Well, there are better places to shoot the breeze I think. I'm not sure that anecdote has much in the way of informing us about the fit of Intel chips for TVs.
which would make the Scientific Method itself a tool with limited but useful application. Or rather, it would prove that there are discoveries in our Universe that can be made that are impossible to arrive at via the Scientific Method.
You've just stated twice precisely the philosophical implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. We don't need additional physical discoveries to 'prove' that.
See: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/implic.html
How can one know the strategies used in preparing tax returns (balance sheet ledger) after the fact? There's no one-to-one correspondence between the end result and the methodology used to obtain that result.
Umm, I watched them both because it's a weekend and neither was significantly longer or shorter than the other. One arguably had greater intrinsic artistic merit.
Sorry, bad wording on my part. How about this rephrasing:
The guest OS sees a virtual representation of the hardware that is provided by an application [i.e., software] running inside...
So, yea. It is a software representation of hardware.
The guest OS sees a virtual representation of the hardware which is essentially written as an application that runs inside the host OS and consumes the actual hardware resources (as any application would) on behalf of the guest. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization#Hardware
i.e., if you attempt to demarcate in this fashion, you at the very least create two orders-- the one that you consider 'ordered' and the other which you consider 'disordered'. That is an ordering in and of itself; however arbitrary it may seem.
I've long thought this was an implication of Godel's theorems but wasn't aware of which part of Turing's work applies here. Can you expound a bit? Thanks.
This. I've had my current iMac since early-mid 2007 and it is perfectly fine for everything that I do (development-wise and all). Of course, I have upgraded the harddrive and maxed out the memory.
Plus all of the extras (AudioUnits/graphics capabilities/pre-packaged apps) that come with Mac make it more than worth the price.
No worries. I figured it was merely a brain fart. The transitions between full-featured TeX and ASCII must be painful.:-) [I've only peripheral acquaintance with TeX myself].
What's the rationale behind that restriction? Is the team that produces the spec going to become so tainted by being intimate with the original that they cannot think freely enough to implement their own original work to spec? Was the original truly so advanced that few other humans (if any) could produce it without this taint? How do such thoughts pollute otherwise pristinely creative rational machines anyway? Surely these machines (the human minds) are advanced enough to separate reason itself from reasoning about reasoning; in fact, that's the main feature that separates the human mind from a mere computer.
It might pay for itself in a few years of continuous use
I think you're missing a factor of two somewhere. Wouldn't you want the buffer to average out to half-full over the long run? What good is a constantly filled buffer?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there are better places to shoot the breeze I think. I'm not sure that anecdote has much in the way of informing us about the fit of Intel chips for TVs.
Umm, that's not science. One data point means nothing.
... there is a depth to the reality of our Universe that cannot be discovered at all ...
In short, reality outruns knowledge.
which would make the Scientific Method itself a tool with limited but useful application. Or rather, it would prove that there are discoveries in our Universe that can be made that are impossible to arrive at via the Scientific Method.
You've just stated twice precisely the philosophical implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. We don't need additional physical discoveries to 'prove' that. See: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/implic.html
How can one know the strategies used in preparing tax returns (balance sheet ledger) after the fact? There's no one-to-one correspondence between the end result and the methodology used to obtain that result.
Umm, I watched them both because it's a weekend and neither was significantly longer or shorter than the other. One arguably had greater intrinsic artistic merit.
You are thinking too imperatively. Use functional programming and automatic parallelization becomes possible.
It's actually more about exposing the internal compiler metadata to the outside world. MS' very own LLVM essentially.
Since when is 'the scene' plural? Once I would've ignored, but twice seems intentional.
Sorry, bad wording on my part. How about this rephrasing: The guest OS sees a virtual representation of the hardware that is provided by an application [i.e., software] running inside ...
So, yea. It is a software representation of hardware.
The guest OS sees a virtual representation of the hardware which is essentially written as an application that runs inside the host OS and consumes the actual hardware resources (as any application would) on behalf of the guest. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization#Hardware
No, not verify. You can only say that the tiny amount of observation we've directed at the hypothesis is consistent or inconsistent with it.
i.e., if you attempt to demarcate in this fashion, you at the very least create two orders-- the one that you consider 'ordered' and the other which you consider 'disordered'. That is an ordering in and of itself; however arbitrary it may seem.
Where do you draw the lines around this 'pocket or order'? And no matter where you draw them, do you not still see order?
I've long thought this was an implication of Godel's theorems but wasn't aware of which part of Turing's work applies here. Can you expound a bit? Thanks.
This. I've had my current iMac since early-mid 2007 and it is perfectly fine for everything that I do (development-wise and all). Of course, I have upgraded the harddrive and maxed out the memory. Plus all of the extras (AudioUnits/graphics capabilities/pre-packaged apps) that come with Mac make it more than worth the price.
No worries. I figured it was merely a brain fart. The transitions between full-featured TeX and ASCII must be painful. :-) [I've only peripheral acquaintance with TeX myself].
That symbol you're looking for is '~'.
C++0x (or whatever they call it these days) adds 'threading'. And, if you really want parallel, efficient, compiled code, go for Haskell.
What's the rationale behind that restriction? Is the team that produces the spec going to become so tainted by being intimate with the original that they cannot think freely enough to implement their own original work to spec? Was the original truly so advanced that few other humans (if any) could produce it without this taint? How do such thoughts pollute otherwise pristinely creative rational machines anyway? Surely these machines (the human minds) are advanced enough to separate reason itself from reasoning about reasoning; in fact, that's the main feature that separates the human mind from a mere computer.
It might pay for itself in a few years of continuous use
I think you're missing a factor of two somewhere. Wouldn't you want the buffer to average out to half-full over the long run? What good is a constantly filled buffer?
That's the same way I like to think of 'higher-order programming' (with or without threads)-- an extra degree of freedom.
His punctuation left a little to be desired though.
Oh yea. I confused the DOS and regex notions of '?'.
Shouldn't it be: /we[a|]ry
?