Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism"
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I disagree:
You could use "darwinism" to describe many kinds of replicating, competing natural systems. But quantums...?
Without observation, a qunatum system "is" in a large number of states simultaneously (a la Schroedinger's cat). Think of these states as all competing, not for resources in this case, but for observation. Moreover, an act of observation introduces purturbations into the system, much like the biological act of reproduction.
What these physicists proved, then, is that over time the random purturbations of observation push the system toward a stable point--the "fittest" quantum state. Since these observations happen many many bajillion times a second most qunatum system converge very quickly, and by the time anybody gets around to looking they all see the same "objective" reality; the "fittest" stable quantum state.
Yes, it's not truly biological--it's only an anaolgy, after all--but I think it's an apt one.
Only the HMAC keys get published, allowing forgability by providing a means to forge the message digest once you've changed the ciphertext; the encryption keys themselves are destroyed.
Now if one of the parties kept a copy not only of the entire session, but also of all the encryption keys (each message is sent under a new key), s/he could read the entire thing after the fact. However, without the explicit assistance of one of the parties (to provide the encryption keys), an eavesdropper never could.
Sheesh, only on Slashdot does Paranoid == Insightful.
They state they want to contact him to appologise. They offer to do so through SG if he'd rather not be contacted directly. Where's the malice there? I can be rather suspicious at times myself, but I just can't read anything more into this than a companies attempt to make up for a high-profile cockup.
From the official mission fact-sheet: "On December 25, 2004, Cassini will release the European-built Huygens probe toward Titan. On January 14, 2005, the 2.7-meter-diameter (8.9-foot) Huygens will enter Titan's atmosphere, deploy its parachutes and begin its scientific observations during a descent of up to two and a half hours through that moon's dense atmosphere." (see also here and here)
If you're really "on the outreach team" it sounds like you need a serious clue.
I've read most of your (David Brin's) books, and I respect the heck out of you, sir, but you missed a setp in there:
Fear leads to anger, anger leades to hatred. It's not that anger, in and of itself, is evil, but that unchecked it can lead to hate; and hatred does indeed turn young, disillusioned people toward evil. It's hatred that defined most nazi actions and defines neo-nazis, klansmen, suicide bombers, etc. today. When otherwise good, empassioned people begin to hate bad thing often do follow.
(I whish I had mod points today as someone already said almost this same thing and if I could mod it up instead of taking my own stab at it there's a better chance of someone seing it... oh well.)
Um, that would be 18 years ago tomorrow. And the Apollo 1 oxygyn fire was 27 years ago today -- Jan. 27, 1967. Kinda spooky how they're all within a few days of one another.
With all due respect to your point, it's not nearly that simple.
First, The engineers had previous experience with this type of impact. This was not the first time a piece of foam had fallen from the external tank and struck the orbiter, and in all the previous cases the damage was minimal. Why? Two reasons:
The foam struck a glancing blow, with almost none of that substantial kinetic energy actually transfered to the orbiter wing, and
The foam struck on the ceramic tiles which are much more forgiving of small amounts of damage than the carbon composite used for the leading edges.
Second, because of the previous incidents NASA had developed a computer simulation of such impacts. This was a conservative simulation which overpredicted the amount of damage as compared to actual post-flight observations. This simulation was believed to be far more reliable than a 5-second equaltion.
Third, from the video taken of the launch, it appeared that the foam impacted on the tiles on the bottom of the wing. There was no reason at the time to believe this impact would be any more damaging than any other had been.
Was an error made by not seriously considering the possibility of an impact on the leading edge of the wing earlier? It's beginning to look like it was, yes. Is that tragic? Absolutely. Is it gross incompetence? No.
When the engineers at NASA think of the seven astronauts who died on Columbia they're not just some seven people; they were coworkers and friends. Don't you think they would have done anything in their power to save them if they had known, or even suspected?! Don't you think they tried to think of everything, cover every base? Come back and say something when friends' lives depend on you not having a bad day at work and I might listen.
(and it's Lockheed/Martin that blew the english-metric conversion. NASA missed the mistake, true, but they didn't make it; all their work is in metric already.)
For what it's worth, I posted the following at work this morning:
No, there's no American flag in my cubicle.
It's not that I don't share your grief, your pain, even your lasting anger on this anniversary--I do. It's not that I don't love my country or appreciate all she offers--I do.
There are few other places in all the world I feel I could enjoy living.
But I've never felt that the best response to killing, however brutal and undeserved, is more killing,
and I'm still naive enough to believe that God will show us another way, if only we stop hating long enough to listen,
so I choose to express my dissent by not waiving the flag.
And in a country where I've watched some of the things for which I love her most eroded,
where it's accepted as a given that security and freedom are unavoidably opposed, where 69% of Americans believe the Freedom of Information Act should be sacrificed to protect our government, where 48%, almost a majority, believe the First Amendment goes too far in the freedoms it grants, and where those who have expressed unpopular opinions over the last year have been met with anger, fear, and hatred, "America, love it or leave it,"
I choose not to pledge an allegiance I no longer feel.
How can we be one nation, indivisible, when those of us who disagree are asked to depart? How can there be liberty and justice for all when American citizens, let alone foreign nationals, are held in military custody without trial, jury, or even counsel?
I do love it; I won't leave it; but the sense of solidarity most Americans gained on that dreadful day a year ago still escapes me,
and so I choose not to overtly participate in the commemoration, not out of any disrespect for those who died or those who survived--
I grieve for them all more deeply than I can say--
but out of respect for what I think we could become if only we tried a little harder or looked a little deeper.
Shawn Menninga September 11, 2002
Re:Perhaps they got something right!
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 1
Notice the underlying assumption in Microsoft's position: that it's an either/or choice between stability and flexibility.
I've got to ask, "Why?" Couldn't a well-written, massively modifiable system with thoughtfully-chosen defaults accomplish both?
We in the open source/free software community(ies) have perhaps missed the mark with the "thoughtfully-chosen defaults" part, forcing users to make zillions of small and large decisions just to install and run everyday software. Microsoft most often misses the mark on the massively modifiable part, locking users into choices they might not have made themselves. And I'm not sure either one of us consistently gets the well-written part right. Still, speaking as an application developer myself, I don't see any reason it should be inherently impossible.
Some things I've learned: (specific recommendations follow)
1) As mentioned elsewhere, without good speakers a kickass amp gets you nowhere. Figure 30%-50% of your budget. A matched set of fronts and center is a very good thing.
2) On the other side, reasonable priced speakers outperform most livingrooms/apartments. If the accoustics of the room aren't excellent there's no point in spending thousands on speakers.
3) If you find an amp with good specs outside the normal ranges (&less 20Hz, &greater 20kHz, &greater 200W) is will sound even better at normal volumes and frequencies.
4) On the other side, Harmon Kardon makes amps with wonderful specs, and their analog amps rock, but I've had nothing but trouble with their digital ones.
5) Don't forget to budget for patch cables and speaker wire. Those dinky little patch cables that came with the components won't cut it in an two grand sound system. Get good heavy ones with gold plated ends. Same goes for speaker wire--the good stuff is worth it, especially if you're going to be playing with the volume control.
My Recomendations:
1) Amp -- I'm currently running an Onkyo THX amp (sorry, I don't have the model number handy) that cost &less $1000US. That's right, THX certified for under a grand. This amp kicks serious ass. It's warm, with good presence, great imaging, and all the doodads. 4 digital inputs (2 coax, 2 optical), DTS, full composite and s-video switching, ergonomic remote, more surround and DSP modes than you can shake a stick at, did I mention it's under a grand?
2) Speakers -- I don't really have a preference. I'm running Paradigm fronts (with Optimus passive subs) and center, Optimus Lineaum rears, and a Paradigm powered sub. It's pretty good, but I'm not happy with the low-midrange. There's a definite drop between the top of the sub and the bottom of the satalites. Shop around and listen. Bring CDs with you to play--CDs you know how you want them to sound, and just listen to lots of speakers.
Shouldn't that be 10^15 aggregate/second? 1GHz = 1,000,000,000 Hz = 10^9 cycles/second, so 1000GHz = 10^12 cycles/second, and with a thousand of those machines it's 10^15 aggregate cycles/second, right?
So it's only 10 trillion years... Not that's more reasonable!:-)
I *so* hate for my first posting to/. to be a spelling nitpick, but this one's too blatant to let pass. This is not a flame, and for the most part the front-page stories read better than a lot of tabloids and other inexpensive paper publications, but could ya' please fix it?;-)
I'm guessing from the text in the illustration listing a range of 150 miles, that "1Å Hours" is supposed to be "1¾ Hours". That would jive fairly well with the spped and range given.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree:
You could use "darwinism" to describe many kinds of replicating, competing natural systems. But quantums...?
Without observation, a qunatum system "is" in a large number of states simultaneously (a la Schroedinger's cat). Think of these states as all competing, not for resources in this case, but for observation. Moreover, an act of observation introduces purturbations into the system, much like the biological act of reproduction.
What these physicists proved, then, is that over time the random purturbations of observation push the system toward a stable point--the "fittest" quantum state. Since these observations happen many many bajillion times a second most qunatum system converge very quickly, and by the time anybody gets around to looking they all see the same "objective" reality; the "fittest" stable quantum state.
Yes, it's not truly biological--it's only an anaolgy, after all--but I think it's an apt one.
Ummm...what would its peers be?
Martin Gardner's math puzzle/game books? or mabye Godel, Escher, Bach for the more philosophicaly inclined? Not all non-mathematicians are turned off by math...
Only the HMAC keys get published, allowing forgability by providing a means to forge the message digest once you've changed the ciphertext; the encryption keys themselves are destroyed.
Now if one of the parties kept a copy not only of the entire session, but also of all the encryption keys (each message is sent under a new key), s/he could read the entire thing after the fact. However, without the explicit assistance of one of the parties (to provide the encryption keys), an eavesdropper never could.
Printed out on a teletype terminal at 132x66 if I remember correctly from the SciAm article.
Sheesh, only on Slashdot does Paranoid == Insightful.
They state they want to contact him to appologise. They offer to do so through SG if he'd rather not be contacted directly. Where's the malice there? I can be rather suspicious at times myself, but I just can't read anything more into this than a companies attempt to make up for a high-profile cockup.
Flyby, yes; Huygens, no, not until December
From the official mission fact-sheet: "On December 25, 2004, Cassini will release the European-built Huygens probe toward Titan. On January 14, 2005, the 2.7-meter-diameter (8.9-foot) Huygens will enter Titan's atmosphere, deploy its parachutes and begin its scientific observations during a descent of up to two and a half hours through that moon's dense atmosphere." (see also here and here)
If you're really "on the outreach team" it sounds like you need a serious clue.
In the short pause between reading the first and second lines of your post I had this moment of fear where I thought you might be David Brin
(OK, I actually appreciated David's post (assuming it wasn't just some AC copy/paste job), but somebody had to say it...)
I've read most of your (David Brin's) books, and I respect the heck out of you, sir, but you missed a setp in there:
Fear leads to anger, anger leades to hatred. It's not that anger, in and of itself, is evil, but that unchecked it can lead to hate; and hatred does indeed turn young, disillusioned people toward evil. It's hatred that defined most nazi actions and defines neo-nazis, klansmen, suicide bombers, etc. today. When otherwise good, empassioned people begin to hate bad thing often do follow.
(I whish I had mod points today as someone already said almost this same thing and if I could mod it up instead of taking my own stab at it there's a better chance of someone seing it... oh well.)
Um, that would be 18 years ago tomorrow. And the Apollo 1 oxygyn fire was 27 years ago today -- Jan. 27, 1967. Kinda spooky how they're all within a few days of one another.
With all due respect to your point, it's not nearly that simple.
First, The engineers had previous experience with this type of impact. This was not the first time a piece of foam had fallen from the external tank and struck the orbiter, and in all the previous cases the damage was minimal. Why? Two reasons:
Second, because of the previous incidents NASA had developed a computer simulation of such impacts. This was a conservative simulation which overpredicted the amount of damage as compared to actual post-flight observations. This simulation was believed to be far more reliable than a 5-second equaltion.
Third, from the video taken of the launch, it appeared that the foam impacted on the tiles on the bottom of the wing. There was no reason at the time to believe this impact would be any more damaging than any other had been.
Was an error made by not seriously considering the possibility of an impact on the leading edge of the wing earlier? It's beginning to look like it was, yes. Is that tragic? Absolutely. Is it gross incompetence? No.
When the engineers at NASA think of the seven astronauts who died on Columbia they're not just some seven people; they were coworkers and friends. Don't you think they would have done anything in their power to save them if they had known, or even suspected?! Don't you think they tried to think of everything, cover every base? Come back and say something when friends' lives depend on you not having a bad day at work and I might listen.
(and it's Lockheed/Martin that blew the english-metric conversion. NASA missed the mistake, true, but they didn't make it; all their work is in metric already.)
And here my first thought on reading the subject line was "Insil'zha".
[running furiously from the NBS]
For what it's worth, I posted the following at work this morning:
No, there's no American flag in my cubicle.
It's not that I don't share your grief, your pain,
even your lasting anger on this anniversary--I do.
It's not that I don't love my country or appreciate
all she offers--I do.
There are few other places
in all the world
I feel I could enjoy living.
But I've never felt that the best response to killing,
however brutal and undeserved,
is more killing,
and I'm still naive enough to believe
that God will show us another way,
if only we stop hating long enough to listen,
so I choose to express my dissent by not waiving the flag.
And in a country where I've watched some of the things
for which I love her most
eroded,
where it's accepted as a given that security and freedom
are unavoidably opposed,
where 69% of Americans believe the Freedom of Information Act
should be sacrificed to protect our government,
where 48%, almost a majority, believe the First Amendment
goes too far in the freedoms it grants,
and where those who have expressed unpopular opinions
over the last year
have been met with anger, fear, and hatred,
"America, love it or leave it,"
I choose not to pledge an allegiance I no longer feel.
How can we be one nation, indivisible,
when those of us who disagree are asked to depart?
How can there be liberty and justice for all
when American citizens, let alone foreign nationals,
are held in military custody without trial, jury, or even counsel?
I do love it; I won't leave it;
but the sense of solidarity most Americans gained
on that dreadful day a year ago
still escapes me,
and so I choose not to overtly participate in the commemoration,
not out of any disrespect for those who died
or those who survived--
I grieve for them all more deeply than I can say--
but out of respect
for what I think we could become
if only we tried a little harder
or looked a little deeper.
Shawn Menninga
September 11, 2002
Notice the underlying assumption in Microsoft's position: that it's an either/or choice between stability and flexibility.
.00000002 megadollars
I've got to ask, "Why?" Couldn't a well-written, massively modifiable system with thoughtfully-chosen defaults accomplish both?
We in the open source/free software community(ies) have perhaps missed the mark with the "thoughtfully-chosen defaults" part, forcing users to make zillions of small and large decisions just to install and run everyday software. Microsoft most often misses the mark on the massively modifiable part, locking users into choices they might not have made themselves. And I'm not sure either one of us consistently gets the well-written part right. Still, speaking as an application developer myself, I don't see any reason it should be inherently impossible.
Just my
Among those notably absent from this years Spring Comdex:
Red Hat
Microsoft
Novell
Oracle
DEC (Although there was a lot of Compaq)
Lucent
HP
And of course, Slashdot. :-)
Can some brave soul who managed to grab the tarball please mirror it? It's your very own chance to be Slashdotted. :-)
Some things I've learned: (specific recommendations follow)
1) As mentioned elsewhere, without good speakers a kickass amp gets you nowhere. Figure 30%-50% of your budget. A matched set of fronts and center is a very good thing.
2) On the other side, reasonable priced speakers outperform most livingrooms/apartments. If the accoustics of the room aren't excellent there's no point in spending thousands on speakers.
3) If you find an amp with good specs outside the normal ranges (&less 20Hz, &greater 20kHz, &greater 200W) is will sound even better at normal volumes and frequencies.
4) On the other side, Harmon Kardon makes amps with wonderful specs, and their analog amps rock, but I've had nothing but trouble with their digital ones.
5) Don't forget to budget for patch cables and speaker wire. Those dinky little patch cables that came with the components won't cut it in an two grand sound system. Get good heavy ones with gold plated ends. Same goes for speaker wire--the good stuff is worth it, especially if you're going to be playing with the volume control.
My Recomendations:
1) Amp -- I'm currently running an Onkyo THX amp (sorry, I don't have the model number handy) that cost &less $1000US. That's right, THX certified for under a grand. This amp kicks serious ass. It's warm, with good presence, great imaging, and all the doodads. 4 digital inputs (2 coax, 2 optical), DTS, full composite and s-video switching, ergonomic remote, more surround and DSP modes than you can shake a stick at, did I mention it's under a grand?
2) Speakers -- I don't really have a preference. I'm running Paradigm fronts (with Optimus passive subs) and center, Optimus Lineaum rears, and a Paradigm powered sub. It's pretty good, but I'm not happy with the low-midrange. There's a definite drop between the top of the sub and the bottom of the satalites. Shop around and listen. Bring CDs with you to play--CDs you know how you want them to sound, and just listen to lots of speakers.
Am I the only one that finds great mirth in the NSA being slashdotted? :-)
Shouldn't that be 10^15 aggregate/second? 1GHz = 1,000,000,000 Hz = 10^9 cycles/second, so 1000GHz = 10^12 cycles/second, and with a thousand of those machines it's 10^15 aggregate cycles/second, right? So it's only 10 trillion years... Not that's more reasonable! :-)
I *so* hate for my first posting to /. to be a spelling nitpick, but this one's too blatant to let pass. This is not a flame, and for the most part the front-page stories read better than a lot of tabloids and other inexpensive paper publications, but could ya' please fix it? ;-)
I'm guessing from the text in the illustration listing a range of 150 miles, that "1Å Hours" is supposed to be "1¾ Hours". That would jive fairly well with the spped and range given.