Any pointers to those specific cases? After several years of studying Bitcoin and Blockchain, I have yet to see one example that would not be better suited to a (comparatively) simple replicated database and cryptographic signatures.
The value of a blockchain is not in data transfer or authentication. It is a trust system independent of central authority.
Blockchain only have real value to those who are willing to massively trade efficiency to get rid of central authority. To make a closed "private blockchain", you need trust in a central authority to define who can and cannot access that blockchain. Therefor a "private blockchain" is a self-defeating concept.
Or at least that is my current view. I would be happy to learn something new.
The free danish nationwide newspaper metroXpress has been going strong for over 11 years and reportedly had a circulation of over 200.000 in 2012, according to "Dansk Oplagskotrol" (http://www.do.dk/asp/aboutdo.asp) - an independent non-profit organisation used by newspapers and advertisers in Denmark to agree on advertising rates.
Are you joking?
As the supply of waffles goes down, the price will go up eventually - it is only a matter of time, unless someone invents the infinite waffle-maker, in which case the question of running out of waffles is moot.
So they actually get benefits of the economies of scale by running a large hospital which treats all-comers. That allows them to keep their actual marginal expenses lower than others, and then by offering premiums for those who can afford it, they're able to produce a profit. Interesting stuff...Additionally, and maybe even more important, by treating more people the doctors have more experience with a greater number of illnesses. Irregardless of the size of my wallet, I would prefer a hospital that had treated my kind of illness 50 times in the last year instead of 5. When it comes to doctors I think experience trumps fancy diplomas from fancy schools.
Already, we're seeing how people are effectively using things like Google and the wider internet as a "backup brain." But when you're actually storing memories in your head -- and then backing them up online -- copyright law may have a problem with the backup.
For me it is quite the opposite. What I read on the internet is my original, if I happen to store it in my mind, then that is the backup. My brains default behavior is to just store a shortcut with a brief description - it's so nice to search through and quite space efficient.
Wow, this is so interesting and fresh. I hope they will have great success, and I'm looking forward to cinema not being 90% textbook disappointments.
Disappointments I can handle, but at least make something new instead of Hero-Movie number 129 and Sobby Yet Comforting Love Story number 267. Don't make me feel that I have seen the movie 100 times before under different names - and stil don't like it.
On the Internet, at the basic level, all you can do is copy information. You can copy your own information and send it to others, or you can receive copied information. It's all copies of copies of copies...
In fact, distributing copyrighted material (you have the right to) over the internet should automatically strip the owner of the copyright, since you can't distribute anything over the internet without letting other people copy it.
Willfully distributing your content on the internet and claiming to retain the copyright is a logical fallacy.
Yeah, because you can just look at Denmark where thepiratebay.org and various other sites have been DNS blocked for the last couple of years.
Despite all-you-can-eat music subscription services sucking up a lot of piracy, ppl just use more, and both music sales and piracy have never been bigger (except in CD/DVD form, which continues to decline)