Then you run into the predictions of the Technocracy movement, where the price system collapses and most people have no job and zero income. Without job there are no consumers, without consumers there are no jobs. It's inevitable as the amount of work an individual can do increases with technology.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
...we all give up.
Even if we have to invest exponentially more resources into shrinking transistors, the industry is very likely to continue to invest. They will give up when the R&D costs are high enough that there is no longer any profit. But marketing has really pushed people to upgrade to new devices that they don't need, if marketing continues to do their job then we'll see Moore's Law working for quite some time to come.
If there was an apocalypse, I assume there would be fewer people alive than there are now.
There is plenty of places to grow things if we all live like homesteaders on 2 or 3 acres of land. Takes about an acre per person to feed someone on today's diet. Less if you're a bit smarter about what you do. A bit more needed if you want to not die if you have a bad season.
Santa Clara County, the heart of Silicon Valley is 1290 sq mi. That's 825600 acres, if every man, woman and child had 5 acres to raise crops and livestock that would support 165,120 people, or about 41280 small families. (I don't think anyone would want to farm more than about 15 acres alone anyways, not without a tractor)
So that means a thriving suburban community of 1,894,605 today would be reduced to no more than 165,120. So an apocalypse where only 1 in 11 people survives is sustainable. Any more and conflict is likely as people fight for resources to avoid starving, that would most likely result in far more deaths and bring the population far below what is needed.
I used silicon valley as an example, as I am familiar with the area and I felt that it has a pretty representative population density. For people on the east coast, places like Long Island would have to be abandoned entirely for a large population to survive. It could support some people, but I doubt anyone could come to an agreement on who could stay and who would have to move further inland. My rough guess is people would have to spread out as far as all of Pennsylvania to handle that 9% of survivors from NY and NJ. That kind of population pressure is likely to create a ripple of conflict in many regions.
blacktop roads exist because we didn't know what to do with all that sludge from the refineries.
if money and labor was no object we would make roads out of roman concrete, and would probably pave far fewer roads than we have.
That blacktop is crap anyways, it falls apart in northern climates after a few seasons and patches are less stable than the original leading to a cycle of deterioration. (drive in Michigan to see what the post-apocalyptic highway system will look like)
I wonder if chewing bubble gum would also impact a below average student's exam scores. Seems like minimize the distractions from sex, alcohol, and cannabis would tend to help most below average students.
Also, if you can only smoke in these Dutch coffee shops, and spend all your time there instead of in your apartment or dorm, then less studying might explain away some of the exam scores.
But despite the above concerned, I think most of us all assumed that there is some cognitive impact while someone is using cannabis. The debate has always been if this is temporary or is the impact long term. I tend to find a lot of holes in research that shows the negative impact to be long term. I have a hunch that there could be some neutral impact that is long term (changes but not detrimental), but that has been rather tough to measure.
(researching comfortably from my armchair)
Being able to vote what gets lit next would solve a lot of debate in my circle.
entire internet -> cafe wifi -> trigger is not 20 meters and not easy to trace unless you know to look for cafe's polling HTTP or IRC or XMPP on a frequent basis.
But who says you can't tie the trigger to a facebook update? I change my profile picture and suddenly a bucket of pigs blood dumps on Carrie's head.
Well you can share it on the same system or over a network filesystem that is designed to do file locking in a unix friendly way (like NFS).
And I totally agree with other posters that RCS for
in a day and age that local cell phone jamming is relatively easy, it seems like the obvious construction is to have a device that must get a text message every interval (1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, whatever) or it triggers.
an cheap FM radio could be put on a frequency that is not used, and be triggered by a strong signal on that frequency (a bit dangerous, but you're a terrorist, you probably don't give a fuck), or a DTMF decoder-on-a-chip could be packed inside of the radio for a slightly more secure deliver.
Another option is a rather inexpensive RC toy, or a slightly more expensive hobbyist RC transmitter/receiver combo (not as portable as above). Range can be a few miles if you get the VHF receiver (normally required a HAM license, but terrorists wouldn't care about that)
802.11 wifi and the passwords for the coffee shops and hotels in range should do the trick and work anywhere. Plus, no need to dial in. You can have it triggered online. Welcome to the Internet of Things, where Things include bombs.
I wouldn't bother with --depth options, at that point you're better off downloading a tarball/zip of the branch. Downloading a nightly snapshot tarball is even better, because you can resume that.
I write serious code all the time without git. In other tools it was easier to avoid branching or merging by keeping the teams small and only track a "dev" branch and several release branches that are rarely updated. Apply the same patch to each release branch to avoid having to do any complicated merges between branchs. Yes it's all kind of silly and painful, but it doesn't take a long time if you avoid the weakness in other tools. Plenty of time left over to write "serious code".
The easiest of course is to not have any teammates at all. Then you can code up everything and keep it in a serious of
Have you considered that teaching children to eat candy is the root cause of the problem?
I don't get to vote. my votes are immediately discarded for not being part of the groupthink of my community.
You're free to exercise your religion, you're just not free to acquire a business license and operate under any hocus pocus framework you want.
But it seems that there is no federal law, as written, that prohibits discrimination of customers are a business based on sexual orientation. Not even federal employment laws seem to protect LGBT, except for federal employees
But the Supreme Court can establish a precedent that the existing federal laws that protect the enumerated classes of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability also cover classes not enumerated (what criteria?). Doing so would then prevent states from operating pro-religion/anti-LGBT laws until the federal laws are modified to overturn the precedent by specifically excluding LGBT. It's not so unusual, Reed v. Reed (1971) extended the reach of this clause, and Romer v. Evans (1996) is a case that is strikingly similar to the current issue.
But until that happens, the issuing of business licenses is controlled at the State and County level and remains at their discretion as long as the federal guidelines are follow with regard to the enumerated protected classes. So if your State Assembly and Governor are into the same hocus pocus as you, you can all hold hands and triumphantly expel all the gays from your community. (no, not really going to play out that way. but that's what the end goal appears to be)
(that's how this arm-chair non-lawyer sees it)
The Founding Fathers were well aware of long traditions of the early colonies to attack other Christians of the wrong sect. Puritans hanging Quakers was an early American tradition, and much of the Constitution is written so that various religious groups can coexist.
When I say "various religious groups", let's not forget that while some might consider one group to just be another denomination of Christianity, there are plenty of people who may not agree. It is unlikely that we could unanimously agree that Mormons are Christians, and I've heard plenty of bad things said by various Protestants and Catholics about the Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of the more extreme Protestants claim that Catholics build false idols of Mary and their Saints and choose to pray to them instead of worshiping God. (I'm not interested in debating what Catholics do or do not believe, I was only stating the opinion of a minority of people, as I understand it)