This is absolutely correct. I don't doubt the hipsters and the cool-seekers exist, but the fact that some people don't even grok that there is a whole archetype of other mac users says mare about them than the 'mac users' they claim to know so much about.
After ~9 years of a painful linux desktop experience I switched to OSX. Been ~6 years now and I've never regretted it.
Sure the government can look at it, but then so can everyone else.
I know its a difficult proposition but transparency appears to have its benefits.
I can imagine a future where 'dark ages' refers to those centuries before the internet, when it was possible of brad people to terrible things in secret.
I think the fact that few humans can't be trusted, spoils 'privacy' for the many that can be. When privacy is used as a tool to further nefarious goals I think you have to look at what benefits it provides. Perhaps privacy only provides benefits because transparency has to date been largely unachievable (on any sort of equal footing). Does privacy benefit all equally? Am I some crazy socialist? or whacko libertarian? who knows!:)
This is a good experiment, and another notch in the bedpost of 'openness'.
On the other hand doesn't this actually put the merchant at more risk? I get my goods, hop in the car, and ten minutes later he finds out I gave him bad bit coins.
Confirmations aren't as important as may have been originally thought...
It at least brings it into the realms of tolerable/insurable. Double spend is really hard, probably not worth the effort unless its a big (high value) purchase.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but high value purchases are probably worth hanging around a bit longer for, and probably involve some kind of warranty which in turn depends on some kind of identification.
Probably works just fine for the majority of cases, at least right now...
Maybe I am in the minority but i find it *very* acceptable. Coincidentally the figures they are bandying about are very close to how my tariff works.
I use AAISP in the UK. I switched to them on the premise they delver 'unfiltered' internet. They also don't do that 'unlimited' internet crap. All in all they are what anyone here with half a brain *should* want from their ISP. (technically savvy too)
Their base no-extras package give you 100GB a month, You can also pay for 200GB or 300GB up front for a slightly reduced rate, if you go over you get auto billed for another 50GB at £10.
Sure its not the cheapest internet, and it means I have to use ADSL (around 60-80meg, with the occasional very short outage) vs cable (150meg with virtually zero downtime in the 13 years I was with them)
im not shilling and I don't want your sign up bonus. I just want to make sure everyone knows about them so they never go away!
I'm not debating the right to bear arms. I'm suggesting that there are some people who, when challenged, do certain things that suggest they are a little bit off kilter in the ethics department.
I'm all about choice. I hate the fact that means, to be consistent, I have to side with the pro-gun people.
There are nut jobs on both sides, but the ones with guns are more dangerous.
Not to mention that stills are the holy grail of 'out of context' editing - whilst the pictures may be accurate, video would be much more compelling.
These guys are bad enough without over egging the pudding. These techniques are how those in power influence the weak minded public. We should not stoop so low as to become their bedfellows in this respect.
Given enough rope, those in power will hang themselves. They seem to be doing a grand job of it. I don't mean to trivialise the unfortunate side effects of this process, but I do think they are somewhat unavoidable. So begin outraged is a little like shouting at the wind. You just have to try and do what you can in your little corner of the world to make things better for you and those around you. However big your corner might be.
This is absolutely the most accurate post in this thread.
It boils down to calories, if yoour body gets more calories than it needs and/or it gets calories faster than it needs then it has to do something with them.
It stores them for later. As fat.
"processed" food lets both these things happen.
"unprocessed" food mitigates this.
There's that whole thing about cooking food allowing us to evolve because it meant we could eat more, get more nutrients etc well this is just taking that one step further. Not only do we cook it, but we refine it so that its easy to get a several thousand calorie surplus every day, and still go back for more. The super obese are great case studies in this, and a testemant to the efficiency of the human body in dealing with whatever we throw at it!
When you disregard the entire thesis because you don't like one of the things the person said. Does that make your counter argument credible?
Seriously there is a massive body of scientific evidence that implicates refined sugars as being a significant factor in things like obesity and metabolic syndrome.
The body is complicated, and figuring out what is good for people is hard. Further complicated by the fact that it doesn't necessarily correspond with what is profitable.
It's an elaborate double bluff. Satoshi is the US govt/Fed/IMF or some similar consortium of 'money controller', who are quite aware that the current monetary system is out of control.
They have built bitcoin, they own a controlling amount (or are in the process of buying it... they have infinite money to do so). Over time they will engineer themselves into a position of owning a controlling amount of the network (having infinite money to devote to a data-centre or two of miners).
The endgame is that they are going to be processing most blocks and therefore collecting the bulk of transaction fees. The protocol allows the finder of a block to choose which transactions to include, meaning they can effectively block transactions that don't pay sufficient fees.
Then we are back in exactly the same situation as now, except there is no actual cash that people might transact off the books. The USD becomes the black market currency. The majority of the new BTC wealth in the hands of the few, and everyone else paying tax for the privilege of transferring money.
Trying to 'fix' the situation is unlikely to work.
A better strategy is accepting there will be failure, and building systems to cope.
A great example of this, quite fittingly, is the internet itself.
Accept that governments will work most of the time, understand they will fail some of the time. Keep your eyes open. Try and be cool. We are all in it together, despite the example set by some.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore. I have auto download switched on, and it hasn't auto downloaded. Despite having been connected to wi-fi.
I call BS on the whole overly dramatic whinefest.
This is absolutely correct. I don't doubt the hipsters and the cool-seekers exist, but the fact that some people don't even grok that there is a whole archetype of other mac users says mare about them than the 'mac users' they claim to know so much about.
After ~9 years of a painful linux desktop experience I switched to OSX. Been ~6 years now and I've never regretted it.
Sure the government can look at it, but then so can everyone else.
I know its a difficult proposition but transparency appears to have its benefits.
I can imagine a future where 'dark ages' refers to those centuries before the internet, when it was possible of brad people to terrible things in secret.
I think the fact that few humans can't be trusted, spoils 'privacy' for the many that can be. When privacy is used as a tool to further nefarious goals I think you have to look at what benefits it provides. Perhaps privacy only provides benefits because transparency has to date been largely unachievable (on any sort of equal footing). Does privacy benefit all equally? Am I some crazy socialist? or whacko libertarian? who knows! :)
This is a good experiment, and another notch in the bedpost of 'openness'.
Confirmations aren't as important as may have been originally thought...
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com...
It at least brings it into the realms of tolerable/insurable. Double spend is really hard, probably not worth the effort unless its a big (high value) purchase.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but high value purchases are probably worth hanging around a bit longer for, and probably involve some kind of warranty which in turn depends on some kind of identification.
Probably works just fine for the majority of cases, at least right now...
Maybe I am in the minority but i find it *very* acceptable. Coincidentally the figures they are bandying about are very close to how my tariff works.
I use AAISP in the UK. I switched to them on the premise they delver 'unfiltered' internet. They also don't do that 'unlimited' internet crap. All in all they are what anyone here with half a brain *should* want from their ISP. (technically savvy too)
Their base no-extras package give you 100GB a month, You can also pay for 200GB or 300GB up front for a slightly reduced rate, if you go over you get auto billed for another 50GB at £10.
Sure its not the cheapest internet, and it means I have to use ADSL (around 60-80meg, with the occasional very short outage) vs cable (150meg with virtually zero downtime in the 13 years I was with them)
im not shilling and I don't want your sign up bonus. I just want to make sure everyone knows about them so they never go away!
I do, but its worth it.
It will never sell! They should have said just a few atoms thin
I'm not debating the right to bear arms. I'm suggesting that there are some people who, when challenged, do certain things that suggest they are a little bit off kilter in the ethics department.
I'm all about choice. I hate the fact that means, to be consistent, I have to side with the pro-gun people.
There are nut jobs on both sides, but the ones with guns are more dangerous.
Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!
If my bank *ever* says that to me, then just watch how fast I close that account...
Not to mention that stills are the holy grail of 'out of context' editing - whilst the pictures may be accurate, video would be much more compelling.
These guys are bad enough without over egging the pudding. These techniques are how those in power influence the weak minded public. We should not stoop so low as to become their bedfellows in this respect.
Given enough rope, those in power will hang themselves. They seem to be doing a grand job of it. I don't mean to trivialise the unfortunate side effects of this process, but I do think they are somewhat unavoidable. So begin outraged is a little like shouting at the wind. You just have to try and do what you can in your little corner of the world to make things better for you and those around you. However big your corner might be.
froty-second post!!!!42
if you microwave only shows minutes, then yes they would. I think most show seconds though?
When you put in 1 minute, the instant you press start it likely goes to 0:59, which is a property of the display.
If you could see ms you would see those counting down.
So you are still nuking your food for exactly a minute, just that the time remaining is always truncated.
Sure its a computer thing - computers just count 2 states, zero and one ;)
The gentoo way is that you should already know...
Of course, you should already know that ;)
"One does not simply export Facebook!"
This is absolutely the most accurate post in this thread.
It boils down to calories, if yoour body gets more calories than it needs and/or it gets calories faster than it needs then it has to do something with them.
It stores them for later. As fat.
"processed" food lets both these things happen.
"unprocessed" food mitigates this.
There's that whole thing about cooking food allowing us to evolve because it meant we could eat more, get more nutrients etc well this is just taking that one step further. Not only do we cook it, but we refine it so that its easy to get a several thousand calorie surplus every day, and still go back for more. The super obese are great case studies in this, and a testemant to the efficiency of the human body in dealing with whatever we throw at it!
When you disregard the entire thesis because you don't like one of the things the person said. Does that make your counter argument credible?
Seriously there is a massive body of scientific evidence that implicates refined sugars as being a significant factor in things like obesity and metabolic syndrome.
The body is complicated, and figuring out what is good for people is hard. Further complicated by the fact that it doesn't necessarily correspond with what is profitable.
Here is a another thing you might not like for its 'sensationalist' nature, but its worth considering: Sugar acts like a drug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction
It's an elaborate double bluff. Satoshi is the US govt/Fed/IMF or some similar consortium of 'money controller', who are quite aware that the current monetary system is out of control.
They have built bitcoin, they own a controlling amount (or are in the process of buying it... they have infinite money to do so). Over time they will engineer themselves into a position of owning a controlling amount of the network (having infinite money to devote to a data-centre or two of miners).
The endgame is that they are going to be processing most blocks and therefore collecting the bulk of transaction fees. The protocol allows the finder of a block to choose which transactions to include, meaning they can effectively block transactions that don't pay sufficient fees.
Then we are back in exactly the same situation as now, except there is no actual cash that people might transact off the books. The USD becomes the black market currency. The majority of the new BTC wealth in the hands of the few, and everyone else paying tax for the privilege of transferring money.
Carerful what you wish for :)
git --bare init
Trying to 'fix' the situation is unlikely to work.
A better strategy is accepting there will be failure, and building systems to cope.
A great example of this, quite fittingly, is the internet itself.
Accept that governments will work most of the time, understand they will fail some of the time. Keep your eyes open. Try and be cool. We are all in it together, despite the example set by some.
You should be in charge of the whole internet. You got it all figured out.
For anything else, I agreed breaking flow could be irritating.
If you are shutting down... well your flow is kind of over.
You at least have to land all your butterflies.