Well I sort of agree. I keep seeing these cases where some company proposes to have records stored in block chain and to use a central administration to bless the ledger. Huh?? that makes zero sense. If it's not distributed or it's something that can be easily centralized then centralize it. Adding block chain makes no sense. On the other hand there's lots of things one might want to timestamp that need a trustworthy public proof. For example a laboratory notebook showing proof of an invention could be hashed and then block chained publicly. Then the company is freed of a keeping a chain of custody. This might also solve so trade secret issues for companies. If they patent they have to disclose. But if they fear disclosing and someone else patents they have to have so proof later that they had always been using the patent process before it was patented.
The goal of the 10 cent coke bottle deposit is NOT to make coke bottles into a hobo currency. The goal is to have distributed recycling (back when we reused bottles). To do that you needed an incentive.
In a similar fashion, recycling (as opposed to re-use) in general was spawned as a PR move to solve a problem for the nascent alumumin can industry, and not because its somehow the ethical thing to do. Steel cans rust (or at least thy used to ) so they naturally biodegrade. Same with paper and cloth packaging. But rise of plastic in the 50s creates a non-biodegradable trash problem that people in the 60s really felt was a moral insult to mother earth. The aluminum can people saw the problem with introducing a product to replace steel cans that wasn't re-usable like glass and would not biodegrade like all other packaging and was even more resource intensive to manufacture. So they solved two problems at the same time: Promote recycling. By paying for aluminum cans they got people to see them as better for the earth. And they also got back their expensive materials to reprocess.
So the point of paying for alumium was not to turn aluminum cans into Hobo currency either. It was to enable everything else. The fact that it induced the neccessary behaviours was the reason to pay pennies for cans.
I perceive that people misunderstand the purpose of crytocurrency. The goal is not to have a currency. It's to have a distributed ledger but in order to have that a currency is neccessary for two reasonss. first, in order to vanquish the doule-spend problem it's essential to a crytpocurrency that it be very expensive to bless a ledger entry and because computing power grows the cost must increase with time. Second, since the whole point is that the block chain is a distributed ledger there has to be a way to pay the people who pick up the cans and bottles. Namely, you include a payment into the ledger too. So it has to be a currency.
But the currency isn't the reason for it. it's the necessary glue to make it work
SO the two problems with crytpo currencies that are intrinsic are not the currency part or the speculative bubble part. (afterall we could use cans and bottles as currncy if we really wanted to-- whether or not people accept something is a different matter than it's intrinsic value.) specifically: if the expansion rate of the cost isn't managed right it becomes an energy consuming nightmare. but if you undershoot the expansion rate then the double-spend problem isn't fixed.
Getting that right is probably not yet solved by any existing crypto currency. But that doesn't mean it can't be gotten right. We just don't know either way right now.
What do you mean access to the userbase. Surely you don't me cold calling people with spam facetime. I think (hope) you simply mean no need to install any software. And well that'a the whole point of webRTC. try it sometime.
christ there's a zillion ways to video chat with high fidelity, low latency, and low bandwidth now. No one should care. This bus came and went. Why beat on apple over something utterly moot.
Take all proven reserves and extrapolate the new finds, add 25% for extraction methods. All of this will become C02 or methane. No matter how much one tries not to, there will be burning of fossil fuels. since lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is longer than the time it will be reuired to burn it all you now know how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere. We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean. The real question is are there any positive feedback effects? such as the acidity of the ocean causing a fall off in it's absorption, the build up of oil films decrasing the flux of CO2 into the oceans, the metltng of the tundra releasing methane?
And finally there's the one big one we already have the in sedimentary layers to guide us: forests die, release carbon, and the heat kills more forests. Oddly many people think that is the origin of hysteresis that causes the iceage cylce. It's not proven but the theory says ice ages are triggered by global warming transporting more water to the cold regions.
if it's plug ins it's pointless. You might as well say, just run every browser window in a different virtual machine. It's so simple!!! not. Plug ins mean maintaining plugins over time and trying to figure out which one broke which website, maintainging a different whitelist for every plug in, and removing them when they go out of date, that's a mugs game.
Change the name of Git's GVFS to Microsoft Virtual File System. See how long it takes for microsoft to change their tune. Then after they sue change the name to MSVFS. Where MS stands for Mother Suckers. Let the lawyers make the argument that Mother Suckers could be confused with MicroSoft.
agree. amazon is acting like Uber, falsly saying the sellers are (the equivalent) to Uber's fiction of "contractors" not employees. Hoepfully california or another big state can fix this.
Our DO Not Call law inserted two exceptions beyond emergency calls 1. Politicians and polling people can call you unsolicited 2. Anyone you had a previous bussiness relationship or contact with can call.
The last one is really abused. Say you start to buy an electric fur lined shaving mug on etsy but then change your mind at the "confirm this purchase" step. You just had a bussiness relationship where you provided contact info.
Next they sell your info to some broker who sells it to 1000 other people who are now considered "affiliates" of the original transaction. SO they have standing to call on the do-not-call list.
The final problem is that phone companies all want to monetize their role in preventing you from dreading the phone ringing. Just as Ring tones were not free but were costless to provide, they want to charge you for allowing you to benefit from their curated blacklists. And they want to sell free passes one the blacklists (whitelisting) to people who pay them. They could do this for free as it's nearly costless.
SO basically the phone companies are working hard to make you hate your phone.
Consider the "component" cost of the tesla. Well that's to purchase the components. But of course those "components" were someone elses product and they in turn had component costs and production costs for that. And so on all the way down to "ore" and water before they are even taken out of the earth.
SO if you really stated the "component" cost versus production cost I think you might find it's almost all production cost.
Now imagine what happens when we make robots that can make custom manucaturing robots.
Then there's no production costs. (the robots make robots that mine and refine the ore to make more robots.)
Suddenly EVERYTHING is cheap. Rediculously cheap.
Yes were a long way from that. But not so far in the grand scheme. Maybe four or five generations. Then it's all free.
I'm assuming there's some trade between shortest stopping distance, optimal safety in anti-lock braking, Optimal safety in steering while braking, and optimal regenerative braking. One could always shorten the stopping distance of ANY car. Just put on grippier tires and detune the Antilock breaking. But the car may lose some handling while braking or slide on slippery surfaces.
Seriously, you can make diamonds out of any carbon source. So if the goal is to debase lab grown diamonds as low cost and therefore low value, make them out of literal monkey poop. Here you go honey, a 1 carat diamond, I got it cheap because it's made from monkey poop.
Were re-inventing resource specification sandboxes. The farther you push these things out to the edge rather than at the OS the less uniform policies you have. You become dependent of every app and every plugin the app trusts and every system function the app forks off to have a security policy that matches the one you want. Since you are not the app creator this can't ever happen.
On the other hand if you can define the security policy of what resources an app and all it's children can use then you can have a system wide or app-to-app tailored policy. And even then the app maker, who might know more than you do, could supply a pre-written "suggested" sandbox policy for their app. That is firefox could tell you what directories it will ever access and supply a sandbox for the OS to enforce it on itself. Likewise plugins that violate the norms can come with installers that update the sandbox for their extended needs beyond firefox. Since you can stack sandbox policies you can have a global one then the app specific one so even a hostile installer can't exceed some bounds.
But don't keep trying to write the one-true-secure application. (well do, but don't count on it.) and Don't put the policies in the interpreter.
OSX has a sand box. Linux has a sandbox (dtrace). And I imagine Windows might even have one.
I'm puzzled how they do this efficiently. I'm assuming they are sending the streams to each user individually. thus 10M separate transmissions of every frame must me sent.
Am I wrong?
Do people now multicast? And will we ever have something like an edge network of torrent casting?
Slashdot Mirror
Well I sort of agree. I keep seeing these cases where some company proposes to have records stored in block chain and to use a central administration to bless the ledger. Huh?? that makes zero sense. If it's not distributed or it's something that can be easily centralized then centralize it. Adding block chain makes no sense. On the other hand there's lots of things one might want to timestamp that need a trustworthy public proof. For example a laboratory notebook showing proof of an invention could be hashed and then block chained publicly. Then the company is freed of a keeping a chain of custody. This might also solve so trade secret issues for companies. If they patent they have to disclose. But if they fear disclosing and someone else patents they have to have so proof later that they had always been using the patent process before it was patented.
The goal of the 10 cent coke bottle deposit is NOT to make coke bottles into a hobo currency. The goal is to have distributed recycling (back when we reused bottles). To do that you needed an incentive.
In a similar fashion, recycling (as opposed to re-use) in general was spawned as a PR move to solve a problem for the nascent alumumin can industry, and not because its somehow the ethical thing to do. Steel cans rust (or at least thy used to ) so they naturally biodegrade. Same with paper and cloth packaging. But rise of plastic in the 50s creates a non-biodegradable trash problem that people in the 60s really felt was a moral insult to mother earth. The aluminum can people saw the problem with introducing a product to replace steel cans that wasn't re-usable like glass and would not biodegrade like all other packaging and was even more resource intensive to manufacture. So they solved two problems at the same time: Promote recycling. By paying for aluminum cans they got people to see them as better for the earth. And they also got back their expensive materials to reprocess.
So the point of paying for alumium was not to turn aluminum cans into Hobo currency either. It was to enable everything else. The fact that it induced the neccessary behaviours was the reason to pay pennies for cans.
I perceive that people misunderstand the purpose of crytocurrency. The goal is not to have a currency. It's to have a distributed ledger but in order to have that a currency is neccessary for two reasonss.
first, in order to vanquish the doule-spend problem it's essential to a crytpocurrency that it be very expensive to bless a ledger entry and because computing power grows the cost must increase with time.
Second, since the whole point is that the block chain is a distributed ledger there has to be a way to pay the people who pick up the cans and bottles. Namely, you include a payment into the ledger too. So it has to be a currency.
But the currency isn't the reason for it. it's the necessary glue to make it work
SO the two problems with crytpo currencies that are intrinsic are not the currency part or the speculative bubble part. (afterall we could use cans and bottles as currncy if we really wanted to-- whether or not people accept something is a different matter than it's intrinsic value.)
specifically: if the expansion rate of the cost isn't managed right it becomes an energy consuming nightmare. but if you undershoot the expansion rate then the double-spend problem isn't fixed.
Getting that right is probably not yet solved by any existing crypto currency. But that doesn't mean it can't be gotten right. We just don't know either way right now.
What do you mean access to the userbase. Surely you don't me cold calling people with spam facetime. I think (hope) you simply mean no need to install any software. And well that'a the whole point of webRTC. try it sometime.
christ there's a zillion ways to video chat with high fidelity, low latency, and low bandwidth now. No one should care. This bus came and went. Why beat on apple over something utterly moot.
I don't think you know what positive feedback means
we're still burning more coal. In fact we burn more now than all of the 18th century. ANd we literally ran out of whale oil.
so what is your point?
perhaps they were produced on the super gas planet and condensed on the moon?
take the security question. Hash it with your own secret salt. give that as the answer.
Take all proven reserves and extrapolate the new finds, add 25% for extraction methods. All of this will become C02 or methane. No matter how much one tries not to, there will be burning of fossil fuels. since lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is longer than the time it will be reuired to burn it all you now know how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere. We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean. The real question is are there any positive feedback effects? such as the acidity of the ocean causing a fall off in it's absorption, the build up of oil films decrasing the flux of CO2 into the oceans, the metltng of the tundra releasing methane?
And finally there's the one big one we already have the in sedimentary layers to guide us: forests die, release carbon, and the heat kills more forests. Oddly many people think that is the origin of hysteresis that causes the iceage cylce. It's not proven but the theory says ice ages are triggered by global warming transporting more water to the cold regions.
or your father's middle name are now useless security questions. Along with your SS number, address, home telephone, ....
if it's plug ins it's pointless. You might as well say, just run every browser window in a different virtual machine. It's so simple!!! not. Plug ins mean maintaining plugins over time and trying to figure out which one broke which website, maintainging a different whitelist for every plug in, and removing them when they go out of date, that's a mugs game.
Change the name of Git's GVFS to Microsoft Virtual File System. See how long it takes for microsoft to change their tune. Then after they sue change the name to MSVFS. Where MS stands for Mother Suckers. Let the lawyers make the argument that Mother Suckers could be confused with MicroSoft.
agree. amazon is acting like Uber, falsly saying the sellers are (the equivalent) to Uber's fiction of "contractors" not employees. Hoepfully california or another big state can fix this.
hit ctrl-x SK option-N to toggle it off.
it's just like in the movie, except it talks with a LISP.
Our DO Not Call law inserted two exceptions beyond emergency calls
1. Politicians and polling people can call you unsolicited
2. Anyone you had a previous bussiness relationship or contact with can call.
The last one is really abused. Say you start to buy an electric fur lined shaving mug on etsy but then change your mind at the "confirm this purchase" step. You just had a bussiness relationship where you provided contact info.
Next they sell your info to some broker who sells it to 1000 other people who are now considered "affiliates" of the original transaction. SO they have standing to call on the do-not-call list.
The final problem is that phone companies all want to monetize their role in preventing you from dreading the phone ringing. Just as Ring tones were not free but were costless to provide, they want to charge you for allowing you to benefit from their curated blacklists. And they want to sell free passes one the blacklists (whitelisting) to people who pay them. They could do this for free as it's nearly costless.
SO basically the phone companies are working hard to make you hate your phone.
Redonkulously?
Consider the "component" cost of the tesla. Well that's to purchase the components. But of course those "components" were someone elses product and they in turn had component costs and production costs for that. And so on all the way down to "ore" and water before they are even taken out of the earth.
SO if you really stated the "component" cost versus production cost I think you might find it's almost all production cost.
Now imagine what happens when we make robots that can make custom manucaturing robots.
Then there's no production costs. (the robots make robots that mine and refine the ore to make more robots.)
Suddenly EVERYTHING is cheap. Rediculously cheap.
Yes were a long way from that. But not so far in the grand scheme. Maybe four or five generations. Then it's all free.
Ha! good thing I didn't sell my stock in buggy whips!
Thanks for that. I will treasure that reply to my post like a diamond is forever.
I'm assuming there's some trade between shortest stopping distance, optimal safety in anti-lock braking, Optimal safety in steering while braking, and optimal regenerative braking. One could always shorten the stopping distance of ANY car. Just put on grippier tires and detune the Antilock breaking. But the car may lose some handling while braking or slide on slippery surfaces.
it's all trades.
Seriously, you can make diamonds out of any carbon source. So if the goal is to debase lab grown diamonds as low cost and therefore low value, make them out of literal monkey poop. Here you go honey, a 1 carat diamond, I got it cheap because it's made from monkey poop.
Were re-inventing resource specification sandboxes. The farther you push these things out to the edge rather than at the OS the less uniform policies you have. You become dependent of every app and every plugin the app trusts and every system function the app forks off to have a security policy that matches the one you want. Since you are not the app creator this can't ever happen.
On the other hand if you can define the security policy of what resources an app and all it's children can use then you can have a system wide or app-to-app tailored policy. And even then the app maker, who might know more than you do, could supply a pre-written "suggested" sandbox policy for their app. That is firefox could tell you what directories it will ever access and supply a sandbox for the OS to enforce it on itself. Likewise plugins that violate the norms can come with installers that update the sandbox for their extended needs beyond firefox. Since you can stack sandbox policies you can have a global one then the app specific one so even a hostile installer can't exceed some bounds.
But don't keep trying to write the one-true-secure application. (well do, but don't count on it.) and Don't put the policies in the interpreter.
OSX has a sand box. Linux has a sandbox (dtrace). And I imagine Windows might even have one.
The trouble is no one uses them regularly.
I'm puzzled how they do this efficiently. I'm assuming they are sending the streams to each user individually. thus 10M separate transmissions of every frame must me sent.
Am I wrong?
Do people now multicast? And will we ever have something like an edge network of torrent casting?
exactly.
You are making an error thinking I said Linux was unix.