If they include such places in the coverage map then it's misleading as charged. (it's not simply my phone it's everyone in the building, android, iphone, blackberry...)
Additionally, within milliseconds of the first handshake both ends should have enough to know what the connection is really going to support. Not a single person feels those bars mean antenna voltages, they think they mean reception quality.
I know of exact street corners where there's 3 bars of LTE with no data, or texting or phone service. Verizon lies not just on their maps but on what they tell the damn phones to display.
Apple even tells you now how many hours your phone was fondled. Something that intimate in your life is consuming valuable life cycles. The purchase price isn't really the expensive part.
Additionally, people are not upgrading things as fast probably for the same reason these things are getting more expensive. At first all the breaktrhough changes were cheap to do. Many times they even made the phone cheaper. E.g. a more efficient radio or screen means smaller battery. When scale let you start winding your own batteries in custom shapes it also reduced the cost. Incorporating other profit centers like app stores made the phone cost less.
Now that the low hanging fruit is devoured the new advances perhaps are more costly to achieve. But as the quality goes up and the incremental size of the changes go down people get more milage out of their phones. So the replacement period stretches out.
Detroit found the same thing out when they started making quality cars in the 80s. the cars lasted longer.
it screws up the shadows. folded clothing has dark and light regions and when someting moves by it the interpolation just makes up weird new folds. It's a very hard to see artifact that is totally bizare when you do see it.
They are both bad actors, just turn off all internet connections to the US from Russia on Thursdays and China on Fridays. And keep expanding the time-out one day a week till the problem goes away. Sure it won't stop hackers from working through other countries, and their would be workarounds with proxies in other countries, but the colossal inconvenience of it as collective punishment for the whole country will spur the state-sponsored attacks to become too costly.
The internet is already heading for Balkanization between the great firewalls, the death of net neutrality, and the potential bifurcation of ICAAN's root domains, so nothing will be lost by this lesser move.
If the comeback you want to post is "well the US does it to", then great, maybe the US will also see some value in not doing it too.
The method they used only works when there are a gazillion similar sequences. It doesn't work for a unique sequence. So it's not an "ab initio" method, it's a fold recognition method done by recognizing the contacts then free form folding to fit that. But it can't infer contacts without massive sequence alignments to other proteins. Thus it has great value in those cases but other methods work in all cases not just that special case.
I find it weird that 4G throughput has gotten worse with time too. 3 bars used to be great now it's sluggish. I suppose that's because there are so many other phones now.
I suspect the benefit of 5G might be higher channel capacity not higher peak speed will restore the throughput we once had.
That was my very first thought. Except it's not vaccuum. Of course neither were vaccum tubes. You had to lower the pressure to increase the mean free path. But if you could make this small enough then you could just do it right in the air. And by going to high fields you get to replace therm ionic emitters with field effect emitters. So less heat. And again to get high fields at low voltage you need to go small.
> but All cryptocurrencies based on "proof of work" are doomed.
That would be all cryptocurrencies. PoS has been proven to be equivalent and inferior to PoW.
> adjust the cost of doing that so that the amount of money being transacted is always less than the cost someone wold incur for confidently performing a 51% attack.
Lol, you need to re-read the white paper. Look for the math on "confirmations".
Its very routine to transact amount far in excess of the transaction fees and block rewards. but each subsequent transaction set contributes to the security of past ones, cumulatively. so you assertion is flat wrong.
I don't agree. Suppose you wait ten rounds of confirmations before assuming your transaction is safe. Has this changed the ratio of how much the fraudster gets versus how much it costs? E.g.can one say "well yeah, it's now ten times harder to unroll. so it won't be worth it". Wrong.
that's naive because it's only looking at one transaction. If the fraud keeps adding new transactions every epoch of the bitcoin processing then they increase their potential winnings by 10 also. So the ratio of win versus cost to win stays the same
Between cat grooming session, Ernst Stavro Blofeld arranges to take delivery of all the diamonds in the DeBeers vaults after paying in bitcoin. As his trucks drive off with the purchased diamonds, an unexplained nationwide power failure ripples across china. It only lasts ten minutes. And then power is restored. It is traced to a faulty decision at a load balancing station that drove the grid to instability and causing every power plant to take itself off line to protect itself. While the power is down, 99% of all the bitcoin miners are offline. It's impractical to use UPSs for bitcoin mining since they are so power intensive. Worse, most miners outside china were getting their blockchain publications to and from nodes in china so they are effectively shut out of the chain extension process too. Meanwhile Blofeld contracted with AWS for a relatively modest amount of surge CPU power to re-write the ledger are 0.01% of the cost. And somehow Debeers never received payment at all. Blofeld can then both crash the economies of nations, buy islands for missile launching, destabilize the value of diamonds leading to the destruction of marriage, and dress his cat in a diamond Liberace outfit.
I disagree. While it may use public key signatures it's a lot more sophisticated than that. There are several key difference. Among these is the actual storing of value in the signed transactions as opposed to a signed transaction referencing an external contract.
Let me give an example. If you and I wanted to sign a contract, I could sign the contract in the usual SSL method of signing a contract that is provably linked to my private key. To be specific, it is provable that the person behind a specific public key is the only person who could have signed it (assuming their private key is private).
That contract might say I promise to pay you $100.
But that doesn't mean I actually have paid you $100. It just means I promised to do it. Now perhaps you could take that promise to a third party like my bank and treat it as a demand note (i.e. like a check). But the actual transfer of wealth isn't assured just by that signature. It takes something else to make it real.
With bitcoin, the memo itself actually transfers the bitcoin! If I say I am doing it, I actually just did it.
What makes bitcoin clever is that it figured out a way to store wealth in the bits. A way you could actually deposit real money into the system to make electronic transactions real money transactions.
It's quite a bit more sophisticated than SSL. But you are right that public/private keys are required. But they are not the "magic".
Not all Cryptocurrencies are doomed, but All cryptocurrencies based on "proof of work" are doomed. Here's the analysis.
The sole purpose of proof of work is to make a double-spend impossible in a distributed (no centralized authority) system. In a distributed system, multiple ledgers might exist so the rule is the longest blockchain ledger trumps any other. With this rule the only way a cheater can spend a coin, get the benefit of the transaction, then after the fact erase the expenditure from the transaction is if they can using their own CPU power extend the pre-spend ledger faster than the post-spend ledger is being chained by the collective cpu power of the community. This is often dubbed the 51% attack. In real life it take more than 51% or a dose of good luck to make it work, but 51% is a good name for it.
No DISTRIBUTED cryptocurrency can exist if it does not solve the double spend problem. Many use proof of work.
How does proof of work do this? Well it doesn't work if the cost of getting 51% of the collective CPU power is less than the profit you can make by re-writing the ledger successfully.
Proof-of-work therefore has to adaptively adjust the cost of doing that so that the amount of money being transacted is always less than the cost someone wold incur for confidently performing a 51% attack.
You can imagine a lot of ways of doing that adaptation, bit coin has an approximate one built into it's growth rate and hash rate.
How good the approximation is, is less important than the bottom line: No cryptocurrency can survive long term if it is vulnerable to a 51% attack, and so the proof of work cost must grow with the transaction volume.
This means the costs of operating any system based on that principle is doomed to collapse in heat death as it grows beyond practical size.
If you want to have a viable cryptocurrency, then you need to come up with some clever system that impairs the double spend problem without proof of work. Alternatively you need to rig things so that the 51% attack does not scale lineary with the number of CPUs you have. (this might be rule based such as voting cheaters off the island, but that particular solutions isn't it because it just moves the problem somewhere else not solving it)
The assignment of costs to coal plants versus solar plants makes coal unprofitable and solar profitable. But this is just a bookkeeping slight of hand.
If you are a power company then you can't just sell solar. It doesn't shine all the time. You have to have back up power. Yet you charge one rate to your customers not different rates depending on where their power is coming from. (actually i pay a premium to get renewables but that's a different rationale. I do pay the exact same per kilowatt hour no matter what).
Thus if you don't assign the cost of keeping a coal plant boiler spooled up to to solar power then the coal plant costs are higher than the price paid for the electricity.
But that's just bookkeeping assignment not actual total costs of providing power to a customer.
On top of this, it's cute to say they are losing money but that just depends on how you are paying the mortgage. If you had expected to pay off the mortgage in ten years (say a ten year bond issue) then you are paying a high rate to pay that for ten years. If your bond was 50 years then you would be paying less every year. And then coal would be profitable. Either way after 50 years you have the land and coal plant, and a paid off bond. It's just a matter of which year you booked the costs in
The reason the US car makers favor trucks is that the japanese trucks have a 25% tarrif since 1973. It's much more profitable for US automakers so they emphasize this category over the thin margins on sedans. Additionally one has to consider the labor and material costs. For some cost structures it's much better to sell one high ticket item over two smaller ticket items, favoring the production of trucks over cars.
I don't recall giving Google permission to kill mosquitoes on my property. If I wander around google's campus can I shoot birds? Why are they killing my Mosquitoes without asking for my permission.
I think Comcast figured out that cord cutting isn't cheap. So they have less to fear from competition. If they raise the ala carte prices too then then they also have more room to cut you a deal on that "internet phone cable " bundle.
Slashdot Mirror
If they include such places in the coverage map then it's misleading as charged. (it's not simply my phone it's everyone in the building, android, iphone, blackberry...)
Additionally, within milliseconds of the first handshake both ends should have enough to know what the connection is really going to support. Not a single person feels those bars mean antenna voltages, they think they mean reception quality.
I know of exact street corners where there's 3 bars of LTE with no data, or texting or phone service. Verizon lies not just on their maps but on what they tell the damn phones to display.
Apple even tells you now how many hours your phone was fondled. Something that intimate in your life is consuming valuable life cycles. The purchase price isn't really the expensive part.
Additionally, people are not upgrading things as fast probably for the same reason these things are getting more expensive. At first all the breaktrhough changes were cheap to do. Many times they even made the phone cheaper. E.g. a more efficient radio or screen means smaller battery. When scale let you start winding your own batteries in custom shapes it also reduced the cost. Incorporating other profit centers like app stores made the phone cost less.
Now that the low hanging fruit is devoured the new advances perhaps are more costly to achieve. But as the quality goes up and the incremental size of the changes go down people get more milage out of their phones. So the replacement period stretches out.
Detroit found the same thing out when they started making quality cars in the 80s. the cars lasted longer.
If we could just get Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump to travel to Bejing we could instantly solve two major problems in the US
cause that would require a lens four times bigger to gather the same light?
it screws up the shadows. folded clothing has dark and light regions and when someting moves by it the interpolation just makes up weird new folds. It's a very hard to see artifact that is totally bizare when you do see it.
Since the point of using a burner phone is not to let people know, how would anyone credibly be able to assess the widespread use of burner phones?
They are both bad actors, just turn off all internet connections to the US from Russia on Thursdays and China on Fridays. And keep expanding the time-out one day a week till the problem goes away. Sure it won't stop hackers from working through other countries, and their would be workarounds with proxies in other countries, but the colossal inconvenience of it as collective punishment for the whole country will spur the state-sponsored attacks to become too costly.
The internet is already heading for Balkanization between the great firewalls, the death of net neutrality, and the potential bifurcation of ICAAN's root domains, so nothing will be lost by this lesser move.
If the comeback you want to post is "well the US does it to", then great, maybe the US will also see some value in not doing it too.
Good until you open the box.
I await the Quantum EULA
The FTC has three legally ensconced terms for tiers of service that can be used in advertising to describe speed
tier 1. top 1/3 of data rates "broadband"
tier 2. middle 1/3, "Frustrating"
tier 3. bottom 1/3. "time to find another ISP"
If we could just enforce these terms and require them in product descriptions then the problem would solve itself.
A few days ago one of the slashdot articles explained why quantum computers of a significant size will never be possible.
Which is right?
The method they used only works when there are a gazillion similar sequences. It doesn't work for a unique sequence. So it's not an "ab initio" method, it's a fold recognition method done by recognizing the contacts then free form folding to fit that. But it can't infer contacts without massive sequence alignments to other proteins. Thus it has great value in those cases but other methods work in all cases not just that special case.
I find it weird that 4G throughput has gotten worse with time too. 3 bars used to be great now it's sluggish. I suppose that's because there are so many other phones now.
I suspect the benefit of 5G might be higher channel capacity not higher peak speed will restore the throughput we once had.
I agree. Indeed I've thought about protein folding as a great proof of work if it could be harnessed. Are you working on that?
That was my very first thought. Except it's not vaccuum. Of course neither were vaccum tubes. You had to lower the pressure to increase the mean free path. But if you could make this small enough then you could just do it right in the air. And by going to high fields you get to replace therm ionic emitters with field effect emitters. So less heat. And again to get high fields at low voltage you need to go small.
> but All cryptocurrencies based on "proof of work" are doomed.
That would be all cryptocurrencies. PoS has been proven to be equivalent and inferior to PoW.
> adjust the cost of doing that so that the amount of money being transacted is always less than the cost someone wold incur for confidently performing a 51% attack.
Lol, you need to re-read the white paper. Look for the math on "confirmations".
Its very routine to transact amount far in excess of the transaction fees and block rewards. but each subsequent transaction set contributes to the security of past ones, cumulatively. so you assertion is flat wrong.
I don't agree. Suppose you wait ten rounds of confirmations before assuming your transaction is safe. Has this changed the ratio of how much the fraudster gets versus how much it costs? E.g.can one say "well yeah, it's now ten times harder to unroll. so it won't be worth it". Wrong.
that's naive because it's only looking at one transaction. If the fraud keeps adding new transactions every epoch of the bitcoin processing then they increase their potential winnings by 10 also. So the ratio of win versus cost to win stays the same
Between cat grooming session, Ernst Stavro Blofeld arranges to take delivery of all the diamonds in the DeBeers vaults after paying in bitcoin. As his trucks drive off with the purchased diamonds, an unexplained nationwide power failure ripples across china. It only lasts ten minutes. And then power is restored. It is traced to a faulty decision at a load balancing station that drove the grid to instability and causing every power plant to take itself off line to protect itself. While the power is down, 99% of all the bitcoin miners are offline. It's impractical to use UPSs for bitcoin mining since they are so power intensive. Worse, most miners outside china were getting their blockchain publications to and from nodes in china so they are effectively shut out of the chain extension process too. Meanwhile Blofeld contracted with AWS for a relatively modest amount of surge CPU power to re-write the ledger are 0.01% of the cost. And somehow Debeers never received payment at all.
Blofeld can then both crash the economies of nations, buy islands for missile launching, destabilize the value of diamonds leading to the destruction of marriage, and dress his cat in a diamond Liberace outfit.
I disagree. While it may use public key signatures it's a lot more sophisticated than that. There are several key difference. Among these is the actual storing of value in the signed transactions as opposed to a signed transaction referencing an external contract.
Let me give an example. If you and I wanted to sign a contract, I could sign the contract in the usual SSL method of signing a contract that is provably linked to my private key. To be specific, it is provable that the person behind a specific public key is the only person who could have signed it (assuming their private key is private).
That contract might say I promise to pay you $100.
But that doesn't mean I actually have paid you $100. It just means I promised to do it. Now perhaps you could take that promise to a third party like my bank and treat it as a demand note (i.e. like a check). But the actual transfer of wealth isn't assured just by that signature. It takes something else to make it real.
With bitcoin, the memo itself actually transfers the bitcoin! If I say I am doing it, I actually just did it.
What makes bitcoin clever is that it figured out a way to store wealth in the bits. A way you could actually deposit real money into the system to make electronic transactions real money transactions.
It's quite a bit more sophisticated than SSL. But you are right that public/private keys are required. But they are not the "magic".
please explain what SSL has to do with this. I am mystified, and curious.
Not all Cryptocurrencies are doomed, but All cryptocurrencies based on "proof of work" are doomed. Here's the analysis.
The sole purpose of proof of work is to make a double-spend impossible in a distributed (no centralized authority) system. In a distributed system, multiple ledgers might exist so the rule is the longest blockchain ledger trumps any other. With this rule the only way a cheater can spend a coin, get the benefit of the transaction, then after the fact erase the expenditure from the transaction is if they can using their own CPU power extend the pre-spend ledger faster than the post-spend ledger is being chained by the collective cpu power of the community. This is often dubbed the 51% attack. In real life it take more than 51% or a dose of good luck to make it work, but 51% is a good name for it.
No DISTRIBUTED cryptocurrency can exist if it does not solve the double spend problem. Many use proof of work.
How does proof of work do this? Well it doesn't work if the cost of getting 51% of the collective CPU power is less than the profit you can make by re-writing the ledger successfully.
Proof-of-work therefore has to adaptively adjust the cost of doing that so that the amount of money being transacted is always less than the cost someone wold incur for confidently performing a 51% attack.
You can imagine a lot of ways of doing that adaptation, bit coin has an approximate one built into it's growth rate and hash rate.
How good the approximation is, is less important than the bottom line: No cryptocurrency can survive long term if it is vulnerable to a 51% attack, and so the proof of work cost must grow with the transaction volume.
This means the costs of operating any system based on that principle is doomed to collapse in heat death as it grows beyond practical size.
If you want to have a viable cryptocurrency, then you need to come up with some clever system that impairs the double spend problem without proof of work. Alternatively you need to rig things so that the 51% attack does not scale lineary with the number of CPUs you have. (this might be rule based such as voting cheaters off the island, but that particular solutions isn't it because it just moves the problem somewhere else not solving it)
The assignment of costs to coal plants versus solar plants makes coal unprofitable and solar profitable. But this is just a bookkeeping slight of hand.
If you are a power company then you can't just sell solar. It doesn't shine all the time. You have to have back up power. Yet you charge one rate to your customers not different rates depending on where their power is coming from. (actually i pay a premium to get renewables but that's a different rationale. I do pay the exact same per kilowatt hour no matter what).
Thus if you don't assign the cost of keeping a coal plant boiler spooled up to to solar power then the coal plant costs are higher than the price paid for the electricity.
But that's just bookkeeping assignment not actual total costs of providing power to a customer.
On top of this, it's cute to say they are losing money but that just depends on how you are paying the mortgage. If you had expected to pay off the mortgage in ten years (say a ten year bond issue) then you are paying a high rate to pay that for ten years. If your bond was 50 years then you would be paying less every year. And then coal would be profitable. Either way after 50 years you have the land and coal plant, and a paid off bond. It's just a matter of which year you booked the costs in
The reason the US car makers favor trucks is that the japanese trucks have a 25% tarrif since 1973. It's much more profitable for US automakers so they emphasize this category over the thin margins on sedans. Additionally one has to consider the labor and material costs. For some cost structures it's much better to sell one high ticket item over two smaller ticket items, favoring the production of trucks over cars.
if you crash the mosquito population then the food chain collapses
I don't recall giving Google permission to kill mosquitoes on my property. If I wander around google's campus can I shoot birds? Why are they killing my Mosquitoes without asking for my permission.
I think Comcast figured out that cord cutting isn't cheap. So they have less to fear from competition. If they raise the ala carte prices too then then they also have more room to cut you a deal on that "internet phone cable " bundle.