I went to radio shack and got an RS-branded armband with a pouch that was just on the almost-too-snug side for my gen1 ipod, so I'd expect it's perfect for the gen2. It was like $15, I think. I jog with it all the time. It's like it was made for it!
I think there is confusion whether by "maintaining" one mouse button we mean "has" or "supports". My powerbook only has one mouse for the trackpad, but my external mouse has three (well, two and a clicker wheel, but you understood what I meant) and most apps (including the finder and apple apps) support them. I use them all the time (and can be done with control- and command- clicking with just the one button).
Regardless, I don't see any of this resulting in the salvation/downfall of apple (the mouse buttons I mean, the G5 is clearly important).
This is all just a bunch of FUD as far as I'm concerned. There was _never_ any official statement from Apple that they weren't going to fix jaguar, only a quote from a guy who may have talked to an Apple janitor for all we know, from a company who fires people for saying Microsoft has security problems. Come on! The title of this who thread is ridiculous "Apple forcing upgrade"! There was never a shread of real evidence to the fact. Of course, I suppose in this day and age the standards for evidence for public statements is lower than ever...
You must be another one of those Canadians complaining about ITMS, right, because I _know_ you don't mean $3000 US. My 1 GB RAM, 80 GB HD, Radeon 9600, 802.11g, bluetooth enabled, DVD-R/CD-RW, + goodies (like backlit keyboard) was $2500 (of course I bought the extra 512 MB from someone other than apple).
PS I love Canada and visit frequently. Merely a comment on frequency conversions.
I had almost identical experience. I was also computer support at a large institution when I was a grad student, and I only handled the macs. The people I supported were also the most demanding (much more than everyone using linux) but this was a selection effect, I think. The people who wouldn't use linux boxes, refused to change because they couldn't possibly use a new system. They resisted updates of netscape and were angered when I used technical terms like "run the program". They had no hope of using anything but macs.
But I don't think the macs were the problem. I use a mac myself (now that I'm a postdoc) to minimize the support time I provide to myself!
Let's be clear about something: there are two issues relating to gravity which involve extra dimensions:
1) How does one combine quantum mechanics and gravity?
2) what is gravity so weak compared with the other forces?
The first has only ever had one consistent theory, and that is string theory (or more recently the still somewhat ill-defined m-theory). superstring theory is the only current stable string theory and it is only a consistent quantum theory in 10 dimensions. (M-theory is a limit where you see a new, 11th dimension appear)
Given that it requires additional dimensions, people assumed they were compact and with small radii so we couldn't see them.
With respect to part two, there are four dimensional solutions to why gravity is weak compared to gravity, so one doesn't need extra dimensions to explain their hierarchy of gravity/strong-weak-electromagnetic strengths.
However, if there are extra dimensions, if they were larger than the small size, then they can dilute the gravity. This was the big change in thinking in 98/99, when two proposals (large extra dimensions and warped extra dimensions) came on the scene. However, the exciting thing about them was precisely the fact that they _were_ testable! There was the hope of experimentally seeing additional dimensions and maybe string theory.
While there sociological pressure to conform, these ideas were initially well out of the mainstream and took time before they were embraced as serious ideas by the community at large. They are now (although there are still detractors).
So I don't know which you're objecting to: using extra dimensions to resolve the first or the second issue, but either way, both have proved as fruitful avenues for new ideas. Of course eventually every revolution turns into the status quo...
There actually is a plan to put it in space called LISA. It would consist of satellites to study the waves. Different setups make you sensitive to different sources of gravitational waves and LISA will detect different sources than LIGO will.
Well, see, the big bang is reall the result of what's referred to as the reheating phase after the inflationary phase (in the current cosmology - let me not discuss the evidence for that right now). In the early universe, it is believed to be twisted and contorted and very irregular. Then some dynamics takes over a small patch an inflates it, expands it exponentially, fast enough, even, that two points that had been in causal contact before (i.e., capable of exchanging a light signal within the age of the universe) get separated out of causal contact.
So they're separating faster than the speed of light, but only because the space itself is expanding so rapidly, not because they're moving in space so rapidly. This expansion dilutes the universe incredibly so it is essentially empty. This expansion was driven by an energy, which when the expansion stops, converts into heat and radiation. This is the big bang, and the entire (now huge and smooth) patch reheats simultaneously.
So now we see that radiation as I explained before. Eventually we (meaning you, if you were immortal and didn't have to worry about the fate of the Earth, sun, etc) would eventually see the edge of that expanded patch, but that is not the end of space, just the end of that patch of the very early universe which got expanded. The universe could be finite outside of that patch, or could be infinite. There is a parameter which tells us the geometry, called Omega, and Omega>1 means closed, Omega1 means open. Omega =1 means flat, which essentially means infinite, but you have to be careful what you mean. Unfortunately or fortunately, this exponential expansion period changes omega so that it gets exponenentially close to 1, so we can't really tell if it is above or below. In fact, present measurements are that it is pretty close to one (which is what everyone sort of expected).
Anyway, that's the quick version. The real answer to the question of "what's beyond the horizon"? (the farthest distance light could have travelled since the big bang/reheating ) is we don't have any way of knowing and there are a lot of possibilities.
The point is that the big bang happened everywhere at once - at least insofar as we're causally aware right now. The entire universe was incredibly hot, and then the space itself expands, so the universe becomes dilute, cools, galaxies form, etc.
There was a recent result - the WMAP experiment - which sees the relic radiation from the big bang. But the light we see was emitted from 14 billion light years aware (14 billion years being the age of the universe) and is just getting here now. In another billion years, we'll still be seeing this radiation, but it will be sourced 15 billion light years away, but just getting here then. The fact that this radiation is isotropic to one part in 100000 is the best evidence that the _whole_ universe was hot and expanded.
The gravity waves travel just like the light - we'll see the waves produced 14 billion light years away now. But the big bang wasn't a point in space, in which case you would have been right. This is a common misinterpretation (even among people who ought to know better)
I'm also a theoretical physicist. The hardcore numerical types often do use Beowulf clusters, self-built machines, etc. However, people for whom numerics are just small parts of our work love our macs. Most importantly, the tech support needed is essentially zero, which is huge because tech support provided is often zero. In grad school, I _was_ the tech support. And when travelling, you plug it in and you can print, use the network, zero config. Many people use linux, but don't really know how to configure things and have trouble (I know that everyone here won't understand how it could be difficult to configure linux, but we're not talking rocket scientists here).
Slashdot Mirror
Crap! Now I'll have to remove the falling-from-15-feet-landing-on-my-mp3-player part from my jogging regimen. Oh well, older and fatter I go...
I went to radio shack and got an RS-branded armband with a pouch that was just on the almost-too-snug side for my gen1 ipod, so I'd expect it's perfect for the gen2. It was like $15, I think. I jog with it all the time. It's like it was made for it!
I think there is confusion whether by "maintaining" one mouse button we mean "has" or "supports". My powerbook only has one mouse for the trackpad, but my external mouse has three (well, two and a clicker wheel, but you understood what I meant) and most apps (including the finder and apple apps) support them. I use them all the time (and can be done with control- and command- clicking with just the one button).
Regardless, I don't see any of this resulting in the salvation/downfall of apple (the mouse buttons I mean, the G5 is clearly important).
Although the earlier post would still be correct if the reference is to a time when Charles is king of England.
This is all just a bunch of FUD as far as I'm concerned. There was _never_ any official statement from Apple that they weren't going to fix jaguar, only a quote from a guy who may have talked to an Apple janitor for all we know, from a company who fires people for saying Microsoft has security problems. Come on! The title of this who thread is ridiculous "Apple forcing upgrade"! There was never a shread of real evidence to the fact. Of course, I suppose in this day and age the standards for evidence for public statements is lower than ever...
You must be another one of those Canadians complaining about ITMS, right, because I _know_ you don't mean $3000 US. My 1 GB RAM, 80 GB HD, Radeon 9600, 802.11g, bluetooth enabled, DVD-R/CD-RW, + goodies (like backlit keyboard) was $2500 (of course I bought the extra 512 MB from someone other than apple). PS I love Canada and visit frequently. Merely a comment on frequency conversions.
I had almost identical experience. I was also computer support at a large institution when I was a grad student, and I only handled the macs. The people I supported were also the most demanding (much more than everyone using linux) but this was a selection effect, I think. The people who wouldn't use linux boxes, refused to change because they couldn't possibly use a new system. They resisted updates of netscape and were angered when I used technical terms like "run the program". They had no hope of using anything but macs.
But I don't think the macs were the problem. I use a mac myself (now that I'm a postdoc) to minimize the support time I provide to myself!
No, no, gravity is just spacetime curvature and spacetime curvature holds us on the Earth.
Let's be clear about something: there are two issues relating to gravity which involve extra dimensions:
1) How does one combine quantum mechanics and gravity?
2) what is gravity so weak compared with the other forces?
The first has only ever had one consistent theory, and that is string theory (or more recently the still somewhat ill-defined m-theory). superstring theory is the only current stable string theory and it is only a consistent quantum theory in 10 dimensions. (M-theory is a limit where you see a new, 11th dimension appear)
Given that it requires additional dimensions, people assumed they were compact and with small radii so we couldn't see them.
With respect to part two, there are four dimensional solutions to why gravity is weak compared to gravity, so one doesn't need extra dimensions to explain their hierarchy of gravity/strong-weak-electromagnetic strengths.
However, if there are extra dimensions, if they were larger than the small size, then they can dilute the gravity. This was the big change in thinking in 98/99, when two proposals (large extra dimensions and warped extra dimensions) came on the scene. However, the exciting thing about them was precisely the fact that they _were_ testable! There was the hope of experimentally seeing additional dimensions and maybe string theory.
While there sociological pressure to conform, these ideas were initially well out of the mainstream and took time before they were embraced as serious ideas by the community at large. They are now (although there are still detractors).
So I don't know which you're objecting to: using extra dimensions to resolve the first or the second issue, but either way, both have proved as fruitful avenues for new ideas. Of course eventually every revolution turns into the status quo...
There actually is a plan to put it in space called LISA. It would consist of satellites to study the waves. Different setups make you sensitive to different sources of gravitational waves and LISA will detect different sources than LIGO will.
Well, see, the big bang is reall the result of what's referred to as the reheating phase after the inflationary phase (in the current cosmology - let me not discuss the evidence for that right now). In the early universe, it is believed to be twisted and contorted and very irregular. Then some dynamics takes over a small patch an inflates it, expands it exponentially, fast enough, even, that two points that had been in causal contact before (i.e., capable of exchanging a light signal within the age of the universe) get separated out of causal contact.
So they're separating faster than the speed of light, but only because the space itself is expanding so rapidly, not because they're moving in space so rapidly. This expansion dilutes the universe incredibly so it is essentially empty. This expansion was driven by an energy, which when the expansion stops, converts into heat and radiation. This is the big bang, and the entire (now huge and smooth) patch reheats simultaneously.
So now we see that radiation as I explained before. Eventually we (meaning you, if you were immortal and didn't have to worry about the fate of the Earth, sun, etc) would eventually see the edge of that expanded patch, but that is not the end of space, just the end of that patch of the very early universe which got expanded. The universe could be finite outside of that patch, or could be infinite. There is a parameter which tells us the geometry, called Omega, and Omega>1 means closed, Omega1 means open. Omega =1 means flat, which essentially means infinite, but you have to be careful what you mean. Unfortunately or fortunately, this exponential expansion period changes omega so that it gets exponenentially close to 1, so we can't really tell if it is above or below. In fact, present measurements are that it is pretty close to one (which is what everyone sort of expected).
Anyway, that's the quick version. The real answer to the question of "what's beyond the horizon"? (the farthest distance light could have travelled since the big bang/reheating ) is we don't have any way of knowing and there are a lot of possibilities.
The point is that the big bang happened everywhere at once - at least insofar as we're causally aware right now. The entire universe was incredibly hot, and then the space itself expands, so the universe becomes dilute, cools, galaxies form, etc. There was a recent result - the WMAP experiment - which sees the relic radiation from the big bang. But the light we see was emitted from 14 billion light years aware (14 billion years being the age of the universe) and is just getting here now. In another billion years, we'll still be seeing this radiation, but it will be sourced 15 billion light years away, but just getting here then. The fact that this radiation is isotropic to one part in 100000 is the best evidence that the _whole_ universe was hot and expanded. The gravity waves travel just like the light - we'll see the waves produced 14 billion light years away now. But the big bang wasn't a point in space, in which case you would have been right. This is a common misinterpretation (even among people who ought to know better)
I'm also a theoretical physicist. The hardcore numerical types often do use Beowulf clusters, self-built machines, etc. However, people for whom numerics are just small parts of our work love our macs. Most importantly, the tech support needed is essentially zero, which is huge because tech support provided is often zero. In grad school, I _was_ the tech support. And when travelling, you plug it in and you can print, use the network, zero config. Many people use linux, but don't really know how to configure things and have trouble (I know that everyone here won't understand how it could be difficult to configure linux, but we're not talking rocket scientists here).