Another possibility is that some of this stuff may have been stuff he was happy with, but which wouldn't sell well. For instance, in the foreword to Lord of the Rings, Tolkien talks about how he wanted to write about the backstory of the world and all that, but he couldn't dwell too much on that stuff for Lord of the Rings 'cause the audience wasn't into it.
Now the audience (or an audience) is into it. Tolkien fans want to read stuff Tolkien wrote. So...
First off, we can start by explaining what other sorts of things came out of the 1970s which were also mistakes.
Second, we can talk about how the system was incredibly expensive to operate, and could only attain low-Earth orbit: making features like the EVA suite, the robotic arm, and the (rarely used) ability to recover satellites and bring them back down to Earth rather less useful.
Third, we can point out the fact that two of the craft were lost for various reasons.
Fourth, the shuttle isn't that cool-looking. Once people are used to spacecraft being capsules again, kids looking back at the shuttle are going to wonder why the hell we ever made that piece of junk.
Of course, I'll be modded as Troll for saying this, but anyone claiming they'll be modded as Troll is instantly modded Insightful to prove the poster wrong. If real life was like this, everyone would become millionares by going down the bank and telling the manager they had no money.
Ha! I saw through your clever ruse, I ain't gonna mod your post "insightful" 'cause that's what you want me to do... I'll mod you troll, 'cause I don't agree with you! Just as soon as I finish this message...
And if "all DRM systems are far from being unhackable", please point be towards a WM9 stripper.
I found one online but when I tried to download it, the site asked me for a password. When I said I didn't have one, it offered me a "free tour" with pictures of the stripper in action and at the end it asked me for my credit card info. Might be worth checking out if you have a credit card.
Dead on. Troopers is ENTIRELY about responsibility. Unfortunately, when that Robo-Turkey director picked up the script for the film, those issues and that moral background were the first things he tossed out the window.
And then there was the part of the movie where that little girl beat up one of the powered suits... What was up with that?
"...the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software"
I am used to buy software.
For a long time, I was not. Maybe, for me, the transition to Free Software took place at just the right time to cause this to happen. As a sort of side-effect to me embracing the principles of Free Software I also lost the mindset in which I was willing to pay for a lot of the software I might have paid for otherwise - and so did without the things that I couldn't legitimately get for free, or made do with the free stuff that was available. I feel my experiences in that regard are probably not unique.
Openoffice is a great package - and I sure wish I had such stuff when I was in college. My intent was not to say that there were no good, free office packages and that therefore the Linux world needs MS Office - but I believe that just as GIMP doesn't make Photoshop worthless, MS Office also has its importance which is not diminished by Openoffice. You can say that MS Office is just important because MS has everybody locked in - and that's basically true as far as I'm concerned - but nevertheless, when someone specifically wants MS Office they don't want a substitute.
As for the "raising the bar" thing - it's a very specific bar that I'm talking about - the computing standard that people can expect without paying a lot of money to do various tasks. For sure, there's lots of other influences raising this bar all the time - if a lot of people pirate Photoshop, for instance, then that'll cause more people to expect that sort of functionality on their computer. Likewise for the various free packages released by commercial vendors - demo versions, crippled or not, old versions, and things like Photoshop Elements, which bring users a higher level of functionality than they had before at zero cost. I may have overstated Free Software's importance in raising that bar, but I still feel it's an important influence, always helping to push things forward, and making it rather more difficult for things to be driven backward.
The reason I consider this particular standard (of what people get without paying for anything) important is because it's like a baseline for the computing world. It defines what you can do, what anyone can do, with their computer.
These vendors need to be convinced that we are a market they should get into
Well, how exactly are you a market if you refuse to pay for licensing their product? Isn't the whole idea of being a paying customer is that one... pays for the services?
Why would Microsoft release MS Office for free under linux, for example? The standard (and lacking) response I hear is that they should released a crippled product, then charge for tech/customer support.
Pardon my ignorance.
It was never about payment. Getting things legitimately without paying for them is a nice bonus (and as a matter of principle, since I'm not in the habit of buying a lot of software, I'd rather run applications you're not supposed to pay for...) but the whole "philosophical" question here revolves around software freedom.
In that regard, I think the greatest contribution of Free Software is that it raises the bar of people's expectations. Commercial photo editors have to be better than GIMP. Commercial 3-D mesh editors have to be better than Blender. Commercial GUI systems have to be better than KDE. Commercial compilers need to be better than GCC. Maybe that's not a difficult thing, really, but the free software is making all this "baseline" functionality free to anyone. Without that influence, I think the bar for "standard operating system" would be lower, and all kinds of things that are standard now, you'd have to pay some amount of money for.
In the Microsoft Office example - the thing is that the Office suite is basically a de-facto standard. For that reason, Office on Linux would be an asset to those who want it. It has value and it's something Microsoft could sell. But the situation of trying to sell commercial software for Linux has never been a great one for various reasons - among other things, the lack of consistency between different distributions, and the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software. (It's a bit hard, when you're used to everything being cost-free. But I think it's important to recognize those times when a piece of commercial software really is valuable, and be willing to buy in that case.) Probably the reasons Microsoft hasn't released Office for Linux is because Linux (as a platform) benefits from that more than Microsoft does - they don't need to draw Linux users into using Office, they can just use the fact that a lot of people already use Office to try to guide people toward using Windows.
Going back to hardware drivers: the incentive for hardware makers to provide drivers on Linux would be to sell hardware. Looking at this from the perspective of a Linux user who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware, binary, closed-source drivers would be fine: but personally I hope to see more drivers get released as Free Software, as this allows more flexibility. Drivers released as Free software could be adapted to run on new architectures, or under significantly different versions of the kernel, for instance. Leaving that kind of thing in the manufacturer's hands means that the future usefulness of that piece of hardware is tied to their willingness to keep those drivers updated for new circumstances. That's a situation I'd prefer to avoid, though obviously not everything is going to work out that way...
So, when's it worth making compromises? I'm not really sure. Promoting Linux for the sake of promoting Linux - increasing the user base, etc. at best means that Linux will become a more widely supported program, with more commercial software releases and less tech support BS along the lines of "you use Linux therefore you can't use this {ISP|camera|whatever}". But other than that, I'm fine with it being a system by and for programmers.
(...) This is Slashdot. Where the only way to make it to the front page is to post stories that tear people apart and result in holy wars.
Oh, come on... what about that story they ran about Alexius I's appeal for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire?
I believe there's a strong possibility that even if it wasn't fabricated, it was at least intentional. Like maybe they didn't fake a grassroots internet phenomenon, but rather just did their best to provide a ripe, visible target for that to happen.
I do not believe there was ever any serious intent to call the movie "South Pacific Flight 121". I think that gem was put out there to stimulate more buzz.
yeah but I already saw the 'motherfuckin snakes on this motherfuckin plane' clip on youtube. I think I will skip the rest of the movie.
That was the single worst part of the movie. Just the way the line was placed in the movie (with him saying it to all the survivors left on the plane) was way too jarring. I think it'd have been much better if he said it to himself while hunting around to fix the ventilation system. That would have made those "motherfuckin'"s fit a lot better. ("I am so (*kill snake*) GODDAMN SICK (*kill snake*) of these MOTHERFUCKIN SNAKES (*kill snake*).. on this STUPID-ASS MOTHERFUCKIN PLANE! (*beat a dead snake*)" - something like that.
The rest of the movie was basically a campy variation of the old "aircraft disaster" genre (yes, lest we forget, it used to be an entire genre - which is why Airplane could lampoon it...) mixed with some thriller movie standards (like the amusing kills, the victims you're meant to hate, the various clumsy attempts to create tension with close-calls before the all-out assault begins, etc...)
"GNU/Linux" is cumbersome to say, for sure. I think it's a little ridiculous, and I'd hate to have to acknowledge all major contributors of software every time I describe my system. ("It's a GNU/Linux/Debian/X.Org/KDE/Gnome/Mozilla/BSD...") I agree from that perspective that it's pretty dumb to try and tell people what to call it, especially when the new name is more awkward.
But, as I said, I think it's good to acknowledge the GNU project. Doesn't necessarily mean subscribing to the "GNU/Linux" thing, but the GNU project deserves a lot of credit for making Linux something people can actually use. If RMS wants to rattle sabers about how people should include the acknowledgement in the name - well, I don't necessarily agree with that on a practical level, but at the same time I think the credit he's asking for is just credit we owe the project. I don't say "GNU/Linux" much, basically for the reasons you described: habit, brevity, simplicity, clarity - and the "windbag" issue I described earlier. Sometimes you're still a whiny bitch even if you're right about what you're whining about.:) But I just say "Linux" or maybe "Debian" and people know what I mean. At the same time, though, I feel it's just as much a GNU system as it is a Linux system - running one without the other would be a giant pain, either way, as far as I'm concerned.
Trying to change an established name is a bit silly. ("Cracker" anyone?) But the name people use has an impact on how people think of the system. Do people recognize how much GNU software goes into making a typical Linux system work, or do they tend to think that most of that software comes from the Linux project? Even if you can't change the name, if by suggesting that the name should be changed you have some impact, then it raises awareness of the issue.
Re:It's infinity you deal with, show some respect!
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 1
As if you were saying, "Since the beginning there must have been an infinite amount of time that's passed."
Well, if the universe has "always existed" then the always implies an infinite past, no?
Yes, but the point here is you're measuring relative to a beginning that doesn't exist. It's like saying "We can't assume there's an infinite amount of time after this point, because if there were, then because there's an infinite amount of time after tomorrow, tomorrow would have already happened." (Using the implicit assumption that the end must be a point a finite distance from us - as you suggest the beginning must be.) If you assume an infinite amount of past time you can't incorporate the idea of a fixed "beginning" relative to which your time is measured - not unless your notion of "time" is a bit more flexible... If, for instance, what we call the "linear progression of time" (which itself is dependent on a frame of reference, what with special relativity and all) were the Y axis on the curve 1/X (where X > 0) - then we could measure backward as far as we like in the universe's time (Y) but never reach the beginning of time (X=0).
It's not that the present time couldn't exist, it's that the present time couldn't be reached from a point in the infinitely distant past. Hence, the breakdown in the concept of time "before" the Big Bang.
But conversely, you can't measure back to an "infinitely distant" point in the past. You can't get there in a finite step, so why should you expect to get back here in a finite step? Basically, you're treating the timepoint "T minus infinity" as though there ought to be a finite amount of time between it and T, and using that to support your assumption that there cannot be such a time. I'm saying that we've accepted the premise that we exist, and we can accept the premise of an infinite expanse of time before us, if we also accept that no amount of travelling backwards in time would lead us to the beginning of time. So if we accept the idea that there's infinite time in the past, then either there is no fixed "beginning" time, or else time compresses as you approach the "beginning".
It's infinity you deal with, show some respect!
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 1
If there was no beginning, the universe must have been around for an infinite time before us; by examining the simple logic of infinity, this is clearly not possible. Since you can never reach infinity, the infinite time before us would still be ongoing, making it impossible for the present time to exist.
But there you're assuming there's some beginning point from which all time is measured. As if you were saying, "Since the beginning there must have been an infinite amount of time that's passed." But there was no fixed time of beginning, so saying there's an infinite amount of time that's passed before us is just as plausible as saying there's an infinite amount of time to come after us.
To put it another way: call the current time "0". How many real numbers are less than zero? (For that matter, how many real numbers are there between -1 and zero?) Does the fact that you can't traverse them all from the lowest to highest somehow mean that zero doesn't exist?
It's not the present that can't be reached from the beginning in this theory, it's the (non-existent) beginning that can't be reached from the present. Normal numeric operations and "intuitive logic" don't work with infinity. Not quite in the way you might expect, at least.
I don't agree with this perspective, especially the second quoted sentence. The kernel is the central COMPONENT of an OS. The userland isn't the OS, but neither is the kernel. The OS is the kernel + the userland tools that provide access to the system's functionality. What good is a Linux kernel without a shell or some other userland application interface to access it?
Pretty much! As far as I'm concerned, an OS is all the basic stuff that you need in order to operate the system - this includes little things like libc, for instance. If the OS is just the kernel, and not any of the tools on top, then what kind of system are you talking about? Something that, when booted, can run a static-linked program? From a program-writer's perspective that's a fine OS (that is, much better than having to write one's own kernel in addition to the program - but not a terribly comfortable system). From a user's perspective it's pretty useless. I am both a coder and a user - but I do much more of the second job (even when writing code - need to run an editor and GUI and such, after all) than the first.
The userland != the OS. The OS *is the kernel*. The rest is just tools on top. I could install the BSD userland on the Linux kernel, and it would still be Linux. "GNU/Linux" is just RMS ego-stoking - you don't *have* to use the GNU utilities with the Linux kernel.
I think it's a matter of credit being given where it's due. Maybe GNU doesn't deserve first billing necessarily, but if I were to say that Debian, for instance, is simply a "Linux" system does a bit of disservice to the contributions of the GNU project - a horde of programs and libraries that form the backbone of the system, the compiler that compiles all my code and compiled most or all of the packages I install, etc. It's a "GNU" system, too, because of little essential bits like bash and libc and gcc, without which I would have a significantly less useful system. Someone else could provide that functionality, but in fact, they didn't, GNU did. Of course, it's also an X.Org system, and a KDE system, and a little bit of a Gnome system, and a Debian system. (what with the package system and all...) I think crediting becomes complicated when the system as a whole is essentially a big collaboration.
So what about RMS's saber-rattling over this issue? He's a bit of a windbag, isn't he? I have to admit, too, that I didn't like the whole "GNU/Linux" thing when I first heard of it. I feel a little conflict over the whole issue of whether it's right (or at least, whether it's cool) for him to insist on this recognition, regardless of whether I feel he's earned it. I do feel he's earned the recognition, which is why I license most of my projects under GPL and why my/etc/issue file contains the text "GNU/Linux". My system is a GNU/Linux system because I feel that's an acknowledgement worth making. I believe in RMS's ideals (though not unconditionally or absolutely) and I am glad that he has taken it upon himself to promote those ideals. I appreciate that there is a GCC and there is a GPL. These things wouldn't exist without some great idealistic hippie windbag preaching from the mountaintops - without some uncompromising S.O.B. who wants it all to be perfect, then the compromises we make would set the bar a lot lower. That's how I feel about it. But I won't tell you what to call your system.:)
If you, in fact, run no GNU code on your system, then that system cannot rightly be called "GNU/Linux". If in fact you run a Linux kernel with BSD utilities, then you can call the system "BSD/Linux" if you feel so inclined... But mind you, this is the system we're talking about. There's no reason to ever call the kernel "GNU/Linux", as Linux isn't part of the GNU project. But I would hazard a guess that your Linux
The energy to lift the Moon's orbit comes from the rotational energy of the Earth, which is limited. As the Moon gets higher the Earth rotates slower. There may not be enough energy to lift the Moon high enough to qualifty.
This is a very grave problem indeed. I propose that we attach giant rocket thrusters to the Moon so we can help it reach planet status before this energy runs out!
Well, yeah, basically they'd both be orbiting that center of mass somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, which in turn would be orbiting the sun. The center of mass would still be very close to the Earth... From the perspective of someone on Earth, though, it would look like the Moon's orbiting the Earth.
Somehow I managed to miss that show back when the Sci-Fi channel played more sci-fi...
But, OK, how about this one?
"Yeah, betcha by the year 1999 we'll be using a site on the moon to dispose of nuclear waste, and then it'll blow up and the moon will mysteriously vanish. Oh, and by that time all the construction vehicles in Tokyo will be replaced with big robots, too. But we'll all be ready to put the Eugenics Wars behind us and move on with our lives."
Yes, and it's just as overrated as ever - the one part of that ride that was really worth it, IMO, was the whole Space Race futurism flavor they applied to the thing - and I don't feel like that's really quite intact anymore. Take that away and it's a mediocre roller coaster in the dark with a 90 minute wait.
If you go back to Tomorrowland, just remember this one piece of advice: Don't go looking for the "Carousel of Progress". Just know that it's gone and don't think about what's happened to it. You'll be happier that way.
I wonder how long until it comes back carrying half the solar system with it looking for it's maker?
Nomad's gonna kick your ass for imperfectly spelling "its"...
If the aliens transformed it now, it'd pretty much be back here already, since its cloud is 82 AUs in diameter. (Screw that hippie "Director's Cut" edit that claims it's just 2AUs...)
Slashdot Mirror
Another possibility is that some of this stuff may have been stuff he was happy with, but which wouldn't sell well. For instance, in the foreword to Lord of the Rings, Tolkien talks about how he wanted to write about the backstory of the world and all that, but he couldn't dwell too much on that stuff for Lord of the Rings 'cause the audience wasn't into it.
Now the audience (or an audience) is into it. Tolkien fans want to read stuff Tolkien wrote. So...
Let's see...
First off, we can start by explaining what other sorts of things came out of the 1970s which were also mistakes.
Second, we can talk about how the system was incredibly expensive to operate, and could only attain low-Earth orbit: making features like the EVA suite, the robotic arm, and the (rarely used) ability to recover satellites and bring them back down to Earth rather less useful.
Third, we can point out the fact that two of the craft were lost for various reasons.
Fourth, the shuttle isn't that cool-looking. Once people are used to spacecraft being capsules again, kids looking back at the shuttle are going to wonder why the hell we ever made that piece of junk.
this.
Ha! I saw through your clever ruse, I ain't gonna mod your post "insightful" 'cause that's what you want me to do... I'll mod you troll, 'cause I don't agree with you! Just as soon as I finish this message...
Aw, hell...
I found one online but when I tried to download it, the site asked me for a password. When I said I didn't have one, it offered me a "free tour" with pictures of the stripper in action and at the end it asked me for my credit card info. Might be worth checking out if you have a credit card.
Try blocking the ads when the entire site you're trying to view is in Flash...
And then there was the part of the movie where that little girl beat up one of the powered suits... What was up with that?
For a long time, I was not. Maybe, for me, the transition to Free Software took place at just the right time to cause this to happen. As a sort of side-effect to me embracing the principles of Free Software I also lost the mindset in which I was willing to pay for a lot of the software I might have paid for otherwise - and so did without the things that I couldn't legitimately get for free, or made do with the free stuff that was available. I feel my experiences in that regard are probably not unique.
Openoffice is a great package - and I sure wish I had such stuff when I was in college. My intent was not to say that there were no good, free office packages and that therefore the Linux world needs MS Office - but I believe that just as GIMP doesn't make Photoshop worthless, MS Office also has its importance which is not diminished by Openoffice. You can say that MS Office is just important because MS has everybody locked in - and that's basically true as far as I'm concerned - but nevertheless, when someone specifically wants MS Office they don't want a substitute.
As for the "raising the bar" thing - it's a very specific bar that I'm talking about - the computing standard that people can expect without paying a lot of money to do various tasks. For sure, there's lots of other influences raising this bar all the time - if a lot of people pirate Photoshop, for instance, then that'll cause more people to expect that sort of functionality on their computer. Likewise for the various free packages released by commercial vendors - demo versions, crippled or not, old versions, and things like Photoshop Elements, which bring users a higher level of functionality than they had before at zero cost. I may have overstated Free Software's importance in raising that bar, but I still feel it's an important influence, always helping to push things forward, and making it rather more difficult for things to be driven backward.
The reason I consider this particular standard (of what people get without paying for anything) important is because it's like a baseline for the computing world. It defines what you can do, what anyone can do, with their computer.
It was never about payment. Getting things legitimately without paying for them is a nice bonus (and as a matter of principle, since I'm not in the habit of buying a lot of software, I'd rather run applications you're not supposed to pay for...) but the whole "philosophical" question here revolves around software freedom.
In that regard, I think the greatest contribution of Free Software is that it raises the bar of people's expectations. Commercial photo editors have to be better than GIMP. Commercial 3-D mesh editors have to be better than Blender. Commercial GUI systems have to be better than KDE. Commercial compilers need to be better than GCC. Maybe that's not a difficult thing, really, but the free software is making all this "baseline" functionality free to anyone. Without that influence, I think the bar for "standard operating system" would be lower, and all kinds of things that are standard now, you'd have to pay some amount of money for.
In the Microsoft Office example - the thing is that the Office suite is basically a de-facto standard. For that reason, Office on Linux would be an asset to those who want it. It has value and it's something Microsoft could sell. But the situation of trying to sell commercial software for Linux has never been a great one for various reasons - among other things, the lack of consistency between different distributions, and the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software. (It's a bit hard, when you're used to everything being cost-free. But I think it's important to recognize those times when a piece of commercial software really is valuable, and be willing to buy in that case.) Probably the reasons Microsoft hasn't released Office for Linux is because Linux (as a platform) benefits from that more than Microsoft does - they don't need to draw Linux users into using Office, they can just use the fact that a lot of people already use Office to try to guide people toward using Windows.
Going back to hardware drivers: the incentive for hardware makers to provide drivers on Linux would be to sell hardware. Looking at this from the perspective of a Linux user who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware, binary, closed-source drivers would be fine: but personally I hope to see more drivers get released as Free Software, as this allows more flexibility. Drivers released as Free software could be adapted to run on new architectures, or under significantly different versions of the kernel, for instance. Leaving that kind of thing in the manufacturer's hands means that the future usefulness of that piece of hardware is tied to their willingness to keep those drivers updated for new circumstances. That's a situation I'd prefer to avoid, though obviously not everything is going to work out that way...
So, when's it worth making compromises? I'm not really sure. Promoting Linux for the sake of promoting Linux - increasing the user base, etc. at best means that Linux will become a more widely supported program, with more commercial software releases and less tech support BS along the lines of "you use Linux therefore you can't use this {ISP|camera|whatever}". But other than that, I'm fine with it being a system by and for programmers.
I believe there's a strong possibility that even if it wasn't fabricated, it was at least intentional. Like maybe they didn't fake a grassroots internet phenomenon, but rather just did their best to provide a ripe, visible target for that to happen.
I do not believe there was ever any serious intent to call the movie "South Pacific Flight 121". I think that gem was put out there to stimulate more buzz.
That was the single worst part of the movie. Just the way the line was placed in the movie (with him saying it to all the survivors left on the plane) was way too jarring. I think it'd have been much better if he said it to himself while hunting around to fix the ventilation system. That would have made those "motherfuckin'"s fit a lot better. ("I am so (*kill snake*) GODDAMN SICK (*kill snake*) of these MOTHERFUCKIN SNAKES (*kill snake*).. on this STUPID-ASS MOTHERFUCKIN PLANE! (*beat a dead snake*)" - something like that.
The rest of the movie was basically a campy variation of the old "aircraft disaster" genre (yes, lest we forget, it used to be an entire genre - which is why Airplane could lampoon it...) mixed with some thriller movie standards (like the amusing kills, the victims you're meant to hate, the various clumsy attempts to create tension with close-calls before the all-out assault begins, etc...)
"GNU/Linux" is cumbersome to say, for sure. I think it's a little ridiculous, and I'd hate to have to acknowledge all major contributors of software every time I describe my system. ("It's a GNU/Linux/Debian/X.Org/KDE/Gnome/Mozilla/BSD...") I agree from that perspective that it's pretty dumb to try and tell people what to call it, especially when the new name is more awkward.
:) But I just say "Linux" or maybe "Debian" and people know what I mean. At the same time, though, I feel it's just as much a GNU system as it is a Linux system - running one without the other would be a giant pain, either way, as far as I'm concerned.
But, as I said, I think it's good to acknowledge the GNU project. Doesn't necessarily mean subscribing to the "GNU/Linux" thing, but the GNU project deserves a lot of credit for making Linux something people can actually use. If RMS wants to rattle sabers about how people should include the acknowledgement in the name - well, I don't necessarily agree with that on a practical level, but at the same time I think the credit he's asking for is just credit we owe the project. I don't say "GNU/Linux" much, basically for the reasons you described: habit, brevity, simplicity, clarity - and the "windbag" issue I described earlier. Sometimes you're still a whiny bitch even if you're right about what you're whining about.
Trying to change an established name is a bit silly. ("Cracker" anyone?) But the name people use has an impact on how people think of the system. Do people recognize how much GNU software goes into making a typical Linux system work, or do they tend to think that most of that software comes from the Linux project? Even if you can't change the name, if by suggesting that the name should be changed you have some impact, then it raises awareness of the issue.
Yes, but the point here is you're measuring relative to a beginning that doesn't exist. It's like saying "We can't assume there's an infinite amount of time after this point, because if there were, then because there's an infinite amount of time after tomorrow, tomorrow would have already happened." (Using the implicit assumption that the end must be a point a finite distance from us - as you suggest the beginning must be.) If you assume an infinite amount of past time you can't incorporate the idea of a fixed "beginning" relative to which your time is measured - not unless your notion of "time" is a bit more flexible... If, for instance, what we call the "linear progression of time" (which itself is dependent on a frame of reference, what with special relativity and all) were the Y axis on the curve 1/X (where X > 0) - then we could measure backward as far as we like in the universe's time (Y) but never reach the beginning of time (X=0).
But conversely, you can't measure back to an "infinitely distant" point in the past. You can't get there in a finite step, so why should you expect to get back here in a finite step? Basically, you're treating the timepoint "T minus infinity" as though there ought to be a finite amount of time between it and T, and using that to support your assumption that there cannot be such a time. I'm saying that we've accepted the premise that we exist, and we can accept the premise of an infinite expanse of time before us, if we also accept that no amount of travelling backwards in time would lead us to the beginning of time. So if we accept the idea that there's infinite time in the past, then either there is no fixed "beginning" time, or else time compresses as you approach the "beginning".
But there you're assuming there's some beginning point from which all time is measured. As if you were saying, "Since the beginning there must have been an infinite amount of time that's passed." But there was no fixed time of beginning, so saying there's an infinite amount of time that's passed before us is just as plausible as saying there's an infinite amount of time to come after us.
To put it another way: call the current time "0". How many real numbers are less than zero? (For that matter, how many real numbers are there between -1 and zero?) Does the fact that you can't traverse them all from the lowest to highest somehow mean that zero doesn't exist?
It's not the present that can't be reached from the beginning in this theory, it's the (non-existent) beginning that can't be reached from the present. Normal numeric operations and "intuitive logic" don't work with infinity. Not quite in the way you might expect, at least.
Pretty much! As far as I'm concerned, an OS is all the basic stuff that you need in order to operate the system - this includes little things like libc, for instance. If the OS is just the kernel, and not any of the tools on top, then what kind of system are you talking about? Something that, when booted, can run a static-linked program? From a program-writer's perspective that's a fine OS (that is, much better than having to write one's own kernel in addition to the program - but not a terribly comfortable system). From a user's perspective it's pretty useless. I am both a coder and a user - but I do much more of the second job (even when writing code - need to run an editor and GUI and such, after all) than the first.
I think it's a matter of credit being given where it's due. Maybe GNU doesn't deserve first billing necessarily, but if I were to say that Debian, for instance, is simply a "Linux" system does a bit of disservice to the contributions of the GNU project - a horde of programs and libraries that form the backbone of the system, the compiler that compiles all my code and compiled most or all of the packages I install, etc. It's a "GNU" system, too, because of little essential bits like bash and libc and gcc, without which I would have a significantly less useful system. Someone else could provide that functionality, but in fact, they didn't, GNU did. Of course, it's also an X.Org system, and a KDE system, and a little bit of a Gnome system, and a Debian system. (what with the package system and all...) I think crediting becomes complicated when the system as a whole is essentially a big collaboration.
/etc/issue file contains the text "GNU/Linux". My system is a GNU/Linux system because I feel that's an acknowledgement worth making. I believe in RMS's ideals (though not unconditionally or absolutely) and I am glad that he has taken it upon himself to promote those ideals. I appreciate that there is a GCC and there is a GPL. These things wouldn't exist without some great idealistic hippie windbag preaching from the mountaintops - without some uncompromising S.O.B. who wants it all to be perfect, then the compromises we make would set the bar a lot lower. That's how I feel about it. But I won't tell you what to call your system. :)
So what about RMS's saber-rattling over this issue? He's a bit of a windbag, isn't he? I have to admit, too, that I didn't like the whole "GNU/Linux" thing when I first heard of it. I feel a little conflict over the whole issue of whether it's right (or at least, whether it's cool) for him to insist on this recognition, regardless of whether I feel he's earned it. I do feel he's earned the recognition, which is why I license most of my projects under GPL and why my
If you, in fact, run no GNU code on your system, then that system cannot rightly be called "GNU/Linux". If in fact you run a Linux kernel with BSD utilities, then you can call the system "BSD/Linux" if you feel so inclined... But mind you, this is the system we're talking about. There's no reason to ever call the kernel "GNU/Linux", as Linux isn't part of the GNU project. But I would hazard a guess that your Linux
What about the point of view of someone on the sun? Had you thought about that? I think it'd go a little something like this...
"Well, let's see, where's the Earth... Ah, there! Now it seems to be moving around and - aw, shit, my eyes just got vaporized."
I thought it was the second one...
This is a very grave problem indeed. I propose that we attach giant rocket thrusters to the Moon so we can help it reach planet status before this energy runs out!
Well, yeah, basically they'd both be orbiting that center of mass somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, which in turn would be orbiting the sun. The center of mass would still be very close to the Earth... From the perspective of someone on Earth, though, it would look like the Moon's orbiting the Earth.
And also, the blackjack.
Somehow I managed to miss that show back when the Sci-Fi channel played more sci-fi...
But, OK, how about this one?
"Yeah, betcha by the year 1999 we'll be using a site on the moon to dispose of nuclear waste, and then it'll blow up and the moon will mysteriously vanish. Oh, and by that time all the construction vehicles in Tokyo will be replaced with big robots, too. But we'll all be ready to put the Eugenics Wars behind us and move on with our lives."
Aw, damnit, you're right! :)
It'd at least blot out a whole lot of the night sky, though. If we're on the right side of the sun to see it right now, that is.
Yes, and it's just as overrated as ever - the one part of that ride that was really worth it, IMO, was the whole Space Race futurism flavor they applied to the thing - and I don't feel like that's really quite intact anymore. Take that away and it's a mediocre roller coaster in the dark with a 90 minute wait.
If you go back to Tomorrowland, just remember this one piece of advice: Don't go looking for the "Carousel of Progress". Just know that it's gone and don't think about what's happened to it. You'll be happier that way.
Nomad's gonna kick your ass for imperfectly spelling "its"...
If the aliens transformed it now, it'd pretty much be back here already, since its cloud is 82 AUs in diameter. (Screw that hippie "Director's Cut" edit that claims it's just 2AUs...)