Take a look at the TLD and you'll find your answer. Whether it's positive or negative, I don't know -- but here it's their ball and thus their ballgame.
One of the first thing pg tells everyone in YC is that YC founders aren't treated any differently by the Hacker News software and moderators.
A lot of the upvotes come from the fact that people share TechCrunch stories with everyone they know. There seems to be a big feedback loop effect with TechCrunch.
Maybe you think you're making some sort of important point here. Or maybe you realize your comment is inane and you think it's witty. But your ego is showing.
The question is whether it's easier for the security researcher or the users. I don't think it's easier for the users if they end up being exploited for weeks while the vendor rushes to fix it.
If the vendor tries to delay you for months or ignores you, sure. But it doesn't even seem like he tested the exploit here to understand whether it was a serious threat.
They're not his users, and the company- who allowed these vulns. in the first place- isn't trying to pay him for his work; see Google, CCBill, Mozilla, ect.
There are a lot of people who do more sitting, they call it relaxing, than 3 hours a day and manage to live very long lives. Physical activity is always good but sitting down is not unhealthy.
Yes? There are plenty (I know at least 7 in my family) people who smoke every day for 80+ years and live without disease before dying their sleep. There are a lot of people who do a lot of sitting and manage to live very short lives.
There might or might not be a health issue with sitting down; for me my personal experience is compelling; I feel YEARS younger since I don't sit more than a few hours a day, relaxing or otherwise. This next to other physical activity. It makes sense to me as well (we didn't used to sit a lot before 1900, so evolution didn't equip our bodies to do so for 8+ hours/day), but that's not really proof/evidence of anything per se, just as 'a lot of people who sit a lot live long' and 'a lot of people who sit a lot die young' are not ;)
I think stress levels are involved too ; sitting cramped / stressed is not very good for you I believe while that is the reality for many 'sitting professionals' ; walking helps reduce stress often so that is a part as well I believe.
I have a chair on a table where the sit part of the chair + laptop is exactly the right height for my arms. And I have been doing this for about 2.5 years now. Even wrote a book about it (which I never finished :) I'll revisit it I guess.
If I get you right, you use your chair as a desk. That chair is sitting on a normal desk, so combined the height is appropriate for working while standing. Right?
I have a MBP; I rest my wrists on the huge slabs under the keyboard which works absolutely fine. If you computer doesn't have that, then yes, I would make a real table on the table so I can rest my wrists.
I was a big opponent of bitcoin- still wouldn't use it for anything that matters- but there are some great use cases.
With government bans on online gambling bitcoin could really take over(that market). And, of course, there is the illegal drug trade.
When people say that "it's not backed by anything" all they need to do is fire up tor and take a peak at silkroad. It's backed by one of the most in-demand products ever.
I wonder if it's liquid enough to do an "instant trade". Essentially, you could route (possibly international) financial transactions through BitCoin and avoid big fees by doing a buy on the buyer's side, transferring the coins to the seller, then having them sell the coins in their local currency.
The best part about this is that neither the buyer nor the seller needs to have the slightest interest in BitCoin and it doesn't matter at all if the value of the currency is reasonable so long as it's reasonably stable. Even better, neither side needs to know the other's bank details, just a throw-away BitCoin account number. This isn't just an IMT-killer, it's a PayPal killer as well.
Assuming the BitCoin market is more or less efficient relative to currency markets, and assuming those transactions could be cleared within ~1 day, you could absolutely kill the international transfer market (known for high fees, long delays and shitty exchange rates).
This can be done but I believe it is a bit more expensive than via banks, since you have exchange fees and the spread as liquidity isn't quite high enough (assuming you want to transfer ASAP. If you are willing to wait on both sides you can do a lot better)
Example exchanging 500 GBP to EUR (via intersango at current rates):
You're right, that's not good. I imagine it would get better if people started doing things like that in higher volumes, but that's a bit of a Catch 22.
Until then, there are a couple of mitigating factors:
- You may not get the market rate from anyone. The UK post office is only giving me a rate of 1.2260 to the Euro.
- If you need to pay a fee for a transfer it could be worthwhile for small amounts. The UK post office doesn't charge a fee, but it has a min transfer of £250. www.tranzfers.com charges £7 or $15AU. I've paid more elsewhere.
I've seen a lot worse at the airport. Assuming that people are using bitcoin for reasons other than a favorable exchange rate, 7 points isn't going to be a deal killer, or even a deal slower.
This is also my opinion.
For me, BTC doesn't make sense when purchasing, say, computers. But for buying e-goods, MMO game items, or anything else where there are huge margins, it actually makes sense.
Government currencies have the benefit that the government creates demand for them by using it as denomination for tax debts. Non-government currencies have no such external creation of demand.
It's actually quite curious that Bitcoin was able to take off the way it did despite this lack of initial forced demand. I wonder which was more important: the fact that there are so many anti-government ideologues out there, the fact that Bitcoin can help with illegal transactions, or simply the fact that it's a neat technology. I'm certain all three played a role, perhaps to a different extent at different times.
Independent currencies don't have that particular source of demand, but economies are made of much more than tax debts. And you could argue that overbearing policy itself creates demand for currencies that enable untaxable (and other illicit) transactions. Government itself could be said to encourage demand for both forms of currency.
I doubt that the 'neat technology' aspect contributes much to the exchange rate; or little more impact than coin and banknote collectors have on mainstream currencies. You don't need to put much money in, or participate in many transactions, in order to examine the technology itself.
