Actually, in a sense, you can. The Turing machine doesn't require an infinite tape, just a tape of arbitrary length. Basically, you need to be able to always add more tape. Eventually, of course, the universe will run out of mass for you to make tape out of, but the machine is still a proper Turing machine.
The distinction may seem meaningless, but consider the set of all finite bitstrings. This set will not contain any infinitely long strings, but it will contain arbitrarily long string. However long you want your string, there's one in the set, and a longer one, but no infinitely long ones. There's a definite difference between arbitrary finite length and infinite length.
I've always found that this realization makes the Turing Machine just a little bit more real.
What you need is some sort of article, written by a respected tech writer, that explains in plain terms what cloud computing is, and what the hidden downside may be for the average consumer.
No, it means "We have a single image that goes out to tens of thousands of customers in hundreds of different hardware configurations, If the software configuration in that image changes, we have to test with the maximum level of paranoia to ensure that we don't get a flood of complaints, and requests for refunds, that each have to be verified independently and will set us back millions of dollars."
I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand the cost of testing will be considerable.
And remember that this is an issue caused by absurd software patents, so for once the Slashdot groupthink is on the side of Microsoft.
Or maybe most web programmers don't want to spend a lot of time and money supporting the 1% of users out there that don't have or disable JavaScript.
I'm just sayin'.
That's not really the point. Most websites are built on a lot of different client-side technologies. HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Flash, and god knows what else. And you're not implementing for just the few technologies you use, but for all four or five implementations of each technology by different major browsers. So if you use HTML/CSS/JavaScript and support the top five browsers, that that's fifteen implementations that can behave unexpectedly on your code. And that's just the ones you can test during development. In about a year ad a half, each of those browsers will have a new version out with new quirks and new unexpected behaviors.
The best way to ensure that your code won't embarrass you, is to make sure it degrades gracefully. That if one of those elements fails, the site will still work, and work in a way that you can reasonably predict. That means starting with working HTML. Adding CSS, making sure it works and then adding javascript (or perhaps doing the JS first, if your site relies on it for a lot of things).
If you start out coding JavaScript, the only way to be sure it keeps working is to test it every situation it might be used, and you can't test on browsers that haven't been released yet. That's why so many businesses are now stuck with IE6. Because the people that made their intranet software didn't feel like supporting some percentage of the market. It's not about support, it's about proper design.
Then a couple of weeks later they'll visit the site on Aunt Betty's old machine with IE6 and FF1.5 and demand that the site should look the same on all, and we'll be back to having sites that use images (or proprietary plugins) for all text just to get the fonts right...
You could simply tack the images on only on the browsers that don't support the new features, and use the bleeding edge standard features in the browsers that do support it. That way, the PHB can decide whether he thinks it's justified to spend all that money on creating non-essential features for browsers that will be gone in a few years (go willing). If he still thinks it's worth the money, it's probably an actual issue, rather than some PHB-ism.
The problem with the $79K award is that, if you work on the assumption that she is expected to be able to pay, then the damages an artist can get from a single count of copyright infringement is greater than the total income that they would otherwise get from selling music.
But, if that happened, then owning the rights to music would become more important to music labels than actually producing good music. The whole business of making music would become a perverse combination of hype and ownership on a multinational level. Then, their legal arm would grow stronger and stronger and it would begin a maffia-like extortion of insignificant music downloaders, ruining people's lives without regard for any kind of proportion.
It's not only vastly impractical, it turns the whole idea of the Internet on it's head. The whole idea of putting a file behind a publicly accessible URL is that you are making it public. All the rest, search engines, websites, aggregators everything else is just add-ons to make that act, and the act of typing the url into the address bar to get the file, more user-friendly. The act of putting something behind a URL without restricting access in any way, means you've made it public. That's the rule of the Internet. If you want to restrict access a bit more, you can use http-authentication or session based authentication, there's certainly no lack of options.
Now if you want to build a business model on the internet, I wish you all the luck in the world, we know it's possible, but you do have to follow the one rule. Nobody forced you to be on the internet, feel free to leave again if you don't like it.
Now, newspapers can legitimately gripe about people stealing their content, and semi-legitimately gripe about aggregators displaying it, but that has nothing to do with linking, and this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The fact that he wants to ban paraphrasing others' content as well makes me wonder how the hell this guy came to be a judge.
That sounds like it would be the single biggest threat to free speech in the last fifty years if it were to go anywhere. Imagine what the media conglomerates would do with a law like that.
I'd really like to make some lofty comment on the grandiosity of the internet, and what a great driving force of intellectual progress it is, but I would be doing so on slashdot. I'm not sure the universe could take the irony.
Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.
You mean it's a valid opinion, shared by many people?
... and instructions to call if anything changes at all.
suggests that he may have actually expected something like this to happen, and you getting sick was a calculated risk. Maybe this was the best way to find out what was wrong with you, and the 104 fever was just a little higher than expected.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in a sense, you can. The Turing machine doesn't require an infinite tape, just a tape of arbitrary length. Basically, you need to be able to always add more tape. Eventually, of course, the universe will run out of mass for you to make tape out of, but the machine is still a proper Turing machine. The distinction may seem meaningless, but consider the set of all finite bitstrings. This set will not contain any infinitely long strings, but it will contain arbitrarily long string. However long you want your string, there's one in the set, and a longer one, but no infinitely long ones. There's a definite difference between arbitrary finite length and infinite length. I've always found that this realization makes the Turing Machine just a little bit more real.
There may be some patent concerns though.
I believe Roger Ebert gave it two stars.
You are educated stupid! The 4-corners of the 24 hour day rotate simultaneously inside a single cube.
God creates from opposites, not ONEism. The harmonic cube form will prevail.
One shot if you accidentally format your data partition because by now you're blind drunk on cheap scotch.
Yes, those days are definitely behind us...
What's this, I'm the 10.000th visitor to dodgycrackwarez.cz? My goodness, I've won a prize, how exciting!
What you need is some sort of article, written by a respected tech writer, that explains in plain terms what cloud computing is, and what the hidden downside may be for the average consumer.
Hmmm... now where would we find such a thing?
No, it means "We have a single image that goes out to tens of thousands of customers in hundreds of different hardware configurations, If the software configuration in that image changes, we have to test with the maximum level of paranoia to ensure that we don't get a flood of complaints, and requests for refunds, that each have to be verified independently and will set us back millions of dollars."
I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand the cost of testing will be considerable.
And remember that this is an issue caused by absurd software patents, so for once the Slashdot groupthink is on the side of Microsoft.
And the astronauts weren't looking too healthy either.
I expect the real intention is more like BUY NVIDIA STOCKS THEY ARE THE FUTURE, CPU STOCKS SUCK.
Who needs profits from actual sales when you can manipulate the market?
Snow leopard? More like slow leopard!
(I had to do it... there was no other way)
He even encrypted his last name.
That's not really the point. Most websites are built on a lot of different client-side technologies. HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Flash, and god knows what else. And you're not implementing for just the few technologies you use, but for all four or five implementations of each technology by different major browsers. So if you use HTML/CSS/JavaScript and support the top five browsers, that that's fifteen implementations that can behave unexpectedly on your code. And that's just the ones you can test during development. In about a year ad a half, each of those browsers will have a new version out with new quirks and new unexpected behaviors.
The best way to ensure that your code won't embarrass you, is to make sure it degrades gracefully. That if one of those elements fails, the site will still work, and work in a way that you can reasonably predict. That means starting with working HTML. Adding CSS, making sure it works and then adding javascript (or perhaps doing the JS first, if your site relies on it for a lot of things).
If you start out coding JavaScript, the only way to be sure it keeps working is to test it every situation it might be used, and you can't test on browsers that haven't been released yet. That's why so many businesses are now stuck with IE6. Because the people that made their intranet software didn't feel like supporting some percentage of the market. It's not about support, it's about proper design.
Very effective! They could probably cut the voicework for three really low-budget episodes out of that.
Until some indie distribution platform pops up that allows you to trade your games, and it's hailed as a great new idea.
You could simply tack the images on only on the browsers that don't support the new features, and use the bleeding edge standard features in the browsers that do support it. That way, the PHB can decide whether he thinks it's justified to spend all that money on creating non-essential features for browsers that will be gone in a few years (go willing). If he still thinks it's worth the money, it's probably an actual issue, rather than some PHB-ism.
I couldn't agree more. Alice Roberts is well on her way to becoming the new David Attenborough.
But, if that happened, then owning the rights to music would become more important to music labels than actually producing good music. The whole business of making music would become a perverse combination of hype and ownership on a multinational level. Then, their legal arm would grow stronger and stronger and it would begin a maffia-like extortion of insignificant music downloaders, ruining people's lives without regard for any kind of proportion.
Imagine such a world.
+4 funny for a poultry little pun like that...
It's not only vastly impractical, it turns the whole idea of the Internet on it's head. The whole idea of putting a file behind a publicly accessible URL is that you are making it public. All the rest, search engines, websites, aggregators everything else is just add-ons to make that act, and the act of typing the url into the address bar to get the file, more user-friendly. The act of putting something behind a URL without restricting access in any way, means you've made it public. That's the rule of the Internet. If you want to restrict access a bit more, you can use http-authentication or session based authentication, there's certainly no lack of options.
Now if you want to build a business model on the internet, I wish you all the luck in the world, we know it's possible, but you do have to follow the one rule. Nobody forced you to be on the internet, feel free to leave again if you don't like it.
Now, newspapers can legitimately gripe about people stealing their content, and semi-legitimately gripe about aggregators displaying it, but that has nothing to do with linking, and this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The fact that he wants to ban paraphrasing others' content as well makes me wonder how the hell this guy came to be a judge.
That sounds like it would be the single biggest threat to free speech in the last fifty years if it were to go anywhere. Imagine what the media conglomerates would do with a law like that.
I'd really like to make some lofty comment on the grandiosity of the internet, and what a great driving force of intellectual progress it is, but I would be doing so on slashdot. I'm not sure the universe could take the irony.
You mean it's a valid opinion, shared by many people?
So if I drive a hybrid, they're stealing my energy? Those bastards!
Also
suggests that he may have actually expected something like this to happen, and you getting sick was a calculated risk. Maybe this was the best way to find out what was wrong with you, and the 104 fever was just a little higher than expected.
IWtR woerkedd oouth briplliantly fopr me . Engvry bok;dy shold tryuk oit. Nevtr fgelt nbetytere.