While at this stage it seems unlikely the Marathon bombing wasn't a terrorist incident, I agree with the GP, and think it's fairly tragic that the phrase "terrorist" has ended up being used, by people like you, as a term for "anything violent I don't like a lot".
If the purpose is not to affect political change through the use of fear of violence by civilian groups, it isn't terrorism.
A psycho with a gun shooting twenty kids in a school in Connecticut because he hates his mother is not terrorism. A woman pushing people in front of subway trains because she wants to intimidate Muslims is terrorism.
A student snapping and shooting up fellow students on their University campus with a collection of handguns is not terrorism. 19 men hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in order to kill the passengers and people in those buildings, in order superficially to promote a united Arab state is terrorism.
A disturbed violent man shooting up a cinema for no apparent reason is not a terrorist. An idiot shooting up a Sikh temple in the apparent belief they're Muslims, wanting to send a message to Muslims, might be terrorism.
A country invading another over false pretences largely because, ultimately, it just doesn't like the regime very much, is not an act of terror even though hundreds of thousands may be dead. Someone planting a bomb in a pub in Birmingham, England, to promote the cause of a United Ireland is an example of terrorism.
An underground transparency organization leaking hundreds of thousands of documents classified at the Pentagon's lowest secrecy level is not terrorism, even though it might lead to deaths, as there's no intent to spread terror. A man sending letter bombs to scientists to intimidate scientists and technologists into halting progress is probably terrorism.
What cause does this Islamic former Chechen support? We honestly don't know. We can speculate as to the axes he and his brother have to grind, especially given his brother's apparent (reported) extremism, but we don't exactly have a manifesto, or an established terror group they're associated with, or anything like that. Until we do, until we know why they thought killing three people and severely injuring, permanently maiming many, dozens, we can't and shouldn't say we know they're terrorists. Using logic like "Yeah, well, they killed a lot of people!" doesn't mean they are.
Which is not to suggest, again, it isn't the most likely explanation.
I too want the government to gid rid of all the laws I disagree with, while keeping the minimal set of laws I support.
I also want to grant Texas its independence. Most Americans support this, either because they live in Texas and want an end to Federal tyranny, or because they live outside of Texas and are fed up of the stupid, loudmouthed, assholes that hail from there.
Finally, flying, self driving, cars or a similar form of transportation.
Well, yeah, but I meant an implied "...that you would otherwise be willing to do were it not for the attack" after each example. I'm not suggesting that you immediately, right now, board a plane and fly to London to drink in British pub to defeaat the terrorists;-)
I take Amtrak, or I drive. Haven't been in a plane since 2002. There are few "theoretically positive" industries I'd like to go bankrupt and die tomorrow, the airlines are one of those few.
Do you really, honestly think that the next Boston Marathon won't have 10 times the security, and attempt to inspect every single person who enters the vague vicinity? Do you REALLY think that the TSA will be absolutely nowhere to be found next marathon?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that this was a revenge attack for Margaret Thatcher's death?
That's three replies so far that are completely inane and stupid. Two believing that the current lock down of Boston is permanent, and another apparently demanding I disassociate myself from an opinion I've given no view on.
Can I be the fifth person to say "OMG! You're such an idiot, as proven by the first sentence you wrote. In fact, the first sentence was so bad I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment which I assume was totally not making it clear your first sentence was in any way intended to be humourous."
Are you really suggesting that the measures taken in Boston over the last 24 hours are not temporary?
I agree completely that the permanence of the PATRIOT act is a stain on this country, but then I'd not have said "it's refreshing seeing an act of terror be treated as the jurisdiction of law enforcement" if I didn't see this as something different.
I think you and the other responder, who are suggesting that there's anything relevent about other security measures becoming permanent, need to review what's happening again and ask yourself if it's really that likely that temporary and quite possibly necessary restrictions of the type we're seeing in Boston could actually be made permanent, even if Obama was the dictator Glenn Beck says he is.
The IRA put bombs in pubs and Burger Kings, with nothing resembling a "warning" issued and with there being little point in planting them unless the aim was to kill civilians, primarily or secondarily.
Frankly I'm tried of hearing people on this side of the Atlantic give them a pass simply because they were made up predominantly of Christians and because their cause is sympathetic. They were (and the remaining pockets who've continued to fight since the peace agreements of the 1990s still are) murderous thugs. At best, you can argue they weren't as lethal, with fewer people killed and with no attempt to drag in unrelated countries into their bitter dispute. But yes, as a Brit living in Britain for the first 25 years of my life, there was a target on my back - not as big as it was for soldiers, police, and everyone from construction workers to bankers considered by some arbitrary definition to be helping the British in Northern Ireland, but it was there.
Yeah, I think anyone reading 4chan would say "This is at best intelligent speculation by a large group of amateurs" and be unlikely to actually take action of any kind seeing someone's picture posted there.
On the other hand, you kinda assume an actual newspaper would be using its contacts in law enforcement to ensure there was some degree of legitimacy for any allegations it makes. The Post not only didn't do so, it even lied, passing off a picture from a crowd sourced amateur terrorism investigation as an official law enforcement release.
No, it's a temporary thing, based on the desire to apprehend two people considered extremely dangerous. If these people were Newtown style shooters - killing people out of mental instability rather than an ideological goal (and who knows, it's improbably but that might still be the case) and their exact whereabouts were unknown, I'd expect a similar reaction.
Terror? No, you're giving in to it if, after these guys are dealt with, you institute permanent or pseudo-temporary security restrictions that affect everyone, or if you wildly attack foreign countries simply because they have tenuous links to a terrorist attack, and if you, yourself, refuse to board a plane or run in a marathon or take a job in a high building or panic upon hearing about a Islamic outreach center promoting peace being built half a mile away from the site of an Islamic terrorist attack, or refuse to step in a British pub, or British bus, or British train station, or...
This isn't a case where fear is being used to shut down Boston, it's a case where a law enforcement process is temporarily having that affect. It's not permanent, it's not something unique to terrorism enforcement (in fact, it's refreshing seeing an act of terror be treated as the jurisdiction of law enforcement), and it's probably what has to be done right now.
Well, experience suggests that a community of people, which is what the Slashdot commentariat is, are generally likely to want and get involved in a discussion of a major issue of international interest. The large number of comments on this posting demonstrate that, yes, this is one of those things we want to discuss.
Well, then couldn't they have used knock-out gas? Unless you're telling me that the Adam West version of Batman together with the original Mission Impossible TV series would just make something like that up.
LDAP can be used for long complex information but it's not hard to feed it with shorter, simpler, information and present a friendly UI that assumes it only has this shorter, simpler, information - which is certainly possible if you're building an Active Directory compatible server into a router (which thanks to Andrew Tridgell and his fellow SAMBA developers you can) with all administration done via the router's UI.
DHCP configuration files can be very complicated too, but routers tend to have very friendly webmin UIs that hide most of the complexity, combining information known to the router, with the basics that a user is actually likely to want to change (ie "This is the default range of IPs to give out, give static IPs to the machines on this list, and the router can figure out the rest because it already provides DNS, the default route, etc, etc.")
If you've been around any enterprises, then yes, you've seen it. It's one of the components of Active Directory (indeed, it's the "Directory" part of Active Directory.)
LDAP is used to centrally store and manage information about all the entities involved in a network - users, computers, etc. With users that includes everything from their email address to their network password - which brings us to the GP's point.
There are numerous implementations of LDAP out there. Unix systems have been administered using LDAP for decades. So it's a big thing if Debian still doesn't support it properly. It should. And actually, with SAMBA4 now out, we should be moving LDAP (and Kerberos and the other major network administration tools) out of "the enterprise" and start being able to use them in smaller networks, like at home. There's no reason why your D-Link router shouldn't have it built in.
One of the underlying assumptions of dollar cost averaging is that you are investing in a productive assets that grows with time
Doesn't have to grow particularly if the swings in value are wide enough, just not shrink particularly quickly - obviously if the base asset is shrinking in value over time, then it makes little sense to keep your money invested in it for long periods of time - that is, you don't keep adding $1000 every month for ten years without taking anything out, you just do it for a few months and take the money out at an opportune time (possibly restarting the process afterwards.) If the asset is, in the short term, fluctuating in price by a wide enough margin, you should still come out ahead even against a long term decline in average asset value.
The major issue for me (as I said) is that there's nothing really that says Bitcoins will continue to fluctuate between these extremes, or not just face a permanent, non-oscillating, decline. If, as critics suggest, Bitcoins only reached $200 because of the hype, it's not clear that we're in for another cycle at all.
Ironically, if lots of people did decide this was worth using as an investment strategy, it might actually calm everything down, with Bitcoins slowly rising in value, without the extreme swings in value we've been seeing.
Surprisingly, no. It can be a great way to make a lot of money.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging, and then do some basic scenarios. The key thing is that if there's a lot of oscillating between two extremes, then putting the same amount of money into an investment vehicle over a period of time will result in fairly substantial growth of your account - even if, on average, the vehicle itself never gains value.
The system works because when you put in the same amount of cash (rather than buy the same number of securities) basic math is working in your favor. Put $1000 when Bitcoins are worth $200, and when the price collapses to $50, that part of your investment is worth $250 - a $750 loss.
However, put $1000 in when they're $50, and when the price rises to $200, that part of your investment is worth $4000, a $3000 gain. If you're putting the same amount of money in at intervals unrelated to the rise and fall of the currency, then on average, you should have as many "$1000 at $200s" as you have "$1000 at $50s".
Of course, the algorithm wouldn't be useful unless you're in the black most of the time even when the currency isn't at its extremes. If you assume that usually it'll float around the $125 range (half way between $50 and $200), then the loss on the $1000@$200 investments will be $375, and the gains on the $1000@$50 "only" look like $1500. You're still making more than 100% return at that rate.
This is a fairly normal investment scheme FWIW and is part of the logic behind most pension systems. Of course, the stock market doesn't fluctuate anything like as much as Bitcoins do. On the other hand, very few people believe that the stock market will ever collapse entirely.
The danger with this scheme is that there's no guarantee Bitcoins aren't going to permanently collapse, and that would cause your investment to be wiped out. I'm not going to do it in large part for that reason. The amounts involved to make this useful are much higher than I'm willing to bet at the moment.
I'm not in a position to judge. So let me speculate based upon my own prejudices and stupidity.
What this obviously proves is that THE MAN hates freedom and is hating Bitcoins so has leaned on the bank (though didn't need to be because the bank IS THE MAN too) to close down Bitcoins which are totally a legitimate currency because you can exchange CPU cycles for Bitcoins which is much better than the dollar because the dollar can be made to hyperinflate by printing more although it doesn't whereas Bitcoins never have inflation because they're based on CPU cycles and its just its success that means it keeps oscillating between $50 and $200 every few months. This is simply another case where the MAFIAA are trying to shut us down because we threaten their business model by selling things that have value because they're products of really big prime numbers which everyone knows are totally worth thousands of dollars.
It's made a lot of magazines obsolete, but not all.
There are two reasons for subscribing to an actual physical paper magazine: one is that certain topics don't always get the type of coverage you're looking for. That is, virtually all topics will get some coverage on the Internet, but it'll generally be "new product news" and "instructions on how to...". Magazines? More likely to include half way decent commentary of the kind that cannot be found in a Disqus thread.
A second reason is that the magazine pushes topics to you which the Internet is only half good at it. The Internet manages to do this quite well for politics and tech news, but the more conservative the industry, the less likely it is you're going to stray into something unusual. (Which is not to say it never happens, anyone who visits Wikipedia and finds they don't have at least ten tabs open of stuff they'll read later by the end of the session isn't doing it properly. But that information is kind of static and limited by the nature of what you'd find in Wikipedia.)
I carry my phone in my pocket. I have to use a long life battery with my Galaxy Nexus to make it last more than eight hours off charge, which means the stupid thing has a big ugly hunchback cover on the back of it, so the enlarged battery will fit. But while that might be ugly, it's hardly suddenly too thick to fit in my pocket.
Remember we're only talking about thickening a phone by a millimeter or two to get something approaching a reasonable battery life. The current situation is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with practicality or the ability to fit a phone in a pocket. It's purely looks. And it's a prime example of form being put ahead of function to an extreme degree.
Well someone's got to do it. The NRA was too busy worrying about the Windows 8 user interface and demanding action be taken to re-introduce the "Start" button to bother itself with Android issues, and Greenpeace doesn't have a lot of time either, what with its focus on better guidelines for iOS developers to ensure they can safely know ahead of time whether their apps will make it into the App Store.
Dollars have very little inflation, normally 2-3% per year. By comparison, Bitcoins are suffering hyperinflation and hyperdeflation on a regular basis. And they don't have a war, or mismanaged economy, or other usual cause of either, to blame this on.
It's safe to say that most of us, when we receive a dollar, don't expect it to change value by anything worth worrying about before we get to spend it.
Slashdot Mirror
While at this stage it seems unlikely the Marathon bombing wasn't a terrorist incident, I agree with the GP, and think it's fairly tragic that the phrase "terrorist" has ended up being used, by people like you, as a term for "anything violent I don't like a lot".
If the purpose is not to affect political change through the use of fear of violence by civilian groups, it isn't terrorism.
A psycho with a gun shooting twenty kids in a school in Connecticut because he hates his mother is not terrorism. A woman pushing people in front of subway trains because she wants to intimidate Muslims is terrorism.
A student snapping and shooting up fellow students on their University campus with a collection of handguns is not terrorism. 19 men hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in order to kill the passengers and people in those buildings, in order superficially to promote a united Arab state is terrorism.
A disturbed violent man shooting up a cinema for no apparent reason is not a terrorist. An idiot shooting up a Sikh temple in the apparent belief they're Muslims, wanting to send a message to Muslims, might be terrorism.
A country invading another over false pretences largely because, ultimately, it just doesn't like the regime very much, is not an act of terror even though hundreds of thousands may be dead. Someone planting a bomb in a pub in Birmingham, England, to promote the cause of a United Ireland is an example of terrorism.
An underground transparency organization leaking hundreds of thousands of documents classified at the Pentagon's lowest secrecy level is not terrorism, even though it might lead to deaths, as there's no intent to spread terror. A man sending letter bombs to scientists to intimidate scientists and technologists into halting progress is probably terrorism.
What cause does this Islamic former Chechen support? We honestly don't know. We can speculate as to the axes he and his brother have to grind, especially given his brother's apparent (reported) extremism, but we don't exactly have a manifesto, or an established terror group they're associated with, or anything like that. Until we do, until we know why they thought killing three people and severely injuring, permanently maiming many, dozens, we can't and shouldn't say we know they're terrorists. Using logic like "Yeah, well, they killed a lot of people!" doesn't mean they are.
Which is not to suggest, again, it isn't the most likely explanation.
I too want the government to gid rid of all the laws I disagree with, while keeping the minimal set of laws I support.
I also want to grant Texas its independence. Most Americans support this, either because they live in Texas and want an end to Federal tyranny, or because they live outside of Texas and are fed up of the stupid, loudmouthed, assholes that hail from there.
Finally, flying, self driving, cars or a similar form of transportation.
I (in common with many Brits as I once was) have always had sympathy for the IRA's cause.
But never their methods.
Well, yeah, but I meant an implied "...that you would otherwise be willing to do were it not for the attack" after each example. I'm not suggesting that you immediately, right now, board a plane and fly to London to drink in British pub to defeaat the terrorists ;-)
I take Amtrak, or I drive. Haven't been in a plane since 2002. There are few "theoretically positive" industries I'd like to go bankrupt and die tomorrow, the airlines are one of those few.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that this was a revenge attack for Margaret Thatcher's death?
That's three replies so far that are completely inane and stupid. Two believing that the current lock down of Boston is permanent, and another apparently demanding I disassociate myself from an opinion I've given no view on.
Go away.
Can I be the fifth person to say "OMG! You're such an idiot, as proven by the first sentence you wrote. In fact, the first sentence was so bad I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment which I assume was totally not making it clear your first sentence was in any way intended to be humourous."
Are you really suggesting that the measures taken in Boston over the last 24 hours are not temporary?
I agree completely that the permanence of the PATRIOT act is a stain on this country, but then I'd not have said "it's refreshing seeing an act of terror be treated as the jurisdiction of law enforcement" if I didn't see this as something different.
I think you and the other responder, who are suggesting that there's anything relevent about other security measures becoming permanent, need to review what's happening again and ask yourself if it's really that likely that temporary and quite possibly necessary restrictions of the type we're seeing in Boston could actually be made permanent, even if Obama was the dictator Glenn Beck says he is.
The IRA put bombs in pubs and Burger Kings, with nothing resembling a "warning" issued and with there being little point in planting them unless the aim was to kill civilians, primarily or secondarily.
Frankly I'm tried of hearing people on this side of the Atlantic give them a pass simply because they were made up predominantly of Christians and because their cause is sympathetic. They were (and the remaining pockets who've continued to fight since the peace agreements of the 1990s still are) murderous thugs. At best, you can argue they weren't as lethal, with fewer people killed and with no attempt to drag in unrelated countries into their bitter dispute. But yes, as a Brit living in Britain for the first 25 years of my life, there was a target on my back - not as big as it was for soldiers, police, and everyone from construction workers to bankers considered by some arbitrary definition to be helping the British in Northern Ireland, but it was there.
Yeah, I think anyone reading 4chan would say "This is at best intelligent speculation by a large group of amateurs" and be unlikely to actually take action of any kind seeing someone's picture posted there.
On the other hand, you kinda assume an actual newspaper would be using its contacts in law enforcement to ensure there was some degree of legitimacy for any allegations it makes. The Post not only didn't do so, it even lied, passing off a picture from a crowd sourced amateur terrorism investigation as an official law enforcement release.
No, it's a temporary thing, based on the desire to apprehend two people considered extremely dangerous. If these people were Newtown style shooters - killing people out of mental instability rather than an ideological goal (and who knows, it's improbably but that might still be the case) and their exact whereabouts were unknown, I'd expect a similar reaction.
Terror? No, you're giving in to it if, after these guys are dealt with, you institute permanent or pseudo-temporary security restrictions that affect everyone, or if you wildly attack foreign countries simply because they have tenuous links to a terrorist attack, and if you, yourself, refuse to board a plane or run in a marathon or take a job in a high building or panic upon hearing about a Islamic outreach center promoting peace being built half a mile away from the site of an Islamic terrorist attack, or refuse to step in a British pub, or British bus, or British train station, or...
This isn't a case where fear is being used to shut down Boston, it's a case where a law enforcement process is temporarily having that affect. It's not permanent, it's not something unique to terrorism enforcement (in fact, it's refreshing seeing an act of terror be treated as the jurisdiction of law enforcement), and it's probably what has to be done right now.
Well, experience suggests that a community of people, which is what the Slashdot commentariat is, are generally likely to want and get involved in a discussion of a major issue of international interest. The large number of comments on this posting demonstrate that, yes, this is one of those things we want to discuss.
So yes, Slashdot certainly should post this.
Well, then couldn't they have used knock-out gas? Unless you're telling me that the Adam West version of Batman together with the original Mission Impossible TV series would just make something like that up.
LDAP can be used for long complex information but it's not hard to feed it with shorter, simpler, information and present a friendly UI that assumes it only has this shorter, simpler, information - which is certainly possible if you're building an Active Directory compatible server into a router (which thanks to Andrew Tridgell and his fellow SAMBA developers you can) with all administration done via the router's UI.
DHCP configuration files can be very complicated too, but routers tend to have very friendly webmin UIs that hide most of the complexity, combining information known to the router, with the basics that a user is actually likely to want to change (ie "This is the default range of IPs to give out, give static IPs to the machines on this list, and the router can figure out the rest because it already provides DNS, the default route, etc, etc.")
Sorry, but unless it has APK's HOSTS file installed by default, I'm sticking with Ubuntu...
If you've been around any enterprises, then yes, you've seen it. It's one of the components of Active Directory (indeed, it's the "Directory" part of Active Directory.)
LDAP is used to centrally store and manage information about all the entities involved in a network - users, computers, etc. With users that includes everything from their email address to their network password - which brings us to the GP's point.
There are numerous implementations of LDAP out there. Unix systems have been administered using LDAP for decades. So it's a big thing if Debian still doesn't support it properly. It should. And actually, with SAMBA4 now out, we should be moving LDAP (and Kerberos and the other major network administration tools) out of "the enterprise" and start being able to use them in smaller networks, like at home. There's no reason why your D-Link router shouldn't have it built in.
Doesn't have to grow particularly if the swings in value are wide enough, just not shrink particularly quickly - obviously if the base asset is shrinking in value over time, then it makes little sense to keep your money invested in it for long periods of time - that is, you don't keep adding $1000 every month for ten years without taking anything out, you just do it for a few months and take the money out at an opportune time (possibly restarting the process afterwards.) If the asset is, in the short term, fluctuating in price by a wide enough margin, you should still come out ahead even against a long term decline in average asset value.
The major issue for me (as I said) is that there's nothing really that says Bitcoins will continue to fluctuate between these extremes, or not just face a permanent, non-oscillating, decline. If, as critics suggest, Bitcoins only reached $200 because of the hype, it's not clear that we're in for another cycle at all.
Ironically, if lots of people did decide this was worth using as an investment strategy, it might actually calm everything down, with Bitcoins slowly rising in value, without the extreme swings in value we've been seeing.
Surprisingly, no. It can be a great way to make a lot of money.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging, and then do some basic scenarios. The key thing is that if there's a lot of oscillating between two extremes, then putting the same amount of money into an investment vehicle over a period of time will result in fairly substantial growth of your account - even if, on average, the vehicle itself never gains value.
The system works because when you put in the same amount of cash (rather than buy the same number of securities) basic math is working in your favor. Put $1000 when Bitcoins are worth $200, and when the price collapses to $50, that part of your investment is worth $250 - a $750 loss.
However, put $1000 in when they're $50, and when the price rises to $200, that part of your investment is worth $4000, a $3000 gain. If you're putting the same amount of money in at intervals unrelated to the rise and fall of the currency, then on average, you should have as many "$1000 at $200s" as you have "$1000 at $50s".
Of course, the algorithm wouldn't be useful unless you're in the black most of the time even when the currency isn't at its extremes. If you assume that usually it'll float around the $125 range (half way between $50 and $200), then the loss on the $1000@$200 investments will be $375, and the gains on the $1000@$50 "only" look like $1500. You're still making more than 100% return at that rate.
This is a fairly normal investment scheme FWIW and is part of the logic behind most pension systems. Of course, the stock market doesn't fluctuate anything like as much as Bitcoins do. On the other hand, very few people believe that the stock market will ever collapse entirely.
The danger with this scheme is that there's no guarantee Bitcoins aren't going to permanently collapse, and that would cause your investment to be wiped out. I'm not going to do it in large part for that reason. The amounts involved to make this useful are much higher than I'm willing to bet at the moment.
The end game of a Ponzi scheme is that the last investors to pull money out get nothing. Bitcoin hasn't been shut down yet.
I'm not in a position to judge. So let me speculate based upon my own prejudices and stupidity.
What this obviously proves is that THE MAN hates freedom and is hating Bitcoins so has leaned on the bank (though didn't need to be because the bank IS THE MAN too) to close down Bitcoins which are totally a legitimate currency because you can exchange CPU cycles for Bitcoins which is much better than the dollar because the dollar can be made to hyperinflate by printing more although it doesn't whereas Bitcoins never have inflation because they're based on CPU cycles and its just its success that means it keeps oscillating between $50 and $200 every few months. This is simply another case where the MAFIAA are trying to shut us down because we threaten their business model by selling things that have value because they're products of really big prime numbers which everyone knows are totally worth thousands of dollars.
(c) 50% of Slashdot posters.
Who is arguing otherwise?
It's made a lot of magazines obsolete, but not all.
There are two reasons for subscribing to an actual physical paper magazine: one is that certain topics don't always get the type of coverage you're looking for. That is, virtually all topics will get some coverage on the Internet, but it'll generally be "new product news" and "instructions on how to...". Magazines? More likely to include half way decent commentary of the kind that cannot be found in a Disqus thread.
A second reason is that the magazine pushes topics to you which the Internet is only half good at it. The Internet manages to do this quite well for politics and tech news, but the more conservative the industry, the less likely it is you're going to stray into something unusual. (Which is not to say it never happens, anyone who visits Wikipedia and finds they don't have at least ten tabs open of stuff they'll read later by the end of the session isn't doing it properly. But that information is kind of static and limited by the nature of what you'd find in Wikipedia.)
I carry my phone in my pocket. I have to use a long life battery with my Galaxy Nexus to make it last more than eight hours off charge, which means the stupid thing has a big ugly hunchback cover on the back of it, so the enlarged battery will fit. But while that might be ugly, it's hardly suddenly too thick to fit in my pocket.
Remember we're only talking about thickening a phone by a millimeter or two to get something approaching a reasonable battery life. The current situation is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with practicality or the ability to fit a phone in a pocket. It's purely looks. And it's a prime example of form being put ahead of function to an extreme degree.
Well someone's got to do it. The NRA was too busy worrying about the Windows 8 user interface and demanding action be taken to re-introduce the "Start" button to bother itself with Android issues, and Greenpeace doesn't have a lot of time either, what with its focus on better guidelines for iOS developers to ensure they can safely know ahead of time whether their apps will make it into the App Store.
1. Calculate some really large prime numbers.
2. ????
3. Profit!
Dollars have very little inflation, normally 2-3% per year. By comparison, Bitcoins are suffering hyperinflation and hyperdeflation on a regular basis. And they don't have a war, or mismanaged economy, or other usual cause of either, to blame this on.
It's safe to say that most of us, when we receive a dollar, don't expect it to change value by anything worth worrying about before we get to spend it.
So I think Forbe's central point is correct.