Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it the particles are strings in x dimensions, and in the superplane of our 3d existence they appear as points. Just as a line passing through a plane appears as a point on the plane.
that's corresponds with what little I know of string theory, and i must admit i find the concept esoteric, if not mystical.
but then surely it is incorrect to say that they are too small to see? that's a serious question (IANAPP) and i will be happily corrected.
Why do we see only point-like entities? The answer is simple: elementary strings, if they exist, are far too tiny to see. It is unlikely that even the most sophisticated microscope or particle accelerator that could be constructed would ever have enough resolution to directly "see" the strings of string theory.
Sounds like Epicurus all over again - small, indivisible, and invisible particles whose motion explain everything. Only he called them atoms.
I know superstring theory has better explanatory power than Epicurus' atomism, but I am intrigued by the invisibility of the strings, which the resourse above seems to make elementary, just like Epicurus.
i stand corrected - but i do remember thaksin outlawing that - maybe it was oveturned/you're in great hotel//don't know that cantina///i worked just off of rama iv, in khlong toei...
i do not use igoogle, but just checked out my page, and it looks like i remember it looked last time i looked at it, over a year ago (i'm guessing on how long ago that was...).
not in thailand anymore... they stopped that after a few bomb attacks down south
and i don't think that's possible in belgium where i last lived... but i could be wrong
I have purchased phones in many countries through out Europe, and Thailand as well, and have always been forced to provide official ID.
Made the decision not to purchase a phone now that I have moved to the USA, so I have no idea about the States. But since I can't even get through the switchboard at my utility company without my SSN, I imagine it might be difficult to buy a phone or have a contract without ID.
Of course, that's a guess. Not saying I agree with this regime - just observing a fact.
I think the problem here, within the paradigm you establish, is that MS is playing to the ridiculous system in which the moral police threaten free speech.
These financial sanctions of which you speak are precisely what block free speech.
Your argument is that this permits free speech because it permits them to say what they want. But in so doing, it stops them from saying what they want.
The MS system here simply reinforces the paradigm, and makes money off of it too. It in no way permits or encourages free speech. Unless you mean free as in beer, because their speech no longer costs them fines.
Untrue. If the government is of the people and for the people then it must be open to the people. If words mean anything.
Moreover, if you think it is hypocritical, then you must think that I have the same character as does the government. But this is clearly false. I am not a composite, elected, deliberative, and responsible body.
Finally, governments don't want anything. People within them want more power.
No time to format the broken chart below; you can find it here
November 1985 Windows 1.01 1.01 Unsupported -
November 1987 Windows 2.03 2.03 Unsupported -
March 1989 Windows 2.11 2.11 Unsupported -
May 1990 Windows 3.0 3.0 Unsupported -
March 1992 Windows 3.1x 3.1 Unsupported 5
October 1992 Windows For Workgroups 3.1 3.1 Unsupported 5
July 1993 Windows NT 3.1 NT 3.1 Unsupported 5
December 1993 Windows For Workgroups 3.11 3.11 Unsupported 5
January 1994 Windows 3.2 (released in Simplified Chinese only) 3.2 Unsupported 5
September 1994 Windows NT 3.5 NT 3.5 Unsupported 5
May 1995 Windows NT 3.51 NT 3.51 Unsupported 5
August 1995 Windows 95 4.0.950 Unsupported 5.5
July 1996 Windows NT 4.0 NT 4.0.1381 Unsupported 6
June 1998 Windows 98 4.10.1998 Unsupported 6
May 1999 Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222 Unsupported 6
February 2000 Windows 2000 NT 5.0.2195 Extended Support until July 13, 2010[19] 6
September 2000 Windows Me 4.90.3000 Unsupported 6
October 2001 Windows XP NT 5.1.2600 Current for SP2 and SP3 (RTM and SP1 unsupported). 8
March 2003 Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 NT 5.2.3790 Unsupported 6
April 2003 Windows Server 2003 NT 5.2.3790 Current for SP1, R2, SP2 (RTM unsupported). 8
April 2005 Windows XP Professional x64 Edition NT 5.2.3790 Current 8
July 2006 Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs NT 5.1.2600 Current -
November 2006 (volume licensing)
January 2007 (retail) Windows Vista NT 6.0.6001 Current. Version Changed to NT 6.0.6001 with SP1 (February 4 08) 8
You get 7 out of that for me, okay? NT, 95, 98, 2000, and ME were all 5?
But more importantly, notice that Windows 7 is given the release number of... wait for this... 6.1!!!!
you can configure gmail so that the spam folder is not visible.
that said, this is the stooooopidist askslashdot ever, for very obvious reasons. and if they are not obvious, then this is not a geek site.
In Belgium, I pre-authorize a specific amount to be taken from my every-day bank account on a specific day each month for my gas/electricity. They can take no more. I simply ensure there's enough money there on that date. Great system.
This is also possible for variable payments, but I don't authorize those, and pay those manually.
Me? The 13th Duke of Wybourne? Here? In a sixth form girl's dormitory? At three o'clock in the morning? With my reputation? What were they thinking of?
I am not sure what to make of the blog, since one of its empirical claims is wrong. I searched flash, and www.google.be (my default Google search page here in Belgium) returns
I am replying quite late, since I just saw this, but for posterity's sake I should say something.
The claim that the artist creates something new is of course questionable philosophically - there is a long tradition claiming that all art is mimesis - copying. Plato is perhaps its best known proponent. And among artists, there has been a tendency to romanticize the material: Michaelangelo claimed, for instance, that a piece of marble would only admit of one statue, implying that he had to find the statue in it.
So philosophically speaking, my claim that art creates rather than discovers is far from self evident, although nevertheless that is my position. I could go on about this, but I pretty much follow Schopenhauer on art, who in essence holds that the artist represents (not copies) the Will (i.e., the essence of all that is) so that it may be safely contemplated. But this is not copying, since the genius of the artist is knowing how to create the nouminal form of the will (which is inherently un-copyable) into various artistic forms. Now, I don't accept his metaphysics, but I do think the purpose of art is to bring reality into contemplative forms which are not copies but impressions or representations of our experience.
As for copyright / IP: if art creates and science discovers, then it might stands to reason that the product of one is owned, and the other open source. However, I don't go that way, since I hold that the product of art is in fact contemplation, and thus involves a public. The public is part of the definition of art. Any IP that gets in the way of this dialectic is suspect. This is why I support the JAMs / KLF and earlier, the Situationists.
I am not a lawyer, so it is beyond me to describe the kind of IP that would respect fair treatment for the artist and the right of the public (including other artists) to use the work in other artistic endeavors. Yet, since copyright is a new field, and since art has always progressed by "stealing," I endorse some sort of anarchic system in which the products of culture may be freely combined.
Come on: you make no sense. First you say that we should not correct things people don't care about, then claim that not everyone is well educated, and then bring up Shakespeare (who not only cared about language passionately, but was also well educated) to prove your point. Since Shakespeare is considered the pinnacle of English style, and is taught in high schools and universities, you can't dodge this lack of logic by reference to
language conformity to those currently with wealth and power
That is: Shakespeare is canonized, and part of the power structure.
I would also argue that grammatically, Shakespeare's prose mutatis mutandis fits current standard usage, while his orthography differs (plus his vocabulary is insanely large, and liberally borrows from other languages).
You'll note I said nothing about copyright in my post: I suspect we're on the same page there (i.e., I think this proposed plan is insane).
As a scientific realist, I simply don't want art and science to be seen as aiming at the same end. But anyway, the effects of certain notes will always end in unpredicable results, since the goal is to make people react, and nobody knows how anyone will react. If you read the reviews linked in my sig, you'll discover I have no idea how anyone can listen to top 40 music, and yet that music is made precisely to be universally loved. Nevertheless, it's not, and thus it is a good example of the unpredictability of musical effects.
On the other hand, the effects that science strives for do not depend on subjective reaction, and thus, at the level of their aim, are predictable, reproduceable, etc.
So, that is the basis for difference between the two. And thus, whereas the scientist is discovering what is already there (and hence universal), the artist is creating something new - and to that extent offers something novel to the world. Copyright, for better or for worse, is designed to protect and stimulate that use of the notes and scales (etc.) already in the public domain, just as patents are to stimulate and protect commerical applications of scientific discoveries.
Math may be creative in the sense of thinking of new approaches, etc., but I would hold that this creative process only leads to discoveries, not creations. In other words, something that was already there, waiting to be discovered, a truth as you call it. That's different than artistic creation, which does add something that was not there in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
that's corresponds with what little I know of string theory, and i must admit i find the concept esoteric, if not mystical.
but then surely it is incorrect to say that they are too small to see? that's a serious question (IANAPP) and i will be happily corrected.
From one of the resources on superstring theory
Sounds like Epicurus all over again - small, indivisible, and invisible particles whose motion explain everything. Only he called them atoms.
I know superstring theory has better explanatory power than Epicurus' atomism, but I am intrigued by the invisibility of the strings, which the resourse above seems to make elementary, just like Epicurus.
i stand corrected - but i do remember thaksin outlawing that - maybe it was oveturned /you're in great hotel //don't know that cantina ///i worked just off of rama iv, in khlong toei ...
i do not use igoogle, but just checked out my page, and it looks like i remember it looked last time i looked at it, over a year ago (i'm guessing on how long ago that was ...).
am i missing something here?
not in thailand anymore ... they stopped that after a few bomb attacks down south
and i don't think that's possible in belgium where i last lived ... but i could be wrong
I have purchased phones in many countries through out Europe, and Thailand as well, and have always been forced to provide official ID.
Made the decision not to purchase a phone now that I have moved to the USA, so I have no idea about the States. But since I can't even get through the switchboard at my utility company without my SSN, I imagine it might be difficult to buy a phone or have a contract without ID.
Of course, that's a guess. Not saying I agree with this regime - just observing a fact.
I think the problem here, within the paradigm you establish, is that MS is playing to the ridiculous system in which the moral police threaten free speech.
These financial sanctions of which you speak are precisely what block free speech.
Your argument is that this permits free speech because it permits them to say what they want. But in so doing, it stops them from saying what they want.
The MS system here simply reinforces the paradigm, and makes money off of it too. It in no way permits or encourages free speech. Unless you mean free as in beer, because their speech no longer costs them fines.
Untrue. If the government is of the people and for the people then it must be open to the people. If words mean anything.
Moreover, if you think it is hypocritical, then you must think that I have the same character as does the government. But this is clearly false. I am not a composite, elected, deliberative, and responsible body.
Finally, governments don't want anything. People within them want more power.
you want a theory of democratic governance in a /. post? that's a principle, nothing more.
In all deference to your low UID: First, the post refers to openness and transparency, not privacy.
Second, privacy for citizens, openness for the state. Those two go hand in hand, really. In essence, this means no more than the fewest possible laws.
/you may say i'm a dreamer ...
You get 7 out of that for me, okay? NT, 95, 98, 2000, and ME were all 5?
But more importantly, notice that Windows 7 is given the release number of ... wait for this ... 6.1!!!!
That's why 7 is not a release, but a name.
7 is not a version number; Windows 7 is a product number. Big difference.
here, my friend: Better Gmail 2
i forgot that i do that via a ff plugin...
you can configure gmail so that the spam folder is not visible. that said, this is the stooooopidist askslashdot ever, for very obvious reasons. and if they are not obvious, then this is not a geek site.
rotsky
you mean cat's /sorry, pet peeve
Yes - Horrible headline.
This is also possible for variable payments, but I don't authorize those, and pay those manually.
Me? The 13th Duke of Wybourne? Here? In a sixth form girl's dormitory? At three o'clock in the morning? With my reputation? What were they thinking of?
I applaud your attempt to introduce Hegel to /.
And on google.com, I get
, which is certainly geographic specific. But they do sell that adword, so what do I make about the rest of the piece?
I am replying quite late, since I just saw this, but for posterity's sake I should say something.
The claim that the artist creates something new is of course questionable philosophically - there is a long tradition claiming that all art is mimesis - copying. Plato is perhaps its best known proponent. And among artists, there has been a tendency to romanticize the material: Michaelangelo claimed, for instance, that a piece of marble would only admit of one statue, implying that he had to find the statue in it.
So philosophically speaking, my claim that art creates rather than discovers is far from self evident, although nevertheless that is my position. I could go on about this, but I pretty much follow Schopenhauer on art, who in essence holds that the artist represents (not copies) the Will (i.e., the essence of all that is) so that it may be safely contemplated. But this is not copying, since the genius of the artist is knowing how to create the nouminal form of the will (which is inherently un-copyable) into various artistic forms. Now, I don't accept his metaphysics, but I do think the purpose of art is to bring reality into contemplative forms which are not copies but impressions or representations of our experience.
As for copyright / IP: if art creates and science discovers, then it might stands to reason that the product of one is owned, and the other open source. However, I don't go that way, since I hold that the product of art is in fact contemplation, and thus involves a public. The public is part of the definition of art. Any IP that gets in the way of this dialectic is suspect. This is why I support the JAMs / KLF and earlier, the Situationists.
I am not a lawyer, so it is beyond me to describe the kind of IP that would respect fair treatment for the artist and the right of the public (including other artists) to use the work in other artistic endeavors. Yet, since copyright is a new field, and since art has always progressed by "stealing," I endorse some sort of anarchic system in which the products of culture may be freely combined.
Come on: you make no sense. First you say that we should not correct things people don't care about, then claim that not everyone is well educated, and then bring up Shakespeare (who not only cared about language passionately, but was also well educated) to prove your point. Since Shakespeare is considered the pinnacle of English style, and is taught in high schools and universities, you can't dodge this lack of logic by reference to
That is: Shakespeare is canonized, and part of the power structure.
I would also argue that grammatically, Shakespeare's prose mutatis mutandis fits current standard usage, while his orthography differs (plus his vocabulary is insanely large, and liberally borrows from other languages).
You'll note I said nothing about copyright in my post: I suspect we're on the same page there (i.e., I think this proposed plan is insane).
As a scientific realist, I simply don't want art and science to be seen as aiming at the same end. But anyway, the effects of certain notes will always end in unpredicable results, since the goal is to make people react, and nobody knows how anyone will react. If you read the reviews linked in my sig, you'll discover I have no idea how anyone can listen to top 40 music, and yet that music is made precisely to be universally loved. Nevertheless, it's not, and thus it is a good example of the unpredictability of musical effects.
On the other hand, the effects that science strives for do not depend on subjective reaction, and thus, at the level of their aim, are predictable, reproduceable, etc.
So, that is the basis for difference between the two. And thus, whereas the scientist is discovering what is already there (and hence universal), the artist is creating something new - and to that extent offers something novel to the world. Copyright, for better or for worse, is designed to protect and stimulate that use of the notes and scales (etc.) already in the public domain, just as patents are to stimulate and protect commerical applications of scientific discoveries.
Math may be creative in the sense of thinking of new approaches, etc., but I would hold that this creative process only leads to discoveries, not creations. In other words, something that was already there, waiting to be discovered, a truth as you call it. That's different than artistic creation, which does add something that was not there in the first place.