Well said, for the most part. However, I still cringe, when I hear "We, as the leaders of the free world". If that is actually the American perception of itself (it may very well not be, but...), then most certainly, I would expect the US to adhere to a higher set of standards, and, at any rate, if they should want to instill this perception of the US in others, it holds even more true.
But you are still quite right, in that we actually do need to weigh the US on the same scale as other nations. It would just be easier, if the US itself would seem to agree on that./F
Well, the skip list is, as I understand it, randomised. The way I read the claims of the patent, this is not the case, which, in my opinion, degrades it to a simple weighted oriented graph.../F
If you could construct an astronomically large rod rigid enough that it stayed perfectly straight as you wiggled one end of it, you could transmit information faster than light. The people at the other (fixed) end of the rod could just measure the rotation on that end, and thus tell how you were wiggling the other end. The reason this isn't a practical way to send information faster than light is because you cannot build rods that rigid; the energy you impart on the atoms at one end would have to be imparted in turn to the other particles in the rod faster than the speed of light. Since they cannot do that, the compression wave caused in such a rod can travel no faster than the speed of light. You are quite right about that, of course.
Even at mundane scales, if you grab a stiff piece of rebar (the heavy iron reinforcement bar used in stone/brick/block construction), about an inch thick and maybe three feet long, and wave it around... it may appear incredibly rigid to you, and there will certainly be no visible compression waves in it, but when you wave it around, it is still flopping about ever so slightly, just as a floppy car antenna would if you waved it around likewise. If you got a longer piece of rebar and waved it around you'd even be able to see it flopping. You could make it thicker and it would flop less again (to the point of not being noticeable), but at no point does it actually cease to flop entirely. In fact, that's a good mundane model of this. Grab two long pieces of half inch rebar, say 50ft long, and fix one end of each at some point, like your setup. Note that if you move the loose ends fast enough, you can cross and uncross them before the crossing has propagated all the way down their lengths. The longer or thinner the rebar, the more noticeable this is, and the shorter and thicker (and therefore more rigid) it is, the less noticeable - in fact you'll quickly get to proportions where you simple can't, as a mere human, move the ends faster than the compression travels - but those compressions waves are always there, and still limited to the speed of light. Indeed. I am not familiar with the properties of "rebar" as I am neither a construction worker, nor a citizen of an anglophonic country, but I am fully aware that perfect rigidity is unattainable.
In short, to surmount your "challenge of engineering" would itself require that relativity be violated, for energy would need to be transmitted faster than c for any rods to be so rigid; and perfect rigidity would require instantaneous transmission of energy. Indeed this is the part I would like to answer. I was fully at fault for suggesting that perfect rigidity is only a challenge for engineering. You have rightly argued that it is indeed perfectly unattainable, and thus invalidated that specific claim. Kudos btw.
However, my claim was, that even if the proposed experiment was feasible, the theories of relativity would still be valid.
To summarize:
The claim was that relativity might be contradicted.
I referred to a highly simplified example of this seemingly (to a layman) being true, and refuted it again.
Your input shows clearly, that even the seemingly contradictory example, the conclusion of which upholds relativity, is actually itself flawed, and would in it's corrected interpretation show to uphold relativity even more strongly.
Thus, we are banging the same drum, only at a slightly different frame of reference, and thus I can only agree most wholehaertedly with you./F
7bit wrote:
Another, simple, way to envision the above idea is to think of a giant pair of scissors. The head of the scissors rests on the surface of the earth and the two blade tips reach into orbit but are open and at an angle to each other. Now, air resistance etc aside (Do it on the moon instead); when the scissors are "closed", each half moving at sub-luminal speeds, the virtual point of intersection between the two blades can in fact end up "moving" faster than the speed of light. It's movement of an abstraction though. Agreed. My mental image of the proposed idea is indeed a giant pair of scissors:-)
But there's a problem if you make the scissors too long; they cease to act as a rigid body due to the electromagnetic force binding it's atoms propagating at the speed of light. Say the scissors were one light year long and the arms only a couple degrees apart then suddenly closed. You would think that would create an obvious sudden signal one light year away. But, even if the scissors were made of material far stronger than we can make now, the far ends wouldn't actually close that fast. The scissors would in fact close "suddenly" in the visible distance, but the closing (not refering to the contact point mentioned earlier) would be occurring along the length of the scissors at a speed less than light, in a bending wave. The far tips would finally close a year or more later. Thanks for clarifying that. I took the ends' individual velocity to be subluminal implicitly, and vaguely stated "enormous rigidity" as an (unattainable) premise. My understanding of the actual behaviour, had the experiment been feasible, is pretty much as you describe, however, I was unable to formulate it.
However, my reasons for assuming near absolute rigidity was to give an upper estimate, driving my point through with as few distractions as possible.
Cherenkov radiation is indeed an interesting phenomenon, and is a good reminder that c is set to be the maximal velocity in vacuum, and not an invariant figure when other things come into play.
Well, the states "over the other" or "under the other" are relative to the coordinate systems used by the two observers, and that information could not be transferred merely by the crossing itself. Either they would have to agree beforehand, in which case no transfer of information takes place, or they would have to compare notes afterwards, and nothing still suggests that this comparison could be carried out faster than the time taken to transfer the information of the coordinate systems used via conventional ways, at sub-c speeds. Also, given the proposed length of the rods, even fairly large movements at one end would probably be immeasurable at the other end for quite some time.
The "differing coordinate systems" is, by the way, a main point in relativity.
And yes, I stated "enormously rigid" as a premise. This is mostly to do away with pesky details of material physics that is of no interest of the idea put forth. In reality, however, that requirement is blatantly unattainable:-)
I seem to remember reading about the following hypothetical experiment:
Let 2 enormously rigid "rods" of astronomical length be parallel. Let the one set of endpoints be fixed, and accelerate the other ends towards each other until crossing, and let them continue moving, now apart, with the rods intersecting. Even if the individual endpoints are moving at sub-c, one could easily imagine having the intersection point moving faster than c, however the intersection point is a logical construct, carrying neither mass nor information, and thus would this setup not contradict relativity, but merely present a challenge of engineering for anyone interested in carrying it out./F
There have been some posts here and over at the blog that suggests that MS has a special branch to handle patent applications. Well, someone from MS even said that he thought he could get the application retracted.
Now, I tend to give such statements a lot of credence. Imagine yourself in a position where your employer is obviously acting against all common sense, and is also seen as being almost omnipotently evil. If you cared about your job, you would stay silent, if the assertion of omnipotency held credence. On the other hand, if you actually also cared for your employer, and knew that some allegations were wrong, you would most likely try to explain, if not pardon.
I am not trying to assert that the case in point isn't blatantly wrong, but for once in my life, I actually think that MS is more misguided in their business model, having unknowledgeable serfs filing for patents, than that they are actually knowingly evil.
The case in point just goes to show, that this business model actually promotes evil behaviour, and that that should be a case for any government seeking foul play at MS, and that the ones that came up with this model, are the ones to blame./F
At Aarhus University, Denmark, the introductory course is taught using BlueJay and the book "Objects First with Java", ISBN 0-13-124933-9. It is quite pedagogical, and thoroughly teaches the concepts of objects/classes, and BlueJay represents structures using UML. The next course, Programming 2, is then taught on the basis of using emacs, but with students being free to use vi(m), Eclipse or whatever they preferred. This is with the book "Object Oriented Design and Patterns", ISBN 0-471-74487-5, which I can also recommend. Worth noting is, that at AU, the semesters are divided into 2 quarters, so the introductory and the second course runs over just one semester./Fjodor
Seen from Scandinavia, this seems rather funny. I live in the southernmost country of Scandinavia, Denmark, and our language has always been thwarted with foreign words (or so we like to think). Lately, English is on the rise, as most terms in the ever more ubiqotous (English is not my native language...) computer-oriented world, are easier to express with the given name/term/identifier/handle than it would be to express the term in a meaningful way in one's native tongue.
The only example, that I am 100% sure of is Iceland. I do not write Icelandic fluently, so I will make my points via translations to Danish and then continue...
In Iceland, a computer is called a "telda". That means "A device for counting". We may snicker at that, but it applies to all sorts of words: Here in Denmark, a hairdresser is called a "frisør", which obviously is lent from French "friseur". In Iceland, it is "hårskærer", meaning "cutter of hair":-)
As I see it, I am strucked with awe, when I am made aware of the more subtle hints, but I still maintain, that the true beauty of his works is, that although he has crammed in a lot of material for the academics, he has managed to do it in a way, that still leaves his works open to children!
Some years ago, I received this book as a gift from my girlfriend. I can neither argue the claim, that the language is simpler, nor can I claim, that I find the stories as full as the more well-known works.
What _did_ catch me, though, was the direct narration of the stories. The poems about the venerable mr. Bombadil is a different story, as they refer to the universe of LotR, but the other stories seem, at least to me, to tell stories of important weight as to ethics and morale, and yet not tranfer the entire story to a universe of his own design, but to merely use the common notion of a parallel world of fairies, formalised by him as the world of Faerie, but known to most people already.
To me, that is what separates those stories from his more well known works, but I dare the proposition, that it makes those stories more relevant, as they are so much easier to relate to!
Naturally, I see your point, and furthermore, I could, to some extent, agree.
However, I have also been spending quite some time over the last 8 (or so) years, contemplating, if I should shun my urges to just learn (the basics of) useless stuff. These thoughts have actually lead me unto a path of social openess, but I still admire the maladjusted geek, who focusses only on her/his (asocial) area of interest, in the bliss of knowing, that that is what she/he wants.
I cannot challenge your claim, that some seek refuge in this school of thought, and I therefore agree, that it should be a topic of discussion, but to characterise the entire community on this behalf would seem to me, to be just another self-important blathering...
Reading this, I took a stroll down ye olde Memory Lane... As a young boyscout, I specialised in knots, firemaking and knifethrowing (the latter did not earn me a merit badge, but I was only 9...), and that made me think. I do not consider myself a hacker, as I have never been given that distinction by my peers (whomever they might be), as I usually divert my interest to other areas, when I, myself, believe, that I have grasped the fundamentals of the issue, I have been pursuing knowledge about.
I would regard the characteristic of curiosity, regardless of popular opinion of the immediate subject, very important to label someone as a hacker, but I also believe, that a hacker should have the perseverance to explore every facet (accessible) of the chosen subject, in order to earn the label "hacker".
I, myself, have smithyed, carved, explored firemaking, knottying, ASP (ugh), Java and brewing of mead (to name a few), but I have never _really_ explored the finer details of any of those, and thus, I decline hackerdom.
I may be far off the popular definition of the term, but if so, please respond correctingly!
Might I inquire as to which bank, that is? Presently, I am a customer of DDB, who claims support for NS 4.7, which segfaults on Linux:-(
Their answer, as to whether that would be remedied was, that none of their customers uses Linux. After correcting that number to at least 1, I asked, if there might be a reason why the Linux community has given up on them. They wished me a good day, and hung up...
"The window management in Windows is better than anything I've seen in Linux. I'm sorry, but it's true. I don't care if you can make windows "roll up" into the title bar and you think it looks cool - what problem does that solve that wouldn't be handled better by minimising the window and showing it in the taskbar? Really, I'd be interested if someone could tell me the advantage."
Naturally, this may only hold true for me, but I find this extremely useful, as I easily remember, where on the screen I was doing what, and therefore have my windows where I want them, even if they are minimised. In a taskbar, the icons would quickly be rendered too small to tell which is what, or the taskbar would fill up most of the screen.
As for other "cool" stuff, I really like the possibility to change focus without moving the window in focus to the foreground.
Approximately 24h57m ago, I went to see the movie, and as I walked out of the theater, my mind was shared equally between two destinct thoughts: "Wow", and "what happened to those 3 hours?".
I did, however, remember, that I had felt a bit uneasy a couple of times, although the general impression was so overwhelming, that I could not recall, what it was that had bothered me.
As a consequence, I went back about 10h later, and watched it again. Still, I am in awe, but with a better recollection of what I hold to be imperfections, partly because I had to explain some detials to the friend I brought the second time, who hasn't read the books (I appreciate the fact, that the more subtle issues, such as Gollum's life before The Ring found him, Samwise's affection for Bill and such, would render the movie far too prolix).
Frodos relationship with Samwise, Meriadoc and Peregrin should be elaborated upon. What makes Merry and Pippin think "hey, let's join those two guys with dark horsemen after them..."?
And why is it only Merry and Pippin, who helps?
Tom Bombadil???
Frodo is far more imprudent in Bree...
I had no idea that Arwen was Glorfindel in drag?
Though Pippin has his momonts of folly, why does it have to be him, who disturbs the water creature?
And why is it Frodo, who gets the idea to open the entrance to Moria?
Given Gimli's distaste for elves, how come they get along so great all of a sudden?
And last of all, who does Frodo consult on the matter of leaving the fellowship? And when does Sam guess?
None the less, Peter Jackson, and the entire crew, has done a truly amazing job. My most optimistic hope for the movie was, that it would be good. It really is fantastic, and though opinions may differ, they managed to match my inner pictures of the characters with almost uncanny accuracy.
I just wish I could hibernate until they open the sales for the next movie:-)
... but this summer I went to have the Ring inscription tattooed on my right arm.
I considered having "Alatariel" (being an old-fashioned guy) written on my chest, but decided, that it would be a bit pretentious:-)
It did take quite some time to draw it perfectly, but it is quite satisfactory to know, that though others may have had the same idea, at least mine is in my own handwriting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, for the most part. However, I still cringe, when I hear "We, as the leaders of the free world". If that is actually the American perception of itself (it may very well not be, but...), then most certainly, I would expect the US to adhere to a higher set of standards, and, at any rate, if they should want to instill this perception of the US in others, it holds even more true.
/F
But you are still quite right, in that we actually do need to weigh the US on the same scale as other nations. It would just be easier, if the US itself would seem to agree on that.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
Have a nice day,
F
Well, the skip list is, as I understand it, randomised. The way I read the claims of the patent, this is not the case, which, in my opinion, degrades it to a simple weighted oriented graph... /F
Thanks :-)
Nice :-)
:-)
However, if they also claim that you are "faster than the intersection point in Fjodor's experiment", I would be both wary and amused
However, my claim was, that even if the proposed experiment was feasible, the theories of relativity would still be valid.
To summarize:
The claim was that relativity might be contradicted.
I referred to a highly simplified example of this seemingly (to a layman) being true, and refuted it again.
Your input shows clearly, that even the seemingly contradictory example, the conclusion of which upholds relativity, is actually itself flawed, and would in it's corrected interpretation show to uphold relativity even more strongly.
Thus, we are banging the same drum, only at a slightly different frame of reference, and thus I can only agree most wholehaertedly with you.
However, my reasons for assuming near absolute rigidity was to give an upper estimate, driving my point through with as few distractions as possible.
Again, thanks for clarifying,
Cherenkov radiation is indeed an interesting phenomenon, and is a good reminder that c is set to be the maximal velocity in vacuum, and not an invariant figure when other things come into play.
Well, the states "over the other" or "under the other" are relative to the coordinate systems used by the two observers, and that information could not be transferred merely by the crossing itself. Either they would have to agree beforehand, in which case no transfer of information takes place, or they would have to compare notes afterwards, and nothing still suggests that this comparison could be carried out faster than the time taken to transfer the information of the coordinate systems used via conventional ways, at sub-c speeds. Also, given the proposed length of the rods, even fairly large movements at one end would probably be immeasurable at the other end for quite some time.
:-)
The "differing coordinate systems" is, by the way, a main point in relativity.
And yes, I stated "enormously rigid" as a premise. This is mostly to do away with pesky details of material physics that is of no interest of the idea put forth. In reality, however, that requirement is blatantly unattainable
I seem to remember reading about the following hypothetical experiment:
/F
Let 2 enormously rigid "rods" of astronomical length be parallel. Let the one set of endpoints be fixed, and accelerate the other ends towards each other until crossing, and let them continue moving, now apart, with the rods intersecting. Even if the individual endpoints are moving at sub-c, one could easily imagine having the intersection point moving faster than c, however the intersection point is a logical construct, carrying neither mass nor information, and thus would this setup not contradict relativity, but merely present a challenge of engineering for anyone interested in carrying it out.
There have been some posts here and over at the blog that suggests that MS has a special branch to handle patent applications. Well, someone from MS even said that he thought he could get the application retracted.
/F
Now, I tend to give such statements a lot of credence. Imagine yourself in a position where your employer is obviously acting against all common sense, and is also seen as being almost omnipotently evil. If you cared about your job, you would stay silent, if the assertion of omnipotency held credence. On the other hand, if you actually also cared for your employer, and knew that some allegations were wrong, you would most likely try to explain, if not pardon.
I am not trying to assert that the case in point isn't blatantly wrong, but for once in my life, I actually think that MS is more misguided in their business model, having unknowledgeable serfs filing for patents, than that they are actually knowingly evil.
The case in point just goes to show, that this business model actually promotes evil behaviour, and that that should be a case for any government seeking foul play at MS, and that the ones that came up with this model, are the ones to blame.
And yes, I am aware that it's BlueJ. Sorry for the typo. Please mod this correction neutral (0, I presume).
Just to chime in with a case story.
/Fjodor
At Aarhus University, Denmark, the introductory course is taught using BlueJay and the book "Objects First with Java", ISBN 0-13-124933-9. It is quite pedagogical, and thoroughly teaches the concepts of objects/classes, and BlueJay represents structures using UML. The next course, Programming 2, is then taught on the basis of using emacs, but with students being free to use vi(m), Eclipse or whatever they preferred. This is with the book "Object Oriented Design and Patterns", ISBN 0-471-74487-5, which I can also recommend. Worth noting is, that at AU, the semesters are divided into 2 quarters, so the introductory and the second course runs over just one semester.
Is it indeed?
/. than there are developers of (not for) windows...
Not trying to throw/attract flames, is it possible to create a new window manager for Windows with his suggestions in mind?
It is, with XFree86, that is the graphic engine for most unices, including Linux, which is why it makes sense to seek help in this area.
I should guess, that there are more *nix developers on
Seen from Scandinavia, this seems rather funny. I live in the southernmost country of Scandinavia, Denmark, and our language has always been thwarted with foreign words (or so we like to think). Lately, English is on the rise, as most terms in the ever more ubiqotous (English is not my native language...) computer-oriented world, are easier to express with the given name/term/identifier/handle than it would be to express the term in a meaningful way in one's native tongue.
:-)
The only example, that I am 100% sure of is Iceland. I do not write Icelandic fluently, so I will make my points via translations to Danish and then continue...
In Iceland, a computer is called a "telda". That means "A device for counting". We may snicker at that, but it applies to all sorts of words: Here in Denmark, a hairdresser is called a "frisør", which obviously is lent from French "friseur". In Iceland, it is "hårskærer", meaning "cutter of hair"
As I see it, I am strucked with awe, when I am made aware of the more subtle hints, but I still maintain, that the true beauty of his works is, that although he has crammed in a lot of material for the academics, he has managed to do it in a way, that still leaves his works open to children!
Some years ago, I received this book as a gift from my girlfriend.
I can neither argue the claim, that the language is simpler, nor can I claim, that I find the stories as full as the more well-known works.
What _did_ catch me, though, was the direct narration of the stories. The poems about the venerable mr. Bombadil is a different story, as they refer to the universe of LotR, but the other stories seem, at least to me, to tell stories of important weight as to ethics and morale, and yet not tranfer the entire story to a universe of his own design, but to merely use the common notion of a parallel world of fairies, formalised by him as the world of Faerie, but known to most people already.
To me, that is what separates those stories from his more well known works, but I dare the proposition, that it makes those stories more relevant, as they are so much easier to relate to!
Naturally, I see your point, and furthermore, I could, to some extent, agree.
However, I have also been spending quite some time over the last 8 (or so) years, contemplating, if I should shun my urges to just learn (the basics of) useless stuff. These thoughts have actually lead me unto a path of social openess, but I still admire the maladjusted geek, who focusses only on her/his (asocial) area of interest, in the bliss of knowing, that that is what she/he wants.
I cannot challenge your claim, that some seek refuge in this school of thought, and I therefore agree, that it should be a topic of discussion, but to characterise the entire community on this behalf would seem to me, to be just another self-important blathering...
Reading this, I took a stroll down ye olde Memory Lane...
As a young boyscout, I specialised in knots, firemaking and knifethrowing (the latter did not earn me a merit badge, but I was only 9...), and that made me think.
I do not consider myself a hacker, as I have never been given that distinction by my peers (whomever they might be), as I usually divert my interest to other areas, when I, myself, believe, that I have grasped the fundamentals of the issue, I have been pursuing knowledge about.
I would regard the characteristic of curiosity, regardless of popular opinion of the immediate subject, very important to label someone as a hacker, but I also believe, that a hacker should have the perseverance to explore every facet (accessible) of the chosen subject, in order to earn the label "hacker".
I, myself, have smithyed, carved, explored firemaking, knottying, ASP (ugh), Java and brewing of mead (to name a few), but I have never _really_ explored the finer details of any of those, and thus, I decline hackerdom.
I may be far off the popular definition of the term, but if so, please respond correctingly!
Might I inquire as to which bank, that is? Presently, I am a customer of DDB, who claims support for NS 4.7, which segfaults on Linux :-(
Their answer, as to whether that would be remedied was, that none of their customers uses Linux. After correcting that number to at least 1, I asked, if there might be a reason why the Linux community has given up on them. They wished me a good day, and hung up...
"The window management in Windows is better than anything I've seen in Linux. I'm sorry, but it's true. I don't care if you can make windows "roll up" into the title bar and you think it looks cool - what problem does that solve that wouldn't be handled better by minimising the window and showing it in the taskbar? Really, I'd be interested if someone could tell me the advantage."
Naturally, this may only hold true for me, but I find this extremely useful, as I easily remember, where on the screen I was doing what, and therefore have my windows where I want them, even if they are minimised. In a taskbar, the icons would quickly be rendered too small to tell which is what, or the taskbar would fill up most of the screen.
As for other "cool" stuff, I really like the possibility to change focus without moving the window in focus to the foreground.
Just my 2 cents
Just found this
Approximately 24h57m ago, I went to see the movie, and as I walked out of the theater, my mind was shared equally between two destinct thoughts: "Wow", and "what happened to those 3 hours?".
:-)
I did, however, remember, that I had felt a bit uneasy a couple of times, although the general impression was so overwhelming, that I could not recall, what it was that had bothered me.
As a consequence, I went back about 10h later, and watched it again. Still, I am in awe, but with a better recollection of what I hold to be imperfections, partly because I had to explain some detials to the friend I brought the second time, who hasn't read the books (I appreciate the fact, that the more subtle issues, such as Gollum's life before The Ring found him, Samwise's affection for Bill and such, would render the movie far too prolix).
Frodos relationship with Samwise, Meriadoc and Peregrin should be elaborated upon. What makes Merry and Pippin think "hey, let's join those two guys with dark horsemen after them..."?
And why is it only Merry and Pippin, who helps?
Tom Bombadil???
Frodo is far more imprudent in Bree...
I had no idea that Arwen was Glorfindel in drag?
Though Pippin has his momonts of folly, why does it have to be him, who disturbs the water creature?
And why is it Frodo, who gets the idea to open the entrance to Moria?
Given Gimli's distaste for elves, how come they get along so great all of a sudden?
And last of all, who does Frodo consult on the matter of leaving the fellowship? And when does Sam guess?
None the less, Peter Jackson, and the entire crew, has done a truly amazing job. My most optimistic hope for the movie was, that it would be good. It really is fantastic, and though opinions may differ, they managed to match my inner pictures of the characters with almost uncanny accuracy.
I just wish I could hibernate until they open the sales for the next movie
Namarié,
Sune
It is probably a typo. There would no need to use tapes to mail that amount of data either.
It should most likely read something like "20Gb"
... but this summer I went to have the Ring inscription tattooed on my right arm.
:-)
I considered having "Alatariel" (being an old-fashioned guy) written on my chest, but decided, that it would be a bit pretentious
It did take quite some time to draw it perfectly, but it is quite satisfactory to know, that though others may have had the same idea, at least mine is in my own handwriting.