But you have to remember that there is no way to implement that feature in a secure way - if you can read something on a medium writable for you, you can change it! So everyone who can think should know that this can not be secure. (there is the possibility of signing the document (public key), which does not protect against changes but at least you can prove/know that it's been changed. But that's clearly another thing)
But, unfortunately, solar activity has increased in the last century. So, if he meant negative correlation (as you implied), it would be just as wrong. Because we know that the temperature has increased.
Modded as Insightful? Could you even prove what you said? Do you even know that increased solar activity (i.e. more sonspots) actually means _less_ energy reaching the earth?
And what about the very high correlation with CO2 as determined by scientific studies from people thinking a little harder than you did? They're all just biased, of course... and it's just coincidential that glaciers are melting? They are as far back as they haven't been for the last few 100k years?
So the better way is to design the GUI first (maybe by stupid marketing people or something) and then try to make the backend that it fits, even if thats going to lock you into crappy concepts for decades because of thinks you didn't think of when writing the GUI? As it happened often enough to M$?
Or could you maybe give an example what that should be: "But what if so much code has already been written that no programmer wants to go back and make all the changes necessary to make it really work?"
Why are big companies an indicator for a strong economy? I think small ones are much better, more efficient, although politicians and business people deny that. And the German economy is not very strong.
Re:Cross-platform compatibility was the problem
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
You can say many things about Kylix, but that is not true!
I have used it in various environments, including Debian. It does work. (but I didn't say Kylix was good. For making it succeed, it woud have needed real Delphi comatibility. Instead, there was a mess with CLX on both platforms and VCL on Windows only, but no sane developeer would use CLX on Windows because... it's just crappy. They are repeating this with.net as I heard. Sad.
No. That's wrong! It only says that it is possible that some study has been made up.
Yeah, continue to deny the greenhouse effect, it's only a few years from now that no one can really deny it anymore because of the evidence everyone can see. I mean, at least it is currently warming up, and the greenhouse gasses are increasing - that's already strong evidence, and there has not been found any other explanation (and, BTW, solar activity causes the sun radiation to be less intense, so that is not an explanation).
I strongly support what you say about Pascal and why this is no justification.
But don't say that there is no evidence for a climate change because of the greenhouse effect. Facts are that the climate effect does exist (no one with basic understanding of the subject can deny this) and that CO2 does increase the effect. What is not yet clear is if that is the major effect explaining the temperature increase in the last century. But that's a fact, too, and it is highly probable that the greenhouse effect has lead to it - and, after all, we cannot yet say if MBH98 was wrong - after all, there are still discussing, and even if they seem to have made mistakes concerning the raw data they supplied, that does not mean it can't be cleared out (but I'm open for discussion, if it comes out they made it up I'm going to accept that)
He didn't say that you said one of "cellphonescausecancer.com or oprah things", but he asked if your claims are based on facts or not. So far you are the one taking it personal, and he is not.
And then, you are mixing up a few things. Heat doesn't cause cancer (k, heat does increase mutation - stop wearing clothes to stop that). Today, we can tell if certain kinds and intensities of radiation are increasing the risk of cancer: it's if they can ionize. And cell phone radiation does not ionize. So, unless there is a yet undiscovered special effect for exactly the cell phone frequencies it is very, very unlikely.
(and I'm not saying it's impossible. But there are facts. I'm not going to believe that the basic laws of physics fail unless there are some really good studies proving it!)
There is nothing really philosophical about it. Hearing is what you do with your ears. Stating the big bang sounds like this is just crap. You can't tell what a "sound" which would let the (logarithmic) dB scale "explode" sounds like. (And remember how hypothetic all that is: there is no consent if there really was a big bang. Sure, steady state isn't too well supported among physicists, and the big bang is a great thing to talk about for those not really knowing much (I admit that I'm not too deep in the matter either). But a physicists wants to attest a sound to a hypothetical event, happened 15 billion years ago, where there are still many unknown factors in the universe (think dominance of matter over anti-matter etc.) and far off the scale not only a human can hear but also what he can measure if he was there.
That's what comes to mind, no one else has interest to put any doubt into that case! Pardon if you aren't, but that's what I could very well think of: SCO sending some ACs to popular discussion places... of course not very helpful on slashdot.
Yeah, and if it was true (it isn't as already shown for the few lines of 'evidence' that leaked...) then of course an ignorant could call this silly. But that would be an ignorant, because in the current situation there is no evidence whatsoever which could make me believe that SCO could be right.
So I live in a geeky place? You got the facts correct, but a "city of science" -- you know, if someone says that of himself it has a reason and mostly it's because otherwise no one would notice that;) And I don't think there are too many people understanding what I print on my T-shirts. (but I can't compare because when I wear them somewhere else it's mostly when I'm together with people who of course understand it) No, I don't think Darmstadt is the worst place to live but there are of course more than enough better cities in Europe.
I once hat a practical trainig at the GSI and it was nice. Hey and they still have two more chemical elements to name.
Nearly entirely correct, except fot the comets. That's caused by the solar wind. I'll repeat it again because too many seem to believe that crap: That sail is not a heat engine. Carnot*s rule is only valid when it comes to heat. No heat is involved here.
It's more than 80 lines (they only showed 80 lines). At least that's what they say. But even with several thousands of lines $1 billion is pretty much. Even a judge really ruling in their favor wouldn't give them mor than a few millions. And thn, after all, the code should be "freed" since it should belong to IBM if they pay for it, and they already GPL'd it.
No. A fair judge can't give that much about 80 lines. Not much mor than "hey give them $1000 and replace it!" Whatever they found, it can't be that much that the linux kernel would depend on it and it can't be rewritten in a few hours by those hundreds of coders. After all, as has been stated, there aren't that many large chungs of IBM code in the general kernel (apart from S/390 stuff which is most probably not from SCO)
Not only that, but they contradict themselves every few days. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes patents, sometimes trade secrets.
And umm, how can the Linux users be guilty if IBM put their code into the kernel source? They can't. If it was about proprietary software, noone would say all the licensees are guilty. But it isn't really another case then this - IBM gave it to the community under GPL. Some proprietary company gave it to the users under a proprietary license. Where's the difference? It's not the source, but I don't think that is important since the binary is generated from the copyrighted code, so it is copyrighted, too.
OK, you stated it I have to say that too: IANAQP although I want to become one someday.
At the moment, we do not exactly know when a superpositions ends or begins. They seem to exist but I think you have mistaken some things: First, it won't save you from simulating anything. At the very last, it has to materialize at some time. It will interact with something. It has to be calculated then. Period.
And as I said, it has been proven that quantum computers do exists, and they solve problems of exponential complexity in linear time - although we don't know at which scale that can be done, because we don't know how big a superposition can be.
You said it should onky be worked out when someone looks at it. That implies here we're talking about some sort of life. So you would think that the system actually recognices that some sort of life is looking at it and only then simulates exactly - or even recognizes intelligent life?
OK, a possibility. You can set up higher complexity simulations. But I would say, the universe is then bigger. The computing power available in the universe then includes that thingie able to do such complex simulations. Do you want to simulate that too? If not, in the simulated universe are not the same physical laws than in the metaverse. It is smaller in my opinion. If you want to give those in the universe the same possibility, that resource would have to be infinite. Some kind of connector I can give formal instructions to compute and, independant of the complexity, it immediately returns the results. Yea, if we had that, we could do much more. But it would not really fit the kind I imagine a universe ("the world is simple" - that's the way a physicist thinks). And how long would an infinite loop take?
I'd certainly want to simulate a universe just for fun. If I had the computing power. If I would expect that there would evolve live? I am not sure. But I meant with especially for us, that it was designed around humans, only what we observe is being simulated. So the person creating the simulation placed us in there some way - maybe as a copy of someone else, himself or something. Or as some fantasy creature. Sounds as someone taking us humans a bit too important.
No, I will state what I think of this: The entire world is only simulated for me! You all don't exist as long as I do not see you or you write some text I read or something!;-)
To store what you simulate, you'll need a storage larger than that. To store all information about the earth - the position, momentum, spin and whatever of every single quantum - you need a storage consisting of more quantums than the earth consists of. You think that isn't the case? Say why it should pe possible instead of posting meaningless one-liners.
(and please tell me what kind of logic I use. Seems to be interesting, I always wanted to know that)
The word universe suggests that it's simply everything. I mean the 'real world' when I say universe. Do you disagree? Tell me what you mean then...
And what's the matter if the physical laws were significantly different? That is a contradiction, because what we found as physical laws are based on observation. They are at least valid for the environment we observed. There could be something more general of which they derive under the circumstance in which we observe them. But how would that matter? You still hat to simulate all that if you wanted to simulated the universe.
How do you mean? It doesn't know if it is being observed. At least the word "observed" is misleading. When a quantum has to interact with something, it isn't in the superstate anymore, but materializes at some point. But, that would more or less prove the countrary, because the system has to calculate much more while something is in a superstate (it has to calculate all possibilities) than at the point it is materialized. So that for sure doesn't matter at this point, since it is hardly an optimization. Needing more time to calculate the things happening when one doesn't watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, now it all makes sence... call IBM and tell them the recall code is OPE!
That we haven't thought of that solution...
But you have to remember that there is no way to implement that feature in a secure way - if you can read something on a medium writable for you, you can change it! So everyone who can think should know that this can not be secure.
(there is the possibility of signing the document (public key), which does not protect against changes but at least you can prove/know that it's been changed. But that's clearly another thing)
Oh... Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't know that ...
You probably didn't meen "global-warming denialists" but "greenhouse effect denialists", that would somehow make more sence.
But, unfortunately, solar activity has increased in the last century. So, if he meant negative correlation (as you implied), it would be just as wrong. Because we know that the temperature has increased.
Modded as Insightful? Could you even prove what you said?
Do you even know that increased solar activity (i.e. more sonspots) actually means _less_ energy reaching the earth?
And what about the very high correlation with CO2 as determined by scientific studies from people thinking a little harder than you did? They're all just biased, of course... and it's just coincidential that glaciers are melting? They are as far back as they haven't been for the last few 100k years?
Umm, and I think my mutt has provided that kind of interface since I first used it. But that's not news. We all know that Microsoft didn't ever invent anything worth mentioning.
So the better way is to design the GUI first (maybe by stupid marketing people or something) and then try to make the backend that it fits, even if thats going to lock you into crappy concepts for decades because of thinks you didn't think of when writing the GUI? As it happened often enough to M$?
Or could you maybe give an example what that should be:
"But what if so much code has already been written that no programmer wants to go back and make all the changes necessary to make it really work?"
Can't imagine that.
Why are big companies an indicator for a strong economy? I think small ones are much better, more efficient, although politicians and business people deny that. And the German economy is not very strong.
You can say many things about Kylix, but that is not true!
... it's just crappy. .net as I heard. Sad.
I have used it in various environments, including Debian. It does work.
(but I didn't say Kylix was good. For making it succeed, it woud have needed real Delphi comatibility. Instead, there was a mess with CLX on both platforms and VCL on Windows only, but no sane developeer would use CLX on Windows because
They are repeating this with
No. That's wrong! It only says that it is possible that some study has been made up.
Yeah, continue to deny the greenhouse effect, it's only a few years from now that no one can really deny it anymore because of the evidence everyone can see. I mean, at least it is currently warming up, and the greenhouse gasses are increasing - that's already strong evidence, and there has not been found any other explanation (and, BTW, solar activity causes the sun radiation to be less intense, so that is not an explanation).
I strongly support what you say about Pascal and why this is no justification.
But don't say that there is no evidence for a climate change because of the greenhouse effect. Facts are that the climate effect does exist (no one with basic understanding of the subject can deny this) and that CO2 does increase the effect. What is not yet clear is if that is the major effect explaining the temperature increase in the last century. But that's a fact, too, and it is highly probable that the greenhouse effect has lead to it - and, after all, we cannot yet say if MBH98 was wrong - after all, there are still discussing, and even if they seem to have made mistakes concerning the raw data they supplied, that does not mean it can't be cleared out (but I'm open for discussion, if it comes out they made it up I'm going to accept that)
He didn't say that you said one of "cellphonescausecancer.com or oprah things", but he asked if your claims are based on facts or not. So far you are the one taking it personal, and he is not.
And then, you are mixing up a few things. Heat doesn't cause cancer (k, heat does increase mutation - stop wearing clothes to stop that).
Today, we can tell if certain kinds and intensities of radiation are increasing the risk of cancer: it's if they can ionize. And cell phone radiation does not ionize. So, unless there is a yet undiscovered special effect for exactly the cell phone frequencies it is very, very unlikely.
(and I'm not saying it's impossible. But there are facts. I'm not going to believe that the basic laws of physics fail unless there are some really good studies proving it!)
There is nothing really philosophical about it. Hearing is what you do with your ears. Stating the big bang sounds like this is just crap. You can't tell what a "sound" which would let the (logarithmic) dB scale "explode" sounds like. (And remember how hypothetic all that is: there is no consent if there really was a big bang. Sure, steady state isn't too well supported among physicists, and the big bang is a great thing to talk about for those not really knowing much (I admit that I'm not too deep in the matter either).
But a physicists wants to attest a sound to a hypothetical event, happened 15 billion years ago, where there are still many unknown factors in the universe (think dominance of matter over anti-matter etc.) and far off the scale not only a human can hear but also what he can measure if he was there.
Hi, Anonymous SCO Coward...
That's what comes to mind, no one else has interest to put any doubt into that case! Pardon if you aren't, but that's what I could very well think of: SCO sending some ACs to popular discussion places... of course not very helpful on slashdot.
Yeah, and if it was true (it isn't as already shown for the few lines of 'evidence' that leaked...) then of course an ignorant could call this silly. But that would be an ignorant, because in the current situation there is no evidence whatsoever which could make me believe that SCO could be right.
So I live in a geeky place? ;)
You got the facts correct, but a "city of science" -- you know, if someone says that of himself it has a reason and mostly it's because otherwise no one would notice that
And I don't think there are too many people understanding what I print on my T-shirts. (but I can't compare because when I wear them somewhere else it's mostly when I'm together with people who of course understand it)
No, I don't think Darmstadt is the worst place to live but there are of course more than enough better cities in Europe.
I once hat a practical trainig at the GSI and it was nice. Hey and they still have two more chemical elements to name.
Nearly entirely correct, except fot the comets. That's caused by the solar wind.
I'll repeat it again because too many seem to believe that crap: That sail is not a heat engine. Carnot*s rule is only valid when it comes to heat. No heat is involved here.
It's more than 80 lines (they only showed 80 lines). At least that's what they say.
But even with several thousands of lines $1 billion is pretty much. Even a judge really ruling in their favor wouldn't give them mor than a few millions.
And thn, after all, the code should be "freed" since it should belong to IBM if they pay for it, and they already GPL'd it.
No. A fair judge can't give that much about 80 lines. Not much mor than "hey give them $1000 and replace it!"
Whatever they found, it can't be that much that the linux kernel would depend on it and it can't be rewritten in a few hours by those hundreds of coders. After all, as has been stated, there aren't that many large chungs of IBM code in the general kernel (apart from S/390 stuff which is most probably not from SCO)
Not only that, but they contradict themselves every few days. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes patents, sometimes trade secrets.
And umm, how can the Linux users be guilty if IBM put their code into the kernel source? They can't. If it was about proprietary software, noone would say all the licensees are guilty. But it isn't really another case then this - IBM gave it to the community under GPL. Some proprietary company gave it to the users under a proprietary license. Where's the difference? It's not the source, but I don't think that is important since the binary is generated from the copyrighted code, so it is copyrighted, too.
OK, you stated it I have to say that too: IANAQP although I want to become one someday.
At the moment, we do not exactly know when a superpositions ends or begins. They seem to exist but I think you have mistaken some things: First, it won't save you from simulating anything. At the very last, it has to materialize at some time. It will interact with something. It has to be calculated then. Period.
And as I said, it has been proven that quantum computers do exists, and they solve problems of exponential complexity in linear time - although we don't know at which scale that can be done, because we don't know how big a superposition can be.
You said it should onky be worked out when someone looks at it. That implies here we're talking about some sort of life. So you would think that the system actually recognices that some sort of life is looking at it and only then simulates exactly - or even recognizes intelligent life?
OK, a possibility. You can set up higher complexity simulations.
But I would say, the universe is then bigger. The computing power available in the universe then includes that thingie able to do such complex simulations. Do you want to simulate that too? If not, in the simulated universe are not the same physical laws than in the metaverse. It is smaller in my opinion.
If you want to give those in the universe the same possibility, that resource would have to be infinite. Some kind of connector I can give formal instructions to compute and, independant of the complexity, it immediately returns the results. Yea, if we had that, we could do much more. But it would not really fit the kind I imagine a universe ("the world is simple" - that's the way a physicist thinks).
And how long would an infinite loop take?
I'd certainly want to simulate a universe just for fun. If I had the computing power.
;-)
If I would expect that there would evolve live? I am not sure.
But I meant with especially for us, that it was designed around humans, only what we observe is being simulated. So the person creating the simulation placed us in there some way - maybe as a copy of someone else, himself or something. Or as some fantasy creature. Sounds as someone taking us humans a bit too important.
No, I will state what I think of this: The entire world is only simulated for me! You all don't exist as long as I do not see you or you write some text I read or something!
How so? I didn't state that.
To store what you simulate, you'll need a storage larger than that.
To store all information about the earth - the position, momentum, spin and whatever of every single quantum - you need a storage consisting of more quantums than the earth consists of.
You think that isn't the case? Say why it should pe possible instead of posting meaningless one-liners.
(and please tell me what kind of logic I use. Seems to be interesting, I always wanted to know that)
The word universe suggests that it's simply everything. I mean the 'real world' when I say universe. Do you disagree? Tell me what you mean then...
And what's the matter if the physical laws were significantly different? That is a contradiction, because what we found as physical laws are based on observation. They are at least valid for the environment we observed. There could be something more general of which they derive under the circumstance in which we observe them.
But how would that matter? You still hat to simulate all that if you wanted to simulated the universe.
How do you mean? It doesn't know if it is being observed. At least the word "observed" is misleading. When a quantum has to interact with something, it isn't in the superstate anymore, but materializes at some point. But, that would more or less prove the countrary, because the system has to calculate much more while something is in a superstate (it has to calculate all possibilities) than at the point it is materialized. So that for sure doesn't matter at this point, since it is hardly an optimization. Needing more time to calculate the things happening when one doesn't watch.