Only one: that we live in a logical and consistent universe.
Wrong. Logic and logical consisence is a property of statements (including theories which are rather complex and elaborate statements about the universe). There's no logic in the universe. There's logic in out statements about the universe, and if those statements are not logical or inconsistent then they cannot be valid statements about the universe (or about anything else). Logic doesn't really tell us about the universe, it only tells us about what statements make sense. Logic cannot tell us whether god exists, but it can tell us that there is no god who can talk to living humans, but at the same time is not able to talk to any living being. Logic cannot tell us how many, if any, planets there are in the Andromeda galaxy, but it can tell us that the number of planets is not a prime between 24 and 28. Logic cannot tell us whether there is a moon, where it is, what its orbit is, how long it takes for one orbit, nor whether Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of gravity are a good description of the movement of it. However it can tell us that a moon being at the position we observe it, having the orbit we observe, but having a different orbiting time would be inconsistent with Newton's laws. That still doesn't tell us whether a moon with those properties exists, or whether Newton's laws describe reality sufficiently well, however it tells us that not both can be true. Note that the latter statement is not a statement about reality; it is still true in a hypothetical universe where there is neither a moon, nor motion governed by Newton's laws of physics.
However science does make unprovable assumptions about reality. First and foremost it makes the assumption that our perceptions are related to it (otherwise, all evidence we gather would tell us nothing about reality). Moreover, science assumes universality: Any law which correctly describes what happens under certain circumstances here and now will also describe correctly what happens under the same circumstances anywhere else to any other time. That is, it assumes we can formulate laws of nature which are valid descriptions everywhere at any time. Which is already a very strong assumption.
You could store ionized antimatter using an ordinary electromagnetic field, but neutralize it just before application to render electromagnetic fields ineffective as shield.
With many movies it's: First, look in the cinema program, see there's a movie coming soon which looks interesting. Then, have no time to go to the cinema. Then, look in the cinema program again, to notice I have missed it.
Well, it could well be robot-vs-robot battle with the one winning who still has working robots at the end. He can then use those robots against enemy humans, but most likely won't have to because the enemy knows that he cannot defend himself any more and surrenders to survive.
Of course if you have the technology to produce and safely store it, the most effective weapon would be a few grams of antimatter. Impossible to shield against, and absolutely devastating as soon as it hits the enemy ship.
Probably you wouldn't store it on the normal battleships, but on special unmanned spaceships specifically built for that. That way if such a ship is hit, the collateral damage of the explosion is minimized.
The problem is that, according to the standard, the browser should ignore any policy it cannot understand. Ignoring a policy means acting as if it wouldn't exist. If no policy exists, IE's behaviour with default settings is to not allow the cookie. Therefore by the standard, it shouldn't accept cookies when it doesn't understand the policy. If IE doesn't do that, it's the browser's fault.
Well, if you don't want your great-great-great-grandchild to get your brain's creation, you can simply sell it to some **AA company. They will happily take it.
As soon as computers are as capable as people, captchas are no longer necessary. Then computers can directly detect and block unwanted behaviour. With the added advantage that it can block that behaviour even if real humans do it.
A warp core really isn't a power source. It is more like an alternator. The power source is the matter-antimatter reactions. Similarly people confuse dilithium crystals with being a power source when they are really just a matter-antimatter regulator.
And now, back to reality...
A warp core is a machine to get useful power out of a matter-antimatter reaction. Therefore it is a power source in the same way as a nuclear power plant is a power source. The matter/antimatter reaction is part of the warp core, just like the nuclear chain reaction in the nuclear reactor is part of the reactor.
Did you actually read what I wrote? It is because of that adaption that the single computer will produce less bitcoins for the same computing effort if more computers join.
Last year, 270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms tried to take Monsanto to court over issues pertaining to a genetically-modified seed masterminded by the corporation.
I don't know how many crops these folks can grow on a farm with that many farmers taking up so much room.
Well, those are family farms, so they are farming families. Therefore you shouldn't be surprised about the number of people. Especially since contraceptives are decidedly not organic.:-)
Just be prepared to accept that removing patent rights to seed will also remove the incentive of companies like Monsanto to engineer crops.
Good.
But remember that lower yields will mean higher food prices. And don't even THINK about using ethanol for gas (it's already very expensive to produce even WITH genetically modified crops).
Given that the main reason for high crop prices is using it for ethanol for gas, that should more than counter the lower yields.
Bitcoin generation rate is a constant: 300 (six 'blocks') per hour. 'Available computing power' adapts to *that*. Your construct of how and why the buying and selling of bitcoin happens is obviously incorrect, as it begins with your failure to grasp first causes.
So the power of the computer adapts to the bitcoin generation rate? And if one day they decide to make 5090 bitcoins per day, all computers get faster?
No, the available computing power is exclusively determined by how much computing power people throw at bitcoin generation. A sinple example: Let's for simplicity assume that all computers are equally powerful, and that all computers used for mining are running 24/7 only for that purpose.
Now assume that currently 300 computers are running. Since the bitcoin generation is 300 bitcoins/hour, each of the computers generates one bitcoin per hour. Now assume that anotrher 300 computers start mining. Since now the total number of computers mining bitcoins is 600, but there are still only 300 bitcoins generated per hour, each computer only generates half a bitcoin per hour, in other words, the same computing power is only half as many bitcoins worth. And if the owners of the new 300 computers all hoard their bitcoins, then the number of bitcoins goint to the market is only half of that one before, because the old miners' computers give them only half as many bitcoins in the same time.
That's exactly the mechanism I described above. So thank you for confirming my understanding.
Oh, and yes, keeping the bitcoin generation rate constant when the computing power increases is adapting the bitcoin generation rate. That's because bitcoin generation is a computation, and therefore the natural unit for bitcoin generation is CPU time, not wall time.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Logic and logical consisence is a property of statements (including theories which are rather complex and elaborate statements about the universe). There's no logic in the universe. There's logic in out statements about the universe, and if those statements are not logical or inconsistent then they cannot be valid statements about the universe (or about anything else). Logic doesn't really tell us about the universe, it only tells us about what statements make sense. Logic cannot tell us whether god exists, but it can tell us that there is no god who can talk to living humans, but at the same time is not able to talk to any living being. Logic cannot tell us how many, if any, planets there are in the Andromeda galaxy, but it can tell us that the number of planets is not a prime between 24 and 28. Logic cannot tell us whether there is a moon, where it is, what its orbit is, how long it takes for one orbit, nor whether Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of gravity are a good description of the movement of it. However it can tell us that a moon being at the position we observe it, having the orbit we observe, but having a different orbiting time would be inconsistent with Newton's laws. That still doesn't tell us whether a moon with those properties exists, or whether Newton's laws describe reality sufficiently well, however it tells us that not both can be true. Note that the latter statement is not a statement about reality; it is still true in a hypothetical universe where there is neither a moon, nor motion governed by Newton's laws of physics.
However science does make unprovable assumptions about reality. First and foremost it makes the assumption that our perceptions are related to it (otherwise, all evidence we gather would tell us nothing about reality). Moreover, science assumes universality: Any law which correctly describes what happens under certain circumstances here and now will also describe correctly what happens under the same circumstances anywhere else to any other time. That is, it assumes we can formulate laws of nature which are valid descriptions everywhere at any time. Which is already a very strong assumption.
You could store ionized antimatter using an ordinary electromagnetic field, but neutralize it just before application to render electromagnetic fields ineffective as shield.
With many movies it's:
First, look in the cinema program, see there's a movie coming soon which looks interesting.
Then, have no time to go to the cinema.
Then, look in the cinema program again, to notice I have missed it.
Well, it could well be robot-vs-robot battle with the one winning who still has working robots at the end. He can then use those robots against enemy humans, but most likely won't have to because the enemy knows that he cannot defend himself any more and surrenders to survive.
No. But I'm still pretty sure you could only hear the sound there. There's a reason why I emphasized "seen" after all ...
However if you are in orbit, your bullets may come back to you after one orbit. You don't want to shoot yourself in the back!
So one of the weapons will be black spray paint to prepare the enemy ships for the lasers.
Actually I've never seen sound depicted in space ...
Of course if you have the technology to produce and safely store it, the most effective weapon would be a few grams of antimatter. Impossible to shield against, and absolutely devastating as soon as it hits the enemy ship.
Probably you wouldn't store it on the normal battleships, but on special unmanned spaceships specifically built for that. That way if such a ship is hit, the collateral damage of the explosion is minimized.
The problem is that, according to the standard, the browser should ignore any policy it cannot understand. Ignoring a policy means acting as if it wouldn't exist. If no policy exists, IE's behaviour with default settings is to not allow the cookie. Therefore by the standard, it shouldn't accept cookies when it doesn't understand the policy. If IE doesn't do that, it's the browser's fault.
Well, if you don't want your great-great-great-grandchild to get your brain's creation, you can simply sell it to some **AA company. They will happily take it.
No, it will definitely end. About 70 years after the last human died.
As soon as computers are as capable as people, captchas are no longer necessary. Then computers can directly detect and block unwanted behaviour. With the added advantage that it can block that behaviour even if real humans do it.
A warp core really isn't a power source. It is more like an alternator. The power source is the matter-antimatter reactions. Similarly people confuse dilithium crystals with being a power source when they are really just a matter-antimatter regulator.
And now, back to reality...
A warp core is a machine to get useful power out of a matter-antimatter reaction. Therefore it is a power source in the same way as a nuclear power plant is a power source. The matter/antimatter reaction is part of the warp core, just like the nuclear chain reaction in the nuclear reactor is part of the reactor.
Holographic memory requires fusion power.
Not true. A warp core powers it just fine.
We already have the breakthrough, but it's not Flash, it's PRAM.
And MRAM. And FeRAM.
Did you actually read what I wrote? It is because of that adaption that the single computer will produce less bitcoins for the same computing effort if more computers join.
Soon everyone will be forced to have such an implant, so that people can be properly billed for every music they hear.
FTFA:
Last year, 270,000 organic farmers from around 60 family farms tried to take Monsanto to court over issues pertaining to a genetically-modified seed masterminded by the corporation.
I don't know how many crops these folks can grow on a farm with that many farmers taking up so much room.
Well, those are family farms, so they are farming families. Therefore you shouldn't be surprised about the number of people. Especially since contraceptives are decidedly not organic. :-)
Good.
Given that the main reason for high crop prices is using it for ethanol for gas, that should more than counter the lower yields.
So if he then gets a child, he'll violate the hospital's patent rights?
But there might be something unhealthy put in them.
Well, the very fact that second-hand seed is disallowed already is evil. So no grey in this case.
You don't, really - understand, that is.
Bitcoin generation rate is a constant: 300 (six 'blocks') per hour. 'Available computing power' adapts to *that*. Your construct of how and why the buying and selling of bitcoin happens is obviously incorrect, as it begins with your failure to grasp first causes.
So the power of the computer adapts to the bitcoin generation rate? And if one day they decide to make 5090 bitcoins per day, all computers get faster?
No, the available computing power is exclusively determined by how much computing power people throw at bitcoin generation. A sinple example: Let's for simplicity assume that all computers are equally powerful, and that all computers used for mining are running 24/7 only for that purpose.
Now assume that currently 300 computers are running. Since the bitcoin generation is 300 bitcoins/hour, each of the computers generates one bitcoin per hour. Now assume that anotrher 300 computers start mining. Since now the total number of computers mining bitcoins is 600, but there are still only 300 bitcoins generated per hour, each computer only generates half a bitcoin per hour, in other words, the same computing power is only half as many bitcoins worth. And if the owners of the new 300 computers all hoard their bitcoins, then the number of bitcoins goint to the market is only half of that one before, because the old miners' computers give them only half as many bitcoins in the same time.
That's exactly the mechanism I described above. So thank you for confirming my understanding.
Oh, and yes, keeping the bitcoin generation rate constant when the computing power increases is adapting the bitcoin generation rate. That's because bitcoin generation is a computation, and therefore the natural unit for bitcoin generation is CPU time, not wall time.
But movement is not life.