Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Doomed to fail (Score 1) 336

They are right, this would be a huge boost to revenue if done correctly. Unfortunately they will never do it correctly. First, this is a far cheaper distribution option so why are they charging more than the theater ticket price? Just cut out the theater middle man and keep his cut of the profits. The studios could even collaborate and build their own MPAA non-profit distribution service so studios pay only operating costs and all the profits pass through and then lay off all the obsolete middle men. Offer direct to consumer ultra high quality streams and site direct blu-ray sales from the get go, use an algorithm that accounts for the film budget and gradually lowers price inversely to purchase rate and time and at some point shifts to a bucket that is available for on demand streaming with a fixed monthly fee Netflix style that after expenses simply gets divided out according to proportion of views. All playstation vue style with 5 simultaneous devices.

If existing boxes of this sort are any indication they will lock down playback controls and not allow you to pause or replay the movie. This obsession with reducing the quality of experience for the consumer in order to keep third party services alive is what is hurting. Instead of fully embrace the kind of enhanced experience you could provide as well as the cost reduction of optimized distribution. The better the legal avenues the less it will be worth the hassle and risk of piracy. Forget legal risks, you have to find content, risk fakes, risk bad quality, and pay for equipment to store content. If someone is doing it as a cost saving measure they either couldn't have afforded much content in the first place or couldn't afford the volume of content they consume.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 254

Don't confuse fluctuations caused by day trading and a small market that can be moved by many players with instability of system itself to be able to function as a unit of trade. Some types of jet engine aren't able to produce sustained thrust until brought up to full speed. Also don't confuse the current price of speculators with the actual value. Just because a handful of people were willing to give away an island like Manhattan for a handful of beads and trinkets doesn't mean that is the actual value either islands or beads and trinkets. In a small pocket market it is possible to make or lose a great deal of money speculating and for things to be greatly overvalued or undervalued. That has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with the size of the market.

I guess what I'm saying isn't that bitcoin price stability isn't a real problem today, it is. But given the size of the market this is expected. If dollars were exchanged in a similar market you'd see similar stability. If you'd sat on a trillion dollars over that 5 year period you'd have lost as much as the total value of all the bitcoin while others would point and say that you still have a trillion dollars. Where would that value have gone? It would have been given away to other people who already have more than they know what to do with by that government you are so fond of.

Is the island that is bitcoin being sold for trinkets or is the box of trinkets that is bitcoin valued like an island? The truth is probably somewhere in between but the concrete determining factor of supply only moves in one direction with bitcoin, demand can go either way but as the total amount of demand grows so with the constant and always present demand that does not fluctuate. I think that a floating unit bitdollar traded to five decimal places would help perception because there is a long long way for bitcoin to go and that is going to mean the common unit of trade will need to shifted several decimal places over. Eventually 1.0 BTC can and should be a unit that nations might trade not people, so people flinching at having trouble to understand $2,000 or even $10,000 for "just one bitcoin" are going to do nothing but get in the way as more and more bitcoin transactions occur and more units of trade worth about a dollar are needed.

Greed eventually gets you. Investing in bitcoin early paid off for you, will you hold a grudge against others bought the same BTC and risked holding it against instability, fluctuation, competing digital currencies, etc and sell it for $100,000 or even a million some day? Eventually you sold and eventually they will too and that BTC will go in circulation because it will eventually be too tempting to have what that BTC can buy. They will spend it, and then it will circulate, rinse and repeat which is what debunks the early adopters ponzi scheme nonsense. Early adopters are essentially early investors. What they pull out is no worse than a Zuckerburg or a Gates.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 254

You are missing the most important aspect of a currency and it isn't prices. It is how units are distributed because if the smallest units of gold you can get are quarter grams and gold is worth $1000 a gram what will you use to buy bread in a gold based currency? Fiat currencies use credit, so don't forget the impact on existing credit in the event of deflation or inflation. Deflation is devastating in a fiat system because the entire system is based on debt and suddenly the value owed is substantially higher than it was yesterday and the debts are structured on the assumption the currency used to pay them will be more plentiful and worth less tomorrow and suddenly it is worth more. Prices will have to drop because people will be getting fewer units of currency, but businesses generally run off credit what happens when they have to pay the same number of dollars tomorrow but take in less due to lower prices and can't successfully sell goods at higher prices to offset it because the entire market for their goods is now worth less each day? New costs will be lower so that will help but they'll have to cut wages and/or layoff staff to meet existing debts. Next year they won't be able to do either, etc. The number of years is of course made up but the pattern is not.

In a system mathematically guaranteed to deflate deflation is not such an issue, overly rapid deflation is similar to inflation in a fiat system since a floating unit of trade should exist suddenly your 1.0 btc is worth dramatically more bitdollars and prices would increase. You don't have such a large issue with credit freezing because the system isn't based on using credit to distribute currency. Really there is no inflation in such a system, only deflation rate. A severe reduction in deflation rate relative what any creditor anticipated would mean paying back more value than expected which might be huge for certain borrowers but would far less dramatic across the whole economy since there would be far less debt in the first place.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 254

On the contrary, the purchasing power of any major government fiat currency shifts by far more daily than the purchasing power of bitcoin. If you held half the worlds bitcoin and half the worlds US dollars in your pocket the bitcoin would have moved by a greater percentage value relative to euros but your actual wealth would change far more dramatically on a down dollar day than bitcoin day.

Bitcoin needs two things to be perceived as more stable. The first and biggest is a floating unit of exchange call it a bitdollar. 1.0 BTC is not A bitcoin, it's just a 1 in a decimal place. As long as that unit roughly correlates a relative point such as typical single unit major fiat values or a commodity such as the largest unit required to purchase a gram of gold or barrel of oil at a given moment. If the currency deflates by a factor of ten relative to that point, the bitdollar would shift a decimal place so your wallet that held 1 bitdollar before now holds 10 bitdollars. So long as fiat is in major use 1 bitdollar should always be able to purchase more than zero but less than two of any major fiat currency. This and wider adoption would create a better perception of the stability of bitcoin. The value of bitcoin relative to anything is just perception, but we know it is mathematically always more over time so while there should probably be a cooking period before the value shifts and a central reference to check the status, maybe a month cooking before the bitdollar shifts, once it has shifted it should not go backwards. It also means the stability problem with bitcoin is a perception problem.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 254

Actually you are incorrect. Currency systems must either inflate or deflate because actual economies grow and shrink. Currency is the representation of an economy, it's design goes hand in hand with the success of the actual economy it represents. These structures are based on greed, in order for currency to function correctly it must flow. A small amount of inflation or deflation isn't something a currency can't recover from but a currency designed to inflate can't continue to function in the face of extended deflation even at a low rate similarly a deflationary currency that inflates.

A currency that is designed to introduce more units is an inflationary currency, a currency where existing units increase in value is deflationary. Inflationary currencies require a system of distributing new units, in the case of fiat currencies that system is generally credit based. Deflationary currencies have a problem with scarcity of trading units, there may not be enough for all who need them to facilitate trade to actually be able to possess enough to easily do so. Gold units ran into this issue, bitcoin solves this issue by being a purely logical unit and thus theoretically infinitely divisible into smaller trade units (although there is currently a practical limit as well a technical limit in the implementation meant to reflect it).

Inflationary currencies require the free flow of credit to distribute new units in order to facilitate free movement of the value that currency represents, the minimum motivating factor in distributing currency into circulation is beating the inflation rate + expenses or else your currency will devalue. You must assume some sort of risk in order to generate returns greater than inflation + your expenses and continue to do to offset that inflation over time which creates the pressure in the currency. Inflation in such a system is accounted for in the design and essential but out of control inflation can contribute too much pressure which a large portion of the economy can not keep pace with creating rapid disparity leaving spenders unable to afford goods. Money stops being worth much. This is a short term problem if the source is resolved reasonably quickly because debts can be paid more easily and overall debt will be reduced.

Deflation in such a currency eliminates motivation at the top to exchange trade units reducing their distribution on all levels while at the same time increasing demand. The biggest problem is that because an economy based on credit is filled with outstanding credit those loans now all have be paid back with greater value units at the same rate. Prices and income will adjust to the deflated rate but existing debt will not, meaning you'll have less dollars in your pocket but owe just as much and more importantly everyone who might be a source of more dollars will be in the same position including retailers. Creditors will have a boom at first as the increased returns leave them flush and without need to take on new debt but the lack of demand for new credit, reduced willingness to extend it, and growing default rates will create a boom/bust pendulum and like all pendulums it would eventually grind to a halt.

A currency designed to deflate, such as bitcoin, reacts quite differently. The greed motivation is to assume risk for a return above deflation. Because currency is deflationary and a currency such as bitcoin allows trading infinitely smaller units, once established such a currency has no unit exchange problem. Such a thing is new but there still may be a need for a central organization to set the current standard unit of trade relative to another target (although a market and algorithm would actually be used to determine this unit there needs to be a common reference). A sort of floating bitdollar if you will that refers to the current decimal place that is the highest unit required in the purchase of a barrel of crude or a gram of gold or some such. Provided such a "bitdollar" is what wallet balances reflect and what is traded on exchanges you'd see far less wild fluctuations on exchanges and skepticism of the value of the currency because it would create a more unified perception of value.

Comment Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 254

Even if correct about Trump, fed rates are currently extremely low and the last hike was only because the market expected rates couldn't stay there forever not due to any kind of inflation. If anything we are close to deflation which is far far worse with a fiat currency. We actually NEED inflation in the US economy.

This is not a statement against a deflationary currency, I honestly think the math works out about the same but the US dollar is not deflationary and fiat systems depend on inflation to function properly.

Comment Re:Offshoring (Score 1) 158

That is within perfectly reasonable bounds. IT workers are more like a Doctor or Lawyer than a McDonalds worker in term of the intelligence level required to succeed in the field.

Also see the last story for why CEOs think it is worth it. IT workers are expected to be working toward putting other workers, including themselves out of the job. They don't succeed all at once but they do the shrink the pool a group at a time and eventually all the pieces will have been developed to accomplish this.

Comment yawn (Score 1) 137

Were they vcr proof? Because, since commercial skipping was stripped out, there is no difference with regard to how a dvr impacts advertising. There were actually even devices that could skip commercials with similar effect to what has been ripped out on a vcr recording but they were never common.

Comment Re:eating less (Score 1) 256

Sure walk-in centers exist in the US if you have spare no expense attitude. Just getting in to my doctor for any appointment can take 6-8 weeks and arguing it requires getting in faster often means being directed to an ER. You can't "walk-in" to get an MRI without a doctor referral if you want there to be any chance of it being covered by your insurance and even so using that clinic will likely leave you with a series of bills amounting to $1000+ when all is said and done. Remember when a doctor or hospital visit resulted in a single bill from a single entity? Unless of course you haven't met your several thousand dollar deductible in which case it will be much much more.

That is of course assuming you are allowed to get an MRI in the first place. 99% of the time a doctor is ordering an x-ray or a CT an MRI would have been a better test but your insurance refuses or he knows it won't cover an MRI.

Comment Re: Long range space probes? (Score 1) 156

"The nuclear diamond battery is based on the fact that when a man-made diamond is exposed to radiation, it produces a small electric current."

A diamond is needed to convert the radiation into current, there is no clear indication the radiation source itself needs to be a diamond vs lining a shielded rtg with vapor deposited diamond.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.