But that's not the point of what Forbes said. (Or the summary is wrong).
As I understood it, he said that Bitcoins are no real money. He didn't say anything about Bitcoins not being stable money, usefull money, or a bad or good idea in general.
every other currency is volatile, too. And IMHO the difference between "real" money and "not real" money should be a qualitative one and not only a quantitive one.
Of course it effects the overall usability of Bitcoins, But it would happen to any currency that doubles trade volume just because someone buys a second pizza. So it's not really a useful criteria if something is "real" money.
Or rather: Never underestimate the chemistry that happens in an ordinary frying pan. (or any other litchen utensil)
I saw some fearmongering piece on TV a few months ago on what "chemicals" are added to flour for industrial use - but then I realized that I knew most of the names already from my homebrewing books and that they were merely enzymes that SHOULD be in there anyway. Artificially adding them was only done to remove natural fluctuations.
People will gladly ignore and circumvent any kind of security that gets in their way of doing their work, and they will not really see anything wrong with it because after all they do it not for personal gains but for the "good of the company".
That's a slightly different thing. I already gave an example somewhere in this thread that often enough, "in the name of security", processes are in place that interfere with the work at hand.Security has no clue of business and management relly acts like PHB.
Sadly, common sense is, despite the name, a rather rare resource.
Also, don't forget that most users have other things on their mind than "that stupid computer stuff". They want to do their work. And usually they got enough at their hands with that as it is.
Yes, but keeping your machine clean is a vital part of the "getting your work done". And it's not some active task. It's just being alert and keep critical thinking turned on. If it sounds to goog to be true, it probably is. Microsoft is NOT donating an iPhone to an orphan each time an email is forwarded.
Beware! Car analogy: ignoring computer security for "getting work done" is like ignoring speed limits because you're busy getting from A to B.
Or Hire "security aware" people and trust on them.
That's related to your point where employees are used to processing files from untrusted sources, but receive training not to do so.
Tools is a good example for that. 2 out of 3 companies I worked for had a whitelisted set of tools you were allowed to install. It never contained either a the full set of tools you needed to do your work, nor the newest versions. So you were completly left in the dark if you were allowed to accept this auto-update or not.
The third company went along the lines of: We've hired expert developers, they all grew up with PC, have their own machines at home - who if not them should be trusted to know what tools they need and to discern usefull tools from BonzoBuddies.
So make up your mind. Set good, enforceable rules that work without exceptions (and go all the way and invest in a software deployment system!) or train & trust the users judgement.
Apparently, users are supposed to be "trained to recognise phishing emails and other Internet frauds". IT has enough trouble these days trying to recognise them, and somehow our ordinary users are supposed to recognise them too?
That's because your users should have the one thing that the best malware filter/firewall/virus scanner hasn't: Common sense!
No, based on events surrounding their last couple "retirements", it's pretty obvious they're attempting to force people to start using Google+ by retiring most stuff that's external to that product.
Wouldn't that require that google+ at least had half of the features of the products they kill?
No of course not. I just wanted to say that there probably is enough evidence on the side of prosecution, so I don't doubt that during the trial judge and jury will agree on the course of the events on that night. Eye witnesses, guns, shells, and wasn't he even arrested on site? So there is probably no need for finding EVEN MORE evidence.
The question here is his claim of being insane. It's his claim, so he should bring evidence for it.
That chain is the history of EVERY transaction performed on the BitCoin network and the integrity of the system is given by every user relying on the same chain
So every bitcoin user has a history list of every coin ever mined and EVERY TRANSACTION EVER DONE??!? So if I want to buy a chewing gum with BC, every BC user would neet to create a record of that transaction?
And now how is this supposed to scale into a real currency???
I think it's VERY difficult bringing something on screen that draws most of the humor from encyclopedia entries. Or Footnotes (that would be Terry Pratchett. Still waiting for a decent screen adaption.)
There are rules for how long yellow should be depending on the speed limit. If that's not true in Ohio, they should fix that first.
by the way. Was that just an unrelated "but what if" from the "but what if"-universe, or was that the actual reason why the judge ruled it as a scam? If that was the case here, that's no reason to call all traffic surveillance a scam, when misconfiguring the traffic lights was the actual scam.
The complicated part about exchanging stuff by bluetooth is that no one has it turned on all the time and when at some point you really want to receive a file, it takes you 10minutes to rummage through your phone's menus trying to find the checkbox to turn on receiving files from unknown devices..
Simple object exchange (contact data, calendar data, pictures, files in general) should work without the exchange of credentials. pairing devices is not neccessarry for that.
At that moment you also know the speed of your vehicle and you can estimate the distance to the intersection. If you can safely break to a halt at the intersection, you brake.
Yellow means "break immedeatly if possible" and not "rush and try to make it before red"
1st, at least over here, trigger lines are well behind the marked lines, so if you're triggering the camera, you're definitly far beyond the point where any sane person would put the white line.
2nd, these are CAMERAS. Conditions like this are visible on the photo and therefor you automatically have a proof that the white line wasn't visible.
3rd. i don't know about Ohio, but at least here even this case is well regulated. If the mark on the road is not visible for any reason, the stopping position is where crossing traffic comes into your line of sight.
Interoperability does not include ignoring all security by design You could, for example, just design it right!:-)
Nothing in your example that can't be fixed:
HELO whitehouse.gov MAIL FROM:president@whitehouse.gov RCPT TO:raymabus@navy.mil DATA From: "Barak Obama" To: "Ray Mabus" Subject: Attack North Korea -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hey Ray, I want to make that Nobel Peace Prize committee look like an even bigger bunch of fools. And, I'm tired of the Democrat party being called 'weak' on national security. The North Korean missile threat is the last straw--let's send in the Marines!
Slashdot Mirror
not that their value changes, but that the changes are to volatile to make it a worthwhile currency.
It wasn't the point if it was a worthwhile currency.
But that's not the point of what Forbes said. (Or the summary is wrong).
As I understood it, he said that Bitcoins are no real money. He didn't say anything about Bitcoins not being stable money, usefull money, or a bad or good idea in general.
every other currency is volatile, too. And IMHO the difference between "real" money and "not real" money should be a qualitative one and not only a quantitive one.
But that is in no way inheritant to the BitCoins.
Of course it effects the overall usability of Bitcoins, But it would happen to any currency that doubles trade volume just because someone buys a second pizza. So it's not really a useful criteria if something is "real" money.
Insects breathe through their skin. Covering it in a polymer is like putting a plastic bag over your head:
Which - in "a spacelike vacuum" - would also be an advantage compared suffocate immedeatly.
Or rather: Never underestimate the chemistry that happens in an ordinary frying pan. (or any other litchen utensil)
I saw some fearmongering piece on TV a few months ago on what "chemicals" are added to flour for industrial use - but then I realized that I knew most of the names already from my homebrewing books and that they were merely enzymes that SHOULD be in there anyway. Artificially adding them was only done to remove natural fluctuations.
People will gladly ignore and circumvent any kind of security that gets in their way of doing their work, and they will not really see anything wrong with it because after all they do it not for personal gains but for the "good of the company".
That's a slightly different thing. I already gave an example somewhere in this thread that often enough, "in the name of security", processes are in place that interfere with the work at hand.Security has no clue of business and management relly acts like PHB.
Sadly, common sense is, despite the name, a rather rare resource.
Also, don't forget that most users have other things on their mind than "that stupid computer stuff". They want to do their work. And usually they got enough at their hands with that as it is.
Yes, but keeping your machine clean is a vital part of the "getting your work done". And it's not some active task. It's just being alert and keep critical thinking turned on. If it sounds to goog to be true, it probably is. Microsoft is NOT donating an iPhone to an orphan each time an email is forwarded.
Beware! Car analogy: ignoring computer security for "getting work done" is like ignoring speed limits because you're busy getting from A to B.
d) if you set up security policies, ENFORCE THEM!
Or Hire "security aware" people and trust on them.
That's related to your point where employees are used to processing files from untrusted sources, but receive training not to do so.
Tools is a good example for that. 2 out of 3 companies I worked for had a whitelisted set of tools you were allowed to install. It never contained either a the full set of tools you needed to do your work, nor the newest versions. So you were completly left in the dark if you were allowed to accept this auto-update or not.
The third company went along the lines of: We've hired expert developers, they all grew up with PC, have their own machines at home - who if not them should be trusted to know what tools they need and to discern usefull tools from BonzoBuddies.
So make up your mind. Set good, enforceable rules that work without exceptions (and go all the way and invest in a software deployment system!) or train & trust the users judgement.
Apparently, users are supposed to be "trained to recognise phishing emails and other Internet frauds". IT has enough trouble these days trying to recognise them, and somehow our ordinary users are supposed to recognise them too?
That's because your users should have the one thing that the best malware filter/firewall/virus scanner hasn't: Common sense!
No, based on events surrounding their last couple "retirements", it's pretty obvious they're attempting to force people to start using Google+ by retiring most stuff that's external to that product.
Wouldn't that require that google+ at least had half of the features of the products they kill?
Maybe they've underestimated how many people really care?
As in really care, but for some strange reason not using it?
No of course not. I just wanted to say that there probably is enough evidence on the side of prosecution, so I don't doubt that during the trial judge and jury will agree on the course of the events on that night. Eye witnesses, guns, shells, and wasn't he even arrested on site? So there is probably no need for finding EVEN MORE evidence.
The question here is his claim of being insane. It's his claim, so he should bring evidence for it.
Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?
For what? I don't think someone doubts that Holmes went into the cinema shooting people.
It is somehow disturbing that gay males aren't confused after waking up from naps.
1 our synching time. With hardly anyone using it. And the number of transactions won't grow liear when the user base does so.
Sorry, but this system has severe scaling issues.
That chain is the history of EVERY transaction performed on the BitCoin network and the integrity of the system is given by every user relying on the same chain
So every bitcoin user has a history list of every coin ever mined and EVERY TRANSACTION EVER DONE??!? So if I want to buy a chewing gum with BC, every BC user would neet to create a record of that transaction?
And now how is this supposed to scale into a real currency???
I think it's VERY difficult bringing something on screen that draws most of the humor from encyclopedia entries. Or Footnotes (that would be Terry Pratchett. Still waiting for a decent screen adaption.)
There are rules for how long yellow should be depending on the speed limit. If that's not true in Ohio, they should fix that first.
by the way. Was that just an unrelated "but what if" from the "but what if"-universe, or was that the actual reason why the judge ruled it as a scam? If that was the case here, that's no reason to call all traffic surveillance a scam, when misconfiguring the traffic lights was the actual scam.
...so it's basically the same as with bluetooth!
The complicated part about exchanging stuff by bluetooth is that no one has it turned on all the time and when at some point you really want to receive a file, it takes you 10minutes to rummage through your phone's menus trying to find the checkbox to turn on receiving files from unknown devices..
Simple object exchange (contact data, calendar data, pictures, files in general) should work without the exchange of credentials. pairing devices is not neccessarry for that.
Oh come on!
You see the light going to yellow.
At that moment you also know the speed of your vehicle and you can estimate the distance to the intersection. If you can safely break to a halt at the intersection, you brake.
Yellow means "break immedeatly if possible" and not "rush and try to make it before red"
Then perhaps fix that by giving those cities mandatory guidelines on how long yellow has to be?
Like 3 sec for a 50 km/h speed limit, 4sec for 60 km/h and so on?
Irrelevant.
1st, at least over here, trigger lines are well behind the marked lines, so if you're triggering the camera, you're definitly far beyond the point where any sane person would put the white line.
2nd, these are CAMERAS. Conditions like this are visible on the photo and therefor you automatically have a proof that the white line wasn't visible.
3rd. i don't know about Ohio, but at least here even this case is well regulated. If the mark on the road is not visible for any reason, the stopping position is where crossing traffic comes into your line of sight.
Interoperability does not include ignoring all security by design You could, for example, just design it right! :-)
Nothing in your example that can't be fixed:
HELO whitehouse.gov
MAIL FROM:president@whitehouse.gov
RCPT TO:raymabus@navy.mil
DATA
From: "Barak Obama"
To: "Ray Mabus" Subject: Attack North Korea
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hey Ray,
I want to make that Nobel Peace Prize committee look like an even bigger bunch of fools. And, I'm tired of the Democrat party being called 'weak' on national security. The North Korean missile threat is the last straw--let's send in the Marines!
Sincerely, .-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Barak Hussein Obama
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkottIAACgkQXL7B/111phuNhwCg327mKdJs+BKCZY/aqAWR3lCo /t8An1p+2M3M8tQVh1QPsDt10hims6P5
=Yi1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
QUIT
I want interoperability between Social network Providers!
It worked for network providers, it worked for email providers....