I'm talking about debating the facts, too. For example when I used to teach proofs I would present bogus proofs like: all integers are equal, all functions are constant... where there was a slight mistake in the reasoning and the students had to learn to find it. It helped with them learning to find mistakes in their reasoning.
Do you really think in an honest debate biblical creationism stands a chance?
That is exactly what she is proposing. That creationism and biblical science be taught as a theory of science and addressed as a theory of science, and that students learn to work through alternate theories. I understand you think she doesn't actually mean that, but that is in fact what she proposed.
What where they trying to strong arm? IMHO they were just divided their OS division was going in one way their hardware division in another and their AS/400 in a third
Yeah. During the Windows 3.0/3.1 days OS/2 was way way ahead, "A better Dos than Dos, better windows than windows" was absolutely true. That's in addition to essentially having a native system that was better than NT 3.51 would be (2000 was pretty close and XP is probably better).
Yes IBM's bad handling of OS/2 set the market back years.
What do you think "speaking in tongues means"? This is just a form of shared social experience your culture doesn't engage in. A religion which worships a cracker as the literal body of some 2000 year man/god can't really complain too much about nonsense syllables.
Schools don't really teach science at all, they teach scientism. Ask your friends who did not get an undergraduate in math/science/engineering what their rationale is for believing in:
1) The atomic theory of matter (as opposed to the continuous theory, popular till 18th century)
2) That space time is curved or even what this means
3) of if they haven't done biology something like the germ theory of disease
The fact is people don't learn science at all, and the reason is because they don't learn how to argue through incorrect theories. I think it would be wonderful to teach the biblical theory: flat earth sitting on a firmament; with the sun planets and stars under a dome of water,.... and slowly work through why these ideas were rejected.
I love Macports. But no there are packages that don't build successfully for long periods of time (like months). Nothing as common as the ones in your list though.
There is a noticeable drop off in package quality between debian and macports, it would be wonderful if Apple provided more effort here.
If you want to operate at that level just read the darwin docs and do things as if the OSX level wasn't there (like in Linux). The crossovers are documented but you generally have to read developer docs not just system admin docs to see how things connect, and then system admin docs (BSD ones) to see what to do.
Penrose is almost a reference book. But remember what the OP was looking for physics associated with lots of complex math. For that I think Penrose is good, i.e. OP already knows the math he just doesn't know what it is for.
An excellent Physics book that is very math heavy but assumes no prereqs is Penrose's Road to Reality. This pretty much covers all of the main theory/formulas in cosmology, and he has 350 pages of math (much of it graduate level) to get there.
It isn't that clear cut usually. For large organizations it is more like:
free / cheap alternatives do 25% of what I want expensive alternative does 40% of what I want expensive alternative with high staff maintenance and configuration costs does 60% of what I want "do it yourself" solutions cost even more and do 85% of what I want.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: They paid much more than they expected and got more than they originally planned. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive. On the plus side Munich's development is now plugged in to the broader community so they are able to take advantage of open source in the "if you don't like it change it" sort of way. Moreover, Munich has become a test case for lots of open source software so many other cities will end up having to do "Munich's way".
Comment: Once Munich finishes the big issue will be the rest of Germany switching over. That should take much less time and cost less per head.
You make whatever you have to deploy a package and have the machines update with your new package. Updating is install/uninstall you just change dependencies on some virtual package
All Linuxes come with package upgrade services that run. You simply point them at a local repository and the machines will self update on whatever frequency you want as part of your standard image.
Well, no one suffered great harm but some of the early switchers might have. IBM for example failed in being able to switch, they couldn't get their divisions coordinated well enough. Sun (which switched to Sun desktop) had problems with customers and file formats as well as secondary software (much to their embarrassment).
The most successful switchers were companies like PitBoys and Burlington Coat Factory that were SCO / Solaris shops and weren't on Windows to bgin with. Windows lock-in seems to work.
What is unique about Munich is that they have remained focused year after year on this goal. They missed their early deadlines but they kept funding the project and kept moving forward. They were determined to make it happen, they had problems and (and possibly still have) but they addressed them. So this isn't a "just another example" test case but rather the best example we have of a very large organization with a huge range of needs and without a high level of technical expertise in their staff that was determined to make the switch.
0x = fastest providing light use 2x = min swap to get substantial advantage 3x = sweet spot, best value for your money over 3 generally just leads to fragging.
Remember zero install is designed for users not administrators to install. That's something right now that none of the systems: Windows, Mac or Linux handles particularly well. IMHO Mac is probably the closest with drag and drop install into user applications. Unix's make does a good job here but requires quite a bit of knowledge.
So I'd see what Zero is accomplishing as quite important but not necessarily the same sort of problem. I'd agree though that is LSB got it to work for admins Mac/Zero approach might be successful for non admins
They might be able to do that, though to modify your suggestion slightly I would suggest LSB "virtual packages" be standards. That allows the distribution to continue have very different things in their actual packages and the LSB just guarantees the dependencies get resolved.
Take a look at the articles. Dependency resolution is one of the things that LSB doesn't offer. It provides a small set of dependancies already resolved and everything else is provided with the app.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm proposing this. I had a scientism education :-(
I'm talking about debating the facts, too. For example when I used to teach proofs I would present bogus proofs like: all integers are equal, all functions are constant... where there was a slight mistake in the reasoning and the students had to learn to find it. It helped with them learning to find mistakes in their reasoning.
Do you really think in an honest debate biblical creationism stands a chance?
Sounds like a good course. Most students never get courses like that prior to graduate school which means they never get it at all.
That is exactly what she is proposing. That creationism and biblical science be taught as a theory of science and addressed as a theory of science, and that students learn to work through alternate theories. I understand you think she doesn't actually mean that, but that is in fact what she proposed.
Incompatible with what and as compared to what?
What where they trying to strong arm? IMHO they were just divided their OS division was going in one way their hardware division in another and their AS/400 in a third
side: more of this coming out
victim: people who buy the non-HP laptops to run vista. HP to some extent.
villain: Microsoft people who changed the rules
hero: Microsoft people who wrote the original rules. Possible Jim Alchin
Yeah. During the Windows 3.0/3.1 days OS/2 was way way ahead, "A better Dos than Dos, better windows than windows" was absolutely true. That's in addition to essentially having a native system that was better than NT 3.51 would be (2000 was pretty close and XP is probably better).
Yes IBM's bad handling of OS/2 set the market back years.
What do you think "speaking in tongues means"? This is just a form of shared social experience your culture doesn't engage in. A religion which worships a cracker as the literal body of some 2000 year man/god can't really complain too much about nonsense syllables.
Schools don't really teach science at all, they teach scientism. Ask your friends who did not get an undergraduate in math/science/engineering what their rationale is for believing in:
1) The atomic theory of matter (as opposed to the continuous theory, popular till 18th century)
2) That space time is curved or even what this means
3) of if they haven't done biology something like the germ theory of disease
The fact is people don't learn science at all, and the reason is because they don't learn how to argue through incorrect theories. I think it would be wonderful to teach the biblical theory: flat earth sitting on a firmament; with the sun planets and stars under a dome of water, .... and slowly work through why these ideas were rejected.
I love Macports. But no there are packages that don't build successfully for long periods of time (like months). Nothing as common as the ones in your list though.
There is a noticeable drop off in package quality between debian and macports, it would be wonderful if Apple provided more effort here.
If you want to operate at that level just read the darwin docs and do things as if the OSX level wasn't there (like in Linux). The crossovers are documented but you generally have to read developer docs not just system admin docs to see how things connect, and then system admin docs (BSD ones) to see what to do.
There are all kinds of free AFS for Windows:
http://www.openafs.org/
Penrose is almost a reference book. But remember what the OP was looking for physics associated with lots of complex math. For that I think Penrose is good, i.e. OP already knows the math he just doesn't know what it is for.
I think you mean ODEs.
An excellent Physics book that is very math heavy but assumes no prereqs is Penrose's Road to Reality. This pretty much covers all of the main theory/formulas in cosmology, and he has 350 pages of math (much of it graduate level) to get there.
It isn't that clear cut usually. For large organizations it is more like:
free / cheap alternatives do 25% of what I want
expensive alternative does 40% of what I want
expensive alternative with high staff maintenance and configuration costs does 60% of what I want
"do it yourself" solutions cost even more and do 85% of what I want.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: They paid much more than they expected and got more than they originally planned. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive. On the plus side Munich's development is now plugged in to the broader community so they are able to take advantage of open source in the "if you don't like it change it" sort of way. Moreover, Munich has become a test case for lots of open source software so many other cities will end up having to do "Munich's way".
Comment: Once Munich finishes the big issue will be the rest of Germany switching over. That should take much less time and cost less per head.
You make whatever you have to deploy a package and have the machines update with your new package. Updating is install/uninstall you just change dependencies on some virtual package
All Linuxes come with package upgrade services that run. You simply point them at a local repository and the machines will self update on whatever frequency you want as part of your standard image.
Well, no one suffered great harm but some of the early switchers might have. IBM for example failed in being able to switch, they couldn't get their divisions coordinated well enough. Sun (which switched to Sun desktop) had problems with customers and file formats as well as secondary software (much to their embarrassment).
The most successful switchers were companies like PitBoys and Burlington Coat Factory that were SCO / Solaris shops and weren't on Windows to bgin with. Windows lock-in seems to work.
What is unique about Munich is that they have remained focused year after year on this goal. They missed their early deadlines but they kept funding the project and kept moving forward. They were determined to make it happen, they had problems and (and possibly still have) but they addressed them. So this isn't a "just another example" test case but rather the best example we have of a very large organization with a huge range of needs and without a high level of technical expertise in their staff that was determined to make the switch.
I agree.
0x = fastest providing light use
2x = min swap to get substantial advantage
3x = sweet spot, best value for your money
over 3 generally just leads to fragging.
Remember zero install is designed for users not administrators to install. That's something right now that none of the systems: Windows, Mac or Linux handles particularly well. IMHO Mac is probably the closest with drag and drop install into user applications. Unix's make does a good job here but requires quite a bit of knowledge.
So I'd see what Zero is accomplishing as quite important but not necessarily the same sort of problem. I'd agree though that is LSB got it to work for admins Mac/Zero approach might be successful for non admins
Yep a virtual package is a package with no contents but dependencies. So for example in RH you might have
virtual package apache minimal - minimal apache required to run (install 5 packages)
virtual package apache complete = everything for apache
(install 4 of the above 5 + 26 others)
They might be able to do that, though to modify your suggestion slightly I would suggest LSB "virtual packages" be standards. That allows the distribution to continue have very different things in their actual packages and the LSB just guarantees the dependencies get resolved.
Take a look at the articles. Dependency resolution is one of the things that LSB doesn't offer. It provides a small set of dependancies already resolved and everything else is provided with the app.