Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
By thwarting Satan's plan God enabled a pure bloodline from Adam to Christ to remain, providing free salvation for everyone who accepts Christ's sacrifice for their sin. That is loving.
Is it? Doesn't Christian belief hold that God is omnipotent? I've never understood how people can reconcile the idea of God being omnipotent and still insist that the convoluted schemes for saving people's souls are somehow necessary.
FTL != backwards time travel.
According to relativity it is. If you can send a message faster than light, you can take advantage of time dilation effects when moving at a high relative speed.
Do they want to just bury the signal in noise, or are they trying to send false data to lure US and ROK units into NK air and sea space?
It's worth noting that the military GPS signal is modulated with an encryption sequence. Burying the signal in noise is relatively simple, but sending false signal data would require first breaking the encryption.
So once again, you missed the whole point where the data came from the EU Commission and the UN.
The raw data may have been, but the raw data does not say that there is more violent crime in the UK than in the US. That is a conclusion that the Daily Mail has jumped to.
Second, you still haven't done any research.
I didn't made any citations in my previous post. That does not mean I haven't done any research.
You scoffed at my source as it did not conveniently fit your preconceived notion of the facts.
I scoffed at your source because it's a trashy tabloid that is well known for being economical with the truth.
You basically said that it is impossible to prove my point because any data I want to provide is either biased, inaccurate, or simply ambiguous
I'm not saying your data is wrong, I'm saying you're jumping to conclusions.
Let's assume both of our sources are correct. There is more violent crime reported in the UK than in the US, but considerably less murders. What can we conclude from this?
Well, there are a number of possibilities. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
1. Criminals in the UK are more likely to be violent, but less likely to kill you.
2. More types of crime are classed as "violent" in the UK.
3. UK citizens are more likely to report violent crime that does not result in a murder.
You appear to be jumping directly to theory number 1, but theories 2 and 3 also fit the available facts.
I personally find it hard to believe that criminals can be more violent but less likely to take a person's life. Even if we take into account the increased number of firearms in the US, it seems unlikely that the technical difference between shooting a person and stabbing them would account for a such a huge difference. Perhaps there's something psychological about pulling a trigger that makes it easier than stabbing someone? I'm not sure.
In any case, I'm merely professing skepticism about one particular theory. If you want to actually defend a theory, you need to supply some evidence to support it over other explanations.
Couldn't be bothered to do a little research, eh?
Apparently more than you.
Violent crime statistics between countries are unreliable, as different countries have different definitions of what counts as "violent crime". This is why murder rate is commonly used as a yardstick, because the definition of murder is fairly consistent between nations.
Furthermore, the Daily Mail is the UK tabloid version of Fox News. Whilst it might occasionally stumble across a fact or two, it is not usually considered to be a reliable source.
The most important one is that the creation of a bitcoin is *not* backed by anything. It burns computational power for nothing.
In general, it helps to have some understanding of a system before criticising it, otherwise you risk looking like an idiot.
Bitcoin does not burn computational power for nothing. The computations have a very specific purpose: to make it infeasible for an attacker to double-spend bitcoins. All that CPU power is dedicated toward securing the network.
This also gives bitcoins value beyond that assigned by speculators. Securing a distributed digital currency requires a lot of processing power. The more processing power you spend on it, the more resistent it is to double-spending attacks. Bitcoin already has the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of computing power embedded in its block chain - any competing distributed currency would have to start from scratch.
The semantic tags are out of date before the spec has even finalised
Presumably things like this is why they dropped the version number and moved to a "Living Standard". The HTML specification will be continually updated, so there's always going to be time to extend the spec to meet changes in the web.
Thus far it seems to have taken the web backwards in terms of compatibility, many of the new features work differently in different browsers, harking back to the days of HTML3/4 and Netscape/IE battles.
The very minor incompatibilities between today's browsers are nothing like the incompatibilities of the Netscape/IE battles.
In the past, the two browsers had different box models, and entirely different syntaxes for DHTML. Modern incompatibilities tend to revolve around the best way to render rounded corners.
XML syntax seems discouraged which means you'll run into more people using the SGML syntax which seems to be pushed more than XML which makes the web more of a ballache to work with- no more of a push towards simple XSLT
Good! XSLTs are absolutely horrible.
Whilst XML is somewhat easier to parse than SGML, it's not like there's a shortage of good HTML parsers.
Also, unless you're screen-scraping data, a lot of the time you'll be using a JSON or XML RESTful API to pull data from websites.
It's not that I don't like some of the new features proposed in HTML5 like canvas etc., I think they're great ideas. It's just a shame the rest of it is just so painfully amateurish from a software development perspective... I'm hoping for a quick iteration to XHTML6, run by people who actually know what they're doing so we can just bypass the mess that is HTML5, but that's probably a bit much to hope for.
HTML may not be perfect, but it has one big advantage over other solutions: it's actually being implemented.
Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US
In 2009, the US had 5.0 homicides per 100,000 people. The UK had 1.28 homicides per 100,000.
I find it a little hard to believe that there are more violent crimes per capita in the UK, but almost four times less murders.
or dealing with the massive memory leak problem that firefox has had for years and has yet to actually try to fix..
Does anyone still have memory problems with Firefox? Last I checked, Chrome was far more memory hungry.
The Bitcoin thing has gone off in a different direction than its promoters anticipated. They were thinking "payment system", like gift cards. The idea was that most Bitcoins would be tied up in people's "wallets", and spent slowly. All that static value would anchor the currency.
That's not what happened. Bitcoins turned into a speculative vehicle, with "miners" grinding away solving hashes and generating more Bitcoins,
Which in general is good. The more miners there are, the more secure the currency is against double-spending.
The exchanges are tiny; today's worldwide Bitcoin trading volume is comparable to the sales of one supermarket. The daily volatility is huge, even on days when there isn't a break-in. So no major retailer can accept Bitcoins; they don't know what they will be worth at the end of the day, let alone the end of the month.
There's no reason retailers have to wait until the end of the month or even the end of the day before cashing out their bitcoins. A retailer could cash out their bitcoins immediately, or after the first confirmation block. The volatility of Bitcoin is only a problem for speculators.
The difficulty level has reached the point where buying and powering the new hardware is not cost-effective. And that was before the price of Bitcoins crashed. (The current price is around $13.)
No it isn't. An average ATI graphics card will still net you $100 per month profit, even at the current difficulty.
Worse, they're not just "exchanges". They're depositary institutions, holding customer balances. Mt. Gox customers are now very aware of this, because they can't get at their money while Mt. Gox is down. Some people are worried over whether the money will be there when Mt. Gox comes back up.
Why anyone would store money in Mt. Gox and not immediately take it out after a trade is beyond me. Clearly some people do, but that seems like asking for trouble.
The "exchanges" represent a mis-design of Bitcoin. There should have been a way to do an exchange in a distributed way, without the exchange holding customer assets.
It's not a "mis-design". Acting as an exchange is beyond the scope of the Bitcoin protocol. If you want a distributed exchange, that's an entirely separate project.
However, I can't see how a distributed exchange would work, unless it was just some manner of trust network and actually making the trades was up to the individuals. That doesn't seem particularly user-friendly to me, so I suspect that exchanges will have to be centralized websites.
That said, it would be better if (a) people used alternative exchanges more, and (b) the exchange source code was open sourced.
The EFF was right to bail.
The EFF bailed for entirely different reasons. If the future legality of bitcoin is contested, they want to be able to fight without also being the one of the ones being prosecuted.
The statement by the EFF does not mention blackhats or criminal activity. If you're going to make wild claims, could you back them up with some evidence?
The main problem with current electronic voting systems is that they are not independently auditable. If a machine says that 1000 people voted for Alice, and 500 for Bob, we have to trust that the machine is correct. With a paper system, there are multiple independent systems (i.e. human beings) counting the votes, and votes can be recounted if the result is contested.
Now, there are cryptographic voting systems that get around these problems. In a good cryptographic voting system, your can verify your vote was posted, and independently verify the result. The problem is that no-one currently uses cryptographic voting schemes like this.
Bitcoin works in a similar fashion to cryptographic voting systems, in that all transactions are public and can be independently verified. In fact, there's even a financial incentive to verify them.
Of course Bitcoin's success is far from certain, but there's a chance that it will succeed. Even if it becomes only as popular as Paypal is today, I'd imagine many of its proponents would mark that as a distinct success. At least we'd be free of Paypal's tendency to freeze assets without notice.
However, I'm not sure why you consider that the most successful Bitcoin can be "even in theory". As it stands, the network could scale to 10,000 transactions per second (i.e. peak VISA-level) and a total economy size of around $10 trillion without any change to the protocol. Above that and one might have to start tweaking the design, but that's not going to be a problem for the foreseeable future.