I don't get this. I thought 1.0 meant an API freeze for Mozilla. Even if new features were added, the old ones should stay the way they are. Someone enlighten me?
> Telstra are scum. They gouge every cent they can, and they're single-handedly responsable for making broadband here almost prohibitively expensive.
> I almost hope they'll decide to use new Windows $3000 (per MB RAM required, min 512MB) so that they'll go broke, the gov't will resume full ownership of the infrastructure, and we get a working telecommunications system again.
What's your problem? If they spend less money on computers/software thanks to Linux, that should translate into lower prices for You. And even if they truly are scum, it's better for everyone if they use Linux instead of pouring $$$ into Bill Gates's pockets.
The Dynamic Universe model, developed in recent years as an alternative to Einstein's General Relativity, predicts the slowdown of light as the universe expands. Otherwise, its results are consistent with GR within practical uncertaintly limits.
Interestingly, the DU model starts off with Einstein's original assumption of a 4-dimensional space (where our space is a 3-dimensional surface). Einstein decided to interpret the fourth (radial) dimension as time to avoid the idea of an expanding universe, because it was thought static at the time.
However, one main reason why DU has been developed, is that the calculations are much simpler and more intuitive than in GR. For instance, it explains _why_ space is curved by mass, while GR only tells how much.
Mathematical discoveries can be awarded the Nobel Prize in some cases, if the discovery has an impact on one of the noble sciences. For example, we all should know now that John Nash won the Nobel Prize for Economics, although his theory was purely mathematical.
Re:Cool project resulting from a big problem?
on
RPM Dependency Graph
·
· Score: 1
This is really a mechanism vs. policy issue. The "options" you describe isn't much different from having RPMS like
office-base
office-wordprocess (depends on office-base)
office-spreadsheet (depends on office-base)
et cetera ad nauseum.
Options are simply packages that depend on the mother package (and possibly some other options). Or can you prove me wrong?
> Do observed natural patterns evolve in nature in the same way that CA development of patterns does?
Good question! In another lecture by a person whose name I forgot, it was shown how the human (embroy) hand evolves this way, by subsequent branching. As there are only five branches in the end product, the process must be controlled by other effects (growth factors).
The way the simple fractals are often presented, shows a progression from large to smaller scales ad infinitum. Real-life fractals like tree branches, I believe, evolve more or less simultaneously at different scales, and have a lower limit of scale. So at least this particular algorithmic approach is wrong, but perhaps there's another algorithm that fits it much better.
God as an engineer (joke)
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 1
Three engineers were discussing God's role as a scientists who designed Man:
Mechanical engineer: "God must have been a mechanical engineer. Just look at all those beams and joints in the human body."
Electrical engineer: "No, surely he is an electrical engineer, it's obvious from the nervous system."
Chemical engineer: "Guys, you got it all wrong. God is a chemical engineer. I mean, who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"
As a physicist...
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree very much. Newton's dynamics and gravity, and Maxwell's electromagnetism are simply models of the world. They are 'phenomenological' theories that can predict the outcomes of many physical situations, but are totally agnostic as to what is happening within.
Einstein's theories of relativity that combine the above, are more accurate and elegant (i.e. conceptually simpler) than the two. But the more accurate predictions do not mean that the model is any closer to the 'real' workings of nature.
Wolfram's model may be even more accurate, but there can never be a conclusive proof if it really reflects the reality.
I remember a lecture by Benoit Mandelbrot I attended a few years ago. He showed the exactly same idea as Wolfram is explaining, that starting from very simple algorithms you could iterate many natural patterns. What really struck me was Mandelbrot's note on the idea of patterns themselves: "Are there patterns out there in nature, or are the patterns only in our heads?"
The latter possibility comes back to what you've explained, that the model tells more about the current society, than it does about nature. Of course, the question looks like it can never really be answered.
> But then why doesn't all gravitation collapse to infinity?
Well, perhaps the term 'positive feedback' is wrong. The field cannot amplify itself because there's field only outside the mass/energy source. And from the complicated nature of General Relativity, the effect is not simply positive or negative.
[In Newton's gravity, only one number (mass density) causes gravitation. But in GR the source of gravity is a 4x4 matrix involving velocities as well, so there's more than simple increase or decrease.]
There's a rather similar effect in the strong nuclear force. The gluons that mediate forces between quarks, can interact with other gluons as well. But electromagnetism is simpler (linear) because photons don't interact with other photons.
Can someone verify that they have actually frozen the API? I'm a bit sceptical, especially as they said the 1.1A has been in development way before 1.0 release.
It does seem a sensible and common practice to only change the API at major number releases, but for instance the Linux kernel 2.4.x is sometimes incompatible with binary modules for 2.4.y.
A crucial difference between electromagnetism and gravitation comes from the fact that fields contain energy. Grav.fields are not only generated from mass, but from energy as well. The equations become nonlinear, because any grav.field will have this positive feedback.
Conversely, electromagnetic fields (i.e. photons) do not generate further EM fields, so the equations are linear.
Slashdot Mirror
She sells C shells from the C source.
They probably don't like Unix either.
Linux Router Project
'nuff said.
I don't get this. I thought 1.0 meant an API freeze for Mozilla. Even if new features were added, the old ones should stay the way they are. Someone enlighten me?
fp
> I almost hope they'll decide to use new Windows $3000 (per MB RAM required, min 512MB) so that they'll go broke, the gov't will resume full ownership of the infrastructure, and we get a working telecommunications system again.
What's your problem? If they spend less money on computers/software thanks to Linux, that should translate into lower prices for You. And even if they truly are scum, it's better for everyone if they use Linux instead of pouring $$$ into Bill Gates's pockets.
It does, especially NT.
This GPL'ed licensed program comes on a CD disc and installs on HDD drives, to be run on an IC circuit.
Interestingly, the DU model starts off with Einstein's original assumption of a 4-dimensional space (where our space is a 3-dimensional surface). Einstein decided to interpret the fourth (radial) dimension as time to avoid the idea of an expanding universe, because it was thought static at the time.
However, one main reason why DU has been developed, is that the calculations are much simpler and more intuitive than in GR. For instance, it explains _why_ space is curved by mass, while GR only tells how much.
Mathematical discoveries can be awarded the Nobel Prize in some cases, if the discovery has an impact on one of the noble sciences. For example, we all should know now that John Nash won the Nobel Prize for Economics, although his theory was purely mathematical.
Options are simply packages that depend on the mother package (and possibly some other options). Or can you prove me wrong?
How about intentions? Methinks Minority Report..
I suppose this only works if the tooth is blue.
Good question! In another lecture by a person whose name I forgot, it was shown how the human (embroy) hand evolves this way, by subsequent branching. As there are only five branches in the end product, the process must be controlled by other effects (growth factors).
The way the simple fractals are often presented, shows a progression from large to smaller scales ad infinitum. Real-life fractals like tree branches, I believe, evolve more or less simultaneously at different scales, and have a lower limit of scale. So at least this particular algorithmic approach is wrong, but perhaps there's another algorithm that fits it much better.
Mechanical engineer: "God must have been a mechanical engineer. Just look at all those beams and joints in the human body."
Electrical engineer: "No, surely he is an electrical engineer, it's obvious from the nervous system."
Chemical engineer: "Guys, you got it all wrong. God is a chemical engineer. I mean, who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"
Einstein's theories of relativity that combine the above, are more accurate and elegant (i.e. conceptually simpler) than the two. But the more accurate predictions do not mean that the model is any closer to the 'real' workings of nature.
Wolfram's model may be even more accurate, but there can never be a conclusive proof if it really reflects the reality.
I remember a lecture by Benoit Mandelbrot I attended a few years ago. He showed the exactly same idea as Wolfram is explaining, that starting from very simple algorithms you could iterate many natural patterns. What really struck me was Mandelbrot's note on the idea of patterns themselves: "Are there patterns out there in nature, or are the patterns only in our heads?"
The latter possibility comes back to what you've explained, that the model tells more about the current society, than it does about nature. Of course, the question looks like it can never really be answered.
Well, perhaps the term 'positive feedback' is wrong. The field cannot amplify itself because there's field only outside the mass/energy source. And from the complicated nature of General Relativity, the effect is not simply positive or negative.
[In Newton's gravity, only one number (mass density) causes gravitation. But in GR the source of gravity is a 4x4 matrix involving velocities as well, so there's more than simple increase or decrease.]
There's a rather similar effect in the strong nuclear force. The gluons that mediate forces between quarks, can interact with other gluons as well. But electromagnetism is simpler (linear) because photons don't interact with other photons.
It does seem a sensible and common practice to only change the API at major number releases, but for instance the Linux kernel 2.4.x is sometimes incompatible with binary modules for 2.4.y.
Conversely, electromagnetic fields (i.e. photons) do not generate further EM fields, so the equations are linear.
Hmm, I also use latex a lot when working with computers. Oh wait, not THAT kinda latex..
You can use any (compatible) processor to its fullest if you run the distributed.net client. :-)
This will no doubt do wonders to the speed and usage of GNOME.
It's 'rhythm'. Stop using that CmdrTaco's speel chekcer.
After all, the poll was about the most popular mathematical al-gore-rithm.