It's good to be skeptical or even paranoid on the net. I say that as a former professional paranoid.
Linked in has a reasonable default set of privacy which you can raise or lower. Since it's about resumes and professional networking, the default is a little more open than sensible folks would use one rather more personal FaceBook profiles, and that is ok.
Linked In also has a more transparent business model on how they are monetizing your free service. They are on the give 99% free to build a community for which 1% will pay for advanced access. Anyone can buy access to fuller search results and to ability to send job inquiries - to those who indicate interest in such - to folks without being introduced. You don't have to build a better game to spam peoples friends, just buy recruiters level access. That's transparent, and in my interest - If I need a job later, I will want active hiring managers not in my network yet to be able to find me.
I wouldn't use LinkedIn for purely social networking, but I don't think I want to give professional references on dating-and-music sites like FaceBook or MySpace either.
In South Boston not a half mile from the exhibit hall, at Broadway Sq, there is a parking lot using lift-jacks to double up. This is new.
In downtown there's a postage stamp of a garage (is it Province St?) that has valet-operated freight lifts to get cars to the parking levels. (No SUVs please.) This from the look is an older installation.
As far as I know, these are each unique in Boston.
It won't happen to you in any other city, either...
While it might happen in Cambridge at any time, on September 10th it was supposed to happen in many other cities too -- it was Software Freedom Day.
This was a premeditated event, perpetrated by Mako (as previously linked in this thread) and the BLU crew. Sorry I couldn't be there, maybe next year. (I would suspect there may be some Ubuntu CDs at the Ocbober BLU meeting too, since Mako is speaking on Ubuntu.)
My GPS yesterday reported I was in Algeria; wrong continent.
Today it reported that I was 0.21 miles from target, oops, 2.0 miles from target, oops, 0.19 miles from target. I hope it's got a low-pass filter so that it doesn't kill the engine during those 6000MPH Kalman Filter hiccups.
Is N Composite or Prime has been traditionally considered easier than actual factoring.
The page you link says "While this had long been believed possible", which means your "as many thought" is incorrect; see also the AKS news. They also say "this algorithm is still impractical".
Indeed, Factoring is in the class of problems that are seemingly hard to do (non-polynomial time on the best general algorithm known) but easy to check (polynomial time). The classic problems of this form are called NP-Hard, and many are NP-Complete. Factoring has not yet been proved NP-Hard or NP-Complete, but is assumed to be, and that is the basic assumption of RSA public-key cryptography. This result does not change that, it just encourages use to boost our key sizes if we hadn't lately.
And, using perl and Math::BigInt, I did, and it checked out. Also useful is to verify that the number really was RSA200, as other anonymous Wiki-troll-edits were changing the number like a flickering flame.
And the source of the original Anon-Wiki edit was an email from the academic ring-leader, available on FactorRecords on FactorWorld.
IAAAM,
Bill N1VUX
I Am An Apostate Mathematician
I prostitute my math degree sorting ones from zeroes
Perhaps the ironic point of the Tiger-Cats team's offer is that a football team owned by a FLOSS operating-systems [mb]illionaire is just as much in the same business as a designer operating system, no more no less, tha a retailer of hardware systems and vanilla operating systems. Any court with a broad enough reading of Trademarks to consider granting relief to Tiger-Direct (TD) here would have to consider the Tiger-Cats (TC) license to Tiger-Apple (TA) as plausible. Which is just funny.
Word Mark TIGER Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products. FIRST USE: 1987 1020. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1987 1020
TigerDirect.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Desktop Computers, Laptops, Notebooks
The top level menu doesn't even list Operating Systems, it's a sub-option under Software, so OS are at best second tier "related product". They currently list 44 varieties of Windows and one SUSE, which is only available as a preload for certain systems. TigerDirect doesn't trade in the Mac market (product search finds Mach, Macro, CA PC Maclan, Macro Systems, Macromedia).
IANAL but that Claim sure looks like they're claiming the Mark in the Mailorder and reatail business they're in (trading in computers etc), not in Computers etc. Since Tiger OS is only usable on PPC Macs, and Mac users wouldn't shop at a Wintel only outlet like TigerDirect, what's the possibility for brand confusion again?
If Apple opened "Tiger Express" stores adjacent to their AppleDirect stores in the malls, that would be a direct conflict with the claim (IANAL).
IANAL but I did a bit of Pre-Law... so I'm anxiously waiting to see what PJ has to say on this one.
Indeed, it is truely fitting the Mac debut was recorded for posterity on Betamax. Each is a superior technology (in some key technical respects) doomed by its other tradeoffs (in both marketing and technical aspects). Yes, amusing.
Wait one jolly minute..museum was only recently opened, and already has 358 museums of high enough stature to claim 2LD listings and another 366 2LDs with mulitple 3LD registrations, according to the quoted comment's own linked page. This spans 43 countries, with 1324 2LD or 3LD for US museums alone already. (I don't see a quick listing without a DNS hack to see a count of all.)
This is not underutilized, this is a good ramp-up. Couldn't the linker RTFA that he links to?
As to.gov,.mil vs.gov.us and.mil.us, well, that would be orthogonal and even-handed. But it's not entirely unfair for the country that built the original Internet upon which the international WWW was built to claim precedence in the internet DNS infrastructure. If one suggests it is beter to geo-located everthing in cyberspace -- an odd theory perhaps -- the only companies in.COM should be those that are multinational, all others should be.co.uk or.com.us .
Moore's Law and Murphy's Law (USAF, WP) were both apparently named with concious irony (*, **). Debating their status as Natural Laws is so 19th Century, and would probably amuse those who named them.
The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical?quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.
================
Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.
No, the cheap paper doesn't turn yellow for years, if kept out of sun and air. Both the serious and scandal-ridden newspapers were printed on the same cheap (high acid, 100% wood pulp) newsprint (!Popups!), but the newsprint revolution made the price wars that drove "yellow journalism" possible:
Not the least revolutionary change was the astounding drop in newsprint prices that advances in papermaking technology afforded - newsprint prices that were 28 cents per pound in 1864 had plunged to two cents or less per pound by 1897. --
ConservATree
Industry history can be found at Freedom Foundation's Newseum, the Museum of Printing Boston/N.Andover (disclosure: my name appears on that site less often now than in the past), APHA and similar.
(See other postings for the well-known use of yellow ink in certain cartoons which lent the name to the editorial style of those papers.)
This is Field Day! It only rained for a little while, but boy did it rain! We found the seams in our tarps.
Field Day scores are much lower than VHF QSO or the Big HF contests. VHF QSO party scores might be vaguely comparable to Sweepstakes scores, multiplying by Grids or Sections gets big numbers. Since the biggest multiplier in FD is 10 for CW at a QRP-only station, scores are a lot smaller than in contests with #qso * #regions scoring.
We had a good VHF opening to the NE and SW during Saturday evening, worked EMA->AL & TN on 6m with only 50w & a halo on 50MHz SSB. (That's VHF Broadcast TV (as in rabbit-ears) Channel 1 for the rest of you.)
As with the original NWG RFCs, a spec that implementors of good will can agree on is better than a closed-license implementation tied to a specific OS with who knows what support. You can build or buy either half of each connection. With an XML based spec (with DTD or W3C-XSchema) and semantics, it's that much easier.
I know of a firm using Liberty Alliance 1.1 / SAML protocols to bridge between two proprietary SSO domains, with Netegrity vendor support on one side. Widespread use will likely wait for full implementations of 2.0, it seems. Which will still be before widespread use of PassPort or H*** freezing over.
Bill
Social Construct?! Mathematics is too universal
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
This is the social construct that is mathematics.
Thank you, that is a more felicitous phrasing than "politics", especially in a debate where the audience are largely likely to use the engineering mis-definition thereof. This is indeed where we disagree. The Formalist claim that mathematics was doable strictly formally without recourse to social process was disproved, within mathematics, around these questions of Axioms and Proof, before "Social Contract" theory was the rage; you are effectively correct, in that it was demonstrated that there was a matter of taste in deciding what was formal enough. Thus, Peer Review is always required; machine verification of proof will always require at least peer review of the machine, and likely a Peer Review that what the Machine reviewed matched the theorem claimed.
I gather you are fond of post-modern social-relativist deconstruction of everything to morally equivalent social constructs. This may be invogue in the liberal arts. It is not a mere coincidence that when Trudeau/Doonesbury poked fun at this sort of thing it was a Math professor who was charged with cultural insensitivity because a student claimed 2+2 wasn't 4 in his culture.
There is a social contract in doing mathematics, but it does not follow that all of mathematics is a social construct; Mathematics is discovered, not created. Our matters of taste (over how it is done, our "rules") will affect the texture of the mathematics found, how it's organized, and what is found early or at all; it affects what of True Platonic Mathematics we know or accept to be true.
If Mathematics were as you claim a "Social Construct", there could be more than one such, with mutually incompatible conclusions. This is not so. It is demonstrable that no consistent logic can prove all true statements -- that means no logic can prove all true statements and only true statements. Thus each Mathematics(as we know it) for different "rules" will have a different subset of all true theorems proved, grow asymptotically closer annually -- but none will have things that the others prove false. As described in my prior post, the varying philospophies of mathematics admit more or fewer theorems, based on what is available for proof by their evidence, but never do different philosophies get different answers -- only sometimes only some get no answer or assert no answer is possible. (Differing Geometries differ from differing philosophies of mathematics, since one must switch back and forth at will, they are not matters of taste, it is imperative to explore all 3+N geometries and catalog the differences.)
That all Mathematics is intrinsically the same and discovered can be seen in a simpler experiment, at the level of Arithmetic -- the mathematics of the Babylonians and the Mayans and each other civiilzation which developed their own enumerations are commensurable, some of more power and expression, but all equivalent -- in each of the 5 or so different formal schools of "doing" mathematics.
"truth" is indeed "politically" motivated. Or to put it another way, is ultimately determined through appeals to power.
We definitely have parted company long since if you think this applies to Mathematics.
There is be power in editing journals and chairing departments, a power particularly strong in some academic fields. When new theories must wait for the Chairs and Editorships to be relinquished by the heirs of the theory to be displaced before it can be published, one can speak of Truth by Power. This can be the case in fields that work by approximation, as in the hard sciences, and is very much the case in "soft science" fields where "theory" is fashion, not tested. I won't cast aspersions on certain so-called sciences with this sort of cycle by naming names, but we know who they are.
Mathematics does not create new truth by tearing down old, but by building upon old, so Truth by Power
sic] to say they couldn't have different argumentative rules for what "proves" a result? Or a different philosophy for what is a sound, provable result. I think there is more politics in mathematics than you'd wish to admit.
Who's to say not? I will say we do have different rules; there have been, and continue to be, divisions on what is a sound proof. I do not think this supports the relativist position, however, and I reject your inflammatory word "politics". Politics is in the Departments and Socieities; in Math, the respected Journals have published papers that pushed the accepted bounds of proof.
E.g., the Constructivists accept only those proofs of the Classicists which do not use the Principal of the Excluded Middle (in the unsafe infinite cases). (This is a slight over simplification.) PoEM is a rule of inference, not an axiom per se; and it is a matter of philosophical contention.
As another poster has mentioned, there are some postulated like the Axiom of Choice which are independent of the main axioms which seem to be required to prove some things, but we can otherwise live without. (Whether the AoC is properly an Axiom or a Rule of Inference I'll not debate, as that would require descent into type theory?) A Mathematician will likely have a strong preference for using or not using AoC or PoEM, but as with the Parallel Postulates, can verify (or debunk) a proof as being correct with (or without) the assumption of the additional postulate -- as could an alien mathematician.
Acceptance of the computer assisted proof of the 4-Color Map Theorem was slow in coming, as it necessitated debate over how one peer-reviewed a computer program as part of the proof. I won't even mention the Formalists, or labelling the computational exploratory dynamicists and their opponents, or try to differentiate the Intuitionists from the Constructivists (since I'm not sure which I am, or wish I was).
In Geometry, there are several different geometries with the several different Parallel postulates (which map to different physical models: flat, hyperbolic, and spherical), the infinity (normal) or discreteness of points (which has more computer-like models!); some proofs work in all or most of these geometries, some work in only one; some theorems require different proofs in them. With AC and PoEM, however, you have layers of proven theorems; more things are demonstrably true the more axioms you have, but since alternate axioms are not on offer, there aren't alternate theorems. (Sometimes alternate proofs are possible, shorter with the high-power axioms, longer without; of course, with one too many axioms, even FALSE is provable, so you must avoid that... but it is proven that there are unprovable truths if FALSE is unprovable, alas.) The Constructivists have reconstructed almost all (the useful bits anyway) of Classical Analysis ("Calculus made Difficult"), thus demonstrating that the Science and Engineering built on Calculus is not falsified by Constructivist logic questioning the (in their minds) dubious assumptions of the original proofs.
Constructivists and Classicists recognize that each other aredoing Mathematics, getting the mostly same results, but by different rules, different means -- and cherishing where there are demonstrable differences in what can be proven. Geometers may specialize in Hyperbolic or Spherical or Discrete, only because looking nearer the lamppost is better hunting... not because the others are "false" in their eyes.
In short, relations between Mathematicians of differing philosophies is far less "political" and far more academically fruitful than in some other (unnamed) fields.
Correct, VM and CMS were internally IBM developed, but were initially not supported products, largely in academic use, hence the confusion. It was developed at IBM Cambridge Science Center, which occupied 2 floors in the same building as MIT Project MAC, now MIT AI & LSC, in the Tech Square complex. (When CSC mutated into a AI/KE consultancy, it moved down the street to Main at Mem, was it One Main?. Both Kendall Square and Tech Square have been redevloped in recent times; I miss the F&T diner.)
VM for the 360/370 was derived from their experimental CP-40 and CP-67, which did really strange things with the memory map hardware in the 360/40 eventually 360/67... and demonstrated that the MMU should be standard in future models. CMS, the Conversational (originally Cambridge) Monitor System, was the primary user component to load into the virtual machines created by VM. Before it became VM/SP, the bundle was VM/CMS. Marketing tried to kill VM/CMS a few times, but the user community SHARES kept it alive until marketing reallized it was gold. Many early adopters were universities, some of whome had their own lightweight variant OS's loaded in a VM, which combined lightweight user support of TSO with capabilities of CMS.
I am unclear as to whether CP/67 and VM were as derivative of the MIT 7094 CTSS as CMS was. CMS's derivation from CTSS may be the academic confusion in the oritinal comment on this; or perhaps that the first "customer" was also MIT related (Lincoln Labs). See also Project MAC history.
Re the original how does the environment compare to Cygwin? and the prior slower grep post:
I'm surprised, as MKS had released a press release saying MS had licensed MKS technology for the Services for Unix product a couple years back. The ancient MKS may be faster than modern MKS, or that tool may be crippled unintentionally in SfU.
I've always preferred MKS even though it cost $$ to Cygwin, since the MKS path and environment re-exports to non-Gnu programs launched from ksh, not just to other Cygwin scirpts.
If enough of the MKS toolkit is bundled in a free SfU, and it's reasonably up to date, I might be tempted; even at $99, SfU is cheaper than full MKS Toolkit.
Does anyone know if the free SfU includes a [] Click here to enable DRM in the license ? I don't want that.
Doppler shift, related to Hubble's Law, except in the expanding universe, everything is redshifted, going away; if you're going fast TOWARDS something, you'll get blueshift. If the Red stop light (or stop-sign) looks blue or even amber or green, you're approaching the ultimate speed limit. Try this at home.
Depends which bands... some will likely have a serious iospheric disruption, others will have geomagnetic disturbance. But aim a 10m or VHF beam north and work auroral reflection and enjoy the flutter. 73
Topo maps (topos free, now with aerial photo quads for fee). Cursor readout in DMS, D.dd, DM.mm, UTM. My favorite for Topos, but I also use
TopoMaps and more; click Online Maps menu then MapServer sub-menu. Usually has Nautical and Air Navigation and Aerial Nav photo as well, all for free. (Popups ads in browser to sell their other services.)
Cursor readout in DMS
Have you tried Ben Bova for SciFi with Sci being the backdrop? Personally, I think he's quite good.
SF authors who still have spaceships but put character ahead of science include Asaro, Moon, and Cherryh. All have some intersting science or engieneering in the Doc Smith tradition, but not as the core of the tale.
Can I think of any male authors? Well, the Cyberpunk sub-genre treats the techno as background, or as McGuffin, with conflicting motivations a major factor. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series certainly features the terraforming technology and the extrapolated Marsology... but has strong characters with twisting motivations. His Orange County "trilogy" is three different futures, the main character common to all three is the geography and pre-history of O.C.; the Green agenda's speculative tech is present, but the characters are vivid as well. Baxter's Space:(X) "trilogy" is on the scope of 2001 or Harry Selden, in the style of Stan's Mars, with the "3 alternates" conceit of Stans' O.C., with the continuity being 3 alternate twistings of a specific person by history, opportunity, and fate.
Funny Spider Robinson should complain about this though. The Callahan's stories fall under Clarke's Law; the Future Beings who drop into the Cross-Time Saloon might as well be magicians from Myth Adventures.
According to orbit simulations, it looks like it comes in aiming more or less at the north pole.
First, the orbit simulation says not to use it years in the future or for close approaches (since it's only using 2-body approximations).
Second, recall Earth's axis is tipped 22 degrees to the ecliptic, so it appears to be coming down from 68 degrees North (assuming north is up in the simulation which is verifiable but I haven't done so), but at an undetermined latitude (depending on time of day).
Third, it needn't hit at the "top", but could be hit on the front face of earth orbitwise, or a grazing strike on the retreating face of Earth.
any space alien or mad scientist with a grudge could give it a nudge to do something nasty
Giving it a nudge to miss for sure is easier than giving it a nudge to ensure contact, which is still less difficult than to hit a specific continent. Not only in the sense of reducing the pseuod-probability ambiguity either: nudging an orbit is like nudging a gyroscope, there's a subtle precesion of effect. The continent is tracing a point along a spiral, while the asteroid is tracing a point along an ellipse. If you apply delta-v to deform the elipse you also speed or retard the point's progress along the ellipse, and vice-versa. The required delta-v to ensure contact may be prohibitive for a sure miss, whereas the required delta-V for undoing a sure-hit is small, only need to turn it into a very near miss.
Slashdot Mirror
It's good to be skeptical or even paranoid on the net. I say that as a former professional paranoid.
Linked in has a reasonable default set of privacy which you can raise or lower. Since it's about resumes and professional networking, the default is a little more open than sensible folks would use one rather more personal FaceBook profiles, and that is ok.
Linked In also has a more transparent business model on how they are monetizing your free service. They are on the give 99% free to build a community for which 1% will pay for advanced access. Anyone can buy access to fuller search results and to ability to send job inquiries - to those who indicate interest in such - to folks without being introduced. You don't have to build a better game to spam peoples friends, just buy recruiters level access. That's transparent, and in my interest - If I need a job later, I will want active hiring managers not in my network yet to be able to find me.
I wouldn't use LinkedIn for purely social networking, but I don't think I want to give professional references on dating-and-music sites like FaceBook or MySpace either.
Bill
In South Boston not a half mile from the exhibit hall, at Broadway Sq, there is a parking lot using lift-jacks to double up. This is new.
In downtown there's a postage stamp of a garage (is it Province St?) that has valet-operated freight lifts to get cars to the parking levels. (No SUVs please.) This from the look is an older installation.
As far as I know, these are each unique in Boston.
-- Bill
While it might happen in Cambridge at any time, on September 10th it was supposed to happen in many other cities too -- it was Software Freedom Day.
This was a premeditated event, perpetrated by Mako (as previously linked in this thread) and the BLU crew. Sorry I couldn't be there, maybe next year. (I would suspect there may be some Ubuntu CDs at the Ocbober BLU meeting too, since Mako is speaking on Ubuntu.)
--Bill
My GPS yesterday reported I was in Algeria; wrong continent.
Today it reported that I was 0.21 miles from target, oops, 2.0 miles from target, oops, 0.19 miles from target. I hope it's got a low-pass filter so that it doesn't kill the engine during those 6000MPH Kalman Filter hiccups.
bill
Is N Composite or Prime has been traditionally considered easier than actual factoring.
The page you link says "While this had long been believed possible", which means your "as many thought" is incorrect; see also the AKS news. They also say "this algorithm is still impractical".
And, using perl and Math::BigInt, I did, and it checked out. Also useful is to verify that the number really was RSA200, as other anonymous Wiki-troll-edits were changing the number like a flickering flame.
And the source of the original Anon-Wiki edit was an email from the academic ring-leader, available on FactorRecords on FactorWorld.
IAAAM,
Bill N1VUX
I Am An Apostate Mathematician
I prostitute my math degree sorting ones from zeroes
Perhaps the ironic point of the Tiger-Cats team's offer is that a football team owned by a FLOSS operating-systems [mb]illionaire is just as much in the same business as a designer operating system, no more no less, tha a retailer of hardware systems and vanilla operating systems. Any court with a broad enough reading of Trademarks to consider granting relief to Tiger-Direct (TD) here would have to consider the Tiger-Cats (TC) license to Tiger-Apple (TA) as plausible. Which is just funny.
The above referenced USPTO webservice reports
The hopless litigant's TITLE tag says
The top level menu doesn't even list Operating Systems, it's a sub-option under Software, so OS are at best second tier "related product". They currently list 44 varieties of Windows and one SUSE, which is only available as a preload for certain systems. TigerDirect doesn't trade in the Mac market (product search finds Mach, Macro, CA PC Maclan, Macro Systems, Macromedia).IANAL but that Claim sure looks like they're claiming the Mark in the Mailorder and reatail business they're in (trading in computers etc), not in Computers etc. Since Tiger OS is only usable on PPC Macs, and Mac users wouldn't shop at a Wintel only outlet like TigerDirect, what's the possibility for brand confusion again?
If Apple opened "Tiger Express" stores adjacent to their AppleDirect stores in the malls, that would be a direct conflict with the claim (IANAL).
IANAL but I did a bit of Pre-Law ... so I'm anxiously waiting to see what PJ has to say on this one.
Indeed, it is truely fitting the Mac debut was recorded for posterity on Betamax. Each is a superior technology (in some key technical respects) doomed by its other tradeoffs (in both marketing and technical aspects). Yes, amusing.
Wait one jolly minute. .museum was only recently opened, and already has 358 museums of high enough stature to claim 2LD listings and another 366 2LDs with mulitple 3LD registrations, according to the quoted comment's own linked page. This spans 43 countries, with 1324 2LD or 3LD for US museums alone already. (I don't see a quick listing without a DNS hack to see a count of all.)
This is not underutilized, this is a good ramp-up. Couldn't the linker RTFA that he links to?
As to .gov, .mil vs .gov.us and .mil.us, well, that would be orthogonal and even-handed. But it's not entirely unfair for the country that built the original Internet upon which the international WWW was built to claim precedence in the internet DNS infrastructure. If one suggests it is beter to geo-located everthing in cyberspace -- an odd theory perhaps -- the only companies in .COM should be those that are multinational, all others should be .co.uk or .com.us .
The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical? quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.
================
Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.
Industry history can be found at Freedom Foundation's Newseum, the Museum of Printing Boston/N.Andover (disclosure: my name appears on that site less often now than in the past), APHA and similar.
(See other postings for the well-known use of yellow ink in certain cartoons which lent the name to the editorial style of those papers.)
Field Day scores are much lower than VHF QSO or the Big HF contests. VHF QSO party scores might be vaguely comparable to Sweepstakes scores, multiplying by Grids or Sections gets big numbers. Since the biggest multiplier in FD is 10 for CW at a QRP-only station, scores are a lot smaller than in contests with #qso * #regions scoring.
We had a good VHF opening to the NE and SW during Saturday evening, worked EMA->AL & TN on 6m with only 50w & a halo on 50MHz SSB. (That's VHF Broadcast TV (as in rabbit-ears) Channel 1 for the rest of you.)
Our Boston Amateur Radio Club W1BOS 4A EMA was but one of 21 or so club stations in Eastern Mass. ARRL Section and Division staff between them visited all pre-announced club sites but one -- missing only Nantucket and the two surprises.
I know of a firm using Liberty Alliance 1.1 / SAML protocols to bridge between two proprietary SSO domains, with Netegrity vendor support on one side. Widespread use will likely wait for full implementations of 2.0, it seems. Which will still be before widespread use of PassPort or H*** freezing over.
Bill
Thank you, that is a more felicitous phrasing than "politics", especially in a debate where the audience are largely likely to use the engineering mis-definition thereof. This is indeed where we disagree. The Formalist claim that mathematics was doable strictly formally without recourse to social process was disproved, within mathematics, around these questions of Axioms and Proof, before "Social Contract" theory was the rage; you are effectively correct, in that it was demonstrated that there was a matter of taste in deciding what was formal enough. Thus, Peer Review is always required; machine verification of proof will always require at least peer review of the machine, and likely a Peer Review that what the Machine reviewed matched the theorem claimed.
I gather you are fond of post-modern social-relativist deconstruction of everything to morally equivalent social constructs. This may be invogue in the liberal arts. It is not a mere coincidence that when Trudeau/Doonesbury poked fun at this sort of thing it was a Math professor who was charged with cultural insensitivity because a student claimed 2+2 wasn't 4 in his culture.
There is a social contract in doing mathematics, but it does not follow that all of mathematics is a social construct ; Mathematics is discovered, not created. Our matters of taste (over how it is done, our "rules") will affect the texture of the mathematics found, how it's organized, and what is found early or at all; it affects what of True Platonic Mathematics we know or accept to be true.
If Mathematics were as you claim a "Social Construct", there could be more than one such, with mutually incompatible conclusions. This is not so. It is demonstrable that no consistent logic can prove all true statements -- that means no logic can prove all true statements and only true statements. Thus each Mathematics(as we know it) for different "rules" will have a different subset of all true theorems proved, grow asymptotically closer annually -- but none will have things that the others prove false. As described in my prior post, the varying philospophies of mathematics admit more or fewer theorems, based on what is available for proof by their evidence, but never do different philosophies get different answers -- only sometimes only some get no answer or assert no answer is possible. (Differing Geometries differ from differing philosophies of mathematics, since one must switch back and forth at will, they are not matters of taste, it is imperative to explore all 3+N geometries and catalog the differences.)
That all Mathematics is intrinsically the same and discovered can be seen in a simpler experiment, at the level of Arithmetic -- the mathematics of the Babylonians and the Mayans and each other civiilzation which developed their own enumerations are commensurable, some of more power and expression, but all equivalent -- in each of the 5 or so different formal schools of "doing" mathematics.
We definitely have parted company long since if you think this applies to Mathematics.
There is be power in editing journals and chairing departments, a power particularly strong in some academic fields. When new theories must wait for the Chairs and Editorships to be relinquished by the heirs of the theory to be displaced before it can be published, one can speak of Truth by Power. This can be the case in fields that work by approximation, as in the hard sciences, and is very much the case in "soft science" fields where "theory" is fashion, not tested. I won't cast aspersions on certain so-called sciences with this sort of cycle by naming names, but we know who they are.
Mathematics does not create new truth by tearing down old, but by building upon old, so Truth by Power
Who's to say not? I will say we do have different rules; there have been, and continue to be, divisions on what is a sound proof. I do not think this supports the relativist position, however, and I reject your inflammatory word "politics". Politics is in the Departments and Socieities; in Math, the respected Journals have published papers that pushed the accepted bounds of proof.
E.g., the Constructivists accept only those proofs of the Classicists which do not use the Principal of the Excluded Middle (in the unsafe infinite cases). (This is a slight over simplification.) PoEM is a rule of inference, not an axiom per se; and it is a matter of philosophical contention.
As another poster has mentioned, there are some postulated like the Axiom of Choice which are independent of the main axioms which seem to be required to prove some things, but we can otherwise live without. (Whether the AoC is properly an Axiom or a Rule of Inference I'll not debate, as that would require descent into type theory?) A Mathematician will likely have a strong preference for using or not using AoC or PoEM, but as with the Parallel Postulates, can verify (or debunk) a proof as being correct with (or without) the assumption of the additional postulate -- as could an alien mathematician.
Acceptance of the computer assisted proof of the 4-Color Map Theorem was slow in coming, as it necessitated debate over how one peer-reviewed a computer program as part of the proof. I won't even mention the Formalists, or labelling the computational exploratory dynamicists and their opponents, or try to differentiate the Intuitionists from the Constructivists (since I'm not sure which I am, or wish I was).
In Geometry, there are several different geometries with the several different Parallel postulates (which map to different physical models: flat, hyperbolic, and spherical), the infinity (normal) or discreteness of points (which has more computer-like models!); some proofs work in all or most of these geometries, some work in only one; some theorems require different proofs in them. With AC and PoEM, however, you have layers of proven theorems; more things are demonstrably true the more axioms you have, but since alternate axioms are not on offer, there aren't alternate theorems. (Sometimes alternate proofs are possible, shorter with the high-power axioms, longer without; of course, with one too many axioms, even FALSE is provable, so you must avoid that ... but it is proven that there are unprovable truths if FALSE is unprovable, alas.) The Constructivists have reconstructed almost all (the useful bits anyway) of Classical Analysis ("Calculus made Difficult"), thus demonstrating that the Science and Engineering built on Calculus is not falsified by Constructivist logic questioning the (in their minds) dubious assumptions of the original proofs.
Constructivists and Classicists recognize that each other are doing Mathematics, getting the mostly same results, but by different rules, different means -- and cherishing where there are demonstrable differences in what can be proven. Geometers may specialize in Hyperbolic or Spherical or Discrete, only because looking nearer the lamppost is better hunting ... not because the others are "false" in their eyes.
In short, relations between Mathematicians of differing philosophies is far less "political" and far more academically fruitful than in some other (unnamed) fields.
Godel Escher Bach is a gooVM for the 360/370 was derived from their experimental CP-40 and CP-67, which did really strange things with the memory map hardware in the 360/40 eventually 360/67 ... and demonstrated that the MMU should be standard in future models. CMS, the Conversational (originally Cambridge) Monitor System, was the primary user component to load into the virtual machines created by VM. Before it became VM/SP, the bundle was VM/CMS. Marketing tried to kill VM/CMS a few times, but the user community SHARES kept it alive until marketing reallized it was gold. Many early adopters were universities, some of whome had their own lightweight variant OS's loaded in a VM, which combined lightweight user support of TSO with capabilities of CMS.
I am unclear as to whether CP/67 and VM were as derivative of the MIT 7094 CTSS as CMS was. CMS's derivation from CTSS may be the academic confusion in the oritinal comment on this; or perhaps that the first "customer" was also MIT related (Lincoln Labs). See also Project MAC history.
I'm surprised, as MKS had released a press release saying MS had licensed MKS technology for the Services for Unix product a couple years back. The ancient MKS may be faster than modern MKS, or that tool may be crippled unintentionally in SfU.
I've always preferred MKS even though it cost $$ to Cygwin, since the MKS path and environment re-exports to non-Gnu programs launched from ksh, not just to other Cygwin scirpts.
If enough of the MKS toolkit is bundled in a free SfU, and it's reasonably up to date, I might be tempted; even at $99, SfU is cheaper than full MKS Toolkit.
Does anyone know if the free SfU includes a [] Click here to enable DRM in the license ? I don't want that.
Thank you for providing x-eye, wall-eye, and colored stereograms.
I rather like the "so he refills empty bucket and goes back to sleep" version, myself.
Amazingly, that appears to be the only copy on the WWW. I'm surprised it doesn't show up in Google Groups.
-- Bill
Doppler shift, related to Hubble's Law, except in the expanding universe, everything is redshifted, going away; if you're going fast TOWARDS something, you'll get blueshift. If the Red stop light (or stop-sign) looks blue or even amber or green, you're approaching the ultimate speed limit. Try this at home.
Depends which bands ... some will likely have a serious iospheric disruption, others will have geomagnetic disturbance. But aim a 10m or VHF beam north and work auroral reflection and enjoy the flutter. 73
SF authors who still have spaceships but put character ahead of science include Asaro, Moon, and Cherryh. All have some intersting science or engieneering in the Doc Smith tradition, but not as the core of the tale.
Can I think of any male authors? Well, the Cyberpunk sub-genre treats the techno as background, or as McGuffin, with conflicting motivations a major factor. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series certainly features the terraforming technology and the extrapolated Marsology ... but has strong characters with twisting motivations. His Orange County "trilogy" is three different futures, the main character common to all three is the geography and pre-history of O.C.; the Green agenda's speculative tech is present, but the characters are vivid as well. Baxter's Space:(X) "trilogy" is on the scope of 2001 or Harry Selden, in the style of Stan's Mars, with the "3 alternates" conceit of Stans' O.C., with the continuity being 3 alternate twistings of a specific person by history, opportunity, and fate.
Funny Spider Robinson should complain about this though. The Callahan's stories fall under Clarke's Law; the Future Beings who drop into the Cross-Time Saloon might as well be magicians from Myth Adventures.
First, the orbit simulation says not to use it years in the future or for close approaches (since it's only using 2-body approximations).
Second, recall Earth's axis is tipped 22 degrees to the ecliptic, so it appears to be coming down from 68 degrees North (assuming north is up in the simulation which is verifiable but I haven't done so), but at an undetermined latitude (depending on time of day).
Third, it needn't hit at the "top", but could be hit on the front face of earth orbitwise, or a grazing strike on the retreating face of Earth.
any space alien or mad scientist with a grudge could give it a nudge to do something nasty
Giving it a nudge to miss for sure is easier than giving it a nudge to ensure contact, which is still less difficult than to hit a specific continent. Not only in the sense of reducing the pseuod-probability ambiguity either: nudging an orbit is like nudging a gyroscope, there's a subtle precesion of effect. The continent is tracing a point along a spiral, while the asteroid is tracing a point along an ellipse. If you apply delta-v to deform the elipse you also speed or retard the point's progress along the ellipse, and vice-versa. The required delta-v to ensure contact may be prohibitive for a sure miss, whereas the required delta-V for undoing a sure-hit is small, only need to turn it into a very near miss.