Well, Ptolemy was wrong... and so was Kepler. With Einsteins's Theories of Relativity we were able to get closer than Kepler. IIRC, they are still running across inconsistancies in observed data and theory suggesting there is even more to discover.
Today, we have enough obserable to know that something is going on from the study of background radiation as well as the rotational speeds of galaxies. The simplest thing that fits in with current theory is dark matter. If we find dark matter then we don't have create entirely new theories of physics. It's Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation. Other ideas, which could very well be true, would probably change some of the other theories we have about how the laws of physics work and would be more complicated solutions.
Even if there is some strange solutions for what is going on, the dark matter work might still stick around just the same as we are still using Kepler's theories. Those theories may not be competly right, but for general solutions, the results of said theories are still usable and easier and quicker to solve than the more precise and more technically correct theories. Ptolemy's theories were discarded and are no longer in use, not because they were wrong, but because they were more complicated than what replaced them.
I do desktop support and at one job I was asked to go to about 8 hours worth of database meetings each week that I had nothing to do with. For the first couple of weeks, I tried to pay attention and input my opinion, but I found I really had no opinion on what they were doing with the various tables. I was sort of upset that I couldn't actually be doing work during this time but the boss insisted that the entire team be there.
Eventually I settled into playing chess on my palm Pilot at all these meetings. Eventually, somebody raised a questions about what was said several hours earlier in th meeting and somebody said "Ask Marc, he's taking notes." While I was slowly realizig they were talking about me and came out of my chess game, my co-worker looked over at what I was doing and anounced "He's playing chess!" Everybody just shruggd and went back tot he meeting. From then on I stopped gong to said meetings and stayed in the office doing work and nobody ever ever bothered me about it.
"All you need is experience,... A Dergee in Net Eng is useless if youve never actually implimented a network or worked with a network. Book smarts does not cut it with network engineering... "
I'd love to agree with you, but I've seen too many cases of realworld experience being looked over for the guys with degrees. Too many managers are impressed by degrees and certifications over experience and will hire the degree guy or elevate him above the others because that's what they are.
I just finished watching one networking group be taken over by another group and everybody having to re-apply for their own jobs. The inexperienced guys with degrees got the jobs and while the guys who have been working this network for years and helped set it up without degrees weren't even interviewed. In four months we're going to have 8k devices on a 20+ year old network in a 80+ year old building(s) supported by nobody that's been working on it for more than a few years.
I think that Technophobe is the wrong word here. If they were technophobes, they wouldn't even be n teh net or use a computer. Technophobes fear technology. this article isn't about technophobes. Techno-ignorant maybe, but not technophobes. I've met actual technophobes and they're not about to even touch a computer with me standing there to help them, let alone fumble about on their own.
I'm an arachnaphobe, but I'm not about to mess up and get poisonous bites by handling the wrong spiders. I don't handle any of them. I stay the F*** away from all of them using violence to clear anybody out of my way if need be.
All "if there wasn't Apple, how would MS do any R&D?" talk aside, MS can at times really show their like of Apple, especially Macs. Last time I was in the MS museum on their campus (while a friend was up in the MS employee store buying me stuff at cost) they had a Mac toaster with a copy of Word 1.0 and a sign saying" This is the machine that made everything possible." It went on to be very blatant that the Mac showed them the way into home computer use.
We had the very first of the G4 servers running a version of X Server that people wouldn't recognise today. IIRC, I literally checked a box turning it on and looked at the text field telling me which foder it was streaming out of. I put the files in that folder and we were streaming without issue. Later I installed a version of the QT Streaming Server on my copy of Mac OS X Beta and it was the same.
In the months that we were running it, I only had to reboot the server once and that was due to a corrupted streamed file which was the cause of almost all of our QT streaming issues. I'd rehint the original file in QT Pro and replace it on the server and the issues would disappear.
Apple has had rack monted cases for years. They're called Xserve. they have just been upgraded to the G5 processor but they were originally brought out with G4. The VA Tech supercoputer is going to be upgraded form their PowerMacs to Xserve. you can find them in the Apple store. They are 1U and can be a full server or a videoless node model.
They also have Xserve RAID which is a RAID box that, IIRC, is 3U and will work with Mac, Windows or Linux servers.
I've used Quicktime Streaming. It couldn't be much simpler. You install and tell it what directory that you're serving out to get it to run. Dump the QT files in that directory. the files must be hinted with QT pro and the pointer file also created with QTpro. This was way easier than the work I had to do with Windows streaming but not by much. I didn't do our Real server but was told that it was an undoly pain just to get the server up and running and the pointer files were more complicated than Windows to create. (FYI, this infor may be a couple of years out of date).
I believe what you are looking for on SCO's beign ordered to show infringing code is as follows:
SCO's "Notice of Compliance" Says They Have Not Yet Fully Complied
http://www.groklaw.net/index.php?page=2
IIRC, they basically say that they haven't show the infringing code because they still need the files they requested from IBM first* and because they did not have enough time to do so**. The judge has not reponded to this yet.
* This was their excuse last time, and the judge said it wouldn't work again.
** The judge gave them one month and asked them directly if it would be enough time. SCO said it would be plenty of time instead of asking for more time when they had the chance.
With a $7 disc, you can lend a disc to a friend,...
Nope. None of my friends have a MD player. I got a MD once from a pen pal and had to find a player. Only one person on a local forum that all my friends are on even had one and they gave it to me because they had no use for it. I listened to the MD once and never touched it again.
Whereas, I can burn my mp3s to CDR and give them away and be pretty sure everybpody can read them and port them to the player of their choice.
(I'd bet money that more companies use databases than make charts and presentations or, for that matter, draw pictures)
I'd take that bet.
There are plenty of executives and managers that could go without the need of a database, but do without their Powerpoint presentations and charts? Never! That would be like suggesting that they do without pointlessly long meetings which everybody is required to attend even if they aren't allowed to contribute..
Money will not disappear. Assuming that we could build anything, there are still things that keep everything from becoming free.
First, all these items probably will be generated from a design that will have to engineered. The new model cars or game consoles will have to be designed and engineered. The pattern fed into a computer and then created. Such pattens will be copyrighted and trademarked. No doubt, there will be similar IP issues as there are today with downloading and conterfiters.
Even if items could be replicated from an original without hurting the original lile in dowloading, it will take a decent amount of energy. If you make a banana, that banana will have nutritional value that will be stored energy. that energy has to come from somewhere and it will probably cost soemthign and that money will probalby go back to the the peopel who control the energy corporations. probably the same people who own the oil companies today.
Even if there is near limitless energy, unlike downloading today, you still need raw materials. you can't make a set of headphones with gold plated contacts without the gold. Even materials such as copper, aluminium or steel have some scarcity and intrinsic value. I would not doubt if manufacturers started using rare earth elements in their cars and consumer goods just so such items could not be copied directly, a sort of futuristic copy protection.
Even given that such technology is possible, it's not for sure that such technology wold be economicaly viable. It may take less manpower and energy to make things the old fashioned way than to use nanotech. A banana tree is already a nanotech machine and we simply might not be able to do it cheaper with a swarm of nanobots. theoretically, we could come up with a Ferrari seed that would grow a Ferrari but that assumes that the proper elements are present in the proper form to be turned into a car. Getting those elements into proper form may be a major issue itself, and by time nanotech has advanced that far, there will probably be other technologies and issues shaping the world more.
Sure it is. It's a book like any other book. It may have a dear place in the hearts of millions as well as fanboys. It may be the birth of the modern fantasy genre. It may be a classic, but it's still just a book with its own flaws. Some peope find Tolkein's writing style too dry to even read. He wanders off on tangents that don't contribute anything. He passes over most women characters so fast that they hardly even seem to appear in the book. His dealings with the races, even the races of humans belongs much more in pre-WWII world as the "bloodlines of men grow weak". If he had tried to get it printed today, the editor would have asked for a rewrite.
As far as scientific usage is concerned, there is no difference between a theory and a law. Theorys do not become laws. Laws do not get demoted when proven wrong ( e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravity with the coming of realativity). Both require that it be supported by results and generally accepted by science. The best explanation at any attempt to differentiate them is that Laws explain how things work while theories explain why things work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Ptolemy was wrong... and so was Kepler. With Einsteins's Theories of Relativity we were able to get closer than Kepler. IIRC, they are still running across inconsistancies in observed data and theory suggesting there is even more to discover.
Today, we have enough obserable to know that something is going on from the study of background radiation as well as the rotational speeds of galaxies. The simplest thing that fits in with current theory is dark matter. If we find dark matter then we don't have create entirely new theories of physics. It's Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation. Other ideas, which could very well be true, would probably change some of the other theories we have about how the laws of physics work and would be more complicated solutions.
Even if there is some strange solutions for what is going on, the dark matter work might still stick around just the same as we are still using Kepler's theories. Those theories may not be competly right, but for general solutions, the results of said theories are still usable and easier and quicker to solve than the more precise and more technically correct theories. Ptolemy's theories were discarded and are no longer in use, not because they were wrong, but because they were more complicated than what replaced them.
I do desktop support and at one job I was asked to go to about 8 hours worth of database meetings each week that I had nothing to do with. For the first couple of weeks, I tried to pay attention and input my opinion, but I found I really had no opinion on what they were doing with the various tables. I was sort of upset that I couldn't actually be doing work during this time but the boss insisted that the entire team be there.
Eventually I settled into playing chess on my palm Pilot at all these meetings. Eventually, somebody raised a questions about what was said several hours earlier in th meeting and somebody said "Ask Marc, he's taking notes." While I was slowly realizig they were talking about me and came out of my chess game, my co-worker looked over at what I was doing and anounced "He's playing chess!" Everybody just shruggd and went back tot he meeting. From then on I stopped gong to said meetings and stayed in the office doing work and nobody ever ever bothered me about it.
"All you need is experience, ... A Dergee in Net Eng is useless if youve never actually implimented a network or worked with a network. Book smarts does not cut it with network engineering... "
I'd love to agree with you, but I've seen too many cases of realworld experience being looked over for the guys with degrees. Too many managers are impressed by degrees and certifications over experience and will hire the degree guy or elevate him above the others because that's what they are.
I just finished watching one networking group be taken over by another group and everybody having to re-apply for their own jobs. The inexperienced guys with degrees got the jobs and while the guys who have been working this network for years and helped set it up without degrees weren't even interviewed. In four months we're going to have 8k devices on a 20+ year old network in a 80+ year old building(s) supported by nobody that's been working on it for more than a few years.
I think that Technophobe is the wrong word here. If they were technophobes, they wouldn't even be n teh net or use a computer. Technophobes fear technology. this article isn't about technophobes. Techno-ignorant maybe, but not technophobes. I've met actual technophobes and they're not about to even touch a computer with me standing there to help them, let alone fumble about on their own.
I'm an arachnaphobe, but I'm not about to mess up and get poisonous bites by handling the wrong spiders. I don't handle any of them. I stay the F*** away from all of them using violence to clear anybody out of my way if need be.
All "if there wasn't Apple, how would MS do any R&D?" talk aside, MS can at times really show their like of Apple, especially Macs. Last time I was in the MS museum on their campus (while a friend was up in the MS employee store buying me stuff at cost) they had a Mac toaster with a copy of Word 1.0 and a sign saying" This is the machine that made everything possible." It went on to be very blatant that the Mac showed them the way into home computer use.
Humorous geeky reference for the not so geeky:
"...it became self aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am Eastern Time."
Humorous geeky reference for the really geeky:
Horray, we've developed an Ogre Mk. I!
Hrrm.
We had the very first of the G4 servers running a version of X Server that people wouldn't recognise today. IIRC, I literally checked a box turning it on and looked at the text field telling me which foder it was streaming out of. I put the files in that folder and we were streaming without issue. Later I installed a version of the QT Streaming Server on my copy of Mac OS X Beta and it was the same.
In the months that we were running it, I only had to reboot the server once and that was due to a corrupted streamed file which was the cause of almost all of our QT streaming issues. I'd rehint the original file in QT Pro and replace it on the server and the issues would disappear.
Apple has had rack monted cases for years. They're called Xserve. they have just been upgraded to the G5 processor but they were originally brought out with G4. The VA Tech supercoputer is going to be upgraded form their PowerMacs to Xserve. you can find them in the Apple store. They are 1U and can be a full server or a videoless node model.
They also have Xserve RAID which is a RAID box that, IIRC, is 3U and will work with Mac, Windows or Linux servers.
I've used Quicktime Streaming. It couldn't be much simpler. You install and tell it what directory that you're serving out to get it to run. Dump the QT files in that directory. the files must be hinted with QT pro and the pointer file also created with QTpro. This was way easier than the work I had to do with Windows streaming but not by much. I didn't do our Real server but was told that it was an undoly pain just to get the server up and running and the pointer files were more complicated than Windows to create. (FYI, this infor may be a couple of years out of date).
I believe what you are looking for on SCO's beign ordered to show infringing code is as follows: SCO's "Notice of Compliance" Says They Have Not Yet Fully Complied http://www.groklaw.net/index.php?page=2 IIRC, they basically say that they haven't show the infringing code because they still need the files they requested from IBM first* and because they did not have enough time to do so**. The judge has not reponded to this yet. * This was their excuse last time, and the judge said it wouldn't work again. ** The judge gave them one month and asked them directly if it would be enough time. SCO said it would be plenty of time instead of asking for more time when they had the chance.
With a $7 disc, you can lend a disc to a friend, ...
Nope. None of my friends have a MD player. I got a MD once from a pen pal and had to find a player. Only one person on a local forum that all my friends are on even had one and they gave it to me because they had no use for it. I listened to the MD once and never touched it again.
Whereas, I can burn my mp3s to CDR and give them away and be pretty sure everybpody can read them and port them to the player of their choice.
(I'd bet money that more companies use databases than make charts and presentations or, for that matter, draw pictures)
I'd take that bet.
There are plenty of executives and managers that could go without the need of a database, but do without their Powerpoint presentations and charts? Never! That would be like suggesting that they do without pointlessly long meetings which everybody is required to attend even if they aren't allowed to contribute..
Looks better when written out mathmatically: The limit of a sum as GPA goes to 0 of a physics major equals an engineering major.
Money will not disappear. Assuming that we could build anything, there are still things that keep everything from becoming free. First, all these items probably will be generated from a design that will have to engineered. The new model cars or game consoles will have to be designed and engineered. The pattern fed into a computer and then created. Such pattens will be copyrighted and trademarked. No doubt, there will be similar IP issues as there are today with downloading and conterfiters. Even if items could be replicated from an original without hurting the original lile in dowloading, it will take a decent amount of energy. If you make a banana, that banana will have nutritional value that will be stored energy. that energy has to come from somewhere and it will probably cost soemthign and that money will probalby go back to the the peopel who control the energy corporations. probably the same people who own the oil companies today. Even if there is near limitless energy, unlike downloading today, you still need raw materials. you can't make a set of headphones with gold plated contacts without the gold. Even materials such as copper, aluminium or steel have some scarcity and intrinsic value. I would not doubt if manufacturers started using rare earth elements in their cars and consumer goods just so such items could not be copied directly, a sort of futuristic copy protection. Even given that such technology is possible, it's not for sure that such technology wold be economicaly viable. It may take less manpower and energy to make things the old fashioned way than to use nanotech. A banana tree is already a nanotech machine and we simply might not be able to do it cheaper with a swarm of nanobots. theoretically, we could come up with a Ferrari seed that would grow a Ferrari but that assumes that the proper elements are present in the proper form to be turned into a car. Getting those elements into proper form may be a major issue itself, and by time nanotech has advanced that far, there will probably be other technologies and issues shaping the world more.
Lord of the Rings is not like other books.
Sure it is. It's a book like any other book. It may have a dear place in the hearts of millions as well as fanboys. It may be the birth of the modern fantasy genre. It may be a classic, but it's still just a book with its own flaws. Some peope find Tolkein's writing style too dry to even read. He wanders off on tangents that don't contribute anything. He passes over most women characters so fast that they hardly even seem to appear in the book. His dealings with the races, even the races of humans belongs much more in pre-WWII world as the "bloodlines of men grow weak". If he had tried to get it printed today, the editor would have asked for a rewrite.
As far as scientific usage is concerned, there is no difference between a theory and a law. Theorys do not become laws. Laws do not get demoted when proven wrong ( e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravity with the coming of realativity). Both require that it be supported by results and generally accepted by science. The best explanation at any attempt to differentiate them is that Laws explain how things work while theories explain why things work.