Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 68

limited participation blockchain is redundant because the trust is already established by the exclusivity of the system.

Imagine that not all of the participants turn out to be honest. Or, imagine this is finance, and 0% of the participants are honest.

Majority-signing works well when the majority are honest, even if a substantial minority are not. It also works well when everyone is dishonest, but very unlikely to collude. This is solving a different problem than Bitcoin tries to solve. This is an implementation of "mutual auditing", not an alternative currency.

The thing that establishes trust on bitcoin is that no one miner can easily own a large portion of the compute power on the system,

Perhaps. I think it's possible the NSA has the compute power to take over bitcoin, After all the NSA had "ASIC miners" for at least 7 years before BTC existed. (You don't think the NSA published SHA-2 before they had ASICs, do you?)

Comment Re:Not a bad guess (Score 1) 147

Human population has expanded tremendously in the last part of those 800,000 years, and all of us consume oxygen.

It's worth remembering that Earth's total biomass is:
* 99.9% Prokaryote bacteria
* 0.1% Other (mostly plankton)

The tiny remainder that's not bacteria or plankton is mostly fish. Humans, sure, are reasonably successful within what's left over, but so are cattle, termites, ants, and krill.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 80

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

)there's no rational basis to be worried about it

Says you. Most people see it differently.

When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

Says you. Most people see it differently.

Comment Re:In other words (Score 2) 68

In other words: They are doing something completely different, but still call it "blockchain" because that's the current buzzword.

A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants. If the participants all trust one another, or trust the system to protect them from the others, it serves its purpose, even if they are in fact pathologically lying shitsacks like financial companies.

I'm dubious of the "editing", but if it's really just new records that say "this record replaces record XYZ", i.e., it's still write-only except by convention, that's fine too.

Reminds be a bit of what "cloud" should have stood for until it became a generic moniker for simple online storage.

Not sure what you mean here. Sure lots of marketeers talk about "stored in the cloud", but most often that does mean "stored with AWS or Azure, behind the scenes". And there's plenty of "cloud computing" too: more and more distributed scientific jobs are moving that way, as well as naturally-distributed work like animation rendering. Heck, it's the new fad for small software companies to build and test jobs in the cloud.

Comment Re: I am? (Score 3, Interesting) 203

So you have no ethical issues pirating content?

I have 0 ethical issues pirating content when the company won't take my money. Give me a (practical) way to pay for that thing I want to watch, either directly or through my Netflix sub, and I do. Companies are (finally) wising up to this, and beginning the fight against the legacy of region-specific distribution deals, culture of delaying release in some formats, and so on.

Comment Re:One white elephant for sale. (Score 1) 64

Google would likely to keep the employees, and in a few months announce that GTwitter will join the 60 or so services in the Google graveyard.

Microsoft would likely keep the employees at firs, destroy the product through mismanagement, then close any remote offices and fire anyone there.

Verizon would likely fire everyone immediately, and then bill them each $9000 for data overages.

Comment Re:Not enough (Score 1) 55

Amazon is greedy for being unwilling to properly ship potentially dangerous goods.

Given this only happened 4 times, I'd bet it's just a process enforcement issue - that is, they have a process to prevent it, but no real incentive to police it.

Therefore, a 60,000 Euro fine is hardly enough to discourage the behavior.

Maybe - it's they're only doing it negligently, that's enough incentive to actually follow the process they (I'm guesing) already have. Or to just fly all the explosives only on the new planes they bought. One of those.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional so you see, when you say those things are "unconstitutional", you're simply wrong.

Yes, yes, I know you want a system of government where the voting of the ignorant unwashed peasants is just theater, and a few select royalty actually make the laws. And, congrats, that's basically what we have.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

Most of those "excepts": also blatantly unconstitutional. Convenient for the state. But unconstitutional. (The "enemy combatant" thing is fine constitutionally, BTW, except when applied to US citizens, where it's blatantly unconstitutional.)

Except your right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is ignored if you are given the death penalty in Texas

Not cruel and unusual, merely punishment.

Oh hell yeah, there are exceptions. Those exceptions are what keep us a civil society.

If any of them are, in fact, needed for a civil society, there is a process for amending the constitution. It has been amended a bunch of times, after all. Ignoring it is not the process.

I'm curious. When you "hold the totalitarians at bay", who do you think you're gonna be shooting? Police? Members of the military? Interesting.

Well, two scenarios. For the more likely, have you ever read about Kristallnacht to at least this depth. It wasn't guys in uniform. Hitler didn't officially declare it (but he still declared it cleary enough). Fascism starts with Brownshirts, and the whole point is that they aren't officially part of the government.

For the less likely, if some state government was actually stupid enough to send cops (or worse, troops) around to confiscate guns, it would be a total shitshow. A few recent attempts to register long arms have been wholesale ignored by the people, and the states were wise enough to ignore that. Hopefully, we'll never forget that the last time the governor of Massachusetts sent troops in to disarm the people, it led to bloodshed and ended a day and a half later with the troops driven from the field and 15,000 armed and organized citizens in "a siege line extending from Chelsea, around the peninsulas of Boston and Charlestown, to Roxbury, effectively surrounding Boston on three sides". A year and a half later not just the governor, but 100% of the government had been replaced. But some people are determined to ignore history, so you never know.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

And a broken ceramic plate can be scalpel sharp. Mayan obsidian blades can be sharper than it's possible to sharpen steel. The fancy new ones are just less sharp and more durable, but if just you wanted a knife for use in one attack that had no metal, that's literally stone age technology.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

And how often does that come up? Plastic guns still need metal springs, BTW, which will be enough to set off a metal detector, plus the, you know, bullets. Ceramic knives? As in "a broken dinner plate"? Somehow we've survived the scourge of ceramic knives for a dozen centuries - I think we'll be OK.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

Do you know it's also illegal for violent felons to own handguns? Do you also believe this is "confiscation"?

It's blatantly unconstitutional. There's no "except" in the Second Amendment. There's a process for amending the Constitution, but instead we got into the habit of ignoring it (cleverly "interpreting" it to find "penumbras"), and so it no longer protects us. Just as the security checkpoints at courthouses are blatantly unconstitutional - no "unless we're scared" in the Fourth Amendment either.

Fortunately, it only takes about 2% of gun owners to have courage and ability to hold the totalitarians at bay, and that's as true today as it was in 1775. The noise from Democrats about gun confiscation will remain noise.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 2) 410

So you move the goalpost from "no one will try" to "no one has tried", but that's still quite wrong. Hawaii, New York, Missouri, Virginia, New Jersey, Oregon, and of course California all proposed gun confiscation legislature, as well as Feinstein pushing it at the federal level, and that just in 2013.

Politicians try all the time.

Or did you mean "no one has sent troops to do it"? Or did you mean "I'm just making up bullshit because I'm a troll"? Cause I'm pretty sure it's that last one.

Slashdot Top Deals

We cannot command nature except by obeying her. -- Sir Francis Bacon