This has to be 2.3 *peta* FLOPS not giga FLOPS. For instance, in 2010, an Intel desktop processor could do 109 gigaFLOPS (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS).
Ah, but then the computer will not get work done because it is too busy trying to convert us to veganism.:-)
If the government allows abortion, it basically means that they disallow you to start breathing in the first place
You mean, just as it disallows you to start eating, drinking, crying, looking, and a plethora of other things?
I'll not go in detail through the rest of the arguments in detail, because they almost all fail in the same way: Stopping breathing is in no case the ultimate goal. Either it is a side effect of being dead, or it is the means used to cause death, but what is regulated here is life or death, not breath.
All those are about life, not about breathing. Before you are born you don't breathe anyway, so that's completely irrelevant. And Euthanasia/Death penalty is about ending your life, not about breathing. That you happen to no longer breath after you're dead is merely a side effect. You also won't write letters after you're dead, dies that mean Euthanasia and Death penalty are also about writing letters?
You might have noticed the three characters at the very end of my post. A colon, followed by a hyphen, followed by a closing parenthesis. You might want to inform yourself about the meaning of this letter combination. Here's a hint: It is known as smiley. Google for it. You might get enlightened.
You know, banks know a way to make money at will without actually creating physical money. It's called fractional reserve banking. The way is simple: If you give them money for keeping, they don't really keep all the money, but only a certain amount, while lending the rest, based on the expectation that normally not all people will ask for their money at the same time (that's why the worst thing which can happen to a bank is when all people want their money back at the same time: The bank doesn't have the money). Formally, the amount of money has been kept the same (if it were done with bitcoins, the number of bitcoins in the network would not change). However effectively new money has been created because nominally there's still all the money on your bank account (but not on the associated bitcoin network account, assuming that there would even be a separate bitcoin network account associated to your bitcoin bank account).
OK, now you might ask why anyone would give their bitcoins to a bank when you could as well keep them at home? Well, because the bank would offer interest for them, just as they offer interest for dollars.
Of course you can regulate bitcoins, just as you can regulate drugs. What you are saying is that it is easy to evade that regulation. But that's a different thing. All you need to do to regulate something is to put out laws making certain related actions illegal. This doesn't make it impossible to do it (just as the law that makes murder illegal doesn't make murder impossible), but it means that you are in trouble if they find out you do it.
But the security of Bitcoin depends on elliptic curve cryptography which is vulnerable to quantum computing (see the corresponding section in the linked Wikipedia article).
One of the best features of science is that it allows us to make predictions.
For example, to calculate the trajectory of a cannonball we do not need an almanac of cannonball weights cross-referenced by gunpowder loads and indexed by cannon type. We have a handful of formulas for the future behaviour of any projectile based on simple measurements - mass, force, air resistance, and so on. The formulas work for cannonballs as well as electrons as well as planets.
The formulas decidedly do not work for electrons. That's why quantum mechanics was introduced (that, and the fact that light also doesn't always behave like Maxwell's formulas say).
That too. Indeed, those are a perfect matching pair: If you tax it, you have a good argument to control it (tax evasion), and if you control it, you have a good argument to tax it (in order to pay for the control). So no matter which one you introduce first, the other can easily be added.
Well, I guess they'll just run your salary through your miscalculating application, or your tax, depending on to which side the errors go (salary: too low, tax: too high).
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the life vest.
A switched-off iPad would hurt no less than a switched-on one.
And your digital camera. Given that exactly in that phase you'd get the interesting pictures, that sucks.
Stop the hurricane, of course.
It's not too much to expect from a messiah, is it?
Very smart way to spend that money even though I'm not a big fan of hydrocarbons.
Actually I'm a big fan of hydrocarbons. It's a shame that we burn them.
You don't need to find ways to conserve energy. Energy conservation is built right into the rules of the universe.
Of course conserving oil would be a good idea.
Indeed. Drilling for it seems much more appropriate.
This has to be 2.3 *peta* FLOPS not giga FLOPS. For instance, in 2010, an Intel desktop processor could do 109 gigaFLOPS (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS).
Ah, but then the computer will not get work done because it is too busy trying to convert us to veganism. :-)
So many posts, and nobody has asked the really crucial question. I mean, who cares about songs. The really important question is:
Does it also work with the goatse guy?
For me, if the song is looping, I just need to finish the song, then the loop is broken.
Ah, that might explain why nowadays songs usually don't finish, but are just faded out ...
You mean, just as it disallows you to start eating, drinking, crying, looking, and a plethora of other things?
I'll not go in detail through the rest of the arguments in detail, because they almost all fail in the same way: Stopping breathing is in no case the ultimate goal. Either it is a side effect of being dead, or it is the means used to cause death, but what is regulated here is life or death, not breath.
All those are about life, not about breathing. Before you are born you don't breathe anyway, so that's completely irrelevant. And Euthanasia/Death penalty is about ending your life, not about breathing. That you happen to no longer breath after you're dead is merely a side effect. You also won't write letters after you're dead, dies that mean Euthanasia and Death penalty are also about writing letters?
Since when do troll posts end in smilies?
You might have noticed the three characters at the very end of my post. A colon, followed by a hyphen, followed by a closing parenthesis. You might want to inform yourself about the meaning of this letter combination. Here's a hint: It is known as smiley. Google for it. You might get enlightened.
See also: Whoosh.
You know, banks know a way to make money at will without actually creating physical money. It's called fractional reserve banking. The way is simple: If you give them money for keeping, they don't really keep all the money, but only a certain amount, while lending the rest, based on the expectation that normally not all people will ask for their money at the same time (that's why the worst thing which can happen to a bank is when all people want their money back at the same time: The bank doesn't have the money). Formally, the amount of money has been kept the same (if it were done with bitcoins, the number of bitcoins in the network would not change). However effectively new money has been created because nominally there's still all the money on your bank account (but not on the associated bitcoin network account, assuming that there would even be a separate bitcoin network account associated to your bitcoin bank account).
OK, now you might ask why anyone would give their bitcoins to a bank when you could as well keep them at home? Well, because the bank would offer interest for them, just as they offer interest for dollars.
Of course you can regulate bitcoins, just as you can regulate drugs. What you are saying is that it is easy to evade that regulation. But that's a different thing. All you need to do to regulate something is to put out laws making certain related actions illegal. This doesn't make it impossible to do it (just as the law that makes murder illegal doesn't make murder impossible), but it means that you are in trouble if they find out you do it.
But the security of Bitcoin depends on elliptic curve cryptography which is vulnerable to quantum computing (see the corresponding section in the linked Wikipedia article).
Yes, of course. Otherwise people would be doing things without permission.
I'm not aware about any regulatory structures for breathing. Does that mean I'm breathing without permission?
You're a nutcase. If your irrational and hateful rant was true, [...] You should be locked-up to protect us rational people. [...]
The only one who wrote an irrational and hateful rant is you.
The formulas decidedly do not work for electrons. That's why quantum mechanics was introduced (that, and the fact that light also doesn't always behave like Maxwell's formulas say).
That too. Indeed, those are a perfect matching pair: If you tax it, you have a good argument to control it (tax evasion), and if you control it, you have a good argument to tax it (in order to pay for the control). So no matter which one you introduce first, the other can easily be added.
Well, I guess they'll just run your salary through your miscalculating application, or your tax, depending on to which side the errors go (salary: too low, tax: too high).
malloc() and new() are non-deterministic in many ways and therefore to be banned in anything truely real-time.
Don't worry. We now have garbage collected languages where we don't need malloc/free any longer. :-)
Or both?
my elected representative was elected to represent MY (and my neighbors') interests
So, when you and your neighbor's 'interests' don't coincide, who are they representing? (Of course, I'm sure that never happens) :-)
The majority?