OK, that's a good one. But here's the issue with it.
The halting problem is not solvable with a turing machine with an infinite tape. That has some implications which must be considered.
If we're not simulated, then there's no computer which can solve the halting problem. But if the universe is simulated, then computers in the simulated universe could not solve the halting problem, but computers outside of the simulated universe COULD solve the halting problem.
The thing that makes this possible is that real turing machines don't have infinite tapes, unlike the theoretical ones.
Let's make this simpler - to solve the halting problem for a *finite* turing machine, I just do the following algorithm:
The algorithm is basically a simulation of a finite turing machine running on a larger computer.
1) Initialize a simulation of a finite turing machine on a large computer. 2)Execute one instruction on the simulation 3)Save the state of the simulation 4)If the saved state matches a previously saved state, then the machine does not halt 5)If the simulation of the finite turing machine halts, then the machine halts 6) otherwise, repeat the loop - goto line 2
I think that this result is relevant because we're considering that the universe is simulated. That means we have to adopt the perspective of the computer that is simulating our universe. I have showed that from that perspective, even the halting problem can be solved by the computer simulating our universe, if the halting problem is running inside a finite simulation.
All deterministic systems are completely computable. All chaotic systems are deterministic. That's what I think right now. Is there an example of a deterministic/chaotic system which is not computable that would cause me to change my mind?
Asking someone 'am I the only one' is an invitation to a discussion. Also, it's weird for you to say I'm picking a fight when all I'm doing is commenting about the ridiculous moderation which preceeded my complaints. You can't pick a fight if someone else swung first.
Now, explain to me how a comment you disagree with should be moderated as "flamebait". It shouldn't. You aren't supposed to mod down things you merely disagree with.
Well that's very nice, but I am constantly getting my last 5 posts moderated down, all at the same time, which screams to me that it's the same guy. When 5 posts from a week ago all get moderated down in 5 minutes time, that tells me that a liberal is being intolerant again.
So I understand what you're saying, but it's not really what I see. Besides, Libertarians I don't think would be moderating people down that they disagree with. I've known a few, and they are fair people. Wrongheaded in my opinion, but they are fair.
So what I said was flamebait? Really? It's not, you know. In fact, there's no moderation that says "disagree." I still say the moderation is just typical liberal intolerance.
I fly a 200 knot capable airplane worth a half million dollars. I bought it myself, paid cash. The way I see it, hot dogs of any kind are for poor people.
Why are people marking me flamebait for just asking if I'm the only one with this opinion? Lots of people have disagreed with me, which is fine, and it's not a big deal.
Or is this just an example of liberals censoring anything their sensitive little ears and eyes find different from their own worlds?
I thought you guys were supposed to be tolerant. Now we see the truth about that.
I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege, and with due process privileges can be taken away. The due process here is the law.
Sex offenders are wildly out of control, and we should make sure that we have the right to protect ourselves. Think of the victims here, and think of making it harder for these scumbags to find innocent families to victimize.
That's pretty ironic, since firefox bricked on me while reading this article. I had to double click the Firefox icon thingy to unbrick it and continue browsing.
If you're being attacked with a sword, a well controlled gun is an excellent way to defend yourself. I prefer the 12 gauge shotgun myself, but other good people can have different opinions.
But I cannot find the link to digg it. It feels like I should digg it. Should I digg it? If I could digg it, I would digg it. But wait, this is Slashdot, so I cannot digg it.
Watch this to see how fast a tree lights up. Now, imagine your 6 month old sitting in that chair. Now, imagine you're in the next room making dinner or something. There's no time to save anybody in that situation.
Just get a plastic tree, and you won't have to worry about rescuing your family in 20 seconds before they are burned to death by the tree.
I think I understand. You see someone who might have raped and killed a human being, and you want to be nice to them and to protect their rights. What about the crimes they committed? The rights of someone who rapes and kills are forfeit. The dead person doesn't get to use their rights, remember?
All the excuses about how they were disadvantaged because they were raised in the ghetto, or they didn't get an education handed to them, or their parents were in prison so they never had a role model don't fly. If they'd just made different decisions they could have been good people. The felons made a choice, and they knew ahead of time their choice would keep them from voting. I don't cry for them at all.
Prisons are for punishment and for keeping the criminals away from the people. I don't really think anybody is rehabilitated in prison. When they get out, it's just a matter of time before they go back in. They might be humans, but they do act like animals, and animals who are felons don't vote.
The reason felons can't vote is that they've demonstrated that they don't have the same value for society that you and I do. They literally don't think the same way that you and I do. Some of that it genetic like low intelligence. Others are cultural. Criminals often come from homes which are broken, headed by welfare queens, without a man around to provide a healthy role model. They often haven't completed school. They literally don't have the brains, background, or the education to think about politics in any meaningful sense.
It's just the best policy to avoid corruption of our election processes by what amounts to "loose cannon" voting. If you ask me who is a better person to have vote, it'll be a law-abiding citizen, and not some criminal who never thinks of what would be good for the majority of the country.
The reason it's so complex is that we don't have a real heavy lift vehicle assigned to build it. The entire station could have been launched with 2 Saturn V rockets. If you wanted to put the ISS into Lunar orbit, you're still talking only 5 Saturn V rockets.
The kids think you're hot stuff with your complex orbital assembly. The old guys snicker at your tiny tiny rockets.
I had to read all the way down to this comment to get someone who knew what the hell they were talking about.
Mod the parent up!
This is indeed a victory for Hormel. Until now, Hormel had to vigorously defend their trademark, or they would lose it.
Now, Hormel has a judge saying that the trademark couldn't be confused when applied to e-mail, and therefore Hormel is relieved of the obligation and expense to defend their trademark with regard to e-mails.
And, if any of you have a memory at all, you'll remember just how cool Hormel has been with regards to their SPAM trademark. They even made it a public policy that as long as you didn't spell spam in all caps (SPAM) then you wouldn't infringe. Hormel's trademark is all capital letters, and they gave their blessing to use of the uncapitalized term spam as applied to e-mails.
Basically, the judge has given Hormel permission to continue to be cool with us regarding their trademark, which is exactly what Hormel wanted.
Hormel is the GOOD guys. Go buy some SPAM to support them today.
What's to admit? If you're a bad person, then you deserve to go to hell, and I want you to go there too, because sin has no place in heaven. You act like this is something we try to hide.
God really does hate sin, and to say that god hates sin is just saying God's Word. And saying the word of the Lord is praising the Lord. I'm not damning non-believers - God is damning sin. I'm merely praising the Lord.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what I said. The idea that the state eventually repeats if the simulated turing machine does not halt is the basis of my algorithm.
OK, that's a good one. But here's the issue with it.
The halting problem is not solvable with a turing machine with an infinite tape. That has some implications which must be considered.
If we're not simulated, then there's no computer which can solve the halting problem. But if the universe is simulated, then computers in the simulated universe could not solve the halting problem, but computers outside of the simulated universe COULD solve the halting problem.
The thing that makes this possible is that real turing machines don't have infinite tapes, unlike the theoretical ones.
Let's make this simpler - to solve the halting problem for a *finite* turing machine, I just do the following algorithm:
The algorithm is basically a simulation of a finite turing machine running on a larger computer.
1) Initialize a simulation of a finite turing machine on a large computer.
2)Execute one instruction on the simulation
3)Save the state of the simulation
4)If the saved state matches a previously saved state, then the machine does not halt
5)If the simulation of the finite turing machine halts, then the machine halts
6) otherwise, repeat the loop - goto line 2
I think that this result is relevant because we're considering that the universe is simulated. That means we have to adopt the perspective of the computer that is simulating our universe. I have showed that from that perspective, even the halting problem can be solved by the computer simulating our universe, if the halting problem is running inside a finite simulation.
Reactions?
All deterministic systems are completely computable. All chaotic systems are deterministic. That's what I think right now. Is there an example of a deterministic/chaotic system which is not computable that would cause me to change my mind?
The only number that matters in that regard is 1588.
Asking someone 'am I the only one' is an invitation to a discussion. Also, it's weird for you to say I'm picking a fight when all I'm doing is commenting about the ridiculous moderation which preceeded my complaints. You can't pick a fight if someone else swung first.
My boat is Italian. I am 100% American.
Now, explain to me how a comment you disagree with should be moderated as "flamebait". It shouldn't. You aren't supposed to mod down things you merely disagree with.
Well that's very nice, but I am constantly getting my last 5 posts moderated down, all at the same time, which screams to me that it's the same guy. When 5 posts from a week ago all get moderated down in 5 minutes time, that tells me that a liberal is being intolerant again.
So I understand what you're saying, but it's not really what I see. Besides, Libertarians I don't think would be moderating people down that they disagree with. I've known a few, and they are fair people. Wrongheaded in my opinion, but they are fair.
So what I said was flamebait? Really? It's not, you know. In fact, there's no moderation that says "disagree." I still say the moderation is just typical liberal intolerance.
I fly a 200 knot capable airplane worth a half million dollars. I bought it myself, paid cash. The way I see it, hot dogs of any kind are for poor people.
Why are people marking me flamebait for just asking if I'm the only one with this opinion? Lots of people have disagreed with me, which is fine, and it's not a big deal.
Or is this just an example of liberals censoring anything their sensitive little ears and eyes find different from their own worlds?
I thought you guys were supposed to be tolerant. Now we see the truth about that.
I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege, and with due process privileges can be taken away. The due process here is the law.
Sex offenders are wildly out of control, and we should make sure that we have the right to protect ourselves. Think of the victims here, and think of making it harder for these scumbags to find innocent families to victimize.
That's pretty ironic, since firefox bricked on me while reading this article. I had to double click the Firefox icon thingy to unbrick it and continue browsing.
If you're being attacked with a sword, a well controlled gun is an excellent way to defend yourself. I prefer the 12 gauge shotgun myself, but other good people can have different opinions.
But I cannot find the link to digg it. It feels like I should digg it. Should I digg it? If I could digg it, I would digg it. But wait, this is Slashdot, so I cannot digg it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZFhbe6tQLo
Watch this to see how fast a tree lights up. Now, imagine your 6 month old sitting in that chair. Now, imagine you're in the next room making dinner or something. There's no time to save anybody in that situation.
Just get a plastic tree, and you won't have to worry about rescuing your family in 20 seconds before they are burned to death by the tree.
Scary. Just plain scary.
I think I understand. You see someone who might have raped and killed a human being, and you want to be nice to them and to protect their rights. What about the crimes they committed? The rights of someone who rapes and kills are forfeit. The dead person doesn't get to use their rights, remember?
All the excuses about how they were disadvantaged because they were raised in the ghetto, or they didn't get an education handed to them, or their parents were in prison so they never had a role model don't fly. If they'd just made different decisions they could have been good people. The felons made a choice, and they knew ahead of time their choice would keep them from voting. I don't cry for them at all.
Prisons are for punishment and for keeping the criminals away from the people. I don't really think anybody is rehabilitated in prison. When they get out, it's just a matter of time before they go back in. They might be humans, but they do act like animals, and animals who are felons don't vote.
The reason felons can't vote is that they've demonstrated that they don't have the same value for society that you and I do. They literally don't think the same way that you and I do. Some of that it genetic like low intelligence. Others are cultural. Criminals often come from homes which are broken, headed by welfare queens, without a man around to provide a healthy role model. They often haven't completed school. They literally don't have the brains, background, or the education to think about politics in any meaningful sense.
It's just the best policy to avoid corruption of our election processes by what amounts to "loose cannon" voting. If you ask me who is a better person to have vote, it'll be a law-abiding citizen, and not some criminal who never thinks of what would be good for the majority of the country.
The reason it's so complex is that we don't have a real heavy lift vehicle assigned to build it. The entire station could have been launched with 2 Saturn V rockets. If you wanted to put the ISS into Lunar orbit, you're still talking only 5 Saturn V rockets.
The kids think you're hot stuff with your complex orbital assembly. The old guys snicker at your tiny tiny rockets.
encfs is a piece of cake. If you can use the mount command, you can use the encfs command.
I had to read all the way down to this comment to get someone who knew what the hell they were talking about.
Mod the parent up!
This is indeed a victory for Hormel. Until now, Hormel had to vigorously defend their trademark, or they would lose it.
Now, Hormel has a judge saying that the trademark couldn't be confused when applied to e-mail, and therefore Hormel is relieved of the obligation and expense to defend their trademark with regard to e-mails.
And, if any of you have a memory at all, you'll remember just how cool Hormel has been with regards to their SPAM trademark. They even made it a public policy that as long as you didn't spell spam in all caps (SPAM) then you wouldn't infringe. Hormel's trademark is all capital letters, and they gave their blessing to use of the uncapitalized term spam as applied to e-mails.
Basically, the judge has given Hormel permission to continue to be cool with us regarding their trademark, which is exactly what Hormel wanted.
Hormel is the GOOD guys. Go buy some SPAM to support them today.
The answers to all your questions are in the Bible, the word of God.
What's to admit? If you're a bad person, then you deserve to go to hell, and I want you to go there too, because sin has no place in heaven. You act like this is something we try to hide.
God really does hate sin, and to say that god hates sin is just saying God's Word. And saying the word of the Lord is praising the Lord. I'm not damning non-believers - God is damning sin. I'm merely praising the Lord.
I'll pray for you.
So, you're an atheist because you like sinning, is that it? Why do you hate God so much?