and thought the same thing. Oh well. I blew it off to the fact that only idiots will buy into it, and/those/ folks don't know anything about linux at least...
ok, you're missing the forest for the trees. Let me spell it out:
those that make the recommendations, and even the decisions, are nowadays more likely to have actually seen (or even used) linux. That is why it is more common now - it has gone from a geek hobby-thing, to the geeks comming of age and making impacts. Toss today's geeks away, and tomorrow's decision makers (and recommenders) will be recommending something else entirely.
point is that no linux distribution yet has the base needed to stop focusing on grass-roots.
Point is also that larger corporations are feeling all sorts of stings from the much more important smaller and middle-sized corporations...ones where the IT Director does indeed get nearly 100% say-so on what gets used - esp on servers.
Also note that ITS THE SAME DAMN OS, as I said the first time. Fedora is NOT an OS, nor is RedHat. They are both using the linux kernel - you know this, right? Why say Fedora is a different OS? It isn't. Nothing is unavailable in Fedora that is available in ES3.
The IT Director there started out in IT years ago - likely as a help desk jockey, or maybe as a network admin (what with his likely having a BIS or such). I didn't say he worked at the helpdesk of your company, I said he worked at a help desk. Any. And it wasn't a literal statement anyway - with his degree(s) that he started with, he may very well have started out as a help desk manager instead:P Point is, he started out low, where actual exposure to things occurs.
Linux is catching on now because those that are getting into middle and upper management now don't see linux as a scary thing - they have known about it for a while. 3 years ago, almost no upper-level manager had even heard of linux, which is why it had no little chance, and had to be force-fed by the lower-ends and the sysadmins. Now though, a much higher portion of the middle and upper-management in IT actually used to be part of the linux grassroots. You know - back before the whole IPO stupidity, back before the over-inflated late 90's, back when people were budget conscious (which gosh, they are now again...just in time for RedHat to charge $$$$$$$).
We're talking about OS's. The Director of Information Technology was once a help desk guy, or at least a network admin. HE is the one making the OS recommendations, for servers and clients alike.
And guess what - he uses a computer at home.
More importantly, his replacement 5 years from now uses a computer at home.
The upper and middle IT management of today are the network admins of 5 years ago. 5 year plans, people. 5 years ago, these folks started playing with linux - many of them, redhat.
5 years from now, there won't be the grassroots component. Grassroots is what MADE redhat, and every other linux distro. It is their backbone. And regardless whether they think otherwise, not even linux in general (regardless of distro) is free from needing to keep the grassroots strong - that's the reason Fedora exists at all.
So...same operating system? Learn to build your own damn kernel. The apps are either the same, or available. RedHat is still barely more than package management - the only difference between "fedora" and "redhat advanced server" is certifications, and default capabilities. So yes, you can get the latest kernel source, build it, and YOU TOO can have smp support, >4gb ram support, or whatever else is supposedly "missing" in fedora.
yet "av.com" is already slashdotted (after like 20 posts! wow, impressive), and probably doesn't have 1% of the sites indexed that google does...does it cache? Wouldn't know - it won't come up right now.
Its easy to give impressive results to few people on a small sample of data. What is really impressive is to continue giving good results on a large amount of data, while caching it, and being able to handle a bazillion people. Yes, a bazillion. All the while maintaining a semi-ad-free revenue model that makes things mostly painless.
Now, what advantage does tying up with Veritas give a Linux distro firm? Backups? That should be a very minor market segment, even among Corporate users.
Are you nuts? Backups are INSANELY important in corporate culture. Veritas is the most widely used backup product, and so one can tie in with the established backup system. The backup environment you already have serving your windows, sun, and etc systems - hey, now you can backup SuSE on it too.
An OS has NO chance in a corporate environment if management can't pay an outside vendor for a backup product. For SuSE to be taken seriously, it *absolutely* needs people like veritas, legato, etc. to certify them.
quick and easy: "size of glass" is a factor. "Amount of water" is a factor. "Gravity" is a factor. "Shape of glass" is a factor. "Hard water? soft water?" is a factor. Blah blah. As you said - unimportant.
the important point is that "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Given the right amounts of surface area and water, VIO-FREAKIN-LA, you're near a sphere there. Given 4 oz of water in an 8 oz "glass," (ie, those things we drink out of), you won't have a sphere. Gosh darn water! Why won't it make up its mind...
oh yeah - that's because no matter how many factors we bring up, more factors still exist! And bringing up new and exciting factors has NOTHING to do with the fact that "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Ya take all the freakin factors, line em up in a row, and the mommy duck goes "quack!" BOOM - your answer. Regardless the factors though, "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Factors, factors, factors. More factors please! Lets make this so far away from the point its beyond-silly.
And yes - thank you. I am master of the universe. However - you made a bad implication again. I wouldn't be working with linus - I'd be a carpenter. No money in it, unfortunately:( Granted though, this implication was FAR less unfounded. I just said "lots of folks." I am not "lots of folks," I'm me. I was trying to appeal to the general/. freak.
"Main Entry: possible Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin possibilis, from posse to be able, from potis, pote able + esse to be -- more at POTENT, IS Date: 14th century 1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization b : being what may be done or may occur according to nature, custom, or manners 2 a : being something that may or may not occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual 3 : having an indicated potential synonyms POSSIBLE, PRACTICABLE, FEASIBLE mean capable of being realized. POSSIBLE implies that a thing may certainly exist or occur given the proper conditions . PRACTICABLE implies that something may be effected by available means or under current conditions . FEASIBLE applies to what is likely to work or be useful in attaining the end desired."
That's a pretty crazy implication you took from what I said. I asked a rhetorical question. In no way is there an indication in that question that water has minimized its surface area. It has minimized it so much as is possible (what with that darn gravity thing), but that simple question justifies no such implications. Yes - omg - there is a geometric shape (sphere) that would have less surface area. Unfortunately for the water, it is impossible for it to assume that shape in its current situation. How very sad:(
Second - how about I actually make this complicated and point a high-speed fan into the glass? Crap - the water just went everywhere, and the glass flew against the wall and broke. Does that mean gravity was unimportant? Err...no. Just another factor/force, babe. More than one is determining what shape the water will hold. What if I put the glass on a hotplate and raised it to 213 degrees? There it goes again, changing its shape. Damn water!!!
OMG, you still don't get that? I thought we got past that sentence.
...least amount of surface area possible. As I've already said 897million times, the key word there is "possible." Gravity dictates, on earth, what is possible. Water in a glass does indeed "have the least amount of surface area possible" because, as you have said (geeze..do you even read *your* stuff?) there is more than one force at work determining what the surface area can/will be.
The water wants to have the least amount of surface area it can. Big mean ol gravity steps in though and says "ha! you must do as I say" and forces it to the bottom of the glass. The water still has the least surface area *possible*, because the realm of possibility is being dictated by gravity. Same with the pen - the ink in the pen goes away from the ball when you hold it upside down.
Damn - I thought we were making progress here. Thanks for destroying my hopes. Guess that's what I get for being an optimist. Sigh.
Since I know you are great with examples, here's one: I am currently dating the greatest (or least, take your pick) # of supermodels possible. That which is "possible" in such a situation is dictated by a few things:
my looks
my income
my assets (ie, $1mill in income with no assets is not as good as $500thou in income with $100mill in assets)
my education
my charisma, charm, etc
my pedigree/background
actually running into/talking to a supermodel.
So say I was a good looking guy that was a senior solaris admin at a financial corp. Then lets say I was on my way up an elevator, and in stepped a supermodel - why? who knows. So my income isn't what she'd really like, and I'm only "good looking," but she finds me funny, and I sing her a few songs and write her a poem. Then she decides to date me.
Viola! Not impossible, really. Highly unlikely, but that's just because its more complex than water in a glass. The point is that I can be super rich, super hot, super charming, super educated, blah blah - but if I don't actually come in *contact* with a supermodel, I can't ever date one. The other factors are important, but less so (some might even be lacking, so long as I have most). Without contact though, its impossible.
Back to the glass - gravity dictates the surface area that is possible. What is also really important is the shape of the container! Lots of important factors.
But in the end, "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such." Do I REALLY need to go into such detail and explanation to suit your pride? Yeesh. More than one factor is in play. We live in this thing called a "universe" where there is this whole environment thing...outside forces exert control over things. "strong" forces, "Weak" forces, "use the force, Luke," all over the place. A vast, complex universe that, in the end, culminates into exactly what will happen. The water doesn't assume the shape it does from personal choice - it assumes said shape because of the environment it is in. Otherwise, lots of folks would simply "choose" to be dating Angelina Jolie, working with Linus, and owning a large highly-connected island. While these things are not impossible, there are all sorts of things that need to occur first...and in the end, it will be "gravity" that brings us back to earth from our trip in the clouds. Nice tie-up. Wow, pat myself on the back.
Note that I also think its cute that once I mentioned your pride, you mentioned my honor. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess;) But I might just be mentioning this because I'm an ass sometimes. Who knows! [grin]
Would the water in a glass stay in the glass - with the least amount of surface possible - if it was in a zero-gravity environment?
The answer remains an obvious "no," and in the context of the rest of the original post, makes the intended point. In your last post (previous to this one) you comment on my sticking to that point - well, yeah - water still stays in the glass here on earth. Gravity still wins (thereby being fairly important, really). That I can at least continue to say with a clear conscience. On the other hand, you continue to say you understood/understand my original point, when you obviously did/do not. If you understood that it was a rhetorical question, why did you answer it? Do you really think I needed/wanted to have the cause of surface area explained, and then related to gravity? No - I neither needed nor wanted it. They were obvious rhetorical (meaning: no need to answer, because it is obvious). Gravity is important. It can easily prevent the pen from working, in most the positions one could hold it in.
Back to space (pens, not our brains): a pen in space doesn't have gravity to deal with really. The claim that only surface tension is important (and that gravity specifically was not) was rather rediculous.
"idiot" is an easy word to use here - just as people become idiots when they get in a car, they become idiots when they comment at slashdot. Note also that this was the second use of it (so its not as if it should be called overused at this point), and it served the effect of completing my rebutal. Had I used "nincompoop" the first time, I would have had to use it the second time - strickly for cempleteness, mind you.
but we digress - the point is that you simply misunderstood the original example I gave, and have gone on and on about it. We're pretty much in agreement everywhere else (we're both babbling, for instance...). From my viewpoint, the whole disagreement is simply due to you not understanding that the water/glass/no-gravity thing was an example of what you have said you agree with. You just didn't get the connection. I've looked it over to see if I perhaps could have used a better example, but - no, that's a pretty good one. It encompasses all I was trying to casually point out 100 years ago.
"There is a competion between gravity, surface energy and bulk energy, which determines what happens. I agree."
Holy crap - see? I knew you would agree. You just, for whatever reason, don't grasp the concept of a "rhetorical question," and you don't think that I know the difference between a cylinder and a sphere. I assumed since your response was 500 pages long (note: its called sarcasm) that page 498 was like pages 1-497...I got bored and skipped to the end. Pointless ramblings tend to do that to people (mine do all the time). I guess score is 1 idiot point for me, 2 for you now.
You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say with the water in a glass thing - though oddly enough, you say you agree with what it demonstrates. Here on earth, gravity wins out (just like in a ball point pen). The water stays in the glass. In space, the water leaves the glass. In a sealed container, like a ballpoint pen, that isn't necessarily an option. So the ink flows around in the pen, not having any particular idea where to go specifically (note: just humour in general). It randomly bumps into the ball point occassionally, tossing some of itself aside on to the escape hatch. Gravity isn't necessary for the pen to work, but it can certainly keep it from working.
Lets see if you can get this example: sugar isn't necessary for my car engine to work, but it sure as hell can keep it from working. Sugar therefore, for a properly working pen, is very important. One need not take it into effect as much as gravity (gravity always being present here on earth, sugar not always being flung into gas tanks) but it still is important. Damn important - to keep from harming the intended functioning.
SIGH. No, water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot.
ok, that last line again - with feeling. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot
It DOES have the least surface area possible. ALWAYS. Gravity just throws in its 2 cents to help the water decide what is "possible." Did I define "surface area" anywhere? Who's post are you reading and thinking is mine?
Now if -you- would actually read my posts, you might not need to babble. You said my whole analysis was completely wrong - now you say " don't mention anything about gravity or ball point pens because i wasn't commenting on that." Well guess what - I was commenting on that. Thanks for admiting you're not reading what I'm writing. Lets look at the only senetence in which I used the words "water" and/or "glass," shall we?
Would the water in a glass stay in the glass - with the least amount of surface possible - if it was in a zero-gravity environment?
Its called a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no - and leads to the point I was making. A point, btw, that you would probably agree with if you weren't so insistant upon being an idiot.
How on EARTH did you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that if they had a quantum computer they should just throw their hands up in the air for anything else, and not get it as tight as possible? Or that if they have a single quantum computer, that they would necessarily have hundreds of thousands (if you can make one, then you can make millions?), and therefore would be able to distribute classified documents/transmitions with ease? It would be pointless if the same capability didn't exist on both ends, you know.
No, all this means is that they want something with better encryption. Even if they had a dozen fully functional "quantum computers" that were able to do spectacular computations in an instant (ah, that lovely superposition...) that wouldn't mean that they should just suddenly give up and use weak encryption. Better that only a few people in the world could break it with ease, than that anyone with $100k could build a sufficient cluster to do it quickly...
SIGH. No, water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot. And completely flawed, even when its just that one portion you didn't grasp? Whatever. Write with a pen on a wall. Then tell me gravity has nothing to do with it. My point was that it wasn't a big deal because gravity doesn't necessarily need to pull the ink to the ball, so long as it isn't pulling the ink away from the ball. I was quite clear on that, even. Gravity does in fact play an important role. It keeps the water in the glass, and it keeps the pen from working when writing sideways or upsidedown.
Surface tension is the important factor for all pens, not gravity. Really? How about we do a little experiment then. Take a pen, and write on a wall. Or maybe even write something upside-down. Soon, you'll find that the pen doesn't work. Why? Because ink is being actively pulled away from the ball by gravity. All his ability to write in space does is prove that the ink doesn't have to be pulled to the ball, so long as its not pulled away from it. Makes sense - the ink is just wandering around inside the cartridge, and still bumps into the ball. I'll buy that. Additionally - I don't suppose you'd care to explain to us perhaps what causes surface tension in the first place? Would the water in a glass stay in the glass - with the least amount of surface possible - if it was in a zero-gravity environment? Someone is not rocket-scientist material...
first: I did list examples. He did not. I merely even gave an incomplete list of examples of types of errors. second: heh...its the complete list (of spelling errors, at least). I play games - fun ones. Were I to be writting a critique to be posted on the front page of Slashdot (or anywhere else) then I would not play said games. Were I to be writing a review of a published book in which I was complaining about "grammar and sentence structure," I would at the very least run my review through a spell checker. Then I'd read it, and make sure that it didn't sound worse than what I was reviewing.
...and on that note, my post was no where near as bad, even with purposeful mistakes, as the review was;)
ummm...err... "Your fleas have green spots" is correct. "Your fleas has green spots" is incorrect. "Your green-spotted flea has bad breath" is correct. "Your green-spotted flea have bad breath" is incorrect. Is subject-verb agreement not taught in school anymore? "Prentice Hall" is the name for a company. It therefore uses "has," not "have." Doesn't matter if you're in England, the US, or...wherever.
my high-horse? my point is that any review that has complaints about grammar but isn't remotely close to being written well is suspect. Why should I believe him when he says that the book is poorly written, when he is obviously so poorly read?
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed that too...
/those/ folks don't know anything about linux at least...
and thought the same thing. Oh well. I blew it off to the fact that only idiots will buy into it, and
[sigh]
ok, you're missing the forest for the trees. Let me spell it out:
those that make the recommendations, and even the decisions, are nowadays more likely to have actually seen (or even used) linux. That is why it is more common now - it has gone from a geek hobby-thing, to the geeks comming of age and making impacts. Toss today's geeks away, and tomorrow's decision makers (and recommenders) will be recommending something else entirely.
point is that no linux distribution yet has the base needed to stop focusing on grass-roots.
Point is also that larger corporations are feeling all sorts of stings from the much more important smaller and middle-sized corporations...ones where the IT Director does indeed get nearly 100% say-so on what gets used - esp on servers.
Also note that ITS THE SAME DAMN OS, as I said the first time. Fedora is NOT an OS, nor is RedHat. They are both using the linux kernel - you know this, right? Why say Fedora is a different OS? It isn't. Nothing is unavailable in Fedora that is available in ES3.
you're missing my point.
:P Point is, he started out low, where actual exposure to things occurs.
The IT Director there started out in IT years ago - likely as a help desk jockey, or maybe as a network admin (what with his likely having a BIS or such). I didn't say he worked at the helpdesk of your company, I said he worked at a help desk. Any. And it wasn't a literal statement anyway - with his degree(s) that he started with, he may very well have started out as a help desk manager instead
Linux is catching on now because those that are getting into middle and upper management now don't see linux as a scary thing - they have known about it for a while. 3 years ago, almost no upper-level manager had even heard of linux, which is why it had no little chance, and had to be force-fed by the lower-ends and the sysadmins. Now though, a much higher portion of the middle and upper-management in IT actually used to be part of the linux grassroots. You know - back before the whole IPO stupidity, back before the over-inflated late 90's, back when people were budget conscious (which gosh, they are now again...just in time for RedHat to charge $$$$$$$).
how about a freakin clue, bub.
We're talking about OS's. The Director of Information Technology was once a help desk guy, or at least a network admin. HE is the one making the OS recommendations, for servers and clients alike.
And guess what - he uses a computer at home.
More importantly, his replacement 5 years from now uses a computer at home.
The upper and middle IT management of today are the network admins of 5 years ago. 5 year plans, people. 5 years ago, these folks started playing with linux - many of them, redhat.
5 years from now, there won't be the grassroots component. Grassroots is what MADE redhat, and every other linux distro. It is their backbone. And regardless whether they think otherwise, not even linux in general (regardless of distro) is free from needing to keep the grassroots strong - that's the reason Fedora exists at all.
So...same operating system? Learn to build your own damn kernel. The apps are either the same, or available. RedHat is still barely more than package management - the only difference between "fedora" and "redhat advanced server" is certifications, and default capabilities. So yes, you can get the latest kernel source, build it, and YOU TOO can have smp support, >4gb ram support, or whatever else is supposedly "missing" in fedora.
Its the same OS.
not only would they do that, but they'd make it such that a CD costs what it should...$11 max, instead of $17 max.
yes, but it was not doing that via the web. Therein lies the difference.
well then its darn slow. I gave it a good 30 seconds, and nothin was there.
yet "av.com" is already slashdotted (after like 20 posts! wow, impressive), and probably doesn't have 1% of the sites indexed that google does...does it cache? Wouldn't know - it won't come up right now.
Its easy to give impressive results to few people on a small sample of data. What is really impressive is to continue giving good results on a large amount of data, while caching it, and being able to handle a bazillion people. Yes, a bazillion. All the while maintaining a semi-ad-free revenue model that makes things mostly painless.
why the hell haven't you gotten any "funny" mods?
damn stingy moderators...
Are you nuts? Backups are INSANELY important in corporate culture. Veritas is the most widely used backup product, and so one can tie in with the established backup system. The backup environment you already have serving your windows, sun, and etc systems - hey, now you can backup SuSE on it too.
An OS has NO chance in a corporate environment if management can't pay an outside vendor for a backup product. For SuSE to be taken seriously, it *absolutely* needs people like veritas, legato, etc. to certify them.
the important point is that "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Given the right amounts of surface area and water, VIO-FREAKIN-LA, you're near a sphere there. Given 4 oz of water in an 8 oz "glass," (ie, those things we drink out of), you won't have a sphere. Gosh darn water! Why won't it make up its mind...
oh yeah - that's because no matter how many factors we bring up, more factors still exist! And bringing up new and exciting factors has NOTHING to do with the fact that "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Ya take all the freakin factors, line em up in a row, and the mommy duck goes "quack!" BOOM - your answer. Regardless the factors though, "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible." Factors, factors, factors. More factors please! Lets make this so far away from the point its beyond-silly.
And yes - thank you. I am master of the universe. However - you made a bad implication again. I wouldn't be working with linus - I'd be a carpenter. No money in it, unfortunately :( Granted though, this implication was FAR less unfounded. I just said "lots of folks." I am not "lots of folks," I'm me. I was trying to appeal to the general /. freak.
From dear old webster...
."
"Main Entry: possible
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin possibilis, from posse to be able, from potis, pote able + esse to be -- more at POTENT, IS
Date: 14th century
1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization b : being what may be done or may occur according to nature, custom, or manners
2 a : being something that may or may not occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual
3 : having an indicated potential
synonyms POSSIBLE, PRACTICABLE, FEASIBLE mean capable of being realized. POSSIBLE implies that a thing may certainly exist or occur given the proper conditions . PRACTICABLE implies that something may be effected by available means or under current conditions . FEASIBLE applies to what is likely to work or be useful in attaining the end desired
That's a pretty crazy implication you took from what I said. I asked a rhetorical question. In no way is there an indication in that question that water has minimized its surface area. It has minimized it so much as is possible (what with that darn gravity thing), but that simple question justifies no such implications. Yes - omg - there is a geometric shape (sphere) that would have less surface area. Unfortunately for the water, it is impossible for it to assume that shape in its current situation. How very sad :(
Second - how about I actually make this complicated and point a high-speed fan into the glass? Crap - the water just went everywhere, and the glass flew against the wall and broke. Does that mean gravity was unimportant? Err...no. Just another factor/force, babe. More than one is determining what shape the water will hold. What if I put the glass on a hotplate and raised it to 213 degrees? There it goes again, changing its shape. Damn water!!!
The water wants to have the least amount of surface area it can. Big mean ol gravity steps in though and says "ha! you must do as I say" and forces it to the bottom of the glass. The water still has the least surface area *possible*, because the realm of possibility is being dictated by gravity. Same with the pen - the ink in the pen goes away from the ball when you hold it upside down.
Damn - I thought we were making progress here. Thanks for destroying my hopes. Guess that's what I get for being an optimist. Sigh.
Since I know you are great with examples, here's one: I am currently dating the greatest (or least, take your pick) # of supermodels possible. That which is "possible" in such a situation is dictated by a few things:
my looks
my income
my assets (ie, $1mill in income with no assets is not as good as $500thou in income with $100mill in assets)
my education
my charisma, charm, etc
my pedigree/background
actually running into/talking to a supermodel.
So say I was a good looking guy that was a senior solaris admin at a financial corp. Then lets say I was on my way up an elevator, and in stepped a supermodel - why? who knows. So my income isn't what she'd really like, and I'm only "good looking," but she finds me funny, and I sing her a few songs and write her a poem. Then she decides to date me.
Viola! Not impossible, really. Highly unlikely, but that's just because its more complex than water in a glass. The point is that I can be super rich, super hot, super charming, super educated, blah blah - but if I don't actually come in *contact* with a supermodel, I can't ever date one. The other factors are important, but less so (some might even be lacking, so long as I have most). Without contact though, its impossible.
Back to the glass - gravity dictates the surface area that is possible. What is also really important is the shape of the container! Lots of important factors.
But in the end, "water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such." Do I REALLY need to go into such detail and explanation to suit your pride? Yeesh. More than one factor is in play. We live in this thing called a "universe" where there is this whole environment thing...outside forces exert control over things. "strong" forces, "Weak" forces, "use the force, Luke," all over the place. A vast, complex universe that, in the end, culminates into exactly what will happen. The water doesn't assume the shape it does from personal choice - it assumes said shape because of the environment it is in. Otherwise, lots of folks would simply "choose" to be dating Angelina Jolie, working with Linus, and owning a large highly-connected island. While these things are not impossible, there are all sorts of things that need to occur first...and in the end, it will be "gravity" that brings us back to earth from our trip in the clouds. Nice tie-up. Wow, pat myself on the back.
Note that I also think its cute that once I mentioned your pride, you mentioned my honor. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess ;) But I might just be mentioning this because I'm an ass sometimes. Who knows! [grin]
The answer remains an obvious "no," and in the context of the rest of the original post, makes the intended point. In your last post (previous to this one) you comment on my sticking to that point - well, yeah - water still stays in the glass here on earth. Gravity still wins (thereby being fairly important, really). That I can at least continue to say with a clear conscience. On the other hand, you continue to say you understood/understand my original point, when you obviously did/do not. If you understood that it was a rhetorical question, why did you answer it? Do you really think I needed/wanted to have the cause of surface area explained, and then related to gravity? No - I neither needed nor wanted it. They were obvious rhetorical (meaning: no need to answer, because it is obvious). Gravity is important. It can easily prevent the pen from working, in most the positions one could hold it in.
Back to space (pens, not our brains): a pen in space doesn't have gravity to deal with really. The claim that only surface tension is important (and that gravity specifically was not) was rather rediculous.
but we digress - the point is that you simply misunderstood the original example I gave, and have gone on and on about it. We're pretty much in agreement everywhere else (we're both babbling, for instance...). From my viewpoint, the whole disagreement is simply due to you not understanding that the water/glass/no-gravity thing was an example of what you have said you agree with. You just didn't get the connection. I've looked it over to see if I perhaps could have used a better example, but - no, that's a pretty good one. It encompasses all I was trying to casually point out 100 years ago.
Holy crap - see? I knew you would agree. You just, for whatever reason, don't grasp the concept of a "rhetorical question," and you don't think that I know the difference between a cylinder and a sphere. I assumed since your response was 500 pages long (note: its called sarcasm) that page 498 was like pages 1-497...I got bored and skipped to the end. Pointless ramblings tend to do that to people (mine do all the time). I guess score is 1 idiot point for me, 2 for you now.
You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say with the water in a glass thing - though oddly enough, you say you agree with what it demonstrates. Here on earth, gravity wins out (just like in a ball point pen). The water stays in the glass. In space, the water leaves the glass. In a sealed container, like a ballpoint pen, that isn't necessarily an option. So the ink flows around in the pen, not having any particular idea where to go specifically (note: just humour in general). It randomly bumps into the ball point occassionally, tossing some of itself aside on to the escape hatch. Gravity isn't necessary for the pen to work, but it can certainly keep it from working.
Lets see if you can get this example: sugar isn't necessary for my car engine to work, but it sure as hell can keep it from working. Sugar therefore, for a properly working pen, is very important. One need not take it into effect as much as gravity (gravity always being present here on earth, sugar not always being flung into gas tanks) but it still is important. Damn important - to keep from harming the intended functioning.
SIGH. No, water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot.
ok, that last line again - with feeling. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot
It DOES have the least surface area possible. ALWAYS. Gravity just throws in its 2 cents to help the water decide what is "possible." Did I define "surface area" anywhere? Who's post are you reading and thinking is mine?
Now if -you- would actually read my posts, you might not need to babble. You said my whole analysis was completely wrong - now you say " don't mention anything about gravity or ball point pens because i wasn't commenting on that." Well guess what - I was commenting on that. Thanks for admiting you're not reading what I'm writing. Lets look at the only senetence in which I used the words "water" and/or "glass," shall we?
Would the water in a glass stay in the glass - with the least amount of surface possible - if it was in a zero-gravity environment?
Its called a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no - and leads to the point I was making. A point, btw, that you would probably agree with if you weren't so insistant upon being an idiot.
No, all this means is that they want something with better encryption. Even if they had a dozen fully functional "quantum computers" that were able to do spectacular computations in an instant (ah, that lovely superposition...) that wouldn't mean that they should just suddenly give up and use weak encryption. Better that only a few people in the world could break it with ease, than that anyone with $100k could build a sufficient cluster to do it quickly...
SIGH. No, water in a glass DOES have the least amount of surface area possible. A liquid will ALWAYS have such. Gravity dictates the threshold of possibility, idiot.
And completely flawed, even when its just that one portion you didn't grasp? Whatever. Write with a pen on a wall. Then tell me gravity has nothing to do with it. My point was that it wasn't a big deal because gravity doesn't necessarily need to pull the ink to the ball, so long as it isn't pulling the ink away from the ball. I was quite clear on that, even. Gravity does in fact play an important role. It keeps the water in the glass, and it keeps the pen from working when writing sideways or upsidedown.
Surface tension is the important factor for all pens, not gravity.
Really? How about we do a little experiment then. Take a pen, and write on a wall. Or maybe even write something upside-down.
Soon, you'll find that the pen doesn't work. Why? Because ink is being actively pulled away from the ball by gravity. All his ability to write in space does is prove that the ink doesn't have to be pulled to the ball, so long as its not pulled away from it. Makes sense - the ink is just wandering around inside the cartridge, and still bumps into the ball. I'll buy that.
Additionally - I don't suppose you'd care to explain to us perhaps what causes surface tension in the first place? Would the water in a glass stay in the glass - with the least amount of surface possible - if it was in a zero-gravity environment?
Someone is not rocket-scientist material...
second: heh...its the complete list (of spelling errors, at least). I play games - fun ones. Were I to be writting a critique to be posted on the front page of Slashdot (or anywhere else) then I would not play said games. Were I to be writing a review of a published book in which I was complaining about "grammar and sentence structure," I would at the very least run my review through a spell checker. Then I'd read it, and make sure that it didn't sound worse than what I was reviewing.
...and on that note, my post was no where near as bad, even with purposeful mistakes, as the review was ;)
ummm...err...
"Your fleas have green spots" is correct. "Your fleas has green spots" is incorrect.
"Your green-spotted flea has bad breath" is correct. "Your green-spotted flea have bad breath" is incorrect.
Is subject-verb agreement not taught in school anymore? "Prentice Hall" is the name for a company. It therefore uses "has," not "have." Doesn't matter if you're in England, the US, or...wherever.
my high-horse?
my point is that any review that has complaints about grammar but isn't remotely close to being written well is suspect. Why should I believe him when he says that the book is poorly written, when he is obviously so poorly read?
LOL...troll? how was that troll?
whatever. They give anyone mod points - even 6-digit folk.