That seems like a reasonable milestone for reserving judgement. If we haven't heard anything at all by then, it'll probably be a safe assumption that nothing good will come of it.
How about we wait until we've actually heard from him before we jump to conclusions. It's always possible that he'll either be marginally effective or that he'll bail out once he decides he can't accomplish anything useful.
Microsoft has seen their leverage in the browser market disappear just because their market share went from greater than 95% to less than 80%. They still have the lion's share of the browser market, but alternatives are compelling enough that MS can no longer control the market.
Having seen how this works, MS is now afraid that the same thing will happen in the market that MS Office currently dominates. How much share does a competitor need to break Microsoft's grip? 10%? 5%? 3%? Nobody knows and Microsoft isn't willing to gamble this time. That's why they are making such an enormous effort to fight the erosion of their market share.
I do think it's a losing battle. The bigger the fuss MS makes, the more credibility they give to the debate as a whole.
Try Target. I regularly shop at 2 different Target stores and for at least the last month, they've both had Wii's for sale every time I've bothered to look.
I suspect that if you dug a little deeper, you would find that the scientists who are running experiments at Fermilab are, largely, the same scientists that will be running experiments at CERN once it's completed.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You see, it's the scientists who get the grants, not the collider, and the scientists will rent time on whatever collider they think is suitable for their experiments.
If we run a bunch of tests and they all agree with the current model, then that doesn't prove anything. However, if we run a single test and it disagrees with the model, then we've proved that there is something wrong with the current model and the model is either adapted or replaced.
For some reason I found FVWM to be more to my liking. I liked how by default it did almost nothing, but could be configured for any behavior I could think up (some behaviors are less trivial than others).
They don't really need to advertise...the people who are interested in this sort of thing already know about through such channels as slashdot, digg, heck, i read about it on google news.
Dell has no illusions about selling Linux installed machines to regular users.
Since the two processes are in series, their efficiencies would multiply, not add. So, if we have a process that is 4% efficient drawing heat from the reservoir and a second process that is 97% efficient at placing heat into the reservoir, the system as a whole is only 3.88% efficient (.04 *.97). If both processes were 99% efficient, the system as a whole would be 98% efficient (.99 *.99).
To violate the 2nd law and build a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, the system efficiency has to be at least 100% which means that either both processes must be exactly 100% efficient or that at least one of the processes has to have an efficiency greater than 100%.
Once you've learned the power of ex, vim will stop feeling like a bi-modal interface "bolted" on top of ex and will instead feel like a tri-modal editor. Once you make that leap, you'll never want to go back to anything else.
To put it another way, if you could find either an air conditioner or a power plant that was not limited by the Carnot Theorem then you could use your air conditioner to generate the temperature difference to run your power plant and you could use the electricity from your power plant to run your air conditioner all while having electricity left over to power your television (i.e. you'd get free energy from your power plant - no more having to burn coal).
I'm still not buying this.
Let's say that for a given heat gradient, the Carnot efficiency is 3%. Are you saying that if I had some magical process that was 4% efficient for the same heat gradient that I could build a perpetual motion machine? That can't be right. Even if my magical process was 99% efficient, as long as it's less than 100% efficient, I still haven't violated the 2nd law (although I have beaten Carnot).
I have a suspicion that neither of us is actually making the argument that the other thinks he is. Certainly, your post is entirely too rational and well written for you to be making the argument that it seems to me that you're making.
Carnot's theorem applies to any thermal machine. The actual implementation doesn't matter.
Is that true? I thought it only applied to engines that used gas expansion/contraction to extract work from a heat gradient. Are, for instance, thermopiles limited by Carnot's theorem?
If not, one would break 2nd law by putting a thermal machine feeding a thermal pump.
This is demonstrably false. Beating Carnot's theorem does not imply 100 percent (or greater) efficiency. The 2nd law would still be preserved.
the dominant fork will be the one that has the most activity surrounding its development. This puts the corporate interests at a disadvantage because they can only justify work when there's a ROI associated with it. The community will continue to tweak things forever, giving the impression that the community fork is better supported (and it will be, at least in the long run).
Actually, if they were the owner of the patent, then by releasing GPL3'd code that implements it, they would be granting a patent license to use the patented method in the code or in derivations of the code.
It's important for people to realize that the GPL3 wasn't drafted in isolation. It was open and had a wide variety of participants, several with immense legal resources that helped guide the drafting.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems like a reasonable milestone for reserving judgement. If we haven't heard anything at all by then, it'll probably be a safe assumption that nothing good will come of it.
How about we wait until we've actually heard from him before we jump to conclusions. It's always possible that he'll either be marginally effective or that he'll bail out once he decides he can't accomplish anything useful.
No need to assume he'll become evil.
Not yet, anyway.
Microsoft has seen their leverage in the browser market disappear just because their market share went from greater than 95% to less than 80%. They still have the lion's share of the browser market, but alternatives are compelling enough that MS can no longer control the market.
Having seen how this works, MS is now afraid that the same thing will happen in the market that MS Office currently dominates. How much share does a competitor need to break Microsoft's grip? 10%? 5%? 3%? Nobody knows and Microsoft isn't willing to gamble this time. That's why they are making such an enormous effort to fight the erosion of their market share.
I do think it's a losing battle. The bigger the fuss MS makes, the more credibility they give to the debate as a whole.
Out of curiosity, which distros are you talking about?
Try Target. I regularly shop at 2 different Target stores and for at least the last month, they've both had Wii's for sale every time I've bothered to look.
If the PS3 had been an Apple product, then people would be raving about how successful it's been.
I'd love to see it happen.
Here's hoping.
When did they say that they were going to opensource their drivers?
I suspect that if you dug a little deeper, you would find that the scientists who are running experiments at Fermilab are, largely, the same scientists that will be running experiments at CERN once it's completed.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You see, it's the scientists who get the grants, not the collider, and the scientists will rent time on whatever collider they think is suitable for their experiments.
If we run a bunch of tests and they all agree with the current model, then that doesn't prove anything. However, if we run a single test and it disagrees with the model, then we've proved that there is something wrong with the current model and the model is either adapted or replaced.
This is how science progresses.
What's your beef with Best Buy?
For some reason I found FVWM to be more to my liking. I liked how by default it did almost nothing, but could be configured for any behavior I could think up (some behaviors are less trivial than others).
They don't really need to advertise...the people who are interested in this sort of thing already know about through such channels as slashdot, digg, heck, i read about it on google news.
Dell has no illusions about selling Linux installed machines to regular users.
Since the two processes are in series, their efficiencies would multiply, not add. So, if we have a process that is 4% efficient drawing heat from the reservoir and a second process that is 97% efficient at placing heat into the reservoir, the system as a whole is only 3.88% efficient (.04 * .97). If both processes were 99% efficient, the system as a whole would be 98% efficient (.99 * .99).
To violate the 2nd law and build a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, the system efficiency has to be at least 100% which means that either both processes must be exactly 100% efficient or that at least one of the processes has to have an efficiency greater than 100%.
Once you've learned the power of ex, vim will stop feeling like a bi-modal interface "bolted" on top of ex and will instead feel like a tri-modal editor. Once you make that leap, you'll never want to go back to anything else.
To put it another way, if you could find either an air conditioner or a power plant that was not limited by the Carnot Theorem then you could use your air conditioner to generate the temperature difference to run your power plant and you could use the electricity from your power plant to run your air conditioner all while having electricity left over to power your television (i.e. you'd get free energy from your power plant - no more having to burn coal).
I'm still not buying this.
Let's say that for a given heat gradient, the Carnot efficiency is 3%. Are you saying that if I had some magical process that was 4% efficient for the same heat gradient that I could build a perpetual motion machine? That can't be right. Even if my magical process was 99% efficient, as long as it's less than 100% efficient, I still haven't violated the 2nd law (although I have beaten Carnot).
I have a suspicion that neither of us is actually making the argument that the other thinks he is. Certainly, your post is entirely too rational and well written for you to be making the argument that it seems to me that you're making.
Carnot's theorem applies to any thermal machine. The actual implementation doesn't matter.
Is that true? I thought it only applied to engines that used gas expansion/contraction to extract work from a heat gradient. Are, for instance, thermopiles limited by Carnot's theorem?
If not, one would break 2nd law by putting a thermal machine feeding a thermal pump.
This is demonstrably false. Beating Carnot's theorem does not imply 100 percent (or greater) efficiency. The 2nd law would still be preserved.
Carnot's Theorem applies to heat engines that use a gas to do work.
It's not clear to me that Carnot's Theorem applies to this technique.
Anybody want to chime in with some insightful comment on this?
the dominant fork will be the one that has the most activity surrounding its development. This puts the corporate interests at a disadvantage because they can only justify work when there's a ROI associated with it. The community will continue to tweak things forever, giving the impression that the community fork is better supported (and it will be, at least in the long run).
Sad, but true.
I remember how shocked I was when I discovered that OSX didn't handle ext2 at all.
ARRR!!! Thar she blows!!
Have DRM schemes gotten any better over time?
Seems like they're getting cracked faster than ever.
Actually, if they were the owner of the patent, then by releasing GPL3'd code that implements it, they would be granting a patent license to use the patented method in the code or in derivations of the code.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If I had point, I'd mod you up.
It's important for people to realize that the GPL3 wasn't drafted in isolation. It was open and had a wide variety of participants, several with immense legal resources that helped guide the drafting.
I'm not a big guy, but when armed, I have the means to effectively defend myself and my loved ones against those who might otherwise do us harm.
How is that not a positive use?