Annoying that this has to be done, but personally I'd blame Apple for silly defaults...;-)
Why can't the installer for GIMP/Mac do this (or, if it isn't installed with an installer program, GIMP itself at first startup, just like it creates all those directories etc.)?
Kind of misses the point of free software. When you say, "it's free, so stop your bitching," what you're really saying is "you get what you pay for, and you're better off paying for it." How does that make open source software better again?
For a proprietary program, you are at the mercy of the original supplier. If you badly need a feature in Photoshop, and Adobe just tells you they won't implement it, then you're out of luck. For an open source program, if the original supplier won't implement your feature, you can still go to any programmer with the needed abilities who is willing to write that stuff (be it for free or, more likely, for payment). And as soon as it exists, you may even be able to get it into the official program (that's assuming the rejection was on too-much-work grounds, not on rejection based on the feature; but even then, an existing, successful feature may change the primary developers' minds).
Also, it's much more future-proof. If Adobe some day decided to stop Photoshop development, you wouldn't have any chance to get a replacement. OTOH with open source, there's still the possibility to find new maintainers for the program (or for a business which depends strongly enough on it, even to hire some programmers to maintain it). In short, you cannot withdraw open source.
Well, it might also interact with normal matter through the weak force, at least I don't know any reason why it shouldn't. Of course, different matter takes place in different interactions (e.g. only quarks and gluons take place in the strong interaction, electrons etc. don't; gluon and neutrino don't interact electromagnetically, the gluon doesn't even interact through the weak interaction). Now there's a priori no reason why there shouldn't be a particle which only interacts through gravity. (I couldn't imagine a particle which doesn't interact by gravity, though, since unlike for the other interactions, the source of gravity is not some charge, but energy and momentum).
Neutrinos interact with the electroweak force, but they don't absorb or emit photons (except for higher-order effects, of course). That's the reason why you don't see the huge amounts of solar neutrinos which pass through earth all the time (you need large experiments to see the effects of their rare interaction with matter). Indeed, IIRC neutrinos were one candidate for dark matter (or maybe they still are?)
Now there may be other reasons to assume that there's also no weak interaction between dark matter and normal matter, but the fact that it doesn't interact with light isn't one of them, because neither do neutrinos.
Let's see... 23: the number of the Illuminati. 18: used by some groups as code for "Adolf Hitler" (A=1, H=8). Also the sum of digits of 666, the number of the beast. -: Subtraction sign. 42: The answer to life, the universe and everything
I'm sure this galaxy name is meant to tell us something...:-)
I mean, that name doesn't even have any friggin' letters in it.
It interacts with normal matter through graviatation. It doesn't interact through electromagnetic interaction.
Of course, light is affected indirectly through gravitation. However, normally gravitation doesn't shield light, it just bends it (the bending of light by the sun's gravitation was one of the first successful tests of General Relativity).
And yes, light would slow down a bit, since gravitation causes a slowdown of time (e.g. seen from space, the light on earth's surface is a bit slower, even when in vacuum).
Of course, dark matter and luminiferous aether are one and the same. Isn't that obvious? This explains immediatly why we cannot see it: It's not something in the way of light, but it's the medium of light itself! BTW, the dark energy is also solved. It's phlogiston. You know, phlogiston has negative weight, therefore it causes anti-gravitiaion. This neatly explains why dark energy causes acceleration of the universe expansion. The epicycle problem isn't yet completely solved, but it's likely that the enormous heat of the dark matter comes from the friction of the planetary machinery.
Well, a dark matter god would clearly be a materialistic god, therefore I'd try in the former communistic countries.
However, beware of the followers of the dark energy god religion. They argue that only dark energy can be the real god, because unlike dark matter, it's everywhere in the universe. Also it's powerful enough to accelerate the universe as a whole, while dark matter only acts in a galactic range. Also, the fact that we can learn something about the dark matter, like its distribution, shows that it's not really god-like. However, of the dark energy we don't know anything but that it must exist and at least one of its actions, so it's clearly more god-like. And finally, the big bang, i.e. the creation of the universe, was obviously driven by an expanding force, i.e. by dark energy. Therefore dark energy obviously is the creator of the universe, so it must be god.
Of course, don't forget to go after those heretics which try to remove those dark matter/dark energy gods by just writing new theories of gravitation!:-)
Well, I've just written an ultra-stable, crash-free, ultra-efficient program in C++. I haven't tried it under Windows, but I'd expect it to work there as well. Here's my masterpiece:
But you forgot the most important: Google Universe, the replacement world for all who are fed up with this one. Free due to targeted advertising, of course.
Here are some features of this new universe:
Built-in searching. Never lose your key again!
Telepathic internet access. Just think of a page, and you'll see it.
I think the explanation is simple: For a Bayesian logic machine it's the same as for any logic machine (i.e. computer):
Rule 1: If you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
People are fed a lot of garbage all the time. Feeding garbage to politicians is called lobbying, while feeding garbage to the public is done by the mass media.
Of course, Bayesian inference depends very much on a reasonable prior. If your prior tells you that something is impossible, then no amount of evidence can change this, except if there's a probability of exactly 1 that it happens (in which case the bayesian inference breaks down). And if the prior probability is close enough to zero, you'll have to have a whole lot of evidence to change it. That is, a bayesian inference machine can show quite a lot prejudice if given a bad prior. But even if your prior starts out reasonable, giving enough wrong information may cause the same.
For example, imagine a bayesian spam filter would come with a pre-installed distribution which says that every mail where the word Viagra appears has a 99.99999999% probability of being spam. A pharmacist would then have a very hard time to convince that filter that the Viagra orders he gets are no spam. Probably he'd rather give up and use a filter with less prejudice.
Rule 2: If your results fit the problem depends on if you actually try to solve the right problem.
People tend to solve the problem "how can I get the best for me personally", which doesn't always coincide with the solution of the problem "how can we get the best for the people at whole". That is, the bribed politician probably knows quite well that what he does is not in the best public interest. But since he optimizes his best private interest (which means getting the money is better than not getting it), that's not an illogical step.
To make a spam filter analogy again: If your spam filter is trained to sort out spam, you shouldn't be surprised if it's bad at deciding which company to invest in.
A stupid user is stupid user, the article summed it pretty well: "Unfortunately, there is no way to patch user ignorance, and the way this virus propagates is through user ignorance,"
Actually there is a patch for user ignorance. It's called user education. The problem, of course, is that ignorant users are usually also ignorant on their own ignorance, and therefore don't apply this patch.
Revolutionary technologies that will completely change the way computers are made have been promised and promoted for years, always with ridiculously optimistic (Duke Nukem Forever style) timelines.
Indeed, just for RAM, we have MRAM, FRAM, Z-RAM and now Carbon Nanotube RAM... did I forget any? And yet, all computers are still running on conventional DRAM.
We all realized how far down in quality Slashdot has sunk when the first thought on everyone's mind when they saw this title was, "I can think of way more married stars than single ones."
Now, are you sure that for those stars, the same problem doesn't apply? So most of the easily visible stars are married. However you usually only see the stars produced in big clouds like Hollywood, but there are also e.g. porn stars which are not as easily observed (a regular cinema isn't sufficient for their observation). Now are you sure that most of them are married as well? I could well imagine the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't the installer for GIMP/Mac do this (or, if it isn't installed with an installer program, GIMP itself at first startup, just like it creates all those directories etc.)?
For a proprietary program, you are at the mercy of the original supplier. If you badly need a feature in Photoshop, and Adobe just tells you they won't implement it, then you're out of luck.
For an open source program, if the original supplier won't implement your feature, you can still go to any programmer with the needed abilities who is willing to write that stuff (be it for free or, more likely, for payment). And as soon as it exists, you may even be able to get it into the official program (that's assuming the rejection was on too-much-work grounds, not on rejection based on the feature; but even then, an existing, successful feature may change the primary developers' minds).
Also, it's much more future-proof. If Adobe some day decided to stop Photoshop development, you wouldn't have any chance to get a replacement. OTOH with open source, there's still the possibility to find new maintainers for the program (or for a business which depends strongly enough on it, even to hire some programmers to maintain it). In short, you cannot withdraw open source.
Yes: Obviously then I've understood the math notation.
Well, it might also interact with normal matter through the weak force, at least I don't know any reason why it shouldn't.
Of course, different matter takes place in different interactions (e.g. only quarks and gluons take place in the strong interaction, electrons etc. don't; gluon and neutrino don't interact electromagnetically, the gluon doesn't even interact through the weak interaction). Now there's a priori no reason why there shouldn't be a particle which only interacts through gravity. (I couldn't imagine a particle which doesn't interact by gravity, though, since unlike for the other interactions, the source of gravity is not some charge, but energy and momentum).
Neutrinos interact with the electroweak force, but they don't absorb or emit photons (except for higher-order effects, of course). That's the reason why you don't see the huge amounts of solar neutrinos which pass through earth all the time (you need large experiments to see the effects of their rare interaction with matter). Indeed, IIRC neutrinos were one candidate for dark matter (or maybe they still are?)
Now there may be other reasons to assume that there's also no weak interaction between dark matter and normal matter, but the fact that it doesn't interact with light isn't one of them, because neither do neutrinos.
Let's see
23: the number of the Illuminati.
18: used by some groups as code for "Adolf Hitler" (A=1, H=8). Also the sum of digits of 666, the number of the beast.
-: Subtraction sign.
42: The answer to life, the universe and everything
I'm sure this galaxy name is meant to tell us something
1337!
It interacts with normal matter through graviatation. It doesn't interact through electromagnetic interaction.
Of course, light is affected indirectly through gravitation. However, normally gravitation doesn't shield light, it just bends it (the bending of light by the sun's gravitation was one of the first successful tests of General Relativity).
And yes, light would slow down a bit, since gravitation causes a slowdown of time (e.g. seen from space, the light on earth's surface is a bit slower, even when in vacuum).
Of course, dark matter and luminiferous aether are one and the same. Isn't that obvious? This explains immediatly why we cannot see it: It's not something in the way of light, but it's the medium of light itself!
BTW, the dark energy is also solved. It's phlogiston. You know, phlogiston has negative weight, therefore it causes anti-gravitiaion. This neatly explains why dark energy causes acceleration of the universe expansion.
The epicycle problem isn't yet completely solved, but it's likely that the enormous heat of the dark matter comes from the friction of the planetary machinery.
Dark side of the force physics! :-)
Or maybe simply dark physics?
Well, a dark matter god would clearly be a materialistic god, therefore I'd try in the former communistic countries.
:-)
However, beware of the followers of the dark energy god religion. They argue that only dark energy can be the real god, because unlike dark matter, it's everywhere in the universe. Also it's powerful enough to accelerate the universe as a whole, while dark matter only acts in a galactic range. Also, the fact that we can learn something about the dark matter, like its distribution, shows that it's not really god-like. However, of the dark energy we don't know anything but that it must exist and at least one of its actions, so it's clearly more god-like. And finally, the big bang, i.e. the creation of the universe, was obviously driven by an expanding force, i.e. by dark energy. Therefore dark energy obviously is the creator of the universe, so it must be god.
Of course, don't forget to go after those heretics which try to remove those dark matter/dark energy gods by just writing new theories of gravitation!
That's nothing against T.REX, the Telescope of Really EXtreme size!
I guess you meant shed, not shred (maybe a freudian slip because you wanted to shred this article? :-))
Now, you cannot really shed light on dark matter anyway, because the light will just go through it.
Since when do crackers need an invitation? So if I don't invite them, my system is safe? :-)
Or just start its own elite university
Here are some features of this new universe:
I think the explanation is simple: For a Bayesian logic machine it's the same as for any logic machine (i.e. computer):
Rule 1: If you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
People are fed a lot of garbage all the time. Feeding garbage to politicians is called lobbying, while feeding garbage to the public is done by the mass media.
Of course, Bayesian inference depends very much on a reasonable prior. If your prior tells you that something is impossible, then no amount of evidence can change this, except if there's a probability of exactly 1 that it happens (in which case the bayesian inference breaks down). And if the prior probability is close enough to zero, you'll have to have a whole lot of evidence to change it. That is, a bayesian inference machine can show quite a lot prejudice if given a bad prior. But even if your prior starts out reasonable, giving enough wrong information may cause the same.
For example, imagine a bayesian spam filter would come with a pre-installed distribution which says that every mail where the word Viagra appears has a 99.99999999% probability of being spam. A pharmacist would then have a very hard time to convince that filter that the Viagra orders he gets are no spam. Probably he'd rather give up and use a filter with less prejudice.
Rule 2: If your results fit the problem depends on if you actually try to solve the right problem.
People tend to solve the problem "how can I get the best for me personally", which doesn't always coincide with the solution of the problem "how can we get the best for the people at whole". That is, the bribed politician probably knows quite well that what he does is not in the best public interest. But since he optimizes his best private interest (which means getting the money is better than not getting it), that's not an illogical step.
To make a spam filter analogy again: If your spam filter is trained to sort out spam, you shouldn't be surprised if it's bad at deciding which company to invest in.
The answer is easy: All the time of the world.
Actually there is a patch for user ignorance. It's called user education. The problem, of course, is that ignorant users are usually also ignorant on their own ignorance, and therefore don't apply this patch.
Actually they mean that Gecko's memory footprint is so large that you'll need to buy new RAM chips. :-)
Indeed, just for RAM, we have MRAM, FRAM, Z-RAM and now Carbon Nanotube RAM
And yet, all computers are still running on conventional DRAM.
Doesn't beat sharks with lasers :-)
Well, probably they were trying to increase their PigeonRank.
By distributing through a virus which automatically replaces Windows with Linux
Now, are you sure that for those stars, the same problem doesn't apply? So most of the easily visible stars are married. However you usually only see the stars produced in big clouds like Hollywood, but there are also e.g. porn stars which are not as easily observed (a regular cinema isn't sufficient for their observation). Now are you sure that most of them are married as well? I could well imagine the opposite.
SCNR