Oh, but it's not searching based on the email address - it's based on the key ID. Which you can see, too, if you try --verify without having the key imported (gpg complains about unknown key with that ID).
Also, you can set it up to fetch keys automatically from a keyserver: specify a server and put
What's more, this 'oral agreement' argument seems to have been Darl's plan for the Novell suit as well - the idea being to put forward witnesses that were with Novell when they sold whatever they sold to SCO/Tarantella (he said something on the lines of "the current Novell management was not there when the contracts were drafted - I was") so that he can argue that the intent of the contract was to sell the IP rights, even though its letter does not show it.
Looks like this might prove a blow to the plan, since it sets a nice precedent for Novell (oral agreements are void if not reflected by the written contract).
Being evil always paid well in the short term. The trick seems to lay in recognizing the right moment for stepping back into the shadow. Luckily, that moment passed SCO by quite a while ago.
I think you overestimate the peace mongers of the past - vanity was as much a human trait then as it is now. Also, apathy and lack of desire to sacrifice for an unproven cause are as good reasons now as they were then. Actually, the WW2 situation was somehow clearer, as before Pearl Harbour both Europe and Asia were already deep into war and the US was sitting (geographically) in the middle.
The purpose of the law is to uphold morality and, if not uprightness, at least rightness.
I applaud your idealistic perspective, but I must disagree with you.
The purpose of law throughout the history was (and still is) to be an instrument use by those with power to preserve it. You can put pretty faces on it, but in the end that's its purpose. Even the idealistic view about law in a democracy (assuming it working as it should, not as it does in practical cases) is based on this - people's power, people's law. The majority's, to be more precise. And it's quite simple to justify it, actually - you must have power to enforce the law.
Morality is a less clear-cut issue, as too many ingredients got mixed in along the way. Anyway, morality is concerned with good and evil, but in a way 'enforced' through education and coming from traditions that need not be connected to the law. In fact, you can notice that a significant part of it has religious roots, as the Church was for a very long time the sole arbiter in matters of good and evil. As such, morality is a separate instrument of power from the law - witness the frequency of disagreements between the ruling power and the Church throughout history based on (the Church's) morality vs. (the ruler's) law issues (case to the point: the emergence of the Anglican church).
That being said, I tend to agree with the previous AC post saying it's better to vote for someone sharing your belief in law. They will tend to dream up laws that will fit better with your life patterns. This is the power they have. They don't have the power to alter morality - that requires a little more than just laws.
The litigation fees are spread out in time, They still have a nice chunk of revenue coming in the meantime. It's more like the net profit decreases, but not nearly enough to go negative.
you misunderstood me. Say I have 3 identical size windows stacked. If the top one is at 80%-click-through, then the others are at least at the same transparency level. So does only the top one pass clicks along? - then what it I need to reach the 3rd? otherwise, if all are click-through, how do I tell the system which of the windows in the z-buffer to activate when there are more than 2?
If anything, they should be applauded for looking after the own company, their employees and their very csutomers.
liiking after the company, sure. The employees, don't know about that, maybe. The customers??? the only way I can see this as looking after the customers is to screw them more. It's not like these fines suddenly removed their ability to 'innovate' (oh, whatever).
"gee, MS, I'm sooo sorry they found you overcharged me! here's some more money to cover what those bastards charged you!"
hmm... wouldn't whatever window is behind the unused one be even less used? so it would be even more transparent and keep on passing the input along the z-buffer? or was this for some sort of focus-follows-mouse?
umm... it looks like we misunderstood each other's intentions. So I guess it's my turn to apologize - I didn't mean to start a flame war. It's just that your nitpicking me lead me to believe you understood more about qm (which is rare on/.) and this post was too incorrect for that image. No offense, since qm can be quite confusing if you're not into it (and even if you are ^_^). And no, I didn't hunt you on purpose - 0 level is often enough interesting, as sometimes pertinent AC posts are too intelligent for/. mods or plain go unnoticed. I thought you were game for a fun argument, but I overshot myself, so again I apologize.
peace. And welcome to my freak list - if that's how you feel about it ^_^
problem is, the Linux-bike saddles are just different enough so that if your butt got molded after a Windows-bike one it's a pain in the ass to readjust.
you're so wrong it's hard to start debunking it all. Part of it is already in my other reply. So let me nitpick a little:
Let's say that a photon does travel through both slits at the same time.
and here I was thinking you actually understood something about particle-wave duality. I should laugh myself silly. The 'photon' is the name for the particle-like behavior of light. 'going through 2 slits at the same time' is what only waves do. so the proper phrasing would be 'the light wave travels through both slits at the same time'. Now... what is a photon and what is a light wave? That was the whole beginning-of-QM debacle. Finally, with the probabilistic interpretation, the (whatever it is we call) wave is regarded as a probability amplitude of finding the (whatever it is we call) particle. And that closed the topic (well, not immediately; but it's pretty closed now).
Now, if those electrons reach the slits at the same time, the will hit the target surface, right in between those two slits at the same time.
good Lord, man! I take it you meant photons, but the nonsense is still the same. Let's keep to electron diffraction, it's more fun. You wanted to say the 2 parts of the electron probably, as it was supposed to be only one. How hillarious. classical mechanics indeed. I wonder if that works with 2 whole electrons... oops! it does, sometimes. Does it mean I can combine 2 electrons into one super-electron? err... no. And what happens if the 2 parts don't reach at the same time? do we split electrons with diffraction and measure pieces of them? *pending answer* so, the moral here is... you're only confusing the poor readers who don't know what you're talking about.
Therefore, that point is brightest with twice the brightness of one photon hitting it.
no, it's 4x brighter for the middle point in the 2-slit experiment. It's called coherent interference. 2x is for incoherent superposition.
No offense, but for how the way you were flamming my post, I expected more of you.
That's just funny! You're trying to apply classical mechanics to a quantum world!
actually, no. But I'll give you that the first part was ill-phrased/incomplete. If you want the gory details of why that self-interference idea of the GP was off:
to get the 'trajectory' of the photon is ill-defined. You can however measure instantaneous position - unfortunately you lose the photon in the process. Hence, what you can do is place a detector immediately behind each slit and do one-photon emission + signal correlation between the 2 detectors. There's no correlation, either one detector blinks or the other. Do that with detectors on the interference screen and you'll see the interference pattern as a long-time average. All this was done, btw.
to put it differently: you have all the possible trajectories from the emission point to the measuring point, subject to the constraint that they go through one of the 2 slits; each trajectory has a probability given by exponentiating the corresponding quantum 'action'. you compute the corresponding path integral to get the resulting probability amplitude for reaching the point of the measurement. The most probable trajectories are the classical ones, guess why?
clear now? or do you want me next to spell out how the collapse of extended states works?
But, what measures the particles? The observer!
haha! no. First, you don't measure the particle. You measure something about the particle - position, for instance. The detector breaks translational symmetry. If you get a signal, the particle was in a suitable eigenstate of the position operator. If not, tough luck. There are lots of symmetry-breaking interactions in the Universe and not nearly enough observers for all of them.
again, clear? (oh well, nevermind, feel free to flame me anyway, this is getting to be fun:-)
is having all sorts of commercials follwing you around on the road.
I guess the better option would still be to have the messages sent by wifi to the car's computer and displayed on its screen, so you can read them easily. Reading stuff off the pavement while driving is not exactly convenient.
Interesting point though. It will probably happen, too (in one form or another), but not very soon.
... and tyre pressure and profile, as that will influence the size of the contact surface... and so on. Better we stop before the day is completely gone:-)
the distance between holes is inversely proportional to the distance between the interference fringes. The closer the holes, the further apart (and thus wider and easier to see) the interference maxima/minima. Also, the spacing for more than 2 hole should be as equal as possible to maximize interference effects.
for more info on this kind of interference google for 'diffraction grating' (some basic math and pictures here).
There is nothing new here. Just a redistribution of intensity to the interference maxima. Gee, if I make 100 holes, the 2-hole pattern disappears (only the central maximum remains), but I get a bunch of other dots further apart. What a big surprise!!! [*]
It's a freaking 1st year optics problem. If the book says there's some shadow interference here, the book is so wrong the author should be ashamed of being a physicist. Otherwise, the guy writing the article has unbelievably low reading abilities.
[*] for people not having taken/remembering optics from college, the interference (a.k.a. principal) maxima are suppressed by the diffraction envelope (which has its own maxima) of each slit. The more holes you add, the further apart the interference maxima move. Different numbers of slits have different interference patterns.
The longer answer is that anything that forces the system into a definite eigenstate is a measuremet.
Allow me to not fully agree. The things that force eigenstates are symmetries of the interactions. You make a measurement by letting the system interact with a different one with a known symmetry and see where that puts it.
The measurement thing is a hairy topic in QM, what with all those 'hidden variables' theories that came along for the ride the last century. A short version would be:
you have a system you don't know the state of (say, Schrodinger's cat in the box - you don't know whether it's still alive or not)
you 'look' at it, using some kind of interaction (in QM, that is representing mathematicallyby an operator)
the interaction can only have some predefined results (the eigenvalues of the operator) - so that 'places' the system in some state. This is the hairy part - you didn't know the state previously and have no way of knowing it before measuring (see Bell's inequality). The measurement tells you the state - but only at that particular time, not before.
this means that the 'collapse of the wavefunction' is actually the collapse of your imprecision in knowing the system's state - the system still evolves according to its own rules.
consequence: if you found out the system is in the 'right state' (eigenstate of the Hamiltonian) it's going to stay in that state (barring a phase change). Otherwise, the state will continue to evolve from the one you found out through measurement.
One big point here is that measurement implies interaction - and that affects the outcome of the measurement. If you noticed before, the measurement can only allow some certain results (with a continuous or discrete distribution, depending on what you measure). The net effect of that is that you observe the state resulting from the interaction of the apparatus with the system.
It shows that it it possible to get a particle (in this case a photon) to interfere with itself.
Wrong. If you do the one-photon measurement you see that it goes through only one slit (for interference, it would have to 'split' and go through several slits at once). This topic was cleared a loooong time ago.
The first interpretation, created by Einstein, Bohr and other dignitaries of the time, was the "Copenhagen Interpretation" which requires an "observer".
Wrong again. It's not about observers, it's about measurement - or the meaning of it, which is interaction.
I believe Feynman has a strange third interpretation involving particles travelling backwards in time, that cancel out the waves of forward travelling particles at specific points in space-time.
Yet again wrong - and it's not Feynmann, either. The 'backward-travelling' particles are actually the 'forward-travelling' antiparticles - the negative energy sets the sign straight in the time phase of the wave function. And it comes from preserving causality in QFT.
The big problem with all these 'shadow' photons is causality. 'Seeing' is only a particular interaction - if they interact with something in this world (photons) there should not be a restriction on the interaction. Moreover, phase interactions can be measured - and if there are 'shadow photons' there should be 'shadow [insert particle here]' too - and phase altering can be measured really nicely for charged particles. Nobody ever saw that.
On the other hand, basic interference of light explains all this rather clearly. What a pathetic joke of an article!
Actually, he shas a point. The G5 setup was only useful for short jobs due to the non-ECC memory - any longer ones would have had to be rerun to check the results for consistency. There goes your computing power when you have to do the same thing at least twice to make sure it's ok. So it's 3rd fastest for peak power, but sustained power including the redundancy was quite lower.
If you don't believe it, calculate the failure rate for the installed RAM they had - or look it up in one of their interviews, the guys actually understood it pretty well. Why do you think they switched to XServe? just to spend more money?
Check SpecFP benchmarks - Itanium2 smokes pretty much everything else. Reason? it was meant to be a fp monster from the beginning. Integer math is weak (Opterons kick Itanium on that pretty hard), but FP math, especially vector FP math is Itanium's selling point. Why do you think the vast majority of I2 sales were to scientific research groups? (check the target profile for SGI's I2 clusters - research and defense)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, but it's not searching based on the email address - it's based on the key ID. Which you can see, too, if you try --verify without having the key imported (gpg complains about unknown key with that ID).
Also, you can set it up to fetch keys automatically from a keyserver: specify a server and put
keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve
in gpg.conf.
What's more, this 'oral agreement' argument seems to have been Darl's plan for the Novell suit as well - the idea being to put forward witnesses that were with Novell when they sold whatever they sold to SCO/Tarantella (he said something on the lines of "the current Novell management was not there when the contracts were drafted - I was") so that he can argue that the intent of the contract was to sell the IP rights, even though its letter does not show it.
Looks like this might prove a blow to the plan, since it sets a nice precedent for Novell (oral agreements are void if not reflected by the written contract).
Being evil always paid well in the short term. The trick seems to lay in recognizing the right moment for stepping back into the shadow. Luckily, that moment passed SCO by quite a while ago.
I think you overestimate the peace mongers of the past - vanity was as much a human trait then as it is now. Also, apathy and lack of desire to sacrifice for an unproven cause are as good reasons now as they were then. Actually, the WW2 situation was somehow clearer, as before Pearl Harbour both Europe and Asia were already deep into war and the US was sitting (geographically) in the middle.
The purpose of the law is to uphold morality and, if not uprightness, at least rightness.
I applaud your idealistic perspective, but I must disagree with you.
The purpose of law throughout the history was (and still is) to be an instrument use by those with power to preserve it. You can put pretty faces on it, but in the end that's its purpose. Even the idealistic view about law in a democracy (assuming it working as it should, not as it does in practical cases) is based on this - people's power, people's law. The majority's, to be more precise. And it's quite simple to justify it, actually - you must have power to enforce the law.
Morality is a less clear-cut issue, as too many ingredients got mixed in along the way. Anyway, morality is concerned with good and evil, but in a way 'enforced' through education and coming from traditions that need not be connected to the law. In fact, you can notice that a significant part of it has religious roots, as the Church was for a very long time the sole arbiter in matters of good and evil. As such, morality is a separate instrument of power from the law - witness the frequency of disagreements between the ruling power and the Church throughout history based on (the Church's) morality vs. (the ruler's) law issues (case to the point: the emergence of the Anglican church).
That being said, I tend to agree with the previous AC post saying it's better to vote for someone sharing your belief in law. They will tend to dream up laws that will fit better with your life patterns. This is the power they have. They don't have the power to alter morality - that requires a little more than just laws.
The litigation fees are spread out in time, They still have a nice chunk of revenue coming in the meantime. It's more like the net profit decreases, but not nearly enough to go negative.
you misunderstood me. Say I have 3 identical size windows stacked. If the top one is at 80%-click-through, then the others are at least at the same transparency level. So does only the top one pass clicks along? - then what it I need to reach the 3rd? otherwise, if all are click-through, how do I tell the system which of the windows in the z-buffer to activate when there are more than 2?
If anything, they should be applauded for looking after the own company, their employees and their very csutomers.
liiking after the company, sure. The employees, don't know about that, maybe. The customers??? the only way I can see this as looking after the customers is to screw them more. It's not like these fines suddenly removed their ability to 'innovate' (oh, whatever).
"gee, MS, I'm sooo sorry they found you overcharged me! here's some more money to cover what those bastards charged you!"
hmm ... wouldn't whatever window is behind the unused one be even less used? so it would be even more transparent and keep on passing the input along the z-buffer? or was this for some sort of focus-follows-mouse?
umm ... it looks like we misunderstood each other's intentions. So I guess it's my turn to apologize - I didn't mean to start a flame war. It's just that your nitpicking me lead me to believe you understood more about qm (which is rare on /.) and this post was too incorrect for that image. No offense, since qm can be quite confusing if you're not into it (and even if you are ^_^). And no, I didn't hunt you on purpose - 0 level is often enough interesting, as sometimes pertinent AC posts are too intelligent for /. mods or plain go unnoticed. I thought you were game for a fun argument, but I overshot myself, so again I apologize.
peace. And welcome to my freak list - if that's how you feel about it ^_^
problem is, the Linux-bike saddles are just different enough so that if your butt got molded after a Windows-bike one it's a pain in the ass to readjust.
you're so wrong it's hard to start debunking it all. Part of it is already in my other reply. So let me nitpick a little:
... what is a photon and what is a light wave? That was the whole beginning-of-QM debacle. Finally, with the probabilistic interpretation, the (whatever it is we call) wave is regarded as a probability amplitude of finding the (whatever it is we call) particle. And that closed the topic (well, not immediately; but it's pretty closed now).
... oops! it does, sometimes. Does it mean I can combine 2 electrons into one super-electron? err... no. And what happens if the 2 parts don't reach at the same time? do we split electrons with diffraction and measure pieces of them? *pending answer* so, the moral here is ... you're only confusing the poor readers who don't know what you're talking about.
Let's say that a photon does travel through both slits at the same time.
and here I was thinking you actually understood something about particle-wave duality. I should laugh myself silly. The 'photon' is the name for the particle-like behavior of light. 'going through 2 slits at the same time' is what only waves do. so the proper phrasing would be 'the light wave travels through both slits at the same time'. Now
Now, if those electrons reach the slits at the same time, the will hit the target surface, right in between those two slits at the same time.
good Lord, man! I take it you meant photons, but the nonsense is still the same. Let's keep to electron diffraction, it's more fun. You wanted to say the 2 parts of the electron probably, as it was supposed to be only one. How hillarious. classical mechanics indeed. I wonder if that works with 2 whole electrons
Therefore, that point is brightest with twice the brightness of one photon hitting it.
no, it's 4x brighter for the middle point in the 2-slit experiment. It's called coherent interference. 2x is for incoherent superposition.
No offense, but for how the way you were flamming my post, I expected more of you.
That's just funny! You're trying to apply classical mechanics to a quantum world!
:-)
actually, no. But I'll give you that the first part was ill-phrased/incomplete. If you want the gory details of why that self-interference idea of the GP was off:
to get the 'trajectory' of the photon is ill-defined. You can however measure instantaneous position - unfortunately you lose the photon in the process. Hence, what you can do is place a detector immediately behind each slit and do one-photon emission + signal correlation between the 2 detectors. There's no correlation, either one detector blinks or the other. Do that with detectors on the interference screen and you'll see the interference pattern as a long-time average. All this was done, btw.
to put it differently: you have all the possible trajectories from the emission point to the measuring point, subject to the constraint that they go through one of the 2 slits; each trajectory has a probability given by exponentiating the corresponding quantum 'action'. you compute the corresponding path integral to get the resulting probability amplitude for reaching the point of the measurement. The most probable trajectories are the classical ones, guess why?
clear now? or do you want me next to spell out how the collapse of extended states works?
But, what measures the particles? The observer!
haha! no. First, you don't measure the particle. You measure something about the particle - position, for instance. The detector breaks translational symmetry. If you get a signal, the particle was in a suitable eigenstate of the position operator. If not, tough luck. There are lots of symmetry-breaking interactions in the Universe and not nearly enough observers for all of them.
again, clear? (oh well, nevermind, feel free to flame me anyway, this is getting to be fun
is having all sorts of commercials follwing you around on the road.
I guess the better option would still be to have the messages sent by wifi to the car's computer and displayed on its screen, so you can read them easily. Reading stuff off the pavement while driving is not exactly convenient.
Interesting point though. It will probably happen, too (in one form or another), but not very soon.
... and tyre pressure and profile, as that will influence the size of the contact surface ... and so on. Better we stop before the day is completely gone :-)
what's kph? klicks per hour? in SI it's km/h if that's what you were after [*] :-)
[*] as the american military slang (klick) is not really used outside US.
the distance between holes is inversely proportional to the distance between the interference fringes. The closer the holes, the further apart (and thus wider and easier to see) the interference maxima/minima. Also, the spacing for more than 2 hole should be as equal as possible to maximize interference effects.
for more info on this kind of interference google for 'diffraction grating' (some basic math and pictures here).
Thank you for detailing my point :-)
What if you have to divide by 5? or 8? How heavy is each patty then?
It's easy to pick the numbers you like. There are always numbers a given multiplier won't divide nicely to.
There is nothing new here. Just a redistribution of intensity to the interference maxima. Gee, if I make 100 holes, the 2-hole pattern disappears (only the central maximum remains), but I get a bunch of other dots further apart. What a big surprise!!! [*]
It's a freaking 1st year optics problem. If the book says there's some shadow interference here, the book is so wrong the author should be ashamed of being a physicist. Otherwise, the guy writing the article has unbelievably low reading abilities.
[*] for people not having taken/remembering optics from college, the interference (a.k.a. principal) maxima are suppressed by the diffraction envelope (which has its own maxima) of each slit. The more holes you add, the further apart the interference maxima move. Different numbers of slits have different interference patterns.
The longer answer is that anything that forces the system into a definite eigenstate is a measuremet.
Allow me to not fully agree. The things that force eigenstates are symmetries of the interactions. You make a measurement by letting the system interact with a different one with a known symmetry and see where that puts it.
One big point here is that measurement implies interaction - and that affects the outcome of the measurement. If you noticed before, the measurement can only allow some certain results (with a continuous or discrete distribution, depending on what you measure). The net effect of that is that you observe the state resulting from the interaction of the apparatus with the system.
It shows that it it possible to get a particle (in this case a photon) to interfere with itself.
Wrong. If you do the one-photon measurement you see that it goes through only one slit (for interference, it would have to 'split' and go through several slits at once). This topic was cleared a loooong time ago.
The first interpretation, created by Einstein, Bohr and other dignitaries of the time, was the "Copenhagen Interpretation" which requires an "observer".
Wrong again. It's not about observers, it's about measurement - or the meaning of it, which is interaction.
I believe Feynman has a strange third interpretation involving particles travelling backwards in time, that cancel out the waves of forward travelling particles at specific points in space-time.
Yet again wrong - and it's not Feynmann, either. The 'backward-travelling' particles are actually the 'forward-travelling' antiparticles - the negative energy sets the sign straight in the time phase of the wave function. And it comes from preserving causality in QFT.
The big problem with all these 'shadow' photons is causality. 'Seeing' is only a particular interaction - if they interact with something in this world (photons) there should not be a restriction on the interaction. Moreover, phase interactions can be measured - and if there are 'shadow photons' there should be 'shadow [insert particle here]' too - and phase altering can be measured really nicely for charged particles. Nobody ever saw that.
On the other hand, basic interference of light explains all this rather clearly. What a pathetic joke of an article!
Actually, he shas a point. The G5 setup was only useful for short jobs due to the non-ECC memory - any longer ones would have had to be rerun to check the results for consistency. There goes your computing power when you have to do the same thing at least twice to make sure it's ok. So it's 3rd fastest for peak power, but sustained power including the redundancy was quite lower.
If you don't believe it, calculate the failure rate for the installed RAM they had - or look it up in one of their interviews, the guys actually understood it pretty well. Why do you think they switched to XServe? just to spend more money?
Check SpecFP benchmarks - Itanium2 smokes pretty much everything else. Reason? it was meant to be a fp monster from the beginning. Integer math is weak (Opterons kick Itanium on that pretty hard), but FP math, especially vector FP math is Itanium's selling point. Why do you think the vast majority of I2 sales were to scientific research groups? (check the target profile for SGI's I2 clusters - research and defense)