conroe64

I also am thinking of investing but this pre-sale is not the time. They are creating and distributing 1/3 of the ether from the pre-sale to the development team (along with the proceeds from the sale itself, so they in essence get to have their cake and eat it, too). Then they are creating another 1/3 of the ether from the pre-sale and giving it to the miners.

The "fuel" used is going to be a fart in the wind, since it is setup like a bidding process so the transaction goes to miner willing to accept the least amount of ether per clock cycle to run the contract. Since these contracts are going to contain at most maybe thousands of instructions, the expense is going to be extremely small.

So at launch, unless there is some "killer app" from day one, or they are able to generate more hype then they are right now, there won't be any buyers (anyone who was interested in the protocol would probably have bought at the pre-sale) and some major selling pressure from the miners and the ether distributed to the development team.

Many clones were made of bitcoin, but it has a large first mover advantage which keeps it on top. coinmarketcap.com has some interesting stats on the "altcoins"

This one does...

http://smilingdavesblog.blogspot.hk/2012/08/bitcoin-all-in-o...

IMHO, to continually put "success" above everything else in your life and slave away towards that goal as the ultimate redemption in everything is a waste of your time and therefore your life.

It can be such as easy sell, especially to people with low self-esteem... if only you were rich, had a great body, had success with the opposite sex, etc., etc. And always underlying it, but never spoken of, is the vain and self centered attempt to compare yourself to others and come out on top.

When these goals are achieved, rarely does anyone publicly say that it wasn't worth it. It's like a bad marriage rotting from the inside. No one wants to admit to being a fool. So stuff like this propagate, it's a beautiful lie. Rather than think of how awesome your life will be if you just work a little harder and achieve success, you might as well be talking about how great heaven will be as long as you follow some arbitrary religious text.

It's like you think someone out there is keeping score, and it's all some type of game which you can win. We came from nature, and in nature, nobody keeps score. Animals live and die on the basis of stupid luck all the time. On your death bed you probably won't be looking over your life and decide whether it was worthwhile or not, and give yourself some report card on it. Instead you more likely won't even remember more than bits and pieces, and then eventually die and forget it all.

The hero in the story is an Israeli soldier who decided to risk his life over a few dollars in his pocket. To do what, prove he was macho? He was really stupid in my book. And we're supposed to, according to the author, look up to this man? Train all our lives as a knife fighter, so we, too, can take dumb risks and be lucky enough to not get killed doing so? What if it went the other way, and the soldier friend was hurt or killed? Would the author still be putting him on a pedestal as he does so?

I'm not saying don't try. Just make sure you are enjoying what you are doing, first and foremost. If you're not happy, either motivate yourself in a positive way, or let it go. It really isn't worth it.

I don't understand what you are trying to show with this study. It compares moderate drinkers among themselves according to the type of alcohol consumed. It doesn't compare drinkers vs non drinkers

What do you think of the study mentioned in this article that indicates that heavy drinkers outlive abstainers?

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200...

Here is the study itself:

http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/ETOH/Readings/Late_life_alcohol...

I did something like this using the open source vnc viewer for android. I had the idea that you could make a 10,000 x 10,000 pixel virtual screen and then use it for programming. You could turn your head and phone would then show a different part of the screen. Also I had it so if you tilted your head left or right it would zoom in or out based on the direction.

It worked well enough, but my phone's resolution was only 1280x800 which is 640x800 per eye. Not enough to really be able to program well.

I just got the quad hd LG G3 though, so I'm going to try it again as soon as I can get a good setup (I'm in hong kong right now so ordering things online is a little tricky). If anyone wants the (hacky) source code, and a brief manual, let me know.

BTW, I just used a hat with cardboard and tape to hold the phone and several pairs of high strength reading glasses worn on top of each other to get the lenses right.

They don't have 51% anymore, although I think their other concerns are valid:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-pulls-power-ghash-community-... https://blockchain.info/pools

In order to exchange them someone needs to buy them first. So, depending on how much they are used for trade, the amount held transitively for this purpose will vary.

Since there is a fixed number, the more popular they become as a trading platform, the higher the price will go, since if many people, P, need to trade at the same time, and they need an average of $X worth at any given time, and there are B bitcoins available, then $X * P / B is the minimum price a bitcoin can be.

So, if the amount used for trade becomes somewhat stable and/or continues to grow, it means there is some real base dollar value for a bitcoin in order to support this. Given this base value, along with its other features of easily being kept safe and transferred across national borders, it then makes them attractive to store wealth, which increases the value much more. And then, given the group of people willing to store wealth in bitcoin, it makes people even more confident in it as a store of wealth. And so on and so on...

It doesn't have to be so black and white as that. You can take into account other factors such as country of origin of the consumer and identifying information provided as whether to accept a credit card payment or not.

Now, if only the workers did $15 per hour worth of work, everything would be set...

If you drink milk and consume eggs, aren't you still perpetuating the same system? I mean after a cow no longer can produce milk it's not like it will go to a cow hospice.

You presuppose the wild animal can understand a running wheel, something it never encountered before.

The mice, on seeing something novel, did what that normally do and try to climb all over it looking for food. They then got stuck running on it, not realizing they were getting nowhere.

So how did you ever learn to walk, then? Every time you tried to move your leg, the fact that you moved forward, would be anecdotal and the data should be thrown out.

These weird political fights are in the wrong arena. I'm not going to try to argue with you about what it means to fight a new technology and whether a decades old business model is valid or not, because it's just silly. Regardless of how you and I feel whether a company is doing the right thing, it's there and it's surviving, and in this case, thriving, in its niche.

It might feel good to bad mouth giant corporations and swear that you'll never invite them to the next family BBQ because of some negotiation spat they have with each other, but, in reality, all successful big corporations get down in the mud like everyone else. If you don't like what they do, try and get the law changed.

But please stop with this whiny horseshit... it's like crying to your mom over Billy eating your desert from your packed lunch. It's sad and pathetic and no matter how many of you all bleigh the same memes and buzzwords over and over again, it won't have any lasting effect.

The sheep have neighed.. er down voted

Comcast's stock is up over 250% over the last few years and has made me a lot of money... so whatever they've been doing has been working and IMO they should keep at it.

It's a dirty game and no one is completely clean, so we should all come down from our high horse. Fluid and evolving business strategies are not the devil's spawn that people make them out to be.

You have to act more appalled by trivial annoyances, or you slow down the building of the whole hyperbole storm that the people here like to create. Otherwise, they are unable to distract themselves from the boredom and feelings of lack of empowerment in their lives.

Well... yea.. I suppose shit happens

You could suggest that there's better ways of doing that, but our ideas so far haven't panned out.

Can I ask, have you heard about Peercoin, which uses a combination of a proof of work and a proof of stake system rather than just a proof of work system? Do you have an opinion as to why such as system wouldn't be at least as secure as bitcoin?

The 1994 mini-bear market? You're shoehorning the data a little to match your theory, don't you think?

It's called Xanax

I was thinking the same thing, and concluded the ink changes color or something in the presence of pizza. Not that far fetched actually and would have been a lot cooler.

Who would deposit bitcoin in an exchange where the average price is a fifth of what is was in other exchanges? Fiat deposits wouldn't matter for this plan.

Even if there are some coins left, there is nothing to repeat. You sell them, and the plan is over... it doesn't bootstrap anything.

This would only work if the coins were still there. If the Gox coins are stolen/lost, then what are you buying? A worhtless claim to coins that don't actually exist, and that you can't sell.

I am guessing that, without reading it, you summarily dismissed it as identical to other sham stories and go off rant about them all as a collective, not realizing there is a ton of evidence to back up marijuana's role in fighting cancer. And then, of course, this being in the internet and all, you insult the intelligence of the poster. All because it doesn't fit in your world view.

Well done, indeed. You have demonstrated you are steeped deeply in the internet culture.

Fool.

I don't think you should be so sure that all solutions to cancer have been tried.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-04-24/news/key-words-cannabis-o...

There is no money in natural cures, so most researchers don't bother.

I think the logic is more to elicit a strange occurrence (bug, dare I say?) that doesn't occur unless under some weird circumstances. In this case, this behavior would be possible unless the value of a variable, currentPos, is set to an object before that object's constructor finished, and all in the same thread!

The only possible explanation is that the JIT decided to reorder the execution so the variable was set to memory allocated for the object, and then ran the objects constructor.

It's all very surprising behavior.

Can you explain what makes it so terrible? At first glance it seems as if it is thread safe, and avoiding synchronization locks can provide a nice speed up.

The notion that currentPos could be set to the new Point before the Point(int x, int y) constructor completed was completely surprising to me.

Is that something that was obvious to you, or do you have other reasons to dislike it?