It already has the "fix" inherited from the Bitcoin code they reuse. Though you shouldn't count on that feature to not have bugs: the Dogecoin codebase is old and poorly maintained. If you run it on a cloud service, always turn on billing limits. https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/master/doc/reduce-...
This script asks a node for the 2000 headers between block 783,569 and 785,568.
It's normal for a node to request headers in chunks of 2000, either as part of syncing the entire chain from scratch, or when catching up after being offline for more than two weeks.
It's not the most efficient (asymmetric) way to waste bandwidth either. For each ~100 byte header request you get a 160 KB reply. You can instead ask for a block using a shorter message and get up to 4 MB. This way you can download the entire blockchain at 500+ GB multiple times.
Those with limited upload bandwidth (and for some reason not behind a NAT) can use -maxuploadtarget to limit the total upload.
I'm not sure how the available bandwidth is distributed between peers, but it's generally quite hard to dominate all connections of all nodes (search for "eclipse attacks"), even with a botnet [0].
So that leaves CPU draining as a possible goal (or stealing Bitcoin from random script kiddies who run untrusted code and dependencies from the internet).
[0] = which isn't free, probably not their most economic use case and some of their operators may not like it when you attack a cryptocurrency they themselves may want to use
I wouldn't even call them a publisher. They're a printer, drop-shipper and a book store. I am both the writer and the publisher and I hired my own editor. A lot of companies call themselves "publisher" but really aren't.
Indeed the experience with other printers has been better. Same with e-books (so far). In fact at this point I'm quite happy I didn't use Amazon.
You're confused about the roles here. An editor is someone who works either directly for the author or they work for the publisher. In any case they don't work for the printer / distributor, which is KDP.
An editor or "professional" publisher may be able to explain the author what the problem is, but if they upload the book to KDP, they'll the exact same information I do. Unless there's some old boys network of course.
There may also be publishers that have an in house printing service. But then you lose the distribution advantage Amazon offers, because they can get a book from the printing press to the customer much faster (without inventory).
As I pointed out in the blog, it takes Amazon about 3-4 days from their printer in Poland to my home in Utrecht, and that includes 1 day in some sort of intermediary Amazon delivery warehouse in Rotterdam. IngramSpark needs two weeks to get book into the EU, but even in the US - when a customer orders from Amazon - they seem to need about a week. Old school publishers are probably even slower, if they can do print on demand at all.
I guess Hackernews doesn't render the tl&dr I wrote: <meta name="description" content="How a KDP infringement claim led to kafkaesq dialogues with support. I could not speak to a human and was never told what the offence was."/>
Maybe I was not clear enough on this: I'm not claiming my book was censored, at least not in the traditional political sense of the word.
What I'm saying is that the way the book got blocked, is a harbinger of what future physical book censorship could look like. Once the techniques developed for social media moderation make their way into physical book publishing. Amazon happens to be ahead of the curve there, whereas other printer companies are probably still a bit old fashioned (which is good news).
So you're saying that Amazon will communicate their requirement to a "real" publisher, but not to fake publisher like me? Some sort of old boys network I should just pay to join?
If Amazon wanted more detailed proof, they could just ask for that. There's no limit to how pedantic one can be in evaluating evidence. Maybe they need a physical wet signature from a specific bureaucrat at the US copyright office, sent by courier. Without knowing what constitutes evidence in their eyes, there's simply too many permutations of things they might want to see. I tried a few of those permutations and then gave up.
> The whitepaper is not in the nov08 distribution or the bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz,
How do you know this? The original link in Satoshi's email points to a file that no longer exists and afaik he didn't publish a checksum. So maybe it WAS in there. But is that what the Amazon robot was worried about? Probably not...
Also, unless you were on the mailinglist yourself at the time, you can't even know that the email archive is real.
Nowhere do I predict Amazon to become a monopoly. The prediction is that all other publishers will start following their model of screening content. Perhaps against some global blacklist, more or less following the model social media companies use.
Yes, because Amazon doesn't scan paper books, this route still works. But there aren't that many companies that can print books. It's a matter of time before they all scan the content before printing. At least, in the dystopian scenario.
Book printers should be an easier choke point than social media companies, given that they have far less content to screen. It's just that no western government or advocacy group has bother to do the choking, as they are too busy pressuring social media companies to moderate content.
I stopped reading at “James Damore, who was sacked after he circulated the misogynist iniquitous 33,000-word memo” as it reveals this journalist has an overt agenda and doesn’t mind lying to achieve it.
How would you go about testing the business model of each of these apps? Are you able to test it this week?
Idea one sounds most useful to me, if it hasn't been done yet. Given your experience in teaching people iOs development in real life, you could start with that topic.
Normal books have code samples; perhaps the book can have assignments that you can code and run inside the book? I believe there are some web based iOs development or simulator systems out there; can you leverage those? Or instead of running code, just parse the answer to see if it is correct.
Or you can even use crowdsourcing to have humans grade student assignments as an in-app purchase.
According Arethuza's comment below, at least one of the labs is 1400 meters below ground. Also you need to calculate the straight-line distance between the two points, not the distance over the surface. Although for calculating the difference that's probably a good enough approximation.
So if both stations are 1400 deep and your calculation is correct, the difference should be 14x21=300 meters. Which is a lot more than the 15m effect they found, which suggests they thought about this.
My guess is there's something wrong with the statistical modeling, but I realize that's not a very useful statement. I missed the press conference, but I did read the paper
and I even understood a few things. :-)
It was good to see they even thought about seismic activity (centimeters).
One thing I noticed in both the article and the media is that the effect is never expressed in terms of distance (about 15 meters), but only in terms of time and speed.
It surprises me that they're able to determine the point of creation and detection of neutrinos in such huge instruments, but of course they know their stuff. I did get the impression it took a lot of modelling and advanced statistics to achieve that, hence my earlier "gut feeling" that there lies the problem.
A few other possible explanation that crossed my mind and I'm sure are wrong and already thought about:
* the distance between both sides was measured very accurately, above ground. The earth is not flat, so the distance underground is shorter. I'm too tired to calculate how much shorter.
* relatistic effect of the beam going deeper underground on its way over; I read elsewhere that they already considered the effect of altitude difference between the two stations and that it was orders of magnitude smaller.
* some other mistake in distance measurement; have they tried sending other, easier to measure, signals over to figure out the distance? Or some other independent
way to measure that distance?
To put that in perspective: a 20 part per million difference in speed over 730 km distance is about 15 metres. So details about the detector are relevant, but they obviously know that.
I've never seen convincing evidence that inflation is a good thing (to be honest I haven't spent my life searching for it).
It is however pretty easy to see why inflation is good for people in power, in particular governments; it's a hidden tax. And yes it does encourage people to spend, in fact it encourages people to borrow and then spend. Even borrow so much that it crashes the system.
So as far as I'm concerned the fixed money supply is about the only good property of Bitcoin. Other than that it's a ponzi scheme and it's a lot more cumbersome than electronically traded gold.