Since the fossil carbon has been sequestered, the sun has gotten quite a bit brighter. Releasing all that CO2 now would dramatically increase temperatures.
Your money in the bank is also digitally based. And the very popular credit cards are based on secret numbers that are plainly printed on a piece of plastic that we carelessly hand to strangers.
When that happens, bitcoins become worthless, and that 40% becomes nothing. So, while in theory that's possible, who would be stupid enough to actually do it, if instead they could just be mining 25 btc every 15 minutes ?
You can even do small mass production using 3D printers. For a few hundred/thousand pieces, it's likely cheaper to buy 3D printed stuff than to invest in injection molds.
Maybe they should also drill their own off-shore oil wells, and set up their own plastic manufacturing business, so they can make even more money on these things.
I don't think there's a way to make any of that look pretty. What if the constructor is implicitly called to initialize a base class, or in a copy constructor ? Also, if the constructor failed because of lack of memory, where is it going to store the flag that it failed ?
No C programmer is going to implement 100% of the std::vector class, and then only use 1% of the features, even though this is accepted practice for a C++ programmer. Instead, a C programmer would just write some code for the 1% he's going to use.
It would be simple enough for the publishers to install a proxy server on their own server to forward the ads if too many people block them through a hosts file.
There's a difference between hard radiation and intense radiation. A single hard radiation event can cause a CPU to go into the woods. The same single event in a human can destroy a cell, which the body can usually replace without any noticeable impact on performance.
Actually, real scientific progress has been fairly slow and limited in the last decades, and the science that has been done is mostly small refinements, not anything major. What has exploded in the last decades is the number of observations we've done, both in space and on Earth, like in particle accelerators. Nearly everything we see falls neatly in the ranges predicted by scientific theories. Given the fact that the speed of light limit is pretty fundamental to all our theories, I wouldn't say it is "reasonable" that it will be overcome.
But when improperly done, it takes forever to decipher cursive, assuming it can be done at all. And in order to write properly and quickly, kids would have to spend a long time practising. All this time can now be used for some more useful skills.
Sure, but that's not an argument for teaching kids cursive at school, since they still wouldn't be able to read those dozen wildly different writing styles.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the fossil carbon has been sequestered, the sun has gotten quite a bit brighter. Releasing all that CO2 now would dramatically increase temperatures.
And only until the methane runs out, and then we'll switch back to coal.
Your money in the bank is also digitally based. And the very popular credit cards are based on secret numbers that are plainly printed on a piece of plastic that we carelessly hand to strangers.
When that happens, bitcoins become worthless, and that 40% becomes nothing. So, while in theory that's possible, who would be stupid enough to actually do it, if instead they could just be mining 25 btc every 15 minutes ?
And with "physical" you are referring to little pieces of paper with green ink stamped on them ?
Your sarcasm meter needs adjusting.
You can even do small mass production using 3D printers. For a few hundred/thousand pieces, it's likely cheaper to buy 3D printed stuff than to invest in injection molds.
Maybe they should also drill their own off-shore oil wells, and set up their own plastic manufacturing business, so they can make even more money on these things.
Why does a postal service think it can make money off of 3D printed stuff better than others ? Sounds very desperate.
They don't need to abide by the laws that are currently in place
Never mind the laws and the majority that voted for them. Right on!
I would write it something like this: start_do_something( arg1, arg2 ) ; But with a better name, of course.
Apparently you didn't understand a word I was saying. And no, I didn't put powerful features in quotes. You seem to think that reading is a breeze.
I don't think there's a way to make any of that look pretty. What if the constructor is implicitly called to initialize a base class, or in a copy constructor ? Also, if the constructor failed because of lack of memory, where is it going to store the flag that it failed ?
It looks like your cat fell on the keyboard. What does the code do ?
No C programmer is going to implement 100% of the std::vector class, and then only use 1% of the features, even though this is accepted practice for a C++ programmer. Instead, a C programmer would just write some code for the 1% he's going to use.
I don't like exceptions, but without exceptions, how do you indicate failure from a constructor ?
It would be simple enough for the publishers to install a proxy server on their own server to forward the ads if too many people block them through a hosts file.
-1 tasteless
There's a difference between hard radiation and intense radiation. A single hard radiation event can cause a CPU to go into the woods. The same single event in a human can destroy a cell, which the body can usually replace without any noticeable impact on performance.
Even so, it would take tremendous energy to accelerate and to brake. And how do you decide which way to go ?
Actually, real scientific progress has been fairly slow and limited in the last decades, and the science that has been done is mostly small refinements, not anything major. What has exploded in the last decades is the number of observations we've done, both in space and on Earth, like in particle accelerators. Nearly everything we see falls neatly in the ranges predicted by scientific theories. Given the fact that the speed of light limit is pretty fundamental to all our theories, I wouldn't say it is "reasonable" that it will be overcome.
The first strike is if the interviewee has no writing implement.
But they get bonus points if they carry an assortment of fine quills, ink bottles, and parchment paper in a small mahogany briefcase ?
But when improperly done, it takes forever to decipher cursive, assuming it can be done at all. And in order to write properly and quickly, kids would have to spend a long time practising. All this time can now be used for some more useful skills.
For a short note, the difference in time should be negligible. For a long text, you'd grab a computer anyway.
Sure, but that's not an argument for teaching kids cursive at school, since they still wouldn't be able to read those dozen wildly different writing styles.