I doubt it. I think it's just a temporary measure so that they can get some market share and then start charging again.
It's also just wrong. From 3G onwards phones authenticate the cell towers. Even with a full stack running you wouldn't be easily able to force a phone to associate to your tower, at least not without jamming all the other towers in your vicinity.
For example, scaling the network up to 2000 transactions per second would result in a Bitcoin node downloading about 1 MB per second. No big deal, until you realize that means each node will need about 2.6 TB of bandwidth each month, and that's just to handle the needs of 10% of the population of the United States, assuming 5 transactions per person per day.
As pointed out by another poster, 2.6 TB of transfer quota per month is trivial even by today's standards: anyone can afford that. And should Bitcoin ever scale to those levels it won't be relying on today's resources, it'll be relying on tomorrow's. So your own example falls apart almost immediately.
Also, rather than just guessing what the US population "needs" why not take a look at existing networks? 2000tps is about a fifth of VISA traffic for the whole world. Of course not every transaction goes via VISA, but it should indicate to you that maybe your numbers are once again a bit sketchy.
You can read an article I wrote a long time ago here: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability. It goes over the various ways the system scales up. Performance is unintuitive, there's no substitute for just working it out on the back of an envelope. Bear in mind we live in a world where single websites can generate a large fraction of total internet traffic and not go bankrupt.
- The pay is 2-3x what I could get paid at established firms
- The relationship-starting practices actually make sense (an interview amongst humans, often with C-levels, rather than with an HR-drone, and forms of testing that involve work on-product, rather than abstract and unrelated HR games).
- They are thankful to have me and pleasant to work with (as opposed to confronting the HR bureaucracy and middle management)
- I get better titles and better status/authority within the firm
I do good work, I produce value, and the startups that I work with see that and can measure it quantitatively. Established firms could if they wanted to, but that's the point: they don't want to. They want to pay you as little as they can get away with, and have you as silent and head-hung as they can get you to be.
I stopped working for stodgy HR- and middle-management-heavy firms years ago. It basically sucked, and was soul-sucking.
Companies want to talk about making yourself competitive in the labor market, then bitch and moan when those that will pay get all the hot talent?
Oh noez! Whatever will we do!?
I'd say that if someone gets paid $big_bucks at $hot_startup, they're entitled to it. If you want them, pony up.
- Pays less
- Is less secure
- Is a shitty environment
- Offers dwindling benefits
- And little respect
You're cannon fodder, that's all.
At startups and companies with that "hot startup" attitude (there are a few established companies that do this), you're the core of the business, the brains of the operation, worthy of any perks or cash they can throw at you.
Who wants to work where they're completely undervalued when they can work where they're (if anything) overvalued?
Make the salary at least reasonable, the hiring practices sane, the benefits good, and the job security reliable, and you'll find that a lot of young people are willing to work at stodgy old firms, just like they used to.
Employees are just tired of being treated like shit. These days hot startup > freelance/consult > established firm when it comes to the deal you get as a worker.
Problem: More material to read than time.
Solution: Read faster.
Sounds good to me.
I'd think that $50B would go a long way to making something more sensible than wind/solar (Which are still and will be a boondoggle with $50B poured into it (Where in the heck do you store energy so that it's sustained instead of feast/famine? Right now, you can't realistically replace coal with either- and without the storage tech to MAKE it so...it's a waste of time and money, bluntly put...)- which would be Thorium reactors.
Initially, yes. Go with the least expensive hardware possible and a tiny Linux installation and get them out to people who can learn from them.
Getting that hardware price-point was difficult. But they got close.
Then they decided that it needed to run some form of Windows.
Just look at the title: Silicon Valley's Youth Problem
"Youth" being a code word for:
1. work more than 40 hours a week
2. work for less than the median wage
3. no health issues that will conflict with #1 & #2
4. no husband/wife/kids that will conflict with #1, #2 & #3.
5. okay with #1 - #4 as long as there is a possibility of a percentage of an IPO or buy-out some years in the future.
Fuck that. That's not a problem with a lack of "young" coders. That's a problem with their business plan. Items #1 - #4 are really about cash flow (salaries).
So the younger coders are willing to risk a few of their early years in the hopes of a big stock win or buy-out.
Where's the problem?
If there are other systems that need programmers then hire programmers for those other systems. There are programmers who do not fit the "just out of school" demographic. Why not hire those programmers? Why focus on the "young" coders?
Simply going for multiple USB HDDs seems to be the obvious option (cheap, extendable, can be stored offsite and offline, etc.). However what would be some good Free Software to actually handle the backup? Common solutions such as duplicity, rsync, rdiff-backup, etc. all seem to assume that your backup target directory can hold the whole backup all at once and that the whole backup is online at the same time. While one can probably hack something together with union mounts to accomplish that, it seems like a very cumbersome and fragile solution.
Is there anything that allows you to just copy the data to a HDD and then plug-in a new one when the old one is full? Preferably in a data-format that is robust enough to handle some backup HDDs dieing without destroying the data on the other drives (i.e. no incremental changes across HDDs).
LTO-6 can hold 2.5TB per tape, a tape cost ~$70, the drives cost $2000. That's still more expensive then just more HDDs for 20TB, but at >50TB it might be worth it.
GPS tracking of the flight? Unlikely. Flight arrival information was likely taken off an ATC feed from secondary surveillance radar.
When they are Welsh. It's a common idiom amongst the Welsh to say things like "And there it was! Gone!"