If I had the money to drop to build a high end, dense mining rig, then I would do it without hesitation.
There are places that will either lend you money or invest money in your operations, if they think said operations are going to be profitable. If you can't get financial backing, you may be being unduly optimistic in your future profits.
Even assuming blockchains become vital parts of the economy, there's still no guarantee that the Bitcoin blockchain will survive. Somebody can start another blockchain.
A phone is really inconvenient to do research on. If I have to do serious research, I'll use my laptop. Moreover, what sort of school expects every student to be carrying a smartphone? (The high school my son went to had a no-phones policy, which was of course a no-visible-phones policy, and that seemed to work well.) If that's what the school your kids go to does, I'd suggest getting involved in whatever parental advisory board they have and complaining loudly.
E.g. the replacement for to buy machine with the same Ram (16GB) and half the SSD size(512GB instead of 1024GB) of my 2012 Macbook Pro would cost $1,899.00.
Which is why, if you value your computers for raw power, you don't buy Apple. An Apple computer has other advantages. The customer service is the best I've seen. It's the only way to reliably run Mac OSX, in case you wanted a user-friendly Unix. Lots of people like the construction quality. You can get always get raw power cheaper.
Then it would not really matter if BTC increases or drops by 10% in a few hours.
Sure it would. BTC don't free-float in the ether. Somebody owns them at all times. This means that, if somebody offers a service to convert between BTC and USD or Euros or Yen or something, they're going to have to have substantial amounts of BTC and USD (or whatever) on hand, if only to cover statistical variations. The BTC stock is a risk because of BTC volatility, and whoever's running the service will view that as a cost, and charge for it.
Suppose I make a $10K payment to my favorite drug dealer. I go to the service and buy $10K worth of BTC. I transfer it to my drug dealer. He needs to get out on bail, so it takes a few hours for him to get the BTC and sell them back. At that point, the value has gone up 10%, and the service pays my drug dealer $11K, losing $1K on the transaction.
Alternatively, the service determines that it needs to have $100K in both USD and BTC in reserves. The value of BTC goes down 10%, and the service now has $90K in BTC, and needs more BTC. The service can then buy more BTC on the market, costing money, or hold more BTC than it would normally need, which ties up capital and opens the service to larger losses should BTC value drop.
So? If there's no identifiable cause because it's based on quantum-generated random numbers, or because I can't tell what the cause is, it's still no identifiable cause.
Neither of your alternatives describes the iPhone, which gets security updates for a long time after it comes out. From what I've heard, Android phones are very spotty on security updates, and counting on an Android in general to get updates for two years is not all that bright.
I'm still using my iPhone 5S, and it's pushing four and a half years old. I think it needs a new battery, but $80 spent on Apple replacement (yeah, I can do it a lot cheaper, but I'd rather they did it) is cheaper than a new phone.
So, yes, after over four years I still have a very usable phone that does most of what I want a phone to do.
If you're not in the intended market, don't come around and whine about people who are. iPhones have advantages over $40 flip phones, and, for many people, they're worth it.
However, if it gives you a baseless feeling of superiority and smugness, I suppose you'll keep at it.
I don't think the App Store was retrofitted in hastily. I think it was part of the plan all along. Jobs said you didn't need third-party apps at first, and he was reasonably close to correct - with web apps, you don't need many native apps, and Jobs wasn't going to push native apps until they were available.
The original iPhone was easy to use. It had a decent browser, decent email, and even worked as a phone.
You must deal with different polite company than I do.
If you'd like to get into specifics, we could look at what you see is hate. Almost every time I read of Christians being hated or discriminated against in the US, it's a matter of Christians not being given special treatment. Many Christians believe that their religion gives them standing to be assholes to others who disagree with them. Many believe that US governments should give them special treatment. Many want their particular religion's morality enforced, one way or another, and many think that those who disagree with them are evil. Many want their particular superstitions taught in science classes. Many have fallen into the "prosperity gospel" heresy, one of the few Christian things I particularly despise.
Obviously not all Christians are like that. The ones I know are generally good, rational, and sane people. They also don't claim to be hated or discriminated against. (One of the more devout ones I know claims to love the smell of privilege burning in the morning, and mercilessly lampoons the Christian whiners.)
"Individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest" is pure right-wing capitalism, and progressives do indeed know how this works. It's the radical free-market types that believe that the market will magically solve everything.
"Shared resources" exist everywhere. Air is a shared resource. So is ground water, and most rivers, lakes, and oceans. Some things can be divided so they're no longer a shared resource, but they require shared resources and affect them. We can mark off land for a farm, and give it to a farmer, but the farmer's self-interest can damage resources that have to be shared.
but IMHO that's a useless statistic for individual locations where people live most of the time. It's badly skewed by large population centers and their localized trends as well.
This is a heavily urbanized country, and people live in large population centers most of the time.
Since most states in the US prohibit video displays within sight of the driver
My car has three displays within my sight. Two of them have information related to driving, and one is for the entertainment system. As far as I know, the car is legal in all states.
So many people here hating the cop that shot an innocent, unarmed man. There's some anti-police rhetoric, but mostly it's because a police officer went into a dubious situation and killed someone. This is not proper policing.
If the phone call is a felony act that results in a death, then it's murder in many jurisdictions. It's at the very least a lethal malicious reckless act, which might be closer to manslaughter.
Hitler became Chancellor of Germany around the beginning of 1933. While he began to solidify autocratic rule almost immediately, after the Reichstag fire, he did not go to war, deport people en masse, or murder on an industrial scale. He did have concentration camps. Nowadays, we have the Obama economic boom continuing, international efforts against ISIS really paying off, and North Korea talking about nuking the US.
Slashdot Mirror
There are places that will either lend you money or invest money in your operations, if they think said operations are going to be profitable. If you can't get financial backing, you may be being unduly optimistic in your future profits.
Even assuming blockchains become vital parts of the economy, there's still no guarantee that the Bitcoin blockchain will survive. Somebody can start another blockchain.
A phone is really inconvenient to do research on. If I have to do serious research, I'll use my laptop. Moreover, what sort of school expects every student to be carrying a smartphone? (The high school my son went to had a no-phones policy, which was of course a no-visible-phones policy, and that seemed to work well.) If that's what the school your kids go to does, I'd suggest getting involved in whatever parental advisory board they have and complaining loudly.
I raised a teenager. By the time we'd trust him home alone, we trusted him not to do too many inappropriate things. He turned out just fine.
Yup. Back in 1998, lots of people were trying to stomp out any popular teen activity that didn't involve sex or drugs. That hasn't changed.
It isn't going to provide everything I need, but then no phone OS is going to. It's perfectly adequate for what I want a smartphone for.
Which is why, if you value your computers for raw power, you don't buy Apple. An Apple computer has other advantages. The customer service is the best I've seen. It's the only way to reliably run Mac OSX, in case you wanted a user-friendly Unix. Lots of people like the construction quality. You can get always get raw power cheaper.
Sure it would. BTC don't free-float in the ether. Somebody owns them at all times. This means that, if somebody offers a service to convert between BTC and USD or Euros or Yen or something, they're going to have to have substantial amounts of BTC and USD (or whatever) on hand, if only to cover statistical variations. The BTC stock is a risk because of BTC volatility, and whoever's running the service will view that as a cost, and charge for it.
Suppose I make a $10K payment to my favorite drug dealer. I go to the service and buy $10K worth of BTC. I transfer it to my drug dealer. He needs to get out on bail, so it takes a few hours for him to get the BTC and sell them back. At that point, the value has gone up 10%, and the service pays my drug dealer $11K, losing $1K on the transaction.
Alternatively, the service determines that it needs to have $100K in both USD and BTC in reserves. The value of BTC goes down 10%, and the service now has $90K in BTC, and needs more BTC. The service can then buy more BTC on the market, costing money, or hold more BTC than it would normally need, which ties up capital and opens the service to larger losses should BTC value drop.
So? If there's no identifiable cause because it's based on quantum-generated random numbers, or because I can't tell what the cause is, it's still no identifiable cause.
Ah, you mean video in the sense of entertainment, while I was taking video to mean a video screen regardless of use.
Neither of your alternatives describes the iPhone, which gets security updates for a long time after it comes out. From what I've heard, Android phones are very spotty on security updates, and counting on an Android in general to get updates for two years is not all that bright.
I'm still using my iPhone 5S, and it's pushing four and a half years old. I think it needs a new battery, but $80 spent on Apple replacement (yeah, I can do it a lot cheaper, but I'd rather they did it) is cheaper than a new phone.
So, yes, after over four years I still have a very usable phone that does most of what I want a phone to do.
If you're not in the intended market, don't come around and whine about people who are. iPhones have advantages over $40 flip phones, and, for many people, they're worth it.
However, if it gives you a baseless feeling of superiority and smugness, I suppose you'll keep at it.
I don't think the App Store was retrofitted in hastily. I think it was part of the plan all along. Jobs said you didn't need third-party apps at first, and he was reasonably close to correct - with web apps, you don't need many native apps, and Jobs wasn't going to push native apps until they were available.
The original iPhone was easy to use. It had a decent browser, decent email, and even worked as a phone.
Don't take it hard. Neither does Microsoft.
Maybe they love Jesus and are against Christianity.
You must deal with different polite company than I do.
If you'd like to get into specifics, we could look at what you see is hate. Almost every time I read of Christians being hated or discriminated against in the US, it's a matter of Christians not being given special treatment. Many Christians believe that their religion gives them standing to be assholes to others who disagree with them. Many believe that US governments should give them special treatment. Many want their particular religion's morality enforced, one way or another, and many think that those who disagree with them are evil. Many want their particular superstitions taught in science classes. Many have fallen into the "prosperity gospel" heresy, one of the few Christian things I particularly despise.
Obviously not all Christians are like that. The ones I know are generally good, rational, and sane people. They also don't claim to be hated or discriminated against. (One of the more devout ones I know claims to love the smell of privilege burning in the morning, and mercilessly lampoons the Christian whiners.)
Some of us are just clumsy.
"Individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest" is pure right-wing capitalism, and progressives do indeed know how this works. It's the radical free-market types that believe that the market will magically solve everything.
"Shared resources" exist everywhere. Air is a shared resource. So is ground water, and most rivers, lakes, and oceans. Some things can be divided so they're no longer a shared resource, but they require shared resources and affect them. We can mark off land for a farm, and give it to a farmer, but the farmer's self-interest can damage resources that have to be shared.
This is a heavily urbanized country, and people live in large population centers most of the time.
My car has three displays within my sight. Two of them have information related to driving, and one is for the entertainment system. As far as I know, the car is legal in all states.
That's also about a third more expensive than my 2017 Subaru Forester was, which has four-wheel drive and good carrying capacity for a car.
So many people here hating the cop that shot an innocent, unarmed man. There's some anti-police rhetoric, but mostly it's because a police officer went into a dubious situation and killed someone. This is not proper policing.
If the phone call is a felony act that results in a death, then it's murder in many jurisdictions. It's at the very least a lethal malicious reckless act, which might be closer to manslaughter.
Hitler became Chancellor of Germany around the beginning of 1933. While he began to solidify autocratic rule almost immediately, after the Reichstag fire, he did not go to war, deport people en masse, or murder on an industrial scale. He did have concentration camps. Nowadays, we have the Obama economic boom continuing, international efforts against ISIS really paying off, and North Korea talking about nuking the US.