Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:What exactly are they doing with it? (Score 2) 31

It's a distributed trust network, right? Why would banks that survive on trust want that distributed?

Well there's two parts to it, one is the "chain" property where like git's commits it's not possible to edit one transaction later and have it go unnoticed. You can run independent background audits that confirm that this blockchain state corresponds to these transactions and account balances. It's a lot more difficult than adding one fraudulent transaction by itself, like that somebody deposited cash in your account when they never did. Obviously if you can add "genuine" transaction to the chain that's different, but they can be validated in the process.

The other part is inter-bank transactions where it's essential that everybody agrees on the state of affairs. I wouldn't use the "proof of work" but rather signatures of trusted parties, one party one vote. If 100 banks get an inter-bank ledger, 98 of 100 agree on the block chain all the alarms should go off in the last two banks. With signing and countersigning it's pretty hard to go back on anything as 100 banks have digitially signed that they saw your bank digitally sign that this block chain is correct. Because it's harder than you think to find one trusted master to rule them all, both domestically and internationally. Everybody wants to do their own verification which is exactly what block chains provides.

Comment Re:The problem with privitization? Or just no shit (Score 1) 403

Government does little in the way of firsts as they are bound by health and safety laws and sending people on fact-gathering missions is generally a waste of money. Technically the moon missions would come under military, even then, wouldn't they?

Technically, no they wouldn't as NASA is a civilian agency operating outside the chain of command. In every other respect, yes it was the military backing it and funding it.

Comment People with power are like children (Score 4, Insightful) 165

People with power and everybody else are like children.
If your kid steals a cookie and you don't do anything, he will keep stealing cookies. He then will not steal them, but just take them. First you ask, then you beg and then you yell. He will still take the cookies.
Put that kid on a timeout once and 99% of the kids will stop stealing cookies. The other 1% needs to be learned in other ways. But what will happen is if you put these together, the 99% will be an influence of the 1% and prevent the 1% of stealing the cookie.

What have these kids learned? They have learned that there will be consequences. To be fair, sometimes the consequences are worth it. I would gladly stand in timeout for a GREAT cookie.

However never getting a reprimand is the cause of the problem of escalated cookie stealing.

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 364

Internet hate has been growing for a long time now.

At basically the same rate non-techies have started adopting the internet in their every day lives I suspect. The internet was a nice place before all the normals started using it.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

The early internet was full of weirdoes and loonies, there just weren't so many of them in absolute numbers.

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 364

SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.

If you are fired because you exposed by a "SJW" as doing something that is a fire-able offence, maybe you should not have committed that offence in the first place.

Disclaimer: I'm not in the US, so it's not easy to fire people out of hand here.

Comment Re:Great (Score 1) 40

I don't understand when the scam is. He makes crappy books by scrapping public-domain services. Okay, probably low-quality and not much added value, but could be useful. He pushes them up with fake review. Okay, immoral, but a lot of people do it.

TFA says that what he's doing is probably not actually illegal.

But just because something's legal doesn't mean that it's right.

Just read the negative and average reviews before buying and you should avoid it, no ? Am I missing something ?

If you have hundreds of fake positive reviews, the occasional honest negative review will get overlooked. Who reads every review anyway? And who bothers to write negative reviews, come to think of it? If I'd downloaded a book and it was crap, I really wouldn't feel much incentive to waste more of my time writing a review. This applies even more so if the book was free.

Comment Re:No return trips? (Score 1) 469

Saying "yes" to "are you prepared to die" is not the same as saying yes to "are you prepared to live in a shitty cramped tiny colony with other strangers for the rest of your life".

It reminds me of a quote from Dr Johnson: "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned."

Comment off YouTube...? (Score 1) 301

You are the proof that age is in the eye of the beholder. My experience stats well before the 90-ies. There was shitty popular music before that as well. And I mean A LOT.

I remember that Abba was called shitty music and if you liked Abba, you were a shitty person. That said, even before Abba, I was only into music because of the memories it created with friends. My parents have the same attitude towards music and the records they have where Nat King Cole and Carlos Cardel and the like. And even at that time there was a LOT of shitty popular music.

So it is not the popular music that died. It is that you do not like popular music and that is ok. I never realy like ANY music ever. I just liked the situation it created.

Comment Re:Tonnage (Score 2) 195

They say it can transport about 100 tons. That's not much for a colonization effort. The Mayflower that transported the pilgrims to America was rated at about 180 tons. They could expect to live off the land for the most part whereas whoever takes the trip to Mars will be entirely dependent on what they bring with them. Without help from the natives it's likely that the Mayflower's people would not have done as well if they managed to survive at all. Maybe the Martians will help Musk's colonists.

Well, just like when Musk launched the Autopilot saying this is going to become our self-driving car he's exaggerating quite a bit what it'll do in the short term. It'll be an outpost, sustained by Earth resupplies and the bigger the outpost, the greater the need for resupplies. It'll be a very long time before you hit critical mass where each expansion would make it more self-reliant. It'll mostly be a proof of concept, can we expand the living quarters with on-site materials or do we need domes from earth? Can we generate enough food, water, air, heating and power and so on? The burden on Earth needs to go down, then the size of the outpost can go up.

I expect they'll keep enough emergency supplies and consumables in reserve to survive while they try things out and figure out what works and doesn't. But if it doesn't work, we have to send more supplies and less people or all supplies and no people or in worst case just abandon it. Though I don't really believe that, I mean if they just sit in a bunker and eat canned food like on the ISS it's hard to see any reason why they should be forced to leave. But they also wouldn't really be making any progress towards colonization that way, it'd be just survival. Then again, surviving Mars might in itself be the first step since we haven't actually done that yet either.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra