If the gulfstream stopped in the past, it was obviously not caused by man burning hydrocarbons.
Of course. But it shows that fairly small changes can switch on or off the gulfstream. That means, the amount of pollutants that we produce can lead to major changes in the climate.
Canada is not overrun by glaciers. Why assume that Europe would be too?
I don't.
Yes, some estimates give 6 degree drops. Others give 6 degree rises.
No, like the original poster said, most models give 6 degree rises in some (most) parts of the world and 6 degree drops in others, this is not a contradiction.
I used to build very large computer models for a living so I know how incomplete current modeling technology is.
That is true. But the frightening thing about dramatic climate changes in the past like the ice-ages is that sometimes they happen very fast, sometimes 10 years or less. Obviously there are a sort of chain reactions in effect, so that if the climate starts to change, at least sometimes it will then tip over. It is very questionable whether the world would be able to stop for example greenhouse gas production on such short notice when we could prove that such a climate shift has begun. Anyway, I think there are enough other reasons as well to use less and less oil and coal:
- The political reason: The world is quite dependant on the few largest producers of oil. - Air pollution degrades health, especially of children. - I think we should leave some natural resources to our children and grand-children. There are many things that can be created from crude oil (including some medicines). The humans will doubtlessly invent good replacements for some, but probably not for all. - If the wealthy states say this route is too expensive, the others wont go it, not even in an emergency. - I wouldn't be surprised if at some point renewable energies get less expensive than others. - Often we throw away resources without getting anything for it. For example, there was a lady I know going into a travel agents who wanted to get a plane trip to a destination several 100 miles from here. They had a cheaper trip to a destination a few 1000 miles from here. She didn't mind and bought the cheaper trip. If natural resources are as cheap as they are now, things like that will happen. - Sometimes, participating in the changes that will come sooner or later is a economic opportunity. For example, the Belgians were the first to invest heavily into wind power. For quite some time they had an advantage on competitors and made good profits.
I think we should be happy and try to see dangers in the future and try to minimize risks.
It doesnt really say in the article, but it sounded like they didnt use relativity and only used newtonian forces. Any comments, like how accurate the results will be and whether definitive statements are possible (For example, This galaxy will never collide with this one, even with relativistic effects).
Of course, many deaf and mute people can just use the keyboard and mouse, but those who are also blind [...] could benefit greatly from this technology
Do you think blind people cant type? When I was in university, there was also a blind student. Like everyone else, he wrote down the lectures. He had a very small typewriter, which had only five keys, one for each finger. By pressing combinations, he could type all the letters, digits etc. The typewriter created Braille imprints on paper. But it should be quite easy to produce something like this for as a computer keyboard replacement.
At the end of this month there is the "LinuxTag" (Linux-day), a Linux exhibition/fair/event in Stuttgart, Germany. The LinuxTag has been growing so rapidly over the last years that the university of Kaiserslautern is now too small to host it any longer. Supposedly it is the largest Linux event in europe.
The event consists of two threads, called buisiness to consumer and buisiness to buisiness. Maybe they want to keep geeks and suits away from each other;-)?.
Speakers are: RMS, Alan Cox, Miguel de Icaza, Matthias Kalle Dalheimer (KDE), Tony Guntharp (SourceForge) etc.
After a test firing of a Minuteman-II rocket, due for installation in nearby countries as per request, went bad due to a misaligned gyro: "We will not stand to have these things near our state. You militants have to know that the days of whomever draws first wins have been over for a lifetime' [exact quote, bad translation]
Compare that to the US, who threatened military action which might well have lead to the third WW, just because some missiles were stationed nearby in Cuba.
On the one hand I think there are still a number of open questions, especially regarding the flying saurs. The talkorigin.org-site has a lot of arguments against Holden, but as far as I see, doesnt speak about the flying saurs.
On the other hand there are many differences between species besides the size, which indeed leads to the square-cube effect.
For example look at the power-output (per bodyweigth) of birds and humans. The power-output was measured by Vance Tucker by measuring the O2-usage of small birds flying against an air-flow. The power-output (per bodyweigth) of birds is ten times that of humans, although it should be the same if Holdens arguments hold. Another difference is that birds muscles can burn fat directly instead of human muscles, which need sugar (the human liver can generate sugar out of fat). So, the metabolism is quite different between different species.
Still, I wonder about how flying saurs survived so long. They need to have a small sink rate since then they will be able to use even weak updrafts. Also, sink rate times weight gives the power they need to hold their altitude during still air. Since sink rate is speed times L/D (ratio of lift to drag), they need to fly very slow. This means they cant fly in strong winds.
What did they do when the wind was strong? I am a hang gliding pilot and I know I often cant fly for days because of the winds. How long could a flying saurs go on without flying and without food? Remember, it has got a fast metabolism.
How fragile were they? Human powered vehicles are just on the verge of possibilty. They are so fragile that even a wind gust can break them. One of the longest flights was between islands in the mediterranean (I think flying to the isle of Corsica). Shortly before reaching the goal, a gust simply broke the craft while it was flying. What happened when the flying saurs had a bad landing? Did they break their bones?
Why are there no big avians today? Maybe the air is less dense today. However, a more dense air means the flying saurs fly even slower, aggravating the other problems.
How did they start? If it would be easy for heavy birds to start, I think the evolution would have found it and for example the albatrosses would be different. It is very difficult for heavy things to start from flat terrain. Maybe they could do it with the right wind, but as Holden (in this instance correctly) points out, it would be very dangerous for them to be dependent on the wind. Lets say, they are on flat terrain, there is no wind and a predetor comes around. My personal feeling is that they only started from high things like cliffs or trees. Thi would be fine if they hunted other avians, but fishing means of course going very low. What happened, when for example, they crashed into the sea?
I think there will be some surprises when we find out the answers to these questions.For example, it is thought that during that time the poles were not covered in ice, the temperature difference between the poles and the equator was less and therefore the wind was less. BTW, I would be really interested if someone could point me to more research about these things, I didnt find much. Its a pity so little is know about these great animals. We are not even sure whether they were warm blooded.
Have the scientists who insist that information can't be transmitted at this speed missed the fact that the pulse itself is information?
No. Their argument is that only a small part of the pulse, that doesnt carry information, is travelling FTL. They hope that "the pulse itself" doesnt travel FTL. But of course the problem is what is the speed of the pulse, is it the speed of the peak?
As for the supposed paradox of the pulse exiting the chamber before it enters, I would question their data-gathering equipment/methodology
If it is correct that the speed is greater than c, then, according to the theory of relativity, it exits before it arrives for some observers.
Let me tell you a little bit about RT. Lets say you are an observer recording an experiment and only know about classic physics. To measure the positions of all the things on you laboratory desk, you draw a coordinate system - x and y onto it. Say you have two charged particles at (0,5) and (10,0). Now somebody else records your experiment, but he rotates the coordinate system by 90 degrees. Instead of (0,5) he gets (-5,0) and instead of (10,0) he gets (0,10). You can "convert x to y". Although he records different numbers than you, the distances are the same, so the forces etc are the same and you will both predict the same physics. Going from one coordinate-system to another is called "transformation". The transformations in classical physics, where you may rotate or move the system are called galileo tranformations.
For the theory of relativity, there are different transformations, called Lorentz transformations. These were actually found before the theory of relativity, but could only be interpreted inside it. The point is that when you have two observers or coordinate systems that move with respect to one another, you get additional effects. These additional effects are very small for speeds much smaller than c, that is why we found them so late. When you have moving observers, you "convert space to time"! That means if you have two events (points in space and time), different observers will get different spacial length and delta-time between the events. However, there is an invariant measure between them that is independand from the observer. BTW, this is why time is called the fourth dimension.
The important thing for this discussion is: If you have two events (say sending and receiving a pulse or the pulse entering the near side and exiting the far side) and one observer sees FTL travel between them, there will be other observers that will report that the pulse exits at the far side before it enters at the near side.
Unfortunately, most work has allowed time to remain in a kind of limbo, sharing the qualities both of a spatial dimension and those special characteristics which give us causality without stopping to consider why or how it is that these two potentially contradictory aspects may come to be.
In newtonian physics (galileo transformation), the thing that is invariant (independant of the observer) is dx**2+dy**2+dz**2. In the special theory of relativity its dx**2+dy**2+dz**2-dt**2. There are two things in here: 1. Time is mixed with space, so it makes very much sense to call it a dimension 2. Time participates with a minus-sign instead of a plus. This is the only difference between time and space and leads to all the huge differences in our everyday lives!! In the general theory of relativity it looks more complicated, but (at least this aspect) is very similar.
50, 60 years ago, people said that anything moving faster than the speed of sound would cause a sonic boom that would tear the world apart. And that was just the people who thought it was even possible.
Sorry, but I dont believe you. 50, 60 years ago they already had rifles. The bullets go at much more than the speed of sound. So they knew it was possible and they knew the sonic boom doesnt destroy the earth. Probably they didnt think it technical possible to build something transporting human beings that fast.
I'll gladly state that my perception of relativity is flawed... but exactly how is the speed of light all that special? I mean, one moment you're going 'c'-0.000001 and all is peachy; the next moment, you're going 'c' and the very fundamentals of perception change?
Like someone else wrote already, when you move you get relativistic effects. When you move, say 10 mph they are so small that you dont notice them and that they are impossible or hard to measure. When you use a plane, they are hard to measure, but have been mesured. When you move, say at 0.5*c, you will get strongs relativistic effects (sizes changing etc). The more you approahc c, the stranger it gets.
You ask whats so special about c? Well, there was an experiment even before the theory of relativity that showed "c+x=c". When you measure the speed of light coming from the sun, you get the same number c, regardless of whether the earth is approaching the sun, or going away with speed x or at a (for a moment) constant distance to the sun. With normal;-), sub-c speeds a and b, a+b is larger than both a and b.
The atoms at the end of the tube emit the light at the same time as the atoms at the begining absorb the light, because the atoms are so highly excited they must emit light before than can absorb any
That would mean that the peak and therefore the information in it goes instantaneously from one end to the other. This would be FTL and lead to the causality problems.
Pushing on one end of a solid, creates an immediate force on the other end of a solid, no laws are broken!
No, this is not immediate. If it was, you could use it to send information FTL.
A solid is made up of atoms, made up of nuclei and electrons with electro-magnetic fields between them. When you push one end and push the first atom, this moves. This movement causes a change in the fields, which travels with the speed of light. Before this change reaches the next atom, the field for all the atoms (apart from the first) is not changed, they dont move. Therefore, the last atom will not move until the change in the field (a wave) has reached it.
You cant compare computer animation generated by todays hardware with tv or film. When you film something with a camera, the shutter is open for a certain (non-zero) time per frame. This leads to temporal anti-aliasing, in other words motion blur. Current consumer hardware can not do motion blur. Therefore, with the same fps as in a film you will see artefacts that you dont in the film.
Many people can see the difference between, say 30 and 50 fps, even if it is constant.
Additionally, the fps is not constant and also you want to have some reserve for more complex games. It is quite clear that there will be games with more polygons, with higher depth complexity and even more effects in a short while.
So, release a program for free, then sell user manuals for it. Could work, I think...
Unfortunately I dont think so. Lets take one of my programs. There is about 3-4 years in it. I could write a manual, in, say a few month. RMS says technical documentation should be free to copy also. So I could only sell my expertise to extend it, support it etc. Even if I like to do support and even if there are companies which need the software extended, other persons could get into the program in a matter of maybe 1-2 months. So, I couldnt take much more money than the time needed for the specific job is worth. I think it would be unlikely that I would ever get back the investment of the 3-4 years, even if I had the money upfront to make this investment before I can start to earn money. Another point is that I might be tempted to make the software worse by badly commenting the code so that others cant get into it so easy.
As I said, I think this is unfortunate. It would be great if in all circumstances it would be as easy to make money of open sourced sw than of closed source sw and every program would become open sourced.
We were founded on the idea of defending freedom at all costs, and luckily some of us still believe in that. Other people who don't aren't really supporting Open Source, they're just being cheap.
Well, BM wants us to have to freedom to choose between the different models.
More importantly, I think there are other reasons for OS than freedom or being cheap. Here are three that I would value very high:
- Advancement of technology by enabling others to build on your things. - Hopefully (see my other post) less redundant work - Hopefully better quality
I disagree I think you'll find that most programmers get paid for developing custom software for various companies (like banks, airlines etc), software which is never sold but only used by the company that funded the development.
It would be interesting to have numbers about this.
Selling shrink-wrapped software like shoes only works for very few large companies (like MS).
No, there are many small companies selling shrink-wrapped software into niche-markets, for example room-planing software for kitchen-studios.
It just shows that he doesn't understand the point of open source at all. The reason why not opening your source is harming your neighbor is that open source will eliminate redundant labor-in closed-source schemes, people have to solve the same problems many times, with the result being a terrible waste of effort.
I have been thinking about this question for some time and would like to here more reasons / more points of view whether OSS really cuts down on redundancy and is therefore more efficient in its "use" of programmers time.
About half a year ago I started to participate in an OS 3D-modeler and also to think about OSS. One of the first ideas about the disadvantage of closed source software was that it forces you to reinvent the wheel.
But what about OSS? On Sourceforge alone, there are at least twelve 3D-modelers in development, most with very similar aims!! You could argue that we will learn from each other and take each others code. But I am not so sure, it costs much time to learn another program, get into the source, and port a part of it. I know that in the half year we are going, nobody has done that and most of the other development groups are smaller. I am quite unsure how to view this situation.
Also, one of the proposed advantages of OSS is that many people look into fixing bugs and that there is someone who will find it "shallow". Is there no redundant work done here?
Another argument seems to be that no dollar per man-hour is paid, therefore many people can look for bugs etc. Does this not lead to redundant work?
With closed source software, you can also try to avoid unnecessary work. For example, in the program I do for a living, I need to create AVIs. I would need at least a week to implement it. There is also a library that can do it, it costs 100$ for one version or 300$ for all, so thats cheaper for us. So, doing the economic thing lead to reuse. However, I agree that this works only on a certain level. Creating AVIs is something that can nicely be "modularized" out into a library.
I hope I dont come over as anti-OSS. I am playing "devils advocate" here because I want to hear the arguments why OSS leads to less redundant/more efficient software development. After all, my OSS-development experience is still quite limited.
When you see someone ranting about 'gun nuts' that generally proves they are a nut themselves.
Well, then probably most non-Americans are nuts (or would be if the told you what they think).
Actually a friend of mine worked for a year in America. In spite of the very good job she had she came back to Europe because of the atmosphere of violence. She doesnt want to get children in such a surrounding.
(children trained from 12 to use weapons running around killing ? I picked up my first rifle when I was 8 and I've yet to kill anyone)
He is not saying all trained children will kill someone. But he does say, that children that are not trained and have no gun will have a difficult time becoming mass-murderers. So, your case proves nothing (apart from you not understanding the article).
Oh well, other countries, other problems.
That ESR has his pro-gun links on the same page as his open source things definitely hinders the open source cause world wide. Some time ago, I started writing open source software and was of course interested in the "theory" and the people behind it. It always helps causes if there are people you can sympathise with/look up to etc. When I come across ESRs web-site, I was quite shocked. ESR has appointed himself the open source crusader, I think, he should remove the pro-gun stuff or at least move it to a "private" home page.
to the point where I would like to ask him: "Should I format my Hard disk and install Win2k because of all the poor starving programmers at Microsoft?"
What part of the article made you think that?
he gives token credit to actual products produced by open source enthusiasts [...] Having people tell me that I'm a communist and I'm doing wrong and all sorts of other things is really sad, when all I'm trying to do is do something that I like to do, and help other people out at the same time.
You should have read through the whole article. He not only doesnt bash free programs, he welcomes them. What he does bash (rigthly in my mind) is the attitude by some that ONLY free software is the way to go. Therefore, the credit he gives is not token credit and he doesnt call you names if you are writing free software.
This only goes to show to me, again and again, that anything written about "Ethics" and "Morals" is generally bullshit and more about telling you how to live then what is "right and wrong", as if anyone could ever define that.
In this age and time you expect people to have one, or a few subjects that they specialize in, and deeply care about. Of course war and poverty do much more damage than proprietary software; but RMS's issue is software, not war.
I think Meyer wouldnt mind if RMS would ignore wars etc and only point out the most important problems in software. But RMS bashes everyone who doesnt agree that "freeness" is the most important criterium for software.
Meyer thinks the greatest problem in the current sw industry is the low quality. BTW, at least here;-) he is tolerant: While he states his view he says everyone can have his own priorities. (BTW I agree in this with B. Meyer).
Its not only that RMS ignores large problems of the sw industry. His ideal is no proprietary sw any more. This would mean the professional programmers may only work (for a living) in support, service etc. I would further guess that these write (on average) the best quality code. Therefore, one should discuss how the quality is affected if proprietary sw is replaced to a large extend by "free" sw. AFAIK, RMS has not discussed this. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would love to know RMS opinion on this.
Slashdot Mirror
If the gulfstream stopped in the past, it was obviously not caused by man burning hydrocarbons.
Of course. But it shows that fairly small changes can switch on or off the gulfstream. That means, the amount of pollutants that we produce can lead to major changes in the climate.
Canada is not overrun by glaciers. Why assume that Europe would be too?
I don't.
Yes, some estimates give 6 degree drops. Others give 6 degree rises.
No, like the original poster said, most models give 6 degree rises in some (most) parts of the world and 6 degree drops in others, this is not a contradiction.
I used to build very large computer models for a living so I know how incomplete current modeling technology is.
That is true. But the frightening thing about dramatic climate changes in the past like the ice-ages is that sometimes they happen very fast, sometimes 10 years or less. Obviously there are a sort of chain reactions in effect, so that if the climate starts to change, at least sometimes it will then tip over. It is very questionable whether the world would be able to stop for example greenhouse gas production on such short notice when we could prove that such a climate shift has begun. Anyway, I think there are enough other reasons as well to use less and less oil and coal:
- The political reason: The world is quite dependant on the few largest producers of oil.
- Air pollution degrades health, especially of children.
- I think we should leave some natural resources to our children and grand-children. There are many things that can be created from crude oil (including some medicines). The humans will doubtlessly invent good replacements for some, but probably not for all.
- If the wealthy states say this route is too expensive, the others wont go it, not even in an emergency.
- I wouldn't be surprised if at some point renewable energies get less expensive than others.
- Often we throw away resources without getting anything for it. For example, there was a lady I know going into a travel agents who wanted to get a plane trip to a destination several 100 miles from here. They had a cheaper trip to a destination a few 1000 miles from here. She didn't mind and bought the cheaper trip. If natural resources are as cheap as they are now, things like that will happen.
- Sometimes, participating in the changes that will come sooner or later is a economic opportunity. For example, the Belgians were the first to invest heavily into wind power. For quite some time they had an advantage on competitors and made good profits.
I think we should be happy and try to see dangers in the future and try to minimize risks.
It doesnt really say in the article, but it sounded like they didnt use relativity and only used newtonian forces. Any comments, like how accurate the results will be and whether definitive statements are possible (For example, This galaxy will never collide with this one, even with relativistic effects).
Of course, many deaf and mute people can just use the keyboard and mouse, but those who are also blind [...] could benefit greatly from this technology
Do you think blind people cant type? When I was in university, there was also a blind student. Like everyone else, he wrote down the lectures. He had a very small typewriter, which had only five keys, one for each finger. By pressing combinations, he could type all the letters, digits etc. The typewriter created Braille imprints on paper. But it should be quite easy to produce something like this for as a computer keyboard replacement.
At the end of this month there is the "LinuxTag" (Linux-day), a Linux exhibition/fair/event in Stuttgart, Germany. The LinuxTag has been growing so rapidly over the last years that the university of Kaiserslautern is now too small to host it any longer. Supposedly it is the largest Linux event in europe.
;-)?.
The event consists of two threads, called buisiness to consumer and buisiness to buisiness. Maybe they want to keep geeks and suits away from each other
Speakers are:
RMS, Alan Cox, Miguel de Icaza, Matthias Kalle Dalheimer (KDE), Tony Guntharp (SourceForge) etc.
After a test firing of a Minuteman-II rocket, due for installation in nearby countries as per request, went bad due to a misaligned gyro: "We will not stand to have these things near our state. You militants have to know that the days of whomever draws first wins have been over for a lifetime' [exact quote, bad translation]
Compare that to the US, who threatened military action which might well have lead to the third WW, just because some missiles were stationed nearby in Cuba.
On the one hand I think there are still a number of open questions, especially regarding the flying saurs. The talkorigin.org-site has a lot of arguments against Holden, but as far as I see, doesnt speak about the flying saurs.
On the other hand there are many differences between species besides the size, which indeed leads to the square-cube effect.
For example look at the power-output (per bodyweigth) of birds and humans. The power-output was measured by Vance Tucker by measuring the O2-usage of small birds flying against an air-flow. The power-output (per bodyweigth) of birds is ten times that of humans, although it should be the same if Holdens arguments hold. Another difference is that birds muscles can burn fat directly instead of human muscles, which need sugar (the human liver can generate sugar out of fat). So, the metabolism is quite different between different species.
Still, I wonder about how flying saurs survived so long. They need to have a small sink rate since then they will be able to use even weak updrafts. Also, sink rate times weight gives the power they need to hold their altitude during still air. Since sink rate is speed times L/D (ratio of lift to drag), they need to fly very slow. This means they cant fly in strong winds.
What did they do when the wind was strong? I am a hang gliding pilot and I know I often cant fly for days because of the winds. How long could a flying saurs go on without flying and without food? Remember, it has got a fast metabolism.
How fragile were they? Human powered vehicles are just on the verge of possibilty. They are so fragile that even a wind gust can break them. One of the longest flights was between islands in the mediterranean (I think flying to the isle of Corsica). Shortly before reaching the goal, a gust simply broke the craft while it was flying. What happened when the flying saurs had a bad landing? Did they break their bones?
Why are there no big avians today? Maybe the air is less dense today. However, a more dense air means the flying saurs fly even slower, aggravating the other problems.
How did they start? If it would be easy for heavy birds to start, I think the evolution would have found it and for example the albatrosses would be different. It is very difficult for heavy things to start from flat terrain. Maybe they could do it with the right wind, but as Holden (in this instance correctly) points out, it would be very dangerous for them to be dependent on the wind. Lets say, they are on flat terrain, there is no wind and a predetor comes around. My personal feeling is that they only started from high things like cliffs or trees. Thi would be fine if they hunted other avians, but fishing means of course going very low. What happened, when for example, they crashed into the sea?
I think there will be some surprises when we find out the answers to these questions.For example, it is thought that during that time the poles were not covered in ice, the temperature difference between the poles and the equator was less and therefore the wind was less. BTW, I would be really interested if someone could point me to more research about these things, I didnt find much. Its a pity so little is know about these great animals. We are not even sure whether they were warm blooded.
Have the scientists who insist that information can't be transmitted at this speed missed the fact that the pulse itself is information?
No. Their argument is that only a small part of the pulse, that doesnt carry information, is travelling FTL. They hope that "the pulse itself" doesnt travel FTL. But of course the problem is what is the speed of the pulse, is it the speed of the peak?
As for the supposed paradox of the pulse exiting the chamber before it enters, I would question their data-gathering equipment/methodology
If it is correct that the speed is greater than c, then, according to the theory of relativity, it exits before it arrives for some observers.
Let me tell you a little bit about RT. Lets say you are an observer recording an experiment and only know about classic physics. To measure the positions of all the things on you laboratory desk, you draw a coordinate system - x and y onto it. Say you have two charged particles at (0,5) and (10,0). Now somebody else records your experiment, but he rotates the coordinate system by 90 degrees. Instead of (0,5) he gets (-5,0) and instead of (10,0) he gets (0,10). You can "convert x to y". Although he records different numbers than you, the distances are the same, so the forces etc are the same and you will both predict the same physics. Going from one coordinate-system to another is called "transformation". The transformations in classical physics, where you may rotate or move the system are called galileo tranformations.
For the theory of relativity, there are different transformations, called Lorentz transformations. These were actually found before the theory of relativity, but could only be interpreted inside it. The point is that when you have two observers or coordinate systems that move with respect to one another, you get additional effects. These additional effects are very small for speeds much smaller than c, that is why we found them so late. When you have moving observers, you "convert space to time"! That means if you have two events (points in space and time), different observers will get different spacial length and delta-time between the events. However, there is an invariant measure between them that is independand from the observer. BTW, this is why time is called the fourth dimension.
The important thing for this discussion is:
If you have two events (say sending and receiving a pulse or the pulse entering the near side and exiting the far side) and one observer sees FTL travel between them, there will be other observers that will report that the pulse exits at the far side before it enters at the near side.
Unfortunately, most work has allowed time to remain in a kind of limbo, sharing the qualities both of a spatial dimension and those special characteristics which give us causality without stopping to consider why or how it is that these two potentially contradictory aspects may come to be.
In newtonian physics (galileo transformation), the thing that is invariant (independant of the observer) is dx**2+dy**2+dz**2. In the special theory of relativity its dx**2+dy**2+dz**2-dt**2. There are two things in here:
1. Time is mixed with space, so it makes very much sense to call it a dimension
2. Time participates with a minus-sign instead of a plus. This is the only difference between time and space and leads to all the huge differences in our everyday lives!!
In the general theory of relativity it looks more complicated, but (at least this aspect) is very similar.
50, 60 years ago, people said that anything moving faster than the speed of sound would cause a sonic boom that would tear the world apart. And that was just the people who thought it was even possible.
;-), sub-c speeds a and b, a+b is larger than both a and b.
Sorry, but I dont believe you. 50, 60 years ago they already had rifles. The bullets go at much more than the speed of sound. So they knew it was possible and they knew the sonic boom doesnt destroy the earth. Probably they didnt think it technical possible to build something transporting human beings that fast.
I'll gladly state that my perception of relativity is flawed... but exactly how is the speed of light all that special? I mean, one moment you're going 'c'-0.000001 and all is peachy; the next moment, you're going 'c' and the very fundamentals of perception change?
Like someone else wrote already, when you move you get relativistic effects. When you move, say 10 mph they are so small that you dont notice them and that they are impossible or hard to measure. When you use a plane, they are hard to measure, but have been mesured. When you move, say at 0.5*c, you will get strongs relativistic effects (sizes changing etc). The more you approahc c, the stranger it gets.
You ask whats so special about c? Well, there was an experiment even before the theory of relativity that showed "c+x=c". When you measure the speed of light coming from the sun, you get the same number c, regardless of whether the earth is approaching the sun, or going away with speed x or at a (for a moment) constant distance to the sun. With normal
The atoms at the end of the tube emit the light at the same time as the atoms at the begining absorb the light, because the atoms are so highly excited they must emit light before than can absorb any
That would mean that the peak and therefore the information in it goes instantaneously from one end to the other. This would be FTL and lead to the causality problems.
hope this helps explain things.
Sorry, no, at least not for me.
Pushing on one end of a solid, creates an immediate force on the other end of a solid, no laws are broken!
No, this is not immediate. If it was, you could use it to send information FTL.
A solid is made up of atoms, made up of nuclei and electrons with electro-magnetic fields between them. When you push one end and push the first atom, this moves. This movement causes a change in the fields, which travels with the speed of light. Before this change reaches the next atom, the field for all the atoms (apart from the first) is not changed, they dont move. Therefore, the last atom will not move until the change in the field (a wave) has reached it.
You cant compare computer animation generated by todays hardware with tv or film. When you film something with a camera, the shutter is open for a certain (non-zero) time per frame. This leads to temporal anti-aliasing, in other words motion blur. Current consumer hardware can not do motion blur. Therefore, with the same fps as in a film you will see artefacts that you dont in the film.
Many people can see the difference between, say 30 and 50 fps, even if it is constant.
Additionally, the fps is not constant and also you want to have some reserve for more complex games. It is quite clear that there will be games with more polygons, with higher depth complexity and even more effects in a short while.
So, release a program for free, then sell user manuals for it. Could work, I think...
Unfortunately I dont think so. Lets take one of my programs. There is about 3-4 years in it. I could write a manual, in, say a few month. RMS says technical documentation should be free to copy also. So I could only sell my expertise to extend it, support it etc. Even if I like to do support and even if there are companies which need the software extended, other persons could get into the program in a matter of maybe 1-2 months. So, I couldnt take much more money than the time needed for the specific job is worth. I think it would be unlikely that I would ever get back the investment of the 3-4 years, even if I had the money upfront to make this investment before I can start to earn money. Another point is that I might be tempted to make the software worse by badly commenting the code so that others cant get into it so easy.
As I said, I think this is unfortunate. It would be great if in all circumstances it would be as easy to make money of open sourced sw than of closed source sw and every program would become open sourced.
We were founded on the idea of defending freedom at all costs, and luckily some of us still believe in that. Other people who don't aren't really supporting Open Source, they're just being cheap.
Well, BM wants us to have to freedom to choose between the different models.
More importantly, I think there are other reasons for OS than freedom or being cheap. Here are three that I would value very high:
- Advancement of technology by enabling others to build on your things.
- Hopefully (see my other post) less redundant work
- Hopefully better quality
I disagree I think you'll find that most programmers get paid for developing custom software for various companies (like banks, airlines etc), software which is never sold but only used by the company that funded the development.
It would be interesting to have numbers about this.
Selling shrink-wrapped software like shoes only works for very few large companies (like MS).
No, there are many small companies selling shrink-wrapped software into niche-markets, for example room-planing software for kitchen-studios.
It makes me wonder. Has OSS just come over these great thinkers' horizons, so that they feel the sudden inclination to express their views on it?
Maybe its just that now everybody (and not just OSS people themselves) is interested in this subject?
#ifdef wearing_flame_suit
Or maybe its just that there is too much hype surrounding OSS?
#endif
You can tell how desperate they are by counting the number of times they say "innovate" in their press release
Good metric. B.Meyer doesnt say it once, so he doesnt seem to be desperate at all.
It just shows that he doesn't understand the point of open source at all. The reason why not opening your source is harming your neighbor is that open source will eliminate redundant labor-in closed-source schemes, people have to solve the same problems many times, with the result being a terrible waste of effort.
I have been thinking about this question for some time and would like to here more reasons / more points of view whether OSS really cuts down on redundancy and is therefore more efficient in its "use" of programmers time.
About half a year ago I started to participate in an OS 3D-modeler and also to think about OSS. One of the first ideas about the disadvantage of closed source software was that it forces you to reinvent the wheel.
But what about OSS? On Sourceforge alone, there are at least twelve 3D-modelers in development, most with very similar aims!! You could argue that we will learn from each other and take each others code. But I am not so sure, it costs much time to learn another program, get into the source, and port a part of it. I know that in the half year we are going, nobody has done that and most of the other development groups are smaller. I am quite unsure how to view this situation.
Also, one of the proposed advantages of OSS is that many people look into fixing bugs and that there is someone who will find it "shallow". Is there no redundant work done here?
Another argument seems to be that no dollar per man-hour is paid, therefore many people can look for bugs etc. Does this not lead to redundant work?
With closed source software, you can also try to avoid unnecessary work. For example, in the program I do for a living, I need to create AVIs. I would need at least a week to implement it. There is also a library that can do it, it costs 100$ for one version or 300$ for all, so thats cheaper for us. So, doing the economic thing lead to reuse. However, I agree that this works only on a certain level. Creating AVIs is something that can nicely be "modularized" out into a library.
I hope I dont come over as anti-OSS. I am playing "devils advocate" here because I want to hear the arguments why OSS leads to less redundant/more efficient software development. After all, my OSS-development experience is still quite limited.
When you see someone ranting about 'gun nuts' that generally proves they are a nut themselves.
;-)?
Well, then probably most non-Americans are nuts (or would be if the told you what they think).
Actually a friend of mine worked for a year in America. In spite of the very good job she had she came back to Europe because of the atmosphere of violence. She doesnt want to get children in such a surrounding.
(children trained from 12 to use weapons running around killing ? I picked up my first rifle when I was 8 and I've yet to kill anyone)
He is not saying all trained children will kill someone. But he does say, that children that are not trained and have no gun will have a difficult time becoming mass-murderers. So, your case proves nothing (apart from you not understanding the article).
Oh well, other countries, other problems.
That ESR has his pro-gun links on the same page as his open source things definitely hinders the open source cause world wide. Some time ago, I started writing open source software and was of course interested in the "theory" and the people behind it. It always helps causes if there are people you can sympathise with/look up to etc. When I come across ESRs web-site, I was quite shocked. ESR has appointed himself the open source crusader, I think, he should remove the pro-gun stuff or at least move it to a "private" home page.
to the point where I would like to ask him:
"Should I format my Hard disk and install Win2k because of all the poor starving programmers at Microsoft?"
What part of the article made you think that?
he gives token credit to actual products produced by open source enthusiasts [...] Having people tell me that I'm a communist and I'm doing wrong and all sorts of other things is really sad, when all I'm trying to do is do something that I like to do, and help other people out at the same time.
You should have read through the whole article. He not only doesnt bash free programs, he welcomes them. What he does bash (rigthly in my mind) is the attitude by some that ONLY free software is the way to go.
Therefore, the credit he gives is not token credit and he doesnt call you names if you are writing free software.
This only goes to show to me, again and again, that anything written about "Ethics" and "Morals" is generally bullshit and more about telling you how to live then what is "right and wrong", as if anyone could ever define that.
Does this include the FSF texts
In this age and time you expect people to have one, or a few subjects that they specialize in, and deeply care about. Of course war and poverty do much more damage than proprietary software; but RMS's issue is software, not war.
;-) he is tolerant: While he states his view he says everyone can have his own priorities. (BTW I agree in this with B. Meyer).
I think Meyer wouldnt mind if RMS would ignore wars etc and only point out the most important problems in software. But RMS bashes everyone who doesnt agree that "freeness" is the most important criterium for software.
Meyer thinks the greatest problem in the current sw industry is the low quality. BTW, at least here
Its not only that RMS ignores large problems of the sw industry. His ideal is no proprietary sw any more. This would mean the professional programmers may only work (for a living) in support, service etc. I would further guess that these write (on average) the best quality code. Therefore, one should discuss how the quality is affected if proprietary sw is replaced to a large extend by "free" sw. AFAIK, RMS has not discussed this. Please correct me if I am wrong, I would love to know RMS opinion on this.