The idea of contracts is that clients write their code to work with anything which fulfills the contract. So let's say you have some client code written, but then determine that there's a bug in the contract. What does this mean? The client code is either written for the "buggy" contract, or the client code was ALSO buggy and written for the intended contract. At that point, it seems that the client has failed to grasp what the contract is in the first place. The idea is that the contract cannot be buggy, since it is the definition of correct. If your clients code to the contract, you can't go changing it without breaking clients. The contract may be badly-designed, and it's good to avoid bad designs, but once you have clients, to go in and try to fix a "buggy" contract is to water down what contracts mean in the first place. It encourages clients to ignore contracts and code to what they imagine the routine should do. At that point, you might as well abandon contracts because they aren't being used as the definition of what is correct anymore, just a vague guide as to what the routine might do.
It's all syntactic sugar. The point is to reduce the cost of development. Contracts should be distinct from implementations; a user should be able to consult the contract in order to find his obligations when calling a routine. By optionally checking contracts at run-time, you can be reasonably confident that they are actually being followed.
If the contract is violated, the program should be terminated immediately. The point is that there are no side-effects when the contracts are observed.
I wonder whether you're making it harder to detect fraud on your card specifically. I could imageine the fraud-detection algorithms looking for a consistent zip code, followed by a different one. If you always give a random one, they won't see any difference when your card is stolen and yet another different one is entered. Anyway, this seems like a possibility.
How could anyone in this thread have known this? Their criticism is understandable. Er, wait, there's a while website explaining BitCoins, never mind...
I've just had this kind of scary revelation. This and another thread have people criticizing something up and down, even though they haven't read about the thing and their critiques aren't even of the thing, but their flawed idea of the thing. It makes me wonder whether virtually all the threads here are like that, just that it's not always as obvious. Ugh.
Furthermore, if my bank can authenticate me without requiring an SMS, then certainly my email provider can do the same.
Google has had a single-factor authentication for years. They will still have it; this two-factor authentication is opt-in. And you talk as if authentication is a binary thing, either the remote party knows for sure that it's you, or does not. But it's not binary, as they are never certain. This two-factor authentication is to increase the certainty, in case you would like less of a chance of abuse of your account.
If it worked like that, it wouldn't be two-factor anymore (it would just be a system where your password must be entered in two chunks in two separate fields, no more secure than currently).
Considering how cheap it is to make the inputs real-RS-232-tolerant, you'd think they would do so. I mean, all that's needed are a couple of resistors, a transistor, and a diode (to prevent reverse breakdown of the base), as a part of the chip.
The total eventual circulation will be 21 million bitcoins. There will never be more coins than that.
So basically, this is like "collector items", not currency. A very scare "resource", if you can call it that.
Are you implying that the limited quantity is a bad thing? That's a good thing, because it means its value won't drop over time due to diluation, as happens with fiat currencies with no limit on how much is issued.
Anyway, this virtual "currency" is bad for so many reasons, it's not even funny. Fist, the purpose of currency is not to hoard it - it is to spend it for goods/services. Currency is IOU notes that devalue over time.
The purpose of money is to store value. Good money does not lose its value over time. It's fiat currencies not backed by anything that constantly drop in value, because more and more is issued, diluting the value of all that is in circulation, thus discouraging saving money.
It is not a hard asset, like coal or copper or shares of MegaAssInc. FIAT currency tends to be *backed* by something, like an economy, like USA or European Union or even China. What is this backed by?
What is the US dollar backed by? Not gold, because they got rid of that many decades ago. The US and other countries don't back their currency, which is why its value constantly decreases. If they were backed by something, their value would be stable. Really, the main purpose of being backed by something is to prevent governments from printing more money (commonly called counterfeiting when someone other than the government does it).
As for what they are backed by, what is gold backed by? Its value has been stable for centuries. What it's "backed" by is the relatively stable amount of gold in existence. This is exactly why they are limiting the number of bit coins, to avoid devaluing them. Ultimately, what gives money value is that other people will trade things for it, because they expect to be able to trade that money for things as well.
Anyway, another fad "currency". Might as well collect "ISK in eveonline" or "gold nuggets in WoW" - same thing.
I don't disagree about it being a probably passing fad currency, but how can you compare it to these other virtual currencies with no limit on how much can be issued?
So why are people still buying Linksys routers when only the other consumer routers support IPv6? No way it could be that consumers don't have any use for IPv6, impossible!
Exactly. It'd be great if people could enjoy $1 games AND more expensive ones, since they have different depths and styles. But he's saying that all these $1 games are like eating candy all the time, ruining one's appetite for the main course. But never mind that, let's play the evil corporation card.
I just have to wonder that if it IS indeed driver error, why so many more incidents with this make?
Could it be driver error that is made more likely as a result of a design issue in the car? Pedals too close together, feel too similar, some shit like that?
You assume that every make of car has an equally-distributed demographic of user. Let's say that a particular model appeals mostly to teenagers, and another appeals mostly to old people. If you saw an increase in wrecks in one or the other, it could be due to the model, or teens/old people.
Slashdot Mirror
Guilty as charged. Still, my point was that in the case you describe, there is a problem with the design of the system, not merely the contract.
The idea of contracts is that clients write their code to work with anything which fulfills the contract. So let's say you have some client code written, but then determine that there's a bug in the contract. What does this mean? The client code is either written for the "buggy" contract, or the client code was ALSO buggy and written for the intended contract. At that point, it seems that the client has failed to grasp what the contract is in the first place. The idea is that the contract cannot be buggy, since it is the definition of correct. If your clients code to the contract, you can't go changing it without breaking clients. The contract may be badly-designed, and it's good to avoid bad designs, but once you have clients, to go in and try to fix a "buggy" contract is to water down what contracts mean in the first place. It encourages clients to ignore contracts and code to what they imagine the routine should do. At that point, you might as well abandon contracts because they aren't being used as the definition of what is correct anymore, just a vague guide as to what the routine might do.
It's all syntactic sugar. The point is to reduce the cost of development. Contracts should be distinct from implementations; a user should be able to consult the contract in order to find his obligations when calling a routine. By optionally checking contracts at run-time, you can be reasonably confident that they are actually being followed.
If the contract is violated, the program should be terminated immediately. The point is that there are no side-effects when the contracts are observed.
What would it mean to have a bug in the contract?
I wonder whether you're making it harder to detect fraud on your card specifically. I could imageine the fraud-detection algorithms looking for a consistent zip code, followed by a different one. If you always give a random one, they won't see any difference when your card is stolen and yet another different one is entered. Anyway, this seems like a possibility.
Yes, if you enter something like ijbhihgviherithoijsxcfimser for your mother's maiden name.
I've just had this kind of scary revelation. This and another thread have people criticizing something up and down, even though they haven't read about the thing and their critiques aren't even of the thing, but their flawed idea of the thing. It makes me wonder whether virtually all the threads here are like that, just that it's not always as obvious. Ugh.
Correction: you think that idea sucks, but that's not Google's idea.
So what is better than gold? Anything that allows substantial increase in the money supply is fundamentally broken.
Google has had a single-factor authentication for years. They will still have it; this two-factor authentication is opt-in. And you talk as if authentication is a binary thing, either the remote party knows for sure that it's you, or does not. But it's not binary, as they are never certain. This two-factor authentication is to increase the certainty, in case you would like less of a chance of abuse of your account.
If it worked like that, it wouldn't be two-factor anymore (it would just be a system where your password must be entered in two chunks in two separate fields, no more secure than currently).
Considering how cheap it is to make the inputs real-RS-232-tolerant, you'd think they would do so. I mean, all that's needed are a couple of resistors, a transistor, and a diode (to prevent reverse breakdown of the base), as a part of the chip.
Or the point where you have to report it to the IRS.
Are you implying that the limited quantity is a bad thing? That's a good thing, because it means its value won't drop over time due to diluation, as happens with fiat currencies with no limit on how much is issued.
The purpose of money is to store value. Good money does not lose its value over time. It's fiat currencies not backed by anything that constantly drop in value, because more and more is issued, diluting the value of all that is in circulation, thus discouraging saving money.
What is the US dollar backed by? Not gold, because they got rid of that many decades ago. The US and other countries don't back their currency, which is why its value constantly decreases. If they were backed by something, their value would be stable. Really, the main purpose of being backed by something is to prevent governments from printing more money (commonly called counterfeiting when someone other than the government does it).
As for what they are backed by, what is gold backed by? Its value has been stable for centuries. What it's "backed" by is the relatively stable amount of gold in existence. This is exactly why they are limiting the number of bit coins, to avoid devaluing them. Ultimately, what gives money value is that other people will trade things for it, because they expect to be able to trade that money for things as well.
I don't disagree about it being a probably passing fad currency, but how can you compare it to these other virtual currencies with no limit on how much can be issued?
I propose a new term: recovery theater - things done to give the appearance of recovery or helping it, while they have no effect or a negative effect.
Goods I understand, but transporting services?
So why are people still buying Linksys routers when only the other consumer routers support IPv6? No way it could be that consumers don't have any use for IPv6, impossible!
...time to put it down for its own good, before it really hurts someone
The main new feature the iPad 2 is rumored to have: wings.
Sunset? A new, worse one will rise from its ashes.
So what, my phone has 3G, and soon they'll have 4G. 1G is old news. (admit it, you know there will be people thinking this)
Exactly. It'd be great if people could enjoy $1 games AND more expensive ones, since they have different depths and styles. But he's saying that all these $1 games are like eating candy all the time, ruining one's appetite for the main course. But never mind that, let's play the evil corporation card.
You assume that every make of car has an equally-distributed demographic of user. Let's say that a particular model appeals mostly to teenagers, and another appeals mostly to old people. If you saw an increase in wrecks in one or the other, it could be due to the model, or teens/old people.
Who is this Matt, and why is he being blamed for this?