This is way too late for anyone to actually read, but here goes. The second law of thermodynamics can be derived from the first, and elementary probability theory. Only if you can imagine that a world where the probability of rolling a 7 on two dice is the same as rolling a 12, can you imagine a world without entropy. While your single elementary particle world may not have energy dissipating (though it's probably meaningful to talk about the entropy in the vaccum energy), any world sufficiently complex to have homeopathy will have entropy:)
1 a : DEDUCTIVE b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions -- compare A POSTERIORI c : presupposed by experience 2 a : being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand
Certainly the fact that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics gives rise to a definition 2(a) or 2(b) reason why it's impossible. If you're unwilling to consider the laws of thermodynamics "self evident propositions", then there can't be any a priori reasons that anything in science can't happen, and the demand for a priori reasons becomes an absurd request (because it means that we must exhaustively search theough every possible experiment, and cannot use physical law to guide us). And if we do take it as self evident that a theory that breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false.... then that is an a priori reason to reject homeopathy....
Give me an a priori reason why homeopathy can't work.
Because if it's below the dilution limit, there's none of the stuff you've diluted in there, and the "imprinting" idea would mean all of statistical mechanis (and probably the scond law of thermodynamics) are wrong. (If some configurations are more likely than others after dilution (which is what imprinting wuld imply), and there's no forces keeping them that way (because there's no molecules), you've got something that could go to a higher entropy state (where it's in a boltzmann weighted set of configurations) and it's not...
Basically it is believed that it is very unlikely that you can do quantum simulation on a classical computer.
You mean "it is very unlikely that you can do quantum simulation on a classical computer in polynomial time". Since I make my living doing quantum simulation on classical computers I'm pretty certain it can be done.
Err, actually, though, a huge focus of this work has been to make the computer more responsive to interactive tasks, making it seem faster and smoother, without making the OS suck in a server environment. It's been done precisely in order to make linux on the desktop work better, the desktop distros can set the thing to be smooth and responsive to desktop users, the server users can make it churn out SQL queries faster, and everyone wins, what's the problem?
Err, no, the only BSD flavor (I know of) to be implementing SELinux-like mandatory Access control is Trusted BSD. Not to knock the BSD's, just SELinux doesn't do what you think it does.
Is EAL worthwhile or is it an "inadequate set of requirements"? Is EAL 4 worse than EAL 3?
Most importantly, the EAL tells only half the story. There are 2 components, the PP (Protection Profile), which specifies what security features you're trying to provide, and the EAL (Evaluation Assurance Level) which tells you how certain the people evaluating it are that it meets the profile. Windows 2000 was certified against CAPP (the Controlled Access Protection Profile) to EAL4, The CAPP is, well, hopelessly inadequate. Now Suse is certified to EAL3 also against CAPP. So we now know that we can be almost as certain that Suse provides at least the same inadequate security as Windows is certified to provide. Either or both may provide some security beyond that in CAPP, which is not evaluated. So while this is probably a good thing for Suse (makes paperwork in selling to the government easier) it's hardly a ringing endorsement of anything. now, for example, Trusted Solaris is also certified to EAL4, but against the LSPP (which is a superset of the CAPP profile) and RBAC profiles, and is therefore somewhat more meaningful (however the PP still assumes that the system is not hooked up to a public network:).
double snort. Did you know its not possible to make a typo type syntax error in fortran 77 that will compile? hard to believe I know but its true. ( You cant misplace a plus sign or comma or leave off a [] and have it compile.
Maybe if you're using implicit none. And no functions, the lack of function declarations in f77 mean in multi-file programs, that you can leave off arguments, not quite a typo, but..)
At the point where Linux "sales" exceed Microsoft's sales, will that make Linux the "wrong thing" because it "sells its products at a loss to shut out a smaller competitor"?
"Linux" is not a market actor. There is no barrier to entry to the market for Linux distribution, therefore there cannot practically be a Linux monopoly (Linux may be the only operating system, but the GPL prevents anyone from using Linux's ubiquity to assert monopoly power over the market for Operating Systems).
But being beaten out by Linux and having only a choice of Linux is not market variability either.
Even in that scenario there will be multiple providers of Linux (even if it's just your friend Bob burning you a CD).
At least with Microsoft, when I want something done, I didn't have to pay the entire development cost of what I wanted in order to get some response because someone else might want that thing, too.
With Linux you don't need to pay for the amortized development costs of features you don't want, either, and you neglet the possibility that you could co-operate with the other people who want the same things as you to pay the shared cost. Might not be able to, but it does seem to be occuring in the marketplace, with multiple companies contributing to the same bits of code.
With free software, there's no one who stands to make subscription money on the mere development of extensions and fixes, so I stand to get charged more for anything not available out of the box.
Could happen, doesn't seem to be.
But once they've knocked down that competition, I suspect they'll get lazy and start releasing buggy versions first time out of the box, making me pay if I want a working version.
You seem to be assuming a monopoly of Linux providers. Given the relatively small barriers to entry to selling Linux distributions, I consider this unlikely. People who program for the joy of programming are going to compete to make the best code, people programming so they can sell linix distributions will compete with each other.
However, if the person has a good knowledge and understanding of how current biological processes work in human beings and how viruses, bacteria, etc. work and how to treat those symptoms, they would probably make an ok doctor, don't you think?
Can we include the reasons for the rise and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria? (Of course, they arise through evolution, but hey:)
The reason why Hindenberg was so slow in his development is because he was a practical physicist, and not theoretical, and thereby couldn't construct the most efficient shape for a sustained reaction.
The correct shape is a sphere. the theory required to determine this is trivial (neutropns are lost over the surface area of the device, they're captured over it's volume, spheres have the highest volume/surface area ratio of any solid. Ta-daa. (figuring out the correct construction of an implosion-type bomb is harder, but not that much)
And if you mean that since he was a theoritician, instead of an experimentalist (Which Heisenberg was), ummm... couldn't he get machinists?
It's not the radioactivity of the carbon. It's the Uranium and Thorium impurities in the coal. The best reference I know is Oak Ridge National Laboratory's papr on Coal Combustion
There's major improvements on this being done in the 2.5 kernel, to allow it to spot interactive tasks better, and boost their performance without tweaking kernel parameters. Linus agrees forcefully that you shouldn't need to tweak paramters to get good performance.
Modern wood isn't very chemically "safe" -- various treatments involve chemicals you wouldn't otherwise like to be exposed to.
Yeah, like pitch and tar, and turpentine. What, you think the smell of fresh-cut wood is made purely of stuff that's good for you? Why is it that these people mysteriously are allergic to only "synthetic" chemicals, but are completely immune to millions and billions of "natural" ones? That's what confuses me.
Why is Adobe safe? Do you screen the dirt used based on what trace elements are in it? Arsenic is often found where iron oxides are found, probably don't want to use red-colored clay then. Sure, modern concrete can give you chemical burns, but so will non-modern concrete. Calcium Oxide has been used as a building material for centuries (in mortar), and just plain isn't good for you.
Glass would seem to be relatively inert, but who knows.
If you have a problem with glass, it's all over. If you have a problem with glass, you're going to have a problem with quartz. And sand. And any other silicate.
I believe the problem is that they don't want to set the precedent thatif someone else comes along they'll move. What happens when someone starts using channel 6, where do they move then? If they'd be justified in saying "we were here first" then, they're justified now... Might as well make sure everyone knows from the outset that you're not an easy mark for when the free channels run out.
FCC Part 15. 15.3(k), most specifically. We have this legislation now. There are limits to how much RF a "digital device" is allowed to put out, and if you go over, and cause interference with other people's radio/TV reception, the FCC can order you to not use it.
Right. Antifreze. The human body is about as salty as seawater. You know, the stuff that was liquid around him? There may be other effects that caused the alcohol to save him, but it's certainly not any anti-freexe effect.
Not to mention that any cashier in the nation can just run a pen down them to see if they're real or not..
Of course, the pens don't work. Most just consist of an iodine solution, that turns black when it comes into contact with the starch in the cheap paper the counterfters supposedly use. (Or the starch in the flour from the pizza store it was in, or the spary starch James Randi uses on $50's just to trip up the pens and make a point).
There's one other effect. Having the source can help you make better bug reports. I often am able to make my bug report much more accurate/useful by narrowing down exactly what the problem is by looking at the source. So even if I do not have the requisite knowledge, talent, and time, the amount I do have should (and I like to think does) help make better bug reports that require less talent/knowledge/time on the part of the maintainers. Having the source also allows a wider sharing of the work in fixing it.
The really hard question, is what do you do when you run out? What process do you kill? the 500MB "/usr/sbin/postgresql" process, or the 450MB "/tmp/3y30wnU/memsucker" process. I routinely run programs as a part of my work that run up to 1 GB of (virtual) memory consumption. I would be... pissed if the kernel killed them off because it thought they were a DOS attack. There really isn't a good solution for how to handle this, you need to make the decisions on a case-by-case basis.
What else, besides carbon are you going to base life on? Silicon is the only other thing that has a chemistry even a fraction as varied as carbon, but forms oxides too readily. We haven't ever seen large-scale organization of nuclear matter (and have pretty good theoretical arguments, why not), so it seems unlikely that there's life based on anything sub-molecular. Don't see how you'd get a stable plasma-based life form.
if you have any plausible suggestions, by all means, make them. But till then, the only way I can see to get life is carbon-based life forms. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm betting on other life forms also being carbon-based. Not proof, but strikes me as a good bet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is way too late for anyone to actually read, but here goes. The second law of thermodynamics can be derived from the first, and elementary probability theory. Only if you can imagine that a world where the probability of rolling a 7 on two dice is the same as rolling a 12, can you imagine a world without entropy. While your single elementary particle world may not have energy dissipating (though it's probably meaningful to talk about the entropy in the vaccum energy), any world sufficiently complex to have homeopathy will have entropy :)
1 a : DEDUCTIVE b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions -- compare A POSTERIORI c : presupposed by experience
2 a : being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand
Certainly the fact that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics gives rise to a definition 2(a) or 2(b) reason why it's impossible. If you're unwilling to consider the laws of thermodynamics "self evident propositions", then there can't be any a priori reasons that anything in science can't happen, and the demand for a priori reasons becomes an absurd request (because it means that we must exhaustively search theough every possible experiment, and cannot use physical law to guide us). And if we do take it as self evident that a theory that breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false.... then that is an a priori reason to reject homeopathy....
You mean "it is very unlikely that you can do quantum simulation on a classical computer in polynomial time". Since I make my living doing quantum simulation on classical computers I'm pretty certain it can be done.
Err, actually, though, a huge focus of this work has been to make the computer more responsive to interactive tasks, making it seem faster and smoother, without making the OS suck in a server environment. It's been done precisely in order to make linux on the desktop work better, the desktop distros can set the thing to be smooth and responsive to desktop users, the server users can make it churn out SQL queries faster, and everyone wins, what's the problem?
Err, no, the only BSD flavor (I know of) to be implementing SELinux-like mandatory Access control is Trusted BSD. Not to knock the BSD's, just SELinux doesn't do what you think it does.
And if you mean that since he was a theoritician, instead of an experimentalist (Which Heisenberg was), ummm... couldn't he get machinists?
you mean leaving the non-fissile U-238. U233 is fissile
It's not the radioactivity of the carbon. It's the Uranium and Thorium impurities in the coal. The best reference I know is Oak Ridge National Laboratory's papr on Coal Combustion
There's major improvements on this being done in the 2.5 kernel, to allow it to spot interactive tasks better, and boost their performance without tweaking kernel parameters. Linus agrees forcefully that you shouldn't need to tweak paramters to get good performance.
Why is Adobe safe? Do you screen the dirt used based on what trace elements are in it? Arsenic is often found where iron oxides are found, probably don't want to use red-colored clay then. Sure, modern concrete can give you chemical burns, but so will non-modern concrete. Calcium Oxide has been used as a building material for centuries (in mortar), and just plain isn't good for you.
If you have a problem with glass, it's all over. If you have a problem with glass, you're going to have a problem with quartz. And sand. And any other silicate.Sorry, just had to prove this was slashdot. And that I'm very, very, old ;)
I believe the problem is that they don't want to set the precedent thatif someone else comes along they'll move. What happens when someone starts using channel 6, where do they move then? If they'd be justified in saying "we were here first" then, they're justified now... Might as well make sure everyone knows from the outset that you're not an easy mark for when the free channels run out.
FCC Part 15. 15.3(k), most specifically. We have this legislation now. There are limits to how much RF a "digital device" is allowed to put out, and if you go over, and cause interference with other people's radio/TV reception, the FCC can order you to not use it.
Right. Antifreze. The human body is about as salty as seawater. You know, the stuff that was liquid around him? There may be other effects that caused the alcohol to save him, but it's certainly not any anti-freexe effect.
There's one other effect. Having the source can help you make better bug reports. I often am able to make my bug report much more accurate/useful by narrowing down exactly what the problem is by looking at the source. So even if I do not have the requisite knowledge, talent, and time, the amount I do have should (and I like to think does) help make better bug reports that require less talent/knowledge/time on the part of the maintainers. Having the source also allows a wider sharing of the work in fixing it.
The really hard question, is what do you do when you run out? What process do you kill? the 500MB "/usr/sbin/postgresql" process, or the 450MB "/tmp/3y30wnU/memsucker" process. I routinely run programs as a part of my work that run up to 1 GB of (virtual) memory consumption. I would be... pissed if the kernel killed them off because it thought they were a DOS attack. There really isn't a good solution for how to handle this, you need to make the decisions on a case-by-case basis.
if you have any plausible suggestions, by all means, make them. But till then, the only way I can see to get life is carbon-based life forms. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm betting on other life forms also being carbon-based. Not proof, but strikes me as a good bet.