That is not what I meant. What I meant was that perhaps a significant portion of the code that these people develop for the research at hand is not reused in further research. It's not throwaway in the sense that "we can delete it now" - it should be published, and reviewed, and used in verification of the research, but it probably won't be in a shape for someone turn it into a reusable library with the same level of attention that, say, LAPACK gets.
First the precision used for computations is limited by both RAM and CPU power.
And so what? That's actually a part of what I had in mind. "Arbitrary precision" means exactly what it says: for any given finite precision, there exists an amount of space and time in which the computation of a (computable) number can be successfully completed.
And the second - for a lot of computations infinite precision is possible, feasible and used. For example computing 2+2 or 17/2.
These are not general cases, and I don't think that "computing with infinite precision" and "computing a subset of desirable results with infinite precision" are synonyms. There's a bigger snag in the general case. Not every real number can be computed in a finite space, or computed in a finite time. In fact, the set of uncomputable real numbers is larger than the set of computable real numbers, because the set of computable real numbers is strictly smaller than the set of all programs, and the set of all programs is countable while the set of all real numbers is uncountable.
You can, however, for any given finite precision, find an approximation to any real number by rounding it to the closest representable number. I think it's trivial to see that a useful approximation can cover the set of all real numbers (and therefore a set of all computable real numbers, which are a subset of it) with some bounded relative precision, that can be, in fact, arbitrarily small.
Both of your statements are wrong.
I've just outlined why I think that my statements are right, and I'm really interested in why you exactly do you think that I'm wrong.
X60 was a tablet with a stylus.
Uh, not exactly. X60 was available as a perfectly ordinary laptop.
Your privacy can be compromised with open hardware, just as easily as with closed.
The problem is, the former at least allows the community to take a remedial action other than "go back to pen and paper".
Actually Jesus was about 5 feet tall, and all bitcoins that are possible can fit on a single hard drive. So in fact Jesus is still far larger than bitcoin.
Actually, that that pure Evangelical revisionist bullshit. In Jesus' time, bitcoins would have been recorded on papyrus, or worse, in the Middle East, on clay tablets (which were still in use by 1st century CE). But that's what Christians don't want you to know!
Without some sort of punctuation, it's a paradoxical statement.
It's not paradoxical. It's a filter for adults; it blocks what adults don't want to see (i.e., sex education websites) and shows them what they *want* to see (i.e., porn).