An example of this is
maxima. (Quotes from this link.)
"Maxima is a full symbolic computation program....
Maxima is based on the original Macsyma developed at MIT in the 1970's. It is quite reliable, and has good garbage collection, and no memory leaks."
Maxima was maintained by Professor Schelter at the University of Texas:
"This particular variant of Macsyma was maintained by William Schelter from 1982 until he passed away in 2001. In 1998 he obtained permission to release the source code under GPL."
"Since William Schelter's passing a group of users and developers has formed to keep Maxima alive and kicking. We are currently in a transitional state, deciding what directions to go in next and seeing what our abilities and resources are. Maxima itself is reasonably feature complete at this stage, with abilities such as symbolic integration, 3D plotting, and an ODE solver, but there is a lot of work yet to be done in terms of bug fixing, cleanup, and documentation. This is not to say there will be no new features, but there is much work to be done before that stage will be reached, and for now new features are not likely to be our focus."
There is more history on this project (e.g. here)
I am curious about your claim. Do you have data to support it.
(It sounds plausable but it might be wrong. The article mentioned a business which achived 20%-30% savings using IBM.)
I agree completely. With the html code in front of you, you can examine it and decide what you wish to do. (I usually delete it.) The only kmail folder which is automatically viewed as formatted html is the NY Times folder.
"What a fucking crock. The majority?"
Even though most people will not read this post, I think it is important to add one more comment. Lawyers are represented by national groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA). The conduct and rules of groups like the ABA do reflect on the character of lawyers. It was therefore interesting to see an
editorial
in Saturday's New York Times which discusses the proposed "revisions to the American Bar Association's code of judicial conduct". To guote a part of this editorial,
"The bar panel's newly unveiled proposals for revamping the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to avoid not just actual impropriety in all their activities, but also the appearance of impropriety."
Related articles are
here and
here.
I am going to `break the rules' and comment on the noderation of my first post in this thread. I get mod points quite often (as do most of us, I suspect); I do not know if professors get more or fewer than other people. When I have mod points, I look at articles which have been modded down to see if this was deserved (and as the guidelines request, I look at comments modded -1 and higher). On some occasions, I notice a later post which says "mod parent up" or "mod parent down" AND includes good reasons for this request; I have thought about the arguments and, in some cases, modded the parent up or down.
If moderators really think my first post was offtopic, uninteresting and inappropriate, then I request that you mod it down to -1.
"All the things you harp about are the product of the legislature, who, though mainly lawyers, are also a product of public opinion (even if that opinion is lobbyists)."
After some thought, I have difficulty seeing how this statement differs from a statement that a "DA" in an evil regeme (e.g. Nazi) might make. The notion of civil disobedience is based on the idea that laws can be unjust and some laws should not be supported by the public. It seems to me that unfair, unjust or "illegal" laws (from England) had something to do with the American revolution. While I believe that many, perhaps most, DAs do not attempt to enforce unjust laws, there are certainly many minority individuals with longer prison sentences than majority individuals because of unjust drug laws; with respect to these drug laws, many DAs obviously do not seem to mind using unjust laws.
Our legal system includes the possibility that the public can change unjust laws (by electing "better" representatives who change such laws). At best, however, this process takes a great deal of time. DAs (and rich corporations) have a huge advantage over ordinary citizens in our legal system. While corporations are heartless evil empires:-) DAs are individuals who (may) have a moral sense and should be responsible for their decisions. When a DA says (in public) "I did not know if it was a strong case but the jury found it convincing", I think there is a problem. How many rape cases have been overturned on the basis of DNA evidence? (I'll bet DAs hate being "shown up".)
How many rape cases might be overturned if the DNA evidence had not been lost? (I think rape is a horrible crime but it is one of the few where objective evidence can be used. How many innocent people are in jail for other crimes because such objective evidence does not exist?)
I happen to think that the abuse by the military in Iraq reflects a part of human nature. When people are placed in superior positions (with respect to power), it is very tempting to abuse that power. Classical studies from Stanford (and elsewhere) many years ago demonstrated this fact. DAs usually stand in such superior positions (e.g. socal (police) support, taxpayers purse, use of the media). I think it could be easy for some DAs to consider themselves morally superior and to consider each "win" in court as vindication of their views (and superiority). While it is known that police and the military are attractive to people who want to be in superior power positions (bullies), I hope DAs are not generally like this.
I was trying to say that a lawyer who devotes her/his career to fighting drug dealers does not deserve our respect simply for this. The notion of illegal drugs is not absolute; which particular items are considered illegal varies with time based on "popular opinion" (or the opinion of lobbyists). Some issues with the "War of Drugs" go back to Nixon. More recently, legislatures have created laws which punish "black" cocaine (e.g. crack) users with much harsher criminal penalties than "white" cocaine users; why is this?
(I get my cocaine from my doctor - when I have sinus problems.) Lawyers (DAs) then use these unjust laws to punish minorities. Why should we respect lawyers in cases like this?
I have not done a statistically valid study of the "badness" (??) of lawyers.
My opinion is based on personal experience (which is not terrible), the experience of friends (which IS terrible in a some cases), the media coverage of the use of lawyers by clients (e.g. RIAA), the high cost of defending oneself in court, etc.
One example of a friend's experience: Book author (friend) obtained artist's written permission to use a piece of (computer) artwork. Artist had signed over ownership of artwork to corporation (before giving permission to author to use artwork and without informing said author). Corporation sues artist, author and publisher. Author's lawyer says that in court, author would win. The court is 1500 miles away and the cost of defense should be less than $20,000 (hopefully). The author ends up filing for bankruptcy since potential legal costs are too great.
Second example (same friend). Publisher and sueing corporation work out a deal. Author goes to local lawyer to get bankruptcy dismissed. Time goes on without any word from lawyer. Months later, it turns out that local lawyer moved to a different city, did not do promised work and did not inform client.
Local legal society refuses to do anything about lawyer.
You do point out that the terms are vague (e.g. a "bad person" or a "bad profession") and I agree. I do not think most lawyers are bad people (although some are); some of them are good friends. However, there are serious inequaties in our legal system and I see little evidence that lawyers or judges are trying to reform things. Certainly legislatures should be blamed. However, lawyers (e.g. the Association of Trial Lawyers) have a great deal of political influence and do not seem to be using it to make the (civil) legal system affortable to the public.
"... because they want to keep the drug dealers off the streets."
I am not a fan of illegal drugs but I am also not a fan of "THE DRUG WAR". A "drug dealer" who sells pot to cancer patients is in a different category than a meth dealer. Lawyers who spend their careers "fighting (illegal) drugs" are hypocrites, in my opinion. Q: Should they "fight" alcohol? A: Yes (in 1926) No (in 2004). Q: Should they "fight" pot? A: No (in 1900) Yes (in 2000). Q: Should they "fight" tabacco? A: No (in 2000) Yes (in 2050 ??)
How much money do we spend on prisons for non-violent "criminals"? How many of them are ENRON executives who stole billions of dollars? How many of them are minor pot dealers?
"Not all lawyers are bad" -... Maybe not, but I think the majority are. I do not even trust my own lawyers that much (and I sure don't trust yours).
I wish TA (Total Annihilation) and TAK (TA Kingdoms) were ported to Linux. These games are the only reasons I ever use M$ windows. (Stupid 500 unit limit.)
It would be extremely nice if lots of really good games ran on Linux. However, I would select Linux (with no games) over M$ with excellent games.
I was just thinking that if your house has windows, then your yard probably has gates.
McAfee, Symantec and AVG
on
A Worm's Worm
·
· Score: 1
would never pay people to release a computer virus or worm. After all, what good would that do them? They are in the business of getting rid of such problems. Why, I would bet that no one would be happier if worms and viruses (viri?) completely disappeared.:-)
"This is truly a new paradign." ??
I think this is a very old (political) paradign, "Lie and lie (and bribe and bribe) until you get what you want."
I would be extremely refreshing to see a statement from a congressman saying something like "I originally found the data from the RIAA to very persuasive and announced support for House bill xyz. In light of this additional data, I believe we should allow more time to pass before considering legislation and I am therefore withdrawing my support of xyz." What do you think are the chances that this will occur?
You are an idiot. The Senate has the constitutational role of confirming nominees. This includes the "constitutional right to block those nominees." The Congress has the right to remove the President, remove the Supreme Court, etc. Final political power is given by the Constitution to the Congress.
Go to Germany if you want real beer. (Sorry, but it had to be said. I have not visited Prague but I have visited much of Canada and Germany (and Scotland). Canadian beer easily beats the "drink" called beer in the U.S. but compared to Europe,... sorry Canada.)
I was curious about these privately held companies. According to Forbes, the top ten largest (in terms of annual revenue) U.S. based privately held companies in 2003 were:
1. Cargill
2. Koch Industries Inc.
3. Mars
4. Publix Super Markets
5. PricewaterhouseCoopers
6. Ernst & Young
7. Bechtel
8. C&S Wholesale Grocers
9. Meijer
10. HE Butt Grocery
(I think 3. should read Mars Defense Force.)
So, do you work for any of these? Does anyone know if these companies are better ("nicer") employers than are public corporations? What about privately held companies in other countries?
I think prosecutors usually attempt to fairly apply the law to cases. However, it is well known that some prosecutors are unethical and innocent people are convicted. I think (hope) this is rare.
I would like to see new laws which send prosecutors to prison under certain conditions when ethical standards are violated. Prosecutors have a great deal of power (including the use of grand juries, essentially unlimited resources, etc.) and they should be held responsible for abuse.
Two examples of abuse: rape cases (Are you sure the guy in this picture did not rape you? Are you certain? Are you really sure?)
Hiding inadmissible testomony (Some states do not allow testomony by witnesses who underwent hypnosis; cases in which prosecutors hid the fact that hypnosis occurred and allow the witness to testify are known to exist.)
I have no idea what "application makers" want in a GUI. However, I really like Konqueror. I do not find it "slow, unstandardized, and unergonomic". On those rare occasions when I use IE, I really hate it. It is (OK, seems) designed by morons.
Using Konqueror (KDE3.2), I have no difficulty reading web pages.
The pie chart on your link is curious. Konqueror can send (or not send) operating system (and other) information depending on how you configure browser identification.
I wonder if identifying your OS as something other than Linux or not sending OS information plays a role here.
Sorry, for those born and raised in Humboldt County (CA), Santa Cruz is pretty far south. We are not even sure we include SF in northern California. (If they quit taking water from the Eel river and putting it in the Russian river, maybe we will count the "parking lot that is the Bay Area" as northern CA.)
From this site
"Another negative impact on the Eel has been the building of dams. In 1908 the Cape Horn Dam/Van Arsdale Reservoir and diversion tunnel were built in Potter Valley, near the headwaters of the main stem of the Eel River. The Eel River water diverted through the tunnel creates the East Fork of the Russian River and Lake Mendocino near Ukiah, California. Eel River water has been diverted to the vineyards of Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin counties ever since. In 1922 Scott Dam was built 12 miles upstream from Van Arsdale. Scott Dam impounds Lake Pillsbury and prevents salmon from getting to the tributaries above it. These dams and the diversion tunnel reduce the amount of water in the river system, so that fewer native plant and animal species can survive. Spawning beds dry up and when the winter rains arrive the river cannot absorb the water easily and flooding occurs."
I live in an extremely Republican state and layoffs in ("heavy") industry are continuuing. One of the things keeping us going is public (school and highway) construction; jobs paid for by the taxpayers. I have no idea how California is doing but much of the rest of the country is not doing well. (Perhaps Arnold has single-handedly fixed the California economy?)
Any claims that good jobs are increasing would be hard to justify, at least around here.
By the way, do we need a special category for "political trolls"? Personally, I am doing fine but I know several IT people (e.g. in our local LUG) who have been unemployed or underemployed for a long time. It seems unkind to imply that people who have been laid off are just too lazy to really look for work since the economy is (supposedly) doing well. Also, if someone is concerned about people recently laid off by SCO, I would think s/he would be even more concerned about people who have been laid off for years.
You have no confidence in the NSA and SE Linux. I suspect that the Linux kernels (3.0 ??) in two years will be much more secure than the current ones. Considering the security experience of Linux so far, which is very good, this is good news for the public. When Linux has 40+% of the desktop market, a lot
of the problems (e.g. networks overloaded with the results of Windows' poor security) will disappear from the news.
In your second paragraph, I believe that you are saying that, in the classical theory, the event horizon is just a mathematical construct and is not "real." I would agree with this statement. If the object gains more mass, the event horizon get larger. However, according to the classical theory, an observer going through the event horizon would not notice anything special at that moment. (In the alternative ("new form of matter") theory I mentioned, the observer would crash into a real (extremely dense) object (and die).)
Your comment "So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape" ignores the `evaporation' of matter from black holes (caused by the creation (and `partial capture' by the black hole) of virtural particles). If the mass were to remain constant, then the event horizon should not change size.
Your third paragraph is very difficult to understand. Adding more mass (in either of the two theories mentioned above and ignoring the question of the `reality' of the event horizon) increases the size of the event horizon. I believe there are observations which are consistent with mass being added to very dense objects (black holes, neutron stars, etc.) Your "star shining away inside the event horizon" comment is very strange; stars shine because matter is changed into energy (e.g. some small proportion of the mass of hydrogen atoms is converted into energy when helium is created) and "a star shining" requires a source of energy (so what do you propose?).
Your fourth paragraph is better (i.e. more humorous). I like "leaving behind inert mass with no energy"; if it is left behind, then it (magically?) is not subject to the gravitational attraction of the black hole and has no energy (although mass=energy)?
Your fifth paragraph seems to be the result of reading too many bad science friction novels. I like (and read) SciFi too. I just do not confuse it with the real world. By the way, your "SDI" may help (former) President "Ray-Gun" finally obtain SDI.
In your sixth paragraph, you mention "the book". Is this the Bible (or the Koran or what)? Buying (or even reading) your book is about the last thing I plan to do.
Moving on. "Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed)." Do you think gravity works the same way that electromagnetism does? What are "balanced gravity effects" (which are "never before proposed")? Is this like the tunnel through the earth (with no effective gravitational force at the center)?
"And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either." I said "you sound like a kook." I do not know you and can only judge you on the basis of your statements. On the basis of your statements, you do sound like a KooK. This does not mean you are a kook and I am not calling you one; I do not have enough information. (For example, you could be trolling rather than just crazy.)
Enough of this fun. I will let another reader of/. `dance' with you. Enjoy your life; say "hi" to the aliens for me.
"You clearly have no understanding of fundamental physics." Thanks for letting me know. My Ph.D. is in math (not physics) and I have not conducted research on cosmology so I do not claim to be an expert. I presume your Ph.D. is in physics or astronomy? I also assume you know differential geometry (and, perhaps, algebraic topology or some related areas of math) well enough to understand string theory?
"matter can produce gravitational effects as if it were in ten places at once" I do not understand this comment. Is this a comment about quantum mechanics or about Dvali's research or what? "... the dimensions hypothesized by String Theory are all to small for us to detect at less than a micron wide..." This statement is misleading. Most, but not all, versions of string theory do assume this. (Once again, look at Dvali's recent publications.)
"As far as how we can theoretically derive constants, I have no idea what you are referring to." I did not refer to "theoretically derive(d) constants" and have no idea what YOU "are referring to."
It is difficult to take you seriously. Please give us a little background information about yourself. How many preprints do you have at arxiv.org? (I have none since my research is in applied math but not in "physics"; I do have about 30 papers including articles in Crelles Journal, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, TAMS, PAMS, PJM, etc.)
There may be reasons to question "the big bang" (e.g. using branes). However, your analogy of a `full coffee cup' is idiotic. There is a (spectulative) theory that a new form of matter (kind of like a Bose condensate) does exist at extremely high density but nothing in that theory prevents more matter from being added to the extremely dense object. Not to be unkind and realizing that a single/. post is not enough evidence with which to work but... you sound like a kook.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this like the material witness (reg. req.) case?
Of course, the "justice system" is always right! (Right?)
An example of this is maxima. (Quotes from this link.) ...
Maxima is based on the original Macsyma developed at MIT in the 1970's. It is quite reliable, and has good garbage collection, and no memory leaks."
"Maxima is a full symbolic computation program.
Maxima was maintained by Professor Schelter at the University of Texas:
"This particular variant of Macsyma was maintained by William Schelter from 1982 until he passed away in 2001. In 1998 he obtained permission to release the source code under GPL."
"Since William Schelter's passing a group of users and developers has formed to keep Maxima alive and kicking. We are currently in a transitional state, deciding what directions to go in next and seeing what our abilities and resources are. Maxima itself is reasonably feature complete at this stage, with abilities such as symbolic integration, 3D plotting, and an ODE solver, but there is a lot of work yet to be done in terms of bug fixing, cleanup, and documentation. This is not to say there will be no new features, but there is much work to be done before that stage will be reached, and for now new features are not likely to be our focus."
There is more history on this project (e.g. here)
I am curious about your claim. Do you have data to support it.
(It sounds plausable but it might be wrong. The article mentioned a business which achived 20%-30% savings using IBM.)
I agree completely. With the html code in front of you, you can examine it and decide what you wish to do. (I usually delete it.) The only kmail folder which is automatically viewed as formatted html is the NY Times folder.
"What a fucking crock. The majority?"
Even though most people will not read this post, I think it is important to add one more comment. Lawyers are represented by national groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA). The conduct and rules of groups like the ABA do reflect on the character of lawyers. It was therefore interesting to see an editorial in Saturday's New York Times which discusses the proposed "revisions to the American Bar Association's code of judicial conduct". To guote a part of this editorial,
"The bar panel's newly unveiled proposals for revamping the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to avoid not just actual impropriety in all their activities, but also the appearance of impropriety."
Related articles are here and here.
I am going to `break the rules' and comment on the noderation of my first post in this thread. I get mod points quite often (as do most of us, I suspect); I do not know if professors get more or fewer than other people. When I have mod points, I look at articles which have been modded down to see if this was deserved (and as the guidelines request, I look at comments modded -1 and higher). On some occasions, I notice a later post which says "mod parent up" or "mod parent down" AND includes good reasons for this request; I have thought about the arguments and, in some cases, modded the parent up or down. If moderators really think my first post was offtopic, uninteresting and inappropriate, then I request that you mod it down to -1.
"All the things you harp about are the product of the legislature, who, though mainly lawyers, are also a product of public opinion (even if that opinion is lobbyists)."
:-) DAs are individuals who (may) have a moral sense and should be responsible for their decisions. When a DA says (in public) "I did not know if it was a strong case but the jury found it convincing", I think there is a problem. How many rape cases have been overturned on the basis of DNA evidence? (I'll bet DAs hate being "shown up".)
How many rape cases might be overturned if the DNA evidence had not been lost? (I think rape is a horrible crime but it is one of the few where objective evidence can be used. How many innocent people are in jail for other crimes because such objective evidence does not exist?)
After some thought, I have difficulty seeing how this statement differs from a statement that a "DA" in an evil regeme (e.g. Nazi) might make. The notion of civil disobedience is based on the idea that laws can be unjust and some laws should not be supported by the public. It seems to me that unfair, unjust or "illegal" laws (from England) had something to do with the American revolution. While I believe that many, perhaps most, DAs do not attempt to enforce unjust laws, there are certainly many minority individuals with longer prison sentences than majority individuals because of unjust drug laws; with respect to these drug laws, many DAs obviously do not seem to mind using unjust laws.
Our legal system includes the possibility that the public can change unjust laws (by electing "better" representatives who change such laws). At best, however, this process takes a great deal of time. DAs (and rich corporations) have a huge advantage over ordinary citizens in our legal system. While corporations are heartless evil empires
I happen to think that the abuse by the military in Iraq reflects a part of human nature. When people are placed in superior positions (with respect to power), it is very tempting to abuse that power. Classical studies from Stanford (and elsewhere) many years ago demonstrated this fact. DAs usually stand in such superior positions (e.g. socal (police) support, taxpayers purse, use of the media). I think it could be easy for some DAs to consider themselves morally superior and to consider each "win" in court as vindication of their views (and superiority). While it is known that police and the military are attractive to people who want to be in superior power positions (bullies), I hope DAs are not generally like this.
I was trying to say that a lawyer who devotes her/his career to fighting drug dealers does not deserve our respect simply for this. The notion of illegal drugs is not absolute; which particular items are considered illegal varies with time based on "popular opinion" (or the opinion of lobbyists). Some issues with the "War of Drugs" go back to Nixon. More recently, legislatures have created laws which punish "black" cocaine (e.g. crack) users with much harsher criminal penalties than "white" cocaine users; why is this? (I get my cocaine from my doctor - when I have sinus problems.) Lawyers (DAs) then use these unjust laws to punish minorities. Why should we respect lawyers in cases like this?
I have not done a statistically valid study of the "badness" (??) of lawyers. My opinion is based on personal experience (which is not terrible), the experience of friends (which IS terrible in a some cases), the media coverage of the use of lawyers by clients (e.g. RIAA), the high cost of defending oneself in court, etc.
One example of a friend's experience: Book author (friend) obtained artist's written permission to use a piece of (computer) artwork. Artist had signed over ownership of artwork to corporation (before giving permission to author to use artwork and without informing said author). Corporation sues artist, author and publisher. Author's lawyer says that in court, author would win. The court is 1500 miles away and the cost of defense should be less than $20,000 (hopefully). The author ends up filing for bankruptcy since potential legal costs are too great.
Second example (same friend). Publisher and sueing corporation work out a deal. Author goes to local lawyer to get bankruptcy dismissed. Time goes on without any word from lawyer. Months later, it turns out that local lawyer moved to a different city, did not do promised work and did not inform client. Local legal society refuses to do anything about lawyer.
You do point out that the terms are vague (e.g. a "bad person" or a "bad profession") and I agree. I do not think most lawyers are bad people (although some are); some of them are good friends. However, there are serious inequaties in our legal system and I see little evidence that lawyers or judges are trying to reform things. Certainly legislatures should be blamed. However, lawyers (e.g. the Association of Trial Lawyers) have a great deal of political influence and do not seem to be using it to make the (civil) legal system affortable to the public.
"... because they want to keep the drug dealers off the streets."
... Maybe not, but I think the majority are. I do not even trust my own lawyers that much (and I sure don't trust yours).
I am not a fan of illegal drugs but I am also not a fan of "THE DRUG WAR". A "drug dealer" who sells pot to cancer patients is in a different category than a meth dealer. Lawyers who spend their careers "fighting (illegal) drugs" are hypocrites, in my opinion. Q: Should they "fight" alcohol? A: Yes (in 1926) No (in 2004). Q: Should they "fight" pot? A: No (in 1900) Yes (in 2000). Q: Should they "fight" tabacco? A: No (in 2000) Yes (in 2050 ??)
How much money do we spend on prisons for non-violent "criminals"? How many of them are ENRON executives who stole billions of dollars? How many of them are minor pot dealers?
"Not all lawyers are bad" -
I wish TA (Total Annihilation) and TAK (TA Kingdoms) were ported to Linux. These games are the only reasons I ever use M$ windows. (Stupid 500 unit limit.)
It would be extremely nice if lots of really good games ran on Linux. However, I would select Linux (with no games) over M$ with excellent games.
I was just thinking that if your house has windows, then your yard probably has gates.
would never pay people to release a computer virus or worm. After all, what good would that do them? They are in the business of getting rid of such problems. Why, I would bet that no one would be happier if worms and viruses (viri?) completely disappeared. :-)
"This is truly a new paradign." ??
I think this is a very old (political) paradign, "Lie and lie (and bribe and bribe) until you get what you want."
I would be extremely refreshing to see a statement from a congressman saying something like "I originally found the data from the RIAA to very persuasive and announced support for House bill xyz. In light of this additional data, I believe we should allow more time to pass before considering legislation and I am therefore withdrawing my support of xyz." What do you think are the chances that this will occur?
You are an idiot. The Senate has the constitutational role of confirming nominees. This includes the "constitutional right to block those nominees." The Congress has the right to remove the President, remove the Supreme Court, etc. Final political power is given by the Constitution to the Congress.
Go to Germany if you want real beer. (Sorry, but it had to be said. I have not visited Prague but I have visited much of Canada and Germany (and Scotland). Canadian beer easily beats the "drink" called beer in the U.S. but compared to Europe, ... sorry Canada.)
I was curious about these privately held companies. According to Forbes, the top ten largest (in terms of annual revenue) U.S. based privately held companies in 2003 were:
1. Cargill
2. Koch Industries Inc.
3. Mars
4. Publix Super Markets
5. PricewaterhouseCoopers
6. Ernst & Young
7. Bechtel
8. C&S Wholesale Grocers
9. Meijer
10. HE Butt Grocery
(I think 3. should read Mars Defense Force.)
So, do you work for any of these? Does anyone know if these companies are better ("nicer") employers than are public corporations? What about privately held companies in other countries?
I think prosecutors usually attempt to fairly apply the law to cases. However, it is well known that some prosecutors are unethical and innocent people are convicted. I think (hope) this is rare.
I would like to see new laws which send prosecutors to prison under certain conditions when ethical standards are violated. Prosecutors have a great deal of power (including the use of grand juries, essentially unlimited resources, etc.) and they should be held responsible for abuse.
Two examples of abuse: rape cases (Are you sure the guy in this picture did not rape you? Are you certain? Are you really sure?)
Hiding inadmissible testomony (Some states do not allow testomony by witnesses who underwent hypnosis; cases in which prosecutors hid the fact that hypnosis occurred and allow the witness to testify are known to exist.)
I have no idea what "application makers" want in a GUI. However, I really like Konqueror. I do not find it "slow, unstandardized, and unergonomic". On those rare occasions when I use IE, I really hate it. It is (OK, seems) designed by morons.
Using Konqueror (KDE3.2), I have no difficulty reading web pages.
The pie chart on your link is curious. Konqueror can send (or not send) operating system (and other) information depending on how you configure browser identification. I wonder if identifying your OS as something other than Linux or not sending OS information plays a role here.
Sorry, for those born and raised in Humboldt County (CA), Santa Cruz is pretty far south. We are not even sure we include SF in northern California. (If they quit taking water from the Eel river and putting it in the Russian river, maybe we will count the "parking lot that is the Bay Area" as northern CA.)
From this site "Another negative impact on the Eel has been the building of dams. In 1908 the Cape Horn Dam/Van Arsdale Reservoir and diversion tunnel were built in Potter Valley, near the headwaters of the main stem of the Eel River. The Eel River water diverted through the tunnel creates the East Fork of the Russian River and Lake Mendocino near Ukiah, California. Eel River water has been diverted to the vineyards of Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin counties ever since. In 1922 Scott Dam was built 12 miles upstream from Van Arsdale. Scott Dam impounds Lake Pillsbury and prevents salmon from getting to the tributaries above it. These dams and the diversion tunnel reduce the amount of water in the river system, so that fewer native plant and animal species can survive. Spawning beds dry up and when the winter rains arrive the river cannot absorb the water easily and flooding occurs."
I live in an extremely Republican state and layoffs in ("heavy") industry are continuuing. One of the things keeping us going is public (school and highway) construction; jobs paid for by the taxpayers. I have no idea how California is doing but much of the rest of the country is not doing well. (Perhaps Arnold has single-handedly fixed the California economy?) Any claims that good jobs are increasing would be hard to justify, at least around here.
By the way, do we need a special category for "political trolls"? Personally, I am doing fine but I know several IT people (e.g. in our local LUG) who have been unemployed or underemployed for a long time. It seems unkind to imply that people who have been laid off are just too lazy to really look for work since the economy is (supposedly) doing well. Also, if someone is concerned about people recently laid off by SCO, I would think s/he would be even more concerned about people who have been laid off for years.
You have no confidence in the NSA and SE Linux. I suspect that the Linux kernels (3.0 ??) in two years will be much more secure than the current ones. Considering the security experience of Linux so far, which is very good, this is good news for the public. When Linux has 40+% of the desktop market, a lot of the problems (e.g. networks overloaded with the results of Windows' poor security) will disappear from the news.
Let me take your points one at a time.
/. `dance' with you. Enjoy your life; say "hi" to the aliens for me.
In your second paragraph, I believe that you are saying that, in the classical theory, the event horizon is just a mathematical construct and is not "real." I would agree with this statement. If the object gains more mass, the event horizon get larger. However, according to the classical theory, an observer going through the event horizon would not notice anything special at that moment. (In the alternative ("new form of matter") theory I mentioned, the observer would crash into a real (extremely dense) object (and die).)
Your comment "So, ALWAYS, from that moment onwards, at that level of mass, light cannot escape" ignores the `evaporation' of matter from black holes (caused by the creation (and `partial capture' by the black hole) of virtural particles). If the mass were to remain constant, then the event horizon should not change size.
Your third paragraph is very difficult to understand. Adding more mass (in either of the two theories mentioned above and ignoring the question of the `reality' of the event horizon) increases the size of the event horizon. I believe there are observations which are consistent with mass being added to very dense objects (black holes, neutron stars, etc.) Your "star shining away inside the event horizon" comment is very strange; stars shine because matter is changed into energy (e.g. some small proportion of the mass of hydrogen atoms is converted into energy when helium is created) and "a star shining" requires a source of energy (so what do you propose?).
Your fourth paragraph is better (i.e. more humorous). I like "leaving behind inert mass with no energy"; if it is left behind, then it (magically?) is not subject to the gravitational attraction of the black hole and has no energy (although mass=energy)?
Your fifth paragraph seems to be the result of reading too many bad science friction novels. I like (and read) SciFi too. I just do not confuse it with the real world. By the way, your "SDI" may help (former) President "Ray-Gun" finally obtain SDI.
In your sixth paragraph, you mention "the book". Is this the Bible (or the Koran or what)? Buying (or even reading) your book is about the last thing I plan to do.
Moving on. "Again, the USGS gave permission from The Department of the Interior for a web page from their site as an annex for the book because I show why we have an inner and an outer core on Earth. (Caused by balanced gravity effects never before proposed)." Do you think gravity works the same way that electromagnetism does? What are "balanced gravity effects" (which are "never before proposed")? Is this like the tunnel through the earth (with no effective gravitational force at the center)?
"And please notice, I have not profaned or called you names either." I said "you sound like a kook." I do not know you and can only judge you on the basis of your statements. On the basis of your statements, you do sound like a KooK. This does not mean you are a kook and I am not calling you one; I do not have enough information. (For example, you could be trolling rather than just crazy.)
Enough of this fun. I will let another reader of
"You clearly have no understanding of fundamental physics." Thanks for letting me know. My Ph.D. is in math (not physics) and I have not conducted research on cosmology so I do not claim to be an expert. I presume your Ph.D. is in physics or astronomy? I also assume you know differential geometry (and, perhaps, algebraic topology or some related areas of math) well enough to understand string theory?
..." This statement is misleading. Most, but not all, versions of string theory do assume this. (Once again, look at Dvali's recent publications.)
"matter can produce gravitational effects as if it were in ten places at once" I do not understand this comment. Is this a comment about quantum mechanics or about Dvali's research or what? "... the dimensions hypothesized by String Theory are all to small for us to detect at less than a micron wide
"As far as how we can theoretically derive constants, I have no idea what you are referring to." I did not refer to "theoretically derive(d) constants" and have no idea what YOU "are referring to."
It is difficult to take you seriously. Please give us a little background information about yourself. How many preprints do you have at arxiv.org? (I have none since my research is in applied math but not in "physics"; I do have about 30 papers including articles in Crelles Journal, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, TAMS, PAMS, PJM, etc.)
There may be reasons to question "the big bang" (e.g. using branes). However, your analogy of a `full coffee cup' is idiotic. There is a (spectulative) theory that a new form of matter (kind of like a Bose condensate) does exist at extremely high density but nothing in that theory prevents more matter from being added to the extremely dense object. Not to be unkind and realizing that a single /. post is not enough evidence with which to work but ... you sound like a kook.