|
I doubt that the only issues the card has are the few caps on the underside of it. You can actually replace these caps by hand with a loupe, a fine tip soldering iron, desolder wick, glue, solder paste and tweezers. You can also can do spot reflow using a hot air gun.
Putting the whole card in a reflow oven is no option.
|
|
|
|
please criticize my plan so I may educate myself, I just want the whole world to get up and use bitcoin already
You'd be among two dozen others trying to sell me a subscription to Greenpeace, a magazine written by homeless people, red roses, balloons, memberships to various cults, soaps, stuffed animals and many more I can't remember but it's certain you'll meet them. What's not certain is that you'll sell even a single bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
...or catch 22, that could be related somehow, I don't know how...
|
|
|
|
I just looked it up what it actually was supposed to be. That thing wasn't a real production machine in a robotic sense. There was no servo mechanism and you had to move the toolhead by hand back and forth, the controller, as seen in the picture was supposed to be used for visual feedback on what to do and when. Thanks anyway since this now goes on my list of planned and some day hopefully attempted projects  The make automatic knitting machines that only require you to hook up the yarn skeins (is maybe the right word) and pumps out the sections of whatever you're making on its own according to the pattern you input, via computer or punch card or whatever. The sections then need to be assembled by hand. Yes that's what I've been figuring. My expectations are somewhat higher than whats actually around: CMYK+W (5 yarns) plus relief graphic design stitches and we are talking. I'd settle for the same thing without stitches, but as far as I can tell that doesn't actually exist yet so my ambitions are probably one or two notches too high... A Mandelbrot zoom knitted into a sweater ...nerdgasm  |
|
|
|
I just looked it up what it actually was supposed to be. That thing wasn't a real production machine in a robotic sense. There was no servo mechanism and you had to move the toolhead by hand back and forth, the controller, as seen in the picture was supposed to be used for visual feedback on what to do and when. Thanks anyway since this now goes on my list of planned and some day hopefully attempted projects |
|
|
|
Are there maybe some detailed photos of the machine? With modern prototyping tools it should be quite possible to reproduce it. usb port, svg import and some wizard for sweaters, socks and beanies. That's actually something that would sell, methinks  |
|
|
|
I don't know what to say except:  |
|
|
|
Prisoner's Dilemma!
Ants=Doomed
lulz @ post & handle |
|
|
|
Oh that's cute A pass-through operator posting pirates self-published info. Yeah, because it wasn't witnessed by 256 other people or anything.  It's pirate's credibility which is in question here not inau's. My post mainly addresses the irony of that happening. |
|
|
|
No that was because the spending was based on debt and the currency was based on debt. Not true. The spending was not based on debt, the spending was based on expected future revenue from selling a house. That would exist in any economy. Ok, corrected it was partly based on debt because at some point the expected return was higher than the interest payments. Don't ever apply the idiocracies of the fiat economy to anything else except itself. I try not to. If you can show why that makes a difference, please do. Spending is not inherently good, more spending can change the type of goods an economy produces such that it's producing short-term consumed goods rather than long-term investment goods. That can be bad. Only overextended spending is bad. The reason why overextended spending is so bad in the fiat economy is because of debt and the tendency for the controlling entities to issue more currency the more debt there is and in order to pay off debt. This can simply not happen in another system. I am not talking about spending strictly from a consumer standpoint but from a "prosumer" standpoint. For a money system to support such an economy it is beneficial to encourage spending. It is my belief that if bitcoin were to implement demurrage, even on a voluntary basis economic growth would shoot through the roof. A mandatory system would require too drastic changes to patch it in now but if bitcoin misses this train another cryptocurrency which has this feature from the start will overtake it in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I am not trolling, but feel free to push that orange ignore button maybe there are enough ignorant asshats out there so I can get into the red territory. Definitely time for this:  |
|
|
|
lol No that was because the spending was based on debt and the currency was based on debt. Don't ever apply the idiocracies of the fiat economy to anything else except itself. |
|
|
|
Oh that's cute A pass-through operator posting pirates self-published info. |
|
|
|
Here is the fundamental flaw of bitcoins economic model in one sentence:
Spending because of a need is fundamentally less than because of a want.
(I would be surprised if this gets any insightful answers)
It doesn't matter, it's production that builds the economy, not spending. If we can get the same production with less spending, that's better. So just encouraging spending is not what you want. No. You simply can't get the same amount of production with less spending. Modern production is exclusively driven by demand, overproduction more or less is a thing of the past. |
|
|
|
|
Anybody who runs a non-jailbroken apple product deserves their cool-aid.
nuff said.
|
|
|
|
You are speaking of a man-in-the middle attack which is not surprising that it would be possible to exploit it. It's not an exploit to bitcoin per se but to the way people share addresses. It looks like Satoshi Dice would be a prime candidate for this attack, their page doesn't use SSL: http://satoshidice.com/Yikes! You can connect to satoshidice using their selfsigned ssl though. That triggered a security alert in my browser. Not good.  That's normal, because it's self signed alas no trusted 3rd party authority. If I am correct in theory if an attacker can intercept the whole connection he can break it but not if you establish the thrust using a secure connection. (lets say your home internet access) and use it (lets say you connect your notebook to your work lan) at an untrusted location afterwards. In my opinion this is pretty bad. People probably aren't exploiting this now because they don't know about Bitcoin, but who knows in the future. These sites should definitely be using SSL with 3rd party certs. You have to pay for those though, they are not cheap and depending on your webhost this is even somewhat of a hassle. Generally I agree. If you are concerned as said above sign your message with your privkey using the bitcoin client and point your trade partner to verify it. |
|
|
|
You are speaking of a man-in-the middle attack which is not surprising that it would be possible to exploit it. It's not an exploit to bitcoin per se but to the way people share addresses. It looks like Satoshi Dice would be a prime candidate for this attack, their page doesn't use SSL: http://satoshidice.com/Yikes! You can connect to satoshidice using their selfsigned ssl though. That triggered a security alert in my browser. Not good. That's normal, because it's self signed alas no trusted 3rd party authority. If I am correct in theory if an attacker can intercept the whole connection he can break it but not if you establish the thrust using a secure connection. (lets say your home internet access) and use it (lets say you connect your notebook to your work lan) at an untrusted location afterwards. |
|
|
|
You are speaking of a man-in-the middle attack which is not surprising that it would be possible to exploit it. It's not an exploit to bitcoin per se but to the way people share addresses. It looks like Satoshi Dice would be a prime candidate for this attack, their page doesn't use SSL: http://satoshidice.com/Yikes! You can connect to satoshidice using their selfsigned ssl though. |
|
|
|
|
Have you emailed theymos?
|
|
|
|
go for it  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
