or crashing $100k sportscars. Granted, I see no same reason why you would want to do any of those if you could get the same result by using CGI (which to be bluntly honest isn't always up to the task - especially when it comes to explosions) but until all CGI is photorealistic there will always be a case for the more expensive option.
Hah, if only this were true - there would be be no more lawyers!
If you have a question for a lawyer and you can't afford one, stop what you're doing.
That has to be the saddest statement I've read in a long time.
Multitasking, in and of itself is not the problem. It's an inability to separate the professional from the personal and to prioritise activities that causes many frustrations.
And this is why people shouldn't drink before midday. Blurry vision, faulty memories and imaginary UIDs.
I'm in my early thirties and I avoid multitasking like the plague. My younger colleagues and siblings seem to have no problems with doing several things at once - but the flip side is they end up doing many things twice simply because they sacrifice focus for versatility. They're so busy trying to do too many things at once that they rarely get anything done properly.
As for being always in contact, I couldn't care less. I'll usually answer as soon as possible, but I have no qualms when it comes to ignoring calls or messages if I'm busy with something, or simply don't feel like talking to someone. I don't expect people to be available on my schedule and see no reason why I am obligated to be always available when it suits them.
The magic mineral didn't appear to occur in veins and was found at or very near the surface, which makes quarrying the most effective method of mining it. I wouldn't go with nukes though - radiation makes it a bit messy.
You're only wrong on how the *current* technology works, but the older tech was based on colour filtering. TV's can handle the older technique but not the newer, since they can't polarise an image yet. There was an episode of "Chuck" broadcast in 3d last year using the old blue/red glasses technique.
I actually took the glasses off a few times while watching Avatar and it wasn't a single blurry image, it was two distinct overlapping images. The polarisation technique allows for a much greater field of depth.
Wouldn't execution by robot, virus or worm be more fitting?
What are these "users" you refer to?
I don't know about status, but being in a position where none of your 10000 users are allowed to contact you is good. When the 20 odd first line support staff that they report issues to aren't allowed to contact you either, it's great. When even your direct co workers have to go through your line manager (who quite understands if you're too busy to assist mere mortals) to speak to you, it's heaven. Having a praise wall dedicated to you is a bit creepy though.
You're assuming that the environment in which one works and the environment that one develops for are one and the same.
That's a horrible analogy since you're no more doing science than I am when I start my car in the morning. You're not attempting to prove anything, you're relying on a technique based on a theory that has already been proven to produce a known result. In which case it's an entirely reasonable conclusion that it's your technique (or experiment) at fault.
Try defining what liberties fall under the umbrella of being 'essential' in such a manner that everyone agrees with you. (Although on /. you could contend that all liberties are essential and that all safety is temporary and little and find a fair number agreeing with you).
I my company had only one toilet, I'd also respect the guy that scrubbed it...