It was proven to be universal, when combined with an automaton that constructs a suitable infinite initial condition.
Professor Pratt, whose contributions to computability, type and category theory are quite substantial and much to be admired, has, yet again, gone off half-cocked, and exposed his attention-seeking immaturity.
It strikes me that any business model that depends on POS software is fundamentally flawed. Kinda like the POS software that made the F-22s turn back at the international date line, or the POS software that trashed the Mars Climate Orbiter on arrival.
No. Security can be measured and benchmarked. And while it may be easier to pull a number out of your ass for a scheduler, it's still a number out of your ass. Benchmarking schedulers is very, very hard and contains a strong subjective element, because performance is always relative to a goal. The texture of the task of the benchmarker becomes more rich as the goal becomes more complexly structured and multidimensional. Benchmarking security is no less feasible in principle than is an adequate and honest benchmarking of scheduler performance. Neither are so trite as the Torvalds quip suggested.
Linus is, once again, being an irrational prick. That's what benevolent dictators are for. He's very much like George W. Bush, who describes his job thusly: "I'm the Decider." Mr. Torvalds just kills a few hundred thousand fewer people in the process. If the world wanted a democratically operated Linux kernel project, there would be a fork with formally organized elections. It's just like the U.S. government, really, but with fewer assassins.
"Poorly referenced"? They are completely made up, whole cloth! To say there are no tools to develop for Linux is about as believable as a a really unbelievable thing, and the incoherent ramble about how there are *too* many tools for Java is a self-refuting parody. Seriously, I think this guy is an underpaid third-world astroturfer.
Indeed when the author has comments about any given platform, they usually amount to "[FUD] but then I've never tried it, so I don't really know". It's a pretty pathetic excuse for a slashdot article. I think class-action lawsuits were designed to punish stuff like this. How about we sue Slashdot for wasting the time of 2 million readers, and we all get a nickel?
To put that another way, any complex legal document (and the GPLv3 is quite so) comes with it's own built-in FUD. The very purpose for the existence of complex legal documents is often the creation of FUD, for which purpose they are excellent tools. If you want to stop spreading GPL FUD, perhaps the most effective approach would be to radically simplify the GPL, along the model of, say, public domain.
I don't see his concern as "FUD about the GPL". The presence of GPL software on my hard drive means that my hard drive is legally encumbered with complex social structures of highly unpredictable consequences. I can't freely use useful software components that I find on my system without performing an unconscionably time-consuming degree of research on the licensing strictures and the state-of-the-art in their legal interpretation -- at least not if I give a rat's sphincter about copyright law. And it's largely because of this that I've concluded life is far too short to be doling out rodent recta, and have abandoned all hope and intention of conforming with copyright law.
It's worse than that. For any useful contribution to a GNU project, you have to actually assign your copyright to the FSF, so that if RMS decided one day to take it all closed-proprietary and sell it to Microsoft (and stacked/convinced the FSF board favorably), you've got no recourse.
What do you call it when a conspiracy theory becomes a proven fact? Does it remain a conspiracy theory nonetheless? If conspiracies do not exist, then it seems we should remove conspiracy laws from the books, as many people are in prison for non-existent crimes. But then, it is as absurd to attempt a response to anyone who opposes truth as it is to attempt to reason with anyone who denies the law of the excluded middle.
I once looked into it, and it doesn't look too hard, but it will take about $500,000 to start. You might raise that in a limited partnership with friends and family.
The reasonable reaction to these concerns is to peg the currency to a basket of commodities (or their futures). This would eliminate core inflation, if the basket were to be weighted identically to the core inflation metric, resulting in absolute stability in the value of currency. By using derivatives (commodity futures, specifically) rather than actual commodities, the money supply could be controlled through futures market operations, thus retaining the ability of the government to manipulate the currency in order to counter-act adverse events resulting from market panics and bubbles.
Agreed. The only worthwhile outcome would have been a punitive judgement against Circuit City and the city of Brooklyn Ohio. He made the judgement that pursuing this end would be too costly for his family. I can't second-guess that judgement, but I can say that this appears to be a loss for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claim that it is not proven is an unproven (and controversial) claim.
It was proven to be universal, when combined with an automaton that constructs a suitable infinite initial condition.
Professor Pratt, whose contributions to computability, type and category theory are quite substantial and much to be admired, has, yet again, gone off half-cocked, and exposed his attention-seeking immaturity.
In the domain of technology there is no meaningful difference between malice and stupidity.
> the set of equidistant points from the origin on a x-t graph would actually be hyperbole
while in quantum mechanics, the same set would be metaphor.
> when I was in highschool.
Funny. I read that as "when I was in holocaust."
It strikes me that any business model that depends on POS software is fundamentally flawed. Kinda like the POS software that made the F-22s turn back at the international date line, or the POS software that trashed the Mars Climate Orbiter on arrival.
No, you're not alone. DX10 just sucks, period. The article concluded thus, and I concur emphatically.
No. Security can be measured and benchmarked. And while it may be easier to pull a number out of your ass for a scheduler, it's still a number out of your ass. Benchmarking schedulers is very, very hard and contains a strong subjective element, because performance is always relative to a goal. The texture of the task of the benchmarker becomes more rich as the goal becomes more complexly structured and multidimensional. Benchmarking security is no less feasible in principle than is an adequate and honest benchmarking of scheduler performance. Neither are so trite as the Torvalds quip suggested.
Linus is, once again, being an irrational prick. That's what benevolent dictators are for. He's very much like George W. Bush, who describes his job thusly: "I'm the Decider." Mr. Torvalds just kills a few hundred thousand fewer people in the process. If the world wanted a democratically operated Linux kernel project, there would be a fork with formally organized elections. It's just like the U.S. government, really, but with fewer assassins.
"Poorly referenced"? They are completely made up, whole cloth! To say there are no tools to develop for Linux is about as believable as a a really unbelievable thing, and the incoherent ramble about how there are *too* many tools for Java is a self-refuting parody. Seriously, I think this guy is an underpaid third-world astroturfer.
Indeed when the author has comments about any given platform, they usually amount to "[FUD] but then I've never tried it, so I don't really know". It's a pretty pathetic excuse for a slashdot article. I think class-action lawsuits were designed to punish stuff like this. How about we sue Slashdot for wasting the time of 2 million readers, and we all get a nickel?
To put that another way, any complex legal document (and the GPLv3 is quite so) comes with it's own built-in FUD. The very purpose for the existence of complex legal documents is often the creation of FUD, for which purpose they are excellent tools. If you want to stop spreading GPL FUD, perhaps the most effective approach would be to radically simplify the GPL, along the model of, say, public domain.
I don't see his concern as "FUD about the GPL". The presence of GPL software on my hard drive means that my hard drive is legally encumbered with complex social structures of highly unpredictable consequences. I can't freely use useful software components that I find on my system without performing an unconscionably time-consuming degree of research on the licensing strictures and the state-of-the-art in their legal interpretation -- at least not if I give a rat's sphincter about copyright law. And it's largely because of this that I've concluded life is far too short to be doling out rodent recta, and have abandoned all hope and intention of conforming with copyright law.
It's worse than that. For any useful contribution to a GNU project, you have to actually assign your copyright to the FSF, so that if RMS decided one day to take it all closed-proprietary and sell it to Microsoft (and stacked/convinced the FSF board favorably), you've got no recourse.
Terrorists will be identified by random numbers as well. A random selection of these terrorists will then be executed.
Carrier support means economy of scale. Technical capability without socioeconomic viability is worthless.
If the US is deemed to be winning in Iraq, then the kill ratio must be about 300:1.
I believe it was Christ who said that Satan comes to "kill, steal and destroy". That pretty much sums up US foreign policy.
Anything that saves American lives, at the expense of Iraqi lives, is a bad thing. It's their country.
What do you call it when a conspiracy theory becomes a proven fact? Does it remain a conspiracy theory nonetheless? If conspiracies do not exist, then it seems we should remove conspiracy laws from the books, as many people are in prison for non-existent crimes. But then, it is as absurd to attempt a response to anyone who opposes truth as it is to attempt to reason with anyone who denies the law of the excluded middle.
I once looked into it, and it doesn't look too hard, but it will take about $500,000 to start. You might raise that in a limited partnership with friends and family.
The reasonable reaction to these concerns is to peg the currency to a basket of commodities (or their futures). This would eliminate core inflation, if the basket were to be weighted identically to the core inflation metric, resulting in absolute stability in the value of currency. By using derivatives (commodity futures, specifically) rather than actual commodities, the money supply could be controlled through futures market operations, thus retaining the ability of the government to manipulate the currency in order to counter-act adverse events resulting from market panics and bubbles.
> if anyone would like to propose a repeatable and verifiable experiment for finding the universe where George W. Bush lost in 2000
Just look out of your window.
Nonsense. None of those are federal crimes.
> You know who else was concerned about exponential growth?
The passenger pidgeoon?
Agreed. The only worthwhile outcome would have been a punitive judgement against Circuit City and the city of Brooklyn Ohio. He made the judgement that pursuing this end would be too costly for his family. I can't second-guess that judgement, but I can say that this appears to be a loss for everyone.