Not surprizing, as I have seen enough problems on my systems with X-drivers to confirm that something is wrong. This is not even with accelerated use. Error messages about error setting MTRR register using inappropriate ioctl, a Matrox driver that corrupts the screens of other consoles after ctrl-alt-F2 switching to another consoles. This is not the difficult hardware interface without specs problem, but just bugs. One problem is not enough eyes looking this code over.
The work is being done by too few people, and they cannot see their own errors (common problem with all code).
What will fix these bugs is more people going into the source and finding a bug cause, and maybe even submitting a fix.
I've got a matrox driver to look at, and I am afraid that the error may not even be there, as I cannot find the text of the error messages (they mis-spelled a word which should make it easy to grep for, but so far no luck, not even in the/usr/bin).
One should realize that the attacks by some people (and many lawyers) upon the freedoms of others, if all were allowed to succeed, would restrict most of the free speech and idea sharing, such as in the US. It has been done before and is what places like China engage in now. Listen to them and you will hear, that there will always be "other people" who need to be restricted in what they post/transmit/say, according to the some who are bothered by it.
There are too many people that for everything want to have someone else to blame. And too many lawyers who are willing (for a hefty fee) to make the attempt to stick it to the someone selected to be the scapegoat.
This is a much wider problem than this one case.
This particular machine run Win98-SE, with Firefox, around 300MHz. Its our email machine, which does not seem to get attacked by virus etc.. My working machines are Linux. If this machine was to upgrade it will be to Linux, or maybe XP, if a copy can still be found.
Vista is not even considered viable for so many reasons, such as the obnoxious one-sided "agreements".
I have one customer that was still using Win3.1 on one machine because it was running custom diagnostic software.
I think the upgrade frenzy that some people try to start is for their own benefit, and not yours.
I agree with the old folks, if it still works use it. You can never catch up with some of these web sites for more than a short while, then they are pushing for another upgrade. This has more to do with fashion frenzy to have the latest thing than it does in any true advance in solving the owner's problems. It seems to add to the owner's problems instead. So if you can ignore the crazed fashioneers who go on about the latest video codec and how your old software does not left you see their movie of the car jumping up and down, then you will be fine with what you got working.
Not new to us, but I still find those who want to stand by their Microsoft, because they are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar alternatives.
Microsoft is a weak link in every computer security issue because they continue to put wide-open holes into their system in order to be all encompassing. I believe that they just consider the few that get attacked and taken as being acceptable losses, and look at the masses of the herd (where they make their money). Someone at the higher levels of government making this public may have several effects:
1) Embarrass Microsoft to not stupidly repeat the same mistakes (maybe).
2) Start some agenda towards minimum standards for security.
3) Show that there are more secure alternatives, and make them more familiar.
X should provide a selection mechanism for user
interface customization, and then pass that
on to every application.
If there was a common cut and paste mechanism
then this would be even better. Apps could
still reserve a buffer for themselves.
There is more than one answer to most interface decisions and this will continue, there is no use
in insisting that the current behavior is "right"
and everyone better learn it.
What is needed is that the user be able to select an interface model at the top level and that it
be honored by all apps running under that level.
The reason I adopted Linux is to able to fix
interface problems and not be stuck with the
choices that someone else made.
I am sorry but you cannot speak for me about what I prefer. I have changed my jed editor to do
ctrl-c and ctrl-v properly. I have done contract
work using mouse highlighting on an HP UNIX system.
It is a torture to be constantly changing models
and control behaviors. X should adopt 2 standards, one which is ctrl-c ctrl-v and the
other the mouse highlight. The user should be
able to select which one they want to use, and
it should affect all tools used under X.
This is not about who gets to claim the interface
is right, this is about the user having an interface that THEY can use.
The insults and ideological rantings from over-excited individuals is why scientists who do not take the black-hole theory as "Reality" talk among themselves.
I recognize your replies as the knee-jerk repeating of the arm-waving explanations seen in books touting black-holes. All this arm-waving will not change the fact that the external-time equation is the important one to external observers like ourselves. It remains as a boundary condition limiting the scope of application of the other equation. You have not advanced any arguement as to why the local-time equation should escape the bounding of it time variable. This is not a case where relativity denies there being a common reference frame, the particle in clearly in a gravity well with its time-dilation effects and all observers can see this and should take it into account.
I you only rely upon the statements made in black-hole touting books you hardly have a chance to notice how loose the math is. You actually have to do the math yourself.
A boundary condition is a limitation of one of the free variables, that is imposed by one equation upon the usage of that variable in another equation describing the same event from a different viewpoint. In this case the external viewpoint equation has time going to infinity at the event-horizon, and the particle not advancing past that radius. The local-time equation cannot violate that boundary condition just because it is based upon a different viewpoint. What exactly makes its viewpoint so privileged?
I have a perfect right to advance a theory, and to give it a name (The Nearly-Black Hole Theory). You claim to be a physist; a scientist would tolerate the scientific process more and the alternative ideas that it introduces.
In any discussion group I can find only 1 in 6 who would try to defend the black-hole theory as actual reality. The rest are not ready to commit themselves to accepting black-holes as proven reality.
Those who believe in them, apparently do so on their faith upon what is only a mathematical exercise, which depends upon the choosen mathematical model, and that as of yet has not been supported by any physical observation of an event-horizon.
There are alternative mathematical models, as any physist should know.
Please do not rant at me anymore stuff that you have read in a book somewhere.
I doubt that most black-hole enthusiasts actually look at, or know the actual theory, it requires tensor math. Black-holes are a popular FAD, the theory has serious problems, and I am ticked off at the discovers that say "I don't what else could be that massive" as proof that they found one.
The equation for the time it takes for a particle to pass the event-horizon goes to infinite time as the event-horizon is approached. Some enthusiasts claim that this equation must be broken because the local-time viewpoint of the particle does not show the infinity, so they ignore it. My observation is that the local-time equation is purposely constructed to not show such things. It purposely ignores the fact that local-time for the particle is slowing down and coming to a stop as the event-horizon is approached. The first equation still holds as a boundary condition on the local-time equation.
The upshot of this is that a mass that is contracting creates a bubble of time-dilation around itself. The closer it comes to the black-hole criticality, the more time slows and stops it. It can never actually reach black-hole density, and the event-horizon can never actually form.
I call this the theory of the Nearly-Black Hole. It is consistent with the GRAVASTAR theory.
From any distance away it is just a massive object and nobody can prove otherwise. All the good effects of a black-hole can only be observed if you get within the event horizon. There are many explanations for what a massive object could be and it is not acceptable to claim to have discovered a black-hole just because you can not think of anything else that could be that massive.
The GRAVASTAR theory is consistent with this analysis and does not break the laws of physics the way that black-hole theory does.
The dense matter surround is just how highly time-dilated matter would behave. Additional force does not have any effect, it cannot move closer to the center of mass because time just slows more.
Most scientists do not take the black-hole theory as physical reality. We have discussions among ourselves, but the flashy black-hole theorists get on the news. It is about time (sic) that an alternate theory like GRAVASTAR has gotten some notice.
I have also studied the black-hole physics and I know of the equation that a black-hole requires an infinite time to form. This equation is not "broken" and is a boundary condition upon the local-time equation from the particle view-point. The particle may view itself as being able to pass the event-horizon, but its time clock is slowing down and coming to a stop, so its view is irrelevant.
The GRAVASTAR theory is at least consistent with your general relativity equations. GRAVASTAR is simpler because it does not require negative-time, naked singularities, or any other breaking of the accepted laws of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Not surprizing, as I have seen enough problems on my systems with X-drivers to confirm that something is wrong. This is not even with accelerated use. Error messages about error setting MTRR register using inappropriate ioctl, a Matrox driver that corrupts the screens of other consoles after ctrl-alt-F2 switching to another consoles. This is not the difficult hardware interface without specs problem, but just bugs. One problem is not enough eyes looking this code over. The work is being done by too few people, and they cannot see their own errors (common problem with all code). What will fix these bugs is more people going into the source and finding a bug cause, and maybe even submitting a fix. I've got a matrox driver to look at, and I am afraid that the error may not even be there, as I cannot find the text of the error messages (they mis-spelled a word which should make it easy to grep for, but so far no luck, not even in the /usr/bin).
One should realize that the attacks by some people (and many lawyers) upon the freedoms of others, if all were allowed to succeed, would restrict most of the free speech and idea sharing, such as in the US. It has been done before and is what places like China engage in now. Listen to them and you will hear, that there will always be "other people" who need to be restricted in what they post/transmit/say, according to the some who are bothered by it. There are too many people that for everything want to have someone else to blame. And too many lawyers who are willing (for a hefty fee) to make the attempt to stick it to the someone selected to be the scapegoat. This is a much wider problem than this one case.
This particular machine run Win98-SE, with Firefox, around 300MHz. Its our email machine, which does not seem to get attacked by virus etc.. My working machines are Linux. If this machine was to upgrade it will be to Linux, or maybe XP, if a copy can still be found. Vista is not even considered viable for so many reasons, such as the obnoxious one-sided "agreements". I have one customer that was still using Win3.1 on one machine because it was running custom diagnostic software. I think the upgrade frenzy that some people try to start is for their own benefit, and not yours. I agree with the old folks, if it still works use it. You can never catch up with some of these web sites for more than a short while, then they are pushing for another upgrade. This has more to do with fashion frenzy to have the latest thing than it does in any true advance in solving the owner's problems. It seems to add to the owner's problems instead. So if you can ignore the crazed fashioneers who go on about the latest video codec and how your old software does not left you see their movie of the car jumping up and down, then you will be fine with what you got working.
Not new to us, but I still find those who want to stand by their Microsoft, because they are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar alternatives. Microsoft is a weak link in every computer security issue because they continue to put wide-open holes into their system in order to be all encompassing. I believe that they just consider the few that get attacked and taken as being acceptable losses, and look at the masses of the herd (where they make their money). Someone at the higher levels of government making this public may have several effects: 1) Embarrass Microsoft to not stupidly repeat the same mistakes (maybe). 2) Start some agenda towards minimum standards for security. 3) Show that there are more secure alternatives, and make them more familiar.
X should provide a selection mechanism for user interface customization, and then pass that on to every application. If there was a common cut and paste mechanism then this would be even better. Apps could still reserve a buffer for themselves. There is more than one answer to most interface decisions and this will continue, there is no use in insisting that the current behavior is "right" and everyone better learn it. What is needed is that the user be able to select an interface model at the top level and that it be honored by all apps running under that level. The reason I adopted Linux is to able to fix interface problems and not be stuck with the choices that someone else made.
I am sorry but you cannot speak for me about what I prefer. I have changed my jed editor to do ctrl-c and ctrl-v properly. I have done contract work using mouse highlighting on an HP UNIX system. It is a torture to be constantly changing models and control behaviors. X should adopt 2 standards, one which is ctrl-c ctrl-v and the other the mouse highlight. The user should be able to select which one they want to use, and it should affect all tools used under X. This is not about who gets to claim the interface is right, this is about the user having an interface that THEY can use.
The insults and ideological rantings from over-excited individuals is why scientists who do not take the black-hole theory as "Reality" talk among themselves.
I recognize your replies as the knee-jerk repeating of the arm-waving explanations seen in books touting black-holes. All this arm-waving will not change the fact that the external-time equation is the important one to external observers like ourselves. It remains as a boundary condition limiting the scope of application of the other equation. You have not advanced any arguement as to why the local-time equation should escape the bounding of it time variable. This is not a case where relativity denies there being a common reference frame, the particle in clearly in a gravity well with its time-dilation effects and all observers can see this and should take it into account.
I you only rely upon the statements made in black-hole touting books you hardly have a chance to notice how loose the math is. You actually have to do the math yourself.
A boundary condition is a limitation of one of the free variables, that is imposed by one equation upon the usage of that variable in another equation describing the same event from a different viewpoint. In this case the external viewpoint equation has time going to infinity at the event-horizon, and the particle not advancing past that radius. The local-time equation cannot violate that boundary condition just because it is based upon a different viewpoint. What exactly makes its viewpoint so privileged?
I have a perfect right to advance a theory, and
to give it a name (The Nearly-Black Hole Theory).
You claim to be a physist; a scientist would
tolerate the scientific process more and the alternative ideas that it introduces.
In any discussion group I can find only 1 in 6 who would try to defend the black-hole theory as actual reality. The rest are not ready to commit themselves to accepting black-holes as proven reality.
Those who believe in them, apparently do so on their faith upon what is only a mathematical exercise, which depends upon the choosen mathematical model, and that as of yet has not been supported by any physical observation of an event-horizon.
There are alternative mathematical models, as any physist should know.
Please do not rant at me anymore stuff that you have read in a book somewhere.
I doubt that most black-hole enthusiasts actually look at, or know the actual theory, it requires tensor math. Black-holes are a popular FAD, the theory has serious problems, and I am ticked off at the discovers that say "I don't what else could be that massive" as proof that they found one.
The equation for the time it takes for a particle to pass the event-horizon goes to infinite time as the event-horizon is approached. Some enthusiasts claim that this equation must be broken because the local-time viewpoint of the particle does not show the infinity, so they ignore it. My observation is that the local-time
equation is purposely constructed to not show such things. It purposely ignores the fact that local-time for the particle is slowing down and coming to a stop as the event-horizon is approached. The first equation still holds as a boundary condition on the local-time equation.
The upshot of this is that a mass that is contracting creates a bubble of time-dilation around itself. The closer it comes to the black-hole criticality, the more time slows and stops it. It can never actually reach black-hole density, and the event-horizon can never actually form.
I call this the theory of the Nearly-Black Hole.
It is consistent with the GRAVASTAR theory.
From any distance away it is just a massive object and nobody can prove otherwise. All the good effects of a black-hole can only be observed if you get within the event horizon. There are many explanations for what a massive object could be and it is not acceptable to claim to have discovered a black-hole just because you can not think of anything else that could be that massive.
The GRAVASTAR theory is consistent with this analysis and does not break the laws of physics the way that black-hole theory does.
The dense matter surround is just how highly time-dilated matter would behave. Additional force does not have any effect, it cannot move closer to the center of mass because time just slows more.
Most scientists do not take the black-hole theory as physical reality. We have discussions among ourselves, but the flashy black-hole theorists get on the news. It is about time (sic) that an alternate theory like GRAVASTAR has gotten some notice.
I have also studied the black-hole physics and I know of the equation that a black-hole requires an infinite time to form. This equation is not "broken" and is a boundary condition upon the local-time equation from the particle view-point. The particle may view itself as being able to pass the event-horizon, but its time clock is slowing down and coming to a stop, so its view is irrelevant.
The GRAVASTAR theory is at least consistent with your general relativity equations. GRAVASTAR is simpler because it does not require negative-time, naked singularities, or any other breaking of the accepted laws of physics.