No, there is no guarantee that producing antimatter requires more energy than antimatter can create. Producing antimatter is taking matter and transforming it into a different type of matter. You then take the antimatter, mix with matter, and end up with energy. The system isn't closed though, the antimatter and matter are both gone, so thermodynamics doesn't limit us to getting less energy than we put in, since we put in stored energy in the form of matter as well as the energy we used to create the antimatter.
Depends on what thing you're talking about. Something that everyone already has won't generally suffer from this effect. I upgraded from an ancient furnace to a slightly less ancient furnace and went from 50% efficiency to 75%. Modern furnaces are over 90%. Refrigerator, freezer, A/C, stove, oven, all things that are getting more efficient each time I upgrade, and there's not much reason to have more than one of any of those. Or at least, there's not much reason to keep the old one around when you upgrade for most people. These are also the big energy hogs in most houses so as they become more efficient energy use is certainly being reduced.
Expansion of economy != physical expansion. Many of the high-value things we produce these days require very little in terms of physical goods. Most tech is actually the opposite - the smaller it is the higher the value. The less energy something uses the higher the value, given 2 goods that are otherwise equal. Lots of things that we give value take up physical space only in terms of magnetic charge on a drive platter. There's no reason to think that as the number of humans stops increasing and starts decreasing in the next century that the economy must certainly be reduced by a similar amount.
Because patent battles between large companies that actually have income are only good for the lawyers. Google sues MS over street-view, MS sues Google over Chrome OS, or Google Chat, GMail, Google Docs, or any other service where MS had something similar first and probably has a bunch of patents that are good enough to at least drag out a court battle for a long time. Works the other way too, of course. Bing probably steps on a couple of Google's patents. You rarely see big tech companies go around suing each other for patent infringement.
There's a simple problem with social networking with pseudonyms: you can't find people from real life.
For something like Slashdot it makes no difference, I don't care if people commenting here are people I know in real life, we build the community based on the user names we have here. But for Facebook, which is all about connecting with people you actually know, it would be impossible for the system to exist if everyone used aliases. It works if a few people use pseudonyms because that person can still find friends using their real names, but it breaks if someone using a pseudonym is trying to find someone else who also uses a pseudonym. Because large-scale use of pseudonyms would be very detrimental to their use model, I think it's perfectly understandable why facebook and Google+ don't want pseudonyms.
You give people way too much credit. Most people barely pay attention to the numbers on the pump. They fill up, swipe the card, and then wonder why they can't pay off their credit card at the end of the month. The idea that the free market solves everything assumes a lot of things that simply aren't true.
Facebook's official policy is no fake names, if it's brought to their attention they'll close the fake account. That said lots of people do it and it seems they're willing to turn a blind eye so long as you don't piss people off too much.
Mathematics is not a science on its own because we define the systems we use. It is a tool we have created to help explain and work in the world we exist in. It is, of course, possible to study our tools and find new ways of using them that the people who created them never considered, which could be called a science, but generally math is a tool of science, not a science on its own.
On most sites these days it reduces your security to the strength of the security question (which is about 0), plus the strength of your e-mail password/security. Not too many places are going to say 'oh, you got the security question, now I'm going to give you full access!' Generally it's just an extra hoop for the site to reset your password to something random and email it to you.
Just a small point - domestic travelers in Canada don't have to remove shoes and our pat-down procedure isn't the TSA's pseudo-rape method. So it isn't quite identical procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
What issues do you have with MySQL's transaction implementation, assuming you're using innodb tables?
No, there is no guarantee that producing antimatter requires more energy than antimatter can create. Producing antimatter is taking matter and transforming it into a different type of matter. You then take the antimatter, mix with matter, and end up with energy. The system isn't closed though, the antimatter and matter are both gone, so thermodynamics doesn't limit us to getting less energy than we put in, since we put in stored energy in the form of matter as well as the energy we used to create the antimatter.
Depends on what thing you're talking about. Something that everyone already has won't generally suffer from this effect. I upgraded from an ancient furnace to a slightly less ancient furnace and went from 50% efficiency to 75%. Modern furnaces are over 90%. Refrigerator, freezer, A/C, stove, oven, all things that are getting more efficient each time I upgrade, and there's not much reason to have more than one of any of those. Or at least, there's not much reason to keep the old one around when you upgrade for most people. These are also the big energy hogs in most houses so as they become more efficient energy use is certainly being reduced.
Expansion of economy != physical expansion. Many of the high-value things we produce these days require very little in terms of physical goods. Most tech is actually the opposite - the smaller it is the higher the value. The less energy something uses the higher the value, given 2 goods that are otherwise equal. Lots of things that we give value take up physical space only in terms of magnetic charge on a drive platter. There's no reason to think that as the number of humans stops increasing and starts decreasing in the next century that the economy must certainly be reduced by a similar amount.
So if an old system with a 16-bit int wants to transfer a string to a new system with a 32-bit int you handle that how exactly?
Just do what we do with any annoying lights on our electronics, put some electrical tape over it. Now you can watch your movies in complete darkness!
Because patent battles between large companies that actually have income are only good for the lawyers. Google sues MS over street-view, MS sues Google over Chrome OS, or Google Chat, GMail, Google Docs, or any other service where MS had something similar first and probably has a bunch of patents that are good enough to at least drag out a court battle for a long time. Works the other way too, of course. Bing probably steps on a couple of Google's patents. You rarely see big tech companies go around suing each other for patent infringement.
But how would your friends find you to add you to their circles in the first place?
There's a simple problem with social networking with pseudonyms: you can't find people from real life.
For something like Slashdot it makes no difference, I don't care if people commenting here are people I know in real life, we build the community based on the user names we have here. But for Facebook, which is all about connecting with people you actually know, it would be impossible for the system to exist if everyone used aliases. It works if a few people use pseudonyms because that person can still find friends using their real names, but it breaks if someone using a pseudonym is trying to find someone else who also uses a pseudonym. Because large-scale use of pseudonyms would be very detrimental to their use model, I think it's perfectly understandable why facebook and Google+ don't want pseudonyms.
You give people way too much credit. Most people barely pay attention to the numbers on the pump. They fill up, swipe the card, and then wonder why they can't pay off their credit card at the end of the month. The idea that the free market solves everything assumes a lot of things that simply aren't true.
Well we had to do something after we screwed up Mars...
And came home to discover Hobbiton was trashed and their people were enslaved (movie ending notwithstanding).
Only on paper though, and the defense contractors may have a harder time getting paid.
Or because the people who liked the distortion caused by the tubes started dying off....
Not responsible for damages caused by delivery vehicle...
Facebook's official policy is no fake names, if it's brought to their attention they'll close the fake account. That said lots of people do it and it seems they're willing to turn a blind eye so long as you don't piss people off too much.
Go anywhere where travel happens. Bus stations, train stations, and airports all generally have a good supply of payphones.
If my manager wouldn't hire someone due to religion I think I would prefer not to work for them anyway...
Except you can't ask questions, and you can't learn from the questions other people are asking. Which is a big part of learning for a lot of people.
Maybe you haven't been to many deserts, but lots of wind isn't generally a defining feature.
What about students that have trouble learning by watching videos?
Mathematics is not a science on its own because we define the systems we use. It is a tool we have created to help explain and work in the world we exist in. It is, of course, possible to study our tools and find new ways of using them that the people who created them never considered, which could be called a science, but generally math is a tool of science, not a science on its own.
Well, there's Alaska and Hawaii right?
On most sites these days it reduces your security to the strength of the security question (which is about 0), plus the strength of your e-mail password/security. Not too many places are going to say 'oh, you got the security question, now I'm going to give you full access!' Generally it's just an extra hoop for the site to reset your password to something random and email it to you.
Just a small point - domestic travelers in Canada don't have to remove shoes and our pat-down procedure isn't the TSA's pseudo-rape method. So it isn't quite identical procedures.