Does not look like it could get it here in Sweden, but they have been doing this on a few shows like "Game of Thrones" and "True Blood"... If i first sign up for a subscription to my cable-operator. 30EUR per month and then add a premium package on top for 23EUR..... If i don't want to sign a 18 month contract i would have to pay at least 300EUR for a PVR box too so i can watch the shows when i want.
So for ~53EUR + >300EUR i could get 2 series i regularly watch (Game of thrones and True Blood)..... Don't really see that it would be worth it even if Breaking Bad was added.
Netflix/HBO/Filmnet etc are not options either.. Issue there is that i would have to get all of them and then keep track of where each episode is "aired" and so on so it just makes it harder.. And i would still not get all the shows i want... They cost between ~7-10Eur per month or so and i do not want to pay for something that makes it harder to use, more expensive without any gain, and still is missing some things i want/need.
If someone could license *ALL* movies/series in a sane way so it could be made available globally. Profit can easily be shared via something like ((/)*)-... For movies i could accept that it would show up at the same time as it goes on DVD/Blueray... As long as it's within 2-3 months from when it started in the cinemas...
For that type of service i would have no problem paying up to 50-80EUR per month.... Say 5 series (40 minutes each) and 2 movies (90 minutes each) = 380 minutes = 0.1315789473EUR per minute = 5.2631578920 EUR per 40 minute episode or 10.6578947313EUR for a 90 minute movie (and 80% or so of this going to the maker of the movie/series).... Even cutting this down to a 20EUR/month would still give back quite a bit per minute of media, and since it's all streaming then if someone re-watches the same movie a year later they will get the same amount again...
If the provider wants to attract more classical tv-watchers they can have channels where content is shown according to a playlist and then have some live-shows (news etc) mixed in.
That and he was specifically worried about the possibility that we would attempt to fill the bathtub with charcoal and roast a pig in it. He specifically forbade that too, not that such a thing ever would have seemed like a good idea to me, apparently the possibility worried him.
There are crazy people for everything... Did you ever find out what pushed him to this level of paranoia?
Get in contact with a plants-store in one of the countries with an available supply and ask them to ship over night?
Just because you cannot purchase the things locally you can always order online... And if enough people start doing it some local shops might start importing it on a regular basis..
You can't say, "This is safe because it would be safe if things were mostly done right."
No, but i can say that if you have multiple trained people i could rely on them to handle the situation in the correct way.. Then of course you should design the system in such a way that you will never run into very strange situations (K.I.S.S method).. It should be similar to Do X, if fail press button to shutdown. And the shutdown should be designed in a way so it's impossible to fail, or at least only cause local (internal) damage.
The Chernobyl incident where many of people not having a clue. They did not have enough training to actually know the system and then disregarding the procedures to handle things that followed.
What i was referring to in my post where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor.. It can be designed to be "fail-proof" in the way that it would be self-contained and not affect the surroundings.
You can build a 100% safe plant... And with safe i'm talking about the surroundings.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor Worst case with these would be that the plant would be unusable and would have to be rebuilt, but the surroundings would still be safe from contamination.
No power is safe... Nuclear power has the lowest death-rate per generated amount of power......
Biggest problem with nuclear power is the public opinion about it that is causing issues and resulting in that no new, not even the safe ones, will get built so we continue using the old ones re-licencing them for 20 years more at a time.. I would like to see that we would scrap all the old ones that have 40 years in service and then build new safer and more efficient plats.
Main problem we have with nuclear power today is that when we developed the technology is was to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, not only to supply the population with cheap power.
If we where to actually do a redesign and start from scratch today we can come up with much better things, but things that have not been proven on the same commercial scale as the current ones.
Despite this postponement, preparations for the test not affecting the reactor's power were carried out, including the disabling of the emergency core cooling system or ECCS, a passive/active system of core cooling intended to provide water to the core in a loss-of-coolant accident. Given the other events that unfolded, the system would have been of limited use, but its disabling as a "routine" step of the test is an illustration of the inherent lack of attention to safety for this test.[29] In addition, had the reactor been shutdown for the day as planned, it is possible that more preparation would have been taken in advance of the test.
So (there are btw. two ACs responding to you here) if the interest exceeds inflation you are not losing money, so dollar savings value over your period can be said to be extremely stable. I don't see how this can be viewed as a huge problem, quite the opposite. Most economists agree btw. that a low steady inflation is good for economic growth, and that deflation can have a negative impact on economic development.
Agree, but it's not often you will get a 3% interest rate so inflation will still keep on eating it up the money.. Usual pure interest-rates are much lower, usually a bit lower than the current repo-rate. Btw, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate gives quite a good view of the current inflation-rates for most countries.
From wikipedia: Inflation's effects on an economy are various and can be simultaneously positive and negative. Negative effects of inflation include an increase in the opportunity cost of holding money, uncertainty over future inflation which may discourage investment and savings, and if inflation is rapid enough, shortages of goods as consumers begin hoarding out of concern that prices will increase in the future. Positive effects include ensuring that central banks can adjust real interest rates (to mitigate recessions),[5] and encouraging investment in non-monetary capital projects.
And here are a few of the positive and negative sides. But IMO the positive sides are not enough for the negative effects.
Instead of adjusting interest-rates you can adjust taxation to mitigate recessions. But just the idea that adjusting interest-rages to mitigate a recession is a bad idea for society as a whole since it points to a society that is infested with loans.. If people would start to save up money before buying random crap people would actually afford to buy even more random crap.. Buy something for $1000 at %5 percent and a 5 year plan will cause you to pay $150-200 in interest. (too lazy to calculate the exact amount). If you instead saved up to this, maybe having the money invested in something while saving, you would then have $150-$200 more to buy stuff with (not counting any payout from the investment). Ie.. Promoting lending money for consumption is not a good thing IMO.
Lending money for a house can be good, but today most people never plan to pay off the mortgage. This is also not a good idea since in the long-term there will be allot of money paid to the bank in interest instead of buying new things that would speed up the economy. Also if you save up and have a house your children can inherit something of value that they can either use to buy a new place or just stay in as is...
This is why i promote a currency without inflation. Deflation could maybe even be a good thing too by making people save up before buying, and while saving maybe have the money invested.
Not saying that any of my ideas are good/bad/insane, just good to have a discussion.. Maybe i/you/other readers can get new idea's and perhaps actually learn new stuff!:) .
So is your argument that there's no public safety use for radio, or that there's no way that RF interference could get in the way of public safety use of radio? So if I, say, decided to run my "pirate" radio station on the same frequency that the local fire department uses (because I know those guys will want to hear my station!), there's no possible problem with that? I put "pirate" in quotes, because without the FCC, of course, there is no pirate radio stations, anyone anywhere can run a radio station on any frequency.
Since the fire-department know about these rules they will not use a single-frequency radio but will probably move to some other type of modulation/frequency-hopping etc.. Try blanking out a radio transmitting at 100Mhz using frequency-hopping (+/-50Mhz) while also doing detection of used frequencies within this span. Imagine possible new radio-protocols that a SDR radio could support where it could be using multiple frequencies at the same time to allow clear transmissions in a very noisy enviroment..
The FCC sets exposure limits, among other things, and they type certify most devices to ensure that they are within legal limits for power and spectral purity among other things.
And this they could still do.. They can still have requirements on that your device does not go over the set limits for power and spectral purity. Having most of the frequency-band free for anyone to use does not say no to limiting the allowed transmit power or requiring a minimal signal purity.
We probably need some type of regulations, but having auctions for selling frequencies might not be the best thing... Would it not be nice if all cellphone-companies where forced to share all the bands? Would it not even be even better if all cellphone companies where forced to share the base-stations? And by forced i'm talking about forced by them selves since it would be cheaper for them.
One option is that the frequency-bands are divided up in slots of 10Mhz or similar.. Then let companies propose different standards for transmitting on the frequency and the 'best' standard will win.... And of course no licencing of patents should be required for any standard proposed and maybe standards removal from a frequency should be notified ~5 years in advance and a standard for a specific frequency would be assigned for periods of 5/10/20 years depending on collaboration between the companies. Ie, no major objections = 20 years, more than 10% wants changes to the standard = 5 years.
Of course some of the bands will probably be preassigned to specific services, like broadcast tv, emergency services etc.
Some possible benefits we might get since anyone is allowed to transmit on all non-emergency bands + a few broadcast frequencies. - Telco's could be forced to cooperate to share base-stations and frequencies in a much more efficient way. ( a standard could say "To transmit in this frequency you must join association X and agree to their rules." Association X should be run as a non-profit organization. the of course) - FM/AM Radio could be replaced by digital radio where you could have frequency sharing between the stations (ie no common transmit tower). or for being able to transmit longer distances a shared tower could be setup. (see the association clause above) - Handheld radio's would start being developed the same way as WiFi.
Some sort of regulation will probably be needed, but having it where more or less all bands are open for anyone to use would make for some interesting development to allow sharing the bands in hopefully the most efficient way.
This just in: Anonymous Coward unable to use division to get the average inflation-rate.
I was using the 35.6% number to make a point since most people nowadays don't look into the future that much.. Many think that 2.73% is nothing but they do not count the total over the years.. people saying that 3% interest on deposited money is good.. well, that's just 0.27%/year in real interest if looking at the last 13 years.
"Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising."
This just in: Bitcoin fanatics
and this just in too: Anonymous Coward seem to be unable to read...
According to that page between 2000 and 2013 the USD had an inflation of 35.6%.. That's not just a few percent inflation.
Also i wrote "Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising.".. But if you look at bitcoin.. The thing that happened there was that the bitcoin-price spiked, going from ~100USD to >200USD, but it took only about 2 weeks before it was back to about 100USD. Sure it's been going between 80 and 120USD during the last month, but this is due to current size of the currency. The larger it becomes the more stable against fluctuations it will become. Ie the 2/3'rds of it's value was when the price spiked... If taking it the other way we could say it gained 2/3'rds of it's value in a few days too...
But if we are talking about gain in value... In about one year it's gone from 15-20 USD to about 100USD.. That would be quite some nice profit if someone would have invested a year ago...
But until this, or any other, crypto-currency has a larger economy it will not be as stable as the major currencies out there... It probably needs 10-20 times current economy size as it has today before it will be stable enough for most people to trust it.
But if he was not insulted by the possibly insulting comment then he could say that he was insulted by the police by them arresting the original insulter?
Well, currently there is about ~1.4Billion USD in value in the bitcoin network.. Well, maybe quite a bit less but even having more than $100M should say something about the usage..
Bitcoin's are as much for illegal things as normal cash is, the only difference is that it's not government-controlled.. Some things that it would be perfect for:
- Micro-transactions for buying services on the internet. - Simple way to transfer money all over the world. - Generic way to buy things instead of VISA/Mastercard etc. No or very small transaction-fees. This also makes the retailers free of subscriptions to the banks for the card-terminals. - Check https://bitpay.com/ for one currently available service. But they require a transaction-fee, but also converts bitcoins back to your local currency at the time of the sale.
The thing is right now that it has not grown big that's why there have been quite of flux on the exchange, and liquidity is just also something that reflects on how big it is..... But saying that it's only or mostly for illegal things then you are completely wrong..
And i don't know myself if bitcoin is the way to go.. But the concept of it is very promising.
There already exists bitcoin escrow services.... Perfect way to protect against both bad sellers and buyers... Another benefit would be that it would cut out PayPal that are just screwing and locking down peoples accounts for no good reason and then keeping the money themselves.
About that the corrupt and criminally rich (how ever could someone be a criminal for having too much money btw?) would screw society over even more i would like to make you aware that bitcoin's are non-inflatable.. Ie no government can print more money and make your current savings disappear.. No government can go into your bank-account and take any money, like they did in Greece..
I think that having a non-controlled currency would be beneficial to society as a whole.... Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising.
And since someone is going to want the bitcoins in a usable currency, since you cannot really buy much with it currently, it can be traced to a broker that made a payout to a person.
To start with, not everyone are native English speakers, and when tired it can be hard to build sentences for some of us.... I can even sometimes surprise myself when reading it the day after..
This is clear evidence that you've never done it.
Have only been working for about 15 years in the field so i think i can say i do have some experience... Buy of course nobody could be better than you, and any one else that contradicts you must be wrong...
To design a system that is physically safe (factory robots and similar things) are quite easy to make safe... To start with it's both a combination of software and the physical setup.. If the thing is designed the correct way it can be extremely easy to write code making safe in the physical world... There are actually recommended ways you should follow when designing for physical security..
Designing software for safety and/or graceful-failures is not hard.. It's on about on the same level as the rest of the system. If you design things in the correct way to begin with you don't have to hack together a safety system into it but can, with ease, implement a monitoring solution.
Just for your information... Graceful failures is in use quite allot in the world... The simplest example of it is transactions in databases where you can do a rollback if something goes wrong...
You have no idea how much this quote entertains me.
And you seem to have a problem with understanding that sometimes people can have problems with their non-native language... The point i was making still got made, even if the sentence was screwed up... Main reasons why software is written in assembler. Resource issues / requirement for exact timing on limited hardware / some cpu's did not have any higher language available at the time this thing was built. If the problem was resources ie memory or available cpu-cycles, get a faster cpu and/or more memory. If the problem was timing issues on limited hardware then the hardware should be redesigned. Example would be slave cpu's that would take care of the timing-critical tasks and a main controller with some type of RTOS on it. If the problem was that the platform did not have any higher-level language available then the it should be switched out.
The largest problem with systems written in assembler is that they become extremely hard to do code-review's on and when adding new features it's very hard to spot problematic areas. I have spent many hours reading assembly of old implementations just to figure out what they do, and since no one had touched it for 5 years no local knowledge existed. Just getting a understanding of the code-flow can be hell, and many developers do not write nice code or the system was written under time-pressure and that resulted in badly written code.
And from looking at your comment-history it looks like all you can do is criticize other people without actually saying anything so my recommendation to you is to move out of your parents basement and get a life. (Just jumping to conclusions the same way as you seem to do in many of your posts..)
If you take 2 products that does the same thing. The product-lifetime is ~3 years and new firmware is required every 3 months for it to continue working. Product 1 have security features X,Y,Z and use obfuscation to make it extremely hard to actually do reverse-engineering on. Product 2 have security features X,Y,Z. (X,Y,Z is the same code implemented on both products)
What product do you think will be first to be attacked? If you make the reverse-engineering for the product hard enough so it will take at least 6 month's it will effectively make the product non-interesting for most attackers... Also adding things that make attacks non-scalable or requires soldering and other physical modifications of the product removes quite a bit of incentive too...
There is a big difference in security and security..... Consumer-products do usually require much less security and instead require mitigation of successful attacks, and if the attack is non-scalable to more than a few devices it is usually accepted as secure enough...
1. Remotely attack a car and disable the brakes. 2. While in the car in the car disable the brakes. 3. While in the car required to unscrew a panel to disable the brakes. 4. Before starting the car open the hood and connect a cable to the computer and then when driving disable the brakes..
Slashdot Mirror
Does not look like it could get it here in Sweden, but they have been doing this on a few shows like "Game of Thrones" and "True Blood"... If i first sign up for a subscription to my cable-operator. 30EUR per month and then add a premium package on top for 23EUR..... If i don't want to sign a 18 month contract i would have to pay at least 300EUR for a PVR box too so i can watch the shows when i want.
So for ~53EUR + >300EUR i could get 2 series i regularly watch (Game of thrones and True Blood)..... Don't really see that it would be worth it even if Breaking Bad was added.
Netflix/HBO/Filmnet etc are not options either.. Issue there is that i would have to get all of them and then keep track of where each episode is "aired" and so on so it just makes it harder.. And i would still not get all the shows i want... They cost between ~7-10Eur per month or so and i do not want to pay for something that makes it harder to use, more expensive without any gain, and still is missing some things i want/need.
If someone could license *ALL* movies/series in a sane way so it could be made available globally. Profit can easily be shared via something like ((/)*)-...
For movies i could accept that it would show up at the same time as it goes on DVD/Blueray... As long as it's within 2-3 months from when it started in the cinemas...
For that type of service i would have no problem paying up to 50-80EUR per month.... Say 5 series (40 minutes each) and 2 movies (90 minutes each) = 380 minutes = 0.1315789473EUR per minute = 5.2631578920 EUR per 40 minute episode or 10.6578947313EUR for a 90 minute movie (and 80% or so of this going to the maker of the movie/series).... Even cutting this down to a 20EUR/month would still give back quite a bit per minute of media, and since it's all streaming then if someone re-watches the same movie a year later they will get the same amount again...
If the provider wants to attract more classical tv-watchers they can have channels where content is shown according to a playlist and then have some live-shows (news etc) mixed in.
That and he was specifically worried about the possibility that we would attempt to fill the bathtub with charcoal and roast a pig in it. He specifically forbade that too, not that such a thing ever would have seemed like a good idea to me, apparently the possibility worried him.
There are crazy people for everything... Did you ever find out what pushed him to this level of paranoia?
Get in contact with a plants-store in one of the countries with an available supply and ask them to ship over night?
Just because you cannot purchase the things locally you can always order online... And if enough people start doing it some local shops might start importing it on a regular basis..
Or you will just have to wait for the summer...
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/
You can't say, "This is safe because it would be safe if things were mostly done right."
No, but i can say that if you have multiple trained people i could rely on them to handle the situation in the correct way.. Then of course you should design the system in such a way that you will never run into very strange situations (K.I.S.S method).. It should be similar to Do X, if fail press button to shutdown. And the shutdown should be designed in a way so it's impossible to fail, or at least only cause local (internal) damage.
The Chernobyl incident where many of people not having a clue. They did not have enough training to actually know the system and then disregarding the procedures to handle things that followed.
What i was referring to in my post where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor .. It can be designed to be "fail-proof" in the way that it would be self-contained and not affect the surroundings.
You can build a 100% safe plant... And with safe i'm talking about the surroundings....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
Worst case with these would be that the plant would be unusable and would have to be rebuilt, but the surroundings would still be safe from contamination.
And other types of power-plants can be quite problematic too:
Coal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
Hydro-power - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures (Banqiao Dam in china did cause quite a bit of havoc)
Natural gas (pipelines) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
Natural gas (power-plants) - Found a few accidents on google but no list of them all or any big one.
Wind-turbines - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html (about 1500 accidents in the UK)
No power is safe... Nuclear power has the lowest death-rate per generated amount of power......
Biggest problem with nuclear power is the public opinion about it that is causing issues and resulting in that no new, not even the safe ones, will get built so we continue using the old ones re-licencing them for 20 years more at a time.. I would like to see that we would scrap all the old ones that have 40 years in service and then build new safer and more efficient plats.
Main problem we have with nuclear power today is that when we developed the technology is was to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, not only to supply the population with cheap power.
If we where to actually do a redesign and start from scratch today we can come up with much better things, but things that have not been proven on the same commercial scale as the current ones.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
And never take Chernobyl as an example that nuclear power is unsafe... It was freaking huge incompetence that caused that accident... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident
Despite this postponement, preparations for the test not affecting the reactor's power were carried out, including the disabling of the emergency core cooling system or ECCS, a passive/active system of core cooling intended to provide water to the core in a loss-of-coolant accident. Given the other events that unfolded, the system would have been of limited use, but its disabling as a "routine" step of the test is an illustration of the inherent lack of attention to safety for this test.[29] In addition, had the reactor been shutdown for the day as planned, it is possible that more preparation would have been taken in advance of the test.
Heavy! ;)
By introducing some rich people to it was probably not to make them run the place but be "guests" in a few of the facilities. ;)
So (there are btw. two ACs responding to you here) if the interest exceeds inflation you are not losing money, so dollar savings value over your period can be said to be extremely stable. I don't see how this can be viewed as a huge problem, quite the opposite. Most economists agree btw. that a low steady inflation is good for economic growth, and that deflation can have a negative impact on economic development.
Agree, but it's not often you will get a 3% interest rate so inflation will still keep on eating it up the money.. Usual pure interest-rates are much lower, usually a bit lower than the current repo-rate. Btw, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate gives quite a good view of the current inflation-rates for most countries.
From wikipedia:
Inflation's effects on an economy are various and can be simultaneously positive and negative. Negative effects of inflation include an increase in the opportunity cost of holding money, uncertainty over future inflation which may discourage investment and savings, and if inflation is rapid enough, shortages of goods as consumers begin hoarding out of concern that prices will increase in the future. Positive effects include ensuring that central banks can adjust real interest rates (to mitigate recessions),[5] and encouraging investment in non-monetary capital projects.
And here are a few of the positive and negative sides. But IMO the positive sides are not enough for the negative effects.
Instead of adjusting interest-rates you can adjust taxation to mitigate recessions. But just the idea that adjusting interest-rages to mitigate a recession is a bad idea for society as a whole since it points to a society that is infested with loans..
If people would start to save up money before buying random crap people would actually afford to buy even more random crap..
Buy something for $1000 at %5 percent and a 5 year plan will cause you to pay $150-200 in interest. (too lazy to calculate the exact amount).
If you instead saved up to this, maybe having the money invested in something while saving, you would then have $150-$200 more to buy stuff with (not counting any payout from the investment).
Ie.. Promoting lending money for consumption is not a good thing IMO.
Lending money for a house can be good, but today most people never plan to pay off the mortgage. This is also not a good idea since in the long-term there will be allot of money paid to the bank in interest instead of buying new things that would speed up the economy.
Also if you save up and have a house your children can inherit something of value that they can either use to buy a new place or just stay in as is...
This is why i promote a currency without inflation. Deflation could maybe even be a good thing too by making people save up before buying, and while saving maybe have the money invested.
Not saying that any of my ideas are good/bad/insane, just good to have a discussion.. Maybe i/you/other readers can get new idea's and perhaps actually learn new stuff! :)
.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4037785&cid=44441781
Thanks for having at least one person here that gets it.. :)
So is your argument that there's no public safety use for radio, or that there's no way that RF interference could get in the way of public safety use of radio? So if I, say, decided to run my "pirate" radio station on the same frequency that the local fire department uses (because I know those guys will want to hear my station!), there's no possible problem with that? I put "pirate" in quotes, because without the FCC, of course, there is no pirate radio stations, anyone anywhere can run a radio station on any frequency.
Since the fire-department know about these rules they will not use a single-frequency radio but will probably move to some other type of modulation/frequency-hopping etc.. Try blanking out a radio transmitting at 100Mhz using frequency-hopping (+/-50Mhz) while also doing detection of used frequencies within this span.
Imagine possible new radio-protocols that a SDR radio could support where it could be using multiple frequencies at the same time to allow clear transmissions in a very noisy enviroment..
The FCC sets exposure limits, among other things, and they type certify most devices to ensure that they are within legal limits for power and spectral purity among other things.
And this they could still do.. They can still have requirements on that your device does not go over the set limits for power and spectral purity.
Having most of the frequency-band free for anyone to use does not say no to limiting the allowed transmit power or requiring a minimal signal purity.
We probably need some type of regulations, but having auctions for selling frequencies might not be the best thing... Would it not be nice if all cellphone-companies where forced to share all the bands? Would it not even be even better if all cellphone companies where forced to share the base-stations?
And by forced i'm talking about forced by them selves since it would be cheaper for them.
One option is that the frequency-bands are divided up in slots of 10Mhz or similar.. Then let companies propose different standards for transmitting on the frequency and the 'best' standard will win.... And of course no licencing of patents should be required for any standard proposed and maybe standards removal from a frequency should be notified ~5 years in advance and a standard for a specific frequency would be assigned for periods of 5/10/20 years depending on collaboration between the companies. Ie, no major objections = 20 years, more than 10% wants changes to the standard = 5 years.
Of course some of the bands will probably be preassigned to specific services, like broadcast tv, emergency services etc.
Some possible benefits we might get since anyone is allowed to transmit on all non-emergency bands + a few broadcast frequencies.
- Telco's could be forced to cooperate to share base-stations and frequencies in a much more efficient way. ( a standard could say "To transmit in this frequency you must join association X and agree to their rules." Association X should be run as a non-profit organization. the of course)
- FM/AM Radio could be replaced by digital radio where you could have frequency sharing between the stations (ie no common transmit tower). or for being able to transmit longer distances a shared tower could be setup. (see the association clause above)
- Handheld radio's would start being developed the same way as WiFi.
Some sort of regulation will probably be needed, but having it where more or less all bands are open for anyone to use would make for some interesting development to allow sharing the bands in hopefully the most efficient way.
Just random ideas but
Yes, i thought it would be higher than 26%...
This just in: Anonymous Coward unable to use division to get the average inflation-rate.
I was using the 35.6% number to make a point since most people nowadays don't look into the future that much.. Many think that 2.73% is nothing but they do not count the total over the years.. people saying that 3% interest on deposited money is good.. well, that's just 0.27%/year in real interest if looking at the last 13 years.
"Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising."
This just in: Bitcoin fanatics
and this just in too: Anonymous Coward seem to be unable to read...
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
According to that page between 2000 and 2013 the USD had an inflation of 35.6% .. That's not just a few percent inflation.
Also i wrote "Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising."..
But if you look at bitcoin.. The thing that happened there was that the bitcoin-price spiked, going from ~100USD to >200USD, but it took only about 2 weeks before it was back to about 100USD. Sure it's been going between 80 and 120USD during the last month, but this is due to current size of the currency. The larger it becomes the more stable against fluctuations it will become.
Ie the 2/3'rds of it's value was when the price spiked... If taking it the other way we could say it gained 2/3'rds of it's value in a few days too...
But if we are talking about gain in value... In about one year it's gone from 15-20 USD to about 100USD.. That would be quite some nice profit if someone would have invested a year ago...
But until this, or any other, crypto-currency has a larger economy it will not be as stable as the major currencies out there... It probably needs 10-20 times current economy size as it has today before it will be stable enough for most people to trust it.
Hmm.. did not the article say that they needed to treat the seeds before planting them??
But if he was not insulted by the possibly insulting comment then he could say that he was insulted by the police by them arresting the original insulter?
Well, currently there is about ~1.4Billion USD in value in the bitcoin network.. Well, maybe quite a bit less but even having more than $100M should say something about the usage..
Bitcoin's are as much for illegal things as normal cash is, the only difference is that it's not government-controlled..
Some things that it would be perfect for:
- Micro-transactions for buying services on the internet.
- Simple way to transfer money all over the world.
- Generic way to buy things instead of VISA/Mastercard etc. No or very small transaction-fees. This also makes the retailers free of subscriptions to the banks for the card-terminals.
- Check https://bitpay.com/ for one currently available service. But they require a transaction-fee, but also converts bitcoins back to your local currency at the time of the sale.
The thing is right now that it has not grown big that's why there have been quite of flux on the exchange, and liquidity is just also something that reflects on how big it is..... But saying that it's only or mostly for illegal things then you are completely wrong..
And i don't know myself if bitcoin is the way to go.. But the concept of it is very promising.
There already exists bitcoin escrow services.... Perfect way to protect against both bad sellers and buyers... Another benefit would be that it would cut out PayPal that are just screwing and locking down peoples accounts for no good reason and then keeping the money themselves.
About that the corrupt and criminally rich (how ever could someone be a criminal for having too much money btw?) would screw society over even more i would like to make you aware that bitcoin's are non-inflatable.. Ie no government can print more money and make your current savings disappear.. No government can go into your bank-account and take any money, like they did in Greece..
I think that having a non-controlled currency would be beneficial to society as a whole.... Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising.
Actually, bitcoin does not give you the anonymity that you think.. http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.se/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html
And since someone is going to want the bitcoins in a usable currency, since you cannot really buy much with it currently, it can be traced to a broker that made a payout to a person.
Well... They can probably never agree on anything so no new regulations will be introduced :)
To start with, not everyone are native English speakers, and when tired it can be hard to build sentences for some of us.... I can even sometimes surprise myself when reading it the day after..
This is clear evidence that you've never done it.
Have only been working for about 15 years in the field so i think i can say i do have some experience ... Buy of course nobody could be better than you, and any one else that contradicts you must be wrong...
To design a system that is physically safe (factory robots and similar things) are quite easy to make safe... To start with it's both a combination of software and the physical setup.. If the thing is designed the correct way it can be extremely easy to write code making safe in the physical world... There are actually recommended ways you should follow when designing for physical security..
Designing software for safety and/or graceful-failures is not hard.. It's on about on the same level as the rest of the system. If you design things in the correct way to begin with you don't have to hack together a safety system into it but can, with ease, implement a monitoring solution.
Just for your information... Graceful failures is in use quite allot in the world... The simplest example of it is transactions in databases where you can do a rollback if something goes wrong.. .
You have no idea how much this quote entertains me.
And you seem to have a problem with understanding that sometimes people can have problems with their non-native language... The point i was making still got made, even if the sentence was screwed up...
Main reasons why software is written in assembler. Resource issues / requirement for exact timing on limited hardware / some cpu's did not have any higher language available at the time this thing was built.
If the problem was resources ie memory or available cpu-cycles, get a faster cpu and/or more memory.
If the problem was timing issues on limited hardware then the hardware should be redesigned. Example would be slave cpu's that would take care of the timing-critical tasks and a main controller with some type of RTOS on it.
If the problem was that the platform did not have any higher-level language available then the it should be switched out.
The largest problem with systems written in assembler is that they become extremely hard to do code-review's on and when adding new features it's very hard to spot problematic areas. I have spent many hours reading assembly of old implementations just to figure out what they do, and since no one had touched it for 5 years no local knowledge existed. Just getting a understanding of the code-flow can be hell, and many developers do not write nice code or the system was written under time-pressure and that resulted in badly written code.
And from looking at your comment-history it looks like all you can do is criticize other people without actually saying anything so my recommendation to you is to move out of your parents basement and get a life. (Just jumping to conclusions the same way as you seem to do in many of your posts..)
It does work and does help out quite a bit...
If you take 2 products that does the same thing. The product-lifetime is ~3 years and new firmware is required every 3 months for it to continue working.
Product 1 have security features X,Y,Z and use obfuscation to make it extremely hard to actually do reverse-engineering on.
Product 2 have security features X,Y,Z.
(X,Y,Z is the same code implemented on both products)
What product do you think will be first to be attacked? If you make the reverse-engineering for the product hard enough so it will take at least 6 month's it will effectively make the product non-interesting for most attackers... Also adding things that make attacks non-scalable or requires soldering and other physical modifications of the product removes quite a bit of incentive too...
There is a big difference in security and security..... Consumer-products do usually require much less security and instead require mitigation of successful attacks, and if the attack is non-scalable to more than a few devices it is usually accepted as secure enough...
1. Remotely attack a car and disable the brakes.
2. While in the car in the car disable the brakes.
3. While in the car required to unscrew a panel to disable the brakes.
4. Before starting the car open the hood and connect a cable to the computer and then when driving disable the brakes..
The only really bad one here is probably nr 1...