The links go to Matthias Benkmann's site, and to his simpleinit-msb program, a part of his new boot concept. I used it on the LFS system I built a couple of years ago, and while that system is now dead and gone, it was so much easier to administrate than anything else I've ever seen. And besides, it was the most ridiculously elegant thing I've ever seen.
Point taken. Your original post sounds enough like what someone who thinks that science is inherently better than anything else simply because it is science would say that I misread that into what you actually said. My apologies.
One minor nit-picky point: The "particle" does not "hold many states simultaneously." It is in one state. period. That state is some linear combination (weighted sum) of various quantum eigenstates, but it is only in one state at any time.
When you say "it becomes fixed," you are referring to the collapse of the wavefunction when it is observed. What it collapses to is one of these quantum eigenstates.
You've got a rather basic understanding of the gist of it, but there are some details which you had wrong.
That article talks about non-local hidden variable theories, which sure, they work, but discarding locality is a very very serious thing... For the majority of physicists, any theory which works just fine but is non-local is very quickly disregarded simply because it is non-local. This is partly due to the fact that relativity is a local theory, in fact, relativity takes locality as one of its basic assumptions, and any theory which is non-local cannot agree with relativity. Relativity has been very widely successful in predicting phenomena, and it is not an easy thing to throw it away or replace it somehow.
Heisenberg's principle applies to any two quantities, not just *position* (not direction) and velocity (which is both speed and direction). For any two quantities which you could conceivably observe about a system, if you prepare an infinite number of identical systems (all in the same quantum state), and then measure both quantities on each one, then do some statistics (multiply the standard deviation of one quantity by the standard deviation of the other quantity) then you get a number. For any system which you do this to, you will get a number. For no system which you do this to will this number be less than a certain limit. This limit depends on the quantities in question. In fact, sometimes, it is zero, and we can simultaneously measure both quantities exactly.
Mostly, QM derives from the Schroedinger equation. It is possible to determine what the standard deviation of a measurable quantity will be for a given system just from a particular (there are always many solutions) solution to the Schroedinger equation for that system. Thus, Heisenberg's principle derives from Schroedinger's equation (mostly).
So given a system in a certain state: the system has a well-defined state. The system (in that state) does not have well-defined values for *most* measurable quantities (position, velocity, etc.). If you prepare many many copies of the system (all in that state), and measure some quantity on all of them, you will always get the same standard deviation for the measured values of this quantity. If you take the same system but in another state, and do this copy-measure-statistics thing, you will get different values of the standard deviation for a certain quantity.
So, yes... in some sense the state does have all of these measurable qualities, but they are not precisely defined. But we know, given the state, just how poorly defined they are.
For an analogy (but be careful not to take the analogy farther than it should go...) quantum mechanics is all about waves. A "particle" is really just a group of waves (called a wave packet). Some waves move quickly (they die out when they reach the front of the packet, and begin again at the back of the packet for a rough explanation) and some move slowly (reverse previous rough explanation). So, a wave packet consists of many waves superimposed, and all these waves have many different properties. When you measure a certain quantity, say velocity, the packet will actually collapse to a certain combination of these waves, for which that quantity is well-defined. If you measure velocity, then it will collapse to just one wave. That wave, since its only one wave, moves at only one speed. So velocity is well defined. But, it has many many peaks and troughs, so position is not well defined at all. If you measure position, it will collapse to a combination of waves that produces a very very sharp spike (called a delta function), so that position is well defined. However, since this is now composed of tons of different waves, which move at different speeds, velocity is not well defined.
Its not just that we can't determine these quantities. Since the "particle" really is made up of all these waves together, you can't measure (say velocity) and then say "aha! thats what it was all along, we just couldn't tell!" It really didn't have an exact velocity before you measured it. And by measuring it, you have made the position much more poorly defined. Or vice versa. Does that help?
How about the scientific method itself? Is it non-falsifiable?
Every plausibility structure (the most popular one in our culture being the "scientific") rests on first axioms (also known as assumptions). If you choose different first axioms, you can get any system you want (so long as its self-consistent), which can be proven "unfalsifiably" from those axioms. There is nothing which distinguishes the first axioms which lead to the scientific method from any other first axioms, other than lots of people today deciding that they are right.
Whiner: "Well but science agrees with what we can observe and measure better than anything else"
All that says is that you have chosen first axioms which mean that agreement with what we can observe and measure is important. I know, its hard to really imagine choosing other first axioms, but you really can build up a self-consistent system from first axioms which are completely foreign to "what seems right." And "what seems right" generally means "what I grew up with," and thus there is no a priori reason to choose it.
Yes, but it doesn't somehow pass on its characteristics to its descendants. That is the essence of natural selection and darwinism. That is the feature that distinguishes life from fire.
In fact, there are things called microspheres, which resemble cells with no DNA. Some microspheres are more stable than others and tend to last a lot longer. So in a system where lots of microspheres are being created and then eventually dying, there tend to be more of the stable ones. However, since they have no mechanism to pass on their stability to their descendants, it is not called life, and it is not called natural selection or darwinism or anything like that.
Similar to natural selection.... sort of. But not really.
The math is simple and elegant. Most of what you apparently think of as "cutting edge physics" is actually physicists' (who understand the math) attempt to explain the math to the average joe on the street (who doesn't understand the math). This has widely varying degrees of success. Typically, the degree of success when trying to explain QM is very very low.
This Quantum Darwinism is a little of both. Mostly, it is an attempt to conceptualize Quantum Mechanics, but there is a grain of a sort of new idea in there too. In the paper by Zuvek that TFA references, basically, he is explaining (in mostly conceptual terms) why the quantum world reduces to the classical world at a macroscopic limit. This has been debated ever since the beginning of QM. (google "Bohr Einstein debates") However, most of the debates have centered on isolated or more accurately, closed, systems, which do not actually resemble very closely the classical or "real" world, because there is no evnironment the system interacts with. In that case, any outside influence (a single, well-defined interaction with the environment) causes the wavefunction to "collapse" and briefly the (closed) system is in a state where it has a well-defined value for whatever quantity was "measured" by the interaction. However, in an open system which interacts with its environment frequently, there are a few states (or sometimes even just one state) which it will collapse to over and over again. Thus, an open system which interacts (or is "measured") frequently will tend to resemble a classical system much more than a closed system will.
The "new" idea here is simply Zuvek pointing out that the macroscopic world does not really look much like the closed systems that Einstein and Bohr debated about, and if you start looking at open systems, the debate kinda dries up. The rest is just conceptualization. Does that help?
BTW- IANA physicist... yet. I am in my third year of undergrad study for a physics degree, and working for CDF at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. I just finished a class titled Intro to Quantum Mechanics I. So I have a pretty decent idea of what I'm talking about, but there are some other people out there who have a much better idea.
Seriously people. If you haven't taken a Quantum Mechanics class of some sort (or had some other real, solid exposure to the mathematics behind it) then don't even attempt to talk about it. Basically, 100% of all attempts I have ever seen to explain QM "conceptually" are complete and utter $hite, and have virtually no relationship to what the math really says. As far as I can tell, there is no good way to conceptually describe quantum mechanics. There are no good analogies. There are gillions of mediocre analogies, but if you really try to understand QM by means of these analogies, you're screwed. Because the analogies work for a small part of QM, and then break down if you try to get at all outside their range. So don't try to extrapolate anything from a conceptual discussion of QM. Don't try to take anything from it other than face value, because you will get it wrong. And in many cases, (such as this one) you will not even get it right from face value.
Case in point: TFA talks a lot about observations. But they also talk about people looking at trees and buildings. You looking at something really doesn't constitute an observation (Quantum mechanically). The photon interacting with the tree (building, etc) is the observation. The photon entering you eye, interacting with your cornea, your lense, and finally your retina is another "observation." But you looking at a tree does not change the tree.
Go read the actual papers referenced by the article, these will actually contain science, and not some journalist's misunderstanding of it.
BTW- IANA physicist... yet. I am halfway through my third year of undergrad physics work. One of the classes I just finished was Intro to Quantum Mechanics I. Just to establish my credentials. If anyone who is a physicist with more education in the subject disagrees with what I have said, I would be glad to talk to him. But if you haven't had any QM class.... shut up. Please. Trust me, unless you have had exposure to infinite dimensional linear algebra and partial differential equations, you do not know what you are talking about.
How odd. Are you a physicist? Are you a mathematician? IANA physicist... Yet. I am in my third year of undergrad work for a degree in physics, and currently I work for the Collider Detector at Fermilab experimental collaboration. And yet, I have never heard of anyone refer to an order of magnitude as anything other than a factor of 10.
For the mathematics side, check out wolfram's mathworld site. In the parentheses, in the line of text after the first expression, we see that the exponent used in scientific notation (which has a base of 10) is called the "order of magnitude."
Yeah, liked the photos, especially because, in the third photo, the guy's boots are exactly like the shoes I wear every day. (only in a lot better condition)
BTW - The brand is Merrel.
You're missing the point. There is a qualitative difference in the effect of Ritalin on people with ADD and people without ADD.
crash and burn? I haven't yet. I've been on ADD medication for 11 years now. Ritalin for 9, Strattera for 2. I think if I were going to burn and crash hard, I would have done so by now. Those who actually have ADD and have the drug correctly prescribed to them, and then use it responsibly (ie as prescribed) find that they are able to function for the first time in their life as a normal human being, and also that they do not "burn and crash hard".
Ritalin may make kids without ADD or ADHD high... But trust me. I was on Ritalin for 9 years. It never once made me high. Quite the opposite in fact. People who actually have ADD find that Ritalin, instead of making them high, actually slows them down, enabling them to concentrate and actually get something done for once in their life.
In fact, Ritalin is sometimes used as a diagnostic for ADD. You give it to someone, and then, if it makes them stoned, they don't have ADD, if it does not make them stoned, then they probably do.
That said, it does still keep some stimulant side effects even for people with ADD. When I took it, it kept me awake, so that I had to do my homework in the afternoon instead of the evening, because if I took a dose late enough to do it in the evening, I wouldn't sleep most of the night.
I am well aware that Ritalin does help everyone concentrate, but if it makes you high DON'T take it. Please. It is a mind-altering drug, very very similar in fact to speed, and it can be dangerous. It is addictive, and once somebody is addicted, they tend to go to great lengths and great expenses to get it. We used to get my Ritalin through a mail-order pharmacy that my pediatrician recommended, and about 1/3 of the time, the prescription would get stolen somewhere in transit.
Now, today, I wouldn't in fact recommend Ritalin for anybody... Because there is a new, non-stimulant alternative drug out called Strattera. Some people don't like it, because "It doesn't give me the rush and energy that Ritalin does." Well, if thats the case... go talk to your doctor. You almost certainly don't have ADD, and shouldn't be taking Ritalin in the first place (See above). Strattera works for 24 hours, so theres no sudden coming off the dose midday, and since it's not a stimulant, it doesn't keep you up at night, and it doesn't kill your appetite nearly as much as Ritalin or Concerta (really slow release Ritalin variant). So, on the whole, I think it is a much better drug.
ADD has been so overdiagnosed in the last decade or so (oh, your kid is having problems in school? ADD. Watches too much TV? ADD. You (the parents) are schmucks who have no idea how to raise a kid? The kid has ADD. get the picture?), that Ritalin has kind of become crack for kids. So many kids are on it who shouldn't be, and consequently go through a large part of their childhood stoned a mile high. But properly used, Ritalin is definitely not crack for kids, and for the sake of those who do have ADD... resist the stereotype. It may be true in a large number of cases, but correct those cases rather than condemning Ritalin (and those who use it) in general.
I used gEDA (mostly gschem at that point) back in my sophomore year in high school, (what 4 years ago I guess) and I thought it worked well, very very well considering that it was in alpha at that point I believe. I was designing a fairly simple board to produce some basic square wave output to a speaker for a creative problem solving organization called Destination ImagiNation.
Of course, I wasn't designing a PC board to be etched, but just drawing the schematic up real nice. And it was by no means a professional project. But for my (extreme low-end) (we had a cost limit of about 100$ for the whole deal, of which my sound board was a very small part) use, it worked excellently, and there have been four years of development since!
Your sig. honestly. Did you even read the article you linked to? Yes, the author is correct that there do exist viruses which attack Linux and MacOS. There do exist exploits available and security holes in Eudora, Evolution, Firefox, you name it, its got a hole. I sincerely doubt that there is any large piece of useful software which is completely free of security holes. However, there are reasons why Linux (Evolution, Firefox, pick your alternative software) is more secure. One (Just one) of these reasons is that these alternatives are less common. Thus, people seeking to do the most damage tend to avoid them. However, other reasons exist. Among them are a great many fundamental design issues with Windows and IE (ActiveX being one of the most well known), the fact that Microsoft frequently fails to patch known holes for months, and of course the fact that the coders who write most of this alternative software are aware that one reason many people do use the alternatives is that they are more secure, thus the coders place a special emphasis on writing secure code and maintaining it responsibly. And of course there is also the fact that the majority of Linux users are geeks who know how to make a box secure... as opposed to your average Joe-M$-biatch who doesn't know a firewall from a flamewar. Not that that has anything to do with the inherent security of the system, but it helps for the same reason as the relative rarity of the system type. Exploiters know that a linux virus will do a lot less damage than a windows virus.
contrary to the naive opinions often expressed here that legitimate artists just want to give it all away and don't care about making a living.
Eh? Artists make a living off of sales through record companies? what dreamworld are you living in? Record company executives make a living off of record sales... Artists don't. Artists make a pittance off of record sales. Occasionally, people are chosen by the record company to be made big (note, not have the talent to make it big, but are chosen to be made...) And those people probably make a decent amount of money off of record sales, but for the most part, your stereotypical "starving artist" makes money off of merchandise sales on tour. period. and not much else. So, if you want to keep the music industry alive, download all the free music you want, but go to concerts and buy t-shirts. Not CDs. T-shirts.
Slashdot Mirror
What about generic names for product functions that come after the product name? like Xerox.
nonono, its News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
The boot scripts. Neither BSD nor SysV init both works well and is easy to work with/edit/add to.
I NIT_SETUPS_SUCK for why, and http://www.winterdrache.de/linux/newboot/index.htm l for an alternative.
See http://www.winterdrache.de/linux/newboot/WHY_SYSV
The links go to Matthias Benkmann's site, and to his simpleinit-msb program, a part of his new boot concept. I used it on the LFS system I built a couple of years ago, and while that system is now dead and gone, it was so much easier to administrate than anything else I've ever seen. And besides, it was the most ridiculously elegant thing I've ever seen.
Point taken. Your original post sounds enough like what someone who thinks that science is inherently better than anything else simply because it is science would say that I misread that into what you actually said. My apologies.
One minor nit-picky point: The "particle" does not "hold many states simultaneously." It is in one state. period. That state is some linear combination (weighted sum) of various quantum eigenstates, but it is only in one state at any time.
When you say "it becomes fixed," you are referring to the collapse of the wavefunction when it is observed. What it collapses to is one of these quantum eigenstates.
You've got a rather basic understanding of the gist of it, but there are some details which you had wrong.
That article talks about non-local hidden variable theories, which sure, they work, but discarding locality is a very very serious thing... For the majority of physicists, any theory which works just fine but is non-local is very quickly disregarded simply because it is non-local. This is partly due to the fact that relativity is a local theory, in fact, relativity takes locality as one of its basic assumptions, and any theory which is non-local cannot agree with relativity. Relativity has been very widely successful in predicting phenomena, and it is not an easy thing to throw it away or replace it somehow.
Heisenberg's principle applies to any two quantities, not just *position* (not direction) and velocity (which is both speed and direction). For any two quantities which you could conceivably observe about a system, if you prepare an infinite number of identical systems (all in the same quantum state), and then measure both quantities on each one, then do some statistics (multiply the standard deviation of one quantity by the standard deviation of the other quantity) then you get a number. For any system which you do this to, you will get a number. For no system which you do this to will this number be less than a certain limit. This limit depends on the quantities in question. In fact, sometimes, it is zero, and we can simultaneously measure both quantities exactly.
Mostly, QM derives from the Schroedinger equation. It is possible to determine what the standard deviation of a measurable quantity will be for a given system just from a particular (there are always many solutions) solution to the Schroedinger equation for that system. Thus, Heisenberg's principle derives from Schroedinger's equation (mostly).
So given a system in a certain state: the system has a well-defined state. The system (in that state) does not have well-defined values for *most* measurable quantities (position, velocity, etc.). If you prepare many many copies of the system (all in that state), and measure some quantity on all of them, you will always get the same standard deviation for the measured values of this quantity. If you take the same system but in another state, and do this copy-measure-statistics thing, you will get different values of the standard deviation for a certain quantity.
So, yes... in some sense the state does have all of these measurable qualities, but they are not precisely defined. But we know, given the state, just how poorly defined they are.
For an analogy (but be careful not to take the analogy farther than it should go...) quantum mechanics is all about waves. A "particle" is really just a group of waves (called a wave packet). Some waves move quickly (they die out when they reach the front of the packet, and begin again at the back of the packet for a rough explanation) and some move slowly (reverse previous rough explanation). So, a wave packet consists of many waves superimposed, and all these waves have many different properties. When you measure a certain quantity, say velocity, the packet will actually collapse to a certain combination of these waves, for which that quantity is well-defined. If you measure velocity, then it will collapse to just one wave. That wave, since its only one wave, moves at only one speed. So velocity is well defined. But, it has many many peaks and troughs, so position is not well defined at all. If you measure position, it will collapse to a combination of waves that produces a very very sharp spike (called a delta function), so that position is well defined. However, since this is now composed of tons of different waves, which move at different speeds, velocity is not well defined.
Its not just that we can't determine these quantities. Since the "particle" really is made up of all these waves together, you can't measure (say velocity) and then say "aha! thats what it was all along, we just couldn't tell!" It really didn't have an exact velocity before you measured it. And by measuring it, you have made the position much more poorly defined. Or vice versa. Does that help?
How about the scientific method itself? Is it non-falsifiable?
Every plausibility structure (the most popular one in our culture being the "scientific") rests on first axioms (also known as assumptions). If you choose different first axioms, you can get any system you want (so long as its self-consistent), which can be proven "unfalsifiably" from those axioms. There is nothing which distinguishes the first axioms which lead to the scientific method from any other first axioms, other than lots of people today deciding that they are right.
Whiner: "Well but science agrees with what we can observe and measure better than anything else"
All that says is that you have chosen first axioms which mean that agreement with what we can observe and measure is important. I know, its hard to really imagine choosing other first axioms, but you really can build up a self-consistent system from first axioms which are completely foreign to "what seems right." And "what seems right" generally means "what I grew up with," and thus there is no a priori reason to choose it.
Yes, but it doesn't somehow pass on its characteristics to its descendants. That is the essence of natural selection and darwinism. That is the feature that distinguishes life from fire.
In fact, there are things called microspheres, which resemble cells with no DNA. Some microspheres are more stable than others and tend to last a lot longer. So in a system where lots of microspheres are being created and then eventually dying, there tend to be more of the stable ones. However, since they have no mechanism to pass on their stability to their descendants, it is not called life, and it is not called natural selection or darwinism or anything like that.
Similar to natural selection.... sort of. But not really.
The math is simple and elegant. Most of what you apparently think of as "cutting edge physics" is actually physicists' (who understand the math) attempt to explain the math to the average joe on the street (who doesn't understand the math). This has widely varying degrees of success. Typically, the degree of success when trying to explain QM is very very low.
This Quantum Darwinism is a little of both. Mostly, it is an attempt to conceptualize Quantum Mechanics, but there is a grain of a sort of new idea in there too. In the paper by Zuvek that TFA references, basically, he is explaining (in mostly conceptual terms) why the quantum world reduces to the classical world at a macroscopic limit. This has been debated ever since the beginning of QM. (google "Bohr Einstein debates") However, most of the debates have centered on isolated or more accurately, closed, systems, which do not actually resemble very closely the classical or "real" world, because there is no evnironment the system interacts with. In that case, any outside influence (a single, well-defined interaction with the environment) causes the wavefunction to "collapse" and briefly the (closed) system is in a state where it has a well-defined value for whatever quantity was "measured" by the interaction. However, in an open system which interacts with its environment frequently, there are a few states (or sometimes even just one state) which it will collapse to over and over again. Thus, an open system which interacts (or is "measured") frequently will tend to resemble a classical system much more than a closed system will.
The "new" idea here is simply Zuvek pointing out that the macroscopic world does not really look much like the closed systems that Einstein and Bohr debated about, and if you start looking at open systems, the debate kinda dries up. The rest is just conceptualization. Does that help?
BTW- IANA physicist... yet. I am in my third year of undergrad study for a physics degree, and working for CDF at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. I just finished a class titled Intro to Quantum Mechanics I. So I have a pretty decent idea of what I'm talking about, but there are some other people out there who have a much better idea.
Seriously people. If you haven't taken a Quantum Mechanics class of some sort (or had some other real, solid exposure to the mathematics behind it) then don't even attempt to talk about it. Basically, 100% of all attempts I have ever seen to explain QM "conceptually" are complete and utter $hite, and have virtually no relationship to what the math really says. As far as I can tell, there is no good way to conceptually describe quantum mechanics. There are no good analogies. There are gillions of mediocre analogies, but if you really try to understand QM by means of these analogies, you're screwed. Because the analogies work for a small part of QM, and then break down if you try to get at all outside their range. So don't try to extrapolate anything from a conceptual discussion of QM. Don't try to take anything from it other than face value, because you will get it wrong. And in many cases, (such as this one) you will not even get it right from face value.
Case in point: TFA talks a lot about observations. But they also talk about people looking at trees and buildings. You looking at something really doesn't constitute an observation (Quantum mechanically). The photon interacting with the tree (building, etc) is the observation. The photon entering you eye, interacting with your cornea, your lense, and finally your retina is another "observation." But you looking at a tree does not change the tree.
Go read the actual papers referenced by the article, these will actually contain science, and not some journalist's misunderstanding of it.
BTW- IANA physicist... yet. I am halfway through my third year of undergrad physics work. One of the classes I just finished was Intro to Quantum Mechanics I. Just to establish my credentials. If anyone who is a physicist with more education in the subject disagrees with what I have said, I would be glad to talk to him. But if you haven't had any QM class.... shut up. Please. Trust me, unless you have had exposure to infinite dimensional linear algebra and partial differential equations, you do not know what you are talking about.
786. See http://users.erols.com/chare/586.htm and http://users.erols.com/chare/786.htm for more info.
In physics and mathematics, I assure you it is e.
How odd. Are you a physicist? Are you a mathematician? IANA physicist... Yet. I am in my third year of undergrad work for a degree in physics, and currently I work for the Collider Detector at Fermilab experimental collaboration. And yet, I have never heard of anyone refer to an order of magnitude as anything other than a factor of 10.
For the mathematics side, check out wolfram's mathworld site. In the parentheses, in the line of text after the first expression, we see that the exponent used in scientific notation (which has a base of 10) is called the "order of magnitude."
Yeah, liked the photos, especially because, in the third photo, the guy's boots are exactly like the shoes I wear every day. (only in a lot better condition)
BTW - The brand is Merrel.
I wouldn't if I held a monopoly.
After all, people keep buying windows.
Or how about aalib?
You *can't* totally uninstall IE. Period. The OS will cease to function without IE.
Oh what am I saying!? That assumes windoze functions in the first place!
You're missing the point. There is a qualitative difference in the effect of Ritalin on people with ADD and people without ADD.
crash and burn? I haven't yet. I've been on ADD medication for 11 years now. Ritalin for 9, Strattera for 2. I think if I were going to burn and crash hard, I would have done so by now. Those who actually have ADD and have the drug correctly prescribed to them, and then use it responsibly (ie as prescribed) find that they are able to function for the first time in their life as a normal human being, and also that they do not "burn and crash hard".
Ritalin may make kids without ADD or ADHD high... But trust me. I was on Ritalin for 9 years. It never once made me high. Quite the opposite in fact. People who actually have ADD find that Ritalin, instead of making them high, actually slows them down, enabling them to concentrate and actually get something done for once in their life.
In fact, Ritalin is sometimes used as a diagnostic for ADD. You give it to someone, and then, if it makes them stoned, they don't have ADD, if it does not make them stoned, then they probably do.
That said, it does still keep some stimulant side effects even for people with ADD. When I took it, it kept me awake, so that I had to do my homework in the afternoon instead of the evening, because if I took a dose late enough to do it in the evening, I wouldn't sleep most of the night.
I am well aware that Ritalin does help everyone concentrate, but if it makes you high DON'T take it. Please. It is a mind-altering drug, very very similar in fact to speed, and it can be dangerous. It is addictive, and once somebody is addicted, they tend to go to great lengths and great expenses to get it. We used to get my Ritalin through a mail-order pharmacy that my pediatrician recommended, and about 1/3 of the time, the prescription would get stolen somewhere in transit.
Now, today, I wouldn't in fact recommend Ritalin for anybody... Because there is a new, non-stimulant alternative drug out called Strattera. Some people don't like it, because "It doesn't give me the rush and energy that Ritalin does." Well, if thats the case... go talk to your doctor. You almost certainly don't have ADD, and shouldn't be taking Ritalin in the first place (See above). Strattera works for 24 hours, so theres no sudden coming off the dose midday, and since it's not a stimulant, it doesn't keep you up at night, and it doesn't kill your appetite nearly as much as Ritalin or Concerta (really slow release Ritalin variant). So, on the whole, I think it is a much better drug.
ADD has been so overdiagnosed in the last decade or so (oh, your kid is having problems in school? ADD. Watches too much TV? ADD. You (the parents) are schmucks who have no idea how to raise a kid? The kid has ADD. get the picture?), that Ritalin has kind of become crack for kids. So many kids are on it who shouldn't be, and consequently go through a large part of their childhood stoned a mile high. But properly used, Ritalin is definitely not crack for kids, and for the sake of those who do have ADD... resist the stereotype. It may be true in a large number of cases, but correct those cases rather than condemning Ritalin (and those who use it) in general.
Rant.end();
First dark matter...
Then came dark energy...
Now, the third and final installment...DUNH DUNH DUNH...
DARK FIBER!!!
I used gEDA (mostly gschem at that point) back in my sophomore year in high school, (what 4 years ago I guess) and I thought it worked well, very very well considering that it was in alpha at that point I believe. I was designing a fairly simple board to produce some basic square wave output to a speaker for a creative problem solving organization called Destination ImagiNation.
Of course, I wasn't designing a PC board to be etched, but just drawing the schematic up real nice. And it was by no means a professional project. But for my (extreme low-end) (we had a cost limit of about 100$ for the whole deal, of which my sound board was a very small part) use, it worked excellently, and there have been four years of development since!
Way to go!
Your sig. honestly. Did you even read the article you linked to? Yes, the author is correct that there do exist viruses which attack Linux and MacOS. There do exist exploits available and security holes in Eudora, Evolution, Firefox, you name it, its got a hole. I sincerely doubt that there is any large piece of useful software which is completely free of security holes. However, there are reasons why Linux (Evolution, Firefox, pick your alternative software) is more secure. One (Just one) of these reasons is that these alternatives are less common. Thus, people seeking to do the most damage tend to avoid them. However, other reasons exist. Among them are a great many fundamental design issues with Windows and IE (ActiveX being one of the most well known), the fact that Microsoft frequently fails to patch known holes for months, and of course the fact that the coders who write most of this alternative software are aware that one reason many people do use the alternatives is that they are more secure, thus the coders place a special emphasis on writing secure code and maintaining it responsibly. And of course there is also the fact that the majority of Linux users are geeks who know how to make a box secure... as opposed to your average Joe-M$-biatch who doesn't know a firewall from a flamewar. Not that that has anything to do with the inherent security of the system, but it helps for the same reason as the relative rarity of the system type. Exploiters know that a linux virus will do a lot less damage than a windows virus.
befroe? is that when you shave Jimi Hendrix's head?
contrary to the naive opinions often expressed here that legitimate artists just want to give it all away and don't care about making a living.
Eh? Artists make a living off of sales through record companies? what dreamworld are you living in? Record company executives make a living off of record sales... Artists don't. Artists make a pittance off of record sales. Occasionally, people are chosen by the record company to be made big (note, not have the talent to make it big, but are chosen to be made...) And those people probably make a decent amount of money off of record sales, but for the most part, your stereotypical "starving artist" makes money off of merchandise sales on tour. period. and not much else. So, if you want to keep the music industry alive, download all the free music you want, but go to concerts and buy t-shirts. Not CDs. T-shirts.
(better not mention them by name though)
What? Should we use their Slashdot Usernames?