The one people are willing to hold. If people who accept bitcoins for transactions immediately convert them to something else then that something else is more real.
... what is it that, once I've generated a BitCoin, motivates someone else to want it so much that they're willing to sell me something in exchange...
That they can convert the bitcoin to a US Dollar, a Euro, etc **immediately** after receiving it. They don't hold bitcoins, they convert them to something else.
Enterprises could always "side load" (bypass the Apple App Store) their own apps on their own devices.
iOS 6 is most likely specified simply because its the current version. To keep things simple. Want onto the network, then be running the current os version. That and the internal developers needs a min iOS target.
Aerial mapping is not new. The only thing that has changed is that the pilot is now remote. Is every instance of data acquisition from an aerial platform where the pilot becomes remote some sort of breaking news event?
It was inevitable, BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business. I wonder if this had anything to do with approving iOS and Android for use by certain governmental agencies (DoD, etc).
It probably will be in Windows Update. However a Windows Update will probably not change your configuration settings. Whether you get the 8.0 or the 8.1 user interface will probably just be configuration. Your default configuration varying depending on what you originally installed.
Now if you go to the Windows Store and install Windows 8.1 that will probably change your configuration settings.
Going Update or Store will probably leave you with the same binaries on the hard drive.
I guess you didn't even read the summary, or you'd realize we're talking about infrastructure and not toys or luxuries.
Or perhaps I was trying to make a general point that upgrading every 2 or 3 years can be a good thing, it depends entirely on the specific item, and I chose to use an example that nearly all readers could understand.
Do You Trust When a Vendor Tells You To Buy New Parts?
Yes, if its a video card. Buying a low end video card (US$120-140) every two or three years seems to improve the end user experience nicely, **iff** we are talking about a system used for gaming.
On second thought I guess I am not really trusting the vendor since they are telling me to buy the US$500 video card.
So if the board of directors decides to fund Politician Bob (tax cuts for corporations) from the corporate treasury while the majority of their employees, who also happen to be on minimum wage, would rather fund Politician Joe (minimum wage increases), whose speech is it?
To be fair that happens in trade unions as well. The union leadership may spend huge sums of money on candidates that union members will vote against. Money that was forcibly extracted from the union member's paycheck. Hence the popularity among the members of *some* unions of initiatives that would require union member's consent for that portion of union dues that go to political contributions.
It would seem that only the advocacy groups make contributions that are generally in line with the membership. It surely helps that their funding is generally from voluntary membership and donations. This provides a check and balance missing in corporations and trade unions. On second thought, corporations do have a minor check and balance. Consumers can boycott their products in they find the corporation's political contributions distasteful. Regrettably consumers seem to care about nothing beyond the lowest price.
I'm not in favor of any such abuse by CEOs or union leaders. I'm just pointing out that rights and abuses are not as one sided as often portrayed.
Being 1/50th the size it will be welcome on mobile devices. Not sure that its a good thing for your gaming desktop.
That 84 watts is going to rip through your mobile device's battery pretty damn fast.
Don't we need to compare it to a traditional regulator implementation before we come to that conclusion? Assuming pretty damn fast means faster than current Atom based devices.
I realize that is the meme popularized in the media. However if you actually read the Citizens United decision it says something different:
(1) Groups of people have the same rights as individuals.
(2) It does not matter if that group of people is a corporation, trade union, advocacy group, etc.
The CEO, or who ever was involved in committing a crime should go to prison just like any other citizen.
Actually Moms may prefer the Kindle Fire. Last I heard the Kindle Fire stats lean towards female and the iPad stats lean towards male. It will be interesting to see if the fits-in-a-purse iPad mini is more like the Kindle Fire in this respect.
Chromebooks are like tablets. They are generally complementary products for desktops and laptops, not replacement products. They are a device you can leave on your coffee table and do a little web browsing and email from your couch. Similarly your guests can pick it up and use it from the couch. It can be a box to help keep others off of your main pc or laptop, less malware risk.
Problem is, Chromebooks are crappy laptops - they have a laptop formfactor (not a tablet one) which makes them inconvenient to use in say a living room when you want to surf on the couch (the keyboard gets in the way).
I actually find the keyboard helpful. It can act as a base to keep the screen upright. When using a tablet I sometimes have to precariously balance it or hold it with one hand. Overall I'm unsure as to whether one or the other is better for browsing, they both seem fine to me. Its email where the chromebook seems to have the edge, typing can be awkward while balancing the tablet. If I am somewhere where I can let the tablet stand on its own and I have a flat surface for a bluetooth keyboard the tablet is a win. But tablet + bluetooth keyboard can be a bit pricey compared to a chromebook. Yes, I am focusing on the sub $300 chromebooks, I don't understand the $500 to $1,000 chromebooks, just get a laptop at that point.
As a laptop, they're awful locked down things that pretend to act like a regular laptop...
They pretend no such thing. Being locked down is one of the desirable features of this *complementary* product (again, not a replacement for a laptop). One can hand the chromebook to a guest and not have to worry about it picking up malware, unlike your regular laptop. One can set one up for that relative that only want to browse and email and not have to worry about malware.
In short, the chromebook is just an appliance, and for some situations that is probably the better option. People who think chromebooks are replacements for laptops are severely misinformed, well, except possibly for the segment that literally wants nothing more than web browsing and email.
Chromebooks are like tablets. [They are generally complementary products for desktops and laptops, not replacement products.]
That is totally wrong.
You are only saying that because of the surface issue of processing power.
No. You should really read that second sentence, it explains why chromebooks are like tablets. Its not about use cases, its about complementing a regular desktop/laptop not replacing it.
Tablet vs Chromebook is an entirely different topic. Each has use cases where one or the other is the better option.
Chromebooks are like tablets. They are generally complementary products for desktops and laptops, not replacement products. They are a device you can leave on your coffee table and do a little web browsing and email from your couch. Similarly your guests can pick it up and use it from the couch. It can be a box to help keep others off of your main pc or laptop, less malware risk.
But a tester at Blizzard is someone who plays the game for 8 hours and logs bug tickets.
Until a development team tells the QA manager that they have a task they can let someone have. Then the QA manager loans one of the testers who is an aspiring programmer to the dev team. The dev team learns if someone is a good cultural fit while they are in QA, and they give them a test run with these small tasks to evaluate their skill level. It seems a better way to fill entry level positions than a traditional series of interviews and a few programming quizzes.
QA at Blizzard is not exclusively about testing. Its also a place where gamers with other talents are recognized and developed. QA is how programmers, artists, designers, producers, etc without a track record in the industry get their foot in the door.
Note that the original post being responded to mentioned that some QA testers are overqualified and are just trying to get their foot in the door. Blizzard is merely being offered as an example.
The only thing I disagree with your post on is "The pessimistic one should not lose money.". VC's are used to losing money on some projects, fixing projections to say there is no risk is a huge alarm bell for a VC, it implies you haven't done a proper risk analysis or are being unrealistic and calls into question your expected and optimistic projections as well. A VC would much prefer an acknowledgement that the worst case scenario is one where they will lose 50% of their money rather than a ridiculous pie in the sky number that says their is no risk here and worst case you get your money back.
Let me clarify. You should not massage the numbers. You should rework the business and/or product/service. The pessimistic scenario hopefully identifies areas of weakness that you need to address. My understanding is that the VCs view your pessimistic scenario as your most realistic. Again, they will be doing their own research and numbers, your numbers are merely a method to judge how much thought and diligence you have put into the plan. Mentioning that you've gone through such iterations of the business/product/service plan to identify weaknesses and adjust is evidence of such thought and diligence.
Blizzard Entertainment's QA department is widely reported to be the gateway to entry level developer, artist and producer positions. Low level dev and art tasks are occasionally given to aspiring programmers and artists in QA. All with QA management's blessings and cooperation. This is embedded in the company culture. Some very high ranking folks started in QA as a tester.
What is important to VCs is very different from what is important to you. They really only care about two things.
(1) The team is most important. Have you assembled a team with the necessary experience to convert an idea into a successful product. VCs mostly invest in people, not so much ideas. Ideas are plentiful, people that can ***deliver*** are not.
(2) The idea is of secondary importance, but it must be something that can be protected by ***patents*** and/or other intellectual property. It does not matter how good the idea is if it is something that can be replicated by others.
We have the obligatory before-and-after video demos prepared for this, of course. But there will also be a short PowerPoint presentation where we explain our tech in some detail. Now here is our main question: What, in your opinion, should we — or indeed should we NOT — put in the PowerPoint presentation to impress a Venture Capitalist?
Give them an overview of the process. High light the points that can be protected by ***patents*** and other forms of relevant intellectual property.
Should we talk about how we developed the algorithm at all — what kind of R&D and testing was involved? Should we try to walk the VCs through how our algorithm works under the hood — simplified a bit for a 'non-engineer' audience of course?
They will not care beyond determining that the algorithm is in fact ***your creation*** and not related to previous employment or other potential conflicts.
Or should we stick to talking about market potential, marketing strategy & money-related stuff only?
They both care and don't care about this. They care in the context of determining if you are being realistic. Have three sets of numbers. One covering the scenario if things go as planned, another more pessimistic one, and another more optimistic one. The pessimistic one should not lose money.
That said, they will not trust your numbers. They will do their own research and do their own numbers. Do not let this deter you from doing the best job you can on your numbers. You are being ***tested***.
No. The faster you go, the worse your gas mileage.
And yet this particular car gets about 5 additional miles per gallon at 70 compared to 55 on a particular stretch of road, as reported by the factory mpg indicator and double checked at the gas pump.
There is no magic sweet spot.
Universally, no. But in a specific car, under specific conditions, one highway speed may be better than another highway speed. And that better highway speed is not necessarily 55 mph, it may be something higher.
" I say "around" because I haven't measured things as carefully at this speed"
so it's biased..hence worthless.
I say "around" because the 55 mph test was, in 6th gear manually maintain a speed about 55 and reset the mpg indicator. In about 30 sec its stabilized near 29, done. Repeat in 5th gear, mpg well below 29. Again, a quick check put me near 29 so I accepted the EPA rating. Whether the actual number was 28 or 30 I couldn't say and frankly don't really care.
However for the 70 mph test I set the cruise control at 70 and reset the mpg indicator. It stabilized around 34. I continued for 20 miles of flat terrain on cruise control. The indicator was still 34 at the end.
It sounds like you don't know how to use manual transmission properly.
6th gear is fine for 55 mph on flat terrain. The engine is not far above idle but it is not struggling. In 5th gear the rpm is too high, an upshift is warranted.
according to your 'sweet spot' theory maybe the sweet spot for me riding my bike would be 30mph (should take less energy to go 30mph than 20mph) oh, wait... Your comparison to EPA is apples/oranges, just because you can get 34mpg at 70mph it does NOT mean that if you go 55mph you will get only 29mpg everything else being equal...
In my haste I left out a little detail. I do in fact get around 29mpg at 55mph. I say "around" because I haven't measured things as carefully at this speed. My quick and dirty checks varied, a little under, a little over, so I just think in terms of the EPA rating which seems about right.
Sorry for the confusion but my mind seems more focused on the unexpected result than the expected result. In the past my cars did in fact get worse mileage at 70. The current car has a six speed manual transmission and in sixth gear at 55 the engine is just barely above idle. Not an optimal point. Whether the optimal point is closer to 70, 75 or 80 I don't know. I think my point stands, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss speeds above 70. It depends entirely upon the engine and transmission.
Slashdot Mirror
And money, real or imagined, is money !!
Question is, which one is more "real"?
The one people are willing to hold. If people who accept bitcoins for transactions immediately convert them to something else then that something else is more real.
... what is it that, once I've generated a BitCoin, motivates someone else to want it so much that they're willing to sell me something in exchange ...
That they can convert the bitcoin to a US Dollar, a Euro, etc **immediately** after receiving it. They don't hold bitcoins, they convert them to something else.
Can you side load easily with it?
Enterprises could always "side load" (bypass the Apple App Store) their own apps on their own devices.
iOS 6 is most likely specified simply because its the current version. To keep things simple. Want onto the network, then be running the current os version. That and the internal developers needs a min iOS target.
Aerial mapping is not new. The only thing that has changed is that the pilot is now remote. Is every instance of data acquisition from an aerial platform where the pilot becomes remote some sort of breaking news event?
So, I'll admit my ignorance up front before I ask ... why was it too important?
Its important to its existing base of users, they want to continue using it.
It was inevitable, BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business. I wonder if this had anything to do with approving iOS and Android for use by certain governmental agencies (DoD, etc).
Windows Store? why not windows update?
It probably will be in Windows Update. However a Windows Update will probably not change your configuration settings. Whether you get the 8.0 or the 8.1 user interface will probably just be configuration. Your default configuration varying depending on what you originally installed.
Now if you go to the Windows Store and install Windows 8.1 that will probably change your configuration settings.
Going Update or Store will probably leave you with the same binaries on the hard drive.
I guess you didn't even read the summary, or you'd realize we're talking about infrastructure and not toys or luxuries.
Or perhaps I was trying to make a general point that upgrading every 2 or 3 years can be a good thing, it depends entirely on the specific item, and I chose to use an example that nearly all readers could understand.
Do You Trust When a Vendor Tells You To Buy New Parts?
Yes, if its a video card. Buying a low end video card (US$120-140) every two or three years seems to improve the end user experience nicely, **iff** we are talking about a system used for gaming.
On second thought I guess I am not really trusting the vendor since they are telling me to buy the US$500 video card.
So if the board of directors decides to fund Politician Bob (tax cuts for corporations) from the corporate treasury while the majority of their employees, who also happen to be on minimum wage, would rather fund Politician Joe (minimum wage increases), whose speech is it?
To be fair that happens in trade unions as well. The union leadership may spend huge sums of money on candidates that union members will vote against. Money that was forcibly extracted from the union member's paycheck. Hence the popularity among the members of *some* unions of initiatives that would require union member's consent for that portion of union dues that go to political contributions.
It would seem that only the advocacy groups make contributions that are generally in line with the membership. It surely helps that their funding is generally from voluntary membership and donations. This provides a check and balance missing in corporations and trade unions. On second thought, corporations do have a minor check and balance. Consumers can boycott their products in they find the corporation's political contributions distasteful. Regrettably consumers seem to care about nothing beyond the lowest price.
I'm not in favor of any such abuse by CEOs or union leaders. I'm just pointing out that rights and abuses are not as one sided as often portrayed.
Being 1/50th the size it will be welcome on mobile devices. Not sure that its a good thing for your gaming desktop.
That 84 watts is going to rip through your mobile device's battery pretty damn fast.
Don't we need to compare it to a traditional regulator implementation before we come to that conclusion? Assuming pretty damn fast means faster than current Atom based devices.
Somehow corporations are citizens these days.
I realize that is the meme popularized in the media. However if you actually read the Citizens United decision it says something different:
(1) Groups of people have the same rights as individuals.
(2) It does not matter if that group of people is a corporation, trade union, advocacy group, etc.
The CEO, or who ever was involved in committing a crime should go to prison just like any other citizen.
They do. Here's a top ten list, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/top-10-ceos-sent-to-prison_n_1527361.html.
Its not about use cases, its about complementing a regular desktop/laptop not replacing it.
Yes, like I said, utterly wrong to claim they are the same.
Uh, no, by "same" I am saying they are both complementary products with respect to desktops/laptops. You are reading in things that are not there.
Moms like iPads and iPhones.
Actually Moms may prefer the Kindle Fire. Last I heard the Kindle Fire stats lean towards female and the iPad stats lean towards male. It will be interesting to see if the fits-in-a-purse iPad mini is more like the Kindle Fire in this respect.
Problem is, Chromebooks are crappy laptops - they have a laptop formfactor (not a tablet one) which makes them inconvenient to use in say a living room when you want to surf on the couch (the keyboard gets in the way).
I actually find the keyboard helpful. It can act as a base to keep the screen upright. When using a tablet I sometimes have to precariously balance it or hold it with one hand. Overall I'm unsure as to whether one or the other is better for browsing, they both seem fine to me. Its email where the chromebook seems to have the edge, typing can be awkward while balancing the tablet. If I am somewhere where I can let the tablet stand on its own and I have a flat surface for a bluetooth keyboard the tablet is a win. But tablet + bluetooth keyboard can be a bit pricey compared to a chromebook. Yes, I am focusing on the sub $300 chromebooks, I don't understand the $500 to $1,000 chromebooks, just get a laptop at that point.
As a laptop, they're awful locked down things that pretend to act like a regular laptop ...
They pretend no such thing. Being locked down is one of the desirable features of this *complementary* product (again, not a replacement for a laptop). One can hand the chromebook to a guest and not have to worry about it picking up malware, unlike your regular laptop. One can set one up for that relative that only want to browse and email and not have to worry about malware.
In short, the chromebook is just an appliance, and for some situations that is probably the better option. People who think chromebooks are replacements for laptops are severely misinformed, well, except possibly for the segment that literally wants nothing more than web browsing and email.
Chromebooks are like tablets. [They are generally complementary products for desktops and laptops, not replacement products.]
That is totally wrong.
You are only saying that because of the surface issue of processing power.
No. You should really read that second sentence, it explains why chromebooks are like tablets. Its not about use cases, its about complementing a regular desktop/laptop not replacing it.
Tablet vs Chromebook is an entirely different topic. Each has use cases where one or the other is the better option.
Chromebooks are like tablets. They are generally complementary products for desktops and laptops, not replacement products. They are a device you can leave on your coffee table and do a little web browsing and email from your couch. Similarly your guests can pick it up and use it from the couch. It can be a box to help keep others off of your main pc or laptop, less malware risk.
But a tester at Blizzard is someone who plays the game for 8 hours and logs bug tickets.
Until a development team tells the QA manager that they have a task they can let someone have. Then the QA manager loans one of the testers who is an aspiring programmer to the dev team. The dev team learns if someone is a good cultural fit while they are in QA, and they give them a test run with these small tasks to evaluate their skill level. It seems a better way to fill entry level positions than a traditional series of interviews and a few programming quizzes.
QA at Blizzard is not exclusively about testing. Its also a place where gamers with other talents are recognized and developed. QA is how programmers, artists, designers, producers, etc without a track record in the industry get their foot in the door.
Note that the original post being responded to mentioned that some QA testers are overqualified and are just trying to get their foot in the door. Blizzard is merely being offered as an example.
The only thing I disagree with your post on is "The pessimistic one should not lose money.". VC's are used to losing money on some projects, fixing projections to say there is no risk is a huge alarm bell for a VC, it implies you haven't done a proper risk analysis or are being unrealistic and calls into question your expected and optimistic projections as well. A VC would much prefer an acknowledgement that the worst case scenario is one where they will lose 50% of their money rather than a ridiculous pie in the sky number that says their is no risk here and worst case you get your money back.
Let me clarify. You should not massage the numbers. You should rework the business and/or product/service. The pessimistic scenario hopefully identifies areas of weakness that you need to address. My understanding is that the VCs view your pessimistic scenario as your most realistic. Again, they will be doing their own research and numbers, your numbers are merely a method to judge how much thought and diligence you have put into the plan. Mentioning that you've gone through such iterations of the business/product/service plan to identify weaknesses and adjust is evidence of such thought and diligence.
Blizzard Entertainment's QA department is widely reported to be the gateway to entry level developer, artist and producer positions. Low level dev and art tasks are occasionally given to aspiring programmers and artists in QA. All with QA management's blessings and cooperation. This is embedded in the company culture. Some very high ranking folks started in QA as a tester.
(1) The team is most important. Have you assembled a team with the necessary experience to convert an idea into a successful product. VCs mostly invest in people, not so much ideas. Ideas are plentiful, people that can ***deliver*** are not.
(2) The idea is of secondary importance, but it must be something that can be protected by ***patents*** and/or other intellectual property. It does not matter how good the idea is if it is something that can be replicated by others.
We have the obligatory before-and-after video demos prepared for this, of course. But there will also be a short PowerPoint presentation where we explain our tech in some detail. Now here is our main question: What, in your opinion, should we — or indeed should we NOT — put in the PowerPoint presentation to impress a Venture Capitalist?
Give them an overview of the process. High light the points that can be protected by ***patents*** and other forms of relevant intellectual property.
Should we talk about how we developed the algorithm at all — what kind of R&D and testing was involved? Should we try to walk the VCs through how our algorithm works under the hood — simplified a bit for a 'non-engineer' audience of course?
They will not care beyond determining that the algorithm is in fact ***your creation*** and not related to previous employment or other potential conflicts.
Or should we stick to talking about market potential, marketing strategy & money-related stuff only?
They both care and don't care about this. They care in the context of determining if you are being realistic. Have three sets of numbers. One covering the scenario if things go as planned, another more pessimistic one, and another more optimistic one. The pessimistic one should not lose money.
That said, they will not trust your numbers. They will do their own research and do their own numbers. Do not let this deter you from doing the best job you can on your numbers. You are being ***tested***.
I know software versioning schemes aren't exactly consistent, but isn't 1.0 a tacit milestone for production-ready?
Many of us do not consider v1.0 to be production ready, more often really a public beta. :-)
No. The faster you go, the worse your gas mileage.
And yet this particular car gets about 5 additional miles per gallon at 70 compared to 55 on a particular stretch of road, as reported by the factory mpg indicator and double checked at the gas pump.
There is no magic sweet spot.
Universally, no. But in a specific car, under specific conditions, one highway speed may be better than another highway speed. And that better highway speed is not necessarily 55 mph, it may be something higher.
" I say "around" because I haven't measured things as carefully at this speed" so it's biased..hence worthless.
I say "around" because the 55 mph test was, in 6th gear manually maintain a speed about 55 and reset the mpg indicator. In about 30 sec its stabilized near 29, done. Repeat in 5th gear, mpg well below 29. Again, a quick check put me near 29 so I accepted the EPA rating. Whether the actual number was 28 or 30 I couldn't say and frankly don't really care.
However for the 70 mph test I set the cruise control at 70 and reset the mpg indicator. It stabilized around 34. I continued for 20 miles of flat terrain on cruise control. The indicator was still 34 at the end.
It sounds like you don't know how to use manual transmission properly.
6th gear is fine for 55 mph on flat terrain. The engine is not far above idle but it is not struggling. In 5th gear the rpm is too high, an upshift is warranted.
according to your 'sweet spot' theory maybe the sweet spot for me riding my bike would be 30mph (should take less energy to go 30mph than 20mph) oh, wait... Your comparison to EPA is apples/oranges, just because you can get 34mpg at 70mph it does NOT mean that if you go 55mph you will get only 29mpg everything else being equal...
In my haste I left out a little detail. I do in fact get around 29mpg at 55mph. I say "around" because I haven't measured things as carefully at this speed. My quick and dirty checks varied, a little under, a little over, so I just think in terms of the EPA rating which seems about right.
Sorry for the confusion but my mind seems more focused on the unexpected result than the expected result. In the past my cars did in fact get worse mileage at 70. The current car has a six speed manual transmission and in sixth gear at 55 the engine is just barely above idle. Not an optimal point. Whether the optimal point is closer to 70, 75 or 80 I don't know. I think my point stands, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss speeds above 70. It depends entirely upon the engine and transmission.