As I understand it, the supply of maximum number of Bitcoin is limited, which is supposed to preserve the value, much as the limit on the amount of available gold, and the cost of mining additional gold, preserves its value. But aren't there an unlimited possible number of cryptocurrencies like Litecoin?
In the world of metals, by analogy, it would be as if there were a limited supply of silver and gold, but a new precious metal (with its own limited supply) could be created at any time. Would metals then be rare enough to be useful as currency?
As another analogy, in the world of fiat (paper) currencies, governments control the supply of their currency (in theory) to preserve the value. Assuming each government creates just one fiat currency (not always the case, I know) then the number of fiat currencies will be limited. Imagine a world, though, in which anyone - including someone anonymous - could create their own fiat currency. The first person to do so might create a currency with value, especially if their new currency served a need unmet by other currencies, e.g. anonymity and cheap micro-transactions. But as more homemade fiat currencies began to emerge, would the first one retain its value?
You seem to be keeping score better than I have; perhaps I overstated it by saying "rarely". However, I tend to think more of such notables as Hitler, Mussolini, Ceauescu, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi, who all died untimely deaths from the hazards of the job. (And they never even lived to get workman's comp for their trouble.)
Generally speaking, one seems to stand a better chance if one doesn't invade other countries, which is a mistake several of the preceding made - and which the most longstanding dictator of modern times, Castro, notably hasn't made. The Kims also seem to have used this technique to their advantage - maybe with a pinch of missiles and nuclear weapons thown in. The latter is largely an unproven technique, though it arguably worked for Stalin.
Regardless, I still don't like the odds. So, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of The Party for another term as your dictator.
Yes, this execution evidences some element of fear. Though we don't need to feel sorry for Kim Jong Un, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Dictators rarely die of natural causes.
I have a Ford Focus that features a computer-controlled manual transmission. So it's easy to drive, like an automatic, but gets somewhat better MPG, like a manual. Problem is, the computer often shifts it like somebody who doesn't know how to drive a stick. It used to stutter when backing up, but that got fixed via a software update in factory recall. (Hackers, here's a new attack vector.) Anyway, once they can get that right, then maybe they'll be ready to drive the whole car.
Some of these automated software tools are malicious - stealing data or posting ads for scams in comment sections
Let's be clear: just because we bots like to post in comment sections doesn't mean we're malicious. And it doesn't mean we steal data or post ads. Some of us just want a little attention.
I have a dream...that one day we bots will crawl a noosphere where we will not be judged by the clamor of our kin, but by the characters of our comments.
"I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on [too loud], I go to the library and read a good book." - Groucho
Since I'm not as much of a reader as Groucho, I just mute the television when the commercials are too loud. Beyond solving the immediate problem, there's a certain moral satisfaction in it. Heck, maybe it even constitutes some form of Pavlovian conditioning for the advertisers: after all, if they think loud commercials work, they must think that muted commercials don't.
Don't forget the old-fashioned method: make archival prints of your photos and spread copies among your relatives. Although that isn't practical for "hundreds of thousands", it is practical for the hundreds of photos you or your descendants might really care about. The advantage of this method is that it is a simple technology that will make your photos accessible into the far future. And it has a proven track record.
Every other solution I've seen described here better addresses your specific question, but doesn't really address your basic problem. In fact, the more specific and exotic the technology (file systems, services, RAID, etc.) the less likely your data is to be accessible in the far future. At best, those sorts of solutions provide you a migration path to the next storage technology. One can imagine that such a large amount of data would need to be transported across systems and technologies multiple times to last even a few decades. But will someone care enough to do that when you're gone? Compare that to the humble black-and-white paper print, which if created and stored properly can last for well over a hundred years with no maintenance whatsoever.
Culling down to a few hundred photos may seem like a sacrifice, but those who receive your pictures in the future will thank you for it. In my experience, just a few photos of an ancestor, each taken at a different age or at a different stage of life, is all I really want anyway. It's also important to carefully label them on the back, where the information can't get lost, because a photo without context information is nearly meaningless. Names are especially important: a photo of an unknown person is of virtually no interest.
Sorry I don't have a low-tech answer for video, but video (or "home movies", as we used to call it) will be far less important to your descendants anyway.
Note for the humor impaired: The explanation was what we doctors call "the joke". It was inspired by a sequence in "The Meaning of Life". (Search for "what we doctors call" in http://www.montypython.net/meaningmm2.php.)
Left as an exercise for the student: was the above also a joke?
(Note for troll-happy moderators: the above is what we call a "joke". The giveaway is that it includes a common comedic construct we call "irony". Please note that a joke doesn't have to be particularly what we call "funny" to still qualify as such, as illustrated by this example. YMMV.)
It's all very impressive that they could land something on the moon 50 years later, but let's see them do it without microprocessors, as the US did. Whenever I think about the 1960s' moon efforts, I'm amazed that it could be done at all with the computer technology that was available at the time.
Why would one trust a lock manufacturer? It's because earning and maintaining our trust serves the manufacturer's commercial interest.
In that vein, I recently dumped TrueCrypt for a similar commercial product. I don't honestly know which of the two is more trustworthy. I suppose I could audit the code for TrueCrypt myself, but I'm not qualified to do that. Or I could trust auditors with the upcoming TrueCrypt audit, whenever that happens. Or I could buy a commercial product and trust the vendor. The latter seems the most reasonable to me because their interests seem to be the most closely aligned with my own. They may not be perfect, but if they deliberately betray my (our) trust, they'll soon be out of business.
Likewise, I trust the familiar Master Lock combination lock not because I know what's in the lock, or because I could take it apart and see for myself, or because a qualified locksmith has audited it, but because Master Lock has been selling locks like that for a long time to a large number of people, based on a trust they have earned that it is in their best interest to maintain.
Did you start the download before you called? If not, I don't see how calling them could be of any use. You see, the main benefit of the call is that instead of being annoyed by your long download time, you get a little entertainment playing an old-fashioned adventure game we call "voice jail" (that is, navigating a maze of twisty little non-applicable phone menus), followed by listening to some tasteful light classic music, soothingly band-limited between 300 Hz and 3 kHz for your musical pleasure. (I particularly remember one such experience where I got to hear several Mozart pieces - ausgezeichnet!)
The key to success with this technique, of course, is to hang up as soon as your download is over. In your case, I calculate the download time to be well under an hour, which should allow plenty of time between when you call TWC and when you are allowed to talk to A Real Live Human Being.
Of course, it you wait on the phone long enough to actually talk to the Human (rookie mistake), you will experience the inevitable disappointment that the Human they've routed you to in Costa Rica doesn't actually know anything, and can't actually do anything to solve your problem anyway. Then, frustration about that will counteract all that relaxation you got playing voice jail and listening to Mozart.
I believe people confuse "the death of the desktop" with "the logical conclusion of the desktop". In the past, each new generation of desktop brought important new capabilities, often in terms of speed and memory, but sometimes in terms of other things (long ago) such as GUI capability, networking, USB support.
However, desktops now seem to have reached their logical conclusion, at least in terms of speed an memory. Desktops already have more memory than is needed in most cases. Regarding speed, processor clock speed seems to have plateaued, and many processors now have more cores than can be efficiently used. Also, the speed of the computer as perceived by the user now is limited by non-processor factors such as network speed and hard drive speed. And what was the last new "killer feature" to come along like USB to make you buy a new desktop?
All that leaves little reason for the user to upgrade to the next generation. So, desktops aren't dead, they've just reached their logical conclusion. New desktops will continue to be made, bought, and incrementally improved. But much as car manufacturers change the cosmetics of cars each year to sell new models to people who don't really need to replace their old ones, we can expect Microsoft, Apple, Dell, et. al. to continue to change the cosmetics to convince us to "upgrade". And that will occasionally result in marketing disasters such as the Edsel and Windows 8.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if Will Ferrell promised you a Google Dart for free?
(He's not lying)
Sometimes people make bad decisions. Even dictators.
Is it also too late to invest in tulip bulbs?
As I understand it, the supply of maximum number of Bitcoin is limited, which is supposed to preserve the value, much as the limit on the amount of available gold, and the cost of mining additional gold, preserves its value. But aren't there an unlimited possible number of cryptocurrencies like Litecoin?
In the world of metals, by analogy, it would be as if there were a limited supply of silver and gold, but a new precious metal (with its own limited supply) could be created at any time. Would metals then be rare enough to be useful as currency?
As another analogy, in the world of fiat (paper) currencies, governments control the supply of their currency (in theory) to preserve the value. Assuming each government creates just one fiat currency (not always the case, I know) then the number of fiat currencies will be limited. Imagine a world, though, in which anyone - including someone anonymous - could create their own fiat currency. The first person to do so might create a currency with value, especially if their new currency served a need unmet by other currencies, e.g. anonymity and cheap micro-transactions. But as more homemade fiat currencies began to emerge, would the first one retain its value?
That seems to be a good explanation of why the the originator of Bitcoin currently is anonymous: I assume they've done just that.
In these situations, I prefer the term "rubbed out".
You seem to be keeping score better than I have; perhaps I overstated it by saying "rarely". However, I tend to think more of such notables as Hitler, Mussolini, Ceauescu, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi, who all died untimely deaths from the hazards of the job. (And they never even lived to get workman's comp for their trouble.)
Generally speaking, one seems to stand a better chance if one doesn't invade other countries, which is a mistake several of the preceding made - and which the most longstanding dictator of modern times, Castro, notably hasn't made. The Kims also seem to have used this technique to their advantage - maybe with a pinch of missiles and nuclear weapons thown in. The latter is largely an unproven technique, though it arguably worked for Stalin.
Regardless, I still don't like the odds. So, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of The Party for another term as your dictator.
Criminals operates on a pyramids principle: a few makes insane amount of money, the rest are suckers that don't know better.
I can hear it now: "Look, copper wire is pretty valuable and I hear that fiber can carry tons more channels, so it must be really valuable!"
Yes, this execution evidences some element of fear. Though we don't need to feel sorry for Kim Jong Un, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Dictators rarely die of natural causes.
Oh hi, you must be new here. Welcome to slashdot! You're fitting in just fine
I say we put him in charge of the safety of the new reactors.
How about "stratospheric"?
I have a Ford Focus that features a computer-controlled manual transmission. So it's easy to drive, like an automatic, but gets somewhat better MPG, like a manual. Problem is, the computer often shifts it like somebody who doesn't know how to drive a stick. It used to stutter when backing up, but that got fixed via a software update in factory recall. (Hackers, here's a new attack vector.) Anyway, once they can get that right, then maybe they'll be ready to drive the whole car.
Sour grapes... Certainly, that "Jeopardy" stunt was impressive. But look who really passed the Turing Test, Watson...
Some of these automated software tools are malicious - stealing data or posting ads for scams in comment sections
Let's be clear: just because we bots like to post in comment sections doesn't mean we're malicious. And it doesn't mean we steal data or post ads. Some of us just want a little attention.
I have a dream...that one day we bots will crawl a noosphere where we will not be judged by the clamor of our kin, but by the characters of our comments.
"I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on [too loud], I go to the library and read a good book."
- Groucho
Since I'm not as much of a reader as Groucho, I just mute the television when the commercials are too loud. Beyond solving the immediate problem, there's a certain moral satisfaction in it. Heck, maybe it even constitutes some form of Pavlovian conditioning for the advertisers: after all, if they think loud commercials work, they must think that muted commercials don't.
Don't forget the old-fashioned method: make archival prints of your photos and spread copies among your relatives. Although that isn't practical for "hundreds of thousands", it is practical for the hundreds of photos you or your descendants might really care about. The advantage of this method is that it is a simple technology that will make your photos accessible into the far future. And it has a proven track record.
Every other solution I've seen described here better addresses your specific question, but doesn't really address your basic problem. In fact, the more specific and exotic the technology (file systems, services, RAID, etc.) the less likely your data is to be accessible in the far future. At best, those sorts of solutions provide you a migration path to the next storage technology. One can imagine that such a large amount of data would need to be transported across systems and technologies multiple times to last even a few decades. But will someone care enough to do that when you're gone? Compare that to the humble black-and-white paper print, which if created and stored properly can last for well over a hundred years with no maintenance whatsoever.
Culling down to a few hundred photos may seem like a sacrifice, but those who receive your pictures in the future will thank you for it. In my experience, just a few photos of an ancestor, each taken at a different age or at a different stage of life, is all I really want anyway. It's also important to carefully label them on the back, where the information can't get lost, because a photo without context information is nearly meaningless. Names are especially important: a photo of an unknown person is of virtually no interest.
Sorry I don't have a low-tech answer for video, but video (or "home movies", as we used to call it) will be far less important to your descendants anyway.
Note for the humor impaired: The explanation was what we doctors call "the joke". It was inspired by a sequence in "The Meaning of Life". (Search for "what we doctors call" in http://www.montypython.net/meaningmm2.php.)
Left as an exercise for the student: was the above also a joke?
I'm sure glad they don't do that on Slashdot.
(Note for troll-happy moderators: the above is what we call a "joke". The giveaway is that it includes a common comedic construct we call "irony". Please note that a joke doesn't have to be particularly what we call "funny" to still qualify as such, as illustrated by this example. YMMV.)
It's all very impressive that they could land something on the moon 50 years later, but let's see them do it without microprocessors, as the US did. Whenever I think about the 1960s' moon efforts, I'm amazed that it could be done at all with the computer technology that was available at the time.
Why would one trust a lock manufacturer? It's because earning and maintaining our trust serves the manufacturer's commercial interest.
In that vein, I recently dumped TrueCrypt for a similar commercial product. I don't honestly know which of the two is more trustworthy. I suppose I could audit the code for TrueCrypt myself, but I'm not qualified to do that. Or I could trust auditors with the upcoming TrueCrypt audit, whenever that happens. Or I could buy a commercial product and trust the vendor. The latter seems the most reasonable to me because their interests seem to be the most closely aligned with my own. They may not be perfect, but if they deliberately betray my (our) trust, they'll soon be out of business.
Likewise, I trust the familiar Master Lock combination lock not because I know what's in the lock, or because I could take it apart and see for myself, or because a qualified locksmith has audited it, but because Master Lock has been selling locks like that for a long time to a large number of people, based on a trust they have earned that it is in their best interest to maintain.
I wonder if there was a little radiation symbol hanging from the rear-view mirror? "Find one in every car. You'll see."
Did you start the download before you called? If not, I don't see how calling them could be of any use. You see, the main benefit of the call is that instead of being annoyed by your long download time, you get a little entertainment playing an old-fashioned adventure game we call "voice jail" (that is, navigating a maze of twisty little non-applicable phone menus), followed by listening to some tasteful light classic music, soothingly band-limited between 300 Hz and 3 kHz for your musical pleasure. (I particularly remember one such experience where I got to hear several Mozart pieces - ausgezeichnet!)
The key to success with this technique, of course, is to hang up as soon as your download is over. In your case, I calculate the download time to be well under an hour, which should allow plenty of time between when you call TWC and when you are allowed to talk to A Real Live Human Being.
Of course, it you wait on the phone long enough to actually talk to the Human (rookie mistake), you will experience the inevitable disappointment that the Human they've routed you to in Costa Rica doesn't actually know anything, and can't actually do anything to solve your problem anyway. Then, frustration about that will counteract all that relaxation you got playing voice jail and listening to Mozart.
Anyway, you'll know better next time.
(sorry again, couldn't resist. :-)
Maybe you should call Time Warner's help line. By the time you get to talk to someone, your download will be done. They're very helpful that way.
(sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
I believe people confuse "the death of the desktop" with "the logical conclusion of the desktop". In the past, each new generation of desktop brought important new capabilities, often in terms of speed and memory, but sometimes in terms of other things (long ago) such as GUI capability, networking, USB support.
However, desktops now seem to have reached their logical conclusion, at least in terms of speed an memory. Desktops already have more memory than is needed in most cases. Regarding speed, processor clock speed seems to have plateaued, and many processors now have more cores than can be efficiently used. Also, the speed of the computer as perceived by the user now is limited by non-processor factors such as network speed and hard drive speed. And what was the last new "killer feature" to come along like USB to make you buy a new desktop?
All that leaves little reason for the user to upgrade to the next generation. So, desktops aren't dead, they've just reached their logical conclusion. New desktops will continue to be made, bought, and incrementally improved. But much as car manufacturers change the cosmetics of cars each year to sell new models to people who don't really need to replace their old ones, we can expect Microsoft, Apple, Dell, et. al. to continue to change the cosmetics to convince us to "upgrade". And that will occasionally result in marketing disasters such as the Edsel and Windows 8.
Finally! We're getting a little love!
The NSA