Re: Lets get physical
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:22:24 GMT
Message-ID: <ABokg.38576$Mn5.90_at_pd7tw3no>
>
> I wouldn't. Computing science is a branch of mathematics not religion.
> As such, it has nothing to do with faith. While Fabian has an annoying
> and often inconvenient habit of being right all the time, I don't accept
> anything he says just on the basis of his saying it. I suggest you not
> do so either.
>
> Even if he turns out to be right, you will learn a lot more by
> navigating your own path to agreement (especially begrudging agreement)
> than by accepting what he says without critical thought.
>
> I don't think TRM is deeper than I can think, and I doubt it is deeper
> than you can think either. The problem with TRM is the only information
> available to the public are patents written in legalese intended to
> specifically mean any novel idea that anyone might ever come up with
> without divulging any information potentially useful to a competitor --
> such is the nature of patents.
>
> The people I respect, who claim to understand TRM, are bound by NDA's
> with a party either engaged in litigation or potentially engaged in
> litigation (I am not sure which.) Sadly for the rest of us, this means
> they have to keep their mouths shut. Until the legal issues are sorted
> out and people can discuss TRM openly, TRM is a total
> non-issue/non-entity to me.
> ...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:22:24 GMT
Message-ID: <ABokg.38576$Mn5.90_at_pd7tw3no>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
>> Bob Badour wrote: >> ... >> >>> I may be deluding myself, but I had a little help... from Fabian. In >>> private correspondence, he very briefly described TRM as an abstract >>> implementation model that would lie between the logical relational >>> model and the physical media. I don't pretend to know or understand >>> anything about TRM. >> >> I think that's more or less what I remember seeing, *somewhere*. So, >> having gaps in my theoretical knowledge but not, I hope, so many as to >> make me feel I can't comment here and there, I think it is reasonable >> to test what I can see in the theory vis-a-vis update effort, storage >> size and other complexity such as whether the techniques imply garbage >> collection and so forth, counting pointers and such. Proof in the >> pudding and so forth. >> >> Since I have also admitted that it may well be that TRM's theory is >> deeper than I can think (i.e., it may contain more novelty than I can >> see, which I am willing to accept on faith from a source like FP)
>
> I wouldn't. Computing science is a branch of mathematics not religion.
> As such, it has nothing to do with faith. While Fabian has an annoying
> and often inconvenient habit of being right all the time, I don't accept
> anything he says just on the basis of his saying it. I suggest you not
> do so either.
>
> Even if he turns out to be right, you will learn a lot more by
> navigating your own path to agreement (especially begrudging agreement)
> than by accepting what he says without critical thought.
>
> I don't think TRM is deeper than I can think, and I doubt it is deeper
> than you can think either. The problem with TRM is the only information
> available to the public are patents written in legalese intended to
> specifically mean any novel idea that anyone might ever come up with
> without divulging any information potentially useful to a competitor --
> such is the nature of patents.
>
> The people I respect, who claim to understand TRM, are bound by NDA's
> with a party either engaged in litigation or potentially engaged in
> litigation (I am not sure which.) Sadly for the rest of us, this means
> they have to keep their mouths shut. Until the legal issues are sorted
> out and people can discuss TRM openly, TRM is a total
> non-issue/non-entity to me.
> ...
I do remember legal actions enabling IT progress once or twice, no argument about what you say except that in this case I don't feel I have the time to wait. Just my opinion.
p Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 04:22:24 CEST