The problem with the pump is that if, like me, your energy output varies a lot during the day, it's not only useless, but a hazard. It's suitable for people with a more or less sedentary lifestyle (cue everyone going "but that's not me!").
I'm outdoors walking for almost 2 hours every morning and again every evening, wind, rain, or snow. You do 15k a day in -20 weather, you'd be amazed at how many calories that consumes:-)
There is no way to get a proper baseline with that sort of activity pattern. It would be so low that it would be non-existent, which means that the entire dose has to fall to mealtime injections anyway.
It also helps explain why my blood sugar doesn't go up that quickly when I don't eat. I'm just too gosh-darned busy, so a little insulin goes a long way.
My decision to go green a couple of years ago is paying off health-wise in a big way. I've reduced my insulin dose by more than half, lost that extra 5 pounds that's been bugging me, and at the end of the day, I still have lots of energy, which is a good thing, because the dogs have got to be walked, no matter how I feel, and the Newfie doesn't care how cold it is, he wants to stay outside as long as possible.
So no, I'm not "doing it wrong" - lots of exercise should be a core requirement for every diabetic. An hour a day *might* be sufficient, but certainly an hour 3 times a week isn't. Might as well get no exercise at all - at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking you're making a significant impact on your health.
It's work - but it's worth it. I can eat whatever foods I want, when I want, and that's something most diabetics can only dream of.
The belly is my favorite place too. There's just no "pinch an inch" anywhere else.
Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.
Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry, tonight will be strawberries, melon chunks, and grapes. I save the chocolate thing for when I really need a morale boost - it's cheaper than shopping for new shoes:-)
Sure, I gave up adding sugar to tea or coffee (I actually don't even keep white sugar in the house any more), and switched to diet soft drinks (which I have since stopped drinking), and don't visit the donut shop any more - big deal, right:-)
But I have a sister who's was diagnosed as type 2 a couple of years ago (she used to get gestational diabetes, so it was kind of expected), Has she done anything about it? No. Why not? She won't give up her Pepsi. And she won't switch to diet. And she won't stop smoking.
And she says I'M stubborn?
Diabetes sucks. The only things that suck more are the complications when it's ignored, and the ignorance of people who don't realize that a large portion of the population are being set up to fail and die because of the HFCS in most foods today.
What works as a basal dose in one situation can be a massive overdose in another. Situations change, not just from day to day, but hour to hour.
What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.
It's not as neat and tidy as the ads from the pump manufacturers would have you believe, if your activity level isn't the standard north american "sit on your fanny 15 hours a day". We're not lab rats living in controlled conditions, or test subjects leading a specific regimen.
I keep my sugar within the normal range at night by taking enough rapidly-acting insulin to take care of my supper and then some. And before going to be, I walk the dogs for a half hour. Sure, it will rise a bit over night, but as long as it stays within norms, I don't care, and neither should anyone else. It's within the norms - so what's the panic?
Also, some of the advice is just plain dangerous:
A pre-bolus of insulin will mitigate a spike in blood sugar that results from eating high glycemic foods. Infused insulin analogs such as NovoLog and Apidra typically begin to impact blood sugar levels 15 or 20 minutes after infusion. As a result, easily digested sugars often hit the bloodstream much faster than infused insulin intended to cover them, and the blood sugar level spikes upward as a result. If the bolus were to be infused 20 minutes before eating, then the pre-bolused insulin will be hitting the bloodstream simultaneously with the digested sugars to control the magnitude of the spike.
Stuff happens. Taking insulin 20 minutes before a meal? Want to try that heading for a meal in a busy restaurant? If the food isn't in front of you. don't take the insulin unless you want to risk a nasty reaction when the food is delayed a half hour, or there's a power failure, or you find out that the place you were all heading is too full to serve you.
The body's needs change with the temperature, exertion level, stress, etc. Your blood sugar going up a bit during a meal won't kill you (it happens naturally anyway) - stepping in front of a moving car because you're disoriented from low blood sugar can.
The pump is not a replacement for:
Normal body weight
Lots of exercise
Healthy lifestyle
Practice these, and you probably won't NEED a pump to stay within the normal range. Not only that, but it improves your body's sensitivity to insulin, so you need less (and as a result, are less likely to overdose if you do have to expend more energy than planned).
I remember when I started with the slow-acting insulin. I found out that I wasn't the only one who packed on the pounds - the AVERAGE weight gain was 30 pounds the first year. Every one I talked to quit, despite the team of doctors advice.
Sure enough, a decade later it was shown we were right and the doctors were wrong. The "benefits" were more than offset by the weight gains. It's not just Type 2 diabetics who gain unwanted weight when treated. The mechanism for type 1 is different - not only do higher insulin levels stimulate the appetite, but insulin reactions force you to eat junk calories, and reactions, no matter what, are a fact of life because, as I pointed out, life is messy. Better to avoid some of those reactions by not using a pump if you can.
And this brings in the whole issue if causing yet another round of sensitizing the immune system to a foreign agent that looks like insulin.
Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.
Later on (say, during a growth spurt, or puberty, or an infection) the immune system goes on the attack, and attacks the Isles. It's only when a majority of the cells are destroyed that the patient develops diabetes.
This is why even a small quantity of insulin-producing cells work - but they're eventually destroyed, because they resemble the original foreign molecule. So there is no "permanent cure" from transplanting. What would be needed is either prevention (don't feed infants formula based on cow milk, for example - breast milk is way better on every count), or finding some way to re-train the immune system.
So, what we should be doing is looking for a cure for the common cold. When we can retrain the immune system to fix that, we'll be one step closer to curing many diseases.
Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values.
Well, that would be a GOOD THING(TM) in most populations with a 50:50 male-female ratio, wouldn't it?
Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".
And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).
Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".
Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:
The smell of acetone or peaches on the breath, as mentioned above
Excess urination (as the body tries to flush out the excess sugar through the urine)
Excess thirst (as the body tries to replace the water lost)
Lack of energy
Want to go to sleep after eating, as the blood sugar levels go through the roof
Munchies for high-calorie items (the body isn't getting it's energy via the normal metabolism of carbohydrates, so it uses an alternate, less efficient route, resulting in lots of ketones, and the acetone smell on the breath)
The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
The bad news - if you don't treat it, you'll probably die younger than you should, after losing fingers, toes, feet, etc.
More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts.
The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.
Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.
Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.
The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.
I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.
The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.
Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.
While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.
Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.
I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.
It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.
Ouch! Speak for yourself:-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.
This is exactly why I masturbate every night and swallow my own cum. My family has a history of diabetes and I am doing everything to prevent it from happening to me. Most of my thoughts will be on the porn but a small amount will be thinking about this article when I masturbate tonight.
Too bad slashdot hasn't fixed the bug that lets you see the anonymous posters identity when you view the source...
Yes, Type I is an auto-immune disease. Like many such diseases, it can lie dormant for a long time until something triggers the immune system into activity - such as, for example, puberty. So, who knows, unless you're going through a second childhood - do you have urges to get a sports car and dump your significant other for some arm candy?
Well, there IS a catch - the coins have dropped in value by 75%, and the time to generate those 50 coins is now estimated at a year... and of course, to spend them, you have to generate some more blocks first so that it's unique again (to prevent the person who sold it to you from re-spending it, etc).
So we're down to $0.0015 per hour, for something that depreciates faster than a Lindon Dollar or a Florida condo in foreclosure, and is accepted by only a few places hoping for some free publicity.
According to the article, you can earn "up to 50 bitcoins in 3 weeks". That's 3 weeks of cumputation-intensive work.
So, your 504 hours of "work" yields you 50 bitcoins, worth... wait for it - "about 20 cents each." $10.00. That's less than 2 cents an hour. It won't even cover the electric bill. And that's IF you can get 20 cents a coin.
Let's face it - computers are cheap. If businesses are buying your cpu cycles, it's because it costs them less than the ongoing costs of running a bank of boxes, not the initial capital costs.
This was done to death years ago when bitcoin first came out. It wasn't viable then, and with rising energy costs, it's even less viable now,
One of the reasons I don't block the ads is because they keep me up to date on the latest trends in advertising - if it helps, think of it as "keep your friends close, your enemies closer".
Every once in a while something captures my interest, so we all get what we aim for out of it. Slashdot gets advertising revenue, sponsors get someone who, if they do click through, actually want the info (as opposed to those stupid interstitial ads), and I learn something new.
The current technique doesn't ask for any personal info - it just sticks a cookie on your machine saying you've opted out. When you request a web page, you send that cookie to the server - the advertising network's javascript on the host web site detects the cookie, and doesn't set any ad tracking cookies. Use of cookies for logging in at the host site are unaffected.
Some ad networks already voluntarily do this because it helps increase their overall success response rate - they don't bother trying to sell an opted-out viewer anything, and as a result, don't count this as a "failed result".
I don't block the ads on slashdot. I *do* block the tracking cookies for google analytics, etc. using TACO, and have opted out of the ad networks that offer an opt-out.
But yes, legislation to enforce this would be better, because it's one thing to have cookies that track you on a single site (useful for providing persistent site customization, shopping carts, etc), and quite another to share this across web sites, especially with "behavioral tracking".
The court also gave them the right to amend their complaint, as well as a "shopping list" of what they need to do to "fix" it.
You can bet that they'll amend - after all, even if it's ultimately fruitless, lawyers would never advise a client against their (the lawyer's) financial interests.
Your post says a lot without saying anything at all. What is your point?
So does the article. What do you expect from Forbes India? It's Forbes. Low-calorie pap, no real insights for anyone actually in the business, and an attempt to create a new meaning for the term svg - "sponsored virtual goods". as in "OMG IF I FILL IN ENOUGH SURVEYS I CAN GET TEH NEW VIRTUAL SHOES FOR FREE WOOT!"
Riiiight. Idiots.
Why yes, I did RTFA. Unfortunately. Waste of time.
Ideas are free. They're all around you - from the moment you get up to the moment you go to sleep, any time you run into a problem, there's a source for yet more ideas.
Try explaining that to someone? Forget it. They'll hate you for giving them the facts. Look at how many people see the latest shiny toy and think "I have an idea on how to make lots of money with that - all I need is a programmer to implement it" with the iPhone and iPad.
I tell people "no problem, provided you have $400,000 for the initial work with a team of 6 people over the next 6 months, and an additional $3-$10 million to launch it. Call me when you get the money people on board.
I would have to disagree. The difference between wealth and having a second job isn't in whether you can code the idea. Any 15-year-old idiot can probably code an idea, unless it's very complex. How well you can do it is nearly paramount.
You know, for example, that most sort algorithms max out at an efficiency of Clog(n)[element_count], as a rough description. You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent. And no, you can't do that with shell scripts and lines of spaghetti code.
c = 299,792,458 metres per second - it's not just a good idea - it's the law. Of course you can't do it with shell scripts. You need at least a Mr. Fusion.
600 dpi printers are no big deal. As well, encoding the info doesn't mean literally shrinking the fonts - there are other ways to encode the information - you can even encode it as "defects" in the regular fonts so that an apparently innocuous email contains the actual data. Anyone with a web browser and the ability to run some javascript can do it.
So it's one of those cases where unfortunately, stuff is going to leak no matter what. There are some problems that are simply not solvable.
Sorry, citizen, but how we determine what IS and is NOT classified is classified information. So we tell them to classify everything, because they are not cleared to have this obviously sensitive classified information as to how we determine what is classified.
Now please do your duty and burn your eyeballs out with bleach, because even this information is meta-classified. Your government thanks you - and remember, we're watching!
You can encode a lot of data in microprint on a ream of paper. At 10,000 char/square inch, or 750,000 char/page, single-sided (1-2" margins), single sided, that gives a double-sided ream of paper 750 megabytes.
That's a LOT of cables on one ream.
Going to 1200dpi can give you 8 megabytes per page. At that point, all of Wikileaks fits on one ream, not just the cables.
You mean like using a cell-phone camera to take a picture of a screen?
You can also encode a LOT of info into just one jpg or png of the family dog.
As for printing, you can use a 600dpi laser to output the whole bible in encoded format on 5 sheets of paper. So yes, you could walk out with 250,000 cables pretty quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
And the uterine environment is also not as "identical" as you assume.
Want to try again?
have my Omnipod pump tuned such that I can go all day without eating with no reactions (assuming no exercise).
So what you're saying is that if there's any change in routine, the pump will mess you up if you forget/get to busy/whatever.
Pumps are not a cure-all, and don't do any better than injections on an ad-hoc basis for people who have a varied routine.
The problem with the pump is that if, like me, your energy output varies a lot during the day, it's not only useless, but a hazard. It's suitable for people with a more or less sedentary lifestyle (cue everyone going "but that's not me!").
I'm outdoors walking for almost 2 hours every morning and again every evening, wind, rain, or snow. You do 15k a day in -20 weather, you'd be amazed at how many calories that consumes :-)
There is no way to get a proper baseline with that sort of activity pattern. It would be so low that it would be non-existent, which means that the entire dose has to fall to mealtime injections anyway.
It also helps explain why my blood sugar doesn't go up that quickly when I don't eat. I'm just too gosh-darned busy, so a little insulin goes a long way.
My decision to go green a couple of years ago is paying off health-wise in a big way. I've reduced my insulin dose by more than half, lost that extra 5 pounds that's been bugging me, and at the end of the day, I still have lots of energy, which is a good thing, because the dogs have got to be walked, no matter how I feel, and the Newfie doesn't care how cold it is, he wants to stay outside as long as possible.
So no, I'm not "doing it wrong" - lots of exercise should be a core requirement for every diabetic. An hour a day *might* be sufficient, but certainly an hour 3 times a week isn't. Might as well get no exercise at all - at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking you're making a significant impact on your health.
It's work - but it's worth it. I can eat whatever foods I want, when I want, and that's something most diabetics can only dream of.
-- Barbie
Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.
Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry, tonight will be strawberries, melon chunks, and grapes. I save the chocolate thing for when I really need a morale boost - it's cheaper than shopping for new shoes :-)
Sure, I gave up adding sugar to tea or coffee (I actually don't even keep white sugar in the house any more), and switched to diet soft drinks (which I have since stopped drinking), and don't visit the donut shop any more - big deal, right :-)
But I have a sister who's was diagnosed as type 2 a couple of years ago (she used to get gestational diabetes, so it was kind of expected), Has she done anything about it? No. Why not? She won't give up her Pepsi. And she won't switch to diet. And she won't stop smoking.
And she says I'M stubborn?
Diabetes sucks. The only things that suck more are the complications when it's ignored, and the ignorance of people who don't realize that a large portion of the population are being set up to fail and die because of the HFCS in most foods today.
-- barbie
What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.
It's not as neat and tidy as the ads from the pump manufacturers would have you believe, if your activity level isn't the standard north american "sit on your fanny 15 hours a day". We're not lab rats living in controlled conditions, or test subjects leading a specific regimen.
I keep my sugar within the normal range at night by taking enough rapidly-acting insulin to take care of my supper and then some. And before going to be, I walk the dogs for a half hour. Sure, it will rise a bit over night, but as long as it stays within norms, I don't care, and neither should anyone else. It's within the norms - so what's the panic?
Also, some of the advice is just plain dangerous:
Stuff happens. Taking insulin 20 minutes before a meal? Want to try that heading for a meal in a busy restaurant? If the food isn't in front of you. don't take the insulin unless you want to risk a nasty reaction when the food is delayed a half hour, or there's a power failure, or you find out that the place you were all heading is too full to serve you.
The body's needs change with the temperature, exertion level, stress, etc. Your blood sugar going up a bit during a meal won't kill you (it happens naturally anyway) - stepping in front of a moving car because you're disoriented from low blood sugar can.
The pump is not a replacement for:
Practice these, and you probably won't NEED a pump to stay within the normal range. Not only that, but it improves your body's sensitivity to insulin, so you need less (and as a result, are less likely to overdose if you do have to expend more energy than planned).
I remember when I started with the slow-acting insulin. I found out that I wasn't the only one who packed on the pounds - the AVERAGE weight gain was 30 pounds the first year. Every one I talked to quit, despite the team of doctors advice.
Sure enough, a decade later it was shown we were right and the doctors were wrong. The "benefits" were more than offset by the weight gains. It's not just Type 2 diabetics who gain unwanted weight when treated. The mechanism for type 1 is different - not only do higher insulin levels stimulate the appetite, but insulin reactions force you to eat junk calories, and reactions, no matter what, are a fact of life because, as I pointed out, life is messy. Better to avoid some of those reactions by not using a pump if you can.
Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.
Later on (say, during a growth spurt, or puberty, or an infection) the immune system goes on the attack, and attacks the Isles. It's only when a majority of the cells are destroyed that the patient develops diabetes.
This is why even a small quantity of insulin-producing cells work - but they're eventually destroyed, because they resemble the original foreign molecule. So there is no "permanent cure" from transplanting. What would be needed is either prevention (don't feed infants formula based on cow milk, for example - breast milk is way better on every count), or finding some way to re-train the immune system.
So, what we should be doing is looking for a cure for the common cold. When we can retrain the immune system to fix that, we'll be one step closer to curing many diseases.
-- barbie
Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values.
Well, that would be a GOOD THING(TM) in most populations with a 50:50 male-female ratio, wouldn't it?
Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".
And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).
Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".
Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:
The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
The bad news - if you don't treat it, you'll probably die younger than you should, after losing fingers, toes, feet, etc.
More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts.
The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.
-- barbie
Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.
Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.
The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.
I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.
The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.
Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.
While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.
Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.
I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.
It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.
Ouch! Speak for yourself :-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.
-- barbie
This is exactly why I masturbate every night and swallow my own cum. My family has a history of diabetes and I am doing everything to prevent it from happening to me. Most of my thoughts will be on the porn but a small amount will be thinking about this article when I masturbate tonight.
Too bad slashdot hasn't fixed the bug that lets you see the anonymous posters identity when you view the source ...
-- barbie
-- barbie
So we're down to $0.0015 per hour, for something that depreciates faster than a Lindon Dollar or a Florida condo in foreclosure, and is accepted by only a few places hoping for some free publicity.
According to the article, you can earn "up to 50 bitcoins in 3 weeks". That's 3 weeks of cumputation-intensive work.
So, your 504 hours of "work" yields you 50 bitcoins, worth ... wait for it - "about 20 cents each." $10.00. That's less than 2 cents an hour. It won't even cover the electric bill. And that's IF you can get 20 cents a coin.
Let's face it - computers are cheap. If businesses are buying your cpu cycles, it's because it costs them less than the ongoing costs of running a bank of boxes, not the initial capital costs.
This was done to death years ago when bitcoin first came out. It wasn't viable then, and with rising energy costs, it's even less viable now,
Every once in a while something captures my interest, so we all get what we aim for out of it. Slashdot gets advertising revenue, sponsors get someone who, if they do click through, actually want the info (as opposed to those stupid interstitial ads), and I learn something new.
-- barbie
Some ad networks already voluntarily do this because it helps increase their overall success response rate - they don't bother trying to sell an opted-out viewer anything, and as a result, don't count this as a "failed result".
For example, here's how you can opt out of the DoubleClick cookie for AdSense partner sites, DoubleClick ad serving, and certain Google services that use the DoubleClick cookie
You just click a button - no need to enter all sorts of data.
-- Barbie
But yes, legislation to enforce this would be better, because it's one thing to have cookies that track you on a single site (useful for providing persistent site customization, shopping carts, etc), and quite another to share this across web sites, especially with "behavioral tracking".
You can bet that they'll amend - after all, even if it's ultimately fruitless, lawyers would never advise a client against their (the lawyer's) financial interests.
Your post says a lot without saying anything at all. What is your point?
So does the article. What do you expect from Forbes India? It's Forbes. Low-calorie pap, no real insights for anyone actually in the business, and an attempt to create a new meaning for the term svg - "sponsored virtual goods". as in "OMG IF I FILL IN ENOUGH SURVEYS I CAN GET TEH NEW VIRTUAL SHOES FOR FREE WOOT!"
Riiiight. Idiots.
Why yes, I did RTFA. Unfortunately. Waste of time.
Try explaining that to someone? Forget it. They'll hate you for giving them the facts. Look at how many people see the latest shiny toy and think "I have an idea on how to make lots of money with that - all I need is a programmer to implement it" with the iPhone and iPad.
I tell people "no problem, provided you have $400,000 for the initial work with a team of 6 people over the next 6 months, and an additional $3-$10 million to launch it. Call me when you get the money people on board.
I would have to disagree. The difference between wealth and having a second job isn't in whether you can code the idea. Any 15-year-old idiot can probably code an idea, unless it's very complex. How well you can do it is nearly paramount. You know, for example, that most sort algorithms max out at an efficiency of Clog(n)[element_count], as a rough description. You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent. And no, you can't do that with shell scripts and lines of spaghetti code.
c = 299,792,458 metres per second - it's not just a good idea - it's the law. Of course you can't do it with shell scripts. You need at least a Mr. Fusion.
So it's one of those cases where unfortunately, stuff is going to leak no matter what. There are some problems that are simply not solvable.
They were probably thinking of "burn bags" - even shredders are useless.
Now please do your duty and burn your eyeballs out with bleach, because even this information is meta-classified. Your government thanks you - and remember, we're watching!
That's a LOT of cables on one ream.
Going to 1200dpi can give you 8 megabytes per page. At that point, all of Wikileaks fits on one ream, not just the cables.
The approaches do need to be more sophisticated.
You mean like using a cell-phone camera to take a picture of a screen?
You can also encode a LOT of info into just one jpg or png of the family dog.
As for printing, you can use a 600dpi laser to output the whole bible in encoded format on 5 sheets of paper. So yes, you could walk out with 250,000 cables pretty quickly.