Usenet is much harder to control than web forums, so making it useless by posting endless rubbish would be attractive.

But if you don't buy GM products, they will need another bailout. You have to pay them whether you like it or not.

Why does chess need a "clear and predictable yardstick for greatness"? It's a game, not engineering.

I only go to work to talk to the people there.

... is when we pass through the next one!

Given a random source, you can produce another source correlated with it.

*Unless* the other source is correlated with the random one.

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14

It should be clear you've got the choices wrong when the mode is at one end. My first computer had 384 bytes of RAM. This one has 12GB.

I had assumed that "Man of Steel" was a film about Stalin.

My phone battery has a capacity of 2.1Ah. To charge it in 20 seconds would require a current of 380 Amps. What kind of charger could safely supply that?

it provides the contradiction by constructing a list of numbers at least one of which must be a new prime. It's simple to test each of them. If you want to construct an infinite list of primes, just repeat indefinitely.

I'm pointing out that the existing proof is constructive, not giving another proof.

N!+1 either is prime or has prime factors not in 1...N. Try factorizing the integers N+1 ... N!+1 in turn until you come to one that is prime.

What have you bought over the last year? How has their price varied in dollars and in bitcoins? No currency's value is constant, but some are a lot more constant than others.