Not sure why the parent was marked as a troll, but given the age of the Earth, and a movement of 380 m in 10,000 years, I would assume it could have had a significant effect on the Earth millions of years ago.
Weight is the measure of attraction between two masses, such as the gravitational force between the Earth and you. But force certainly does not equal weight.
Depends, the moon moving away from the Earth could seriously affect tides. Of course, it's not going to happen any time soon, even by geological standards, but it is still significant.
I believe that the point is that there are few people who make their machines available for others to download from. The number of downloads taking place will be equal to the number of uploads taking place, obviously.
If more and more people use the server only to receive files, and do not make files they receive available to others, then in the end, the people who were making their files available to others will no longer be able to, or they will have to severely limit the bandwidth going out to those who are taking the files.
The only way to avoid this would be to have nodes that are there simply to retrieve as many good quality files as possible and offer them up for download. But then, it's not really P2P anymore, is it?
Taxes also fund the NSA, CIA, FBI, and military, but they don't disclose everything they do to us either. Otherwise every taxpayer would have to have top secret clearance.
I was referring to after all services were loaded. I will note that I am not running IIS or DNS, however, I'm not running Apache or DNS in Linux either. (I am running DHCPD in both.)
A default XP install on my box boots in about 1/3 the time than the default Redhat 7.2 workstation install (booting into X Windows to make it fair, even though without going into X it is still about 1/2 as slow.).
You are pretty much right, as is the other guy, (he has the right proof, I believe, and you have the right concept.)
This proof states that there is no algorithm that can tell you if a certain program will halt (yield successful output), given a certain input, thus you cannot prove program correctness.
I also remember another proof regarding this same issue, but from what I can tell, this one is basically the same idea.
The proof (by contradiction, is as follows:
Unsolvability of the Halting Problem
Dale Roberts
Statement of the halting problem (loosely speaking):
The halting problem is a decision problem. It asks if an algorithm exists to decide, given an arbitrary program P and arbitrary input data D, whether P started on D eventually halts. Prove that the halting problem cannot be solved.
Proof by contradiction:
Assume that the halting problem is solvable. Then an algorithm solving the halting problem exists and according to the Church-Turing thesis a program X can be written to act on any program P with data D and yield a decision as to whether P started on D eventually halts. Now add instructions to X to create a new program Y. Y modifies X's behavior so that whenever X halts with a decision that P started on D halts, Y goes into an infinite loop. If X halts with a decision that P started on D does not halt, then Y halts. Finally, create a new program Z with input P. Z is defined so that it invokes Y on program P with input P. (That is, the input data for Z is actually a program, which is just data.)
Consider what happens when we run Z on Z. There are two possibilities.
1. Z started on input Z halts. If Z started on Z halts, then Y started on Z with input Z halts. If Y started on Z with input Z halts, then X decided that Z started on Z does not halt!
Therefore,
Z started on input Z halts implies that Z started on input Z does not halt. (contradiction)
2. Z started on input Z does not halt. If Z started on Z does not halt, then Y started on Z with input Z does not halt. If Y started on Z with input Z does not halt, then X decided that Z started on Z halts!
Therefore,
Z started on input Z does not halt implies that Z started on input Z halts. (contradiction)
Either alternative yields a contradiction, so our assumption that the halting problem is solvable must be incorrect.
Significance
The idea of unsolvability is important because it indicates that relatively simple problems exist, that are intuitively reasonable, but no matter how clever, insightful, intelligent, perseverant, creative or resourceful you are, you cannot solve it.
The same people that don't have computers (because they can't afford them, or don't realize they can), most likely don't have the money to shell out for $150 game console, let alone an OS.
Internet access isn't everything. When you get a computer that would be good enough for someone who had never had a computer before for probably $150 or less, and Windows ME costs $100 or so, I'd say that's a big part of the cost right there.
Go ahead, you buy 1 copy and install on 120,000 machines. I'm sure you have the time for it. Even if they bought 1 copy and burned many cds, it would still take a long time to install it on 120,000 machines.
I suppose his conclusion is along the same lines as that there is no algorithm that can determine whether another given algorithm is absolutely correct for any given input.
Basically, you try your best to make it perfect, but you can never be 100% certain.
You know, there is a reason you can customize/. and everything so that you only see stories from the sections you want to. If you just want to read about Linux or whatever else, then go to your user preferences page and turn everything else off. It's not that hard to do.
I haven't gotten through all 3 dvds yet, but I didn't see any mention of the Tracy Ullman shorts anywhere. I do remember watching them though. The commentaries are very interesting and informative though.
You also notice some very interesting things that changed real quick. Like Smither's skin color changing after 1 episode =]
Interesting, if I could mod your post up I would. Too bad I don't have the balls to drive without a license. Here's a better quote I found from that page:
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.", Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
I never said he wasn't supporting it, the article didn't mention his position. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't support it due to his ties to the oil industry. That was a personal comment.
There was also comments about Toyota already making trucks efficient enough to meet these standards, and that they said GM and other US companies could meet them much easier than they claim to be able to.
There are alot of people with licenses already that aren't fit to drive. Especially those in the older population, that only have to renew less often than the rest of us, and don't even have to take a driving test... yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Read an article in the local paper today about how General Motors (and others) are working heavily on fuel-cell technology, but congress wants to pass tougher restrictions on fuel efficienty in trucks (probably cars too).
The problem with this is that instead of being able to focus on bringing hydrogen fuel-cells to consumer, they'll have to spend time and money bringing down the current fuel efficieny of these trucks. However, since they probably couldn't do it in time without throwing safety out the window and making them very light, the more likely scenario is removing vehicles which don't meet the requirements off the market.
With Cheney and Bush and their oil ties right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't support hydrogen fuel-cells (which would greatly reduce our need for foreign oil, or any oil all together.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why the parent was marked as a troll, but given the age of the Earth, and a movement of 380 m in 10,000 years, I would assume it could have had a significant effect on the Earth millions of years ago.
Weight is the measure of attraction between two masses, such as the gravitational force between the Earth and you. But force certainly does not equal weight.
Force is also a vector, which weight is not.
If he stopped the puck, why on earth would he pass it to someone on the opposing team?
Depends, the moon moving away from the Earth could seriously affect tides. Of course, it's not going to happen any time soon, even by geological standards, but it is still significant.
If more and more people use the server only to receive files, and do not make files they receive available to others, then in the end, the people who were making their files available to others will no longer be able to, or they will have to severely limit the bandwidth going out to those who are taking the files.
The only way to avoid this would be to have nodes that are there simply to retrieve as many good quality files as possible and offer them up for download. But then, it's not really P2P anymore, is it?
Maybe because it was noted by the poster of the article in the first place?
Taxes also fund the NSA, CIA, FBI, and military, but they don't disclose everything they do to us either. Otherwise every taxpayer would have to have top secret clearance.
How much research at Universities is privately funded, and how much is funded from the government? Just curious, I have no clue on the numbers myself.
I was referring to after all services were loaded. I will note that I am not running IIS or DNS, however, I'm not running Apache or DNS in Linux either. (I am running DHCPD in both.)
I thought that PC2100 was mostly standard for DDR. Isn't it? I know that's what most places sell, and probably what most packaged computers come with.
This proof states that there is no algorithm that can tell you if a certain program will halt (yield successful output), given a certain input, thus you cannot prove program correctness.
I also remember another proof regarding this same issue, but from what I can tell, this one is basically the same idea.
The proof (by contradiction, is as follows:
Unsolvability of the Halting Problem
Dale Roberts
Statement of the halting problem (loosely speaking):
The halting problem is a decision problem. It asks if an algorithm exists to decide, given an arbitrary program P and arbitrary input data D, whether P started on D eventually halts. Prove that the halting problem cannot be solved.
Proof by contradiction:
Assume that the halting problem is solvable. Then an algorithm solving the halting problem exists and according to the Church-Turing thesis a program X can be written to act on any program P with data D and yield a decision as to whether P started on D eventually halts. Now add instructions to X to create a new program Y. Y modifies X's behavior so that whenever X halts with a decision that P started on D halts, Y goes into an infinite loop. If X halts with a decision that P started on D does not halt, then Y halts. Finally, create a new program Z with input P. Z is defined so that it invokes Y on program P with input P. (That is, the input data for Z is actually a program, which is just data.)
Consider what happens when we run Z on Z. There are two possibilities.
1. Z started on input Z halts. If Z started on Z halts, then Y started on Z with input Z halts. If Y started on Z with input Z halts, then X decided that Z started on Z does not halt!
Therefore,
Z started on input Z halts implies that Z started on input Z does not halt. (contradiction)
2. Z started on input Z does not halt. If Z started on Z does not halt, then Y started on Z with input Z does not halt. If Y started on Z with input Z does not halt, then X decided that Z started on Z halts!
Therefore,
Z started on input Z does not halt implies that Z started on input Z halts. (contradiction)
Either alternative yields a contradiction, so our assumption that the halting problem is solvable must be incorrect.
Significance
The idea of unsolvability is important because it indicates that relatively simple problems exist, that are intuitively reasonable, but no matter how clever, insightful, intelligent, perseverant, creative or resourceful you are, you cannot solve it.
The same people that don't have computers (because they can't afford them, or don't realize they can), most likely don't have the money to shell out for $150 game console, let alone an OS.
Internet access isn't everything. When you get a computer that would be good enough for someone who had never had a computer before for probably $150 or less, and Windows ME costs $100 or so, I'd say that's a big part of the cost right there.
Go ahead, you buy 1 copy and install on 120,000 machines. I'm sure you have the time for it. Even if they bought 1 copy and burned many cds, it would still take a long time to install it on 120,000 machines.
I wish that KVM switches weren't so expensive, know a good place to find them for less than $80-$90 USD?
Basically, you try your best to make it perfect, but you can never be 100% certain.
You know, there is a reason you can customize /. and everything so that you only see stories from the sections you want to. If you just want to read about Linux or whatever else, then go to your user preferences page and turn everything else off. It's not that hard to do.
You also notice some very interesting things that changed real quick. Like Smither's skin color changing after 1 episode =]
If you didn't start posts with phrases like that, maybe more people would read them.
Interesting, if I could mod your post up I would. Too bad I don't have the balls to drive without a license. Here's a better quote I found from that page:
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.", Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
You're right, except that driving isn't a freedom.
There was also comments about Toyota already making trucks efficient enough to meet these standards, and that they said GM and other US companies could meet them much easier than they claim to be able to.
There are alot of people with licenses already that aren't fit to drive. Especially those in the older population, that only have to renew less often than the rest of us, and don't even have to take a driving test... yeah that makes a lot of sense.
The problem with this is that instead of being able to focus on bringing hydrogen fuel-cells to consumer, they'll have to spend time and money bringing down the current fuel efficieny of these trucks. However, since they probably couldn't do it in time without throwing safety out the window and making them very light, the more likely scenario is removing vehicles which don't meet the requirements off the market.
With Cheney and Bush and their oil ties right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't support hydrogen fuel-cells (which would greatly reduce our need for foreign oil, or any oil all together.)