Our messages are transmitted over a carrier signal that is very obvious, even if the data is encrypted.
Not so sure, if someone from the 50's recieved a 16-QAM signal, it would look very like noise. But more and more of our comm's are now either short range, point to point or not using RF.
I can only assume you have not done any embedded coding. But I guess if you want to define "virtual machine" in such a way that even simple assembler that starts at the reset vector fits the definition...
With NS this will specialize the variation in the "creature" . e.g. all dogs comes from wolfs (evols & creationists agree on that) due to man's natural selection, we get Great Danes and chiwawas, it doesn't matter how many times the chiwawas breeds, you never get a great dane out of them.
You say that as if its true. Its not. Select the largest of each litters and breed them. See how the size increases. No magic involved, no "lost information" restored.
Even if what you said was true. It would just be a case of waiting for a mutation to produce a larger offspring, and to select that. RInse and repeat as needed and you have something of the size of a Dane again.
Maybe so, but the part I was questioning was this bit of rainbows and puppies
From a programmers point of view a cloud aware application does not need to know anything about memory, cpu and back storage.
It may not be the case that it matters where those resources are, but that doesn't mean the programmer doesn't have to know about them.
I don't know the absolute address that the MMU maps a running process under Linux to, but I still need to know about the virtual address that I see in the process space.
The cloud has nothing to do with "network"!! From a programmers point of view a cloud aware application does not need to know anything about memory, cpu and back storage.
Everything is abstracted away and virtualized independendly.
During deployment you only bind a name to a service, you don't even knwo how the service si running, that is up to the cloud provider.
Hmm, ok, that sounds great, but what does it actually mean. BTW, try and answer using real words, not just hand waving.
We don't have to do it in real time. But even if we had till the heat death of the universe to let the code run, we still don't know how to write the code, which was the OP's point.
The common definition is that what Linux users call a "distribution" is an operating system.
It may be a common definition, but that doesn't make it a correct one.
The FreeBSD userland with a Linux kernel would feel like FreeBSD, not like a GNU/Linux system.
What has feel to do with it? You are describing the user interface.
Overall, the Linux ecosystem is fairly muddled WRT these definitions
It may or may not be, but I think if you step outside the small world of personal computers and into the wider world that computer science covers you will discover its a very clearly and exactly defined concept.
The important fact you are missing is real world signal to noise ratio. No source has zero noise, so below a certain signal level there is no signal only noise, so as long as the bit depth is sufficient to cover the available S/N ratio, and as long as the sampling frequency is high enough to cover the frequency range of interest, and in the case of audio thats well defined, and we could up the limit a few times to be sure. So as long as thats all met, and the equipment is working as it should, then yes, loss-less recording of the world is entirely possibly.
But what about back when you were a club band? What about all those years when the studio was paying your bills before you had even hit it big, when there was a very good chance that you wouldn't even MAKE it big? The studio took a chance on your then and helped promote you, helped MAKE you big. Now it's all-too-easy to forget the risk they took on you back then and the work they did to promote you.
While its conceivable that some labels did that in the past, I think you are describing something that just doesn't happen anymore. So its a bit of a vacuous argument to make now.
Oh, and BTW, I think EMI did just fine from Pink Floyd, that was EMI before they sold themself to venture capitalists.
Slashdot Mirror
I know engineers that work for Keysight, they are still proud of what Bill and Dave started. And they still make good kit.
This is because while they don't have any mass, they do have energy.
e = mc^2
Makes that statement a contradiction.
The company that Bill and Dave started is still doing just fine, Its now Agilent (Life Sciences) and Keysight (Test and measurement).
http://www.agilent.com/home
http://www.keysight.com
Our messages are transmitted over a carrier signal that is very obvious, even if the data is encrypted.
Not so sure, if someone from the 50's recieved a 16-QAM signal, it would look very like noise. But more and more of our comm's are now either short range, point to point or not using RF.
I can only assume you have not done any embedded coding. But I guess if you want to define "virtual machine" in such a way that even simple assembler that starts at the reset vector fits the definition...
People will use single data points to make unconditional blanket statements. This is a fact.
Do you have any more examples of people doing that?
And after I posted that, I was worried it was too little information for the South Park reference.
No, just enough.
The only thing that makes sense is for the string length count to be the same size as a pointer, so that it could effectively be all of memory.
Other than the segmented environments where a pointer doesn't cover all the memory. But that is just a nit pick.
With NS this will specialize the variation in the "creature" . e.g. all dogs comes from wolfs (evols & creationists agree on that) due to man's natural selection, we get Great Danes and chiwawas, it doesn't matter how many times the chiwawas breeds, you never get a great dane out of them.
You say that as if its true. Its not. Select the largest of each litters and breed them. See how the size increases. No magic involved, no "lost information" restored.
Even if what you said was true. It would just be a case of waiting for a mutation to produce a larger offspring, and to select that. RInse and repeat as needed and you have something of the size of a Dane again.
Maybe so, but the part I was questioning was this bit of rainbows and puppies
From a programmers point of view a cloud aware application does not need to know anything about memory, cpu and back storage.
It may not be the case that it matters where those resources are, but that doesn't mean the programmer doesn't have to know about them.
I don't know the absolute address that the MMU maps a running process under Linux to, but I still need to know about the virtual address that I see in the process space.
Actual security. There has yet to be a breach with a cloud provider. Plus, this is what SLAs are for.
Until the US Gov comes along and asks the provider to show it your data (see other slashdot topics).
The cloud is something new!
The cloud has nothing to do with "network"!!
From a programmers point of view a cloud aware application does not need to know anything about memory, cpu and back storage.
Everything is abstracted away and virtualized independendly.
During deployment you only bind a name to a service, you don't even knwo how the service si running, that is up to the cloud provider.
Hmm, ok, that sounds great, but what does it actually mean. BTW, try and answer using real words, not just hand waving.
I disagree. There *are* some algorithms out there which are truly creative and non-obvious. They have as much right to be patented as any hardware.
So are you (for example) ok with someone taking a patent out on the discrete cosine transform?
Ok, I will bite, why not explain to us just what a website actually is? And equally to the point, where it is?
I tried, but I can't find any other way of saying this...
And your point is? I would rank Microsoft over nuclear power as an accomplishment for the 20th century.
Well, then sir, you are an idiot.
BTW, "nuclear power" != "the science behind splitting the atom"
One is much larger than the other.
Who mentioned efficiency?
We don't have to do it in real time. But even if we had till the heat death of the universe to let the code run, we still don't know how to write the code, which was the OP's point.
Is there a human capable of multiplying precisely billions of numbers per second or doing any other similar tasks?
What, you think the computer invented itself?
We are tool makers, the computer is a tool, we want to multiply at a rate of 10^9 a second, we just build the tool using our brains.
I admit it, I can't work out if you are being humerous or just don't know how usenet over uucp used to work.
The quote was "would never had done" not "wouldn't be able to do"
C for example
#include
main()
{
int i;
int part_the_first = 42;
int part_the_second = 99;
int part_the_third = 100;
i = part_the_first, part_the_second - part_the_third;
printf( "the answer to (etc) is: %d\n", i );
}
As opposed to the entirly yummy and safe barium used in the valves getters.
The common definition is that what Linux users call a "distribution" is an operating system.
It may be a common definition, but that doesn't make it a correct one.
The FreeBSD userland with a Linux kernel would feel like FreeBSD, not like a GNU/Linux system.
What has feel to do with it? You are describing the user interface.
Overall, the Linux ecosystem is fairly muddled WRT these definitions
It may or may not be, but I think if you step outside the small world of personal computers and into the wider world that computer science covers you will discover its a very clearly and exactly defined concept.
"For example, take multiple recordings (each at 2*Nyquist) at different time-shifts and reconstruct a higher-res signal."
And that differs from a higher sampling rate in what way?
The important fact you are missing is real world signal to noise ratio. No source has zero noise, so below a certain signal level there is no signal only noise, so as long as the bit depth is sufficient to cover the available S/N ratio, and as long as the sampling frequency is high enough to cover the frequency range of interest, and in the case of audio thats well defined, and we could up the limit a few times to be sure. So as long as thats all met, and the equipment is working as it should, then yes, loss-less recording of the world is entirely possibly.
But what about back when you were a club band? What about all those years when the studio was paying your bills before you had even hit it big, when there was a very good chance that you wouldn't even MAKE it big? The studio took a chance on your then and helped promote you, helped MAKE you big. Now it's all-too-easy to forget the risk they took on you back then and the work they did to promote you.
While its conceivable that some labels did that in the past, I think you are describing something that just doesn't happen anymore. So its a bit of a vacuous argument to make now.
Oh, and BTW, I think EMI did just fine from Pink Floyd, that was EMI before they sold themself to venture capitalists.