You can't hold Linux distributers accountable for lost data, either. What the fuck is you point?
OK, this is some weird acausal spacetime irregularity, right? Way back when, someone said something like, "Microsoft is slow to release patches becasue they have to test them extensively. If they didn't and someone lost data, they could be sued. On the othe hand, KDE is Open Source and there's no one to sue, so they can force patches out the door and quality be damned!"
So a bunch of people have replied that, although Microsoft likes to spread that FUD, under the EULA they force you to accept, you can't hold them liable, either. So really that excuse for the slow response of Microsoft doesn't hold water.
.. but why do they always say "at sea level" when qualifying the speed of sound?
Because properties of the atmosphere vary remarkably with height. You need a reference point, and by amazing coincidence:) "sea level" is where the majority of experiments are done (more or less -- we're talking about variations in height for the airplane that are much greater than the variation in altitude of fixed installations).
No shit, which is why I said a finite mass weighs more,
With respect to whom? If you don't answer that question, then you're justing spouting gas... once speeds around that of light are involved, relativity is king and you must always keep your reference frame clear. Do you? No, because very soon after, you say,
As you approach the speed of light, you weigh more, not in respect to eh earth, but in resepct to yourself.
which is not even bullshit -- it's just wrong. With respect to yourself, by definition you are rest (that's what "with respect to" means). And relativity says that things can't look odd for anything at rest. There is no mass increase because with respect to yourself, you're not moving near lightspeed. With respect to yourself, you're not moving.
No shit, which is why I said a finite mass weighs more, that that the finite mass gains more mass.
I don't know if you're sloppy or silly. First you say "I was talking about weight, not mass". Then you immediatel say, "The finite mass gains more mass." Which is it?
Am I right? (So, we still have a sound problem, but it's only at two points during the flight, not over the course of the whole flight.)
No. Years of Star Trek have mislead people by analogy, but the "sonic boom" is not the sound of you piercing the sound barrier. It's the result of a massive spike-and-fall of pressure across your ears. You are right that it comes from a superposition of pressure maxima (a "piling up") but that happens along a cone of air.
Without touting my own horn too much -- and believe me, there are equally good or better animations -- but I have a set of animated GIFs that show this.
Whether the molecules travel large distances between collisions or short distances has a nearly negligible effect.
I disbelieve this. Shorter hops = more collisions = more opportunities for reversal/deflection. Remember that this is essentially a random-walk process. Imagining a one-dimensional gas:), the total expected distance is something like L sqrt N, L being the mean free path and N the number of steps. Let's say we halve the mfp but this doubles the steps. Then the expected distance becomes sqrt(2)/2 times what it was.
Blockquoth the poster:
(Temperature is tied directly to the average kinetic energy per molecule.)
Sorry, pet peeve of a physics teacher: Temperature is not tied to the kinetic energy. It's tied to the dispersion in the kinetic energy. Throwing a snowball doesn't heat it (neglecting air friction), because you add the same KE to every atom and hence the dispersion is the same.
The whole "T proportional to average KE" thing comes from a century of chemists, whose samples had a center-of-mass velocity of zero and hence a dispersion of KE equal to the average KE.
As an analogy, take a group of 1st graders walking down the street. If they're all tired, they stay clumped. If they're full of sugar, they bounce around a lot. In either case, they might maintain the same average forward velocity (KE) but in the latter, there's more dispersion.
if I am going nearly the speed of light in one direction and you are going nearly the speed of light in the other direction, who dies because their body can't handle the speed?? NEITHER OF US DIPSHIT!!
EEENH!!! Wrong Answer, thanks for trying.
Bzzzt. But thank you for playing. Since forces are dependent on acceleration, moving at constant speed is indistinguishable from being at rest. That's not even Einstein -- that's Galileo.
As you approach the speed of light, a finite mass will actually weigh more, by many, mnay orders of magnitude. The forces your own molecules would be exerting on themselves would cause your body to implode itself.
Bzzzt again. This just isn't your day. First, modern physicists don't even talk about mass increasing as velocity increases. Mass is mass is mass; ie., what used to be called "rest mass". The observed kinetic energy increased with velocity, of course. But we don't use relativist mass because it implies things like, "Oh, Newton's laws are OK if you just put a factor of gamma in", which is not true. It can be shown that in fact, there would be two relativistic masses, a "parallel component" one and a "transverse component" one. This complicates the idea of mass and force so much it's of no use whatsoever.
Second, even if your mass seems to increase as measured by an observer, it wouldn't for you... All of your molecules will be traveling at the same speed, so each sees the others at rest and therefore, by the first principle of relativity, can see no mass effect.
Third -- and now I'm just being obnoxious -- you seem to confuse "mass" and "weight".
The speed with which these waves move is controlled by how quickly molecules can move their energy out from the sound source, to pass to molecules further out. Since this energy is transferred through collisions, each molecule must physically traverse the distance between interactions. The speed with which each molecule moves is directly related to its kinetic energy--in other words, its temperature. And only its temperature.
Yet... the average distance the molecules must mobe -- their mean free path -- moves inversely with the density: the lower the density, the greater the separation of molecules. At larger distances with a given speed, the rate of energy transfer would of course be lower. So shouldn't density matter?
Well, as I pointed out elsewhere, the crux of the matter is that pressure and density do matter. But for an ideal gas, their effect cancels out, and indeed, yields the temperature dependance everyone is so worked up over.
Basically the speed of sound in a gas is independant of pressure and density.
IANAAE (I am Not an Aeronautical Engineer), but isn't this due to the assumption of ideal behavior? In Physics, you learn that the speed of sound is proportional to sqrt(dP/dD), ie., dependent on the derivative of pressure with respect to density. This makes actual physical sense, as it connects the restoring force (via the pressure) to the inertia of the gas (via the density).
In an ideal gas, P = DRT, so dP/dD = RT. And hence the dependance on temperature and the apparent independence from P and D.
I know that if I go on vacation, I would rather not have to strap myself to an MK 70 Rocket before the preflight movie.
Don't take this the wrong way, but nobody gives a damn what your vacation preferences are. It'd be used for extremely urgent deliveries; rapid-deployment troops; or -- and this is the payoff -- launch assit to low earth orbit. Air travel is so, well, 20th century.:)
At a practical level, once you're travelling at 7.6 Mach, wouldn't you already be at your destination by then?
Our monkey brains can't really appreciate the size of this Earth. Circumference = 24,000 miles. Mach 7.6 = 5000 mph. So it'd take about 5 hours to circumnavigate the globe -- or about 2.5 hours to reach the opposite point on the other side of the world.
Depending on lift ability, this could have fascinating implications for rapid-response troops.
But more importantly, it's potentially an excellent way to lower costs to get things into orbit. And air travel is all well and nice, but the future is in space travel, at least to LEO.
The current administration is fast trading in whatever moral highground the US might have had for the sake of expedience.
And it's not even clear that they're achieving that. As they beat the drums for war with Irag, they're finding how much chucking Kyoto and the ICC is costing... People simply don't trust the United States to be the honest broker anymore.:(
Sometimes it is difficult to put a single label on the same action in all situations. And thus enters politics, propoganda, extremists, and general disagreements.
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law. Of course, in each case, it's only the former ("OK") category when the action complies with the existing law within the jurisdiction of the agent committing the act. Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK".
That's why the Bush administration's go-our-own-way, knee-jerk unilateralism is a Bad Thing. The United States has spent 50 years helping craft an international environment that handled many of the cases offered above -- and, overwhelmingly, handled them in a way favorable to both the narrow interests of the United States and, amazingly, to the cause of human dignity and freedom.
Now that we're the world's sole military superpower, and darn near the world's sole economic superpower, Bush & Co. think we can ride roughshod over the international agreements that form that framework. (And we're not talking Kyoto or ICC -- they've played pretty fast-and-loose with the Geneva Convention, too.) With no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, each feels justified to do whatever it wants. Ironically, with no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, none actually are justified.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats.
That's not the attitude. Our government -- and our liberties -- are not something that someone else can give to us. They are things to which we are entitled by birthright. We have acquiesced for too long in their transfer to non-citizen entities, but it will be up to us to take them back. Freedoms not fought for carry little value. You're more on track with
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
You know, that's the simplest and most effective suggestion for campaign finance reform I've ever heard. Why should any entity other than a citizen be allowed to influence the electoral process?
it did sound like updateing the licenses for the "new" computer was pretty simple.
Yes, it did sound pretty simple...for us! Now, imagine trying to explain to a non-technical person that they have to "Relicense" their own music because Windows thought they were a pirate. I can just imagine trying to explain to my mom over the phone why she can't play the Sinatra CD I ripped out to her PC anymore
That's the golden opportunity in this. We will never secure our rights online until the general populace gets upset. Right now, all they care about is getting their Must-See TV and their low-fat chips. But the Content Cartel is pushing harder and faster and making more and more intrusive policies. Some day -- perhaps soon -- they will step over the line and change something that people actually do care about.
Denying people access to their own, legitimate copies might be the thing.
I have been told, and I believe even read in dead-tree publications, that the reason the DivX plan died was that people were creeped out by having to dial someone up and transfer information... this is guaranteed to scare some people away
Yup. That's why, nowadays, companies simply don't tell you that they're doing this. Let's see a show of hands -- how many people knew Windows Media Player kept a list of your "allowed" tracks? And that the list was kept on Microsoft's servers?
they don't use this utility they will need to re-create (re-copy) their music CDs into their music library on their PC. Find out more information about this process at www.microsoft.com/ "You can also choose to turn off copy protection when you create your music collection, which can be done easily in any version of [WMP7.x or later]."
... or you can choose to forgo Windows Media Player entirely and buy an independent, third-party program. I happen to like MusicMatch Jukebox but there are many, many options out there.
If you're lazy and use MS products just because they're already there, you're likely to keep running into this problem.
My favorite: the Internet will become nothing more than a haven for piracy, with no legitimate alternatives.
This was my favorite quote due to its incredible provincialness. You see, once the Evil Filesharers win, the Internet will no longer be usable for email, or FTP, or ecommerce, or research or...
It's really just his unconscious way of admitting that to the *AA's and the Content Cartel, the PC is just an expensive set-top box and the Internet is just a newfangled cable system. They really really want to take true interactivity out of the equation, because passive sheep buy more things...
re you talking about DIVIX--the system where everyone has to pay the hollywood sleazebags $5 for a video disk and it "expires" after a few viewings? Or were you talking about DIVX--the file format that compresses video data really well?
Sorry, they are both "DIVX". Well, actually, the compression format began life as "DIVX:)", because the people in charge thought it would be cute to tweak The Man and rub his nose in the fact that DIVX:) did exactly the opposite of DIVX the disposable DVD standard. And now we are all stuck with this annoying source of confusion, leading ad infinituum to posts like yours and mine...
If a court rules that, it's not written into law but it does establish a precedent that can be used in future cases
Not all court decisions have precedential value, and not for all courts. It really depends on if it's a trial decision or an appeal or a Supreme Court thingy. But of course judges often look around to see what other ones are saying, anyway, to get a feel for the consensus.
This points up my problem with the entire interview; to wit, no intelligent follup. The interviewer just accepted bald-face stupid statements or lies as "truth" and moved on. How can anyone hear the 10% claim and not at least comment about the mini-recession and the decrease in discretionary spendng of the past 18 months?
In this case the open-source version of the program would have to choose between playing eternal catch-up with the commercial version or evolving into something entirely different and entirely incompatible.
In the case of OOo, the file structure is open-standards XML. They can't make it "incompatible" without losing the (presumed huge) user base that made it worth closing off in the first place.
No, it implies that, should your idea relate directly to the company's work, it is probably heavily influenced by what you were paid for and could be viewed as a minor extension of it.
Well, unless they've secured my signature agreeing to their terms, it sucks to be them but they're not entitled to any part of it. That's what contracts are forBec, and I am only bound by the ones I sign. Not the ones the company thinks I should follow...
Or can I say, "I think the company should provide me with 100% medical" and then expect it? Or is it only a company that can unilaterally impose its terms and expect a court to back them up?
The issue here is that you claim I don't have to sign a contract. How far does that extend? Logically, couldn't GeneriCorp say, "Well, we secretly hired him -- without even his knowing it -- and a condition of employment is this Disclosure Agreement. So obviously he's bound to it. Where's the signed contract stating that? Well, under the new precedent, we don't need one"
Because, after all, you argue "it proabably doesn't matter if you signed the contract or not."
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this is some weird acausal spacetime irregularity, right? Way back when, someone said something like, "Microsoft is slow to release patches becasue they have to test them extensively. If they didn't and someone lost data, they could be sued. On the othe hand, KDE is Open Source and there's no one to sue, so they can force patches out the door and quality be damned!"
So a bunch of people have replied that, although Microsoft likes to spread that FUD, under the EULA they force you to accept, you can't hold them liable, either. So really that excuse for the slow response of Microsoft doesn't hold water.
Because properties of the atmosphere vary remarkably with height. You need a reference point, and by amazing coincidence
With respect to whom? If you don't answer that question, then you're justing spouting gas... once speeds around that of light are involved, relativity is king and you must always keep your reference frame clear. Do you? No, because very soon after, you say,
which is not even bullshit -- it's just wrong. With respect to yourself, by definition you are rest (that's what "with respect to" means). And relativity says that things can't look odd for anything at rest. There is no mass increase because with respect to yourself, you're not moving near lightspeed. With respect to yourself, you're not moving.
I don't know if you're sloppy or silly. First you say "I was talking about weight, not mass". Then you immediatel say, "The finite mass gains more mass." Which is it?
Bzzzt. But thank you for playing again.
No. Years of Star Trek have mislead people by analogy, but the "sonic boom" is not the sound of you piercing the sound barrier. It's the result of a massive spike-and-fall of pressure across your ears. You are right that it comes from a superposition of pressure maxima (a "piling up") but that happens along a cone of air.
Without touting my own horn too much -- and believe me, there are equally good or better animations -- but I have a set of animated GIFs that show this.
I disbelieve this. Shorter hops = more collisions = more opportunities for reversal/deflection. Remember that this is essentially a random-walk process. Imagining a one-dimensional gas
Blockquoth the poster:
Sorry, pet peeve of a physics teacher: Temperature is not tied to the kinetic energy. It's tied to the dispersion in the kinetic energy. Throwing a snowball doesn't heat it (neglecting air friction), because you add the same KE to every atom and hence the dispersion is the same.
The whole "T proportional to average KE" thing comes from a century of chemists, whose samples had a center-of-mass velocity of zero and hence a dispersion of KE equal to the average KE.
As an analogy, take a group of 1st graders walking down the street. If they're all tired, they stay clumped. If they're full of sugar, they bounce around a lot. In either case, they might maintain the same average forward velocity (KE) but in the latter, there's more dispersion.
Bzzzt. But thank you for playing. Since forces are dependent on acceleration, moving at constant speed is indistinguishable from being at rest. That's not even Einstein -- that's Galileo.
Bzzzt again. This just isn't your day. First, modern physicists don't even talk about mass increasing as velocity increases. Mass is mass is mass; ie., what used to be called "rest mass". The observed kinetic energy increased with velocity, of course. But we don't use relativist mass because it implies things like, "Oh, Newton's laws are OK if you just put a factor of gamma in", which is not true. It can be shown that in fact, there would be two relativistic masses, a "parallel component" one and a "transverse component" one. This complicates the idea of mass and force so much it's of no use whatsoever.
Second, even if your mass seems to increase as measured by an observer, it wouldn't for you... All of your molecules will be traveling at the same speed, so each sees the others at rest and therefore, by the first principle of relativity, can see no mass effect.
Third -- and now I'm just being obnoxious -- you seem to confuse "mass" and "weight".
Yet... the average distance the molecules must mobe -- their mean free path -- moves inversely with the density: the lower the density, the greater the separation of molecules. At larger distances with a given speed, the rate of energy transfer would of course be lower. So shouldn't density matter?
Well, as I pointed out elsewhere, the crux of the matter is that pressure and density do matter. But for an ideal gas, their effect cancels out, and indeed, yields the temperature dependance everyone is so worked up over.
IANAAE (I am Not an Aeronautical Engineer), but isn't this due to the assumption of ideal behavior? In Physics, you learn that the speed of sound is proportional to sqrt(dP/dD), ie., dependent on the derivative of pressure with respect to density. This makes actual physical sense, as it connects the restoring force (via the pressure) to the inertia of the gas (via the density).
In an ideal gas, P = DRT, so dP/dD = RT. And hence the dependance on temperature and the apparent independence from P and D.
Don't take this the wrong way, but nobody gives a damn what your vacation preferences are. It'd be used for extremely urgent deliveries; rapid-deployment troops; or -- and this is the payoff -- launch assit to low earth orbit. Air travel is so, well, 20th century.
Our monkey brains can't really appreciate the size of this Earth. Circumference = 24,000 miles. Mach 7.6 = 5000 mph. So it'd take about 5 hours to circumnavigate the globe -- or about 2.5 hours to reach the opposite point on the other side of the world.
Depending on lift ability, this could have fascinating implications for rapid-response troops.
But more importantly, it's potentially an excellent way to lower costs to get things into orbit. And air travel is all well and nice, but the future is in space travel, at least to LEO.
Um, as it travels Mach 7.6 -- 7.6 times the speed of sound -- we do know: BOOM as it goes past.
And it's not even clear that they're achieving that. As they beat the drums for war with Irag, they're finding how much chucking Kyoto and the ICC is costing... People simply don't trust the United States to be the honest broker anymore.
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law. Of course, in each case, it's only the former ("OK") category when the action complies with the existing law within the jurisdiction of the agent committing the act. Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK".
That's why the Bush administration's go-our-own-way, knee-jerk unilateralism is a Bad Thing. The United States has spent 50 years helping craft an international environment that handled many of the cases offered above -- and, overwhelmingly, handled them in a way favorable to both the narrow interests of the United States and, amazingly, to the cause of human dignity and freedom.
Now that we're the world's sole military superpower, and darn near the world's sole economic superpower, Bush & Co. think we can ride roughshod over the international agreements that form that framework. (And we're not talking Kyoto or ICC -- they've played pretty fast-and-loose with the Geneva Convention, too.) With no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, each feels justified to do whatever it wants. Ironically, with no defining jurisdiction agreed between sovereign nations, none actually are justified.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
I suppose. On the other hand, in the final season of ST:TNG, they promoted him to godhood , which might be an ego-rush.
That's not the attitude. Our government -- and our liberties -- are not something that someone else can give to us. They are things to which we are entitled by birthright. We have acquiesced for too long in their transfer to non-citizen entities, but it will be up to us to take them back. Freedoms not fought for carry little value. You're more on track with
You know, that's the simplest and most effective suggestion for campaign finance reform I've ever heard. Why should any entity other than a citizen be allowed to influence the electoral process?
That's the golden opportunity in this. We will never secure our rights online until the general populace gets upset. Right now, all they care about is getting their Must-See TV and their low-fat chips. But the Content Cartel is pushing harder and faster and making more and more intrusive policies. Some day -- perhaps soon -- they will step over the line and change something that people actually do care about.
Denying people access to their own, legitimate copies might be the thing.
Yup. That's why, nowadays, companies simply don't tell you that they're doing this. Let's see a show of hands -- how many people knew Windows Media Player kept a list of your "allowed" tracks? And that the list was kept on Microsoft's servers?
If you're lazy and use MS products just because they're already there, you're likely to keep running into this problem.
This was my favorite quote due to its incredible provincialness. You see, once the Evil Filesharers win, the Internet will no longer be usable for email, or FTP, or ecommerce, or research or...
It's really just his unconscious way of admitting that to the *AA's and the Content Cartel, the PC is just an expensive set-top box and the Internet is just a newfangled cable system. They really really want to take true interactivity out of the equation, because passive sheep buy more things...
Sorry, they are both "DIVX". Well, actually, the compression format began life as "DIVX
Not all court decisions have precedential value, and not for all courts. It really depends on if it's a trial decision or an appeal or a Supreme Court thingy. But of course judges often look around to see what other ones are saying, anyway, to get a feel for the consensus.
This points up my problem with the entire interview; to wit, no intelligent follup . The interviewer just accepted bald-face stupid statements or lies as "truth" and moved on. How can anyone hear the 10% claim and not at least comment about the mini-recession and the decrease in discretionary spendng of the past 18 months?
In the case of OOo, the file structure is open-standards XML. They can't make it "incompatible" without losing the (presumed huge) user base that made it worth closing off in the first place.
Well, unless they've secured my signature agreeing to their terms, it sucks to be them but they're not entitled to any part of it. That's what contracts are forBec, and I am only bound by the ones I sign. Not the ones the company thinks I should follow...
Or can I say, "I think the company should provide me with 100% medical" and then expect it? Or is it only a company that can unilaterally impose its terms and expect a court to back them up?
The issue here is that you claim I don't have to sign a contract. How far does that extend? Logically, couldn't GeneriCorp say, "Well, we secretly hired him -- without even his knowing it -- and a condition of employment is this Disclosure Agreement. So obviously he's bound to it. Where's the signed contract stating that? Well, under the new precedent, we don't need one"
Because, after all, you argue "it proabably doesn't matter if you signed the contract or not."