>>6
I prefer to make the entire memory area readable, writable and executable. That way the application can do interesting things when programming errors occur, and bugs can sometimes become features.
That being said, I don't think programs should have access to the CPU fan. It restricts my freedom if I have to worry about accidentally turning off the CPU fan and frying my computer. (No, that has never happened to me, but it will inevitably. I will then buy a new computer. I will keep breaking and buying computers until I find one that cannot be broken with software.)
>>9 I don't think programs should have access to the CPU fan. It restricts my freedom if I have to worry about accidentally turning off the CPU fan and frying my computer.
Have you ever thought of running your programs in user mode? Or do you run an operating system where anybody can fry the hardware?
>>9,10
I think it's OK to let software control potentially dangerous aspects of the hardware, but ultimately there should be a hardware override; in the case of a CPU fan, there must be a provision to force the fan on if some critical temperature is exceeded, ignoring software control completely. The same with core voltages --- enforce it in hardware.
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-21 13:01
>>11
You are my favorite poster on this board other than myself. I don't know why, but I really like you. ^_^
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 7:36
Zermelo began to axiomatize set theory in 1905; in 1908, he published his results despite his failure to prove the consistency of his axiomatic system.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 8:21
κμ + ν = κμ·κν.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 9:06
Infinite-dimensional spaces are widely used in geometry and topology, particularly as classifying spaces, notably Eilenberg−MacLane spaces. Common examples are the infinite-dimensional complex projective space K(Z,2) and the infinite-dimensional real projective space K(Z/2Z,1).
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 9:52
Power set of a set A is the set whose members are all possible subsets of A. For example, the power set of {1, 2} is { {}, {1}, {2}, {1,2} } .
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 10:37
Principles such as the axiom of choice and the law of the excluded middle appear in a spectrum of different forms, some of which can be proven, others which correspond to the classical notions; this allows for a detailed discussion of the effect of these axioms on mathematics.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-31 11:22
This method cannot, however, be used to show that every countable family of nonempty sets has a choice function, as is asserted by the axiom of countable choice. If the method is applied to an infinite sequence (Xi : i∈ω) of nonempty sets, a function is obtained at each finite stage, but there is no stage at which a choice function for the entire family is constructed, and no "limiting" choice function can be constructed, in general, in ZF without the axiom of choice.