Because of our non-reporting status, SunnComm's management feels you need to understand these very important facts prior to making a decision to invest in the company's shares, and you should also be totally aware that you run the risk of losing your entire investment should you make the decision to purchase shares in SunnComm.
Run the risk of losing your entire investment? More like a dead cert now, methinks!
(BTW, this text plus other stuff shows up in a window when you first visit their website; to see it on a later visit, you'll have to delete their cookie)
In fact I cannot find anywhere in this entire thread where anyone claimed that open field lines imply monopoles
I quote diretly from a post by rjh, which began this thread: And one of Maxwell's Laws ("the divergence of the magnetic field equals zero") has, as a direct consequence, an absolute law: NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES EXIST. NO OPEN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES EXIST. This is, at least a link between magnetic monopoles and open field lines.
My response to rjh's post was (I quote): You are wrong here; it is perfectly easy to get open field lines, using a current distribution. Note that I haven't said anything about monopoles.
bcrowell then piled in to claim: Nope, that creates closed field lines.. The work I cited was to demonstrate how he was demonstrably wrong in his assertion. After this point, I rather muddied the issue by claiming that the field lines terminated at the stellar surface, when indeed they do not -- and I think that's where monopoles became involved. However, I remained correct in my original assertion that open field lines can be produced in situations where the div B = 0 law remains valid.
I don't know what you are arguing about. None of the work you have cited has any connection (no matter how loose) to monopoles.
...and I have never claimed that it does; as I indicate above the work I cited was to demonstrate that open field lines can exist in a situation where div B = 0. You need to go back and read the whole thread, not pick it up halfway through as you appear to have done...
You can consider what you want, but that won't make it true.
If you look back through my posts, you will see that I never set out to claim that I had terminating field lines (in your sense) without monopoles. I claimed that I had open field lines without monopoles, from a physically-realistic model. This contradicts what the original poster wrote: that open field lines are only realizable with magnetic monopoles. Please explain to me how I am wrong.
No, they aren't making such an assumption (I know this for a fact, since I work with one of them); 6 stellar radii is just the outer boundary of their computational domain. More detailed calculations indicate that the field lines extend out to inifinity without meeting. Such behaviour is perfectly compatible with the fact that div B = 0; why are you insisting that it isn't?
Whoops, there I go again. What I meant to say was that, deep within the star, the field lines are those of a dipole. However, above the stellar surface, the wind pulls the lines into an open configuration. So, the field lines do not terminate at the stellar surface; they pass through the surface and assume a dipole form at small radii.
The point I am making, however, is that the field lines above the surface are ripped open by the wind. This is a counterexample of the assertion "magnetic monopoles are required for open field lines". Look here for a suitable citation (note: I am not one of the authors on this paper).
Last week, I posted a story about this; seems the thread listing for loads of groups went missing. Unfortunately, by the time Hemos/Taco/Timothy got around to reading the story, the problem was fixed, so my story got rejected, and it looked like I had been snorting my Spice Weasel again...
You misunderstand; I have open field lines which terminate at the stellar surface (where the field is generated). Without the wind, the field is a dipole; however, the wind rips the field lines open and creates unterminated lines. In what way is this unrealistic? Stars have been observed which appear to be doing this.
What crack was the moderator on when this was modded offtopic? The comments made by kamapuaa are in no way offtopic in a discussion of Ben Franklin. Shame!
A few years back, I built myself a potato gun. A 3-inch calibre potato gun. The "King Edward Howitzer" (as I liked to call it) was constructed from various pieces of PVC drainage piping. A short length of large (8" dia) bossed pipe connector was closed off at one end with a screwable inspection cap, and at the other end with a diameter reducer, going into a 4-foot length of 3" dia piping (the barrel). The bossed pipe connector served as a combustion chamber; to permit firing, a small hole was drilled in the side of the chamber.
Operation procedure was as follows:
Take 1 large King Edward or Maris Piper potato (these varieties are good, being waxy in texture), and ram it into the barrel, creating a plug of potato
Using a hospital crutch, push the plug down the barrel until it sits just above the junction with the combustion chamber
Unscrew the inspection cap and squirt about 3 seconds worth of hairspray into the combustion chamber. Replace the cap firmly when done
Point the howitzer in the desired direction, and hold a lit match at the hole in the side of the combustion chamber. Voila!
It made a hell of a whoop when it fired, and from time/distance measurements, we estimated a muzzle velocity of well over 100 mph.
I downloaded, benchmarked, and bought several compilers.
Yet from an earlier post:
"Ample funds" at a university or a corporation? What rock are you living under? Having worked in both environments, I can assure you that any expense is an obstacle to adoption.
You're changing your story now, which leads me to believe that your really are talking out of your ass.
C++ supports equivalent array syntax. Furthermore, in C++, library developers can create natural syntax for arbitrary classes, not just the few things that are built-in.
From your comment, I can see that you are one of those people who likes to talk about Fortran, but actually knows nothing about it. The array syntax in F9X can be applied to arbitrary classes (or "derived types" as they are known) via operator overloading. Furthermore, Fortran allows scalar functions to be declared elemental, which automatically generalizes the function to arrays of any rank and size (kinda like C++ templates, but geared specifically towards arrays).
Using Fortran involves extra programming time and extra expenses for software.
Here you go again, pulling "facts" out from your ass. Do you have any justification for this whatsoever?
Furthermore, for the truly high-performance stuff, people are increasingly relying on large libraries of hand-crafted, processor-specific routines (BLAS, SparseBLAS, OpenGL, etc.). No Fortran compiler can keep up with that.
Of course not, but neither can a C or C++ compiler. I'm not seeing your point here; sure, for certain tasks, one can rely on hand-crafted libraries. But for all other tasks, one must rely on the language one is programming in, and Fortran is the more efficient language.
But most people who write scientific and engineering applications aren't solving purely numerical problems and Fortran is far too limiting for them.
I don't find it so; but you, with your completly-unwarranted prejudices about a language you obviously know nothing of, are free to do so
It's not insurmountable--if you make enough noise, you can get the few dozen copies of some Fortran compiler that you need--but if something is free, it's much more likely to be used.
In a post elsewhere in this discussion, someone has already pointed out that the majority (all?) of commercial F9X compilers do not require run-time licensing. Therefore, why you would need a few dozen copies is beyond me. Surely, one will suffice, sitting on a server where all can use it.
When I install a Linux cluster, the free compilers and runtimes are just there and work.
Already, the g77 compiler and runtime is there and works. And when one or the other of the two open-source compiler projects are finished, the same will be true for Fortran 90/95/2003.
Bollocks -- big, sweaty, steaming bollocks. F9x is an absolute joy to program in -- just the array syntax alone makes it so. And, despite what some C++ advocates may claim, it still holds the edge in terms of efficiency, when it comes to numerical simulations.
As for the lack of open source Fortran 9x compilers, that I agree with. However, there are two projects in SourceForge which are addressing this problem, and my current project (c. 50,000 lines of F95 code for simulating spectral emission from pulsating stars, due to be released under the GPL) is relying on the fact that there will be free compilers around when it is released.
In any case, the fact that there is no current open source compiler is not that much of a deterrent to most Fortran users. Think about it: most people who program in Fortran are actually using the language to solve numerical problems in some other discipline (such as engineering, or in my case astrophysics); they're not CS students looking for a free (beer or speech) compiler to do their linked list assignment on. Since these typical users are either embedded in a university department or a corporation, there are ample funds to buy whatever F9X compiler they might need. Lack of free (as in beer) compilers is just not a factor for most Fortran users, and most are too pragmatic to worry about free as in speech.
Eh? EQUIVALENCE is the substitute for the lack of pointers that makes FORTRAN usable. Sheesh! Next these people will be telling us that GOTOs are bad for your health.
F, being a subset language of Fortran 90/95, already supports pointers in their entirety. I wish people would actually learn something about Fortran (note: the caps disappeared years ago) before posting their glib yet uninformed comments.
And, for the record, Dijkstra never said "GOTOs Considered Harmful"; it was the editor of an article he wrote who came up with this much-misused statement. For the further record, in the 10 years I have been programming with Fortran, I've never used (or felt I needed to use) a single GOTO statement.
One of the main banks in the UK, NatWest, is already using Windows for its ATMs. I remember going to get cash out from one, only to be greeted with a BSOD and the error message "General Protection Fault in atm.exe"!!!
Why are they bothering with proper cleanup? This is FATAL CONDITION! ABANDON SHIP!
Only guessing, but how about to ensure that the freed memory isn't handed over to a subsequently-run app, still stuffed full of cryptographically-sensitive information?
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
You are comparing apples and oranges; OpenSSH is not part of the Linux kernel, it is a commonly-used piece of third-party software. Past criticisms of Microsoft have been directed at vulnerabilities in the core Windows functionality, not at script-kiddie backdoors in IRQ clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of our non-reporting status, SunnComm's management feels you need to understand these very important facts prior to making a decision to invest in the company's shares, and you should also be totally aware that you run the risk of losing your entire investment should you make the decision to purchase shares in SunnComm.
Run the risk of losing your entire investment? More like a dead cert now, methinks!
(BTW, this text plus other stuff shows up in a window when you first visit their website; to see it on a later visit, you'll have to delete their cookie)
...lurks the corporate logo "Lightyears beyond encryption"
Bwahahahaha! You just can't make this shit up...
"The SCO Group" is owned by and has since Caldera's inception basically been under the auspices of an umbrella corporation called the Canopy Group.
And you thought Resident Evil was just a game? BE AFRAID!
In fact I cannot find anywhere in this entire thread where anyone claimed that open field lines imply monopoles
I quote diretly from a post by rjh, which began this thread: And one of Maxwell's Laws ("the divergence of the magnetic field equals zero") has, as a direct consequence, an absolute law: NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES EXIST. NO OPEN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES EXIST. This is, at least a link between magnetic monopoles and open field lines.
My response to rjh's post was (I quote): You are wrong here; it is perfectly easy to get open field lines, using a current distribution. Note that I haven't said anything about monopoles.
bcrowell then piled in to claim: Nope, that creates closed field lines.. The work I cited was to demonstrate how he was demonstrably wrong in his assertion. After this point, I rather muddied the issue by claiming that the field lines terminated at the stellar surface, when indeed they do not -- and I think that's where monopoles became involved. However, I remained correct in my original assertion that open field lines can be produced in situations where the div B = 0 law remains valid.
I don't know what you are arguing about. None of the work you have cited has any connection (no matter how loose) to monopoles.
...and I have never claimed that it does; as I indicate above the work I cited was to demonstrate that open field lines can exist in a situation where div B = 0. You need to go back and read the whole thread, not pick it up halfway through as you appear to have done...
[ Reply to This ]You can consider what you want, but that won't make it true.
If you look back through my posts, you will see that I never set out to claim that I had terminating field lines (in your sense) without monopoles. I claimed that I had open field lines without monopoles, from a physically-realistic model. This contradicts what the original poster wrote: that open field lines are only realizable with magnetic monopoles. Please explain to me how I am wrong.
No, they aren't making such an assumption (I know this for a fact, since I work with one of them); 6 stellar radii is just the outer boundary of their computational domain. More detailed calculations indicate that the field lines extend out to inifinity without meeting. Such behaviour is perfectly compatible with the fact that div B = 0; why are you insisting that it isn't?
Whoops, there I go again. What I meant to say was that, deep within the star, the field lines are those of a dipole. However, above the stellar surface, the wind pulls the lines into an open configuration. So, the field lines do not terminate at the stellar surface; they pass through the surface and assume a dipole form at small radii.
The point I am making, however, is that the field lines above the surface are ripped open by the wind. This is a counterexample of the assertion "magnetic monopoles are required for open field lines". Look here for a suitable citation (note: I am not one of the authors on this paper).
When I type my name in google it says, "did you mean Dark McBride?
But of course! Don't you know that "Dark" is German for "Douche"?
Last week, I posted a story about this; seems the thread listing for loads of groups went missing. Unfortunately, by the time Hemos/Taco/Timothy got around to reading the story, the problem was fixed, so my story got rejected, and it looked like I had been snorting my Spice Weasel again...
You misunderstand; I have open field lines which terminate at the stellar surface (where the field is generated). Without the wind, the field is a dipole; however, the wind rips the field lines open and creates unterminated lines. In what way is this unrealistic? Stars have been observed which appear to be doing this.
No, you can get open field lines from infinite current sheets. I've encountered these in MHD simulations of winds from luminous, magnetic stars.
NO OPEN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES EXIST.
You are wrong here; it is perfectly easy to get open field lines, using a current distribution.
What crack was the moderator on when this was modded offtopic? The comments made by kamapuaa are in no way offtopic in a discussion of Ben Franklin. Shame!
There is no gaurantee that a pvc pipe won't blow up under those conditions.
Ah, but that's what made it really exciting!
A few years back, I built myself a potato gun. A 3-inch calibre potato gun. The "King Edward Howitzer" (as I liked to call it) was constructed from various pieces of PVC drainage piping. A short length of large (8" dia) bossed pipe connector was closed off at one end with a screwable inspection cap, and at the other end with a diameter reducer, going into a 4-foot length of 3" dia piping (the barrel). The bossed pipe connector served as a combustion chamber; to permit firing, a small hole was drilled in the side of the chamber.
Operation procedure was as follows:
It made a hell of a whoop when it fired, and from time/distance measurements, we estimated a muzzle velocity of well over 100 mph.
I downloaded, benchmarked, and bought several compilers.
Yet from an earlier post:
"Ample funds" at a university or a corporation? What rock are you living under? Having worked in both environments, I can assure you that any expense is an obstacle to adoption.
You're changing your story now, which leads me to believe that your really are talking out of your ass.
C++ supports equivalent array syntax. Furthermore, in C++, library developers can create natural syntax for arbitrary classes, not just the few things that are built-in.
From your comment, I can see that you are one of those people who likes to talk about Fortran, but actually knows nothing about it. The array syntax in F9X can be applied to arbitrary classes (or "derived types" as they are known) via operator overloading. Furthermore, Fortran allows scalar functions to be declared elemental, which automatically generalizes the function to arrays of any rank and size (kinda like C++ templates, but geared specifically towards arrays).
Using Fortran involves extra programming time and extra expenses for software.
Here you go again, pulling "facts" out from your ass. Do you have any justification for this whatsoever?
Furthermore, for the truly high-performance stuff, people are increasingly relying on large libraries of hand-crafted, processor-specific routines (BLAS, SparseBLAS, OpenGL, etc.). No Fortran compiler can keep up with that.
Of course not, but neither can a C or C++ compiler. I'm not seeing your point here; sure, for certain tasks, one can rely on hand-crafted libraries. But for all other tasks, one must rely on the language one is programming in, and Fortran is the more efficient language.
But most people who write scientific and engineering applications aren't solving purely numerical problems and Fortran is far too limiting for them.
I don't find it so; but you, with your completly-unwarranted prejudices about a language you obviously know nothing of, are free to do so
It's not insurmountable--if you make enough noise, you can get the few dozen copies of some Fortran compiler that you need--but if something is free, it's much more likely to be used.
In a post elsewhere in this discussion, someone has already pointed out that the majority (all?) of commercial F9X compilers do not require run-time licensing. Therefore, why you would need a few dozen copies is beyond me. Surely, one will suffice, sitting on a server where all can use it.
When I install a Linux cluster, the free compilers and runtimes are just there and work.
Already, the g77 compiler and runtime is there and works. And when one or the other of the two open-source compiler projects are finished, the same will be true for Fortran 90/95/2003.
Bollocks -- big, sweaty, steaming bollocks. F9x is an absolute joy to program in -- just the array syntax alone makes it so. And, despite what some C++ advocates may claim, it still holds the edge in terms of efficiency, when it comes to numerical simulations.
As for the lack of open source Fortran 9x compilers, that I agree with. However, there are two projects in SourceForge which are addressing this problem, and my current project (c. 50,000 lines of F95 code for simulating spectral emission from pulsating stars, due to be released under the GPL) is relying on the fact that there will be free compilers around when it is released.
In any case, the fact that there is no current open source compiler is not that much of a deterrent to most Fortran users. Think about it: most people who program in Fortran are actually using the language to solve numerical problems in some other discipline (such as engineering, or in my case astrophysics); they're not CS students looking for a free (beer or speech) compiler to do their linked list assignment on. Since these typical users are either embedded in a university department or a corporation, there are ample funds to buy whatever F9X compiler they might need. Lack of free (as in beer) compilers is just not a factor for most Fortran users, and most are too pragmatic to worry about free as in speech.
Eh? EQUIVALENCE is the substitute for the lack of pointers that makes FORTRAN usable. Sheesh! Next these people will be telling us that GOTOs are bad for your health.
F, being a subset language of Fortran 90/95, already supports pointers in their entirety. I wish people would actually learn something about Fortran (note: the caps disappeared years ago) before posting their glib yet uninformed comments.
And, for the record, Dijkstra never said "GOTOs Considered Harmful"; it was the editor of an article he wrote who came up with this much-misused statement. For the further record, in the 10 years I have been programming with Fortran, I've never used (or felt I needed to use) a single GOTO statement.
But, as I understand it, Walt did most of the work in converting the commercial NAG compiler into a free F compiler?
One of the main banks in the UK, NatWest, is already using Windows for its ATMs. I remember going to get cash out from one, only to be greeted with a BSOD and the error message "General Protection Fault in atm.exe"!!!
Why are they bothering with proper cleanup? This is FATAL CONDITION! ABANDON SHIP!
Only guessing, but how about to ensure that the freed memory isn't handed over to a subsequently-run app, still stuffed full of cryptographically-sensitive information?
If you don't want to wait for the official ebuild:
/usr/portage/net-misc/openssh/
cd
cp openssh-3.6.1_p2.ebuild openssh-3.7_p1.ebuild
emerge -f openssh-3.7_p1.ebuild
ebuild openssh-3.7_p1.ebuild digest
emerge openssh-3.7_p1.ebuild
This will fail if you have kerberos support USE'd, with an error involving gssapi.h not being found. The solution? Replace the final line with this:
USE="-kerberos" emerge openssh-3.7_p1.ebuild
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
You are comparing apples and oranges; OpenSSH is not part of the Linux kernel, it is a commonly-used piece of third-party software. Past criticisms of Microsoft have been directed at vulnerabilities in the core Windows functionality, not at script-kiddie backdoors in IRQ clients.
Yeah, Europe, that well-known country...
Sheesh!