Unfortunately to pave the area they have to dig up all the contaminated topsoil, which is a worker exposure issue. The soil's two orders of magnitude above the statutory limit.
Then there's the issue of what you do with the topsoil that you do not intend to pave over.
I dare say that it's a result of Ubisoft lazily deciding to produce and test only a single version for the quote-unquote international market, and having to meet the lowest-common-denominator levels of creative expression permitted in the Middle-Eastern and Australian regimes.
That's possible for a bank because they're expected to take the money deposited with them, invest it, and make more money from it. If the investments are worth less than the amount the bank's supposed to hold (e.g. subprime mortgages), or the rate of withdrawal becomes larger than the bank can support because their investments aren't liquid (e.g. oil pipelines and housing blocks) then they become insolvent. That's all well-understood.
Neither supposed to be possible for a Bitcoin exchange. They have no investments. They ostensibly hold just as many Bitcoins as are currently deposited with them, plus the amount they've accumulated from fees. Their holdings are 100% liquid. You literally have to misplace money for this to happen.
Depends on what it's being used for. For small-scale transactions in time and value - e.g. turning $7 into BTC to immediately buy a CD - a relatively unstable currency is fine. Frankly, the while decentralisation of bitcoin made me assume that's the only way it would ever be used.
For anyone holding any significant amount of cash for any significant amount of time - e.g. a Bitcoin exchange - the instability is a nightmare.
Actually MtGox is looking for a bailout as their main recovery strategy, according to the document. They argue that their insolvency would destroy bitcoin as a currency and therefore it's in everyone's best interests, Bitcoin exchange and end user alike, to donate to them until they're solvent again.
For maximum irony, the strategy doc states that they're toying with "we're too big to fail" as a PR angle, going cap-in-hand to other bitcoin exchanges to get bailed out.
I'm not sure that a Godwining from a noted crank on this issue, who cast his major scientific critic as a child molester with a small dick, is really relevant.
The difference being that the DoT operates under public oversight and with specific, public purposes. There's a social contract there. The NSA's actions weren't even known to the public until they were extraordinarily leaked.
I still can’t figure out the hierarchy. What are you, exactly? Are you the Mick Jagger of physics?
Nice the Mick Jagger of physics. But it’s like, let’s say, the minister in charge of the search for the Higgs particle in the accelerator government. Okay?
So he's actually the one man in the world who we categorically cannot describe as the Mick Jagger of physics.
Wrong. It's called "fruit of the poisoned tree" and it's one of the oldest rules in US criminal law. Nothing that arises out of the use of inadmissible evidence is, itself, admissible. You can tell the quality of a legal procedural by how often and blatantly they ignore this.
Feynman recounts his adventures in parallel processing with old-fashioned computers at Los Alamos in one of his books. You literally walked between machines with results that they were waiting on. The message-passing interface was people!
This is like saying that it's OK that your car was run over by a bulldozer, because it was on its way to demolish a house. You seem to think that because the intrusion doesn't have an purpose directed against the intruded, it's OK. It's actually the entire problem.
Or assuming you refer to the other article, the following is the only part that isn't a bunch of interview answers:
That drone you might have spotted hovering and zipping around the Sochi Olympic slopes isn't searching for terrorists or protesters hiding behind the fir trees. It's being used to transmit live video of snowboard and ski jump competitions to a screen near you. Unlike military drones, which often look like a remote-controlled airplane, the creature floating around Sochi resembles a huge flying spider. Drones are increasingly common at sporting events, and these Olympics is the highest-profile showcase yet for their use in broadcasting. Here's a few questions and some answers about the drone and its place at the Sochi Games.
You obviously didn't read the article, which is a short puff piece about how great and soon-to-be-ubiquitous drones are:
There are limitations: In many countries, drone regulations are still lagging behind the times, and it might not be clear to a broadcaster that they can be used legally. Then there are concerns about crashes. But with the risks low and potential benefits high, it could be that sports photography will be one of the first uses of drones to go mainstream.
If you want to complain about the summary, your target is Hugh Pickens Dot Com.
An Irish theme pub, in the same way you might go to a pub themed after a German Brauhaus. They're surprisingly common in the UK, and the places in Europe Britons go on holiday.
Don't need to be. Stuxnet got into Iran's offline nuclear program computers on a USB stick. The trick is making a really hellaciously virulent bit of malicious software, something that can become a global-level nuisance, and in time it'll find its way onto the target machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately to pave the area they have to dig up all the contaminated topsoil, which is a worker exposure issue. The soil's two orders of magnitude above the statutory limit.
Then there's the issue of what you do with the topsoil that you do not intend to pave over.
I dare say that it's a result of Ubisoft lazily deciding to produce and test only a single version for the quote-unquote international market, and having to meet the lowest-common-denominator levels of creative expression permitted in the Middle-Eastern and Australian regimes.
Suffice to say, MtGox has a lot riding on convincing everyone otherwise.
How is MtGOX a Ponzi scheme?
That's possible for a bank because they're expected to take the money deposited with them, invest it, and make more money from it. If the investments are worth less than the amount the bank's supposed to hold (e.g. subprime mortgages), or the rate of withdrawal becomes larger than the bank can support because their investments aren't liquid (e.g. oil pipelines and housing blocks) then they become insolvent. That's all well-understood.
Neither supposed to be possible for a Bitcoin exchange. They have no investments. They ostensibly hold just as many Bitcoins as are currently deposited with them, plus the amount they've accumulated from fees. Their holdings are 100% liquid. You literally have to misplace money for this to happen.
Something something cloud something network something something wizards.
Depends on what it's being used for. For small-scale transactions in time and value - e.g. turning $7 into BTC to immediately buy a CD - a relatively unstable currency is fine. Frankly, the while decentralisation of bitcoin made me assume that's the only way it would ever be used.
For anyone holding any significant amount of cash for any significant amount of time - e.g. a Bitcoin exchange - the instability is a nightmare.
...and you put it in the title of your comment, so nobody will notice it. :(
Actually MtGox is looking for a bailout as their main recovery strategy, according to the document. They argue that their insolvency would destroy bitcoin as a currency and therefore it's in everyone's best interests, Bitcoin exchange and end user alike, to donate to them until they're solvent again.
I thought the take-home message from Lehman Brothers was "the whole [economy] is bad".
For maximum irony, the strategy doc states that they're toying with "we're too big to fail" as a PR angle, going cap-in-hand to other bitcoin exchanges to get bailed out.
I'm not sure that a Godwining from a noted crank on this issue, who cast his major scientific critic as a child molester with a small dick, is really relevant.
The difference being that the DoT operates under public oversight and with specific, public purposes. There's a social contract there. The NSA's actions weren't even known to the public until they were extraordinarily leaked.
None of which apply to this broad, hypothetical scenario.
...and with that first sentence the process of turning Android OS into a closed-source Google product is now complete.
I still can’t figure out the hierarchy. What are you, exactly? Are you the Mick Jagger of physics?
Nice the Mick Jagger of physics. But it’s like, let’s say, the minister in charge of the search for the Higgs particle in the accelerator government. Okay?
So he's actually the one man in the world who we categorically cannot describe as the Mick Jagger of physics.
Wrong. It's called "fruit of the poisoned tree" and it's one of the oldest rules in US criminal law. Nothing that arises out of the use of inadmissible evidence is, itself, admissible. You can tell the quality of a legal procedural by how often and blatantly they ignore this.
Feynman recounts his adventures in parallel processing with old-fashioned computers at Los Alamos in one of his books. You literally walked between machines with results that they were waiting on. The message-passing interface was people!
This is like saying that it's OK that your car was run over by a bulldozer, because it was on its way to demolish a house. You seem to think that because the intrusion doesn't have an purpose directed against the intruded, it's OK. It's actually the entire problem.
You're conflating: the NSA spies on all Americans to investigate a few. It's the spying that's the issue.
Or assuming you refer to the other article, the following is the only part that isn't a bunch of interview answers:
That drone you might have spotted hovering and zipping around the Sochi Olympic slopes isn't searching for terrorists or protesters hiding behind the fir trees. It's being used to transmit live video of snowboard and ski jump competitions to a screen near you. Unlike military drones, which often look like a remote-controlled airplane, the creature floating around Sochi resembles a huge flying spider. Drones are increasingly common at sporting events, and these Olympics is the highest-profile showcase yet for their use in broadcasting. Here's a few questions and some answers about the drone and its place at the Sochi Games.
You obviously didn't read the article, which is a short puff piece about how great and soon-to-be-ubiquitous drones are:
There are limitations: In many countries, drone regulations are still lagging behind the times, and it might not be clear to a broadcaster that they can be used legally. Then there are concerns about crashes. But with the risks low and potential benefits high, it could be that sports photography will be one of the first uses of drones to go mainstream.
If you want to complain about the summary, your target is Hugh Pickens Dot Com.
An Irish theme pub, in the same way you might go to a pub themed after a German Brauhaus. They're surprisingly common in the UK, and the places in Europe Britons go on holiday.
Oh, I see. I assumed the original was asking how they'd ditch waste heat. So the real question is, how do you efficiently cycle it.
Don't need to be. Stuxnet got into Iran's offline nuclear program computers on a USB stick. The trick is making a really hellaciously virulent bit of malicious software, something that can become a global-level nuisance, and in time it'll find its way onto the target machines.
http://www.wired.com/threatlev...