Bitcoin is meant to be deflationary. The bigger the bitcoin economy becomes, the more value a single BTC has. So loss of bitcoin will just hasten that process a little bit.
Plus, isn't there a mechanism whereby the previous transactions can be unwound?
If they can get into backbone networks and compromise their BGP, they probably have the capability of returning a packet to the original network looking just like it did when it left. Their fuckery doesn't have to follow the rules of the internet. It just has to look like it does. Grab a packet, encapsulate it in something, do what they want with it, and then unwrap it at the other end. You could do that with a shell script. It will contain the same src, dest and ttl.
To become statistically significant, it has to indicate a rate. A number like 1 in 6300 could be exactly 1:6300 odds, or it could be a completely random thing that happened to occur at #6300 and would never occur again. I don't know the exact math of it, but it has to do with picking random samples of the whole population and the deviation of the rate. It is along the same lines as the math that proves that smallish samples can very accurately predict the entire population.
The market may well be better at developing things like this, but without government "interference", these things might not gain the traction needed to become ubiquitous. It really wasn't until they became mandatory that ABS and airbags became available on cheap cars, for example.
The problem with burning wood is getting the temperature and oxygen mixture right. If you get it right, burning wood is fairly clean. If you get it wrong, it is a sooty, awful mess. Getting it right is what everyone should want, but not many people know or care enough to get it right.
The problem too is that trees pull clean C02 out of the air, and then burning the wood creates soot, tar and carbon monoxide. Which is pretty dirty.
In both of those cases, you were either following too closely or driving too fast for conditions/visibility. (I do it too; but that's not the car's fault.)
They sabotaged it by implementing it in a confusing and costly manner. It was designed to do two things: buy votes from the seniors in the short term, and fail in the long term. The long con is paying off now with all the republicans complaining about the deficit/debt and "entitlements". Guess what, medicare part D is an entitlement. There is no need to dig deep to figure out their plan. They say it all the time: starve the beast, cut spending, etc. Then they continue to pass expensive bills so they can keep complaining about spending.
It is all psychological and practical. Nobody wants to get up at 4:45 in the morning to enjoy the extra daylight of summer, and there is nothing to do at that time anyway. Why sleep through an hour of sunlight when it is relatively easy to change the clocks and use the daylight in the evening? If there is going to be a change made, I'd be all for staying on summer time all year. Whether the sun rises at 7am or 8am is irrelevant to most people, but setting at 3:30 versus 4:30 makes a bigger difference.
I have never heard the farmer reasoning used by anyone in favor of DST. The only time I hear it used is by people trying to show how foolish it is to use farmers as an excuse. Farmers are probably the least affected by the daylight hours; they can fire up the tractors whenever they want. They have to get up at sunrise regardless of what the clock says to feed the hay and milk the horses and choke the chickens.
Who still has clocks that don't change themselves automatically? If the time change upsets you so much, just live on UTC all the time and do the math on the fly to adjust to the rest of us provincial morons.
The further South one goes, the less meaningful DST is. In Phoenix, the day is 10 hours long in the winter and 15 hours long in the summer. The sun rises at 5:18am in the summer and 7:29 in the winter. In London, the sun comes up at 4:43am in summer and 8:06 in winter. The day is 16:30 long in the summer and an appalling 7:50 in the winter. It makes no sense at all to sleep through all that delicious sunlight on summer mornings, and then be awake for many hours of darkness, when a minor shift in the clock makes our lifestyles fit into the whims of the sunrise and sunset. It is far easier to change what the clock says than to try and tell everyone they need to get up at 5am.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin is meant to be deflationary. The bigger the bitcoin economy becomes, the more value a single BTC has. So loss of bitcoin will just hasten that process a little bit.
Plus, isn't there a mechanism whereby the previous transactions can be unwound?
If they can get into backbone networks and compromise their BGP, they probably have the capability of returning a packet to the original network looking just like it did when it left. Their fuckery doesn't have to follow the rules of the internet. It just has to look like it does. Grab a packet, encapsulate it in something, do what they want with it, and then unwrap it at the other end. You could do that with a shell script. It will contain the same src, dest and ttl.
Yes. Exactly. Negative disclosure is still disclosure. Not (We have not been served a warrant) == We have been served a warrant.
$4.90 a month to use the grid as storage seems like a decent trade off.
That isn't elemental lithium. If it was because of the lithium, then it would happen whether it was charged or not.
The point is that there aren't enough data points to even start to make the comparisons you are talking about.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even ignite when exposed to water. http://youtu.be/Vxqe_ZOwsHs
To become statistically significant, it has to indicate a rate. A number like 1 in 6300 could be exactly 1:6300 odds, or it could be a completely random thing that happened to occur at #6300 and would never occur again. I don't know the exact math of it, but it has to do with picking random samples of the whole population and the deviation of the rate. It is along the same lines as the math that proves that smallish samples can very accurately predict the entire population.
The market may well be better at developing things like this, but without government "interference", these things might not gain the traction needed to become ubiquitous. It really wasn't until they became mandatory that ABS and airbags became available on cheap cars, for example.
The problem with burning wood is getting the temperature and oxygen mixture right. If you get it right, burning wood is fairly clean. If you get it wrong, it is a sooty, awful mess. Getting it right is what everyone should want, but not many people know or care enough to get it right.
The problem too is that trees pull clean C02 out of the air, and then burning the wood creates soot, tar and carbon monoxide. Which is pretty dirty.
Not by weight, I don't think.
In both of those cases, you were either following too closely or driving too fast for conditions/visibility. (I do it too; but that's not the car's fault.)
What does "a community" have to do with whether the tools work or not?
There are also some product lines where you can't find anything without trans fats. Premade cake frosting, for example.
The ban is to prevent the free market from sneaking the stuff back into the foods once the public concern dies down.
If he had done that, they might have figured out the documents were fake.
It is both. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology
They sabotaged it by implementing it in a confusing and costly manner. It was designed to do two things: buy votes from the seniors in the short term, and fail in the long term. The long con is paying off now with all the republicans complaining about the deficit/debt and "entitlements". Guess what, medicare part D is an entitlement. There is no need to dig deep to figure out their plan. They say it all the time: starve the beast, cut spending, etc. Then they continue to pass expensive bills so they can keep complaining about spending.
You are making my point. Mediocrity would be an improvement for a tremendous number of students. And teachers.
Medicare part D. Completely insane, pushed by GOP-W.
Huh?
It is all psychological and practical. Nobody wants to get up at 4:45 in the morning to enjoy the extra daylight of summer, and there is nothing to do at that time anyway. Why sleep through an hour of sunlight when it is relatively easy to change the clocks and use the daylight in the evening? If there is going to be a change made, I'd be all for staying on summer time all year. Whether the sun rises at 7am or 8am is irrelevant to most people, but setting at 3:30 versus 4:30 makes a bigger difference.
I have never heard the farmer reasoning used by anyone in favor of DST. The only time I hear it used is by people trying to show how foolish it is to use farmers as an excuse. Farmers are probably the least affected by the daylight hours; they can fire up the tractors whenever they want. They have to get up at sunrise regardless of what the clock says to feed the hay and milk the horses and choke the chickens.
Who still has clocks that don't change themselves automatically? If the time change upsets you so much, just live on UTC all the time and do the math on the fly to adjust to the rest of us provincial morons.
The further South one goes, the less meaningful DST is. In Phoenix, the day is 10 hours long in the winter and 15 hours long in the summer. The sun rises at 5:18am in the summer and 7:29 in the winter. In London, the sun comes up at 4:43am in summer and 8:06 in winter. The day is 16:30 long in the summer and an appalling 7:50 in the winter. It makes no sense at all to sleep through all that delicious sunlight on summer mornings, and then be awake for many hours of darkness, when a minor shift in the clock makes our lifestyles fit into the whims of the sunrise and sunset. It is far easier to change what the clock says than to try and tell everyone they need to get up at 5am.