Although beautiful and much desirable, I wonder about the longevity of this keyboard. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I was not such a big coffee drinker...and didnt have the usual habit to spill 10% of it (roughly) on my keyboard.
Your arguments takes us more on a philosophic path than the physics one. It's great!
The results from LHC are interpreted to create a picture of reality. They don't demonstrate the nature of reality itself (I guess you're a copenhagen kinda guy?).
OK, I could be classified as of the "Copenhagen kind". But here you raise the issue on "reality". Remember Einstein saying everything is relative. Can we ever talk about "absolute reality" or what we perceive as "our" reality, given the references we have.
"When experiences match theory closely" How closely? Not a very scientific statement... and do you believe in the higgs boson, it doesn't fit current experimental data, in fact IIRC the theory has had to be tweaked a few times to account for not yet having found it. Incidentally, higgs fields are a cool idea.,
True that I lack details when I say "closely." - Measures of the energy of those babies for instance, which matches the theory's expectactions.
To answer about the Higgs boson. I do not "believe" in it. There are more and more evidences that such a mechanism is in place. Maybe it's not a boson, maybe it's something else. But with the current knowledge, it is enough to "simplify" to one particle. Maybe science will discover that this particle is in fact...a 11-dimensions brane? I do not know, I do not speculate nor do I "want to believe". I wait for those guys to carry on their job and send us articles on their findings!.
As for repeatability. Yes, something that happens always the same way tells us it might be worth looking at it. You are absolutely right. But the "singularities" in physics are mostly limits to the mathematical models with which we try to describe things. Like black holes: they cannot possibly end-up in one singularity in our mind? Well, on models they do, but Hawkings and others demonstrated that, more than being a math artifact, ending up as a single dot in space for our black hole really doesn't happen. There is no singularity. There is a big hole that swallow matter as if it would swallow the whole universe at the end of times, but who will evaporate eventually and disappear by lack of interstellar food...So there are no singular physical object as such - all is repeated (and thus all is well).
Thanks for your reply. You raise interesting issues and points. I hope to see more like that on/.
I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed.
Well, then you fall on the Occams' razor idea. There are many other reasons why the LHC may work, without God's intervention (or any other of the Fantastic 4). Since you do not NEED those guys to *fuck around*, why introduce them in the equation? It introduces unnecessary complexity to explain the same phenomenon.
I think you retro-feedbacked yourself on that razor thing. Please be careful not to cut yourself!
Sadly, with the way you worded your e-mail, there are very few chances that anyone will listen.
Demanding things from someone to counter their "disgusting" behaviour never works. Never. On the other hand, (and as an example) asking why such a questionnable technical choice was made, and offering your technical enlightenments can open more doors than you think.
Not sure what you mean about boot-strap, but as for the Hadron family, look for..."Large Hadron Collider"
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
>Branes
Branes..ah! Branes...Wait for the next version of the LHC. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson might give up to the LHC and show up at last (he's the one supposedly responsible for giving its mass to a particle - so it's somewhat a big deal). And the nice thing is that, since it's theory (again), we'll soon be fixed on wherever it exists or not. If not, other theories will try to explain mass and will be tested. Until we find out.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Well..If you do not have an internet connection, play something less rather than using softwares that have legal issues.
Otherwise, it's the same as saying "Hey I don't have enough money, so I'll make my own (to use at home of course *cough cough*".
Having said that, you CANNOT say BNetD was not use for piracy. This software took off and became more public when Blizzard started doing Warcraft III beta testing and the whole world wanted to play it. It was obvious that BNetD was not build around running legitimate copies of the games.
They used the Network Telescope data to find out who was sending Witty packets and found ONE address that was outside of the range of IP addresses that were covered by the (flawed) algorithm.,/p>
The set of IP addresses that are covered by the algorithm is what is called an "orbit" in the article (see it as if you had a base address, and go around this base address, trying all possibilities starting from that address).
One IP could not possibly belong to this set of possible IP addresses (it was outside the "orbit") and they deducted it was patient zero since the worm could have generated that particular one.
It seems strange to me that the worm writter missed that one, so patient zero is probably a victim computer and probably not the worm writer's one or anything near him.
The funny thing in the tabbed browsing argument from the M$ guy is that it really is just so not credible, and those people really seem to think users and others are just idiots.
"Some people have asked why we didn't put tabs in IE sooner," Hachamovitch wrote. "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistencywill it confuse users more than it benefits them? Is it confusing if IE has tabs, but other core parts of the Windows experience, like Windows Media Player or the shell, don't have?"
Big lie. The simple fact that they didn't even consider making it optional is because with the current IE codebase, it's just plain impossible. Everyone knows how M$ can't create modular softwares. It
s not the Windows OS, it's the M$ culture and the poor programming and software engineering that is part of their habits.
The most visible evidence of that is that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) is "is looking for volunteers to maintain a version of OpenOffice that doesn't require a non-free Java platform."
Isn't the JDK code from SUN supposedly made available as an Open-Source project, if not already done?
If it's not done, it's on the way. And the whole whinning is just one more attempt at FUD from people who don't know anything about the Java language. Could that be?
Am I the only one who gets annoyed at how computer books have devolved into hardcopies of auto-generated online documentation? Am I the only one who remembers books that cover the intangables of coding (e.g. theory of operation, correct methodology for usage, cool coding and hardware tricks, etc.) rather than the "instruction manual for dummies" books?
No! I'm with you and that is the main reason why I rarely buy books about programming. 75% of the content can be found online, and really, I do not need the 1101th iteration of "Hello World" in [insert your preferred language name here].
I always feel like I spent money and killed trees for no reason when I see that half a book is filled with obvious lines of code, or a printout of the API.
For Jakarta Commons, just type "jakarta" in the address bar of Firefox or "commons" and chances are you'll find what you want faster than browsing through a book index. More than faster, it's an entirely free solution!
Really, the practice of pitching code in a book just shows that the author has nothing to say and has to fill blank pages, or cannot explain a point in clear human language. Hence he should not be writting a book.
Erika Heikl, 16, one of 14 students from Bishop Seabury Academy, a Christian school in Lawrence, Kan., who attended the hearings, said she believed in evolution - and that the standards should be changed to include its detractors.
When people will start realizing that science has nothing to do with believing, can we switch to a more interesting debate and leave the people of Kansas in their miserable ignorance?
The product is discontinued...we can say it like this since the free BK client is gone because it was too expensive to maintain.
Hence the poor choice in the first place. When you are such a major player as Linus is in the industry, you HAVE to plan ahead such things and sort of read the future.
In the case of the move to BitKeeper (which happened quite recently somehow), you have to wonder what motivated that choice. Obviously, there was not much planning ahead otherwise Linus would have seen this coming (by..just asking the vendor..."how long can I expect this product to live free before it dies?")
Also if BK decides it's too expensive to maintain a free client, this raises questions as per why a company-owned tool is used in the first place.
There's something that hardly sounds right to me somehow, somewhere...
False or not, Linus Torvald has never been known for his profound thinking on any topic. He's good at designing, managing and coding the Linux kernel but aside from that, his "political" interventions are always very poor, and not always well-thought. One example is his handling of the whole free BitKeeper issue.
I think we hear too much of this guy in areas he has nothing to do or say. That's not because he's a lead open-source developer that everything he says should be taken for granted. There are instances (like the BK thing from the start) where he just got it all mighty wrong. But who's going to admit Linus *can* be wrong, without being tagged as a Microsoft freak, an insensitive clod or a russian hacker?
It is NOT working. It will NOT work correctly. NEVER.
Some useful links:
Article here
This one even dates before you're born (apparently, otherwise you'd be intelligent enough to make the difference between politics and science)
And here
If you can read more than 5mn in a row:
Here too
It is NOT working. It will NOT work correctly. NEVER.
Some useful links:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj9 9mendelsohn
This one even dates before you're born (apparently, otherwise you'd be intelligent enough to make the difference between politics and science)
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/nmd.htm
Maybe if you can read...
http://www.isis-europe.org/ftp/download/bp-23.pdf
The attemps you are talking about have nothing to do with real situations. The trajectories were known in advance, a lot of variables were made constants so to avoid troubles.
It is always amazing to see people being blinded from the obvious. This sounds exactly the same as those who defend creationism. They don't know a freaking thing and they think they know it all because they believe or someone told them.
I don't get why people keep saying it will "never" work. It's a hard problem, but I'm aware of no physical laws that are violated by BMD.
Laws of physics don't prevent anything. That's the control other external variables (winds, temperature, time itself...you name it) that we do not control. There's just too many of them.
It will *NEVER* work because they are *too much* design flaws.
Thanks for spreading your culture about Arthur C. Clarke but unfortunately, you missed the point.
The missile shield thing is nothing new in terms of technology and has nothing to do with new discoveries or research, so that citation doesn't apply.
Now I am saying that teleportation of human beings will *NEVER* work. It is impossible. Am I probably wrong? Yes? Ah...You think otherwise? Please read the last two years of scientific publications about entangled photons and come back to me.
Well, if you had your eyes a little open...you would get the idea...
Parrish says those who support missile defence are the "coalition of the idiots."
I hate to say it but anyone who is willing to have his tax money spent on a missile shield defence, of which it has been demonstrated that it will NEVER work, has to be considered low on intelligence...hence the term "idiot".
How can you bear the rest of the world spending all its time thinking about you
Since the US can't seem to leave anyone alone, it's not that people are thinking about you, but they are thinking about what to DO with you.
First we have a system that provide users with password recovery given a very simple combination of NAS and birthdate, which are amazingly easy to obtain. It's not even involving "social engineering". It's just that using a NAS is not safe enough to use as an authentication key.
On the other side, we have a smart cookie (sic!) who is so stupid that she goes into computer hacking without knowing the outcomes, like masquerading your IP.
A well deserve jail sentence for sheer stupidity should have been sent to both parties...
Great comment I must say and you are right somehow. It could well be that I'm too conservative here.
Having said that, this can be the debate about what is art and what is not. Thinking about it, I cannot consider leet speak as "art" since it doesn't provide any emotion on top of the message being carried. It may be graphically appealing but to me it really is not. I actually prefer calligraphy for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Although beautiful and much desirable, I wonder about the longevity of this keyboard. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I was not such a big coffee drinker...and didnt have the usual habit to spill 10% of it (roughly) on my keyboard.
The results from LHC are interpreted to create a picture of reality. They don't demonstrate the nature of reality itself (I guess you're a copenhagen kinda guy?).
OK, I could be classified as of the "Copenhagen kind". But here you raise the issue on "reality". Remember Einstein saying everything is relative. Can we ever talk about "absolute reality" or what we perceive as "our" reality, given the references we have."When experiences match theory closely" ... and do you believe in the higgs boson, it doesn't fit current experimental data, in fact IIRC the theory has had to be tweaked a few times to account for not yet having found it. Incidentally, higgs fields are a cool idea. ,
True that I lack details when I say "closely." - Measures of the energy of those babies for instance, which matches the theory's expectactions. To answer about the Higgs boson. I do not "believe" in it. There are more and more evidences that such a mechanism is in place. Maybe it's not a boson, maybe it's something else. But with the current knowledge, it is enough to "simplify" to one particle. Maybe science will discover that this particle is in fact...a 11-dimensions brane? I do not know, I do not speculate nor do I "want to believe". I wait for those guys to carry on their job and send us articles on their findings!.How closely? Not a very scientific statement
As for repeatability. Yes, something that happens always the same way tells us it might be worth looking at it. You are absolutely right. But the "singularities" in physics are mostly limits to the mathematical models with which we try to describe things. Like black holes: they cannot possibly end-up in one singularity in our mind? Well, on models they do, but Hawkings and others demonstrated that, more than being a math artifact, ending up as a single dot in space for our black hole really doesn't happen. There is no singularity. There is a big hole that swallow matter as if it would swallow the whole universe at the end of times, but who will evaporate eventually and disappear by lack of interstellar food...So there are no singular physical object as such - all is repeated (and thus all is well).
Thanks for your reply. You raise interesting issues and points. I hope to see more like that on /.
I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed.
Well, then you fall on the Occams' razor idea. There are many other reasons why the LHC may work, without God's intervention (or any other of the Fantastic 4). Since you do not NEED those guys to *fuck around*, why introduce them in the equation? It introduces unnecessary complexity to explain the same phenomenon.I think you retro-feedbacked yourself on that razor thing. Please be careful not to cut yourself!
Sadly, with the way you worded your e-mail, there are very few chances that anyone will listen.
Demanding things from someone to counter their "disgusting" behaviour never works. Never. On the other hand, (and as an example) asking why such a questionnable technical choice was made, and offering your technical enlightenments can open more doors than you think.
Stop grunting - grow up
>> Like quarks ... where's the objective verification
In the Large Hadron Collider you will find the answer. Here or here or a more wider search
>>What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
Not sure what you mean about boot-strap, but as for the Hadron family, look for..."Large Hadron Collider"
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
>Branes
Branes..ah! Branes...Wait for the next version of the LHC. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson might give up to the LHC and show up at last (he's the one supposedly responsible for giving its mass to a particle - so it's somewhat a big deal). And the nice thing is that, since it's theory (again), we'll soon be fixed on wherever it exists or not. If not, other theories will try to explain mass and will be tested. Until we find out.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Well..If you do not have an internet connection, play something less rather than using softwares that have legal issues.
Otherwise, it's the same as saying "Hey I don't have enough money, so I'll make my own (to use at home of course *cough cough*".
Having said that, you CANNOT say BNetD was not use for piracy. This software took off and became more public when Blizzard started doing Warcraft III beta testing and the whole world wanted to play it. It was obvious that BNetD was not build around running legitimate copies of the games.
CHILD Poverty rates by country US 22% Canada 14% Australia 14% Ireland 12% Israel 11% Britain 10% .....
Switz., Sweden, Denmark, Finland, all 3%
Also, 25% of New York cities inhabitants live under the level of poverty.
I don't know about you but I'd rather be unemployed and have benefits than having my kid die of hunger.
You have a warm welcome from the french !Not exactly actually.
They used the Network Telescope data to find out who was sending Witty packets and found ONE address that was outside of the range of IP addresses that were covered by the (flawed) algorithm.,/p>
The set of IP addresses that are covered by the algorithm is what is called an "orbit" in the article (see it as if you had a base address, and go around this base address, trying all possibilities starting from that address).
One IP could not possibly belong to this set of possible IP addresses (it was outside the "orbit") and they deducted it was patient zero since the worm could have generated that particular one.
It seems strange to me that the worm writter missed that one, so patient zero is probably a victim computer and probably not the worm writer's one or anything near him.
The funny thing in the tabbed browsing argument from the M$ guy is that it really is just so not credible, and those people really seem to think users and others are just idiots.
"Some people have asked why we didn't put tabs in IE sooner," Hachamovitch wrote. "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistencywill it confuse users more than it benefits them? Is it confusing if IE has tabs, but other core parts of the Windows experience, like Windows Media Player or the shell, don't have?"
Big lie. The simple fact that they didn't even consider making it optional is because with the current IE codebase, it's just plain impossible. Everyone knows how M$ can't create modular softwares. It s not the Windows OS, it's the M$ culture and the poor programming and software engineering that is part of their habits.The most visible evidence of that is that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) is "is looking for volunteers to maintain a version of OpenOffice that doesn't require a non-free Java platform."
Isn't the JDK code from SUN supposedly made available as an Open-Source project, if not already done?
If it's not done, it's on the way. And the whole whinning is just one more attempt at FUD from people who don't know anything about the Java language. Could that be?
Am I the only one who gets annoyed at how computer books have devolved into hardcopies of auto-generated online documentation? Am I the only one who remembers books that cover the intangables of coding (e.g. theory of operation, correct methodology for usage, cool coding and hardware tricks, etc.) rather than the "instruction manual for dummies" books?
No! I'm with you and that is the main reason why I rarely buy books about programming. 75% of the content can be found online, and really, I do not need the 1101th iteration of "Hello World" in [insert your preferred language name here].
I always feel like I spent money and killed trees for no reason when I see that half a book is filled with obvious lines of code, or a printout of the API.
For Jakarta Commons, just type "jakarta" in the address bar of Firefox or "commons" and chances are you'll find what you want faster than browsing through a book index. More than faster, it's an entirely free solution!
Really, the practice of pitching code in a book just shows that the author has nothing to say and has to fill blank pages, or cannot explain a point in clear human language. Hence he should not be writting a book.
Erika Heikl, 16, one of 14 students from Bishop Seabury Academy, a Christian school in Lawrence, Kan., who attended the hearings, said she believed in evolution - and that the standards should be changed to include its detractors.
When people will start realizing that science has nothing to do with believing, can we switch to a more interesting debate and leave the people of Kansas in their miserable ignorance?
Please?
What's more boring than a slashdot article on sundays...
Too bad there is no link to "Buy Slashdot a brain" - it is needed before buying books.
OSDL's BitKeeper license got revoked
The product is discontinued...we can say it like this since the free BK client is gone because it was too expensive to maintain.
Hence the poor choice in the first place. When you are such a major player as Linus is in the industry, you HAVE to plan ahead such things and sort of read the future.
In the case of the move to BitKeeper (which happened quite recently somehow), you have to wonder what motivated that choice. Obviously, there was not much planning ahead otherwise Linus would have seen this coming (by..just asking the vendor..."how long can I expect this product to live free before it dies?")
Also if BK decides it's too expensive to maintain a free client, this raises questions as per why a company-owned tool is used in the first place.
There's something that hardly sounds right to me somehow, somewhere...
False or not, Linus Torvald has never been known for his profound thinking on any topic. He's good at designing, managing and coding the Linux kernel but aside from that, his "political" interventions are always very poor, and not always well-thought. One example is his handling of the whole free BitKeeper issue.
I think we hear too much of this guy in areas he has nothing to do or say. That's not because he's a lead open-source developer that everything he says should be taken for granted. There are instances (like the BK thing from the start) where he just got it all mighty wrong. But who's going to admit Linus *can* be wrong, without being tagged as a Microsoft freak, an insensitive clod or a russian hacker?
Oh..It's not that I don't trust you personnaly. Thanks for the code, that's what open source is all about.
But you have to admit that trusting a web site to generate passwords is very low on the scale of security...
It is NOT working. It will NOT work correctly. NEVER. Some useful links: Article here
This one even dates before you're born (apparently, otherwise you'd be intelligent enough to make the difference between politics and science)
And here
If you can read more than 5mn in a row:
Here too
It is NOT working. It will NOT work correctly. NEVER. Some useful links: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj9 9mendelsohn
This one even dates before you're born (apparently, otherwise you'd be intelligent enough to make the difference between politics and science)
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/nmd .htm
Maybe if you can read...
http://www.isis-europe.org/ftp/download/bp-23.pdf
The attemps you are talking about have nothing to do with real situations. The trajectories were known in advance, a lot of variables were made constants so to avoid troubles.
It is always amazing to see people being blinded from the obvious. This sounds exactly the same as those who defend creationism. They don't know a freaking thing and they think they know it all because they believe or someone told them.
I don't get why people keep saying it will "never" work. It's a hard problem, but I'm aware of no physical laws that are violated by BMD.
Laws of physics don't prevent anything. That's the control other external variables (winds, temperature, time itself...you name it) that we do not control. There's just too many of them.Thanks for spreading your culture about Arthur C. Clarke but unfortunately, you missed the point.
The missile shield thing is nothing new in terms of technology and has nothing to do with new discoveries or research, so that citation doesn't apply.
Now I am saying that teleportation of human beings will *NEVER* work. It is impossible. Am I probably wrong? Yes? Ah...You think otherwise? Please read the last two years of scientific publications about entangled photons and come back to me.
Random password generator? On a website? And it's not logging my IP and the password it has generated for me? I would have to be paid to believe this
Seriously, how secure is that?
Parrish says those who support missile defence are the "coalition of the idiots."
I hate to say it but anyone who is willing to have his tax money spent on a missile shield defence, of which it has been demonstrated that it will NEVER work, has to be considered low on intelligence...hence the term "idiot".How can you bear the rest of the world spending all its time thinking about you
Since the US can't seem to leave anyone alone, it's not that people are thinking about you, but they are thinking about what to DO with you.
I cannot do anything but laugh at this.
First we have a system that provide users with password recovery given a very simple combination of NAS and birthdate, which are amazingly easy to obtain. It's not even involving "social engineering". It's just that using a NAS is not safe enough to use as an authentication key.
On the other side, we have a smart cookie (sic!) who is so stupid that she goes into computer hacking without knowing the outcomes, like masquerading your IP.
A well deserve jail sentence for sheer stupidity should have been sent to both parties...
Great comment I must say and you are right somehow. It could well be that I'm too conservative here.
Having said that, this can be the debate about what is art and what is not. Thinking about it, I cannot consider leet speak as "art" since it doesn't provide any emotion on top of the message being carried. It may be graphically appealing but to me it really is not. I actually prefer calligraphy for that matter.