There is still one program where I regularly regret not using ctrl-s often enough. Mathematica.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Very much agreed. Nature is not restricted by what we can compute.
It makes me wonder though. It makes sense that we cannot restrict physics to behave according to our computational prowess, but we if we turn this logic onto itself? Is the line of reasoning explored in the article inconsistent with Goedels theorem? Or should I hurry and go back to a computational complexity course?
Like some other commenters, I have a problem with these units.
The most obvious interpretation of the sentence would be to look at how much CO2 a car produces per year. But since the mobile industry has an equivalent CO2 output equal to a number of cars per year, this ends up being an amount of CO2/year/year. Should I interpret this as the rate at which the Co2 emissions are growing then?
Alternatively, it could be the total CO2 output of a car during its lifetime, or the amount of CO2 produced in making a car. In these cases. Any way, either the sentence is wrong, or ambiguous. Now which is the right interpretation?