The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a lot like Boyle's gas laws. They work wonderfully predicting the random motions of uncountable trillions of trillions of molecules free to bounce about as they like. It's all about statistics. The odds are, if the air pressure on one side of room is higher than the other, air will flow predominantly towards the area of low pressure. However, if you make the mistake of trying to understand these laws as absolute rather than statistical, you will find that they are absolutely false. Although unlikely, it's possible for the air in the room to congregate to one side. Remember, the motions of the molecules are *random*! They do not individually move in accord to Boyle's laws, and the laws are useless at prediction the motion of only a few trillion molecules rather than the trillions of trillions is supposed to be used for.
What does this have to do with evolution? Everything. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does NOT say that entropy ALWAYS and MUST increase EVERYWHERE in a closed system, no matter how hard creationists want to make it say that. For entropy to decrease in part of a system is NOT in ANY WAY a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Overall, statistically, over time, entropy will increase. That's all the 2nd Law gives you, not a blanket forbidding of any decrease in entropy.
Also, note, Boyle's laws are not violated by high and low pressure areas in the atmosphere. Why? Because Boyle's laws describe what happens IF NOTHING ELSE acts upon the gas. Likewise, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states what happens to collections of molecules NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER FORCES. If some other process is occuring that increases complexity and decreases entropy, this is NO WAY VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Just as the fact that a baloon rises in no way violates the law of gravity. This is a good analogy: saying that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is exactly like saying hot air baloons violate the law of gravity. But they don't. Because other things are going on than just gravity, hot air balloons act in a manner that, if you didn't know there were other things happening, might be construed as violating gravity. But in fact they don't, they act in perfect accord with the laws of nature, gravity includes. The point is, they don't act EXCLUSIVELY in accord with the law of gravity, other thing happen. Likewise, evolution in no way violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it acts in perfect accord with it, as well as with other forces that seek to decrease entropy at the same time the 2nd Law seeks to increase it (exactly like how the air pressure seeks to buoy a balloon while gravity seeks to pull it down -- both forces act, you see the net result). In fact, evolution works because of, not in spite of, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You *need* entropy in the system or mutation would not occur.
Anyways, enough said. The main point is simply this: anyone who says evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics obviously doesn't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to begin with. Evolution doesn't violate, invalidate, or contradict it any more than airplanes violate, invalidate, or contradict the law of gravity. Get a grip -- the world is too complex for any one simple generalization like that to forbid anything...
Try Highlander. After watching a few seasons of Highlander (feel free to skip the first season or two -- it takes a while for the series to really get going), with the story and character development and so on, it's really impossible to go back and watch the movies. The first movie was great, or so I thought, but having watched it again recently, it's utter crap compared to the series. The Kurgan is particular is so incredibly cheesy and cartoonish, no where near as well played as Kalas from the series.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer is also a great example of a mediocre (well, bad really) movie turned into a great series.
Again, I think it's the format that makes the difference. You can't tell a great story in 2 hours. Best you can do is hit the highlights to entertain those with attention spans too short to follow a series. No real chance for in depth background or in depth development in a 2 hour movie. Can you imagine the whole B5 storyline compressed into 2 hours? Gimme a break! TV series have to be very badly done to not be better than a movie...
Unfortunately, most TV series are very badly done...
A human being is dead. A great man, with a great sense of humor. I'm sure he would be sadly disappointed with the dour, humorless attitude of some of the people posting here. He will be missed, but his is was a great life that enriched all of ours. More than anything, he made us smile and even laugh from time to time. And he will continue to do so, even now. This is as it should be, as is fitting...
--
Re:Isn't this a HUGE deal? Yes, and your point is?
on
Linux 2.2 DoS Attack
·
· Score: 1
Well, you can make problems like this public, which means that, as you say, there's a 50/50 chance the cracker will hear about it before the sysadmin. This is assuming the system is currently under attack -- otherwise the sysadmin simply fixes the problem before the pissed-off employee becomes a cracker, and there's a zero chance of exploit.
Or you can keep the problem private, meaning the cracker will almost certainly hear about it before the sysadmin, assuming he's out looking for vulnerabilities while the sysadmin is busy doing his job, which unfortunately encompasses much more than spending 24/7 looking for vulnerabilities no one will tell him about.
The suits may think twice, but what are they going to do, stop using computers? That's the only way to prevent this sort of thing.
Since you say "that isn't good enough", what should be done instead? What would be "good enough"? For software to never have bugs in the first place? That would be great! Oh, and have I have a little of what you're smoking? It sounds positively blissful...
Stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problem? That doesn't strike me as useful.
Switch to an OS where solutions don't appear within hours? That doesn't sound very smart.
Please, pray tell, since the situation here isn't "good enough", what is?
--
He means in C, and it actually does work (usually)
on
Linux 2.2 DoS Attack
·
· Score: 1
Most C compilers these days accept C++ style comments (since they're usually C++ compilers "slumming" for the purpose of compiling this bit of C code -- but I've even seen ANSI C compilers that don't do C++ but nevertheless suppose that comment style). Some people say you shouldn't use that commment style, even when it works, because it's not portable. Theoretically, there are still C compilers out there that barf on it. (Does anyone know of any, though?)
On the other hand, if it takes you more than 3 minutes to write and compile a C filter program to remove C++ comments from a file, you're not a Real Programmer(TM). But seriously, it's a trivial task -- so trivial that I don't see this as a good reason for not using C++ style comments these days in straight C code...
--
Re:Why is this moderated down? Gosh, let's count.
on
PDA+MP3 Player
·
· Score: 1
I didn't moderate the original post, but just looking it over, I find it not at all surprising it was moderated down, for reasons having nothing to do with an anti-MS agenda. Let's consider: (1) Redundant: This post simply repeats the earlier discussion about the E-100 without adding anything new. (2) Off topic: The poster's main thrust seems to be to question what Slashdot articles should be about. (e.g. "Why wasn't THIS news instead of that piece of CR*P click thing?") This article is about PDAs and MP3, not Slashdot policy. Comments about Slashdot policy are off-topic here. (Note, my message, as well as the one I'm replying to and the one asking why the original message was moderated are all also off topic, and should be moderated accordingly.) (3) Flamebait: The poster's frequent use of the word "crap" in connection with Palm Pilots and other PDAs makes this obvious flame bait. Note, misspelling the word "crap" with an asterisk doesn't make it a different word, it just makes it "crap" misspelled. It's particularly amusing when used in profanity -- here's a clue for you: if it's profanity, it's profanity no matter how you spell it. Poor typing skills don't make you more polite. Not that "crap" really counts as profanity -- but the original poster seemed to think so since he couldn't spell it without hitting that asterisk... I used to run a BBS, and I found I needed to delete several messages every day. About 100% of the time, the reason was because the post was completely off topic. About 30% of the time, clueless idiots thought it had something to do with my opinions disagreeing with theirs. Who knows, maybe there are sysops out there who actually moderate based on how well a post agrees with their personal opinions. Maybe it really does happen. I've never seen it, though, despite having seen the accusation made hundreds of times. Thus, my knee-jerk reaction is always to chaulk this up to paranoia. I've been right in every case where I could check the facts on it so far...
It's not the only Linux, Slackware is Linux too. Why tell someone RedHat isn't Linux? Just tell them that it's just one version of Linux.
That would actually be overstating it. Redhat is not a version of Linux. RedHat is a distribution of Linux. Versions of Linux bare such monikers as "2.0.36" or "2.2.1" or whatever version you prefer. Two different people may use RedHat but be running different versions of Linux, and two people may be running the same version of Linux but only one be running RedHat.
People attach far too much importance to what distro you use. Who cares where exactly your rc files are? Who cares where a specific binary is, as long as its in the path? Who cares whether you used rpm or tar to install them? None of this makes any difference to a properly written application...
Well, gosh, if Linus Torvalds doesn't know, what makes you think some idiot on/. is going to be able to give you a better estimate?
Here's a clue for you, since you appear to need one: No one knows the answer to your question! Anyone who gives you an answer is guessing at best. We don't have access to a time machine which would enable us to go into the future, find out when it was done, come back and tell you. Deal with it...
You would think that people who use their keyboards that much would learn sufficient typing skills to type entire six letter words like "people" instead of crying that it's too hard and typing "ppl" instead.
Not to mention mastering that horribly difficult skill of hitting the shift key at the start of sentences or for words like "I".
Granted, many of us old-timers started with computers with no lower case, so we only had to hit shift for special characters, but the more intelligent of us have adapted with the times.
It should be noted that the rules of spelling, grammar, and capitalization are not that difficult to master for a native English speaker. And it's a basic syntax problem that anyone who can code should have no difficulty with. Now, one shouldn't expect perfection any more than one expects code to compile and run perfectly the first time, but really, people with that poor of typing skills are obviously incapable of mastering the art of computer programming.
Luckily, cracking doesn't require that much skill...
The collective mind of the free software community has always been motivated by both the desire to hack, and a rather ugly bitterness regarding the state of the software world. It was motivated by both constructive and destructive influences. I defy anyone to read/. for a few months and not see that the destructive side has won out, hands down.
First of all, the free software community does not have a collective mind. We are not Borg. The free software community is composed of many individuals, with more distinct opinions than lines of source these days. So any statement about what we collectively think is false from the start.
Secondly, are you new to the Internet? Either that, or you're particularly dense not to have noted something by now: any Internet discussion forum (be it Usenet or/. or whatever) magnifies the extremes. You seem to be saying that merely by reading/. for a few months, you can determine that some particular side of an issue has "won out". This marks you as fairly clueless. You really can't determine much at all about the beliefs and attitudes of a group as a whole from any Internet forum.
Finally, as you pointed out, there are both constructive and destructive elements in the community. If you knew anything at all about Internet forums, you would know that if there is any destructive element at all, it will be quite loud, and the sound of it will be magnified manyfold by the medium. If there were only a dozen people in the entire community with these kinds of flaming personalities, I would expect frequent flame wars and negativity to pervade/., as it does. I've seen highly active newsgroups with larger audiences go down in flames from the activities of fewer people than that. In other words,/. would look pretty much like it does now if it were the case that only a dozen individuals felt that way, so it's highly questionable to claim the state of/. today is evidence for any sort of widespread negativity.
There are those who remember the "Good Old Days"(TM) when Usenet wasn't an open forum for flame wars. They must all be in the 40s or older by now, since I don't remember any such time, and I've been netting since the mid 80s. I suspect those days ended when people could no longer personally remember the email addresses of everyone on the net.
Back when I ran a BBS, we used to call these people "ruggies". They're not unique to the Linux/Free Software community, they've been with us for ages. Go through all the time, trouble, and expense to put up a BBS, and all they do is complain and try to tear you down. I saw many sysops get fed up with it all and take their systems down. I fully sympathize with scoop, I did the same thing myself once or twice. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth putting up with. The important thing to remember is that the ruggies are not a majority, or even a significant minority. They just make so much noise that sometimes it seems that they are. They want nothing more than to see others fail, don't let them win by giving in. Thanks for all your work, scoop! Keep the faith...
Slashdot Mirror
What does this have to do with evolution? Everything. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does NOT say that entropy ALWAYS and MUST increase EVERYWHERE in a closed system, no matter how hard creationists want to make it say that. For entropy to decrease in part of a system is NOT in ANY WAY a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Overall, statistically, over time, entropy will increase. That's all the 2nd Law gives you, not a blanket forbidding of any decrease in entropy.
Also, note, Boyle's laws are not violated by high and low pressure areas in the atmosphere. Why? Because Boyle's laws describe what happens IF NOTHING ELSE acts upon the gas. Likewise, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states what happens to collections of molecules NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER FORCES. If some other process is occuring that increases complexity and decreases entropy, this is NO WAY VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Just as the fact that a baloon rises in no way violates the law of gravity. This is a good analogy: saying that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is exactly like saying hot air baloons violate the law of gravity. But they don't. Because other things are going on than just gravity, hot air balloons act in a manner that, if you didn't know there were other things happening, might be construed as violating gravity. But in fact they don't, they act in perfect accord with the laws of nature, gravity includes. The point is, they don't act EXCLUSIVELY in accord with the law of gravity, other thing happen. Likewise, evolution in no way violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it acts in perfect accord with it, as well as with other forces that seek to decrease entropy at the same time the 2nd Law seeks to increase it (exactly like how the air pressure seeks to buoy a balloon while gravity seeks to pull it down -- both forces act, you see the net result). In fact, evolution works because of, not in spite of, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You *need* entropy in the system or mutation would not occur.
Anyways, enough said. The main point is simply this: anyone who says evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics obviously doesn't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to begin with. Evolution doesn't violate, invalidate, or contradict it any more than airplanes violate, invalidate, or contradict the law of gravity. Get a grip -- the world is too complex for any one simple generalization like that to forbid anything...
--
Buffy The Vampire Slayer is also a great example of a mediocre (well, bad really) movie turned into a great series.
Again, I think it's the format that makes the difference. You can't tell a great story in 2 hours. Best you can do is hit the highlights to entertain those with attention spans too short to follow a series. No real chance for in depth background or in depth development in a 2 hour movie. Can you imagine the whole B5 storyline compressed into 2 hours? Gimme a break! TV series have to be very badly done to not be better than a movie...
Unfortunately, most TV series are very badly done...
--
--
Or you can keep the problem private, meaning the cracker will almost certainly hear about it before the sysadmin, assuming he's out looking for vulnerabilities while the sysadmin is busy doing his job, which unfortunately encompasses much more than spending 24/7 looking for vulnerabilities no one will tell him about.
The suits may think twice, but what are they going to do, stop using computers? That's the only way to prevent this sort of thing.
Since you say "that isn't good enough", what should be done instead? What would be "good enough"? For software to never have bugs in the first place? That would be great! Oh, and have I have a little of what you're smoking? It sounds positively blissful...
Stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problem? That doesn't strike me as useful.
Switch to an OS where solutions don't appear within hours? That doesn't sound very smart.
Please, pray tell, since the situation here isn't "good enough", what is?
--
On the other hand, if it takes you more than 3 minutes to write and compile a C filter program to remove C++ comments from a file, you're not a Real Programmer(TM). But seriously, it's a trivial task -- so trivial that I don't see this as a good reason for not using C++ style comments these days in straight C code...
--
--
That would actually be overstating it. Redhat is not a version of Linux. RedHat is a distribution of Linux. Versions of Linux bare such monikers as "2.0.36" or "2.2.1" or whatever version you prefer. Two different people may use RedHat but be running different versions of Linux, and two people may be running the same version of Linux but only one be running RedHat.
People attach far too much importance to what distro you use. Who cares where exactly your rc files are? Who cares where a specific binary is, as long as its in the path? Who cares whether you used rpm or tar to install them? None of this makes any difference to a properly written application...
--
Starting reality daemon: realityd
Well, gosh, if Linus Torvalds doesn't know, what makes you think some idiot on /. is going to be able to give you a better estimate?
Here's a clue for you, since you appear to need one: No one knows the answer to your question! Anyone who gives you an answer is guessing at best. We don't have access to a time machine which would enable us to go into the future, find out when it was done, come back and tell you. Deal with it...
--
Starting reality daemon: realityd
Not to mention mastering that horribly difficult skill of hitting the shift key at the start of sentences or for words like "I".
Granted, many of us old-timers started with computers with no lower case, so we only had to hit shift for special characters, but the more intelligent of us have adapted with the times.
It should be noted that the rules of spelling, grammar, and capitalization are not that difficult to master for a native English speaker. And it's a basic syntax problem that anyone who can code should have no difficulty with. Now, one shouldn't expect perfection any more than one expects code to compile and run perfectly the first time, but really, people with that poor of typing skills are obviously incapable of mastering the art of computer programming.
Luckily, cracking doesn't require that much skill...
--
Starting reality daemon: realityd
First of all, the free software community does not have a collective mind. We are not Borg. The free software community is composed of many individuals, with more distinct opinions than lines of source these days. So any statement about what we collectively think is false from the start.
Secondly, are you new to the Internet? Either that, or you're particularly dense not to have noted something by now: any Internet discussion forum (be it Usenet or /. or whatever) magnifies the extremes. You seem to be saying that merely by reading /. for a few months, you can determine that some particular side of an issue has "won out". This marks you as fairly clueless. You really can't determine much at all about the beliefs and attitudes of a group as a whole from any Internet forum.
Finally, as you pointed out, there are both constructive and destructive elements in the community. If you knew anything at all about Internet forums, you would know that if there is any destructive element at all, it will be quite loud, and the sound of it will be magnified manyfold by the medium. If there were only a dozen people in the entire community with these kinds of flaming personalities, I would expect frequent flame wars and negativity to pervade /., as it does. I've seen highly active newsgroups with larger audiences go down in flames from the activities of fewer people than that. In other words, /. would look pretty much like it does now if it were the case that only a dozen individuals felt that way, so it's highly questionable to claim the state of /. today is evidence for any sort of widespread negativity.
There are those who remember the "Good Old Days"(TM) when Usenet wasn't an open forum for flame wars. They must all be in the 40s or older by now, since I don't remember any such time, and I've been netting since the mid 80s. I suspect those days ended when people could no longer personally remember the email addresses of everyone on the net.
--
Starting reality daemon: realityd
--
Starting reality daemon: realityd