Think of it this way:
Two guys have a deadline in an hour.
Guy #1 sits at his desk and does nothing. Guy #2 zips around at a high velocity and returns to meet guy #1. Both guys check their watch, guy #1 notes an hour has past, while guy #2 notes that half an hour has past. Although guy #2 has aged less, he actually had less time to work to meet the deadline.
In the spirit of the original post, guy #2 has lost time instead of gained it.
You should cover all the walls and ceiling with markerboard. The shop in my parent's house is this way and makes for a great work space. Every (non-furniture) surface is a place to sketch out ideas and make little notes. If you put a thin metallic sheet behind the markerboard sheet, you'll also be able to use magnets to hold things up.
1) Email - Seems to me that his statement is a "hit". Email does alleviate the need for as many meetings and does allow my collegues and I to show up more informed. You really have to question the author's judgement if he doesn't think this was the biggest "hit" of all. Email has definitely changed the way I collaborate. This author wants us to believe that he never reviews documents that were emailed to him before a meeting?
2) Social Networking - Again, what planet does this person live on? Not the planet earth where facebook gets more daily hits than google? This is so ridiculous he would call this a miss in any way. I definitely interact with people I would've otherwise lost contact with daily. I've also met several people online and then in real life.
3) Online Shopping - Here the author is relying too much on Gates's exact words, and not the spirit of his statement. The internet has definitely revolutionized online shopping. Every book I buy, I first explore inside on amazon. When I was looking for cars, I find many online videos about it. When I rent a hotel, I can take a 360 view tour to make sure it is as swank as I would like it to be.
4) The Internet and The Web - Again, I just don't see how Gates was really wrong here. The Internet is just part of the "information superhighway", albeit a large piece. I connect with private market data feeds from all over the world at work. I watch tv on my sprint cell phone. I use gps signal from satellites. I send text messages on my phone. I watch tv on my cable tv system. I play games against my friends over Xbox Live. I have a private network at home that I share video and music on. I buy quicken at best buy to manage my finances which also connects to my bank accounts. I also of course browse the web and send email.
I could probably go on. The point is that this article either biased or wrong, maybe both.
According to this article, someone is buying liscenses. Apparently they claim to have had "more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux." They also claim to have sold liscences for all Linux servers of one Fortune 500 company.
I have no idea why your comments are modded up. Your suggestion lacks any scientific merit and is wrong on sooo many levels. I'm not really sure it merits a response, but I'll try.
Your suggestion amounts to either "there is no such thing as pull forces, objects can only push" or "the only forces that exist are those transferred by physical contact, ie things bumping into one another".
Lets assume (incorrectly) that your suggestion is true. What are some of the consequenses of this assumption? First, let the source be distributed at the center of the solar system. Then, according to your suggestion, the earth should move away from the sun (since the earth needs a center seeking force to continue orbiting the sun, which cannot exist if your suggestion is true). The source must then be outside of orbit of the earth (and obviously all the planets).
Where could it go outside of the solar system? It would have to be distrubuted in a circle around the solar system so that it could push in on the earth at all points of orbit. This brings up many difficulties. If the source is distributed symmetrically around the solar system, why does it push more on one side of the earth than the other? Your argument I would guess is that one side of the earth is farther from the source of the particles than the other (since the other is facing the opposite side of the source). However, according to newton's laws, the particles would lose no momentum on their way to earth unless a force is acting on them, thus the force on both sides of the earth are exactly balanced. Another problem is what happens to the particles that are coming in from both sides when they meet? We would expect some net buildup of particles (in this case, it would be at the sun). This in turn would mean the sun is becoming more massive all the time when in fact it is actually losing mass.
Now that know planets exist around other stars in our galaxy, we have to find a way for these planets to stay in orbit. Cleary we need a source of particles around each of these stars as well. In fact, since there is no reason to think any one star is more special than any other, we need a source around every star in the galaxy. Furthermore, since all the stars in our galaxy orbit our galaxy, we need a source in a circle outside of our galaxy. But wait, how do all these sources affect earth's orbit. Surely we cannot expect all the forces from the particles to magically balance out at earth. It is safe to assume, the force on the earth would no longer be in the correct direction to orbit the sun.
I have mentioned nothing about galxies orbiting in clusters (which they do). However, it is clear that you would have to make some pretty heavy modifications to your theory and add a ton of exceptions. Your theory would be about as far as you can get from an Okham's razor explanation.
There are numerous other problems to your theory (so many in fact that I don't have time to cover even a small percentage). However, I will highlight the most important aspect. Your theory makes numerous predictions that directly contradict experimental and observational results.
Please leave the theorizing to physicists and astronomers. You are not the next Einstein. Einstein may have been "just" a patent clerk, but he was a patent clerk fresh off degrees in physics and mathematics. If you continue to say things like this, you will quickly and justifiably labeled as a crackpot.
got me excited
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I almost was ready to sacrifice my vacation to the blizzard gods. mmmm, zerglings.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it this way: Two guys have a deadline in an hour. Guy #1 sits at his desk and does nothing. Guy #2 zips around at a high velocity and returns to meet guy #1. Both guys check their watch, guy #1 notes an hour has past, while guy #2 notes that half an hour has past. Although guy #2 has aged less, he actually had less time to work to meet the deadline. In the spirit of the original post, guy #2 has lost time instead of gained it.
You should cover all the walls and ceiling with markerboard. The shop in my parent's house is this way and makes for a great work space. Every (non-furniture) surface is a place to sketch out ideas and make little notes. If you put a thin metallic sheet behind the markerboard sheet, you'll also be able to use magnets to hold things up.
Seems like this would only cause more frequent emergencies.
Want to live in the White House but hate Washington politics? Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08atlanta.html
1) Email - Seems to me that his statement is a "hit". Email does alleviate the need for as many meetings and does allow my collegues and I to show up more informed. You really have to question the author's judgement if he doesn't think this was the biggest "hit" of all. Email has definitely changed the way I collaborate. This author wants us to believe that he never reviews documents that were emailed to him before a meeting?
2) Social Networking - Again, what planet does this person live on? Not the planet earth where facebook gets more daily hits than google? This is so ridiculous he would call this a miss in any way. I definitely interact with people I would've otherwise lost contact with daily. I've also met several people online and then in real life.
3) Online Shopping - Here the author is relying too much on Gates's exact words, and not the spirit of his statement. The internet has definitely revolutionized online shopping. Every book I buy, I first explore inside on amazon. When I was looking for cars, I find many online videos about it. When I rent a hotel, I can take a 360 view tour to make sure it is as swank as I would like it to be.
4) The Internet and The Web - Again, I just don't see how Gates was really wrong here. The Internet is just part of the "information superhighway", albeit a large piece. I connect with private market data feeds from all over the world at work. I watch tv on my sprint cell phone. I use gps signal from satellites. I send text messages on my phone. I watch tv on my cable tv system. I play games against my friends over Xbox Live. I have a private network at home that I share video and music on. I buy quicken at best buy to manage my finances which also connects to my bank accounts. I also of course browse the web and send email.
I could probably go on. The point is that this article either biased or wrong, maybe both.
What is that Fortune 500 company smoking?
This idea actually dates back to the 17th century. Some people's ideas never advance.
The fact remains that your ideas are very silly and are due to a lack of education in the subject of physics. Me, that's my career.
Your suggestion amounts to either "there is no such thing as pull forces, objects can only push" or "the only forces that exist are those transferred by physical contact, ie things bumping into one another".
Lets assume (incorrectly) that your suggestion is true. What are some of the consequenses of this assumption? First, let the source be distributed at the center of the solar system. Then, according to your suggestion, the earth should move away from the sun (since the earth needs a center seeking force to continue orbiting the sun, which cannot exist if your suggestion is true). The source must then be outside of orbit of the earth (and obviously all the planets).
Where could it go outside of the solar system? It would have to be distrubuted in a circle around the solar system so that it could push in on the earth at all points of orbit. This brings up many difficulties. If the source is distributed symmetrically around the solar system, why does it push more on one side of the earth than the other? Your argument I would guess is that one side of the earth is farther from the source of the particles than the other (since the other is facing the opposite side of the source). However, according to newton's laws, the particles would lose no momentum on their way to earth unless a force is acting on them, thus the force on both sides of the earth are exactly balanced. Another problem is what happens to the particles that are coming in from both sides when they meet? We would expect some net buildup of particles (in this case, it would be at the sun). This in turn would mean the sun is becoming more massive all the time when in fact it is actually losing mass.
Now that know planets exist around other stars in our galaxy, we have to find a way for these planets to stay in orbit. Cleary we need a source of particles around each of these stars as well. In fact, since there is no reason to think any one star is more special than any other, we need a source around every star in the galaxy. Furthermore, since all the stars in our galaxy orbit our galaxy, we need a source in a circle outside of our galaxy. But wait, how do all these sources affect earth's orbit. Surely we cannot expect all the forces from the particles to magically balance out at earth. It is safe to assume, the force on the earth would no longer be in the correct direction to orbit the sun.
I have mentioned nothing about galxies orbiting in clusters (which they do). However, it is clear that you would have to make some pretty heavy modifications to your theory and add a ton of exceptions. Your theory would be about as far as you can get from an Okham's razor explanation.
There are numerous other problems to your theory (so many in fact that I don't have time to cover even a small percentage). However, I will highlight the most important aspect. Your theory makes numerous predictions that directly contradict experimental and observational results.
Please leave the theorizing to physicists and astronomers. You are not the next Einstein. Einstein may have been "just" a patent clerk, but he was a patent clerk fresh off degrees in physics and mathematics. If you continue to say things like this, you will quickly and justifiably labeled as a crackpot.
I almost was ready to sacrifice my vacation to the blizzard gods. mmmm, zerglings.
You will die alone.
The patch was available yesterday before you were officially allowed to buy jaguar.