For a small business? Probably simple file synchronization. Right-click on a network drive and pick "Make Available Offline." You'll still have to train people to store their shtuff on the network, but at least that way they'll have access to it even if they're not on the network.
This is the right idea, but I smell a major WTF at this company. It sounds like the developers aren't using version control. They really just need to set up a repository for each project (SVN is my default recommendation, but something with better support for binary files would be useful here) and just back up the repositories.
Agreed, your counter-example was appropriate for the context I set up. I assumed that the system bus would be included among the interconnections necessary, but phrased it in a way that made that very non-obvious.
The system bus is a "utility" for the purposes of the problem as well. There are two ways to interpret this: first, as a utility problem, since each core needs to connect to four utilities. Or, after a counting argument, as the 5-node complete graph K5, which cannot be embedded in the plane.
So a specific question: do modern dice have the ability to use multiple planes? I'm referring specifically to those in use by AMD and Intel for multi-core machines. Circuit boards as such aren't really relevant to the issue of interconnecting cores on dice.
I was under the impression that this latency issue was caused by the fact that there is no positive solution to the utility problem. Essentially, each core is connected directly to the other two, in a planar graph. There's no way to connect each of 4 cores to the other three without the connections intersecting, at least if the connections are made on anything topologicically the same as a convex subset of the plane (that is, no planar graph exists).
This can be solved directly by creating chips with multiple planes on which connections can be made, or indirectly by running messages through other cores, at the cost of latency. Then again, I have no idea if multi-layer chips are in production.
Get real. No judge is going to issue 300 million warrants in perpetuity. Not even a secret FISA court judge.
The executive branch wouldn't go to the judicial branch if they wanted to abuse their power. It would be self-defeating. Instead, they would go to the legislative branch and get a law passed.
Also, since we tended to cover three or four weeks at a time in class before having an exam, I had a difficult time on the exams because I couldn't keep track of what I should know and what I shouldn't know. ie, I would have done better, if the test had said something like "assuming we hadn't already proven that Y is true, Prove the following...".
Yes, I had difficulties relating to that during my freshman year. It was in a class on introductory analysis, where the real numbers were constructed from a small set of axioms and definitions. We proved basic things like 0 * x = 0 in the first week. Only, of course, I had already seen that sort of thing, so I took it for granted. The way I resolved my issue was to think of "0" as being an abstract object distinct from the real 0, at least until proven otherwise. (Note that depending on what the structure you're studying, 0 * x = 0 might be false. Thinking of "0" as an abstract object and opening up that possibility is what lead me to persue mathematics.)
Knowing what tools you can use to solve a problem is a skill you develop over time. And it gets easier, as instructors can assume that you actually have proved the basic stuff in the prerequisite classes.
In math, unless the question is worded poorly or they are trying to pull some sort of trick on you, there is exactly one right answer (though that answer may be that there is more than one answer).
Maybe in high school math. Once the questions start asking you to prove or disprove things, there are always either many (or no) right answers.
Funny. My alma mater used to offer a Physics class for non-majors. It was much easier than the introductory science courses (in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology). The class was dropped specifically because the students weren't getting a well-rounded education.
Everything that exists, exists in the universe by virtue of your circular definition. Yes, we are speaking from different ontologies, and yes I still disagree with you.
This isn't my definition. It is a commonly used one in philosophy. It is not circular, either. Presumably you mean something along the lines that the universe would contain itself. Big deal, all that demonstrates is that the universe is more like a proper class than a set. This is not surprising, since proper classes exist.
Mathematics and logic do not have any measurable or causal effect, they simply offer excellent explanatory power.
Descriptive power, not explanatory power.
I can use Newton to explain the trajectory of a projectile in advance, but that does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
Presumably, your decision to duck is causally related to your knowledge of the projectile's trajectory.
More concretely, advances in mathematics have lead to advances in the sciences, engineering, and so on. The city I live in would be split in half by a river if it weren't for bridges. People on the east side wouldn't easily be able to work downtown without the bridges. But the bridges are there due to a long causal chain involving: accounting, engineering (which itself is causally influenced by mathematics), voting, and many more I couldn't know about. And the bridges have helped the local economy, certainly a causal effect.
We have no way to explain what how a universe could exist where 1+1!=2 nor a universe where non-contradiction doesn't apply, which seems, to me, to imply that mathematics and logic are (to coin a phrase) extra-natural.
In this very universe, 1+1 does not have to be 2. It can be 0. It all depends on how the constant symbols and function symbol are interpreted. And we can do the math to figure out what these structures look like. (One example is the set of all bitstrings under the XOR operation. Another is Z_2.)
In this very universe, non-contradiction can fail. Is Schrodinger's Cat dead or alive? Note that according to classical logic, it must be either dead or alive. One or the other. But it is both. Contradictions like these spurred the development of Quantum logics, most of which are at least weakly paraconsistent, and from which the empirically tested theory of quantum mechanics can be derived.
All natural things exist within the universe. Metaphysical things, thought, reason, logic, mathematics, and God do not. In fact some natural things don't even exist in the universe, such as the virtual particles associated with Hawking radiation and the casimir effect.
Everything that exists exists in the universe. This is directly implied by the definition of the word. This includes things like numbers, thought, reason, logic. If you want to split the universe into the physical and non-physical realms, fine. That is sane. Mathematics is not physical. But it has often had a measurable causal effect.
At the very least, if you do not agree with me, you must agree that our disagreement is due to differing ontologies.[1] If you agree, you must agree that there is no reason why the claim that a non-material being having spontaneously been created and creating the material realm is no more complicated than a material object having been created and creating the rest of the material realm in the sense discussed earlier. Both the hypothetical God and hypothetical singularity arise out of nothing, with no cause.
There is no circularity. The universe, as it is commonly understood, contains everything that exists. If God exists, it must be contained in the universe. This is a simple, basic, valid argument and can be easily formalized in the first-order logic. As such, the descriptions I used were accurate despite others' flawed characterizations of what God is.
You claim I'm using a straw man. The problem is that many people's conceptions of God are contradictory. They claim He exists (and therefore must be a part of our universe) and that He is supernatural (and thus, presumably, not a part of our universe using the strict natural-supernatural divide you mentioned). I chose to focus on the first claim, since non-existent things don't exist.
I shouldn't have been so terse. By all means, try if you'd like. But my point is that the universe, as it is commonly understood as that which contains everything that exists, must necessarily contain God, if it exists.
How is it any less complex than a "part" of the universe suddenly appearing and spontaneously creating the rest? Neither has a cause. Linguistic complexity doesn't really determine causal complexity. Case in point: note that the "God theory" can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called God, appeared and spontaneously created the rest." The Big Bang can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called a singularity, appeared and spontaneously created the rest."
Slashdot Mirror
For a small business? Probably simple file synchronization. Right-click on a network drive and pick "Make Available Offline." You'll still have to train people to store their shtuff on the network, but at least that way they'll have access to it even if they're not on the network.
This is the right idea, but I smell a major WTF at this company. It sounds like the developers aren't using version control. They really just need to set up a repository for each project (SVN is my default recommendation, but something with better support for binary files would be useful here) and just back up the repositories.
Look it up. Both dies and dice are acceptable.
Agreed, your counter-example was appropriate for the context I set up. I assumed that the system bus would be included among the interconnections necessary, but phrased it in a way that made that very non-obvious.
Three tonnes is .003 thousand tonnes.
The system bus is a "utility" for the purposes of the problem as well. There are two ways to interpret this: first, as a utility problem, since each core needs to connect to four utilities. Or, after a counting argument, as the 5-node complete graph K5, which cannot be embedded in the plane.
Yes, but you're not going to be able to connect the middle core to anything but the other three cores.
On the other hand, I didn't mention that the system bus was a "utility" for the purposes of the problem, so your counter-example is right in context.
Heh, sorry to ruin it. The fact that there is no positive solution to the utility problem is not obvious, so I took your suggestion seriously.
So a specific question: do modern dice have the ability to use multiple planes? I'm referring specifically to those in use by AMD and Intel for multi-core machines. Circuit boards as such aren't really relevant to the issue of interconnecting cores on dice.
Wouldn't work. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UtilityGraph.html What you really need is to allow interconnections to go over or under each other.
I was under the impression that this latency issue was caused by the fact that there is no positive solution to the utility problem. Essentially, each core is connected directly to the other two, in a planar graph. There's no way to connect each of 4 cores to the other three without the connections intersecting, at least if the connections are made on anything topologicically the same as a convex subset of the plane (that is, no planar graph exists).
This can be solved directly by creating chips with multiple planes on which connections can be made, or indirectly by running messages through other cores, at the cost of latency. Then again, I have no idea if multi-layer chips are in production.
Get real. No judge is going to issue 300 million warrants in perpetuity. Not even a secret FISA court judge.
The executive branch wouldn't go to the judicial branch if they wanted to abuse their power. It would be self-defeating. Instead, they would go to the legislative branch and get a law passed.
On what grounds? This is a civil matter.
Oh shit, I forgot about Caturday.
P.S. I herd u liek mudkips?
Hurd is good enough for Richard Stallman. I'll pass.
Also, since we tended to cover three or four weeks at a time in class before having an exam, I had a difficult time on the exams because I couldn't keep track of what I should know and what I shouldn't know. ie, I would have done better, if the test had said something like "assuming we hadn't already proven that Y is true, Prove the following...".
Yes, I had difficulties relating to that during my freshman year. It was in a class on introductory analysis, where the real numbers were constructed from a small set of axioms and definitions. We proved basic things like 0 * x = 0 in the first week. Only, of course, I had already seen that sort of thing, so I took it for granted. The way I resolved my issue was to think of "0" as being an abstract object distinct from the real 0, at least until proven otherwise. (Note that depending on what the structure you're studying, 0 * x = 0 might be false. Thinking of "0" as an abstract object and opening up that possibility is what lead me to persue mathematics.)
Knowing what tools you can use to solve a problem is a skill you develop over time. And it gets easier, as instructors can assume that you actually have proved the basic stuff in the prerequisite classes.
In math, unless the question is worded poorly or they are trying to pull some sort of trick on you, there is exactly one right answer (though that answer may be that there is more than one answer).
Maybe in high school math. Once the questions start asking you to prove or disprove things, there are always either many (or no) right answers.
Funny. My alma mater used to offer a Physics class for non-majors. It was much easier than the introductory science courses (in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology). The class was dropped specifically because the students weren't getting a well-rounded education.
Everything that exists, exists in the universe by virtue of your circular definition. Yes, we are speaking from different ontologies, and yes I still disagree with you.
This isn't my definition. It is a commonly used one in philosophy. It is not circular, either. Presumably you mean something along the lines that the universe would contain itself. Big deal, all that demonstrates is that the universe is more like a proper class than a set. This is not surprising, since proper classes exist.
Mathematics and logic do not have any measurable or causal effect, they simply offer excellent explanatory power.
Descriptive power, not explanatory power.
I can use Newton to explain the trajectory of a projectile in advance, but that does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
Presumably, your decision to duck is causally related to your knowledge of the projectile's trajectory.
More concretely, advances in mathematics have lead to advances in the sciences, engineering, and so on. The city I live in would be split in half by a river if it weren't for bridges. People on the east side wouldn't easily be able to work downtown without the bridges. But the bridges are there due to a long causal chain involving: accounting, engineering (which itself is causally influenced by mathematics), voting, and many more I couldn't know about. And the bridges have helped the local economy, certainly a causal effect.
We have no way to explain what how a universe could exist where 1+1!=2 nor a universe where non-contradiction doesn't apply, which seems, to me, to imply that mathematics and logic are (to coin a phrase) extra-natural.
In this very universe, 1+1 does not have to be 2. It can be 0. It all depends on how the constant symbols and function symbol are interpreted. And we can do the math to figure out what these structures look like. (One example is the set of all bitstrings under the XOR operation. Another is Z_2.)
In this very universe, non-contradiction can fail. Is Schrodinger's Cat dead or alive? Note that according to classical logic, it must be either dead or alive. One or the other. But it is both. Contradictions like these spurred the development of Quantum logics, most of which are at least weakly paraconsistent, and from which the empirically tested theory of quantum mechanics can be derived.
All natural things exist within the universe. Metaphysical things, thought, reason, logic, mathematics, and God do not. In fact some natural things don't even exist in the universe, such as the virtual particles associated with Hawking radiation and the casimir effect.
t ion).
Everything that exists exists in the universe. This is directly implied by the definition of the word. This includes things like numbers, thought, reason, logic. If you want to split the universe into the physical and non-physical realms, fine. That is sane. Mathematics is not physical. But it has often had a measurable causal effect.
At the very least, if you do not agree with me, you must agree that our disagreement is due to differing ontologies.[1] If you agree, you must agree that there is no reason why the claim that a non-material being having spontaneously been created and creating the material realm is no more complicated than a material object having been created and creating the rest of the material realm in the sense discussed earlier. Both the hypothetical God and hypothetical singularity arise out of nothing, with no cause.
[1] Consider the first and third entries in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_(disambigua
There is no circularity. The universe, as it is commonly understood, contains everything that exists. If God exists, it must be contained in the universe. This is a simple, basic, valid argument and can be easily formalized in the first-order logic. As such, the descriptions I used were accurate despite others' flawed characterizations of what God is.
You claim I'm using a straw man. The problem is that many people's conceptions of God are contradictory. They claim He exists (and therefore must be a part of our universe) and that He is supernatural (and thus, presumably, not a part of our universe using the strict natural-supernatural divide you mentioned). I chose to focus on the first claim, since non-existent things don't exist.
I shouldn't have been so terse. By all means, try if you'd like. But my point is that the universe, as it is commonly understood as that which contains everything that exists, must necessarily contain God, if it exists.
You're going to have a very hard time explaining what "Outside of the universe" means. Please try.
Have you ever seen an electron?
How is it any less complex than a "part" of the universe suddenly appearing and spontaneously creating the rest? Neither has a cause. Linguistic complexity doesn't really determine causal complexity. Case in point: note that the "God theory" can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called God, appeared and spontaneously created the rest." The Big Bang can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called a singularity, appeared and spontaneously created the rest."
This falls flat. Just wanting to break in without permission is criminal intent.