Why wouldn't powerful on-board AI bring about a new PC standard?
Imagine, this PC being able to figure out its own issues as long as it boots. In fact, the Unix ethos might be much better for AI to manage than Windows GUI. Linux complexity may disappear.
The way a country's stability works is through overproduction of food. If you don't subsidize farming, your population will end up importing their food from cheaper places, killing off your food production. Then all it takes is a geopolitical shock and your population starves. Bad news. This is why Europe and pretty much all developed countries subisdize their food growing and manufacturing regions. You need those poorer people, because they are the foundation of national security. Ignore them at your peril.
The company is in decline, and they just gave themselves a youth injection. Iâ(TM)m not a fan of IBM, but Krishna headed what was probably the best move they couldâ(TM)ve done.
"Just heard about Terry J
It feels strange that a man of so many talents and such endless enthusiasm, should have faded so gently away...
Of his many achievements, for me the greatest gift he gave us all was his direction of 'Life of Brian'. Perfection
Two down, four to go"
Looks like this might be a significant evolution of the Polywell idea. If you consider three pairs of opposing "crossduct" cones (the patent says "at least two" haha), the contraption would have the same effective geometric shape as the polywell, i.e. a cube.
I'm not sure about the troll comment, however, since such a move would prevent Western companies from developing the idea, while giving Russian and Chinese basically free reign to explore it for their own purposes.
Good idea. In order for the PoW algorithm to work, it must be hard to find, but easy to test. It would also have to be susceptible to increases in difficulty to maintain a constant block production time. The question then remains, is it possible to have a quick test, if a solution works?
The article proposes something more profound. It proposes that if you want any security whatsoever, you must invest at least as much energy directly to raising security as the most efficient successful attacker.
A scheme like PoS makes sure that you have something at stake, but the stake is not representative of expended energy to secure the system and therefore even though you have something at stake, you haven't increased security.
I own and use a 12" MacBook and a 15" MacBook Pro. Both have intermittent sticky key issues. On the 12" the comma stayed down for a couple of months and Apple refused to recognize this, because when they inspected it the key magically went back up. Not sure I have the patience to go fix it if they replace the keyboard and the same problem repeats. Will wait for a better fix.
Using external keyboards for now.
Blockchain is a hash chain with a balance ledger and an incentive scheme to make it very expensive to tamper with.
In the same way, investment gold is nothing but an element that is easy to divide and move around, but very inert and hard to tamper with. People like to hoard these tokens, because theyâ(TM)re durable.
The value of gold isnâ(TM)t due to the fact that you can build electronics and gold teeth with. Itâ(TM)s expensive, because people like to hoard it and itâ(TM)s durable.
Mod up.
Kudos for comments backed up with life.
Blockchains seem to split every time there is a contentious upgrade. The blockchain cryptocurrency that wins out will be the one that is most widely accepted. The best way to think about it is that it is a fair inflation. It's (almost) instantaneous and fairly distributed to all those, who hold the legacy coin. Fears of too much dilution are pure FUD. Dilution is only bad, when it robs savers of their money. If savers have double the coins after the inflationary event (fork), then they were not robbed.
There are other effects, of course, like (possible) splintering of acceptability and therefore utility, but classic inflation is not what is happening.
It's comments like these that keep me reading slashdot after all these years.
The reason women need to be mentioned more is to motivate them to join in. I once read that it used to be easier for women to become software engineers, because you didn't need to know anything about it to start formal studies (you still can for other engineering disciplines). Now, you already need to be in a club to belong in first year. Never mind the biological burden of childbearing. I used to resent the extra help women seem to get in the popular culture, but after living with one brilliant woman for 17 years, I don't any more. They really do have it hard, when it comes to professional commitment.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson
