Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The hand of Godel? (Score 1) 465

I had read the terse "no" to mean the Universe wasn't Turing Complete and I didn't read the original question very closely.

I can accept the idea the Universe isn't a Turing machine. But, it has to be at least as complex if not more so. This means that Kurt Gödel's ideas would apply to mathematical theorem about the Universe... leading to the conclusion you can't understand everything with one theory.

For example... try proving 1 + 1 = 2 without resorting to Set theory.

Comment Re:The hand of Godel? (Score 1) 465

It doesn't apply for an even more basic reason. We don't require a theory of everything to be complete, only consistent. Moreover, most physicists would be happy with "just" a theory that hasn't been proved to be inconsistent.

If the theory is consistent it will be incomplete requiring another theory to cover the incompleteness. If the theory is complete it will be self contradictory.

Comment Re:The hand of Godel? (Score 1) 465

If the universe is not Turing complete, could you please explain how the universe can run my Laptop on it's substrate?

My computer is Turing complete. My computer exists in this universe. No system that is not Turing complete can simulate one that is.

Me thinks the Universe is somehow Turing complete and thus governed by the fundamental rules of all computers.

Comment Re:Sweet (Score 1) 575

Based on my back of the napkin calculations it would take a space craft like Voyager approximately 23,000 years to get to the planet. Someone want to correct me? Please? I certainly hope I did my math wrong. Sounds like we are stuck here.

Comment Re:No wonder SaaS seems so appealing (Score 1) 510

It seems to come down to the inescapable fact that if you sell your code, it will be stolen and/or passed along to others. On the other hand, if you simpy put a paywall in front of your code and charge people for a subscription, you can avoid getting financially ass-raped by all of the cheap bastards out there.

I think it's more fundamental than that. Software is non-physical so it is hard to understand paying for it.

Software as a Service ties the utility of the software to the physical machine since to get the utility of the software you must effectively rent the machine's time. This should be several orders of magnitude cheaper than buying machines and using them for short specific tasks for the vast majority of situations.

So this re-unification of the code's utility and machine use should be much easier for people to grasp and should ultimately yield business models that make more sense. I expect the change will push most software developers in one of two directions... small custom in-house (web|platform) applications versus large "Cloud Computing" applications.

Time will tell if I'm right. I've chosen to try and position myself on the side of large SaaS applications with small light clients. It makes more sense for everyone since the value of the code and the machines are implicitly tied together. Much easier for people to understand and understand why they need to cough up money for the software.

Comment Re:supply and demand (Score 1) 510

If I could have cars for $0, I'd have 50 cars in my driveway, one for every occasion. But that says nothing about how many cars I'd be willing to buy for $10000.

I would have at most 2 cars if I could have any car for $0. I don't like cars. I would get rid of one car if I got a 3rd car for some reason. I don't like having cars around.

I recently paid for an app where the developer had created a "pay what you like" system. He had a toggle for the price. $0.99, $1.99, $2.99 ... up to $5.99 IIRC. I chose to pay $2.99 because I had used the demo version for a week and liked his work.

After paying an email arrived with an unlock code and I unlocked the application from demo mode. I quite liked the experience. If I ever do an Android application I think I'd like the pricing to work that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?