Anyway, my locally-owned non-chain computer store (Little Shop of Hardware in Baltimore) seems to have prices on par with what you can find online (but not quite as big a selection, obviously!). Plus, you don't have to pay for shipping, or deal with RMAs, and you get to support your local economy.
Yes, but at that point you are distributing it without their authority, so *they* can't be sued for your disgusting and offensive module. This clause is for their protection against litigation, not to shut you up.
The subjective definition is the only one that matters. The neutral object is simply a tool which allows you to look at sunlight without blinding yourself, and without changing its color.
Take a neutral object that reflects light of all colors equally well (snow is a good candidate). Expose this object to sunlight around noon.
Now. Does this neutral object: (a) "contain equal amounts of all colors", or (b) contain the same uneven mix of colors as the Sun?
The answer is (b), since the object is a perfect reflector (scatterer actually) of whatever light hits it. The apparent color of this object when exposed to sunlight is then, by definition, the color of the Sun.
I submit that this neutral object will look white to our eyes when exposed to sunlight, and that therefore to claim that the Sun is a color other than white makes absolutely no sense. The Sun and the object are both emitting the same mixture of colors; the mixture of colors that we have evolved to recognize as "white".
If the Sun was yellow then clouds and snow would look yellow, because they are very close to being perfect neutral light scatterers.
By definition, white colors look "whitest" to our eyes when in sunlight (in the same way white looks green under flourescent light). That doesn't mean the Sun's light is white.
Um, yes it does, I'm afraid. You're saying that the Sun's light is yellow-orange, yet it somehow makes white objects look white. That is simply not possible.
It's easier to understand if we make a distinction between the color of light and the color of non-luminous objects. A non-luminous object has an apparent color based on how efficiently it reflects different colors, convolved with the mix of colors of the light it is reflecting.
For example, an object that looks blue under white light looks blue because it reflects blue light better than other colors. The same object will look black under a red light. A "white" object is one which reflects light of all colors equally well. So it takes on the color of the light it is reflecting (it looks red under red light, blue under blue light, yellow under ywllow light, etc.). So, instead of "white", let's call it "neutral".
Now, take such a "neutral" object outside on a sunny day. Note its apparent color. That's the color of sunlight, by definition. It's true that our perception of that color as tint-free is subjective, and a product of our evolution in a sunlit environment. That is exactly why I said the Sun must be white, almost by definition. It would be truly bizarre if our eyes perceived light from our Sun as anything but white.
Hope that helps.
(PS- try looking at the Sun (briefly!!!!) around noon, instead of at sunset. Like I said in my original post, the Sun is heavily reddened when it is near the horizon; that's why most people think it's yellow (because they only see the Sun when it's "in the way" near the horizon) )
Of course, the Sun is actually white, almost by definition. People think it's yellow because they usually see it when it's low in the sky near the horizon, which causes its color to be significantly reddened by its long path length through the gas and dust of our atmosphere.
It was "explained" in Ep II, you just missed it. As Anikan begins to slaughter the Tusken raiders, you hear a disembodied voice saying "Anikan, Anikan No!"...That voice was Qui-Gon's.
In an interview conducted about a year ago, you make the laughable and disturbing claim that you have contributed more to GNU/Linux than Richard Stallman. Let's compare your contributions, shall we? You are the CEO of Caldera, a once (and future?) Linux distributor, but one among many, and yours was certainly never the most widespread. Richard Stallman founded the Free Software movement, and wrote the GPL, under which the vast majority of Free Software is licensed. He also wrote the compiler (gcc), file editor (emacs), and many other utilities that ship with GNU/Linux, in addition to "all of those libraries", as you so succinctly put it. It is fair to say that the Free Software movement would not exist without Richard Stallman, or someone like him. And without the FSF, it is fair to say that GNU/Linux--your cash cow--wouldn't exist either.
Now to the question: How would the Linux/Free software community be any different if you were not a part of it? Do you really still believe that you've had a greater impact than Richard M. Stallman? You can answer, or not. I suspect we'll know the answer regardless in a year or so.
Wow, I'm suprised that almost everyone in this thread agrees that their projects suffer from a lack of willing contributors. My project (which is definitely for end-users) has what I consider to be a healthy base of about 4 regular contributors. Each time, I got an email from out of the blue saying they liked my program and wanted to help out. While I would say I still write the majority of the code, the contributions from my co-devs have been significant and invaluable to the project, and they've been actively contributing for months.
I also consider bug reports and feature requests to be a very important contribution. I'm always shocked to hear OSS devs say that this kind of feedback is essentially useless.
Ah well, just wanted to throw in my $0.02. OSS does work like it's supposed to sometimes. I'm glad it did in my case, I think it would be much less fun if I was still the only one working on my project.
Furthermore, to transport building materials roughly 250,000 miles has to be difficult.
Of course. That's why they wouldn't transport building materials, they would use lunar materials.
The Moon offers unique environmental characteristics (low gravity, extreme vacuum, abundant, reliable sunlight half the time, no seismic activity, no radio noise from Earth (on farside), and of course, tourism) that can be exploited in certain scientific and industrial applications. You wouldn't put a city there "just because", it would be done to take advantage of being on the moon.
why? Karma isn't just there to reward the poster, its primary function is to let the readers filter out noise. If your post was redundant, and was moderated so, I don't see the problem, even if you didn't mean for it to be redundant.
(I effectively modded myself -1, Offtopic by checking "No Score +1 Bonus" for this post:)
(note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen)
Huh? Padme and Amidala are the same person. Her decoy was pretending to be Amidala; the real Amidala (played by Ms. Portman) was pretending to be the handmaiden Padme (although I believe Padme actually is the character's real name).
Highly doubtful, since Security Council resolutions can be vetoed by any of its 5 permanent members, which includes the US. So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.:)
Re:National Cryptologic Museum has an Enigma
on
Enigma
·
· Score: 2
I agree, it's a really cool museum. They have several enigma machines, though, not just one, and (part of) a giant codebreaking computer used in the United States during WW2, based on a Turing design, IIRC.
I caught part of a guided tour last time I was there. The tour guide said that next year the Korean War section would be much more interesting...because stuff from that era would finally be declassified (!)
It's on 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway), right next to the NSA.
Don't know much about Caldera's Linux, but Ransom Love is an idiot. Anyone else remember when he said he has done more for Free Software than RMS? Ummm.....yeah. In the immortal words of Dr. Forrseter to TV's Frank: "that's an interesting world you've created for yourself there..."
And WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE LITTLE ANIMATED ICONS NEXT TO THE MOUSE POINTER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Ye gods, if I wanted that crap, I'd have stuck with the Win98 Plus! that came installed with one of my machines. You can't even turn them off.
snip for sanity...
Animated "working" hourglasses in the toolbar...that I CANNOT TURN OFF
First of all, try the decaf next time, cowboy. Now. Take a deep breath. Ready for the super-secret, totally obscure method to diasble these features that haunt your soul? It's kinda complicated, so you might want to print this out...
1. Open KControl.
2. Select "Launch Feedback" from the menu.
3. Uncheck the "Enable busy cursor" and "Enable taskbar notification" checkboxes.
Whew, that was tough. Definitely worth giving the old CAPS-LOCK key a vigorous workout over.
Photons have energy; gravity acts on energy just as well as it acts on mass. Einstein brought us that formula as well.
Right, the "naively" applies to the Newtonian thinker, not the GR thinker. IOW, you shouldn't use relativistic concepts (mass-energy equivalence) in deriving the Newtonian prediction for the deflection of a photon passing near the Sun.
Likewise, energy exerts a gravitational force, just like mass. A famous example of this is the precession of Mercury's orbit, caused by the corona of the sun.
No, the famous precession of Mercury's orbit has nothing to do with the Sun's corona. Rather, it is exactly analogous to the deflection of starlight near the Sun: it is a simple manifestation of the difference between Newtonian and Relativistic gravitation. Both cases rely on the relatively deep potential well near the Sun to exaggerate the differences between the two theories. Under such extreme gravitational circumstances, Newtonian gravity deviates from reality. Relativity does not.
Here's a simple litmus test you can use if you aren't sure whether "your stuff" should be "our stuff":
If using "my stuff" in "your stuff" would violate my copyright if my stuff wasn't under the GPL, then "your stuff" is probably "our stuff" under the GPL.
eeks, that was much more simple when I said it in my head! anyway...
BTW, Newtonian gravity also predicts that light will bend as it passes near a large mass (if you naively assume that a photon feels the force of gravity, despite the fact that it has no mass).
The difference is that the size of the deflection according to GR is larger by a factor of 2 than the Newtonian prediction, which is what Eddington confirmed.
I agree with almost everything you said. Ok, "slandered" was a bit dramatic, but it did get your attention. Characterizing science as "just another religion" is not only a gross mischaracterization, not only does it do a severe disservice to both science and religion, but it exhibits a critical, fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
Science is a method to try to understand the world in a way that minimizes the number of things you have to assume. And I still contend that there's a huge philosophical canyon between making an assumption, and having faith.
Christianity, for example, doesn't say anything about why toilets flush clockwise in the northern hemisphere and couter-clockwise in the southern. But science does. Science doesn't tell us what will happen when we die, but Christianity does.
First of all, the toilet water thing is a myth, but let's ignore that:). The point is that science will tell you the best answer to a question it addresses. Religion will tell you the Truth regarding its questions, but good luck trying to convince everyone that your Truth is better than theirs. In science, we can do experiments to figure out who has the better answer.
And what makes you think scientists don't look for the evidence to fit their hypothesis?
I said "Science", not "scientists". Yes, any individual scientist is hopelessly subjective and probably biased. However, there are a large number of scientists in the world, and we don't all have the same goal, nor do we share the same set of hypotheses. Thus, the ensemble of scientists (a.k.a., "Science") is a self-correcting system, and even though each tiny step the system takes may be subjective and biased, the entire body is able to discard steps which fail under repeated scrutiny, resulting in a bulk motion of the system toward objective, bias-free answers.
If that knowledge comes from a scientific paper or a burning bush, in the end, what does it matter?
Because you are allowed, even encouraged to question the results in the paper, and to propose alternatives. You are a participant in creating truth, not just a consumer of truth. The bush tells you how it is. Period. And to stretch the metaphor, many different peoples in the world have their equivalent of a Burning Bush, but if you look at the "Truths" handed down, they are mutually exclusive. How does a mere sinner sort out which Bush to listen to? They all say they are the One True Bush, the rest merely burnt shrubbery.
Science has peer review to sort out the right answers. Religion has Holy Wars, I guess, but they don't really work, do they?
There's a huge difference between an assumption, and a matter of faith: reversibility. An assumption can be rejected in the face of contrary evidence; faith cannot.
No, science is not "just another religion", and I'm sick of hearing it slandered that way. It's true that a minimal number of things have to be assumed in science (e.g., the cosmological principle), but that does not make these assumptions tenets of "faith". If there was sufficient evidence that one of these assumptions was wrong, it would be (eventually) discarded. What religion can claim that?
Here's a simple phrase you can use to distinguish science from religion:
Religion searches for evidence to fit its convictions. Science searches for convictions to fit its evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I love building my own system...it's fun!
Anyway, my locally-owned non-chain computer store (Little Shop of Hardware in Baltimore) seems to have prices on par with what you can find online (but not quite as big a selection, obviously!). Plus, you don't have to pay for shipping, or deal with RMAs, and you get to support your local economy.
Yes, but at that point you are distributing it without their authority, so *they* can't be sued for your disgusting and offensive module. This clause is for their protection against litigation, not to shut you up.
The subjective definition is the only one that matters. The neutral object is simply a tool which allows you to look at sunlight without blinding yourself, and without changing its color.
Take a neutral object that reflects light of all colors equally well (snow is a good candidate). Expose this object to sunlight around noon.
Now. Does this neutral object: (a) "contain equal amounts of all colors", or (b) contain the same uneven mix of colors as the Sun?
The answer is (b), since the object is a perfect reflector (scatterer actually) of whatever light hits it. The apparent color of this object when exposed to sunlight is then, by definition, the color of the Sun.
I submit that this neutral object will look white to our eyes when exposed to sunlight, and that therefore to claim that the Sun is a color other than white makes absolutely no sense. The Sun and the object are both emitting the same mixture of colors; the mixture of colors that we have evolved to recognize as "white".
If the Sun was yellow then clouds and snow would look yellow, because they are very close to being perfect neutral light scatterers.
By definition, white colors look "whitest" to our eyes when in sunlight (in the same way white looks green under flourescent light). That doesn't mean the Sun's light is white.
Um, yes it does, I'm afraid. You're saying that the Sun's light is yellow-orange, yet it somehow makes white objects look white. That is simply not possible.
It's easier to understand if we make a distinction between the color of light and the color of non-luminous objects. A non-luminous object has an apparent color based on how efficiently it reflects different colors, convolved with the mix of colors of the light it is reflecting.
For example, an object that looks blue under white light looks blue because it reflects blue light better than other colors. The same object will look black under a red light. A "white" object is one which reflects light of all colors equally well. So it takes on the color of the light it is reflecting (it looks red under red light, blue under blue light, yellow under ywllow light, etc.). So, instead of "white", let's call it "neutral".
Now, take such a "neutral" object outside on a sunny day. Note its apparent color. That's the color of sunlight, by definition. It's true that our perception of that color as tint-free is subjective, and a product of our evolution in a sunlit environment. That is exactly why I said the Sun must be white, almost by definition. It would be truly bizarre if our eyes perceived light from our Sun as anything but white.
Hope that helps.
(PS- try looking at the Sun (briefly!!!!) around noon, instead of at sunset. Like I said in my original post, the Sun is heavily reddened when it is near the horizon; that's why most people think it's yellow (because they only see the Sun when it's "in the way" near the horizon) )
Of course, the Sun is actually white, almost by definition. People think it's yellow because they usually see it when it's low in the sky near the horizon, which causes its color to be significantly reddened
by its long path length through the gas and dust of our atmosphere.
It was "explained" in Ep II, you just missed it. As Anikan begins to slaughter the Tusken raiders, you hear a disembodied voice saying "Anikan, Anikan No!"...That voice was Qui-Gon's.
In an interview conducted about a year ago, you make the laughable and disturbing claim that you have contributed more to GNU/Linux than Richard Stallman. Let's compare your contributions, shall we? You are the CEO of Caldera, a once (and future?) Linux distributor, but one among many, and yours was certainly never the most widespread. Richard Stallman founded the Free Software movement, and wrote the GPL, under which the vast majority of Free Software is licensed. He also wrote the compiler (gcc), file editor (emacs), and many other utilities that ship with GNU/Linux, in addition to "all of those libraries", as you so succinctly put it. It is fair to say that the Free Software movement would not exist without Richard Stallman, or someone like him. And without the FSF, it is fair to say that GNU/Linux--your cash cow--wouldn't exist either.
Now to the question: How would the Linux/Free software community be any different if you were not a part of it? Do you really still believe that you've had a greater impact than Richard M. Stallman? You can answer, or not. I suspect we'll know the answer regardless in a year or so.
Wow, I'm suprised that almost everyone in this thread agrees that their projects suffer from a lack of willing contributors. My project (which is definitely for end-users) has what I consider to be a healthy base of about 4 regular contributors. Each time, I got an email from out of the blue saying they liked my program and wanted to help out. While I would say I still write the majority of the code, the contributions from my co-devs have been significant and invaluable to the project, and they've been actively contributing for months.
I also consider bug reports and feature requests to be a very important contribution. I'm always shocked to hear OSS devs say that this kind of feedback is essentially useless.
Ah well, just wanted to throw in my $0.02. OSS does work like it's supposed to sometimes. I'm glad it did in my case, I think it would be much less fun if I was still the only one working on my project.
Furthermore, to transport building materials roughly 250,000 miles has to be difficult.
Of course. That's why they wouldn't transport building materials, they would use lunar materials.
The Moon offers unique environmental characteristics (low gravity, extreme vacuum, abundant, reliable sunlight half the time, no seismic activity, no radio noise from Earth (on farside), and of course, tourism) that can be exploited in certain scientific and industrial applications. You wouldn't put a city there "just because", it would be done to take advantage of being on the moon.
why? Karma isn't just there to reward the poster, its primary function is to let the readers filter out noise. If your post was redundant, and was moderated so, I don't see the problem, even if you didn't mean for it to be redundant.
:)
(I effectively modded myself -1, Offtopic by checking "No Score +1 Bonus" for this post
(note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen)
Huh? Padme and Amidala are the same person. Her decoy was pretending to be Amidala; the real Amidala (played by Ms. Portman) was pretending to be the handmaiden Padme (although I believe Padme actually is the character's real name).
Highly doubtful, since Security Council resolutions can be vetoed by any of its 5 permanent members, which includes the US. So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. :)
I agree, it's a really cool museum. They have several enigma machines, though, not just one, and (part of) a giant codebreaking computer used in the United States during WW2, based on a Turing design, IIRC.
I caught part of a guided tour last time I was there. The tour guide said that next year the Korean War section would be much more interesting...because stuff from that era would finally be declassified (!)
It's on 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway), right next to the NSA.
Don't know much about Caldera's Linux, but Ransom Love is an idiot. Anyone else remember when he said he has done more for Free Software than RMS? Ummm.....yeah. In the immortal words of Dr. Forrseter to TV's Frank: "that's an interesting world you've created for yourself there..."
snip for sanity...
Animated "working" hourglasses in the toolbar...that I CANNOT TURN OFF
First of all, try the decaf next time, cowboy. Now. Take a deep breath. Ready for the super-secret, totally obscure method to diasble these features that haunt your soul? It's kinda complicated, so you might want to print this out...
1. Open KControl.
2. Select "Launch Feedback" from the menu.
3. Uncheck the "Enable busy cursor" and "Enable taskbar notification" checkboxes.
Whew, that was tough. Definitely worth giving the old CAPS-LOCK key a vigorous workout over.
Konqueror rejects it properly. Just FYI ;)
Photons have energy; gravity acts on energy just as well as it acts on mass. Einstein brought us that formula as well.
Right, the "naively" applies to the Newtonian thinker, not the GR thinker. IOW, you shouldn't use relativistic concepts (mass-energy equivalence) in deriving the Newtonian prediction for the deflection of a photon passing near the Sun.
Likewise, energy exerts a gravitational force, just like mass. A famous example of this is the precession of Mercury's orbit, caused by the corona of the sun.
No, the famous precession of Mercury's orbit has nothing to do with the Sun's corona. Rather, it is exactly analogous to the deflection of starlight near the Sun: it is a simple manifestation of the difference between Newtonian and Relativistic gravitation. Both cases rely on the relatively deep potential well near the Sun to exaggerate the differences between the two theories. Under such extreme gravitational circumstances, Newtonian gravity deviates from reality. Relativity does not.
Here's a simple litmus test you can use if you aren't sure whether "your stuff" should be "our stuff":
If using "my stuff" in "your stuff" would violate my copyright if my stuff wasn't under the GPL, then "your stuff" is probably "our stuff" under the GPL.
eeks, that was much more simple when I said it in my head! anyway...
You got it spot-on, petard. I've never said this before, but: Mod parent UP! :)
Yes it was.
BTW, Newtonian gravity also predicts that light will bend as it passes near a large mass (if you naively assume that a photon feels the force of gravity, despite the fact that it has no mass).
The difference is that the size of the deflection according to GR is larger by a factor of 2 than the Newtonian prediction, which is what Eddington confirmed.
I agree with almost everything you said. Ok, "slandered" was a bit dramatic, but it did get your attention. Characterizing science as "just another religion" is not only a gross mischaracterization, not only does it do a severe disservice to both science and religion, but it exhibits a critical, fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
:). The point is that science will tell you the best answer to a question it addresses. Religion will tell you the Truth regarding its questions, but good luck trying to convince everyone that your Truth is better than theirs. In science, we can do experiments to figure out who has the better answer.
Science is a method to try to understand the world in a way that minimizes the number of things you have to assume. And I still contend that there's a huge philosophical canyon between making an assumption, and having faith.
Christianity, for example, doesn't say anything about why toilets flush clockwise in the northern hemisphere and couter-clockwise in the southern. But science does. Science doesn't tell us what will happen when we die, but Christianity does.
First of all, the toilet water thing is a myth, but let's ignore that
And what makes you think scientists don't look for the evidence to fit their hypothesis?
I said "Science", not "scientists". Yes, any individual scientist is hopelessly subjective and probably biased. However, there are a large number of scientists in the world, and we don't all have the same goal, nor do we share the same set of hypotheses. Thus, the ensemble of scientists (a.k.a., "Science") is a self-correcting system, and even though each tiny step the system takes may be subjective and biased, the entire body is able to discard steps which fail under repeated scrutiny, resulting in a bulk motion of the system toward objective, bias-free answers.
If that knowledge comes from a scientific paper or a burning bush, in the end, what does it matter?
Because you are allowed, even encouraged to question the results in the paper, and to propose alternatives. You are a participant in creating truth, not just a consumer of truth. The bush tells you how it is. Period. And to stretch the metaphor, many different peoples in the world have their equivalent of a Burning Bush, but if you look at the "Truths" handed down, they are mutually exclusive. How does a mere sinner sort out which Bush to listen to? They all say they are the One True Bush, the rest merely burnt shrubbery.
Science has peer review to sort out the right answers. Religion has Holy Wars, I guess, but they don't really work, do they?
There's a huge difference between an assumption, and a matter of faith: reversibility. An assumption can be rejected in the face of contrary evidence; faith cannot.
No, science is not "just another religion", and I'm sick of hearing it slandered that way. It's true that a minimal number of things have to be assumed in science (e.g., the cosmological principle), but that does not make these assumptions tenets of "faith". If there was sufficient evidence that one of these assumptions was wrong, it would be (eventually) discarded. What religion can claim that?
Here's a simple phrase you can use to distinguish science from religion:
Religion searches for evidence to fit its convictions. Science searches for convictions to fit its evidence.
whoops, thanks fishstick...I see that now, and apologies to the parent poster :)
They [Redhat et al.] provide the source, but not the actual ISOs or other form of download.
You sure about that?