You can verify that two events are simultaneous. But this fact is tied to where and the state of motion of how you set up your coordinate system. So this supernova did go off millions of years ago. But if you were travelling really fast towards it, you will see it brighten and dim, as all supernova do, in much shorter times.
The problem is that creationism in the US is a political movement. Sure they may make a few valid points here and there, but their whole motivation is to discredit evolution, and advance their own social and political agendas. They aren't interested in science or the truth. Addressing their one or two valid criticisms can only take place in to an audience receptive to the it, and not to zealots who aren't interested.
This is the only real way to respond to mobs. Appeal to reason when one is strong, so that the reasonable people in the mob can defect.
In the end, it is reason that should rule, and that's all that matters.
You are generally right, but his point about bad GC is still right. *Right* *now*, GCs are still badly designed, leading to hangs at odd times. So his decision to stick with C++ until they've ironed out these bad implementations is a perfectly good reason.
As an exercise, you might want to consider coding for the AI of the future. It's definitely easier, but we are not there yet. The argument is about how good it is now, and not how good an ideal GC is.
Imagine if Einstein's discoveries led him directly to the design of the first atomic powerplant. I suspect he would have patented the sucker as fast as he could have.
Consider Feynman, who thought the applications of Nuclear reactors obvious. Take it, stick it on a submarine and use it for propoulsion. That's a nuclear powered submarine. Take it and use it to drive a rocket - a nuclear powered rocket. And someone got him to patent it for $1! And in return, there are some who think him an expert on nuclear reocketry.
The lesson is this: capitalism is great, but don't try to understand everyone's motivations in those terms. You will fail.
The chief aspect of Unix is its malleability and extensibility. As new, important things get discovered, it gets folded into the kernel, or some user level program. I don't think the years old kernsl had encrytion for example. But modern unices have that. Journalling FS? Didn't have it, but as soon as someone had the idea, it made it into kernels, free and nonfree. Need a windowing system? X.
There's got to be somethings that can be improved. The only question is - can it be improved to the point where the changes get closed off, so that other implementors of Unix cannot study and learn from your product? If you do that, when however brilliant your new improvements will be lost, in the long term.
What? And pay $19 bucks for that? Of course one goes to the site in question first and looks at their advertising. If their advertisement is not impressive, what more can you expect?
That is true. But then LucasFilm does the have the right to do as they have done. Becuase it is status as a parody is questionable.
In the same vein, you could say that slashdot should never have put that on the front page, giving these guys their notoriety.
Re:Porn protected, political speech not.
on
Star Ballz Trumps Lucas
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What you really have to realize is that colleges havent been about education or advancement of the arts
and sciences in a very long time. They are money making enterprises, and anything that gets in the way of
that will be stomped.
Why should you have watch anything to see that it is not worth your time? Do you read every book in the bookstore? Do you surf every website out there?
You word your protests in phrases that have hypocritical undertones. I wonder if you actually know this.
That said, this is what I'll call pornography with no redeeming values. Unlike Mel Brook's excellent parody and satire, what insight does this piece of hentai cast upon the Star Wars universe or ethos that Mel Brooks and David Brin have not?
But of course, there is no accounting for tastes. Opinions like mine have gone of fashion and are unfairly branded as elitist. It's justice, I suppose, to see that the only way the defenders of this puerile piece of junk can justify themselves is to attack the moralists.
And one final piece advise for those who would say this is "judging a book by the cover": Life is short, and 90% of anything is crap. It's pretty obvious which side of the 90% this piece of crap from. Did the judge rule correctly? Yes - speech should not be denied. That means that I am free to give you a piece of my mind on a forum like slasdot. ("If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can ever imagine.")
When I posed this question to one of my physics professors at
Caltech back in my student days, he came up with nothing better than that, either.
That in fact is a very good explanation for what is going on.
The "escape velocity" explanation is basically expressing an energy requirement. It is not insightful, like the light cone explanation becuase the light cone (when visuallized) shows you exactly which trajectories are possible. They all head towards the blackhole. The whole idea is that you cannot overtake the speed of light.
So why is the answer not satisfying? Being a physics TA, I have to understand the misunderstandings of students. It would be very helpful to me to understand why the answer is not satisfying.
Sigh. The escape velocity is simply another way to express the idea of kinetic energy. Becuase of the virial theorem wherein the kinetic energy is twice the total energy, you can express the escapability condition as a lower limit of velocity.
You will always need an infinite amount of energy to get towards light speed. But if even light, moving as fast as it does, gets dragged into the blackhole, you will need an infinite amount energy to escape. You can't!
I like the way you are thinking. But regarding contracts - that is just a way of ensuring some minimal amount of agreement. If the contract is not lengthy or full of disclaimers, it can be made simple. You have a good point - the US is too inefficient becuase of the lawyerese. Some amount is definitely essential, but the system is definitely broken in the US.
On the other hand, when Adobe walks away from a market just like that, without seeking further solutions, that is not a crime. Just pure plain lack of vision and stupidity.
To extend the argument further, there are hordes of Chinese people who speak only Chinese. Once the Chinese version of GIMP appears, which do you think they will choose? GIMP or Photoshop? Are cultural concerns are secondary to the feature-list? Is this good for Adobe?
I maintain that Adobe is not thinking far ahead. Anyone who thinks that far ought to realize that they may not be around for that long. So perhaps the consideration should be about marketshare and standards compliance?
The problem is most people aren't that far thinking. And far thinking is a matter of degree. You might think that anticipating 5 years into the future is far, but someone who can see 10 years may regard your "maximized greed" as "stupid and foolish".
There is a natural timescale involved, I am sure. But that wants more arguing. And I would say that depends on the field and the area of work. In the software market, 1 year is considered long.
Slashdot Mirror
You can verify that two events are simultaneous. But this fact is tied to where and the state of motion of how you set up your coordinate system. So this supernova did go off millions of years ago. But if you were travelling really fast towards it, you will see it brighten and dim, as all supernova do, in much shorter times.
Someone once attempted to calculate the probability of a supernova happening close enough to the Earth, that it will cause significant damage to life.
This is the only real way to respond to mobs. Appeal to reason when one is strong, so that the reasonable people in the mob can defect.
In the end, it is reason that should rule, and that's all that matters.
As for your observation of "Muslim" country, I suggest that your take your focus off Afghanistan, and look at Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, etc.
As an exercise, you might want to consider coding for the AI of the future. It's definitely easier, but we are not there yet. The argument is about how good it is now, and not how good an ideal GC is.
Consider Feynman, who thought the applications of Nuclear reactors obvious. Take it, stick it on a submarine and use it for propoulsion. That's a nuclear powered submarine. Take it and use it to drive a rocket - a nuclear powered rocket. And someone got him to patent it for $1! And in return, there are some who think him an expert on nuclear reocketry.
The lesson is this: capitalism is great, but don't try to understand everyone's motivations in those terms. You will fail.
Imagine getting paid by the SEC to make up stuff about a non-existent company. Where do I sign up?
If you start me up, start me up and I'll never stop crashing.
There's got to be somethings that can be improved. The only question is - can it be improved to the point where the changes get closed off, so that other implementors of Unix cannot study and learn from your product? If you do that, when however brilliant your new improvements will be lost, in the long term.
A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-I-O-N
What? And pay $19 bucks for that? Of course one goes to the site in question first and looks at their advertising. If their advertisement is not impressive, what more can you expect?
In the same vein, you could say that slashdot should never have put that on the front page, giving these guys their notoriety.
When was this? Give me a date.
Why should you have watch anything to see that it is not worth your time? Do you read every book in the bookstore? Do you surf every website out there?
That said, this is what I'll call pornography with no redeeming values. Unlike Mel Brook's excellent parody and satire, what insight does this piece of hentai cast upon the Star Wars universe or ethos that Mel Brooks and David Brin have not?
But of course, there is no accounting for tastes. Opinions like mine have gone of fashion and are unfairly branded as elitist. It's justice, I suppose, to see that the only way the defenders of this puerile piece of junk can justify themselves is to attack the moralists.
And one final piece advise for those who would say this is "judging a book by the cover": Life is short, and 90% of anything is crap. It's pretty obvious which side of the 90% this piece of crap from. Did the judge rule correctly? Yes - speech should not be denied. That means that I am free to give you a piece of my mind on a forum like slasdot. ("If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can ever imagine.")
The "escape velocity" explanation is basically expressing an energy requirement. It is not insightful, like the light cone explanation becuase the light cone (when visuallized) shows you exactly which trajectories are possible. They all head towards the blackhole. The whole idea is that you cannot overtake the speed of light.
So why is the answer not satisfying? Being a physics TA, I have to understand the misunderstandings of students. It would be very helpful to me to understand why the answer is not satisfying.
You will always need an infinite amount of energy to get towards light speed. But if even light, moving as fast as it does, gets dragged into the blackhole, you will need an infinite amount energy to escape. You can't!
I like the way you are thinking. But regarding contracts - that is just a way of ensuring some minimal amount of agreement. If the contract is not lengthy or full of disclaimers, it can be made simple. You have a good point - the US is too inefficient becuase of the lawyerese. Some amount is definitely essential, but the system is definitely broken in the US.
Why not? It's not as if the businessman must actually follow the advice right? Doesn't (potential) consumer feedback factor in somewhere?
Here's a hint. Find an agent in China. Get him to print and box the documentation. Let him keep the a large share of the profits.
You Randians sound really goofy when you think Adobe has clout in a pirate haven. I think the Ant shrugged, and walked away from the foodpile.
On the other hand, when Adobe walks away from a market just like that, without seeking further solutions, that is not a crime. Just pure plain lack of vision and stupidity.
I maintain that Adobe is not thinking far ahead. Anyone who thinks that far ought to realize that they may not be around for that long. So perhaps the consideration should be about marketshare and standards compliance?
To the moderator who moderated this while scratching your head with the thinking hat off: please explain. Don't moderate becuase you disagree, moron.
There is a natural timescale involved, I am sure. But that wants more arguing. And I would say that depends on the field and the area of work. In the software market, 1 year is considered long.