I use T-mobile, but I hate it just as much when I'm in the West Coast.
Where I'm (Atlanta), T-mobile provides quite decent coverage. However, I've observed that when I'm in California T-mobile simply acts up. Horrible, horrible service.
Funny thing, back then Ma-Bell was broken down for anti-trust reasons, now all these giants are bigger than what Bell Labs ever was.
And they are all merging. That's a very scary thought.
I think a few years from now, almost all the business will be controlled by just a few corporations.
I personally am not sure if that would be a good idea, that would certainly put smaller companies and businesses out, and these would not stand a chance against the big corporations.
Do you really want them little tiny-tot AOLers coming at you?
It seems you've been leading two lives, Mr. Finch. In one life, you're a nice Slashdotter, with excellent Karma who even M2Ms reguarly. In another life, you're an AOL user. You use AIM, chat with 14 y.o. with teenage girls and help your landlord find his pr0n.
One of these lives has a future, one of them does not.;-)
Vectory analysis is taught in differential forms, but in other ways.
The problem is that if you take a vector and differentiate it, you break it down into its components and non-trivial vector differential variables essentially bringing it into a simple differential form, which can be expressed in terms of other existing methods.
Differential forms are indeed used as basis for vector analysis, classical electrodynamics is an example of this. The reason Tensors work is not because of anything else but simply because they can express really large indices and really large matrices/vector combinations in very simple forms. That, and the fact that they have a great degree of generalizability (in a mathematical and physical sense, if you know what I mean) helps the use of tensors. Another thing is that tensors have certain advantage of scaling up quite easily and being manipulate-able (wonder if such a word exists) across several indices in terms of variables/dimensions/factors/anything. I mean, look at Hilbert Space - so many dimensions out there, it's kinda huge:-)
Oh well. So much for math, let me go fix myself a drink.
In my opinion, the most important equations are those that brought together Algebric representation of Geometry -- that has been the single most fundamental basis for today's advancement in mathematics and physics.
And if I had any idea of basic economics 101, you would know that what you're suggesting is utter bullshit.
And oh, there is nothing like "Western Norms" - I think you mean "Capitalistic American Norms". Guess what? The world doesn't work that way. The world works the way the majority want it to work.
If your racist insecurities are any indication, you've the IQ of a dog and the prejudice of a pig. And oh, the life of a weasel.
India, China and Brazil are not underdeveloped and nor are they very poor - they are developing countries with a very good and stable economic growth.
While you sit here making fun of them and talking condescendingly on how they need money to help their poor, they are slowly taking away your jobs, your technology, your science and your industries.
And before you know it, the tables may be turned. Beware - complacency is the mother of all evil, these countries have shown a passion and penchant for growth that the US and Europe have not shown in a while.
While these guys are busy launching satellites, creating new and cool technology and using technology to help their masses, the US is busy trying to attack some country on the pretext of made-up reasons while ignoring the social, economic and technological problems on its own soil.
100 years ago, The Queen of England remarked that the sun will never set in Britain and the Union Jack (the British flag) will never come down. 50 years later, Britain lost most of her colonies and is now a small island-nation. 50 years from now, the tables maybe turned and these very guys you make fun of could be mocking at you.
Be nice to others on your way up, because you'd be seeing them again on your way down.
Although I would agree with you that there is a certain resistance to some information that may contradict the popular belief, putting up the article for peer review with reference to the facts usually settles it.
Yeah, there is some amount of bickering that happens but in the end I've usually seen the crowd settle on some non-opinionistic view-point or the other.
Take the Palestine article for instance - it is quite neutral for the most part. Go to the edit history, and you would notice that the names editing it are mostly either Jewish or Muslim - while there is some arbiteration by both or neither of the parties. It's almost a cat and mouse game, and the arbiters trying to sustain a neutral viewpoint.
Usually, arbiters are from a third place who are not sympathetic to either sides and that helps the information to be quite neutral (I do not know in particular reference to this entry, but I do know this with reference to several other entries).
Controversial information - like the name suggests it - well, it's just that. Both the parties are to blame, and it's quite inevitable - but from what I've seen Wikipedia has done an excellent job of sustaining a neutral point of view, to the extent possible.
And oh, I forgot to add - neutral points of view may not necessarily be agreeable to everyone, but that does not change the truth.
Wikipedia tries and presents the truth as it is, and that may not be liked by everyone.
From your tone, it sounds like you want unbiased information as long as it is sympathetic towards what you believe. Facts just are, and sometimes they are unpleasant.
If you are expecting a sympathetic and opinionated information, you will not find that at Wikipedia - they just seek to provide facts as they are. And I find your accusation quite ridiculous, especially since Palestine's entry gets changed both ways - pro and anti Israeli.
>israeli propaganda >massacre of palestinian >islam related material >nuclear weapons of mass destruction in israel
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!
Just look at your OWN comments - they are so biased towards Islam and are anti-Israel that it is obvious. Well, sorry mate. You won't find information at Wikipedia that will placate you. Wikipedia is a source of information, not bias nor sympathy.
History is unsympathetic towards facts - it presents them as they are. And wearing rose colored glasses isn't going to change those facts.
And I do hope you get modded down, for spreading FUD on Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia does not cater to YOUR opinions does not mean it's wrong. In fact, the fact that Wikipedia can present the truth as it is and infuriate people on both the sides proves that it works.
While I agree that some sections of Wikipedia are probably quite sensitive and keep getting changed, the peer-review process has worked *excellently* there.
For instance, such pages are often marked to be watched, and when some inflammatory comment or incorrect information gets posted, the people looking over that section/page take note and set it right. And guess what? If you are gonna act like a jerk and post your opinion all over the place, your IP will just get banned.
Sure, they can't do this for everyone - but do it a few times and the rest shut up. It's almost similar to how Slashdot attempts to decrease the noise to signal ratio. Sure, it's not that great a system, but it works fairly well enough.
And guess what? Even an OBSCURE topic like GNNA can stay alive, because of peer review. It was put to vote several times for deletion and editing by anti-GNAA folks, but still it survived. I can think no other proof of true freedom of speech than that.
For an example more closely tied in with what you said, consider Palestine - the website itself says:
Stop! The neutrality of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information.
And the differences are usually settled by people with NPOVs - or Neutral Point of Views. If you act like a prick, you'll just get your IP banned and lose your editing priveleges.
As simple as that. So yeah, the information there is usually NEUTRAL, and even if idiots from either side try to jazz it up, their damage is quickly undone - within minutes, in most cases.
Wikipedia works, and works very well. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Actually that is not necessarily always true lately.
For instance, these days submissions in Physics happen by people writing a paper, and uploading it to arXiv -- where it gets peer reviewed and you get inputs. And more importantly, you establish in public that you were the first person to come up with FOO.
Not only that, the process is a lot more open than it used to be. Although some J Random dude at Physical Review can (and will) reject your paper for unknown reasons, it's quite unlikely that would happen if it has received excellent reviews after it's put up at arXiv. The process is a whole lot more transparent.
And since only the final editions go to the journals, the paper is still available at arXiv. And arXiv has been working on making several other publications available online - however, this has only begun for papers from and after 1992, so that is indeed a problem.
However, although arXiv does have a CS section, it's not frequented as much as the physics or mathematics sections. Which is a sad thing, IMHO.
And oh btw, in arXiv - the authors own the copyrights, so no question of the journal asking the arXiv to retract the papers. In fact, sometimes authors post their papers after acceptance for a journal publication.
Not too sure about conference publications, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I use T-mobile, but I hate it just as much when I'm in the West Coast.
Where I'm (Atlanta), T-mobile provides quite decent coverage. However, I've observed that when I'm in California T-mobile simply acts up. Horrible, horrible service.
Wonder how Verizon is, though.
Funny thing, back then Ma-Bell was broken down for anti-trust reasons, now all these giants are bigger than what Bell Labs ever was.
And they are all merging. That's a very scary thought.
I think a few years from now, almost all the business will be controlled by just a few corporations.
I personally am not sure if that would be a good idea, that would certainly put smaller companies and businesses out, and these would not stand a chance against the big corporations.
Not too sure how I feel about this.
See his sig.
Don't think many people got it dude :)
For the humour impaired - GN**
Ahh, now that's what I call an optimist.
AOL is their own little world.
And... that is bad how?!?!
Do you really want them little tiny-tot AOLers coming at you?
It seems you've been leading two lives, Mr. Finch. In one life, you're a nice Slashdotter, with excellent Karma who even M2Ms reguarly. In another life, you're an AOL user. You use AIM, chat with 14 y.o. with teenage girls and help your landlord find his pr0n.
One of these lives has a future, one of them does not.
And oh, forgive me if that sounded weird - low on sleep, high on caffeine, very high on work.
BZZZZT!
Vectory analysis is taught in differential forms, but in other ways.
:-)
The problem is that if you take a vector and differentiate it, you break it down into its components and non-trivial vector differential variables essentially bringing it into a simple differential form, which can be expressed in terms of other existing methods.
Differential forms are indeed used as basis for vector analysis, classical electrodynamics is an example of this. The reason Tensors work is not because of anything else but simply because they can express really large indices and really large matrices/vector combinations in very simple forms. That, and the fact that they have a great degree of generalizability (in a mathematical and physical sense, if you know what I mean) helps the use of tensors. Another thing is that tensors have certain advantage of scaling up quite easily and being manipulate-able (wonder if such a word exists) across several indices in terms of variables/dimensions/factors/anything. I mean, look at Hilbert Space - so many dimensions out there, it's kinda huge
Oh well. So much for math, let me go fix myself a drink.
I simply couldn't agree with you more!
GST is probably one of the most brilliant mathematical constructs of all time.
What more, it even works on Hilbert Space matrix tensor operations, something that most general theorems on manifolds cannot always boast of.
Slashdot - the only place where you could stay ontopic and mention buttsex and integral in the same sentence _and_ get modded informative.
Yay!
Nothing's geekier than a guy who writes down Euler's equation with a bunch of numbers and signs off as Scott.
Beam anyone up lately, mayt?
In my opinion, the most important equations are those that brought together Algebric representation of Geometry -- that has been the single most fundamental basis for today's advancement in mathematics and physics.
Great post, brilliant and insightful.
Thank you! Added you as a friend.
Yup, I'm aware of that.
:)
I merely meant that they ultimately lost all their colonies, no matter how powerful they once where.
I'm not entirely certain who came up with the phrase, but I've always assumed that it was from Queen Victoria
I'm confused, what else are "Associations of America" supposed to do besides sue people?
Isn't that our national business?
No!
That would be reality shows!
But hush! That's all only until the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers take over.
They said "music" !
:-)
PS - I listen to them too
You must have pretty low and dismal self esteem.
And if I had any idea of basic economics 101, you would know that what you're suggesting is utter bullshit.
And oh, there is nothing like "Western Norms" - I think you mean "Capitalistic American Norms". Guess what? The world doesn't work that way. The world works the way the majority want it to work.
If your racist insecurities are any indication, you've the IQ of a dog and the prejudice of a pig. And oh, the life of a weasel.
India, China and Brazil are not underdeveloped and nor are they very poor - they are developing countries with a very good and stable economic growth.
While you sit here making fun of them and talking condescendingly on how they need money to help their poor, they are slowly taking away your jobs, your technology, your science and your industries.
And before you know it, the tables may be turned. Beware - complacency is the mother of all evil, these countries have shown a passion and penchant for growth that the US and Europe have not shown in a while.
While these guys are busy launching satellites, creating new and cool technology and using technology to help their masses, the US is busy trying to attack some country on the pretext of made-up reasons while ignoring the social, economic and technological problems on its own soil.
100 years ago, The Queen of England remarked that the sun will never set in Britain and the Union Jack (the British flag) will never come down. 50 years later, Britain lost most of her colonies and is now a small island-nation. 50 years from now, the tables maybe turned and these very guys you make fun of could be mocking at you.
Be nice to others on your way up, because you'd be seeing them again on your way down.
Cheers, mate.
Although I would agree with you that there is a certain resistance to some information that may contradict the popular belief, putting up the article for peer review with reference to the facts usually settles it.
Yeah, there is some amount of bickering that happens but in the end I've usually seen the crowd settle on some non-opinionistic view-point or the other.
Take the Palestine article for instance - it is quite neutral for the most part. Go to the edit history, and you would notice that the names editing it are mostly either Jewish or Muslim - while there is some arbiteration by both or neither of the parties. It's almost a cat and mouse game, and the arbiters trying to sustain a neutral viewpoint.
Usually, arbiters are from a third place who are not sympathetic to either sides and that helps the information to be quite neutral (I do not know in particular reference to this entry, but I do know this with reference to several other entries).
Controversial information - like the name suggests it - well, it's just that. Both the parties are to blame, and it's quite inevitable - but from what I've seen Wikipedia has done an excellent job of sustaining a neutral point of view, to the extent possible.
And oh, I forgot to add - neutral points of view may not necessarily be agreeable to everyone, but that does not change the truth.
Wikipedia tries and presents the truth as it is, and that may not be liked by everyone.
From your tone, it sounds like you want unbiased information as long as it is sympathetic towards what you believe. Facts just are, and sometimes they are unpleasant.
If you are expecting a sympathetic and opinionated information, you will not find that at Wikipedia - they just seek to provide facts as they are. And I find your accusation quite ridiculous, especially since Palestine's entry gets changed both ways - pro and anti Israeli.
>israeli propaganda
>massacre of palestinian
>islam related material
>nuclear weapons of mass destruction in israel
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!
Just look at your OWN comments - they are so biased towards Islam and are anti-Israel that it is obvious. Well, sorry mate. You won't find information at Wikipedia that will placate you. Wikipedia is a source of information, not bias nor sympathy.
History is unsympathetic towards facts - it presents them as they are. And wearing rose colored glasses isn't going to change those facts.
And I do hope you get modded down, for spreading FUD on Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia does not cater to YOUR opinions does not mean it's wrong. In fact, the fact that Wikipedia can present the truth as it is and infuriate people on both the sides proves that it works.
Boo to you, and stop spreading FUD.
While I agree that some sections of Wikipedia are probably quite sensitive and keep getting changed, the peer-review process has worked *excellently* there.
For instance, such pages are often marked to be watched, and when some inflammatory comment or incorrect information gets posted, the people looking over that section/page take note and set it right. And guess what? If you are gonna act like a jerk and post your opinion all over the place, your IP will just get banned.
Sure, they can't do this for everyone - but do it a few times and the rest shut up. It's almost similar to how Slashdot attempts to decrease the noise to signal ratio. Sure, it's not that great a system, but it works fairly well enough.
And guess what? Even an OBSCURE topic like GNNA can stay alive, because of peer review. It was put to vote several times for deletion and editing by anti-GNAA folks, but still it survived. I can think no other proof of true freedom of speech than that.
For an example more closely tied in with what you said, consider Palestine - the website itself says:
Stop! The neutrality of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information.
And the differences are usually settled by people with NPOVs - or Neutral Point of Views. If you act like a prick, you'll just get your IP banned and lose your editing priveleges.
As simple as that. So yeah, the information there is usually NEUTRAL, and even if idiots from either side try to jazz it up, their damage is quickly undone - within minutes, in most cases.
Wikipedia works, and works very well. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Actually that is not necessarily always true lately.
For instance, these days submissions in Physics happen by people writing a paper, and uploading it to arXiv -- where it gets peer reviewed and you get inputs. And more importantly, you establish in public that you were the first person to come up with FOO.
Not only that, the process is a lot more open than it used to be. Although some J Random dude at Physical Review can (and will) reject your paper for unknown reasons, it's quite unlikely that would happen if it has received excellent reviews after it's put up at arXiv. The process is a whole lot more transparent.
And since only the final editions go to the journals, the paper is still available at arXiv. And arXiv has been working on making several other publications available online - however, this has only begun for papers from and after 1992, so that is indeed a problem.
However, although arXiv does have a CS section, it's not frequented as much as the physics or mathematics sections. Which is a sad thing, IMHO.
And oh btw, in arXiv - the authors own the copyrights, so no question of the journal asking the arXiv to retract the papers. In fact, sometimes authors post their papers after acceptance for a journal publication.
Not too sure about conference publications, though.
Chicken-egg problem, anyone? :)
:-/
Jesus Christ!
Am I the only one who thought of the dangerous consequences of this?!
Wait and watch, they're just about to embark on the creation of Pinky and the Brain
Pinky: What are we going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and find myself a Brain.
I suggest...
;)
AMD!!!
*rimshot*
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
Oh hell yeah.
The former lead guitarist in my band had something similar, but a lot more sophisticated, by Nakamichi. Those things rock, but are expensive as hell.
I wouldn't want to use them on X though, there are far geeky music-related things that one can do with them =)