Antimatter engines are no energy source because there is no antimatter to be mined, and production cannot cost less energy that you get out afterwards, per basic laws of physics. At best, antimatter can be used as dense energy storage.
Did facebook actually pay 1.2bn dollars, or did they just pay with facebook stocks of that "value"?
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Add a basic income to this, and you get:
A few factory owners swimming in money, but having to give some of it in the form of taxes to the state. The state then gives that money to the jobless people. Those people do not swim in money, but have enough of it to buy the stuff produced in the factories, thus closing the circle.
Still not an ideal society, but a working one.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No, money is mot the problem. The problem is the way we distribute money. The current money distribution system is based on the basic premise that humans need to work in order to keep society running. If that premise falls down, the system simply doesn't work any more.
And I also disagree that, as the article states, "labor is so important to a person's identity and dignity and to societal stability". What is needed for that is having an accepted place in society, and having an income you can depend on. In the current system, labour is generally a way to achieve both. But nothing says it must be.
I've one read a very insightful comment: If you look at any depiction of paradise around the world, they have one thing in common: People all were out of work.
Yeah, and thanks to the cloud integration which Google will inevitably have done, this will mean all the devices just won't work any more. Oops, your home is dead, sorry.
Changing APIs is not a problem Linux still has; it's rather a new problem which Linux acquired lately. Until not too long ago, people working on Linux knew the value of backwards compatibility.
But then, Microsoft once knew it as well, so the problem is not just one of Linux.
Bullshit! Not only bullshit, but flaming, smelling, foul bullshit at that! "Power users" wont touch "Metro" with a 10 foot pole.
A 10 foot pole makes a very crappy device to interface with a computer, therefore I'm not surprised that power users won't use it with Metro's touch interface.;-)
Since I don't have sufficient pigment in my skin, it certainly would not do any good to me. However I would expect the humans back then to be as well adapted to the environment as the people living there today.
And yes, clothes may be helpful even for inhabitants of equatorial regions. But they are not necessary.
Where do you get "equals"? I've written down an association. Replace "-" by "" if that makes it more understandable for you; anyway "-" is clearly not "=" anyway.
And yes, there are infinitely many rational numbers between two natural numbers. However the number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is equal to the number of all rational numbers, which again is equal to the number of natural numbers.
The point is that when you determine how many numbers you have (you count them), you do so by associating the objects with numbers. For example, consider the set {"Douglas Adams", "Scott Adams", "Terry Pratchett"}. To count them, you associate a number to each:
So you see the set has the same number of elements as the set {1,2,3}, that is, it has 3 elements.
What I've done in the previous post is to (partially) write down a similar list with the rational numbers instead of author names on the left, showing that the set of rational numbers has as many elements as the set of natural numbers.
To avoid getting too much off-topic discussion, I refer you to Wikipedia and to this math.SE post for more information.
You can do a one-to-one map from the natural numbers to the rational numbers. If you only do the positive ones (how to extend to the negative ones and zero, a simple construction is this: Write all combinations of numerator and denominator like this:
It is easy to see that every positive rational gets an unique natural number assigned that way, and every natural number is assigned to an unique rational. Therefore there are as many natural numbers as there are positive rational numbers.
There are exactly as many rational numbers as there are natural numbers; both are countable. However you're right that there are more real numbers; those are not countable.
A queue can also be a programming thing, namely a FIFO data structure. If you want to process complaints which can arrive asynchrously, it is probably a very good idea to put them into a queue, that is, to queue them.
Just write a TODO list on a wiki page or EtherPad?
Or maybe use bugzilla? (After all, TODO lists and bug lists are not really different; indeed you could consider the fact that an item on a TODO list is not yet done a bug to be resolved).
Slashdot Mirror
Antimatter engines are no energy source because there is no antimatter to be mined, and production cannot cost less energy that you get out afterwards, per basic laws of physics. At best, antimatter can be used as dense energy storage.
Did facebook actually pay 1.2bn dollars, or did they just pay with facebook stocks of that "value"?
Add a basic income to this, and you get:
A few factory owners swimming in money, but having to give some of it in the form of taxes to the state.
The state then gives that money to the jobless people.
Those people do not swim in money, but have enough of it to buy the stuff produced in the factories, thus closing the circle.
Still not an ideal society, but a working one.
No, money is mot the problem. The problem is the way we distribute money. The current money distribution system is based on the basic premise that humans need to work in order to keep society running. If that premise falls down, the system simply doesn't work any more.
And I also disagree that, as the article states, "labor is so important to a person's identity and dignity and to societal stability". What is needed for that is having an accepted place in society, and having an income you can depend on. In the current system, labour is generally a way to achieve both. But nothing says it must be.
I've one read a very insightful comment: If you look at any depiction of paradise around the world, they have one thing in common: People all were out of work.
In that case you actually mean "typical", which isn't really caught by either arithmetic mean or median, but corresponds more to maximum likelihood.
If you use median, it's median, not average.
You'll cave in when your house tells you what's good for you and g+ it!
FTFY.
Yeah, and thanks to the cloud integration which Google will inevitably have done, this will mean all the devices just won't work any more. Oops, your home is dead, sorry.
Changing APIs is not a problem Linux still has; it's rather a new problem which Linux acquired lately. Until not too long ago, people working on Linux knew the value of backwards compatibility.
But then, Microsoft once knew it as well, so the problem is not just one of Linux.
Bullshit! Not only bullshit, but flaming, smelling, foul bullshit at that! "Power users" wont touch "Metro" with a 10 foot pole.
A 10 foot pole makes a very crappy device to interface with a computer, therefore I'm not surprised that power users won't use it with Metro's touch interface. ;-)
Did you sleep in the school? Two divided by two is the same number as one divided by one, namely the number one.
2/2 = 1 = 1/1. This number has already been encountered and associated with the number 0.
Since I don't have sufficient pigment in my skin, it certainly would not do any good to me. However I would expect the humans back then to be as well adapted to the environment as the people living there today.
And yes, clothes may be helpful even for inhabitants of equatorial regions. But they are not necessary.
Where do you get "equals"? I've written down an association. Replace "-" by "" if that makes it more understandable for you; anyway "-" is clearly not "=" anyway.
And yes, there are infinitely many rational numbers between two natural numbers. However the number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is equal to the number of all rational numbers, which again is equal to the number of natural numbers.
The point is that when you determine how many numbers you have (you count them), you do so by associating the objects with numbers. For example, consider the set {"Douglas Adams", "Scott Adams", "Terry Pratchett"}. To count them, you associate a number to each:
"Douglas Adams" - 1
"Scott Adams" - 2
"Terry Pratchett" - 3
So you see the set has the same number of elements as the set {1,2,3}, that is, it has 3 elements.
What I've done in the previous post is to (partially) write down a similar list with the rational numbers instead of author names on the left, showing that the set of rational numbers has as many elements as the set of natural numbers.
To avoid getting too much off-topic discussion, I refer you to Wikipedia and to this math.SE post for more information.
The ability to swear is important if an animal escaped. It helps you to release your emotion, so you then can go on hunting the next animal.
In the equatorial region, you don't need clothes.
Oops, I accidentally deleted a part of my parenthetical remark; it should read:
"(how to extend to the negative ones and zero should be obvious)"
You can do a one-to-one map from the natural numbers to the rational numbers. If you only do the positive ones (how to extend to the negative ones and zero, a simple construction is this: Write all combinations of numerator and denominator like this:
Then read by antidiagonals and skip any number you've already encountered. So you get:
It is easy to see that every positive rational gets an unique natural number assigned that way, and every natural number is assigned to an unique rational. Therefore there are as many natural numbers as there are positive rational numbers.
This is about regexes, that is, hard to decipher code that looks like line noise. Obviously Perl is the only language that matches.
perhaps you should look up the definition of whine and pre/post emptive for that matter as you don't seem to understand there meaning.
Meanwhile, you better look up the definition of "there" ...
There are exactly as many rational numbers as there are natural numbers; both are countable. However you're right that there are more real numbers; those are not countable.
And other people are ignorant enough to not know the difference between "ignorant" and "stupid".
Well, unless it's based on a a free, open protocol that you can host yourself if required.
And you can easily get your data out of the system. Because if you cannot get your data, you cannot host it elsewhere.
A queue can also be a programming thing, namely a FIFO data structure. If you want to process complaints which can arrive asynchrously, it is probably a very good idea to put them into a queue, that is, to queue them.
Just write a TODO list on a wiki page or EtherPad?
Or maybe use bugzilla? (After all, TODO lists and bug lists are not really different; indeed you could consider the fact that an item on a TODO list is not yet done a bug to be resolved).