Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Does it mean, (Score 1) 110

Oh, and just to fully recap my many posts ranting about Bitcoin, aside from what I've said already in this thread...I'm waiting for something to come along that provides the benefits of Bitcoin but without the price instability. Its stock-like nature is going to doom it because consumers (and more importantly, merchants) need more "familiar" price stability to become comfortable with and actually use a currency for currency purposes. The vast majority of current Bitcoin users are still speculators and unwitting individuals, along with some merchants who would probably prefer something more stable but need the anonymity to conduct business...and a few outliers here and there.

Anyone who's been burned once by previous crashes won't ever want to get back on board the Bitcoin train...

Comment Re:Does it mean, (Score 2) 110

Like I said, "similar", not "exact". Bitcoin is the poster child of the inflatable, independent currency experiment, but it shares traits similar to the stock market and limited quantity physical goods. It's not impossible for something which shares the traits that guided the valuation of Bitcoin to emerge. It'll likely be a long way off and possibly too difficult to identify in time to profit from it.

Comment Re:Does it mean, (Score 1, Interesting) 110

that current Bitcoin rally is over?

I for one wonder if this'll be the last big rally.

I've been absolutely terrible at predicting when this train will end. An unstable currency that is not suitable for the vast majority of merchants and individuals is doomed to fail eventually, but since I've been beating this horse Bitcoin has risen by 5000%. Rally #1 was the American public, rally #2 was from Greeks and other troubled European nations and now this rally is from the Chinese.

I wonder if anything significant is left? Regardless, it's way too high for me to even consider playing this game. I do hope something similar comes along in the future, perhaps it'll follow a similar pattern and I'll get on board early...

Comment Re:Taxing is not going to fix the problem (Score 1) 470

This isn't really something that one can gauge properly with their own anecdotes. In my case I practically never buy anything but well-packaged slow perishables so I have nothing to worry about. A small quantity of meat juices leaking into the bottom of someone's bag (rare enough that it doesn't ever happen to most people, but it is a concern on a broader scale) will feed a significant quantity of bacteria for a long time and create a real problem, versus the tiny bits that get onto your keyboard and create an infestation that only a germophobe can appreciate...

Again, personal responsibility, wash your damn bags, yadda yadda...as someone who'll eat fallen food while on a hiking trip and follow it up with a "meh", even I can admit that the concern here is reasonable.

Comment Re:Taxing is not going to fix the problem (Score 1) 470

heh, I'm not going to defend the intentions of general media sources, but I believe the concerns were that the bottom of peoples' bags were essentially petri dishes, and over time the infestation got to the point where all but the most thorough of washing of potentially contaminated food items (and even then...) would be ineffective.Of course one's own negligence is to blame in this case but what people forget about social engineering is engineering works with what you have, not some ideal.

Comment Re:Taxing is not going to fix the problem (Score 1) 470

1) You don't have to wash them after ever visit, unless you're buying, like, unwrapped raw chicken in which case you've got bigger problems

If you want to take your chances with bacteria, salmonella, etc.--go for it.

This actually made headlines some time ago as an unintended, but very real consequence of San Francisco's bag tax...

Comment Re:"Crashes in"? (Score 1) 506

For anyone confused by this comment, the original title of this article (before an editor stepped in and fixed it) read "Boeing 777 Crashes In San Francisco". The current title (at the time I'm posting this comment), "Boeing 777 Crashes At San Francisco Airport", is a much better description of the event without taking the mind in some horrific directions before giving the important details.

This. My original post looks pretty ridiculous now, but I'm glad someone changed it. (I don't see that often)

Comment Re:"Crashes in"? (Score 4, Informative) 506

Just to elaborate even more (edit function please), anyone who lives around SF and flies knows that the airport is 10 miles south of the city. So an airplane crashing within city limits would be extremely bizarre. Very little air traffic is actually routed through the city...in fact I think most planes that fly overhead are ads for car insurance companies and tires during baseball games.

Comment Re: Piracy much eh? (Score 1) 364

Not sure why your post got mod hate, it was a decent post. And I agree with you about it being believable. It's by far the most believable Superman film/TV show ever. Its believability is one of two things I'll mention to people who haven't seen the movie yet. (aside from the major WTF being "Kryptonians widely colonized the galaxy and all those colonies failed?!")

The other being the unignorable and obvious Jesus references...

p.s. Pa Kent didn't really get shafted. I thought he was reasonably cautious, and he never wavered from his convictions.

Comment Re:version control (Score 4, Informative) 480

The submitter probably doesn't have access to their version control.

However, if they can show their work remotely, they could easily find an archive.org link to an older version. I believe javascript files are archived just like everything else. This could possibly be useful if the submitter decides to take legal action -- I think they have some grounds to do so.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...