Slashdot Mirror

here's the drawing to go with that...
http://www.mbay.net/~ketan/herf.jpg

The short answer is: No.

The long answer is: People can obviously correctly grasp broad outlines. The problem is that, in mathematics anyway, the broad outline is the mathematics. This is woefully imprecise. Let's see if I can successfully clarify.

Consider Fermat's Last theorem and the introductory exposition here. Notice that to understand, in broad strokes, the content (not even the method!) of the proof, you have to understand elliptic curves, elliptic functions, zeta functions, L-functions, galois groups and their matrix representations over p-adic rings. The properties of objects in each of these topics are essential to the proof, and seeing as the proof is in some sense a description of "how these objects interact," any description that fails to include one of these fields is going to be inadequate even for framing a broad outline. Even if the idea that lead to Wile's final proof was simple, one needs all of this machinery to even comprehend what it means.

The issue in physics is similar, but distinct. Equations are one thing, and anyone can write a story about a physicist staring at a peice of paper and yelling "Eureka!" But giving these equations physical meaning is another. It is becoming more and more common for physical meanings to be given in terms of complex mathematical constructs, and for the expositor, we're back at the trouble above.

That said, magazines like Scientific American and shows like Nova do make people interested in mathematics, if only because they're so incomplete. And they can serve as an introductory guide to the literature. But their value as informative sources is nil.

I know I can't wait to feel Ken Ryker's big one in my hands!

I know I can't wait to feel Ken Ryker's big one in my hands!

Who said there's a unique center of the universe? Not me. I know my 2 year-old thinks SHE's the center of the universe, but it will be a year or two before she can submit such a tightly reasoned post to Slashdot.

who says spacetime existed at all before the Big Bang? Not me - it may be meaningless to talk about "before."

Maybe try reading this. I don't agree with everything he says (e.g., no evidence that faith is innate IMO), but at least it's not incoherent rubbish. It seems from the conversations I've had that nearly all thoughtful, well educated Christians now reject the GotG.

Also, I'd recommend lsitening to (or at least reading the libretto of) Schoenberg's Moses und Aron . In addition to being one of the greatest achievements in music in the last 100 years, it's a powerful meditation on theism (Schoenberg was a Jew).

Woz was blue boxing (a felony btw), but he did not invent it.

Here's the real story of the blue box.

Java limited people to one language, a language that many coders didn't like.

Which language would that be, then? Would it be BASIC, or COBOL or ADA or Python or FORTH or PASCAL or C or PERL or FORTRAN or LISP or Scheme or Smalltalk or one of these?

In fact, surprise, surprise, there are over 200 different programming languages you can use to write Java VM programs in.

The most succinct Vinge quote that I can think of is:

• To the question, "Will there ever be a computer as smart as a human?" I think the correct answer is, "Well, yes. . . very briefly."

Joe Engressia from Tennessee. Blind and pitch-perfect. Started phreaking aged 8. didn't need a Cap'n Crunch whitle to get his 2600. Becaume a bit of a cause celebre around 1971. Calls himself Joybubbles now.

more about Joybubbles here TomV

See the ase-linux-list for more info on large db's and raw i/o. mailing list archive.

However, replication server is not supported. yet. I think this is going to be a showstopper for you, eh?

Again see the list for more info.

http://www.sybase.com/linux/

michael peppler's home page

Well, why *shouldn't* Linux stay this way (or at least take its own sweet time to become something else)?

Keeping Linux as a pet project only promotes its exclusivity. The question arises, is Linux being built to make the world a better place or to prove just how smart its programmers are? If it is the former, then Linux supporters need to demonstrate its usefulness in the Real World. If it's just a ego booster, then Linux supporters should make that clear to the industry and accept the loss of support. What is the point of promoting Linux if you don't plan to use it? And who then determines if and when Linux becomes a viable product?

Open source software depends on the masses to design, create, test and implement it. Creating Linux and then not using it for useful, practical, day-to-day, general computing just becomes a form of mental masterbation. It's solving Fermat's Last Theorem, but with a lot less fanfare.

Currently Linux is viable. It is useful. It does exist as a Real World solution. To pull back now would be to condemn Linux to the same status as the logo programming language.

-S. Louie