If one has a true distributed/cloud computing infrastructure, if you can survive from a datacenter or two going down why even have backup power?
I am wondering the same thing. It seems to me that this is one of those cases where legacy thinking hasn't evolved. You probably still want some UPS so that you can shutdown smoothly, but negating any sort of long term outage shouldnt be part of the modern "cloud" plan.
That's just you and your buddy lying to people that you're going to pay them and letting chance determine who you end up not paying.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Controlling who wins the race is not "letting chance determine," its the exact opposite of "letting chance determine." Are you really this willfully blind when it comes to bitcoins that you will assign the exact opposite of its criticisms to those criticisms?
That's just you and your buddy lying to people that you're going to pay them
Not just me and my buddy since the visible chains are lying right along with us.
The are finite, you know, and probably a lot more finite than a well-protected HDD.
Ah yes, "probably" followed by a comparison vs "well-protected"
Why not just come right and and say that you have absolutely no confidence at all in what you are saying? An even better idea would be to not to bother saying things that you have absolutely no confidence in, or at least make it clear that you are making an uninformed guess.
Most people aren't that fixated on an few extra seconds here or there.
This argument only makes sense if you can show that most people are fixated on a few extra GB of storage here and there, because that is the trade-off being made.
Let them try out an HDD system with 1.5TB of free drive space and then try out an SSD system with 10GB of free drive space and then give them a choice. The SSD system will win this taste test every time because the advantages are both obvious and immediate. Those "few extra seconds" are always when the user just clicked on something.
1) If the same coins are really spent on both sides of the network split the transactions on the losing side will become invalid and will be dropped. This should not be a problem in practice as clients will be on one or other side of the split, not both.
Clients? Sure. ID's not so much. It is quite trivial to phone my buddy on the other side of the network split and give him what he needs to start trading the coins I am also about to start trading. This idea that "it should not be a problem" assumes honest actors.. what kind of security is that? Its just plain old bullshit that you just tried to sell.
The entire network would be really hard to split and keep split in practice.
I think the AC's point is that it doesnt have to be kept split. I think the AC's point is that it just needs to be reconnected in the right sequence in order to control who wins the race. Remember that most of the network is already ignorant of your balance even without any splits.
So, yeah, the Obama administration really does need to get ready for the sequestration cuts to happen. The only way out is for Obama to be re-elected, and democrats to get a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate
Consider the following:
The last time the republicans held both the house and senate, and the democrats held the oval office, the budget got balanced. It wasnt pretty the way things went down.. the government shut down once.. and came very close a second time.. but eventually the democrats agreed to the republican budget.
I'm not saying that that can happen this time.. probably not.. many of those republicans that made it happen are either gone or are out of favor, but it does prove that if enough of those fucks feel compelled to balance the budget (such as with a "contract with america",) that it can happen.
After that XT, I bought an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 2000HD. By 1996, I switch to Windows 95 on a Compaq Presario and I was a PC user exclusively at home until 2002
So you abandoned Apple in the 1980's, right? So did everyone else. Apple retained a single niche at the end up the 80's, the desktop publishing crowd, and only because of Aldus.
I think you are remembering history incorrectly
I think you are being dishonest with us. By 1990 Apple had only about 10% market share, and it only went downhill from there. Apple lost in the 80's. Those are the facts and perhaps YOU, who doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about, should try using Google.
If you're buying a car or a house, waiting an hour or two for more transactions is reasonable. You'd spend at least that time on paperwork.
Who in their right mind is going to be signing paperwork before the money, or a legally enforceable promise of money, is confirmed and in their hands when talking about very large sums?
...perhaps the same idiot that didnt get a lawyer when you was buying or selling a house.
Except physics isn't math. We can model physics with mathematics, but that doesn't mean they are literally the same thing.
Now you are being too literal.
Algorithms cannot be implemented without physics. I dont think that anyone is seriously suggesting that the movement of baryons and leptons (classical machines) is any more or less special than the movement of just leptons (electronics and digital machines.)
The confusion arises because the modern algorithm is implemented on top of so many layers of abstraction, and many of the arguments on both sides rely on making the distinction between those layers, just as you inadvertently are. The abstractions are just framework and were intended to be meaningless. We dont see patents ending with "...constructed of wood" or "...constructed of stainless steel" but we do see "...on a cell phone" and "..on a network." That is the actual problem, that old ideas are considered new simply by changing the materials, not that algorithms shouldn't be patentable.
I argue that it is only algorithms that were supposed to be covered by patents. Nobody got to infringe on the steam engine patents just by using different materials, and nobody got to re-patent the idea when stainless steel was invented.
Apple was losing money because of the mac cloners when Steve Jobs returned.
What an utter load of crap. When Apple finally stopped the macintosh cloning they designed and sold an inexpensive mac, the classic. All that did was convert them from a niche player with high margins into a niche player with low margins. Thats when they turned unprofitable, but they had to try because the stakes were so high.
Yeah, you could choose intel and get performance and quality or go with a crapshoot of various chipsets and AMD processors. BFD. In reality, you had very little choice. They all ran windows and had crapware on them unless if you built your own but most people did not do that.
The choice wasnt in the processor or the chipset. The choice was in the peripherals, and what a dumb fuck you are if you thought dos and later win3 machines were shipped with crapware. You seem to be about 10 years too ignorant. Crapware didnt exist until the internet took off, and then it didnt exist until windows had a network stack. Apple was niche long before those happened, because of the clones... in the ms-dos era.
Listen pal, I "work" for a living as a software developer on the windows platform.
That doesnt change the fact that you are too young to have experienced the downfall of Apple. Apple went from market leader to niche in the 1980's, not the late 1990's like you seem to imagine.
Is this going to be cheaper than SSD? The price point for solid state finally reached where platter drives were about ten years ago
If you compare consumer SSD's to enterprise 15000 RPM HDD's then they are already at price parity, and by the middle of next year the enterprise SSD's will be at or better than parity with any 15000 RPM's.
Counterpoint : What motive do banks have to secure their system if they are not liable for its insecurity
Nothing has changed with your scenario because its based on the faulty premise that someone other than the consumer will pay the cost. The consumer is the side of the trade that has the money, and all costs must be definition by paid for out of that money.
Fraud is overhead that needs to be paid for regardless of who is left holding the empty bag at the end, and that overhead will always end up being reflected in the retail prices.
So who better to be left holding the empty bag than the party that has direct control over retail prices, and even some control over who he does business with?
Really? Most of the Libertarians I know tend to vote liberal, due to their image of being the party of personal rights.
Paradoxically, the democrat/republican spectrum turned 90 degrees precisely during the period of desegregation and equal rights. It used to be the Republicans were fiscally conservative but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks, and the Democrats were fiscally liberal but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks. Both the Democrats and Republicans faced turmoil during this time because a few of the most prominent members of the parties were quite vocally against desegregation, yet the president had made up his mind and most of the population were in favor of it.
So all through the 70's and into the 80's both the Democrats and the Republicans transformed themselves, pushing most of the social conservatives into the Republican party and most of the social liberals into the Democrat party.
The end result is that now both parties are a mix of fiscal attitude, while mainly hard-line on the social issues. The whole thing turned 90 degrees. Instead of the parties being split on fiscal issues, it was now social issues.
We no longer get to vote for "the fiscally conservative party" because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent that ideal. So where do we go from here? Right down the tubes.
One of those two wants some sort of sensible tax reform where the rich are required to pay their fair share.
Yes, but which one that is is open to interpretation because "fair share" are words seeking emotional involvement, rather than reasoned thought.
One of those two openly supports the rights of homosexual couples.
Are you always this bad at saying what you mean? The nation is talking about marriage, not couplehood. The reason they are is because married people are an elite group with special rights and privileges that are not extended to single people. We arent talking about fairness here. We are talking about letting a few more people into the special rights club. I thought you were all about fairness? I guess not in actuality. You seem to be focused on the perception of fairness, rather than equality for all.
One of those two ended the war in Iraq.
No, neither of these two did. The Iraq war was ended by the authorization of George W Bush, on the time table authorized by George W. Bush. You seem to want to give Obama credit for not extending the war further than the Bush plan. How partisan of you.
One of those two has stood up for what little regulations we have protecting net neutrality.
We have no regulations protecting net neutraity. Why dont you read those FCC "net neutrality" rules sometime. You do know that they were written by AT&T, right?
Maybe you can draw a few parallels here and there that piss you off, but the two men aren't the mirror images you've tried to paint here.
Says the guy that doesnt give a rats ass about equality for all... One day you will be free of the brainwashing, and on that day you will reality that Obama and Romney are almost entirely the same.. against freedom and equality.
As we all know from Quantum Mechanics 101, it is impossible to to measure the state of a particle without affecting it (the Uncertainty principle).
This, however, does not preclude his argument. Your entire state is constantly being effected by interactions that reduce the quantum uncertainties of your constituent parts to actual certainty. The interactions, contrary to pop-sci, do not require a "mind" or an "observer" to take place. A scanner involved in creating a digital representation of your state is no different than a flash bulb on a camera. The camera flash also changes your state, but nobody is saying that the picture isnt a picture of you or that you are meaningfully different since the moment the light hit you.
Please keep doing what you're doing. I had my graphing calculator stolen in high school, and was not happy about having to shell out the cash for a new one.
One of these calculators may be your stolen goods. Keep that in mind when you suggest that he keep doing what hes doing...
... check with your school policies on handling lost and found crap. I assume these were lost on school property, so the school has a say in their disposition.
I would suggest that even though the school may have a policy, it is the law that has a say.
I would suggest that these calculators are not "lost" in the legal sense, but have been "mislaid" in the legal sense.
Under "common law",...
Lost = owner dropped the item some place by accident
Mislaid = owner forgot (where) to retrieve the item after setting it down
In all likelihood, the only legal things to do are either (a) return them to where you found them, or (b) deliver them to the police. Option (a) may no longer be considered legal if you had possession for an extended period of time.
In most jurisdictions, you will gain rightful ownership of the items if you take option (b) and after a period of time in police possession they remain unclaimed.
Ah yes, the old "damn it I dont know how to respond to logic" response from the progressive... an ad hominem.
You now defend the government (with personal attacks!) for having the power to bail out the rich fucks, yet you were just crying that the government chooses to exercise that power.
Your world view is inconsistent. We already know what happens when the government is big enough and strong enough to bail them out.. THEY ACTUALLY BAILED THEM OUT. Thats past tense.. as in not fucking speculation.. they really did it. The government really did do the thing you were just crying about, yet you do not see it as a problem with government... I am fucking amazed at how programmed you are.
My 401(k) plan does. Why doesnt yours? I am going to guess that you dont even have a 401(k) plan, given that you dont know what options are typically available.
There are lots of games the small investor cant play because he goes through a broker that charges him a fee per transaction, whereas people like the day traders do not pay a fee because they are on the floor or have people on the floor.
Now, what was your point? Oh yeah.. you didnt actually have one because you really dont know what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
If one has a true distributed/cloud computing infrastructure, if you can survive from a datacenter or two going down why even have backup power?
I am wondering the same thing. It seems to me that this is one of those cases where legacy thinking hasn't evolved. You probably still want some UPS so that you can shutdown smoothly, but negating any sort of long term outage shouldnt be part of the modern "cloud" plan.
That's just you and your buddy lying to people that you're going to pay them and letting chance determine who you end up not paying.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Controlling who wins the race is not "letting chance determine," its the exact opposite of "letting chance determine." Are you really this willfully blind when it comes to bitcoins that you will assign the exact opposite of its criticisms to those criticisms?
That's just you and your buddy lying to people that you're going to pay them
Not just me and my buddy since the visible chains are lying right along with us.
The are finite, you know, and probably a lot more finite than a well-protected HDD.
Ah yes, "probably" followed by a comparison vs "well-protected"
Why not just come right and and say that you have absolutely no confidence at all in what you are saying? An even better idea would be to not to bother saying things that you have absolutely no confidence in, or at least make it clear that you are making an uninformed guess.
Most people aren't that fixated on an few extra seconds here or there.
This argument only makes sense if you can show that most people are fixated on a few extra GB of storage here and there, because that is the trade-off being made.
Let them try out an HDD system with 1.5TB of free drive space and then try out an SSD system with 10GB of free drive space and then give them a choice. The SSD system will win this taste test every time because the advantages are both obvious and immediate. Those "few extra seconds" are always when the user just clicked on something.
1) If the same coins are really spent on both sides of the network split the transactions on the losing side will become invalid and will be dropped. This should not be a problem in practice as clients will be on one or other side of the split, not both.
Clients? Sure. ID's not so much. It is quite trivial to phone my buddy on the other side of the network split and give him what he needs to start trading the coins I am also about to start trading. This idea that "it should not be a problem" assumes honest actors.. what kind of security is that? Its just plain old bullshit that you just tried to sell.
The entire network would be really hard to split and keep split in practice.
I think the AC's point is that it doesnt have to be kept split. I think the AC's point is that it just needs to be reconnected in the right sequence in order to control who wins the race. Remember that most of the network is already ignorant of your balance even without any splits.
So, yeah, the Obama administration really does need to get ready for the sequestration cuts to happen. The only way out is for Obama to be re-elected, and democrats to get a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate
Consider the following:
The last time the republicans held both the house and senate, and the democrats held the oval office, the budget got balanced. It wasnt pretty the way things went down.. the government shut down once.. and came very close a second time.. but eventually the democrats agreed to the republican budget.
I'm not saying that that can happen this time.. probably not.. many of those republicans that made it happen are either gone or are out of favor, but it does prove that if enough of those fucks feel compelled to balance the budget (such as with a "contract with america",) that it can happen.
After that XT, I bought an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 2000HD. By 1996, I switch to Windows 95 on a Compaq Presario and I was a PC user exclusively at home until 2002
So you abandoned Apple in the 1980's, right? So did everyone else. Apple retained a single niche at the end up the 80's, the desktop publishing crowd, and only because of Aldus.
I think you are remembering history incorrectly
I think you are being dishonest with us. By 1990 Apple had only about 10% market share, and it only went downhill from there. Apple lost in the 80's. Those are the facts and perhaps YOU, who doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about, should try using Google.
If you're buying a car or a house, waiting an hour or two for more transactions is reasonable. You'd spend at least that time on paperwork.
Who in their right mind is going to be signing paperwork before the money, or a legally enforceable promise of money, is confirmed and in their hands when talking about very large sums?
...perhaps the same idiot that didnt get a lawyer when you was buying or selling a house.
Except physics isn't math. We can model physics with mathematics, but that doesn't mean they are literally the same thing.
Now you are being too literal.
Algorithms cannot be implemented without physics. I dont think that anyone is seriously suggesting that the movement of baryons and leptons (classical machines) is any more or less special than the movement of just leptons (electronics and digital machines.)
The confusion arises because the modern algorithm is implemented on top of so many layers of abstraction, and many of the arguments on both sides rely on making the distinction between those layers, just as you inadvertently are. The abstractions are just framework and were intended to be meaningless. We dont see patents ending with "...constructed of wood" or "...constructed of stainless steel" but we do see "...on a cell phone" and "..on a network." That is the actual problem, that old ideas are considered new simply by changing the materials, not that algorithms shouldn't be patentable.
I argue that it is only algorithms that were supposed to be covered by patents. Nobody got to infringe on the steam engine patents just by using different materials, and nobody got to re-patent the idea when stainless steel was invented.
Apple was losing money because of the mac cloners when Steve Jobs returned.
What an utter load of crap. When Apple finally stopped the macintosh cloning they designed and sold an inexpensive mac, the classic. All that did was convert them from a niche player with high margins into a niche player with low margins. Thats when they turned unprofitable, but they had to try because the stakes were so high.
Yeah, you could choose intel and get performance and quality or go with a crapshoot of various chipsets and AMD processors. BFD. In reality, you had very little choice. They all ran windows and had crapware on them unless if you built your own but most people did not do that.
The choice wasnt in the processor or the chipset. The choice was in the peripherals, and what a dumb fuck you are if you thought dos and later win3 machines were shipped with crapware. You seem to be about 10 years too ignorant. Crapware didnt exist until the internet took off, and then it didnt exist until windows had a network stack. Apple was niche long before those happened, because of the clones... in the ms-dos era.
Listen pal, I "work" for a living as a software developer on the windows platform.
That doesnt change the fact that you are too young to have experienced the downfall of Apple. Apple went from market leader to niche in the 1980's, not the late 1990's like you seem to imagine.
Is this going to be cheaper than SSD? The price point for solid state finally reached where platter drives were about ten years ago
If you compare consumer SSD's to enterprise 15000 RPM HDD's then they are already at price parity, and by the middle of next year the enterprise SSD's will be at or better than parity with any 15000 RPM's.
The liability should be with the party that has the power to do something about it: the card companies.
So neither person at the point of sale has the power to do something about it? Its the institution that is by definition not at the point of sale?
Counterpoint : What motive do banks have to secure their system if they are not liable for its insecurity
Nothing has changed with your scenario because its based on the faulty premise that someone other than the consumer will pay the cost. The consumer is the side of the trade that has the money, and all costs must be definition by paid for out of that money.
Fraud is overhead that needs to be paid for regardless of who is left holding the empty bag at the end, and that overhead will always end up being reflected in the retail prices.
So who better to be left holding the empty bag than the party that has direct control over retail prices, and even some control over who he does business with?
Really? Most of the Libertarians I know tend to vote liberal, due to their image of being the party of personal rights.
Paradoxically, the democrat/republican spectrum turned 90 degrees precisely during the period of desegregation and equal rights. It used to be the Republicans were fiscally conservative but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks, and the Democrats were fiscally liberal but a mix of socially conservative and socially liberal folks. Both the Democrats and Republicans faced turmoil during this time because a few of the most prominent members of the parties were quite vocally against desegregation, yet the president had made up his mind and most of the population were in favor of it.
So all through the 70's and into the 80's both the Democrats and the Republicans transformed themselves, pushing most of the social conservatives into the Republican party and most of the social liberals into the Democrat party.
The end result is that now both parties are a mix of fiscal attitude, while mainly hard-line on the social issues. The whole thing turned 90 degrees. Instead of the parties being split on fiscal issues, it was now social issues.
We no longer get to vote for "the fiscally conservative party" because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent that ideal. So where do we go from here? Right down the tubes.
One of those two wants some sort of sensible tax reform where the rich are required to pay their fair share.
Yes, but which one that is is open to interpretation because "fair share" are words seeking emotional involvement, rather than reasoned thought.
One of those two openly supports the rights of homosexual couples.
Are you always this bad at saying what you mean? The nation is talking about marriage, not couplehood. The reason they are is because married people are an elite group with special rights and privileges that are not extended to single people. We arent talking about fairness here. We are talking about letting a few more people into the special rights club. I thought you were all about fairness? I guess not in actuality. You seem to be focused on the perception of fairness, rather than equality for all.
One of those two ended the war in Iraq.
No, neither of these two did. The Iraq war was ended by the authorization of George W Bush, on the time table authorized by George W. Bush. You seem to want to give Obama credit for not extending the war further than the Bush plan. How partisan of you.
One of those two has stood up for what little regulations we have protecting net neutrality.
We have no regulations protecting net neutraity. Why dont you read those FCC "net neutrality" rules sometime. You do know that they were written by AT&T, right?
Maybe you can draw a few parallels here and there that piss you off, but the two men aren't the mirror images you've tried to paint here.
Says the guy that doesnt give a rats ass about equality for all... One day you will be free of the brainwashing, and on that day you will reality that Obama and Romney are almost entirely the same.. against freedom and equality.
As we all know from Quantum Mechanics 101, it is impossible to to measure the state of a particle without affecting it (the Uncertainty principle).
This, however, does not preclude his argument. Your entire state is constantly being effected by interactions that reduce the quantum uncertainties of your constituent parts to actual certainty. The interactions, contrary to pop-sci, do not require a "mind" or an "observer" to take place. A scanner involved in creating a digital representation of your state is no different than a flash bulb on a camera. The camera flash also changes your state, but nobody is saying that the picture isnt a picture of you or that you are meaningfully different since the moment the light hit you.
When you figure out how to build a teleporter and a replicator, you too will get to patent them.
holo-fantasy drugs dont have the same effect, so the occasional drug run will be required.
Friendship is only confirmed when cited by an independent source.
Please keep doing what you're doing. I had my graphing calculator stolen in high school, and was not happy about having to shell out the cash for a new one.
One of these calculators may be your stolen goods. Keep that in mind when you suggest that he keep doing what hes doing...
... check with your school policies on handling lost and found crap. I assume these were lost on school property, so the school has a say in their disposition.
I would suggest that even though the school may have a policy, it is the law that has a say.
...
I would suggest that these calculators are not "lost" in the legal sense, but have been "mislaid" in the legal sense.
Under "common law",
Lost = owner dropped the item some place by accident
Mislaid = owner forgot (where) to retrieve the item after setting it down
In all likelihood, the only legal things to do are either (a) return them to where you found them, or (b) deliver them to the police. Option (a) may no longer be considered legal if you had possession for an extended period of time.
In most jurisdictions, you will gain rightful ownership of the items if you take option (b) and after a period of time in police possession they remain unclaimed.
Ah yes, the old "damn it I dont know how to respond to logic" response from the progressive... an ad hominem.
You now defend the government (with personal attacks!) for having the power to bail out the rich fucks, yet you were just crying that the government chooses to exercise that power.
Your world view is inconsistent. We already know what happens when the government is big enough and strong enough to bail them out.. THEY ACTUALLY BAILED THEM OUT. Thats past tense.. as in not fucking speculation.. they really did it. The government really did do the thing you were just crying about, yet you do not see it as a problem with government... I am fucking amazed at how programmed you are.
My 401(k) plan does. Why doesnt yours? I am going to guess that you dont even have a 401(k) plan, given that you dont know what options are typically available.
There are lots of games the small investor cant play because he goes through a broker that charges him a fee per transaction, whereas people like the day traders do not pay a fee because they are on the floor or have people on the floor.
Now, what was your point? Oh yeah.. you didnt actually have one because you really dont know what you are talking about.