MS can create a cheap version of Vista or XP with very little effort. And because they are earning *something* on it, I suspect in the long run it will get better support than anything that can be had for free. Commercial version of Linux are of course another story.
I think Linux cannot succeed on price alone. It has to be enough better that people will invest the time needed to change their habits - which today drive them straight to Windows.
This is incredibly funny:). Not only it be modded up, but someone should send a link to Scott Adams and Rundall Munroe so they can create some strips around it...
You know, this is one of those arguments where I find myself on the wrong side just because I don't like the way someone said something:). I will defend almost anything if I find it is being attacked inappropriately.
Without going into all the various QM interpretations and "Consiousness causes collapse" schools (which you seem to be aware of), how about the "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" results? Cleary their results they found are tiny and not of practical utility, but they are also statistically significant and peer-reviewed.
And if you name Roger Penrose a crackpot, then I assume you consider John von Neumann and Werner Heisenberg to be similarly flawed. I personally would suggest a bit more caution, those were (and are) smart guys who are taking a lot more facts and theories into account then we will ever know.
Any blanket statements like this are almost always either wrong or uninteresting. In this case for example m2943 implicitly implies knowing about *all* possible evidence, so I would say the statement is wrong.
A more defensible statement might have been "I know of no evidence that....".
However a more interesting observation is that there is a lot of activity in Quantum Mechanical interpretations at the moment, as evidenced as the growing interest in the (frequently abhorred) multi-worlds theory. This has been covered here a few times, I would have liked to have seen a multi-world interpretation of this.
In my company my direct report is halfway across the world. It annoys the hell out of me when my boss or a collegue are never available on IM, sometimes I need to probe for information and e-mail or phones just do not cut it.
However e-mail is also necessary, it has a kind of contractual character that nothing else does. If fact I know one company that was trying to forbid e-mail for anything that did not require the recpient to follow up on something.
And nothing beats the phone for telling if someone is lying or hiding something, or just plain scared shitless:) But I find phoning during working hours rude - it always interrupts the recipient and is hard to ignore.
SMS gets peoples attention the fastest in a non-intrusive way. And is great for traveling - they get delivered as soon as your other party lands. Or figuring out where someone is right now.
So I use all 4 pretty heavily - and I am definitly not under 25:)
i don't want more bandwidth - I want less latency. I have enough bandwidt to do anything I want except maybe watch HDTV real-time, and I don't care about that.
But I hate waiting 5-10 secs for the server I cliked on to respond - partially due to all those redirects and things - but also the 120 ms across the Atlantic and 300 ms across the Pacific is a big contributor. That is like 6 times slower than the speed of light.
What is the error here? I wonder if.4 or.8 percent are both essentially zero in the context of measurement accuracy.
However most IT people I know have a linux box or two in addition to the Windows boxes that they have bought and use for their main office-type work. I imagine a poll like this would not have captured those.
In the end though Linux and Apple are missing a huge window of opportunity - Microsoft has rarely been so vulnerable as they have been in the last year with this botched release of Vista. You can be sure they are aware of it and are closing that window as fast as they can.
I have read that current life models indicate that the world was first colonized by non-oxygen breathers, and they essentially posioned themselves out of existince by creating too much oxygen, but then allowed new, higher energy organizms to exist. (This may not be entirely accurate:( - it was just an exhibit I saw).
However the point I am trying to make is that all that carbon could easily have been removed when the world was in a state that we definitly do not want to revisit - like a methane world or something:)
The point is that one can not even define what it would mean to exceed the speed of light. The notion is distance is very different in a Minkowskian geometry. Going "faster" than the speed of light means you have a "timelike" trajectory, which is essentially (when looked at from the appropriate reference frame) equivalent to traveling backwards in time.
If you can transmit information faster than the speed of light, then you can signal into the past. And then you have to deal with all the causality paradoxes.
The app was around 30k. 10k was the compiler, 10k was the "Integrated UI, 10k was the runtime library. It was too "bloated" to be very sucessful with CPM, but on the early PCs, which usually had 256k or so, it was just brilliant. That is what got me off my Mainframe/Fortran jones.
I just installed the new Visual Studio Beta (Oracas). The thing is like 3 GB:(
Don't usually reply to AC's, but no, the speed limit arises not because of something we noticed in "particle accelerator experiments" it is because of the geometry of space time, which is different than the euclidean geometry that we expereince at low speeds and energies.
If you could send something out faster than the speed of light, then you can truly send things into the past and there by violate causality. If you want to know why this is, study Minkowskian geometry, and particularly its Lorentian coordinate changes which correpond to frame changes arrising from changes in speed, something that is very trival in Euclidian geometry, but not in our world.
So either:
1 - you can't go faster than the speed of light.
2 - you can, but we don't have free will, and something else keeps you from violating causality.
3 - It looks like you can, but somekind of multi-world split resolves the paradox
"Gifted" people have some unique challenges to overcome. For example thing they seem to be worse at relating to their peers, and have a less successful sex life. This was discussed on Slashdot lately in response to this study:
In the end that can only make for less happy people.
I think it is best to make less fuss about gifted kids, and make them work on their social skills and ability to integrate with their peers. Their intellegence will inevitably make itself known anyway, and I don't actually trust schools to lead them in any useful direction either.
I read somewhere that studies have shown that they do reproduce, just at a lower rate. Meaning of course that there are very few "pure" homosexuals. However since the percentage of homosexuals seems to be in rough equilibrium, they must have some advantage that compensates for their lower reproductive rate, otherwise that would also eliminate them fairly quickly. But what that advantage is is still an open question. I personally think it must be their better taste in clothes:)
Actually I am pretty sure that that site only uses the height-to-weight ratio for its calculation. Google also does not reveal any obvious know connections between size per se, and longevity.
Of course being overweight does hit longevity, but being tall and large with a reasonablly low fat percentage? I have not heard that that is a risk factor.
That calculator is an interesting but it seems to need some work. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Amoung other things:
- It underetimated my age by 7 years. So I guess it is 7 years out-of-date.
- Size does not seem to play such a big role, if I enter 68 Inches and 160 pounds I get much the same result as 73 inches and 200 pounds. The comments sort of imply it is just using the height-to-weight ratio.
- Adding all 10 of those dietary supplements adds 5 years. I simply don't believe that. (Why those particular 5 for example? Did they by ads?)
- Going from 5 to 6 hours a week exercize knocked 4 years off my life expectancy. That is just plain silly, I exercize between 4 and 8 hours a week depending on how busy I am.
- We know that smoking takes 8-10 years off your life expectancy. That really needs to be an entirely seperate category.
Slashdot Mirror
MS can create a cheap version of Vista or XP with very little effort. And because they are earning *something* on it, I suspect in the long run it will get better support than anything that can be had for free. Commercial version of Linux are of course another story.
I think Linux cannot succeed on price alone. It has to be enough better that people will invest the time needed to change their habits - which today drive them straight to Windows.
This is incredibly funny :). Not only it be modded up, but someone should send a link to Scott Adams and Rundall Munroe so they can create some strips around it...
You know, this is one of those arguments where I find myself on the wrong side just because I don't like the way someone said something :). I will defend almost anything if I find it is being attacked inappropriately.
Without going into all the various QM interpretations and "Consiousness causes collapse" schools (which you seem to be aware of), how about the "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" results? Cleary their results they found are tiny and not of practical utility, but they are also statistically significant and peer-reviewed.
And if you name Roger Penrose a crackpot, then I assume you consider John von Neumann and Werner Heisenberg to be similarly flawed. I personally would suggest a bit more caution, those were (and are) smart guys who are taking a lot more facts and theories into account then we will ever know.
Any blanket statements like this are almost always either wrong or uninteresting. In this case for example m2943 implicitly implies knowing about *all* possible evidence, so I would say the statement is wrong.
....".
A more defensible statement might have been "I know of no evidence that
However a more interesting observation is that there is a lot of activity in Quantum Mechanical interpretations at the moment, as evidenced as the growing interest in the (frequently abhorred) multi-worlds theory. This has been covered here a few times, I would have liked to have seen a multi-world interpretation of this.
Interesting. I used to think that but I don't anymore. Now I find them very different, and useful for different things.
- E-mail is much more permanent, and kind of makes a statement that you have to stand behind.
- IM is more like conversation, you can feel your way around and statements there are somehow not so binding.
I would hate to have to rely on just one or the other now. I am definitely finding it more difficult to work closely with people who just have e-mail.
In my company my direct report is halfway across the world. It annoys the hell out of me when my boss or a collegue are never available on IM, sometimes I need to probe for information and e-mail or phones just do not cut it.
:) But I find phoning during working hours rude - it always interrupts the recipient and is hard to ignore.
:)
However e-mail is also necessary, it has a kind of contractual character that nothing else does. If fact I know one company that was trying to forbid e-mail for anything that did not require the recpient to follow up on something.
And nothing beats the phone for telling if someone is lying or hiding something, or just plain scared shitless
SMS gets peoples attention the fastest in a non-intrusive way. And is great for traveling - they get delivered as soon as your other party lands. Or figuring out where someone is right now.
So I use all 4 pretty heavily - and I am definitly not under 25
You would have to use calculus of variations to do this properly I think.
The way I understand the question the raptor is always running at you. So the question is what path has the longest run until the raptor hits you.
Still seems hard. Not sure how I would set it up. Didn't do a lot of CofV in my university days, and none after it.
This link is more relevant: http://xkcd.com/135/
That PDF is very old. Did anyone notice the date - 15 December 2005?
:). Or at least get some better graphics together.
Wonder if they have made any progress since then
i don't want more bandwidth - I want less latency. I have enough bandwidt to do anything I want except maybe watch HDTV real-time, and I don't care about that.
:(
But I hate waiting 5-10 secs for the server I cliked on to respond - partially due to all those redirects and things - but also the 120 ms across the Atlantic and 300 ms across the Pacific is a big contributor. That is like 6 times slower than the speed of light.
Where are all those optical routers
Neopets. My kids loved it. Very cute - but it is an online game.
Ads don't start on it until they are like 13 or so. They make a lot of money off merchandising.
What is the error here? I wonder if .4 or .8 percent are both essentially zero in the context of measurement accuracy.
However most IT people I know have a linux box or two in addition to the Windows boxes that they have bought and use for their main office-type work. I imagine a poll like this would not have captured those.
In the end though Linux and Apple are missing a huge window of opportunity - Microsoft has rarely been so vulnerable as they have been in the last year with this botched release of Vista. You can be sure they are aware of it and are closing that window as fast as they can.
I have read that current life models indicate that the world was first colonized by non-oxygen breathers, and they essentially posioned themselves out of existince by creating too much oxygen, but then allowed new, higher energy organizms to exist. (This may not be entirely accurate :( - it was just an exhibit I saw).
:)
However the point I am trying to make is that all that carbon could easily have been removed when the world was in a state that we definitly do not want to revisit - like a methane world or something
I have been looking for one for awhile and figure this post would be a good place to ask :)
It facinated and inspired me way back in the 70's when I stumbled across it in the library.
:)
Also provides some interesting paradoy of Victorian society at the same time. And since it was written in 1884 teachers can claim it is a "classic".
There are some modern variations that are quite good too, and more politically correct in their handling of woman
Wikipedia has more on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
The point is that one can not even define what it would mean to exceed the speed of light. The notion is distance is very different in a Minkowskian geometry. Going "faster" than the speed of light means you have a "timelike" trajectory, which is essentially (when looked at from the appropriate reference frame) equivalent to traveling backwards in time.
If you can transmit information faster than the speed of light, then you can signal into the past. And then you have to deal with all the causality paradoxes.
The app was around 30k. 10k was the compiler, 10k was the "Integrated UI, 10k was the runtime library. It was too "bloated" to be very sucessful with CPM, but on the early PCs, which usually had 256k or so, it was just brilliant. That is what got me off my Mainframe/Fortran jones.
:(
I just installed the new Visual Studio Beta (Oracas). The thing is like 3 GB
Don't usually reply to AC's, but no, the speed limit arises not because of something we noticed in "particle accelerator experiments" it is because of the geometry of space time, which is different than the euclidean geometry that we expereince at low speeds and energies.
If you could send something out faster than the speed of light, then you can truly send things into the past and there by violate causality. If you want to know why this is, study Minkowskian geometry, and particularly its Lorentian coordinate changes which correpond to frame changes arrising from changes in speed, something that is very trival in Euclidian geometry, but not in our world.
So either:
1 - you can't go faster than the speed of light.
2 - you can, but we don't have free will, and something else keeps you from violating causality.
3 - It looks like you can, but somekind of multi-world split resolves the paradox
Why is this a troll? It is a valid point.
Something for meta-moderation I guess.
"Gifted" people have some unique challenges to overcome. For example thing they seem to be worse at relating to their peers, and have a less successful sex life. This was discussed on Slashdot lately in response to this study:
i ntelligence.php
:)
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-
In the end that can only make for less happy people.
I think it is best to make less fuss about gifted kids, and make them work on their social skills and ability to integrate with their peers. Their intellegence will inevitably make itself known anyway, and I don't actually trust schools to lead them in any useful direction either.
That is how I am raising mine
I read somewhere that studies have shown that they do reproduce, just at a lower rate. Meaning of course that there are very few "pure" homosexuals. However since the percentage of homosexuals seems to be in rough equilibrium, they must have some advantage that compensates for their lower reproductive rate, otherwise that would also eliminate them fairly quickly. But what that advantage is is still an open question. :)
I personally think it must be their better taste in clothes
In fact my post was more negative than I intended. Sorry.
Actually I am pretty sure that that site only uses the height-to-weight ratio for its calculation. Google also does not reveal any obvious know connections between size per se, and longevity.
:)
Of course being overweight does hit longevity, but being tall and large with a reasonablly low fat percentage? I have not heard that that is a risk factor.
Unless of course someone is shooting at you
That calculator is an interesting but it seems to need some work. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Amoung other things:
- It underetimated my age by 7 years. So I guess it is 7 years out-of-date.
- Size does not seem to play such a big role, if I enter 68 Inches and 160 pounds I get much the same result as 73 inches and 200 pounds. The comments sort of imply it is just using the height-to-weight ratio.
- Adding all 10 of those dietary supplements adds 5 years. I simply don't believe that. (Why those particular 5 for example? Did they by ads?)
- Going from 5 to 6 hours a week exercize knocked 4 years off my life expectancy. That is just plain silly, I exercize between 4 and 8 hours a week depending on how busy I am.
- We know that smoking takes 8-10 years off your life expectancy. That really needs to be an entirely seperate category.
Too many carbos you think?
You are probably right, I eat a lot more fruit now and feel better for it, but it is hard to get anything than a sandwich when you are on the run.