Actually the best way to preserve information is to copy it. While DNA is a rather fragile substance which in itself certainly will not last even for centuries undamaged, some genetic information is preserved since the beginnings of life.
"most object files doesn't really care about which language you use"
You sure? Can I link a java class file into a C++ binary? You can't even link C++ object files compiled with different compilers on the same platform, in some cases
Most object files don't really care about if you can link them.:-)
Depends on how you count. That is, which solutions you consider as equivalent. In the most extreme case (source file identity), there are in principle infinitely many solutions (just take your favourite solution and add arbitrary comments).
How do you know? He might have written that text anywhere and then copied it to his browser. Or used mozex to edit the text elsewhere and have it automatically inserted into the textarea.
Well, maybe you could construct an argument that "fill the earth and subdue it" is actually a mistranslation, instead of "earth" it should read "universe"...
No. Where in communism could you produce and sell drugs on a free market, after they have been developed?
Also, if set up correctly, that organization would effectively be controlled by the member companies. If that's communism, then every entity with more than one person is.
But couldn't companies just share those costs? Indeed, maybe this model should get institutionalized, so that we can get away with those drug patents at all. Instead, if you want to manufacture drugs, you must be member in an organization which uses the member fees to do drug research. The results are then open to all drug manufacturers. If done right, this gives a level playing field for all drug companies, resulting in a truely free drug market.
Of course, if a company funds the research, and it turns out to be useless, then the customers of that company will pay it. Which in the case of drugs means the patients, and thus through health care providers again the public. Why do you consider that better?
But couldn't a virtualized anti virus program catch a virus which tries to virtualize itself? I could even imagine a virtualized AV program to be more effective because it is independent from the host OS and therefore cannot be disabled by a virus from within the OS.
I get very nervous about your claim that the V is not used very much. I don't know what the average number of uses is, but it's surely above the level of relevance, and it's absolutely obvious that if we would not have it any more, the effects would be not only observable, but even severe, if not devastating.
However, not having the Q would of course reduce the quality of texts (and also the quantity):-)
I've recently met a neutrino. He complained to me that almost nobody took ever notice of him; it's almost as if he wasn't there at all. The grief about that made him really meager; he weighted almost nothing.
Your post made me re-read the license text carefully. Clause 3 reads:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The "above copyright notice" is clause 1, the list of conditions consists of clauses 3 to 5 and the disclaimer is clause 6. So if you interpret it strictly, there's no obligation to reproduce clause 2. Since it is clause 2 which permits you to redistribute, there's no requirement that you pass on this permit. Case claused.
Standard disclaimer: IANAL and this isn't legal advice.
which turned out to be wrong, so they had to patch up the theory to allow a positive value
You mean, the theory can be tweaked to explain about anything one might observe? Or is there any possible observation where one would say, if that observation is made, string theory is dead, period? Because that latter property is what is usually called falsifiable.
Imagine you have an arbitrary model (which need not fit the physical world at all). Now you implement this model on a computer, to extreme accuracy. Now, obviously the model describes with extreme accuracy the simulation running on the computer (because that's how we created that simulation). From your reasoning, it should therefore be a perfect picture about how the computer really is. But it clearly isn't.
Of course it's not that it doesn't any relation to that computer running the simulation: The model describes accurately the simulated world, because we wrote the simulation just like that. But the simulated world is not how it really looks; the simulated world may well have particles with half an electron charge, but yet you'll find no such particle anywhere in the computer; instead you can trace those "particles" e.g. to charge/current patterns somewhere in the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the best way to preserve information is to copy it. While DNA is a rather fragile substance which in itself certainly will not last even for centuries undamaged, some genetic information is preserved since the beginnings of life.
Well, maybe for Microsoft, 5 years are an eternity!
I guess that gets abbreviated as "SUE Linux"?
PC: Political correctness.
to LOAD: To put something into something.
LETTER: You have 26 of them in the alphabet.
So "PC LOAD LETTER" means that political correctness puts something into every letter. The interpretation of that message is left to the reader.
You have it wrong. It's Death Restriction Management. That is, you get immortal by just denying the death the access rights to your soul.
Not here?
You get a 404? I get only a 403! That's unfair! :-)
The task of copying a file cannot be ported to a language which has no concept of file I/O, even if that language is turing-complete.
Most object files don't really care about if you can link them.
In the most extreme case (source file identity), there are in principle infinitely many solutions (just take your favourite solution and add arbitrary comments).
Of course the simplest implementation is in m4:
How do you know? He might have written that text anywhere and then copied it to his browser. Or used mozex to edit the text elsewhere and have it automatically inserted into the textarea.
Well, maybe you could construct an argument that "fill the earth and subdue it" is actually a mistranslation, instead of "earth" it should read "universe" ...
No. Where in communism could you produce and sell drugs on a free market, after they have been developed?
Also, if set up correctly, that organization would effectively be controlled by the member companies. If that's communism, then every entity with more than one person is.
But couldn't companies just share those costs? Indeed, maybe this model should get institutionalized, so that we can get away with those drug patents at all. Instead, if you want to manufacture drugs, you must be member in an organization which uses the member fees to do drug research. The results are then open to all drug manufacturers. If done right, this gives a level playing field for all drug companies, resulting in a truely free drug market.
Of course, if a company funds the research, and it turns out to be useless, then the customers of that company will pay it. Which in the case of drugs means the patients, and thus through health care providers again the public. Why do you consider that better?
That's:
IFOWO illiterate, OAO, HI overlords.
Why would I buy a car with Anonymous Coward?
But couldn't a virtualized anti virus program catch a virus which tries to virtualize itself?
I could even imagine a virtualized AV program to be more effective because it is independent from the host OS and therefore cannot be disabled by a virus from within the OS.
I get very nervous about your claim that the V is not used very much. I don't know what the average number of uses is, but it's surely above the level of relevance, and it's absolutely obvious that if we would not have it any more, the effects would be not only observable, but even severe, if not devastating.
:-)
However, not having the Q would of course reduce the quality of texts (and also the quantity)
I've recently met a neutrino. He complained to me that almost nobody took ever notice of him; it's almost as if he wasn't there at all. The grief about that made him really meager; he weighted almost nothing.
I assure you I can read any perl code I have access to. Now understanding it can be a bit harder ...
Your post made me re-read the license text carefully. Clause 3 reads:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The "above copyright notice" is clause 1, the list of conditions consists of clauses 3 to 5 and the disclaimer is clause 6. So if you interpret it strictly, there's no obligation to reproduce clause 2. Since it is clause 2 which permits you to redistribute, there's no requirement that you pass on this permit. Case claused.
Standard disclaimer: IANAL and this isn't legal advice.
You mean, the theory can be tweaked to explain about anything one might observe? Or is there any possible observation where one would say, if that observation is made, string theory is dead, period? Because that latter property is what is usually called falsifiable.
Imagine you have an arbitrary model (which need not fit the physical world at all). Now you implement this model on a computer, to extreme accuracy. Now, obviously the model describes with extreme accuracy the simulation running on the computer (because that's how we created that simulation). From your reasoning, it should therefore be a perfect picture about how the computer really is. But it clearly isn't.
Of course it's not that it doesn't any relation to that computer running the simulation: The model describes accurately the simulated world, because we wrote the simulation just like that. But the simulated world is not how it really looks; the simulated world may well have particles with half an electron charge, but yet you'll find no such particle anywhere in the computer; instead you can trace those "particles" e.g. to charge/current patterns somewhere in the computer.
You mean all those experiments showing scattering with single quarks (which, of course, are contained in a nucleon) are faked?