By definition sound is pressure variations in air.
Sound can travel through any almost medium. Indeed, it travels a lot faster through solids (like a metal bar) than in air, and can travel through water too. Sound is just compression waves, movement of atoms or molecules, and not something specifically related to air.
It's a hypothesis, just like the Big Bang itself. There's no real way to "prove" it, except inventing a time machine. People don't seem to get what science is all about. No-one can ever be 100% sure of a theory. In the case of the Big Bang:
We observe that things seem to be moving away from eachother pretty rapidly.
We note that if things are moving away from eachother, it's quite likely they all started out in the same place. So we formulate the Big Bang hypothesis.
We go out and look to see if our new hypothesis can predict any interesting things, like star formation or black holes, or whether it fits nicely with other theories like Relativity, for which we already have compelling evidence.
We do experiments to test these predictions. An experiment can also be an observation, in the sense that the entire universe can be viewed as one big continual experiment about which we can record results.
So, it seems the Big Bang is about the best model we have of universe formation at the current time. So by applying other physics principles we might be able to estimate what it sounded like. True, this is in a sense unprovable, so I agree that we can't really reach step 4, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Scientists (Personally, I'm just an amateur these days) have great difficulty getting people to understand this distinction. These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it, and any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.
The reason you can't hear sound in space is because it's almost a vacuum. Back around the time of the Big Bang, matter was packed much closer together and density was far higher. Much higher, for example, than the density of the Earth's atmosphere. So yes, sound vibrations could propagate around in the early universe.
No it's not. It's the equivilent of someone taking a picture of a Pepsi machine inside Coke's shipping department and posting it to his personal weblog. Not really a good thing to do.
Aristotle, Descartes, Plato and Socrates couldn't manage it, but it seems that Microsoft has solved the ultimate question. Take a read of this crap:
For thousands of years, philosophers and scientists have attempted to explain the cosmos in terms of dual opposing but coexistent principles: good and evil, yin and yang, matter and energy, mind and body, waves and particles, and, of course, programming code and markup languages.
Programming and markup currently coexist in an uneasy truce. In theory, programming languages can do anything the computer is capable of, but they're often clunky for the job of laying out text, images, and controls in a simple visual interface. Markup is great for defining highly textured pages of text and images that adapt to different screen sizes and environments, but is hopelessly inept when it comes time to interact with the user in any nontrivial way.
In creating a new programming interface for building Windows(R)-based client applications, the developers at Microsoft have decided not to deny this dualism, but to embrace and celebrate it. They have created an environment in which programming and markup boldly and intricately mesh in mutually supporting roles. The result--the presentation subsystem code-named "Avalon"--may well be the greatest experiment in synergistic duality since Adam and Eve. Vive la difference!
I'm starting to get fed up with review sites that have so many adverts they don't bother to actually include a picture of the product they're talking about. CNET is a big offender, as is Anandtech, but the site on the end of this link is just as bad. I mean, it's a cliche but a picture really does tell a thousand words.
It probably means that Microsoft tried to re-write Explorer.exe in.NET and found they couldn't because the APIs were insufficient for the task. So they'll have improved them and the general speed of the thing, most likely.
The last time I had the displeasure of using Outlook Express on one of the departmental machines running WinXP, it told me I couldn't open a PDFs because they were potentially dangerous. I had to go to the options and untick a box to stop it hiding the files.
Also, there is NO reason why any piece of DHTML code, if coded properly to the W3C DOM recommendations, should not work in any modern browser. Also I was talking about the revamped version in Exchange 2003.
I would wager some money on the fact that this new WinFX is basically.NET with new APIs and some kind of code signing technology with enforced DRM to finally kill Project Mono. It was only a matter of time before they pulled this kind of thing.
After all, you didn't honestly think that they'd let that continue for much longer, did you? This way, when Longhorn debuts in 2006, and all the.NET apis have changed, and the.NET runtime no longer runs unsigned code, 4 years of work on Mono will be down the shithole.
They mean smart as in crippling attachment functionality so that it's impossible to open anything even if you know the source and it can't possibly be harmful, like a PDF?
They mean smart as in built-in anti-competitive DRM designed to squeeze others out of the marketplace and stopping me doing what I want to do with my e-mail?
They mean smart as in the Outlook Web Access Client which doesn't work probably in any browser other than MSIE and uses (as always) their non-standard DHTML object model?
They mean smart as in so wonderfully secure that Napster script kiddie Fanning can reverse the password encryption with his new contact updater software?
Yeah I can see that's real smart. Microsoft Smart (TM).
IANAL, but unless the patent office intend on showing their stupidity yet again, I doubt they'll be granted anything before about claim 20. It is totally normal for patent applications to make stupid claims early on and then get more specific, with the company or individual applying fully expecting not to get the earlier claims (and breaking out the champagne if they actually did).
Even if they got claim 1, it's not like they could enforce it against anyone, due to prior art. I'm pretty certain that Amazon weren't the first company to sell things over the Internet. Unless, of course, they "do a Unisys" and start going round attacking small online businesses who don't have a hope of defending themselves, while leaving the eBays of the world well alone because they obviously have the resources to strike the patent down in court.
Of course, I have to wonder why these companies continue to apply for such stupid patents. It is because the stupid patent laws mean that often they get patents on much more than they're entitled to, and they know it. This is not good for business in the long term, but since when have businesses thought about anything in the long term?
Yet another PHP-Nuke-alike that seems to be so obfuscated it's impossible to find anything...
However: looks like a fairly good distribution with a good set of tools for the space. But I find myself asking why the 450MB number? Too little for a compressed CD-ROM (like Knoppix), and I haven't seen a hard disk in a machine (even consumer devices) that's under 1GB in years.
It could be the ideal candidate for a 512MB CF card or Microdrive, but then again, it only runs on Intel x86, so ARM-based XScale, StrongARM, OMAP etc devices are out of the picture.
So my question is this: it looks pretty good and seems to have quite a bit of support, but what's it's niche? Older machines, like 386s?
Considering that a lot of British people don't speak Austrian German, I would suggest most people, hearing or deaf, would resort to the internationally understood language of giving them the finger.
Not true. Modern multisync monitors simply will not display vert/horiz frequencies that would damage them. The last monitors that could be burned out simply by setting the wrong refresh rate went out with the dinosaurs, and good riddance too!
So... if your extract is on page 1, you can see 1 & 2. So pick an unusual word on page 2, search for it. Then you get 3. Pick an unusual word on page 3, search for it, then you get page 4...
Agreed, I've just been playing with it myself, and it does in fact seem like a really good feature. I guess they've done their research, because they could have come up with an implementation far worse than this!
Slashdot Mirror
So, it seems the Big Bang is about the best model we have of universe formation at the current time. So by applying other physics principles we might be able to estimate what it sounded like. True, this is in a sense unprovable, so I agree that we can't really reach step 4, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Scientists (Personally, I'm just an amateur these days) have great difficulty getting people to understand this distinction. These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it, and any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.
This is what, the fourth time this has been posted? Mod it down please.
The reason you can't hear sound in space is because it's almost a vacuum. Back around the time of the Big Bang, matter was packed much closer together and density was far higher. Much higher, for example, than the density of the Earth's atmosphere. So yes, sound vibrations could propagate around in the early universe.
No it's not. It's the equivilent of someone taking a picture of a Pepsi machine inside Coke's shipping department and posting it to his personal weblog. Not really a good thing to do.
Participate? They wish!
I'm starting to get fed up with review sites that have so many adverts they don't bother to actually include a picture of the product they're talking about. CNET is a big offender, as is Anandtech, but the site on the end of this link is just as bad. I mean, it's a cliche but a picture really does tell a thousand words.
Methinks Slashdot needs a new acronym. YAIPOD, anyone?
It probably means that Microsoft tried to re-write Explorer.exe in .NET and found they couldn't because the APIs were insufficient for the task. So they'll have improved them and the general speed of the thing, most likely.
s/probably/properly. Check out the new Outlook Web Access client in Exchange 2003 and see how well it works in Firebird.
The last time I had the displeasure of using Outlook Express on one of the departmental machines running WinXP, it told me I couldn't open a PDFs because they were potentially dangerous. I had to go to the options and untick a box to stop it hiding the files.
Also, there is NO reason why any piece of DHTML code, if coded properly to the W3C DOM recommendations, should not work in any modern browser. Also I was talking about the revamped version in Exchange 2003.
Try Gnome Dashboard.
I would wager some money on the fact that this new WinFX is basically .NET with new APIs and some kind of code signing technology with enforced DRM to finally kill Project Mono. It was only a matter of time before they pulled this kind of thing.
.NET apis have changed, and the .NET runtime no longer runs unsigned code, 4 years of work on Mono will be down the shithole.
After all, you didn't honestly think that they'd let that continue for much longer, did you? This way, when Longhorn debuts in 2006, and all the
"As smart as Outlook"?
They mean smart as in crippling attachment functionality so that it's impossible to open anything even if you know the source and it can't possibly be harmful, like a PDF?
They mean smart as in built-in anti-competitive DRM designed to squeeze others out of the marketplace and stopping me doing what I want to do with my e-mail?
They mean smart as in the Outlook Web Access Client which doesn't work probably in any browser other than MSIE and uses (as always) their non-standard DHTML object model?
They mean smart as in so wonderfully secure that Napster script kiddie Fanning can reverse the password encryption with his new contact updater software?
Yeah I can see that's real smart. Microsoft Smart (TM).
Because it stifles innovation. In the long term, innovation is Always A Good Thing (TM), at least in my VHO.
IANAL, but unless the patent office intend on showing their stupidity yet again, I doubt they'll be granted anything before about claim 20. It is totally normal for patent applications to make stupid claims early on and then get more specific, with the company or individual applying fully expecting not to get the earlier claims (and breaking out the champagne if they actually did).
Even if they got claim 1, it's not like they could enforce it against anyone, due to prior art. I'm pretty certain that Amazon weren't the first company to sell things over the Internet. Unless, of course, they "do a Unisys" and start going round attacking small online businesses who don't have a hope of defending themselves, while leaving the eBays of the world well alone because they obviously have the resources to strike the patent down in court.
Of course, I have to wonder why these companies continue to apply for such stupid patents. It is because the stupid patent laws mean that often they get patents on much more than they're entitled to, and they know it. This is not good for business in the long term, but since when have businesses thought about anything in the long term?
Yet another PHP-Nuke-alike that seems to be so obfuscated it's impossible to find anything...
However: looks like a fairly good distribution with a good set of tools for the space. But I find myself asking why the 450MB number? Too little for a compressed CD-ROM (like Knoppix), and I haven't seen a hard disk in a machine (even consumer devices) that's under 1GB in years.
It could be the ideal candidate for a 512MB CF card or Microdrive, but then again, it only runs on Intel x86, so ARM-based XScale, StrongARM, OMAP etc devices are out of the picture.
So my question is this: it looks pretty good and seems to have quite a bit of support, but what's it's niche? Older machines, like 386s?
People on Slashdot speak English?
But seriously, you have a point. I wish fewer people in this country (England) would be so xenophobic towards other Europeans.
1. Build huge 360 degree video conferencing screens 2. ??? 3. Profit
Considering that a lot of British people don't speak Austrian German, I would suggest most people, hearing or deaf, would resort to the internationally understood language of giving them the finger.
Not true. Modern multisync monitors simply will not display vert/horiz frequencies that would damage them. The last monitors that could be burned out simply by setting the wrong refresh rate went out with the dinosaurs, and good riddance too!
So... if your extract is on page 1, you can see 1 & 2. So pick an unusual word on page 2, search for it. Then you get 3. Pick an unusual word on page 3, search for it, then you get page 4...
Get my drift?
Agreed, I've just been playing with it myself, and it does in fact seem like a really good feature. I guess they've done their research, because they could have come up with an implementation far worse than this!
How useful is this, considering that we can't see what's in the books before buying?
Sure, you can search for some random phrase. But who's to say it's not out of context, or there's nothing more that's relivent in the book?