>Bluetooth was obsolete before it hit the shelves.
Hardly. It was never intended for that kind of thing, still you can do it.
BTW... How do you synchronise your E-Mail with your PDA? Or your Address-book? And with your mobile? How do you access the Internet with your mobile? And with other people's?
With infrared? Not... quite... the... right... angle. Now, hold still.
Um... don't know about RedHat, but Mandrake RPMS are signed. When you want to install packages from a different source, say, like Penguin Liberation Front, you'll get some warning about failing to verify the packages-signature. To get rid of the warning and to verify the source, you'll have to add the public key of PLF to your root's keyring.
> To install new core network equipment, you just replace a few pieces of equipment in the network room at a centralized operations center.
The network consists roughly of 2x2 layers. First, the RSS, the Radio Subsystem, consisting of the Mobile Stations (mobiles or cellulars), and the Base Station Subsystem (BSS).
Second, the Network Switching Subsystem (NSS), consisting of the Mobile Services Switching Centre (MSC) and the Operating Subsystem (OSS).
Usually, there is only one OSS, which consists of two redundant centres. But there are several MSCs. AFAIK, 7 for a city like London. Granted this is still far more centralised than the RSS.
But know let me take it a step further. Assuming the NSS is relatively cheap, where is the problem for the IS-95 operators? The problem is the interface from the BSCs to the MSCs. It's the same for UMTS and GSM. But surely not for IS-95. So, either they rip out all the BSCs, or they develop and deploy new MSCs. This is additional to the equipment of two new data centres.
In essence, what kind nodes are more expensive? The leaves of the tree, or the inner nodes?
>[...] you have just have to sit and wait for a few years until UMTS becomes remotely mature. [...] >If consumers are not interesting in paying more for premium services, the newer networks really have nothing to offer them.
That's the point, for most people, there is no need to use 3G. So they don't have to wait for UMTS to become mature. Those people, who are in need have to pay for the added value. And they have no disadvantage besides the added costs, because roaming between UMTS and GSM is mandatory, too.
Let me reiterate. The advantage of Europe and Japan is not the base-band. Neither will it be for the US. It's on higher levels. Most services require practicably no bandwith, but they do exist in Japan and even Europe. The acceptance and even need for services is what brings money and drives technology. Watching a video on your mobile may be fun, but how does it compare to location based services? For example, the ability to check the next departure of the local subway-station, querying the fastest way with the subway to the next cinema and reserving a ticket.
NTT DoCoMo may have lost a lot of money and reputation in it's FOMA (UMTS) project. But they make a hell lot of money out of iMode, and therefor can finance it.
From the CIA World Factbook: [...] Germany has one of the world's most technologically advanced telecommunications systems [...] connected by modern networks of fiber-optic cable,[...] France: highly developed [...] extensive cable and microwave radio relay; extensive introduction of fiber-optic cable; Italy: modern, well developed, fast; fully automated telephone, telex, and data services
Actually, the reverse could true. In standardising the various froms of DSL, special respect to the US situation had to be paid. Only two wires, high impedance. A professor of mine (lived in Germany/Sweden) called them "Klingeldraehte", which means they are usually used for a doorbell.
In my experience, the US is highly diverse. Including the infrastructure. In some regions, you have a top-notch infrastructure some people only can dream of (highways, public transport, telephone), in others you're better of with a pidgeon and a mule.
The higher influence of the state controlled monopolistic telcos lead to an almost equal level of quality (not to mention the equally high costs)
> This is why Europe pushed so hard at establishing the GSM standard for the continent.
On the RF-level, he raves about the advantages of CDMA over TDMA, without mentioning any deficiencies of CDMA. Granted CDMA has a higher capacity. But he fails to mention breathing cells.
Criticising Ericsson with the words:
[...]Ericsson, went through the three classic stages of Not Invented Here syndrome: 1. It's impossible. 2. It's infeasible. 3. Actually, we thought of it first.
and later stating
CDMA and TDMA are fundamentally incompatible and there's no way to create a new system (which they're calling WCDMA) which can support existing TDMA handsets. It's technically impossible for the new standard to be backward compatible.
Sounds like phase 1 of NIH. Having a look at UMTS World and a look at the news on the frontpage (emphasis mine):
[...] BLUETOOTH WCDMA CALL: Qualcomm announces worldâ(TM)s first Bluetooth WCDMA (UMTS) and GSM Voice Calls. [...]. (1/10/02) [...] GSM - WCDMA HANDOVERS: Ericsson announces the first live, dual mode WCDMA/GSM calls with seamless handover between the two modes. [...]
Later, he is admitting it is possible on the mobile, but not feaseable. (NIH Phase 2). But impracticable on the infrastructure. You have to install a new one. Partially, correct. There have to be installed new Base Tranciever Stations. But hardly a new complete infrastructure. The whole GSM "back-end" is compatible.
In what way is that more inpracticable than installing a new "back-end" for the higher level functions? Which he says, can easily added to CDMA2k.
Lastly, which users are looking at the baseband-specification, when buying a mobile? The reason for the advantage of Japan and Europe is at a higher level. Availability and acceptance of services. Ease of use.
This, of course, begs the question, what is actually the resolution of a 35mm film?
From what I've read, a top-quality 35mm image, tripod, top-rate lens and finest-grained film under good light conditions has some 20million pixels. Twelve million is a more typical amount. And 4MPixels for a point and shoot cameras. (source
Colour seems to be a different point.
Of course, this is all highly subjective. So, let's start another Analog/Digital discussion (see LP/CD)
To avoid a flamewar, I don't want to imply that a Digitcal Camera is of has the same quality as a CD, and a analog 33mm is inferior to Digital cameras. To avoid another flamewar, I don't want to imply that LPs are inferior to CDs.
>Perhaps as people get more tech savy they will see more genetic algorithms in their everyday lives.
Not likely. GAs (or better Evolutionary algorithms) are quite good at finding an abritrary good solution in a practicably unknown problem space in restricted time, but are terribly inefficient. So, if you want to find several solutions, it's more efficient to have a good look at the problem space and to find a more efficient algorithm. Often random-search or hill-climber delivers an acceptable solution in much shorter time.
At least, that is what I'm told. I'm lacking practical experience in that field.
> [...] like handwriting or voice recognition on PDA's.
Another EA has delivered us a quite good solution for pattern recognition: the brain. Now, we just have to understand it:).
On a sidenote, where are the advanced topics the poster spoke of? Not seeing a single link to meta-eas, multipopulations (island models) or speciation.
Links to more Perl, and a link to algorithms for genetics, but evolutionary algorithms?
Have a look at 10 years old pictures or printouts. Especially those exhibited to light. Make that 10 months for printouts.
Digital images aren't distorted, they just don't fit our colour perception. (AFAIK, among others, more a logarithmic scale in contrast to the linear used in digital images)
The point is all these systems are chaotic and fairly complex.
Try to determine the future of a "simple" river. Try to determine the human body. Both is actually impossible. Like determine the global climate. Stillm, you are able to make several predicitons.
> or the ways the human body's systems behave have come to light by attempting to predict the outcomes using hugely complex mathematical models.
It's even worse. They even have a hugely comlex mathematical model.
>A compareable prediction with regards to the climate is: It will either get wamer, colder, or stay the same temperature.
It boils down to this: You are saying (quite correctly) global climate and weather is chaotic. Now your logical deduction: Therefor it is not predictable. My point is, there are several chaotic system, which even a layman can make some predicitons on. Therefor your logical deduction is flawed. It well may be that it is unpredictable, but for some reasons I trust a climatologist more on determining the kind of system it is than a CS-person.
> Global warming means just what it says: The globe getting warmer.
Ok, then find a single reference for Global Warming by a Climatologist in context with the warm periods before 1900, and it is not a simile for the current phenomenon.
>You have it exactly backwards: Chaotic systems are deterministic but unpredictable.
At least, I am not alone. According to foldoc:
deterministic: Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly.
Note the qualifier "exaclty" for predicted. That means one can predict something not exactly.
The pre-quantum theory, pre-chaos-theory universe was deterministic. The current one is only predictable to a certain extend, it is probabilistic.
A stream is chaotical system, too. Almost every little thing in the whole universe is chaotic.
And then there are people, who've heard from some butterfly and will bash the poor guy(girl?) to death by blaming it all on it and displaying their general lack of knowledge on chaos theory.
Chaos does not mean unpredictable. It means non-deterministic or limited predictability and possibly unpredictability.
The river is chaotic and fairly unpredictable in its behaviour. Still, no one is amazed to see it streaming downwards.
The magnetic pendulum with two magnetic attractors, another classical example for chaotic behaviour in physics. Is it unpredictable? I think: "It will stop on either magnet" is a fairly accurate prediction. On the other hand it is nearly impossible to predict which. The human body is pretty much a multitude of chaotic systems.
> I think its foolish to believe that we can predict the [...]
I think, it is foolish to think you know it better than people who are actually working at it. You know, there are actually smart people out there. And imagine, some of those do work besides CS. Furthermore, the most knowing people in this field are actually climatologists and imagine, they know about chaos theory.
They do not claim to determine the future climate in all its eternity. What they predict is a increase of several degrees in the mean temperature in a fairly restricted amount of time (200y). Your exhilaration on the title may be reduced on the misconception that global warming is the opposite from ice age. It is not. Global warming is the name for the rapid change of global climate (Rapid for a global climate change). In contrast, Ice Age is the name for a global climatic period. The abrupt increase of temperature may well trigger a Ice Age. That is what the article is about.
The problem is, the short period of time is for us a lot of time.
> Global warming theory [...] No, you are assuming that global warming theory assumes. Actually, global climate models are much more complex. and incorporate several components. Additional to the reflective and absorptive properties of atmospheric water vapor,they include among others greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and sulphate aerosol levels, solar variations, and volcanic aerosols, ice boundaries, earth, and not to mention the ocean in heat absorption, reflection and transportation.
>a change of that magnitude can set off a chain reaction then we would have been gone a long time ago. Well, we actually see the effects quite clearly. It's not the hot summer this year, or El Nino some years ago.
Have a look at the stats of Munich Re, one of the world largest reinsurace companies. Have a look at the glaciers.
Do you have the same position towards M.D.s and medicin concerning the chaotic behaviour of the human body?
I proves that the theory of natural selection is an applicable concept and can be applied to another problem domain.
It is as good as a proove of a theory gets. Natural Selection explains the current situation and lead to verifyable conclusions (GA).
It's not very hard to get the first thing right, the second one is the tricky one. Creationism, Solipsism, The Gian Goat are all theories, but usually lack the second requisite to be called scientific.
General Relativity was a fancy theory, until it let to new conclusions, which were proven.
Of course, it does not prove that it is really the driving concept behind evolving life, but that is true for every scientific theory. And like any scientific theory it is bound to be modified, to accomodate new facts.
> This mechanism is so subtle, it is surely proof of an intelligent designer
OTOH, we are so dumb, this is surely a proof that there is no designer.
Furthermore, people are so dumb, that the universe must be a bad dream I'm having, and other people are just an imagination or representations of myself.
Well, a different instrument is of course much more obvious than a different conductor. But I find it hard to believe, that they're willing to classical music performed by anyone. Especially their favourite one. Or maybe is "willing to listen" the same, like I'm willing to listen to Britney Spears? I won't die from it, it even doesn't cause discomfort to me like ABBA, but I wouldn't actually actively choose to listen to it.
> For example I dislike Toccata and Fugue in D Minor by J. S. Bach when it is played on harpsichord but I enjoy it on pipe organ.
Interesting, that you are noticing this particular piece. Actually this one of the pieces that made me aware of the (subtle?) differences. Do you remember the initial part? There are several pauses in the beginning. In the recording I have the timing doesn't seem right to me. Actually the whole dynamic (emphasis, timing) (I'm lacking the correct words) seem to be odd to me.
P.S:To alleviate the effects of my display of lack of knowlegde on my reputation, the unessecary display of unessecary knowlege:): Rumor says that Bach didn't wrote Toccata and Fugue, one of his disciples did.
P.P.S: Actively choose: perform an act to make it happen, in contrast to Passivly choose, it happens, now I have to do something do make it unhappen English is not my native tongue, so I have to be bit more explicit, as I'm not so sure about the connotation of choose in that context.
Well, maybe Britney Spears is not without merit, too. But her music does not appeal to me.:)
Let me elaborate:
The recordings of Brandenburgische Konzerte performed by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra directed by v. Karajan are too expensive for me. So instead, I buy the recordings performed by the London Symphony Orchestra by Sir Colin Davis? (Just making it up, don't know wether such recordings actually exist)
At least to my eyes (or ears) this is like suggesting: instead of buying "With a Little Help from my Friends" from Joe Cocker, buy it from the Beatles.
Notes are not as exact as code. What is adagio? What is forte?
Both may be of exceptional quality, and may even play the same notes, but one interpretation of the notes may be the one which appeals you, the other not.
Aeroplane, Car, Computer, Telephone... Name an invention as famous as these, where there is a single inventor (or group of inventors). The difference between innovation and evolution is often in the eye of the beholder. Especially when you have a closer look.
Otto Lilienthal could also be considered as the father of aeroplanes. He has done various research and the Wright Brothers work is based is on his. Of course your free, not to consider a sailplane as an aeroplane.
The idea was also articulated by da Vinci 400years before (with an inpractical flapping mechanism).
I've used Gentoo (once 1.0, and recently 1.4) on my p233, 64Mb laptop. I did not find KDE 3.0.3 (more exactly Konqueror) very snappy. Have a look at memory usage. At least in my case, with KDE, RAM was maxed out, and starting a program leaded to swapping.
>but Mandrake is bloat
How can Mandrake be bloat? Granted, it is equipped with more gimmicks, themes and the like than Gentoo and requires you to install MySQL and Postgresql, which is a waste of diskspace, but you don't have to use them. Of course, this is a kind of "bloat", but not the kind, which is performance degrading.
Memory usage of KDE under Gentoo and Mandrake is roughly the same. Depending on the grade and type of optimisation the code-size may vary. But the data-size and heap-size should be the same. And at least in my experience, that is where performance is lost on such a system.
Lastly, Mandrake already optimises for Pentiums, so when you gain a great deal of performance on your P266, you should wonder wether it's rather your perception than hard evidence.
BTW, switching to Fluxbox did give me a great deal of a snappier system. Under MDK and under Gentoo.
>the arpanet was designed exactly to be a self healing system to survive nuclear attack.
Actually, you are makeing two statements. The first one is only partially true and only in context of the second statement.
The Internet was designed to facilitate the communication between scientists and military even in the event of a major outage (a nuclear attack in mind). It was not designed to be "self healing", it was designed to degrade gracefully.
You are surely aware of the differences between a nuclear attack and DoS (may it be voluntary or involuntary). Both may require redundancy, but the first one a redundancy of transmission paths, the second one a redundancy of sources.
Not to mention, that the actual Internet and the theory have only the standards in common. There are central exchange points where most of the traffic is routed through, (London, New York, comes to mind), most Root-DNS servers are concentrated in the US, routing-tables are statically set (to accomodate economical/political decisions).
>Time after time, earthquakes and power failures have not killed the internet.
Not the Internet as whole. But the current requirements have changed. Best Effort is not good enough anymore. We are not happy anymore, just being able to communicate somehow, in the event of a nuclear attack. A degradation of data transfer from Tbit/s to some Mbit/s between two continents can be considered as a major breakdown.
> My average speed is probably about 160 KPH (traffic, other people, etc).
Mine is about 30kph (bike, city, still as fast as most cars).
Granted, faster and stronger cars are no benefit for normal people, actually I'd rather say they are counterproductive.
But there is more to a car than a strong engine. Not beeing into cars, I don't know what technological advancements come from racing. It wouldn't surprise me when ceramic and carbon fibre brakes, Traction Control, ESP and the like would be the resulted from the extreme conditions in racing.
> The body of the car is made with kevlar, carbon fibre, which has about a snow's ball's chance in hell in making it to regular cars.
What would you've said 10years ago? The body of these cars is made of Aluminium?
> Now about sports being boring to watch? Hah, not watched something like Hockey, eh?
It's not the action that I find lacking. The fun part about watching sports is, that you're able to feel with the team and share their joy in their accomplishments. I seem to lack the ability.
Slashdot Mirror
>Bluetooth was obsolete before it hit the shelves.
... quite ... the ... right ... angle. Now, hold still.
Hardly. It was never intended for that kind of thing, still you can do it.
BTW... How do you synchronise your E-Mail with your PDA?
Or your Address-book? And with your mobile?
How do you access the Internet with your mobile?
And with other people's?
With infrared? Not
Um... don't know about RedHat, but Mandrake RPMS are signed. When you want to install packages from a different source, say, like Penguin Liberation Front, you'll get some warning about failing to verify the packages-signature.
To get rid of the warning and to verify the source, you'll have to add the public key of PLF to your root's keyring.
> To install new core network equipment, you just replace a few pieces of equipment in the network room at a centralized operations center.
The network consists roughly of 2x2 layers.
First, the RSS, the Radio Subsystem, consisting of the Mobile Stations (mobiles or cellulars), and the Base Station Subsystem (BSS).
Second, the Network Switching Subsystem (NSS), consisting of the Mobile Services Switching Centre (MSC) and the Operating Subsystem (OSS).
Usually, there is only one OSS, which consists of two redundant centres.
But there are several MSCs. AFAIK, 7 for a city like London.
Granted this is still far more centralised than the RSS.
But know let me take it a step further. Assuming the NSS is relatively cheap, where is the problem for the IS-95 operators?
The problem is the interface from the BSCs to the MSCs. It's the same for UMTS and GSM. But surely not for IS-95. So, either they rip out all the BSCs, or they develop and deploy new MSCs. This is additional to the equipment of two new data centres.
In essence, what kind nodes are more expensive? The leaves of the tree, or the inner nodes?
>[...] you have just have to sit and wait for a few years until UMTS becomes remotely mature. [...]
>If consumers are not interesting in paying more for premium services, the newer networks really have nothing to offer them.
That's the point, for most people, there is no need to use 3G. So they don't have to wait for UMTS to become mature.
Those people, who are in need have to pay for the added value. And they have no disadvantage besides the added costs, because roaming between UMTS and GSM is mandatory, too.
Let me reiterate. The advantage of Europe and Japan is not the base-band. Neither will it be for the US. It's on higher levels.
Most services require practicably no bandwith, but they do exist in Japan and even Europe. The acceptance and even need for services is what brings money and drives technology.
Watching a video on your mobile may be fun, but how does it compare to location based services?
For example, the ability to check the next departure of the local subway-station, querying the fastest way with the subway to the next cinema and reserving a ticket.
NTT DoCoMo may have lost a lot of money and reputation in it's FOMA (UMTS) project. But they make a hell lot of money out of iMode, and therefor can finance it.
You mean, something like a united Linux distribution. Let's call it "UnitedLinux", either that or "LASER".
From the CIA World Factbook:
[...] Germany has one of the world's most technologically advanced telecommunications systems [...] connected by modern networks of fiber-optic cable,[...]
France: highly developed [...] extensive cable and microwave radio relay; extensive introduction of fiber-optic cable;
Italy: modern, well developed, fast; fully automated telephone, telex, and data services
Actually, the reverse could true. In standardising the various froms of DSL, special respect to the US situation had to be paid. Only two wires, high impedance. A professor of mine (lived in Germany/Sweden) called them "Klingeldraehte", which means they are usually used for a doorbell.
In my experience, the US is highly diverse. Including the infrastructure. In some regions, you have a top-notch infrastructure some people only can dream of (highways, public transport, telephone), in others you're better of with a pidgeon and a mule.
The higher influence of the state controlled monopolistic telcos lead to an almost equal level of quality (not to mention the equally high costs)
> This is why Europe pushed so hard at establishing the GSM standard for the continent.
Actually, before having GSM, each country in Europe had it's own analog network. They became aware of the various disadvantages of this approach and started almost at the same time with the developement of GSM.
In 1982 the Group Spécial Mobil was founded.
The first commercial analog cellular based on AMPS was introduced in 1983 (Japan 1979, Nordic Europe 1981)
"Biased" is another word. Or maybe "rant".
On the RF-level, he raves about the advantages of CDMA over TDMA, without mentioning any deficiencies of CDMA.
Granted CDMA has a higher capacity.
But he fails to mention breathing cells.
Criticising Ericsson with the words:
and later stating
Sounds like phase 1 of NIH.
Having a look at UMTS World and a look at the news on the frontpage (emphasis mine):
Later, he is admitting it is possible on the mobile, but not feaseable. (NIH Phase 2). But impracticable on the infrastructure. You have to install a new one.
Partially, correct. There have to be installed new Base Tranciever Stations. But hardly a new complete infrastructure. The whole GSM "back-end" is compatible.
In what way is that more inpracticable than installing a new "back-end" for the higher level functions? Which he says, can easily added to CDMA2k.
Lastly, which users are looking at the baseband-specification, when buying a mobile?
The reason for the advantage of Japan and Europe is at a higher level. Availability and acceptance of services. Ease of use.
This, of course, begs the question, what is actually the resolution of a 35mm film?
From what I've read, a top-quality 35mm image, tripod, top-rate lens and finest-grained film under good light conditions has some 20million pixels. Twelve million is a more typical amount. And 4MPixels for a point and shoot cameras. (source
Colour seems to be a different point.
Of course, this is all highly subjective. So, let's start another Analog/Digital discussion (see LP/CD)
To avoid a flamewar, I don't want to imply that a Digitcal Camera is of has the same quality as a CD, and a analog 33mm is inferior to Digital cameras.
To avoid another flamewar, I don't want to imply that LPs are inferior to CDs.
You think, the parent was for real?
:).
>Perhaps as people get more tech savy they will see more genetic algorithms in their everyday lives.
Not likely. GAs (or better Evolutionary algorithms) are quite good at finding an abritrary good solution in a practicably unknown problem space in restricted time, but are terribly inefficient.
So, if you want to find several solutions, it's more efficient to have a good look at the problem space and to find a more efficient algorithm. Often random-search or hill-climber delivers an acceptable solution in much shorter time.
At least, that is what I'm told. I'm lacking practical experience in that field.
> [...] like handwriting or voice recognition on PDA's.
Another EA has delivered us a quite good solution for pattern recognition: the brain. Now, we just have to understand it
On a sidenote, where are the advanced topics the poster spoke of? Not seeing a single link to meta-eas, multipopulations (island models) or speciation.
Links to more Perl, and a link to algorithms for genetics, but evolutionary algorithms?
Wow... the performance of Genetic Algorithms and Perl combined.
Almost like real evolution at work.
Mandrake, by two days and a version number.
Have a look at 10 years old pictures or printouts. Especially those exhibited to light. Make that 10 months for printouts.
Digital images aren't distorted, they just don't fit our colour perception. (AFAIK, among others, more a logarithmic scale in contrast to the linear used in digital images)
Yes, if they were located in the northern hemisphere :)
The reason, why there is are Ozone "Holes", and not just a uniformly reduced ozone layer is that the ODS are carried by the global winds to the poles.
All hail to the Coriolis effect.
The point is all these systems are chaotic and fairly complex.
Try to determine the future of a "simple" river.
Try to determine the human body.
Both is actually impossible. Like determine the global climate. Stillm, you are able to make several predicitons.
> or the ways the human body's systems behave have come to light by attempting to predict the outcomes using hugely complex mathematical models.
It's even worse. They even have a hugely comlex mathematical model.
>A compareable prediction with regards to the climate is: It will either get wamer, colder, or stay the same temperature.
It boils down to this: You are saying (quite correctly) global climate and weather is chaotic.
Now your logical deduction: Therefor it is not predictable.
My point is, there are several chaotic system, which even a layman can make some predicitons on. Therefor your logical deduction is flawed.
It well may be that it is unpredictable, but for some reasons I trust a climatologist more on determining the kind of system it is than a CS-person.
Ok, then find a single reference for Global Warming by a Climatologist in context with the warm periods before 1900, and it is not a simile for the current phenomenon.
>You have it exactly backwards: Chaotic systems are deterministic but unpredictable.
At least, I am not alone. According to foldoc:
Note the qualifier "exaclty" for predicted.
That means one can predict something not exactly.
The pre-quantum theory, pre-chaos-theory universe was deterministic. The current one is only predictable to a certain extend, it is probabilistic.
A stream is chaotical system, too. Almost every little thing in the whole universe is chaotic.
And then there are people, who've heard from some butterfly and will bash the poor guy(girl?) to death by blaming it all on it and displaying their general lack of knowledge on chaos theory.
Chaos does not mean unpredictable.
It means non-deterministic or limited predictability and possibly unpredictability.
The river is chaotic and fairly unpredictable in its behaviour. Still, no one is amazed to see it streaming downwards.
The magnetic pendulum with two magnetic attractors, another classical example for chaotic behaviour in physics. Is it unpredictable? I think: "It will stop on either magnet" is a fairly accurate prediction. On the other hand it is nearly impossible to predict which.
The human body is pretty much a multitude of chaotic systems.
> I think its foolish to believe that we can predict the [...]
I think, it is foolish to think you know it better than people who are actually working at it.
You know, there are actually smart people out there. And imagine, some of those do work besides CS. Furthermore, the most knowing people in this field are actually climatologists and imagine, they know about chaos theory.
They do not claim to determine the future climate in all its eternity. What they predict is a increase of several degrees in the mean temperature in a fairly restricted amount of time (200y). Your exhilaration on the title may be reduced on the misconception that global warming is the opposite from ice age.
It is not. Global warming is the name for the rapid change of global climate (Rapid for a global climate change). In contrast, Ice Age is the name for a global climatic period.
The abrupt increase of temperature may well trigger a Ice Age. That is what the article is about.
The problem is, the short period of time is for us a lot of time.
> Global warming theory [...]
No, you are assuming that global warming theory assumes.
Actually, global climate models are much more complex. and incorporate several components. Additional to the reflective and absorptive properties of atmospheric water vapor,they include among others greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and sulphate aerosol levels, solar variations, and volcanic aerosols, ice boundaries, earth, and not to mention the ocean in heat absorption, reflection and transportation.
>a change of that magnitude can set off a chain reaction then we would have been gone a long time ago.
Well, we actually see the effects quite clearly. It's not the hot summer this year, or El Nino some years ago.
Have a look at the stats of Munich Re, one of the world largest reinsurace companies.
Have a look at the glaciers.
Do you have the same position towards M.D.s and medicin concerning the chaotic behaviour of the human body?
>But they *prove* exactly nothing.
I proves that the theory of natural selection is an applicable concept and can be applied to another problem domain.
It is as good as a proove of a theory gets.
Natural Selection explains the current situation and lead to verifyable conclusions (GA).
It's not very hard to get the first thing right,
the second one is the tricky one.
Creationism, Solipsism, The Gian Goat are all theories, but usually lack the second requisite to be called scientific.
General Relativity was a fancy theory, until it let to new conclusions, which were proven.
Of course, it does not prove that it is really the driving concept behind evolving life, but that is true for every scientific theory. And like any scientific theory it is bound to be modified, to accomodate new facts.
> This mechanism is so subtle, it is surely proof of an intelligent designer
OTOH, we are so dumb, this is surely a proof that there is no designer.
Furthermore, people are so dumb, that the universe must be a bad dream I'm having, and other people are just an imagination or representations of myself.
I must stop talking to myself.
Well, a different instrument is of course much more obvious than a different conductor.
:):
But I find it hard to believe, that they're willing to classical music performed by anyone. Especially their favourite one.
Or maybe is "willing to listen" the same, like I'm willing to listen to Britney Spears? I won't die from it, it even doesn't cause discomfort to me like ABBA, but I wouldn't actually actively choose to listen to it.
> For example I dislike Toccata and Fugue in D Minor by J. S. Bach when it is played on harpsichord but I enjoy it on pipe organ.
Interesting, that you are noticing this particular piece. Actually this one of the pieces that made me aware of the (subtle?) differences. Do you remember the initial part? There are several pauses in the beginning. In the recording I have the timing doesn't seem right to me. Actually the whole dynamic (emphasis, timing) (I'm lacking the correct words) seem to be odd to me.
P.S:To alleviate the effects of my display of lack of knowlegde on my reputation, the unessecary display of unessecary knowlege
Rumor says that Bach didn't wrote Toccata and Fugue, one of his disciples did.
P.P.S:
Actively choose: perform an act to make it happen, in contrast to
Passivly choose, it happens, now I have to do something do make it unhappen
English is not my native tongue, so I have to be bit more explicit, as I'm not so sure about the connotation of choose in that context.
Well, maybe Britney Spears is not without merit, too. But her music does not appeal to me. :)
Let me elaborate:
The recordings of Brandenburgische Konzerte performed by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra directed by v. Karajan are too expensive for me.
So instead, I buy the recordings performed by the London Symphony Orchestra by Sir Colin Davis?
(Just making it up, don't know wether such recordings actually exist)
At least to my eyes (or ears) this is like suggesting: instead of buying "With a Little Help from my Friends" from Joe Cocker, buy it from the Beatles.
Notes are not as exact as code. What is adagio? What is forte?
Both may be of exceptional quality, and may even play the same notes, but one interpretation of the notes may be the one which appeals you, the other not.
...who are probably all interchangeably excellent.
Well, I have only limited experience in classical music, but even to my ears there is a noticeable difference between different conductors.
Depends on what you call a plane and what you call fly.
Charles Parsons (England) let a small 100m "fly" before it crashed. It was driven by a steam engine.
Sir George Cayley let a small glider fly, which carried a boy (1853).
Or, following your link a bit further,
John Stringfellow should be considered the first pilot (1848).
Aeroplane, Car, Computer, Telephone... Name an invention as famous as these, where there is a single inventor (or group of inventors). The difference between innovation and evolution is often in the eye of the beholder. Especially when you have a closer look.
Otto Lilienthal could also be considered as the father of aeroplanes. He has done various research and the Wright Brothers work is based is on his. Of course your free, not to consider a sailplane as an aeroplane.
The idea was also articulated by da Vinci 400years before (with an inpractical flapping mechanism).
Sorry, my experience is a different one.
I've used Gentoo (once 1.0, and recently 1.4) on my p233, 64Mb laptop. I did not find KDE 3.0.3 (more exactly Konqueror) very snappy.
Have a look at memory usage. At least in my case, with KDE, RAM was maxed out, and starting a program leaded to swapping.
>but Mandrake is bloat
How can Mandrake be bloat? Granted, it is equipped with more gimmicks, themes and the like than Gentoo and requires you to install MySQL and Postgresql, which is a waste of diskspace, but you don't have to use them.
Of course, this is a kind of "bloat", but not the kind, which is performance degrading.
Memory usage of KDE under Gentoo and Mandrake is roughly the same. Depending on the grade and type of optimisation the code-size may vary. But the data-size and heap-size should be the same.
And at least in my experience, that is where performance is lost on such a system.
Lastly, Mandrake already optimises for Pentiums, so when you gain a great deal of performance on your P266, you should wonder wether it's rather your perception than hard evidence.
BTW, switching to Fluxbox did give me a great deal of a snappier system. Under MDK and under Gentoo.
>the arpanet was designed exactly to be a self healing system to survive nuclear attack.
Actually, you are makeing two statements.
The first one is only partially true and only in context of the second statement.
The Internet was designed to facilitate the communication between scientists and military even in the event of a major outage (a nuclear attack in mind).
It was not designed to be "self healing", it was designed to degrade gracefully.
You are surely aware of the differences between a nuclear attack and DoS (may it be voluntary or involuntary).
Both may require redundancy, but the first one a redundancy of transmission paths, the second one a redundancy of sources.
Not to mention, that the actual Internet and the theory have only the standards in common.
There are central exchange points where most of the traffic is routed through, (London, New York, comes to mind), most Root-DNS servers are concentrated in the US, routing-tables are statically set (to accomodate economical/political decisions).
>Time after time, earthquakes and power failures have not killed the internet.
Not the Internet as whole. But the current requirements have changed. Best Effort is not good enough anymore. We are not happy anymore, just being able to communicate somehow, in the event of a nuclear attack.
A degradation of data transfer from Tbit/s to some Mbit/s between two continents can be considered as a major breakdown.
> My average speed is probably about 160 KPH (traffic, other people, etc).
Mine is about 30kph (bike, city, still as fast as most cars).
Granted, faster and stronger cars are no benefit for normal people, actually I'd rather say they are counterproductive.
But there is more to a car than a strong engine.
Not beeing into cars, I don't know what technological advancements come from racing.
It wouldn't surprise me when ceramic and carbon fibre brakes, Traction Control, ESP and the like would be the resulted from the extreme conditions in racing.
> The body of the car is made with kevlar, carbon fibre, which has about a snow's ball's chance in hell in making it to regular cars.
What would you've said 10years ago? The body of these cars is made of Aluminium?
> Now about sports being boring to watch? Hah, not watched something like Hockey, eh?
It's not the action that I find lacking.
The fun part about watching sports is, that you're able to feel with the team and share their joy in their accomplishments. I seem to lack the ability.