Only politicians and celebrities (CIA agents) use it anyway, so just nationalize it. That would also take care of the whole notion they get to censor people.
Also, in addition to this, there is no good result here. The "winning" outcome of social science is that some people (presumably those in power) are able to control some other people. A win is a failure for Humanity, a failure is a failure for Humanity. The only winning strategy with social science is to imprison anyone studying it for crimes against Humanity.
However wrong phlogiston, Aristotelianism, Ptolemaic astronomy, Dalton and so on are, they don't deserve ridicule because they're the foundation of our learning how the world works. It's the same with social sciences.
It's not about being wrong, it's about being wrong and simultaneously applying that wrongness to change society. They're like monkeys with atomic bombs, poisoning society with psychology the way an a-bomb would with radiation. The ends are little different. Being wrong is great, that's how people learn, being wrong and applying that en mass (or even in their shitty social experiments like MK Ultra) isn't just being wrong, it is wrong.
The number of bitcoins issues weekly are fixed for that week, regardless of how many miners there are or how much power is in the system. The hardware costs they incur are from competing with eachother.
And because sensors have got better giving us mych larger datasets.
Sensors require actual speed, not shortcuts (unless they're ASICs which handle only that specific type of sensor.) The shortcuts exist because you can't run a CAD program at the same time as Microsoft and Symantec are actively scanning and transmitting everything you do with some preprocessing on a secondary CPU core intermittently injecting commands in priority over your actual CPU whenever the NSA wants to poll your shit, which I would suspect is an automated process and therefore happens daily at the least. You can do a lot on a Raspberry Pi specifically because it doesn't have all that garbage, regardless of the much lower overall speed. The one area where it falls short is actual sensor input because that's where you run into the limitations of your CPU not being able to poll a sensor fast enough or remove data from a buffer.
At the very least it would preclude the existence of Intel ME and other purposeful backdoors. Chances are it would also put a stop to the "unintended" backdoors like Spectre and Meltdown (which the companies knew about for years before the results were published and kept making anyway.) Additionally they would become more secure because when you stick a bunch of autists on the problem aiming for beauty over business demands and timelines there is zero room for compromise, as Linus is a prime example of.
Miners buy cards then use them overclocked and fully loaded for about 6 months, after that they're on the verge of burning out so they sell them and buy new ones before they die.
But I'd prefer the Linux Kernel Development team to push a complete proposal on the table.
Or maybe starting up a serious open source hardware spec. He's probably one of the few people with the knowledge of what chips need to have, an audience, and the ability to sway people with money to fund it.
It actually does. The Bitcoin network (and all secure distributed networks) depend upon consensus, whomever controls 51% of the mining effort controls the transactions and in turn dictates how things happen. The bigger issue is the politics-heavy update side of the actual protocols which don't change the minting process at all. The new lightning network they've been trying to roll out has some pretty serious security flaws nobody seems to be discussing but to say they don't want to use it (since a hint of insecurity could itself spoil the fun, especially when it's already been technically implemented and it's just that nobody is using it.)
The issue there is you can't trust the owners to break up the company and not leave everything linked together behind the scenes (what's the point of breaking them up into 1,000 little pieces if all those pieces work together just the same?) The point is that by nationalizing them they will become bureaucratic and lethargic and generally unable to compete. The government fails at pretty much everything it attempts so as long as they aren't allowed to bar people from starting new companies to compete in the space nationalization of a corporation is the same as dissolving it, only it happens slowly enough not to wreck anything of use which happens to be done thereby allowing smaller corporations to step in and fill the niches left behind.
Every major company, including Google, has been hacked. Most of them (definitely including Google) actively sell user data off to the government. 1,000 small companies would do less harm even if only 1 was secure.
But the cities are where the people are. Split it into 6 states, 2 senators each.
No, there are people everywhere, you shithead. Let them rule themselves. If the cities want liberal extremism let them have it, but only for themselves.
"island nations"?
Are you incapable of realizing that one island nation might be vastly different from another and want something completely different?
Great Britain and Cuba aren't exactly the same thing for example.
All island nations are equal: they aren't America. Fuck off commie.
Slashdot Mirror
Only politicians and celebrities (CIA agents) use it anyway, so just nationalize it. That would also take care of the whole notion they get to censor people.
Also, in addition to this, there is no good result here. The "winning" outcome of social science is that some people (presumably those in power) are able to control some other people. A win is a failure for Humanity, a failure is a failure for Humanity. The only winning strategy with social science is to imprison anyone studying it for crimes against Humanity.
However wrong phlogiston, Aristotelianism, Ptolemaic astronomy, Dalton and so on are, they don't deserve ridicule because they're the foundation of our learning how the world works. It's the same with social sciences.
It's not about being wrong, it's about being wrong and simultaneously applying that wrongness to change society. They're like monkeys with atomic bombs, poisoning society with psychology the way an a-bomb would with radiation. The ends are little different. Being wrong is great, that's how people learn, being wrong and applying that en mass (or even in their shitty social experiments like MK Ultra) isn't just being wrong, it is wrong.
When you're sitting on the couch in your underwear playing video games 10 hours a day.
What kind of prissy snob bothers to put on underwear?
How about you go take a look instead of trusting or mindlessly debating some other asshole on the internet?
The number of bitcoins issues weekly are fixed for that week, regardless of how many miners there are or how much power is in the system. The hardware costs they incur are from competing with eachother.
And because sensors have got better giving us mych larger datasets.
Sensors require actual speed, not shortcuts (unless they're ASICs which handle only that specific type of sensor.) The shortcuts exist because you can't run a CAD program at the same time as Microsoft and Symantec are actively scanning and transmitting everything you do with some preprocessing on a secondary CPU core intermittently injecting commands in priority over your actual CPU whenever the NSA wants to poll your shit, which I would suspect is an automated process and therefore happens daily at the least. You can do a lot on a Raspberry Pi specifically because it doesn't have all that garbage, regardless of the much lower overall speed. The one area where it falls short is actual sensor input because that's where you run into the limitations of your CPU not being able to poll a sensor fast enough or remove data from a buffer.
At the very least it would preclude the existence of Intel ME and other purposeful backdoors. Chances are it would also put a stop to the "unintended" backdoors like Spectre and Meltdown (which the companies knew about for years before the results were published and kept making anyway.) Additionally they would become more secure because when you stick a bunch of autists on the problem aiming for beauty over business demands and timelines there is zero room for compromise, as Linus is a prime example of.
Miners buy cards then use them overclocked and fully loaded for about 6 months, after that they're on the verge of burning out so they sell them and buy new ones before they die.
But I'd prefer the Linux Kernel Development team to push a complete proposal on the table.
Or maybe starting up a serious open source hardware spec. He's probably one of the few people with the knowledge of what chips need to have, an audience, and the ability to sway people with money to fund it.
Does this mean Linus is next on the "suicide by nailgun to the back of the head" list?
It actually does. The Bitcoin network (and all secure distributed networks) depend upon consensus, whomever controls 51% of the mining effort controls the transactions and in turn dictates how things happen. The bigger issue is the politics-heavy update side of the actual protocols which don't change the minting process at all. The new lightning network they've been trying to roll out has some pretty serious security flaws nobody seems to be discussing but to say they don't want to use it (since a hint of insecurity could itself spoil the fun, especially when it's already been technically implemented and it's just that nobody is using it.)
Replicators use transporter tech, not tractor beams.
You've got to mentally handicapped to believe that link refutes what I wrote.
If you need a source it's because you haven't seen the world firsthand, this makes you not worth educating.
Bullshit, they want to be their own nation.
They sellout every US citizen with Cortana, and they won't give up some foreigner? Jail all the executives for treason and be done with it.
The issue there is you can't trust the owners to break up the company and not leave everything linked together behind the scenes (what's the point of breaking them up into 1,000 little pieces if all those pieces work together just the same?) The point is that by nationalizing them they will become bureaucratic and lethargic and generally unable to compete. The government fails at pretty much everything it attempts so as long as they aren't allowed to bar people from starting new companies to compete in the space nationalization of a corporation is the same as dissolving it, only it happens slowly enough not to wreck anything of use which happens to be done thereby allowing smaller corporations to step in and fill the niches left behind.
Yeah, he can probably beat the superbowl. The Fookin` Kneelers destroyed the ratings.
Quick, someone kick Prometheus in the sack.
Did you make up all of that on the spot, or did you spend years dreaming it up?
Are you actually blind to world politics? OPEC is the cause of every war of the last 40 years. Hell, the Dune books are practically mideast politics.
Every major company, including Google, has been hacked. Most of them (definitely including Google) actively sell user data off to the government. 1,000 small companies would do less harm even if only 1 was secure.
But the cities are where the people are. Split it into 6 states, 2 senators each.
No, there are people everywhere, you shithead. Let them rule themselves. If the cities want liberal extremism let them have it, but only for themselves.
"island nations"? Are you incapable of realizing that one island nation might be vastly different from another and want something completely different?
Great Britain and Cuba aren't exactly the same thing for example.
All island nations are equal: they aren't America. Fuck off commie.
And you'll be paying for my trip?
Ha! No, but it does mean you should stop speaking on subjects you don't know shit about.