No. Space doesn't "expand out past them". That doesn't even make sense -- "space" doesn't have a location that can move past something. Space does not expand in a gravitationally bound system, and stars do not "move away from their respective cores".
Hmm. I kind of see what you're saying. An object B appears to move away from an object A, assuming they're both bound to space and move with it (the two paper dots that are mentioned on the rubber membrane). Thus, to an observer on A, B is receding according to his (physical) measurement system. An object B in orbit around A would not be moving toward A by definition (well, by approximation to a circular orbit). The points are bound via gravity to each other, and we assume they're not bound to space as it expands (or they'd move with it). Thus, by defintion, they are not moving toward or away from each other, and no frequency shift is observed in any light emitted from them.
Is this an accurate assessment? If so, I have a problem with it.:) Please respond back.
Why not study them now? I ended up teaching a general relativity course before I graduated. You on't need to take a course, you can just read books and papers.
Ummm, the problem is that I also do a ton of things outside of school, which take up my time. I really would like to get more into gravitational and spacial theory, though. --
The first possibility that popped up in my mind was that the value of G (the universe's gravitational constant) might need adjusting. This would cause local phenomena to agree with it, but would start to lose its accuracy at greater and greater distances. Thus, the deep-space probes can maybe get us a more precise measurement of G than has ever before been able to be measured.
I can't imagine the distances being great enough, but if they are, then, as the article hinted, the expansion of the universe might start coming into play. Basically, imagine a rubber membrane, with two dots fixed on it. Now expand your universe (stretch the membrane), and the dots move away from each other. The farther apart they are, the faster they move. This might be counteracted by a second phenomenon I haven't read about, but reasoned out several years back (any physicists in the audience? Am I off my rocker on this?). Basically, the universe is expanding, but the stars in the galaxies are not expanding with it due to gravity holding them in. Thus, to an observer, the stars in the galaxies should appear to be moving away from their respective galactic cores, as space expands out past them (this is why a meter stick stays a meter even after space expands, and we can measure space's expansion. If it weren't true, then we'd never be able to view space expanding, as our measurements would expand with it). Thus, we could have a combination of the distance appearing to push them away from us, but gravity retarding this effect by still holding it back some. Were it to stay in a stable orbit, it should appear to be moving inward as space "flows" past it.
Ah well. I need to study gravitational phenomena more after I graduate. After graduation is where you take the really cool physics courses anyway (I'm a physics major).
Finally, its possible that our redshift (IIRC, the article stated that they used the probes' redshift) measurements are being affected en route to Earth, or that our redshift-based position and velocity measurement system needs tweaking. --
Yes. It doesn't work with Mozilla (you just get one big column, as reported below).
My best guess would be the use of the <layer> tag, which mozilla doesn't support.
So, basically, Netscape is breaking Standards. (As does Internet Exploitable.) --
Trelane -------------------------------------------------- ----------
var ua=navigator.userAgent; //redirect badbrowsers
if (ua.indexOf('MSIE 4')!=-1||ua.indexOf('MSIE 5')!=-1) redirectPage=false;
else if (navigator.appName=="Netscape"&&parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>=4) redirectPage=false; //redirect all other clients not satisfied above
else redirectPage=true;
if (redirectPage) location.href="/shared/badbrowser.psp";
</script>
How to Program a New Computer System (from scratch
on
Rebooting The World?
·
· Score: 1
1) Read up on the machine language (we're talking opcodes here)
2) Flash a ROM with an operating system, and arrange the hardware such that it gets loaded at boot (like your BIOS for PCs)
3) In lieu of that (if you can't flash a ROM), set up a bank of DIP switches and manually enter in your minimal OS.
4) Boot and pray that it works.
5) Using your operating system, create an assembler. If you're able, you can flash *this* into a ROM somewhere. If not, you're going to have to go another route. If you have disk access, save it to disk.
6) Continue on up the layers of abstraction. Eventually relegate your ROM to a POST/bootstrapping role and move your OS onto disk.
Yes, this is *extremely* simplified. But this is how I'd go about it. It would be quite a bit of work.
There was an article in Science (put out by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) in which a research did a language analysis of the introns and found that they had statistical similarities to a natural language. I can't find the article off hand, so you'll have to go to Google to find it (and there are a couple others as well).
For an amusing (and somewhat scary) display of Prior Art, see what some of the land/world's premiere techs were doing at the USENIX technical conference in San Diego last summer. Dug Song presented a WiP (Work in Progress) entitled, roughly, "Passwords Found on a Conference Wireless Network." Unfortunately, I cannot find a link right now. There should be enough data here to find it from either USENIX or Dug Song's pages. Hrm. If it's archived anywhere.
One of the *points* of the Open Source movement is that, if you find a problem, you can fix it.
Thus, if you find a problem in Mozilla, download the source and fix it! If you can't code it or don't have time, submit it to Bugzilla (bugzilla.mozilla.org.). Stop your whining and *do* something about it.
Now, as an aside, you should also always check your code first. In my experience most of what breaks in Mozilla is bad code (a friend of mine whines about NS and its derivatives all the time; I helped him fix the bugs in his code based upon his complaint list.:). A goodly portion of this breaks in Internet Exploitable, yet the author wasn't searching for it as hard. Kind of like the self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
Patent, using obfuscated language such as to discourage people from discovering Prior Art, the Blink Tag. Charge people to use it, and maybe they'll stop.:)
What is your recommendation, both as a legal team and as a team for deCSS, for those of us who have linked to or have deCSS source and/or binaries on our web sites? Should we take it down to avoid legal troubles, keep it up, or spread it around as far as possible, to keep the MPAA from being capable of stomping it out?
As I think was mentioned before, this is a very bad idea. Sure, you pocket a few bucks, but the last thing we need is for the people with the most money to be able to influence things more than they already are. Just a little bit of thought will show why this is a very, very, very bad idea.
I humbly submit to you the book 23. It is about the life of Karl Koch, about whom rumours have been flying since the beginning of time. It also discusses the media's influence in his untimely death. I thought it ran somewhat parallel to this.
It is very much a research book. Basically, the book is the summary of the authors' research in this subject and is at times kind of dry. I have also not found this book in English, so you'll have to get it in German or find a transation or traslator.
This is true. I'd usually (if betting) say that the candidate with the largest spending in commercials will usually win the election. Hold on, here. What are we comparing? The proverbial apple and orange, that is what. Linux has nothing to prove. Linux has no spending on marketing precisely because it is nothing but a for-fun hack. It is exactly this which makes linux strong. Microsoft is aiming to make money. This is the goal of a corporation or business in general. The whole purpose of Open Source and Free Software is to get away from the (eek, I'm going to sound kind of Marxistic here) capitalistic aim of generating profits. It is the pursuit of profits which keeps Microsoft code under lock and key and which keeps the general public as well as the non-MS developers in the dark as to the inner workings of their products. The pursuit of profits also keeps students like myself (whether enrolled in college, grad school, or independently poor) pressed towards Linux, free Unices, and other Free Software/Open Source software--it doesn't cost anything. The software is free. If we want to fix a bug or figure out how something works, we just need to grab the source and hack away. It's one of the best sources of information around and the best bug-fix method I know. So, Linux needs to compete with Microsoft for market share, eh? Why? If we start fighting their kind of battle--a battle of Market Share, User Bases, Polls and Statistics--we will most assuredly lose. We would be taking on the one of the largest corporations in the world (picture opening up a diamond mine without DeBeers consent). Why compete at all? Hack on Linux. Get into its bowels and make it leaner and meaner. Make it better. Make it stronger. Above all, have fun doing it and learn. Ignore Microsoft if you want, hack around in Win32 if you want to learn that. The point is, don't even step up to the line they've (we've?) drawn. Linux has another battle to fight. The ever-raging battle against becoming obsolescent and for becoming better. That's what we need to concentrate on--not ousting Microsoft.
Heh. The above post reminds me of all the time I spent on my then brand-new TI-81. Also stuffed in some number-guessing games. Even copied a little version of Tic-Tac-Toe I made up during one calc class onto half of the class's 82's. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and I think Jon's well on his way.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. I kind of see what you're saying. An object B appears to move away from an object A, assuming they're both bound to space and move with it (the two paper dots that are mentioned on the rubber membrane). Thus, to an observer on A, B is receding according to his (physical) measurement system. An object B in orbit around A would not be moving toward A by definition (well, by approximation to a circular orbit). The points are bound via gravity to each other, and we assume they're not bound to space as it expands (or they'd move with it). Thus, by defintion, they are not moving toward or away from each other, and no frequency shift is observed in any light emitted from them.
Is this an accurate assessment? If so, I have a problem with it. :) Please respond back.
Ummm, the problem is that I also do a ton of things outside of school, which take up my time. I really would like to get more into gravitational and spacial theory, though.
--
The first possibility that popped up in my mind was that the value of G (the universe's gravitational constant) might need adjusting. This would cause local phenomena to agree with it, but would start to lose its accuracy at greater and greater distances. Thus, the deep-space probes can maybe get us a more precise measurement of G than has ever before been able to be measured.
I can't imagine the distances being great enough, but if they are, then, as the article hinted, the expansion of the universe might start coming into play. Basically, imagine a rubber membrane, with two dots fixed on it. Now expand your universe (stretch the membrane), and the dots move away from each other. The farther apart they are, the faster they move. This might be counteracted by a second phenomenon I haven't read about, but reasoned out several years back (any physicists in the audience? Am I off my rocker on this?). Basically, the universe is expanding, but the stars in the galaxies are not expanding with it due to gravity holding them in. Thus, to an observer, the stars in the galaxies should appear to be moving away from their respective galactic cores, as space expands out past them (this is why a meter stick stays a meter even after space expands, and we can measure space's expansion. If it weren't true, then we'd never be able to view space expanding, as our measurements would expand with it). Thus, we could have a combination of the distance appearing to push them away from us, but gravity retarding this effect by still holding it back some. Were it to stay in a stable orbit, it should appear to be moving inward as space "flows" past it.
Ah well. I need to study gravitational phenomena more after I graduate. After graduation is where you take the really cool physics courses anyway (I'm a physics major).
Finally, its possible that our redshift (IIRC, the article stated that they used the probes' redshift) measurements are being affected en route to Earth, or that our redshift-based position and velocity measurement system needs tweaking.
--
Yes. It doesn't work with Mozilla (you just get one big column, as reported below).
- ----------
My best guess would be the use of the <layer> tag, which mozilla doesn't support.
So, basically, Netscape is breaking Standards. (As does Internet Exploitable.)
--
Trelane -------------------------------------------------
var ua=navigator.userAgent;
if (ua.indexOf('MSIE 4')!=-1||ua.indexOf('MSIE 5')!=-1) redirectPage=false;
else if (navigator.appName=="Netscape"&&parseInt(navigato
redirectPage=false;
else redirectPage=true;
if (redirectPage) location.href="/shared/badbrowser.psp";
</script>
That's what's doing the browser recognition (and "bad browser" redirection)
--
Trelane -------------------------------------------------
1) Read up on the machine language (we're talking opcodes here) 2) Flash a ROM with an operating system, and arrange the hardware such that it gets loaded at boot (like your BIOS for PCs) 3) In lieu of that (if you can't flash a ROM), set up a bank of DIP switches and manually enter in your minimal OS. 4) Boot and pray that it works. 5) Using your operating system, create an assembler. If you're able, you can flash *this* into a ROM somewhere. If not, you're going to have to go another route. If you have disk access, save it to disk. 6) Continue on up the layers of abstraction. Eventually relegate your ROM to a POST/bootstrapping role and move your OS onto disk. Yes, this is *extremely* simplified. But this is how I'd go about it. It would be quite a bit of work.
There was an article in Science (put out by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) in which a research did a language analysis of the introns and found that they had statistical similarities to a natural language. I can't find the article off hand, so you'll have to go to Google to find it (and there are a couple others as well).
For an amusing (and somewhat scary) display of Prior Art, see what some of the land/world's premiere techs were doing at the USENIX technical conference in San Diego last summer. Dug Song presented a WiP (Work in Progress) entitled, roughly, "Passwords Found on a Conference Wireless Network." Unfortunately, I cannot find a link right now. There should be enough data here to find it from either USENIX or Dug Song's pages. Hrm. If it's archived anywhere.
*sigh*
:). A goodly portion of this breaks in Internet Exploitable, yet the author wasn't searching for it as hard. Kind of like the self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
One of the *points* of the Open Source movement is that, if you find a problem, you can fix it.
Thus, if you find a problem in Mozilla, download the source and fix it! If you can't code it or don't have time, submit it to Bugzilla (bugzilla.mozilla.org.). Stop your whining and *do* something about it.
Now, as an aside, you should also always check your code first. In my experience most of what breaks in Mozilla is bad code (a friend of mine whines about NS and its derivatives all the time; I helped him fix the bugs in his code based upon his complaint list.
Patent, using obfuscated language such as to discourage people from discovering Prior Art, the Blink Tag. Charge people to use it, and maybe they'll stop. :)
What is your recommendation, both as a legal team and as a team for deCSS, for those of us who have linked to or have deCSS source and/or binaries on our web sites? Should we take it down to avoid legal troubles, keep it up, or spread it around as far as possible, to keep the MPAA from being capable of stomping it out?
As I think was mentioned before, this is a very bad idea. Sure, you pocket a few bucks, but the last thing we need is for the people with the most money to be able to influence things more than they already are. Just a little bit of thought will show why this is a very, very, very bad idea.
It is very much a research book. Basically, the book is the summary of the authors' research in this subject and is at times kind of dry. I have also not found this book in English, so you'll have to get it in German or find a transation or traslator.
This is true. I'd usually (if betting) say that the candidate with the largest spending in commercials will usually win the election. Hold on, here. What are we comparing? The proverbial apple and orange, that is what. Linux has nothing to prove. Linux has no spending on marketing precisely because it is nothing but a for-fun hack. It is exactly this which makes linux strong. Microsoft is aiming to make money. This is the goal of a corporation or business in general. The whole purpose of Open Source and Free Software is to get away from the (eek, I'm going to sound kind of Marxistic here) capitalistic aim of generating profits. It is the pursuit of profits which keeps Microsoft code under lock and key and which keeps the general public as well as the non-MS developers in the dark as to the inner workings of their products. The pursuit of profits also keeps students like myself (whether enrolled in college, grad school, or independently poor) pressed towards Linux, free Unices, and other Free Software/Open Source software--it doesn't cost anything. The software is free. If we want to fix a bug or figure out how something works, we just need to grab the source and hack away. It's one of the best sources of information around and the best bug-fix method I know. So, Linux needs to compete with Microsoft for market share, eh? Why? If we start fighting their kind of battle--a battle of Market Share, User Bases, Polls and Statistics--we will most assuredly lose. We would be taking on the one of the largest corporations in the world (picture opening up a diamond mine without DeBeers consent). Why compete at all? Hack on Linux. Get into its bowels and make it leaner and meaner. Make it better. Make it stronger. Above all, have fun doing it and learn. Ignore Microsoft if you want, hack around in Win32 if you want to learn that. The point is, don't even step up to the line they've (we've?) drawn. Linux has another battle to fight. The ever-raging battle against becoming obsolescent and for becoming better. That's what we need to concentrate on--not ousting Microsoft.
Heh. The above post reminds me of all the time I spent on my then brand-new TI-81. Also stuffed in some number-guessing games. Even copied a little version of Tic-Tac-Toe I made up during one calc class onto half of the class's 82's. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and I think Jon's well on his way.