I'm a "freetard", and I don't pay for software generally anyway
better idea: either go Free (or free, if you must)
Yeah that's definitely going to work out well for the developer
All that said, it just isn't worth it. The amount you can mine would be comparatively limited and is getting lower as mining kit becomes more advanced; additionally you'd have to handle any issues this causes for users, have people claiming you're stealing and bad press (like here) and the value will continue to fall. Additionally as phones and tablets become more popular the average resources available to mine with have shrunk as well.
The decision is the science...
No it isn't. We've put a two year ban across a vast geographical area that will lead to increased food costs, greater environmental damage as farmers move to older more toxic pesticides and pesticide immunity issues. In return we have done something that there is no real evidence will help bee populations in such a way that we won't even be able to tell if the ban solves it.
Science would have been banning them in a smaller area (for example Britain or Spain/Portugal) and comparing against the rest of the region. What this is, is a massive over-reaction. We may as well try banning 3g masts, they came in around the same time, maybe they are to blame? Surely, by your logic, that would be the 'scientific' thing to do?
Wake up global citizens. Islam is making war on you, *every day*.
No it isn't and you're deluded assertions don't alter that. There doesn't have to be a 'fight to the death' but you, and those like you, who ARE the problem would certainly bring one about if you got the chance.
When the inventor can't easily explain what the best uses for their invention are, it's a safe bet there really aren't any.
Almost the exact opposite you'll hear from anyone doing theoretical research. One of the biggest changes that came with the iPhone wasn't what the device could do but the app infrastructure; that infrastructure meant that what people could do with the iPhone expanded rapidly and well beyond what was initially expected. Sticking with apple there first computers were basically sold on the premise of do what you want with it; they didn't have a list of specific things it would help you do (or at least one that was remotely useful anyway)
There are way, way too many questions about Google Glass to know whether it'll achieve much or not. I have doubts but would love to be proved wrong.
What I'm saying is that Bitcoin is DEFINED to have that value.
If it was then it failed and was always going to. You can't just say something has a value because that's what you want it to be. If I cut my toenails I don't get to define the value as the value of my time used to do it. You can keep putting the word definition in caps as much as you want but it does not mean what you seem to think it means. As others keep pointing out all that is defined about bitcoins that is remotely related is the cost of production.
As I said, the research is interesting and I look forward to seeing what they find out; However, one of the least important things about this research is the fact that it may or may not indicate that a tiny number of people are being exposed to radiation. ~24,000 people die each year from the emissions of coal power plants in the US, it would make far more difference to your chances of dying/getting a medical condition if you chose a house ~1% further away from the nearest coal plant than the risk of dark lightning while flying does.
However, because there’s only about one dark lightning occurrence for every thousand visible flashes and because pilots take great pains to avoid thunderstorms, Dwyer says, the risk of injury is quite limited. No one knows for sure if anyone has ever been hit by dark lightning.
It's an interesting claim and I look forward to hearing more about it but there is effectively no risk to people flying being suggested. Unfortunately
I'll either lend them an old android tablet or put them on a VM session.
It's not unlike London in WWII (no sky scrapers there) and there was still lots of effect from bombing it.
And London wasn't flattened or even close to flattened. I should know I still have living relatives who were there during the blitz. Your hyperbole betrays your claims to know the facts. There's no reason for NK to start an intensive shelling campaign against SK; they'll give the US/SK an excuse to decimate NK positions 'in defence' and potentially even target their senior military figures without China having any cover to interfere.
NK will keep dicking around at the edges or it will go full in; there's no other option that makes sense (not that those do either mind). It seems the US and SK have finally decided that all the posturing really is a bark without a bite and are willing to ignore it now.