Sure there is surveillance in the book, but it's hardly the most important theme, which most people around here seem to assume. The proles are hardly watched at all, for one. Much more important themes in the book are the control of language and history to control the people.
There wasn't even anything in your post to rebuke! You just parroted the "surveillance == 1984" meme, which has very little to do with the actual book and what it says.
Now, go to your nearest library, check out the book, and try actually reading it.
That's right, but I'm not talking about moving away from the star or measurments at a fixed distance. I'm talking about the fact that essentially, different observers measure different masses for the star, depending on their distance, at the same points in time.
There is no such thing as "same points in time" at galactic distances. This is apparent from basic relativity. Observers will measure different masses because they are measuring the mass of the star at different times of its life span.
I believe that the measured speed of rotation in galaxies supports a 1/r rule for gravity, and this I believe is what MOND theory is all about.
But even if your theory was correct, you wouldn't get a 1/r behavior, you would always merely get a 1/r^2 with a vanishingly small 1/r correction. It would never grow significant, because the correction is always only as big as the diffrence in mass of the star due to radiating away its energy, and this is fairly insignificant.
My point is, this 1/r effect affects nothing. You always measure the same value as you would if you assumed 1/r^2 only. Furhtermore, if you move towards a star, you will see its mass decreasing, this is true. However, if you move away from a star, you will ALSO see its mass decreasing, because you are always travelling slower than the light that is bringing the mass away from the star.
And of course there's the final point which I've ignored so far, which is that the total mass of the light emitted by the star is tiny. The 1/r component will never grow signficant, either, because the star is of limited age.
However, the light field might give some higher-order corrections to the value of the gravity if you take general relativity into consideration. I'm nowhere near good enough at that to do the maths, though, and the result will still be negligible.
Now, if a person on Earth or Mercury carefully (and quickly) measured the exact gravitaional pull on their planet, and observed the size and mass of the sun, what would their measurements say?
You may be an obsessive maths freak, but before you start making up physical theories, you should study some actual physics. Any first-year physics student could tell you why this insight is pretty much irrelevant.
(Hints to get you started: That light has to come from somewhere. Mass-energy is conserved. Alternatively: Orders of magnitude.)
So tell me: Did you even read the book? Or are you just another in the long line people aping "SURVEILLANCE == 1984!!!" without knowing anything about what the book actually says?
So basically, anyone who wants to use my code in a way not compliant with the GPL has to re-implement GNU Readline. So I am essentially still under the GPL, for everyone who doesn't have the resource to go around re-implementing the GPL'd parts on a whim.
This is not what I want. I want people to be able to use my program for anything they want. I don't want to force them to jump through hoops. I want them to use my code, if that's what they want. It would make me happy.
GPL v2 is already too forceful for me to want to use it. I don't want to force other people to use the same license as me, nor am I interested in forcing them to release their source code. Thus I release things into the public domain, and thus I also can't integrate GPL'd code.
Any moderately competent blogger will use correct spelling and grammar. Bad spelling isn't "casual", it makes you look like an idiot. In a text-only medium, the only thing people will judge you on is how you handle your text.
Fixing spelling and grammar is such a basic task for any moderately intelligent person, I don't see why you keep brining up the idea of hiring a separate person to do it. You already have a team of editors. Are you saying they are actually incapable of communicating in English?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure there is surveillance in the book, but it's hardly the most important theme, which most people around here seem to assume. The proles are hardly watched at all, for one. Much more important themes in the book are the control of language and history to control the people.
There wasn't even anything in your post to rebuke! You just parroted the "surveillance == 1984" meme, which has very little to do with the actual book and what it says.
Now, go to your nearest library, check out the book, and try actually reading it.
Too bad you never actually read the book, and are just parroting what Slashdotters think it's about.
Yes, it's called "pen, paper and sealed box".
It's massively inefficient, which is a good thing in elections. Efficiency only makes cheating easier.
You didn't even read 1984.
That's right, but I'm not talking about moving away from the star or measurments at a fixed distance. I'm talking about the fact that essentially, different observers measure different masses for the star, depending on their distance, at the same points in time.
There is no such thing as "same points in time" at galactic distances. This is apparent from basic relativity. Observers will measure different masses because they are measuring the mass of the star at different times of its life span.
I believe that the measured speed of rotation in galaxies supports a 1/r rule for gravity, and this I believe is what MOND theory is all about.
But even if your theory was correct, you wouldn't get a 1/r behavior, you would always merely get a 1/r^2 with a vanishingly small 1/r correction. It would never grow significant, because the correction is always only as big as the diffrence in mass of the star due to radiating away its energy, and this is fairly insignificant.
My point is, this 1/r effect affects nothing. You always measure the same value as you would if you assumed 1/r^2 only. Furhtermore, if you move towards a star, you will see its mass decreasing, this is true. However, if you move away from a star, you will ALSO see its mass decreasing, because you are always travelling slower than the light that is bringing the mass away from the star.
And of course there's the final point which I've ignored so far, which is that the total mass of the light emitted by the star is tiny. The 1/r component will never grow signficant, either, because the star is of limited age.
However, the light field might give some higher-order corrections to the value of the gravity if you take general relativity into consideration. I'm nowhere near good enough at that to do the maths, though, and the result will still be negligible.
Are you quite sure about that?
Remember, they are using the arriving light to make the measurement. They see the sun as it was at the time the photons started their journey.
Now rethink what happens.
We can, just as a thought experiment, assume that they can predict the mass of the sun from its size.
So, if you sit at some distance from the sun, and measure its mass by both its radius and its gravitational pull, what result will you get?
Now, if a person on Earth or Mercury carefully (and quickly) measured the exact gravitaional pull on their planet, and observed the size and mass of the sun, what would their measurements say?
Think further.
That light has to come from somewhere. Mass-energy is conserved.
You may be an obsessive maths freak, but before you start making up physical theories, you should study some actual physics. Any first-year physics student could tell you why this insight is pretty much irrelevant.
(Hints to get you started: That light has to come from somewhere. Mass-energy is conserved. Alternatively: Orders of magnitude.)
Alternatively: If your phone supports it, set it to RING ONLY ONCE.
If it doesn't support it, get one that does.
It's a fine line between metaphors that make sense.
So tell me: Did you even read the book? Or are you just another in the long line people aping "SURVEILLANCE == 1984!!!" without knowing anything about what the book actually says?
Careful so you don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back for how intelligent and much better than the plebes you are.
So basically, anyone who wants to use my code in a way not compliant with the GPL has to re-implement GNU Readline. So I am essentially still under the GPL, for everyone who doesn't have the resource to go around re-implementing the GPL'd parts on a whim.
This is not what I want. I want people to be able to use my program for anything they want. I don't want to force them to jump through hoops. I want them to use my code, if that's what they want. It would make me happy.
"Hentai" is also pretty much a made-up western term, just so you know.
And how many of those support cross-platform extensions?
GPL v2 is already too forceful for me to want to use it. I don't want to force other people to use the same license as me, nor am I interested in forcing them to release their source code. Thus I release things into the public domain, and thus I also can't integrate GPL'd code.
That's all right, you don't have to ride it if you don't want to.
If the editors checked it, Slashdot wouldn't look 'Real'.
But spelling and grammar mistakes is what makes Slashdot look "Real"!
The real joke here is that it's a file download client with a splash screen.
Any moderately competent blogger will use correct spelling and grammar. Bad spelling isn't "casual", it makes you look like an idiot. In a text-only medium, the only thing people will judge you on is how you handle your text.
Fixing spelling and grammar is such a basic task for any moderately intelligent person, I don't see why you keep brining up the idea of hiring a separate person to do it. You already have a team of editors. Are you saying they are actually incapable of communicating in English?