Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Insightful) 169

And yet, people are able to go to credit card companies and banks, dispute the fraudulent transactions, and get the money back. Because our commerce systems have evolved to cope with the reality of fraud and, consequentially, the necessity of insuring deposits through mechanisms like FDIC.

Like it or not, the Mt.Gox fiasco demonstrates that Bitcoin is not yet ready to serve as a desirable system of currency for the masses. For all the talk about the transparency of the blockchain, no one has been able to restore those stolen coins to the hands of their rightful owners.

Maybe someday people will be able to say, "thank God I used cryptocurrency for those transactions!". But that day is not today.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Insightful) 169

As I understand it, the Mt.Gox fiasco was due in part to a hacker's ability to exploit transaction malleability in Bitcoin. Yes, Gox should have updated their software, but the Bitcoin protocol had a known weakness in it, and we've seen the result. But let's leave that aside for a minute:

The real problem is that people have been able to exploit the Bitcoin ecosystem, which does not yet have the resilience to deal with the way human beings expect to be able to work with money.

If you want to create a currency for everyone, then that currency has to be simple and secure even for new adopters. Part of creating a good system (of any sort) is shielding users from serious consequences. If someone in another state charges $3000 to my credit card to buy pharmaceuticals, I'll get a call. If a legitimate vendor charges my card but fails to deliver the promised goods, Visa or MasterCard will give me my money back after one phone call and a followup letter. If my bank is robbed, my deposits are FDIC insured.

Bitcoin enthusiasts are describing exchanges as being "just like banks", and then blaming the users for treating them like banks and keeping their coins there. Instead of castigating folks for not solely printing their wallets out on computers that have been rebooted while disconnected from the Internet for that express purpose, maybe the Bitcoin community could take a step back and find a way to make the entire ecosystem more human-proof.

Comment Re:Here we go again. (Score 1) 48

+1 Insightful. It also doesn't matter who can look at the blockchain to see that X has stolen Y's coins if no one can force a reversal of that transaction.

In American terms, regulation rests on three pillars: Legislative, to define the laws; Judicial, to determine when those laws have been violated; and Executive, to enforce the laws and to redress violations by taking corrective or punative action. Without those pillars you don't really have free-market capitalism: you have anarchy.

Comment Hypothetical scenario (Score 1) 334

Most people here seem to be arguing about the effects of a cure for aging as though it would be cheap and readily available to anyone. Experience has shown that that's not always the case. Certain substances are hard to synthesize and certain operations are very difficult to perform without killing the patient.

So, hypothetical scenario: the treatment is so incredibly difficult and expensive that you can extend your life and "freeze" the aging process, but only at the cost (in 2014 US dollars) of $1,000,000 per year or more.

Now, question: who starts living forever, and what are the economic effects? And will efforts be made by that population to actually keep the costs high and the treatment relatively inaccessible to those outside it?

Comment Re:Enlightened? Seriously? (Score 2) 250

I don't understand your point. Is it that I'm being intolerant of his intolerance of the poor, which makes me intolerant, so I'm just as bad as he is? Or am I just not being suitably deferential to the magnificent apotheosis of technology and culture that is the City of Saint Francis? Next time, don't post AC, and we can discuss.

Either way, my post was not about the city itself; it was responding to the self-congratulatory hyperbole in the original summary, and judging by the other responses to it I don't think I'm alone. I've spent enough time in SF -- including the parts of the city where people actually live, including friends and relatives of mine -- to find the tone absurd to the point that I wondered if we were being trolled by the author. I mean, my God, look at that first sentence:

"Despite legitimate concerns over sky-high rents, Ellis Act evictions, Google Bus traffic, and the like, the San Francisco Bay Area is perhaps the most prosperous, comfortable, enlightened, stimulating, and generative place to live in Western history."

Look, there isn't a city in the civilized world where people don't live in the alleys and piss in the streets, and San Francisco is no exception. Likewise, the Bay Area is not the only place to have contributed to the technology boom. Tim-Berners Lee created the web in Switzerland, and Marc Andreessen was at NCSA in Illinois when he wrote the first web browser. The best and the brightest aren't all born in SF, and they don't all come to settle there either.

So let's not gloss over those "legitimate concerns" about SF so quickly, or be so quick to raise SF on a Vingeian pedestal as the planned future site of the techno-Rapture. I've seen the city before and after the tech boom, and I liked it better before. It was more affordable, more laid-back, more quirky and artistic, less full of traffic and self-importance. Maybe it wasn't the Utopian Neo-Florence of the author's fevered imagination, where giants like Zuckerberg and Celebrated-Startup-Child-of-the-Month stride among us mere mortals and generously allow the poor to eat from their garbage cans, but it was a good old town that looked fondly upon its past and its present, warts and all.

Comment Enlightened? Seriously? (Score 4, Insightful) 250

You mean "enlightened" like this coder-king?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/ha...

And prosperous? Well, I guess if you don't count the homeless human "trash" or the "degenerates" he and his enlightened friends complain about. Oh, those pesky poor people... if it weren't for them, SF would be even more of a "comfortable, enlightened, stimulating" city. Why must he and our other coder-kings be forced to look at them? It is thoroughly uncomfortable, I tell you! It completely ruins his stimulating experience of driving a BMW to Fisherman's Wharf for an enlightened lunch!

Can something be done to help this poor Medici-esque man-mogul? I hope he or one of his fellow coder-kings is even now "working to reinvent economic structures", as you say. I'm certain there is a Bitcoin solution to all this. After all, if we dispense with dollar bills entirely, the computer-less poor won't have any way to beg for cryptocurrency and they'll have to return to wherever they came from.

But there I go, being "unthinking and ungrateful", as usual...

Comment Alfalfa is also used to help grow corn (Score 2) 545

Alfalfa is also rotated with corn to replenish the nitrogen in the soil. I believe that if you just grow corn on the same plot year after year without crop rotation, the soil becomes "tired" and your corn quality suffers. I suppose that alfalfa is mostly going to cattle, and we could rotate the corn with soybeans instead, but there's more to growing alfalfa than just feeding cows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

http://hayandforage.com/mag/ro...

Comment Whatever happened to protecting your sources? (Score 1) 276

Ok, suppose the media tracks the real Satoshi down, and wants to interview him. It doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that his wealth is stored in a way that could be irrevocably taken from him by two goons and a five dollar wrench. Why not ask if he'll agree to a taped interview in a secure location with his face blurred and voice distorted -- the same as we have always done for individuals whose lives are in jeopardy?

By the way, I'm not up on what can/can't be done with the blockchain, but is there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence by spending a fraction of one of the earliest-mined bitcoins in a predetermined way to prove it? E.g., "we've asked this guy to transfer $1 worth of Bitcoins from this address at the very start of the blockchain to an address we've created especially for the purposes of identification."

Comment Re:Yeah, but women want it all (Score 1) 427

I think they would definitely self-label as both feminist and egalitarian. In one case, both the husband and wife work and have kids, and for a while I think he was the primary caregiver because of the differing demands of their jobs. In another case (no kids) the woman and her male partner share household tasks equally but tend to fall in gendered roles out of habit (she does more cooking, he does more home repair, but they both do things like painting and cleaning).

Do they support affirmative action? I honestly don't know... it never comes up in conversation. I think many of them support allocating identical funds for male and female athletics in K-12 and colleges/universities. I've never heard any of them say anything like women should be paid more than men or given preferential treatment in business. Certainly nothing about quotas.

I agree that egalitarianism will compromise meritocracy, but in America we don't have a pure meritocracy anyway. If you're born into money, or if your family name is Kardashian or Bush or Kennedy, you're on third base already. If your family is affluent, white, and lives in the LA suburbs, you're going to have an easier time reaching your goals than if your family is poor, Latino, and lives in North Philadelphia -- no matter how hard you try. Now, we all know that life isn't fair, and we can never hope to make life completely fair. But economic disparities and lingering racial and ethnic and sexual prejudices mean that creating a perfectly-level playing field doesn't suddenly give everybody an equal chance.

I know the sorts of feminists you have encountered... I've gotten yelled at by at least one of them on Jezebel. There are jerks in any movement, usually at its radical fringes where the most passionate and alienated people tend to congregate. It's a corollary of egalitarianism that women can be rude, disgusting, obnoxious jerks... just like men. :-) When I find myself dealing with a jerk, I try to move slowly out the range of their spittle and venom, and find better people to talk to. Fortunately the jerks do not represent mainstream feminism -- which, like the mainstream of most movements, is pretty tame:

Marie Shear said, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people". It sounds flippant, but to me it means this: at the core, women are simply not so different from men that they can't understand each other's viewpoint. The average Western woman wants the same basic things that the average Western man does: the right to control their own body, the right to pursue sex and the right to deny it, the right to vote and have a career and be a parent and worship the God they choose to worship without fear of violence being done to them, and the right to be judged by their capabilities rather than their appearance (or vice-versa, depending on the individual and the social context). To me, feminism means support of those rights -- nothing more and nothing less.

Comment Re:Yeah, but women want it all (Score 1) 427

I suppose we move in different circles, which will happen. I suppose I'm lucky. For example, I'm currently doing work for an IT shop that is around 50% female and that has people from many different countries. Women (some with kids, some without) are in developer positions, management positions, etc.

Most of the feminists I know went to school with me, and given their degrees I don't think they have oversimplified views of history or human interaction: one has a PhD in Social Psychology, one has a PhD in Anthropology, one is practicing Public Policy Law, one is a professional grief counselor, and one has an advanced degree in some kind of Animal Behavioral science (she works with dolphins and bonobos).

Female-centric? Well, on issues like abortion, I assume they're all pro-choice. Most of them are currently in long-term relationships with men (and some are also raising sons) so I wouldn't call their lives exclusively female-centric or they'd have been divorced long ago. The ones I know who are lesbian are, of course, leading women-centered lives. I would guess that most, if not all, are "pro-sex feminists" in the generally-understood sense of the word. They believe in legally unfettered access to birth control, and they want the government (and church) out of the bedroom.

And as for the public face of feminism, I wouldn't judge feminism by the actions of Camille Paglia and Andrea Dworkin, any more than most Christians would want to be judged by the actions of Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps.

(Oh, and I agree that there is a very different reaction in our society to a man striking a woman versus a woman striking a man. But striking a woman is not "taboo"... "taboo" has a whole deeper connotation. In some parts of American society today, sadly, women get battered by men who probably think it's normative because they saw the men of their father's generation do the same thing.)

 

Slashdot Top Deals

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...