It's a priori pretty unlikely that there could even be a second space race between the US and China. You only engage in a space race if you have something to prove; since the United States beat the Soviet Union to the Moon and won the Cold War, the only country with something to prove is China, and as it stands they're way behind in the game. One could perhaps start talking about a renewed space race after a large amount of concerted effort by China -- say, China sets up a space station, goes to the Moon, and has plans for a manned mission to Mars -- bu that could only happen after a decade or more of successes by the Chinese.
He's just ranting that the computer industry didn't make him a rich man because of his contributions to the open source community. But if he were making contributions to the open source community with the intent of getting rich, he had the wrong plan. It can happen, but it hardy happens commonly, and that should never be the motive for getting into it.
His final "news" entry is conflicted and inconsistent. He's mad about the open source community not paying his bills for him. He's mad that companies used his software without giving him a job -- as if they had that obligation. He's mad that he never saw the true value of his own project -- so what is he blaming other people for?
Sounds to me like he's just pissed off, and is desperately looking for anyone but himself to blame.
Profound. You know, in the real world, you never know what the truth about any human affairs are, because you only hear the story from different people who are fallible.
Better yet, simply don't tell them what you'd rather them not know. (They may find out independently, but that's another story.) If you tell them something that you didn't want them to know and they publish it for the whole world to see, you've only yourself to blame.
Uh, right. Like the fault lies with PHP. It's more likely the fault lies with the machine being out of memory, process space, or disk space, or something else environmental. If the machine had hit its ceiling from being slashdotted, a Perl-based system would have failed too.
To be more accurate, the legal definition of libel varies from state to state and from country to country... although it's quite true that the elements described in the above comment are often involved, they aren't always, so as usual, take legal advice that you don't pay a lawyer for with a grain of salt. (I doubt that the person in question has much of a case for libel, particularly since he provided information to the interviewer voluntarily.)
I think people who claim they feel like they've been "raped" when they haven't actually been sexually assaulted need a refresher course on exactly what rape is.
Substituting "I feel raped" for "My feeling have been hurt" is an exaggeration of unimaginable proportions, and only manages to make the person in question look foolish.
There's an English translation of the German report (disclaimed as not authoritative) here. (Hmm, aren't unauthorized translations derivative works?:-)
The Air Force came clean about their explanation for the incident in 1994. Rest assured, conspiracy theorists won't let things like the facts get in the way of their outrageously stupid claims.
Uh, okay. What does that have to do with what I said? That you used Linux for a company task because you know the rumors are untrue and nobody else in the company heard you say "Linux" doesn't bear on the point at all.
This is actually the worst kind of publicity that Linux could receive. Look, we all know what SCO is trying to do, and we all are pretty sure that they're not going to get very far in doing it (at least we hope so). It's transparent to those in the know what's going on.
But those in the know aren't the only one reading these reports. If you're a smallish company and you're thinking about migrating to Linux, reading news reports about how companies are getting sued for using Linux -- whether or not it's likely that you yourself will get sued -- is going to turn you off to the idea.
Yes, Linux is getting mentioned a lot. But it's getting mentioned in FUDdish, scary ways that are likely to leave a bad impression on people who don't know much about it. That hurts Linux, not helps it.
According to some quick research, the typical moment of inertia for a compact disc is 27 000 g mm^2 = 2.7 x 10^-5 kg m^2. (A CD-R might have a little more mass than a typical CD.) If it were to really get up to the rated 35 000 rpm = 3700 rad/s, that would give the spinning CD an angular momentum of 0.10 kg m^2/s and a total rotational kinetic energy of about 180 J. By comparison, the (translational) kinetic energy of a 95 mph fastball is about 130 J.
But you're making a mistake similar to that which the original author did. Given a set of probability distributions, you can start making meaningful arguments about what probabilities of events might be given a starting event (i.e., pulling out a penny).
But the anthropic principle alone gives you no probability distribution, and it tells you absolutely nothing about it, except that 1. your existence is not impossible and 2. you exist. It tells you nothing at all about the probability distribution, which is precisely what you need to know to make meaningful predictions.
The anthropic principle is not a predictive tool. It is simply a statement of fact: You are here.
This is a common misapplication of the anthropic principle. All the weak anthropic principle (which is the only one appropriate) states is this: For you to be here now, conditions in the Universe must be right to allow you to be here. In probabilistic form, it simply states: The probability of your existence being made possible by the history of the Universe is 1.
Most people with something to prove use this to make probabilistic arguments based on the probability of life, or the number of existent civilizations, but these are misguided. The anthropic principle tells you nothing about how many civilizations are out there, or how likely other similar creatures are, it simply says that for you to be here, the Universe must allow your existence.
Arguments such as the ones made in this article are based on a faulty understanding the anthropic principle. They are assuming a probability distribution that they not only have no reason to believe is true, but which the anthropic principle says nothing about.
No, the cosmic ray background does not defined a preferred reference frame. It defines a frame, but "preferred frame" has a very special meaning in relativity -- it means a frame where the laws of physics work differently than in other frames. That certainly is not true of the cosmic background frame. It's unique in the same sense that a frame at rest with respect to the Earth is unique, but the laws of physics hardly work differently in Earth's rest frame rather than the cosmic background's.
Furthermore, you're missing an obvious detail: Due to the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background frame is not even unique. At rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation is not transitive; at rest with respect to the cosmic background here is not at rest with respect to the cosmic background there.
Natural cosmic ray (probably created by supernovae or hypernovae) are far more energetic than any puny little collision we can muster. Concerns about doing something bad because of our particle collider experiences is unwarranted; if something bad were potentially laying in wait, it would have already been sprung billions of years ago from cosmic rays events. The most energetic cosmic ray -- consisting of a single proton -- had the kinetic energy of a hard-thrown fastball.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit, man.
You can bunnyhop just fine in Quake III Arena.
It's a priori pretty unlikely that there could even be a second space race between the US and China. You only engage in a space race if you have something to prove; since the United States beat the Soviet Union to the Moon and won the Cold War, the only country with something to prove is China, and as it stands they're way behind in the game. One could perhaps start talking about a renewed space race after a large amount of concerted effort by China -- say, China sets up a space station, goes to the Moon, and has plans for a manned mission to Mars -- bu that could only happen after a decade or more of successes by the Chinese.
He's just ranting that the computer industry didn't make him a rich man because of his contributions to the open source community. But if he were making contributions to the open source community with the intent of getting rich, he had the wrong plan. It can happen, but it hardy happens commonly, and that should never be the motive for getting into it.
His final "news" entry is conflicted and inconsistent. He's mad about the open source community not paying his bills for him. He's mad that companies used his software without giving him a job -- as if they had that obligation. He's mad that he never saw the true value of his own project -- so what is he blaming other people for?
Sounds to me like he's just pissed off, and is desperately looking for anyone but himself to blame.
This has nothing to do with the DMCA, such activity was copyright infringement even under Berne.
No argument there; the misery he is going through now is largely, if not almost totally, his own doing.
Profound. You know, in the real world, you never know what the truth about any human affairs are, because you only hear the story from different people who are fallible.
Better yet, simply don't tell them what you'd rather them not know. (They may find out independently, but that's another story.) If you tell them something that you didn't want them to know and they publish it for the whole world to see, you've only yourself to blame.
Uh, right. Like the fault lies with PHP. It's more likely the fault lies with the machine being out of memory, process space, or disk space, or something else environmental. If the machine had hit its ceiling from being slashdotted, a Perl-based system would have failed too.
To be more accurate, the legal definition of libel varies from state to state and from country to country ... although it's quite true that the elements described in the above comment are often involved, they aren't always, so as usual, take legal advice that you don't pay a lawyer for with a grain of salt. (I doubt that the person in question has much of a case for libel, particularly since he provided information to the interviewer voluntarily.)
I think people who claim they feel like they've been "raped" when they haven't actually been sexually assaulted need a refresher course on exactly what rape is.
Substituting "I feel raped" for "My feeling have been hurt" is an exaggeration of unimaginable proportions, and only manages to make the person in question look foolish.
There's an English translation of the German report (disclaimed as not authoritative) here. (Hmm, aren't unauthorized translations derivative works? :-)
The Air Force came clean about their explanation for the incident in 1994. Rest assured, conspiracy theorists won't let things like the facts get in the way of their outrageously stupid claims.
Uh, okay. What does that have to do with what I said? That you used Linux for a company task because you know the rumors are untrue and nobody else in the company heard you say "Linux" doesn't bear on the point at all.
This is actually the worst kind of publicity that Linux could receive. Look, we all know what SCO is trying to do, and we all are pretty sure that they're not going to get very far in doing it (at least we hope so). It's transparent to those in the know what's going on.
But those in the know aren't the only one reading these reports. If you're a smallish company and you're thinking about migrating to Linux, reading news reports about how companies are getting sued for using Linux -- whether or not it's likely that you yourself will get sued -- is going to turn you off to the idea.
Yes, Linux is getting mentioned a lot. But it's getting mentioned in FUDdish, scary ways that are likely to leave a bad impression on people who don't know much about it. That hurts Linux, not helps it.
And this is surprising because ... ?
According to some quick research, the typical moment of inertia for a compact disc is 27 000 g mm^2 = 2.7 x 10^-5 kg m^2. (A CD-R might have a little more mass than a typical CD.) If it were to really get up to the rated 35 000 rpm = 3700 rad/s, that would give the spinning CD an angular momentum of 0.10 kg m^2/s and a total rotational kinetic energy of about 180 J. By comparison, the (translational) kinetic energy of a 95 mph fastball is about 130 J.
The African American Congress? Okay, okay, I'll be the first to admit I watch too much Law & Order.
If you lie about some product in order to make money, or in order to boost your stock price, and know what you're doing, then it's fraud.
Was it ever alive?
But you're making a mistake similar to that which the original author did. Given a set of probability distributions, you can start making meaningful arguments about what probabilities of events might be given a starting event (i.e., pulling out a penny).
But the anthropic principle alone gives you no probability distribution, and it tells you absolutely nothing about it, except that 1. your existence is not impossible and 2. you exist. It tells you nothing at all about the probability distribution, which is precisely what you need to know to make meaningful predictions.
The anthropic principle is not a predictive tool. It is simply a statement of fact: You are here.
This is a common misapplication of the anthropic principle. All the weak anthropic principle (which is the only one appropriate) states is this: For you to be here now, conditions in the Universe must be right to allow you to be here. In probabilistic form, it simply states: The probability of your existence being made possible by the history of the Universe is 1.
Most people with something to prove use this to make probabilistic arguments based on the probability of life, or the number of existent civilizations, but these are misguided. The anthropic principle tells you nothing about how many civilizations are out there, or how likely other similar creatures are, it simply says that for you to be here, the Universe must allow your existence.
Arguments such as the ones made in this article are based on a faulty understanding the anthropic principle. They are assuming a probability distribution that they not only have no reason to believe is true, but which the anthropic principle says nothing about.
No, the cosmic ray background does not defined a preferred reference frame. It defines a frame, but "preferred frame" has a very special meaning in relativity -- it means a frame where the laws of physics work differently than in other frames. That certainly is not true of the cosmic background frame. It's unique in the same sense that a frame at rest with respect to the Earth is unique, but the laws of physics hardly work differently in Earth's rest frame rather than the cosmic background's.
Furthermore, you're missing an obvious detail: Due to the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background frame is not even unique. At rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation is not transitive; at rest with respect to the cosmic background here is not at rest with respect to the cosmic background there.
Natural cosmic ray (probably created by supernovae or hypernovae) are far more energetic than any puny little collision we can muster. Concerns about doing something bad because of our particle collider experiences is unwarranted; if something bad were potentially laying in wait, it would have already been sprung billions of years ago from cosmic rays events. The most energetic cosmic ray -- consisting of a single proton -- had the kinetic energy of a hard-thrown fastball.
Great. Now CGW will have the images in about three months.