A lot of the article sounds pretty neat, but I admit I don't know if I like the bit about putting DRAM on the CPU...from a sheer speed perspective, it's obviously superior, but who wants to have to upgrade the CPU to put more RAM in the machine?
If the price is cheap enough, why not buy a faster CPU just to get more memory?
I agree that we haven't seen the true power struggle between the free software community and Red Hat shareholders. I think we won't see that struggle for many years down the road. Once the founders of the company, who are strongly committed to their ideals for the company, leave due to retirement, or death, or whatever, the newer management/programmers won't necessarily have the same committment to free software. I could envision down the road, where there have been serveral management turnovers, that the management would have no personal identification with free software, and will do whatever is necessary to make a buck in the short run. This could also happen sooner rather than later if the economy of the nation or the company by itself gets into dire straits and drastic choices are needed to save the company in the short term.
I don't think there is anything to fear from them right now, but in the future they could look like a vastly different company.
I agree that technology does have a large influence on many aspects of our lives. However, religion (usually) provides a grounding independent of the technology of the day. For example, Christianity is not based on current technology, but universal truths. Technology does present new challenges in viewpoints and motivations that a committed Christian must evaluate through his/her Christian worldview.
If your worldview excludes Christianity, or other religions, than technology itself can become the "religion" you follow if you choose to allow it (or its effects) to become the central motivation in your life.
Your philosophy of change is self defeating. What you appear to be saying is that "there is only one constant, and that is that there are no constants." You can't claim that your position is universal and constantly applicable, when say that everything is changing.
If your position is true, then your philosophical statement will change and not be true in the future.
Technology doesn't change morality and basic values. For example, you can kill someone by running over them with a horse, a car, an airplane, or a space shuttle. The technology of the transportation doesn't affect the underlying morality of using it to kill in this case.
I don't agree that progress is the enemy of profits. I think it is more along the lines of the decisions people make in hopes of making profits that can impede progress in specific areas. I wouldn't say that progress and profits in a basic philisophical form oppose each other.
As individuals we have control over what we spend our money on and therefore have power over profits. Use that power.
I would wonder about the maintenance costs. Aerospace aluminum alloys corrode. That "house" may be falling apart on him in 15 years if he doesn't keep a sharp eye out for corrosion and replace the structure as needed. I don't know if it will be any worse than a house rotting, but at least it is easier to hire a carpenter and buy wood than a machinist and expensive aluminum.
(If you don't use the same materials for repair that was originally there (and you don't know what you are doing) you could set up galvanic corrosion that is much worse than the repair!
Reminds me of Danny Dunn book
on
RoboFly
·
· Score: 1
I think it was a Danny Dunn book that I read as a kid. The books were about this kid who had a relative/friend/somebody who was a engineer/scientist type person that was always building cool stuff. One book had a robotic dragon fly with cameras in its eyes that projected back into a helmet so you could feel like you were flying with it. I always thought that was cool.
I've heard of people putting cameras on RC airplanes, but they only display the pictures on TVs and not wrap around helmets.
Jon is saying that The Christians have ALWAYS been saying on how these games corrupt and other evil things. Yet NOW they release this game that acts in exactly the same way, yet its OK that since you are a 'Angel' and you are killing 'Demons'
You say that now "Christians" have released this game. A Christian person may have, but to attribute the attitude and product of one person to all Christians is wrong. There are probably plenty of Christians who would disagree with the game.
Religion has no evidence either way, and therefore currently falls outside the scientific method. [...] Deeply religious people like this are prejudiced against science.
Wrong. The Bible has lots of historical evidence included in it that can be verified. Many names of cities where things happened are given, various political figures are mentioned (like Roman leaders) to give historical references to an event. Geneologies of various people are given that can also be verified.
Not everything can be submitted to the scientific method such as repeating and recording data from a miracle. The miracles were done to convince people that whoever was talking/teaching had power from God and His approval.
If you value reason primarily, look into Christian apologetics (reasoned defense of Christianity). There is active scientific research and debate on many issues from Christian scientists.
Also, the Bible instructs us to gain knowledge and wisdom. The book of Proverbs contains many verses instructing people to seek knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
It may seem that deeply religious people are prejudiced against science, but I don't think that is true. They reject some of the conclusions of scientists. They are wary of scientists conclusions on things like the origin of the universe and evolution, but readily accept conclusions on health, technology, or physics. Some may go overboard and reject all science, but that is the fault of the person, not taught by God.
I don't think it is - I saw one question where the guy had made a spelling mistake (he left off a letter on the last word of his question) and the system filled it in in the replies. Could be a spell checker, but a human replying would skip a mistake like that and maybe not see it at all. I'd expect a computer to misunderstand it..
Nine Gs is the limit for fighter pilots sitting more or less upright (actually about 30 degrees from upright.) Lying down on your back in NASA fashion makes for much higher limits.
It sounds like you are talking about the F-16. They don't hold 9 g's for long, only for very short manuvers. As an F-16 pilot told me, 9 g's is beyond the uncomfortable zone and is downright painful.
I really wish we would go to metric units. In engineering school, we would be do most of our work in metric units until the senior level courses where we would start using English units most of the time since that is what we would normally see after getting out of school. I find metric units to be easier to work with in thermodynamics and heat transfer problems.
Here is an example of "universal" mathmatical models from a Mechanical Engineer:
In school, I took a class called System Dynamics which is all about modeling dynamic behavior of systems. There is an interesting similarity of behavior between electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems in the equations used and how you define them.
Driver: Electrical = voltage Mechanical = force Hydraulic = pressure
Flow: Electrical = current Mechanical = velocity Hydraulic = flowrate of fluid
Resistance: Electrical: voltage = constant*current Mechanical: force = constant*velocity Hydraulic: pressure = constant*flowrate of fluid
Capacitance: Electrical: contant*integral(current) with time Mechanical: constant*distance traveled Hydraulic: constant*integral(flowrate) with time
Inductance: Electrical: Voltage = constant*delta(voltage)/delta(time) Mechanical: Force = constant*delta(velocity)/delta(time) Hydraulic: Pressure = constant*delta(flowrate)/delta(time) (In the mechanical example, mass is the constant)
The equations are very similar, but you don't see me calling the press and saying I've found a "universal" mathmatical model.
Trying to claim a "universal" law is hype. Just because there is similar behavior for magnetic properties, turbulent flow, and distribution of species is interesting, but doesn't suggest that everything is related in a similar way. I think that is why Mr. Turcotte got such a hostile reaction. Before you claim here might be a "universal law linking patterns of mineral deposits, floods and landslides" you better look at the data first and don't argue from the specific to the general the way he did in this case.
Read the page at http://www.troll.no/changes/2.0.html. It is not binary compatable. You must recompile Qt programs for use with 2.0. It is not 100% source code compatable; some things have changed.
That quote caught my eye too. Let's make some laws that make people feel good! Who cares if they make any sense or help at all! WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW! AUUUGGGGGGG!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
Did you know that there is a 100% fatality percentage among people consuming dihydrogen monoxide? Did you know you were exposed to dihydrogen monoxide every day? Write your Congressmen!!
One thing I really hate about reading logs in Netscape is that the plain text files have long lines that force me to scroll horizontally often. I generally save the file and from a shell window do a:
fmt -s -w 79 log.txt | less
to read it, but it would be nice if you could do this for us lazy people.
Slashdot Mirror
If the price is cheap enough, why not buy a faster CPU just to get more memory?
I agree that we haven't seen the true power struggle between the free software community and Red Hat shareholders. I think we won't see that struggle for many years down the road. Once the founders of the company, who are strongly committed to their ideals for the company, leave due to retirement, or death, or whatever, the newer management/programmers won't necessarily have the same committment to free software. I could envision down the road, where there have been serveral management turnovers, that the management would have no personal identification with free software, and will do whatever is necessary to make a buck in the short run. This could also happen sooner rather than later if the economy of the nation or the company by itself gets into dire straits and drastic choices are needed to save the company in the short term.
I don't think there is anything to fear from them right now, but in the future they could look like a vastly different company.
I agree that technology does have a large influence on many aspects of our lives. However, religion (usually) provides a grounding independent of the technology of the day. For example, Christianity is not based on current technology, but universal truths. Technology does present new challenges in viewpoints and motivations that a committed Christian must evaluate through his/her Christian worldview.
If your worldview excludes Christianity, or other religions, than technology itself can become the "religion" you follow if you choose to allow it (or its effects) to become the central motivation in your life.
Your philosophy of change is self defeating. What you appear to be saying is that "there is only one constant, and that is that there are no constants." You can't claim that your position is universal and constantly applicable, when say that everything is changing.
If your position is true, then your philosophical statement will change and not be true in the future.
Technology doesn't change morality and basic values. For example, you can kill someone by running over them with a horse, a car, an airplane, or a space shuttle. The technology of the transportation doesn't affect the underlying morality of using it to kill in this case.
I use Strip (Secure Tool for Remembering Important Passwords)
Here is the link
It is a GPL program, and uses 96 or 128 bit block encryption of all databases (Uses the 3-way or Idea algorithms respectively).
I don't agree that progress is the enemy of profits. I think it is more along the lines of the decisions people make in hopes of making profits that can impede progress in specific areas. I wouldn't say that progress and profits in a basic philisophical form oppose each other.
As individuals we have control over what we spend our money on and therefore have power over profits. Use that power.
I would wonder about the maintenance costs. Aerospace aluminum alloys corrode. That "house" may be falling apart on him in 15 years if he doesn't keep a sharp eye out for corrosion and replace the structure as needed. I don't know if it will be any worse than a house rotting, but at least it is easier to hire a carpenter and buy wood than a machinist and expensive aluminum.
(If you don't use the same materials for repair that was originally there (and you don't know what you are doing) you could set up galvanic corrosion that is much worse than the repair!
I think it was a Danny Dunn book that I read as a kid. The books were about this kid who had a relative/friend/somebody who was a engineer/scientist type person that was always building cool stuff. One book had a robotic dragon fly with cameras in its eyes that projected back into a helmet so you could feel like you were flying with it. I always thought that was cool.
I've heard of people putting cameras on RC airplanes, but they only display the pictures on TVs and not wrap around helmets.
This sounds like a step closer to the book...
You say that now "Christians" have released this game. A Christian person may have, but to attribute the attitude and product of one person to all Christians is wrong. There are probably plenty of Christians who would disagree with the game.
Not everything can be submitted to the scientific method such as repeating and recording data from a miracle. The miracles were done to convince people that whoever was talking/teaching had power from God and His approval.
If you value reason primarily, look into Christian apologetics (reasoned defense of Christianity). There is active scientific research and debate on many issues from Christian scientists.
Also, the Bible instructs us to gain knowledge and wisdom. The book of Proverbs contains many verses instructing people to seek knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
It may seem that deeply religious people are prejudiced against science, but I don't think that is true. They reject some of the conclusions of scientists. They are wary of scientists conclusions on things like the origin of the universe and evolution, but readily accept conclusions on health, technology, or physics. Some may go overboard and reject all science, but that is the fault of the person, not taught by God.
I don't think it is - I saw one question where the guy had made a spelling mistake (he left off a letter on the last word of his question) and the system filled it in in the replies. Could be a spell checker, but a human replying would skip a mistake like that and maybe not see it at all. I'd expect a computer to misunderstand it..
Oops. I mean /. not ./
Fingers flying faster than the brain is. Situation normal.
That is a great site, however once the ./ Tactical Linkage(TM) was engaged, the server errors started flying like gibs in a drunken deathmatch.
A moment of silence.....
It sounds like you are talking about the F-16. They don't hold 9 g's for long, only for very short manuvers. As an F-16 pilot told me, 9 g's is beyond the uncomfortable zone and is downright painful.
Liquid rockets burn Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce -- you guessed it -- WATER. Solid rockets are different, I don't know what they use.
Its not that easy. You have to consider aerodynamics, shock waves, etc (either in the gun, or when you exit the barrel).
I really wish we would go to metric units. In engineering school, we would be do most of our work in metric units until the senior level courses where we would start using English units most of the time since that is what we would normally see after getting out of school. I find metric units to be easier to work with in thermodynamics and heat transfer problems.
Here is an example of "universal" mathmatical models from a Mechanical Engineer:
In school, I took a class called System Dynamics which is all about modeling dynamic behavior of systems. There is an interesting similarity of behavior between electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems in the equations used and how you define them.
Driver:
Electrical = voltage
Mechanical = force
Hydraulic = pressure
Flow:
Electrical = current
Mechanical = velocity
Hydraulic = flowrate of fluid
Resistance:
Electrical: voltage = constant*current
Mechanical: force = constant*velocity
Hydraulic: pressure = constant*flowrate of fluid
Capacitance:
Electrical: contant*integral(current) with time
Mechanical: constant*distance traveled
Hydraulic: constant*integral(flowrate) with time
Inductance:
Electrical: Voltage = constant*delta(voltage)/delta(time)
Mechanical: Force = constant*delta(velocity)/delta(time)
Hydraulic: Pressure = constant*delta(flowrate)/delta(time)
(In the mechanical example, mass is the constant)
The equations are very similar, but you don't see me calling the press and saying I've found a "universal" mathmatical model.
Trying to claim a "universal" law is hype. Just because there is similar behavior for magnetic properties, turbulent flow, and distribution of species is interesting, but doesn't suggest that everything is related in a similar way. I think that is why Mr. Turcotte got such a hostile reaction. Before you claim here might be a "universal law linking patterns of mineral deposits, floods and landslides" you better look at the data first and don't argue from the specific to the general the way he did in this case.
Put your toilet and shower in a centrifuge and spin it up. Voila! Instant gravity.
If we assume your "equation" is correct, then it is time for some breakthrough theory or implementation to get around it.
If you want to see the most visited stories by hits, click on the Hall of Fame link (hof) on the upper left side of the window.
Or, if you are too lazy:
http://slashdot.org/hof.shtml
Read the page at
http://www.troll.no/changes/2.0.html. It is not binary compatable. You must recompile Qt programs for use with 2.0. It is not 100% source code compatable; some things have changed.
tkCVS does a good job for me.
http://www.cyclic.com/tkcvs/
That quote caught my eye too. Let's make some laws that make people feel good! Who cares if they make any sense or help at all! WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW! AUUUGGGGGGG!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
Did you know that there is a 100% fatality percentage among people consuming dihydrogen monoxide? Did you know you were exposed to dihydrogen monoxide every day? Write your Congressmen!!
One thing I really hate about reading logs in Netscape is that the plain text files have long lines that force me to scroll horizontally often. I generally save the file and from a shell window do a:
fmt -s -w 79 log.txt | less
to read it, but it would be nice if you could do this for us lazy people.
Do some focus groups. You'll agree.
--