"He isn't saying that ubuntu and suse should merge together, but maybe it would be beneficial for them to share a package management system, like how Ubuntu and Debian do (ok so they don't share perfectly, but its easy enough to move a.deb to Ubuntu)."
What would be really nice is a conversion of.deb to a mountable option, like SquashFS, rather than the strictly nonmountable.ar archive with.tar.gz's within it that dpkg normally uses.
The benefits are obvious: not only are you able to extract and install via apt as usual, but you can mount as in a live CD and save an assload of RAM, or add it to a LiveCD or LiveUSB for static low-impact installs. apt and dpkg need only be extended to support this, rather than entirely rewritten. Slowly, the various repositories would convert entirely to SquashFS.
Once a standardised structure for mountable packages is decided upon by a big distro, the Carryable OS becomes more than a hobbyist's nifty trick; it becomes an easy, accessible, and even necessary solution for the User without a home base.
"Hollywood's attention shifts from bootleg DVDs made in China..."
Always a good thing to address, always the wrong way to address it. More on this later.
"... to the problem of copyrighted television..."
Which is, of course a problem; why shouldn't I be able to watch a broadcast whenever, wherever, and however I please. It's already been distributed to me.
"... and movie clips showing up on sites like YouTube and MySpace."
Ok, this particular focus is downright stupid. Piss on your free advertising, please. Douches.
"'People thinking it is O.K. to take this stuff for free on a worldwide basis has a bigger impact than anything,' said Ms. Antonellis."
Yes. Because people worldwide would much rather have their movies in lousy quality, tiny screens, and segmented into ten minute clips. Moron. People will pay for convenience. Give it to them.
"'Missteps made today could have grave consequences for the future, particularly when it comes to consumers' willingness to pay for movies and television shows online'"
Consumers will always be willing to pay for content. Having paid for content, they want to be able to use it in whatever way comes to mind. I'm directly addressing Vongo and ITMS' films. Drop the DRM, and the population will *flock* to your services. As it stands, people are willing to pay, but not able - your services don't fill the consumers' need.
"'Mortimer[, my neice's goldfish,] took the leap to freedom,' she said. 'He said, 'I'm free, but I'm dead,' ' said Ms. Antonellis."
I don't know how this even counts as relevant enough to be in the article.
"Russia is particularly difficult to police because of the vast amount of money available to finance the making and sale of black market DVDs."
This brings me back to physical infringement, and applies to China too. Contact the damned bootleggers, offer a low-cost licensing scheme. Reap some of the investment the Russians and the Chinese are making. Hell, take them on as the local manufacturing arm for your company and dismantle your existing one, providing the professional copying tools you've got, and lower the prices to match the existing economy. Piracy exists in those countries because your price point is too damned high.
"We are hopeful that social networks such as YouTube will put in place proper systems which will reflect our intellectual property and will facilitate legal offerings."
Translation: We hope they get sued out of existence so that we can force our own internet video service down the consumers' throat, or sued into submission so that they become lapdogs of our Industry.
"[Ms Antonellis] has won two Emmy Awards for her technical prowess."
Yes. An award for her specialized technical knowledge qualifies her to handle the PR for tech that's completely out of her field.
"'We share here a belief and understanding in new technology and that consumers want to experience our movies and television shows differently,' Mr. Cookson said. 'Darcy really understands the whole equation.'"
Then she wouldn't have assumed that even if people are getting something for free now, they wouldn't want to pay for it later were it more convenient. 'Understanding' the whole equation involves understanding human nature more than anything else.
"'We were criticized for not being aggressive enough [in our online sales approach],' she said. 'At the same time, we can't be faulted for being radical in our approach.'"
Yes. Yes you can. Your compatriot in the industry suing YouTube is pretty damned radical. Suing DVD Jon was fucking radical. I'm sorry, but as long as you allow yourself to be associated with the MPAA, any member company's actions are your actions, and being a huge entity in that respect, you each have a good amount of bullshit to answer for.
"'If we don't encompass the last piece in our thinking -- how consumers want to use content -- then we are going to miss it,'
"There are two main theories about the function of the appendix. Some experts think it serves as a "factory" for bacteria that help us digest the cellulose in some plants we eat."
Which, if I remember correctly, is the prevailing theory.
"But most scientists believe that both the appendix and the tonsils are part of our immune system, manufacturing B-Lymphocytes, which are white blood cells that produce antibodies to fight infections in the body."
The appendix had been found to contain these cells, not to produce them.
"We can live without it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose while we have it."
There's no evidence that being born without, or having it removed very early in life leads to even a compromised immune system.
Knowing that - even if it did produce B-Lymphocytes - it's a vestigial organ, pressed into some other function. It's even possible that an appendix that produces B-Lymphocytes enables its host to survive more statistically frequently, leading to a stronger expression of it in future generations. That doesn't make it any less vestigial, just repurposed.
Ah... CDs are a collection of a specialized raw format of 44100Hz, 16 bit, stereo PCM file, with error correction built into the physical transport layer.
They are a media for transporting digital information; not only is the separation senseless, it's imaginary. If you buy a CD, you've bought eight-to-fourteen digital files.
"The biggest problem with that theory, as with evolution in general is that it doesn't tell us where the information stored in the DNA molecule cones from. It takes proteins to make DNA, but it takes the information stored in the DNA to build the proteins. It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem."
The chicken and egg problem was solved a while ago. The egg came first, borne by something that wasn't quite yet a chicken. Similarly, DNA ultimately evolved out of basic self-replicating amino acids - ones that easily form in high-energy situations like primorial earth - lots of lightning, lots of free elements; in that sort of situation, the formation of self-replicating aminos has been stitistically proven to happen in relatively high frequency.
"I could give you a short list of 15 critical parameters needed for any planetary system that could sustain physical, carbon based life, such as we have here."
If you can't determine the necessary compounds needed to initiate evolution of carbon-based life in the first place, how can you possibly know what the parameters are that are necessary to carbon-based life in general? If any of your parameters are off at an early stage (unicellular), and they still survive, it is not possible that multicellular life - evolved from colonies of single cells that survived long enough to thrive in such conditions - would emerge?
Your problem is that you speak in absolutes, and not probabilities. Which, in the spirit of chatting ultimately about Tatooine, says something about the shade of the 'side' you reside on ^_^.
Oh, 98% of the virtual scientists (scientists that only exist on paper as absentee votes, post mortem) support creationism, but that's nothing compared to the imaginary and irrational ones. They ALL believe in creationism. Look, I'll ask one....
Yup, this one believes that god made the earth in six days, about 6k years ago, on a flat earth with a sun revolving around it, and knows this, of course, 'cos they chat all the time.
"By the way, I'm also not convinced that these processes are "known to happen on Earth prior to life". I suspect that what you "know" about conditions on Earth before life are based on what you've concluded "must have been" in order for life to have formed the way you believe it did, rather than on any evidence of what the conditions really were. But who knows?"
No, by "known to happen on Earth prior to life", he means "what science has concluded the earth was probably like, given geological and glacial evidence", not "What we want it to be".
Seriously, that's creationist talk; scientists don't work that way.
It's not a matter of belief, that's rather the point. There is probable and improbable (and astronomically improbable, as is the case of God). Saying otherwise is more or less intellectually dishonest.
I think homeopathy resides in the 50% area, but only because I haven't investigated it sufficiently to know where it would lay on the curve. Our entire medical and pharmacological industries operate off drugs that are, by and large, plant-based. The idea that herbs and plants could be used with medical or psycological benefits thus has a founding upon which to start looking for evidence of beneficial effects. Indeed, I believe the FDA is investigating a number of pharmaceuticals at present which are based upon what have been determined to be the active ingrdients in the homeopathic equvalents.
That's for herbal healing, of course. Crystal healing is very probably psychosomatic. I can, with almost complete certainty, say that salt-rock deoderants are a joke; they don't work at all on me, and their effect on others - well, lets just say my nose feels it's questionable.
Then there's faith-healing. When used in a way that denies medical treatment, I feel this is actually cruel - using an improbable method with undeterminable results in favor over established practices with known results. That's the results of people who care for their faith over their own or their loved ones' health, and I feel it's retarded behavior.
Not a problem, though. Gets them out of the gene pool.
Correction: GPP is a manipulative liar. Which is why he shouldn't get too many responses. The only appropriate response to such behavior is blankly-staring disbelief.
"The energy of light doesn't change when it slows down in water or glass. So why should it change when it travels through the medium of free space?"
No vacuum is perfect. Encountering interstellar hydrogen could easily explain why light remodulates down in discreet steps. There are plenty of explanations that are less wonky than postulating a variable speed of light.
"But the rotation of the earth is not controlled by gravity, but simple inertia. Tidal friction does slow this rotation as well as the orbit of the moon."
Tides are an artifact of gravity on a large enough body. Don't contradict yourself.
"Evolution is faith that present processes (including radioactivity) have always been as we observe them today. It is faith that fossils form over long periods of time."
Blah blah. The difference is that if a fact comes along to change how existing theories interact with one another, things get modified to fit. This wouldn't do with a faith, but it's not people's ego's we're after here, it's a model of how the universe works.
"So, you can hold onto your faith that you have no higher purpose and descended from a rock or your ancestors crawled out of the primordial slime. I'll hold onto mine that I was created by a transcendent, intelligent God, who has a plan for His children."
So, you'll hold on to the idea that your the slave of some deity, and I'll hold onto the idea that my destiny is self-determined.
You're still making the assumption that the speed of light has changed, you're invoking quantization of the red shift (which only postulates that the energy of light, ie: its frequency, decreases as it travels in discreet steps - not that the speed of light actually changes). This is observed over long distances and light isn't affected over conventional ones. As a result, not effecting the vibration of atoms, as is measured by atomic clocks, and not effecting the decay rates of radioactive atoms.
That said, red shift quantization is an effect that's been pretty well known among astronomers since 1987, and is generally taken into account when giving estimates of the size and age of the universe.
Meanwhile, there's evidence that atomic clocks are actually speeding up relative to the rotation of the earth - but this is only because tidal effect gradually decreases earth's rotational speed to match that of its orbital speed, much like what has happened to the moon.
"The possibility that the idea of billions or even millions of years collapsing into the only thousands (not necessarily 6000) is like a big stink bomb with evolutionists."
Only because it's a stupid, unsupported idea that creationists with just enough smarts to think they're clever like to tout. It's a bad habit to search for holes in scientific theory to hide in. Those holes will be filled one day, and you'll find that location a little snug.
Seriously, you'll do better just holding faith in the face of evidence than trying to mangle evidence to fit your faith.
"One of the 'constants' is h - Planck's constant - that governs a number of atomic quantum processes, including radioactivity. It is inversely related to the speed of light c."
Not quite. It's inversely proportional to the speed of light in a perfect vacuum, c. In perfect terminology, this is the linear photonic propagation velocity in a medium without physical impedent. And this doesn't change for the medium, and nor does c (again, the speed of light in perfect vacuum).
Besides, if we're talking about quantum processes and radioactivity, you're missing the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism (which all play a part in governing radioactivity, as well as every other function an atom performs). Are you going to tell me they drift too?
Do you know what would happen if, say, the strong force got just a percent stronger? The planet would collapse in on itself. And just a percent weaker, and atoms wouldn't hold together. The planet would dissolve into a dusty patch of vacuum.
The various quantum and cosmological constants are just a means of taking our existing arbitrary measurements and fitting QED in. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, I could state my height in planck lengths, or even molar planck lengths, but no one would get it.
"Astronomers measure something called the "red shift". The red shift itself is a measured fact. It's cause is commonly thought to be the Doppler effect. This explanations however requires all sorts of convoluted constructs, such as dark matter and energy, which have NOT been observed."
Uh. Red shift has nothing to do with dark matter. It has to do with the speed of light (propagatory) being a constant as the source of the light falls away; the waves, then, become farther apart, as the distance from the source to your eyes is farther. They 'stretch', to use a partially inaccurate metaphor.
Where the dark matter you mention comes in is as a way to explain the cause of relatively uniform red shift coming in from all directions. Dark matter is not an actual explanation, you know, and nor is it supposed to be some special esoteric type of matter. It's matter that's - get this - too dark for use to directly observe. Same for dark energy; it's energy that, by the time it reaches us, has fallen below the cosmological background radiation level - and therefore is "dark".
"We KNOW that light can be sped up and slowed down by the media it traverses. All age dating must be corrected for the drift of these constants."
So, you're saying that because light moves slower in air or water, this somehow effects time. Riiight. You do realize that the slowing of light's speed through a medium is within a few percent of C, yeah? Besides which, you're essentially trying to say that just 6000 years ago, the vacuum of space was denser than plexiglass.
"The red shift evidence points to the fact that this change has been about a factor of 300 million."
Actually, the red-shift from distant stars is uniformly from within visible spectra to within visible spectra. Since the visible spectra is a band that is from ~800nm to ~400nm, without doing too much math, that means the maximum red shift would be a factor of four (lowest=violet, highest=200nm -> lowest=1600nm to highest=800nm), not a factor of 300 million. I don't know where the hell you got that figure.
This also shows that much of the universe is speeding away from us at about 75% c.
*shrug*
Hey, maybe, on the Seventh Day, when your God was resting, he let out a stink-bomb of a queef and the rest of the universe just ran.
God bless his holy queeftitude.
"This drift is however highly nonlinear over time."
Yeah, that's convenient. You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making it up as you go along?
I'm really sorry that you think 'Magic Man Done It', dude, but you really gotta stop trying to pass off your pseudoscience in a forum full of real science buffs.
That's probably entirely possible, too; by resource throttling individual VLAMPs, you could probably set each one up so that it's any fraction of a 'standard server's worth of capacity, or even several.
I should probably apologize. It's rude to correct others' spelling/grammar. But I'm sorry; the 'loose'/'lose' thing gets to me in a bad way. Like, I can't actually take what they say seriously if I see they've made that error.
I can take its/it's, and I can take their/they're/there, but lose/loose.... I understand in terms of what I hear as I read; I come across 'loose' in my head where 'lose' should be (or worse, 'looser'), and it just throws me completely off.
Well put. But I do know a number of people in the industry that will be shocked by this, which was who I was referencing.
But really. If you've got the money for the extra hardware to maintain performance, I say go for the virtualization, if only to make yout IT guys' lives easier (happy IT is useful IT).
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem:p e nsing/opensource
http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/qtpl.ph
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/lic
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL)."
The QPL is compatible with GPL, and is an OSI certified license. I don't see how using it precludes its use in open source software.
"He isn't saying that ubuntu and suse should merge together, but maybe it would be beneficial for them to share a package management system, like how Ubuntu and Debian do (ok so they don't share perfectly, but its easy enough to move a .deb to Ubuntu)."
.deb to a mountable option, like SquashFS, rather than the strictly nonmountable .ar archive with .tar.gz's within it that dpkg normally uses.
What would be really nice is a conversion of
The benefits are obvious: not only are you able to extract and install via apt as usual, but you can mount as in a live CD and save an assload of RAM, or add it to a LiveCD or LiveUSB for static low-impact installs. apt and dpkg need only be extended to support this, rather than entirely rewritten. Slowly, the various repositories would convert entirely to SquashFS.
Once a standardised structure for mountable packages is decided upon by a big distro, the Carryable OS becomes more than a hobbyist's nifty trick; it becomes an easy, accessible, and even necessary solution for the User without a home base.
IT'd be nice if Gnome moved to Qt. I'm a bit tired of the ugly-ass gtk libs, but for some reason, more 'complete' software is written in gtk.
"Hollywood's attention shifts from bootleg DVDs made in China ..."
..."
Always a good thing to address, always the wrong way to address it. More on this later.
"... to the problem of copyrighted television
Which is, of course a problem; why shouldn't I be able to watch a broadcast whenever, wherever, and however I please. It's already been distributed to me.
"... and movie clips showing up on sites like YouTube and MySpace."
Ok, this particular focus is downright stupid. Piss on your free advertising, please. Douches.
"'People thinking it is O.K. to take this stuff for free on a worldwide basis has a bigger impact than anything,' said Ms. Antonellis."
Yes. Because people worldwide would much rather have their movies in lousy quality, tiny screens, and segmented into ten minute clips. Moron. People will pay for convenience. Give it to them.
"'Missteps made today could have grave consequences for the future, particularly when it comes to consumers' willingness to pay for movies and television shows online'"
Consumers will always be willing to pay for content. Having paid for content, they want to be able to use it in whatever way comes to mind. I'm directly addressing Vongo and ITMS' films. Drop the DRM, and the population will *flock* to your services. As it stands, people are willing to pay, but not able - your services don't fill the consumers' need.
"'Mortimer[, my neice's goldfish,] took the leap to freedom,' she said. 'He said, 'I'm free, but I'm dead,' ' said Ms. Antonellis."
I don't know how this even counts as relevant enough to be in the article.
"Russia is particularly difficult to police because of the vast amount of money available to finance the making and sale of black market DVDs."
This brings me back to physical infringement, and applies to China too. Contact the damned bootleggers, offer a low-cost licensing scheme. Reap some of the investment the Russians and the Chinese are making. Hell, take them on as the local manufacturing arm for your company and dismantle your existing one, providing the professional copying tools you've got, and lower the prices to match the existing economy. Piracy exists in those countries because your price point is too damned high.
"We are hopeful that social networks such as YouTube will put in place proper systems which will reflect our intellectual property and will facilitate legal offerings."
Translation: We hope they get sued out of existence so that we can force our own internet video service down the consumers' throat, or sued into submission so that they become lapdogs of our Industry.
"[Ms Antonellis] has won two Emmy Awards for her technical prowess."
Yes. An award for her specialized technical knowledge qualifies her to handle the PR for tech that's completely out of her field.
"'We share here a belief and understanding in new technology and that consumers want to experience our movies and television shows differently,' Mr. Cookson said. 'Darcy really understands the whole equation.'"
Then she wouldn't have assumed that even if people are getting something for free now, they wouldn't want to pay for it later were it more convenient. 'Understanding' the whole equation involves understanding human nature more than anything else.
"'We were criticized for not being aggressive enough [in our online sales approach],' she said. 'At the same time, we can't be faulted for being radical in our approach.'"
Yes. Yes you can. Your compatriot in the industry suing YouTube is pretty damned radical. Suing DVD Jon was fucking radical. I'm sorry, but as long as you allow yourself to be associated with the MPAA, any member company's actions are your actions, and being a huge entity in that respect, you each have a good amount of bullshit to answer for.
"'If we don't encompass the last piece in our thinking -- how consumers want to use content -- then we are going to miss it,'
"There are two main theories about the function of the appendix. Some experts think it serves as a "factory" for bacteria that help us digest the cellulose in some plants we eat."
Which, if I remember correctly, is the prevailing theory.
"But most scientists believe that both the appendix and the tonsils are part of our immune system, manufacturing B-Lymphocytes, which are white blood cells that produce antibodies to fight infections in the body."
The appendix had been found to contain these cells, not to produce them.
"We can live without it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose while we have it."
There's no evidence that being born without, or having it removed very early in life leads to even a compromised immune system.
Knowing that - even if it did produce B-Lymphocytes - it's a vestigial organ, pressed into some other function. It's even possible that an appendix that produces B-Lymphocytes enables its host to survive more statistically frequently, leading to a stronger expression of it in future generations. That doesn't make it any less vestigial, just repurposed.
Ah... CDs are a collection of a specialized raw format of 44100Hz, 16 bit, stereo PCM file, with error correction built into the physical transport layer.
They are a media for transporting digital information; not only is the separation senseless, it's imaginary. If you buy a CD, you've bought eight-to-fourteen digital files.
It will very likely be in AAC format. This isn't bad, per se, as many mp3 players support AAC very well (though, they ALL support mp3).
Also, AAC transcodes at very low loss to MP3, if you're using the right software.
*whoosh*
You missed the sarcasm there entirely. Of course, this just indicates you failed to RTFA.
"The biggest problem with that theory, as with evolution in general is that it doesn't tell us where the information stored in the DNA molecule cones from. It takes proteins to make DNA, but it takes the information stored in the DNA to build the proteins. It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem."
The chicken and egg problem was solved a while ago. The egg came first, borne by something that wasn't quite yet a chicken. Similarly, DNA ultimately evolved out of basic self-replicating amino acids - ones that easily form in high-energy situations like primorial earth - lots of lightning, lots of free elements; in that sort of situation, the formation of self-replicating aminos has been stitistically proven to happen in relatively high frequency.
"I could give you a short list of 15 critical parameters needed for any planetary system that could sustain physical, carbon based life, such as we have here."
If you can't determine the necessary compounds needed to initiate evolution of carbon-based life in the first place, how can you possibly know what the parameters are that are necessary to carbon-based life in general? If any of your parameters are off at an early stage (unicellular), and they still survive, it is not possible that multicellular life - evolved from colonies of single cells that survived long enough to thrive in such conditions - would emerge?
Your problem is that you speak in absolutes, and not probabilities. Which, in the spirit of chatting ultimately about Tatooine, says something about the shade of the 'side' you reside on ^_^.
Oh, 98% of the virtual scientists (scientists that only exist on paper as absentee votes, post mortem) support creationism, but that's nothing compared to the imaginary and irrational ones. They ALL believe in creationism. Look, I'll ask one. ...
Yup, this one believes that god made the earth in six days, about 6k years ago, on a flat earth with a sun revolving around it, and knows this, of course, 'cos they chat all the time.
Funny. The appendix isn't mentioned anywhere in that article. O learned one, what is the purpose of the appendix?
As I understood it, it's a leftover from when we ate raw meat.
"By the way, I'm also not convinced that these processes are "known to happen on Earth prior to life". I suspect that what you "know" about conditions on Earth before life are based on what you've concluded "must have been" in order for life to have formed the way you believe it did, rather than on any evidence of what the conditions really were. But who knows?"
No, by "known to happen on Earth prior to life", he means "what science has concluded the earth was probably like, given geological and glacial evidence", not "What we want it to be".
Seriously, that's creationist talk; scientists don't work that way.
Hm. Variations on a theme, eh?
Ahem.
Fuck you.
It's not a matter of belief, that's rather the point. There is probable and improbable (and astronomically improbable, as is the case of God). Saying otherwise is more or less intellectually dishonest.
I think homeopathy resides in the 50% area, but only because I haven't investigated it sufficiently to know where it would lay on the curve. Our entire medical and pharmacological industries operate off drugs that are, by and large, plant-based. The idea that herbs and plants could be used with medical or psycological benefits thus has a founding upon which to start looking for evidence of beneficial effects. Indeed, I believe the FDA is investigating a number of pharmaceuticals at present which are based upon what have been determined to be the active ingrdients in the homeopathic equvalents.
That's for herbal healing, of course. Crystal healing is very probably psychosomatic. I can, with almost complete certainty, say that salt-rock deoderants are a joke; they don't work at all on me, and their effect on others - well, lets just say my nose feels it's questionable.
Then there's faith-healing. When used in a way that denies medical treatment, I feel this is actually cruel - using an improbable method with undeterminable results in favor over established practices with known results. That's the results of people who care for their faith over their own or their loved ones' health, and I feel it's retarded behavior.
Not a problem, though. Gets them out of the gene pool.
Correction: GPP is a manipulative liar. Which is why he shouldn't get too many responses. The only appropriate response to such behavior is blankly-staring disbelief.
"The energy of light doesn't change when it slows down in water or glass. So why should it change when it travels through the medium of free space?"
No vacuum is perfect. Encountering interstellar hydrogen could easily explain why light remodulates down in discreet steps. There are plenty of explanations that are less wonky than postulating a variable speed of light.
"But the rotation of the earth is not controlled by gravity, but simple inertia. Tidal friction does slow this rotation as well as the orbit of the moon."
Tides are an artifact of gravity on a large enough body. Don't contradict yourself.
"Evolution is faith that present processes (including radioactivity) have always been as we observe them today. It is faith that fossils form over long periods of time."
Blah blah. The difference is that if a fact comes along to change how existing theories interact with one another, things get modified to fit. This wouldn't do with a faith, but it's not people's ego's we're after here, it's a model of how the universe works.
"So, you can hold onto your faith that you have no higher purpose and descended from a rock or your ancestors crawled out of the primordial slime. I'll hold onto mine that I was created by a transcendent, intelligent God, who has a plan for His children."
So, you'll hold on to the idea that your the slave of some deity, and I'll hold onto the idea that my destiny is self-determined.
You're still making the assumption that the speed of light has changed, you're invoking quantization of the red shift (which only postulates that the energy of light, ie: its frequency, decreases as it travels in discreet steps - not that the speed of light actually changes). This is observed over long distances and light isn't affected over conventional ones. As a result, not effecting the vibration of atoms, as is measured by atomic clocks, and not effecting the decay rates of radioactive atoms.
That said, red shift quantization is an effect that's been pretty well known among astronomers since 1987, and is generally taken into account when giving estimates of the size and age of the universe.
Meanwhile, there's evidence that atomic clocks are actually speeding up relative to the rotation of the earth - but this is only because tidal effect gradually decreases earth's rotational speed to match that of its orbital speed, much like what has happened to the moon.
"The possibility that the idea of billions or even millions of years collapsing into the only thousands (not necessarily 6000) is like a big stink bomb with evolutionists."
Only because it's a stupid, unsupported idea that creationists with just enough smarts to think they're clever like to tout. It's a bad habit to search for holes in scientific theory to hide in. Those holes will be filled one day, and you'll find that location a little snug.
Seriously, you'll do better just holding faith in the face of evidence than trying to mangle evidence to fit your faith.
Correction: 1 Mmolhl = 0.9633547008547008547008547008547 cm
Calculated for the fun of it:
I am 187.2 mega molar planck lengths tall.
One mega molar planck length is 1.038039 cm long.
"One of the 'constants' is h - Planck's constant - that governs a number of atomic quantum processes, including radioactivity. It is inversely related to the speed of light c."
Not quite. It's inversely proportional to the speed of light in a perfect vacuum, c. In perfect terminology, this is the linear photonic propagation velocity in a medium without physical impedent. And this doesn't change for the medium, and nor does c (again, the speed of light in perfect vacuum).
Besides, if we're talking about quantum processes and radioactivity, you're missing the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism (which all play a part in governing radioactivity, as well as every other function an atom performs). Are you going to tell me they drift too?
Do you know what would happen if, say, the strong force got just a percent stronger? The planet would collapse in on itself. And just a percent weaker, and atoms wouldn't hold together. The planet would dissolve into a dusty patch of vacuum.
The various quantum and cosmological constants are just a means of taking our existing arbitrary measurements and fitting QED in. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, I could state my height in planck lengths, or even molar planck lengths, but no one would get it.
"Astronomers measure something called the "red shift". The red shift itself is a measured fact. It's cause is commonly thought to be the Doppler effect. This explanations however requires all sorts of convoluted constructs, such as dark matter and energy, which have NOT been observed."
Uh. Red shift has nothing to do with dark matter. It has to do with the speed of light (propagatory) being a constant as the source of the light falls away; the waves, then, become farther apart, as the distance from the source to your eyes is farther. They 'stretch', to use a partially inaccurate metaphor.
Where the dark matter you mention comes in is as a way to explain the cause of relatively uniform red shift coming in from all directions. Dark matter is not an actual explanation, you know, and nor is it supposed to be some special esoteric type of matter. It's matter that's - get this - too dark for use to directly observe. Same for dark energy; it's energy that, by the time it reaches us, has fallen below the cosmological background radiation level - and therefore is "dark".
"We KNOW that light can be sped up and slowed down by the media it traverses. All age dating must be corrected for the drift of these constants."
So, you're saying that because light moves slower in air or water, this somehow effects time. Riiight. You do realize that the slowing of light's speed through a medium is within a few percent of C, yeah? Besides which, you're essentially trying to say that just 6000 years ago, the vacuum of space was denser than plexiglass.
"The red shift evidence points to the fact that this change has been about a factor of 300 million."
Actually, the red-shift from distant stars is uniformly from within visible spectra to within visible spectra. Since the visible spectra is a band that is from ~800nm to ~400nm, without doing too much math, that means the maximum red shift would be a factor of four (lowest=violet, highest=200nm -> lowest=1600nm to highest=800nm), not a factor of 300 million. I don't know where the hell you got that figure.
This also shows that much of the universe is speeding away from us at about 75% c.
*shrug*
Hey, maybe, on the Seventh Day, when your God was resting, he let out a stink-bomb of a queef and the rest of the universe just ran.
God bless his holy queeftitude.
"This drift is however highly nonlinear over time."
Yeah, that's convenient. You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making it up as you go along?
I'm really sorry that you think 'Magic Man Done It', dude, but you really gotta stop trying to pass off your pseudoscience in a forum full of real science buffs.
That's probably entirely possible, too; by resource throttling individual VLAMPs, you could probably set each one up so that it's any fraction of a 'standard server's worth of capacity, or even several.
I should probably apologize. It's rude to correct others' spelling/grammar. But I'm sorry; the 'loose'/'lose' thing gets to me in a bad way. Like, I can't actually take what they say seriously if I see they've made that error.
I can take its/it's, and I can take their/they're/there, but lose/loose.... I understand in terms of what I hear as I read; I come across 'loose' in my head where 'lose' should be (or worse, 'looser'), and it just throws me completely off.
Redundant?
C'mon, modders, you can do better than that. Troll, Flamebait, Overrated, I'd understand; they're applicable. But redundant??
Besides, I was serious. When am I going to see some serious RAM on-chip?
"lose"
Well put. But I do know a number of people in the industry that will be shocked by this, which was who I was referencing.
But really. If you've got the money for the extra hardware to maintain performance, I say go for the virtualization, if only to make yout IT guys' lives easier (happy IT is useful IT).