Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Shifting the workload onto other people? (Score 1) 72

I don't get it. I thought the whole idea was that a hash was quick to calculate, but it was hard to find a nonce that yielded a correct hash since there are so many nonces to try. So once your approximate hardware finds a nonce, why don't you just check it on a regular processor before sending it to the network? Sending off a possibly bad block to the network seems like a lazy (not to say sleazy) thing to do.

Hey, I've got an even better idea to increase profits: just send loads of random blocks to the network. All the miners will be too busy checking your incorrect blocks to do any mining themselves and at some point you're bound to stumble onto a correct block!

Comment Re:Does phone orientation matter? (Score 1) 105

Recent models can measure rotations as well as accelerations. The gyroscopes do drift a little bit, but the orientation vector is kept aligned in the long term using average acceleration (gravity), GPS position changes (horizontal speed vector direction), and the built-in compass (not very accurate, but it helps).

Anyway, I doubt these researchers were using an iPhone, they probably had much better (and more expensive) sensors.

Comment Re:The writing on the wall for pilots (Score 1) 105

Aircraft already have enough accuracy to land automatically. Below a certain visibility, we're not even allowed to land manually. Pilots are still required to set everything up, but in principle the technology is there.

The problem is, things fail. Frequently. Short circuits, computer failures, software bugs, mechanical failures, leaks, etcetera. You should see a crew in action during a simulator training session, and you'd be immediately convinced that we're nowhere near fully automatic airplanes no matter how sophisticated the automation has become. The positioning part is not what's holding us back, in fact that's the easy part that's already been solved long ago.

Comment Re:I don't understand this (Score 1) 96

Worse, apparently. They can try a whole bunch of possible combinations of words from a dictionary, and for each one, check the block chain to see if the resulting address has been used. They don't have to guess anyone's password in particular, just guess a combination of words that has been used by someone, anyone at all. Instead of trying combinations of userIDs and passwords, you just have to try passwords.

Comment Re:End anonymity for cash (Score 2) 158

And the funny thing is that Bitcoin is actually incredibly easy to monitor since the entire blockchain containing all transactions is public. I would imagine intelligence agencies actually love bitcoin. It gives the impression of anonimity (anyone can just make a new wallet without needing any kind of identification) but the money flows can easily be followed and as soon as someone uses the wallet to order a pizza, all the previous "anonymous" transactions for that wallet suddenly become tied to you.

The only problem for intelligence agencies are the tumblers, but merely using those can probably put you onto the list of suspicious people to be tracked. Receiving money from a tumbler is just as suspicious as carrying a bag full of cash. Not illegal, but suspicious anyway.

If it's intelligence they want, they should be encouraging Bitcoin.

Comment Re:First? (Score 2) 262

Your lack of reading skills is quite surreal, you know. Especially when you keep insisting you're right when you're obviously not. The words you added in square brackets are entirely your own fantasy yet you're using them to somehow "prove" your point?!

The (incorrect) summary of that article indeed says "the bike she was riding" but the actual text of the article (and any other source I've heard so far) makes it clear she did not actually ride that bike. After her chain broke, she "saw that bike standing there" (i.e. a different bike, not the one she was riding) and she didn't know how it got there. It belonged to a friend of hers, looked identical to her own, and was accidentally placed there by a mechanic who thought it was hers. She didn't know that her friend used a motor in his bike.

Now it's entirely possible that she's lying, and she did ride that bike on some other occasion during the season. But she never actually admitted to that.

By the way, I saw the actual interview in the original Dutch language, not some bad translation bordering on ambiguity. She clearly said she did not ride the bike. Her friend already apologized a hundred times for leaving his bike there. (That's not in the article, but was said in the actual interview).

Slashdot Top Deals

The University of California Statistics Department; where mean is normal, and deviation standard.

Working...