My argument is that if you have a have a robot thinking about its present state of the universe then that state includes the robot thinking about the state which includes the robot thinking about the state, etc., like a perfect infinite reflection in opposite mirrors.
Also, to my understanding, you need to have knowledge of the whole universe in order to predict the state of any of its parts sufficiently far away in the future. Thinking in terms of atoms, to represent N atoms of the state, you will use more than N atoms of the universe you're in to represent them. Since you need to represent the full number of atoms, you will not have enough at your disposal to do it. And if you assume that you are able to do it, you will need an infinite number of atoms on each level of representation, if you're representing your current state.
Similarly, in terms of bits, if your world has N bits, then you can't represent an N-bit world state inside it.
Nice try, but PF3 does not follow from any of your prior assumptions.
What you've proved is that determinism is incompatible with the ability to simulate the universe within itself. For all we know, it is impossible to simulate the universe within itself anyway, because that would require an infinite amount of information. It may still be deterministic. Think: N-bit deterministic computer universe. Impossible to self-simulate, but still deterministic.
Let me try to explain why this appears to work but doesn't. The problem is with this line:
We multiply both sides by x: x^3 = x^2 - x
When solving an equation, there is an assumed logical progression. Suppose you want to solve:
x^2-x+1=0. (1)
Then, you want to find the set S1={x: x is a solution of (1)}. You do this by transforming the equation repeatedly until you get to a form from which it is easy to derive the solutions. But when you make a transformation of the equation, you need to think about what the set of solutions is after the transformation. Let proposition P1 = x is an element of S1. (Similarly Pn for Sn). If, as the next step, you write:
x^2=x-1, (2)
you are implicitly stating that:
for all x, P1 <=> P2.
(<=> means "if and only if") If you then write:
x^3 = x^2 - x, (3)
the set of solutions has changed: -1 is introduced as a new solution. In this case, this is because (2) was multiplied by x, which is not a non-zero constant, and thus the meaning of the equation has changed. Logically, you are now stating that:
for all x, P2 => P3.
In other words, if you find an x for which P2 is true, then P3 will also be true for that x, but not the other way round.
Normally when you solve an equation, you implicitly create a progression P1<=>P2<=>...<=>Pn. From this, if you can see that Sn is the set of solutions for (n), then going back by implication from Pn to P1 you can conclude that Sn=S1. However, if the chain is broken and you write P1<=>P2<=>...<=>Pj=>P(j+1)<=>...<=>Pn, you can only conclude that S1 is a subset of Sn. However, because you are missing an implication from P(j+1) to Pj, you cannot say that Sn=S1.
There are many operations that potentially change the set of solutions, such as multiplication of both sides by zero, squaring both sides, and others. At every transformation, you must make sure that the solutions stay the same. In solving other problems, the logical progression can become more complex and then cannot be implicitly assumed like this. Generally, it is always a good idea to know precisely what you are stating in terms of logic.
To be fair, one should also point out the hypocrisy in the summary: it requests a client for Linux (presumably of the linux-gnu flavour), but makes no demands on the client itself. To be consistent, should it not request an open source client? If one were written, it would at worst be a matter of time before it became portable, and thus independent from any specific system, such as those running on Linux.
Except that they weren't really that great. In the first scene with the space ship you can see that it's a flat image translated over a background. The original Star Wars had much better space ships, also without any computer graphics. In the scenes with apes, they look much too obviously like humans in costumes. And the LSD hallucination scene after Dave flies into the monolith is an unimpressive distraction and ultimately pointless.
Arguably, the JVM is worth much more than just the Java language. We already have a VM that can run programs written in multiple languages, and has tools to make developing new languages easy: Parrot. The last time I checked, it was still slow and incomplete, but has already come a long way. Eventually it could become the Free Software JVM replacement. Perhaps those who are looking for a project to contribute to should think about this one.
Yes, and the most descriptive metrics measure the effect of CMEs in terms of the number of comments in articles posted about them on the Internet. Let's see how big this one can get.
You might think this is funny, but I encourage you to try out strings file.pdf | less on a couple of pdf files. Turns out there actually is xml embedded inside some pdf files:
You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?
The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.
Exactly how much time and effort is "stolen"? Taken literally, your statement seems to imply that the more a game gets copied without permission, the worse its quality becomes. After all, less time and effort went into making it -- they were stolen!
And not to nit pick, but how can the thief enjoy something before he downloads it?
I don't think such arguments will induce remorse in people who copy without permission.
I don't know if cable material matters at all. What matters though, is the shielding. Believe it or not, it happened once that my Creative speakers acted as an antenna-receiver for some kind of radio signal (a dialogue of between two persons of which only one man could be heard), which could be heard faintly in the speakers even when the amplifier was turned down to zero. With better cables this may have been prevented.
He's not just some guy, he's David Arlie. He's done work on Xorg stuff, including the nouveau driver. You should be honoured that he called you an idiot, especially since it's his second comment on Slashdot, after the first posted in 2005.
I'm not getting into the argument, just thought I'd point it out, considering that he is kind of a public person in these circles.
I'm guessing his dog must have died and he had to vent, taking these factors into consideration.
Seriously people, is this about trying to stop terrorists ( which could easily be done, for the most part, by profiling )
I prefer to be felt up or seen naked through my clothes than have the government track me and keep personal details about me in an integrated database. (Which already does happen to an extent anyway, and is deeply alarming.)
Hold on there, young man, you mean to say that you don't have to type the web site to go to a web site? I can see what you mean by Ctrl (there seems to be a key on the keyboard with that label), but how do I get a capital T without pressing Shift? (You didn't mention Shift there, so I assume I should not press it. Should I use that key I always avoid that makes me type all-capital letters?) Also, can you write this again as a numbered list, so I can ask my grandson to print it out for me and stick it on my screen? It would be most appreciated.
Ah, I love computers, they make me feel as if I were in my fifties again. You never stop learning!
You're right, but if the users are not to blame then it's the browser developers who made the irresponsible decision to let google decide how to resolve what users typed in the address entry field. If you release one party from blame then it's nice to point out where the blame actually lies.
Hey, is your name Sweeney Todd? I, for one, welcome the protection of our dear government from rogue barbers. Do not underestimate them, the next time you are sitting in a barber shop, the barber not hesitate to slit your throat and turn you into McDonalds burgers. Who, if not the government, will provide us with this much needed security?
I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?
If you cannot meet the terms of the license then you don't have any rights to the code.
If the license is not legally enforceable, i.e. it is an invalid license, then you don't have any license, hence you don't have any rights to the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Try switching to seamonkey instead. It has a traditional interface and uses the gecko engine underneath.
Thanks for the correction, you are right of course.
My argument is that if you have a have a robot thinking about its present state of the universe then that state includes the robot thinking about the state which includes the robot thinking about the state, etc., like a perfect infinite reflection in opposite mirrors.
Also, to my understanding, you need to have knowledge of the whole universe in order to predict the state of any of its parts sufficiently far away in the future. Thinking in terms of atoms, to represent N atoms of the state, you will use more than N atoms of the universe you're in to represent them. Since you need to represent the full number of atoms, you will not have enough at your disposal to do it. And if you assume that you are able to do it, you will need an infinite number of atoms on each level of representation, if you're representing your current state.
Similarly, in terms of bits, if your world has N bits, then you can't represent an N-bit world state inside it.
Nice try, but PF3 does not follow from any of your prior assumptions.
What you've proved is that determinism is incompatible with the ability to simulate the universe within itself. For all we know, it is impossible to simulate the universe within itself anyway, because that would require an infinite amount of information. It may still be deterministic. Think: N-bit deterministic computer universe. Impossible to self-simulate, but still deterministic.
Let me try to explain why this appears to work but doesn't. The problem is with this line:
We multiply both sides by x: x^3 = x^2 - x
When solving an equation, there is an assumed logical progression. Suppose you want to solve:
Then, you want to find the set S1={x: x is a solution of (1)}. You do this by transforming the equation repeatedly until you get to a form from which it is easy to derive the solutions. But when you make a transformation of the equation, you need to think about what the set of solutions is after the transformation. Let proposition P1 = x is an element of S1. (Similarly Pn for Sn). If, as the next step, you write:
you are implicitly stating that:
(<=> means "if and only if") If you then write:
x^3 = x^2 - x, (3)
the set of solutions has changed: -1 is introduced as a new solution. In this case, this is because (2) was multiplied by x, which is not a non-zero constant, and thus the meaning of the equation has changed. Logically, you are now stating that:
In other words, if you find an x for which P2 is true, then P3 will also be true for that x, but not the other way round.
Normally when you solve an equation, you implicitly create a progression P1<=>P2<=>...<=>Pn. From this, if you can see that Sn is the set of solutions for (n), then going back by implication from Pn to P1 you can conclude that Sn=S1. However, if the chain is broken and you write P1<=>P2<=>...<=>Pj=>P(j+1)<=>...<=>Pn, you can only conclude that S1 is a subset of Sn. However, because you are missing an implication from P(j+1) to Pj, you cannot say that Sn=S1.
There are many operations that potentially change the set of solutions, such as multiplication of both sides by zero, squaring both sides, and others. At every transformation, you must make sure that the solutions stay the same. In solving other problems, the logical progression can become more complex and then cannot be implicitly assumed like this. Generally, it is always a good idea to know precisely what you are stating in terms of logic.
To be fair, one should also point out the hypocrisy in the summary: it requests a client for Linux (presumably of the linux-gnu flavour), but makes no demands on the client itself. To be consistent, should it not request an open source client? If one were written, it would at worst be a matter of time before it became portable, and thus independent from any specific system, such as those running on Linux.
I think he became what he is because he marked a pile of suckers.
Except that they weren't really that great. In the first scene with the space ship you can see that it's a flat image translated over a background. The original Star Wars had much better space ships, also without any computer graphics. In the scenes with apes, they look much too obviously like humans in costumes. And the LSD hallucination scene after Dave flies into the monolith is an unimpressive distraction and ultimately pointless.
Arguably, the JVM is worth much more than just the Java language. We already have a VM that can run programs written in multiple languages, and has tools to make developing new languages easy: Parrot. The last time I checked, it was still slow and incomplete, but has already come a long way. Eventually it could become the Free Software JVM replacement. Perhaps those who are looking for a project to contribute to should think about this one.
IIRC, it's the only current launch system that can take some satellites up
It's the only current launch system that can take some satellites down.
Yes, and the most descriptive metrics measure the effect of CMEs in terms of the number of comments in articles posted about them on the Internet. Let's see how big this one can get.
I think this is the glib comment you were looking for: http://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/tree/glib/glib.h?id=2.26.0#n20
No. Gravity just is. Art has to be created.
What? You mean to say that all that time I spent getting fatter to create a stronger gravity field in my vicinity was for nothing?!
O_O these things always come in threes. wonder who's next
It's the mice. Their reversed aging is sucking the life out of humans!
You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?
The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.
Exactly how much time and effort is "stolen"? Taken literally, your statement seems to imply that the more a game gets copied without permission, the worse its quality becomes. After all, less time and effort went into making it -- they were stolen!
And not to nit pick, but how can the thief enjoy something before he downloads it?
I don't think such arguments will induce remorse in people who copy without permission.
I don't think you fully understand Enterprise solutions. They run at Warp Speed!
I don't know if cable material matters at all. What matters though, is the shielding. Believe it or not, it happened once that my Creative speakers acted as an antenna-receiver for some kind of radio signal (a dialogue of between two persons of which only one man could be heard), which could be heard faintly in the speakers even when the amplifier was turned down to zero. With better cables this may have been prevented.
I dislike Phoronix, and if you do too, you might be interested in reading the original lkml thread.
He's not just some guy, he's David Arlie. He's done work on Xorg stuff, including the nouveau driver. You should be honoured that he called you an idiot, especially since it's his second comment on Slashdot, after the first posted in 2005.
I'm not getting into the argument, just thought I'd point it out, considering that he is kind of a public person in these circles.
I'm guessing his dog must have died and he had to vent, taking these factors into consideration.
Seriously people, is this about trying to stop terrorists ( which could easily be done, for the most part, by profiling )
I prefer to be felt up or seen naked through my clothes than have the government track me and keep personal details about me in an integrated database. (Which already does happen to an extent anyway, and is deeply alarming.)
Hold on there, young man, you mean to say that you don't have to type the web site to go to a web site? I can see what you mean by Ctrl (there seems to be a key on the keyboard with that label), but how do I get a capital T without pressing Shift? (You didn't mention Shift there, so I assume I should not press it. Should I use that key I always avoid that makes me type all-capital letters?) Also, can you write this again as a numbered list, so I can ask my grandson to print it out for me and stick it on my screen? It would be most appreciated.
Ah, I love computers, they make me feel as if I were in my fifties again. You never stop learning!
You're right, but if the users are not to blame then it's the browser developers who made the irresponsible decision to let google decide how to resolve what users typed in the address entry field. If you release one party from blame then it's nice to point out where the blame actually lies.
Hey, is your name Sweeney Todd? I, for one, welcome the protection of our dear government from rogue barbers. Do not underestimate them, the next time you are sitting in a barber shop, the barber not hesitate to slit your throat and turn you into McDonalds burgers. Who, if not the government, will provide us with this much needed security?
I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?
If you cannot meet the terms of the license then you don't have any rights to the code.
If the license is not legally enforceable, i.e. it is an invalid license, then you don't have any license, hence you don't have any rights to the code.
What seems to be the problem?