Excellent counterargument with examples. Gold star for you, too, sir.
I have a son. I allow him to play hockey even though it could result in a serious injury or even death. I let him date girls even though he could get his heart broken. When he was two, I let him work his way up and down flights of steps. And yet I love him and would give up my life for him. I see the big picture even when he doesn't.
You are not God. You cannot see all possible outcomes. If you could see the future and know for certain your son would die in his next hockey game, would you let him play?
God allows people to die in ridiculous misfortunes every day, and is ostensibly capable of preventing them. You say that God may have a different definition of "evil" than we do. That may be true. But the riddle was written in our language, using our definition, and I still fail to see a flaw.
Pretty sure it's not a left wing one either.
I still see people espousing all 3 viewpoints, and they're all still true. The collapse of the latest scam doesn't change what BitCoin is. It's just as trustworthy as before. Vendors are just as trustworthy (or untrustworthy) as before. And the math is the same as before.
I wouldn't judge BTC against the other currencies of the world. It's clearly not the same, and it's not trying to be the same. People who use it don't (or shouldn't, if they're smart) consider it to be the same. But that doesn't mean it's without merit or useless. It's just got a different risk profile than other currencies, but it also comes with different benefits.
That's true for all goods, and all currencies. If you order a book on Amazon.com and they suddenly disappear, taking all your money with them - what recourse do you have? If you sell something on eBay and send out goods before you receive payment, that's just like completing a BitCoin transaction before you get your dollars. How are you better protected?
You must trust the other party in all transactions, no matter what you're exchanging. And if you don't trust them, go through an escrow service...assuming you can trust them.
Wha...? The only "exchange" you have to go through to get a Bitcoin is exchanging dollars for an encrypted key. If the Bitcoin isn't sent, you can reverse the charge.
Why the hell are you keeping Bitcoins in a "bank", rather than keeping them in a wallet that you control?
The part of a "home network" that is connected to the 'net is the biggest threat?
It's also the part that's doing the simplest thing (assuming you haven't networked your light switches). No bumbling grandma clicking every popup in sight, no kids downloading their warez. A router should be a rock-solid appliance that shouldn't be able to be "hacked" in any meaningful way without physical access.
Bottom line, it's surprising - or at the very least troubling - that routers are such a security problem.
I can think of some future-tech that might work too. A directed camera-sensing laser that differentiates between camera lenses and eyes with 100% accuracy could do it by saturating only the lenses that aren't allowed to see.
So I guess my answer to the submitter is to develop this tech.
Even ants don't need this piece of crap - they produce billions of TeV every day! Call me when there's some real power behind it.
I'm skeptical about the claim as well. If it's true, that's far more exciting news than "better conductivity". It tells us our models are wrong. If we crack the puzzle, who knows what our new models could predict about new materials?
Which is why I'm skeptical. The summary only mentions the "better conductivity", which leads me to believe "10x better than the standard theory says" is more like:
Researcher 1: What's the conductivity going to be?
Researcher 2: Graphene is basically just pencil lead - so run a current through a pencil and see what comes up
I can only speak for myself, but this is a great troll and I personally look forward to seeing it spammed in every article. While it probably doesn't have the staying power of GNAA or the indomitable "Netcraft Confirms It", it's the first solid troll of "Beta sucks" I've seen. You're the first - or at least the very best - to take advantage of a brief window of passion in a typically dry setting. Depending on how this thing plays out you could very possibly be the Last Great Troll of the
My heartfelt thanks on reminding me what makes Slashdot...Slashdot.
If they push through Beta like they seem intent on doing then all I have to say is, "Slashdot is dead. Long live Slashdot!"
That phrase - I do not think it means what you think it means - and what is Slashdot if not a home for mindless pedantry?
- The king is dead - we've lost our previous ruler.
- Long live the king - a new king - the heir - is now in power, and we wish him prosperity.
I think the phrase you were looking for is Slashdot is dead. Fuck Slashdot!
I mean - maybe the PHBs with access to the stats might know better, but this always struck me as a fairly stable site. Internet newcomers tend to gravitate towards Reddit, and the old folks who hate change have remained with
Who is Beta for? The old folks don't want it, and you can't seriously expect to draw new users with a site that looks like every other Web2.0 site out there. Is it just a transparent ploy to increase advertising space?
Seriously - WHY?!
This is a really weird feeling. I'm 90% sure you're a Chinese propagandist, but I 100% agree with your words.