Re: Programming for smart contract execution... What could go wrong?
It's one way. The other way is that it's buggy. It doesn't matter how many machines execute it, all they're doing is making the same error.
40432 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"And yet I can't help wondering if it;s not cheaper to retain existing customers"
I don't know if it still happens but I used to see motivational posters in offices about it being cheaper to keep an existing customer than to win a new one. The trouble with so many top managements is the view that what applies to the plebs doesn't apply to them and it's their decisions which determine whether it's possible to retain customers.
"try the forums that also run where unpaid other customers are expected to help you."
I can't help feeling that these must be very open to being gamed. Imagine a query starts off "I just bought an Acme Squidifier MkII..." and that's pounced on with "Well, that's your mistake right there. You should have bought Superbo's model instead." Is that genuine advice, if not actual help, form another customer or one of Superbo's PR staff?
If your employer prefers this form os customer support please feel free to point out this possibility.
The reason the LPOA stops on decease is that it's no longer needed. The executor takes over.
You won't have purchased any music on line. You'll have purchase the personal right to listen to it. Online storage is another matter (depending on the T&Cs) and this would be dealt with by ensuring the executor has the passwords.
Just thinking idly for a moment... For short range do you need any fragile connections?
I can seen what's on my screen here with no fibre optics getting in the way and, as Pete implies, using air rather than glass the light is travelling faster. A broadcast or, at best loosely aimed set of transmitters and receivers would do just as well.
At first sight this is OK if there are only a pair of end points trying to communicate in this way, otherwise there would be conflicts. But we already have the technology to deal with such conflicts - CSMA/CD. Optical Ethernet.
Perhaps you'll be a witness for the appeal. As things stand before the UK courts an assurance has been given and, without proof that it will be broken, that must be accepted. If it is broken it will result in a huge row, very likely be the basis for getting such charges thrown out of court in the US and make any further extraditions that much more difficult.
About half my annual mileage is done within a few miles of home. The other half is done on holiday over a couple of weeks per year. I could easily live with an EV charged at home for the first half. For the second I'd need to have confidence in an infrastructure that would enable me to find and use a charger as conveniently as a normal petrol station. If we're talking about a 20 to 30 minute charge at a service station then it means that almost every place in the car park would need a charger so as to be sure of finding one. If we're talking about fast chargers at "filling stations" then we need a similar network to those currently selling petrol. That's the sort of infrastructure that's needed.
In this rural area there are many houses which have no off-road parking. There is no possibility of them being able to provide home charging. Can people charge them at work? That means a charging point at every car parking space because the driver would need assurance that a charger would be available and first come first served isn't going to work if, say 10% of spaces have chargers. And that would not be off-peak charging.
The essence of a battery swap scheme isn't the battery, it's the charge. You're buying so much charge. The battery is just the container and is owned by the business that sells the charge. Obviously one of the requirements for making such a scheme work would be a suitably accurate means of measuring the charge - both what's left in the battery that's swapped out as well as what's in the battery that's swapped in. The cost of the battery gets split across the many times it will be used during its life.
"The six-legged creatures are the largest and most diverse multi-cellular organisms on Earth."
If you're counting the entire colony as a single organism it has a lot more than six legs. If you're counting the individual colony members as organisms then the size is very strictly limited to the maximum that an insect's respiratory system can support.
AFAICS this isn't what the roboticists are interested in. They seem more interested in the apparently intelligent behaviour that arises from the combined activities of social insects. The units might be cheap but to achieve the results you'd need a lot of them, all doomed to end up as yet more electronic landfill.
There's an old saying that my right to extend my fist stops just short of your nose. In other words, we do not live in some ideal environment where individual actions have no consequences. We must consider those consequences. I might have a right to extend my fist, you have a right not to be punched in the nose. The limitation on my right is my responsibility to respect yours. Note that word: responsibility. There are no rights without responsibilities. They are opposite sides of the same coin. Our concept of "rights" is essentially one of mutual respect, our laws are simply a delineation of where those rights and responsibilities lie.
One of the SEC's responsibilities is to prevent the share-buying public's rights not to be misled, either deliberately or accidentally, by what's said by people with inside information or decision making powers in the companies whose shares they might buy or own. They do that by placing a responsibility on the people in that position not to make misleading statements, a responsibility that comes with the right to be in that position.
In this particular case Musk's tweets, because of his position in Tesla etc. can induce individuals to spend money in the belief that he will do what he says and those individuals then find themselves out of pocket. His indulgence in what he considers free speech infringes the rights of others. The SEC is trying to prevent damage he causes.
If, of course, he were to completely leave the management of the companies and divest himself of his significant holdings then his tweets would carry no more significance than those of the man in the Clapham Omnibus. Assuming he does not wish to travel in the Clapham Omnibus but to retain his rights to occupy those positions and hold those shares then he needs to respect others' rights and exercise his responsibilities. The SEC's settlement required him to respect those rights. There's no reason to think that his statements will have any less effect now and, therefore, no reason to think that his responsibilities have disappeared.
My alternative suggestion above was that if he wants to keep his rights to tweet whatever he thinks as he thinks and maintain his other rights in regard to the companies then there should be a mechanism whereby he takes personal responsibilities for any damage he causes. I wonder if he would consider that a fair deal.
Swap the requirement for one that appoints an arbitration panel to decide the compensation he has to pay to anyone who loses money as a result of his Twitter powered manipulation of share prices. No lawyers involved because the agreement would be to pay what the panel decided so he wouldn't be able to dispute it. No legal fees, therefore, for the claimants; just put the claims to the panel Then the SEC shouldn't be concerned that his tweets affect the share price because the only person losing money would be himself.
It would be a reminder to him of the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer.
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. You don't say what you find objectionable about LO's layout but personally I find that it can use the same icon set (Oxygen) as almost every other application on the laptop, it's the one I've used for years and therefore it makes UIs that use it unobtrusive which is a desirable characteristic. I don't want an eye-rattling UI.
Oddly enough I spend scarcely any time at the web site except when there's a new version to download.