"Dropbox files do go public" sounds quiteunanbiguous... except that the verb can be read as a noun, and everything is reversed. I just wrote some quite bit text mocking on this headline elsewhere as well.
It is actually fun the minimal amount of people who know the very least what they are talking about on all these comments.
While you are no troll, and express a legitmate doubt, bitcoin and each of the other crypto-currency coins are not "I think that", rather, their behavior are carefully described in documentation and implemented in code. In the case of bitcoin, this is addressed in a very prominent way in the whitepaper that defined the protocol - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pd... (just ctrl+f for "difficulty").
On the software implementation itself, however, this is mostly interesting: since the whole blockchain thing is based on cryptographical hashes, "mining" a block comprises exactly of assembling a block which hashes to a number that is _lower_ than the current difficulty. And the difficulty is simply an unsigned 256 bit integer that gets closer to zero the higher the difficult is. The information that composes a block are the picked transactions that are taking place and couple fields the miners can change in the block headers. The first one to get a full block with transactions + all headers that hashes lower than the current difficult just "mined" the block. And this difficult number is set in the protocol to be adjusted every two weeks or so.
You are confounding that with the rewards for each block, which halve every 4 years, which is were the 21 million bitoin to be ever created amount come from: at a certain point, when the halving takes place, the block reward will be smaller than the smallest bitcoin fraction (1/ 100 million biticoin = 1 satoshi). From these, 16 million have already been created.
Still nowhere near 14 trillion I'm sure, but could conceivably approach... 100 billion (cue Dr Evil music).
No - it could not. That would still be 20+ cameras for every inhabitant of the planet - and while you can have 2.5 billion camera-equiped mobile phones around, that is the only piece of electronics 60% to 70% percent of these people will get. 100 billion is still way off - laptops are counted maybe in the tens of millions, cars with cameras are still non standard in low end models in most of the World, and RC toys are a luxury item for most people - even on the developed World. 14 billion seens pretty high already, but is conceivable.
That's big money in the 3rd world. It's partly why Americans win fewer international programming contests: the prize means less in USA dollars.
And what about the part that states that all participants must be American?
Anyway, for me it could be a little bit more money than it is in the U.S., but ti still would hardly pay the expenses to work on this - if done as a contract. As a lottery thing, this is simply a no-no.
They want a 10000 times speed up. They would not ask for such if the capability to do that was just lying on their hardware, idle. They either already have the GPU cores to make the calculations, and those are not in use - or they at least expect the same approach, but to make use of multiple-cores that are similarly idle. Otherwise asking for that kind of improvement is simply idiotic. (I think that for this price it is idiotic anyway, they should proper fund that thing).
Oops - time for one more Slashdot History talking about the amazing and brilliant bew Apple products. Who cares if it is the 4th or 5th history about Apple products in a row??
So -WIndows 10 cloud is about an appliance were the users can't even control which programs to run (previous instances of Windows Stores had virtually no apps) - and you have basically Ars Technica just licking Microsoft boots and endorsing it to very last bit. The only thing left to wonder is how much of Ars Technica revenue comes directly from Microsoft Marketing department.
Those are called "3D Glasses" and served you at sessions at the Movies. Sorry, but I can't stand watching a "3D" movie that focus on a single part of the screen while keeping all the background super-blurry, so you are forced to look at the subject for which the 3D is targeted in a given scene.
Surprise - -there is surgery already, that can fix the things for a lot of people - but the error rates are still there, and once something goes wrong on the surgery, it is gone bad - not like there is an "undo" for scarred cornea tissue. That is why a lot of people, maybe the majority, opt for not doing any surgeries at all - even with the current, imperfect glasses. And there always will be - even when the surgeries get better.
Looking at the window and being unable to see who is outside is the default for most of us. If I am reading a book, can just raise my view, and swipe across my eyebrows to have a clear view of outsidn, that is already a win situation.
And I emphasize he point that the technolgy to look at "your eyes" is already there - whether it will be incorporated by default, or left as a trade off for pricing/battery life/glass weight remains to be seem.
You realise that even if this needs a manual setting of a control on the glass itself, it will still be one order of magnitude better than swapping glasses? And, it is not like the "conventional" tech we have today, used in smartphones and other gadgets, cannot look at the eye.
Things about living in the future - this is the one technology I has been waiting for years, for before I need reading glasses! Now please go and take that to market! And if you want to include some mosquito-killer-lasers in the process I would not mind.
It should read "from the 1.0% people using WIndows on Phones, 0.0% want this" is like: who freaking cares? This is news about how to set the corpse's arms inside the coffin!
Come on!! How can that even count as a "response"? The TFA just reiterate the original article, but punctuating it by the author's unexplainable hate for anything open,and at the very bottom, it quotes an "Intel Spokesman" in a few lines just saying "it is very secure".
It is not like the evidence IS his FB profile - he has been recognized, at least by the woman who reported him in. So, even if one takes the pains of "FB is ivading privacy" (to the point people can't be criminals), this instance is not a matter of the evidence being illegal. The most any lawyer could clain would be "the way my client was found was illegal under privacy laws", but once he is found, there is no undoing it. What could possibly be done in a case like this? Subject the guy to some "witness protection program", get him a new secret ID and life, so that he would have to be searched again for theft?
Slashdot Mirror
"Dropbox files do go public" sounds quiteunanbiguous... except that the verb can be read as a noun, and everything is reversed.
I just wrote some quite bit text mocking on this headline elsewhere as well.
It is actually fun the minimal amount of people who know the very least what they are talking about on all these comments.
While you are no troll, and express a legitmate doubt, bitcoin and each of the other crypto-currency coins are not "I think that", rather, their behavior are carefully described in documentation and implemented in code. In the case of bitcoin, this is addressed in a very prominent way in the whitepaper that defined the protocol - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pd... (just ctrl+f for "difficulty").
On the software implementation itself, however, this is mostly interesting: since the whole blockchain thing is based on cryptographical hashes, "mining" a block comprises exactly of assembling a block which hashes to a number that is _lower_ than the current difficulty. And the difficulty is simply an unsigned 256 bit integer that gets closer to zero the higher the difficult is. The information that composes a block are the picked transactions that are taking place and couple fields the miners can change in the block headers. The first one to get a full block with transactions + all headers that hashes lower than the current difficult just "mined" the block.
And this difficult number is set in the protocol to be adjusted every two weeks or so.
You are confounding that with the rewards for each block, which halve every 4 years, which is were the 21 million bitoin to be ever created amount come from: at a certain point, when the halving takes place, the block reward will be smaller than the smallest bitcoin fraction (1/ 100 million biticoin = 1 satoshi). From these, 16 million have already been created.
"Your definitions of UI nightmare had been updated!"
OTOH, I can't wait to try "alexa, open cortana...open alexa...open cortana...open alexa...what time is it?"
Still nowhere near 14 trillion I'm sure, but could conceivably approach... 100 billion (cue Dr Evil music).
No - it could not. That would still be 20+ cameras for every inhabitant of the planet - and while you can have 2.5 billion camera-equiped mobile phones around, that is the only piece of electronics 60% to 70% percent of these people will get. 100 billion is still way off - laptops are counted maybe in the tens of millions, cars with cameras are still non standard in low end models in most of the World, and RC toys are a luxury item for most people - even on the developed World. 14 billion seens pretty high already, but is conceivable.
"Microsoft attests Edge browser is insecure by nature" as it does try to develop a separate "secure one"?
That's big money in the 3rd world. It's partly why Americans win fewer international programming contests: the prize means less in USA dollars.
And what about the part that states that all participants must be American?
Anyway, for me it could be a little bit more money than it is in the U.S., but ti still would hardly pay the expenses to work on this - if done as a contract. As a lottery thing, this is simply a no-no.
They want a 10000 times speed up. They would not ask for such if the capability to do that was just lying on their hardware, idle. They either already have the GPU cores to make the calculations, and those are not in use - or they at least expect the same approach, but to make use of multiple-cores that are similarly idle. Otherwise asking for that kind of improvement is simply idiotic. (I think that for this price it is idiotic anyway, they should proper fund that thing).
Oops - time for one more Slashdot History talking about the amazing and brilliant bew Apple products. Who cares if it is the 4th or 5th history about Apple products in a row??
Windows Based GitHub Repository Owners Targeted By Data-Stealing Malware -
Here, I fixed the title for you.
So -WIndows 10 cloud is about an appliance were the users can't even control which programs to run (previous instances of Windows Stores had virtually no apps) - and you have basically Ars Technica just licking Microsoft boots and endorsing it to very last bit. The only thing left to wonder is how much of Ars Technica revenue comes directly from Microsoft Marketing department.
Those are called "3D Glasses" and served you at sessions at the Movies. Sorry, but I can't stand watching a "3D" movie that focus on a single part of the screen while keeping all the background super-blurry, so you are forced to look at the subject for which the 3D is targeted in a given scene.
Surprise - -there is surgery already, that can fix the things for a lot of people - but the error rates are still there, and once something goes wrong on the surgery, it is gone bad - not like there is an "undo" for scarred cornea tissue. That is why a lot of people, maybe the majority, opt for not doing any surgeries at all - even with the current, imperfect glasses. And there always will be - even when the surgeries get better.
I guess you don't use glasses yourself do you?
Looking at the window and being unable to see who is outside is the default for most of us. If I am reading a book, can just raise my view, and swipe across my eyebrows to have a clear view of outsidn, that is already a win situation.
And I emphasize he point that the technolgy to look at "your eyes" is already there - whether it will be incorporated by default, or left as a trade off for pricing/battery life/glass weight remains to be seem.
You realise that even if this needs a manual setting of a control on the glass itself, it will still be one order of magnitude better than swapping glasses?
And, it is not like the "conventional" tech we have today, used in smartphones and other gadgets, cannot look at the eye.
It is said to read this, but on a second though, it must be what happens.
Let's just hope someone like Elon Musk gather all this tech and bring it to market.
Things about living in the future - this is the one technology I has been waiting for years, for before I need reading glasses! Now please go and take that to market! And if you want to include some mosquito-killer-lasers in the process I would not mind.
Over- oversold, actually:
They did not create even "a bit" of it. The research is about simulation of the structure, and verification on a scaled up plastic model only.
The original paper is here - they don't come even close to hint they built the material:
http://advances.sciencemag.org...
"That said, with Windows 10 you can easily choose the default browser and search engine of your choice, as long as they are Microsoft Edge and Bing"
It should read "from the 1.0% people using WIndows on Phones, 0.0% want this" is like: who freaking cares?
This is news about how to set the corpse's arms inside the coffin!
Very relevant video presented at last year's CCC
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-73...
The whole model (in)security is thoroughly explained - better than on yesterday' article,
and way, way better than on this so called "rebuttal".
Come on!! How can that even count as a "response"? The TFA just reiterate the original article, but punctuating it by the author's unexplainable hate for anything open,and at the very bottom, it quotes an "Intel Spokesman" in a few lines just saying "it is very secure".
All right! I feel safer already!
Stuff that... who cares??
You get headlines on every little change on every high-profile app, just because.
Once upon a timewe used to find news around here.
"In Corporate America, NSA leaks documents on Snowden"
It is not like the evidence IS his FB profile - he has been recognized, at least by the woman who reported him in. So, even if one takes the pains of "FB is ivading privacy" (to the point people can't be criminals), this instance is not a matter of the evidence being illegal. The most any lawyer could clain would be "the way my client was found was illegal under privacy laws", but once he is found, there is no undoing it. What could possibly be done in a case like this? Subject the guy to some "witness protection program", get him a new secret ID and life, so that he would have to be searched again for theft?
" this 'ask slashdot' is just that stupid. ". That.