> In contrast to Microsoft Germany, which has certainly more employees > than SuSE? (And was voted Best Employer 2003 in Germany in the +500 > employeer category)
erh, no. In contrast to mandrake and redhat - I was merely talking about which linux provider to choose, not discussing why linux is preferable to windows (which I think it is for many other reasons than price and location).
> > [...] millions of euro's to an American company when [...] > > They do. SuSE has been bought by Novell.
Good point.
But I guess choosing SuSE will still support the German economy somewhat more than if another company is chosen, since I assume SuSE still has many German employees.
And as another reply to my post pointed out - SuSE has certain advantages for German costumers, related to language & location.
> This does not matter if they have payed around > $12.5 million to SuSE, because that stays within > the German economy.
I can definitely understand why the German taxpayers dont want to see their counsel handing over millions of euro's to an American company when it could have stayed in the local economy.
But how does this tie in with current European Union licitation(right english word?) rules?
If Red Hat (or at least a company from another EU country like Mandrake) gave a cheaper bid, would they have to go with that one?
> And this, my friends, is the attitude that keeps Linux off the desktop.
Please... Even though I agree that we need to be pragmatic in order to get OSS onto the desktops around the world, I also get a little tired of people trowing around absolutes (especially while complaining about other people being elitists). Just because you dont like the attitude, it doesnt mean that linux would be on desktops everywhere if it werent because of it.
There are probably many many many reasons why linux is only on the desktops of a few percents of people.
Is it the attitudes of OSS people? Is it the fact that linux doesnt come preinstalled? Is it because linux needs program X? Is it because linux needs more company support? Is it because of the inertia of companies. Is it something else?
My feeling is that it is a mixture of the above.
But with luck, patience and hard work we will of course overcome those in time:-)
The thing is, 1+1=2 is something we find useful in everyday life tells us that the mathematical model with standard integers and standard addition and comparison is a useful tool for many everyday applications.
BUT... there ARE mathematical models where 1+1 != 2.
(some of them quite handy btw., since some parts of physics can NOT be described by mathematics with 1+1=2, for instance addition of relativistic velocities).
Actually stephen hawkings himself (the author of said book), mentioned in the book (or maybe in a tv-show about the book), that he was working on a big-bang model where time doesnt have a beginning (just like the surface of a sphere doesnt have a beginning). And therefore - in essence his words - science might not even have need of a creation (and much less a god).
In any case, i am a physicist, and while i have met tons of other non-religious physicists, I can at the moment only think of one who admitted to believe in some sort of god. If nothing else that proves (to me at least) that your "Most Physicists believe that God created..." is... (how to put it nicely...), not a good reflection of the truth.
But mathematics can only prove that 1+1=2 if it has first ASSUMED some sort of framework for the 1's, the 2, the "+" and the "=". (often, 1+1=2 is actually taken as an assumption).
Mathematics is NOT science, in the sense that it doesnt have experiments. It is useful yes, but science it is not.
Its more like a branch of philosophy that turned out to also be a useful tool for science to use to formulate scientific laws.
> Kinda hard to claim your results are more indicitative > of the market when your scanning technology is flat out broken.
Worse than broken.
I just checked www.fys.ku.dk and www.nbi.dk which are running on some old unix. But Port80 happily claims Microsoft-IIS/5.0. (Netcraft sees them correctly).
> No, it simply apears to be slashdot, which replaces the last three letters > from the Danish alpahabet by AE, O, and A. I guess those who wrote that piece of > code doesn't know how much they can change the meaning of a word by doing that. > If I for example tried to write "eagels" in Danish, slashdot would replace it by "boar".
I agree, they should replace them by AE, OE and AA instead (which is the usual way to do it).
anyway, in html'ish the word in question is røv
"Sa plumpes de i akvariet, og en god ide er at lade 3 af fiskene svomme den ene vej og 3 de 3 sidste den anden vej, idet de ikke kan vende sig rundt, nar de er kommet i."
Which translates roughly into (its danish):
"Next they are put into the aquarium, and it is a good idea to let 3 of the fish swim one way and the last 3 the other way, since they can't turn after they are put in."
Let me just point out (also in regards to other comments):
In current theories, no information can move faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). The EPR "paradox" where measuring the spin of one of a pair of correlated particles determines the spin of the other particle instantaneously. BUT you can not use that for greater than light speed communication as you can only measure the spin - not decide what you want to measure. The guy measuring the spin of the particle at the other end cant know if he measures the spin he measures because you already measured something or not. Quantum mechanics and relativity lives happily side by side. No problems.
Even though we do not have a quantum (field theory) of gravity, we already know (from theory +indications from experiments) that it must also travel slower than light.
In a given material some particles can actually travel faster than light does in the same material. This is actually because the light is constantly being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material, thus taking a few pit stops along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
> In contrast to Microsoft Germany, which has certainly more employees
> than SuSE? (And was voted Best Employer 2003 in Germany in the +500
> employeer category)
erh, no. In contrast to mandrake and redhat - I was merely talking about which linux provider to choose, not discussing why linux is preferable to windows (which I think it is for many other reasons than price and location).
> > [...] millions of euro's to an American company when [...]
>
> They do. SuSE has been bought by Novell.
Good point.
But I guess choosing SuSE will still support the German economy somewhat more than if another company is chosen, since I assume SuSE still has many German employees.
And as another reply to my post pointed out - SuSE has certain advantages for German costumers, related to language & location.
> This does not matter if they have payed around
> $12.5 million to SuSE, because that stays within
> the German economy.
I can definitely understand why the German taxpayers dont want to see their counsel handing over millions of euro's to an American company when it could have stayed in the local economy.
But how does this tie in with current European Union licitation(right english word?) rules?
If Red Hat (or at least a company from another EU country like Mandrake) gave a cheaper bid, would they have to go with that one?
EU law is quite complex sometimes (always)...
> And this, my friends, is the attitude that keeps Linux off the desktop.
:-)
Please... Even though I agree that we need to be pragmatic in order to get OSS onto the desktops around the world, I also get a little tired of people trowing around absolutes (especially while complaining about other people being elitists). Just because you dont like the attitude, it doesnt mean that linux would be on desktops everywhere if it werent because of it.
There are probably many many many reasons why linux is only on the desktops of a few percents of people.
Is it the attitudes of OSS people?
Is it the fact that linux doesnt come preinstalled?
Is it because linux needs program X?
Is it because linux needs more company support?
Is it because of the inertia of companies.
Is it something else?
My feeling is that it is a mixture of the above.
But with luck, patience and hard work we will of course overcome those in time
> Now maybe they'll give Spike his own show. He da man!
:-)
Is that a sluggy referance?
[Sam's da man!]
But on the other hand, a situation where a gallon of ethanol costs a couple of bucks at the local gas/ethanol station would be sweet...
(probably a troll, but what the hell...)
1... what?
2... what?
The thing is, 1+1=2 is something we find useful in everyday life tells us that the mathematical model with standard integers and standard addition and comparison is a useful tool for many everyday applications.
BUT... there ARE mathematical models where 1+1 != 2.
(some of them quite handy btw., since some parts of physics can NOT be described by mathematics with 1+1=2, for instance addition of relativistic velocities).
Actually stephen hawkings himself (the author of said book), mentioned in the book (or maybe in a tv-show about the book), that he was working on a big-bang model where time doesnt have a beginning (just like the surface of a sphere doesnt have a beginning). And therefore - in essence his words - science might not even have need of a creation (and much less a god).
In any case, i am a physicist, and while i have met tons of other non-religious physicists, I can at the moment only think of one who admitted to believe in some sort of god. If nothing else that proves (to me at least) that your "Most Physicists believe that God created..." is... (how to put it nicely...), not a good reflection of the truth.
But mathematics can only prove that 1+1=2 if it has first ASSUMED some sort of framework for the 1's, the 2, the "+" and the "=". (often, 1+1=2 is actually taken as an assumption).
Mathematics is NOT science, in the sense that it doesnt have experiments. It is useful yes, but science it is not.
Its more like a branch of philosophy that turned out to also be a useful tool for science to use to formulate scientific laws.
> Patents are indeed more dangerous than SCO.
Most things are...
Yes, but as the guy said if you read the article, they will actually adopt a new policy regarding an 18 month release cycle of a business version.
Something new.
Furthermore, with windows you need to pay licence fees for many of the programs you are going to use. (Unless playing solitaire fullfills your needs).
> By definition, half of all their customers are
> using "above average" bandwidth.
No, only if you are talking about the median instead of the average.
Example: The numbers 1,2,3 and 100 average to 26.5. Only one of the four numbers is thus above average.
Of course, I still find the complaint of the company ridiculous.
> ...includes a pointer to Javascrypt, a
:-)
> Javascript-based encryption utility.
hey! Pointers and java is a no-no
> Kinda hard to claim your results are more indicitative
> of the market when your scanning technology is flat out broken.
Worse than broken.
I just checked www.fys.ku.dk and www.nbi.dk which are running on some old unix. But Port80 happily claims Microsoft-IIS/5.0. (Netcraft sees them correctly).
Now that is just plain cheating!
well in that case...
I for one would like to congratulate our new super drone overlord!!!
(it had to be said).
> (that's what a fever is: your body optimizing for fighting infection)
I thought that the point of a fever was to raise the body temperature to a point where the malicious vira die.
> No, it simply apears to be slashdot, which replaces the last three letters
> from the Danish alpahabet by AE, O, and A. I guess those who wrote that piece of
> code doesn't know how much they can change the meaning of a word by doing that.
> If I for example tried to write "eagels" in Danish, slashdot would replace it by "boar".
I agree, they should replace them by AE, OE and AA instead (which is the usual way to do it).
anyway, in html'ish the word in question is røv
> You forgot to say something in Danish.
Maybe the "rov" was supposed to be the danish "rov"?
> Quite possibly, fluid dynamics applies to both liquids and gasses.
And I guess also solids actually!
(for instance describing the "flow" in a glacier)
> This should be of especial interest to fans of Frank Herbert's Dune
> (or maybe only those who preferred House Atreides)
Just to nitpick: It is only in the game that ornithopters are an Atreides thing only. In the books, Harkonnens also fly around in them.
Anyone else hate those commercials...
"Fosters... Australian for SHAITE..."
(oh, go on and mod me down, you humorless modder)
From the site:
"Sa plumpes de i akvariet, og en god ide er at lade 3 af fiskene svomme den ene vej og 3 de 3 sidste den anden vej, idet de ikke kan vende sig rundt, nar de er kommet i."
Which translates roughly into (its danish):
"Next they are put into the aquarium, and it is a good idea to let 3 of the fish swim one way and the last 3 the other way, since they can't turn after they are put in."
Isn't that slightly cruel?
> This is another picture of the great ape in its natural habitat
and here is yet another great ape...
Let me just point out (also in regards to other comments):
In current theories, no information can move faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). The EPR "paradox" where measuring the spin of one of a pair of correlated particles determines the spin of the other particle instantaneously. BUT you can not use that for greater than light speed communication as you can only measure the spin - not decide what you want to measure. The guy measuring the spin of the particle at the other end cant know if he measures the spin he measures because you already measured something or not. Quantum mechanics and relativity lives happily side by side. No problems.
Even though we do not have a quantum (field theory) of gravity, we already know (from theory +indications from experiments) that it must also travel slower than light.
In a given material some particles can actually travel faster than light does in the same material. This is actually because the light is constantly being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material, thus taking a few pit stops along the way.