The value of Bitcoin can be manipulated without a big sell-off simply by making them impossible to sell.
How are you going to prevent me from sending my bitcoin to someone else in return for money or goods ?
If the price is tumbling quicly downwards, the problem will be finding anyone who will accept it as payment. Since fewer sellers would accept it as payment, the price of bitcoin in real money would fall even quicker.
It's backed by the people using it, just like any other currency. I've never seen anyone properly explain why that wouldn't be good enough for Bitcoin, but it is good enough for gold.
Other than Silk Road and similar, it hasn't really been used much. It is backed by people investing in it, because they hope that someone else will buy it from them for a larger sum of real money than they bought it for themselves.
If I could setup a room in my house to store valuables (maybe even the whole house itself) so that entry was absolutely, physically IMPOSSIBLE without me entering a password at the door, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care if cops can't get it if it also keeps out theives and other "neer do wells".
Unfortunately, physical security isn't capable of that, but digital security mostly is, and so I prefer to use the strongest encryption I can.
If it was completely impossible for anyone but you to enter it, you would probably not put many things there because you'd want others to be able to access it in case you are no longer able to (death, memory loss, etc). So the things thieves would steal would not go in there. Things the polices are interested in would go.
Now, for a physical room this is not a real problem. If something happens to you, eventually your family will get access to these physical items. Encrypted information will stay secure and private forever.
They are bacically combining two SKUs into one. Being that almost everyone who used outlook premium also used 365 personal it makes perfect sense to tie in.
In that case, it makes less sense as that would be leaving money on the table?
The article is probably confusing the terms "exporter" and "producer" (the US produce more oil, but consumes even more - Norway exports almost everything we produce), and "middle east" with OPEC. Norway used to be #2 there, not sure if it still is.
If Norway really wants to change the world, why doesn't it stop extracting oil/gas from the ground?
It's reasonable to assume that every barrel of oil that's extracted is burned somewhere. If this is a global problem, then banning the burning of oil within the borders of Norway will have very little effect if the same amount of oil still gets burned elsewhere.
I understand the economic incentive to extract and sell the oil, but isn't that a bit hypocritical while they're claiming to place such a high priority on reducing their carbon footprint?
There is no shortage of oil for the time being - the OPEC countries have plenty of spare capacity. Thus, the way to reduce pollution is to reduce the demand side.
I was talking in the context of energy consumption for heating buildings - the topic of the article - and here, oil usage has fallen.
Energy production in total is a completely different cup of tea - most of the energy produced is oil and gas, that is exported. This includes gas, as there are many large gas pipelines from Norway to UK and the continent.
What does the future of Norway electricity use look like? I assume that their demand for electricity is growing. I assume that after decades of using hydro power that they are running out of good places to put dams.
A quick Google search tells me that Noway is increasingly relying on natural gas and imports for electricity. Seems to me that they've pretty much maxed out their ability to grow hydro power. More efficient uses of their existing electricity supply can stretch that out some, which includes using heat pumps over resistance heating when practical.
If trends continue Norway is going to have to burn more natural gas (and natural gas derived electricity for heat is always going to be more expensive than burning it for heat directly), import more nuclear power from Sweden or...?
The electricity sector in Noway cannot simply ban competition from natural gas because people will vote with their wallets and overturn this ban. I don't see that happening with the possible exception of nuclear power providing an out. This could be Swedish nuclear power or Norwegian nuclear power, but it will be natural gas or nuclear power to fill that gap. Personally I'd like to see growth in nuclear power but I also have nothing against natural gas.
Actually, the forecast is an increasing surplus in of electricity in Norway, even after electrification of the transportation sector (goal: all new small cars should be zero emission by 2025).
There is no use of natural gas in power production in Norway today, with the exception of off shore oil platforms. There was one plant, but it closed down.
A couple of points - natural gas has not been growing as a heat source, it has always been irrelevant. Norway does not have an infrastructure for it. Oil has been dropping steadily for a long time. Electricity (cost: about 10 cents/kWh) is the main energy source, used directly or through a heat pump. There is also a large use of district heating, and some use of firewood. Usually not alone, but as a cosy supplement to the primary heat source.
The electricity sector is not lobbying for this, this is caused by Norway looking for ways to lower emissions in order to meet certain goals and this is a low hanging fruit which doesn't hurt much and has been gradually introduced.
It's not going to fail either, as the parties not in government are not against this - if anything, most of them are attacking the government for not doing enough overall to reduce emissions.
Add to that, the title mentions oil, the first paragraph mentions oil and natural gas as being banned. The quote just talks about Oil. So TFS seems to be written by a fool.
The article is probably confusing the terms "exporter" and "producer" (the US produce more oil, but consumes even more - Norway exports almost everything we produce), and "middle east" with OPEC. Norway used to be #2 there, not sure if it still is.
The ban is on oil furnaces. Gas is irrelevant here, it's not used for heating and cooking here - we mostly use electricity, generated from hydropower.
If cutting their emissions by < 1% will somehow disproportionately lower global temperature by a noticeable amount, then hooray! Otherwise why take away efficient heating from people in a freezing-cold country? Won't this likely increase the mortality rate among the sick, elderly, etc. come winter?
It's not efficient, and not widely used. The main heating is provided by electricity (directly, or used in heat pumps, but some is also provided by district heating and firewood.
Norway, which is the largest producer of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East...
Not even close.
But nice try in order make their "sacrifice" seem bigger than it is.
The article is probably confusing "producer" with "exporter" and "Middle East" with OPEC - being a small country with low domestic consumption, it would rank significantly higher in such a ranking.
The policy isn't new, and the use of oil for heating is low - the main heating is provided by electricity (directly, or used in heat pumps, but some is also provided by District Heating and firewood.
You could try transmitting the actual manuscript - compressed, with a partial dictionary known on the other side - and then have it decompressed by letting an AI "acting" it? The same way you could transmit sheet music instead of an actual performance?
Obviously, the actual performance will differ and there is no way he had technology to do anything like that...
I think it's the reverse, actually. Android has both a much larger userbase and supports Blink, Opera's native web engine. In contrast, iOS only supports Apple's version of WebKit. Why would Opera want their programmers working for a smaller userbase that would require more work to achieve less functionality?
That would mean the app requires a lot less work to maintain. In any case, the Opera value proposition is not related to the web engine but supporting features around it - data compression, ad blocking etc.
Finally, the GPL doesn't require you to give source to everyone. You only have to give it to people who ask for it.
You don't have to give it to anyone who ask for it either. Only if they got the binaries from you, and thus are a licensee. The main benefit of that is that if you provide a GPL program (usually by modifying something that is already GPL) to a customer customized for their needs and include the source code, no-one else can require you to give them the source code. Thus, the changes can remain confidential. The customer does have the source code and can modify as much as she wants, however - or have someone else do it.
One important part missing is healthcare. In most (all?) other developed nations, one of the things you get in return for your taxes is health care. In the US, that's extra.
Such precise language. You wouldn't be a member of a cult of some sort, would you?
Did you try the browser? The screen was small, the pages not tailored to mobile (unless you were using WAP). The browser was just showing a tiny bit of a very poorly rendered page at a time, you had to scroll sideways as well as up and down to read. Remember, the screen was small and had a resolution one quarter of VGA. No proper keyboard for input.
That said, the camera was good for the time and it had GPS. Not very common back then, and a major reason why I upgraded from my Sony Ericsson W810i. But while it was a little bit step up, the iPhone was a giant leap when I tried it. Phones back then weren't pretty comparable to the iPhone, like Android flagship phones and iPhones are today. They were a giant leap.
Opera did mobile browsing right, many years before the iPhone came out, and it was available on multiple platforms.
"The first version of Opera Mobile Classic was released in 2000 for the Psion Series 7 and NetBook, with a port to the Windows Mobile platform coming in 2004. One of Opera Mobile Classic's major features is the ability to dynamically reformat web pages to better fit the handheld's display using small screen rendering technology. Alternatively, the user may use page zooming for a closer or broader look." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I used Opera on my Nokia N95. While it was a bit better than the horrible default web browser, Mobile Safari on 3GS was an order of magnitude better. Pages rendered better, and using it didn't feel like torture.
On top of that, it was expensive, you could not share files over Bluetooth, it did not support 3G, it did not have an expandable storage slot and you needed iTunes for everything. But despite that, and to the horror of its rivals, everyone wanted one.
just goes to show the best product doesnt always win - same is true with the ipod, there were better options at the time. the term "cult of mac" became known for a reason
Actually, the iPhone showed that it was better to do some things well than to everything poorly - to have you features be a check on a long list.
I had an Nokia N95. On paper, this is a far more capable device than the iPhone. However, when I switched to an iPhone 3GS it was a massive improvement. Mail worked very well, the browser was usable, text entry was quick and by that time, the AppStore had launched. Far, far better than going around hunting individual apps and updates. They were a lot cheaper too. All of this was an order of magnitude better than the Nokia.
Slashdot Mirror
The value of Bitcoin can be manipulated without a big sell-off simply by making them impossible to sell.
How are you going to prevent me from sending my bitcoin to someone else in return for money or goods ?
If the price is tumbling quicly downwards, the problem will be finding anyone who will accept it as payment. Since fewer sellers would accept it as payment, the price of bitcoin in real money would fall even quicker.
A diversified portfolio can include cash, and having an investment in cash does not mean that's all the person invested in. *facepalm*
No sane investment portfolio contains actual cash. They might contain bonds, bank accounts, CODs and the like, but actual coins and bills - nah.
It's backed by the people using it, just like any other currency. I've never seen anyone properly explain why that wouldn't be good enough for Bitcoin, but it is good enough for gold.
Other than Silk Road and similar, it hasn't really been used much. It is backed by people investing in it, because they hope that someone else will buy it from them for a larger sum of real money than they bought it for themselves.
That's a weakness of the technology.
If I could setup a room in my house to store valuables (maybe even the whole house itself) so that entry was absolutely, physically IMPOSSIBLE without me entering a password at the door, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I don't care if cops can't get it if it also keeps out theives and other "neer do wells".
Unfortunately, physical security isn't capable of that, but digital security mostly is, and so I prefer to use the strongest encryption I can.
If it was completely impossible for anyone but you to enter it, you would probably not put many things there because you'd want others to be able to access it in case you are no longer able to (death, memory loss, etc). So the things thieves would steal would not go in there. Things the polices are interested in would go.
Now, for a physical room this is not a real problem. If something happens to you, eventually your family will get access to these physical items. Encrypted information will stay secure and private forever.
They are bacically combining two SKUs into one. Being that almost everyone who used outlook premium also used 365 personal it makes perfect sense to tie in.
In that case, it makes less sense as that would be leaving money on the table?
Ars Technica published a story on the fall of Commodore as part of their History of Amiga series.
Reading this was a nice trip down memory lane, my first computer was a Commodore 64 and the second one a Commodore Amiga 500.
The article is probably confusing the terms "exporter" and "producer" (the US produce more oil, but consumes even more - Norway exports almost everything we produce), and "middle east" with OPEC. Norway used to be #2 there, not sure if it still is.
If Norway really wants to change the world, why doesn't it stop extracting oil/gas from the ground?
It's reasonable to assume that every barrel of oil that's extracted is burned somewhere. If this is a global problem, then banning the burning of oil within the borders of Norway will have very little effect if the same amount of oil still gets burned elsewhere.
I understand the economic incentive to extract and sell the oil, but isn't that a bit hypocritical while they're claiming to place such a high priority on reducing their carbon footprint?
There is no shortage of oil for the time being - the OPEC countries have plenty of spare capacity. Thus, the way to reduce pollution is to reduce the demand side.
I was talking in the context of energy consumption for heating buildings - the topic of the article - and here, oil usage has fallen.
Energy production in total is a completely different cup of tea - most of the energy produced is oil and gas, that is exported. This includes gas, as there are many large gas pipelines from Norway to UK and the continent.
What does the future of Norway electricity use look like? I assume that their demand for electricity is growing. I assume that after decades of using hydro power that they are running out of good places to put dams.
A quick Google search tells me that Noway is increasingly relying on natural gas and imports for electricity. Seems to me that they've pretty much maxed out their ability to grow hydro power. More efficient uses of their existing electricity supply can stretch that out some, which includes using heat pumps over resistance heating when practical.
If trends continue Norway is going to have to burn more natural gas (and natural gas derived electricity for heat is always going to be more expensive than burning it for heat directly), import more nuclear power from Sweden or...?
The electricity sector in Noway cannot simply ban competition from natural gas because people will vote with their wallets and overturn this ban. I don't see that happening with the possible exception of nuclear power providing an out. This could be Swedish nuclear power or Norwegian nuclear power, but it will be natural gas or nuclear power to fill that gap. Personally I'd like to see growth in nuclear power but I also have nothing against natural gas.
Actually, the forecast is an increasing surplus in of electricity in Norway, even after electrification of the transportation sector (goal: all new small cars should be zero emission by 2025).
There is no use of natural gas in power production in Norway today, with the exception of off shore oil platforms. There was one plant, but it closed down.
A couple of points - natural gas has not been growing as a heat source, it has always been irrelevant. Norway does not have an infrastructure for it. Oil has been dropping steadily for a long time. Electricity (cost: about 10 cents/kWh) is the main energy source, used directly or through a heat pump. There is also a large use of district heating, and some use of firewood. Usually not alone, but as a cosy supplement to the primary heat source.
The electricity sector is not lobbying for this, this is caused by Norway looking for ways to lower emissions in order to meet certain goals and this is a low hanging fruit which doesn't hurt much and has been gradually introduced.
It's not going to fail either, as the parties not in government are not against this - if anything, most of them are attacking the government for not doing enough overall to reduce emissions.
Add to that, the title mentions oil, the first paragraph mentions oil and natural gas as being banned. The quote just talks about Oil. So TFS seems to be written by a fool.
The article is probably confusing the terms "exporter" and "producer" (the US produce more oil, but consumes even more - Norway exports almost everything we produce), and "middle east" with OPEC. Norway used to be #2 there, not sure if it still is.
The ban is on oil furnaces. Gas is irrelevant here, it's not used for heating and cooking here - we mostly use electricity, generated from hydropower.
If cutting their emissions by < 1% will somehow disproportionately lower global temperature by a noticeable amount, then hooray! Otherwise why take away efficient heating from people in a freezing-cold country? Won't this likely increase the mortality rate among the sick, elderly, etc. come winter?
It's not efficient, and not widely used. The main heating is provided by electricity (directly, or used in heat pumps, but some is also provided by district heating and firewood.
Norway, which is the largest producer of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East...
Not even close.
But nice try in order make their "sacrifice" seem bigger than it is.
The article is probably confusing "producer" with "exporter" and "Middle East" with OPEC - being a small country with low domestic consumption, it would rank significantly higher in such a ranking.
The policy isn't new, and the use of oil for heating is low - the main heating is provided by electricity (directly, or used in heat pumps, but some is also provided by District Heating and firewood.
You could try transmitting the actual manuscript - compressed, with a partial dictionary known on the other side - and then have it decompressed by letting an AI "acting" it? The same way you could transmit sheet music instead of an actual performance?
Obviously, the actual performance will differ and there is no way he had technology to do anything like that...
I think it's the reverse, actually. Android has both a much larger userbase and supports Blink, Opera's native web engine. In contrast, iOS only supports Apple's version of WebKit. Why would Opera want their programmers working for a smaller userbase that would require more work to achieve less functionality?
That would mean the app requires a lot less work to maintain. In any case, the Opera value proposition is not related to the web engine but supporting features around it - data compression, ad blocking etc.
Most people don't give a crap about use privacy.
Proof: just a small uprising (mostly online by the same people who complain) when net neutrality and privacy rules were obliterated
More proof:
All of which have a business idea of knowing as much as possible about you, so they can monetize you effectively.
Less of a shit has never been given about Ogg Vorbis.
Ogg Vorbis is probably the most used codec of them all, as it is used by Spotify.
Finally, the GPL doesn't require you to give source to everyone. You only have to give it to people who ask for it.
You don't have to give it to anyone who ask for it either. Only if they got the binaries from you, and thus are a licensee. The main benefit of that is that if you provide a GPL program (usually by modifying something that is already GPL) to a customer customized for their needs and include the source code, no-one else can require you to give them the source code. Thus, the changes can remain confidential. The customer does have the source code and can modify as much as she wants, however - or have someone else do it.
One important part missing is healthcare. In most (all?) other developed nations, one of the things you get in return for your taxes is health care. In the US, that's extra.
using it didn't feel like torture.
Such precise language. You wouldn't be a member of a cult of some sort, would you?
Did you try the browser? The screen was small, the pages not tailored to mobile (unless you were using WAP). The browser was just showing a tiny bit of a very poorly rendered page at a time, you had to scroll sideways as well as up and down to read. Remember, the screen was small and had a resolution one quarter of VGA. No proper keyboard for input.
That said, the camera was good for the time and it had GPS. Not very common back then, and a major reason why I upgraded from my Sony Ericsson W810i. But while it was a little bit step up, the iPhone was a giant leap when I tried it. Phones back then weren't pretty comparable to the iPhone, like Android flagship phones and iPhones are today. They were a giant leap.
Opera did mobile browsing right, many years before the iPhone came out, and it was available on multiple platforms.
"The first version of Opera Mobile Classic was released in 2000 for the Psion Series 7 and NetBook, with a port to the Windows Mobile platform coming in 2004. One of Opera Mobile Classic's major features is the ability to dynamically reformat web pages to better fit the handheld's display using small screen rendering technology. Alternatively, the user may use page zooming for a closer or broader look." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I used Opera on my Nokia N95. While it was a bit better than the horrible default web browser, Mobile Safari on 3GS was an order of magnitude better. Pages rendered better, and using it didn't feel like torture.
On top of that, it was expensive, you could not share files over Bluetooth, it did not support 3G, it did not have an expandable storage slot and you needed iTunes for everything. But despite that, and to the horror of its rivals, everyone wanted one.
just goes to show the best product doesnt always win - same is true with the ipod, there were better options at the time. the term "cult of mac" became known for a reason
Actually, the iPhone showed that it was better to do some things well than to everything poorly - to have you features be a check on a long list.
I had an Nokia N95. On paper, this is a far more capable device than the iPhone. However, when I switched to an iPhone 3GS it was a massive improvement. Mail worked very well, the browser was usable, text entry was quick and by that time, the AppStore had launched. Far, far better than going around hunting individual apps and updates. They were a lot cheaper too. All of this was an order of magnitude better than the Nokia.
The product wasn't transformative. The marketing was transformative and the timing was exceptional.
The business strategy, though, of making you pay for a product you don't own, was ingenious. Long live the walled garden.
Take a look at phone designs before and after the iPhone. When you can see a clear "before" and "after", it's a transformative product.
So, BBC, what do you think of your decision to fire Clarkson?
When he started being violent toward other employees, they really didn't have a choice.
And homeopathic "medicine" is still for sale.
It's pure water, sugar, etc - it doesn't actually do anything - so it's safe.