"But, you're right -- the current nukes (if they exist, which I'd doubt) wouldn't have been made with the light water reactors."
They exist. I am not sure if they 100% work or can hit Japan yet, but they exist. They've existed for at least 2 years, which is why no progress was made on the issue between NKorea and US/China.
Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN? We are looking at 2 bucks a gallon in the midwest.
And you think we have it bad? Go try to buy gas in China or Europe or Japan... it's alot more expensive and the rise in oil prices hurts them alot more than it hurts us. That's the whole point, u know. It's not about saying "ok, we now make oil free for U.S. for teh win!"... it's about controlling where the oil goes. You'll notice the Iraqi Admin is about to hand out a bunch of contracts to American firms which aren't exactly going to be shipping oil to China when they come knocking.
Control over oil is NOT the same thing as control over the price of oil. Price is just this made up thing that is highly relative. Not having oil for your tanks when the time comes, well, that's a little more concrete, wouldn't u say? That's why Hitler lost, after all...
Also, there is the military factor. Do you know how much it costs to get fuel out to, say, tanks in Iraq? I forget the exact number but it's like $40-$300 bucks PER GALLON. All of that comes from transportation costs...do you think they really give a fuck that the price went up by $.50 for domestic consumers? When the military funds half the economy?!
Geez...
As far as N. Korea not commiting mass genocide... you clearly haven't been looking at the figures regarding how many people are starving there on a daily basis, have you? It's as full blown as genocide get's buddy.
And about Iraq: go look at the damn history will you. Everyone in every administration has known what the deal is with Saddam. While he was busy slaughtering his own people in the 80s (and yes, everyone knew about it. it was in the damn paper for christs sake), we were shipping him the weapons to do so. So don't give me this crap about how we wen't in there to save Saddam's people.
Yet here you are knocking the "sheep"... you fucking moron, go read a history book or at least the damned papers.
Well yeah, but you don't know any of the details of why the costs were so high, do you? And you don't know what the original contract stated or anything else. So there's no way to tell what the deal here is, that is, why there were cost overruns.
Its perfectly reasonable to assume that the software project kept changing because the FBI was having insquables about access to classified data, or that they didn't know what the wanted originally and ended up rewriting specs and such. You're just assuming that this is the company's fault. It's a two-way street here, especially when you're dealing with classified data and a bureaucracy as big as the FBI.
Also, they're not being rewarded. They're being paid. There's a difference. Hundreds of programmers need to get paid and it's not like there has been an illegal break of contract here. The company in question isn't being allowed to bid on the next project, so that's hardly a reward.
The fact that the shit hit the fan is the cost of doing business. Sometimes, it just happens. Sometimes, you don't know what you're building until you're knee deep in it, and expecting projections in the future to be even 90% accurate for years down the line when you don't even know what you're doing is childish.
Because it's possible to know that the car is busted in advance of the sale. The software issue is equivilent to the government giving you a contract for designing a new car from scratch. And if in the process of the designing the new car from scratch, not everything worked as forseen, that wouldn't be theft. Look at the defense industry. They get a contract for $X. Every few months or year the project is reviewed and if problems creep up, the Pentagon gives more money. If in the process they figure out that they're attempting the impossible, the Pentagon absorbs the bill.
That's how it works. You can't ask someone to provide a bid for a thing that isn't designed or built yet, then throw them in jail if their bid isn't 100% accurate. Good luck finding bidders! Your analogy to a car is just fucking retarded.
You're assuming that the target of this missile shield is a large nation that has an established nuclear program for decades and can launch many missiles.
What if the missile shield is intended to be used against suspected nuclear powers, or countries that just went nuclear? Right when the country starts their nuclear program and looks like they will have a nuke, or right after they have confirmed tests, anyone with a missile shield can run in there and lay waste to the country with little fear that the enemy country could retaliate.
I suspect the missile shield is not for use against, like Russia and Britian and such, but for "emerging threts."
Plus, as a side benefit you get wicked spin off technology and hey, maybe some day it'll all get perfect. You'll never know what $100 trillion can accomplish until you spend it!!
There's no such thing as a continious universe. Go ahead, prove it. I dare you. You can't because no proof exists or ever will, as Godel and Turing and Church et. al have all proved. Another way to think of it is that you cannot have a continious universe because you cannot measure a continious universe and therefore you can't actually deduce that anything is in the universe. What is measureable is what is provable is what is knowable. Anything else is nonsense.
*sigh* you haven't been reading the news concerning the Ukraine, have you?
if you had bothered to spend 30 minutes researching you would have discovered that this flap in Ukraine is a CIA/Soros-sponsored "revolution" similar to the ones engineered in Georgia and Belarus. it's goal is simple: get a candidate (Yushenko) elected who will turn around and privatize all of the state assets and sell them to investors at dirt-cheap prices. do a google search for "CIA Soros Ukraine" or "Soros CIA Eastern Europe". it's a long-standing and well-planned attempt to overthrow a country's soviet-leaning government and replace it with a pro-western regieme, and has little to do with 'freeom' or 'the people' or any of that crap. plus, only HALF of Ukraine supports Yushenko. don't believe the hype.
"There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principal" is not true. Church-Turing thesis says that there is a universal machine that can simulate any other machine, not "physical object". The physical objects constitute the "real numbers", which is uncountable....so 99.999999...% of all objects can never be simulated by a machine. Your quote is actually the exact opposite of what the Thesis says.
"For more than 30 years, mathematicians have sought in vain the answer to a simple problem in theoretical computer science. The problem is what's known as an open question --it's a simple equation that is either true or false. It can't be both."
Which is not exactly true. It could be true but not provable. It could be false but not provable. It could be provably true, or provably false. Or, it could be neither true nor false.
Archos makes portable hard drives; as long as you're not comparing their music players to an ipod, their hard drives seem nice: 40GB 4200rpm (1.8") USB2.0 for $250. Plus its about "half the size of an audio cassette".
Has anyone used/bought Archos ARCDisk before? I am looking for any reviews/recomendations before I buy.
That's bullshit. Didn't Graham start and run his own software company? Didn't he write production-grade code that handled thousands (or hundreds, at least) of users simultaneously? Didn't he make millions doing it? And what language did he use?
I'm not talking about computational complexity. All I'm saying is that, if you _could_ prove an undecidable statement in the original system, then you would be able to use it to prove all the other undecidable statements. All undecidable statements in a turing-complete language are reducable/equivilent to the halting problem--thats how new undecidable statements are shown, by reducing them to other undecidable statements.
Actually adding an item as an axiom doesn't prove it, it just assumes it. Axioms can't _be_ proven. You can go on all day adding axioms--in the original, turing complete system, which is all you need to do mathematics, the axiom still won't be provable.
Well, you didn't ask for a proof, just a reference;) Here's my train of thought: we have differential equations, or whatever language 3 body problem is written in. this language is turing-complete. the 3 body problem is an undecidable problem in a turing-complete language. therefore solving it would let you solve any other undecidable problem in a turing-complete language, namely, the halting problem. therefore, the two problems are equivilent. my only doubt lies in whether the 3 body problem is written in a turing-complete language or not. correct?
what are you talking about? all mathematical problems that are mathematically undecidable are equivilent in the sense that being able to prove one would let you prove all others. thats the whole fucking _definition_ of mathematically undecidable.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, mod me down more! That way people will see more of this advertising bullshit!
BURN IN HELL /.
They exist. I am not sure if they 100% work or can hit Japan yet, but they exist. They've existed for at least 2 years, which is why no progress was made on the issue between NKorea and US/China.
And you think we have it bad? Go try to buy gas in China or Europe or Japan... it's alot more expensive and the rise in oil prices hurts them alot more than it hurts us. That's the whole point, u know. It's not about saying "ok, we now make oil free for U.S. for teh win!"... it's about controlling where the oil goes. You'll notice the Iraqi Admin is about to hand out a bunch of contracts to American firms which aren't exactly going to be shipping oil to China when they come knocking.
Control over oil is NOT the same thing as control over the price of oil. Price is just this made up thing that is highly relative. Not having oil for your tanks when the time comes, well, that's a little more concrete, wouldn't u say? That's why Hitler lost, after all...
Also, there is the military factor. Do you know how much it costs to get fuel out to, say, tanks in Iraq? I forget the exact number but it's like $40-$300 bucks PER GALLON. All of that comes from transportation costs...do you think they really give a fuck that the price went up by $.50 for domestic consumers? When the military funds half the economy?!
Geez...
As far as N. Korea not commiting mass genocide... you clearly haven't been looking at the figures regarding how many people are starving there on a daily basis, have you? It's as full blown as genocide get's buddy.
And about Iraq: go look at the damn history will you. Everyone in every administration has known what the deal is with Saddam. While he was busy slaughtering his own people in the 80s (and yes, everyone knew about it. it was in the damn paper for christs sake), we were shipping him the weapons to do so. So don't give me this crap about how we wen't in there to save Saddam's people.
Yet here you are knocking the "sheep"... you fucking moron, go read a history book or at least the damned papers.
Fellows--there's no place to actually purchase the things off of the main page. For all anyone knows this is just a joke rather than fraud.
And we have come full circle.
computers: 1
language designers: 0
Well yeah, but you don't know any of the details of why the costs were so high, do you? And you don't know what the original contract stated or anything else. So there's no way to tell what the deal here is, that is, why there were cost overruns.
Its perfectly reasonable to assume that the software project kept changing because the FBI was having insquables about access to classified data, or that they didn't know what the wanted originally and ended up rewriting specs and such. You're just assuming that this is the company's fault. It's a two-way street here, especially when you're dealing with classified data and a bureaucracy as big as the FBI.
Also, they're not being rewarded. They're being paid. There's a difference. Hundreds of programmers need to get paid and it's not like there has been an illegal break of contract here. The company in question isn't being allowed to bid on the next project, so that's hardly a reward.
The fact that the shit hit the fan is the cost of doing business. Sometimes, it just happens. Sometimes, you don't know what you're building until you're knee deep in it, and expecting projections in the future to be even 90% accurate for years down the line when you don't even know what you're doing is childish.
You're a retard.
That's how it works. You can't ask someone to provide a bid for a thing that isn't designed or built yet, then throw them in jail if their bid isn't 100% accurate. Good luck finding bidders! Your analogy to a car is just fucking retarded.
you are really, really retarded
What if the missile shield is intended to be used against suspected nuclear powers, or countries that just went nuclear? Right when the country starts their nuclear program and looks like they will have a nuke, or right after they have confirmed tests, anyone with a missile shield can run in there and lay waste to the country with little fear that the enemy country could retaliate.
I suspect the missile shield is not for use against, like Russia and Britian and such, but for "emerging threts."
Plus, as a side benefit you get wicked spin off technology and hey, maybe some day it'll all get perfect. You'll never know what $100 trillion can accomplish until you spend it!!
There's no such thing as a continious universe. Go ahead, prove it. I dare you. You can't because no proof exists or ever will, as Godel and Turing and Church et. al have all proved. Another way to think of it is that you cannot have a continious universe because you cannot measure a continious universe and therefore you can't actually deduce that anything is in the universe. What is measureable is what is provable is what is knowable. Anything else is nonsense.
if you had bothered to spend 30 minutes researching you would have discovered that this flap in Ukraine is a CIA/Soros-sponsored "revolution" similar to the ones engineered in Georgia and Belarus. it's goal is simple: get a candidate (Yushenko) elected who will turn around and privatize all of the state assets and sell them to investors at dirt-cheap prices. do a google search for "CIA Soros Ukraine" or "Soros CIA Eastern Europe". it's a long-standing and well-planned attempt to overthrow a country's soviet-leaning government and replace it with a pro-western regieme, and has little to do with 'freeom' or 'the people' or any of that crap. plus, only HALF of Ukraine supports Yushenko. don't believe the hype.
"There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principal" is not true. Church-Turing thesis says that there is a universal machine that can simulate any other machine, not "physical object". The physical objects constitute the "real numbers", which is uncountable....so 99.999999...% of all objects can never be simulated by a machine. Your quote is actually the exact opposite of what the Thesis says.
the target for WW3 will be China. I give it, say, 30-50 years. Of course, if your Chineese, the target will be the U.S.
Which is not exactly true. It could be true but not provable. It could be false but not provable. It could be provably true, or provably false. Or, it could be neither true nor false.
# of them that are advertisements, not news: 3.
slashdot is dead.
"Spotted" it the code-name for SP2. MS Sales made the name change to piggyback, as usual, after Apple: OSX's "SP2" was called Jaguar.
Has anyone used/bought Archos ARCDisk before? I am looking for any reviews/recomendations before I buy.
That's right, he used LISP.
I'm not talking about computational complexity. All I'm saying is that, if you _could_ prove an undecidable statement in the original system, then you would be able to use it to prove all the other undecidable statements. All undecidable statements in a turing-complete language are reducable/equivilent to the halting problem--thats how new undecidable statements are shown, by reducing them to other undecidable statements.
Actually adding an item as an axiom doesn't prove it, it just assumes it. Axioms can't _be_ proven. You can go on all day adding axioms--in the original, turing complete system, which is all you need to do mathematics, the axiom still won't be provable.
Well, you didn't ask for a proof, just a reference ;) Here's my train of thought: we have differential equations, or whatever language 3 body problem is written in. this language is turing-complete. the 3 body problem is an undecidable problem in a turing-complete language. therefore solving it would let you solve any other undecidable problem in a turing-complete language, namely, the halting problem. therefore, the two problems are equivilent. my only doubt lies in whether the 3 body problem is written in a turing-complete language or not. correct?
what are you talking about? all mathematical problems that are mathematically undecidable are equivilent in the sense that being able to prove one would let you prove all others. thats the whole fucking _definition_ of mathematically undecidable.
the 3 body problem is undecidable, right? and all undecidable problems are equivilent because solving any one of them would solve all the others.