vlasta2

I guess it is more accurate to talk about latency, because throughput can always be improved by accessing multiple cells in parallel.

I have a problem with the word reusable. A reusable software should be a component in a larger solution. Not a complete solution itself.

If I accept that Stack Overflow or Discourse are reusable, because you can run them on different urls with different graphics, topic, moderators and users, then every application, for example Photoshop, is reusable in the same way, because multiple people use it to perform multiple tasks with images.

What you do with Discourse is good engineering, but there is nothing special about it. Every serious CMS, like WordPress or Drupal must inevitably be usable more than once.

I may not understand quantum computing properly, but would not this approach require N entangled qubits? If no, can someone explain how it would function on less than N qubits, for example 1? If it does require N qubits...I can imagine a classical solution with O(n) and slightly less ridiculous hardware requirements.

I have been making native Windows applications for years and I am still making them. Around year 2000, Microsoft was a reliable partner. They made the OS, provided the tools and others were free to make any applications they liked. There was little to complain about.

These days, being a Windows desktop software developer is pretty bad. Leaving out all the .net framework craze, Microsoft has made things much worse for many old software developers with their attempts to control everything. I am not OK with Microsoft being the one, who decides, whether users may run my software or not. I simply cannot develop for WinRT no matter how nice the native+HTML5 API may be. Even on desktop, Internet Explorer checks every download and hides the install button if the installer is "untrusted".

In short, Microsoft is not a reliable and respectful partner for independent software developers anymore.

Stopping a presidential plane because there may be someone as dangerous as Snowden onboard? That is completely ridiculous and out of proportion. Not only did no European country officially offer Snowden asylum, we have even made fools of ourselves by this action. I feel personally ashamed by what Europe did. Although my country has no direct involvement in this incident, it happened awfully close and it is depressing. Did Europe lost all sense and morals?

This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working.

My experience shows that the more options an application has, the lazier the author was. What do you do as a software developer when there are two ways how to solve a problem? Ask the user which way to use? That is the wrong approach these days. The computer should not ask the user stupid questions. "Do you want to enable JavaScript?" is a stupid question for more than 98% of browser users. Instead of asking questions, software developers should invest the work to come with answers and "read the user's mind". Successful apps can do just that.

You should throw in a kinect sensor (or any alternative) and have a very comfortable remote control.

If Google really wants to "not do evil", they should actively work on removing themselves from this position of power they have. They should also work on making it impossible for any entity to obtain this kind of power. That is certainly a very difficult task, but there are little things that can be done and would make a difference (real support for freenet, bitcoins, or wikileaks).

Just gathering power is evil, because in a few years the temptation to use the power will be too strong.

I agree that someone should fork bitcoin and fix the mining problem. But screw transaction rates, the mining difficulty shall be determined by the nodes (people) participating in the network. Periodically, every node votes and a (weighted) average determines future mining difficulty. It may be a technical problem, but it may also be the right solution. And it will make the bitcoin more democratic.

Today, the buyer does not experience the fee. Sellers accept it, because the middle man gives them no other choice. With bitcoins, the middle man has no leverage anymore as the buyer and the seller can interact directly. That was my point.

One of the advantages of bitcoin is that you do not need a middle man to do a transaction. Some people may choose one for whatever reason, but would they be OK with paying the transaction fees? Would you use a credit card if you had to pay 4% more than if you paid in cash? I do not think many people would be OK with that.

It may sound as if I am a PayPal lover and bitcoin hater, which is NOT the case. I just do not see them cooperating sensible.

I am sorry I cannot agree with you.

You cannot collect profits from a transaction between 2 Bitcoin users like PayPal does right now with "real" money. If the world adopted Bitcoin, it would be the end of PayPal's business model. If PayPal were ready to replace their business model with something way less profitable, but more future-proof, it would still make no sense for them to adopt bitcoin. It would only make sense if they owned significant amount (50%) of the existing bitcoins and had the code base under at least indirect control. What would happen if this were true and the bitcoiners found out? ...too many ifs.

That said, Bitcoin will never become a commonly used currency in its current form. The built-in deflation is a fatal flaw, which makes it unusable for normal buyers or sellers. It is only appealing for "get-rich-quick" investors, which is a shame, 'cause we really need a good solution (0% fee & safe) for online payments.

Oh, dear. If I were the president of PayPal and wanted to make quick buck, I would buy some bitcoins, released news like this, and sold my bitcoins the next day with a nice profit. And then, I could just deny the news, sending bitcoin value back where it was so that it is ready for the next exploiter... Heh.

But seriously, PayPal and Bitcoin are by nature rivals. If PayPal wanted to have a crypto-currency, it would develop its own, not validate and boost value of another one gaining nothing in the process.

But JPG was like 10x better than the other image formats available at that time for photographs. WebP hardly delivers 1.2x improvement... This is virtually unnoticeable.