Actually (and I'm considering suicide for saying this), if the only requirement is fast startup, WinME would be the best choice (I really can't believe I typed that). It's only advantages were the mentioned System Restore and the removal of DOS support, which carried with it a much faster boot.
I think this only shows how little information the OP gave us. Evidently anything is a better choice than WinME for any computer that has to run anything, but if all we know is that it will be off for most of the time and it has to boot quickly, it's a perfect WinME scenario. You take advantage of its only strength, and you don't have to use it all the time.
I see we're revising history now. Pluto was indeed a planet from roughly the time of its discover until it was reclassified in 2006.
And Ceres was a planet for almost one century, before the other asteroids were discovered and it became clear that its classification should be changed.
It has happened before. "Classification" in science changes as we get more information about the objects being classified. This is exactly what makes science "science", the ability to see previous errors and correct them, giving us a better understanding of the universe. This is the scientific method in action.
I have an S2, not an S3. I've never installed any Canon software on any of my computers. I can plug it to any computer, and any PTP-compatible software can grab the pictures, using any MiniUSB cable.
Try it. DigiKam (using gphoto as the backend) and iPhoto never had any trouble with it. No idea on the Windows side, though.
They will annihilate after some time (the particle's lifetime), but they can be bound together for some time before that happens. Another good example is the \pi^0 (neutral pion), which is made of up and anti-up (or down and anti-down) quarks. It decays after some time to two photons.
I don't know what is the lifetime of this \eta_b particle or its main decay branch (I haven't RTF BaBar's A and I'm not a QCD specialist), but it should be very short, and the main decay channel should be hadronic (ie, particle jets).
Depending on how it works, I know I care. If I can write basic Fortran/C/C++ code and have it running on an ultra-multithreaded core, I'm all for it. If their "physics" includes real physics (event simulation, data analysis, differential/integral equation solving, etc) this will be a HUGE boost to scientific productivity. Add two or three $200 boards on a standard, quad-core PC and you'll have more power than a lot of clusters out there, for a fraction of the cost.
That is the point, it HAS been explored trillions of time already.
Cosmic rays travel through the Universe with enough energies to boil a cup of water (in one single proton). That's up to 100 000 000 times more energy than the LHC. Those particles collide with everything, at a rate of a few per square kilometer per millenium. It might seem small, but consider the size and lifetime of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, etc; combined. Particles whose interactions with the atmosphere would have the same energy as the LHC's collisions hit us more than 100 times per day per square kilometer. Over the lifetime of the Earth, every event that can happen in 10 years of LHC operation would already have happened hundreds of thousands of times on the Earth alone. Since we're here, there's clearly no need to worry.
Exactly. He seems to be opening the door for a possibly very constructive dialog between the number one player in the mobile arena and the FLOSS world. Hopefully, both parties will come out stronger and closer in the end.
The inflammatory, anti-corporate view may seem more interesting, but people should read it again with a cool head. "We are not yet ready to play by the [FLOSS world's] rules", and neither is the FLOSS world (yet) ready to play by the mobile industry's rules. Only by communicating those rules, expectations and prejudices can be removed so that we can all play by the same rules.
You can't seriously expect phone manufacturers to remove the possibility of a SIM lock. You can't also seriously expect FLOSS developers not to want the modifications you made to their code to make the phone lockable. But if we want to work together (and we do), we need to find a way that makes everyone happy. This was his point, not "GIMME DRM IN LINUX OR I'LL KILL QT!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!"
I disagree. By using what you consider inferior software just because it's Free, you are telling the developers they don't need to improve their software. By advocating and using the best, you increase the drive for the other players to improve their products instead of sitting on their asses thinking they don't need to optimize much, only enough to be better than IE. Even though Mozilla doesn't do this, their drive to improve would be bigger if people would just use what works best, instead of saying "I won't use Opera because it used to cost money/isn't Free Software" or "I won't use Safari because Apple added it to iTunes's update/Apple created it".
Use what is the best for you. Even if you like Firefox's ideal, using Opera, Safari or whatever works best for you will help them improve by creating more pressure from below.
Yes, but which one did you play first? My point is that in general, people prefer one of the two. In 99% of the cases, they prefer VI if they played VI before VII, and VII if they played VII before VI.
In my experience, those who played VI before VII think VI is better. Those who played VII before became spoiled by the video sequences and graphics, and couldn't stand playing VI - so they think VII is better.
Sugar cane is grown mainly in the continental area of São Paulo state, where rain forests don't exist since the 1800s (or even earlier). The Amazon's climate is too hot for sugar cane to grow, and the soil isn't adequate. Growing it there would be as productive as growing coconuts in Alaska.
Actually, "clearing the neighbourhood" has a very precise definition in the Stern-Levison parameter, one that can be applied to all planets, solar or extrasolar. It doesn't mean "nothing else crosses its orbit", it only means it is the clear dominant gravitational source in its orbital region. See that this parameter allows a very clear separation between planets and dwarf planets. Of course the mass discriminant is a better parameter for that, but Stern-Levinson allows a clear separation if we can't access the mass distribution.
Sorry, but this is science. It evolves. As new facts appear, we see that old definitions weren't good, old theories were flawed or invalid in some limits, etc. In this case, the discovery of lots of objects in the same region as Pluto was always a problem for its classification as a planet. When a few other objects almost as big as Pluto were discovered at the same region, it was clear that a position had to be taken. When Eris, which is bigger than Pluto, was found on the same region, a decision became mandatory. Would we classify all of those bodies as planets? Only some? Where should the line be drawn?
The final decision was pretty consistent. Define "planet" in a hard, binary way. It settled the case, and whenever a new object is found we can tell if it's a planet or not very quickly. No confusion on whether Sedna, Ceres, etc. should be planets or not. This is very good in the long run.
Actually, something similar happened more than 200 years ago already. Books had to be changed, but the world kept going, and the bodies whose classification changed stay there.
The IAU definition only needs to change "Sun" for "a star" to apply to any extra-solar planet. We can use the Sternâ"Levison parameter Î for any object, so we can define if it has cleared its neighbourhood without being there. Now this "Plutoid" definition doesn't generalize easily.
And yes, Ceres isn't a plutoid by this definition, despite having cleared its neighbourhood more than Eris or Pluto. If there is any good scientific reason for that, it eludes me.
*sigh*
The new definition of "planet" was quite good. Clear, straight to the point, and easy to apply to any object. Now, they add a new category that applies only to our solar system?
Okay, we won't be seeing objects this small on other star systems, but the point remains. We are already at a time when we know these objects should exist in many other places in the universe. The classification shouldn't depend on their position inside our solar system, it should be generic enough that we won't have to change it (again) when we see one of those around Alpha Centaurii. I thought this was the single most important thing to come out of the previous discussion about what should be considered a "planet".
No, the competitor is Symbian. It holds almost 2/3rds of the total smartphone market, and has a bigger application ecosystem than WM, Palm, Blackbery or the iPhone.
M-theory is a string theory that can be simplified to any of the previous five "string theory" frameworks. It has basically nothing new.
Also, the previous string frameworks were exactly solvable in a 10-D space, the new "M" framework is exactly solvable in a 11-D space. This doesn't mean they need spacetime to have 10 or 11 dimensions.
//not a string theorist, but spent enough time in their lair to know something about it.
It's highly unlikely. The huge neutrino flux happens for a simple reason: the SN process generates lots of neutrinos continually, but they are trapped in a very high density medium. It's exactly the same thing that happens to photons in the sun: they basically can't escape due to the high density. However, the supernova keeps expanding until its density reaches a critical point where it's not high enough to trap the neutrinos. At this instant, they escape almost all at once.
Of course, the fact that current simulations cannot explode a supernova in 3D (only in 1D and perhaps in 2D) shows that we still don't know a lot about them; but still, since all the numbers seem to agree with this idea, and it's hard to imagine this amount of neutrinos being produced at once by the SN. It has to be the result of an integrated flux.
The most interesting part is that the neutrino should be Majorana. In QFT, if a term is not forbidden by any symmetry, it is mandatory. There is no symmetry preventing a Majorana mass term for the neutrinos, so that term must exist within the current standard model. Of course, a Dirac term must exist too, so the real question is which term is dominant, and therefore how does the neutrino behave? Depending on the parameters, this will be energy dependent, so we need to know about them (not the mass-squared differences, but the actual mass terms on the Lagrangian) before making any predictions. (IAANP, a neutrino physicist).
They could, either via sufficiently complicated Feynman diagrams or if their magnetic moment isn't zero (as it has to be). Anyway, the cross section should be orders of magnitude smaller than the weak ones.
About the GP's quote on SN1987A, there is still some controversy. There actually were some events recorded at the Mont Blanc experiment more than four hours before the Kamiokande, Bakun and IMB detections. If you don't disregard any of the data, you have a time spacing between the first and the last SN1987A neutrinos of almost 4.5 hours. This points to either a high mass difference between the three mass eigenstates or a possibility of breaking the equivalence principle (or, more remotely, the possibility of tachyonic movement).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually (and I'm considering suicide for saying this), if the only requirement is fast startup, WinME would be the best choice (I really can't believe I typed that). It's only advantages were the mentioned System Restore and the removal of DOS support, which carried with it a much faster boot.
I think this only shows how little information the OP gave us. Evidently anything is a better choice than WinME for any computer that has to run anything, but if all we know is that it will be off for most of the time and it has to boot quickly, it's a perfect WinME scenario. You take advantage of its only strength, and you don't have to use it all the time.
I see we're revising history now. Pluto was indeed a planet from roughly the time of its discover until it was reclassified in 2006.
And Ceres was a planet for almost one century, before the other asteroids were discovered and it became clear that its classification should be changed.
It has happened before. "Classification" in science changes as we get more information about the objects being classified. This is exactly what makes science "science", the ability to see previous errors and correct them, giving us a better understanding of the universe. This is the scientific method in action.
I have an S2, not an S3. I've never installed any Canon software on any of my computers. I can plug it to any computer, and any PTP-compatible software can grab the pictures, using any MiniUSB cable.
Try it. DigiKam (using gphoto as the backend) and iPhoto never had any trouble with it. No idea on the Windows side, though.
So, since it's "not 4.0", just call it "4.-1.0"! :)
They will annihilate after some time (the particle's lifetime), but they can be bound together for some time before that happens. Another good example is the \pi^0 (neutral pion), which is made of up and anti-up (or down and anti-down) quarks. It decays after some time to two photons.
I don't know what is the lifetime of this \eta_b particle or its main decay branch (I haven't RTF BaBar's A and I'm not a QCD specialist), but it should be very short, and the main decay channel should be hadronic (ie, particle jets).
Depending on how it works, I know I care. If I can write basic Fortran/C/C++ code and have it running on an ultra-multithreaded core, I'm all for it. If their "physics" includes real physics (event simulation, data analysis, differential/integral equation solving, etc) this will be a HUGE boost to scientific productivity. Add two or three $200 boards on a standard, quad-core PC and you'll have more power than a lot of clusters out there, for a fraction of the cost.
33353359? Or 3353359? Should I count the two times that "3" appears, or only once like 353 and 359?
And remember: the value for the Japanese isn't an "average", it's "you're so fat you have to pay more taxes"
Ok, perhaps "with the same energy as a typical Federer sevice" is a better image.
That is the point, it HAS been explored trillions of time already.
Cosmic rays travel through the Universe with enough energies to boil a cup of water (in one single proton). That's up to 100 000 000 times more energy than the LHC. Those particles collide with everything, at a rate of a few per square kilometer per millenium. It might seem small, but consider the size and lifetime of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, etc; combined. Particles whose interactions with the atmosphere would have the same energy as the LHC's collisions hit us more than 100 times per day per square kilometer. Over the lifetime of the Earth, every event that can happen in 10 years of LHC operation would already have happened hundreds of thousands of times on the Earth alone. Since we're here, there's clearly no need to worry.
Exactly. He seems to be opening the door for a possibly very constructive dialog between the number one player in the mobile arena and the FLOSS world. Hopefully, both parties will come out stronger and closer in the end.
The inflammatory, anti-corporate view may seem more interesting, but people should read it again with a cool head. "We are not yet ready to play by the [FLOSS world's] rules", and neither is the FLOSS world (yet) ready to play by the mobile industry's rules. Only by communicating those rules, expectations and prejudices can be removed so that we can all play by the same rules.
You can't seriously expect phone manufacturers to remove the possibility of a SIM lock. You can't also seriously expect FLOSS developers not to want the modifications you made to their code to make the phone lockable. But if we want to work together (and we do), we need to find a way that makes everyone happy. This was his point, not "GIMME DRM IN LINUX OR I'LL KILL QT!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!"
yes they do.
I disagree. By using what you consider inferior software just because it's Free, you are telling the developers they don't need to improve their software. By advocating and using the best, you increase the drive for the other players to improve their products instead of sitting on their asses thinking they don't need to optimize much, only enough to be better than IE. Even though Mozilla doesn't do this, their drive to improve would be bigger if people would just use what works best, instead of saying "I won't use Opera because it used to cost money/isn't Free Software" or "I won't use Safari because Apple added it to iTunes's update/Apple created it".
Use what is the best for you. Even if you like Firefox's ideal, using Opera, Safari or whatever works best for you will help them improve by creating more pressure from below.
Yes, but which one did you play first? My point is that in general, people prefer one of the two. In 99% of the cases, they prefer VI if they played VI before VII, and VII if they played VII before VI.
In my experience, those who played VI before VII think VI is better. Those who played VII before became spoiled by the video sequences and graphics, and couldn't stand playing VI - so they think VII is better.
Sugar cane is grown mainly in the continental area of São Paulo state, where rain forests don't exist since the 1800s (or even earlier). The Amazon's climate is too hot for sugar cane to grow, and the soil isn't adequate. Growing it there would be as productive as growing coconuts in Alaska.
Actually, "clearing the neighbourhood" has a very precise definition in the Stern-Levison parameter, one that can be applied to all planets, solar or extrasolar. It doesn't mean "nothing else crosses its orbit", it only means it is the clear dominant gravitational source in its orbital region. See that this parameter allows a very clear separation between planets and dwarf planets. Of course the mass discriminant is a better parameter for that, but Stern-Levinson allows a clear separation if we can't access the mass distribution.
Sorry, but this is science. It evolves. As new facts appear, we see that old definitions weren't good, old theories were flawed or invalid in some limits, etc. In this case, the discovery of lots of objects in the same region as Pluto was always a problem for its classification as a planet. When a few other objects almost as big as Pluto were discovered at the same region, it was clear that a position had to be taken. When Eris, which is bigger than Pluto, was found on the same region, a decision became mandatory. Would we classify all of those bodies as planets? Only some? Where should the line be drawn?
The final decision was pretty consistent. Define "planet" in a hard, binary way. It settled the case, and whenever a new object is found we can tell if it's a planet or not very quickly. No confusion on whether Sedna, Ceres, etc. should be planets or not. This is very good in the long run.
Actually, something similar happened more than 200 years ago already. Books had to be changed, but the world kept going, and the bodies whose classification changed stay there.
The IAU definition only needs to change "Sun" for "a star" to apply to any extra-solar planet. We can use the Sternâ"Levison parameter Î for any object, so we can define if it has cleared its neighbourhood without being there. Now this "Plutoid" definition doesn't generalize easily.
And yes, Ceres isn't a plutoid by this definition, despite having cleared its neighbourhood more than Eris or Pluto. If there is any good scientific reason for that, it eludes me.
*sigh*
The new definition of "planet" was quite good. Clear, straight to the point, and easy to apply to any object. Now, they add a new category that applies only to our solar system?
Okay, we won't be seeing objects this small on other star systems, but the point remains. We are already at a time when we know these objects should exist in many other places in the universe. The classification shouldn't depend on their position inside our solar system, it should be generic enough that we won't have to change it (again) when we see one of those around Alpha Centaurii. I thought this was the single most important thing to come out of the previous discussion about what should be considered a "planet".
No, the competitor is Symbian. It holds almost 2/3rds of the total smartphone market, and has a bigger application ecosystem than WM, Palm, Blackbery or the iPhone.
M-theory is a string theory that can be simplified to any of the previous five "string theory" frameworks. It has basically nothing new.
//not a string theorist, but spent enough time in their lair to know something about it.
Also, the previous string frameworks were exactly solvable in a 10-D space, the new "M" framework is exactly solvable in a 11-D space. This doesn't mean they need spacetime to have 10 or 11 dimensions.
It's highly unlikely. The huge neutrino flux happens for a simple reason: the SN process generates lots of neutrinos continually, but they are trapped in a very high density medium. It's exactly the same thing that happens to photons in the sun: they basically can't escape due to the high density. However, the supernova keeps expanding until its density reaches a critical point where it's not high enough to trap the neutrinos. At this instant, they escape almost all at once. Of course, the fact that current simulations cannot explode a supernova in 3D (only in 1D and perhaps in 2D) shows that we still don't know a lot about them; but still, since all the numbers seem to agree with this idea, and it's hard to imagine this amount of neutrinos being produced at once by the SN. It has to be the result of an integrated flux.
The most interesting part is that the neutrino should be Majorana. In QFT, if a term is not forbidden by any symmetry, it is mandatory. There is no symmetry preventing a Majorana mass term for the neutrinos, so that term must exist within the current standard model. Of course, a Dirac term must exist too, so the real question is which term is dominant, and therefore how does the neutrino behave? Depending on the parameters, this will be energy dependent, so we need to know about them (not the mass-squared differences, but the actual mass terms on the Lagrangian) before making any predictions. (IAANP, a neutrino physicist).
They could, either via sufficiently complicated Feynman diagrams or if their magnetic moment isn't zero (as it has to be). Anyway, the cross section should be orders of magnitude smaller than the weak ones. About the GP's quote on SN1987A, there is still some controversy. There actually were some events recorded at the Mont Blanc experiment more than four hours before the Kamiokande, Bakun and IMB detections. If you don't disregard any of the data, you have a time spacing between the first and the last SN1987A neutrinos of almost 4.5 hours. This points to either a high mass difference between the three mass eigenstates or a possibility of breaking the equivalence principle (or, more remotely, the possibility of tachyonic movement).