Ice hockey is a bit weird as there are a significant number of "lefties" at the top levels. Youth coaches who know their stuff want the dominant hand on top of the stick which means the player has a left hand shot. It's so lopsided in the NHL that right hand shot defensemen are very in demand.
I'm very familiar with the mechanics of baseball, how pitching/hitting matchups work, and how youth systems develop players (or fail to do so), but why does it work this way in hockey? For a kid that plays baseball or golf or whatever, it seems natural initially to put the dominant hand lower on a hockey stick. Is it actually better to have the dominant hand on top? I never played a lot of hockey but I know I was much more comfortable with my right hand closer to the business end of the stick, as with a bat or club. I understand that the flow of play on the ice should be symmetrical, thus the need for both lefty and righty shots, just not why players learn one way or the other.
The answer is simple. Somebody is throwing a very fast thing at you. It looks very different when this comes from a lefty, since most of the time it comes from a righty. This is true for the batter, the catcher (I do both), and the umpire. Sure, you can say that it because the batter (etc.) has no time to react. But this is simply to repeat what I said above, but in a temporal fashion.
This is on slashdot why?
You may play competitive baseball, but your answer is only valid in little league (I'll be kind and admit that this might continue through high school), where most players both throw and hit righty. The statistics don't lie when they say that right-handed batters hit lefties better than they do righties, and vice versa. At professional levels, and at Division I colleges, lots of players hit from the left side, so lefties are there to get them out especially, not be some sort of novelty that's effective against righties.
Almost any experienced batter would rather hit against someone throwing from the opposite side so breaking balls break towards them rather than away. That's why so many managers go "by the book" with their pitching changes late in games - to get a same-side hurler on the mound to get one or two batters out, or to force a switch hitter to one side or the other. I was an average high school and travel hitter, but I raked against lefties. It was nice having pitches come towards me rather than run away. This phenomenon is why baseball over selects for lefty pitchers, and why otherwise right-handed hitters learn to switch hit. If arms and wrists worked differently and it were easy to throw screw balls and pitches that break the opposite of sliders and curveballs, we'd see fewer lefty pitchers at high levels, and fewer switch and left-side hitters. As it is, pitchers have a distinct advantage in same-side matchups, batters in opposite-side matchups.
I was wondering how long it would be until someone would bring politics into a discussion about right vs left handed. 12 minutes. Your amazing restraint is noted, jackoff-san.
Written just like a lefty. Get him boys.
If it had been written like a lefty in 1950 it would have been all smeared, because they can't resist dragging their less-evolved knuckles across fresh ink. Their inferiority is no less trivial to identify today though, even with hand writing having long since gone extinct. Wrong-handed people will soon go the way of Neanderthals and ink pens.
The superior species has no need for your stupid charity.
Right-handers are clearly an inferior species, unable to adapt to reality.
We can flush you into oblivion with either hand
Bah, right is RIGHT. There's a reason we run the world and you whine. You will be assimilated. Nay, you have been assimilated, and you just admitted that you've adjusted to our society's ways.
You are not welcome on my new breeding, er, dating site, Righties Only. We will correct these abhorrent genetic anomalies and only the fittest will survive.
...and everyone else should pay for them.
That way, www.leftyslefthanded.com will be able to hire new workers and create jobs that are filled both by left-handed and right-handed people!
No, they just need to use the correct hand. It's called the right hand for a reason. We'll never stand for your pinko commie redistribution of RIGHTfully attained right-handed wealth. Does trickle-down handedness work any better than trickle-down economics?
The same with left arm fast bowlers, like Wasim Akram in cricket. That man could bowl!.
I don't get it - how do the pins and lanes react differently to left-handed bowlers? As a former scratch 10-pin bowler myself, I know the lack of lefties means the oil patterns on the left side of the lanes change less throughout a session, but everything else should be symmetrical.
This is why left-handed pitchers are so valuable. Baseball players grow up mostly batting against right-handed pitchers, and the movement of a pitch from a left-handed pitchers is almost the mirror image of what they are used to.
Yes, very true - the phenomenon of left-handed pitchers being over represented in baseball is no mystery, and is in fact obvious to baseball fans. But the higher the level of play, the less effective lefties are against right-handed hitters - they are there to get left-handed hitters out, who are also more common there than at the youth level. Right-handed batters crush lefties once they see them enough.
The summary mentions Kershaw, who is arguably the best lefty in the game. However, it is arguable that righties Max Sherzer and Corey Kluber are at least equally dominant, if not even better. Aside from the lack of left-handed pitchers for young batters to face, there is another reason for there to be a premium on lefties, and that is something inherent in the game and how the human body works. Few pitchers can throw a curveball or slider as hard and that breaks as sharply, while disguising the delivery, as well as guys like Kluber and Kershaw, and no one can throw a pitch as well that breaks nearly as well the opposite way.
Lots of players learn to hit form both sides of the plate because it is advantageous to have a pitcher's pitches breaking toward you rather than away. An abundance of left-handed and switch-hitting players (any hitter can learn to hit form either side, if they start young enough, and being a step closer to 1B and batting mainly against righties are incentives to hit lefty) means left-handed pitchers are highly desirable. And while a young righty has to throw hard and show some aptitude from the start to become a pitcher, nearly every lefty at least gets a chance to try pitching. So while there are obviously fewer lefties getting into the game, the game selects for them, and not just because they are novel weapons against the majority (at the youth level) right-handed hitters.
Side not about misconceptions: I find it hilarious when TV announcers say asinine things about lefties, such as that they "throw across their bodies." Their motions from the stretch may be tailored to deceive runners on 1B, something not true of righties (who are more likely to focus on being quick, the difference being owed to the asymmetry inherent in baseball), but there is no other reason, biological or tactical, for their mechanics to be any different than righties, on average. I've heard this nonsense a thousand times and always without explanation, but if you take a mirror image of lefty's motion, he looks just like a righty. Switch-hitters will tell you this. I think this dumb misconception comes from watching too much baseball on TV, where the camera used for most pitches is always off to the left field side of center, thus showing a lefty's back and a righty's front side.
Mining is implicit in a Bitcoin transaction, by design.
I think mining is explicit, rather than implicit. Bitcoin will have to evolve from its current form, eventually. As the number of coins is finite, it is probably unrealistic for mining to occur in perpetuity as it becomes exponentially less efficient to mine; it is easily conceivable that new mining technologies and the impetus to mine will not keep up forever. Fortunately, we are dealing with software that can be changed and networks that can adapt. So any discussion of the future of bitcoin must take into account the fact the code currently in use is not set in stone and need not be used unaltered forever.
Just as we've already begun to see other uses of blockchain technology evolving, there is no reason that Bitcoin itself could not and will not evolve. The failure of Segwit2x is not a failure to evolve, it is something that will force a better solution to found. I'm not sure a continued reliance on mining to underpin the technology is sustainable, nor should we assume it is necessary.
Not really. Since bitcoins specifically ties mining activity to confirming transactions it's fair to link them.
If it is fair to link them then it is more than fair to ask that we at least get the most basic math, explanations, and conclusions right, which are points where this story (or title and summary, at the very least) fail miserably. If it is right to link them, then it is wrong to do so incorrectly and in the most inflammatory way possible.
It is ironic that in a era where most people are talking about:
* Energy efficiency
* Energy independence
* Emissions reduction
* Green power production
we are racing to consume [waste] tons of energy to produce "currency" which doesn't actually produce any goods or services. Imagine consuming megawatts of energy just to produce currency that could then be used to later buy things like, perhaps, more megawatts of energy. Seems insane.
Read above, and you'll see that this thread is massively misleading. The whole premise that "one bitcoin transaction uses more power than your house" is blatantly wrong. And this is not irony, as not everything we do is focused on environmental concerns. Bitcoin is not any more ironic that our lust for SUVs, 70" TVs, bottled water, or travelling for vacations full activities that could be conducted close to home, these are simply personal choices and desires of our current society. Besides, one could argue that a move toward decentralized forms of money that cut massively inefficient governments out of the loop would be a good thing, and bitcoin is just this in its infancy (less than a decade old, and only beginning to garner mainstream attention) and will lead to more efficiency in the future.
And it's expensive to decommission, as well. And they never actually stack up enough funds to do that, and the taxpayer always gets left holding the bill.
Well, this is a bit unfair to phrase this way. Yes, nuclear plants have certainly been expensive to decommission. But to be far, we've only truly built and decommissioned one generation of nuclear plants. Most of the safety concerns have been addressed through the decades, and everything we've learned could be applied to new plants, including accounting for future costs. No one knew what today's financial and regulatory landscape would look like when American nuke plants were built, though today we have experience with all of those concerns.
I won't deny that nuclear energy comes with a host of dangers and expensive practical and regulatory issues. In fact, we do need to regulate the hell out of nuclear power. But we have learned enough to operate nuke plants in a reasonably safe and clean fashion, with new plants potentially being more efficient over time than current solar or wind technologies. The cost of entry is high, and it absolutely should be, but I believe we should still be counting on nuclear power as a piece of the future energy puzzle. The goal should be moving away from fossil fuels (running!) as quickly as possible, and leaning a bit on nuclear while cleaner technologies scale up, and was we continue to develop cleaner technologies and fine tune our notions of what is acceptable environmental impact. If we start now, a new generation of nuclear power plants could be built which, in tandem with increased reliance on renewables, could end our reliance on fossil fuels as in as little as 10 years (at least in the USA and similarly-developed areas). Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the political will to move in that direction, or that quickly.
Almost every day, new scientific evidence is found that supports one side or the other. The debate is always evolving. This is very interesting!
You're operating under a false premise: the new scientific evidence is piling up much, much more one one side, that which supports man-made climate change. Evidence against it is far more rare, and much of that is of dubious or poor scientific quality and reliability. The vast majority of climate scientists agree, while those who do not are largely backed by political and fossil fuel interests.
Your statement is incredibly misleading and over simplified, if not just plain wrong, unless you clarify it by saying, "New evidence does support one side or the other, and almost all of it supports the same side." That is indeed how science works - not usually with one definitive finding to end all arguments, but a huge preponderance of evidence on one side that convinces most educated people, until consensus has been reached. In this case, that consensus has been reached, and deniers are simply that - people who will deny any legitimate evidence that does not agree with their tainted and ill-informed opinions.
The energy spent *MINING* a bitcoin is not at all close to the energy spent *TRANSACTING* a bitcoin. Why is this even a metric?
Thank you! Terrible bad title and terrible summary to go along with the bad math. This is so misleading that this junk should just be removed. It reads like government propaganda.
Props to the developers and other proponents of 2x. I was a casual supporter, but I give them a lot of credit now for walking away from their own project after being convinced that it was not in the best interests of the greater Bitcoin community. They had a good point and an arguably acceptable progression of the technology, but if widespread adoption could not be agreed upon, cancelling their fork was the right call. That takes humility, as sheer pride would have prevented a lot of people from changing their minds.
Traders sure seem optimistic about this, today at least! And Ethereum is finally beginning to follow suit after lagging quite a bit lately.
If I had sold all my mining equipment and BTC after the 13/14 winter, I would have had a small profit. I hung onto the BTC and if sold today it would pay for half the total cost of the 2800 square foot house. It got too hot and the profitability of mining at the end of the winter was low so I stopped. Kicking myself for not going longer.
Haha. I remember selling BTC for like $5, and we were in heaven when we sold for $20 and $100 a coin. I stopped mining when Radeon 5850's and 6950's were on the way out and people were switching to ASICs, and commercial mining was taking over. If I would have hung onto what I sold at those levels, I could pay off my house today, and buy a much nicer one with cash (or BTC). Damn you, hindsight... Who knew?
It looks like Satoshi may still have billions of dollars worth of BTC, but converting that much to fiat could be problematic, as well as have a huge effect on the market. Since the number of BTC in existence will always be limited, Satoshi holds a significant stake no matter what the price/$ is, unless he sells. As legitimate as bitcoin has become, he might be the beneficiary of the biggest pyramid scheme in history, even if semi-unintentionally.
What rig X 2 do you need to earn $430 mining bitcoin?
$430 over 50 years? If you want to make $430 a month mining BTC, it will be an expensive rig not based on GPUs. PC + graphics card mining of bitcoins is no longer worthwhile. You need specialized hardware, and it will likely take quite a while to pay for itself.
If you want mine your own crypto currency, you need a motherboard with 19 PCIe 1X slots to plug in 19 GPUs and a couple of 1200W PSUs. Running 19 GPUs is enough to burn down a shack.
Wait, do people still mine BTC with video cards!?!? Sounds expensive, and very 2012.
If you think this is a great deal, be aware that this mentions heating a 20 square cottage. That is equivalent to heating about 2/3 of my modest home's living room only. In American terms, that's like 215 square feet - not a lot.
And, of course, if you are considering jumping into the mining game now, you need to do some calculations to figure out when you might break even and maybe begin to profit on your investment. Bitcoin mining hardware is not cheap, it isn't usable for much else (other than heating), the difficulty of mining will continue to rise over time (read: the number of BTC you will mine will go down, and hardware becomes less effective), your electricity cost is a factor, and then there's the whole notion of cryptocurrencies possibly being a big bubble.
You should definitely think about harvesting the waste heat if you are a miner, but individuals may have missed the boat at this point.
I seriously doubt Google is just flagging files at random, which would make no sense. Clearly they are using some algorithm that is not working properly, which should lead one to believe that this problem can be fixed. The summary mentioning "It's not clear why this is happening," is evidence that the title not just incorrect but also alarmist and kind of whiny because this is personal.
Google is a convenient way to share and store documents, but if you use ANY one method of storage without any backup or contingency plan, that's on you when it fails.
My company (an international company with over 80k employees) has had IT positions open for 6 months on a perfectly liveable salary here,
Sure you do. What you really mean is you post fake jobs for 6 months. You don't fill the open positions, and you have no intention of ever filling the open positions. Your company never hires anyone. Why aren't you hiring?
That's a ridiculous thing to assert without having any real information, you anonymous coward. I know of another company there that has constant openings without pointlessly posting fake jobs. Why can't you understand that demand can be greater than supply? Sure, real estate and other costs are way up in places like Seattle, but so are wages, and not just in IT. I've looked there and seen some impressive openings but haven't found the right time and the right opportunity to pull the trigger on.
Slashdot Mirror
Ice hockey is a bit weird as there are a significant number of "lefties" at the top levels. Youth coaches who know their stuff want the dominant hand on top of the stick which means the player has a left hand shot. It's so lopsided in the NHL that right hand shot defensemen are very in demand.
I'm very familiar with the mechanics of baseball, how pitching/hitting matchups work, and how youth systems develop players (or fail to do so), but why does it work this way in hockey? For a kid that plays baseball or golf or whatever, it seems natural initially to put the dominant hand lower on a hockey stick. Is it actually better to have the dominant hand on top? I never played a lot of hockey but I know I was much more comfortable with my right hand closer to the business end of the stick, as with a bat or club. I understand that the flow of play on the ice should be symmetrical, thus the need for both lefty and righty shots, just not why players learn one way or the other.
The answer is simple. Somebody is throwing a very fast thing at you. It looks very different when this comes from a lefty, since most of the time it comes from a righty. This is true for the batter, the catcher (I do both), and the umpire. Sure, you can say that it because the batter (etc.) has no time to react. But this is simply to repeat what I said above, but in a temporal fashion.
This is on slashdot why?
You may play competitive baseball, but your answer is only valid in little league (I'll be kind and admit that this might continue through high school), where most players both throw and hit righty. The statistics don't lie when they say that right-handed batters hit lefties better than they do righties, and vice versa. At professional levels, and at Division I colleges, lots of players hit from the left side, so lefties are there to get them out especially, not be some sort of novelty that's effective against righties.
Almost any experienced batter would rather hit against someone throwing from the opposite side so breaking balls break towards them rather than away. That's why so many managers go "by the book" with their pitching changes late in games - to get a same-side hurler on the mound to get one or two batters out, or to force a switch hitter to one side or the other. I was an average high school and travel hitter, but I raked against lefties. It was nice having pitches come towards me rather than run away. This phenomenon is why baseball over selects for lefty pitchers, and why otherwise right-handed hitters learn to switch hit. If arms and wrists worked differently and it were easy to throw screw balls and pitches that break the opposite of sliders and curveballs, we'd see fewer lefty pitchers at high levels, and fewer switch and left-side hitters. As it is, pitchers have a distinct advantage in same-side matchups, batters in opposite-side matchups.
I was wondering how long it would be until someone would bring politics into a discussion about right vs left handed. 12 minutes. Your amazing restraint is noted, jackoff-san.
Written just like a lefty. Get him boys.
If it had been written like a lefty in 1950 it would have been all smeared, because they can't resist dragging their less-evolved knuckles across fresh ink. Their inferiority is no less trivial to identify today though, even with hand writing having long since gone extinct. Wrong-handed people will soon go the way of Neanderthals and ink pens.
Got him for ya!
Has anyone done a study on how well left handed people play chess?
No study needed, we already know they're genetically and intellectually handicapped.
The superior species has no need for your stupid charity.
Right-handers are clearly an inferior species, unable to adapt to reality.
We can flush you into oblivion with either hand
Bah, right is RIGHT. There's a reason we run the world and you whine. You will be assimilated. Nay, you have been assimilated, and you just admitted that you've adjusted to our society's ways.
You are not welcome on my new breeding, er, dating site, Righties Only. We will correct these abhorrent genetic anomalies and only the fittest will survive.
...and everyone else should pay for them. That way, www.leftyslefthanded.com will be able to hire new workers and create jobs that are filled both by left-handed and right-handed people!
No, they just need to use the correct hand. It's called the right hand for a reason. We'll never stand for your pinko commie redistribution of RIGHTfully attained right-handed wealth. Does trickle-down handedness work any better than trickle-down economics?
The same with left arm fast bowlers, like Wasim Akram in cricket. That man could bowl!.
I don't get it - how do the pins and lanes react differently to left-handed bowlers? As a former scratch 10-pin bowler myself, I know the lack of lefties means the oil patterns on the left side of the lanes change less throughout a session, but everything else should be symmetrical.
This is why left-handed pitchers are so valuable. Baseball players grow up mostly batting against right-handed pitchers, and the movement of a pitch from a left-handed pitchers is almost the mirror image of what they are used to.
Yes, very true - the phenomenon of left-handed pitchers being over represented in baseball is no mystery, and is in fact obvious to baseball fans. But the higher the level of play, the less effective lefties are against right-handed hitters - they are there to get left-handed hitters out, who are also more common there than at the youth level. Right-handed batters crush lefties once they see them enough.
The summary mentions Kershaw, who is arguably the best lefty in the game. However, it is arguable that righties Max Sherzer and Corey Kluber are at least equally dominant, if not even better. Aside from the lack of left-handed pitchers for young batters to face, there is another reason for there to be a premium on lefties, and that is something inherent in the game and how the human body works. Few pitchers can throw a curveball or slider as hard and that breaks as sharply, while disguising the delivery, as well as guys like Kluber and Kershaw, and no one can throw a pitch as well that breaks nearly as well the opposite way.
Lots of players learn to hit form both sides of the plate because it is advantageous to have a pitcher's pitches breaking toward you rather than away. An abundance of left-handed and switch-hitting players (any hitter can learn to hit form either side, if they start young enough, and being a step closer to 1B and batting mainly against righties are incentives to hit lefty) means left-handed pitchers are highly desirable. And while a young righty has to throw hard and show some aptitude from the start to become a pitcher, nearly every lefty at least gets a chance to try pitching. So while there are obviously fewer lefties getting into the game, the game selects for them, and not just because they are novel weapons against the majority (at the youth level) right-handed hitters.
Side not about misconceptions: I find it hilarious when TV announcers say asinine things about lefties, such as that they "throw across their bodies." Their motions from the stretch may be tailored to deceive runners on 1B, something not true of righties (who are more likely to focus on being quick, the difference being owed to the asymmetry inherent in baseball), but there is no other reason, biological or tactical, for their mechanics to be any different than righties, on average. I've heard this nonsense a thousand times and always without explanation, but if you take a mirror image of lefty's motion, he looks just like a righty. Switch-hitters will tell you this. I think this dumb misconception comes from watching too much baseball on TV, where the camera used for most pitches is always off to the left field side of center, thus showing a lefty's back and a righty's front side.
Mining is implicit in a Bitcoin transaction, by design.
I think mining is explicit, rather than implicit. Bitcoin will have to evolve from its current form, eventually. As the number of coins is finite, it is probably unrealistic for mining to occur in perpetuity as it becomes exponentially less efficient to mine; it is easily conceivable that new mining technologies and the impetus to mine will not keep up forever. Fortunately, we are dealing with software that can be changed and networks that can adapt. So any discussion of the future of bitcoin must take into account the fact the code currently in use is not set in stone and need not be used unaltered forever.
Just as we've already begun to see other uses of blockchain technology evolving, there is no reason that Bitcoin itself could not and will not evolve. The failure of Segwit2x is not a failure to evolve, it is something that will force a better solution to found. I'm not sure a continued reliance on mining to underpin the technology is sustainable, nor should we assume it is necessary.
Not really. Since bitcoins specifically ties mining activity to confirming transactions it's fair to link them.
If it is fair to link them then it is more than fair to ask that we at least get the most basic math, explanations, and conclusions right, which are points where this story (or title and summary, at the very least) fail miserably. If it is right to link them, then it is wrong to do so incorrectly and in the most inflammatory way possible.
It is ironic that in a era where most people are talking about:
* Energy efficiency * Energy independence * Emissions reduction * Green power production
we are racing to consume [waste] tons of energy to produce "currency" which doesn't actually produce any goods or services. Imagine consuming megawatts of energy just to produce currency that could then be used to later buy things like, perhaps, more megawatts of energy. Seems insane.
Read above, and you'll see that this thread is massively misleading. The whole premise that "one bitcoin transaction uses more power than your house" is blatantly wrong. And this is not irony, as not everything we do is focused on environmental concerns. Bitcoin is not any more ironic that our lust for SUVs, 70" TVs, bottled water, or travelling for vacations full activities that could be conducted close to home, these are simply personal choices and desires of our current society. Besides, one could argue that a move toward decentralized forms of money that cut massively inefficient governments out of the loop would be a good thing, and bitcoin is just this in its infancy (less than a decade old, and only beginning to garner mainstream attention) and will lead to more efficiency in the future.
Nuclear is expensive to build initially,
And it's expensive to decommission, as well. And they never actually stack up enough funds to do that, and the taxpayer always gets left holding the bill.
Well, this is a bit unfair to phrase this way. Yes, nuclear plants have certainly been expensive to decommission. But to be far, we've only truly built and decommissioned one generation of nuclear plants. Most of the safety concerns have been addressed through the decades, and everything we've learned could be applied to new plants, including accounting for future costs. No one knew what today's financial and regulatory landscape would look like when American nuke plants were built, though today we have experience with all of those concerns.
I won't deny that nuclear energy comes with a host of dangers and expensive practical and regulatory issues. In fact, we do need to regulate the hell out of nuclear power. But we have learned enough to operate nuke plants in a reasonably safe and clean fashion, with new plants potentially being more efficient over time than current solar or wind technologies. The cost of entry is high, and it absolutely should be, but I believe we should still be counting on nuclear power as a piece of the future energy puzzle. The goal should be moving away from fossil fuels (running!) as quickly as possible, and leaning a bit on nuclear while cleaner technologies scale up, and was we continue to develop cleaner technologies and fine tune our notions of what is acceptable environmental impact. If we start now, a new generation of nuclear power plants could be built which, in tandem with increased reliance on renewables, could end our reliance on fossil fuels as in as little as 10 years (at least in the USA and similarly-developed areas). Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the political will to move in that direction, or that quickly.
Almost every day, new scientific evidence is found that supports one side or the other. The debate is always evolving. This is very interesting!
You're operating under a false premise: the new scientific evidence is piling up much, much more one one side, that which supports man-made climate change. Evidence against it is far more rare, and much of that is of dubious or poor scientific quality and reliability. The vast majority of climate scientists agree, while those who do not are largely backed by political and fossil fuel interests.
Your statement is incredibly misleading and over simplified, if not just plain wrong, unless you clarify it by saying, "New evidence does support one side or the other, and almost all of it supports the same side." That is indeed how science works - not usually with one definitive finding to end all arguments, but a huge preponderance of evidence on one side that convinces most educated people, until consensus has been reached. In this case, that consensus has been reached, and deniers are simply that - people who will deny any legitimate evidence that does not agree with their tainted and ill-informed opinions.
The energy spent *MINING* a bitcoin is not at all close to the energy spent *TRANSACTING* a bitcoin. Why is this even a metric?
Thank you! Terrible bad title and terrible summary to go along with the bad math. This is so misleading that this junk should just be removed. It reads like government propaganda.
Props to the developers and other proponents of 2x. I was a casual supporter, but I give them a lot of credit now for walking away from their own project after being convinced that it was not in the best interests of the greater Bitcoin community. They had a good point and an arguably acceptable progression of the technology, but if widespread adoption could not be agreed upon, cancelling their fork was the right call. That takes humility, as sheer pride would have prevented a lot of people from changing their minds.
Traders sure seem optimistic about this, today at least! And Ethereum is finally beginning to follow suit after lagging quite a bit lately.
If I had sold all my mining equipment and BTC after the 13/14 winter, I would have had a small profit. I hung onto the BTC and if sold today it would pay for half the total cost of the 2800 square foot house. It got too hot and the profitability of mining at the end of the winter was low so I stopped. Kicking myself for not going longer.
Haha. I remember selling BTC for like $5, and we were in heaven when we sold for $20 and $100 a coin. I stopped mining when Radeon 5850's and 6950's were on the way out and people were switching to ASICs, and commercial mining was taking over. If I would have hung onto what I sold at those levels, I could pay off my house today, and buy a much nicer one with cash (or BTC). Damn you, hindsight... Who knew?
It looks like Satoshi may still have billions of dollars worth of BTC, but converting that much to fiat could be problematic, as well as have a huge effect on the market. Since the number of BTC in existence will always be limited, Satoshi holds a significant stake no matter what the price/$ is, unless he sells. As legitimate as bitcoin has become, he might be the beneficiary of the biggest pyramid scheme in history, even if semi-unintentionally.
What rig X 2 do you need to earn $430 mining bitcoin?
$430 over 50 years? If you want to make $430 a month mining BTC, it will be an expensive rig not based on GPUs. PC + graphics card mining of bitcoins is no longer worthwhile. You need specialized hardware, and it will likely take quite a while to pay for itself.
Siberian miners mining to keep warm while not mining.
You can mine as a minor, even if you can't be a miner.
If you want mine your own crypto currency, you need a motherboard with 19 PCIe 1X slots to plug in 19 GPUs and a couple of 1200W PSUs. Running 19 GPUs is enough to burn down a shack.
Wait, do people still mine BTC with video cards!?!? Sounds expensive, and very 2012.
If you think this is a great deal, be aware that this mentions heating a 20 square cottage. That is equivalent to heating about 2/3 of my modest home's living room only. In American terms, that's like 215 square feet - not a lot.
And, of course, if you are considering jumping into the mining game now, you need to do some calculations to figure out when you might break even and maybe begin to profit on your investment. Bitcoin mining hardware is not cheap, it isn't usable for much else (other than heating), the difficulty of mining will continue to rise over time (read: the number of BTC you will mine will go down, and hardware becomes less effective), your electricity cost is a factor, and then there's the whole notion of cryptocurrencies possibly being a big bubble.
You should definitely think about harvesting the waste heat if you are a miner, but individuals may have missed the boat at this point.
Whats the deal with "man-holes"?
Why couldn't the ghost have kids?
Because he had a hollow weenie.
Which person are you talking about?
Most of them (the people he hired). Hell, even he doesn't like or trust half of them, which is why he's fired and trash-talked so many of them.
Apple haters gonna hate to admit this, but Apple's iCloud Drive does not read your docs.
And I'm sure Apple never loses or deletes people's documents. Right...
I'm guessing you have owned more than one Apple product.
I seriously doubt Google is just flagging files at random, which would make no sense. Clearly they are using some algorithm that is not working properly, which should lead one to believe that this problem can be fixed. The summary mentioning "It's not clear why this is happening," is evidence that the title not just incorrect but also alarmist and kind of whiny because this is personal.
Google is a convenient way to share and store documents, but if you use ANY one method of storage without any backup or contingency plan, that's on you when it fails.
My company (an international company with over 80k employees) has had IT positions open for 6 months on a perfectly liveable salary here,
Sure you do. What you really mean is you post fake jobs for 6 months. You don't fill the open positions, and you have no intention of ever filling the open positions. Your company never hires anyone. Why aren't you hiring?
That's a ridiculous thing to assert without having any real information, you anonymous coward. I know of another company there that has constant openings without pointlessly posting fake jobs. Why can't you understand that demand can be greater than supply? Sure, real estate and other costs are way up in places like Seattle, but so are wages, and not just in IT. I've looked there and seen some impressive openings but haven't found the right time and the right opportunity to pull the trigger on.