Yes, but it's less wasteful then it looks, because we use copy-on-write techniques to minimize overhead. That is, we store only the "root" universe, plus the tree of diffs necessary to reconstruct the various child universes as necessary.

Hmm, sounds like an appeal to consequences. I wouldn't worry though, chances are that everything is absolute pap regardless of whether this theory is true or false.

A receiver like that would have a power draw that is almost infinitessimal compared to the power draw of the motors. A simple radio receiver adequate for the job would possibly reduce the flight time by less than a second.

If you're going to pirate the software, you might as well go ahead and pirate the full version; then you won't have to poke at it.

OTOH, if you're going to legitimately use the software, you ought to pay for it.

It might destroy a few of the more brittle fundamentalist strains, but most religions would quickly adapt. People are quite capable of modifying their beliefs to deal with new facts, when necessary.

Which kind of begs the question, how did "clearly inferior hardware" become such a status symbol? Microsoft and Samsung would give their respective left testicles to do the same, but haven't quite been able to replicate the recipe.

Certainly part of it is effective marketing, but I think the other part is good execution -- regardless of what you think of the hardware (which is hidden inside the case and visible to the customer only through the device's observed behavior), the devices, as consumer products, work really, really well.

I think you have to give a lot of the credit credit to high-quality software.

Rand Paul for ScrumMaster 2016!

Dunno about obsolescence per se, but Scientology does have a policy of forced yearly upgrades, each more expensive than the last. Seems similar :)

If your electric motor is powerful enough, you can dispense with the counterweight. It might not be very efficient, but it's possible.

Zero billions, because the auto companies' lawyers are quite aware of liability issues, and so they aren't going to allow the sale of any self-driving car to the public until they're damn sure it's smart enough to avoid running over pets and children.

So either the automobiles will reliably detect and avoid pets/children, or they will never be released to customers.

Star Trek: The Next Generation was generally well-done, with interesting charcerters and only a few clunker episodes.

I found Deep Space 9 an interesting concept let down by unimaginative writing.

I found Voyager unwatchable. Janeway came across as an affirmative action bureaucrat. A Captain is a monarch, not a bureaucrat. Patrick Stewart had played Shakespearean kings, and played Picard the same way. It worked. What Janeway needed was a good desk.

Sliders was a really interesting premise that ran out of steam. The same story every week. Yawn.

The X Files also started out well and also ran out of steam, descending in to torture porn.

Didn't watch any of the others, so no comment.

...laura

There is strong encryption, and there is unbreakable encryption. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Strong encryption is theoretically breakable, but it is not computationally feasible to do so. What is computationally feasible changes with time. Look at how key-length standards for RSA have changed, for example.

One-time pad encryption, on the other hand, is not breakable. It doesn't matter how much computer power you throw at it: if you don't have the key, you can't read the message.

...laura

Yes, exactly. One important practical check is something taking actual effort and manpower. Which is why ubiquitous surveilance is not equivlant to things that you can legally do by sending someone out to watch someone - because people are few and expensive and picking targets takes time and work.

Really, this sounds like they're threatening to... turn back the clock on surveillance. Is that really a threat?

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the distribution of child porn isn't a problem.

I have seen people argue that the First Amendment permits it, regardless of whether it's problematic or not.