You mean software which is sold by slick salesmen to the highest reaches of the C-Suite, with no regard for how it's implemented or used is of truly lackluster quality? Who'd have though?
Under different names. I didn't screen shot them, but it looked to me like the text was the same on each of them. I'm unclear why they simply couldn't cut off any promoted tweet with the offending text.
Honestly, if I were them, I'd simply cut off any promotions featuring bitcoin and be done with it.
I hate headlines like this. Nature didn't defy anything. Nature pointed out that the model being used wasn't anything like up to the challenge. This is, frankly, perfectly normal. The only people who are surprised are the headline writers who apparently can't remember the last x thousand times that something was thought to be understood turned out not to be.
That the underlying problems with VR can't be solved by turning up the resolution?
Sorry, folks this is hardly unexpected. The problem with VR the first time around wasn't the frame rate and what not, it's that the goggle cut you off from the real world. That's something that people, unsurprisingly, still aren't ready for.
We can't manage to build the smallest bit of software without bugs, and now we're supposed to introduce large numbers of fake bugs that are, in fact, provably not exploitable.
Sure...that'll work.
Right up until the 'fake' bugs turn out to actually be exploitable (because, you know, we were wrong about them), and the bad guys win again.
I can only assume that Cisco has moved on from selling to the engineering teams to selling to the c-suite. That's the only explanation I can come up with for a company with multiple back-doors found in their products still being able to make sales.
BitPay is guaranteeing the exchange rate for long enough for the transaction to go through. So the tax office never actually takes Bitcoin - BitPay takes BitCoin, and sends cash to the government office. And presumably, BitPay gets a cut somewhere in there.
It's more or less like adding a new credit card processor, as far as the receiver of the payment is concerned.
then yes, please leave. I've dealt personally with a few 'smart assholes' in my time, and in the end I usually find out that they aren't half as smart as they'd have you think, but they sure are assholes.
The code of conduct isn't particularly onerous, and if you can't behave decently, then your mamma didn't beat you enough. Please go hide from the world in your basement, making bigoted comments on XBox live.
I mean, if they have ANY sort of technology, they need to just sell it and be done, as no one will EVER trust these dipsticks to make a product. So why the waiting game - we all know where this ends. Are they just going through the motions while they court perspective buyers for the tech? Or is the tech so much a fantasy that they are going through the motions, hoping to run out of money and not have to show their empty papers to anyone?
To continue being the choice of scammers everywhere. There may be good uses for a blockchain, but this bunch of dofuses aren't going to be the ones who find it.
I'm curious to see whether they actually try (and fail) to do something, or whether they use the hype to get investments and then split with the cash.
but I think you may have reversed the cause and effect here. It may be that Qualcomm isn't doing anything because the market isn't there. Because, honestly, most people don't care about smartwatches.
Bitcoin is utterly worthless at performing the kinds of transactions that people want to make day-to-day. The only thing these banks are afraid of is people doing a chargeback when their exchange goes belly up and they are left holding the bag. Which would then leave the card company holding the bag - which is not a position they like to be in.
Since they bear the brunt of things going wrong with the transaction, they've decided they don't want to get involved.
Like someone else said: if you've got the money, just use your debit card. Your bank won't care because it's not them that's losing the money if things go wrong.
Legal transactions were inhibited by the block rate long before the blocksize limits pushed the transaction fees up. Bitcoin is no good for everyday use for a LOT of reasons.
Why would you invest in these bozos? If you wanted the tech, why wouldn't you just wait for the bankruptcy and buy it there (hiring the relevant tech people as they get laid off)? I mean, NO ONE is going to trust that company's name, especially the FDA. You'd have a lot easier time getting all relevant approvals if none of the old principles are attached to the enterprise.
What am I missing? Does Fortress need a big tax write-off or something?
Bitcoin, like everything else, is worth whatever someone will pay for it. Since the recent nuttiness surrounding it means that it's effectively ONLY useful for speculation, what did people EXPECT was going to happen?
The Greater Fool theory only goes so far - eventually you run out of Greater Fools and the price goes back down.
It's REALLY not complicated, folks. Trying to ascribe meaning to this kind of shit is no more sensible than planning your year based on goat entrails.
Because when you make unique, interesting stuff with any significant volume, you'll be rapidly undercut by commodity bottom-of-the-barrel manufacturers. Their product will be just good enough to sell, and 1/4 the price of yours and you'll be left with a warehouse full of stuff you can't sell.
These guys can't secure their servers in the most basic ways, and they want to be allowed to do their own target id (I'm supposed to believe they won't screw that up?) and then take offensive action?
They'll attack the right target perhaps 1 out of 20 events. They'll attack someone at random every so often and then say 'whoops! We screwed up! Sorry!'.
No, these corporate bozos are not the people we want dealing with such threats.
>We don't know how many people using pirate services would purchase a traditional cable or satellite TV package if the piracy option didn't exist. >But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package
So, they admit they have no idea how many of those would convert if they had to, then they go on to assume 'all of them'. Which is a number that NO research on the subject has EVER supported. In fact, most research suggests 'very few of them' as the right number.
How can I get paid to write analysis with obviously wrong assumptions?
Careful with that - yea, 3 days debugging something that's cheaply replaceable is bad, but throwing out gear every month or two because you don't really understand what the hell is going on can be much worse, because you haven't actually solved the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean software which is sold by slick salesmen to the highest reaches of the C-Suite, with no regard for how it's implemented or used is of truly lackluster quality? Who'd have though?
(Spoiler: me)
No, they just change the deal ever other week. Today it's unlimited, tomorrow it's a selection of z-grade horror flicks.
Under different names. I didn't screen shot them, but it looked to me like the text was the same on each of them. I'm unclear why they simply couldn't cut off any promoted tweet with the offending text.
Honestly, if I were them, I'd simply cut off any promotions featuring bitcoin and be done with it.
I hate headlines like this. Nature didn't defy anything. Nature pointed out that the model being used wasn't anything like up to the challenge.
This is, frankly, perfectly normal.
The only people who are surprised are the headline writers who apparently can't remember the last x thousand times that something was thought to be understood turned out not to be.
That the underlying problems with VR can't be solved by turning up the resolution?
Sorry, folks this is hardly unexpected. The problem with VR the first time around wasn't the frame rate and what not, it's that the goggle cut you off from the real world. That's something that people, unsurprisingly, still aren't ready for.
Give it another 20 years and try again.
This. I work in medical and we DO ship real manuals. Which no one reads.
This would be a lovely entry. Anyone taking bets yet on how long till it dies?
We can't manage to build the smallest bit of software without bugs, and now we're supposed to introduce large numbers of fake bugs that are, in fact, provably not exploitable.
Sure...that'll work.
Right up until the 'fake' bugs turn out to actually be exploitable (because, you know, we were wrong about them), and the bad guys win again.
I can only assume that Cisco has moved on from selling to the engineering teams to selling to the c-suite. That's the only explanation I can come up with for a company with multiple back-doors found in their products still being able to make sales.
BitPay is guaranteeing the exchange rate for long enough for the transaction to go through. So the tax office never actually takes Bitcoin - BitPay takes BitCoin, and sends cash to the government office. And presumably, BitPay gets a cut somewhere in there.
It's more or less like adding a new credit card processor, as far as the receiver of the payment is concerned.
When the physical film is that old, making a decent looking copy is HARD. Making a good-looking 70mm print of the thing was a LOT of work.
then yes, please leave. I've dealt personally with a few 'smart assholes' in my time, and in the end I usually find out that they aren't half as smart as they'd have you think, but they sure are assholes.
The code of conduct isn't particularly onerous, and if you can't behave decently, then your mamma didn't beat you enough. Please go hide from the world in your basement, making bigoted comments on XBox live.
I mean, if they have ANY sort of technology, they need to just sell it and be done, as no one will EVER trust these dipsticks to make a product. So why the waiting game - we all know where this ends. Are they just going through the motions while they court perspective buyers for the tech? Or is the tech so much a fantasy that they are going through the motions, hoping to run out of money and not have to show their empty papers to anyone?
To continue being the choice of scammers everywhere. There may be good uses for a blockchain, but this bunch of dofuses aren't going to be the ones who find it.
I'm curious to see whether they actually try (and fail) to do something, or whether they use the hype to get investments and then split with the cash.
but I think you may have reversed the cause and effect here. It may be that Qualcomm isn't doing anything because the market isn't there. Because, honestly, most people don't care about smartwatches.
Bitcoin is utterly worthless at performing the kinds of transactions that people want to make day-to-day. The only thing these banks are afraid of is people doing a chargeback when their exchange goes belly up and they are left holding the bag. Which would then leave the card company holding the bag - which is not a position they like to be in.
Since they bear the brunt of things going wrong with the transaction, they've decided they don't want to get involved.
Like someone else said: if you've got the money, just use your debit card. Your bank won't care because it's not them that's losing the money if things go wrong.
Has anyone reputable checked their work? Because after all that Uber has done, I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if they fudged the numbers.
Legal transactions were inhibited by the block rate long before the blocksize limits pushed the transaction fees up. Bitcoin is no good for everyday use for a LOT of reasons.
Explain why I care what a sales-weasel thinks?
Why would you invest in these bozos? If you wanted the tech, why wouldn't you just wait for the bankruptcy and buy it there (hiring the relevant tech people as they get laid off)? I mean, NO ONE is going to trust that company's name, especially the FDA. You'd have a lot easier time getting all relevant approvals if none of the old principles are attached to the enterprise.
What am I missing? Does Fortress need a big tax write-off or something?
Bitcoin, like everything else, is worth whatever someone will pay for it. Since the recent nuttiness surrounding it means that it's effectively ONLY useful for speculation, what did people EXPECT was going to happen?
The Greater Fool theory only goes so far - eventually you run out of Greater Fools and the price goes back down.
It's REALLY not complicated, folks. Trying to ascribe meaning to this kind of shit is no more sensible than planning your year based on goat entrails.
Because when you make unique, interesting stuff with any significant volume, you'll be rapidly undercut by commodity bottom-of-the-barrel manufacturers. Their product will be just good enough to sell, and 1/4 the price of yours and you'll be left with a warehouse full of stuff you can't sell.
These guys can't secure their servers in the most basic ways, and they want to be allowed to do their own target id (I'm supposed to believe they won't screw that up?) and then take offensive action?
They'll attack the right target perhaps 1 out of 20 events. They'll attack someone at random every so often and then say 'whoops! We screwed up! Sorry!'.
No, these corporate bozos are not the people we want dealing with such threats.
>We don't know how many people using pirate services would purchase a traditional cable or satellite TV package if the piracy option didn't exist.
>But if all of those people instead purchased a legal TV package
So, they admit they have no idea how many of those would convert if they had to, then they go on to assume 'all of them'. Which is a number that NO research on the subject has EVER supported. In fact, most research suggests 'very few of them' as the right number.
How can I get paid to write analysis with obviously wrong assumptions?
Careful with that - yea, 3 days debugging something that's cheaply replaceable is bad, but throwing out gear every month or two because you don't really understand what the hell is going on can be much worse, because you haven't actually solved the problem.