As far as the storage goes the "up to 80GB" probably just refers to configurations that IBM ships, since the limit on ATA100 is over 120GB and you can use 2 drives. 80GB laptop drives are easy to find these days making a 160GB capacity simple.
But Sun isn't shipping WTK binaries for 64-bit PPC Linux, just x86 Linux. I'm sure that most of the things that are available under Linux that aren't under OSX fall in this category rather than the porting open-source from Linux to OSX being too complicated.
Assuming that you have a consistant formal system, saying "this statement is false" is impossible to even state in the same sense that you "can't say" 0=1. This can be shown as a direct contradiction from outside the system, without actually relying on the formal rules of the system in question.
Saying "there is no proof for this statement", again using logic at the meta-level, must be true, as taking it false would contradict your assumption that the system is consistant and can't generate false statements.
In other words, inside a consistant, formal, axiomatic system there can not exist a formal proof of a statement equivalent to "there is no proof of this statement" using the formal rules of the system. The existance of a proof inside the system is entirely different than being able to prove using a more complex system that the smaller system is incapable of handling certain problems.
Solvable, in the sense of having a solution, is not the same as being computable. Just because there is no algorithmic method of showing the termination of a program does not neccessarily mean that a proof of termination or non-termination doesn't exist (or that the program neither terminates or does not).
Depending on what you're talking about, talking about "the set of program that terminate" is plenty good. A good example is when talking about things like P & NP (defined as "the set of problems that always terminate in polynomial time when run on a (non)deterministic Turing machine". We've yet to prove must about their relationship yet we can say, without a doubt, that they are inside (N)PSPACE, the set of all programs that always terminate & use less than a polynomial amount of space.
I don't see what the big deal is; not only is the general problem of proving mathematical statements undecidable (even without considering Godel's theorem) but even solvable problems require a lot of human intervention to get solved. Most problems (ie - examples out of math textbooks) aren't going to come up with a proof in any reasonable amount of time by simply dropping it into a theorem prover and pushing "go".
"Automated theorem proving" is less an automatic process (like you'd get with an automated production line) and more of a mechanical assistance to the job (like using a fork-lift to move heavy things faster than you could by hand).
It not only takes work to convert a problem into a good representation, but then you have to structure the problem statement in such a way that a theorem prover can make optimal use of it. Often times, you're forced to, upon following the output, prove lemmas (sub-proofs).
Then, when you finally get a proof, you get the joy of trying to simplify it to something that -can- be understood by a person; again, this is part of the process that can't really be automated well.
Lets say it takes 10s to do the time-card process. Only 6 employees can clock in on the actual minute that they're supposed to start working and not get screwed (either by losing time or incrementing the termination counter). The system is forcing employees to be there and clock in early.
Saying that they don't have to actualy do work to justify it would be the same as saying that a clerk in some store that's having a slow day & no customers are coming in shouldn't be getting paid, since all they have to do is stand around and waste time.
Everyone should respect the copyright of the GPL. By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of copyright.
This almost sounds hypocritical/contradictory until you realize that it's nearly impossible to significanly violate the GPL in a non-commercial context. Commercial violations of copyright have always been strictly enforced.
Violating copyrights for personal, noncommercial, use has never really been an issue until the RIAA started suing people, claiming outrageous damages, for it.
I hope nobody mods this up, since it'll immediately get modded down as OT.
Meanwhile, Gentoo, Debian, GNU (twice!), and Gnome have all been hacked in the span of the last six months...
You fail to distinguish between individual systems getting hacked and there being a flaw at the core of the OS that makes it simple to compromise machines in an automated & mechanical way.
...and LinuxSecurity reports dozens of vulnerabilities for each distro every week alone.
If you filtered out everything that wasn't essential to providing an equivalent base system to compare windows to & counted Debian, Redhat, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake & Slackware vulnerabilities as a single flaw, you'd get some reasonable reasonable numbers.
Nonetheless, I agree with your sentiment. It'd be nice if their were more interesting technical articles and less of the filler crap. I mean, if at least one article per day required (or provided) some sort of specialized knowledge or education to understand, it'd be nice (and I'm not just talking about undefined acronyms).
Maybe instead of multi-page long EULAs that, even if somebody wanted to try reading, odds are they'd fail to separate the intent of the license from the legalese, you need to have something in nice, bold, type that says You may only install this software on one machine without purchasing extra licenses. Copying is prohibited or somesuch Make is absolutely clear rather than expecting people to understand 'standard' licencing systems.
Re:At a loss....
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 4, Funny
If you want something Free that NEVER gets changed, why not look into Debian Stable?
Briliant idea! Outsource the voice tallent to India and make the entire season around Apu's flashbacks to growing up as a lovable troublemaking boy (very much like Bart) in Bombay.
How do you see it not getting used? With 1GB of storage and a good search function, a lot of people are never going to delete anything they recieve. Add the spam factor and that'll fill up pretty damned quickly.
Cross-polination? Where have you been for the last 50yr? Major seed companies stay in control of the see market by shipping seeds that produce infertile plants. Most of your commercially grown annuals (such as corn, wheat and rice) fit in this category.
Cross-polination is a minimal concern here; the bigger issue of seed companies locking in 3rd-world farmers is a -far- greater concern.
The original poster has obviously never dealt with any number of machines. Building from source (with or without a package/ports system) is great fun for a single user systm. Once you get to multiple multi-user systems, it's just not worth the trouble to optimize one program by 5% when nobody ever cares about speed, just that they deleted an important email they've had sitting on the server for the last 18mo and never bothered reading.
For some things, building from source is unescapable, but with a large number of systems what you want is something that can easily be done itendically to any number of systems with little to no effort.
Right now, at work, we're trying to transition over to a system that uses Debian with FAI to do roll-outs/reimages and Cfengine to handle updates & other administrative changes (all the while, putting config files in CVS). About the only thing that's going to be custom compiled is going to be our kernel and we're only doing that 'cuz we like some custom patches applied to it.
If "Linux User" means "uses Linux as one's primary OS", you're probably right. Take "linux user" to mean "has at some time used linux", "dualboots Linux and Windows" or "has a spare/toy/server machine running Linux" and the numbers are going to shoot up dramatically.
And, if you consider the types of things covered in the LDP's HOWTOs, a majority of them cover initial setup of a machine rather than day-to-day usage, so they're relevant to people who are doing fresh installs moreso than they are to the person who's got it on their desktop and has had a running machine for ages.
Re:Docs should be semantically marked up anyways
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
LDP docs are already written in DocBook (which is either SGML or XML), a format that has has considerably more information about the text than simple HTML. There are already a number of converters that translate Docbook to other formats, modifying the HTML converter to use CSS would be a fairly trivial undertaking.
Any law that simultaniously lowers the burdens of proof while raising penalties seems like a fundamnentaly bad idea.
Tho, I guess after the War on Drugs put a generation of poor & minority youth in prision, they have to do something that has the same effect on whites & the middle class, lest they look racist (not an easy trick for a Republican from Utah to pull off).
Slashdot Mirror
Another variant is PICNIC; Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.
You can always build your own mini-itx rack thing.
That's pretty impressive for an 'off the shelf' model. Thest part is the line on the XServe Cluster page where it says "Imagine a cluster".
You know they really wanted to say Beowulf.
As far as the storage goes the "up to 80GB" probably just refers to configurations that IBM ships, since the limit on ATA100 is over 120GB and you can use 2 drives. 80GB laptop drives are easy to find these days making a 160GB capacity simple.
But Sun isn't shipping WTK binaries for 64-bit PPC Linux, just x86 Linux. I'm sure that most of the things that are available under Linux that aren't under OSX fall in this category rather than the porting open-source from Linux to OSX being too complicated.
not quite.
Assuming that you have a consistant formal system, saying "this statement is false" is impossible to even state in the same sense that you "can't say" 0=1. This can be shown as a direct contradiction from outside the system, without actually relying on the formal rules of the system in question.
Saying "there is no proof for this statement", again using logic at the meta-level, must be true, as taking it false would contradict your assumption that the system is consistant and can't generate false statements.
In other words, inside a consistant, formal, axiomatic system there can not exist a formal proof of a statement equivalent to "there is no proof of this statement" using the formal rules of the system. The existance of a proof inside the system is entirely different than being able to prove using a more complex system that the smaller system is incapable of handling certain problems.
He's right, y'know...
Solvable, in the sense of having a solution, is not the same as being computable. Just because there is no algorithmic method of showing the termination of a program does not neccessarily mean that a proof of termination or non-termination doesn't exist (or that the program neither terminates or does not).
Depending on what you're talking about, talking about "the set of program that terminate" is plenty good. A good example is when talking about things like P & NP (defined as "the set of problems that always terminate in polynomial time when run on a (non)deterministic Turing machine". We've yet to prove must about their relationship yet we can say, without a doubt, that they are inside (N)PSPACE, the set of all programs that always terminate & use less than a polynomial amount of space.
I don't see what the big deal is; not only is the general problem of proving mathematical statements undecidable (even without considering Godel's theorem) but even solvable problems require a lot of human intervention to get solved. Most problems (ie - examples out of math textbooks) aren't going to come up with a proof in any reasonable amount of time by simply dropping it into a theorem prover and pushing "go".
"Automated theorem proving" is less an automatic process (like you'd get with an automated production line) and more of a mechanical assistance to the job (like using a fork-lift to move heavy things faster than you could by hand).
It not only takes work to convert a problem into a good representation, but then you have to structure the problem statement in such a way that a theorem prover can make optimal use of it. Often times, you're forced to, upon following the output, prove lemmas (sub-proofs).
Then, when you finally get a proof, you get the joy of trying to simplify it to something that -can- be understood by a person; again, this is part of the process that can't really be automated well.
bullshit.
Lets say it takes 10s to do the time-card process. Only 6 employees can clock in on the actual minute that they're supposed to start working and not get screwed (either by losing time or incrementing the termination counter). The system is forcing employees to be there and clock in early.
Saying that they don't have to actualy do work to justify it would be the same as saying that a clerk in some store that's having a slow day & no customers are coming in shouldn't be getting paid, since all they have to do is stand around and waste time.
Everyone should respect the copyright of the GPL. By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of copyright.
This almost sounds hypocritical/contradictory until you realize that it's nearly impossible to significanly violate the GPL in a non-commercial context. Commercial violations of copyright have always been strictly enforced.
Violating copyrights for personal, noncommercial, use has never really been an issue until the RIAA started suing people, claiming outrageous damages, for it.
I hope nobody mods this up, since it'll immediately get modded down as OT.
You fail to distinguish between individual systems getting hacked and there being a flaw at the core of the OS that makes it simple to compromise machines in an automated & mechanical way.
If you filtered out everything that wasn't essential to providing an equivalent base system to compare windows to & counted Debian, Redhat, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake & Slackware vulnerabilities as a single flaw, you'd get some reasonable reasonable numbers.
Nonetheless, I agree with your sentiment. It'd be nice if their were more interesting technical articles and less of the filler crap. I mean, if at least one article per day required (or provided) some sort of specialized knowledge or education to understand, it'd be nice (and I'm not just talking about undefined acronyms).
Maybe instead of multi-page long EULAs that, even if somebody wanted to try reading, odds are they'd fail to separate the intent of the license from the legalese, you need to have something in nice, bold, type that says You may only install this software on one machine without purchasing extra licenses. Copying is prohibited or somesuch Make is absolutely clear rather than expecting people to understand 'standard' licencing systems.
If you want something Free that NEVER gets changed, why not look into Debian Stable?
Briliant idea! Outsource the voice tallent to India and make the entire season around Apu's flashbacks to growing up as a lovable troublemaking boy (very much like Bart) in Bombay.
They could just get rebelious and start spelling their name all in the Latin alphabet...
How do you see it not getting used? With 1GB of storage and a good search function, a lot of people are never going to delete anything they recieve. Add the spam factor and that'll fill up pretty damned quickly.
Cross-polination? Where have you been for the last 50yr? Major seed companies stay in control of the see market by shipping seeds that produce infertile plants. Most of your commercially grown annuals (such as corn, wheat and rice) fit in this category.
Cross-polination is a minimal concern here; the bigger issue of seed companies locking in 3rd-world farmers is a -far- greater concern.
The original poster has obviously never dealt with any number of machines. Building from source (with or without a package/ports system) is great fun for a single user systm. Once you get to multiple multi-user systems, it's just not worth the trouble to optimize one program by 5% when nobody ever cares about speed, just that they deleted an important email they've had sitting on the server for the last 18mo and never bothered reading.
For some things, building from source is unescapable, but with a large number of systems what you want is something that can easily be done itendically to any number of systems with little to no effort.
Right now, at work, we're trying to transition over to a system that uses Debian with FAI to do roll-outs/reimages and Cfengine to handle updates & other administrative changes (all the while, putting config files in CVS). About the only thing that's going to be custom compiled is going to be our kernel and we're only doing that 'cuz we like some custom patches applied to it.
Most LDP docs are already in Docbook. Docbook is SGML. SGML is XML.
If "Linux User" means "uses Linux as one's primary OS", you're probably right. Take "linux user" to mean "has at some time used linux", "dualboots Linux and Windows" or "has a spare/toy/server machine running Linux" and the numbers are going to shoot up dramatically.
And, if you consider the types of things covered in the LDP's HOWTOs, a majority of them cover initial setup of a machine rather than day-to-day usage, so they're relevant to people who are doing fresh installs moreso than they are to the person who's got it on their desktop and has had a running machine for ages.
LDP docs are already written in DocBook (which is either SGML or XML), a format that has has considerably more information about the text than simple HTML. There are already a number of converters that translate Docbook to other formats, modifying the HTML converter to use CSS would be a fairly trivial undertaking.
Not quite true, unfortunately the rest of us would be forced to use less than legal means to properly get our point across.
Those FBI warnings are citing the types of fines that commercial bootlegging operations face, not what happens for casual copying for personal use.
This proposed law is fundamentally different, it proposes jail time & large monetary fines for non-commercial distribution of copyrighted material.
Any law that simultaniously lowers the burdens of proof while raising penalties seems like a fundamnentaly bad idea.
Tho, I guess after the War on Drugs put a generation of poor & minority youth in prision, they have to do something that has the same effect on whites & the middle class, lest they look racist (not an easy trick for a Republican from Utah to pull off).
Sod off. Go back to using toggle switches to program machines that output to a row of LEDs.
Give us back our garbage collected OO languages, our GUIs and our multiuser multitasking operating systems and our networking.