Sorry if I didn't make it clear, that was a hypothetical, arguing from a situation where the marginal cost of infrastructure in various countries was well known.
I don't have the qualifications to say they are rare in practice, I'm just saying that, for example, it didn't stop the engineers behind the F-22 from building a better fly by wire system than the F-117 has.
Right, but dealing with the complexity is the problem, and the halting problem doesn't create some fundamental block to reducing it or otherwise coping with it.
Warning, made up numbers follow, but they illustrate the real situation:
G.M. may produce cars with 1/2 the quality of Toyota, but 20 defects per 1000 (or whatever) is merely inconvenient compared to 10 defects per 1000, not catastrophic.
You are tiresomely over-reading my comment. I mostly meant that simply comparing the population density of Sweden as a whole to the population density of the U.S. as a whole is mostly useless, of course an apartment block is going to be easier to serve than a farm, and so on, the problem with population density is that it is usually stated for regions that encompass both of those situations.
What's your point? Tombstone Arizona and friends may make it hard to fully serve 95% of the population of the United States, but they don't actually increase the costs of serving the 50% of the population that is easiest to serve.
So in my measure, if Sweden can serve 99% of their population for $30 a month or less, and the U.S. can only serve 65% of the population for $30 per month or less, the 99% penetration in Sweden doesn't really say anything about the quality of the efforts in each country, it says Sweden is a lot easier to serve. The size and (lack of) sparseness of countries isn't really relevant (beyond the fact that it complicates actually coming up with the measure...the point is that discussions of relative size and population distribution really aren't that interesting, as the relationship between them and infrastructure cost is not well publicized (I would guess that the companies building the infrastructure have some pretty good estimates)).
(I'm expanding here because I don't follow what you are getting at, and maybe if you understand what I am getting at your next response will make more sense to me)
(Turing demonstrated that no general approach can solve the problem for all possible inputs, it doesn't have many implications for subsets of all possible inputs)
No, I want to know what the marginal infrastructure costs are to serve a given percentage of the population in each country (so at a given percent, the people getting service would cost, on average, less than the marginal cost, but the marginal cost would indicate the difficulty in increasing coverage).
I really have no idea if the geometric center of a country is related to that cost, but I don' think so, as political boundaries don't take where people are located internally into account.
Even population density is mostly useless; the people of Anchorage get lumped into Alaska, but they aren't going to be a great deal more expensive to serve than any other suburban area.
(and really, the economies of scale for serving a couple of million people are probably pretty similar to those for serving a couple of tens of millions of people)
If there was no way to exchange dollars for human life, he likely would have died 5 or 6 years sooner.
I can't imagine how that makes you sad. I suppose you might not have thought through that health care costs money no matter what, there are just some systems that hide the costs from the patient.
It's only wacky if copyright doesn't exist. Given that society has been actively granting copyrights for hundreds of years, it is perfectly natural that copyright will come up when dealing with new technologies.
I take no pleasure in reading something that appears to be intentionally condescending and so seek pleasure elsewhere. 'saving time' is the wrong idea, it is about making the best use of the time available.
Slashdot Mirror
It involves a banana.
You scrupulously left off the part that indicated I was speculating: "So in my measure,".
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, that was a hypothetical, arguing from a situation where the marginal cost of infrastructure in various countries was well known.
I don't have the qualifications to say they are rare in practice, I'm just saying that, for example, it didn't stop the engineers behind the F-22 from building a better fly by wire system than the F-117 has.
If you have platform specific bits, you merely have very high code reuse, not 100% code reuse.
Right, but dealing with the complexity is the problem, and the halting problem doesn't create some fundamental block to reducing it or otherwise coping with it.
Warning, made up numbers follow, but they illustrate the real situation:
G.M. may produce cars with 1/2 the quality of Toyota, but 20 defects per 1000 (or whatever) is merely inconvenient compared to 10 defects per 1000, not catastrophic.
You are tiresomely over-reading my comment. I mostly meant that simply comparing the population density of Sweden as a whole to the population density of the U.S. as a whole is mostly useless, of course an apartment block is going to be easier to serve than a farm, and so on, the problem with population density is that it is usually stated for regions that encompass both of those situations.
What's your point? Tombstone Arizona and friends may make it hard to fully serve 95% of the population of the United States, but they don't actually increase the costs of serving the 50% of the population that is easiest to serve.
So in my measure, if Sweden can serve 99% of their population for $30 a month or less, and the U.S. can only serve 65% of the population for $30 per month or less, the 99% penetration in Sweden doesn't really say anything about the quality of the efforts in each country, it says Sweden is a lot easier to serve. The size and (lack of) sparseness of countries isn't really relevant (beyond the fact that it complicates actually coming up with the measure...the point is that discussions of relative size and population distribution really aren't that interesting, as the relationship between them and infrastructure cost is not well publicized (I would guess that the companies building the infrastructure have some pretty good estimates)).
(I'm expanding here because I don't follow what you are getting at, and maybe if you understand what I am getting at your next response will make more sense to me)
The simplest way is to run it and see.
(Turing demonstrated that no general approach can solve the problem for all possible inputs, it doesn't have many implications for subsets of all possible inputs)
In much of rural Michigan, it is a fantasy. So there you go.
What about it?
(It is easy to verify that a single, small, simple, correct program will halt...)
No, I want to know what the marginal infrastructure costs are to serve a given percentage of the population in each country (so at a given percent, the people getting service would cost, on average, less than the marginal cost, but the marginal cost would indicate the difficulty in increasing coverage).
I really have no idea if the geometric center of a country is related to that cost, but I don' think so, as political boundaries don't take where people are located internally into account.
Even population density is mostly useless; the people of Anchorage get lumped into Alaska, but they aren't going to be a great deal more expensive to serve than any other suburban area.
(and really, the economies of scale for serving a couple of million people are probably pretty similar to those for serving a couple of tens of millions of people)
I think they might purchase the fakes and swap them in for the real stuff.
Don't buy a drive by wire vehicle.
If there was no way to exchange dollars for human life, he likely would have died 5 or 6 years sooner.
I can't imagine how that makes you sad. I suppose you might not have thought through that health care costs money no matter what, there are just some systems that hide the costs from the patient.
No sale, but here you go:
http://twitter.com/Newegg
Newegg's legitimate business is way too big for them to actively attempt something this blatant, but it could still be a problem employee or whatever.
Stores frequently have their own shrink wrap machine.
It is popular media, not organized science.
He refuses to use it. He wouldn't lose anything.
(This answer is rather dear to me, as I also refuse to use it)
It's only wacky if copyright doesn't exist. Given that society has been actively granting copyrights for hundreds of years, it is perfectly natural that copyright will come up when dealing with new technologies.
I take no pleasure in reading something that appears to be intentionally condescending and so seek pleasure elsewhere. 'saving time' is the wrong idea, it is about making the best use of the time available.
You honestly expect all libraries to either only offer drm free e-books or wait for copyright reform?
(Also, I think you may be overestimating the costs of reproduction and underestimating the costs of production)