The complaining customer are wrong. If fees exceed revenue the miners should be shut down.
Now the mistaken customers may be thinking they are willing to accumulate and hold until prices recover but they need to do some basic arithmetic. If they take the money they would spend on fees and just buy coins on the open market they will end up accumulating and holding *more* coins than if they continued mining. Their risk is the same, their potential payoff of their gamble (holding) larger.
Nothing is stopping them from accumulating and holding. They just seem mistakenly fixated on doing so in the less "productive" manner.
It is not about security though I do seriously doubt Google's ability to secure a complex system as well as the Linux community does.
Google contributes and signs off on Linux kernel patches. Google is a major part of the Linux community.
The GPL copyright license provides at least some check on Google's abuse of its market power.
Fuchsia is open source. The GPL adds nothing in this case.
... including abusing your private data in any way that suits it...
Again, that takes place at the applications level, not the OS level, not the kernel level, and Linux provides no barrier whatsoever in Android or ChromeOS today.
Fuchsia is a replacement for Linux. A different design with a different source code base and a different license.
As both Android and Chrome are only hosted on Linux both could replace Linux with Fuchsia when the later gains sufficient functionality. 3/4 of Android developers would neither notice nor care. Of the remaining 1/4 some percentage is only using Posix and not anything uniquely Linux based, so **if** Fuchsia provides Posix support they will not care are either.
Dude, correction territory is a 10-15% decline. $20k to $5k isn't a correction, it's a goddamn bloodbath.
Not for bitcoin. Wild extremes are the norm. Also you must consider the exponential rise from $400 to $20,000, a correction to $5,000 is not a bloodbath to some. As was the 2014 exponential rise from $20 to $1,000, which was followed by a correction to $250, again not a bloodbath to some.
Its hardly fair to call a 75% decline a bloodbath when that peak it is referenced against represents a recent 5,000% increase.
It is inappropriate to apply the normal rules and perspectives of investing in traditional stocks and commodities to Bitcoin.
My guess is that within the next 5 days (maybe as many as 15, but probably closer to 5) it will go back down to between $5000 and $5500, basing it off of the unscientific theory of what my gut says.
Well a few months ago an Ars Technica article pointed out that Bitcoin has had 3 declines of about 75% and then plateaued at that point for 2 or 3 years. So $20K'ish to $5K'ish is about right using the existing pattern. In general, not necessarily on your stated timeframe.
Of course the previous patterns were established with speculators coming from the techie community, this time around we have had a massive influx of new speculators from wall street.
Considering Tesla currently makes the quickest production car ever built, that is a strange statement to make. Claimed top speed of 250MPH would put it in the top 10 fastest cars in the world, well ahead of the fastest Ferrari at 217MPH.
And that Tesla that beats a Ferrari is a four door 5 seat sedan.:-)
"The German folks who disassembled a Tesla showed that the parts costs would allow Tesla to make a nice profit."
On manufacturing costs, ignoring all development costs such as R&D.
R&D, the cost of the land and building, etc are sunk costs. They are not considered in the decision to continue operations, they have no impact on the cost of operations. Now ongoing costs, taxes on the land and building, maintenance of the building, etc will be considered.
Its an assembly line for a product that will live in the open wind swept air, rain and mud, snow and salt, etc. Things that need to be sealed were likely sealed at the subassembly plant before delivery to Tesla. Plus they will still have a clean room for steps where there would be an issue, such as painting. For many stages, bolting in instrument panels, consoles and seats, bolting on doors, etc what is the issue? Is there an issue for welding frame components, given the material thrown into the air during welding I kind of doubt it?
What are the open air and humidity problems that you are referring to?
Is this the method that requires Apple hardware? I think there are ways to get around it, but it is NOT as simple as you allude it to be.
Yes, Xcode is macOS specific. However for Windows there is the free community version of Visual Studio from Microsoft, I believe it can create iOS apps too.
If your app is open source you are free to distribute the source code outside the App Store. Users can then download Apple's free Xcode development environment and build your app themselves and run it on their devices.
Probably, I think such debugging is similar to the experimental/learning code I mentioned. One off, temporary, disposable code that does not warrant proper engineering.
I wonder how unique the entire set of that data is... The problem with anonymous data is that enough of it means it can be traced back, if not by you then perhaps by someone else.
See my response to a similar question. I only sent the details I needed to recognize CPU, GPU, and OS ver in a generational sense and the amount of installed RAM. I did not send all information available on these components. There were too many collisions to "fingerprint" a particular user.
. If a GDPR request came in asking for a particular person's data I would have no such data to report.
A common mistake people (and lawyers) make is thinking it only matters whether YOU could associate that data to someone (you seem to have made that mistake). As has been demonstrated many times before such detailed data even when it doesn't have someones names is often quite easily attributed to someone through cross matching of data from other sources. The more detailed the information the easier it is narrow it down as It makes for a very unique identifier that may actually be revealing far more than you think.
Not in my case. The data was not detailed enough, not unique enough. Too many collisions with the limited number of permutations of CPU, GPU, installed RAM and OS ver. I did not send all info available, just enough to get generational information. For example for OS ver I would only send major and minor version, but not build number, service pack info, etc. For GPU I would only send the vendor and device IDs, but not subsystem and revision IDs. In the later case I would know you had an AMD Radeon 550/560 but I would not know if it was made by ASUS, Gigabyte, etc nor would I know the revision.
If the data is not associated with any personally identifiable information there is no "you" in "your information". This was pre-GDPR but when I did game analytics in the sense of CPU and GPU generation, installed RAM, operating system version I worked closely with the company lawyers to ensure it was all non-personally identifiable information. IP addresses were not recorded, neither were account names or anything else. Just the raw data. The client side of these online games ensured the data was only sent once per "survey" period. I could not have connected the data to a particular person if I wanted to. If a GDPR request came in asking for a particular person's data I would have no such data to report.
There is a difference in analytics when it is about personally identifiable information, about other apps/games, and when it is about how a user/player is using this particular app/game. The later is legit, what available features / weapons are being used, what player mechanics are being used, etc. That helps better design future features and apps/games. Also legit would be non-identifiable information about the hardware, what generation CPU, what generation GPU, how much RAM, what operating system... basically the system requirement type information. This helps designers anticipate when they can update content, graphics, etc to take advantage of more advanced hardware. Again, all this collected in a non-personally identifiable way.
On second thought the hacksaw notion sounds like a redefinition too. An earlier definition might refer to an axe rather than a hacksaw. Since I hacked away at some trees in the 70s I guess that was my first "hack". Definitely not a skillful job of felling those trees.
The origin of 1 (noun and verb) is from "hack saw". The verb "hack" means literally to use the hack saw. It then was used to mean doing a simple ugly fix using the hack saw, a kludge,or a bodge.
It seems I did some real hacking in the late 80s. I used a hacksaw to cut a hole into the side of my PC case so I could get the 80386 In Circuit Emulator plug and cabling to the CPU socket. I couldn't just leave the case open, it was my monitor stand.:-)
We were on the same floor as the CEO. He wandered into my cube to find out what the hell that god-awlful noise was about, took one quick look, uttered "I'm not even going to ask why", turned around and left.
I'm someone who grew up during the DOS era, and later Windows. I know EXACTLY what the "hack" computer slang means. It means what everyone at that period knew it meant, which is "break into a computer system that you're not authorized to access", it's that freaking simple.
No. As someone from the Apple II era I can say that your definition is one of many redefinitions. In your era a "hack" could also mean an unsophisticated shoddy manner of doing something. Perhaps to save time on the job, perhaps because the person is poorly trained or unskilled, or perhaps because its a one time unimportant disposable effort so proper engineering practices are unnecessary.
"Hack" has been redefined so many times it has evolved to where it can be the opposite of itself, both skilled and unskilled, sophisticated and unsophisticated, brilliant and crude,... so yeah the word is kind of meaningless. It requires context or accompanying text to indicates what era's fashionable definition should be applied.
You have to go down 14 definitions of "hack" to get to to this:
---------
Computers.
to modify a computer program or electronic device in a skillful or clever way: to hack around with HTML.
to break into a network, computer, file, etc., usually with malicious intent. http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
----------
Hacking may have been popularized to describe computer hacking, but it means MANY OTHER THINGS TOO.
An older non-computer definition was applied to computers originally. "Hacking" was just slapping thing together in a shoddy unprofessional way, albeit often in an experimental way, an exploratory learning way, but sometimes slapped together shoddily, unprofessionally, for expediency, time constraints.
Slashdot Mirror
Venmo Refuses To Say Why Transactions Are Public By Default
Its an attempt to increase users and usage through a perceived network effect and through gamification.
The complaining customer are wrong. If fees exceed revenue the miners should be shut down.
Now the mistaken customers may be thinking they are willing to accumulate and hold until prices recover but they need to do some basic arithmetic. If they take the money they would spend on fees and just buy coins on the open market they will end up accumulating and holding *more* coins than if they continued mining. Their risk is the same, their potential payoff of their gamble (holding) larger.
Nothing is stopping them from accumulating and holding. They just seem mistakenly fixated on doing so in the less "productive" manner.
It is not about security though I do seriously doubt Google's ability to secure a complex system as well as the Linux community does.
Google contributes and signs off on Linux kernel patches. Google is a major part of the Linux community.
The GPL copyright license provides at least some check on Google's abuse of its market power.
Fuchsia is open source. The GPL adds nothing in this case.
Again, that takes place at the applications level, not the OS level, not the kernel level, and Linux provides no barrier whatsoever in Android or ChromeOS today.
Fuchsia is a replacement for Linux.
In short, Google aspires to be the new Microsoft, including the full evil part. You should worried about your private data, very worried.
The Linux kernel hosting Android or ChromOS adds **zero** protection for your private data. Its replacement changes nothing in this regard.
Fuchsia is a replacement for Linux. A different design with a different source code base and a different license.
As both Android and Chrome are only hosted on Linux both could replace Linux with Fuchsia when the later gains sufficient functionality. 3/4 of Android developers would neither notice nor care. Of the remaining 1/4 some percentage is only using Posix and not anything uniquely Linux based, so **if** Fuchsia provides Posix support they will not care are either.
Dude, correction territory is a 10-15% decline. $20k to $5k isn't a correction, it's a goddamn bloodbath.
Not for bitcoin. Wild extremes are the norm. Also you must consider the exponential rise from $400 to $20,000, a correction to $5,000 is not a bloodbath to some. As was the 2014 exponential rise from $20 to $1,000, which was followed by a correction to $250, again not a bloodbath to some.
Its hardly fair to call a 75% decline a bloodbath when that peak it is referenced against represents a recent 5,000% increase.
It is inappropriate to apply the normal rules and perspectives of investing in traditional stocks and commodities to Bitcoin.
At least with gambling in Vegas, you can get a free drink whilst letting it ride...
TANSTAAFL, or a free drink. ;-)
My guess is that within the next 5 days (maybe as many as 15, but probably closer to 5) it will go back down to between $5000 and $5500, basing it off of the unscientific theory of what my gut says.
Well a few months ago an Ars Technica article pointed out that Bitcoin has had 3 declines of about 75% and then plateaued at that point for 2 or 3 years. So $20K'ish to $5K'ish is about right using the existing pattern. In general, not necessarily on your stated timeframe.
Of course the previous patterns were established with speculators coming from the techie community, this time around we have had a massive influx of new speculators from wall street.
Considering Tesla currently makes the quickest production car ever built, that is a strange statement to make. Claimed top speed of 250MPH would put it in the top 10 fastest cars in the world, well ahead of the fastest Ferrari at 217MPH.
And that Tesla that beats a Ferrari is a four door 5 seat sedan. :-)
"The German folks who disassembled a Tesla showed that the parts costs would allow Tesla to make a nice profit."
On manufacturing costs, ignoring all development costs such as R&D.
R&D, the cost of the land and building, etc are sunk costs. They are not considered in the decision to continue operations, they have no impact on the cost of operations. Now ongoing costs, taxes on the land and building, maintenance of the building, etc will be considered.
Its an assembly line for a product that will live in the open wind swept air, rain and mud, snow and salt, etc. Things that need to be sealed were likely sealed at the subassembly plant before delivery to Tesla. Plus they will still have a clean room for steps where there would be an issue, such as painting. For many stages, bolting in instrument panels, consoles and seats, bolting on doors, etc what is the issue? Is there an issue for welding frame components, given the material thrown into the air during welding I kind of doubt it?
What are the open air and humidity problems that you are referring to?
Is this the method that requires Apple hardware? I think there are ways to get around it, but it is NOT as simple as you allude it to be.
Yes, Xcode is macOS specific. However for Windows there is the free community version of Visual Studio from Microsoft, I believe it can create iOS apps too.
You need a developer key in order to build and deploy apps to your test environment ($99). On Android, this is free.
Nope, that is no longer the case. You can now compile and run on your own devices without a paid developer account.
If your app is open source you are free to distribute the source code outside the App Store. Users can then download Apple's free Xcode development environment and build your app themselves and run it on their devices.
Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.
I'll wait.
For open source apps I believe anyone can download Apple's free Xcode development environment, build the app and run it on their device
Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.
I'll wait.
Any organization that signed up with Apple as an enterprise developer can directly distribute to members of the organization.
Probably, I think such debugging is similar to the experimental/learning code I mentioned. One off, temporary, disposable code that does not warrant proper engineering.
I wonder how unique the entire set of that data is... The problem with anonymous data is that enough of it means it can be traced back, if not by you then perhaps by someone else.
See my response to a similar question. I only sent the details I needed to recognize CPU, GPU, and OS ver in a generational sense and the amount of installed RAM. I did not send all information available on these components. There were too many collisions to "fingerprint" a particular user.
. If a GDPR request came in asking for a particular person's data I would have no such data to report.
A common mistake people (and lawyers) make is thinking it only matters whether YOU could associate that data to someone (you seem to have made that mistake). As has been demonstrated many times before such detailed data even when it doesn't have someones names is often quite easily attributed to someone through cross matching of data from other sources. The more detailed the information the easier it is narrow it down as It makes for a very unique identifier that may actually be revealing far more than you think.
Not in my case. The data was not detailed enough, not unique enough. Too many collisions with the limited number of permutations of CPU, GPU, installed RAM and OS ver. I did not send all info available, just enough to get generational information. For example for OS ver I would only send major and minor version, but not build number, service pack info, etc. For GPU I would only send the vendor and device IDs, but not subsystem and revision IDs. In the later case I would know you had an AMD Radeon 550/560 but I would not know if it was made by ASUS, Gigabyte, etc nor would I know the revision.
If the data is not associated with any personally identifiable information there is no "you" in "your information". This was pre-GDPR but when I did game analytics in the sense of CPU and GPU generation, installed RAM, operating system version I worked closely with the company lawyers to ensure it was all non-personally identifiable information. IP addresses were not recorded, neither were account names or anything else. Just the raw data. The client side of these online games ensured the data was only sent once per "survey" period. I could not have connected the data to a particular person if I wanted to. If a GDPR request came in asking for a particular person's data I would have no such data to report.
There is a difference in analytics when it is about personally identifiable information, about other apps/games, and when it is about how a user/player is using this particular app/game. The later is legit, what available features / weapons are being used, what player mechanics are being used, etc. That helps better design future features and apps/games. Also legit would be non-identifiable information about the hardware, what generation CPU, what generation GPU, how much RAM, what operating system ... basically the system requirement type information. This helps designers anticipate when they can update content, graphics, etc to take advantage of more advanced hardware. Again, all this collected in a non-personally identifiable way.
On second thought the hacksaw notion sounds like a redefinition too. An earlier definition might refer to an axe rather than a hacksaw. Since I hacked away at some trees in the 70s I guess that was my first "hack". Definitely not a skillful job of felling those trees.
The origin of 1 (noun and verb) is from "hack saw". The verb "hack" means literally to use the hack saw. It then was used to mean doing a simple ugly fix using the hack saw, a kludge,or a bodge.
It seems I did some real hacking in the late 80s. I used a hacksaw to cut a hole into the side of my PC case so I could get the 80386 In Circuit Emulator plug and cabling to the CPU socket. I couldn't just leave the case open, it was my monitor stand. :-)
We were on the same floor as the CEO. He wandered into my cube to find out what the hell that god-awlful noise was about, took one quick look, uttered "I'm not even going to ask why", turned around and left.
I'm someone who grew up during the DOS era, and later Windows. I know EXACTLY what the "hack" computer slang means. It means what everyone at that period knew it meant, which is "break into a computer system that you're not authorized to access", it's that freaking simple.
No. As someone from the Apple II era I can say that your definition is one of many redefinitions. In your era a "hack" could also mean an unsophisticated shoddy manner of doing something. Perhaps to save time on the job, perhaps because the person is poorly trained or unskilled, or perhaps because its a one time unimportant disposable effort so proper engineering practices are unnecessary.
... so yeah the word is kind of meaningless. It requires context or accompanying text to indicates what era's fashionable definition should be applied.
"Hack" has been redefined so many times it has evolved to where it can be the opposite of itself, both skilled and unskilled, sophisticated and unsophisticated, brilliant and crude,
You have to go down 14 definitions of "hack" to get to to this:
---------
Computers.
to modify a computer program or electronic device in a skillful or clever way: to hack around with HTML.
to break into a network, computer, file, etc., usually with malicious intent.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... ----------
Hacking may have been popularized to describe computer hacking, but it means MANY OTHER THINGS TOO.
An older non-computer definition was applied to computers originally. "Hacking" was just slapping thing together in a shoddy unprofessional way, albeit often in an experimental way, an exploratory learning way, but sometimes slapped together shoddily, unprofessionally, for expediency, time constraints.
"Hacked together" vs engineered.