We take hold of a warm object, for example. The scientist will tell us: What
you are calling the heat or warmth is the effect on your own nerves.
Objectively, there is the movement of molecules and atoms. These you can
study, after the laws of mechanics. So then they study the laws of
mechanics, of atoms and molecules; indeed, for a long time they imagined
that by so doing they would at last contrive to explain all the phenomena of
Nature. Today, of course, this hope is rather shaken. But even if we do
press forward to the atom with our thinking, even then we shall have to ask
-- and seek the answer by experiment -- How are the forces in the atom? How
does the mass reveal itself in its effects, -- how does it work? And if you
put this question, you must ask again: How will you recognize it? You can
only recognize the mass by its effects.
The customary way is to recognize the smallest unit bearer of mechanical
force by its effect, in answering this question: If such a particle brings
another minute particle -- say, a minute particle of matter weighing one
gramme -- into movement, there must he some force proceeding from the matter
in the one, which brings the other into movement. If then the given mass
brings the other mass, weighing one gramme, into movement in such a way that
the latter goes a centimetre a second faster in each successive second, the
former mass will have exerted a certain force. This force we are accustomed
to regard as a kind of universal unit. If we are then able to say of some
force that it is so many times greater than the force needed to make a
gramme go a centimetre a second quicker every second, we know the ratio
between the force in question and the chosen universal unit. If we express
it as a weight, it is 0.001019 grammes' weight. Indeed, to express what this
kind of force involves, we must have recourse to the balance -- the
weighing-machine. The unit force is equivalent to the downward thrust that
comes into play when 0.001019 grammes are being weighed. So then I have to
express myself in terms of something very outwardly real if I want to
approach what is called "mass" in this Universe. Howsoever I may think it
out, I can only express the concept "mass" by introducing what I get to know
in quite external ways, namely a weight. In the last resort, it is by a
weight that I express the mass, and even if I then go on to atomize it, I
still express it by a weight.
I have reminded you of all this, in order clearly to describe the point at
which we pass, from what can still be determined "a priori", into the realm
of real Nature. We need to be very clear on this point. The truths of
arithmetic, geometry and kinematics, -- these we undoubtedly determine apart
from external Nature. But we must also be clear, to what extent these truths
are applicable to that which meets us, in effect, from quite another side --
and, to begin with, in mechanics. Not till we get to mechanics, have we the
content of what we call "phenomenon of Nature".
All this was clear to Goethe. Only where we pass on from kinematics to
mechanics can we begin to speak at all of natural phenomena. Aware as he was
of this, he knew what is the only possible relation of Mathematics to
Natural Science, though Mathematics be ever so idolized even for this domain
of knowledge.
To bring this home, I will adduce one more example. Even as we may think of
the unit element, for the effects of Force in Nature, as a minute atom-like
body which would be able to impart an acceleration of a centimetre per
second per second to a gramme-weight, so too with every manifestation of
Force, we shall be able to say that the force proceeds from one direction
and works towards another. Thus we may well grow accustomed -- for all the
workings of Nature -- always to look for the points from which the forces
proceed. Precisely this has grown habitual, nay dominant, in Science. Indeed
in many instances we really find it so. There are whole fields of phenomena
which we can thus refer to the points from which the forces, dominating the
phenomena, proceed. We therefore call such forces "centric forces", inasmuch
as they always issue from point-centres. It is indeed right to think of
centric forces wherever we can find so many single points from which quite
definite forces, dominating a given field of phenomena, proceed. Now need
the forces always come into play. It may well be that the point-centre in
question only bears in it the possibility, the potentiality as it were, for
such a play of forces to arise, whereas the forces do not actually come into
play until the requisite conditions are fulfilled in the surrounding sphere.
We shall have instances of this during the next few days. It is as though
forces were concentrated at the points in question, -- forces however that
are not yet in action. Only when we bring about the necessary conditions,
will they call forth actual phenomena in their surroundings. Yet we must
recognize that in such point or space forces are concentrated, able
potentially to work on their environment.
This in effect is what we always look for, when speaking of the World in
terms of Physics. All physical research amounts to this: we follow up the
centric forces to their centres; we try to find the points from which
effects can issue, For this kind of effect in Nature, we ate obliged to
assume that there are centres, charged as it were with possibilities of
action in certain directions. And we have sundry means of measuring these
possibilities of action; we can express in stated measures, how strongly
such a point or centre has the potentiality of working. Speaking in general
terms, we call the measure of a force thus centred and concentrated a
"potential" or "potential force". In studying these effects of Nature we
then have to trace the potentials of the centric forces, -- so we may
formulate it. We look for centres which we then investigate as sources of
potential forces.
Such, in effect, is the line taken by that school of Science which is at
pains to express everything in mechanical terms. It looks for centric forces
and their potentials. In this respect our need will be to take one essential
step -- out into actual Nature -- whereby we shall grow fully conscious of the
fact: You cannot possibly understand any phenomenon in which Life plays a
part if you restrict yourself to this method, looking only for the
potentials of centric forces. Say you were studying the play of forces in an
animal or vegetable embryo or germ-cell; with this method you would never
find your way. No doubt it seems an ultimate ideal to the Science of today,
to understand even organic phenomena in terms of potentials, of centric
forces of some kind. It will be the dawn of a new world-conception in this
realm when it is recognized that the thing cannot be done in this way,
Phenomena in which Life is working can never be understood in terms of
centric forces. Why, in effect, -- why not? Diagrammatically, let us here
imagine that we are setting out to study transient, living phenomena of
Nature in terms of Physics. We look for centres, -- to study the potential
effects that may go out from such centres. Suppose we find the effect. If I
now calculate the potentials, say for the three points a, b and c, I find
that a will work thus and thus on A, B and C, or c on A', B' and C'; and so
on. I should thus get a notion of how the integral effects will be, in a
certain sphere, subject to the potentials of such and such centric forces.
Yet in this way I could never explain any process involving Life. In effect,
the forces that are essential to a living thing have no potential; they are
not centric forces. If at a given point d you tried to trace the physical
effects due to the influences of a, b and c, you would indeed be referring
to the effects to centric forces, and you could do so. But if you want to
study the effects of Life you can never do this. For these effects, there
are no centres such as a or b or c. Here you will only take the right
direction with your thinking when you speak thus: Say that at d there is
something alive. I look for the forces to which the life is subject. I shall
not find them in a, nor in b, nor in c, nor when I go still farther out. I
only find them when as it were I go to the very ends of the world -- and,
what is more, to the entire circumference at once. Taking my start from d, I
should have to go to the outermost ends of the Universe and imagine forces
to the working inward from the spherical circumference from all sides,
forces which in their interplay unite in d. It is the very opposite of the
centric forces with their potentials. How to calculate a potential for what
works inward from all sides, from the infinitudes of space? In the attempt,
I should have to dismember the forces; one total force would have to be
divided into ever smaller portions. Then I should get nearer and nearer the
edge of the World: -- the force would be completely sundered, and so would
all my calculation. Here in effect it is not centric forces; it is cosmic,
universal forces that are at work. Here, calculation ceases.
Once more, you have the leap -- the leap, this time, from that in Nature
which is not alive to that which is. In the investigation of Nature we shall
only find our way aright if we know what the leap is from Kinematics to
Mechanics, and again what the leap is from external, inorganic Nature into
those realms that are no longer accessible to calculation, -- where every
attempted calculation breaks asunder and every potential is dissolved away.
This second leap will take us from external inorganic Nature into living
Nature, and we must realize that calculation ceases where we want to
understand what is alive.
Rudolf Steiner, Light Course, Lecture 1, Stuttgart, 23rd December 1919.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/LightCrse/19 19 1223p01.html
> No major computer maker designs
> for low noise in the US.
correction - APPLE DOES.
- they reengineered the power supply on the iMac
so that it would run without a fan
- they engineered the G4-CUBE to be Convection Cooled
- they designed their notebooks to be QUIET
(the new iBook2 is VERY VERY QUIET).
it is only the PC manufacturers that don't 'waste' engineering resources on something as trivial as that aggravating DRONING FAN and HD NOISE...
- TRS-80 model 1
- PC 8088, PC-XT 8086
- Compaq 286
- AT&T Unix Boxen
- Mac128, Plus, II, IIcx, Quadra 700
- PowerBook Duo 230, 540c, iBook-RevA
- 386, 486, Pentium, II, III
- Dec Alpha
- SGI 320, PowerMac G4
- Others
out of all of these - the iBook2 is the QUIETEST.
i'm normally quite sensitive to all fan and motor noise - if i have the stereo turned on, but with no actualy signal running through the system - there's a slight low-level hiss coming from the speakers - and i consider that loud compared to the all quiet normally in my place.
the ibook-2 has no fan, and the hard drive is really quiet - from 4-5 feet away, i can hardly hear the motor spinning (the drive is mounted on rubber stand-offs), and i can only occasionally hear the disk RW accesses. the power saver is set so that it spins down the HD after 1 minute, but its is already so quiet - i hardly notice.
thank you steve - i can finally hear myself think! i am happy happy happy.:-)
in addition to inventing the mouse,
douglas englebart also invented the one-handed keyboard -- he actually did it better than this 'half keyboard' -- he 'chorded' an optimized set for the entire alphabet.
thus - he figured you could use one hand full-time for the MOUSE, and the other hand full-time for TEXT ENTRY - keeping both continuously active, and optimising the human-machine interaction.
there was a product back in the early 90's called "THE BAT" that allowed this sort of chorded input - and actually worked quite well. i'd like to find one if anyone knows where to still get them.
this half-keyboard is a devolution on that concept, and does so in order to retain the familiarity people have with the qwerty keyboard - but if you're going to switch, it'd be better to go all the way to an optimized layout like THE BAT.
i find the most important difference between keyboards if i'm doing a lot of typing is:
RUBBER KEYS vs SPRINGS
when i used a rubber-keys keyboard, i started developing tendonitis, and waking up with pains shooting through my wrist. since i've switched to a spring-based keyoard (a trusty old apple adjustable), the pain has gone away, and i can keep typing. when i go back to the rubber keys, the pain soon returns.
one of the better spring based keyboards was the original IBM PC-XT keyboard - you could type on that thing all day without getting sore. apple made a really good adjustable keyboard (split angle down the middle is adjusts) - this one works great.
alas - price concerns force almost all manufacturers to sell based on 'lowwest price is the law' - and the move generally to rubberized keyboards - but this is going to cost a lot of people in the long run -- with their wrists.
--| Earth Moves Around the Sun in an Ellipse? |-----
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/ Or bits.html
Copernicus in his deliberations bases his cosmic system upon three axioms.
The first is that the Earth rotates on its own North-South axis in 24
hours. The second principle on which Copernicus bases his picture of the
Heavens is that the Earth moves round the Sun. In its revolution round the
Sun the Earth itself, of course, also revolves in a certain way. This
rotation, however, does not occur round the North-South axis of the Earth,
which always points to the North Pole, but round the axis of the Ecliptic,
which, as we know, is at an angle with the Earth's own axis. Therefore the
Earth goes through a rotation during a 24-hour day round its own N. S.
Axis, and then, inasmuch as it performs approximately 365 such rotations
in the year, there is added another rotation, an annual rotation, if we
disregard the revolution round the Sun. The Earth, then, if it always
rotates thus, and then again revolves round the Sun, behaves like the Moon
as it rotates round the Earth, always turning the same side towards us.
The Earth does this too, inasmuch as it revolves round the Sun, but no on
the same axis as the one on which it rotates for the daily revolution. It
revolves through this 'yearly day' on another axis; this is an added
movement, besides the one taking place in the 24-hour day.
Copernicus' third principle is that not only does such a revolution of the
Earth take place round the North-South axis, but that there is yet a third
revolution which appears as a retrograde movement of the North-South axis
round the axis of the Ecliptic. Thereby, in a certain sense, the
revolution round the axis of the Ecliptic is canceled out. By reason of
this third revolution the Earth's axis continuously points to the North
celestial Pole (the Pole-Star). Whereas, by virtue of revolving round the
Sun, the Earth's axis would have to describe a circle, or an ellipse,
round the pole of the Ecliptic, its own revolution, which takes the
opposite direction (every time the Earth proceeds a little further its
axis rotates backwards), causes it to point continually to the North Pole.
Copernicus adopted this third principle, namely: The continued pointing of
the Earth's axis to the Pole comes about because, by a rotation of its own
- a kind of 'inclination' - ; it cancels out the other revolution. This
latter therefore has no effect in the course of the year, for it is
constantly being annulled.
In modern Astronomy, founded as it is on the Copernican system, it has
come about that the first two axioms are accepted and the third is
ignored. This third axiom is lightly brushed aside by saying that the
stars are so far away that the Earth-axis, remaining parallel to itself,
always points practically to the same spot. Thus it is assumed that the
North-South axis of the Earth, in its revolution, remains always parallel
to itself. This was not assumed by Copernicus; on the contrary, he assumed
a perpetual revolving of the Earth's axis. Modern Astronomy is therefore
not really based on the Copernican system, but accepts the first two
axioms because they are convenient and discards the third, thus becoming
lost in the prevarication that it is not necessary to suppose that the
Earth's axis itself must move in order to keep pointing to the same spot
in the Heavens, but that the place itself is so far away that even if the
axis does move parallel to itself it will still point to the same spot.
Anyone can see that this is a prevarication. To-day therefore we have a
'Copernican system' from which a most important element has actually been
discarded.
The development of modern Astronomy is presented in such a way that no one
notices that an important element is missing. Yet only in this way is it
possible to describe it all so neatly: "Here is the Sun the Earth goes
round in an ellipse with the Sun in one of the foci."
As time went on it became no longer possible to hold to the starting-point
of the Copernican theory, namely that the Sun stands still. A movement is
now attributed to the Sun, which is said to move forward with the whole
ellipse, perpetually creating new ellipses, so to speak (Fig. 3). It
became necessary to introduce the Sun's own movement, and this was done
simply by adding something new to the picture they had before. A
mathematical description is thus obtained which is admittedly convenient,
but few questions are asked as to its possibility or its reality. It is
only from the apparent movement of the stars that the Earth's movement is
deduced by this method. As we shall presently see, it is of great
significance whether or not one assumes a movement - ; which indeed must
be assumed - ; namely the aforesaid 'inclination' of the Earth's axis,
perpetually annulling the annual rotation. Resultant movements, after all,
are obtained by adding up the several movements. If one is left out, the
whole is no longer true. Thus the whole theory that the Earth moves round
the Sun in an ellipse comes into question.
Source: Astronomy Lectures, Rudolf Steiner, Stuttgart, January 2, 1921.
http://gate.cruzio.com/~e0yes/astronomy/l2.html
search in small pools, and propogate up the hierarchy.
the solution to p2p 'bog-down' is to split the search tasks
up into hierarchies. you search for N inside a given range.
if the result can't get found within that range, you propogate
the request of the tree. the tree is made of 'clusters'. the
problem then is how to dynamically allocate *which* tree and
cluster you are part of as users continuously move on and offline.
> Unfortunately, scientists have yet to stabilize
> the materials, which deteriorate quickly when
> exposed to air.
what worries me about this is how they keep bringing up the word 'ORGANIC' -- and then just tout the technical benefits of using LIVING MATTER, without ever a question to what it is they're actually doing to living things.
i mean - like regular materials don't 'DETERIORATE QUICKLY WHEN EXPOSED TO AIR' -- because they're not alive and growing. they want the living stuff to just GROW - BE USEFUL - and DON'T DIE -- on a massive scale. this seems to me to show a tremendous amount of disrespect for living things. i imagine they're only using MOLD or BACTERIA or some such, but doesn't anyone care if they're houseplants DIE? if we can hook up wires to a plant, and then eek the life out of it with electricity - well some people may not care, but its a bit like not telling people if they're eating genetically modified foods -- if you don't take care of your cell-phone, the PLANT in it will whither and die -- NO?
a release date for OS-X, aqua, faster G4s, a one inch thick powerbook with a 1152 x 780 screen, lots of power, and absolutely beautiful and functional design. a free OS-9.1 update for existing users, an MP3 ripper and DVD writers... and you listened: finder windows and apple menu are back. thank you.
if you could still make the apple menu work so that what you put into an actual directory would show up there (a system-wide user configurable launch menu is still necessary at a basic level). other than that...
once again - well done apple.
:)
--
the eye is created by the light, for the light (goethe)
why bother with a new interface that isn't as good as firewire, when firewire is already here, and runs at 400mbs instead of a measley 150mbs??
Re:What caused the Renaissance
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
> The Renaissance wasn't caused by new technologies,
> new technologies sprouted because of the Renaissance.
hear hear! i must agree with you completely!
making technology more human
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
one must press on into curent and future technical realities
and imbue them with the creative force of the human spirit.
"In the age of natural science, since about the middle of the
nineteenth century, the civilized activities of mankind are gradually
sliding downward, not only into the lowest regions of nature, but even
beneath nature. Technical science and industry become sub-nature.
"This makes it urgent for man to find in conscious experience a
knowledge of the spirit, wherein he will rise as high above nature as
in his sub-natural technical activities he sinks beneath her. He will
thus create within him the inner strength not to go under.
(From Rudolf Steiner's last published communication)
i work as a technical writer writing software manuals for more than five years. we regularly produce 2000+ page documents, and in my experience there isn't any other application that even comes *close* to the power of frameMaker for long-document processing.
its structured document approach, its base inclusion of paagraph and character styles *from the ground up*, and its ability to embed markers and tags in the document, its excellent search/replace functionality, book handling, cross-platform support (the loss of linux is bad!) and excellent postscript support make framemaker indispensible. it is easy to do things in framemaker that would take more than quadruple the time in microsoft word.
> I just don't get it?
> Religion has done nothing but harm
> in the history of man.
man - what do you know about religion.
any religion that does those things is not worthy of the name. what you are referring to is the failure of religion.
i was in dublin in september 2000 and bought a copy of the 'Book of Kells CD-ROM' - it gives just legible scans of every single page - worth the 20 pounds ($40) i paid for it - i imagine they are selling the CD-ROM until they can recoup their production costs - at which point they morally should publish it publically on the web like they have done with gutenberg. if you want any particular page of the book of kells, send me an email at: johnRpennner@earthlink-NOSPAM-.net and i'll email you over a jpeg from the specified page of the book of kells.
copyright exists to ensure musicians get paid. the other side is that
once an artist produces something - it goes beyond them and many
benefit.
between consumers and producers now stands record companies - but paying
artists is only a step on the way to gaining profit. in practice, many
musicians (who play instruments) starve, while marketing bimbos (spice
girls) thrive - this is wrong.
a fundemental qualitative difference between physical and electronic
goods is - if i have an apple and give you an apple, i no longer have an
apple; but if i have an idea and give you an idea, we BOTH have an idea.
therefore you cannot treat electronic things as if they were actually
physical goods, because they aren't! still, you must compensate
producers of the original bits - so what to do?
MUSICIANS ASSOCIATIONS:
- the physical distributors and merchandisers pay into the musician's pool that pays and feeds the musicians.
- the musicians pool distributes it equitably among its active producers.
- from the pool comes more new music. which is given away for free. unlimited digital copies for everyone, never again a dime paid for anything that's just DATA.
- distributors get fresh music, and sell and package more STUFF.
- distributors pay back a percentage of sales back into the pool.
- so it comes back and feeds itelf (the most important part).
so all software is free - you get mindshare from it. but if you make a
physical whose value lies on the free music on it, then a percentage
goes back. but the artist is not paid direct - it goes to the musician's
pool, which doles out shares each month by percentage of overall
downloads from Napster.
> I fail to see how it helps since you replace one three
> letter 'type of file' descriptor to be looked up in a
> database with two four letter ones which also have to be
> looked up in some form of database.
actually, in the mac implementation, there IS NO EXTERNAL DATABASE.
it works like this: you have an image file - say: myImage.tif
well, you can name it 'myImage' instead, and the creator and type
info will be: TIFF/8BIM -- when you open the file (i.e. double-click),
then the file system scans the directory tree for a file of
type 'APPL' (i.e. an application) which has a corresponding
TYPE resource (i.e. '8BIM') - then opens the file with that app.
in other words:
- the data file = 'myImage' - TIFF/APPL
- the application = TYPE='APPL', and reads '8BIM'.
therefore, no external database needed,
AND - no need to open files and read the first few bytes
in order to figure out what they are.
results:
- faster and more flexible file type determination over REGISTRY.
- more reliable (because no external databases to get corrupted).
> The problem is, how do you preserve this information when you
> copy the file? 'cp' doesn't understand it. Existing programs
> won't understand it. HTTP doesn't understand it. FTP doesn't.
> NFS doesn't, etc, etc...
>
> You'd have to rewrite all existing software to become aware
> of this extended information. So far, no one has taken up
> this task.
why are you saying 'it hasn't been done before,
so we can't do it now'?
software can always be improved. you've got to start somewhere.
this is an excellent opportunity. this would be the basis that
would need to exist FIRST so that it would become possible to
write this into the 'cp' command sometime in the future.
> Sounds nice, but what if, after creating the file,
> I don't want to open it up with whatever application
> created it to start with?
its easy to change the file extension by renaming the file. likewise, its easy to change the file TYPE & CREATOR with a command-line or gui 'Get File Info' type of command.
> Try renaming, for instance, a JPEG file to have a.txt
> extension -- and xv handles it fine.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the first few bytes in the file conform to what is
> expected of a JPEG. Open one up -- and there's a header
> inside. It really DOES NOT CARE about the extension.
>
> And, this is much saner than altering the filesystem...
this just formalises the process and makes it more reliable than depending on the not always reliable scanningn of the first few bytes of a file. its faster to read the type & creator off the directory than to scan the first few bytes of the file itself - you don't have to open it for a read then.
this technique has been used successufully for over ten years in the mac's HFS and HFS+ filing systems - so its realiability (of this one technique - not the whole OS itself!!) has been proven to be effective in elimng the need for a registry.
i really hope they use this excellent opportunity to
be able to get rid of REGISTRY TYPE TRACKING once and
for all.
basically all those little three letter extensions
that are used to keep track of the file type like
.txt.tif.jpg etc. are a cludge.
if you simply make one extra entry in the file directory
system (in addition to filename, date, block pointers) itself:
TYPE & CREATOR -- then you will never again need to keep track
of file types externally by a sort of 'Registry' file.
so, if you have a text file, you don't need to put.tif
on the end of it, simply, you would have the type and
creator of the file set to: 'TIFF' and '8BIM' which would
mean that its a TIFF file, and it should be opened by
photoshop if in a GUI you go and double-click it.
this approach makes it much more difficult for any
accidental SEPARATING of the file type info from the
info that determines which app should open it - and thus
makes the user-experience and OS less prone to error and
frusteration.
it would be simple to add - if only someone bothered to
put it in now - while the system is being determined.
its the bridge bit between all your wireless connections and the internet -> and BIF! its got a 56k modem - its got Ethernet.
there has never been a macintosh manufactured which didn't include a networking connection built-in. there has never been a powerPC macintosh manufactured which didn't come with ethernet.
- unix - ready for the year 2020 since 1972.
- macOS - ready for the year 29,950 since 1984.
- windows 98 - not ready for y2k in 1998.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
We take hold of a warm object, for example. The scientist will tell us: What
you are calling the heat or warmth is the effect on your own nerves.
Objectively, there is the movement of molecules and atoms. These you can
study, after the laws of mechanics. So then they study the laws of
mechanics, of atoms and molecules; indeed, for a long time they imagined
that by so doing they would at last contrive to explain all the phenomena of
Nature. Today, of course, this hope is rather shaken. But even if we do
press forward to the atom with our thinking, even then we shall have to ask
-- and seek the answer by experiment -- How are the forces in the atom? How
does the mass reveal itself in its effects, -- how does it work? And if you
put this question, you must ask again: How will you recognize it? You can
only recognize the mass by its effects.
The customary way is to recognize the smallest unit bearer of mechanical
force by its effect, in answering this question: If such a particle brings
another minute particle -- say, a minute particle of matter weighing one
gramme -- into movement, there must he some force proceeding from the matter
in the one, which brings the other into movement. If then the given mass
brings the other mass, weighing one gramme, into movement in such a way that
the latter goes a centimetre a second faster in each successive second, the
former mass will have exerted a certain force. This force we are accustomed
to regard as a kind of universal unit. If we are then able to say of some
force that it is so many times greater than the force needed to make a
gramme go a centimetre a second quicker every second, we know the ratio
between the force in question and the chosen universal unit. If we express
it as a weight, it is 0.001019 grammes' weight. Indeed, to express what this
kind of force involves, we must have recourse to the balance -- the
weighing-machine. The unit force is equivalent to the downward thrust that
comes into play when 0.001019 grammes are being weighed. So then I have to
express myself in terms of something very outwardly real if I want to
approach what is called "mass" in this Universe. Howsoever I may think it
out, I can only express the concept "mass" by introducing what I get to know
in quite external ways, namely a weight. In the last resort, it is by a
weight that I express the mass, and even if I then go on to atomize it, I
still express it by a weight.
I have reminded you of all this, in order clearly to describe the point at
which we pass, from what can still be determined "a priori", into the realm
of real Nature. We need to be very clear on this point. The truths of
arithmetic, geometry and kinematics, -- these we undoubtedly determine apart
from external Nature. But we must also be clear, to what extent these truths
are applicable to that which meets us, in effect, from quite another side --
and, to begin with, in mechanics. Not till we get to mechanics, have we the
content of what we call "phenomenon of Nature".
All this was clear to Goethe. Only where we pass on from kinematics to
mechanics can we begin to speak at all of natural phenomena. Aware as he was
of this, he knew what is the only possible relation of Mathematics to
Natural Science, though Mathematics be ever so idolized even for this domain
of knowledge.
To bring this home, I will adduce one more example. Even as we may think of
the unit element, for the effects of Force in Nature, as a minute atom-like
body which would be able to impart an acceleration of a centimetre per
second per second to a gramme-weight, so too with every manifestation of
Force, we shall be able to say that the force proceeds from one direction
and works towards another. Thus we may well grow accustomed -- for all the
workings of Nature -- always to look for the points from which the forces
proceed. Precisely this has grown habitual, nay dominant, in Science. Indeed
in many instances we really find it so. There are whole fields of phenomena
which we can thus refer to the points from which the forces, dominating the
phenomena, proceed. We therefore call such forces "centric forces", inasmuch
as they always issue from point-centres. It is indeed right to think of
centric forces wherever we can find so many single points from which quite
definite forces, dominating a given field of phenomena, proceed. Now need
the forces always come into play. It may well be that the point-centre in
question only bears in it the possibility, the potentiality as it were, for
such a play of forces to arise, whereas the forces do not actually come into
play until the requisite conditions are fulfilled in the surrounding sphere.
We shall have instances of this during the next few days. It is as though
forces were concentrated at the points in question, -- forces however that
are not yet in action. Only when we bring about the necessary conditions,
will they call forth actual phenomena in their surroundings. Yet we must
recognize that in such point or space forces are concentrated, able
potentially to work on their environment.
This in effect is what we always look for, when speaking of the World in
terms of Physics. All physical research amounts to this: we follow up the
centric forces to their centres; we try to find the points from which
effects can issue, For this kind of effect in Nature, we ate obliged to
assume that there are centres, charged as it were with possibilities of
action in certain directions. And we have sundry means of measuring these
possibilities of action; we can express in stated measures, how strongly
such a point or centre has the potentiality of working. Speaking in general
terms, we call the measure of a force thus centred and concentrated a
"potential" or "potential force". In studying these effects of Nature we
then have to trace the potentials of the centric forces, -- so we may
formulate it. We look for centres which we then investigate as sources of
potential forces.
Such, in effect, is the line taken by that school of Science which is at
pains to express everything in mechanical terms. It looks for centric forces
and their potentials. In this respect our need will be to take one essential
step -- out into actual Nature -- whereby we shall grow fully conscious of the
fact: You cannot possibly understand any phenomenon in which Life plays a
part if you restrict yourself to this method, looking only for the
potentials of centric forces. Say you were studying the play of forces in an
animal or vegetable embryo or germ-cell; with this method you would never
find your way. No doubt it seems an ultimate ideal to the Science of today,
to understand even organic phenomena in terms of potentials, of centric
forces of some kind. It will be the dawn of a new world-conception in this
realm when it is recognized that the thing cannot be done in this way,
Phenomena in which Life is working can never be understood in terms of
centric forces. Why, in effect, -- why not? Diagrammatically, let us here
imagine that we are setting out to study transient, living phenomena of
Nature in terms of Physics. We look for centres, -- to study the potential
effects that may go out from such centres. Suppose we find the effect. If I
now calculate the potentials, say for the three points a, b and c, I find
that a will work thus and thus on A, B and C, or c on A', B' and C'; and so
on. I should thus get a notion of how the integral effects will be, in a
certain sphere, subject to the potentials of such and such centric forces.
Yet in this way I could never explain any process involving Life. In effect,
the forces that are essential to a living thing have no potential; they are
not centric forces. If at a given point d you tried to trace the physical
effects due to the influences of a, b and c, you would indeed be referring
to the effects to centric forces, and you could do so. But if you want to
study the effects of Life you can never do this. For these effects, there
are no centres such as a or b or c. Here you will only take the right
direction with your thinking when you speak thus: Say that at d there is
something alive. I look for the forces to which the life is subject. I shall
not find them in a, nor in b, nor in c, nor when I go still farther out. I
only find them when as it were I go to the very ends of the world -- and,
what is more, to the entire circumference at once. Taking my start from d, I
should have to go to the outermost ends of the Universe and imagine forces
to the working inward from the spherical circumference from all sides,
forces which in their interplay unite in d. It is the very opposite of the
centric forces with their potentials. How to calculate a potential for what
works inward from all sides, from the infinitudes of space? In the attempt,
I should have to dismember the forces; one total force would have to be
divided into ever smaller portions. Then I should get nearer and nearer the
edge of the World: -- the force would be completely sundered, and so would
all my calculation. Here in effect it is not centric forces; it is cosmic,
universal forces that are at work. Here, calculation ceases.
Once more, you have the leap -- the leap, this time, from that in Nature
which is not alive to that which is. In the investigation of Nature we shall
only find our way aright if we know what the leap is from Kinematics to
Mechanics, and again what the leap is from external, inorganic Nature into
those realms that are no longer accessible to calculation, -- where every
attempted calculation breaks asunder and every potential is dissolved away.
This second leap will take us from external inorganic Nature into living
Nature, and we must realize that calculation ceases where we want to
understand what is alive.
Rudolf Steiner, Light Course, Lecture 1, Stuttgart, 23rd December 1919.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/LightCrse/1
--
regards,
johnRpenner.
Apple Includes ability to RIP/BURN MP3 and CDs
without any limitations as a standard feature of OS 9.1.
iTunes & Disk Burner 1.0 are better than Toast for this, and it burns 'in the background' while you continue to work.
regards,
johnRpenner.
> No major computer maker designs
> for low noise in the US.
correction - APPLE DOES.
- they reengineered the power supply on the iMac
so that it would run without a fan
- they engineered the G4-CUBE to be Convection Cooled
- they designed their notebooks to be QUIET
(the new iBook2 is VERY VERY QUIET).
it is only the PC manufacturers that don't 'waste' engineering resources on something as trivial as that aggravating DRONING FAN and HD NOISE...
regards,
j.
picked up an iBook-2 last week, and it is QUIET!
i've used quite a number of computers:
- TRS-80 model 1
- PC 8088, PC-XT 8086
- Compaq 286
- AT&T Unix Boxen
- Mac128, Plus, II, IIcx, Quadra 700
- PowerBook Duo 230, 540c, iBook-RevA
- 386, 486, Pentium, II, III
- Dec Alpha
- SGI 320, PowerMac G4
- Others
out of all of these - the iBook2 is the QUIETEST.
i'm normally quite sensitive to all fan and motor noise - if i have the stereo turned on, but with no actualy signal running through the system - there's a slight low-level hiss coming from the speakers - and i consider that loud compared to the all quiet normally in my place.
the ibook-2 has no fan, and the hard drive is really quiet - from 4-5 feet away, i can hardly hear the motor spinning (the drive is mounted on rubber stand-offs), and i can only occasionally hear the disk RW accesses. the power saver is set so that it spins down the HD after 1 minute, but its is already so quiet - i hardly notice.
thank you steve - i can finally hear myself think! i am happy happy happy.
regards,
johnRpenner.
in addition to inventing the mouse,
douglas englebart also invented the one-handed keyboard -- he actually did it better than this 'half keyboard' -- he 'chorded' an optimized set for the entire alphabet.
thus - he figured you could use one hand full-time for the MOUSE, and the other hand full-time for TEXT ENTRY - keeping both continuously active, and optimising the human-machine interaction.
there was a product back in the early 90's called "THE BAT" that allowed this sort of chorded input - and actually worked quite well. i'd like to find one if anyone knows where to still get them.
this half-keyboard is a devolution on that concept, and does so in order to retain the familiarity people have with the qwerty keyboard - but if you're going to switch, it'd be better to go all the way to an optimized layout like THE BAT.
regards,
johnRpenner.
i find the most important difference between keyboards if i'm doing a lot of typing is:
RUBBER KEYS vs SPRINGS
when i used a rubber-keys keyboard, i started developing tendonitis, and waking up with pains shooting through my wrist. since i've switched to a spring-based keyoard (a trusty old apple adjustable), the pain has gone away, and i can keep typing. when i go back to the rubber keys, the pain soon returns.
one of the better spring based keyboards was the original IBM PC-XT keyboard - you could type on that thing all day without getting sore. apple made a really good adjustable keyboard (split angle down the middle is adjusts) - this one works great.
alas - price concerns force almost all manufacturers to sell based on 'lowwest price is the law' - and the move generally to rubberized keyboards - but this is going to cost a lot of people in the long run -- with their wrists.
johnRpenner.
--| Earth Moves Around the Sun in an Ellipse? |-----
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles
Copernicus in his deliberations bases his cosmic system upon three axioms.
The first is that the Earth rotates on its own North-South axis in 24
hours. The second principle on which Copernicus bases his picture of the
Heavens is that the Earth moves round the Sun. In its revolution round the
Sun the Earth itself, of course, also revolves in a certain way. This
rotation, however, does not occur round the North-South axis of the Earth,
which always points to the North Pole, but round the axis of the Ecliptic,
which, as we know, is at an angle with the Earth's own axis. Therefore the
Earth goes through a rotation during a 24-hour day round its own N. S.
Axis, and then, inasmuch as it performs approximately 365 such rotations
in the year, there is added another rotation, an annual rotation, if we
disregard the revolution round the Sun. The Earth, then, if it always
rotates thus, and then again revolves round the Sun, behaves like the Moon
as it rotates round the Earth, always turning the same side towards us.
The Earth does this too, inasmuch as it revolves round the Sun, but no on
the same axis as the one on which it rotates for the daily revolution. It
revolves through this 'yearly day' on another axis; this is an added
movement, besides the one taking place in the 24-hour day.
Copernicus' third principle is that not only does such a revolution of the
Earth take place round the North-South axis, but that there is yet a third
revolution which appears as a retrograde movement of the North-South axis
round the axis of the Ecliptic. Thereby, in a certain sense, the
revolution round the axis of the Ecliptic is canceled out. By reason of
this third revolution the Earth's axis continuously points to the North
celestial Pole (the Pole-Star). Whereas, by virtue of revolving round the
Sun, the Earth's axis would have to describe a circle, or an ellipse,
round the pole of the Ecliptic, its own revolution, which takes the
opposite direction (every time the Earth proceeds a little further its
axis rotates backwards), causes it to point continually to the North Pole.
Copernicus adopted this third principle, namely: The continued pointing of
the Earth's axis to the Pole comes about because, by a rotation of its own
- a kind of 'inclination' - ; it cancels out the other revolution. This
latter therefore has no effect in the course of the year, for it is
constantly being annulled.
In modern Astronomy, founded as it is on the Copernican system, it has
come about that the first two axioms are accepted and the third is
ignored. This third axiom is lightly brushed aside by saying that the
stars are so far away that the Earth-axis, remaining parallel to itself,
always points practically to the same spot. Thus it is assumed that the
North-South axis of the Earth, in its revolution, remains always parallel
to itself. This was not assumed by Copernicus; on the contrary, he assumed
a perpetual revolving of the Earth's axis. Modern Astronomy is therefore
not really based on the Copernican system, but accepts the first two
axioms because they are convenient and discards the third, thus becoming
lost in the prevarication that it is not necessary to suppose that the
Earth's axis itself must move in order to keep pointing to the same spot
in the Heavens, but that the place itself is so far away that even if the
axis does move parallel to itself it will still point to the same spot.
Anyone can see that this is a prevarication. To-day therefore we have a
'Copernican system' from which a most important element has actually been
discarded.
The development of modern Astronomy is presented in such a way that no one
notices that an important element is missing. Yet only in this way is it
possible to describe it all so neatly: "Here is the Sun the Earth goes
round in an ellipse with the Sun in one of the foci."
As time went on it became no longer possible to hold to the starting-point
of the Copernican theory, namely that the Sun stands still. A movement is
now attributed to the Sun, which is said to move forward with the whole
ellipse, perpetually creating new ellipses, so to speak (Fig. 3). It
became necessary to introduce the Sun's own movement, and this was done
simply by adding something new to the picture they had before. A
mathematical description is thus obtained which is admittedly convenient,
but few questions are asked as to its possibility or its reality. It is
only from the apparent movement of the stars that the Earth's movement is
deduced by this method. As we shall presently see, it is of great
significance whether or not one assumes a movement - ; which indeed must
be assumed - ; namely the aforesaid 'inclination' of the Earth's axis,
perpetually annulling the annual rotation. Resultant movements, after all,
are obtained by adding up the several movements. If one is left out, the
whole is no longer true. Thus the whole theory that the Earth moves round
the Sun in an ellipse comes into question.
Source: Astronomy Lectures, Rudolf Steiner, Stuttgart, January 2, 1921.
http://gate.cruzio.com/~e0yes/astronomy/l2.html
--
you are a gem man!
good fortune unto the true heart of GPL.
but they couldn't resist the idea of getting wired again...
search in small pools, and propogate up the hierarchy.
the solution to p2p 'bog-down' is to split the search tasks
up into hierarchies. you search for N inside a given range.
if the result can't get found within that range, you propogate
the request of the tree. the tree is made of 'clusters'. the
problem then is how to dynamically allocate *which* tree and
cluster you are part of as users continuously move on and offline.
> Unfortunately, scientists have yet to stabilize
> the materials, which deteriorate quickly when
> exposed to air.
what worries me about this is how they keep bringing up the word 'ORGANIC' -- and then just tout the technical benefits of using LIVING MATTER, without ever a question to what it is they're actually doing to living things.
i mean - like regular materials don't 'DETERIORATE QUICKLY WHEN EXPOSED TO AIR' -- because they're not alive and growing. they want the living stuff to just GROW - BE USEFUL - and DON'T DIE -- on a massive scale. this seems to me to show a tremendous amount of disrespect for living things. i imagine they're only using MOLD or BACTERIA or some such, but doesn't anyone care if they're houseplants DIE? if we can hook up wires to a plant, and then eek the life out of it with electricity - well some people may not care, but its a bit like not telling people if they're eating genetically modified foods -- if you don't take care of your cell-phone, the PLANT in it will whither and die -- NO?
a release date for OS-X, aqua, faster G4s, a one inch thick powerbook with a 1152 x 780 screen, lots of power, and absolutely beautiful and functional design. a free OS-9.1 update for existing users, an MP3 ripper and DVD writers... and you listened: finder windows and apple menu are back. thank you.
if you could still make the apple menu work so that what you put into an actual directory would show up there (a system-wide user configurable launch menu is still necessary at a basic level). other than that...
once again - well done apple.
:)
--
the eye is created by the light, for the light (goethe)
why bother with a new interface that isn't as good as firewire, when firewire is already here, and runs at 400mbs instead of a measley 150mbs??
> The Renaissance wasn't caused by new technologies,
> new technologies sprouted because of the Renaissance.
hear hear! i must agree with you completely!
one must press on into curent and future technical realities
and imbue them with the creative force of the human spirit.
"In the age of natural science, since about the middle of the
nineteenth century, the civilized activities of mankind are gradually
sliding downward, not only into the lowest regions of nature, but even
beneath nature. Technical science and industry become sub-nature.
"This makes it urgent for man to find in conscious experience a
knowledge of the spirit, wherein he will rise as high above nature as
in his sub-natural technical activities he sinks beneath her. He will
thus create within him the inner strength not to go under.
(From Rudolf Steiner's last published communication)
regards,
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner
i work as a technical writer writing software manuals for more than five years. we regularly produce 2000+ page documents, and in my experience there isn't any other application that even comes *close* to the power of frameMaker for long-document processing.
its structured document approach, its base inclusion of paagraph and character styles *from the ground up*, and its ability to embed markers and tags in the document, its excellent search/replace functionality, book handling, cross-platform support (the loss of linux is bad!) and excellent postscript support make framemaker indispensible. it is easy to do things in framemaker that would take more than quadruple the time in microsoft word.
framemaker is the the technical writer's friend.
regards,
john penner.
( http://www.sidefx.com )
> I just don't get it?
> Religion has done nothing but harm
> in the history of man.
man - what do you know about religion.
any religion that does those things is not worthy of the name. what you are referring to is the failure of religion.
i was in dublin in september 2000 and bought a copy of the 'Book of Kells CD-ROM' - it gives just legible scans of every single page - worth the 20 pounds ($40) i paid for it - i imagine they are selling the CD-ROM until they can recoup their production costs - at which point they morally should publish it publically on the web like they have done with gutenberg. if you want any particular page of the book of kells, send me an email at: johnRpennner@earthlink-NOSPAM-.net and i'll email you over a jpeg from the specified page of the book of kells.
regards,
john.
copyright exists to ensure musicians get paid. the other side is that
/ Steiner-Social.html
once an artist produces something - it goes beyond them and many
benefit.
between consumers and producers now stands record companies - but paying
artists is only a step on the way to gaining profit. in practice, many
musicians (who play instruments) starve, while marketing bimbos (spice
girls) thrive - this is wrong.
a fundemental qualitative difference between physical and electronic
goods is - if i have an apple and give you an apple, i no longer have an
apple; but if i have an idea and give you an idea, we BOTH have an idea.
therefore you cannot treat electronic things as if they were actually
physical goods, because they aren't! still, you must compensate
producers of the original bits - so what to do?
MUSICIANS ASSOCIATIONS:
- the physical distributors and merchandisers pay into the musician's pool that pays and feeds the musicians.
- the musicians pool distributes it equitably among its active producers.
- from the pool comes more new music. which is given away for free. unlimited digital copies for everyone, never again a dime paid for anything that's just DATA.
- distributors get fresh music, and sell and package more STUFF.
- distributors pay back a percentage of sales back into the pool.
- so it comes back and feeds itelf (the most important part).
so all software is free - you get mindshare from it. but if you make a
physical whose value lies on the free music on it, then a percentage
goes back. but the artist is not paid direct - it goes to the musician's
pool, which doles out shares each month by percentage of overall
downloads from Napster.
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles
WHOOPS! -- i mean:
- the data file = 'myImage' - TIFF/8BIM
- the application = TYPE='APPL', and reads '8BIM'
> I fail to see how it helps since you replace one three
> letter 'type of file' descriptor to be looked up in a
> database with two four letter ones which also have to be
> looked up in some form of database.
actually, in the mac implementation, there IS NO EXTERNAL DATABASE.
it works like this: you have an image file - say: myImage.tif
well, you can name it 'myImage' instead, and the creator and type
info will be: TIFF/8BIM -- when you open the file (i.e. double-click),
then the file system scans the directory tree for a file of
type 'APPL' (i.e. an application) which has a corresponding
TYPE resource (i.e. '8BIM') - then opens the file with that app.
in other words:
- the data file = 'myImage' - TIFF/APPL
- the application = TYPE='APPL', and reads '8BIM'.
therefore, no external database needed,
AND - no need to open files and read the first few bytes
in order to figure out what they are.
results:
- faster and more flexible file type determination over REGISTRY.
- more reliable (because no external databases to get corrupted).
> The problem is, how do you preserve this information when you
> copy the file? 'cp' doesn't understand it. Existing programs
> won't understand it. HTTP doesn't understand it. FTP doesn't.
> NFS doesn't, etc, etc...
>
> You'd have to rewrite all existing software to become aware
> of this extended information. So far, no one has taken up
> this task.
why are you saying 'it hasn't been done before,
so we can't do it now'?
software can always be improved. you've got to start somewhere.
this is an excellent opportunity. this would be the basis that
would need to exist FIRST so that it would become possible to
write this into the 'cp' command sometime in the future.
j.
> Sounds nice, but what if, after creating the file,
.txt
> I don't want to open it up with whatever application
> created it to start with?
its easy to change the file extension by renaming the file. likewise, its easy to change the file TYPE & CREATOR with a command-line or gui 'Get File Info' type of command.
> Try renaming, for instance, a JPEG file to have a
> extension -- and xv handles it fine.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the first few bytes in the file conform to what is
> expected of a JPEG. Open one up -- and there's a header
> inside. It really DOES NOT CARE about the extension.
>
> And, this is much saner than altering the filesystem...
this just formalises the process and makes it more reliable than depending on the not always reliable scanningn of the first few bytes of a file. its faster to read the type & creator off the directory than to scan the first few bytes of the file itself - you don't have to open it for a read then.
this technique has been used successufully for over ten years in the mac's HFS and HFS+ filing systems - so its realiability (of this one technique - not the whole OS itself!!) has been proven to be effective in elimng the need for a registry.
regards,
john.
TYPE & CREATOR CODES
i really hope they use this excellent opportunity to
be able to get rid of REGISTRY TYPE TRACKING once and
for all.
basically all those little three letter extensions
that are used to keep track of the file type like
.txt
if you simply make one extra entry in the file directory
system (in addition to filename, date, block pointers) itself:
TYPE & CREATOR -- then you will never again need to keep track
of file types externally by a sort of 'Registry' file.
so, if you have a text file, you don't need to put
on the end of it, simply, you would have the type and
creator of the file set to: 'TIFF' and '8BIM' which would
mean that its a TIFF file, and it should be opened by
photoshop if in a GUI you go and double-click it.
this approach makes it much more difficult for any
accidental SEPARATING of the file type info from the
info that determines which app should open it - and thus
makes the user-experience and OS less prone to error and
frusteration.
it would be simple to add - if only someone bothered to
put it in now - while the system is being determined.
please consider this.
regards,
johnrpenner@earthlink-NOSPAM-.net
its the bridge bit between all your wireless connections and the internet -> and BIF! its got a 56k modem - its got Ethernet.
there has never been a macintosh manufactured which didn't include a networking connection built-in. there has never been a powerPC macintosh manufactured which didn't come with ethernet.
- unix - ready for the year 2020 since 1972.
- macOS - ready for the year 29,950 since 1984.
- windows 98 - not ready for y2k in 1998.