Tidy profit for sure, but what do you expect for creating something that is (arguably) worth $2billion today? Also chances are he/she has cached out long ago, for example when bitcoin hit 1$.I doubt Satoshi ever really thought that Bitcoin would ever be worth something (~100USD/BTC today), it was meant as a technology demonstration in the beggining, little else and worth exactly nothing. But as it turned out the system was bloody well designed and is now worth quite a lot. If it ever turns out to become really mainstream early adopters have every right to become billionaires, creating a whole new monetary system and economy is no small feat.
IRC turns 25 this year(a bit older than me), but its still going strong and i bet it will be going strong 25years in future just the same. It might not be as popular as percentage of internet users as it once was, but i wager total number of servers/channel/users is greater than ever
There are literally hundreds of scholarly articles
i meant on a glance, i'm not going to dig through technical history of something dead for fun, so im sure you know better than me
Except that anyone who devotes sufficient computing power can selectively deny confirmations on transactions in Bitcoin. Do you really think that much computing power is out of reach for major world governments?
Out of reach? No. Out of justifiable reach? Yeah.
Bitcoin is beyond a point where supercomputer would be useful attack tool. You could still beat asic producers to it, make your own asic more powerful and mass produce it fast to achive the kind of hashing power to seriously harm Bitcoin. But well.. the budget... Soon when every Joe and his dog has an asic miner even that attack vector is no longer viable. As a last resort a governemt can always pull the plug on internet itself, but again, that is outside of justifiable reach.
By the way, selective denial of confirmations if a feature, as mining for block reward becomes unprofitable(soon i bet) there must be an insentive to include that small voulantary trasaction fee.
Yeah, there doesnt seem to be much more information out there about it than "it was" tho, doesn't seem to me like it was decentralized any way or didnt need trusted third party. Bitcoin certainly is not first digital currency out there, but i don't think there is this kind of decentralisation precedent. Its more than "no trusted third party needed", its designed to be government proof, this test is yet to come, but i think it will pass. Only real vector of failiure i see right now is economical, it might just turn out to be a fad, or not, who can tell. but the system design seems to be incredibly watertight to me.
Yeah, only that all current alternative e-coins are pretty much copy-paste-modify-conf versions of bitcoin so if there are any serious technical issues with bitcoin(none found so far) they will affect others just the same. Bitcoin is the first technology to make money transfer without trusted third party possible and will possibly remain an only one for a long time.
You would buy it because the government bans sale of pure ammonium nitrate for example. Anyway this is old news and doesnt really solve the problem. The mix doesnt detonate if you mix fuel with it - IED makers usually do that to increase potency of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Problem is that fertilizel blows up on its own too without fuel addition, what probably happened in Texas, just that its not very potent explosive. Still if you are talking about what sort of quantities agriculture uses thats kind of a moot point.
Seems like a fancy piece of software and some R&D never hurts, but as an industrial automation engineer i dont think its possible to actually sell a robot like that.
Its not possible to make it safe as per regulations.
Safety pretty much dooms any designs where fully functional robot and human must share workspace
Safety is not a condition of "Its safe when operator isnt doing something silly, software hasnt crashed, camera doesnt have a splatter of operators blood on it and there is no mechanical or electrical fault in device".
To meet safety standards a machine must have redundant failsafes, when operator is present there are limits to premitted kinetic energy, force, torque... and these must be hardware limits.
The real world implication of these regulations is that robot becomes absolutely useless when operator is present and that is why you have safety screens, covers etc to make sure that human cannot be in the working area of fully functional machine.
When operator can touch any moving part of the machine it cannot function normally, a safety mode that limits robots capabilities is used to teach, calibrate etc a machine.
But you would totally loose a " we have a robot chef " client attraction. Noodles made by a "robot" sell a lot better than noodles made by a "machine", not because of any real difference but because of preception
CPU has small number of very complex cores, good for fast decision making, eg managing opsys resources
GPU has lots of very simple cores, useless for decision making, but great for parallel number crunching
decentralised exchange is pretty much impossible, the fact that you cannot handle conventional currencies in a decentralized manner is the very reason why bitcoin was created. if you could have a decentralized exchange, would you need bitcoin at all anymore?
why not bury the data with the computer, that way when you dig it up in 25 years, you will have the capability to handle the data mediums with it, still do not bet only on hdd working, have a combination of atleat 2 hdd-s(ide and sata), cd, dvd and the thumb drive, chances are one of them will work. the motherboard will be dead by then tho, along with the psu(electrolyte capacitors don't last forever) maybe remove all electrolytes before burying so they wont leak and corrode all your hardware. also you might want to fill the capsule with inert gas like co2 not just plain air(humidity + oxygen + 25 years = figure it out yourself). also make it so all the drives are bootable. optical disks are the least likely to survive, just to note. imho ssd memory would be the most likely to survive
with the price of athletes health and lives amazing accomplishments in biology and medicine would certainly be achieved. once athlete gets busted with doping, they could be prohibited from ever participating on normal large scale competitions ever again. separating traditional sport and special doping included events
maybe cooking just caused culinary interest in people, will to look for more tasty food. and resulting in people tagging different plants and animals with labels like: spicy, sweet, sour etc instead of plain edible/inedible. in forward progress more complicated methods were developed to get better food, resulting in more complex fishing, hunting etc tools.
and then we have macdonalds, no wonder americans are viewed as idiots by the rest of the world. eating garbage cant be good for your intelligence. back to the trees with you!
would make a good solar concentrator if covered with folium or smth. with some solar tracking method and photovoltaic cell in the focus you would get decent amount of green power
why not take on some big project and build something like that: http://reprap.org/
after completing that you will prolly have understanding of: stepper motor controllers, programmable logic controllers, automation systems, amplifiers, more soldering than you want, mechanics, differences and work principles for dc and stepper motors, heating and temperature control etc
heh not quite engineer but smth along the lines for sure, i doubt a drill would be heavier than a robot arm + shovel, the do manage all other moving parts wo lubricants, thre are plenty(arm joints, wheels etc). one could easily spend a lot of time drilling the hole so it could be powered by solar panels, it would still be lot faster and power efficient than robot arm + shovel method.
you can brush anything clean of dust wo any liquid right? solar panels are covered with protective glass anyway so i wouldnt worry about scratches - wouldnt take the wind keeps panels clean story too seriously, first the atmosphere there is quite thin, second if high winds could get dust of how come i have to wash my car every now and then, even airplanes cant do without washing and you cant get much stronger winds than that.
about the dead ppl on the moon, i still think it would be more of a success than nothing we have at the moment - remember a rocket blown up teaches engineers more than one successfully lifted up.
you over simplify the business part of the deal, of your general space mission costs about a third is insurance just so you know.
here lies the problem with space programs. there is no need to make things too complicated, simple solutions are always best when it comes to being error proof. for some reason public opinion of rocket science is just that, uber complicated near impossible to understand. when in fact the complexity is way below the level of more modern sciences like genetics, various fields of electronics, biology, mathematics, quantum physics etc...
rocket engine in principle is one of the easiest engines there is with even steam engine being more mechanically complex, of course, it gets harder when you want to scale up the engine - lifting 20t to LEO is lot more than 20X more difficult than lifting 1t to same orbit. so wouldnt it be more economically efficient to lift more but smaller payloads?
space shuttle weighs 2000t, can lift 24t to LEO and mere 3.8t to GTO, one liftoff costs $1billion. is it really efficient to use 2000t shuttle to get up 7 people? SpaceShipOne the ansari x prize winner could lift 3 people to space(true, not orbit) for mere nothing compared to 1billion USD, i think that compares private venture cost effectiveness quite well
its depressing how feeble and unreliable the space probe design are compared to the insane amounts of investment.
a shovel, to scoop up dirt, instead of some decent drilling apparatus that could get samples from much deeper and from harder surface.
days to fill a small hole.
solar panels that get covered in dust because someone is too lazy to add windscreen wipers.
making things heavier and more robust than needed resulting in insane liftoff prices.
everything designed like alpha stage prototype.
no consideration of price.
if businesses would be contracted to design and make happen space missions we would have 1000 men moon base by now.
you could just give the budget and say use what you must to accomplish it and the leftover is your profit. competition would drive down prices and improve design
Slashdot Mirror
Tidy profit for sure, but what do you expect for creating something that is (arguably) worth $2billion today? Also chances are he/she has cached out long ago, for example when bitcoin hit 1$.I doubt Satoshi ever really thought that Bitcoin would ever be worth something (~100USD/BTC today), it was meant as a technology demonstration in the beggining, little else and worth exactly nothing. But as it turned out the system was bloody well designed and is now worth quite a lot. If it ever turns out to become really mainstream early adopters have every right to become billionaires, creating a whole new monetary system and economy is no small feat.
IRC turns 25 this year(a bit older than me), but its still going strong and i bet it will be going strong 25years in future just the same. It might not be as popular as percentage of internet users as it once was, but i wager total number of servers/channel/users is greater than ever
There are literally hundreds of scholarly articles
i meant on a glance, i'm not going to dig through technical history of something dead for fun, so im sure you know better than me
Except that anyone who devotes sufficient computing power can selectively deny confirmations on transactions in Bitcoin. Do you really think that much computing power is out of reach for major world governments?
Out of reach? No. Out of justifiable reach? Yeah.
Bitcoin is beyond a point where supercomputer would be useful attack tool. You could still beat asic producers to it, make your own asic more powerful and mass produce it fast to achive the kind of hashing power to seriously harm Bitcoin. But well.. the budget... Soon when every Joe and his dog has an asic miner even that attack vector is no longer viable. As a last resort a governemt can always pull the plug on internet itself, but again, that is outside of justifiable reach.
By the way, selective denial of confirmations if a feature, as mining for block reward becomes unprofitable(soon i bet) there must be an insentive to include that small voulantary trasaction fee.
Yeah, there doesnt seem to be much more information out there about it than "it was" tho, doesn't seem to me like it was decentralized any way or didnt need trusted third party. Bitcoin certainly is not first digital currency out there, but i don't think there is this kind of decentralisation precedent. Its more than "no trusted third party needed", its designed to be government proof, this test is yet to come, but i think it will pass. Only real vector of failiure i see right now is economical, it might just turn out to be a fad, or not, who can tell. but the system design seems to be incredibly watertight to me.
money transfer as in the context of internet obviously
Yeah, only that all current alternative e-coins are pretty much copy-paste-modify-conf versions of bitcoin so if there are any serious technical issues with bitcoin(none found so far) they will affect others just the same. Bitcoin is the first technology to make money transfer without trusted third party possible and will possibly remain an only one for a long time.
You would buy it because the government bans sale of pure ammonium nitrate for example. Anyway this is old news and doesnt really solve the problem. The mix doesnt detonate if you mix fuel with it - IED makers usually do that to increase potency of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Problem is that fertilizel blows up on its own too without fuel addition, what probably happened in Texas, just that its not very potent explosive. Still if you are talking about what sort of quantities agriculture uses thats kind of a moot point.
Seems like a fancy piece of software and some R&D never hurts, but as an industrial automation engineer i dont think its possible to actually sell a robot like that. Its not possible to make it safe as per regulations. Safety pretty much dooms any designs where fully functional robot and human must share workspace Safety is not a condition of "Its safe when operator isnt doing something silly, software hasnt crashed, camera doesnt have a splatter of operators blood on it and there is no mechanical or electrical fault in device". To meet safety standards a machine must have redundant failsafes, when operator is present there are limits to premitted kinetic energy, force, torque... and these must be hardware limits. The real world implication of these regulations is that robot becomes absolutely useless when operator is present and that is why you have safety screens, covers etc to make sure that human cannot be in the working area of fully functional machine. When operator can touch any moving part of the machine it cannot function normally, a safety mode that limits robots capabilities is used to teach, calibrate etc a machine.
But you would totally loose a " we have a robot chef " client attraction. Noodles made by a "robot" sell a lot better than noodles made by a "machine", not because of any real difference but because of preception
CPU has small number of very complex cores, good for fast decision making, eg managing opsys resources GPU has lots of very simple cores, useless for decision making, but great for parallel number crunching
decentralised exchange is pretty much impossible, the fact that you cannot handle conventional currencies in a decentralized manner is the very reason why bitcoin was created. if you could have a decentralized exchange, would you need bitcoin at all anymore?
why not bury the data with the computer, that way when you dig it up in 25 years, you will have the capability to handle the data mediums with it, still do not bet only on hdd working, have a combination of atleat 2 hdd-s(ide and sata), cd, dvd and the thumb drive, chances are one of them will work. the motherboard will be dead by then tho, along with the psu(electrolyte capacitors don't last forever) maybe remove all electrolytes before burying so they wont leak and corrode all your hardware. also you might want to fill the capsule with inert gas like co2 not just plain air(humidity + oxygen + 25 years = figure it out yourself). also make it so all the drives are bootable. optical disks are the least likely to survive, just to note. imho ssd memory would be the most likely to survive
with the price of athletes health and lives amazing accomplishments in biology and medicine would certainly be achieved. once athlete gets busted with doping, they could be prohibited from ever participating on normal large scale competitions ever again. separating traditional sport and special doping included events
maybe cooking just caused culinary interest in people, will to look for more tasty food. and resulting in people tagging different plants and animals with labels like: spicy, sweet, sour etc instead of plain edible/inedible. in forward progress more complicated methods were developed to get better food, resulting in more complex fishing, hunting etc tools. and then we have macdonalds, no wonder americans are viewed as idiots by the rest of the world. eating garbage cant be good for your intelligence. back to the trees with you!
that or counter terrorism funds, its a waste of money anyway
would make a good solar concentrator if covered with folium or smth. with some solar tracking method and photovoltaic cell in the focus you would get decent amount of green power
why not take on some big project and build something like that: http://reprap.org/ after completing that you will prolly have understanding of: stepper motor controllers, programmable logic controllers, automation systems, amplifiers, more soldering than you want, mechanics, differences and work principles for dc and stepper motors, heating and temperature control etc
heh not quite engineer but smth along the lines for sure, i doubt a drill would be heavier than a robot arm + shovel, the do manage all other moving parts wo lubricants, thre are plenty(arm joints, wheels etc). one could easily spend a lot of time drilling the hole so it could be powered by solar panels, it would still be lot faster and power efficient than robot arm + shovel method. you can brush anything clean of dust wo any liquid right? solar panels are covered with protective glass anyway so i wouldnt worry about scratches - wouldnt take the wind keeps panels clean story too seriously, first the atmosphere there is quite thin, second if high winds could get dust of how come i have to wash my car every now and then, even airplanes cant do without washing and you cant get much stronger winds than that. about the dead ppl on the moon, i still think it would be more of a success than nothing we have at the moment - remember a rocket blown up teaches engineers more than one successfully lifted up. you over simplify the business part of the deal, of your general space mission costs about a third is insurance just so you know. here lies the problem with space programs. there is no need to make things too complicated, simple solutions are always best when it comes to being error proof. for some reason public opinion of rocket science is just that, uber complicated near impossible to understand. when in fact the complexity is way below the level of more modern sciences like genetics, various fields of electronics, biology, mathematics, quantum physics etc... rocket engine in principle is one of the easiest engines there is with even steam engine being more mechanically complex, of course, it gets harder when you want to scale up the engine - lifting 20t to LEO is lot more than 20X more difficult than lifting 1t to same orbit. so wouldnt it be more economically efficient to lift more but smaller payloads? space shuttle weighs 2000t, can lift 24t to LEO and mere 3.8t to GTO, one liftoff costs $1billion. is it really efficient to use 2000t shuttle to get up 7 people? SpaceShipOne the ansari x prize winner could lift 3 people to space(true, not orbit) for mere nothing compared to 1billion USD, i think that compares private venture cost effectiveness quite well
its depressing how feeble and unreliable the space probe design are compared to the insane amounts of investment. a shovel, to scoop up dirt, instead of some decent drilling apparatus that could get samples from much deeper and from harder surface. days to fill a small hole. solar panels that get covered in dust because someone is too lazy to add windscreen wipers. making things heavier and more robust than needed resulting in insane liftoff prices. everything designed like alpha stage prototype. no consideration of price. if businesses would be contracted to design and make happen space missions we would have 1000 men moon base by now. you could just give the budget and say use what you must to accomplish it and the leftover is your profit. competition would drive down prices and improve design