I am interested in your predictions for the complexity of a Grand Unified Field Theory. For example, the mathematics of the Special and General Theories of Relativity are extremely complex, yet the basic principles can be explained to (almost) anyone. It seems that the theories that are becoming popular are very complex even in principle, much less in terms of mathematics.
So, if a GUT is developed, will it be accessible to the average person?
>What's more probable is it became the building block of all Earth-based life because of its abundance.
The reason that carbon is the basic building block of life is that it can form four bonds, AND those bonds are relatively strong.
Lots of people are mentioning silicon based life forms. However, silicon is a much larger atom, and the bonds it forms are proportionately weaker than similar bonds to carbon.
Just as a little note of interest, while it is amazing that these guys have proved this theorem, it has long been suspected to be true, since back in the '60's when it was proposed.
In fact, Wiles used a theorem that was proven years ago that IF the STW conjecture was true, then Fermat's Last Theorem would be true (Wiles proved a smaller subset of this problem).
So while the result is interesting and useful (and certainly needed), the consequences have already been explored.
This may be slightly off-topic, but it's something that I feel pretty deeply about, and I want to mention it.
For most of my life I've been an atheist. I was a mathematics major, now I'm in engineering graduate school, and somehow the concept of God as used by the established religions was something that I just couldn't reconcile with the lack of scientific proof (and even proof to the contrary, such as evolution).
I suspect that many of you out there feel the same way. But please please please let me suggest you read some of Joseph Campbell's work (The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers is an excellent place to start). Campbell's views on what religion really is, and who God really is have pretty much changed my life. I can now call myself a spiritual person, and yet I didn't need to make any leaps of faith or throw out any of my more scientific views.
In fact (maybe as a bonus to many of you out there who actively dislike organized religion), Campbell actually likes to point out why many religion's have the right ideas, but they try and concretize them, and they lose their meaning.
I wish I could communicate my ideas better, and this is neither the time or the place to get into a long discussion of this (maybe another/. article?).
>Nixon was the last President to write a significant number of his own speeches.
I've heard that Clinton writes almost all of his own speeches himself. His writers feel lucky if he uses one or two of the lines they wrote out of an entire speech.
And as much as I don't care for his politics, or his character, I do have to admit that he has mastered the art of rhetoric.
>Somehow I suspect that making your own modifications to the Bible and redistributing it as a new and improved version would be frowned upon..
i think i have to disagree with you here. how about the book of mormon? and the popularity of all those new-age, find jesus for yourself books like the power of living?
even the most popular version of the bible today (king james) is only an interpretation of a translation of the original.
if you're into this kind of stuff check out oth.net. it let's you register your computer as a server in exchange for access to other's mp3 files. i haven't used it in a while (since i was in college) but it worked fairly reliably.
Here's a question for people who know more than me:
Suppose Transmeta actually does have a really cool new chip. Obviously they are going to need some help developing software (compilers, etc.) for it. I assume that's where Linus fits in. But seeing as the trend these days is to get Linux to run on everything from the Palm Pilot to old 286's, don't you think that Linus would be at least slightly interested in developing a Linux kernel for this thing...
So my question is: does he have a Linux kernel? Can he develop code for it and keep it secret from the rest of the community? Is 2.4 going to support this chip?
>So how will millions of potential network security holes affect us in future when everything is networked?
Simple - people won't use it. If my fridge can get hacked, I won't buy it. The average consumer may be a moron, but s/he is also pretty demanding. Furnaces that can be hacked simply won't sell unless a model is worked out so that they _aren't_ hacked.
I don't mean to imply at all that BeOS doesn't work when Windows is around (in fact it is set up to be pretty compatible with Windows).
What I was trying to illustrate was that a smaller OS who doesn't own the mindshare of every computer user _could_ do whatever they wanted - "no matter how heinous" - it would be up to the market to decide whether the change was for the better.
With MS, that isn't the case. If Windows changes, 99% of users just take the change, better or worse.
>By what moral principal should we (the people, therefore the government) be allowed to limit what they do to their own work, no matter how heinous?
That's really the question, isn't it? I think the answer is in the fact that MS has/had a monopoly. When millions of customers depend on Microsoft products, and MS can make one little code snippet that effectively scares people away from their competitors product, then that is illegal. It's not our moral principles that should then be questioned but theirs.
For example, BeOS could have little messages showing up saying that their OS won't work if Windows is installed on another partition (even though it certainly does, as win3.1 did with DR-DOS), and it's not illegal, because there aren't millions of customers who are effectively being forced/scared into using BeOS and deleting their Windows partitions.
I'm not an accountant, so take this for what you will, but as I understand accounting, it is a pretty subjective profession. Of course there are standards, but things like how long to depreciate property investments, which inventory system is used (FIFO or LIFO), etc., all have a major effect on what the books actually look like. It is _consistency_ across financial statements that lets you really evaluate how a company is doing.
This guys comments about how we should prohibit microsoft from buying back its own stock - that's absurd. Treasury stock is a basic concept in any publically traded company, and this guy's claim to prevent that illuminates how much he _doesn't_ know what he's talking about.
This is just some fool trying to scare everybody into selling off MS stock, and he's getting a lot of undeserved attention for it.
Just because he's signed with Dreamworks doesn't mean that Spielberg will actually have any part in the movie.
American Beauty was a Dreamworks production, and while Spielberg was the one who decided to do the movie, he didn't actually direct or produce anything himself.
First you are wondering what the world would be like if the resources that went into the internet were used for some other project, like world hunger. It's an interesting thought, but not a very useful one. The internet attracted so many minds because it was a better opportunity. It is a quicker way to make more money than, say, agricultural research. That's just the way it is.
"And then I remember that the Internet is really not a big deal; it's just a toy for the few of us who are so rich that we don't worry about finding food to eat..."
Try telling that to Wall Street;)
Then: "the rest of the world is being run by second-raters."
This is a silly conclusion to draw - just because there are many bright people working in computer-related industries does NOT mean that there are no bright people left for other things; in fact, i am not in the computer business, and your conclusion seems to imply that i'm second rate.
Then: "The Internet doesn't create ideas; it's merely a tool that helps distribute them and makes collaborative thinking easier. Computers do no original thinking; they merely help human thinkers work more efficiently"
Who's claiming they do?
Then: "The talents that make a good programmer could be applied just as well in many other fields, from politics to agricultural development..."
I have to disagree with you there. In very broad terms this might be true: honesty, hard work, etc. etc. But how many geek programmers do you know who would be good politicians? How many can schmooze for hours at fund-raising dinner parties and debate (_not_ using a keyboard) the merits of a particular policy issue. Maybe they can out-think most politicians on technical issues, but that in the end isn't what politics is ultimately about, and it isn't what politicians are paid to do.
I have a one of the original Personal Palm editions, with 1MB of memory. This can hold thing rediculous like 10,000 addresses and to-do lists and memos. Why on earth would anyone need 96MB hard drive for a Palm?
Now granted, apps for the palm do take a (relatively) large amount of memory. But I don't think there are many people who are running out of space on their palms. If they are, they need to look at what they're keeping on that thing.
Now on a WinCE machine, the extra 96MB might just be necessary...
Before I get moderated down to very negative numbers for posting something that isn't anti-microsoft, I want to ask why this is so bad?
I'm sure people said the same things about credit cards when they were first introduced. "Oh my, if someone gets my number, they could buy things with my money!" This indeed turned out to be a problem with credit cards, which is exactly why it was addressed, and now you are protected. You can dispute charges on your card with any reputable credit card company.
If this privacy/cracking issue is such a big deal (and it is to consumers) then it will be addressed or people simply will not use it.
Don't give too much credit to microsoft and not enough to the average consumer.
If Transmeta is really developing some kind of new processor, and assuming that this processor will be available sometime within the next few years, shouldn't they be seeding it to the development community?? Or they must be at least writing a compiler for it... (Assuming that running x86 code on a clockless chip requires recompiling... wouldn't it?)
What good is a new processor if you can't run any apps on it?
I signed up for e*trade this week as well, with the intention of trying to get my hands on some redhat stock (among other things).
There "IPO Center" states that they will begin taking "indications of interest" sometime in early to mid August. I don't know what form this guy filled out, but I can't find it anywhere on e*trade's website.
I read your comment and I thought you were right. But there's just one thing that
You are forgetting that AOL _pulished_ the specs to their client. They were trying to promote use on Unix boxes. Microsoft didn't commit industrial espionage to get the specs. IMHO, AOL should have seen this coming a mile away.
I still don't agree that MS is the "right" one in this case, but AOL isn't the victim that your post makes them out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I am interested in your predictions for the complexity of a Grand Unified Field Theory. For example, the mathematics of the Special and General Theories of Relativity are extremely complex, yet the basic principles can be explained to (almost) anyone. It seems that the theories that are becoming popular are very complex even in principle, much less in terms of mathematics.
So, if a GUT is developed, will it be accessible to the average person?
Thanks
LL
>What's more probable is it became the building block of all Earth-based life because of its abundance.
The reason that carbon is the basic building block of life is that it can form four bonds, AND those bonds are relatively strong.
Lots of people are mentioning silicon based life forms. However, silicon is a much larger atom, and the bonds it forms are proportionately weaker than similar bonds to carbon.
LL
This stuff is still almost incomprehensible.
Just as a little note of interest, while it is amazing that these guys have proved this theorem, it has long been suspected to be true, since back in the '60's when it was proposed.
In fact, Wiles used a theorem that was proven years ago that IF the STW conjecture was true, then Fermat's Last Theorem would be true (Wiles proved a smaller subset of this problem).
So while the result is interesting and useful (and certainly needed), the consequences have already been explored.
LL
This may be slightly off-topic, but it's something that I feel pretty deeply about, and I want to mention it.
/. article?).
For most of my life I've been an atheist. I was a mathematics major, now I'm in engineering graduate school, and somehow the concept of God as used by the established religions was something that I just couldn't reconcile with the lack of scientific proof (and even proof to the contrary, such as evolution).
I suspect that many of you out there feel the same way. But please please please let me suggest you read some of Joseph Campbell's work (The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers is an excellent place to start). Campbell's views on what religion really is, and who God really is have pretty much changed my life. I can now call myself a spiritual person, and yet I didn't need to make any leaps of faith or throw out any of my more scientific views.
In fact (maybe as a bonus to many of you out there who actively dislike organized religion), Campbell actually likes to point out why many religion's have the right ideas, but they try and concretize them, and they lose their meaning.
I wish I could communicate my ideas better, and this is neither the time or the place to get into a long discussion of this (maybe another
Just read some Joseph Campbell.
LL
>Nixon was the last President to write a significant number of his own speeches.
I've heard that Clinton writes almost all of his own speeches himself. His writers feel lucky if he uses one or two of the lines they wrote out of an entire speech.
And as much as I don't care for his politics, or his character, I do have to admit that he has mastered the art of rhetoric.
LL
>Somehow I suspect that making your own modifications to the Bible and redistributing it as a new and improved version would be frowned upon..
i think i have to disagree with you here. how about the book of mormon? and the popularity of all those new-age, find jesus for yourself books like the power of living?
even the most popular version of the bible today (king james) is only an interpretation of a translation of the original.
LL
Check out Corel's stock price at yahoo. Up around 10% or so.
Yippee!
LL
if you're into this kind of stuff check out oth.net. it let's you register your computer as a server in exchange for access to other's mp3 files. i haven't used it in a while (since i was in college) but it worked fairly reliably.
i'm not sure how different this program is.
LL
Here's a question for people who know more than me:
Suppose Transmeta actually does have a really cool new chip. Obviously they are going to need some help developing software (compilers, etc.) for it. I assume that's where Linus fits in. But seeing as the trend these days is to get Linux to run on everything from the Palm Pilot to old 286's, don't you think that Linus would be at least slightly interested in developing a Linux kernel for this thing...
So my question is: does he have a Linux kernel? Can he develop code for it and keep it secret from the rest of the community? Is 2.4 going to support this chip?
LL
>So how will millions of potential network security holes affect us in future when everything is networked?
Simple - people won't use it. If my fridge can get hacked, I won't buy it. The average consumer may be a moron, but s/he is also pretty demanding. Furnaces that can be hacked simply won't sell unless a model is worked out so that they _aren't_ hacked.
LL
Apparently my example wasn't clear.
I don't mean to imply at all that BeOS doesn't work when Windows is around (in fact it is set up to be pretty compatible with Windows).
What I was trying to illustrate was that a smaller OS who doesn't own the mindshare of every computer user _could_ do whatever they wanted - "no matter how heinous" - it would be up to the market to decide whether the change was for the better.
With MS, that isn't the case. If Windows changes, 99% of users just take the change, better or worse.
Sorry for any confusion.
LL
>By what moral principal should we (the people, therefore the government) be allowed to limit what they do to their own work, no matter how heinous?
That's really the question, isn't it? I think the answer is in the fact that MS has/had a monopoly. When millions of customers depend on Microsoft products, and MS can make one little code snippet that effectively scares people away from their competitors product, then that is illegal. It's not our moral principles that should then be questioned but theirs.
For example, BeOS could have little messages showing up saying that their OS won't work if Windows is installed on another partition (even though it certainly does, as win3.1 did with DR-DOS), and it's not illegal, because there aren't millions of customers who are effectively being forced/scared into using BeOS and deleting their Windows partitions.
At least that's my take on the whole situation.
LL
Check out:w eb?getdoc+site+site+27116+15+wAAA+columbin e
http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fast
For how the media blew the whole 'trenchcoat mafia' story _way_ out of proportion.
Be wary of what is reported as 'fact' and what is just media hype feeding off of itself.
LL
Guys, who cares if MS makes this thing? If it's as sweet as it's supposed to be (better than Sony), then that's what I'll get.
It's the quality of the games that matter, not who makes it.
LL
I'm not an accountant, so take this for what you will, but as I understand accounting, it is a pretty subjective profession. Of course there are standards, but things like how long to depreciate property investments, which inventory system is used (FIFO or LIFO), etc., all have a major effect on what the books actually look like. It is _consistency_ across financial statements that lets you really evaluate how a company is doing.
This guys comments about how we should prohibit microsoft from buying back its own stock - that's absurd. Treasury stock is a basic concept in any publically traded company, and this guy's claim to prevent that illuminates how much he _doesn't_ know what he's talking about.
This is just some fool trying to scare everybody into selling off MS stock, and he's getting a lot of undeserved attention for it.
LL
Just because he's signed with Dreamworks doesn't mean that Spielberg will actually have any part in the movie.
American Beauty was a Dreamworks production, and while Spielberg was the one who decided to do the movie, he didn't actually direct or produce anything himself.
LL
First you are wondering what the world would be like if the resources that went into the internet were used for some other project, like world hunger. It's an interesting thought, but not a very useful one. The internet attracted so many minds because it was a better opportunity. It is a quicker way to make more money than, say, agricultural research. That's just the way it is.
;)
..."
"And then I remember that the Internet is really not a big deal; it's just a toy for the few of us who are so rich that we don't worry about finding food to eat..."
Try telling that to Wall Street
Then: "the rest of the world is being run by second-raters."
This is a silly conclusion to draw - just because there are many bright people working in computer-related industries does NOT mean that there are no bright people left for other things; in fact, i am not in the computer business, and your conclusion seems to imply that i'm second rate.
Then: "The Internet doesn't create ideas; it's merely a tool that helps distribute them and makes collaborative thinking easier. Computers do no original thinking; they merely help human thinkers work more efficiently"
Who's claiming they do?
Then: "The talents that make a good programmer could be applied just as well in many other fields, from politics to agricultural development
I have to disagree with you there. In very broad terms this might be true: honesty, hard work, etc. etc. But how many geek programmers do you know who would be good politicians? How many can schmooze for hours at fund-raising dinner parties and debate (_not_ using a keyboard) the merits of a particular policy issue. Maybe they can out-think most politicians on technical issues, but that in the end isn't what politics is ultimately about, and it isn't what politicians are paid to do.
LL
I have a one of the original Personal
Palm editions, with 1MB of memory.
This can hold thing rediculous like
10,000 addresses and to-do lists and
memos. Why on earth would anyone need
96MB hard drive for a Palm?
Now granted, apps for the palm do take
a (relatively) large amount of memory.
But I don't think there are many people
who are running out of space on their
palms. If they are, they need to look
at what they're keeping on that thing.
Now on a WinCE machine, the extra 96MB might
just be necessary...
LL
Before I get moderated down to very negative numbers for posting something that isn't anti-microsoft, I want to ask why this is so bad?
I'm sure people said the same things about credit cards when they were first introduced. "Oh my, if someone gets my number, they could buy things with my money!" This indeed turned out to be a problem with credit cards, which is exactly why it was addressed, and now you are protected. You can dispute charges on your card with any reputable credit card company.
If this privacy/cracking issue is such a big deal (and it is to consumers) then it will be addressed or people simply will not use it.
Don't give too much credit to microsoft and not enough to the average consumer.
LL
"But then, I thought, "Why do Sun's work for them?"
You could make this exact same argument for any of the linux distros if you wanted to. Other people do the work, and they sell it.
I need a better argument than that to be convinced that the SCL license is any worse than the GPL.
LL
If Transmeta is really developing some kind of
new processor, and assuming that this processor
will be available sometime within the next
few years, shouldn't they be seeding it to the
development community?? Or they must be at least
writing a compiler for it... (Assuming that
running x86 code on a clockless chip requires
recompiling... wouldn't it?)
What good is a new
processor if you can't run any apps on it?
LL
First comment? ;)
LL
FYI, Thompson and his "Darwin Chip" were the
cover story for Discover magazine, June 1998.
It's the only Discover I've ever saved...
LL
I signed up for e*trade this week as well,
with the intention of trying to get my hands
on some redhat stock (among other things).
There "IPO Center" states that they will
begin taking "indications of interest"
sometime in early to mid August. I don't know
what form this guy filled out, but I can't
find it anywhere on e*trade's website.
LL
I read your comment and I thought you were
right. But there's just one thing that
You are forgetting that AOL _pulished_ the
specs to their client. They were trying to
promote use on Unix boxes. Microsoft didn't
commit industrial espionage to get the specs.
IMHO, AOL should have seen this coming a mile away.
I still don't agree that MS is the "right" one
in this case, but AOL isn't the victim that your
post makes them out to be.
LL