Wow, I'd hope people usually get a little self-conscious when they become this cynical.
Not interested in the Good, the True, or the Just, just trying to make somebody's (Bush's) life more difficult?
Is life so dark? You're making my life more difficult too. Not yet, but when you start up a revolution to overthrow the corrupt government, my life's going to suck! Or rather, when your kids fight against the system of checks and balances for direct democracy or something equally horrendous.
I'm not voting for Bush. I am voting (the Austrailian Ballot System means I don't have to tell you I'm voting for Nader) for somebody whom I would like to see in office, and Mr Bush, Mr Gore, Mr Browne understand that I'm doing my civic duty. And I know that my vote doesn't `count' from the system's point of view.
I knew that before you pointed it out. My vote counts for me. I'm not doing this for my country, but for myself. I guess you've convinced me to support civic republicanism, because I would like to believe that our system, while not perfect, is worth working with. My vote won't get me what I want, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't still try to achieve the Good, the True, and the Just.
If we didn't try to achieve these ideals, what are we to attempt to achieve? Better to aim high and fall short than aim low and hit the depressing mark.
Hm... The wave leaves the tank before it enters the tank. Seem odd? When I read the headline of this story, I thought, ``that can't be faster than c, or causes would happen *before* their effects!'' Indeed, that's why c is such an important (albeit bizarre) postulate.
Relativity is called ``Relativity'' because it's a theory that makes one thing `relative' -- `being at rest'.
If my friend is going by on a train, and I'm standing at the train platform, and we witness the same event, the things I see are different than the things my friend sees -- however, what each of us sees follows the laws of physics.
Using some mathematics Einstein worked out, I can even figure out what my moving friend thinks she saw.
Of course, my friend is on a train -- only *I* am at rest.
Of course, my friend disagrees -- she is at rest, and the Earth is hurtling back behind the train as it travels around the Sun.
Of course, Einstein doesn't want me and my friend to have a falling out just because we're both in motion compared to God -- he wants us all to observe the same *relativistic* laws of physics.
There's one other thing Einstein wanted to preserve in his theory -- causality. If the event my friend and I are watching is Buffy slaying a vampire with her crossbow, Einstein insists that both my friend and I see Buffy pull the trigger before we see the vampire turn to dust. It wouldn't make sense if the vampire was dusted before Buffy even got there! Spontaneous dusting? No way!
So what constitutes `before' and `after'? What's `spontaneous'? Enter c.
Both my friend and I have flashlights. When we fire off a photon, we both see the beam moving at c. That's different from all other moving bodies. If Buffy is chasing the vampire, I see her running at v, while my friend sees her moving backword more slowly at v-u (where u is the speed my friend sees me moving at, and also the speed at which I see the train moving off).
The `postulate' of relativity is just this: both wtp and his friend see the light beams moving at c. The ``nothing faster than c'' comes from this and the interest in preserving causality. When something moves faster than c, I and my friend start disagreeing about what happened first. Either causality dies, or, if we can determine which `should' be cause, and which `should' be effect, we can then say ``wtp is `more' at rest than his friend'', which is hogwash -- my friend and I just have different points of view.
The way this postulate is made is by defining `simultaneity'. Existence at points A and B is simultaneous if light takes the same amount of time to go from A to B as from B to A. If one light beam took longer to get to A, then either A or B moved, or one light beam went off before or after the other. A and B are not simultaneously firing light.
So say you've got this tank, and you're firing a wave through it. First you determine what simultaneity is, and say that this edge of the tank exists simultaneously with this edge when I fire light back and forth, and measure it, and see that it's taking the same time.
Fine.
Then say we fire the wave, and we see it enter the tank, then exit.
Cause (entered the tank), effect (left the tank). Did it faster than light, too! Call slashdot! (This is, by luck, not what happened. Why `by luck'? Lets consider what my friend sees.) Then my friend does the same experiment on her train. First of all, I say that she's fscked up, because she has the wrong measure of simultaneity. She says that the tank is moving, and side A of the tank is simultaneous with B when the light, from *her* point of view, takes the same amount of time to go from A to B as it takes to go from B to A. She's moving, so she must see light going a different speed. Say I thought the light took 3 nanoseconds to get from A to B, as my friend watches the light go from A to B, during those 3 nanoseconds, my friend has moved slightly away from the pulse, but when the light goes from B back to A, she moves slightly in the direction of the pulse. From my point of view, she gets different times for the two motions, but corrects for that, and crunches some math, and then fires off the light at B *before* the light at A, so that *she* sees the light arrive at A and B at the same time.
I see her turn on the light at B before she turns on the light at A, but she sees the lights take the same amount of time to hit B and A. Her concept of `now!' is different from mine. Enter the wave that moves faster than light. I see it enter at A first, then leave at B. She thinks the `now!' for B is before the `now!' at A (from my point of view). She does the experiment with the faster than light wave, and sees it *leave B* before it *enters A*.
She sees the same thing I see. Her laws of physics don't say what mine say.
If the velocity of the wave is less than c, then the little difference made by the moving train is never enough for the wave to leave B before it enters A.
When you have velocities greater than c, then you just have to change your point of view (get on faster and faster trains) until you see the wave pass B *before* A.
This is all special theory, with linear velocities given equal `priority' for `being at rest'. I don't understand General Theory -- the math is too hard! It `just' gives accelerating bodies the possibility of considering themselves at rest, too (such as pre-Copernican astronomers, considering themselves at rest on an Earth in the center of the universe) -- the `accelerations' they must feel are understood as gravitational fields (think you're at rest -- why the pulling down? Your floor must be shooting up, & you're moving!).
As for, what is velocity by d/t, that's right. But my friend and I see different distances, and have different understandings of time. EG, she thinks the tank is smaller than I do, while I think her train is shorter. The only velocity we agree on is c. Things faster can have different interpretations based on our point of view. Things slower also have different interpretations.
That article on/. in Time Digital mentions that Slashdot ``has something like 700,000 active users....'' Is this the number of registered users? What is this number?
How many/.ers are there, anyway? I know that certain rules for moderation and metamoderation require you to be a certain age, which probably means this info is available, so you can compare your ID # to the `youngest' IDs. I just don't know where.
I hope that Wood will forgive me, considering my youth and lack of proper education.
An example of that lack of education is evident in my unfamiliarity with the critic Foucault. Or perhaps he is a `thinker'. As I said, I'm unfamiliar. I only know what Wood said: Foucault brought thinking critically about people's arguments back into popularity. I don't see the *argument* that Wood critically examines, however. It seems as if he is merely attacking JonKatz on a personal level.
But that, of course, must be a mis-reading. Otherwise, Wood would be guilty of just what he accuses JonKatz of. Wood must be criticizing JonKatz's argument somewhere. It seems like he is upset with JonKatz's promotion of his book. So, Wood is upset with some of JonKatz's behavior? But to raise this question of ethics doesn't involve `critical examination' of aphorisms, or a lack of understanding in the technical realm.
But if that's the issue, why drag in all this garbage about JonKatz not knowing how to write? What does that have to do with his `argument'? Why the claim that a credible engineer wouldn't be able to keep a straight face in front of JonKatz? Why attack his lack of technical expertise? Are these not simply rhetorical devices, to make anyone who disagrees with Wood look stupid?
I cannot see the argument Wood is criticizing. I see that he is critical, but only in the negative sense. I don't think that that's because JonKatz's arguments are poor, but because Wood takes little quotes out of any arguments they may have been a part of, and flame the quotes, rather than criticize any of JonKatz's arguments.
I will admit that I find JonKatz's ideas about what shapes the Internet compelling and rewarding. JonKatz makes me excited to live at this time, and to participate in a forum like Slashdot (this is my first such participation -- but I've been a proud lurker for some nine months). I had no idea that my shared excitement of ideas with JonKatz proves that I can't be a competent engineer:-(
Of course, I'm not a competent engineer, but now I know why.
You post comes across as bearing much bitterness. This only makes it more difficult to understand what's at stake for you. Attacks on the credibility and worth of JonKatz do not interest me -- if I am interested in JonKatz's credibility or worth, I can examine the real thing myself. And I have found out that he is very, very good. If you aren't sure which of us to believe, Wood or me, then you can always read JonKatz for yourself! Of course JonKatz contradicts himself, calls himself an `opportunism waiting to happen' and a host of other things Wood finds fault with him for. Plato did all those same things. It isn't the fault of the author, but it is the very nature of truth itself. It is the very nature of philosophy.
No dogmatism. No scepticism.
And JonKatz is top notch.
So all of this is about JonKatz's self-promotion, and CmdrTaco's `selling out'? Then let's talk about *that*, not try and blast JonKatz into the Pre-Silicon-Age!
Personally, though, I suspect that what's at stake is something very different. I believe that this is the tension between freedom and equality which is inherent in democracy. These are ideas I've gathered from Tocqueville's _Democracy_ _In_America_. Society is pushing for democracy. It has been pushing for this for nearly a thousand years. Katz might call it `breaking down walls'. The push is for two things: freedom and equality. Equality is more important to the people than freedom, and that's a shame, because freedom is a greater virtue. People don't like JonKatz because they see him as being better than they are. This prompts them to jealousy -- but the jealousy of the majority. It's the same force that drives all of the JonKatz flamers. The things that they flame about aren't nearly as important as that they flame. The problem is that there are some people better than others. These `Greats' can't realistically be expected to walk the fine line of being completely technically savvy, being completely self-effacing, and knowing how to write a perfect English sentence! So what's the problem? It isn't that this one isn't technically savvy, or that he can't write a good sentence, or whatever, it's simply that he exists. And whatever he does will bring on flames, so long as what he is is better than the majority.
The fact that people are *still* upset with JonKatz's presence on Slashdot, even though they can filter him out with a click of the mouse, only supports my view that people aren't upset with any particular thing Katz does, only that he exists.
I think JonKatz would agree with me here. He takes flames as an indication that he's doing something worthwhile.
Please try to check the impulse to tear down the great men around us. If Torvalds is on your programming team, don't try and get rid of him, but glory in his ability to program! I realize that it's impossible for me to ask this of you.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I'd hope people usually get a little self-conscious when they become this cynical.
Not interested in the Good, the True, or the Just, just trying to make somebody's (Bush's) life more difficult?
Is life so dark? You're making my life more difficult too. Not yet, but when you start up a revolution to overthrow the corrupt government, my life's going to suck! Or rather, when your kids fight against the system of checks and balances for direct democracy or something equally horrendous.
I'm not voting for Bush. I am voting (the Austrailian Ballot System means I don't have to tell you I'm voting for Nader) for somebody whom I would like to see in office, and Mr Bush, Mr Gore, Mr Browne understand that I'm doing my civic duty. And I know that my vote doesn't `count' from the system's point of view.
I knew that before you pointed it out. My vote counts for me. I'm not doing this for my country, but for myself. I guess you've convinced me to support civic republicanism, because I would like to believe that our system, while not perfect, is worth working with. My vote won't get me what I want, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't still try to achieve the Good, the True, and the Just.
If we didn't try to achieve these ideals, what are we to attempt to achieve? Better to aim high and fall short than aim low and hit the depressing mark.
Hm... The wave leaves the tank before it enters the tank. Seem
odd? When I read the headline of this story, I thought, ``that
can't be faster than c, or causes would happen *before* their
effects!'' Indeed, that's why c is such an important (albeit
bizarre) postulate.
Relativity is called ``Relativity'' because it's a theory that makes
one thing `relative' -- `being at rest'.
If my friend is going by on a train, and I'm standing at the train
platform, and we witness the same event, the things I see are
different than the things my friend sees -- however, what each of
us sees follows the laws of physics.
Using some mathematics Einstein worked out, I can even figure out
what my moving friend thinks she saw.
Of course, my friend is on a train -- only *I* am at rest.
Of course, my friend disagrees -- she is at rest, and the Earth is
hurtling back behind the train as it travels around the Sun.
Of course, Einstein doesn't want me and my friend to have a falling
out just because we're both in motion compared to God -- he wants
us all to observe the same *relativistic* laws of physics.
There's one other thing Einstein wanted to preserve in his theory
-- causality. If the event my friend and I are watching is Buffy
slaying a vampire with her crossbow, Einstein insists that both my
friend and I see Buffy pull the trigger before we see the vampire
turn to dust. It wouldn't make sense if the vampire was dusted
before Buffy even got there! Spontaneous dusting? No way!
So what constitutes `before' and `after'? What's `spontaneous'?
Enter c.
Both my friend and I have flashlights. When we fire off a photon,
we both see the beam moving at c. That's different from all other
moving bodies. If Buffy is chasing the vampire, I see her running
at v, while my friend sees her moving backword more slowly at v-u
(where u is the speed my friend sees me moving at, and also the
speed at which I see the train moving off).
The `postulate' of relativity is just this: both wtp and his friend
see the light beams moving at c. The ``nothing faster than c''
comes from this and the interest in preserving causality. When
something moves faster than c, I and my friend start disagreeing
about what happened first. Either causality dies, or, if we can
determine which `should' be cause, and which `should' be effect,
we can then say ``wtp is `more' at rest than his friend'', which
is hogwash -- my friend and I just have different points of view.
The way this postulate is made is by defining `simultaneity'.
Existence at points A and B is simultaneous if light takes the same
amount of time to go from A to B as from B to A. If one light beam
took longer to get to A, then either A or B moved, or one light
beam went off before or after the other. A and B are not simultaneously
firing light.
So say you've got this tank, and you're firing a wave through it.
First you determine what simultaneity is, and say that this edge
of the tank exists simultaneously with this edge when I fire light
back and forth, and measure it, and see that it's taking the same
time.
Fine.
Then say we fire the wave, and we see it enter the tank, then exit.
Cause (entered the tank), effect (left the tank). Did it faster
than light, too! Call slashdot! (This is, by luck, not what
happened. Why `by luck'? Lets consider what my friend sees.)
Then my friend does the same experiment on her train. First of
all, I say that she's fscked up, because she has the wrong measure
of simultaneity. She says that the tank is moving, and side A of
the tank is simultaneous with B when the light, from *her* point
of view, takes the same amount of time to go from A to B as it takes
to go from B to A. She's moving, so she must see light going a
different speed. Say I thought the light took 3 nanoseconds to get
from A to B, as my friend watches the light go from A to B, during
those 3 nanoseconds, my friend has moved slightly away from the
pulse, but when the light goes from B back to A, she moves slightly
in the direction of the pulse. From my point of view, she gets
different times for the two motions, but corrects for that, and
crunches some math, and then fires off the light at B *before* the
light at A, so that *she* sees the light arrive at A and B at the
same time.
I see her turn on the light at B before she turns on the light at
A, but she sees the lights take the same amount of time to hit B
and A. Her concept of `now!' is different from mine. Enter the
wave that moves faster than light. I see it enter at A first, then
leave at B. She thinks the `now!' for B is before the `now!' at A
(from my point of view). She does the experiment with the faster
than light wave, and sees it *leave B* before it *enters A*.
She sees the same thing I see. Her laws of physics don't say what
mine say.
If the velocity of the wave is less than c, then the little difference
made by the moving train is never enough for the wave to leave B
before it enters A.
When you have velocities greater than c, then you just have to
change your point of view (get on faster and faster trains) until
you see the wave pass B *before* A.
This is all special theory, with linear velocities given equal
`priority' for `being at rest'. I don't understand General Theory
-- the math is too hard! It `just' gives accelerating bodies the
possibility of considering themselves at rest, too (such as
pre-Copernican astronomers, considering themselves at rest on an
Earth in the center of the universe) -- the `accelerations' they
must feel are understood as gravitational fields (think you're at
rest -- why the pulling down? Your floor must be shooting up, &
you're moving!).
As for, what is velocity by d/t, that's right. But my friend and I see different distances, and have different understandings of time. EG, she thinks the tank is smaller than I do, while I think her train is shorter. The only velocity we agree on is c. Things faster can have different interpretations based on our point of view. Things slower also have different interpretations.
I declare myself as `true at rest'!
That article on /. in Time Digital mentions that Slashdot ``has something like 700,000 active users....'' Is this the number of registered users? What is this number?
/.ers are there, anyway? I know that certain rules for moderation and metamoderation require you to be a certain age, which probably means this info is available, so you can compare your ID # to the `youngest' IDs. I just don't know where.
How many
I hope that Wood will forgive me, considering my youth and lack of
:-(
proper education.
An example of that lack of education is evident in my unfamiliarity
with the critic Foucault. Or perhaps he is a `thinker'. As I said,
I'm unfamiliar. I only know what Wood said: Foucault brought thinking
critically about people's arguments back into popularity. I don't see
the *argument* that Wood critically examines, however. It seems as if
he is merely attacking JonKatz on a personal level.
But that, of course, must be a mis-reading. Otherwise, Wood would be
guilty of just what he accuses JonKatz of. Wood must be criticizing
JonKatz's argument somewhere. It seems like he is upset with
JonKatz's promotion of his book. So, Wood is upset with some of
JonKatz's behavior? But to raise this question of ethics doesn't
involve `critical examination' of aphorisms, or a lack of
understanding in the technical realm.
But if that's the issue, why drag in all this garbage about JonKatz
not knowing how to write? What does that have to do with his
`argument'? Why the claim that a credible engineer wouldn't be able
to keep a straight face in front of JonKatz? Why attack his lack of
technical expertise? Are these not simply rhetorical devices, to make
anyone who disagrees with Wood look stupid?
I cannot see the argument Wood is criticizing. I see that he is
critical, but only in the negative sense. I don't think that that's
because JonKatz's arguments are poor, but because Wood takes little
quotes out of any arguments they may have been a part of, and flame
the quotes, rather than criticize any of JonKatz's arguments.
I will admit that I find JonKatz's ideas about what shapes the
Internet compelling and rewarding. JonKatz makes me excited to live
at this time, and to participate in a forum like Slashdot (this is my
first such participation -- but I've been a proud lurker for some nine
months). I had no idea that my shared excitement of ideas with
JonKatz proves that I can't be a competent engineer
Of course, I'm not a competent engineer, but now I know why.
You post comes across as bearing much bitterness. This only makes it
more difficult to understand what's at stake for you. Attacks on the
credibility and worth of JonKatz do not interest me -- if I am
interested in JonKatz's credibility or worth, I can examine the real
thing myself. And I have found out that he is very, very good. If
you aren't sure which of us to believe, Wood or me, then you can
always read JonKatz for yourself! Of course JonKatz contradicts
himself, calls himself an `opportunism waiting to happen' and a host
of other things Wood finds fault with him for. Plato did all those
same things. It isn't the fault of the author, but it is the very
nature of truth itself. It is the very nature of philosophy.
No dogmatism. No scepticism.
And JonKatz is top notch.
So all of this is about JonKatz's self-promotion, and CmdrTaco's
`selling out'? Then let's talk about *that*, not try and blast
JonKatz into the Pre-Silicon-Age!
Personally, though, I suspect that what's at stake is
something very different. I believe that this is the tension
between freedom and equality which is inherent in democracy.
These are ideas I've gathered from Tocqueville's _Democracy_
_In_America_. Society is pushing for democracy. It has been
pushing for this for nearly a thousand years. Katz might call
it `breaking down walls'. The push is for two things: freedom
and equality. Equality is more important to the people than
freedom, and that's a shame, because freedom is a greater
virtue. People don't like JonKatz because they see him as
being better than they are. This prompts them to jealousy --
but the jealousy of the majority. It's the same force that
drives all of the JonKatz flamers. The things that they flame
about aren't nearly as important as that they flame. The
problem is that there are some people better than others.
These `Greats' can't realistically be expected to walk the
fine line of being completely technically savvy, being
completely self-effacing, and knowing how to write a perfect
English sentence! So what's the problem? It isn't that this
one isn't technically savvy, or that he can't write a good
sentence, or whatever, it's simply that he exists. And
whatever he does will bring on flames, so long as what he is
is better than the majority.
The fact that people are *still* upset with JonKatz's presence
on Slashdot, even though they can filter him out with a click
of the mouse, only supports my view that people aren't upset
with any particular thing Katz does, only that he exists.
I think JonKatz would agree with me here. He takes flames as
an indication that he's doing something worthwhile.
Please try to check the impulse to tear down the great men
around us. If Torvalds is on your programming team, don't try
and get rid of him, but glory in his ability to program! I
realize that it's impossible for me to ask this of you.