Slashdot Mirror

write-only memory has an infinite density.

Yes, the WOM rules!
Link to the official data sheet: WOM Datasheet

At a glance I thought I was reading about Write Only Memory

On the plus side, they were able to save a FORTUNE on the hardware by implementing the entire thing in Write-Only Memory

Well then, I'm glad I live next to VMI, which happens to be more than just a school--it's also a "well regulated militia."

In the corporate world many things are printed and never read. I had a tech lead years ago that swore he put a photocopied page from a russian engineering textbook in every large report he ever submitted to management - never got asked about it.

The classic example of this gambit is the Write Only Memory. According to the Jargon File, somebody got annoyed with all the required apporovals where nothing was actually being checked, so he put out a totally illogical spec. Heh, it specifies a standard filament voltage of 6.3 volts AC (compatible with your tubes, y'know).

I have a physical version of this somewhere, but it was easy enough to google a PDF. I give you Write Only Memory (WOM). It's a joke so old, it has a Wikipedia page.

No, not virtual slaves.

In the 1860s, a typical laborer in the United States or Canada might make $.50 to $4 US a day, while say a teacher would make $500-600 a year or $1.36-$1.64 dollars a day and a professor might make $1200-1500 a year

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/ schools.htm
http://www.vmi.edu/archives/records/smith/60may003 .html

Did anyone else read this as 'College Students Turn Away From Landmines'?
I've heard of some pretty crazy dorm pranks, but that seems a little extreme.

Those VMI kids have all the fun.

Nope, chaos means that the system responds with big changes in its output to very small changes in its input.

If you're a little into math Verhulst' model of biologic growth might help. This model is simply: x(n+1) -> a * x(n) * (1 - x(n)), an iterative model where x(n) is a number between 0 and 1 that indicates the population density at a given step n and a (the Malthusian factor) represents the fertility, a number between 0 and 4.

If you choose a factor a <= 1, the model simulates a dying population, no matter what x(0) you put in, after some iterations it will become 0.

If you pick 1 < a <= 2 the model simulates a stable population, no matter what x(0) you put in, after some iterations in will become 1 - 1/a.

If you pick 2 < a <= 3 the model is still striving for a value of 1 - 1/a but now it will oscillate around this value at an ever smaller absolute distance.

Models with 1 < a <= 3 are balanced, but the interesting stuff starts happening when we pick 3 < a <= 4, because now the model starts behaving chaoticly. If we take a = 3.2 for instance, the model will alternate between the values 0.51304451 and 0.79945549, a lot like the original posters' two alternating states.

Now let's take a = 4 for the sake of argument because the model is then completely chaotic. If we start this with model with x(0) = 0.6875 -> x(12) = 0.925930303 but if we add just 0.0001 x(0) = 0.6876 -> x(12) = 0.5676923. That's a big change in output for a small change in input.

Write a little program and play with this model to really see how randomly it seems to behave, while it's still ruled by a simple deterministic formula.

Maybe they are just words, but I always thought that chaotic and deterministic were opposites.

Not really, chaotic in the mathematical sense means hard to predict, while non-deterministic or random means impossible to predict.

If you're saying that chaos is never truly chaotic, and that it is instead ALWAYS deterministic, then some belief systems (mine actually) will have to be rethought because if there is no such thing as chaos, then there is no such thing as free will.

I'm not saying there is no randomness in the world, I'm only saying that you can't generate true randomness with deterministic systems (like computers) alone, you need a truely random source (like the clicks of a geiger counter) for that.

As for free will, I think Hume's compatibilism could be helpfull to you. Hume very oversimplified defines free will as the freedom to do what one feels like doing (meaning you're still a slave of your passions and feelings, but that's what defines you).

Is free will an illusion or is there really things that are non-deterministic?

The generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics claims there is true randomness in the world. However, I personally really don't see how non-determinism would help you in creating a rational definition of free will. If your free will is driven by truely random processes in nature, "rational thought" itself becomes no more than a blind man lead by a fool.

I personally think that (the concept of) "free will" was a nescessary step in our evolution to unify the various unconcious processes in our minds that drive and define us (that generate our feelings, inspirations and insights). It's natures way to assure you that it's really your ideas and feelings, no matter you don't know how exactly they came into being.

Lewis carried an air rifle on the 1803-1806 expedition. .31 cal, 700-900 lbs. per sq. inch.