No; for that to be the case, equivalence would have to be proven (i.e. construct a proof of Shanuel that works when you assume this theory to be true.)
Right now, it could be that there exists a proof that is valid and does not depend on Shanuel's conjecture.
The given answer is "no"[1], all powers are irrational. I'm not sure how this simple "no" would be helpful to you without understanding any part of the proof.
The mining pools (groups of miners who've joined forces) control it in practice. This effectively gives a very small number of people control over significant things, like transaction fees.
But if the managers of the mining pools were to do anything too overt, those who contribute computing power to them could (and probably would) quickly pull their support. At least in theory.
You can only mine (for a significant share) with very significant investments, and transaction fees competely go to miners, so it's in their interest to raise them (albeit slowly, to not curb the adoption of bitcoin too much.)
Collusion is impossible because other miners can work for smaller transaction fees. If it is profitable, someone will do it. If it is not profitable than there is not an unfair collusion to raise fees since the fees can't be undercut.
The behavior of clients does influence fees, but consumers using Bitcoin will happily switch to the client that lets them pay the fee they want to pay (talking about the excess fee not the fee described in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees .)
If the large pools make a deal, any transactions they don't pick up will only ever get accepted after a very long wait. Hell, since they control >50% of the network, they can simply make the new transaction fees a new rule and force lower transactions to not be accepted by anyone (i.e. ignoring those blocks, like a 51% attack.)
Policy by economic (mining) majority could be an issue in the future when the policy directly determines the profits of that majority.
The answer to things like the Pidgin configuration issue you mentioned could be https://tails.boum.org/ -- a live USB distribution that runs all traffic through Tor, and comes with Pidgin preinstalled and preconfigured. It has optional encrypted persistence too.
Yes, I did show some people through this too. However, it's not usable as an everyday operating system, for, say researchers such as academics, or journalists.
Given the PRISM revelations (and the today-reported fact that the AIVD has reportedly been recording and analyzing all domestic calls since 2000) try moving to drop all cases since 2000.
"Can I buy a budget ticket?
The budget ticket is an experiment, calling on common-sense of all potential attendees. The goal is a more fair distribution of discounted tickets, instead of the arbitrary distribution based on the moment a ticket is sold. There are no income-checks, instead the experiment relies on the fairness of the individual. Those considering the budget option should really consider carefully: "Can I really not afford the normal ticket, or am I taking the chance for some of my fellow hackers for attending by just being cheap?". A tough call, but do remember: there is only a set percentage and each budget ticket sold means there is one less in the overall pool."
Seriously considering going (with a normal ticket :)).
Patti would talk dirty to me. And so would Lorna. And they're hot. That, and the fact that I know and love these people, might be the reason I was over-optimistic about the price point.
For a thought experiment, think what you could do at much higher price point (e.g. 100$ a day), and who might pay for that. Then scale down from there.
Basically, do a thing like this for egotistical investors and bankers--how many do you think would pay large amounts of money just to enjoy having somebody read them the closing bell and after-market action on their stocks?
Shit, you could put together a basic portfolio tracker and script generator, and then just farm it out to spare VA talent.
I think I should. I think I should do this with my craziest friends and see what comes of it. Maybe word of mouth will get us the requisite numbers to make some money. Maybe we'll just at least have what we wanted for ourselves. Why not, right? It's like zero overhead. Thanks for your encouragement.
I just moved to Singapore a few months ago and have just gone through the (very efficient) motions of registering a business. I am still toiling away at the day job, but send me an email if you are interested in further discussion. My address is in my profile.
If I remember correctly, it's not some arbitrary choice of the lawyers, but it can be required by law (under some interpretations?)
You should check with the lawyers if tampering with font size or spacing does not go against the reasons for using caps in the first place.
Edit: The reason this is done is the "Conspicuous" part at http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201.html -- note in particular " Language in the body of a form is "conspicuous" if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color" -- your solution makes the capslock text _smaller_ than the normal text, which would possibly invalidate it. But, of course, IANAL, which is also why I don't tamper with my lawyers' texts without checking with them.
You can use bold-faced text instead of all caps. If you have a true bold typeface (instead of applying a bold faux effect), then this will look nicer to read.
