Oh, so the US Government can be trusted to not fuck up a monetary system? I mean, it's worked so well with USD, why wouldn't it work with another version of it?
You are the reason there is a problem. You don't even understand what the problem is, so how can you be expected to form an viable opinion on it?
You do realize that it takes much more energy to create and distribute the US dollar than it does to create and distribute bitcoins, right? So if Bitcoin is anti-environment, then the US Dollar is super-anti-I-fucking-hate-all-living-things environment.
So why are you using USD, since that is so anti-environment?
Logged in to say this, but see you already got to it. This monopoly crap is what needs to be fixed. Right now, I would gladly take a difficult (and expensive) to terminate service over the choice I have now: Take Comcast or take nothing reasonable (satellite? Riiight...)
We need someone to bust up these monopolies and let other companies in to compete. This "we are locking in this neighborhood" crap has got to stop and I think it's the biggest hurdle to any sort of competitive broadband in this country (compared to other countries).
T-Mobile in the US is different than T-Mobile in Europe. I realize they are owned by the same parent company, but the operate very differently. You are absolutely right that T-Mobile Europe is a piece of shit. T-Mobile US is actually pretty awesome on many fronts.
A more important question is why are you using a cloud provider without using encryption? No one should be storing any sort of sensetive file on a cloud service without first encrypting it. I use Boxcryptor on all of my cloud services... Truecrypt also works well for that sort of thing... anything. Use something to protect yourself instead of giving unfettered access to the cloud provider and their (lack of) security.
They have little reason to protect you.
By this same logic, they don't take USD, GBP, JPY or, in fact, any currency. They use a third party exchange called Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, etc...
Idiot.
The ASIC era will aim to fix the 51% attack problem... or at least make it extremely costly. The farther we get into the ASIC era, the less and less likely and more costly it will be for someone to subvert the network.
1 year ago, it would have taken less than 1 million dollars to wreck the bitcoin network. 1 year from now it will take at least $100 million, if not more, assuming the price of BTC doesn't tank or something.
Granted, $100 million is pocket change for some large corporations and of course governments, so the threat is still there. But as time goes on, the cost starts to rise further and further out of reach of all but richest of entities, until it gets so costly as to be unfeasible. At that point, it's cheaper to wage a legal or physical war, but that's another problem entirely.
The Core2Duo was built on 65nm technology. It's not THAT old.
For this type of device, 65nm is pretty freaking awesome actually.
Like I said - "...last I heard." When they first started taking pre-orders, it was bitcoin only. I'm buying bitcoin outright these days, so I haven't followed the saga.
mmmph. Recaptcha: "outright"
But again, that is incorrect. BFL has always taken Bankwire along with bitcoins. There has never been a time BFL only took BTC for payment, ever.
May be, because, sealing chips is a faster way to make money? If I were given two options one is quick but less money, other takes time and makes more money, I would choose the quick.
That's why you're poor.
"If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?"
They ARE mining bitcoin for themselves. The biggest player in the space - Butterfly Labs - is only accepting payment for their ASICs in bitcoin, last I heard. So their production line is just another bitcoin mining operation: and likely somewhat more profitable than outright mining over time.
This is, of course, false. BFL accepts payment via Paypal and bankwire as well.
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?
If BFL were to mine instead of selling the chips, they would quickly have more than 51% of the network hashrate and the confidence in the bitcoin network would erode and the value would drop. It doesn't make any sense for one entity to mine all the bitcoin and devalue the currency... then it's worth nothing and it was for naught. No, it's far better to distribute the hardware far and wide, making it impossible for any single entity to gain a controlling portion of the network.
No, it doesn't make any sense for BFL to mine with their own hardware, it makes much more sense to grow the bitcoin network and for BFL to supply the hardware to do so.
prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells
AH-HAHAHA... yeah! Right! I guess we can chalk Braben up as one of those idiots that are good in one area that think they know what the fuck they are talking about in other areas. What a clueless fuckstick to make a comment like that.
Cause that line worked with CDs and all other media that preceded games and continues to be sold today. Oh wait.. not it hasn't. It has never worked, ever with any industry. The prices will remain high as long as people continue to pay the prices. They will only drop when people stop paying prices. Claiming otherwise is just idiotic. Making that claim and the used game market is utterly laughable and makes my opinion of Draben go straight to the toilet (yeah, like he cares, I know). What a dumb ass.
Uhh, isn't that grounds for disbarment? I thought it was basically illegal to represent both parties within the same lawfirm, it being a conflict of interest and all. It was my impression that it was grounds for disbarment if a lawyer knowingly did that. I would find it incredibly hard to believe that the firm did not know they were representing Google and also suing them... that just seems virtually impossible.
Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?
The last thing the world needs is ignorant luddites making the technology decisions for the global internet infrastructure.
The real question should be, why doesn't everyone, everywhere just laugh at the *IAA's when they come into the room with their stupid demands? At this point, it's pretty much a given that anytime they bring something to the table, it's going to be utterly ridiculous and should be ignored by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.
Why keep letting them into the room to begin with?
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
