This does not prove anything about E=mc2. You can't "prove" fundamental equations by twiddling bits.
They ASSUME that E=mc2, then use that equation to calculate the details of nuclear energies.
Who said anything about proving something? Nowhere in the summary or either of the links does it use the word "prove". Proving and verifying/confirming are very different things.
As noted in other posts, what is exciting about this isn't necessarily that E=mc^2 is confirmed (that's been done plenty of times before), but that it was done in a quantum world (which historically has been at odds with relativity).
Besides, if you want to get really pedantic, we cant prove anything with absolute certainty. Its possible that our understanding of science is completely wrong. At any point, our understanding of the universe can be shattered by new information (see Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, etc.). This is to be expected as we further our understanding of the universe. What's important is each time verifiable evidence comes along, that we accept it and adjust our models accordingly.
What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed"
WTF?? Darwin was the one that explained the process FFS! This more than anything shows that the authors have no idea what they are talking about.
I find it ironic (and hypocritical) how many scientifically minded individuals are so quick to attack such groups as creationists for their clinging to dogmatism while at the same time doggedly clinging to whatever the current snapshot of scientific understanding is.
I'm not saying what's (or who's) wrong or right here. Is evolution 100% random? Maybe. But I find it hard to believe that Darwin single handedly happened to stumble upon a perfect and all encompassing theory on the process of biological evolution in the universe, and thus has no need for further review.
All I'm saying is that in the pursuit of truth, dogmatism has no place and seeing people get really defensive about the thought that Darwin may not have been 100% right random reeks of dogmatism to me.
Science is constantly reinventing itself and adapting to further knowledge (that's its strength). The moment we feel we understand everything about a particular topic and close our minds to new information or studies, the science behind it becomes replaced with stagnant dogmatism.
This sounds oddly familiar to the "Blackmail acquisition and Assertion by a (Mob-member) First Party Against a Second Party" application I recently saw:
Methods for a first party to acquire and assert blackmail against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining secret and potentially damaging information on a second party. The methods further include writing a notification to specified second party. The notification is written to cover the potentially damaging information on said second party. The methods sometimes explicitly include offering a payment structure to the second party in exchange for nondisclosure of the potentially damaging information. The methods further include threats to forward such notification to other third parties in the event of the second party rejecting the payment structure before mentioned. The methods sometimes includes further demands and subsequent threats for non compliance from the second party. The methods sometimes include negotiating an alternative means of compensation when the primary payment structure is undesirable or otherwise impossible.
You can already buy a number of systems pre-configured with Linux. And yet, average people and businesses aren't biting. Why? Because no one really cares about the OS. The people who do--hell, the people who even perceive it as a separate entity, do not run Windows. No, people care about applications. That's it. Period. End of story.
While I agree that applications are make or break when it comes to OS adoption, I think that you're standard open source suite of applications comfortably meets the *AVERAGE* user's needs.
Even I didn't switch to Linux. Why? No MS Office, and OO.o is an inferior product (search your feelings; you know it to be true).
Yes, I agree. But I ask, what functions of MS Office does the *AVERAGE* user use? Here's a sample list:
-Fonts (typography, size, formatting, etc.)
-Font alignment and grouping (spacing, alignment
-Lists
-tables
-headers/footers
-templates
-image or chart importing
-user comments
-etc. etc. etc.
Are there a 1001 features that MS Office has? Absolutely! But I ask, of those 1001 features, how many does the *AVERAGE* user use? I feel the same logic applies to most other basic applications that the *AVERAGE* user uses (photo editing, internet browsing, email, cd/dvd burning, IM, etc.).
They will just buy Windows, either because they know that it'll run Office, or because they don't know anything else.
This statement is definitely true. Many will just keep with the same old. But given enough consumer education (ie: marketing), I feel there will definitely be an up-tick of Linux adoption
Not afraid, I just find the word "marketing" too abstract and hand-wavy.
But you're right, what I'm describing is good old fashioned marketing--something which most Linux distributions focus little on compared to the average business (at least my perception).
At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?
It will only make a difference when an option for pre-installed Linux system is provided by most major OEMs along side other non-Linux systems with these benchmarks highlighted.
In my opinion, 2007-2008 was/is the year(s) of the Linux desktop as far as the technology is concerned. What is lacking now is consumer exposure/education, specifically at the retail level (think Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo, etc.). In the consumer's mind, the operating system is not separate from the hardware they are purchasing. Thus, unless OEMs and computer makers offer Linux on the same level as Windows or other OSes, all these benchmarks, usability results, user freedom, and other positives will only fall upon the ears of the technically brave or elite.
Of course there will always be the new user learning curve when switching to Linux. But, in my opinion, this learning curve in 2007-2008 became no worse than a Windows->Mac switch is today. I don't see a major *technical* problem preventing the *AVERAGE* user (read: email, web, word/presentation documents) switching to a modern binary package-based Linux distributions (read: point and click package and application installation). What is lacking is the exposure to the end user at the point of sale.
Perhaps what will hasten the year of the consumer Linux desktop is when/if cloud-based applications go mainstream and replace their client-side equivalents, in which case the OS running on the PC becomes nearly irrelevant.
As far as I understand it, they're basically saying:
Gee, why don't we, instead of work on cooling the system by exhausting the heat (thing CPU fan), try to convert the heat back into reusable energy.
For those who enjoy car analogies that can easily be refuted on a pedantic level, its like many hybrid cars makers who said:
Gee, why don't we, instead of wasting the kenetic energy when the vehicle brakes, try to convert it back into reusable energy.
Basically they're just challenging the old paradigm in electronics that you need to get the heat out of the system and instead suggest thinking of it as a possible energy source.
...what would the long-term savings of investing $700 billion in solar/wind/geo-thermal/etc. alternative energy be and how does that compare to the economic loss of not giving it to Wall Street?
Before, when people were arguing between threads vs. processes, most of the arguments assumed ONLY ONE CPU. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that one of the biggest reasons modern day programs (programs, not OSs) under-utilize modern multi-core CPUs is that all threads of a process remain on the same CPU as their parent process.
So by designing an application to spawn new processes instead of threads, it un-handcuffs the multi-core CPU and allows it to distribute the work between all of its cores. Isn't this one of the reasons web servers and technologies (apache/tomcat/mod_proxy) spawn listening processes rather than just threads?
Yes, yes, more processes means more overhead, but given the cheapness of RAM, that has to be weighed against the benefits of being able to now access more CPU cores (in which case IE8 and Chrome seem to have chosen to go with the process model).
Your post is SPOT ON! There may very well be a direct cause and effect between mankind's CO2 emissions and global warming, but that relationship is UNPROVEN. That of course does not mean that we should ignore the possibility that such a relationship exists or that reducing CO2 emissions may reduce global temperature. However, to think that the reducing CO2 emissions will inevitably reduce the global temperature severely underestimates the climate complexities our planet has.
For me, one thing we can be sure of by reducing CO2 emissions is a healthier atmosphere and less diseases (both in humans and other species) that are related to man-made pollution. This, to me, in and of itself is reason enough to focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Expecting the entire earth's climate to change may be a bit premature.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
By serious intellectual activity I mean challenging and expanding one's own ideas. I really detest a majority of the media, Fox News, provides a particular easy example of people wanting to hear what they already believe. It provides affirmation that they are smart because people on the tv are saying what they believe. I am sure it occasionally offers extended nuances to their own belief system but rarely challenges it.
Which is why I've come to love NPR (especially their podcasts as I have a long'ish commute). I regularly listen to discussions/debates on topics I either have never even thought of before or hear opinions which I disagree with. However, those opinions are almost always presented in a very eloquent, thorough, and respectful manner (something which rarely occurs in mainstream media since it requires more than 30 seconds to do).
I like the quote from Robert Frost:
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.
God, this feels horrible, but I have to defend Microsoft/Windows here a bit Windows 98 was slower than Windows 95, running on the same hardware Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, running on the same hardware Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP, running on the same hardware.
While part of me understands that as time goes on hardware requirements will increase, the fact that many *nix GUIs (ie: KDE, XFCE, Gnome) as well as the *nix core itself are able to IMPROVE the performance of their software between both minor and major releases makes me at least question the rate at which Microsoft increases the hardware requirements between services packs and major releases. Couple this with the financial incentive they have in forced obsolescence (ie: obsoleting hardware = more sales), and I have little faith that the sharp increase in hardware requirements is anything but an example of what happens when a marketing department runs an engineering organization rather than actual engineers.
I'll keep with my 6+ years old computer with 1GB RAM running KDE beautifully.
If one country (Georgia) moves [some of] their [government/military property/infrastructure] to some other country (the USA) and the aggressor (Russia) continues the [attack on said property/infrastructure], is the aggressor committing an act of war against the "other country"?
Yes. But this also means that the government/entity who knowingly received the property/infrastructure is taking sides.
Although it is similar to Russia hitting the embassy/military base in Georgia of that of a foreign country, this is a bit different as the property/infrastructure is being moved.
Given how closely tied spam is to organized crime, he could have felt that his trouble with the law may have brought retaliation upon his family and that killing them was somehow his warped way to protect them from people he felt may come after them.
Again, this in no way justifies his actions. Just trying to understand how someone could get into such a warped mental state.
Don't waste your time complaining about it here. Go out and let them know directly how you feel.
While you're at it, why don't you visit their partner list (there's some notable ones in there) and let their partners know that you'll be taking your business elsewhere until they no longer do business with this company.
It was a social commentary on consumerism and corporatism, not environmentalism.
Sorry poor choice of words on my part. However, in the interview (listen to it), Andrew Stanton goes out of his way to downplay the social commentary remarks the interviewer cites. He insists that the environmentalism/corporatism/consumerism aspects of the story were chosen primarily to avoid problems that would arise in the story if humans were to leave the planet some other way. He didn't want to have to include some kind of armageddon back story in order to explain why humans left the planet and that over consumption was the solution he chose.
Now, I'm not saying that it isn't a social commentary. Any artistic work can be interpreted as a social commentary.
The humans aren't even human anymore in the movie until they stop feeding at the teat of the Evil Corporation.
In the interview, he mentions that originally the humans actually had evolved into alien-like blobs during the period while they were away from the earth. Once they started animating/sketching this, they realized that this aspect of the story was a bit weird and opted for the fat/lazy approach (which was easier to animate and seemed to fit better in the story). In fact, he mentions several times during the interview how the story changed due to animation limitations.
Wall*E contains a very serious anti-corporate, anti-consumer message. I cannot believe that it was unintended.
I don't doubt that "anti-corporate, anti-consumer" or environmentalism messages can be interpreted from the movie. However, unless the director/co-author of Wall-E is lying, these messages were not the main factors in the creation of Wall-E.
I hadn't really read up on it before viewing it and had no idea it was going to be an entire social commentary-esque movie.
Actually, I listened to a really good interview NPR did with Andrew Stanton (director and co-author of Wall-E) and at one point he discusses that the story never was intended to be a social commentary on environmentalism. The story was written about a decade ago and while it certainly has the universal theme of protecting nature, he primarily used the concept of a polluted planet to avoid having to give some other explanation for humans leaving the planet that would have been to heavy for a children's movie (ie: global war).
There are a few reasons why the US would tax non corn-based ethanol crops (none of which are valid reasons):
Corn is HEAVILY subsidized
There's already a huge investment in corn production/processing
Majority of corn crops are owned by only a few companies (ADM I'm looking at you) who stand to profit hugely from this and are agnostic towards the human toll (hiding behind capitalism).
The "made in America" mantra (which doesn't fly anymore in a global economy)
Despite all these reasons, the fact that corn is horribly, horribly inefficient at producing ethanol is reason enough to not use it and use bio-waste or non-food crops instead. However, corn-ethanol is an quick and easy solution (see #1 above). However, as we introduce new energy technologies, there are always risks and unintended consequences that have to weighed into the cost (ie: starving 3rd world countries).
Slashdot Mirror
This does not prove anything about E=mc2. You can't "prove" fundamental equations by twiddling bits.
They ASSUME that E=mc2, then use that equation to calculate the details of nuclear energies.
Who said anything about proving something? Nowhere in the summary or either of the links does it use the word "prove". Proving and verifying/confirming are very different things.
As noted in other posts, what is exciting about this isn't necessarily that E=mc^2 is confirmed (that's been done plenty of times before), but that it was done in a quantum world (which historically has been at odds with relativity).
Besides, if you want to get really pedantic, we cant prove anything with absolute certainty. Its possible that our understanding of science is completely wrong. At any point, our understanding of the universe can be shattered by new information (see Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, etc.). This is to be expected as we further our understanding of the universe. What's important is each time verifiable evidence comes along, that we accept it and adjust our models accordingly.
What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed"
WTF?? Darwin was the one that explained the process FFS! This more than anything shows that the authors have no idea what they are talking about.
I find it ironic (and hypocritical) how many scientifically minded individuals are so quick to attack such groups as creationists for their clinging to dogmatism while at the same time doggedly clinging to whatever the current snapshot of scientific understanding is.
I'm not saying what's (or who's) wrong or right here. Is evolution 100% random? Maybe. But I find it hard to believe that Darwin single handedly happened to stumble upon a perfect and all encompassing theory on the process of biological evolution in the universe, and thus has no need for further review.
All I'm saying is that in the pursuit of truth, dogmatism has no place and seeing people get really defensive about the thought that Darwin may not have been 100% right random reeks of dogmatism to me.
Science is constantly reinventing itself and adapting to further knowledge (that's its strength). The moment we feel we understand everything about a particular topic and close our minds to new information or studies, the science behind it becomes replaced with stagnant dogmatism.
This sounds oddly familiar to the "Blackmail acquisition and Assertion by a (Mob-member) First Party Against a Second Party" application I recently saw:
Methods for a first party to acquire and assert blackmail against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining secret and potentially damaging information on a second party. The methods further include writing a notification to specified second party. The notification is written to cover the potentially damaging information on said second party. The methods sometimes explicitly include offering a payment structure to the second party in exchange for nondisclosure of the potentially damaging information. The methods further include threats to forward such notification to other third parties in the event of the second party rejecting the payment structure before mentioned. The methods sometimes includes further demands and subsequent threats for non compliance from the second party. The methods sometimes include negotiating an alternative means of compensation when the primary payment structure is undesirable or otherwise impossible.
You can already buy a number of systems pre-configured with Linux. And yet, average people and businesses aren't biting. Why? Because no one really cares about the OS. The people who do--hell, the people who even perceive it as a separate entity, do not run Windows. No, people care about applications. That's it. Period. End of story.
While I agree that applications are make or break when it comes to OS adoption, I think that you're standard open source suite of applications comfortably meets the *AVERAGE* user's needs.
Even I didn't switch to Linux. Why? No MS Office, and OO.o is an inferior product (search your feelings; you know it to be true).
Yes, I agree. But I ask, what functions of MS Office does the *AVERAGE* user use? Here's a sample list:
-Fonts (typography, size, formatting, etc.)
-Font alignment and grouping (spacing, alignment
-Lists
-tables
-headers/footers
-templates
-image or chart importing
-user comments
-etc. etc. etc.
Are there a 1001 features that MS Office has? Absolutely! But I ask, of those 1001 features, how many does the *AVERAGE* user use? I feel the same logic applies to most other basic applications that the *AVERAGE* user uses (photo editing, internet browsing, email, cd/dvd burning, IM, etc.).
They will just buy Windows, either because they know that it'll run Office, or because they don't know anything else.
This statement is definitely true. Many will just keep with the same old. But given enough consumer education (ie: marketing), I feel there will definitely be an up-tick of Linux adoption
Not afraid, I just find the word "marketing" too abstract and hand-wavy.
But you're right, what I'm describing is good old fashioned marketing--something which most Linux distributions focus little on compared to the average business (at least my perception).
At what point does this start to make a difference in the market place?
It will only make a difference when an option for pre-installed Linux system is provided by most major OEMs along side other non-Linux systems with these benchmarks highlighted.
In my opinion, 2007-2008 was/is the year(s) of the Linux desktop as far as the technology is concerned. What is lacking now is consumer exposure/education, specifically at the retail level (think Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo, etc.). In the consumer's mind, the operating system is not separate from the hardware they are purchasing. Thus, unless OEMs and computer makers offer Linux on the same level as Windows or other OSes, all these benchmarks, usability results, user freedom, and other positives will only fall upon the ears of the technically brave or elite.
Of course there will always be the new user learning curve when switching to Linux. But, in my opinion, this learning curve in 2007-2008 became no worse than a Windows->Mac switch is today. I don't see a major *technical* problem preventing the *AVERAGE* user (read: email, web, word/presentation documents) switching to a modern binary package-based Linux distributions (read: point and click package and application installation). What is lacking is the exposure to the end user at the point of sale.
Perhaps what will hasten the year of the consumer Linux desktop is when/if cloud-based applications go mainstream and replace their client-side equivalents, in which case the OS running on the PC becomes nearly irrelevant.
Actually, I never assumed for a moment that the parent was a left wing nut. I assumed he was a right wing nut.
Actually, judging by the IP range of the source of the attacks, I think were most likely dealing with a "east wing nut".
As far as I understand it, they're basically saying:
Gee, why don't we, instead of work on cooling the system by exhausting the heat (thing CPU fan), try to convert the heat back into reusable energy.
For those who enjoy car analogies that can easily be refuted on a pedantic level, its like many hybrid cars makers who said:
Gee, why don't we, instead of wasting the kenetic energy when the vehicle brakes, try to convert it back into reusable energy.
Basically they're just challenging the old paradigm in electronics that you need to get the heat out of the system and instead suggest thinking of it as a possible energy source.
...what would the long-term savings of investing $700 billion in solar/wind/geo-thermal/etc. alternative energy be and how does that compare to the economic loss of not giving it to Wall Street?
Before, when people were arguing between threads vs. processes, most of the arguments assumed ONLY ONE CPU. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that one of the biggest reasons modern day programs (programs, not OSs) under-utilize modern multi-core CPUs is that all threads of a process remain on the same CPU as their parent process.
So by designing an application to spawn new processes instead of threads, it un-handcuffs the multi-core CPU and allows it to distribute the work between all of its cores. Isn't this one of the reasons web servers and technologies (apache/tomcat/mod_proxy) spawn listening processes rather than just threads?
Yes, yes, more processes means more overhead, but given the cheapness of RAM, that has to be weighed against the benefits of being able to now access more CPU cores (in which case IE8 and Chrome seem to have chosen to go with the process model).
Your post is SPOT ON! There may very well be a direct cause and effect between mankind's CO2 emissions and global warming, but that relationship is UNPROVEN. That of course does not mean that we should ignore the possibility that such a relationship exists or that reducing CO2 emissions may reduce global temperature. However, to think that the reducing CO2 emissions will inevitably reduce the global temperature severely underestimates the climate complexities our planet has.
For me, one thing we can be sure of by reducing CO2 emissions is a healthier atmosphere and less diseases (both in humans and other species) that are related to man-made pollution. This, to me, in and of itself is reason enough to focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Expecting the entire earth's climate to change may be a bit premature.
By serious intellectual activity I mean challenging and expanding one's own ideas. I really detest a majority of the media, Fox News, provides a particular easy example of people wanting to hear what they already believe. It provides affirmation that they are smart because people on the tv are saying what they believe. I am sure it occasionally offers extended nuances to their own belief system but rarely challenges it.
Which is why I've come to love NPR (especially their podcasts as I have a long'ish commute). I regularly listen to discussions/debates on topics I either have never even thought of before or hear opinions which I disagree with. However, those opinions are almost always presented in a very eloquent, thorough, and respectful manner (something which rarely occurs in mainstream media since it requires more than 30 seconds to do).
I like the quote from Robert Frost:
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.
This is the first node in their cluster of orbiting brain lazers. Next thing you know they'll be holding the moon for ransom.
http://www.xkcd.com/463/
While part of me understands that as time goes on hardware requirements will increase, the fact that many *nix GUIs (ie: KDE, XFCE, Gnome) as well as the *nix core itself are able to IMPROVE the performance of their software between both minor and major releases makes me at least question the rate at which Microsoft increases the hardware requirements between services packs and major releases. Couple this with the financial incentive they have in forced obsolescence (ie: obsoleting hardware = more sales), and I have little faith that the sharp increase in hardware requirements is anything but an example of what happens when a marketing department runs an engineering organization rather than actual engineers.
I'll keep with my 6+ years old computer with 1GB RAM running KDE beautifully.
If one country (Georgia) moves [some of] their [government/military property/infrastructure] to some other country (the USA) and the aggressor (Russia) continues the [attack on said property/infrastructure], is the aggressor committing an act of war against the "other country"?
Yes. But this also means that the government/entity who knowingly received the property/infrastructure is taking sides.
Although it is similar to Russia hitting the embassy/military base in Georgia of that of a foreign country, this is a bit different as the property/infrastructure is being moved.
"Whelchy!!!!"
Given how closely tied spam is to organized crime, he could have felt that his trouble with the law may have brought retaliation upon his family and that killing them was somehow his warped way to protect them from people he felt may come after them.
Again, this in no way justifies his actions. Just trying to understand how someone could get into such a warped mental state.
Don't waste your time complaining about it here. Go out and let them know directly how you feel.
While you're at it, why don't you visit their partner list (there's some notable ones in there) and let their partners know that you'll be taking your business elsewhere until they no longer do business with this company.
Sky hook!
it sure wouldn't be a comfortable place to spend any amount of time.
...let alone to deliver pillows on it.
It was a social commentary on consumerism and corporatism, not environmentalism.
Sorry poor choice of words on my part. However, in the interview (listen to it), Andrew Stanton goes out of his way to downplay the social commentary remarks the interviewer cites. He insists that the environmentalism/corporatism/consumerism aspects of the story were chosen primarily to avoid problems that would arise in the story if humans were to leave the planet some other way. He didn't want to have to include some kind of armageddon back story in order to explain why humans left the planet and that over consumption was the solution he chose.
Now, I'm not saying that it isn't a social commentary. Any artistic work can be interpreted as a social commentary.
The humans aren't even human anymore in the movie until they stop feeding at the teat of the Evil Corporation.
In the interview, he mentions that originally the humans actually had evolved into alien-like blobs during the period while they were away from the earth. Once they started animating/sketching this, they realized that this aspect of the story was a bit weird and opted for the fat/lazy approach (which was easier to animate and seemed to fit better in the story). In fact, he mentions several times during the interview how the story changed due to animation limitations.
Wall*E contains a very serious anti-corporate, anti-consumer message. I cannot believe that it was unintended.
I don't doubt that "anti-corporate, anti-consumer" or environmentalism messages can be interpreted from the movie. However, unless the director/co-author of Wall-E is lying, these messages were not the main factors in the creation of Wall-E.
I hadn't really read up on it before viewing it and had no idea it was going to be an entire social commentary-esque movie.
Actually, I listened to a really good interview NPR did with Andrew Stanton (director and co-author of Wall-E) and at one point he discusses that the story never was intended to be a social commentary on environmentalism. The story was written about a decade ago and while it certainly has the universal theme of protecting nature, he primarily used the concept of a polluted planet to avoid having to give some other explanation for humans leaving the planet that would have been to heavy for a children's movie (ie: global war).
As long as you can get yourself sentenced to death by snu-snu, none.
There are a few reasons why the US would tax non corn-based ethanol crops (none of which are valid reasons):
Despite all these reasons, the fact that corn is horribly, horribly inefficient at producing ethanol is reason enough to not use it and use bio-waste or non-food crops instead. However, corn-ethanol is an quick and easy solution (see #1 above). However, as we introduce new energy technologies, there are always risks and unintended consequences that have to weighed into the cost (ie: starving 3rd world countries).