I don't know if this is the same kind of DNA related problem, but a friend of mine did his PHD on searching DNA. I don't think anyone is using the results of his work yet.
The finished product of the analysis can be stored reasonably efficiently. But I don't think that's what they are talking about. I believe this has more to do with the memory / disk / cpu load of putting all the pieces of the jigsaw together.
Tell the company that you can *delete* all of those credit card details, and completely put a halt to their revenue stream. Then they might pay attention.
Solve that problem via DNSSEC. Publish your self signed key via DNS, and at least someone connecting knows that the server they are talking to currently owns the domain name and the connection is encrypted end-to-end, which is all that CA certs seem to have devolved to.
Heck for the last few years there's been heaps of memory patcher's for steam, at least one of them working with the current version. Copy the game content from someone and you can play it (no multiplayer servers obviously).
The biggest issue I have with that argument, is that prices listed in AU via steam *are still listed in USD*. We're not being told to pay AUD $92 for Skyrim. We've being told to pay USD $89.95 vs the price quoted for the US of $59.95.
He said "unlicensed spectrum" I don't think he said "2.4Ghz Wifi".
I work for The Serval Project, and using unlicensed spectrum for phone calls is exactly what we are working on. Right now our prototype software uses the 2.4Ghz wifi radios in android smart phones. But we eventually want to use other ISM bands like 915Mhz.
Some of those things that will break are where google is hosting some often used Javascript libraries so your browser only needs to download them once. Or would you rather we go back to having each web site host their own copy that you have to download separately?
Before the crisis our economy was mainly fuelled by increases to our total level of debt. We were borrowing $20 billion dollars more every month, while our GDP was only climbing by $60 billion every year. When the level of debt growth started to stall it had a massive impact on the economy. In response to that we did 2 things differently to most of the rest of the world;
1. We gave $1,000 to every tax payer and encouraged them to spend it. This had an immediate, though temporary effect, and helped way more than giving money directly to the banking sector.
2. We gave every first home buyer $14,000, which they took to the bank at 95% LVR to borrow $50,000 more than they could otherwise afford. This also encouraged some buyers to enter the market who otherwise couldn't afford the deposit. This had the effect of adding about $100 billion more debt to fuel the economy.
Both of these actions helped us to turn the economy around and avoid a technical recession. But (and this is a very big but) you don't help an alcoholic by giving them more alcohol. Sure things will return to "normal" for a while longer. But if "normal" is unsustainable, all you are doing is delaying the inevitable.
Personally I compare of current economic theory to newtons theory of gravity, eg where the quantity of debt is similar to the mass of the object you are modelling. There might be some situations where the current models work, but if one important variable like credit gets outside of a certain range, then the theory and reality diverge significantly. Plus I like the mental picture of comparing our current debt to a black hole.
Economists mainly ignore the role of money and debt, they are blind to its influence as they see the role of loans as merely moving spending power between individuals. But 12 economists have been identified as publishing models before the crisis that predicted it, and all were found to emphasise the role that credit plays in determining economic performance.
The blindness to the role of credit is the biggest reason why economic models have to be continually recalibrated. And why such modelling never allows for the possibility of a system crash like we have and are experiencing. Sure economic models, like models for predicting the weather will need to be recalibrated. But would you trust a weather model that couldn't generate hurricanes?
Their transaction model is pretty good, it solves pretty much all the technical issues that a digital currency must solve. But absolutely every other aspect of bitcoins is flawed. So much of the software around bitcoins has horrible security, including the wallet of the reference implementation. No-one is willing to back them as a currency with a fixed value, and without a fixed value they are useless for trading. They are massive bait for scammers and ponzi speculators.
I would like to build on their technical ideas, and build an impeccably audited non-for-profit entity to back a new currency. Start with a fixed bundle of coins that will never grow in number. Verify the transaction log on a central server that is only responsible for ensuring transaction order. Allow anyone to copy the log and audit it, signing a checkpoint of the transactions that have not been spent. This would allow us to build a web of trust so that anyone can verify a transaction without needing the entire log.
This non-for-profit would sell the initial bundle of coins for other hard currencies to anyone, and would initially establish relationships with other businesses to buy them back at a similar price, perhaps pegged to one specific currency but with a small percentage taken out to cover running costs. This would encourage the coins to be circulated, give them some fixed value they can be redeemed for, and give people a reason for buying some. The cash this entity must hold would be audited and held with very tight restrictions to ensure it is not lost on risky investments, but such that interest can also be used to cover their expenses.
Even with this model, there is a risk that the backing entity will turn out to be a ponzi investor. That when you ask them to buy back these tokens we find that the money they are supposed to be holding doesn't exist. But since this would be the only entity issuing credit, it should be possible to audit and have some method to avoid this eventuality.
And I'd like to federate this model and allow anyone to setup their own backing entity, perhaps for only a single purpose like issuing store credit, ownership of shares in a public company or other investment instruments.
Exactly, we need to build a renewable environment in a box, that can sustain a human indefinitely with only the power of the sun or perhaps nuclear fission. And so far we haven't managed it.
I understand perfectly that abolishing debt could encourage the wrong behaviour. And absolutely there should be controls in place to ensure the right people benefit, and that is a very tricky balance to make.
We should impose tighter lending constraints that limit the ability of credit to fuel speculation. We should measure the maximum security value of an asset not by its sale price, but from its expected utility. But tightening those constraints will force asset prices down, though they will probably fall anyway. This would leave many who were tempted into debt by the banks, underwater.
Should we reduce loans by a set percentage? A fixed amount? Any approach will unfairly benefit someone, we should just make sure that everyone benefits equally. Should we try and inflate our way out of debt? Just create a fixed amount of money per person (say US$100,000) and give it away equally, perhaps in installments?
The banks and congress are being preached to by the same "neoclassical" economists. These economists have a model for capitalism that is *completely wrong*. Which leads them to encourage changes in the real economy that just end up destroying it; deregulation, tariff reduction, free trade,....
We need to throw out most of the field of economics, certainly the parts that are *provably* false. And build models that actually work. Otherwise we'll never be able to work out how to fix this mess.
Well, Steve didn't initially call a specific time, he just noticed that a major system crash was inevitable. Though he did start tracking the right statistics to try and point out when it started.
He's also built a couple of toy models of the economy, based loosely on double entry accounting and systems engineering, that can model an economy with boom, bust and crash cycles.
I recommend reading the work of Steve Keen, an academic economist who went public in 2005 predicting this crisis. He's just published his second edition of "Debunking Economics" a text that systematically destroys the very foundations of "neoclassical" economics. He's also been working on dynamic modelling of the economy that has the potential to actually be useful.
Our lives are going to suck until all the debt our banks created is destroyed. There's no way we can afford to pay it all back, that would cripple the global economy for the next 30 years. Instead these debts should simply be abolished.
Unfortunately our governments don't have the will, or the know how, to actually fix things.
"Debts that can't be repaid, wont be repaid" (Michael Hudson). The only question that remains is how we aren't going to repay them. We need to abolish the debt that should never have been issued, or inflate our way out of caring.
You want to print money to fix the immediate problem? Fine, that might work to trigger the right kind of inflation. But you're not thinking big enough. We need an additional 20 trillion dollars in the US alone to counter-balance all of the credit that is disappearing from the economy. And don't give it to bankers, it wont trickle down. Even if you believe the money multiplier myth, the last thing we need is more debt. Spread the extra cash out to everyone equally.
People are greedy and we can't change that, but we need to stop issuing ponzi-finance to speculate on existing assets. If the only way you can make money on an asset is finding a greater fool willing to borrow more, society is worse off. When you run out of fools, the entire house of cards will come tumbling down. We need to break the feedback loop between increased leverage and inflating prices. We need to change the way existing asset values are measured so they're not based on how much some banker is willing to lend.
Are they trying to pickup a TV station using a small antenna placed within their steel framed house? That alone might explain the issue. Get a roof mounted antenna, or if you have one, check that the cabling is undamaged and properly connected. Blaming the steel frame for being magnetised is ridiculous.
Every movie worth watching yesterday is still worth watching today.
Some movies do appreciate in watchable value over time, but watching them decreases that value. If I watched a movie yesterday it's worth less for today's entertainment. This is related to the similar metric, that everyone complains more about the quality of movies as they get older. Every time you watch a movie with a particular genre / plot element / character stereotype, the watchable value of other similar movies is affected.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if this is the same kind of DNA related problem, but a friend of mine did his PHD on searching DNA. I don't think anyone is using the results of his work yet.
The finished product of the analysis can be stored reasonably efficiently. But I don't think that's what they are talking about. I believe this has more to do with the memory / disk / cpu load of putting all the pieces of the jigsaw together.
Tell the company that you can *delete* all of those credit card details, and completely put a halt to their revenue stream. Then they might pay attention.
Don't confuse a stock with a flow. eg position vs velocity.
Solve that problem via DNSSEC. Publish your self signed key via DNS, and at least someone connecting knows that the server they are talking to currently owns the domain name and the connection is encrypted end-to-end, which is all that CA certs seem to have devolved to.
Heck for the last few years there's been heaps of memory patcher's for steam, at least one of them working with the current version. Copy the game content from someone and you can play it (no multiplayer servers obviously).
The biggest issue I have with that argument, is that prices listed in AU via steam *are still listed in USD*. We're not being told to pay AUD $92 for Skyrim. We've being told to pay USD $89.95 vs the price quoted for the US of $59.95.
Add in mesh routing to that solution and any device connected to those routers can also extend coverage.
He said "unlicensed spectrum" I don't think he said "2.4Ghz Wifi".
I work for The Serval Project, and using unlicensed spectrum for phone calls is exactly what we are working on. Right now our prototype software uses the 2.4Ghz wifi radios in android smart phones. But we eventually want to use other ISM bands like 915Mhz.
Some of those things that will break are where google is hosting some often used Javascript libraries so your browser only needs to download them once. Or would you rather we go back to having each web site host their own copy that you have to download separately?
Bahahahaha. No.
Before the crisis our economy was mainly fuelled by increases to our total level of debt. We were borrowing $20 billion dollars more every month, while our GDP was only climbing by $60 billion every year. When the level of debt growth started to stall it had a massive impact on the economy. In response to that we did 2 things differently to most of the rest of the world;
1. We gave $1,000 to every tax payer and encouraged them to spend it. This had an immediate, though temporary effect, and helped way more than giving money directly to the banking sector.
2. We gave every first home buyer $14,000, which they took to the bank at 95% LVR to borrow $50,000 more than they could otherwise afford. This also encouraged some buyers to enter the market who otherwise couldn't afford the deposit. This had the effect of adding about $100 billion more debt to fuel the economy.
Both of these actions helped us to turn the economy around and avoid a technical recession. But (and this is a very big but) you don't help an alcoholic by giving them more alcohol. Sure things will return to "normal" for a while longer. But if "normal" is unsustainable, all you are doing is delaying the inevitable.
So take away the temperature number on the control, just have warmer and colder buttons.
Personally I compare of current economic theory to newtons theory of gravity, eg where the quantity of debt is similar to the mass of the object you are modelling. There might be some situations where the current models work, but if one important variable like credit gets outside of a certain range, then the theory and reality diverge significantly. Plus I like the mental picture of comparing our current debt to a black hole.
Economists mainly ignore the role of money and debt, they are blind to its influence as they see the role of loans as merely moving spending power between individuals. But 12 economists have been identified as publishing models before the crisis that predicted it, and all were found to emphasise the role that credit plays in determining economic performance.
The blindness to the role of credit is the biggest reason why economic models have to be continually recalibrated. And why such modelling never allows for the possibility of a system crash like we have and are experiencing. Sure economic models, like models for predicting the weather will need to be recalibrated. But would you trust a weather model that couldn't generate hurricanes?
Keynesian? They don't know the first thing about Keynes.
Their transaction model is pretty good, it solves pretty much all the technical issues that a digital currency must solve. But absolutely every other aspect of bitcoins is flawed. So much of the software around bitcoins has horrible security, including the wallet of the reference implementation. No-one is willing to back them as a currency with a fixed value, and without a fixed value they are useless for trading. They are massive bait for scammers and ponzi speculators.
I would like to build on their technical ideas, and build an impeccably audited non-for-profit entity to back a new currency. Start with a fixed bundle of coins that will never grow in number. Verify the transaction log on a central server that is only responsible for ensuring transaction order. Allow anyone to copy the log and audit it, signing a checkpoint of the transactions that have not been spent. This would allow us to build a web of trust so that anyone can verify a transaction without needing the entire log.
This non-for-profit would sell the initial bundle of coins for other hard currencies to anyone, and would initially establish relationships with other businesses to buy them back at a similar price, perhaps pegged to one specific currency but with a small percentage taken out to cover running costs. This would encourage the coins to be circulated, give them some fixed value they can be redeemed for, and give people a reason for buying some. The cash this entity must hold would be audited and held with very tight restrictions to ensure it is not lost on risky investments, but such that interest can also be used to cover their expenses.
Even with this model, there is a risk that the backing entity will turn out to be a ponzi investor. That when you ask them to buy back these tokens we find that the money they are supposed to be holding doesn't exist. But since this would be the only entity issuing credit, it should be possible to audit and have some method to avoid this eventuality.
And I'd like to federate this model and allow anyone to setup their own backing entity, perhaps for only a single purpose like issuing store credit, ownership of shares in a public company or other investment instruments.
And it didn't work well enough to be completely isolated.
Exactly, we need to build a renewable environment in a box, that can sustain a human indefinitely with only the power of the sun or perhaps nuclear fission. And so far we haven't managed it.
I understand perfectly that abolishing debt could encourage the wrong behaviour. And absolutely there should be controls in place to ensure the right people benefit, and that is a very tricky balance to make.
We should impose tighter lending constraints that limit the ability of credit to fuel speculation. We should measure the maximum security value of an asset not by its sale price, but from its expected utility. But tightening those constraints will force asset prices down, though they will probably fall anyway. This would leave many who were tempted into debt by the banks, underwater.
Should we reduce loans by a set percentage? A fixed amount? Any approach will unfairly benefit someone, we should just make sure that everyone benefits equally. Should we try and inflate our way out of debt? Just create a fixed amount of money per person (say US$100,000) and give it away equally, perhaps in installments?
The banks and congress are being preached to by the same "neoclassical" economists. These economists have a model for capitalism that is *completely wrong*. Which leads them to encourage changes in the real economy that just end up destroying it; deregulation, tariff reduction, free trade, ....
We need to throw out most of the field of economics, certainly the parts that are *provably* false. And build models that actually work. Otherwise we'll never be able to work out how to fix this mess.
Well, Steve didn't initially call a specific time, he just noticed that a major system crash was inevitable. Though he did start tracking the right statistics to try and point out when it started.
He's also built a couple of toy models of the economy, based loosely on double entry accounting and systems engineering, that can model an economy with boom, bust and crash cycles.
I recommend reading the work of Steve Keen, an academic economist who went public in 2005 predicting this crisis. He's just published his second edition of "Debunking Economics" a text that systematically destroys the very foundations of "neoclassical" economics. He's also been working on dynamic modelling of the economy that has the potential to actually be useful.
Our lives are going to suck until all the debt our banks created is destroyed. There's no way we can afford to pay it all back, that would cripple the global economy for the next 30 years. Instead these debts should simply be abolished.
Unfortunately our governments don't have the will, or the know how, to actually fix things.
"Debts that can't be repaid, wont be repaid" (Michael Hudson). The only question that remains is how we aren't going to repay them. We need to abolish the debt that should never have been issued, or inflate our way out of caring.
You want to print money to fix the immediate problem? Fine, that might work to trigger the right kind of inflation. But you're not thinking big enough. We need an additional 20 trillion dollars in the US alone to counter-balance all of the credit that is disappearing from the economy. And don't give it to bankers, it wont trickle down. Even if you believe the money multiplier myth, the last thing we need is more debt. Spread the extra cash out to everyone equally.
People are greedy and we can't change that, but we need to stop issuing ponzi-finance to speculate on existing assets. If the only way you can make money on an asset is finding a greater fool willing to borrow more, society is worse off. When you run out of fools, the entire house of cards will come tumbling down. We need to break the feedback loop between increased leverage and inflating prices. We need to change the way existing asset values are measured so they're not based on how much some banker is willing to lend.
Are they trying to pickup a TV station using a small antenna placed within their steel framed house? That alone might explain the issue. Get a roof mounted antenna, or if you have one, check that the cabling is undamaged and properly connected. Blaming the steel frame for being magnetised is ridiculous.
Every movie worth watching yesterday is still worth watching today.
Some movies do appreciate in watchable value over time, but watching them decreases that value. If I watched a movie yesterday it's worth less for today's entertainment. This is related to the similar metric, that everyone complains more about the quality of movies as they get older. Every time you watch a movie with a particular genre / plot element / character stereotype, the watchable value of other similar movies is affected.