Do the taxpayers subsidize part of the telco/internet infrastructure in Canada? That might explain the higher bandwidth/cost ratio.
Here in the US I was lucky to get a 128upload/728download connection on DSL for $60/month in my area. I've paid more for less in the past. And from what I read, the vendors are barely making money on these connections here in the US as it is.
If the economics are accurate, the Canadian taxpayer must be eating something up North.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The last thing I want my browser doing is reporting my whereabouts to a central registry. My visits to \. are my secret --- even when the page times out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Why not just listen to the games on your favorite AM radio broadcast through the web? In the DC area WMAL broadcasts sports through their web site and it don't cost notin'! Surely there are other stations co-broadcasting baseball through their web sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Unless you are advocating piracy, dual booting with a Windows option requires purchasing Windows. Sort of affects the economy of the whole thing don't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The soap bubble approach is creative but produces only a greedy solution for local minimization. The greedy solution is not always the right solution for the traveling salesman problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:MS Tricks Department
on
XBox Tidbits
·
· Score: 1
There are many examples where better does not = success. For example, Beta IS better than VHS, but what do most people have? Windows was not as robust as Unix or OS/2 back in the early 90s for servers --- but OS/2 is gone and Windows is doing well. (Okay; Linux weakens by argument, but I will stand by it just the same.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Some might say that science is science only when the scientific process is rigorously applied. Otherwise it is just "almost" scientific. A subtle point, but thats the one I'm making.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Simple fluid computers were used on the Apollo missions to calculate trajectories. Nice to see that this branch of computer design never really went away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your distinction is one that most people don't understand but it is 100% correct.
Anyone that applies the scientific process to his or her tasks is a scientist in the context of that task. Programming is not science. Postulating a solution to a problem, creating a program that implements that solution, testing the success of that solution is science. Most programming is usually less rigorous than that.
At best, gainfully employed computer programmers only have time to be computer engineers. In reality, most operate as computer artists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:MS Tricks Department
on
XBox Tidbits
·
· Score: 1
Hitting the XBox to cancel out the hype is exactly what Nintendo and the other players need to do starting yesterday. If they don't dull the XBox shine a little, they will not sell any of their own consoles.
As your post and others point out, killing the competition with vapor is a classic MS tactic. The only way to reduce its effectiveness is to cast doubt on their vapor products while there is still marketing cash at the company to do it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
I don't know about other countries, but in the US I'm noticing more and more "universities" and "colleges" that produce graduates with BS and advanced degrees in computer science predicated solely on the student's ability to pay for the classes. I'm not kidding.
There are reputable schools that have academic standards and programs that are relevantly engineered. The school matters. The major matters. The gpa matters.
As a hiring manager, I am more ready to interview graduates of good schools than I am to interview those of schools I already know have weak academic integrity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
A degree from a reputable school with a good computer science department gives some assurance that the holder of the degree has some valuable knowledge and has been trained in relevant ways.
I've met/hired/worked with brilliant folks with no degrees and idiots with paper from questionable institutions. However, I've never been disappointed with the capabilities demonstrated by recent CS grads of good schools with good gpas from those schools.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Imagine never having to answer stupid questions like "flash or html?" "800x600 or 1024x768?"
This is already available through JavaScript in the IE browsers. (See "body" properties.) I wouldn't be surprised to find it in the Mozilla/NetScape6 browsers too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your point that many things would appear quite random is well stated. However, for Chitian's claim that mathematics has randomness to be sound it requires that there be more than just the appearance of randomness in the generated program. If there is any structure his theory shatters into to little bits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
My point is that there can be no such sampling device. That has a critical bearing on his argument.
In other words, let me start a proof with "assume the impossible, thus..."
Think about it. His result implies there is no such thing as randomness as much as it implies there is randomness in mathematics. You can pick the one you want to believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your friend's theory of "everything" does suck if he also believes that somethings (anything at all) can be truly random; because, the premise of the claims made in the lecture is at the core supported by the claim that a random sequence of 0s and 1s can exist!
Rather than present for consideration the concept that logic and mathematics have a random core, I think this begs the question -- does this rather imply that true randomness is impossible?
Perhaps Chaitin does have a remarkable proof -- just not for what he thought it was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Some of the posts here imply that Chaitin's work is like that of Godel. This is not true. Godel proved that there are an infinite number of axioms. Chaitin is attempting to prove that mathematics has randomness at its core. (Or that there is at least some un-avoidable randomness in it.)
His example with a Turing machine running a program generated by coin flips illustrates the implications of such a scenario. I question that there is a solid algorithmic/logical or mathematical basis to this. And if the basis is flawed, the results can be ignored.
You can decide if the basis for his results is valid by answering this question: Can he (or anyone) really generate a random sequence of 0s and 1s? This is actually a deep question. (Einstein would have said no.)
If you are a determinist, you can stop reading his proof right where he bases it on a random sequence of 0s and 1s because to a determinist, that is like basing an argument on the result of division by zero.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The premise for the example in the lecture is that the program (0s and 1s) is generated by random coin flips. In fact, the whole theory presented is based on one fundamental assumption, which Einstein himself (as is well documented and mentioned in the lecture) did not believe: That something can be random. Einstein would not have accepted that a coin flip was truly random. (Let us not get into quantum physics, there is an assumption there too!)
Bottom line, if you buy that a coin flip not predictable then there is basis to the assertion that the string of bits in his example have no structure. If you don't buy that, his reasoning has no valid application to logic theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Slashdot Mirror
Do the taxpayers subsidize part of the telco/internet infrastructure in Canada? That might explain the higher bandwidth/cost ratio.
Here in the US I was lucky to get a 128upload/728download connection on DSL for $60/month in my area. I've paid more for less in the past. And from what I read, the vendors are barely making money on these connections here in the US as it is.
If the economics are accurate, the Canadian taxpayer must be eating something up North.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The last thing I want my browser doing is reporting my whereabouts to a central registry. My visits to \. are my secret --- even when the page times out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Why not just listen to the games on your favorite AM radio broadcast through the web? In the DC area WMAL broadcasts sports through their web site and it don't cost notin'! Surely there are other stations co-broadcasting baseball through their web sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
If companies spend less time re-creating wheels (porting games to different APIs), don't they have more time to improve game play?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Unless you are advocating piracy, dual booting with a Windows option requires purchasing Windows. Sort of affects the economy of the whole thing don't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The soap bubble approach is creative but produces only a greedy solution for local minimization. The greedy solution is not always the right solution for the traveling salesman problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
There are many examples where better does not = success. For example, Beta IS better than VHS, but what do most people have? Windows was not as robust as Unix or OS/2 back in the early 90s for servers --- but OS/2 is gone and Windows is doing well. (Okay; Linux weakens by argument, but I will stand by it just the same.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Some might say that science is science only when the scientific process is rigorously applied. Otherwise it is just "almost" scientific. A subtle point, but thats the one I'm making.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Unfortunately, there are only four or five good schools that people intrested in computer science degrees go to.
Not true. In the Washington DC area alone I can think of at least 3. If I go out another 100 miles, I can add 2 or three more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Simple fluid computers were used on the Apollo missions to calculate trajectories. Nice to see that this branch of computer design never really went away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your distinction is one that most people don't understand but it is 100% correct.
Anyone that applies the scientific process to his or her tasks is a scientist in the context of that task. Programming is not science. Postulating a solution to a problem, creating a program that implements that solution, testing the success of that solution is science. Most programming is usually less rigorous than that.
At best, gainfully employed computer programmers only have time to be computer engineers. In reality, most operate as computer artists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Hitting the XBox to cancel out the hype is exactly what Nintendo and the other players need to do starting yesterday. If they don't dull the XBox shine a little, they will not sell any of their own consoles.
As your post and others point out, killing the competition with vapor is a classic MS tactic. The only way to reduce its effectiveness is to cast doubt on their vapor products while there is still marketing cash at the company to do it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
I don't know about other countries, but in the US I'm noticing more and more "universities" and "colleges" that produce graduates with BS and advanced degrees in computer science predicated solely on the student's ability to pay for the classes. I'm not kidding.
There are reputable schools that have academic standards and programs that are relevantly engineered. The school matters. The major matters. The gpa matters.
As a hiring manager, I am more ready to interview graduates of good schools than I am to interview those of schools I already know have weak academic integrity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
A degree from a reputable school with a good computer science department gives some assurance that the holder of the degree has some valuable knowledge and has been trained in relevant ways.
I've met/hired/worked with brilliant folks with no degrees and idiots with paper from questionable institutions. However, I've never been disappointed with the capabilities demonstrated by recent CS grads of good schools with good gpas from those schools.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Imagine never having to answer stupid questions like "flash or html?" "800x600 or 1024x768?"
This is already available through JavaScript in the IE browsers. (See "body" properties.) I wouldn't be surprised to find it in the Mozilla/NetScape6 browsers too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
...in other words ... the randomness he finds in mathematics is only as random as the randomness of the program in his Turing machine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your point that many things would appear quite random is well stated. However, for Chitian's claim that mathematics has randomness to be sound it requires that there be more than just the appearance of randomness in the generated program. If there is any structure his theory shatters into to little bits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
My point is that there can be no such sampling device. That has a critical bearing on his argument.
In other words, let me start a proof with "assume the impossible, thus..."
Think about it. His result implies there is no such thing as randomness as much as it implies there is randomness in mathematics. You can pick the one you want to believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Your friend's theory of "everything" does suck if he also believes that somethings (anything at all) can be truly random; because, the premise of the claims made in the lecture is at the core supported by the claim that a random sequence of 0s and 1s can exist!
Rather than present for consideration the concept that logic and mathematics have a random core, I think this begs the question -- does this rather imply that true randomness is impossible?
Perhaps Chaitin does have a remarkable proof -- just not for what he thought it was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Some of the posts here imply that Chaitin's work is like that of Godel. This is not true. Godel proved that there are an infinite number of axioms. Chaitin is attempting to prove that mathematics has randomness at its core. (Or that there is at least some un-avoidable randomness in it.)
His example with a Turing machine running a program generated by coin flips illustrates the implications of such a scenario. I question that there is a solid algorithmic/logical or mathematical basis to this. And if the basis is flawed, the results can be ignored.
You can decide if the basis for his results is valid by answering this question: Can he (or anyone) really generate a random sequence of 0s and 1s? This is actually a deep question. (Einstein would have said no.)
If you are a determinist, you can stop reading his proof right where he bases it on a random sequence of 0s and 1s because to a determinist, that is like basing an argument on the result of division by zero.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
The premise for the example in the lecture is that the program (0s and 1s) is generated by random coin flips. In fact, the whole theory presented is based on one fundamental assumption, which Einstein himself (as is well documented and mentioned in the lecture) did not believe: That something can be random. Einstein would not have accepted that a coin flip was truly random. (Let us not get into quantum physics, there is an assumption there too!)
Bottom line, if you buy that a coin flip not predictable then there is basis to the assertion that the string of bits in his example have no structure. If you don't buy that, his reasoning has no valid application to logic theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
It does not sound like it was easily deduced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Am I wrong; or by the standards applied in the USA, the process of applying this theorem can be patented?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Will this render porn more clearly?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
...by getting rid of marketing and quality control.
- Pointy haired Dilbert Boss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~