Do all electromagnetic fields vary strength with the distance? How about fields being bundled together as a ray? Like a point to point communication, yes it grows smaller due to losses but not r^2 as radial radiation do.
Think of a laser beam in example, it's strength will not reduce by distance. Satellites can communicate well with each other by laser beams, since the beam arrives nearly at the same strength as it was send away. Okay this is also not completly true, since the laser beam on arrival at the other satilite is aprox 1 meter in diamater, so it will only receive a part of the energy used to send. But actually the whole beam togehter would have still the same energy.
Do the other post 2 ones abouth, I don't want to make an extra reply. Just because a laser beam doesn't get weaker on distance doesn't mean suddendly the whole earth was flushed with light when turned on.
I know my english grammar is bad, and tough you might not know, but I'm a german and the physics I studied were german too... So by judging someone by his grammar is like judging a book by it's cover. Yes I know, learning better grammar might do good, but for one in relation to the local average here my english is not too bad, and second 'til today I spend my time more by playing with equations and writing programs, sorry 'bout that but if you can give me an address in austria where I can learn the enlish grammar well without huge time/money expenses please tell me.
Hmm could you for me rip the sun into two halfs pull them some miles appart and then join them again?
Unfortunally as standing object on the earth, my molucles "know" that they are rotating around there earth, there is no information in change when the rotation continues
Well as long standard physics make my car drive, television set working and enabling me to warm my dishes in the microwave I will stay with them. A theory is only as good as it implications are, and stay true implications on 'normal' things are right far common that the tranversal stuff. I think some people just want to against, and seeing exactly in your comment, I tried to speak in the language of the supernatural with their words, what it results? You twist things either you want it. Telepathy and telekineses are two different things point. If you have a theory to combine both give it a new name. But seeing people like you to repulse from their own stuff as soon you try to respect and to file it, just shows it doesn't go against the application but just beeing against scientific methods in general like. Telekinese and Telephaty are suddendly no longer okay and a cool thing as soon a guy excepts it's existing gives them a name and start to file phenomens in this catagory. then suddendly they you can't do this, thats again the evil science.
Bah not the marse face again.... Unfortunally I don't have it handy, but there was a picture of a mountain having a human taking on EARTH. Ooops suddendly it looses all mystery if a human face formed mountain stands on earth. Actually the face comes only to see if viewed from a specific angel. But on the mars it wasn't any different.
Well that two words alone are already a paradoxon. Teleport is to "jump" a mass from A to B. Telephaty is transfer thoughts over space. Now how can you combine both? This is just rediculous. Maybe you mean telekinese instead of telepathy? (Thoughts manipule masses.)
Is there a proof that gravitity does NOT travel instantly? If yuo can proof this you've a proof for gravity waves, right? Another mystery yet
That gravitiy does travel instantly is not a proof on violation of the relitiy theory. You must proof that gravitiy CHANGES can travel instantly, and that one can transfer information through this. Something not in contrast to the idea gravity expands instantly, so how about to say a remote view can only see changes in gravity after enough time has passed that lightspeed time/space factor passed toward him. You can't destroy or create masses, right? So you can't create or destroy gravity force. You can only pull apart an object into two, so the attraction force toward that object is seperated into two, so the once unified force is split into two, but does the remote viewer "feel" this "instantly" or not? Does the gravitiy information that these objects splitted travel with lightspeed or faster than light? Does there travel any information at all? Maybe the sum of attrcation stays the same, so theres no information send over. However my calculations do show a change in force.
Can I use two objects by frequently joining them together and ripping them a part to generate gravitiy waves? How fast would they travel then? Would gravitiy waves obey to the same laws as the electro/magnetic do? (light)
I wish I had a huge labratory where I can manipulate with millions of tons of mass:o)
If you take Elecrostatic as fundamental than Magnetism explains from it. It's actually the same base force. Magentism is Elecrostatic in combination with the special relativity theory. It just the electrons thrusting around will see the world around a little "compressed" when now on a parallel cable electrons thrust at the same speed in the same direction they are not compressed, however the atomic cores who stand still are viewed compressed by the electrons. So what does an electron see on the paralallel cable? More positive atomic cores than electrons, so what it does? It attracts to it, in an electrostatic view. But actually it are two currents in cables which attract each other something we specify as magnetism.
However yes gravity is still a big mistery. It's connection to other forces are not yet revealed if it exists at all.
Why is gravitation mass and inertia mass always the same? Is it -always- the same? Seems so, but there is no proof. In an univeral gravity theory inertia must be included somehow.
What about anti-matter? Does it repulse or attract by gravity to normal matter? Nobody knows, we didn't yet have enough anti-matter to investigate, and from the particle accelerators you can't tell, since all the other forces are so much stronger you can't see gravity in these experiments.
Gravity waves? Do they exist, can they exist? (Just like electro magnetic waves in combination with the electro/magnetism force) We didn't yet meassure any but more is not known.
And there is a personal question, electro/magnetic field hold energy right? Now from E=mc^2 they also have an equivalent matter associated, which does have gravitity. So somehow they connect or?
Well -actually- microsoft was long time against TCP/IP (in the late 80ies, early 90ies), the first SMB nets weren't TCP/IP at all, but used a direct layer they called "Netbios". Then they were -actually- against the internet at all. Remember back? They used to favorize the "Microsoft Net". Controlled central by, guess who?:o) TCP/IP was a unix idea, and favorized by unix systems, you see today who won this fight on the long run? However microsoft writes it's own history, theres not written: "we have fatally lost this fight, so now we're using TCP/IP and the internet."
I think diversity in applications, OSes, and languages comperables well to diversity in nature.
When resources are rich, like in example in native forests you've a huge diversity. There are thousends of different species, some very funny, and some which effictivness are questionable. But that are the places where nature expierences with new concepts, where things may drift away for some time, seeing if they can grasp something new. In such place we humans were born, look at our brain and our long timed growup phases, we were quite some time a tolerated scion, not so survivable as the competitiours, but at some moment suddendly the larger payoffs started to revenue, actually when we were forced to go to steppe. The reason for this yet a mistery.
However compare to places where resources are minor, like in example the north pole, or desert sahara. How many different species live there? Some but not many, however they are all highly specialized to their surrondings, and pretty effective in their beeing. However this are not the breed places where new concepts are born.
I guess you can see yourselfs the parallel to computing:o)
I thought the idea was to reduce the number of languages.
And who's idea should that be? And why? The same idea could say we should reduce the amount of applications available, or operating systems. That's actually just the way microsoft argues with XP.
There are just so many applications available as people have different requisites. Why should it be for programming languages any different? I guess it's the 'new thing' paradigmn that a automically repulses people, even before looking at it.
Okay one shouldn't respond to his own post, I'm sorry for the grammar, didn't notice -how- lousy it is. It's quite late in the night and I'm tired, guess I shouldn't write any comments today.
Man actually I shouldn't respond to this post.
*) It has NOTHING to do with the topic, you just used a fade opportunity to say your opinion, okay, but I hope it doesn't grow out the an old discussion, on the wrong place.
*) it is simply a foolish business proposition to publish commercial software without patent protection.
Well do you know what options you've if you want to "protect" you're software from beeing spread? Well there are Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks and Tradesecrets. Of course a patent can be an effective way, but most of the time (99%) you'll simply not in the position to get one, or you things maybe the PR isn't worth it.
*) I agree about you're oppinion of war, but there is something different if you think if you're fighting what you think that's your right. In example if people wouldn't have gone to the street, woman would still have no rights. I think that I've the right to see the Source of what I'm running on my system, and I think I've the right to modify it and to give it my friends. One can argue that right is not appropriate, that's a discussion itself. But the same one can argue that woman don't have suffrage. Something cleanly offtopic today, but not so in 1900. It's evolotion we're experiencing here, and none can stop it, maybeGates&co decelerate it, but whatever MS does or what the GPL is or not, ie. the linux kernel hackers will not say: "Yes, know we see, they're actually right, let's scrap that whole source, let's all buy XP, and then we'll go fishing the rest of the year."
*) We would all be better off if programmers understood this risk, considered the consequences of their actions, and eschewed the GPL.
Okay I guess you mean it's dangerous because programmers are no longer be payed to rewrite things dozends of people have done prior? Then programming has become and end in itself. This is contro evolotionary and will be wiped away eitherway from the rules of life. It doesn't matter actually how much ie. ms earns by selling software. The software will have to be written eitherway, and there are people that are willing to pay to get software written. If it means if a job is completed because we all have one day all an OS we're quite happy with, (or an office packet) then it's simply completed, to pay people to reinvent everything just because it's another company that wants some issues different is contra-benifit for an community as whole. They should do something different. They idea of economy is not to keep people busy at any price, but to find the most effective way to do things.
Okay patents coupled with the GPL is a new paradigmn, if I understand right.
Now whoever managed to get something patent can do with the patent whatever he wants, and if the guys is a stranger he can still do with the technology what he wants. If he decides the world may completly not use it for 20 years then it is so. If he decides only programmers with blond hair, born in November and having a green car from Mercedes may use his patent for free this is also so. If he decided people may only use it freely with the GPL than it's also so, it doesn't affect the public position of the GPL at all. As it wouldn't really change to public value of green mercedes or blond programmers born in November.
I don't see a new 'virus' in there, if somebody wants to use a patent without the GPL he'll 'just' have to buy it from the patent holder, just the same way like if he would spread it properitary only. Hoping he's not a strange kind of guy:o)
Well that above applies general to patents, Honestly I didn't read the patent paper to see if it holds any real new ideas, but from what I've seen from the far it seems to be a pretty obvious idea, something I've heared of years ago. (Running Linux as subtask in an RTOS)
However from the far is too far to really judge:o)
The post also has nothing to do with the article, we're given very little info. Of course, now I know its not lame and that its "a good read", but I kinda expect that would be why it's posted.
Actually this is a plus point, and exactly how they should do it. A news reporter should report, and not add his opinion to it.
Many news on/. are not *lame* anti ms rhetoric themselfs, but often times the submitters add they ""lame"" opinions to it, and many reply comments come from a feared view, so are FUD, from both sides.
I think most of the anti-ms FUDs actually hurt the OpenSource communitiy, as it looses seriousity through this. Through all the FUD avalanche the serious crimes weasel through unnoticed. In some degree some stories had their positive effect, like in example the canceled program where they tried to track people who buys pc without windows preinstalled. Constant watching and finger clapping seems to be necessary to trust bindly IS a failure, for both ms-product costumers and their competition. However we should take care to not spread pure FUD, but try to make serious stuff, and not to cry for everything, especially unprooven actions.
Yes, grammar errors make a bad impression on first sight, but actually this is just dealing superficially. I know my grammar is bad since I'm no native english speaker, and haven't yet learned better, so please spare my post from your corrections.
Slashdot Mirror
Do all electromagnetic fields vary strength with the distance? How about fields being bundled together as a ray? Like a point to point communication, yes it grows smaller due to losses but not r^2 as radial radiation do.
Think of a laser beam in example, it's strength will not reduce by distance. Satellites can communicate well with each other by laser beams, since the beam arrives nearly at the same strength as it was send away. Okay this is also not completly true, since the laser beam on arrival at the other satilite is aprox 1 meter in diamater, so it will only receive a part of the energy used to send. But actually the whole beam togehter would have still the same energy.
Do the other post 2 ones abouth, I don't want to make an extra reply. Just because a laser beam doesn't get weaker on distance doesn't mean suddendly the whole earth was flushed with light when turned on.
I know my english grammar is bad, and tough you might not know, but I'm a german and the physics I studied were german too... So by judging someone by his grammar is like judging a book by it's cover. Yes I know, learning better grammar might do good, but for one in relation to the local average here my english is not too bad, and second 'til today I spend my time more by playing with equations and writing programs, sorry 'bout that but if you can give me an address in austria where I can learn the enlish grammar well without huge time/money expenses please tell me.
Hmm could you for me rip the sun into two halfs pull them some miles appart and then join them again?
Unfortunally as standing object on the earth, my molucles "know" that they are rotating around there earth, there is no information in change when the rotation continues
damm my own grammar sucks :(
Why isn't there an edit *whine*
Well as long standard physics make my car drive, television set working and enabling me to warm my dishes in the microwave I will stay with them. A theory is only as good as it implications are, and stay true implications on 'normal' things are right far common that the tranversal stuff. I think some people just want to against, and seeing exactly in your comment, I tried to speak in the language of the supernatural with their words, what it results? You twist things either you want it. Telepathy and telekineses are two different things point. If you have a theory to combine both give it a new name. But seeing people like you to repulse from their own stuff as soon you try to respect and to file it, just shows it doesn't go against the application but just beeing against scientific methods in general like. Telekinese and Telephaty are suddendly no longer okay and a cool thing as soon a guy excepts it's existing gives them a name and start to file phenomens in this catagory. then suddendly they you can't do this, thats again the evil science.
Bah not the marse face again .... Unfortunally I don't have it handy, but there was a picture of a mountain having a human taking on EARTH. Ooops suddendly it looses all mystery if a human face formed mountain stands on earth. Actually the face comes only to see if viewed from a specific angel. But on the mars it wasn't any different.
teleport telepathically
Well that two words alone are already a paradoxon. Teleport is to "jump" a mass from A to B. Telephaty is transfer thoughts over space. Now how can you combine both? This is just rediculous. Maybe you mean telekinese instead of telepathy? (Thoughts manipule masses.)
Well it's common knowledge that quantum theory and geneneral relativity threory contradict each other, at least one of them is not 100% accurate.
Is there a proof that gravitity does NOT travel instantly? If yuo can proof this you've a proof for gravity waves, right? Another mystery yet
:o)
That gravitiy does travel instantly is not a proof on violation of the relitiy theory. You must proof that gravitiy CHANGES can travel instantly, and that one can transfer information through this. Something not in contrast to the idea gravity expands instantly, so how about to say a remote view can only see changes in gravity after enough time has passed that lightspeed time/space factor passed toward him. You can't destroy or create masses, right? So you can't create or destroy gravity force. You can only pull apart an object into two, so the attraction force toward that object is seperated into two, so the once unified force is split into two, but does the remote viewer "feel" this "instantly" or not? Does the gravitiy information that these objects splitted travel with lightspeed or faster than light? Does there travel any information at all? Maybe the sum of attrcation stays the same, so theres no information send over. However my calculations do show a change in force.
Can I use two objects by frequently joining them together and ripping them a part to generate gravitiy waves? How fast would they travel then? Would gravitiy waves obey to the same laws as the electro/magnetic do? (light)
I wish I had a huge labratory where I can manipulate with millions of tons of mass
If you take Elecrostatic as fundamental than Magnetism explains from it. It's actually the same base force. Magentism is Elecrostatic in combination with the special relativity theory. It just the electrons thrusting around will see the world around a little "compressed" when now on a parallel cable electrons thrust at the same speed in the same direction they are not compressed, however the atomic cores who stand still are viewed compressed by the electrons. So what does an electron see on the paralallel cable? More positive atomic cores than electrons, so what it does? It attracts to it, in an electrostatic view. But actually it are two currents in cables which attract each other something we specify as magnetism.
However yes gravity is still a big mistery. It's connection to other forces are not yet revealed if it exists at all.
Why is gravitation mass and inertia mass always the same? Is it -always- the same? Seems so, but there is no proof. In an univeral gravity theory inertia must be included somehow.
What about anti-matter? Does it repulse or attract by gravity to normal matter? Nobody knows, we didn't yet have enough anti-matter to investigate, and from the particle accelerators you can't tell, since all the other forces are so much stronger you can't see gravity in these experiments.
Gravity waves? Do they exist, can they exist? (Just like electro magnetic waves in combination with the electro/magnetism force) We didn't yet meassure any but more is not known.
And there is a personal question, electro/magnetic field hold energy right? Now from E=mc^2 they also have an equivalent matter associated, which does have gravitity. So somehow they connect or?
Argh, why can't I have any moderation points at the moment ... I would give a +5 :o)
Well at least this state only lasts for 12 months :o)
Well -actually- microsoft was long time against TCP/IP (in the late 80ies, early 90ies), the first SMB nets weren't TCP/IP at all, but used a direct layer they called "Netbios". Then they were -actually- against the internet at all. Remember back? They used to favorize the "Microsoft Net". Controlled central by, guess who? :o) TCP/IP was a unix idea, and favorized by unix systems, you see today who won this fight on the long run? However microsoft writes it's own history, theres not written: "we have fatally lost this fight, so now we're using TCP/IP and the internet."
But ummm what for? So I can access windows servers from windows clients?
I think diversity in applications, OSes, and languages comperables well to diversity in nature.
:o)
When resources are rich, like in example in native forests you've a huge diversity. There are thousends of different species, some very funny, and some which effictivness are questionable. But that are the places where nature expierences with new concepts, where things may drift away for some time, seeing if they can grasp something new. In such place we humans were born, look at our brain and our long timed growup phases, we were quite some time a tolerated scion, not so survivable as the competitiours, but at some moment suddendly the larger payoffs started to revenue, actually when we were forced to go to steppe. The reason for this yet a mistery.
However compare to places where resources are minor, like in example the north pole, or desert sahara. How many different species live there? Some but not many, however they are all highly specialized to their surrondings, and pretty effective in their beeing. However this are not the breed places where new concepts are born.
I guess you can see yourselfs the parallel to computing
Is HTML not also a production language?
I thought the idea was to reduce the number of languages.
And who's idea should that be? And why? The same idea could say we should reduce the amount of applications available, or operating systems. That's actually just the way microsoft argues with XP.
There are just so many applications available as people have different requisites. Why should it be for programming languages any different? I guess it's the 'new thing' paradigmn that a automically repulses people, even before looking at it.
Okay one shouldn't respond to his own post, I'm sorry for the grammar, didn't notice -how- lousy it is. It's quite late in the night and I'm tired, guess I shouldn't write any comments today.
Man actually I shouldn't respond to this post.
*) It has NOTHING to do with the topic, you just used a fade opportunity to say your opinion, okay, but I hope it doesn't grow out the an old discussion, on the wrong place.
*) it is simply a foolish business proposition to publish commercial software without patent protection.
Well do you know what options you've if you want to "protect" you're software from beeing spread? Well there are Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks and Tradesecrets. Of course a patent can be an effective way, but most of the time (99%) you'll simply not in the position to get one, or you things maybe the PR isn't worth it.
*) I agree about you're oppinion of war, but there is something different if you think if you're fighting what you think that's your right. In example if people wouldn't have gone to the street, woman would still have no rights. I think that I've the right to see the Source of what I'm running on my system, and I think I've the right to modify it and to give it my friends. One can argue that right is not appropriate, that's a discussion itself. But the same one can argue that woman don't have suffrage. Something cleanly offtopic today, but not so in 1900. It's evolotion we're experiencing here, and none can stop it, maybeGates&co decelerate it, but whatever MS does or what the GPL is or not, ie. the linux kernel hackers will not say: "Yes, know we see, they're actually right, let's scrap that whole source, let's all buy XP, and then we'll go fishing the rest of the year." *) We would all be better off if programmers understood this risk, considered the consequences of their actions, and eschewed the GPL.
Okay I guess you mean it's dangerous because programmers are no longer be payed to rewrite things dozends of people have done prior? Then programming has become and end in itself. This is contro evolotionary and will be wiped away eitherway from the rules of life. It doesn't matter actually how much ie. ms earns by selling software. The software will have to be written eitherway, and there are people that are willing to pay to get software written. If it means if a job is completed because we all have one day all an OS we're quite happy with, (or an office packet) then it's simply completed, to pay people to reinvent everything just because it's another company that wants some issues different is contra-benifit for an community as whole. They should do something different. They idea of economy is not to keep people busy at any price, but to find the most effective way to do things.
Okay patents coupled with the GPL is a new paradigmn, if I understand right.
:o)
:o)
Now whoever managed to get something patent can do with the patent whatever he wants, and if the guys is a stranger he can still do with the technology what he wants. If he decides the world may completly not use it for 20 years then it is so. If he decides only programmers with blond hair, born in November and having a green car from Mercedes may use his patent for free this is also so. If he decided people may only use it freely with the GPL than it's also so, it doesn't affect the public position of the GPL at all. As it wouldn't really change to public value of green mercedes or blond programmers born in November.
I don't see a new 'virus' in there, if somebody wants to use a patent without the GPL he'll 'just' have to buy it from the patent holder, just the same way like if he would spread it properitary only. Hoping he's not a strange kind of guy
Well that above applies general to patents, Honestly I didn't read the patent paper to see if it holds any real new ideas, but from what I've seen from the far it seems to be a pretty obvious idea, something I've heared of years ago. (Running Linux as subtask in an RTOS) However from the far is too far to really judge
DOS _is_ an operating system, altough very, very, very lousy :o) A car priced at 2500$ is still a car, however most people won't respect it as such :o)
Or isn't he allowed to have an opinion any more, now that he gets so much traffic?
:o))
But he'll have to live with comments like this
Yeah, what worth does such comment actually give to the story? I want to decide if I like Redhat or not.
Beause the D in FUD is isinformation,
Understanding is the key, not blaming.
The post also has nothing to do with the article, we're given very little info. Of course, now I know its not lame and that its "a good read", but I kinda expect that would be why it's posted.
/. are not *lame* anti ms rhetoric themselfs, but often times the submitters add they ""lame"" opinions to it, and many reply comments come from a feared view, so are FUD, from both sides.
Actually this is a plus point, and exactly how they should do it. A news reporter should report, and not add his opinion to it.
Many news on
I think most of the anti-ms FUDs actually hurt the OpenSource communitiy, as it looses seriousity through this. Through all the FUD avalanche the serious crimes weasel through unnoticed. In some degree some stories had their positive effect, like in example the canceled program where they tried to track people who buys pc without windows preinstalled. Constant watching and finger clapping seems to be necessary to trust bindly IS a failure, for both ms-product costumers and their competition. However we should take care to not spread pure FUD, but try to make serious stuff, and not to cry for everything, especially unprooven actions.
Yes, grammar errors make a bad impression on first sight, but actually this is just dealing superficially. I know my grammar is bad since I'm no native english speaker, and haven't yet learned better, so please spare my post from your corrections.