In Reply to: RE: NOT GANG! WE ARE NOT A CONSENSUS: posted by Tony Lauck on April 24, 2014 at 06:51:10:
"I beg to differ"
Well, who wouldn't when the statement gets taken out of it's intended context and put into isolation like that?
"The behavior of complex systems can not successfully broken down and understood as the operation of separate parts."
For me, theorems get promoted to truths as a method of getting off the proverbial pot. Sure it's a risk but call me edgy.
Some systems can be understood well enough to control and some can't.
Digital computers theoretically can be perfect at their jobs assuming the job lies within capabilities of the proven technologies available to the developer -and the developer has a good handle on the application -and does a good job.
That's the whole point and the beauty of the digital abstraction. Because it rarely occurs does not mean it isn't possible. I've seen plenty of apparently perfect digital machines. Some, rather complex.
Sound systems via generic affordable consumer grade, modular, relatively open architecture, originally intended as general purpose office machines obviously presents some challenges.
In my opinion it's all about scope and definition. After all it's not like we are talking life support or weaposn of mass destruction. Guaranteed, all perceivable problems would have been solved long ago if higher ups thought it was useful for killing commies or whatever.
If yours isn't perfect it just means you haven't worked out the bugs yet, well that or maybe it's just the whole analog thing....That seems to be where most everybody is blowing it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: NOT GANG! WE ARE NOT A CONSENSUS: - Ugly 19:43:58 04/24/14 (0)