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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 412

why create a system that requires fourteen billion years to actually produce them, with them being around for a mere 50,000, and each having a life span of (almost always) less than 100 years?

Ever play an XT DOS game on a 486 in DOS? The games that clocked to the fixed 4.77 MHz were unplayably fast on a 100 MHz machine. Also, the world is 6000 years old, right? With dinosaurs being created in the fossil record by The Creator. So it ran 6000 years, at a 1000:1 speed, so the simulation has been running for 6 years. Much more reasonable, and if a simulation, no more unreasonable of an assumption than being in a simulation in the first place.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 412

If you take the assertion that the Universe is a simulation seriously, then rocks ARE designed objects, even though there is absolutely nothing about rocks to suggest that they actually are designed.

In No Man's Sky, the rocks aren't "designed", they are "generated". Whether they were generated by a simulation or "nature" is not something we can challenge while we are inside the simulation. In Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout, the rocks are "designed".

I agree it doesn't indicate we are in a simulation, but "not-designed" doesn't lead to "not-simulated".

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 270

Anyone can audit the blockchain, not just miners.

When you get back and find your bitcoins stolen, you'll be able to identify the wallet they end up in. Congradulations. But what good does that do when the protocol doesn't allow for a mass audit? Oh yeah, you have no understanding of how this works.

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 270

If every bank involved agrees the invalid signature is valid, what happens to the money? Now apply that to bitcoin.

You bought into the lie that it's "secure" so completely, that you can't conceive of a situation when it's not. There are plenty, some are obvious, others, less so.

The situation I describe is almost exactly what you described. The swarm is supposed to have some people processing transactions. They confirm the keys. If enough people confirm the fraudulent signature as valid, the transaction takes place, both in bitcoin, and at your bank. You seem to understand the attack 100% and refuse to accept it's possible. It's been proven possible, and is at the point now where it's quite practical. The "fault" is that if someone were to steal 100% of all bitcoins, nobody would ever use another bitcoin. So you'd just destroy bitcoin, not gain anything. Stealing a coin here or there from a wallet that hasn't been touched in a while would be more "practical", and for all we know, is being done now. Bitcoins are finite and identifiable. It'd be possible to find every bitcoin not traded in the past 3 years, assert it "lost" then the attacker fraudulently claim them with the attack given, and it's possible he could liquidate after the theft without anyone noticing until he's cashed out.

Comment Re:Pay your taxes (Score 1) 270

What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.

He had $10 5 years ago. He bought something. He sold it for $100. That's $90 in income. Pretending math doesn't work because you hate government-mandated inflation just makes you look like an idiot.

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 270

It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).

And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.

Comment Re:odd thing I've noticed (Score 1) 319

He's over 60, so maybe the schools he went to didn't cover it. It seems to be a more recent push to have globes in classrooms. The cheap Chinese globes we had were all made in the late 70s, and not replaced in the 80s/90s when the fall of the USSR and Berlin Wall changed maps. Not that you could find Yugoslavia on a small classroom globe anyway...

In the '70s, we covered projections. But when he went through school in the '50s and '60s, they may not have been covering that yet. In the '90s, the schools near me were tearing out all Mercator for this reason, they just didn't put up a PR release about it.

Comment Re:Oakhurst Dairy is correct (Score 1) 331

Laws use formatting to indicate structure. When I was trying to find the original law, I ended up at 3 different articles that formatted it as I did. It's quite common to have a numbered list separated.

If the formatting was irrelevant, why did you abandon the formatting to push your interpretation?

To me, the latter is clearly incorrect.

Then you don't even understand the question. "Incorrect English" isn't a valid argument, unless one is trying to strike down the law, which neither party was trying to do in this case. Is it unambiguously parseable? Yes, the second is more unambiguously parseable than the first (without the Oxford comma you added in, which was irrelevant to the issue at hand).

Comment Re:Oakhurst Dairy is correct (Score 1) 331

We'd be missing an "and" or "or" to denote the final item, so you'd actually need more elements


"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods.

Is invalid, according to you? I eliminated the conjugation, and it looks to make sense, other than it's a dependent clause, as it was before, and without context.

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov