Things are abotu to get interesting now. Its like Jobs saying, "OK, Gates... lets fight in your ring."
Ooo... that's a bad idea... doesn't Gates already have The One Ring? I mean, fighting in that ring (while being quite tight) also wouldn't bode well... I mean, Ring of Power, the Dark Lord.
You just don't mess with that stuff. Unless, you're some little Hobbit guy who just happend on the Ring by accident, and you....
...
you know what? This is a stupid analogy that I'm stoping right here.
Darwin runs on standard x86 machines. This is unlikely to change.
Steve Jobs has supposedly been credited as saying that OSX could be written to run on OSX fairly shortly.
There is no need for Apple to gunk up their machines with their own proprietary actions to ensure that OSX x86 would run only on their boxes. But then I don't see a need for them to switch over to x86 in the first place.
Dude... you didn't know? Women who live in close proximity to each other begin having their period at relatively similar times. So, it's pretty much be the same as having your wife on her period, only with 3 more.
Anyways, I was the 1 son to my families 3 girls. It's seriously not as bad as you would make it out to be.
The problem that was expressed by the earlier Slashdot article about this (or was it a MacSlash article)... anyways.
The guy said himself, it's unlikely to cause the widget to actually do anything harmful. But rather it would just be annoying.
He gave an example, and even a sample widget. The widget was simply just the goatse guy as the icon for the widget.
Now, considering that you can't uninstall, delete, or otherwise remove widgets without manipulating the files directly, I call that pretty damned annoying.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose I would attempt to explain QM in a way that would say basically, "but it works." To someone who didn't understand it either.
Everything that I've seen though myself so far, has indicated that by compressing an object you do not increase the gravitational force that that object has. Meaning, if you had a bowling ball that was compressed down to the size of a tennis ball, then there would be no difference in the gravitational pull effected between it before and after.
The basic issue though is that the smaller the object gets the more gravitationally dense it becomes. There's no true change in gravitational power, just in the density of it.
Thus, as a star collapses into a neutron star, for example, the weight of nearly the entire sun (minus that part lost in the super-nova) is collapsed into a much smaller space. Thus, the neutron star has become "heavier", but still not heavier than the mass of the entire star. Just proportionally heavier.
My understanding of it in this way comes from the fact that gravitational force is a property of matter, and as such, since we have not added any matter to the equation, then it shouldn't get any more total gravitational force. Just the actual gravity available at a set of particular points begins to draw light in, and not let it out.
Now, as for what the size of the actual black hole is, your statement that it's 1/infinity (which is 0) units across, this is you advancing your hypothesis for the center of a black hole. We will likely never be able to provide evidence as to what actually is in a black hole.
So, I present an alternate premise. Instead of the black hole being infintesimally small, instead it is larger than that. Such as that point, it would generate photons in something other than directly off center (look at the sun, well, don't acutally look at it, just pretend to look at it, it emits photons to us from all points, even where the angle from the sun is significantly away from directly away)
Thus, these photon emissions would be bend same as any other photon passing through the event horizon, and eventually fall back into the black hole. The chances of a photon travelling a straight path directly out of the black hole (especially considering that the black hole is not just a point, but a mass) would be infintesimally small. Or in other words. 0.
This is my possible explanation of phenomena without the need to resort to a singularity.
Well, so far from the infromation released, the only real difference that the custom PowerPC 970 is bringing is that it's hyperthreaded (dual hardware thread per core)
This would pretty much indicate no doubt that it's a PowerPC 970, as the G3, and G4 had very short pipes, and hyperthreading on these would yield very little benefit (most of the stages would already be busy with the primary thread, and wouldn't be available for a second thread).
It's possible that they talked IBM into putting in a pseudo-little-endian mode, but I'd almost doubt that.
My opinion is that Quantum Mechanics has the best going explaination for how the world is working. But that's because we don't properly understand how the world *is* working.
I unlike Einstein will conceed that QM explains phenomena that we have experienced and documented. But like Einstein, I still refuse to accept it.
It is my believe that the universe is composed of elegance, of grace. And I see QM is neither. I view QM as the equivalent of a hack in a computer program. There's a damned better way to do it. But personally, right now, I don't have enough of the answers to explain it.
Now, you speak to me about me not understanding QM. Oh, I do understand QM. I understand why the double-slit experiment works according to QM. I understand why tunneling works, and happens according to QM.
I have just been attempting to explain a possible alternative theory that might bring these occurances and actions into accordance with the symphony of the universe.
Do not mistake my floundering attempts to explain away features of QM as a failure to understand QM. I *do* understand it. Hell, you've explained the double-slit experiement to me like 15 times by now. I *UNDERSTAND* how QM works. I just refuse to believe that this is how things actually are working.
And for the record, there have been two times in math, where a formal proof has been disproven just because it was wrong. The disproving mathematicians at the times had not evidence or support to their statement. They simply said, "This must be wrong." And low and behold, they were right.
Just no one has been able to prove QM wrong, or inaccurate yet, because everyone is so busy trying to understand it, that no one is attempting to really question it.
You speak of critical analysis and yet you yourself do not critically analize QM. You preach it to me as Truth. As if there's no other reasonable explaination for the universe but by means of QM.
I imagine you'd have done the same to Einstein, when he talked about relativity. Because you would just be unable grasp the understanding of what he was saying, because you were too stuck in the Netwonian Model.
(from the first linked article) "Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity."
So who died and let the science that you're quoting say that inside the singularity is infinite gravity?
"Photons are massless. Hence, the only gravity/spacetime curvature strong enough to contain them is infinite. Read up on it, seriously."
Yes, and photons being massless are still distorted and bent by tranditional gravity as we see everyday (such as bent around the sun) Remember, the event horizon need not suck the photons straight in. Just were a photon to cross the event horizon at a perfect tangent, then the effect of the gravity of the black hole would need to just be sufficient to cause that photon to bend sufficiently that the photons trajectory is changed to be upon the event horizon. This value would be non-infinite.
Were the photon not to reach the event horizon at a perfect tangent, then it would bend more than sufficiently into the event horizon, and be continually bent during its passage inside of the event horizon space such that it could not have an angle which would not take it out from the event horizon.
All of this can be done with non-infinite gravity.
The place where the link you provided indicates that infinite gravity does exist is asymtopically at the center of the black hole. This being where the matter is compressed into an infinitely small space, and thus would somehow result in infinite gravity. I call this bullshit.
Considering that the particles need not be arranged such that they are a singularity, it's against Occam's Razor to invent the singularity. (Occam's Razor: Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Meaning, don't make something up to explain something, when you can explain it without.)
*NOT* two individual projects together. It says COMBINE MODULES into one LARGER PROGRAM.
You all are seeing what you want to see. Yes, a derivative work must be released under the GPL, but if you're inserting a module from another license into your GPL code you need not modify that license.
For instance: PearPC is GPL code. But if I took a module under a different license. Let's say under the LGPL (libc) and linked it into my program. Then this wouldn't require libc to change over to the GPL.
Where as, if my program were under a non-compatible license, and I linked in a GPL library (say, librep) then I would be bound to making it GPL.
Conclusion: There exists the ability to combine two licenses into a project, when one of them is GPL. Whether you seem to think that people can't or not.
Except emulation would exactly produce a selective product library.
Sure, it would come out and they would say, "if your game doesn't work, sorry." But that wouldn't be exactly the same as what they've said.
I'm likely to believe with another poster on MacSlash. At this point, they likely have native binaries shoved in there somewhere, for the really popular games (like Halo and Halo2)
That would probably make more sense and less cost right now than having an emulator do the bussiness. Because as much as you all think that the PowerPC 970 has enough power to emulate a 700MHz x86 Pentium 3, you're missing a lot of issues that face that emulation.
The PowerPC 970 no longer as pseudo-little-endian mode. So, you have to byte-order reverse everything in register (expensive) or just use AltiVec permutes to cache a 128-bit native-endian "cache line". Either way, this is cycle expensive, and means that when it was released, the G5-compatible VirtualPC almost ran worse than on a slower G4.
I just find it very hard to believe that this is being done with emulation.
"Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)"
You can combine two projects under different licenses into a single product, and have parts under the GPL, and other parts not under the GPL.
Now, I don't know who you're talking to, but I think I'll trust the people, who actually wrote the GPL.
You may not agree with saying that Religion is wrong, but there are a number of people who advance the scientific method and results, who do say that Religion is wrong. And many religous people see the mere advancement of scientific results as against religion.
Like it or not, you can't really have it your way, where everyone keeps their noses where they belong. Because humans just don't do that.
I've read before that everything in matter is both particle and wave, much the same was as a photon. It's just not as readily apparent as it is in a photon. If you take it this way, then heck, the same explaination that I gave for the double-slit experiment for a photon would work for an electron, or any other individualized piece of matter. Without the need for a superstate of possibilities.
There exists no reason to believe in Quantum Mechanics. It's an accurate model for representing the quantum world, and I take it as such. But that doesn't mean it's the Truth, any more than the Newtonian Model which is highly accurate for non-relativistic physics.
From the very site on quantum tunneling that you put to me: When that probability wave encounters an energy barrier most of the wave will be reflected back, but a small portion of it will 'leak' into the barrier. Sounds to me like there's some leakage of a photon when it hits a barrier.
Let's take it this way as an alternative to viewing the world. The probablity wave packet that you describe as the "possible position" of the particle. And the wave packet where the spread of the probability wave is the *actual* position of the wave packet. Literally, instead of the particle having a chance of being in any of these places, it actually is. At all times.
When you seek to locate its position, you end up with a result determined by an interference with another wave packet. Thus, the results can look to be that the particle has magically and instantly transported from one location to another, but in fact, it's just a quirky interference point.
I'd have to think about it more. But it doesn't make sense to me to invent the probabilistic superstate, when it could be entirely possible to explain it without probability and without a superstate.
No, the gravity inside of the event-horizon is *not* infinite. If the gravity of a blackhole at any point were infinite, then if you solve the inverse square calculation, with an infinite gravitation force, and a finite distance, you get the result that at ANY distance, the gravitational force would be infinite. Whether its inside that event horizon or not. You can't just have the event horizon be a magical boundary where anything past it has finite gravitational force, and anything inside it has infinite gravitational force.
And this assumption isn't even NECESSARY. You just need enough gravitational force to keep a photon inside the event horizon. This value is finite. So, why the hell would you even claim that it is inifinite, when it wouldn't be, and the observed behavior of the universe proves it wrong?
I've constantly said that I don't believe creationism, or even intelligent design should be taught as practiced in school. It's just not appropriate.
But I still don't see any reason to tell a kid that his parents are wrong because they believe in creationism. Personally, I think that belief in religion is beyond a true/false mentality. There's just no point in attempting to prove it either way, since religion serves a purpose besides explaination of the universe to me.
Anyways. The description that I read myself of the double slit experiment is that in fact actually the photon is (as we will all agree) both a particle and a wave. This particle is such like a "wave packet". A grouping of waves that are restricted more or less together into a single particle group.
Thus, it's possible for the particle to interfere with itself, as it is possible for it to travel through two different locations at the same time (two parts of its wave packet traveling seperately).
Again, I believe quite similarly to Einstein. God doesn't play dice to the universe. The notion that the order and regularity that we experience can be built upon pure instability is ludacrous to me.
No reason to invent this "it's undefined before observation because it really *is* undefined", when "it's undefined before observation because it's un-observed." Would suffice. It's just seems to me like a misunderstanding of how the whole system works.
Like the notion that black-holes have infinite gravity. (counter-example: we're not in a black-hole) But that's just what everyone assumes because they heard it somewhere.
Would he still have got become fascinated with science and still got into physics, or would he still be a patent clerk, who believed a big beard in the sky made the whole world in six days?
Actually, in fact, he did. Einstein felt that the universe was infinite and static. He did believe in God, (famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe.")
Fact is that people can work on Evolution, and Physics and explainations to the creation of the universe, while still believing that God did it.
In many ways Einstein believed in Intelligent Design (similar to how I believe in it) Not that God directly operated in order to create the universe, but rather that God established rules that govern the universe, with an intelligent design apparent from the way things work together. The more I learn about the nature of the universe the more I think, "wow, that's awesome that it works out like that."
And for the record, the quatum particles do have a defined position and size, but the problem is that in order to determine position you must use a wave-length larger than the particle, and thus cannot determine it's size, while in order to determine its size, you must use a wave-length smaller than the particle, which imparts sufficient force as to impart motion on the particle, so now you have no idea where it's going.
So, don't think that quantum mechanics has quasi-particles that are actually undefined in size and position until observed, we just can't actually know the size or position until observed, which damages the other.
Which presents an interesting situation. If something cannot be known until it is observed, then is its state unknown until collapsed, or has it actually be the same the whole time until you observe it?
Schroedinger argued that the cat were in a meta-state of living and dead until you open the box (observe) and collapse the actual state. But it's important to realize that the cat is most definitely either alive or dead at any given time. It's just that we cannot know its state until we collapse the system. Thus, Schroedinger's view works best, as the only thing you can do with "It's in a definite state until you observe it" is say "and I don't know what it is."
And no, I don't think we should teach kids the full truth first. That would just confuse them, because they don't have the background in study to understand it. But I personally don't see it right to give a simplistic explanation, without an explaination that it goes "much deeper". If someone presented me with the Newtonian Model and presented it as fact, then I'm stuck thinking that it's fact, and I must essentially unlearn it to work in the Einsteinian Model, and quantum mechanics.
I'd rather be told, "this is the model we present, it explains a lot, but it doesn't explain a lot also. But for now, we're working within this model."
I think since the project isn't going to be maintained anymore, and CherryOS isn't going to be sold, that Cherry OS should release its source code to the public so they can prove it isn't just PearPC with a name slapped on it.
Because they could only condemn themselves by doing so.
In attempting to go Open Source, they likely found how impossible it would be to hide a derivative work in the source code (you can't just rename variables, that's too easy to detect, and look for)
So, upon finding out how difficult it were going to be, they decided to remove liability by having Arben leave with the rights, and have him just stop the project.
I was on this case from the beginning to test the GPL. There's really no other issue here. I have no problem with people making money from selling PearPC, as long as they comply with the GPL. If they hadn't been idiots, they could have worked with us, instead of against us.
Anyways, as a development community, we weren't spending really any time working on this issue, at least not development time. Though, I still intend to see this issue dealt with properly, and in court if it must.
No. There has been no such apology, nor reconciliation of previous infringements upon our copyrights.
So, while Maui X-Stream has passed the product off to Arben Kryeziu, and he has said that it's not worth the effort, and he will not continue the product, they have still not released the source code for their products.
We will continue to push them legally until they have complied, and reconciliated their previous actions.
Notice his blog even only mentions QEmu as an alternative to CherryOS. Thanks guy, way to appreciate the people you step on.
I pretty much stand with you. I don't agree that we should teach creationism in the schools, but these ID people are getting the Evolutionists all up in arms over stupid shit.
Like, take the sticker that was ordered to be removed from those books, I'll quote it best I can, "This book presents evolution as fact, but it is important to realize that it is a theory and should be critically considered."
Um, who the *HELL* involved in science would *NOT* want to critically consider *EVERY* theory. Let alone Evolution.
Let's take us back 100 years, to before Einstein published his works on relativity. I bet you'd find a lot of resistance from those people to putting this sticker on their physics books: "This book presents the newtonian model of the universe as fact, but it is important to realize that it is a theory, and should be critically considered." The physicists would in general be up in arms, screaming and shouting, that the Newtonian Model is the best we have.
But we know better now. I want all those jerks to realize that we need to teach our children to be critical about everything they learn. Einstein is known to have been highly critical of theories and explainations for the world. He didn't take anything on a "because I said so" basis. He considered everything critically and came to accurate beliefs.
But then, I'll just point out to everyone here, as you all well know, the vast majority of the world will eat whatever swill is given to them under the name "Science." You may not consider it a religion, but the Average Joe has subconciously elevated it to that position. "Well, it must be right, because a Scientist said so!"
So, in my eyes, replacing a theological model to the universe, with a model for the universe that people accept as if it were a religion... that just doesn't work for me. (Now, I know many of us have critically considered evolution, and we all come generally to the same conclusion. Evolution happens. Now, think, would you rather have your kid taught to just accept evolution because "they" say so, or accept it because they ernestly understand that it is accurate.)
A Mathematician decided to give up on math one day, and elected to become a fireman. With a confident heart, he walked down to the local fire station and announced his intentions.
The fire chief quite amused, decided to give the mathematician a chance. So, he took him outside to the back alley. There the fire chief presented the mathematician with a dumpster. He then told the mathematician: "Ok, suppose you're walking down this alley and you find the dumpster on fire. What would you do?" The mathematician responds, "Well, I'd put out the fire."
The fire chief was confident that the mathematician weren't a kook, but then, he posed the question, "ok, suppose you're walking down the alley, and the dumpster *isn't* on fire. What would you do?" To this the mathematician replied: "Well, I'd light it on fire."
The fire chief was dumb-struck. With his jaw on the floor, he asked the mathematician, "Are you crazy? Why on earth would you do that?" To which the mathematician replied: "Because then I'm reducing the problem to a problem that I've already solved."
Slashdot Mirror
Ooo... that's a bad idea... doesn't Gates already have The One Ring? I mean, fighting in that ring (while being quite tight) also wouldn't bode well... I mean, Ring of Power, the Dark Lord.
You just don't mess with that stuff. Unless, you're some little Hobbit guy who just happend on the Ring by accident, and you....
you know what? This is a stupid analogy that I'm stoping right here.
Darwin runs on standard x86 machines. This is unlikely to change.
Steve Jobs has supposedly been credited as saying that OSX could be written to run on OSX fairly shortly.
There is no need for Apple to gunk up their machines with their own proprietary actions to ensure that OSX x86 would run only on their boxes. But then I don't see a need for them to switch over to x86 in the first place.
BAH! Star Trek established that wormholes were unstable years before Stargate!
Dude... you didn't know? Women who live in close proximity to each other begin having their period at relatively similar times. So, it's pretty much be the same as having your wife on her period, only with 3 more.
Anyways, I was the 1 son to my families 3 girls. It's seriously not as bad as you would make it out to be.
Crap, I was looking forward to having 1 boy, and 1 girl. Now I find out I need 1.4 boys, until I can have my 1 girl.
The problem that was expressed by the earlier Slashdot article about this (or was it a MacSlash article)... anyways.
The guy said himself, it's unlikely to cause the widget to actually do anything harmful. But rather it would just be annoying.
He gave an example, and even a sample widget. The widget was simply just the goatse guy as the icon for the widget.
Now, considering that you can't uninstall, delete, or otherwise remove widgets without manipulating the files directly, I call that pretty damned annoying.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose I would attempt to explain QM in a way that would say basically, "but it works." To someone who didn't understand it either.
Everything that I've seen though myself so far, has indicated that by compressing an object you do not increase the gravitational force that that object has. Meaning, if you had a bowling ball that was compressed down to the size of a tennis ball, then there would be no difference in the gravitational pull effected between it before and after.
The basic issue though is that the smaller the object gets the more gravitationally dense it becomes. There's no true change in gravitational power, just in the density of it.
Thus, as a star collapses into a neutron star, for example, the weight of nearly the entire sun (minus that part lost in the super-nova) is collapsed into a much smaller space. Thus, the neutron star has become "heavier", but still not heavier than the mass of the entire star. Just proportionally heavier.
My understanding of it in this way comes from the fact that gravitational force is a property of matter, and as such, since we have not added any matter to the equation, then it shouldn't get any more total gravitational force. Just the actual gravity available at a set of particular points begins to draw light in, and not let it out.
Now, as for what the size of the actual black hole is, your statement that it's 1/infinity (which is 0) units across, this is you advancing your hypothesis for the center of a black hole. We will likely never be able to provide evidence as to what actually is in a black hole.
So, I present an alternate premise. Instead of the black hole being infintesimally small, instead it is larger than that. Such as that point, it would generate photons in something other than directly off center (look at the sun, well, don't acutally look at it, just pretend to look at it, it emits photons to us from all points, even where the angle from the sun is significantly away from directly away)
Thus, these photon emissions would be bend same as any other photon passing through the event horizon, and eventually fall back into the black hole. The chances of a photon travelling a straight path directly out of the black hole (especially considering that the black hole is not just a point, but a mass) would be infintesimally small. Or in other words. 0.
This is my possible explanation of phenomena without the need to resort to a singularity.
Well, so far from the infromation released, the only real difference that the custom PowerPC 970 is bringing is that it's hyperthreaded (dual hardware thread per core)
This would pretty much indicate no doubt that it's a PowerPC 970, as the G3, and G4 had very short pipes, and hyperthreading on these would yield very little benefit (most of the stages would already be busy with the primary thread, and wouldn't be available for a second thread).
It's possible that they talked IBM into putting in a pseudo-little-endian mode, but I'd almost doubt that.
My opinion is that Quantum Mechanics has the best going explaination for how the world is working. But that's because we don't properly understand how the world *is* working.
I unlike Einstein will conceed that QM explains phenomena that we have experienced and documented. But like Einstein, I still refuse to accept it.
It is my believe that the universe is composed of elegance, of grace. And I see QM is neither. I view QM as the equivalent of a hack in a computer program. There's a damned better way to do it. But personally, right now, I don't have enough of the answers to explain it.
Now, you speak to me about me not understanding QM. Oh, I do understand QM. I understand why the double-slit experiment works according to QM. I understand why tunneling works, and happens according to QM.
I have just been attempting to explain a possible alternative theory that might bring these occurances and actions into accordance with the symphony of the universe.
Do not mistake my floundering attempts to explain away features of QM as a failure to understand QM. I *do* understand it. Hell, you've explained the double-slit experiement to me like 15 times by now. I *UNDERSTAND* how QM works. I just refuse to believe that this is how things actually are working.
And for the record, there have been two times in math, where a formal proof has been disproven just because it was wrong. The disproving mathematicians at the times had not evidence or support to their statement. They simply said, "This must be wrong." And low and behold, they were right.
Just no one has been able to prove QM wrong, or inaccurate yet, because everyone is so busy trying to understand it, that no one is attempting to really question it.
You speak of critical analysis and yet you yourself do not critically analize QM. You preach it to me as Truth. As if there's no other reasonable explaination for the universe but by means of QM.
I imagine you'd have done the same to Einstein, when he talked about relativity. Because you would just be unable grasp the understanding of what he was saying, because you were too stuck in the Netwonian Model.
(from the first linked article) "Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity."
So who died and let the science that you're quoting say that inside the singularity is infinite gravity?
"Photons are massless. Hence, the only gravity/spacetime curvature strong enough to contain them is infinite. Read up on it, seriously."
Yes, and photons being massless are still distorted and bent by tranditional gravity as we see everyday (such as bent around the sun) Remember, the event horizon need not suck the photons straight in. Just were a photon to cross the event horizon at a perfect tangent, then the effect of the gravity of the black hole would need to just be sufficient to cause that photon to bend sufficiently that the photons trajectory is changed to be upon the event horizon. This value would be non-infinite.
Were the photon not to reach the event horizon at a perfect tangent, then it would bend more than sufficiently into the event horizon, and be continually bent during its passage inside of the event horizon space such that it could not have an angle which would not take it out from the event horizon.
All of this can be done with non-infinite gravity.
The place where the link you provided indicates that infinite gravity does exist is asymtopically at the center of the black hole. This being where the matter is compressed into an infinitely small space, and thus would somehow result in infinite gravity. I call this bullshit.
Considering that the particles need not be arranged such that they are a singularity, it's against Occam's Razor to invent the singularity. (Occam's Razor: Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Meaning, don't make something up to explain something, when you can explain it without.)
My personal goi
*NOT* two individual projects together. It says COMBINE MODULES into one LARGER PROGRAM.
You all are seeing what you want to see. Yes, a derivative work must be released under the GPL, but if you're inserting a module from another license into your GPL code you need not modify that license.
For instance: PearPC is GPL code. But if I took a module under a different license. Let's say under the LGPL (libc) and linked it into my program. Then this wouldn't require libc to change over to the GPL.
Where as, if my program were under a non-compatible license, and I linked in a GPL library (say, librep) then I would be bound to making it GPL.
Conclusion: There exists the ability to combine two licenses into a project, when one of them is GPL. Whether you seem to think that people can't or not.
Except emulation would exactly produce a selective product library.
Sure, it would come out and they would say, "if your game doesn't work, sorry." But that wouldn't be exactly the same as what they've said.
I'm likely to believe with another poster on MacSlash. At this point, they likely have native binaries shoved in there somewhere, for the really popular games (like Halo and Halo2)
That would probably make more sense and less cost right now than having an emulator do the bussiness. Because as much as you all think that the PowerPC 970 has enough power to emulate a 700MHz x86 Pentium 3, you're missing a lot of issues that face that emulation.
The PowerPC 970 no longer as pseudo-little-endian mode. So, you have to byte-order reverse everything in register (expensive) or just use AltiVec permutes to cache a 128-bit native-endian "cache line". Either way, this is cycle expensive, and means that when it was released, the G5-compatible VirtualPC almost ran worse than on a slower G4.
I just find it very hard to believe that this is being done with emulation.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
"Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)"
You can combine two projects under different licenses into a single product, and have parts under the GPL, and other parts not under the GPL.
Now, I don't know who you're talking to, but I think I'll trust the people, who actually wrote the GPL.
You may not agree with saying that Religion is wrong, but there are a number of people who advance the scientific method and results, who do say that Religion is wrong. And many religous people see the mere advancement of scientific results as against religion.
Like it or not, you can't really have it your way, where everyone keeps their noses where they belong. Because humans just don't do that.
I've read before that everything in matter is both particle and wave, much the same was as a photon. It's just not as readily apparent as it is in a photon. If you take it this way, then heck, the same explaination that I gave for the double-slit experiment for a photon would work for an electron, or any other individualized piece of matter. Without the need for a superstate of possibilities.
There exists no reason to believe in Quantum Mechanics. It's an accurate model for representing the quantum world, and I take it as such. But that doesn't mean it's the Truth, any more than the Newtonian Model which is highly accurate for non-relativistic physics.
From the very site on quantum tunneling that you put to me: When that probability wave encounters an energy barrier most of the wave will be reflected back, but a small portion of it will 'leak' into the barrier. Sounds to me like there's some leakage of a photon when it hits a barrier.
Let's take it this way as an alternative to viewing the world. The probablity wave packet that you describe as the "possible position" of the particle. And the wave packet where the spread of the probability wave is the *actual* position of the wave packet. Literally, instead of the particle having a chance of being in any of these places, it actually is. At all times.
When you seek to locate its position, you end up with a result determined by an interference with another wave packet. Thus, the results can look to be that the particle has magically and instantly transported from one location to another, but in fact, it's just a quirky interference point.
I'd have to think about it more. But it doesn't make sense to me to invent the probabilistic superstate, when it could be entirely possible to explain it without probability and without a superstate.
No, the gravity inside of the event-horizon is *not* infinite. If the gravity of a blackhole at any point were infinite, then if you solve the inverse square calculation, with an infinite gravitation force, and a finite distance, you get the result that at ANY distance, the gravitational force would be infinite. Whether its inside that event horizon or not. You can't just have the event horizon be a magical boundary where anything past it has finite gravitational force, and anything inside it has infinite gravitational force.
And this assumption isn't even NECESSARY. You just need enough gravitational force to keep a photon inside the event horizon. This value is finite. So, why the hell would you even claim that it is inifinite, when it wouldn't be, and the observed behavior of the universe proves it wrong?
I've constantly said that I don't believe creationism, or even intelligent design should be taught as practiced in school. It's just not appropriate.
But I still don't see any reason to tell a kid that his parents are wrong because they believe in creationism. Personally, I think that belief in religion is beyond a true/false mentality. There's just no point in attempting to prove it either way, since religion serves a purpose besides explaination of the universe to me.
Anyways. The description that I read myself of the double slit experiment is that in fact actually the photon is (as we will all agree) both a particle and a wave. This particle is such like a "wave packet". A grouping of waves that are restricted more or less together into a single particle group.
Thus, it's possible for the particle to interfere with itself, as it is possible for it to travel through two different locations at the same time (two parts of its wave packet traveling seperately).
Again, I believe quite similarly to Einstein. God doesn't play dice to the universe. The notion that the order and regularity that we experience can be built upon pure instability is ludacrous to me.
No reason to invent this "it's undefined before observation because it really *is* undefined", when "it's undefined before observation because it's un-observed." Would suffice. It's just seems to me like a misunderstanding of how the whole system works.
Like the notion that black-holes have infinite gravity. (counter-example: we're not in a black-hole) But that's just what everyone assumes because they heard it somewhere.
I'd suggest contacting the Software Freedom Law Center.
They're currently representing us (the PearPC development team) and offering WINE free legal assistance.
They're basically the lawyer arm of the EFF, except that they left to be able to help the FOSS community better.
I feel your pain man, these corporations are annoying.
Best of all, if you get Eben Moglen to represent you and that CEO tells you that the GPL has never been reviewed by a lawyer, he can just laugh.
The PearPC developers (us) already have representation. The same representation that WINE has. Eben Moglen.
Would he still have got become fascinated with science and still got into physics, or would he still be a patent clerk, who believed a big beard in the sky made the whole world in six days?
Actually, in fact, he did. Einstein felt that the universe was infinite and static. He did believe in God, (famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe.")
Fact is that people can work on Evolution, and Physics and explainations to the creation of the universe, while still believing that God did it.
In many ways Einstein believed in Intelligent Design (similar to how I believe in it) Not that God directly operated in order to create the universe, but rather that God established rules that govern the universe, with an intelligent design apparent from the way things work together. The more I learn about the nature of the universe the more I think, "wow, that's awesome that it works out like that."
And for the record, the quatum particles do have a defined position and size, but the problem is that in order to determine position you must use a wave-length larger than the particle, and thus cannot determine it's size, while in order to determine its size, you must use a wave-length smaller than the particle, which imparts sufficient force as to impart motion on the particle, so now you have no idea where it's going.
So, don't think that quantum mechanics has quasi-particles that are actually undefined in size and position until observed, we just can't actually know the size or position until observed, which damages the other.
Which presents an interesting situation. If something cannot be known until it is observed, then is its state unknown until collapsed, or has it actually be the same the whole time until you observe it?
Schroedinger argued that the cat were in a meta-state of living and dead until you open the box (observe) and collapse the actual state. But it's important to realize that the cat is most definitely either alive or dead at any given time. It's just that we cannot know its state until we collapse the system. Thus, Schroedinger's view works best, as the only thing you can do with "It's in a definite state until you observe it" is say "and I don't know what it is."
And no, I don't think we should teach kids the full truth first. That would just confuse them, because they don't have the background in study to understand it. But I personally don't see it right to give a simplistic explanation, without an explaination that it goes "much deeper". If someone presented me with the Newtonian Model and presented it as fact, then I'm stuck thinking that it's fact, and I must essentially unlearn it to work in the Einsteinian Model, and quantum mechanics.
I'd rather be told, "this is the model we present, it explains a lot, but it doesn't explain a lot also. But for now, we're working within this model."
No one has stop legal steps against MXS, and Arben Kryeziu.
Just stopping their release of the product does not absolve them of former infringements.
Not only do they say things like "like" and "ohmygod" way too much
Like ohmygod, people like don't talk like that all the like time?
I think since the project isn't going to be maintained anymore, and CherryOS isn't going to be sold, that Cherry OS should release its source code to the public so they can prove it isn't just PearPC with a name slapped on it.
Because they could only condemn themselves by doing so.
In attempting to go Open Source, they likely found how impossible it would be to hide a derivative work in the source code (you can't just rename variables, that's too easy to detect, and look for)
So, upon finding out how difficult it were going to be, they decided to remove liability by having Arben leave with the rights, and have him just stop the project.
I was on this case from the beginning to test the GPL. There's really no other issue here. I have no problem with people making money from selling PearPC, as long as they comply with the GPL. If they hadn't been idiots, they could have worked with us, instead of against us.
Anyways, as a development community, we weren't spending really any time working on this issue, at least not development time. Though, I still intend to see this issue dealt with properly, and in court if it must.
No. There has been no such apology, nor reconciliation of previous infringements upon our copyrights.
So, while Maui X-Stream has passed the product off to Arben Kryeziu, and he has said that it's not worth the effort, and he will not continue the product, they have still not released the source code for their products.
We will continue to push them legally until they have complied, and reconciliated their previous actions.
Notice his blog even only mentions QEmu as an alternative to CherryOS. Thanks guy, way to appreciate the people you step on.
If we don't teach creationism in schools, where are kids going to learn about it?
In church, where they *should* be taught theology.
I pretty much stand with you. I don't agree that we should teach creationism in the schools, but these ID people are getting the Evolutionists all up in arms over stupid shit.
Like, take the sticker that was ordered to be removed from those books, I'll quote it best I can, "This book presents evolution as fact, but it is important to realize that it is a theory and should be critically considered."
Um, who the *HELL* involved in science would *NOT* want to critically consider *EVERY* theory. Let alone Evolution.
Let's take us back 100 years, to before Einstein published his works on relativity. I bet you'd find a lot of resistance from those people to putting this sticker on their physics books: "This book presents the newtonian model of the universe as fact, but it is important to realize that it is a theory, and should be critically considered." The physicists would in general be up in arms, screaming and shouting, that the Newtonian Model is the best we have.
But we know better now. I want all those jerks to realize that we need to teach our children to be critical about everything they learn. Einstein is known to have been highly critical of theories and explainations for the world. He didn't take anything on a "because I said so" basis. He considered everything critically and came to accurate beliefs.
But then, I'll just point out to everyone here, as you all well know, the vast majority of the world will eat whatever swill is given to them under the name "Science." You may not consider it a religion, but the Average Joe has subconciously elevated it to that position. "Well, it must be right, because a Scientist said so!"
So, in my eyes, replacing a theological model to the universe, with a model for the universe that people accept as if it were a religion... that just doesn't work for me. (Now, I know many of us have critically considered evolution, and we all come generally to the same conclusion. Evolution happens. Now, think, would you rather have your kid taught to just accept evolution because "they" say so, or accept it because they ernestly understand that it is accurate.)
A Mathematician decided to give up on math one day, and elected to become a fireman. With a confident heart, he walked down to the local fire station and announced his intentions.
The fire chief quite amused, decided to give the mathematician a chance. So, he took him outside to the back alley. There the fire chief presented the mathematician with a dumpster. He then told the mathematician: "Ok, suppose you're walking down this alley and you find the dumpster on fire. What would you do?" The mathematician responds, "Well, I'd put out the fire."
The fire chief was confident that the mathematician weren't a kook, but then, he posed the question, "ok, suppose you're walking down the alley, and the dumpster *isn't* on fire. What would you do?" To this the mathematician replied: "Well, I'd light it on fire."
The fire chief was dumb-struck. With his jaw on the floor, he asked the mathematician, "Are you crazy? Why on earth would you do that?" To which the mathematician replied: "Because then I'm reducing the problem to a problem that I've already solved."
Bah-dump PSSSSH!!!!