Thu Mar 15 2001 07:41:
This New Scientist article is an intruiging mix of novel ideas (the probability that a randomly chosen program is decidable, a halting problem for a counterfactual Turing machine which can solve the regular halting problem) and complete crap reporting.
As far as I can tell, it's treating riffs on the Incompleteness Theorem as though they were more disturbing than the Incompleteness Theorem itself. And there is *nothing* more disturbing than the Incompleteness Theorem, jaded though we are in this modern age to the full scope of its terror.