Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:32:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 [1415] 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804996 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 05:35:48 PM
 #28281

i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow.  not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.

These days, the only difference between you and the Buttcoiners is that you say "Cripplecoin" instead.   Tongue

You're the one who hired the guy that under oath represented you as the LeBron of BTC.

When you aggressively and egregiously misunderstand the flow and causation of tx broadcasting from clients to pools to block inclusion and then on to verification, of course we're going to have fun with that amusing apparent contradiction (however unfair it may be to confuse athletic, financial, and technical expertise).

If you don't want to be called LeBron until the day Lord Satoshi moves His Holy Coins, I suggest apologizing for accusing the core devs (who write the free code you run) of impropriety/malfeasance/obstructionism/etc.

Quote
it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks.

More SPV mining, which is not an attack but rather explicitly permitted/encouraged by the protocol and arguably beneficial, is the result of larger (not "full") blocks.

Even Peter, your fellow Gavinista, has tried explaining you are full of shit, to no avail:

Quote
2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

What's your excuse for ignoring Peter's attempt to inject you with sanity?  He's not a Cripplecoiner, nor did he mention ad hom/HF/iceblow.

Can't you just man up and admit being wrong?  Come on LeBron, the ball is in your court!   Grin Grin Grin

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481020355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020355
Reply with quote  #2

1481020355
Report to moderator
1481020355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020355
Reply with quote  #2

1481020355
Report to moderator
1481020355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020355
Reply with quote  #2

1481020355
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:38:21 PM
 #28282

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

...

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:
...

We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.



that's pretty sad but totally expected from you.

if you'll recall, it wasn't actually that long ago when i was of similar thought; doing nothing to the protocol.  ever.

but reading some of JR's stuff and thinking about the concept of digital gold, i think Bitcoin has to be reliably and cheaply accessible by everyone worldwide for maximum decentralization and value.  whether that's achievable via future tech improvements remains to be seen but we need to try.  otherwise, gold will continue to be used and valued by an outside large contingent that won't bother with Bitcoin and will even compete to a very large degree. 
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:40:03 PM
 #28283

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
Because it greatly reduces the time it takes to transmit blocks but does not completely eliminate it-- nothing can (due to the speed of light).  In particular, something I didn't know until my conversation with them on July 4th:  the nearest relay network hub to F2Pool is still 200ms away due to insane routing that sends traffic between some networks in china and singapore via the US (thanks NSA?).

Quote
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

Quote
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
I don't know what you're talking about there.  AFAICT F2Pool would also consider e.g. 750k "large".

Do you mean why was 1MB selected as the particular hard limit in the protocol?   ::shrugs:: It happens to be the the highest value you could sync over a modem and stay up with the network (though not for mining, due to latency), though that could be by chance.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
 #28284

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
Because it greatly reduces the time it takes to transmit blocks but does not completely eliminate it-- nothing can (due to the speed of light).  In particular, something I didn't know until my conversation with them on July 4th:  the nearest relay network hub to F2Pool is still 200ms away due to insane routing that sends traffic between some networks in china and singapore via the US (thanks NSA?).

since small pools can also connect to the relay network, and i assume they do, there is no reason to believe that large miners can attack small miners with large blocks.  in fact, we've seen the top 5 chinese miners deprecated due to the GFC making it clear they CANNOT perform this attack despite what several guys have FUD'd.

Quote
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

Quote

how can that be?  mining pools all use a full node around which they coordinate their mining.  all full nodes are relatively in sync with their mempools which is the whole concept on which IBLT depends on. 
Quote
Quote
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
I don't know what you're talking about there.  AFAICT F2Pool would also consider e.g. 750k "large".

750 kB blocks are clearly being mined by miners who haven't changed the default.  in fact, i think the top 2 Chinese miners only recently changed their default to 1MB.

pt being, it's statistically unlikely that full blocks today represent the magical level of "large" blocks that Satoshi set 6 yrs ago.  the problems we are having with the forks are a result of the defensive tactics being taken from those full blocks.

have the Chinese miners given you a technical reason why they're SPV'ing?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
 #28285


We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.

that's pretty sad but totally expected from you.

if you'll recall, it wasn't actually that long ago when i was of similar thought; doing nothing to the protocol.  ever.

but reading some of JR's stuff and thinking about the concept of digital gold, i think Bitcoin has to be reliably and cheaply accessible by everyone worldwide for maximum decentralization and value.  whether that's achievable via future tech improvements remains to be seen but we need to try.  otherwise, gold will continue to be used and valued by an outside large contingent that won't bother with Bitcoin and will even compete to a very large degree. 

I've alternately nearly given up on Bitcoin multiple times over the last few years, and these periods coincide with the attacks on reasonable blocksize.

The 'trust everyone' idea of sidechains has given me new hope for Bitcoin in light of the fact that the lite and supportable nature necessary for a core solution has not yet been killed.  This makes for a situation where total shit-heads can own the 'reserve currency' and the world still have a scenario where the benefits can be used unencumbered by the masses.  Yes, the shit-heads may become even more rich, but they would and do do so anyway.   And yes, these large fish probably could game things, but the transparency inherent in Bitcoin allows end-users to migrate to solutions which take measures to avoid the manipulation.


Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
 #28286

Then why don't we decrease the blocktime from 10 min down to let's say 2 min. This way we can also have more transactions/second without touching the blocksize.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 06:02:32 PM
 #28287

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

Exactly this.  Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice.  Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation.

I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal.

The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS.

Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via various hacks sublime software engineering.

Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:03:33 PM
 #28288

wow, Varoufakis out.  one less Bitcoin Bear; altho we still have lots of them roaming around here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/international/yanis-varoufakis-abruptly-resigns-as-greek-finance-minister.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:06:41 PM
 #28289

and you thought Bitcoin was volatile?  pfft.  peanuts to the stock mkt; huge opening gap down from last nights futures dump, all the way back up to retest the flat, followed by another huge dump down.  it will only get worse:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:07:57 PM
 #28290


I favor Adam Backamoto's

stop equating Adam to Satoshi.  no contest.

you have a serious Daddy problem.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:10:32 PM
 #28291

oh my, ugly as hell:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:14:51 PM
 #28292


I favor Adam Backamoto's

stop equating Adam to Satoshi.  no contest.

you have a serious Daddy problem.

No where near as serious as those who consider cypherdoc to be some sort of daddy figure.  There are probably vastly fewer who consider you to be 'the LeBron James of Bitcoin' than you and your attorney might imagine.  Probably there are a handful though which is pretty sad.

The LeBron assertion is hilariously funny though one way or another.  Whether it was you or your attorney who came up with that one, kudos for the comic relief.


lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:14:57 PM
 #28293

 lots of short hair in Greece in the next few weeks.  Angry


Haircuts all round https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150706.en.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-06/it-begins-ecb-adjusts-greek-ela-haircuts-full-depositor-bail-sensitivity-analysis
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:34:06 PM
 #28294

meanwhile, my full nodes sit here totally unstressed and under-utilized.  Roll Eyes

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:41:09 PM
 #28295

meanwhile, my full nodes sit here totally unstressed and under-utilized.  Roll Eyes



i thought gmax et al said "large" blocks were going to collapse my nodes?
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:42:03 PM
 #28296


heh, this guys is not so out.
I predict he will come back very shortly, once it will be crystal clear that the EUsters wont be able to find any deal..
Could be president of the new Greek's central bank! ^^
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
 #28297

Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

In other words, cypherdoc is clueless about how Bitcoin works.

Moar like the LeBron of Lasik, am I right?   Cheesy

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:49:46 PM
 #28298

since small pools can also connect to the relay network, and i assume they do, there is no reason to believe that large miners can attack small miners with large blocks.  in fact, we've seen the top 5 chinese miners deprecated due to the GFC making it clear they CANNOT perform this attack despite what several guys have FUD'd.
Basic misunderstanding there--- Being a larger miner has two effects: One is throughput not latency related: Being larger creates a greater revenue stream which can be used to pay for better resources.   E.g. if the income levels support one i7 CPU per 10TH/s of mining, then a 10x larger pool can afford 10x more cpus to keep up with the overall throughput of the network, which they share perfectly (relay network is about latency not so much about throughput-- its at best a 2x throughput improvement, assuming you were bandwidth limited);    the other is latency related,   imagine you have a small amount of hashpower-- say 0.01% of the network-- and are a lightsecond away on the moon.  Any time there is a block race, you will lose because all of the earth is mining against you because they all heard your block 1+ seconds later.  Now imagine you have 60% of the hashpower on the moon, in that case you will usually win because even though the earth will be mining another chain, you have more hashpower. For latency, the size of miner matters a lot, and the size of the block only matters  to the extent that it adds delay.

When it comes to orphaning races miner sizes matters, in some amount that is related to the product of the size-of-the-miner and time it takes to validate a block.

Quote
how can that be?  mining pools all use a full node around which they coordinate their mining.  all full nodes are relatively in sync with their mempools  
There is no requirement that mempools be in sync, -- in fact, they're not and the whole purpose of the blockchain is to synchronize nodes.  The mempools of nodes with identical fee and filtering policies and whom are similarly positioned on the network will be similar, but any change in their policies will make them quite different.

IBLT doesn't currently exist, and other mechenisms like the relay network protocol don't care about mempool synchronization levels.

Quote
pt being, it's statistically unlikely that full blocks today represent the magical level of "large" blocks that Satoshi set 6 yrs ago.  the problems we are having with the forks are a result of the defensive tactics being taken from those full blocks.

Almost none of the blocks have been 1MB, the issues arise before then. _Consistent_ 1MB blocks wouldn't have been supportable on the network at the time that limit was put in place-- back in the 0.5.x-ish days we were getting up to 2minutes for a 100k block to reach the whole network; the 1MB was either forward-looking, set too high, or only concenred about the peak (and assuming the average would be much lower) ... or a mixture of these cases.

Quote
have the Chinese miners given you a technical reason why they're SPV'ing?

F2Pool reported that as block sizes grew they saw increased orphaning rates and that they were seeing an orphan rate of 4% though this was at a time before the relay network and when GHash in europe had ~50% of the hashpower under them.  Excluding the recent issues they've had almost no orphans since, they report.

Then why don't we decrease the blocktime from 10 min down to let's say 2 min. This way we can also have more transactions/second without touching the blocksize.
Ouch,  the latency related issues issues are made much worse by smaller interblock gaps once they are 'too small' relative to the network radius. When a another block shows up on the network faster than you can communicate about your last you get orphaned.  And for throughput related bottlenecks it doesn't matter if X transactions come in the form of a 10mb block or 10 1mb blocks.



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:51:43 PM
 #28299

the spammers smell blood.  and the core devs do nothing:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:59:29 PM
 #28300

Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
No.

In other words, cypherdoc is clueless about how Bitcoin works.

Moar like the LeBron of Lasik, am I right?   Cheesy

Doubtful.  Dr. Lowelife spends every waking moment on bitcointalk and reddit so it seems.  A malpractice suite which stuck is one hypothesis which springs to mind, and could explain an early and intense interest in asset protection.  A clinic full of subordinate eye frying minions would be another.  Neither these or countless others are really interesting enough for me to spend much time on, but perhaps others who are more into such things would ferret out this mystery.

Many of my co-workers kept a stock market ticker within easy visual reach and referred to them about 60 times per hour as they performed the tasks of the day.  That's fine for code monkeys, but for someone doing eye surgery with laser beams it's an entirely different ball of wax.


Pages: « 1 ... 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 [1415] 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!