You also need to calculate the extra fuel costs for the additional weight of the empty seats. If most of the time those seats are empty, they need to be utilized enough to justify their extra expense.
This makes me wonder what kind of regulations the 3d printing industry will face. It makes me wonder if 3d printer software might be forced to not print pieces it recognizes as a gun similar to how ink printers won't print images of money. Or some other restrictions on printing It seems unlikely that the government will be happy with people printing anything they want.
I don't think you can leave out the self-driving car. 'Google Car' is ambiguous and could mean either the Google Streetview cars or their self-driving cars.
You have to wonder if there is any QA being done on SimCity. I haven't played it, but it sounds like the original release was buggy almost to the point of unplayable, and now it hasn't gotten any better. Is there no one there who's telling them the product sucks and they need to fix it? Or are they just getting so pressured to release that they don't care if it doesn't work?
Does Amazon really go down that often? Is there any data how often/ for how long Amazon does go down? I wonder how it compares to other sites that get the same amount of traffic.
I was looking at this part:
>Note that from the 1814400 BTC awarded, 1148800 BTC has never been spent (63%). I suppose (but have not checked it yet) that these are exactly the segments that belong to the mystery entity
So I guess I'm confused the market bigger than the 1,814,400 that have been awarded somehow? I'm not that familiar with bitcoins so that's very possible, but the author seems to imply that Nakamoto has 63%.
If this one person/entity really owns 63% of the market and their currently hoarding it, I imagine that anything they do with their coins could have a huge impact. It might be worth ~100M USD but if they tried to cash out it would likely collapse the market. Even if they start circulating those coins, if not done properly could cause huge inflation.
I'm curious what the size of the upstream pipe is? Is it 1G up/down? Even without DNS amplification, it only takes infecting a couple hundred machines on fiber to have a massive botnet. Hopefully ISPs will better handle DDoS attacks, because likely a few host machines could take down many sites.
But then you aren't really borrowing/loaning bitcoins. The transaction is taking place in whatever currency you're agreeing to pay it back as. Say currently 10bitcoins = 1oz gold. So I agree to loan you 10bitcoins, and you agree to pay me back their equivalent price of 1oz of gold +interest in 5 years in bitcoins. The loan is being taken out based on gold, and bitcoins are just an intermediary, but they are essentially acting as a certificate for that gold.
It's not as if you're forced to use this as a new home screen. It's an option available to the users. So likely anyone who is using this wants it. I think it is good when users are offered a choice. Let people have the experience that they want.
Isn't the whole point of bitcoins to get away from that kind of thing though? Someone has to maintain a list of what is 'dirty' and that maintainer becomes a central authority in the market. And, as I understand it, part of the philosophy of bitcoins is to have an open and free market. So while your idea is theoretically possible, once things like that start I fail to see how bitcoins are different from any other currency.
My team just went through more agile training, and one piece of advice I found interesting was to consider keeping the managers out of the standup if it's not working. The meeting is to help others on the team, so that's the only people who need to be there.
I definitely noticed that as well. It could be a self-propagating cycle? Maybe people see an article from The Atlantic, then while they're there they find another article and post that? The more people post articles from The Atlantic, the more people who go and read other articles there and go on to post them here. And personally, I think it is a pretty good publication. They have some interesting stories and they are generally well written.
I just wonder how effective that would be. I think kids would have a hard time focusing in front of a computer, and being lectured to. I think a large part of the elementary school education is working on activities and worksheets, especially in groups. I'm not sure you can replicate that in an online course, and I just wonder how effective an online course could be for younger kids. I'd actually be interested in seeing if there have been any studies done on this.
I agree that the backlash to SendGrid has been extreme, and an overreaction, but I feel that they were at least partially to blame before firing Ms. Richards. She stated the SendGrid supported her actions, and without SendGrid saying anything, they are implicitly agreeing that they support her. So I feel people have a right to be angry with SendGrid for supporting Ms. Richards, and I understand people who wrote them angry letters, or made a decision to boycott them.
On the other hand, I don't support people launching a DDoS, or any other sort of a more extreme response.
I'm not an expert on Android permissions, but those seem reasonable to me. What permissions do you have a problem with, and what should they replace it with, or do you think is totally unnecessary?
Maybe you just want to use it to pick off all the smaller guys. You enjoy driving it around and being the Big Man On Campus. But, you don't want to take it into a real fight, you might avoid an actual conflict with it.
I agree, it isn't a definitive source proving that Aaron was innocent. My main point was that btilly said it was "clearly illegal". And I've seen that point reiterated multiple times. Nearly every article I've seen has assumed his quilt. So I just wanted to point out that there is another side.
Just a note, but it's possible what Aaron did actually was legal. There was an article [1] by an expert witness in the case posted earlier today. So I think the trial would have been revealing. Admittedly the article doesn't prove anything, but I think everyone has so far been assuming Aaron's guilt. And while there is no denying the acts that he committed, they may have been legal.
Either that, or they don't have a blog. Pastebin is an easy way to share an e-mail or some other text if you don't have some other method of publication easily available.
It could just be that Google was too big. Maybe Guido just wanted to be the Big Man on Campus. Google is filled with brilliant/famous engineers. Dropbox is much smaller so going to a smaller company, he can have a much larger impact. Just a theory though, there are tons of possibilities.
The main reason is because bitcoins are volatile. Most currencies are fairly stable, there won't be much fluctuation over the course of a week or month, for however long refunds are valid. This isn't true for bitcoins. Once you pay for something in bitcoins, you are trading those bitcoins for something of similar value at that time. I don't know what the bitcoin exchange rate is right now, so I'm just going to make up some numbers for an example. But say you buy a TV that has a value of $1000 USD. Let's say the current exchange rate is 10 bitcoins to 1 USD. Then you have to pay them 10,000 bitcoins for the TV. Say a month later, you decide you want a refund. So you return the TV. Well the TV still has a value of $1000 USD (ignoring deprecation) so you should get that same value back. If the bitcoin market has skyrocketed, to say 5 bitcoins to 1 usd, then you would get 5000bitcoins back, because those bitcoins have the same value. The merchant isn't acting as a bank to hold onto your coins for you, they are trading you something of value for something else, and if you want a refund, you'll get something of the same value back.
Then you place a time limit on submitting feedback. Say you have 1 week-1 month. Still not perfect since it sounds like in the posted scam he didn't find out for over a month, but it might help in many cases.
E: Also just had another idea. You could have a way to edit your feedback after the original deadline in case of fraud. If you open up a dispute like the one posted then Ebay could review the edit's on a case-by-case basis.