I'm an engineer myself so "it makes the math easier" is something I can easily relate to. I was wondering if there was any reason to believe math can't be complex.
Initial point object's uniformity rules out Klein bottles I guess. Dimples are not a good idea either, as one of the others posters point out the large-scale topology is the question and a dimpled ball is a just as sphere as an undimpled one.
OK, how about a universe with infinite number of holes? Initially uniformity does not rule out symmetry breaks, does it? In fact, since the universe is no more a lump of homogenous gas, there must have been some symmetry breakages.
I have read only popular science books about topology, so if these doesn't make sense, please say so, I won't be surprised.
Why do we even assume a simple symmetrical shape? For example, what is to stop universe from being Klein bottle shaped? Or perhaps the universe is a hypersphere, but has dimples like a golf ball. I'm really curious.
From what the reviewer talked about with A types, B types and C types, it sounds a whole lot like roles and the delegation design pattern.
I think the author couldn't sell the idea to the reviewer, but he is being polite. Cause it sounds more like we should put all aspects in a bit bucket and send them away.
My understanding of aerodynamics is, hopefully, quite sufficient. Yet, I can't see how this might be possible with normal cruising speeds. Can you tell us the trailed truck's cross section, the model of your friend's car and range of speeds involved?
Well, it is actually not a single guy. There are others (some as back as early 90ties) concerned about a possible surface geometry problem. If the surface is not smooth enough, plasma may touch the craft body and destroy it. The smoothness may be destroyed by a sufficiently big blow. Also there are many others in the foam investigation that think the thing may not be foam after all. The one guy I was talking about (the pointer has been determined as offtopic by mods!) just happened to describe what then-might happen eeriely accuratly. Mind you, he didn't believe the risk was high either.
It is also true that many others were saying everything is OK. Also they couldn't have possibly saved the craft, and even though it might have been possible to save the astronauts, that is not quite established either. Shuttle security has been exceptionally well until now, obviously sooner or later someone will overlook something and some disaster will strike. I wouldn't blame NASA even if they had overlooked a probable disaster scenario.
OTOH NASA is to blame for not ditching shuttle after the prototype stage. It was obvious at that point it wouldn't save money, it wouldn't fly as often and it wouldn't be re-usable without dismantling and almost rebuilding the whole thing. IOW it was obvious then-current shuttle design didn't meet its design goals.
Check Robert's first disaster scenario (nt)
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
One reason might be that prior to accident, at least one of the nasa guys (while discussing whether the foam might have damaged the craft and what would be consequences of such damage) described a possible damage scenerio which looks very similar to what happened to my untrained and underinformed eyes. Even though they could have done nothing at all to prevent that, once the craft is in orbit and damage is done, if that is indeed the culprit, they will get very bad publicity for ignoring even their internal consultants. Again.
This was last I heard about the freeze before posting the message:
"...The freeze applies to main... Contribs are run separately and aren't frozen yet." (19/02/2003 - "[Cooker] How to ask for a new version to go to 9.1" )
Then I checked the website and saw all packages have indeed been frozen now. I tought some contribs make it to download edition too but I guess I was wrong.
This 91.RC1 defiently is not a proper release candidate. It isn't even frozen yet! I'm really getting sick of using RC tags in linux world, and Mandrake had been the prime offender until KDE released seven candidates...
I fail to see how "Oh, you can fix that in the BIOS, just right click once you hear the POST beep, use mouse to navigate around and set the AGP aperature setting to 64MB, then click Save and Exit." is easier. The problem here is jargon and that won't go away by using GUIs and mice.
Actually even signing whole linux is not required, one just needs a signed bootloader. Modchips do not continously bypass bios, they do it once and it is enough. I don't see what dvd swapping has anything to do with it; once the signed bootloader loads linux kernel, xbox no longer can ask for permission to run stuff. Xbox doesn't (and can't) check each and every snippet of binary it executes, it just checks whether default thing to execute on DVD is signed and whether its signiture match it.
I don't think parent knows what he is talking about portability of NT. Even though newer NTs came in x86 flavour for the masses, all had internal builds of all platforms NT historically supported. It builds, it runs. I don't know just how well it runs, but that is another issue.
IA-64 might be giving them trouble because NT is an 32bit OS and Itanium is a 64 bit processor. I'm pretty sure they can release "XP for PPC" in a year if they ever need to.
It even has a name: Takkiye. Correct transliteration may be different. So you can be sure now even if all sides discredit the story, every terrorist looking like/carrying identity of a muslim will ask for pork-less dishes and those in disguise will never ever ask for pork-less dishes.
I believe you are referring to a group of users more savvy about computers.
Indeed. Most of my experince is derived from people who can administer their systems properly but not really system-admin types. They want to just *use* their systems instead of looking after them, though they are capable of both.
OTOH I also installed a few linux systems for completely clueless users at work too. Installing and configuring those to their liking was hard and every single problem was blamed on linux in the process, but the systems have been running almost without problems so far and users are happy now.
But they are not relevant right now, they don't decide what OS to use nor what to deploy. Ultimately, the goal is making *them* productive, but in the process the decision makers must be introducing the systems to them, hence we have to make those guys happier with linux first. I have to confess, except for giving free support and some advocacy, I haven't done much for that interim goal.
I don't preach to other users to install Linux on their desktops,
That really is a nice strategy. I felt the need to respond your original because I fear the brand new whiner half knowing what he talks about more than whiner who just read on/. that linux is not ready for desktop. With mozilla, openoffice in place, kde and gnome somewhat matured (kde more so), xft2 and prelinking ready for mass deployement, much better interactivity coming with 2.6 kernel series, I thing the worst we can do is insisting to techie types linux is ready *right now.* Half a year from now, the experience will be *much* better.
but I do constantly hand out knoppix cds.
Knoppix is awesome for someone to try out linux for it does not demand any comitment. Make sure either they have at least 256MB ram or you are there to prevent dangerous combinations such as kde+OOo. Programs demanding both many dynamic libraries and a good chunk of memory kill knoppix performance compared to an installed linux.
Regardless of where it is today, I think we all have an idea of where it is going;)
Linus said 2003 is desktop linux year, who am I to disagree:)
You know, your experience is expected. There are some HW that a particular linux distro cannot recognize or configure while FreeBSD can. There might even be some HW that doesn't work under linux at all, while do work with FreeBSD. Considering BSD licence of FreeBSD and GPL of Linux, that all drivers can be ported from FreeBSD to linux easily but not the other direction, those must be very rarely used hardware though.
My friend and my fan, I have to disagree with you on that. Once installed according to requirements of the user, linux is more than enough for any desktop use. But it is not trivial to find which components make the desktop you require, or how can you troubleshoot, upgrade or just add software to linux. These require a bit of expertise.
The most important linux skill is how to use internet for help, not any unix skills. For a newbie, it is a hit or miss affair. He grabs a modern desktop oriented linux, installs it in 30 or less minutes, if all of his hardware are supported and all programs newbie wants are already installed, good news, we have a new linux fan. Chances are, that won't happen.
If something goes wrong, it is best option for linux fans that newbie just forgets the idea, right then. Most probably he now has a functional system but with a non-functional usb mouse, cd burner or a sub-optimal refresh rate. He will want to fix and use the system. It is just the mouse, or the printer, or excel documents. He almost succeeded in this linux thing!
Wrong. He still misses the crucial skill.
He will try to fix it and fail, seek help and fail again, try to skim docs and fail, learn where to seek help and fail, read documents and seek help at the correct place with the correct attitude and if he has some luck, succeed at last. Now we have a brand new whiner instead fo a fan. Worse, he half knows what he is talking about.
Eveyone whines about windows all the time too, but it is not the same thing. We don't want scared potential new users. In case of windows, user already knows how much of that whining is about a real problem, that is not the case with linux.
Solution is aiming higher. Linux has to be considerably easier to use and install than windows because non-techie users just have a lot of experience with windows. Even if the fix isn't optimal, there is always a fix a phonecall to someone you know away. Linux doesn't have nearly the same installed base so is denied the luxury. Linux still requires a crucial skill; it shouldn't.
In some areas (considering desktop) linux already is better than windows and in others, it is not too far behind. But it has to better on all fronts. Till than, linux is not ready. You can argue that had market shares of linux and windows magically flipped, we would be saying windows is not ready. Probably you would be right, too. But market share (or rather, user base) has not magically flipped and that is not irrelevant.
All dirty tricks can be used for pissing competition. Actually, on athlons, gcc 3.2.x already matches intel's compiler with C code without resorting to such tricks. For real stuff, I'd very much have correct maths and exceptions in place though.
Add -fthis-program-has-no-bugs and you are done. Fastmath does questionable optimizations with valid input but its real danger lies in how gracefully it catches and handles invalid input (not at all.) It is not worth the trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still trying to grasp the consequences... http://www245.pair.com/aarre/cv/phipsy.pdf
Initial point object's uniformity rules out Klein bottles I guess. Dimples are not a good idea either, as one of the others posters point out the large-scale topology is the question and a dimpled ball is a just as sphere as an undimpled one.
OK, how about a universe with infinite number of holes? Initially uniformity does not rule out symmetry breaks, does it? In fact, since the universe is no more a lump of homogenous gas, there must have been some symmetry breakages.
I have read only popular science books about topology, so if these doesn't make sense, please say so, I won't be surprised.
It is possible (and AFAICT, actually the case) that the object in question is moving away in both directions if the spacetime is expanding.
Why do we even assume a simple symmetrical shape? For example, what is to stop universe from being Klein bottle shaped? Or perhaps the universe is a hypersphere, but has dimples like a golf ball. I'm really curious.
I think the author couldn't sell the idea to the reviewer, but he is being polite. Cause it sounds more like we should put all aspects in a bit bucket and send them away.
My understanding of aerodynamics is, hopefully, quite sufficient. Yet, I can't see how this might be possible with normal cruising speeds. Can you tell us the trailed truck's cross section, the model of your friend's car and range of speeds involved?
It is also true that many others were saying everything is OK. Also they couldn't have possibly saved the craft, and even though it might have been possible to save the astronauts, that is not quite established either. Shuttle security has been exceptionally well until now, obviously sooner or later someone will overlook something and some disaster will strike. I wouldn't blame NASA even if they had overlooked a probable disaster scenario.
OTOH NASA is to blame for not ditching shuttle after the prototype stage. It was obvious at that point it wouldn't save money, it wouldn't fly as often and it wouldn't be re-usable without dismantling and almost rebuilding the whole thing. IOW it was obvious then-current shuttle design didn't meet its design goals.
Slashcode, give us the no text option. Pleeease.
Check copy of e-mail communications after the foam incident
"...The freeze applies to main ... Contribs are run separately and aren't frozen yet." (19/02/2003 - "[Cooker] How to ask for a new version to go to 9.1" )
Then I checked the website and saw all packages have indeed been frozen now. I tought some contribs make it to download edition too but I guess I was wrong.
GPL doesn't force you to distribute your work to everyone; it just says you can't stop it if anyone else from does that.
I must have missed the deep freeze update on cooker. The package list is indeed frozen now.
This 91.RC1 defiently is not a proper release candidate. It isn't even frozen yet! I'm really getting sick of using RC tags in linux world, and Mandrake had been the prime offender until KDE released seven candidates...
You upgraded your server with a pre-release OS? Your faith in Mandrake is exceptional, sir!
I fail to see how "Oh, you can fix that in the BIOS, just right click once you hear the POST beep, use mouse to navigate around and set the AGP aperature setting to 64MB, then click Save and Exit." is easier. The problem here is jargon and that won't go away by using GUIs and mice.
Actually even signing whole linux is not required, one just needs a signed bootloader. Modchips do not continously bypass bios, they do it once and it is enough. I don't see what dvd swapping has anything to do with it; once the signed bootloader loads linux kernel, xbox no longer can ask for permission to run stuff. Xbox doesn't (and can't) check each and every snippet of binary it executes, it just checks whether default thing to execute on DVD is signed and whether its signiture match it.
Linux is a full OS and quite capable of running anything without asking for permission once booted.
IA-64 might be giving them trouble because NT is an 32bit OS and Itanium is a 64 bit processor. I'm pretty sure they can release "XP for PPC" in a year if they ever need to.
It even has a name: Takkiye. Correct transliteration may be different. So you can be sure now even if all sides discredit the story, every terrorist looking like/carrying identity of a muslim will ask for pork-less dishes and those in disguise will never ever ask for pork-less dishes.
Excellent idea! I wonder if they would give any Nobels for that? Not even an ig one?
Indeed. Most of my experince is derived from people who can administer their systems properly but not really system-admin types. They want to just *use* their systems instead of looking after them, though they are capable of both.
OTOH I also installed a few linux systems for completely clueless users at work too. Installing and configuring those to their liking was hard and every single problem was blamed on linux in the process, but the systems have been running almost without problems so far and users are happy now.
But they are not relevant right now, they don't decide what OS to use nor what to deploy. Ultimately, the goal is making *them* productive, but in the process the decision makers must be introducing the systems to them, hence we have to make those guys happier with linux first. I have to confess, except for giving free support and some advocacy, I haven't done much for that interim goal.
I don't preach to other users to install Linux on their desktops,
That really is a nice strategy. I felt the need to respond your original because I fear the brand new whiner half knowing what he talks about more than whiner who just read on /. that linux is not ready for desktop. With mozilla, openoffice in place, kde and gnome somewhat matured (kde more so), xft2 and prelinking ready for mass deployement, much better interactivity coming with 2.6 kernel series, I thing the worst we can do is insisting to techie types linux is ready *right now.* Half a year from now, the experience will be *much* better.
but I do constantly hand out knoppix cds.
Knoppix is awesome for someone to try out linux for it does not demand any comitment. Make sure either they have at least 256MB ram or you are there to prevent dangerous combinations such as kde+OOo. Programs demanding both many dynamic libraries and a good chunk of memory kill knoppix performance compared to an installed linux.
Regardless of where it is today, I think we all have an idea of where it is going;)
Linus said 2003 is desktop linux year, who am I to disagree :)
Oh, I stole the subj. line from someone else.
The most important linux skill is how to use internet for help, not any unix skills. For a newbie, it is a hit or miss affair. He grabs a modern desktop oriented linux, installs it in 30 or less minutes, if all of his hardware are supported and all programs newbie wants are already installed, good news, we have a new linux fan. Chances are, that won't happen.
If something goes wrong, it is best option for linux fans that newbie just forgets the idea, right then. Most probably he now has a functional system but with a non-functional usb mouse, cd burner or a sub-optimal refresh rate. He will want to fix and use the system. It is just the mouse, or the printer, or excel documents. He almost succeeded in this linux thing!
Wrong. He still misses the crucial skill.
He will try to fix it and fail, seek help and fail again, try to skim docs and fail, learn where to seek help and fail, read documents and seek help at the correct place with the correct attitude and if he has some luck, succeed at last. Now we have a brand new whiner instead fo a fan. Worse, he half knows what he is talking about.
Eveyone whines about windows all the time too, but it is not the same thing. We don't want scared potential new users. In case of windows, user already knows how much of that whining is about a real problem, that is not the case with linux.
Solution is aiming higher. Linux has to be considerably easier to use and install than windows because non-techie users just have a lot of experience with windows. Even if the fix isn't optimal, there is always a fix a phonecall to someone you know away. Linux doesn't have nearly the same installed base so is denied the luxury. Linux still requires a crucial skill; it shouldn't.
In some areas (considering desktop) linux already is better than windows and in others, it is not too far behind. But it has to better on all fronts. Till than, linux is not ready. You can argue that had market shares of linux and windows magically flipped, we would be saying windows is not ready. Probably you would be right, too. But market share (or rather, user base) has not magically flipped and that is not irrelevant.
I know, I should have read the grandparent.
All dirty tricks can be used for pissing competition. Actually, on athlons, gcc 3.2.x already matches intel's compiler with C code without resorting to such tricks. For real stuff, I'd very much have correct maths and exceptions in place though.
Add -fthis-program-has-no-bugs and you are done. Fastmath does questionable optimizations with valid input but its real danger lies in how gracefully it catches and handles invalid input (not at all.) It is not worth the trouble.