I've had my eye on the iPaq H3135. 200MHz StrongARM, 16MB RAM + 16MB ROM. Those specs put the VR3 to shame, and handhelds.org should have all the info on flashing the OS to Linux. Amazon.com is offering them
for $150 after rebate.
Note: the status of Linux on the mono iPaq seems to be a little behind the color version,
so be sure to check the
relevant info on the development site before jumping on the idea.
Since I first got my hands on my 48GX back in '95, I've been a convert. RPN makes an incredibly elegant interface for rapid computation, and HP makes some sturdy, ergonomic hardware to boot. (Gotta love those clicky keys--much more "positive" than the mush that TI puts out.)
Just for the record, this is all your fault. Yes, you. You know who you are. You bought the TI-8x because it was cheap and everybody else had one. (Kinda like Win95, except for the cheap part.) I hope you're happy--next time I have to buy a calc, I will be forced to relearn algebraic entry. Of course, judging by the rate at which my HP48 is deteriorating/becoming obsolete, it may be 10 years before I need another calc.
I am doing my part to keep the culture of HP
calcs alive. I wrote and maintain
rpc, a curses-based RPN calculator which is
very much in the spirit of the HP line. (Yes, this is a plug, but I thought it was appropriate...)
Re:i don't really understand you
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 1
Go do a Mozilla distribution for geeks. Add in all the patches like gestures and PGP.
There we go. And while you're at it, make it possible to surf using the keyboard alone. I would be in heaven.
But the way in which it failed was interesting: no one wanted to do anything unless it had the blessing of Digital ^W Compaq ^W Hewlett Paqard.
I think you must have misunderstood. Clearly, the project must have failed because VMS is pure evil and nobody wanted to clone such a hideous creation.
No need to read the comments today. I have concisely summarized the multitude of redundant, lengthy, and unusually arrogant responses into a number of categories designed for rapid assimilation:
Bluetooth sucks. I'm sick of having to hold my PDA two inches from the transmitter, then tilting it exactly 29 degrees from horizontal, before it will work.
Bluetooth sucks. 802.11b rules!
You idiot. DAMN you are dense. Everyone knows that 802.11b is a spec for wireless ethernet, and has NOTHING in common with Bluetooth, which is a spec for wireless cable replacement.
Those 802.11b freenets are pretty cool.
What the hell does that have to do with anything, asshole?
802.11b sucks because it was cracked.
Not that again. Were you dropped on your head when you were a child? Just use a replacement encryption method, like ipsec.
Bluetooth sucks because it interferes with 802.11b.
Of course, the same could be said of any device that uses that frequency band. Some cordless phones, for example...
a well-designed GUI installation, complete with good hardware detection. This is a big one--I haven't seen another installer that competes with Mandrake's.
Mandrake Update (think apt-get for rpm, with a snazzy GUI interface)
up-to-date KDE and GNOME desktops, XF86 4, etc.
GUI configuration tools for most administration tasks
a newbie-friendly user community
options for advanced users, like ReiserFS, security levels ranging from "crack me" to "paranoid", lots of development tools, etc.
Having said all that, I think I'm switching from Mandrake to Debian after the next stable release. I've got the urge to get my hands a little more dirty.:-)
Generally tests that involve the quality of sound related items - speakers, microphones, etc don't need to focus on bitrate or such, they just get people to listen and make a judgement.
That simply makes no sense. Audio quality depends heavily on bitrate. Try encoding some music at 32kbps and 256kbps and make a comparison. One of the most fundamental principles of source coding theory is that there is a tradeoff between bitrate and distortion.
Any sensible codec comparison would:
use blind testing (probably not done here)
require all codecs to operate at the same average bitrate
urpmi has been useless for me on both of my Mandrake 8 boxen, after about a week's worth of casual use. (It dies in some sort of a perl dependency, to be specific.) Consequently, rpmdrake is also hosed.
I'm not the only one, either... check out the horror stories on MandrakeForum.
On the bright side, rpmdrake is the first well-designed GUI package manager that I have laid eyes on. When it works, it works well. I hope they iron out the bugs for mdk 8.1.
If you actually read TiVo's patents, you will find that they are quite specific. There is mention of MPEG compression, use of specific temporary buffering methods, and methods for taking load off of the CPU. I doubt that your "prior art" would apply in this case.
A couple of months ago, we were being told that TiVo was going to alter everything about marketing, but now digital replay recording sales are in the tank.
This is not what I want to hear. The last thing I want is for my TiVo to become nothing more than a cheap LinuxPPC box. It's downright painful trying to watch TV without the TiVo software, once you've had it. (Incidentally, the 2.0 software update RULES.)
Anyone have some sales figures to back up this supposed financial crisis?
Physics undergrads develop general problem solving skills that are applicable to a wide variety of topics. All you need are a few who happen to be adept with computers--that's hardly uncommon these days.
I appreciate the references. I may well purchase an interlinear bible, so as to be better prepared to defend the young earth position in the future.:-)
I tend to use NIV for this sort of discussion, because the phrasing is a little easier to follow for those who are unfamiliar with many biblical doctrines. I see now that you do not fall into that category. I use NKJV most of the time.
> one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis
Oh really? What does Gen 2:17 say?
Well, that's a low blow.:-) I used the word "literal" because it was the word you chose earlier. Clearly "die" is not used here as we commonly understand the term. Of course, other references make clear what is meant (e.g. I Co 15:20-22).
Do yourself a favor, buy a Interlinear Bible, and READ IT. You'll be amazed at how many words are just plain translated badly.
I may look into that. Tell me, how does the Interlinear Bible differ in its translation methods?
Forgive the lengthy posting, but spread of misinformation ticks me off.
To quote from the first article:
The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.
To steal from a more modern term, this is FUD based on some poor translations. The NIV provides an adequate translation of Ge 2:4. It starts out with "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created," which serves as a title for the remainder of the chapter. The account continues with "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." Notice the term "plant of the field," not just "plant." The account is telling us that field crops were delayed in sprouting; I would assume that is because those plants required the care of man, who was not yet around.
The account continues with the creation of man and describes the garden of Eden that had been provided for him. (The fact that the garden is described after the creation of man does not mean that the garden was created after man; it simply flows better from a topical point of view.) The naming of all the animals by Adam is described next. (Again, the fact that the creation of the animals is mentioned at this point does not indicate the timing of their creation, but indicates a topical organization.) Finally, woman is created from man.
If you read Genesis while looking for contradictions, you can always find a way to interpret the words in a contradictory way. Ask yourself this: if you wanted to relay the history of creation, how would you write it? It seems to me that a chronological overview (Ge 1), followed by a topical review with more detail (Ge 2) is a reasonable choice. You could choose more precise language to make the account read like a scientific journal, but that would be poorly suited to a document intended for the common people, and it would make translation more difficult as well.
Re-creation theory does sound very odd to me. The second link you provided tended to confirm that feeling. It was riddled with instances of taking biblical passages out of context, and references to "code words." You can support pretty much any theory by those methods. My opinion is that one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis or abandon creation entirely. It's difficult to support any middle ground.
This is what you get when you mindlessly believe everything the Discovery channel tells you.
The original poster was alluding to a theory that the speed of light has been slowing over time. That theory could be an alternative explanation to galactic redshifting and other phenomena that have led scientists to believe that the universe is expanding and accelerating.
I'm not saying this theory is correct--but don't immediately accept the prevalent theories as facts either. Try questioning things once in a while, and you may actually learn something.
Where are you getting your information from? Why do you suggest that Genesis describes recreation rather than creation?
Also, 6000 years is not an assumption. The number of years from creation to the birth of Christ can be calculated from geneological data, and it's about 4000 years. (See Ge 5 and Lk 3 for some examples.) If you accept the Bible as truth, you are obliged to also accept a young earth.
Regardless of the tone, the article raises valid points. "Setterfield introduces 'the cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change,'" (again inner quotes are Setterfield's). Why? Seems it's to 'make the curve fit', since in the last 40 years we have more accurate measure of c and it shows no decay.
I totally agree with you on the first point. The "cutoff date" idea is way too arbitrary to hold any water. The "T-plus-one-day" thing is also suspect, and is quite clearly aimed at hitting the 6000 year mark.
One thing I am not sure about is the method used for determining the more precise (not necessarily accurate) values of c in the past 40 years. Are they obtained via atomic clocks? If so, those measurements may not be applicable to disproving the theory. Circular reasoning, so to speak. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how easy it would be to get really precise timings using dynamical clocks.
Ugh. There is little more in that refutal than name-calling and screams of "bad science!". (If you can find a more objective and scientific refutal, I would appreciate the link.)
Having said that, I will agree that Setterfield is less than objective. But his findings should not be disregarded simply because he is trying (a little too hard) to give evidence of a young universe. Whether or not you agree on his questionable choice of curve to fit the data, there does appear to be a downward trend in the value of c over time.
No. There is no such universal scaling constant. It takes more than more one number to describe physics. Let me try to give you an idea of what I mean.
You do not fully understand the concept, which makes sense because it was not laid out in much detail. It is precisely the fact that there is no "universal scaling constant" which provides us with a potential way to measure a decrease in the speed of light.
This idea was laid out by Norman and Setterfield in 1987. Basically they make a distinction between atomic clocks, which depend on a constant c for their accuracy, and dynamical clocks (for example, orbiting planets), which depend on other constants such as G or Gm. They found a statistically significant downward trend in the speed of light over time, as measured by dynamical clocks.
The implications of this theory are still being worked on, but some feel it provides some support for a young earth. It is believed that radiometric dating would produce ages that are too old, and it is also possible that the red-shift phenomenon can be explained via this theory.
Seems to me like there's potential for a problem here. If the theme builder runs in Mozilla, would it be possible to create a Mozilla theme sufficiently broken to make the theme builder unusable?;-)
"Whoops, I forgot the "OK button" widget... uh oh." <reinstalls Mozilla>
Slashdot Mirror
I've had my eye on the iPaq H3135. 200MHz StrongARM, 16MB RAM + 16MB ROM. Those specs put the VR3 to shame, and handhelds.org should have all the info on flashing the OS to Linux. Amazon.com is offering them for $150 after rebate.
Note: the status of Linux on the mono iPaq seems to be a little behind the color version, so be sure to check the relevant info on the development site before jumping on the idea.
This word "trilogy" -- I do not think it means what you think it means.
Maybe he means it in the sense of the Hitchhiker's Guide "trilogy"...
Since I first got my hands on my 48GX back in '95, I've been a convert. RPN makes an incredibly elegant interface for rapid computation, and HP makes some sturdy, ergonomic hardware to boot. (Gotta love those clicky keys--much more "positive" than the mush that TI puts out.)
Just for the record, this is all your fault. Yes, you. You know who you are. You bought the TI-8x because it was cheap and everybody else had one. (Kinda like Win95, except for the cheap part.) I hope you're happy--next time I have to buy a calc, I will be forced to relearn algebraic entry. Of course, judging by the rate at which my HP48 is deteriorating/becoming obsolete, it may be 10 years before I need another calc.
I am doing my part to keep the culture of HP calcs alive. I wrote and maintain rpc, a curses-based RPN calculator which is very much in the spirit of the HP line. (Yes, this is a plug, but I thought it was appropriate...)
Go do a Mozilla distribution for geeks. Add in all the patches like gestures and PGP.
There we go. And while you're at it, make it possible to surf using the keyboard alone. I would be in heaven.
But the way in which it failed was interesting: no one wanted to do anything unless it had the blessing of Digital ^W Compaq ^W Hewlett Paqard.
I think you must have misunderstood. Clearly, the project must have failed because VMS is pure evil and nobody wanted to clone such a hideous creation.
No need to read the comments today. I have concisely summarized the multitude of redundant, lengthy, and unusually arrogant responses into a number of categories designed for rapid assimilation:
Move along people, nothing to see here...
It's traditionally pronounced "guh-NEW". (This is straight from the front page of www.gnu.org.) So maybe it's 4 syllables. :-)
Yes, thank you. We all know how much you like Debian, no need to tell us again.
Having said all that, I think I'm switching from Mandrake to Debian after the next stable release. I've got the urge to get my hands a little more dirty. :-)
That simply makes no sense. Audio quality depends heavily on bitrate. Try encoding some music at 32kbps and 256kbps and make a comparison. One of the most fundamental principles of source coding theory is that there is a tradeoff between bitrate and distortion.
Any sensible codec comparison would:
- use blind testing (probably not done here)
- require all codecs to operate at the same average bitrate
- repeat the test for a range of bitrates
As the parent noted, this was a fluff piece.urpmi has been useless for me on both of my Mandrake 8 boxen, after about a week's worth of casual use. (It dies in some sort of a perl dependency, to be specific.) Consequently, rpmdrake is also hosed.
I'm not the only one, either... check out the horror stories on MandrakeForum.
On the bright side, rpmdrake is the first well-designed GUI package manager that I have laid eyes on. When it works, it works well. I hope they iron out the bugs for mdk 8.1.
If you actually read TiVo's patents, you will find that they are quite specific. There is mention of MPEG compression, use of specific temporary buffering methods, and methods for taking load off of the CPU. I doubt that your "prior art" would apply in this case.
A couple of months ago, we were being told that TiVo was going to alter everything about marketing, but now digital replay recording sales are in the tank.
This is not what I want to hear. The last thing I want is for my TiVo to become nothing more than a cheap LinuxPPC box. It's downright painful trying to watch TV without the TiVo software, once you've had it. (Incidentally, the 2.0 software update RULES.)
Anyone have some sales figures to back up this supposed financial crisis?
ThinkGeek.
Somehow I thought
Physics undergrads develop general problem solving skills that are applicable to a wide variety of topics. All you need are a few who happen to be adept with computers--that's hardly uncommon these days.
Um, Jon, you forgot to post the last 95% of your article. What you have written there is concise and to-the-point; it feels like something is missing.
I appreciate the references. I may well purchase an interlinear bible, so as to be better prepared to defend the young earth position in the future. :-)
WHY are you using one of the worst translations?!
:-) I used the word "literal" because it was the word you chose earlier. Clearly "die" is not used here as we commonly understand the term. Of course, other references make clear what is meant (e.g. I Co 15:20-22).
I tend to use NIV for this sort of discussion, because the phrasing is a little easier to follow for those who are unfamiliar with many biblical doctrines. I see now that you do not fall into that category. I use NKJV most of the time.
> one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis
Oh really? What does Gen 2:17 say?
Well, that's a low blow.
Do yourself a favor, buy a Interlinear Bible, and READ IT. You'll be amazed at how many words are just plain translated badly.
I may look into that. Tell me, how does the Interlinear Bible differ in its translation methods?
Forgive the lengthy posting, but spread of misinformation ticks me off.
To quote from the first article:
The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.
To steal from a more modern term, this is FUD based on some poor translations. The NIV provides an adequate translation of Ge 2:4. It starts out with "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created," which serves as a title for the remainder of the chapter. The account continues with "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." Notice the term "plant of the field," not just "plant." The account is telling us that field crops were delayed in sprouting; I would assume that is because those plants required the care of man, who was not yet around.
The account continues with the creation of man and describes the garden of Eden that had been provided for him. (The fact that the garden is described after the creation of man does not mean that the garden was created after man; it simply flows better from a topical point of view.) The naming of all the animals by Adam is described next. (Again, the fact that the creation of the animals is mentioned at this point does not indicate the timing of their creation, but indicates a topical organization.) Finally, woman is created from man.
If you read Genesis while looking for contradictions, you can always find a way to interpret the words in a contradictory way. Ask yourself this: if you wanted to relay the history of creation, how would you write it? It seems to me that a chronological overview (Ge 1), followed by a topical review with more detail (Ge 2) is a reasonable choice. You could choose more precise language to make the account read like a scientific journal, but that would be poorly suited to a document intended for the common people, and it would make translation more difficult as well.
Re-creation theory does sound very odd to me. The second link you provided tended to confirm that feeling. It was riddled with instances of taking biblical passages out of context, and references to "code words." You can support pretty much any theory by those methods. My opinion is that one should either take a literal interpretation of Genesis or abandon creation entirely. It's difficult to support any middle ground.
*sigh*
This is what you get when you mindlessly believe everything the Discovery channel tells you.
The original poster was alluding to a theory that the speed of light has been slowing over time. That theory could be an alternative explanation to galactic redshifting and other phenomena that have led scientists to believe that the universe is expanding and accelerating.
I'm not saying this theory is correct--but don't immediately accept the prevalent theories as facts either. Try questioning things once in a while, and you may actually learn something.
Where are you getting your information from? Why do you suggest that Genesis describes recreation rather than creation?
Also, 6000 years is not an assumption. The number of years from creation to the birth of Christ can be calculated from geneological data, and it's about 4000 years. (See Ge 5 and Lk 3 for some examples.) If you accept the Bible as truth, you are obliged to also accept a young earth.
Regardless of the tone, the article raises valid points. "Setterfield introduces 'the cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change,'" (again inner quotes are Setterfield's). Why? Seems it's to 'make the curve fit', since in the last 40 years we have more accurate measure of c and it shows no decay.
I totally agree with you on the first point. The "cutoff date" idea is way too arbitrary to hold any water. The "T-plus-one-day" thing is also suspect, and is quite clearly aimed at hitting the 6000 year mark.
One thing I am not sure about is the method used for determining the more precise (not necessarily accurate) values of c in the past 40 years. Are they obtained via atomic clocks? If so, those measurements may not be applicable to disproving the theory. Circular reasoning, so to speak. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how easy it would be to get really precise timings using dynamical clocks.
Your second link was much more helpful. Thanks.
Ugh. There is little more in that refutal than name-calling and screams of "bad science!". (If you can find a more objective and scientific refutal, I would appreciate the link.)
Having said that, I will agree that Setterfield is less than objective. But his findings should not be disregarded simply because he is trying (a little too hard) to give evidence of a young universe. Whether or not you agree on his questionable choice of curve to fit the data, there does appear to be a downward trend in the value of c over time.
No. There is no such universal scaling constant. It takes more than more one number to describe physics. Let me try to give you an idea of what I mean.
You do not fully understand the concept, which makes sense because it was not laid out in much detail. It is precisely the fact that there is no "universal scaling constant" which provides us with a potential way to measure a decrease in the speed of light.
This idea was laid out by Norman and Setterfield in 1987. Basically they make a distinction between atomic clocks, which depend on a constant c for their accuracy, and dynamical clocks (for example, orbiting planets), which depend on other constants such as G or Gm. They found a statistically significant downward trend in the speed of light over time, as measured by dynamical clocks.
The implications of this theory are still being worked on, but some feel it provides some support for a young earth. It is believed that radiometric dating would produce ages that are too old, and it is also possible that the red-shift phenomenon can be explained via this theory.
There is a pretty good explanation here.
Seems to me like there's potential for a problem here. If the theme builder runs in Mozilla, would it be possible to create a Mozilla theme sufficiently broken to make the theme builder unusable? ;-)
"Whoops, I forgot the "OK button" widget... uh oh." <reinstalls Mozilla>