tfc-salamander.com

Sapphire radeon r9 290x litecoin price

Jan hrach bitcoin exchange rate

This is a re-write of some older material published by my PR on some forum, which I'm too lazy to dig up. It's expanded, clarified, revised and so forth, so the old version is obsolete anyway.

Normally this article would have included by way of example a private conversation, but meanwhile the other party dun scooped me, so you can read it there. The Web of Trust is not , as the name would seem to imply, an oilfield in which trust plays the role of oil, and you deploy some apparatuses and other devices to extract the trust therewith.

Trust is not in the web, that or any other web. Trust is not in the wording, not on the paper, not in the symbols, or certificates, or seals. Trust is not in others and other things, but much like faith - for which it serves as a ready synonym - trust is within oneself.

The Web of Trust is "of trust" in the same exact manner the walk of shame is "of shame": It's within you, if at all, if you're the amateur sort of slut who'd be shamed by something like this. All up to you. The Web of Trust is merely the infrastructure upon which trust is built, by you, for your own use, within yourself. The same objective set of relations can result in drastically different trust in the eyes of drastically different third parties.

The point of the WoT is not to make these judgements for you. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem. That is to say, if sources of information exist, the user may by the WoT find them, and safely assume that should no sources of information be thus found, no sources of information in fact exist.

It further allows the user to judge the quality, reliability and precision of said sources, and this independent both of the direct source and of the counterparty he's examining. How to use it. Let's understand what all this means with a simple example. Consider the village of Wotania, wherein there exist exactly agents ii , all participating in the Wotania WoT, and wherein strong currency iii is used for all transactions.

Suppose Joe wants to buy a used car from Moe. While the currency he'd be paying Moe in is strong, the car he's buying is anything but, and so Joe would like to evaluate Moe before paying him. What's he to do? First off, he should evaluate Moe's relevancy. Obviously since there are agents in total, the highest score any one agent could achieve in the WoT would be iv.

This would reflect the situation where one particular citizen was considered as perfectly known by all other citizens. If Joe knows 80 agents personally, but none of the agents he knows rated Moe, this makes Moe suspect on the first pass. Sure, it's possible that Moe is only known to the minority subgroup of 20 agents doing things with cars, and within that subgroup he's quite well known, whereas Joe is strictly a part of the Wotania web industry, and they walk everywhere.

However, this is something that Joe can evaluate by himself , without having any need for Moe, and without needing to ask him anything. For instance, if the island has a total of 3 car manufacturers, and all of them are in Joe's 80, Moe's position suddenly became untenable. Sure, it's possible that used car salesmen are completely separated from car manufacturers in the manner car people are separated from web people.

But it seems less likely and the likeliness of it is, again, fully within Joe's estimative hands. Leaving that aside, if the average rating in Joe's WoT is 3. Sure, it is legitimately possible for Moe's subgroup to be much more tightly knit, and thus his friends much more familiar with him than is the case in Joe's group.

This happens, but not without other consequences, which again add valuable information into the credibility equation. Or suppose instead that Moe's rating of 33 was provided by 10 people, yet still none of them are in Joe's reach. They live on the same island, they go about their daily business, yet no one's ever met. Possible, especially if one lives in the US, but also improbable, and in this improbability, informative.

Because this is the point of the WoT: But let's say that out of Moe's 10 raters, 3 are in Joe's WoT. One supplied 3 points, the others one point each. Joe directs his questions as to Moe to each of them:. Dear Sue, Hue, Lue: I am considering buying a used car from Moe. I see that you have rated him in the past. How did that go? To which the three are held to answer and the treatment for non-answering is again an informative variable, whose treatment rests with Joe in the canonical form:.

I bought a pair of shocks from him April last. They were broken, but he refunded my payment without much hassle. All the best, Sue. I bought a car stereo from him. It had a big scratch on the side and some other misc damage, but he let it go real cheap. All the best, Hue. At this point, Joe knows, but quite exactly , what the story with Moe is: Alternatively, of course, he could be a very reputable used cars salesman.

So why isn't it used more often? Because people are stupid, in that many words, or should you prefer a longer version, because allowing citizenship to the US African-Americans and empowering the universal pretense of "democracy" and equality has come with its own Pandora's box of ills and curses. Chief among which, a very pernicious return to idolatry. People like to think their juicer is their happiness, and their diploma their competency and whatever seal their trust. Because it's easier, especially if you're lazy, or stupid, and even moreso if you're both.

None of this has anything to do with race, in any sense, of course. People of all races are slothful and dumb, especially if they're allowed to be. Obviously, it doesn't work by itself. But to anyone paying attention, it was quite plainly clear what exactly the guy was doing, to the degree they could evaluate roughly a six months interval for the scheme's demise my PR said "May to September", the thing croaked in August.

Lisp advocacy misadventures From: I was talking with a friend of mine about Lisp. He said that people write things in C because of speed. But this is incorrect. I said that Lisp will not necessarily cause a program to be slow, and in fact, because it lets you write a better program, things may even get much faster. He said 'like what? Better algorithms and type systems are well known to produce better performance by people who actually study these things. It is often very hard to implement better algorithms correctly and efficiently in C because of the type poverty of that language.

Yes, you get to tinker with the bits as fast as the machine can possibly tinker, but, and this is the catch, you get to tinker with the bits. If you are not super smart and exceptionally experienced, the compiler will produce code that is faster than yours. If this holds from assembly to C, it holds from C to Common Lisp, given that you want to do exactly the same thing.

The core problem is that C programmers think they can get away with doing much less than the Common Lisp programmer causes the computer to do. But this is actually wrong. Getting C programmers to understand that they cause the computer to do less than minimum is intractable.

People are pretty good at detecting that this is a likely outcome of thinking, and it takes conscious effort to brace yourself and get through such experiences. Since you have nothing to defend, your self-preservation instinct will not activate hitherto unused parts of your brain to come up with reasons and rationalizations for what you have done, you will not be aware that you have been taken for a ride before it is over and you "lost".

If you deny people the opportunity to defend something they feel is under threat, however, some people go completely insane with rage and actually believe that you threaten them on purpose and that you willfully seek to destroy something very valuable to them. Most of the time, however, the error is large enough to cause a crash of some sort, but there is no way to do transactions, either, so a crash usually causes a debugging and rescue session to recover the state prior to the crash. This is deemed acceptable in the New Jersery approach.

Therefore, the whole language must be optimized for getting the first approximations run fast. See how elegantly this forms a completely circular argument? But if you try to expose this circularity, you necessarily threaten the stabiliity of the whole house of cards and will therefore be met with incredible hostility and downright hatred, and you will not even hear about the worst fits of insane rage until years later when some moron thinks he can get back at you for "hurting" him only because his puny brain could not handle the information he got at the time.

Well, I'm blinded by the very misconceptions that led me to this point, and I'm not sure what to tell him. Can you help me out? Ask him why he thinks he should be able to get away with unsafe code, core dumps, viruses, buffer overruns, undetected errors, etc, just because he wants "speed". Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.

Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback. I'm lazy too but I had it in my essential reading list. In fact, I am ready to argue that the savings this model brings are, both in aggregate and on a percent basis, more significant than the savings Bitcoin brings in payments, or provably-fair in gambling. However, let me give a little insight into what has been going on lately.

We just lost our 9th bank account, due to fraud from customers. Yes, nine bank accounts have been shut down now. We've had over a hundred thousand dollars in attempted fraud over the past year. There was an entire fraud ring that hit us, and made hundreds of accounts to scam us. It's the reason we lost our last payment processor, and the reason we no longer allow gift certificates.