No - everything is not relative. To say "everything is relative, even this statement" would suggest that for some people the statement isn't relative, which would mean that for some people truth isn't relative. Truth exists outside your perceptions, Dewey-wannabe. "Realitity is as you experience it to be?" No. Reality is that stuff that continues even when you choose to ignore it.
Saying "for some things, MS Windows is better. For other things, Linux is better" doesn't mean it's relative, it merely means the statement is vague. There are explicit things that Linux is better for. There are explicit things MS Windows is better for.
"Everything is relative?" So, a rock is only a rock when I percieve it to be one? No, if it's a rock it continues to be a rock until something changes that state. If it is not a rock, then it continues not being a rock until something changes that state. Merely wishing it one way or the other doesn't make it so.
cat5 and cat5e are completely seperate things. Also, cat5e can only handle 1Gb over short distances, which would not be applicable to this sort of situation.
I suppose it's better than claiming it's off topic...wait, no it's not. As someone who followed the hype for a couple years and eagerly awaited the beta, finding out the containers were really nothing new or innovative (just a really old thing with new packaging) was quite disappointing. I've seen Linux zealots mod stupidly, as well as MS zealots...but...was this just a Solaris zealot? Which, oddly enough, I would almost be myself, were I able to be a zealot for any OS?
the only thing I was really looking forward to in Solaris (so far as on older platforms is concerned) was the containers thing. Then I figured out it's just a package that makes little chroot environments...well, ok. I mean, that's neat and special and all, but...wasn't what I was hoping for. Seems the pre-release marketing department was a bit ambitious.
you shouldn't assume that intelligence="higher social standing"
almost all of the greatest minds throughout history have either been complete recluses, or at the very least not at all socially or financially ambitious.
"higher social standing" simply means one is ambitious.
"There are all sorts of traits that make it more likely that someone will have both the financial resources, and the inclination, to create GM kids. Those kids will be the next step in our evolution."
There's no real evidence that we're biologically different than our pre-tech ancestors of 10000 years ago. Nutrition and culture account for some amazing changes.
Hmm...if there's no evidence, then why did you write that last sentence?
As I've already stated, we're quite different than we were 10k years ago. Bone structure, brain size...even silly things like skin color. All sorts of things have changed.
wrong. Social welfare is a recent invention, and it's already losing ground.
And...we're still evolving. Just don't expect to see changes in 20 years - evolution of complex species takes a little longer than that. Check back in 10k years and see where we're at.
it has a lot to do with genes; while not all of intelligence is genetic, a good portion of it is. There are all sorts of traits that make it more likely that someone will have both the financial resources, and the inclination, to create GM kids. Those kids will be the next step in our evolution.
That, and it's silly to say we're not evolving anymore, because we're industrialized or something. What part of "we're only 50k years old..." is hard to grasp? It took 600 million years for the multi-celled orgs to get to what you are today. Give evolution a little bit more of a chance than just what you've seen in your lifetime.
That, and look at the skeleton of someone from 10,000 years ago - we're different. We're much bigger, and our brain cavities are larger. We're definately still evolving.
Adams' deceptively complex novels are crammed full of witty erudition, great gags and lengthy digressions, so it was always going to be a struggle to turn it into a neatly packaged two-hour movie.
Understandably perhaps, huge swathes of the novel have been cut in order to make a consistent, story-led film.
you'd think the BBC of all places would know this. They're *supposed* to be different. If the radio show, books, game, and all the hitchhiker stuff were all incredibly different, how could the movie be the same as all of them? How would that be possible? Oranges, apples, and bananas are all different - how could I give someone a fruit that was the same as all of them?
If it's bad, it likely just means DA wasn't good at writing movies. When will people stop saying it's not the same as the books?!? The books aren't the same as the radio show, either...
while Europe might be declining in pop (I disagree that it is, but it's not important) two countries will have growth in the next 20 years that will make up for it by themselves.
Scratch that...the growth they'll have will be more than the entire population of Europe at it's most populous point.
We're just shifting, we're not declining as a species.
slowed down? It's gone *insanely* fast. Keep timeline in context; life started 3.5 billion years ago. Humanity's first written language was only 6k years ago -.5Millionth of life's entire time.
There's considerable difference between how we were 50k years ago, and how we are now. That we're the same species means ONLY one thing - that we could reproduce with them, and that our offspring could in turn reproduce with either of us. Horses and donkeys (and Zebras) are not the same species because while they can preproduce and make mules and hinnys (and zedonk/zebrass when a donkey and zebra combine), mules and hinnys can't reproduce in turn. However, a miniture toy chihuahua and a newfoundlandcan can produce fertile offspring (assuming the mother is the newfoundland, and is artificially inseminated...a chihuahua as the mother would just die before birth or something).
Look at those two dogs...same species, their gametes line up at least...why are they so different though?
They were genetically modified. Someone wanted a small dog, so they selectively bred them until they had the insult to nature that is the chihuahua. Sure, it was old-school genetics...but it was genetic modification none the less (aka "selective breeding").
We can do the same to ourselves, but worse - we're already genetically engineering all sorts of organisms, and GE humans have occured in rogue labs. In far less than 100 years, they'll be commonplace...so if you want a 7' tall blonde haired, blue-eyed son with fair skin, that has an extra stomach and a 6-chambered heart...that's not terribly far off, when we're talking about the spans of years in this discussion. I've already been part to making regular bacteria into super-bacteria through splicing and modification, and I'm just a normal guy. Really smart people, in 100 years, will be doing much more.
It's still evolution, though - darwin would still accept it, I'd wager. Dogs evolved, after all - even if we forced them to.
the scary part is that it wouldn't be that hard to keep a body perfectly healthy for a very very long time, if in a perfectly controlled environment. We are already somewhat close to being able to fix a lot of things through GE methods; imagine if you ate the most perfect, healthy food at the precisely perfect times, had your health monitored 24/7, were given only the cleanest air at precisely the ideal mixture of oxygen and other gases, and never had to worry about car wrecks or other such things? The human body is actually designed to age on purpose, for various reasons...and the mechanisms for that are becoming known (and might be stopped, unfortunately)
we can't do such a thing, since we are our biological bodies.
We can though perhaps create highly-developed AI's, program/train them in our mores, and then set them loose - thereby creating a wholy seperate type of existence. But evolution is a biological mechanism, and (at least, in just the next thousand years) won't allow us to stop being biological.
What you're talking about could happen easily enough in a VR system, though...imagine humans in little pods, fed efficiently, with equiptment connected directly to their brains so that they can think they're experiencing certain things...;) yet, instead of it being for nefarious purposes, the humans could in theory still be in control of it and aware, and instead simply send out probes to other planets that they can interact through as if they were actually there.
Or, maybe we should get metaphysical about it, and just become balls of energy;)
shhh...pointing out the obvious can make someone's head explode. If not for his own sake, think of the innocent person standing next to him...
More to the point, the reason MS had to do this was because VMWare already has for years, and that is a selling point for them. Wasn't that fairly clear? This allows them access to part of the market that had to use VMWare for it's wider scope - now MS can attack and gain that market share.
2 questions: why does mankind have to surive the next billion years, or rather, why is it the job of an agency of the US governement to assure such a thing?
2) since multi-cellular organisms didn't really take off until almost half that amount of time ago (600million years ago), primates didn't walk on 2 feet until 4 million years ago (1/250th of that billion years), what in the world^H^H^H^H^H universe makes you think humankind will be around a billion years from now? Whatever is around then will be well beyond our capability to understand or predict. I mean, our species is only 50k years old (1/20,000th of that billion) and already in that span of time has evolved *considerably*. We don't even look like we did 200 years ago, much less 2,000. Do you really think we'll be anything like this 50,000 years from now, and that we'll be even remotely the same *species* as this a million years from now (1/1000th of that billion years). If not, who are you to dictate what their survival will require? Maybe within the next few thousand years we'll finally start doing population control, for instance. There's an idea. All other species seem to do just fine...we should be able to figure it out too, being "smarter" than them.
no. The resolution is all that changes. The *size* doesn't change.
The projected image, if originally 2 inches tall in a certain setup, will still be 2 inches tall in that same setup even with a smaller part of the plate...it will simply not be as *clear*. The resolution will have changed, nothing more.
You're thinking of "resolution" in the wrong way. When I change the resolution on my computer screen, does my monitor get smaller/larger? No, the clarity of the image is all that changes. Where there were once 640 pixels, there are now 800, or 1024, or 1280, or 1600...and so on. The screen itself has not changed size, however.
Resolution and size are entirely different things.
Here's your corrected example: Original Broken XXXX X X XXXX X X XXXX X X XXXX X X
more or less. The theory is that all the way down to the smallest bit of that plate, the entire image would be there, it would just have no clarity (well, 1/infinity). The size of the projected image never changes - just the resolution.
Think about light for a moment. If the two halves each have the whole image, why would it make sense that the images from the seperate halves would be smaller? The light will still be hitting the surface in the same way, still reflecting the same way...still creating the same image.
Hmm...just thought of a way to make this make more sense. Lets say we each have a flashlight with a narrow beam. You shine your flashlight onto a wall. I shine mine onto the same wall in such a way that the area that is lit up does not change, nor is it smaller. 8 other people do the same thing. What happens? That part of the wall is going to be really bright - 10 people will have flashlights on it. Now, imagine a plate where every molecule is capable of projecting an image. Another molecule joins in projecting the same image on the same place. So on and so forth, until there are millions of molecules doing it.
um, no. You'd still have a hologram showing a gallon-sized bottle, it would simply have half the resolution as before. The refraction of the light doesn't suddenly change simply because the plate broke - think about it for a moment. Does it make sense to you that if you break the plate, the light would get displaced to a porportionally smaller area, that the outline of the bottle would shift inward? No. It merely loses clarity.
perhaps there should be "economic allies" in addition to "military allies?" IE - just because we're making a NAFTA-like treaty with countries in South America, doesn't mean we'll come to their aide if they are attacked by someone. I mean, we may come to their aide anyway (Monroe Doctrine and all) but...
Well, ok, bad example. We'll go to war with anyone. How about - just because Mexico and Canada are economic allies due to NAFTA, doesn't mean Mexico will send troops if Iceland attacks Canada.
hmm...I started to submit this story, but I guess taco beat me. So I'll just post the story I submitted;)
As reported here and even on Adobe and Macromedia, Adobe will be aquiring Macromedia for $3.4Billion. From the Macromedia site: "The two companies are developing integration plans that build on the cultural similarities and the best business and product development practices from each company. The companies will make additional details and information about the acquisition available at http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobe andmacromedia.html." With Adobe recently putting out reader 7 for linux, what should our hopes be that linux apps will be kept reasonably up to date in the integration plans?
Slashdot Mirror
uh, I think you'd be better off asking GP that. He's claiming the rock only exists because he says so. I'm claiming it's a rock because it's a rock.
you're so funny.
No - everything is not relative. To say "everything is relative, even this statement" would suggest that for some people the statement isn't relative, which would mean that for some people truth isn't relative. Truth exists outside your perceptions, Dewey-wannabe. "Realitity is as you experience it to be?" No. Reality is that stuff that continues even when you choose to ignore it.
Saying "for some things, MS Windows is better. For other things, Linux is better" doesn't mean it's relative, it merely means the statement is vague. There are explicit things that Linux is better for. There are explicit things MS Windows is better for.
"Everything is relative?" So, a rock is only a rock when I percieve it to be one? No, if it's a rock it continues to be a rock until something changes that state. If it is not a rock, then it continues not being a rock until something changes that state. Merely wishing it one way or the other doesn't make it so.
cat5 and cat5e are completely seperate things. Also, cat5e can only handle 1Gb over short distances, which would not be applicable to this sort of situation.
So no, it should be cat6.
the Greeks were pretty good at it long before the Britian came to be ;)
"troll?"
I suppose it's better than claiming it's off topic...wait, no it's not. As someone who followed the hype for a couple years and eagerly awaited the beta, finding out the containers were really nothing new or innovative (just a really old thing with new packaging) was quite disappointing. I've seen Linux zealots mod stupidly, as well as MS zealots...but...was this just a Solaris zealot? Which, oddly enough, I would almost be myself, were I able to be a zealot for any OS?
the only thing I was really looking forward to in Solaris (so far as on older platforms is concerned) was the containers thing. Then I figured out it's just a package that makes little chroot environments...well, ok. I mean, that's neat and special and all, but...wasn't what I was hoping for. Seems the pre-release marketing department was a bit ambitious.
you shouldn't assume that intelligence="higher social standing"
almost all of the greatest minds throughout history have either been complete recluses, or at the very least not at all socially or financially ambitious.
"higher social standing" simply means one is ambitious.
"There are all sorts of traits that make it more likely that someone will have both the financial resources, and the inclination, to create GM kids. Those kids will be the next step in our evolution."
GM kids.
There's no real evidence that we're biologically different than our pre-tech ancestors of 10000 years ago. Nutrition and culture account for some amazing changes.
Hmm...if there's no evidence, then why did you write that last sentence?
As I've already stated, we're quite different than we were 10k years ago. Bone structure, brain size...even silly things like skin color. All sorts of things have changed.
wrong. Social welfare is a recent invention, and it's already losing ground.
And...we're still evolving. Just don't expect to see changes in 20 years - evolution of complex species takes a little longer than that. Check back in 10k years and see where we're at.
it has a lot to do with genes; while not all of intelligence is genetic, a good portion of it is. There are all sorts of traits that make it more likely that someone will have both the financial resources, and the inclination, to create GM kids. Those kids will be the next step in our evolution.
That, and it's silly to say we're not evolving anymore, because we're industrialized or something. What part of "we're only 50k years old..." is hard to grasp? It took 600 million years for the multi-celled orgs to get to what you are today. Give evolution a little bit more of a chance than just what you've seen in your lifetime.
That, and look at the skeleton of someone from 10,000 years ago - we're different. We're much bigger, and our brain cavities are larger. We're definately still evolving.
Adams' deceptively complex novels are crammed full of witty erudition, great gags and lengthy digressions, so it was always going to be a struggle to turn it into a neatly packaged two-hour movie.
Understandably perhaps, huge swathes of the novel have been cut in order to make a consistent, story-led film.
you'd think the BBC of all places would know this. They're *supposed* to be different. If the radio show, books, game, and all the hitchhiker stuff were all incredibly different, how could the movie be the same as all of them? How would that be possible? Oranges, apples, and bananas are all different - how could I give someone a fruit that was the same as all of them?
If it's bad, it likely just means DA wasn't good at writing movies. When will people stop saying it's not the same as the books?!? The books aren't the same as the radio show, either...
while Europe might be declining in pop (I disagree that it is, but it's not important) two countries will have growth in the next 20 years that will make up for it by themselves.
Scratch that...the growth they'll have will be more than the entire population of Europe at it's most populous point.
We're just shifting, we're not declining as a species.
slowed down? It's gone *insanely* fast. Keep timeline in context; life started 3.5 billion years ago. Humanity's first written language was only 6k years ago - .5Millionth of life's entire time.
There's considerable difference between how we were 50k years ago, and how we are now. That we're the same species means ONLY one thing - that we could reproduce with them, and that our offspring could in turn reproduce with either of us. Horses and donkeys (and Zebras) are not the same species because while they can preproduce and make mules and hinnys (and zedonk/zebrass when a donkey and zebra combine), mules and hinnys can't reproduce in turn. However, a miniture toy chihuahua and a newfoundland can can produce fertile offspring (assuming the mother is the newfoundland, and is artificially inseminated...a chihuahua as the mother would just die before birth or something).
Look at those two dogs...same species, their gametes line up at least...why are they so different though?
They were genetically modified. Someone wanted a small dog, so they selectively bred them until they had the insult to nature that is the chihuahua. Sure, it was old-school genetics...but it was genetic modification none the less (aka "selective breeding").
We can do the same to ourselves, but worse - we're already genetically engineering all sorts of organisms, and GE humans have occured in rogue labs. In far less than 100 years, they'll be commonplace...so if you want a 7' tall blonde haired, blue-eyed son with fair skin, that has an extra stomach and a 6-chambered heart...that's not terribly far off, when we're talking about the spans of years in this discussion. I've already been part to making regular bacteria into super-bacteria through splicing and modification, and I'm just a normal guy. Really smart people, in 100 years, will be doing much more.
It's still evolution, though - darwin would still accept it, I'd wager. Dogs evolved, after all - even if we forced them to.
the scary part is that it wouldn't be that hard to keep a body perfectly healthy for a very very long time, if in a perfectly controlled environment. We are already somewhat close to being able to fix a lot of things through GE methods; imagine if you ate the most perfect, healthy food at the precisely perfect times, had your health monitored 24/7, were given only the cleanest air at precisely the ideal mixture of oxygen and other gases, and never had to worry about car wrecks or other such things? The human body is actually designed to age on purpose, for various reasons...and the mechanisms for that are becoming known (and might be stopped, unfortunately)
we can't do such a thing, since we are our biological bodies.
;) yet, instead of it being for nefarious purposes, the humans could in theory still be in control of it and aware, and instead simply send out probes to other planets that they can interact through as if they were actually there.
;)
We can though perhaps create highly-developed AI's, program/train them in our mores, and then set them loose - thereby creating a wholy seperate type of existence. But evolution is a biological mechanism, and (at least, in just the next thousand years) won't allow us to stop being biological.
What you're talking about could happen easily enough in a VR system, though...imagine humans in little pods, fed efficiently, with equiptment connected directly to their brains so that they can think they're experiencing certain things...
Or, maybe we should get metaphysical about it, and just become balls of energy
shhh...pointing out the obvious can make someone's head explode. If not for his own sake, think of the innocent person standing next to him...
More to the point, the reason MS had to do this was because VMWare already has for years, and that is a selling point for them. Wasn't that fairly clear? This allows them access to part of the market that had to use VMWare for it's wider scope - now MS can attack and gain that market share.
yes, if by "cluster" you mean run pvm or mpi-aware applications.
next billion?
2 questions: why does mankind have to surive the next billion years, or rather, why is it the job of an agency of the US governement to assure such a thing?
2) since multi-cellular organisms didn't really take off until almost half that amount of time ago (600million years ago), primates didn't walk on 2 feet until 4 million years ago (1/250th of that billion years), what in the world^H^H^H^H^H universe makes you think humankind will be around a billion years from now? Whatever is around then will be well beyond our capability to understand or predict. I mean, our species is only 50k years old (1/20,000th of that billion) and already in that span of time has evolved *considerably*. We don't even look like we did 200 years ago, much less 2,000. Do you really think we'll be anything like this 50,000 years from now, and that we'll be even remotely the same *species* as this a million years from now (1/1000th of that billion years). If not, who are you to dictate what their survival will require? Maybe within the next few thousand years we'll finally start doing population control, for instance. There's an idea. All other species seem to do just fine...we should be able to figure it out too, being "smarter" than them.
crap. /. took away my spaces!
;)
that should look like(imagine the "-" are spaces):
original | broken
XXXX | X-X-
XXXX | -X-X
XXXX | X-X-
XXXX | -X-X
meh, its a bad example anyway
no. The resolution is all that changes. The *size* doesn't change.
The projected image, if originally 2 inches tall in a certain setup, will still be 2 inches tall in that same setup even with a smaller part of the plate...it will simply not be as *clear*. The resolution will have changed, nothing more.
You're thinking of "resolution" in the wrong way. When I change the resolution on my computer screen, does my monitor get smaller/larger? No, the clarity of the image is all that changes. Where there were once 640 pixels, there are now 800, or 1024, or 1280, or 1600...and so on. The screen itself has not changed size, however.
Resolution and size are entirely different things.
Here's your corrected example:
Original Broken
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
XXXX X X
more or less. The theory is that all the way down to the smallest bit of that plate, the entire image would be there, it would just have no clarity (well, 1/infinity). The size of the projected image never changes - just the resolution.
Think about light for a moment. If the two halves each have the whole image, why would it make sense that the images from the seperate halves would be smaller? The light will still be hitting the surface in the same way, still reflecting the same way...still creating the same image.
Hmm...just thought of a way to make this make more sense. Lets say we each have a flashlight with a narrow beam. You shine your flashlight onto a wall. I shine mine onto the same wall in such a way that the area that is lit up does not change, nor is it smaller. 8 other people do the same thing. What happens? That part of the wall is going to be really bright - 10 people will have flashlights on it. Now, imagine a plate where every molecule is capable of projecting an image. Another molecule joins in projecting the same image on the same place. So on and so forth, until there are millions of molecules doing it.
yeah, which would quickly lose it's (ahem) luster.
um, no. You'd still have a hologram showing a gallon-sized bottle, it would simply have half the resolution as before. The refraction of the light doesn't suddenly change simply because the plate broke - think about it for a moment. Does it make sense to you that if you break the plate, the light would get displaced to a porportionally smaller area, that the outline of the bottle would shift inward? No. It merely loses clarity.
...or "Swiss banking industry."
perhaps there should be "economic allies" in addition to "military allies?" IE - just because we're making a NAFTA-like treaty with countries in South America, doesn't mean we'll come to their aide if they are attacked by someone. I mean, we may come to their aide anyway (Monroe Doctrine and all) but...
Well, ok, bad example. We'll go to war with anyone. How about - just because Mexico and Canada are economic allies due to NAFTA, doesn't mean Mexico will send troops if Iceland attacks Canada.
hmm...I started to submit this story, but I guess taco beat me. So I'll just post the story I submitted ;)
e andmacromedia.html."
As reported here and even on Adobe and Macromedia, Adobe will be aquiring Macromedia for $3.4Billion. From the Macromedia site: "The two companies are developing integration plans that build on the cultural similarities and the best business and product development practices from each company. The companies will make additional details and information about the acquisition available at http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adob
With Adobe recently putting out reader 7 for linux, what should our hopes be that linux apps will be kept reasonably up to date in the integration plans?