I also would like a reasonably priced GPU, but I am seriously more concerned about the power requirements of all of this mining. Globally the power consumption must be huge, and as I understand how BC is designed, it will only get larger, that cannot be good on the whole global warming front as it increases the demand for non-renewable energy sources along side the renewables just to keep up.
I really think that cryptocurrencies like the current ilk were created by power companies just trying to sell more power.;-P
...Customers have a filed a class action lawsuit claiming "They allowed me to turn off the feature that prevented my phone from lighting on fire while playing Candy Crush, now all I have is 3rd degree burns, and no way to play Candy Crush!".
I think the main point is that people don't realize that they have a "lock" that they need to change the combination on. Perhaps with additional education people can "check their sh*t" and see if it needs to be changed. Then the bad actor can just look under their keyboard for the PW, but at least it won't be "admin" anymore.
Cloud services. Great buzz word. They will save the world! Unless you actually need to use them a lot, then they will cost the world. Sure, cloud providers will give you more redundancy than you would likely be able to create yourself, but the cost is going to be through the roof. But who cares! It's just money that they get from us little ole taxpayers.
And then what happens when some dumbass places some secure document on the wrong server, and/or forgets to put a SECURE password on the share? The more you use services like that, the more chances that someone is going to make a stupid mistake. So I guess it's more secure... until it isn't.
I think that the power is small per transaction, but the *distribution* of that transaction is another kind of drain. Some site says that it's at about 136GB right now. Multiply that by the number of times that it is stored and transferred all over the internet, sucking up bandwidth and hard drive space. It's like someone is having a joke on us. "Hey look, watch this! I can make people use a ton of various fixed resources like Electricity, HD space and Internet bandwidth, and it will only get worse the more people use it!"
Will it be worth it (I mean this iteration which is a horrible drain, not knocking the concept of being detached from government)? Sounds like it is an immense drain on resources, and will only get worse, isn't that how it's designed?
You cannot eliminate a program without people getting upset because they thought that the UBI was going to be on top of everything else they were getting. You'll never be able to eliminate anything. It's a pipe dream.
That's a lovely blanket statement you make... Just because there are treaties that he believes are badly negotiated and wishes to withdraw, I doubt that he takes such a stance on all treaties we are party to, especially enough to call it "generally". A few cases does not make a majority.
The "So" generally leads us to believe that there would be some words of wisdom following immediately after the initial so statement that is pertinent to the topic at hand.;-)
The reason FaceID exists it to collect biometric data for Apple. It isn't to improve end user security. Silly people.
Seems you are uninformed. The biometric data is kept in the Secure Enclave IN the processor, it never leaves, and has no way to leave. And it is probably more of a hash anyway, not the complete biometric data.
Again the issue is WHO benefits from the fine? If it's not the consumer, but some greedy government body, then perhaps the consumers should sue the government for their share of the fines.
It's all nice and good that someone wants to give companies the [additional] impetus they need to "do the right thing" and shore up their data security, but being greedy bastards along the way (talking about the government greedy bastards this time) without any information as to how that money would be spent, that's just wrong.
If a government is going to fine a company for their data breach so heavily, shouldn't they be making themselves responsible for helping the consumers that were injured in that breach using the windfall they just made for themselves with the fine?
But, knowing the way things work, they will not only fine the company, but also require the company to provide identity theft remediation for those affected, effectively a double hit for the offending company.
So many different thoughts on this... I can see it from too many directions. As a consumer, if my data gets stolen, I would want to be sure that I was somehow taken care of. But if the government levies a fine that is so egregious as to prevent that company from having sufficient funds to even be able to take care of the consumers that have had their personal data compromised, where is the benefit in that?
Probably more of the point of it is if that "Destiny 2 super companion app" asks you for permission to use your camera and microphone, tell it to F off, as there should be no reason for it to have access to those.
Any of the tribes that were benefiting from this will likely want to sue over this since this law would be eliminating their income. Don't know if they have a leg to stand on (legally speaking), but it seems a common outcome lately.
If what is being overturned is indeed an overreach, then it should be rolled back. With that being said, each state can and SHOULD do what they feel is right for their state, if that means that they continue down the path of the Obama restrictions, so be it, THAT is what they should be doing, making choices as a state, not being mandated in a way that doesn't fit within the legal boundaries of Federal jurisdiction. Aren't the states supposed to be more autonomous? Why aren't they making better choices so that a higher power doesn't have to step in and mandate?
If this tipping point is truly an issue, it's a good thing we're heading into a solar minimum. This could be our opportunity to reduce our carbon emissions and slow things down during a time when the temperature will be trending down for a decent amount of time (I've heard a number of estimates, most of them at least a decade). At the minimum we have an opportunity to delay the tipping point, we'll see I guess.
Perhaps you should Google the price for an iPhone 8... The base 64GB model is $699. Expensive yes, but not out of the realm of the price of the Samsung phones, which are actually more expensive ($758) at the same size memory. And having some self control with your money, and not spending on something you view as frivolous, or not worth even $119 (guess you won't be getting a smart phone), can be commended (in part). But you certainly can't judge the rest of the world by your yardstick.
Seems like all of this just opens things up to even greater levels of gaming... If it works like it has for Silver (in my humble opinion), then it will bring the price down for BTC. If you can short it in some way, then the path to fortunes will be made.;-)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you start doing anything that eventually returns to a traditional fiat currency, aren't you going to have issues of speed of transaction, or quantity of transactions (people will try to game things as much as possible, mass quantities of exchanges, automation, etc). Will that be an issue with blockchain currencies? Can it keep up?
Slashdot Mirror
I also would like a reasonably priced GPU, but I am seriously more concerned about the power requirements of all of this mining. Globally the power consumption must be huge, and as I understand how BC is designed, it will only get larger, that cannot be good on the whole global warming front as it increases the demand for non-renewable energy sources along side the renewables just to keep up.
I really think that cryptocurrencies like the current ilk were created by power companies just trying to sell more power. ;-P
...Customers have a filed a class action lawsuit claiming "They allowed me to turn off the feature that prevented my phone from lighting on fire while playing Candy Crush, now all I have is 3rd degree burns, and no way to play Candy Crush!".
I think the main point is that people don't realize that they have a "lock" that they need to change the combination on. Perhaps with additional education people can "check their sh*t" and see if it needs to be changed. Then the bad actor can just look under their keyboard for the PW, but at least it won't be "admin" anymore.
Welcome to Johnny Cab!
Ditto
Cloud services. Great buzz word. They will save the world! Unless you actually need to use them a lot, then they will cost the world. Sure, cloud providers will give you more redundancy than you would likely be able to create yourself, but the cost is going to be through the roof. But who cares! It's just money that they get from us little ole taxpayers.
And then what happens when some dumbass places some secure document on the wrong server, and/or forgets to put a SECURE password on the share? The more you use services like that, the more chances that someone is going to make a stupid mistake. So I guess it's more secure... until it isn't.
I think that the power is small per transaction, but the *distribution* of that transaction is another kind of drain. Some site says that it's at about 136GB right now. Multiply that by the number of times that it is stored and transferred all over the internet, sucking up bandwidth and hard drive space. It's like someone is having a joke on us. "Hey look, watch this! I can make people use a ton of various fixed resources like Electricity, HD space and Internet bandwidth, and it will only get worse the more people use it!"
Lovely.
Will it be worth it (I mean this iteration which is a horrible drain, not knocking the concept of being detached from government)? Sounds like it is an immense drain on resources, and will only get worse, isn't that how it's designed?
FAT CHANCE!
You cannot eliminate a program without people getting upset because they thought that the UBI was going to be on top of everything else they were getting. You'll never be able to eliminate anything. It's a pipe dream.
That's a lovely blanket statement you make... Just because there are treaties that he believes are badly negotiated and wishes to withdraw, I doubt that he takes such a stance on all treaties we are party to, especially enough to call it "generally". A few cases does not make a majority.
The "So" generally leads us to believe that there would be some words of wisdom following immediately after the initial so statement that is pertinent to the topic at hand. ;-)
No huge deal, we were just hoping for more.
The reason FaceID exists it to collect biometric data for Apple. It isn't to improve end user security. Silly people.
Seems you are uninformed. The biometric data is kept in the Secure Enclave IN the processor, it never leaves, and has no way to leave. And it is probably more of a hash anyway, not the complete biometric data.
I think the new iOS uses a 6 digit passcode (couple orders of magnitude better, but still a passcode).
Or in the case of Bitcoin, nothing for something.
And your chicks for free?
Again the issue is WHO benefits from the fine? If it's not the consumer, but some greedy government body, then perhaps the consumers should sue the government for their share of the fines.
Was thinking this myself.
It's all nice and good that someone wants to give companies the [additional] impetus they need to "do the right thing" and shore up their data security, but being greedy bastards along the way (talking about the government greedy bastards this time) without any information as to how that money would be spent, that's just wrong.
If a government is going to fine a company for their data breach so heavily, shouldn't they be making themselves responsible for helping the consumers that were injured in that breach using the windfall they just made for themselves with the fine?
But, knowing the way things work, they will not only fine the company, but also require the company to provide identity theft remediation for those affected, effectively a double hit for the offending company.
So many different thoughts on this... I can see it from too many directions. As a consumer, if my data gets stolen, I would want to be sure that I was somehow taken care of. But if the government levies a fine that is so egregious as to prevent that company from having sufficient funds to even be able to take care of the consumers that have had their personal data compromised, where is the benefit in that?
Probably more of the point of it is if that "Destiny 2 super companion app" asks you for permission to use your camera and microphone, tell it to F off, as there should be no reason for it to have access to those.
Any of the tribes that were benefiting from this will likely want to sue over this since this law would be eliminating their income. Don't know if they have a leg to stand on (legally speaking), but it seems a common outcome lately.
Don't like a law? Sue!
If what is being overturned is indeed an overreach, then it should be rolled back. With that being said, each state can and SHOULD do what they feel is right for their state, if that means that they continue down the path of the Obama restrictions, so be it, THAT is what they should be doing, making choices as a state, not being mandated in a way that doesn't fit within the legal boundaries of Federal jurisdiction. Aren't the states supposed to be more autonomous? Why aren't they making better choices so that a higher power doesn't have to step in and mandate?
If this tipping point is truly an issue, it's a good thing we're heading into a solar minimum. This could be our opportunity to reduce our carbon emissions and slow things down during a time when the temperature will be trending down for a decent amount of time (I've heard a number of estimates, most of them at least a decade). At the minimum we have an opportunity to delay the tipping point, we'll see I guess.
Perhaps you should Google the price for an iPhone 8... The base 64GB model is $699. Expensive yes, but not out of the realm of the price of the Samsung phones, which are actually more expensive ($758) at the same size memory. And having some self control with your money, and not spending on something you view as frivolous, or not worth even $119 (guess you won't be getting a smart phone), can be commended (in part). But you certainly can't judge the rest of the world by your yardstick.
Seems like it is more like a commodity future than an currency future...
Seems like all of this just opens things up to even greater levels of gaming... If it works like it has for Silver (in my humble opinion), then it will bring the price down for BTC. If you can short it in some way, then the path to fortunes will be made. ;-)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you start doing anything that eventually returns to a traditional fiat currency, aren't you going to have issues of speed of transaction, or quantity of transactions (people will try to game things as much as possible, mass quantities of exchanges, automation, etc). Will that be an issue with blockchain currencies? Can it keep up?
What will it be infecting you with?