I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) (1824-1907), James Clark Maxwell (1831-1879), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955),
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
There are too many things that appear to be "coincidences" than for me to believe that there was no grand design for this universe.
-Scott
You clearly have no understanding of fundamental physics. Like I said the rotation curve is f(x)=x. This means that there MUST be some amount of mass outside of the visible galaxy or our understanding of everything (circluar motion and force) is fundamentally flawed to the point where nothing on Earth should make any sense.
Maybe it's just me, but I do not understand how dimensions can explain how matter can produce gravitational effects as if it were in ten places at once, in addition to where we see it. For every gram we see inside the galaxy we are measuring that ten times that amount must effectively be outside the galaxy by hundreds of light years. Explain that. And don't forget that the dimensions hypothesized by String Theory are all to small for us to detect at less than a micron wide (as opposed to nearly-infinite like the 3 spatial dimensions with which we are accustomed).
As far as how we can theoretically derive constants, I have no idea what you are referring to.
I don't believe that laser cooling works on something this big, but I could be wrong. The second reply to my post likely hit the nail on the head; it sounds right, but I couldn't remember the details on my own.
Totally unrelated. Anti-matter is something we know about and something we can detect. Dark matter is something that we think exists. I suggest reading both of the above links if you are interested.
Here is how it works. WIMPs are heavy. WIMPs are also neutral (like neutrinos) which means they will not react electromagnetically with anything so the only way to detect them is if they get close enough to a nucleus to react via the strong or weak nuclear forces. Now, if the atom were the size of a football stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a marble. Now hit that with a piece of wimpy lead shot from just the next galaxy over. You would need lots of luck too.
Read the first paragraph of
this post for comments about additional dimensions.
You are mistaken. Protons do not have zero mass. They weigh about 1.660538 × 10^-24 grams. Neutrons weigh slightly more (0.2% more) and electrons weigh much less (0.05% of a proton or neutron).
I feel like a broken record here. Here are the facts: we can see how much stellar matter is in a galaxy from its luminosity. We can see how much dust mass there is. Add those together to get the visible matter. Now, look at a rotation curve of the galaxy (this involves measuring redshift as a function of distance from the center of a spiral galaxy with its side facing you). In case you don't own a 10-meter telescope in orbit, it looks like a plot of f(x)=constant*x. The most logical explanation is that there must be some mass farther out beyond the visible edge of the galaxy to cause the outside to rotate as fast as it does.
Now, about this additional dimensions. You don't know what you are talking about. Adding gravitational dimensions is tricky because gravity very certainly follows the same 1/r^2 law that electric forces due (magnetic forces follow the 1/r^2 law relativisticly, making it seem like its 1/r^5th? I don't recall the exact exponent.). The reason gravity is so weak is because the gravitational constant G is much smaller that the electric constant k. End of story. It follows no 1/r^5 law. It is not affected by additional dimensions. The other dimensions that physicists speak of is IIRC in relation to the strong and weak (nuclear) forces that follows a 1/r^5 law and that bind nuclei together.
I also don't understand how you reintroduced the "ether" and your definition of dimension is obviously not the same as that used by physicists since you speak of crossing into dimensions like something from Sliders rather than just another eigen-direction.
In this case, we have the visible mass (stars and dust clouds) and calculated gravitational mass (calculated either with spiral galaxies rotation curves or with gravitational lensing effects) that are off by a factor of 9 or 10. It is unlikely (though possible) that all we need to add is a small term that is usually negligble except in this case. It is far more probable that there is some mass that is invisible (ie. not emitting or absorbing light) to make up the difference.
The word defective should probably not preceed the phrase "theory of gravity" becase the theory of gravity is very good (right on as far as we can currently tell). Incomplete is much more probable; like I said above, it could just be missing a ususally small term....some day we may find out.
The fact that dark matter is "missing" in eliptical galaxies means nothing. The amount of gravitational mass in young (or close) spiral galaxies is much higher than the visible mass that makes up the stars and the dust clouds around the galaxy. At some point, whenever my project gets approved, I will conduct similar research on older, farther away spiral galaxies that may give us some insight as to how spiral galaxies and the dark matter in them evolved together.
In other words, it a bit early to say that everything we know is wrong and that the "quantum theory of gravity" is right. No physicist is so arrogant to claim that they know what IS correct. Everything that we have is but a model. Hawking, Thorne, Preskill, Kamionkowski, Phinney, all realize this but the truth is that our current model of gravity works well most of the time and many people are working on finding a better one but notice that in the meantime, no on is abandoning our current model. It is still the best thing that we have.
You are also forgetting that while WIMPs may be big, they are neutral (like neutrinos) and interact very little with matter, making them difficult to detect. Give physists more time (or money) and they will get there. By the way, you are also forgetting gravitational lensing with things a big as galatic clusters. That is a major effect that cannot be explained by the mass that we can see too. And those galaxies incude all types of galaxies.
Cooling is done in tiers (over a distance of many meters). I would assume that the outermost is cooled to 76K with LN2 since that is dirt cheap. And then inside that LHe cools it down to a couple Kelvin or so, maybe less if they use superfluidic Helium. This much is pretty standard by now. As far as the last degree or so, I would guess they mess with the pressure a bit to get the temperature as low as possible.
Oddly enough, most grads from Caltech end up going to grad school somewhere (Stanford seems to be popular for many people). Maybe that's because people want to feel like they are good in school again in a place where classes are easier. But I know a couple of alumni that headed off to Microsoft (no matter what you think of Bill G and M$, you have to agree that they treat their employees well) and are doing well. In other words, I think the fact that a lot of Caltech grads go to grad school further decreases the supply (as if 200/year wasn't enough) and helps out those that go straight into the job market. Naturally, I cannot comment on other institutions.
Unfortunately, going to a place like Caltech severely reduces your GPA (grade inflation Sorry for the rambling.
Better yet, put a dozen of these small reactors on a boat so that they can move to whereever the power demand is highest (say, California) and then no one would have the not-in-my-backyard arguement because they wouldn't be permanantly in one place. Just a thought.
For those of you who don't know: San Onofre (Nuclear Generating Station) is located on property that has been leased from Camp Pendleton (a military base). Since 9/11 security has increased to actually arming the guards at the gates and doubling the number of then, revoking the rights of workers to enter the protected area (where any radioactive material actually is). There are barriers up to prevent cars from crashing into the protected area and exploding to cause any damage. The containment itself will protect the reactor from any possible air attack (not to mention Apache Helicopters and SAM sites). They did a test where they put an F4 on a rocket and launched it at a wall similar to the containment (a little less strong) and there was no loss of integrity to the wall. In other words, as long as they keep their mind on security, the plant will be fine (they run checks of everyone who has been in the plant in the last 3 years with lists of suspected terrorists). Other power plants that have cooling towers may be at a financial risk if the terrorists think that hitting the cooling towers with a plane could cause radiation leak. It won't. It will just cost the owners a lot of money to rebuild them and maybe get a new reactor too if it gets too hot. I certainly agree with the statement that refineries are probably more of a risk.
First of all, I suggest you do go to the trouble to read the article. It is interesting and, amazingly enough, it answers your question. We know that GR doesn't work for really tiny things. We know that it works for really big things. We want to know more about how it works in the in-between area. Therefore we are doing this experiment.
You are implying that theories are either right or wrong and if they are wrong they are not right at all. For starters, this is wrong. Just because you know something is not totally right, doesn't help you know what way to go to fix it. Think of it like this: your computer is broken. Any of the following could be the cause:
1. The CRT in your monitor stopped working.
2. Your hard drive won't spin up.
3. The RAM fell out.
4. The BIOS doesn't work.
5. The CPU died on you.
6. You have a non-system disk inserted.
7. There's a blackout.
We are in effect testing the pieces one at a time here rather than going to the store and buying a new black-box computer.
One word: monoculture. Having a monoculture is bad. Assume for a moment that only 50% of computers ran Windoze and that maybe 30% ran Mac OS X and the remaining 20% ran *nix/BSD. At worst, a virus could infect only half of the computers.
In response to your second question: "Why would someone bother writing a virus targeting some obscure platform like MacOS?" One reason might be to prove that MacOSX is just as vulerable as Windoze. Same reason could be said for linux. In fact, I would like to see a virus for either platform just to see if it can wreck a tenth s much havoc as MSBlaster or sobig.F or welchia or any of the other recent viruses.
Why do users wait to apply patches? Because they have a history of breaking things. If Microsoft made sure that they didn't break things, maybe people would upgrade sooner.
From my standpoint, I can either use Windoze and need to deal with all the shit associated with it (BSOD*, viruses, difficulty using*, poor online support, etc.) or I can run Mac OS X and not deal with any of those problems (the computer has crashed on me 4 or 5 times in over 1 year and that was with the beta version of 10.3).
Finally, if PEBKAC then how come problems don't exist between mac keyboards and chairs?
-Scott
*I borrowed a friend's laptop (XP! for those of you who claim that it's perfect) and tried to get it to mirror the display and I got a random BSOD followed quickly by a reboot when I didn't do anything that should have crashed the machine. Rebooted to try to figure out what was wrong; no luck it just BSOD on me when I tried doing anything in the control panel. I have never had a Mac running OS X do this to me. I look online and find no help. Maybe I don't know where to look, but it sure wasn't on MS's support forums. Eventually I found someone who figured out how to fix it, but let me tell you that I had more trouble trying to do 1 thing in XP for 6 hours than I have had with OS X for over a year. The difficulty using comes from the fact that I can do most things in OS X in few clicks as opposed to windows, that takes more even for someone who knows where they are going.
My parents live in South Orange County and I go to school in Pasadena. Let me first mention that it was in the LA Times today. I will give you the benefit of possibly not subscribing it and so you might not have seen the hard copy. However, I would like to point out that the slashdot link took you to latimes.com if you took the time to RDFA. But why would you do that?
Also, if you had RTFA you would know that the technology works perfectly and that the voters were given the wrong ballot (in the form of a 4-digit number to type in) so some people cast votes in the wrong district. If you could explain to me how this is the software's fault I would appreciate it (granted they should make it easier, but it wasn't there fault).
that's great, they've scared people into not copying shitty music.
but the question is "Are they SELLING more of their shitty music?"
that is the only relevant question. i mean, logically, if you deter people for doing something (even if the chance of being punished is low) it WILL decrease. but punishing customers tends to piss them off and discourage purchases.
so what NEW information is there in this post, oh wait, this is slashdot
Your idea about the specific spam-domain gave me a similar idea that might work better in the case of spammers refusing to use the domain. You have a domain specifically for commercial mass-mailings by legitimate companies which have agreed to be reasonably monitorred. The idea is that all your mass-mailings come through one server that is being checked and you can block messages (ie spam) coming from anywhere else. This could ensure that corporations such as Apple that send out newsletters and other information you want in mass e-mails and the like can still contact you. Meanwhile, if you are getting Microsoft newsletters and you no longer wanted to receive the crap you could just ask the domain to stop sending you M$ newsletters.
Name one company that doesn't do this. Gas station chare $1.739/gallon. M$ chages $199 or whatever for the crap it sells. Learn to round and you can cope just fine with this.
More annoying is the fact that stores (specifically non-online ones) do not include tax. That is misleading prices. Discounting products by $1 or 1 cent doesn't midlead you, it does in fact cost the $1 or 1 cent less than whatever, plus tax of course. If you are somehow misled by them charging you less, thats your own fault. What would be nice is if I could walk into the local Apple Store (or any other store) and see the amount of cash I would have to shell out for what I want to buy. I don't care how much of it goes to the store or how much of it goes to the government!
I have been used WordPerfect all my life, from when it was DOS-based up until I switched to Linux recently. It kicked Word's @$$ in everything back then and it still does. Word's grammer-check is nothing compared to WP and so is it's spellcheck. But the real reason I liked using WP so much was that I could see *EXACTLY* what it was doing with "Reveal Codes." For those of you who don't know, you really need to type up a document in WP and then hit Alt-F3 and see what pops up. It is really nifty and shows you exactly how the computer is formatting your document. Writing a document in any other wordprocessor is like being confined to FrontPage to write a website where you aren't allowed to see the html source; reveal codes is that source you can see. Unfortunately, openoffice.org has not developed something like this yet; I'm really hoping that they will though.
I have not found a single person who actually likes Word better than WordPerfect, people just keep using it because they are sheep and its more "standard" because everyone else uses it.
Corel released a version of their office suite in 2000. in my opinion, their suite is better than openoffice in many ways, can deal with word docuements better, and can be read by ms office . . . but then there is no incentive for people used to ms office to switch to something else and microsoft doesnt take a hit.
i am curious as to what we are allowed to do to our wireless access points. i'd imagine we can transmit up to 100 W (if we really need that much power) on the right channels but how do we know which are acceptable and which aren't?
and if anyone knows how much increased power at the base station end actually increases performance, that would be good to know too
KF6AUF
Slashdot Mirror
I have a nice list here of well-educated people who you have likely heard of who believed in God.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) (1824-1907), James Clark Maxwell (1831-1879), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955),
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
There are too many things that appear to be "coincidences" than for me to believe that there was no grand design for this universe. -Scott
Any idea where I can get an amp for my 802.11b? I've been wondering about that for some time.
-kf6auf
ps. i know quite a few hams at my school.
You clearly have no understanding of fundamental physics. Like I said the rotation curve is f(x)=x. This means that there MUST be some amount of mass outside of the visible galaxy or our understanding of everything (circluar motion and force) is fundamentally flawed to the point where nothing on Earth should make any sense.
Maybe it's just me, but I do not understand how dimensions can explain how matter can produce gravitational effects as if it were in ten places at once, in addition to where we see it. For every gram we see inside the galaxy we are measuring that ten times that amount must effectively be outside the galaxy by hundreds of light years. Explain that. And don't forget that the dimensions hypothesized by String Theory are all to small for us to detect at less than a micron wide (as opposed to nearly-infinite like the 3 spatial dimensions with which we are accustomed).
As far as how we can theoretically derive constants, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Scott
I don't believe that laser cooling works on something this big, but I could be wrong. The second reply to my post likely hit the nail on the head; it sounds right, but I couldn't remember the details on my own.
Totally unrelated. Anti-matter is something we know about and something we can detect. Dark matter is something that we think exists. I suggest reading both of the above links if you are interested.
Read the first paragraph of this post for comments about additional dimensions.
You are mistaken. Protons do not have zero mass. They weigh about 1.660538 × 10^-24 grams. Neutrons weigh slightly more (0.2% more) and electrons weigh much less (0.05% of a proton or neutron).
Now, about this additional dimensions. You don't know what you are talking about. Adding gravitational dimensions is tricky because gravity very certainly follows the same 1/r^2 law that electric forces due (magnetic forces follow the 1/r^2 law relativisticly, making it seem like its 1/r^5th? I don't recall the exact exponent.). The reason gravity is so weak is because the gravitational constant G is much smaller that the electric constant k. End of story. It follows no 1/r^5 law. It is not affected by additional dimensions. The other dimensions that physicists speak of is IIRC in relation to the strong and weak (nuclear) forces that follows a 1/r^5 law and that bind nuclei together.
I also don't understand how you reintroduced the "ether" and your definition of dimension is obviously not the same as that used by physicists since you speak of crossing into dimensions like something from Sliders rather than just another eigen-direction.
Yes, but only if you can see everything.
In this case, we have the visible mass (stars and dust clouds) and calculated gravitational mass (calculated either with spiral galaxies rotation curves or with gravitational lensing effects) that are off by a factor of 9 or 10. It is unlikely (though possible) that all we need to add is a small term that is usually negligble except in this case. It is far more probable that there is some mass that is invisible (ie. not emitting or absorbing light) to make up the difference.
The word defective should probably not preceed the phrase "theory of gravity" becase the theory of gravity is very good (right on as far as we can currently tell). Incomplete is much more probable; like I said above, it could just be missing a ususally small term....some day we may find out.
In other words, it a bit early to say that everything we know is wrong and that the "quantum theory of gravity" is right. No physicist is so arrogant to claim that they know what IS correct. Everything that we have is but a model. Hawking, Thorne, Preskill, Kamionkowski, Phinney, all realize this but the truth is that our current model of gravity works well most of the time and many people are working on finding a better one but notice that in the meantime, no on is abandoning our current model. It is still the best thing that we have.
You are also forgetting that while WIMPs may be big, they are neutral (like neutrinos) and interact very little with matter, making them difficult to detect. Give physists more time (or money) and they will get there. By the way, you are also forgetting gravitational lensing with things a big as galatic clusters. That is a major effect that cannot be explained by the mass that we can see too. And those galaxies incude all types of galaxies.
I'm done rambling now.
Scott
Cooling is done in tiers (over a distance of many meters). I would assume that the outermost is cooled to 76K with LN2 since that is dirt cheap. And then inside that LHe cools it down to a couple Kelvin or so, maybe less if they use superfluidic Helium. This much is pretty standard by now. As far as the last degree or so, I would guess they mess with the pressure a bit to get the temperature as low as possible.
Oddly enough, most grads from Caltech end up going to grad school somewhere (Stanford seems to be popular for many people). Maybe that's because people want to feel like they are good in school again in a place where classes are easier. But I know a couple of alumni that headed off to Microsoft (no matter what you think of Bill G and M$, you have to agree that they treat their employees well) and are doing well. In other words, I think the fact that a lot of Caltech grads go to grad school further decreases the supply (as if 200/year wasn't enough) and helps out those that go straight into the job market. Naturally, I cannot comment on other institutions.
Unfortunately, going to a place like Caltech severely reduces your GPA (grade inflation Sorry for the rambling.
Better yet, put a dozen of these small reactors on a boat so that they can move to whereever the power demand is highest (say, California) and then no one would have the not-in-my-backyard arguement because they wouldn't be permanantly in one place. Just a thought.
For those of you who don't know: San Onofre (Nuclear Generating Station) is located on property that has been leased from Camp Pendleton (a military base). Since 9/11 security has increased to actually arming the guards at the gates and doubling the number of then, revoking the rights of workers to enter the protected area (where any radioactive material actually is). There are barriers up to prevent cars from crashing into the protected area and exploding to cause any damage. The containment itself will protect the reactor from any possible air attack (not to mention Apache Helicopters and SAM sites). They did a test where they put an F4 on a rocket and launched it at a wall similar to the containment (a little less strong) and there was no loss of integrity to the wall. In other words, as long as they keep their mind on security, the plant will be fine (they run checks of everyone who has been in the plant in the last 3 years with lists of suspected terrorists). Other power plants that have cooling towers may be at a financial risk if the terrorists think that hitting the cooling towers with a plane could cause radiation leak. It won't. It will just cost the owners a lot of money to rebuild them and maybe get a new reactor too if it gets too hot. I certainly agree with the statement that refineries are probably more of a risk.
First of all, I suggest you do go to the trouble to read the article. It is interesting and, amazingly enough, it answers your question. We know that GR doesn't work for really tiny things. We know that it works for really big things. We want to know more about how it works in the in-between area. Therefore we are doing this experiment.
You are implying that theories are either right or wrong and if they are wrong they are not right at all. For starters, this is wrong. Just because you know something is not totally right, doesn't help you know what way to go to fix it. Think of it like this: your computer is broken. Any of the following could be the cause:
1. The CRT in your monitor stopped working.
2. Your hard drive won't spin up.
3. The RAM fell out.
4. The BIOS doesn't work.
5. The CPU died on you.
6. You have a non-system disk inserted.
7. There's a blackout.
We are in effect testing the pieces one at a time here rather than going to the store and buying a new black-box computer.
Scott
One word: monoculture. Having a monoculture is bad. Assume for a moment that only 50% of computers ran Windoze and that maybe 30% ran Mac OS X and the remaining 20% ran *nix/BSD. At worst, a virus could infect only half of the computers.
In response to your second question: "Why would someone bother writing a virus targeting some obscure platform like MacOS?" One reason might be to prove that MacOSX is just as vulerable as Windoze. Same reason could be said for linux. In fact, I would like to see a virus for either platform just to see if it can wreck a tenth s much havoc as MSBlaster or sobig.F or welchia or any of the other recent viruses.
Why do users wait to apply patches? Because they have a history of breaking things. If Microsoft made sure that they didn't break things, maybe people would upgrade sooner.
From my standpoint, I can either use Windoze and need to deal with all the shit associated with it (BSOD*, viruses, difficulty using*, poor online support, etc.) or I can run Mac OS X and not deal with any of those problems (the computer has crashed on me 4 or 5 times in over 1 year and that was with the beta version of 10.3).
Finally, if PEBKAC then how come problems don't exist between mac keyboards and chairs?
-Scott
*I borrowed a friend's laptop (XP! for those of you who claim that it's perfect) and tried to get it to mirror the display and I got a random BSOD followed quickly by a reboot when I didn't do anything that should have crashed the machine. Rebooted to try to figure out what was wrong; no luck it just BSOD on me when I tried doing anything in the control panel. I have never had a Mac running OS X do this to me. I look online and find no help. Maybe I don't know where to look, but it sure wasn't on MS's support forums. Eventually I found someone who figured out how to fix it, but let me tell you that I had more trouble trying to do 1 thing in XP for 6 hours than I have had with OS X for over a year. The difficulty using comes from the fact that I can do most things in OS X in few clicks as opposed to windows, that takes more even for someone who knows where they are going.
My parents live in South Orange County and I go to school in Pasadena. Let me first mention that it was in the LA Times today. I will give you the benefit of possibly not subscribing it and so you might not have seen the hard copy. However, I would like to point out that the slashdot link took you to latimes.com if you took the time to RDFA. But why would you do that?
Also, if you had RTFA you would know that the technology works perfectly and that the voters were given the wrong ballot (in the form of a 4-digit number to type in) so some people cast votes in the wrong district. If you could explain to me how this is the software's fault I would appreciate it (granted they should make it easier, but it wasn't there fault).
that's great, they've scared people into not copying shitty music. but the question is "Are they SELLING more of their shitty music?" that is the only relevant question. i mean, logically, if you deter people for doing something (even if the chance of being punished is low) it WILL decrease. but punishing customers tends to piss them off and discourage purchases. so what NEW information is there in this post, oh wait, this is slashdot
Your idea about the specific spam-domain gave me a similar idea that might work better in the case of spammers refusing to use the domain. You have a domain specifically for commercial mass-mailings by legitimate companies which have agreed to be reasonably monitorred. The idea is that all your mass-mailings come through one server that is being checked and you can block messages (ie spam) coming from anywhere else. This could ensure that corporations such as Apple that send out newsletters and other information you want in mass e-mails and the like can still contact you. Meanwhile, if you are getting Microsoft newsletters and you no longer wanted to receive the crap you could just ask the domain to stop sending you M$ newsletters.
Name one company that doesn't do this. Gas station chare $1.739/gallon. M$ chages $199 or whatever for the crap it sells. Learn to round and you can cope just fine with this. More annoying is the fact that stores (specifically non-online ones) do not include tax. That is misleading prices. Discounting products by $1 or 1 cent doesn't midlead you, it does in fact cost the $1 or 1 cent less than whatever, plus tax of course. If you are somehow misled by them charging you less, thats your own fault. What would be nice is if I could walk into the local Apple Store (or any other store) and see the amount of cash I would have to shell out for what I want to buy. I don't care how much of it goes to the store or how much of it goes to the government!
I have been used WordPerfect all my life, from when it was DOS-based up until I switched to Linux recently. It kicked Word's @$$ in everything back then and it still does. Word's grammer-check is nothing compared to WP and so is it's spellcheck. But the real reason I liked using WP so much was that I could see *EXACTLY* what it was doing with "Reveal Codes." For those of you who don't know, you really need to type up a document in WP and then hit Alt-F3 and see what pops up. It is really nifty and shows you exactly how the computer is formatting your document. Writing a document in any other wordprocessor is like being confined to FrontPage to write a website where you aren't allowed to see the html source; reveal codes is that source you can see. Unfortunately, openoffice.org has not developed something like this yet; I'm really hoping that they will though. I have not found a single person who actually likes Word better than WordPerfect, people just keep using it because they are sheep and its more "standard" because everyone else uses it.
Corel released a version of their office suite in 2000. in my opinion, their suite is better than openoffice in many ways, can deal with word docuements better, and can be read by ms office . . . but then there is no incentive for people used to ms office to switch to something else and microsoft doesnt take a hit.
i am curious as to what we are allowed to do to our wireless access points. i'd imagine we can transmit up to 100 W (if we really need that much power) on the right channels but how do we know which are acceptable and which aren't? and if anyone knows how much increased power at the base station end actually increases performance, that would be good to know too KF6AUF