Indeed. In fact, most of the interesting algorithms come with a proof of correctness and termination. The problem is, traditional programming languages are not expressive enough to specify and prove termination within the language itself. But there are many ways to achieve this : either annotate the program with logical assertions, allowing an external automated demonstration program to *try* to check soundness and completness; or program directly with Coq or PVS. Some links : http://why.lri.fr/ & http://coq.inria.fr/.
I would rather put my efforts in developping my code with a safe-by-construction language (for instance with the Coq proof assistant), or use tools like Why to guarantee that my code won't blow up. Time spent debugging with static analysis tools should have been spent proving the correctness of the program beforehand.
The fact is that most scientists use high-level software (MATLAB, Femlab,...) to do their simulations. Altough theses scientists may be interested by any potential speed-up to their workflow, they are not willing to invest any bit of their time to translate all their codebase to asm-optimized C. Thus, the ball is in the hands of software developpers, not scientists.
Another interesting fact, derived from empirical analysis : in a Windows field, light speed is negative.This explain the interesting "expanding copy time" (aka "30 seconds left... 4 centuries left...") experienced by most Windows users.Another explaination would be a schrödinger-like effect induced by closed source.
Electromagnetic impulsions can indeed be stopped with a portable faraday cage.For instance, a thin metal veil inserted in your clothes.It all depends on the frequency of the microwave.
The fact is that this weapon isn't aimed toward terrorists, but civilians.People like... hum... us ?
Slashdot Mirror
We could be the first species to win an intergalactic Darwin award. That would be cool... Somehow.
Indeed. In fact, most of the interesting algorithms come with a proof of correctness and termination. The problem is, traditional programming languages are not expressive enough to specify and prove termination within the language itself. But there are many ways to achieve this : either annotate the program with logical assertions, allowing an external automated demonstration program to *try* to check soundness and completness; or program directly with Coq or PVS. Some links : http://why.lri.fr/ & http://coq.inria.fr/.
I would rather put my efforts in developping my code with a safe-by-construction language (for instance with the Coq proof assistant), or use tools like Why to guarantee that my code won't blow up. Time spent debugging with static analysis tools should have been spent proving the correctness of the program beforehand.
The fact is that most scientists use high-level software (MATLAB, Femlab, ...) to do their simulations. Altough theses scientists may be interested by any potential speed-up to their workflow, they are not willing to invest any bit of their time to translate all their codebase to asm-optimized C. Thus, the ball is in the hands of software developpers, not scientists.
Another interesting fact, derived from empirical analysis : in a Windows field, light speed is negative.This explain the interesting "expanding copy time" (aka "30 seconds left... 4 centuries left...") experienced by most Windows users.Another explaination would be a schrödinger-like effect induced by closed source.
Electromagnetic impulsions can indeed be stopped with a portable faraday cage.For instance, a thin metal veil inserted in your clothes.It all depends on the frequency of the microwave. The fact is that this weapon isn't aimed toward terrorists, but civilians.People like... hum... us ?
They must be preparing an escape plan to flee the Earth when longhorn will be out.