Ok, I know it's not any more exciting but why not pit the best computers against eachother.
I mean, I'm sure some Chess geeks would love to follow the game of Deep Blue vs. Deep Junior. We should stop ranking chess players in two seperate categories depending on whether they are human or not.
Let's face it, having a person controlling the board doesn't actually make watching a game of chess any more exciting.
They quote a woman saying that it's like the kids aren't even there. Personlly, I don't see how you can be doing a good job raising your kids if you are excited when it seems like they don't exist.
Granted, kids can be annoying in cars. But if you didn't know that when you had them, you're an idiot. Don't want annoying kids? Don't have kids.
Ok, well... I appreciate such an intelligent response. I can respect that you met some idiots who didn't realize they were idiots while you were at school. I tend to write idiots off, no matter how smart they think they are.
Here's my problem with your counter argument, or perhaps I should say the fundimental misunderstanding of our respective positions; Your definition of "canon" seems to presuppose the book being boring. I majored in classics and I've never heard of "From Dawn to Decadence" I think of things in the "canon" as being "Moby Dick", "Nicomachaean Ethics", "Hard Times", that is classics. Just because some crackpot professor wanted you to read a book because it supported his personal worldview doesn't make that book part of the literary canon.
"fight club", I haven't read it yet, but guess what lots of people haven't read it yet. That's why it's not widely accepted as a part of the literary canon. I'd say, if a book is good enough, it will be part of the canon, so "fight club" isn't much of a counterexample.
On to topic. Imagine you have a friend who's new to video games. Your friend says to you "Wow, video games are so fun, I haven't played many, but I love [insert crappy game here]." I would tell my friend "Whoa, you should try [insert good game here] it's way better than [crappy game]." There are lot's of games I've never tried because I heard they weren't that great, hey maybe I missed some pearls, but I didn't have to blow all of my money on some stupid crap. That's the value of a canon, it's sort of an agreed upon set of good games. I for one wish more game designers would just sit down and play the games lots of people enjoy, so they don't keep reinventing the wheel.
Ok, I might agree that to make games you need to be a gamer. But do you have any basis for your criticism of a literary canon?
a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority.
Have you ever met any of these people? Can you give me an example of a "tweedy snob"?
a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same.
From this I'm going to infer that you haven't read the books because they were too "boring". Again is there any basis for your understanding of "snobby" interpretation? Every literature scholar I've met has been interested in alternate interpretation as long as it was well substantiated.
If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves.
Have you? These must be undergrads, maybe taking their first literature class. I guess I have more intelligent friends than you do.
And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia.
Give me one example of this and I'll give you 20 counterexamples written by people don't ignore the canon.
I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read,
Like what?
while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.
I assume your talking about fantasy novels or something.
It seems to me that you're proving yourself wrong. People need to play lots of games before they can make good games, but god forbid we should make a list of games that are good because they'll just rip them off. C'mon, what if I were an RPGer but I wanted to write a game that incorporated aspects of a genre I knew nothing about you wouldn't tell me what games are good in that genre?
Sorry for the invective, but the only anti-establishment types I respect are those that make good arguments and support them.
Ummm, ok. I hate it when people brag on slashdot about how much hardware they have but, so be it.
If it's a pissing contest you want, you've got it.
Yeah, as I said in another post, I probably have about $15,000 in hardware sitting at my desk right now. I stayed late at work today installing Windows 2003 on a system but it took a while to format the 22 attached hard drives.
Frankly I wouldn't know if IDE or non-ecc memory is ok in servers because I've never really had to bother with it. I've got at least six P4 2.8 Ghz processors sitting at my desk right now, that I haven't put in systems yet.
But, I also know that I've been totally satisfied with a Duron 600Mhz system at home running Gentoo (and Redhat before that) for about three years.
I'll be honest, I don't know how much firewire backups cost. I don't know how much data the OP wants to back up. Considering they're worried about maxing out the UPS, or not having enough AC maybe there are bigger fish to fry than how fancy their backup solution sounds.
The moral of the story is that sometimes people are required to "do the job properly with no resources and no budget" and standing up to the boss won't make money magically appear in the server budget. And if the company goes out of business because they spent all of their money on backups you won't have a job anyway, no matter how many scruples or iotas of professionalism you have.
And yes, off-site backups are required. It totally depends on the situation and budget. Do you keep an offsite backup up of your entire hard drive(s) at home? Probably not, so I guess it's not required in every situation, is it?
Well, anyway whoever you are, Coward, you don't have much business sense because you'd rather piss away money on the hot new thing than spend wisely on just what you need. I hope we're never stranded in the desert together because you'll be brushing your teeth with the last of the water supply.
Yeah, and by the way, OS X doesn't suck. I've never used it as a server, but I don't see how you can really put it down as a desktop OS (who in their right mind buys Apple servers anyway). More user friendly and more powerfull than windows, for a Unix geek anyway.
...if you're going to try to keep the company going, then some sort of offsite backup is essential.
That's a great point and I totally agree. The problem I have is that it sounds like the original poster is pretty short on cash. Something about thinking $15,000 was a lot of money. I work for Intel, and I probably have about that amount of hardware at my desk right now, so I'm maybe a bit jaded (BTW I'm not trying to brag, a tray of processors and memory isn't really that exciting).
The best analogy I can think of would be buying a new spare tire for a car that is low on oil. Great, you've got a backup, too bad your engine is destroyed.
It sounds like before tackling backups the OP will need to tackle things like adequate power and cooling.
On the other hand depending on the budget, neglecting offsite backup is idiotic. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who decide the 19" monitor for every server (or whatever) is more important than having a good backup strategy and yes, that's stupid.
or we can recycle our plastic and reduce the amount of oil we burn
See the beauty of my plan is that it produced incentives to reduce the amount of oil we use. The less oil we have, the more expensive it becomes.
I don't understand your problem with my logic. Tell me where there is a hole in the logic and I'll accept you comparing me to oil and tobacco companies. But I'm not really worried, the logic is flawless. Hey, prove me wrong.
Ok, when I first saw this post I was all excited. Finally someone agrees with my crazy logic.
Nope it just some horribly biased marginal source with no statistics other than the fact that we only have to make 44 square miles of our country into landfill. Great, which major metropolitan area should we bury?
So, here's the crazy logic I alluded to. We use oil to make plastic. We dig oil up from the ground. When you recycle plastic it means we have more oil to burn because we don't have to use it to make more plastic. But, if you throw plastic away the oil goes back into the ground (hopefully) and we have less oil to pollute the atmosphere with. So recycling plastic leads to air pollution.
If I am wrong, please point out where, as the alternative viewpoints will be wuite helpful
Well, how about cost to start with. It's a little difficult because the original poster didn't really mention budget. But if "$15,000 in" denotes a large portion of the budget, maybe things like firewire backups are going to be out of the question. I suppose if you're worried about all of the servers being totally destroyed it's worth doing, but is it really necessary to have off site backups?
I agree having a generator is a great idea and you do only need enough UPS to last until the generator kicks in.
Although I think extra redundantcy backups are important, it's more important that the servers have adequate power and cooling to start with.
My advice is, if you're running short on cash make sure it works in the best case, before you start worrying about the worst.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but have you tried just sending the colors on your TV out of whack until you can tell the difference. If the game isn't completely color depended you could just do it when you need to.
I guess it could push other colors into the red or green range but it might just be a little tweak.
I don't get it. Are you trying to say "I'm not being stupid to annoy people, I really am this stupid." If you have to tell people you're not a troll, maybe you should reevaluate what you want to say.
On topic: Webmin rules. It's not like the RedHat gui tools that leave out all sorts of options, webmin just puts everything in a gui. Check out the gui for samba configuration if you don't believe me.
The thing is your eyes do "cross" when you're looking at something close up.
Try this: hold your finger six inches from your face, with your monitor in front of that. You'll notice that if you close each eye the image of your finger is in front of the opposite half of the screen.
Now, if you put the cellophane on the other side of the screen, instead of the image appearing between you and the screen, it would be behind the screen.
It's the same as if you cross your eyes when you look at those sterescopic pictures at the mall. If you focus past the image, it pops out, if you cross your eyes it pops in (that might be the other way around).
Ok, I'm not trying to brag, but I disagree. I set up a system where SNORT dropped data into a MySQL database and used ACID to generate reports. I can't remember where I found the howto (I think it was on the ACID webpage) but it was pretty straightforward.
I guess the one trick that made it easier was using Webmin to set the whole thing up, because there is a SNORT plugin.
The only hitch was figuring out if it was really catching intrusion attempts because you either have to wait for an attack or do it yourself. I eventually turned on the porn filter and had my coworkers browse for porn.
From my experience it was easier to set up than postfix, etc.
I think your best bet for "making suggestions" would be to actually do it in a way the your manager can appreciate.
Just saying "Hey, this isn't the best way to do things" Write up a proposal on glossy paper with lots of graphs and pie charts and such. Do your homework.
Even if your boss still thinks you're wrong, at least he or she can't discount you completely. And it's not like you'd be nitpicking if you put together something really slick. Also if they chose to keep the status quo, at least you get some brownie points for going above and beyond.
If you can't figure out how to present your ideas in a convincing way, don't bother. All you're going to do is irritate the higher ups if you don't put some real effort in.
What would be the point in making things secure if you miss out on the whole 'cheap' thing in the process?
Eh? How's that? They're running MS access to _save_ money? I do believe that they would be saving money if they used one of the more secure alternatives.
And really even if microsoft could provide a secure option, how expensive is this going to be? I know their software is overpriced but it's gotta be pretty low when compared to the cost of paper ballots.
The 2.5.X series have been occasionally runnable, but on and on during it's cycle it's been uncompilable, unrunnable and all other issues. And not that many people have been running them outside of actual developers.
I dunno, I've was running 2.5.x for quite a while before I switched to gentoo. I found it to be quite a bit better than the 2.4's I'd rolled and way better than the one RedHat forced on me.
I think you're right that the 2.6pre's are going to get a lot more people running the new kernel. Personally I don't see any reason for a home user not to upgrade at this point. Unless you have some critical stuff going on on your PC, why not give 2.6 a whirl.
I figured I was wrong about the mass/energy thing but I was in middle school:)
I'll pass on the Physics textbooks, I think I understand your point. My physical intuition is much better than my mathematical understanding of Physics (I got A's in Physics lab in college and C's in the acutal class).
Massive objects moving away from massive objects will slow down. If a massive object (e.g. the Earth) did not get pulled back by the gravitational effect of another massive object (e.g. the Sun) then orbits would not work
Are these the same things though? I mean, I understand that gravity pulls things towards eachother, but I was under the impression that the force of gravity was less powerfull the farther you were from the other object. So although I guess a massive object would slow down until it broke free of the sun's pull, that pull is less and less as the object moves away. Translated into solar sails (or any space travel) if an object were propelled with more force than the pull of the sun's gravity (and with solar sails the farther they get the force of the sun's gravity and it's solar wind will both be less) it would not slow down but in fact speed up because of its propulsion + inertia. It's the same reason we don't have to supply deep space probes with enough fuel to have their engines on the entire trip.
Anyway, I'm not trying to disagree with you because although we both work in the earth's gravitational field you actually know something about physics. My question is; if photons aren't slowed down by massive objects, why are black holes black? I remember when I was a kid reading Einstein's biography I decided that when matter reached a certian speed it turned into light and when light was slowed down it turned into energy. I haven't taken any astrophysics so I have no reason to doubt this hypothesis, and it would explain why photons seem to have no mass and black holes are so massive. Or maybe I'm just flat wrong.
I think the original poster is ignoring the fact a ship will continue to move without power because of it's inertia. That's why solar sails are such a good idea (if they work at all). I would even say that they work better the farther out you get because you've had so much time to build up intertia.
I happen to work in the field of gravitation and know a little something about this.
Really? Me too. I call it the Earth's field of gravitation (or gravitational field). Now, if you really want to impress people tell them you don't work in a field of gravitation.
you don't see photons slowing down as they travel away from a massive object
IANAP, but does this happen with massive objects? I mean besides photons.:)
I need to trust the Latin (after all I majored in it). It's tentum for the participial form. Therefore it should be "pretentious". I always dwell on the english cognate "pretense".
Though I might remind you that the term pretentious applies to those who act like they know things they don't.
Descartes happens to be my favorite philosopher. Cogito ergo sum. It's the only thing I can really be sure of sometimes, although even that falls by the wayside if I drink too much.:)
I think you're right about SCO, but that really isn't the issue. For me IP never means anything more than Copyrights + Patents + Trademarks + Trade Secrets (and the last one is a little tenuous).
SCO is never going to suceed in "owning" linux because their supposed trade secret is no longer secret. Although they can sue whoever let the secret out, they can't sue those people who write new code to replace SCO's IP.
What I was saying in my last post is that noone will use whatever new term slashdot graces us with if it's in the spirit of Jefferson's quote. He wasn't talking about what 99% of people consider to be IP, in fact I'd go so far as to say he was foretelling public domain, and GNU, and all that.
The original poster doesn't want to subtly change the definition of IP he want to change it to mean the exact opposite. Yeah usage changes meaning, but only very rarely to the exact opposite (although it does happen).
Well... I agree with you, but you really come off as damned pretensious.
The problem with this ask slashdot is the poster isn't asking for a new word for intellectual property. He's asking for a word that exemplifies the Thomas Jefferson quote. Well I've got news for you. That's not how most intellectual property holders feel about it.
I think it would be great if we could all follow Jefferson's example, but we can't just change the word to imply that intellectual property should be shared rather than hoarded. If you want that you need to convince people that it's worth giving their ideas away.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I know it's not any more exciting but why not pit the best computers against eachother.
I mean, I'm sure some Chess geeks would love to follow the game of Deep Blue vs. Deep Junior. We should stop ranking chess players in two seperate categories depending on whether they are human or not.
Let's face it, having a person controlling the board doesn't actually make watching a game of chess any more exciting.
Did you read the article?
They quote a woman saying that it's like the kids aren't even there. Personlly, I don't see how you can be doing a good job raising your kids if you are excited when it seems like they don't exist.
Granted, kids can be annoying in cars. But if you didn't know that when you had them, you're an idiot. Don't want annoying kids? Don't have kids.
I'm probably responding too late, but those points support my position.
If plastic broke down, it would emit CO2. Which is bad.
I never said it turned into oil. That would be bad 'cause it could be burned, thus releasing CO2.
It's all about walking on carbon vs. breathing it.
Ok, well... I appreciate such an intelligent response. I can respect that you met some idiots who didn't realize they were idiots while you were at school. I tend to write idiots off, no matter how smart they think they are.
Here's my problem with your counter argument, or perhaps I should say the fundimental misunderstanding of our respective positions; Your definition of "canon" seems to presuppose the book being boring. I majored in classics and I've never heard of "From Dawn to Decadence" I think of things in the "canon" as being "Moby Dick", "Nicomachaean Ethics", "Hard Times", that is classics. Just because some crackpot professor wanted you to read a book because it supported his personal worldview doesn't make that book part of the literary canon.
"fight club", I haven't read it yet, but guess what lots of people haven't read it yet. That's why it's not widely accepted as a part of the literary canon. I'd say, if a book is good enough, it will be part of the canon, so "fight club" isn't much of a counterexample.
On to topic. Imagine you have a friend who's new to video games. Your friend says to you "Wow, video games are so fun, I haven't played many, but I love [insert crappy game here]." I would tell my friend "Whoa, you should try [insert good game here] it's way better than [crappy game]." There are lot's of games I've never tried because I heard they weren't that great, hey maybe I missed some pearls, but I didn't have to blow all of my money on some stupid crap. That's the value of a canon, it's sort of an agreed upon set of good games. I for one wish more game designers would just sit down and play the games lots of people enjoy, so they don't keep reinventing the wheel.
Bleh! I'm done typing.
Ok, I might agree that to make games you need to be a gamer. But do you have any basis for your criticism of a literary canon?
a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority.
Have you ever met any of these people? Can you give me an example of a "tweedy snob"?
a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same.
From this I'm going to infer that you haven't read the books because they were too "boring". Again is there any basis for your understanding of "snobby" interpretation? Every literature scholar I've met has been interested in alternate interpretation as long as it was well substantiated.
If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves.
Have you? These must be undergrads, maybe taking their first literature class. I guess I have more intelligent friends than you do.
And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia.
Give me one example of this and I'll give you 20 counterexamples written by people don't ignore the canon.
I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read,
Like what?
while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.
I assume your talking about fantasy novels or something.
It seems to me that you're proving yourself wrong. People need to play lots of games before they can make good games, but god forbid we should make a list of games that are good because they'll just rip them off. C'mon, what if I were an RPGer but I wanted to write a game that incorporated aspects of a genre I knew nothing about you wouldn't tell me what games are good in that genre?
Sorry for the invective, but the only anti-establishment types I respect are those that make good arguments and support them.
Ummm, ok. I hate it when people brag on slashdot about how much hardware they have but, so be it.
If it's a pissing contest you want, you've got it.
Yeah, as I said in another post, I probably have about $15,000 in hardware sitting at my desk right now. I stayed late at work today installing Windows 2003 on a system but it took a while to format the 22 attached hard drives.
Frankly I wouldn't know if IDE or non-ecc memory is ok in servers because I've never really had to bother with it. I've got at least six P4 2.8 Ghz processors sitting at my desk right now, that I haven't put in systems yet.
But, I also know that I've been totally satisfied with a Duron 600Mhz system at home running Gentoo (and Redhat before that) for about three years.
I'll be honest, I don't know how much firewire backups cost. I don't know how much data the OP wants to back up. Considering they're worried about maxing out the UPS, or not having enough AC maybe there are bigger fish to fry than how fancy their backup solution sounds.
The moral of the story is that sometimes people are required to "do the job properly with no resources and no budget" and standing up to the boss won't make money magically appear in the server budget. And if the company goes out of business because they spent all of their money on backups you won't have a job anyway, no matter how many scruples or iotas of professionalism you have.
And yes, off-site backups are required.
It totally depends on the situation and budget. Do you keep an offsite backup up of your entire hard drive(s) at home? Probably not, so I guess it's not required in every situation, is it?
Well, anyway whoever you are, Coward, you don't have much business sense because you'd rather piss away money on the hot new thing than spend wisely on just what you need. I hope we're never stranded in the desert together because you'll be brushing your teeth with the last of the water supply.
Yeah, and by the way, OS X doesn't suck. I've never used it as a server, but I don't see how you can really put it down as a desktop OS (who in their right mind buys Apple servers anyway). More user friendly and more powerfull than windows, for a Unix geek anyway.
...if you're going to try to keep the company going, then some sort of offsite backup is essential.
That's a great point and I totally agree. The problem I have is that it sounds like the original poster is pretty short on cash. Something about thinking $15,000 was a lot of money. I work for Intel, and I probably have about that amount of hardware at my desk right now, so I'm maybe a bit jaded (BTW I'm not trying to brag, a tray of processors and memory isn't really that exciting).
The best analogy I can think of would be buying a new spare tire for a car that is low on oil. Great, you've got a backup, too bad your engine is destroyed.
It sounds like before tackling backups the OP will need to tackle things like adequate power and cooling.
On the other hand depending on the budget, neglecting offsite backup is idiotic. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who decide the 19" monitor for every server (or whatever) is more important than having a good backup strategy and yes, that's stupid.
or we can recycle our plastic and reduce the amount of oil we burn
See the beauty of my plan is that it produced incentives to reduce the amount of oil we use. The less oil we have, the more expensive it becomes.
I don't understand your problem with my logic. Tell me where there is a hole in the logic and I'll accept you comparing me to oil and tobacco companies. But I'm not really worried, the logic is flawless. Hey, prove me wrong.
Ok, when I first saw this post I was all excited. Finally someone agrees with my crazy logic.
Nope it just some horribly biased marginal source with no statistics other than the fact that we only have to make 44 square miles of our country into landfill. Great, which major metropolitan area should we bury?
So, here's the crazy logic I alluded to. We use oil to make plastic. We dig oil up from the ground. When you recycle plastic it means we have more oil to burn because we don't have to use it to make more plastic. But, if you throw plastic away the oil goes back into the ground (hopefully) and we have less oil to pollute the atmosphere with. So recycling plastic leads to air pollution.
If I am wrong, please point out where, as the alternative viewpoints will be wuite helpful
Well, how about cost to start with. It's a little difficult because the original poster didn't really mention budget. But if "$15,000 in" denotes a large portion of the budget, maybe things like firewire backups are going to be out of the question. I suppose if you're worried about all of the servers being totally destroyed it's worth doing, but is it really necessary to have off site backups?
I agree having a generator is a great idea and you do only need enough UPS to last until the generator kicks in.
Although I think extra redundantcy backups are important, it's more important that the servers have adequate power and cooling to start with.
My advice is, if you're running short on cash make sure it works in the best case, before you start worrying about the worst.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but have you tried just sending the colors on your TV out of whack until you can tell the difference. If the game isn't completely color depended you could just do it when you need to.
I guess it could push other colors into the red or green range but it might just be a little tweak.
Not meant as a troll
I don't get it. Are you trying to say "I'm not being stupid to annoy people, I really am this stupid." If you have to tell people you're not a troll, maybe you should reevaluate what you want to say.
On topic: Webmin rules. It's not like the RedHat gui tools that leave out all sorts of options, webmin just puts everything in a gui. Check out the gui for samba configuration if you don't believe me.
The thing is your eyes do "cross" when you're looking at something close up.
Try this: hold your finger six inches from your face, with your monitor in front of that. You'll notice that if you close each eye the image of your finger is in front of the opposite half of the screen.
Now, if you put the cellophane on the other side of the screen, instead of the image appearing between you and the screen, it would be behind the screen.
It's the same as if you cross your eyes when you look at those sterescopic pictures at the mall. If you focus past the image, it pops out, if you cross your eyes it pops in (that might be the other way around).
Ok, I'm not trying to brag, but I disagree. I set up a system where SNORT dropped data into a MySQL database and used ACID to generate reports. I can't remember where I found the howto (I think it was on the ACID webpage) but it was pretty straightforward.
I guess the one trick that made it easier was using Webmin to set the whole thing up, because there is a SNORT plugin.
The only hitch was figuring out if it was really catching intrusion attempts because you either have to wait for an attack or do it yourself. I eventually turned on the porn filter and had my coworkers browse for porn.
From my experience it was easier to set up than postfix, etc.
That's the whole point. The original poster doesn't want to buy that one.
Read the post again.
I think your best bet for "making suggestions" would be to actually do it in a way the your manager can appreciate.
Just saying "Hey, this isn't the best way to do things" Write up a proposal on glossy paper with lots of graphs and pie charts and such. Do your homework.
Even if your boss still thinks you're wrong, at least he or she can't discount you completely. And it's not like you'd be nitpicking if you put together something really slick. Also if they chose to keep the status quo, at least you get some brownie points for going above and beyond.
If you can't figure out how to present your ideas in a convincing way, don't bother. All you're going to do is irritate the higher ups if you don't put some real effort in.
What would be the point in making things secure if you miss out on the whole 'cheap' thing in the process?
Eh? How's that? They're running MS access to _save_ money? I do believe that they would be saving money if they used one of the more secure alternatives.
And really even if microsoft could provide a secure option, how expensive is this going to be? I know their software is overpriced but it's gotta be pretty low when compared to the cost of paper ballots.
The 2.5.X series have been occasionally runnable, but on and on during it's cycle it's been uncompilable, unrunnable and all other issues. And not that many people have been running them outside of actual developers.
I dunno, I've was running 2.5.x for quite a while before I switched to gentoo. I found it to be quite a bit better than the 2.4's I'd rolled and way better than the one RedHat forced on me.
I think you're right that the 2.6pre's are going to get a lot more people running the new kernel. Personally I don't see any reason for a home user not to upgrade at this point. Unless you have some critical stuff going on on your PC, why not give 2.6 a whirl.
Hey, thanks.
:)
I figured I was wrong about the mass/energy thing but I was in middle school
I'll pass on the Physics textbooks, I think I understand your point. My physical intuition is much better than my mathematical understanding of Physics (I got A's in Physics lab in college and C's in the acutal class).
Massive objects moving away from massive objects will slow down. If a massive object (e.g. the Earth) did not get pulled back by the gravitational effect of another massive object (e.g. the Sun) then orbits would not work
Are these the same things though? I mean, I understand that gravity pulls things towards eachother, but I was under the impression that the force of gravity was less powerfull the farther you were from the other object. So although I guess a massive object would slow down until it broke free of the sun's pull, that pull is less and less as the object moves away. Translated into solar sails (or any space travel) if an object were propelled with more force than the pull of the sun's gravity (and with solar sails the farther they get the force of the sun's gravity and it's solar wind will both be less) it would not slow down but in fact speed up because of its propulsion + inertia. It's the same reason we don't have to supply deep space probes with enough fuel to have their engines on the entire trip.
Anyway, I'm not trying to disagree with you because although we both work in the earth's gravitational field you actually know something about physics. My question is; if photons aren't slowed down by massive objects, why are black holes black? I remember when I was a kid reading Einstein's biography I decided that when matter reached a certian speed it turned into light and when light was slowed down it turned into energy. I haven't taken any astrophysics so I have no reason to doubt this hypothesis, and it would explain why photons seem to have no mass and black holes are so massive. Or maybe I'm just flat wrong.
I think the original poster is ignoring the fact a ship will continue to move without power because of it's inertia. That's why solar sails are such a good idea (if they work at all). I would even say that they work better the farther out you get because you've had so much time to build up intertia.
I happen to work in the field of gravitation and know a little something about this.
:)
Really? Me too. I call it the Earth's field of gravitation (or gravitational field). Now, if you really want to impress people tell them you don't work in a field of gravitation.
you don't see photons slowing down as they travel away from a massive object
IANAP, but does this happen with massive objects? I mean besides photons.
Shit, you're right.
:)
prae - before, in advance of
tenere - to have
I need to trust the Latin (after all I majored in it). It's tentum for the participial form. Therefore it should be "pretentious". I always dwell on the english cognate "pretense".
Though I might remind you that the term pretentious applies to those who act like they know things they don't.
Descartes happens to be my favorite philosopher. Cogito ergo sum. It's the only thing I can really be sure of sometimes, although even that falls by the wayside if I drink too much.
I think you're right about SCO, but that really isn't the issue. For me IP never means anything more than Copyrights + Patents + Trademarks + Trade Secrets (and the last one is a little tenuous).
SCO is never going to suceed in "owning" linux because their supposed trade secret is no longer secret. Although they can sue whoever let the secret out, they can't sue those people who write new code to replace SCO's IP.
What I was saying in my last post is that noone will use whatever new term slashdot graces us with if it's in the spirit of Jefferson's quote. He wasn't talking about what 99% of people consider to be IP, in fact I'd go so far as to say he was foretelling public domain, and GNU, and all that.
The original poster doesn't want to subtly change the definition of IP he want to change it to mean the exact opposite. Yeah usage changes meaning, but only very rarely to the exact opposite (although it does happen).
Well... I agree with you, but you really come off as damned pretensious.
The problem with this ask slashdot is the poster isn't asking for a new word for intellectual property. He's asking for a word that exemplifies the Thomas Jefferson quote. Well I've got news for you. That's not how most intellectual property holders feel about it.
I think it would be great if we could all follow Jefferson's example, but we can't just change the word to imply that intellectual property should be shared rather than hoarded. If you want that you need to convince people that it's worth giving their ideas away.