There is a theory I agree with and that is bad money drives out good money. This means if you have two types of money one that holds purchasing power relatively well like gold, silver, or even Swiss Francs and fit currency that is undergoing continous inflation like the dollar people will naturally save the good money and spend the one that will be worth less tomorrow. Makes sense doesn't it?
Not really. Of course if you own both good and bad money, you'll want to spend the bad money if possible. However, if you are selling things, you want to sell them for good money if possible. The same is of course true of yourself: If you have a choice between getting good money and getting bad money, you'll take the good money (because the bad money will likely have lost value until you can spend it or exchange it for good money). In other words, you'll be able to buy more for good money than for bad money (that's why the bad money is bad money, after all), and you'll try to not have any more bad money than necessary. Since you only will spend money which you have, it means that good money will win against bad money, unless the bad money is protected somehow (e.g. because you have to pay your taxes in it, or because shop owners are legally required to accept it).
*Bitcoins can be subdivided to an extremely high amount. This mitigates to some extent deflation.
No, it doesn't. Allowing to spend a tiny fraction of a bitcoin doesn't make the whole botcoin less valuable. If anything, it even increases its value, thus increasing deflation.
* That bitcoins have an ultimate cap is known, and expected. There is some debate in how much bitcoin could be used as a replacement currency. People who understand how bitcoin works tend to understand that in a world with decentralized currency, one version of it won't rule, and there would be exchange markets between them. Just like currencies now.
Currently there is usually one currency per nation (with the exception of the Euro, which is a multinational currency). If currencies wouldn't be bound to political borders (and that's exactly what bitcoin does), they would probably form a natural monopoly, because accepting more than one is more complicated (how many American shops accept Euros, especially outside tourist regions?).
However there might be a way out by having such additional virtual currencies created by governments, who can simply demand that everyone has to accept the new virtual currency. But then, we are basically back to where we are now: The government can simply "print more money" by introducing additional virtual currencies. The whole promise of Bitcoin is that it keeps the value because of the limited supply. Adding new virtual currencies means circumventing this limitation (the Bitcoin supply itself doesn't go up that way, but the demand goes down if there's another one, which in effect is the same; the total amount of money increases).
Actually they did create wealth, just not as much as they expected. Assuming a simplistic model where the total value of all available gold is constant, let's assume that there have been originally 100 units of gold (where an unit is obviously 1% of all the gold available in the beginning), and you own 2 units. Then you find huge new gold reserves, say 8 units. Now you own 10 of 108 units, or 9,26% of all gold existing now. Therefore while your wealth wasn't increased by the original value of 8 units, it was still increased, just "only" by 7.26 units. Basically, that wealth has been drawn from the others who didn't find the gold.
Of course the more gold you've had before, the less newly found gold adds to your wealth.
If you buy a stack of gold now (at what, fast approaching $2000 an ounce), and then everyone decided en masse that it was no longer an investment product worth having, the only people you would be able to sell it to would be jewellers and, er, audio cable makers.
And dentists. And makers of computer chips. And conservators. And I'm sure it would find uses in places where it is not used now because at the current price it simply would be too expensive.
In which case, in layman terms, "you're fucked" regardless of whether you're using Convergence or not...
Not necessarily. If you have contacted the server before the Lserver attack was started, the information you got from there was not yet compromised. A protocol could use such information to determine whether the current certificate is valid. For example, a new certificate could always get signed with the previous one, so you can verify that even though the site uses a new one, whoever issued that had also access to the previous (which together with the notary system makes Lserver attacks almost impossible unless the attacker also has access to the private key of the previous certificate, because generally many notaries will have contacted the server earlier).
I don't know if Convergence includes such measures, though.
Perhaps I should do an art exhibit consisting of a cheque for $1mill and say "this should be at all trials where someone is accused of fraud or embezzelment!".
I have a better idea: Make it performance art. The performance consists in you writing the cheque and giving it to me, and then me going to the bank and cashing it.:-)
It's superconducting wire; the point is that there's no transmission loss.
He obviously was speaking about the losses of normal wires.
In short: * Transporting a certain amount of power over a normal wire gives a certain loss due to electrical resistance. * A superconducting wire gives a certain loss due to cooling (while the current flow itself has no losses, you have to additionally provide the power for cooling, so the effect is the same: You have to put more power in than you get out).
The question is: Which loss can be made smaller. Or more exactly: Which loss can be made smaller at reasonable cost. Since the amount of power transported makes a difference (resistive losses are proportional to the power transported, while the superconductor cooling cost is independent of it), it is no surprise that they suggested projects like Desertec. If it's not the best option for such large projects, it's most likely not the best option for any other project either.
Ubuntu *IS* linux. Those other distributions are completely irrelevant because they have only a tiny fraction of the user base of real linux (Ubuntu).
And hard data to back up that claim?
You Ubuntu zealots
Someone saying Ubuntu is one of the worse Linux distribution is anything but an Ubuntu zealot.
need to just admit that it is a failure of an OS and move on to OSX already like the rest of us with actual brains
So now it is officially allowed to install OS X on my PC? No? Thank you, I won't buy overpriced hardware.
And BTW, isn't OS X completely irrelevant because they have only a tiny fraction of the user base of proprietary OSs (the vast majority using Windows)?:-)
It's just a bunch of benchmarks with commentary and no conclusion.
Could we possibly get ANY information on WHY?
Because it would have been more work to do this, but probably wouldn't have significantly changed the number of readers, especially not of the type of readers who are likely to click on ads. And if there happens to be enough demand, they can still make a followup with more detailed analysis, and get extra ad revenue for that.
I guess it's the graphics-card using 3D compositing window manager Ubuntu uses (or did they switch that off? I didn't read the article). I switched that off on all my computers in part for exactly that reason: It hurts performance of 3D games.
There's no stars in the photos! Obiously they're fake and the moon landing was a hoax!
Quite the opposite. If they had filmed it in Hollywood, there certainly would have been stars. At least as supporting actors, but most probably for the main characters as well.
Well, assuming a typedef or an user-defined type project, your first code was completely correct. Since you don't access the project, you don't need to give it a name.
Well, there are gradations of "unique" - being unique depends on the definition of sameness (if you are strict enough in your definition, every macroscopic object is unique). So something is "more unique" if it differs more from other, similar things, so you can apply a less strict definition of equivalence.
For example, a seven-wheeled car would be more unique than a car with a very special shade of blue not found in other cars.
Imagine if the time you spend reading Slashdot instead went into learning biology and medicine, and then doing research on malaria yourself. Imagine if instead of spending money for your past holiday you would instead have given that money to some researcher for his AIDS research. Imagine if those CPU and GPU cycles you wasted playing computer games would instead have been used for folding@home.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Of course if you own both good and bad money, you'll want to spend the bad money if possible. However, if you are selling things, you want to sell them for good money if possible. The same is of course true of yourself: If you have a choice between getting good money and getting bad money, you'll take the good money (because the bad money will likely have lost value until you can spend it or exchange it for good money). In other words, you'll be able to buy more for good money than for bad money (that's why the bad money is bad money, after all), and you'll try to not have any more bad money than necessary. Since you only will spend money which you have, it means that good money will win against bad money, unless the bad money is protected somehow (e.g. because you have to pay your taxes in it, or because shop owners are legally required to accept it).
No, it doesn't. Allowing to spend a tiny fraction of a bitcoin doesn't make the whole botcoin less valuable. If anything, it even increases its value, thus increasing deflation.
Currently there is usually one currency per nation (with the exception of the Euro, which is a multinational currency). If currencies wouldn't be bound to political borders (and that's exactly what bitcoin does), they would probably form a natural monopoly, because accepting more than one is more complicated (how many American shops accept Euros, especially outside tourist regions?).
However there might be a way out by having such additional virtual currencies created by governments, who can simply demand that everyone has to accept the new virtual currency. But then, we are basically back to where we are now: The government can simply "print more money" by introducing additional virtual currencies. The whole promise of Bitcoin is that it keeps the value because of the limited supply. Adding new virtual currencies means circumventing this limitation (the Bitcoin supply itself doesn't go up that way, but the demand goes down if there's another one, which in effect is the same; the total amount of money increases).
Actually they did create wealth, just not as much as they expected. Assuming a simplistic model where the total value of all available gold is constant, let's assume that there have been originally 100 units of gold (where an unit is obviously 1% of all the gold available in the beginning), and you own 2 units. Then you find huge new gold reserves, say 8 units. Now you own 10 of 108 units, or 9,26% of all gold existing now. Therefore while your wealth wasn't increased by the original value of 8 units, it was still increased, just "only" by 7.26 units. Basically, that wealth has been drawn from the others who didn't find the gold.
Of course the more gold you've had before, the less newly found gold adds to your wealth.
And dentists. And makers of computer chips. And conservators. And I'm sure it would find uses in places where it is not used now because at the current price it simply would be too expensive.
Music from C64 games?
White noise. :-)
In which case, in layman terms, "you're fucked" regardless of whether you're using Convergence or not...
Not necessarily. If you have contacted the server before the Lserver attack was started, the information you got from there was not yet compromised. A protocol could use such information to determine whether the current certificate is valid. For example, a new certificate could always get signed with the previous one, so you can verify that even though the site uses a new one, whoever issued that had also access to the previous (which together with the notary system makes Lserver attacks almost impossible unless the attacker also has access to the private key of the previous certificate, because generally many notaries will have contacted the server earlier).
I don't know if Convergence includes such measures, though.
But isn't that a separate project (although operating on the same idea)?
Perhaps I should do an art exhibit consisting of a cheque for $1mill and say "this should be at all trials where someone is accused of fraud or embezzelment!".
I have a better idea: Make it performance art. The performance consists in you writing the cheque and giving it to me, and then me going to the bank and cashing it. :-)
Didn't you read the summary? It's Art 404. 404 is "not found". Therefore it is not found art.
So you are saying the downloaded files don't include porn?
He obviously was speaking about the losses of normal wires.
In short:
* Transporting a certain amount of power over a normal wire gives a certain loss due to electrical resistance.
* A superconducting wire gives a certain loss due to cooling (while the current flow itself has no losses, you have to additionally provide the power for cooling, so the effect is the same: You have to put more power in than you get out).
The question is: Which loss can be made smaller. Or more exactly: Which loss can be made smaller at reasonable cost.
Since the amount of power transported makes a difference (resistive losses are proportional to the power transported, while the superconductor cooling cost is independent of it), it is no surprise that they suggested projects like Desertec. If it's not the best option for such large projects, it's most likely not the best option for any other project either.
The hackers need more funding?
And hard data to back up that claim?
Someone saying Ubuntu is one of the worse Linux distribution is anything but an Ubuntu zealot.
So now it is officially allowed to install OS X on my PC? No? Thank you, I won't buy overpriced hardware.
And BTW, isn't OS X completely irrelevant because they have only a tiny fraction of the user base of proprietary OSs (the vast majority using Windows)? :-)
It's just a bunch of benchmarks with commentary and no conclusion.
Could we possibly get ANY information on WHY?
Because it would have been more work to do this, but probably wouldn't have significantly changed the number of readers, especially not of the type of readers who are likely to click on ads. And if there happens to be enough demand, they can still make a followup with more detailed analysis, and get extra ad revenue for that.
Linux: all the user friendliness of Unix coupled with all the stability of Windows 95 just in one OS. Worst of both worlds.
I didn't know that Windows 95 was that stable.
And 2012 will be the year that the Hurd will reach the Desktop!
December 21, I guess?
So to get maximal performance, one should run Windows games over Wine on the Linux emulation of BSD. :-)
I guess it's the graphics-card using 3D compositing window manager Ubuntu uses (or did they switch that off? I didn't read the article). I switched that off on all my computers in part for exactly that reason: It hurts performance of 3D games.
often times it's just more convenient to use a UAV anways.
But not as cool. And that's one cool looking satellite. The Borg couldn't have designed it any better.
The Borg surely would have made all sides equal length.
Quite the opposite. If they had filmed it in Hollywood, there certainly would have been stars. At least as supporting actors, but most probably for the main characters as well.
Well, I'm glad there's no whoosh required, because without air there wouldn't be any.
Well, assuming a typedef or an user-defined type project, your first code was completely correct. Since you don't access the project, you don't need to give it a name.
Of course that's assuming 0 is a valid grade.
Well, there are gradations of "unique" - being unique depends on the definition of sameness (if you are strict enough in your definition, every macroscopic object is unique). So something is "more unique" if it differs more from other, similar things, so you can apply a less strict definition of equivalence.
For example, a seven-wheeled car would be more unique than a car with a very special shade of blue not found in other cars.
That's not really true. You still need power to flip pages. It's just that you provide that power manually.
Imagine if the time you spend reading Slashdot instead went into learning biology and medicine, and then doing research on malaria yourself.
Imagine if instead of spending money for your past holiday you would instead have given that money to some researcher for his AIDS research.
Imagine if those CPU and GPU cycles you wasted playing computer games would instead have been used for folding@home.