Wont take responsibility for finding knowledge on the internet while on the internet. Wasting other people's time.
You made the assertion, refuse to provide any evidence for it, then blame your opponent for being too lazy to search for evidence to support your assertion.
When people have credible evidence, they're not afraid to cite it.
There's nothing wrong with expecting people to know what they're talking about, the research the topic, or to check claims made by others to refute, rebut, or acknowledge them. Asking for a citation when you can easily go and get it yourself in 2 seconds is the equivalent of a 6 year old little shit saying "Nuh-uh! PROVE IT!" incessantly.
If you scream and yell enough the recording gets flagged for review. It's worked for me several times. Most recently, with the USPS.
I was calling the USPS and trying to get a human to tell me why my package was flagged as "undeliverable as addressed" multiple times (despite it being properly addressed, returned to sender, properly addressed, resent, etc.) and no other packages having issues. Yelling at the useless call menu that outright refused to ever connect me to a human worked.
The next morning I received a call from a human explaining that the address was wrong on the package and it was the fault of the shipper and blah blah blah. And oh look, that day I magically get my package and it's properly addressed.
I didn't leave my phone number. I didn't leave it in my email and web form complaints. They had to have gotten it from their voice mail system. I only got a response after physically yelling a lot. I never verified I was the intended recipient of the package. I never provided ID. I provided a tracking number for the first package, but that was returned to sender and the subsequent packages had different tracking numbers.
The bottom line is that yelling very loudly and angrily at a machine triggered a response that got a human to review the issue, got a human to make judgment calls at several key points, not just follow a script.
Technically correct (the best kind of correct). I wasn't literally referring to all miners stopping at once, but a large, asymptotic fall off. Bitcoin would survive that.
I made another post discussing Hashflare's decision to pause operations. The gap between adjustments is the space in which they can manipulate the market and play hokey-pokey (you turn your miners off, you turn your miners on, you turn your miners off, and you shake em all about) with hashing power. If other speculators see their actions and panic, Hashflare can profit when they reenter. If not, they've simply sat idle for no reason.
But if literally EVERY miner stopped instantly I reckon I'd hear about it and I'd start mining again and get some others in on it. (Assuming the reason for the exodus wasn't a fork where everyone had just moved on to the forked blockchain, or actual government crackdown where merely mining Bitcoin gets you thrown in jail.)
Yeah, we'd need a sizeable investment to get to the next adjustment, but once there it'd get easier quickly. If miners truly stopped instantly, there should be a lot of cheap used mining hardware on the market. The issue then becomes electricity. The risk is other players with big mining farms noticing my group's interest and then moving back in and dominating our hashing power.
On one hand, increased interest makes our venture more profitable. On the other hand, if we're outright dominated and we never get to take advantage of the downward difficulty adjustments we triggered, then we just subsidized the power bill of the big boys.
Wait, so "institutional operators" basically control the space now? What happened to that decentralization thing that was supposed to be the entire purpose of bitcoin?
It's still in play.
The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that you need a large percentage of computing power to attack the network. You need a majority of the total computing power in order to manipulate transactions (give yourself more BTC). With a plurality, you could certainly disrupt shit for a time.
But the block chain is public. At any given point, people can look at the transactions and decide that an attack is happening, then take their ball and go home by forking the block chain. Leaving the attackers with nothing of value.
Forking the block chain is like making your own block chain (with blackjack, and hookers). And it's been done before. People just then have to choose which network to trust, or they can trust both. You'd have 2 different coins with 2 different networks and 2 different perceived values.
If every miner stopped today, they network would adjust the difficulty down, down, down, to the point where a single miner on a desktop PC could quickly process the low volume of transactions for the whole network and start farming up BTC. As transaction speed increases, volume increases, and so does the perceived value of BTC.
Whether or not Bitcoin would rebound and become as popular again after a panic is unknowable. Its decentralized and resilient nature has a lot of value, and I think it will remain healthy and relevant for a long time to come. Would such a panic kill Bitcoin? Not at all. The network doesn't care about its own popularity at any given time, or the price people are buying / selling BTC for in other currencies.
That's the exact opposite of how it's supposed to work.
If you think difficulty/prices is going to rise, you keep mining/buying now while it's low.
What's happening here is a large network has already invested $ into mining and established contracts for a fixed $ that is no longer profitable. They're hoping to manipulate the network by pausing operations and waiting for difficulty to fall before they jump back in.
Pausing operations may send prices up in the near term, but it won't be until the difficulty adjustment that things normalize. Being speculators, they don't care about the network, they don't care about the currency, they only care about profiting off of other speculators.
If people are panicky idiots and the price rises before the difficulty adjustment happens, then they can profit off of those panicky idiots. If people don't panic and the price doesn't rise before the difficulty adjustment happens, then they lose out.
I mined a little over 10 BTC around 5 years ago. When the price jumped to $100 I sold 10 and got $1000 and reported it as income on my taxes. It felt great. I got bored, threw the change I had away at some Bitcoin gambling site, and stopped mining.
Then the damn things went to $1000 per coin and I wished I had waited to sell and wished I hadn't stopped mining. I looked into mining again, but my hardware was no longer profitable and I didn't expect it to go past $1000.
Then the damn things kept going up and up. FUCK!
I never lost my wallet file, I never forgot my password, I never used an online wallet aside from what was necessary to sell and instantly cash out, or what was necessary to deposit on a gambling site then cash out, nothing was seized, etc. Rule #1 of Bitcoin is treat your wallet like cash.
Monopoly money is money because it functions as money in the game. It is not money because it LOOKS LIKE money. The shitty "definition" of milk I'm destroying is the one where anything that is not milk, but looks like milk, is therefore milk.
That's something functioning the same way. The shitty definition I was bitching about involves things that are not X being declared X because they merely look like X.
How about sticking with ONE interface paradigm? A standard desktop windowing system.
All you need to do is make it scale, and that's not a problem anymore with the high resolution of devices. You'll still have the unsolvable problem of having to draw a shitty on screen keyboard on top of everything for certain devices, but so what? That's unavoidable.
I don't want a dumbed down interface on websites. I don't want it on my desktop. I don't want it on laptops. I don't want it on tablets. I don't want it on phones. And yes, I have used phones as displays for my actual desktop computers via RDP and TeamViewer. It's not ideal, but it's totally fine even without scaling.
They claim it's not. Of course it is. They may be avoiding copying chunks of code directly or avoiding copying functionality too closely. But they're copying as much as they need and can get away with. And why wouldn't they? The entire industry is built upon copying code and ideas from others. Fuchsia is simply a response to the GPL and Oracle's lawsuit. It serves no practical purpose that a fork of Linux wouldn't be able to provide.
But hey - people were dumb/eager enough to believe Compaq developed a "clean room" version of IBM's BIOS.
If it comes from a plant it is by definition not milk.
By Definition? The number two definition of milk from Websters is "a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as a) the latex of a plant b) the contents of an unripe kernel of grain."
What kind of balderdash shit is this?
Noun: 1: A thing that is the thing. 2: A thing that is not the thing, but looks like the thing.
Queer was once a word for odd or strange. Then it became a slur toward non-heterosexuals. Now it's something the once slurred community has taken ownership of.
It still means odd or strange. That's why it was used as a description for homosexuals.
Read Shakespeare and apply modern meanings to the words. Lots of things will break, or tragedies will gain comedic value.
Uh, many of them were intentionally written that way. Hell, Shakespeare created many words in order to get a lot of sex jokes in.
The meaning of "knowing" someone has definitely changed since the King James Bible. How many people do you "know"?
No, the meaning of knowing someone hasn't changed. The Bible's "knowing" of someone referred to carnal knowledge. The word didn't mean something different back when that version of the Bible was written, the Bible merely euphemized fucking.
Bad. Yes, the word bad. Which still means bad, but under the correct circumstances can be good. For instance, "bad ass", which actually can also mean two things.
No, bad still means bad. Even in Michael Jackson's song/video, it meant bad. It's use as a positive adjective doesn't come from a negation of the meaning of "bad", but from the perspective of people seeing things that are morally bad as positive. A bad knee is a bad knee, and that's good to no one. A bad dude is a bad dude to all, but to other bad dudes that's a good thing.
This is the reality. It causes the legal system lots of problems, frankly, because it's hard to legislate a natural cognitive process. Also, it's hard to legislate around a natural cognitive process.
It's not a natural cognitive process, however. You have to learn these specific words and how to use them. And we've been dealing with how people use words for a long time. If you say something and you use the wrong words, you're incorrect or lying. We're not asking if a hot dog is a sandwich or not, we're asking if non-milk things can be called milk.
That's how language works though. Words mean what they mean precisely because that's how everybody uses them. Imagine how much chaos there would be if you decided that "and" suddenly meant "not" and "not" suddenly meant "ice cream."
Words mean what they mean precisely because they have a defined meaning. Imagine how much chaos there would be if people starting using "flammable" like fucking retards instead of the correct "inflammable". Why, you'd get people who thought "inflammable" meant the opposite of "flammable". Then you'd have to introduce "non-flammable" to further muddy the waters.
Are you a supporter of "literally" meaning anything but "literally"? Are you one of those no-talent ass clowns who thinks a kilobyte should be 1000 bytes? Do you not see the confusion that can arise by introducing a new term in an attempt to invalidate the previous term? In a KiB world, does a reference to KB mean 1000 or 1024 B? Did the person writing "KB" know of and adopt KiB? If it's written, how could you ask to find out? Would you have to look at the publication date and cross reference it against the popularity of KiB over time?
The solution to all of this is to stop being fucking wrong. 1 KB = 1024 B. Inflammable and non-inflammable are the correct terms. Almond "milk" is not milk.
Language changes. But not all change is good. Much of it is destructive. We can't let people willy-nilly fuck around unless you want to live in Idiocracy. About the only thing that movie missed was emojis.
But hell - they don't even teach English spelling and grammar in US public schools anymore. So fuck it! I literally could care less at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
You made the assertion, refuse to provide any evidence for it, then blame your opponent for being too lazy to search for evidence to support your assertion.
When people have credible evidence, they're not afraid to cite it.
There's nothing wrong with expecting people to know what they're talking about, the research the topic, or to check claims made by others to refute, rebut, or acknowledge them. Asking for a citation when you can easily go and get it yourself in 2 seconds is the equivalent of a 6 year old little shit saying "Nuh-uh! PROVE IT!" incessantly.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...
Alternatively, "Who is your daddy, and what does he do?".
He was an expert.
Good ol' Ad Words. Oh, what's this relevant link in the article I'm reading? Better mouse over it and... sfgsj;gsa;;dglhasldg
If you scream and yell enough the recording gets flagged for review.
It's worked for me several times. Most recently, with the USPS.
I was calling the USPS and trying to get a human to tell me why my package was flagged as "undeliverable as addressed" multiple times (despite it being properly addressed, returned to sender, properly addressed, resent, etc.) and no other packages having issues. Yelling at the useless call menu that outright refused to ever connect me to a human worked.
The next morning I received a call from a human explaining that the address was wrong on the package and it was the fault of the shipper and blah blah blah. And oh look, that day I magically get my package and it's properly addressed.
I didn't leave my phone number. I didn't leave it in my email and web form complaints. They had to have gotten it from their voice mail system.
I only got a response after physically yelling a lot. I never verified I was the intended recipient of the package. I never provided ID. I provided a tracking number for the first package, but that was returned to sender and the subsequent packages had different tracking numbers.
The bottom line is that yelling very loudly and angrily at a machine triggered a response that got a human to review the issue, got a human to make judgment calls at several key points, not just follow a script.
Can we go back to the days where images and fonts weren't automatically downloaded? What about asking to accept every time a cookie is requested?
Technically correct (the best kind of correct). I wasn't literally referring to all miners stopping at once, but a large, asymptotic fall off. Bitcoin would survive that.
I made another post discussing Hashflare's decision to pause operations. The gap between adjustments is the space in which they can manipulate the market and play hokey-pokey (you turn your miners off, you turn your miners on, you turn your miners off, and you shake em all about) with hashing power. If other speculators see their actions and panic, Hashflare can profit when they reenter. If not, they've simply sat idle for no reason.
But if literally EVERY miner stopped instantly I reckon I'd hear about it and I'd start mining again and get some others in on it. (Assuming the reason for the exodus wasn't a fork where everyone had just moved on to the forked blockchain, or actual government crackdown where merely mining Bitcoin gets you thrown in jail.)
Yeah, we'd need a sizeable investment to get to the next adjustment, but once there it'd get easier quickly. If miners truly stopped instantly, there should be a lot of cheap used mining hardware on the market. The issue then becomes electricity. The risk is other players with big mining farms noticing my group's interest and then moving back in and dominating our hashing power.
On one hand, increased interest makes our venture more profitable. On the other hand, if we're outright dominated and we never get to take advantage of the downward difficulty adjustments we triggered, then we just subsidized the power bill of the big boys.
Get a million views at once, maybe. Get a million views over x time? Who cares.
Sites should absolutely just provide torrent links for their shit.
Wait, so "institutional operators" basically control the space now? What happened to that decentralization thing that was supposed to be the entire purpose of bitcoin?
It's still in play.
The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that you need a large percentage of computing power to attack the network.
You need a majority of the total computing power in order to manipulate transactions (give yourself more BTC).
With a plurality, you could certainly disrupt shit for a time.
But the block chain is public. At any given point, people can look at the transactions and decide that an attack is happening, then take their ball and go home by forking the block chain. Leaving the attackers with nothing of value.
Forking the block chain is like making your own block chain (with blackjack, and hookers). And it's been done before.
People just then have to choose which network to trust, or they can trust both. You'd have 2 different coins with 2 different networks and 2 different perceived values.
Bitcoin was never designed to be anonymous. It's a PUBLIC LEDGER OF TRANSACTIONS.
Which government has successfully stopped people from using Bitcoin?
If every miner stopped today, they network would adjust the difficulty down, down, down, to the point where a single miner on a desktop PC could quickly process the low volume of transactions for the whole network and start farming up BTC. As transaction speed increases, volume increases, and so does the perceived value of BTC.
Whether or not Bitcoin would rebound and become as popular again after a panic is unknowable. Its decentralized and resilient nature has a lot of value, and I think it will remain healthy and relevant for a long time to come.
Would such a panic kill Bitcoin? Not at all. The network doesn't care about its own popularity at any given time, or the price people are buying / selling BTC for in other currencies.
That's the exact opposite of how it's supposed to work.
If you think difficulty/prices is going to rise, you keep mining/buying now while it's low.
What's happening here is a large network has already invested $ into mining and established contracts for a fixed $ that is no longer profitable.
They're hoping to manipulate the network by pausing operations and waiting for difficulty to fall before they jump back in.
Pausing operations may send prices up in the near term, but it won't be until the difficulty adjustment that things normalize.
Being speculators, they don't care about the network, they don't care about the currency, they only care about profiting off of other speculators.
If people are panicky idiots and the price rises before the difficulty adjustment happens, then they can profit off of those panicky idiots.
If people don't panic and the price doesn't rise before the difficulty adjustment happens, then they lose out.
I mined a little over 10 BTC around 5 years ago.
When the price jumped to $100 I sold 10 and got $1000 and reported it as income on my taxes. It felt great.
I got bored, threw the change I had away at some Bitcoin gambling site, and stopped mining.
Then the damn things went to $1000 per coin and I wished I had waited to sell and wished I hadn't stopped mining. I looked into mining again, but my hardware was no longer profitable and I didn't expect it to go past $1000.
Then the damn things kept going up and up. FUCK!
I never lost my wallet file, I never forgot my password, I never used an online wallet aside from what was necessary to sell and instantly cash out, or what was necessary to deposit on a gambling site then cash out, nothing was seized, etc. Rule #1 of Bitcoin is treat your wallet like cash.
Monopoly money is money because it functions as money in the game.
It is not money because it LOOKS LIKE money.
The shitty "definition" of milk I'm destroying is the one where anything that is not milk, but looks like milk, is therefore milk.
Nope.
That's something functioning the same way.
The shitty definition I was bitching about involves things that are not X being declared X because they merely look like X.
When they stop they'll still be money because they'll look like money (the former seashells used as money).
How about sticking with ONE interface paradigm? A standard desktop windowing system.
All you need to do is make it scale, and that's not a problem anymore with the high resolution of devices.
You'll still have the unsolvable problem of having to draw a shitty on screen keyboard on top of everything for certain devices, but so what? That's unavoidable.
I don't want a dumbed down interface on websites. I don't want it on my desktop. I don't want it on laptops. I don't want it on tablets. I don't want it on phones.
And yes, I have used phones as displays for my actual desktop computers via RDP and TeamViewer. It's not ideal, but it's totally fine even without scaling.
No, Zircon is the kernel, Fucshia is the OS. They will absolutely be cribbing from Linux, as much as they need and can get away with.
This entire movie is in response to the GPL and Oracle.
They claim it's not. Of course it is. They may be avoiding copying chunks of code directly or avoiding copying functionality too closely. But they're copying as much as they need and can get away with. And why wouldn't they? The entire industry is built upon copying code and ideas from others. Fuchsia is simply a response to the GPL and Oracle's lawsuit. It serves no practical purpose that a fork of Linux wouldn't be able to provide.
But hey - people were dumb/eager enough to believe Compaq developed a "clean room" version of IBM's BIOS.
They're already in complete disarray. Half of the youth vote and most of the black vote is going to #WalkAway .
I wish we had a relevant party for them to go to. I do not want Republicans to rule the roost unilaterally.
Male mammals can lactate. Happens to a lot of guys when their wives are pregnant.
Yup, Canola oil is the best plant-based oil you can readily get. One of the few things the Canadians got right.
By Definition? The number two definition of milk from Websters is "a liquid resembling milk in appearance: such as a) the latex of a plant b) the contents of an unripe kernel of grain."
What kind of balderdash shit is this?
Noun:
1: A thing that is the thing.
2: A thing that is not the thing, but looks like the thing.
I guess counterfeit money is money!
Queer was once a word for odd or strange. Then it became a slur toward non-heterosexuals. Now it's something the once slurred community has taken ownership of.
It still means odd or strange. That's why it was used as a description for homosexuals.
Read Shakespeare and apply modern meanings to the words. Lots of things will break, or tragedies will gain comedic value.
Uh, many of them were intentionally written that way. Hell, Shakespeare created many words in order to get a lot of sex jokes in.
The meaning of "knowing" someone has definitely changed since the King James Bible. How many people do you "know"?
No, the meaning of knowing someone hasn't changed. The Bible's "knowing" of someone referred to carnal knowledge. The word didn't mean something different back when that version of the Bible was written, the Bible merely euphemized fucking.
Bad. Yes, the word bad. Which still means bad, but under the correct circumstances can be good. For instance, "bad ass", which actually can also mean two things.
No, bad still means bad. Even in Michael Jackson's song/video, it meant bad. It's use as a positive adjective doesn't come from a negation of the meaning of "bad", but from the perspective of people seeing things that are morally bad as positive. A bad knee is a bad knee, and that's good to no one. A bad dude is a bad dude to all, but to other bad dudes that's a good thing.
This is the reality. It causes the legal system lots of problems, frankly, because it's hard to legislate a natural cognitive process. Also, it's hard to legislate around a natural cognitive process.
It's not a natural cognitive process, however. You have to learn these specific words and how to use them. And we've been dealing with how people use words for a long time. If you say something and you use the wrong words, you're incorrect or lying. We're not asking if a hot dog is a sandwich or not, we're asking if non-milk things can be called milk.
That's how language works though. Words mean what they mean precisely because that's how everybody uses them. Imagine how much chaos there would be if you decided that "and" suddenly meant "not" and "not" suddenly meant "ice cream."
Words mean what they mean precisely because they have a defined meaning.
Imagine how much chaos there would be if people starting using "flammable" like fucking retards instead of the correct "inflammable".
Why, you'd get people who thought "inflammable" meant the opposite of "flammable".
Then you'd have to introduce "non-flammable" to further muddy the waters.
Are you a supporter of "literally" meaning anything but "literally"?
Are you one of those no-talent ass clowns who thinks a kilobyte should be 1000 bytes? Do you not see the confusion that can arise by introducing a new term in an attempt to invalidate the previous term? In a KiB world, does a reference to KB mean 1000 or 1024 B? Did the person writing "KB" know of and adopt KiB? If it's written, how could you ask to find out? Would you have to look at the publication date and cross reference it against the popularity of KiB over time?
The solution to all of this is to stop being fucking wrong. 1 KB = 1024 B. Inflammable and non-inflammable are the correct terms. Almond "milk" is not milk.
Language changes. But not all change is good. Much of it is destructive. We can't let people willy-nilly fuck around unless you want to live in Idiocracy. About the only thing that movie missed was emojis.
But hell - they don't even teach English spelling and grammar in US public schools anymore. So fuck it! I literally could care less at this point.