> distributes maintenance of the blockchain (and does not waste energy). Right now mining is not decentralizing.
distribution and decentralization are not interchangeable terms. distribution relates to conserving existing structural resilience, decentralization is about control over future structural developments. Proof of stake merely moves the locus of this control from one kind of self-compounding initial advantage (access to cheap/free electricity, hardware, and facilities) to another (being among the first to begin staking a coin). This is not even addressing the problem that PoS tilts leverage into exchanges' hands even worse than PoW does, as most exchanges do not credit staked coins to users' accounts. There are also many specific-to-PoS incentive shell games that are played with staking coins which have the general effect of discouraging spending and consequently amplifying the appeal of speculation over all other potential uses. And decentralization itself not so much a well-defined doctrine as it is a mantra to be chanted uncritically by people who flippantly regard 'centralized' as an inherent evil.
The entire purpose of cryptocurrency is to undermine the state. There is literally no other value add to the blockchainist (pseudo) decentralization model of electronic currency.
the most impressive feat of Bitcoin is that it's managed to use a misdirection story about 'technology' (plus some good old fashioned corruption) to prevent china - of all nations - from recognizing its true and intended purpose for so long.
extremely stretched mixed metaphors aside; although the great die-off of browser species is probably a net good in the long term it's still depressing to see yet another once great and trusted brand morph into a cosplay of its former self. I still have the last presto-powered version of Opera installed for (admittedly misplaced) sentimental reasons - it was my daily driver for years.
Why would anyone use this new chrome-clone when Brave has already beat it to the crypto-MLM punch?
Advertising is not going away; crypto (when it doesn't collapse in on itself due to inevitable development of leverage-cornering cartels) will likely make ads mandatory at best, and impossible to sustain as a revenue model at worst.
Though Iconify was sort of a cross between Bubbles and the MacOS dock (iconified apps went to the desktop, rather than persistently hovering over everything else) which made more sense in the early 90's desktop-centered UX context.
No, because the HFT trading you are referring to is not done clandestinely by the exchanges themselves (to create the impression of volume, necessary in order to entice bigger and bigger fish into your exchange, and the sideline balances that come with them - upon which you make float and charge fees for in/egress), but by outside specialist trading companies who pay top dollar for real estate with advantageous geographic position as near as possible to the exchange's trading floor. This necessitates their being physically located in highly visible jurisdictions, as those are where the exchanges are.
Also they are required, as a result of being unable to conceal their physical presence, to submit to regulation by their host state and provide audit trails on demand, which are likewise algorithmically monitored for obvious manipulation tactics. Do some sneaky innovations slip through from time to time? Yes, but these are quite rare and have very short shelf life because their HFT competitors sniff them out and either copy or report them. Discovery risks enormous fines being brought upon the shop, and though they are not on going to obliterate the company, they are calculated to negate any profits gained by their use.
perpetual motion / free energy (and all fringe science fads in general, of which Blockchain-ism is arguably just another instance)
spiritual communication a.k.a. lonely grandma parasitism
kardashians, etc.
Amway / MLM generally
Bernie Madoff
most if not all religions
All of these are likewise 'billion dollar markets,' though they lack one important missing ingredient: a publicly tradeable unit that unifies the basic settlement of valuation among their adherents, which they lack either because they are too dissimilar (in the case of fringe science crowds) or because introducing one would be illegal or at least highly frowned upon (cults, whether of the religious or personality variety, ponzi schemes like madoff).
Thankfully, bitcoin has introduced a 'fix' for this structural deficiency.
The main innovation of Bitcoin is to facilitate a way to ask for actual money in exchange for fan club tokens representing shares in a fan club built around unsubstantiated economic decentralization woo, and then make a speculative market built on highly centralized control over liquidity to goose all the visible public engagement metrics like Tx volume, scarcity and market cap in order to attract and ensnare naive and greedy outsiders. By the time these outsiders figure out they are chasing a mirage, the most of the early promoters/adopters have disappeared, died, or pivoted to different messaging.
This is a feat that Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency sphere as a whole largely accomplished thanks to piggybacking on the larger social media feedback-loop factory which gave it (and a lot of other nonsense) the bionic legs that enabled it to reach legions of greater fools in unprecedented time, long before the truth could possibly hope to catch up.
and it's #1 strength. Exchanges are the dirty little secret that makes Bitcoin's (and every cryptocurrency's) model "work". They are unofficial, unacknowledged, yet fundamental layer of the blockchain protocol (yes, 'blockchain', not just 'cryptocurrency'), the layer that facilitates liquidity.
And therein lies the weakness.
The entire 'decentralization' claim of Bitcoin is utterly vitiated by the fact that the only form of market leverage that actually matters for a supposed store of value - *liquidity* - is highly centralized (even worse, tends toward further centralization with time, rather than away from it), completely opaque due to being gated and obfuscated by a handful of major exchanges, who can only perform real-time price matching by facilitating off-blockchain transactions on their internal ledgers. Opaque, that is, except to those who happen to operate one of these shops and can see all the activity on their internal reports before anyone else does.
The handful of so-called 'decentralized exchanges' are useless science fair toys, as the Tx fees required to operate them, not to mention the enormous aggregate lag in updating their order books makes them complete non-starters as solutions to this problem.
Back in the BBS days, the non-academic online world largely rested on the shoulders of dedicated sysops who ran their portals as labors of love. Some became comfortable enough with regulars that you'd know about the broad strokes of their personal lives because they'd tell you. This month the board is short of funds because their wife had a car accident, or they are moving to a different state so the local dialup line will be changing, etc. Even as casual user you had a sense of who your host was, if only to the extent that they manifested in your mind as a distinct person behind the handle, as someone with a 'real' life that afforded limited time for trade wars and limited patience for flame wars. Most of all, you knew that if they could no longer sustain the board, it would likely close down. If it was well established it might get transferred to a new sysop, but this would be a palpable transition.
I think, for me (as someone who didn't yet have an academic account) at least, the notion of a 'place' on the internet began to lose its implied direct correlation with a specific place-custodian (admin, sysop, etc.) with the rise of USENET - or perhaps more accurately the gradual expansion of USENET into privately hosted nodes. Now, any BBS you sign on to could have a USENET section and this started to become the primary reason you went online. Soon it didn't matter what you used to dial in, USENET was always there. USENET was my first experience of an 'always on' virtual place that existed outside of both time and geography. And as such, it *seemed* to be less constrained by limiting human factors like sleep, money, and motivation. I notice now, looking back on this time, that it was here that I began to forget that this apparent permanence was an illusion that depended on a precarious tangle of enthusiast volunteers. Over time this impression ossified into an uncritical (and largely undetected) background premise which regarded the 'internet' as a self-sustaining phenomenon that was greater the sum of the humanity from which it projected. In support of this I found an ample supply of propaganda from the likes of large format Wired, the cluetrain manifesto and the accompanying inkblot constellation of vapid mic drop zingers. "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." SMH at my younger self. I couldn't get enough of that "overthrow the empire" futurism-kink, which I now recognize as blatantly self-dealing charlatanry peddled, for the most part, by opportunistic cynics whose primary motivation for 'disintermediation' and disrupting old power hierarchies was merely to position themselves atop new ones. Their patronizing and predatory view of 'the masses' differed little from those they sought to replace.
Today's most conspicuous version of this phenomenon appears in the form of blockchainism (a fringe political agenda framed as a neutral technology), which likewise rests on the inarticulate assumption that the net (and by extension, properties on the net - myspace, facebook, The Cloud, etc) somehow exists independently of infrastructure, geography, and (most importantly) people.
No doubt at this very moment someone is readying a VC pitch using the OP event as evidence that if MySpace were rebuilt on the clou^H^H^H^H Blockchain, the prospect of losing all this property would have been rendered impossible (ahem, 'probabilistically impossible') thanks to the alchemy of 'immutability.' As if, with enough electrons burned, it becomes possible to grant data - a description of matter - the same quality of self-evident permanence as matter itself. The old dream repackaged under a new name.
Generally agree, except for the part about migrating to Bitcoin (or a flavor of Bitcoin that actually solved numerous problems with privacy).
This would make things much worse, because the small circle of power brokers with arbitrary leverage over your purchasing power (by controlling liquidity) would merely shift from known adversaries (banks, governments, multinationals) to unknown adversaries (the same, but with zero accountability, plus a new caste of unapologetically fuck-you criminals who don't even bother to provide a nominal fig leaf of goods or services, much less accountability, in exchange for their parasitism). Not even getting into the Randian ancaps of the early adopter cohort who openly fantasize about "hyperbitcoinization" and a future where they live the baronial life in cloistered citadels, gloating over all the poor walled-out "nocoiner" masses left behind.
It's not even 'bitcoin' that's the problem, per se. Bitcoin is essentially just a particular approach to implementing a seductive but poorly examined doctrinal position commonly referred to as 'decentralization.' Decentralization is, at best, a temporary transitional phase between centralized regimes. At worst, it is a mirage of political economics ginned up by cynical grifters whose only common motivation is to extract wealth from a hypergolic cocktail of greed and idealism. Game summary: devise a means to blow up (er, 'decentralize') the incumbent concentric structure of wealth, position yourself in the middle of the debris field, and sit back while fundamental social forces that crystallize as 'civilization' inexorably pull everything back together into the original concentric shape - but this time, *you* get to be at the center of decentralization.
Figure out where the honeypots are (i.e. who sends the new virus descriptions first?), then spam them with tons of small variants of various worm and virus code, which they happily amplify and flood the pipes of their whole downline tree. This is supposed to be a good idea?
The problem I find with all these players is that it seems you get to choose between somewhat bulky, fragile hard drive units with a lot of storage but poor battery life, or small flash based players with at most 1gig of space. My own player, a Panasonic SV-SD80, is about the size of US quarter, but squared off. It weighs about an ounce and a half and I never go anywhere without it, as it is so small you can drop it in your pocket and almost mistake it for loose change. I've dropped it several feet onto hard pavement at least 10 times with no ill effects. Plus, running on its internal battery it gets 16-20 hours of run time, and with the water resistant case it comes with (which has an extra AAA battery inside) you get around 50 hours. Try that with an iPod... That being said, even with a 1Gb SD card installed (sidenote: why would anyone buy a non expandable flash player??) I only get perhaps 200-250 songs on it, which means I'm bored of the rotation in about a week.
What I would like to buy is a player that comes packaged something like an ipod, but where the top 1/4 of it is a micro size flash based player (with an SD slot!) that contains a 1 or 2 line display, basic controls, and a small battery, and would afford the ultra-portable benefits of the SV-SD80 or similar player. For those times when you want access to your whole library, you would attach the bottom 3/4 would as 'dumb' modular add-on that simply holds a 20-60gb hard drive and a bigger battery to support it all, and the ability to shuttle songs to the flash unit as needed. Maybe even a larger (color?) display. It wouldnt need the player circuitry or controls, headphone jack etc, as that would all be contained in the flash head unit.
Has anyone thought of or has taken staps toward integrating a radar detector with wireless and GPS to create a long-range, fault tolerant radar/lidar detection network? Seems like this this is a patent wating to happen...
What amazes me is just how granular the RIAA shakedown sweep has been.
Just last week I went down to Geraldi's, my favorite local mom and pop sub shop (seating capacity of about 8, counting the outside table) here in downtown Portand, and noticed a handwritten sign taped to one of the coolers. It reads
"Greedy music industry says I can't play my own CD's in my own restaurant. The annual fee to play music is $265. Sorry."
Now, I guess I'm still ambivalent/undecided about the greater argument here, but this particular injunction - visited upon a struggling and honest small business owner - just struck me as being thorough to the point of malice.
Obviously the owner isn't making any additional sandwich sales from having RIAA-approved background music playing as opposed to the TV news or whatever. Certainly not $265/year's worth.
This is not a question about whether humans see in 24 bit color. The whole 1st two lines of your reply have nothing to do with the point of my problem, which is about the apparent paradox of containing an infinite set (the unlimited number of 24-bit megapixel images in the universe) in a finite one (24-bit megapixel space).
As for the rest of your reply, expanding the representational space doesnt change the problem of it being finite. It could just as well be 64 bit color or 128bit or 1024bit or something wide enough to contain the whole EMF spectrum or more. Its still finite, but the set it is representing is (apparently) infinite.
Imagine if one day we *do* see an extraterrestrial probe land here. As far advanced as it will appear to us, it may only be an ancient relic of its creating civilisation.
for their boss to program with (you may replace 'program' with 'network' or whatever is appropriate). Thats what the job boils down to. Content Management Systems, or at least the better (from a non technical user's standpoint) ones are the first steps in the replacement of the meat and bones HLLs with automation. The endpoint of the CMS (the name may change in the process) development cycle is the replacement of 'techies' with a system that can interpret concepts into code.
Unless you are working for yourself, developing your own original concept which is intended to fulfill some need you alone have identified, you are just drawing on a knowledge base and using it to implement someone else's ideas and instructions into machine usable form. Functionally, this is no different than what a compiler does. You're the steering wheel: a most important part of the car yet not the driver, indeed not even the same kind of thing as the driver. I say this as a recoving 'techie' myself.
One debunkable point that often comes up in various metaphysical/religious debates is the issue of the ancient belief in the sun orbiting the earth. In our society we are rather led to believe that this "Earth centered" view was the only one anyone around (along with the Flat Earth concept) until Copernicus came along and suggested the opposite arrangement. This is plainly untrue. To wit:
"Most people think the Earth lies at the center of the universe... but the Italian philosophers known as Pythagoreans take the contrary view. At the center, they say, is fire and the Earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the center." - Aristotle,
de caelo 293a
Note that here, even in the age of Pythagoras (sixth century BC), Earth is reduced to an insignificant star among the multitude, at least as far as philosophy was concerned. It even comes up, in slightly different form, in Ptolemy's Almagest, the standard astronomical text of the middle ages, a classic that was required reading for formally educated members of society, particularly clergy and government staff.
This theory has been known as one possibility among several ever since; it was not "discovered" by later astronomers as most textbooks would have us believe. Sure, mathematics and, later, telescopes helped to prove it correct, but the idea was current long before.
Slashdot Mirror
> distributes maintenance of the blockchain (and does not waste energy). Right now mining is not decentralizing.
distribution and decentralization are not interchangeable terms. distribution relates to conserving existing structural resilience, decentralization is about control over future structural developments. Proof of stake merely moves the locus of this control from one kind of self-compounding initial advantage (access to cheap/free electricity, hardware, and facilities) to another (being among the first to begin staking a coin). This is not even addressing the problem that PoS tilts leverage into exchanges' hands even worse than PoW does, as most exchanges do not credit staked coins to users' accounts. There are also many specific-to-PoS incentive shell games that are played with staking coins which have the general effect of discouraging spending and consequently amplifying the appeal of speculation over all other potential uses. And decentralization itself not so much a well-defined doctrine as it is a mantra to be chanted uncritically by people who flippantly regard 'centralized' as an inherent evil.
yes, that's what the (pseudo) is there to indicate
The entire purpose of cryptocurrency is to undermine the state. There is literally no other value add to the blockchainist (pseudo) decentralization model of electronic currency.
the most impressive feat of Bitcoin is that it's managed to use a misdirection story about 'technology' (plus some good old fashioned corruption) to prevent china - of all nations - from recognizing its true and intended purpose for so long.
"always two there are"
extremely stretched mixed metaphors aside; although the great die-off of browser species is probably a net good in the long term it's still depressing to see yet another once great and trusted brand morph into a cosplay of its former self. I still have the last presto-powered version of Opera installed for (admittedly misplaced) sentimental reasons - it was my daily driver for years.
Why would anyone use this new chrome-clone when Brave has already beat it to the crypto-MLM punch?
Advertising is not going away; crypto (when it doesn't collapse in on itself due to inevitable development of leverage-cornering cartels) will likely make ads mandatory at best, and impossible to sustain as a revenue model at worst.
Though Iconify was sort of a cross between Bubbles and the MacOS dock (iconified apps went to the desktop, rather than persistently hovering over everything else) which made more sense in the early 90's desktop-centered UX context.
14 minute Neil Peart solo begins
No, because the HFT trading you are referring to is not done clandestinely by the exchanges themselves (to create the impression of volume, necessary in order to entice bigger and bigger fish into your exchange, and the sideline balances that come with them - upon which you make float and charge fees for in/egress), but by outside specialist trading companies who pay top dollar for real estate with advantageous geographic position as near as possible to the exchange's trading floor. This necessitates their being physically located in highly visible jurisdictions, as those are where the exchanges are.
Also they are required, as a result of being unable to conceal their physical presence, to submit to regulation by their host state and provide audit trails on demand, which are likewise algorithmically monitored for obvious manipulation tactics. Do some sneaky innovations slip through from time to time? Yes, but these are quite rare and have very short shelf life because their HFT competitors sniff them out and either copy or report them. Discovery risks enormous fines being brought upon the shop, and though they are not on going to obliterate the company, they are calculated to negate any profits gained by their use.
Fads that lasted more than a decade?
How about:
All of these are likewise 'billion dollar markets,' though they lack one important missing ingredient: a publicly tradeable unit that unifies the basic settlement of valuation among their adherents, which they lack either because they are too dissimilar (in the case of fringe science crowds) or because introducing one would be illegal or at least highly frowned upon (cults, whether of the religious or personality variety, ponzi schemes like madoff).
Thankfully, bitcoin has introduced a 'fix' for this structural deficiency.
The main innovation of Bitcoin is to facilitate a way to ask for actual money in exchange for fan club tokens representing shares in a fan club built around unsubstantiated economic decentralization woo, and then make a speculative market built on highly centralized control over liquidity to goose all the visible public engagement metrics like Tx volume, scarcity and market cap in order to attract and ensnare naive and greedy outsiders. By the time these outsiders figure out they are chasing a mirage, the most of the early promoters/adopters have disappeared, died, or pivoted to different messaging.
This is a feat that Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency sphere as a whole largely accomplished thanks to piggybacking on the larger social media feedback-loop factory which gave it (and a lot of other nonsense) the bionic legs that enabled it to reach legions of greater fools in unprecedented time, long before the truth could possibly hope to catch up.
and it's #1 strength. Exchanges are the dirty little secret that makes Bitcoin's (and every cryptocurrency's) model "work". They are unofficial, unacknowledged, yet fundamental layer of the blockchain protocol (yes, 'blockchain', not just 'cryptocurrency'), the layer that facilitates liquidity.
And therein lies the weakness.
The entire 'decentralization' claim of Bitcoin is utterly vitiated by the fact that the only form of market leverage that actually matters for a supposed store of value - *liquidity* - is highly centralized (even worse, tends toward further centralization with time, rather than away from it), completely opaque due to being gated and obfuscated by a handful of major exchanges, who can only perform real-time price matching by facilitating off-blockchain transactions on their internal ledgers. Opaque, that is, except to those who happen to operate one of these shops and can see all the activity on their internal reports before anyone else does.
The handful of so-called 'decentralized exchanges' are useless science fair toys, as the Tx fees required to operate them, not to mention the enormous aggregate lag in updating their order books makes them complete non-starters as solutions to this problem.
Back in the BBS days, the non-academic online world largely rested on the shoulders of dedicated sysops who ran their portals as labors of love. Some became comfortable enough with regulars that you'd know about the broad strokes of their personal lives because they'd tell you. This month the board is short of funds because their wife had a car accident, or they are moving to a different state so the local dialup line will be changing, etc. Even as casual user you had a sense of who your host was, if only to the extent that they manifested in your mind as a distinct person behind the handle, as someone with a 'real' life that afforded limited time for trade wars and limited patience for flame wars. Most of all, you knew that if they could no longer sustain the board, it would likely close down. If it was well established it might get transferred to a new sysop, but this would be a palpable transition.
I think, for me (as someone who didn't yet have an academic account) at least, the notion of a 'place' on the internet began to lose its implied direct correlation with a specific place-custodian (admin, sysop, etc.) with the rise of USENET - or perhaps more accurately the gradual expansion of USENET into privately hosted nodes. Now, any BBS you sign on to could have a USENET section and this started to become the primary reason you went online. Soon it didn't matter what you used to dial in, USENET was always there. USENET was my first experience of an 'always on' virtual place that existed outside of both time and geography. And as such, it *seemed* to be less constrained by limiting human factors like sleep, money, and motivation. I notice now, looking back on this time, that it was here that I began to forget that this apparent permanence was an illusion that depended on a precarious tangle of enthusiast volunteers. Over time this impression ossified into an uncritical (and largely undetected) background premise which regarded the 'internet' as a self-sustaining phenomenon that was greater the sum of the humanity from which it projected. In support of this I found an ample supply of propaganda from the likes of large format Wired, the cluetrain manifesto and the accompanying inkblot constellation of vapid mic drop zingers. "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." SMH at my younger self. I couldn't get enough of that "overthrow the empire" futurism-kink, which I now recognize as blatantly self-dealing charlatanry peddled, for the most part, by opportunistic cynics whose primary motivation for 'disintermediation' and disrupting old power hierarchies was merely to position themselves atop new ones. Their patronizing and predatory view of 'the masses' differed little from those they sought to replace.
Today's most conspicuous version of this phenomenon appears in the form of blockchainism (a fringe political agenda framed as a neutral technology), which likewise rests on the inarticulate assumption that the net (and by extension, properties on the net - myspace, facebook, The Cloud, etc) somehow exists independently of infrastructure, geography, and (most importantly) people.
No doubt at this very moment someone is readying a VC pitch using the OP event as evidence that if MySpace were rebuilt on the clou^H^H^H^H Blockchain, the prospect of losing all this property would have been rendered impossible (ahem, 'probabilistically impossible') thanks to the alchemy of 'immutability.' As if, with enough electrons burned, it becomes possible to grant data - a description of matter - the same quality of self-evident permanence as matter itself. The old dream repackaged under a new name.
Is this accomplishment an implementation of reversible computing?
Generally agree, except for the part about migrating to Bitcoin (or a flavor of Bitcoin that actually solved numerous problems with privacy).
This would make things much worse, because the small circle of power brokers with arbitrary leverage over your purchasing power (by controlling liquidity) would merely shift from known adversaries (banks, governments, multinationals) to unknown adversaries (the same, but with zero accountability, plus a new caste of unapologetically fuck-you criminals who don't even bother to provide a nominal fig leaf of goods or services, much less accountability, in exchange for their parasitism). Not even getting into the Randian ancaps of the early adopter cohort who openly fantasize about "hyperbitcoinization" and a future where they live the baronial life in cloistered citadels, gloating over all the poor walled-out "nocoiner" masses left behind.
It's not even 'bitcoin' that's the problem, per se. Bitcoin is essentially just a particular approach to implementing a seductive but poorly examined doctrinal position commonly referred to as 'decentralization.' Decentralization is, at best, a temporary transitional phase between centralized regimes. At worst, it is a mirage of political economics ginned up by cynical grifters whose only common motivation is to extract wealth from a hypergolic cocktail of greed and idealism. Game summary: devise a means to blow up (er, 'decentralize') the incumbent concentric structure of wealth, position yourself in the middle of the debris field, and sit back while fundamental social forces that crystallize as 'civilization' inexorably pull everything back together into the original concentric shape - but this time, *you* get to be at the center of decentralization.
Oh, wait
Figure out where the honeypots are (i.e. who sends the new virus descriptions first?), then spam them with tons of small variants of various worm and virus code, which they happily amplify and flood the pipes of their whole downline tree. This is supposed to be a good idea?
and with it, the profile of the typical investor.
The problem I find with all these players is that it seems you get to choose between somewhat bulky, fragile hard drive units with a lot of storage but poor battery life, or small flash based players with at most 1gig of space. My own player, a Panasonic SV-SD80, is about the size of US quarter, but squared off. It weighs about an ounce and a half and I never go anywhere without it, as it is so small you can drop it in your pocket and almost mistake it for loose change. I've dropped it several feet onto hard pavement at least 10 times with no ill effects. Plus, running on its internal battery it gets 16-20 hours of run time, and with the water resistant case it comes with (which has an extra AAA battery inside) you get around 50 hours. Try that with an iPod... That being said, even with a 1Gb SD card installed (sidenote: why would anyone buy a non expandable flash player??) I only get perhaps 200-250 songs on it, which means I'm bored of the rotation in about a week.
What I would like to buy is a player that comes packaged something like an ipod, but where the top 1/4 of it is a micro size flash based player (with an SD slot!) that contains a 1 or 2 line display, basic controls, and a small battery, and would afford the ultra-portable benefits of the SV-SD80 or similar player. For those times when you want access to your whole library, you would attach the bottom 3/4 would as 'dumb' modular add-on that simply holds a 20-60gb hard drive and a bigger battery to support it all, and the ability to shuttle songs to the flash unit as needed. Maybe even a larger (color?) display. It wouldnt need the player circuitry or controls, headphone jack etc, as that would all be contained in the flash head unit.
Has anyone thought of or has taken staps toward integrating a radar detector with wireless and GPS to create a long-range, fault tolerant radar/lidar detection network? Seems like this this is a patent wating to happen...
Just last week I went down to Geraldi's, my favorite local mom and pop sub shop (seating capacity of about 8, counting the outside table) here in downtown Portand, and noticed a handwritten sign taped to one of the coolers. It reads Now, I guess I'm still ambivalent/undecided about the greater argument here, but this particular injunction - visited upon a struggling and honest small business owner - just struck me as being thorough to the point of malice.
Obviously the owner isn't making any additional sandwich sales from having RIAA-approved background music playing as opposed to the TV news or whatever. Certainly not $265/year's worth.
This is not a question about whether humans see in 24 bit color. The whole 1st two lines of your reply have nothing to do with the point of my problem, which is about the apparent paradox of containing an infinite set (the unlimited number of 24-bit megapixel images in the universe) in a finite one (24-bit megapixel space).
As for the rest of your reply, expanding the representational space doesnt change the problem of it being finite. It could just as well be 64 bit color or 128bit or 1024bit or something wide enough to contain the whole EMF spectrum or more. Its still finite, but the set it is representing is (apparently) infinite.
Imagine if one day we *do* see an extraterrestrial probe land here. As far advanced as it will appear to us, it may only be an ancient relic of its creating civilisation.
for their boss to program with (you may replace 'program' with 'network' or whatever is appropriate). Thats what the job boils down to. Content Management Systems, or at least the better (from a non technical user's standpoint) ones are the first steps in the replacement of the meat and bones HLLs with automation. The endpoint of the CMS (the name may change in the process) development cycle is the replacement of 'techies' with a system that can interpret concepts into code.
Unless you are working for yourself, developing your own original concept which is intended to fulfill some need you alone have identified, you are just drawing on a knowledge base and using it to implement someone else's ideas and instructions into machine usable form. Functionally, this is no different than what a compiler does. You're the steering wheel: a most important part of the car yet not the driver, indeed not even the same kind of thing as the driver. I say this as a recoving 'techie' myself.
The above is a nice, well packaged answer to a whole thicket of questions; it deserved at least the +1 bonus from a registered-user post.
This theory has been known as one possibility among several ever since; it was not "discovered" by later astronomers as most textbooks would have us believe. Sure, mathematics and, later, telescopes helped to prove it correct, but the idea was current long before.