I remember two decades ago (and still ongoing) that the US is pumping pollution into the Red River (among others) which travels into Canada. We complained and they said tough. But, apparently it's a horror if it's done to them.
Perhaps it is this that forces the US to realise that the world map doesn't end at its borders.
Just because specific conditions are necessary does NOT mean that those conditions are rare. Until we actually start looking up and have efficient methods of detecting planets we won't know either way. Talk about an abusive interpretation of COMPUTER SIMULATION results.
Actually I'm Canadian and I spent just about 2 weeks in Scotland a couple years ago. I watch/read BBC news among others and since my wife is an Academic we've spoken to many people from the UK about such things. In fact, we've yet to run into one that thinks that the UK is an appropriate place to raise a child and/or live.
I've kept an eye on my own country and have fought against many things. I've also paid attention to what has been going on abroad because such things have a tendency to end up here if the politicians think it's a "good idea" no matter how profound stupid said idea really is.
That's who I really am.
Who do I think YOU are? Some jackass that doesn't have the eyes nor the brains to see what's going on around him/her. Get a clue. The UK fell from grace years ago. Its reputation is nothing but a memory. The only problem is that the populace and the rest of the world have yet to realise it. Because, it's all for your own good right?
According to my German wife, there is a fair amount of opportunity in Germany (she cited Berlin specifically). Well, that was a couple years ago. But, it's still worth checking out.
Also, apparently you can get by fairly well with English only in the larger cities. So, that should help you acclimate.
You also might want to consider other English speaking countries such as New Zealand. Wikipedia actually has a list of countries that have English as an official language. So, you might want to check that out.
As a last note, I'd shy away from the UK as the violence there is getting bad enough that there are reports of people leaving because of it. Not to mention all the Orwellian BS.
""" The purpose of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is probably obvious from its name """
Not exactly. See, Free to most people means free. And unfortunately, RMS redefined free as Free. The devil is in the details. Reading the fine print reveals that there is profound restrictions on developers (the users of the libraries, utilities, etc). So, Free by way of the (L)GPL isn't exactly free. In other words, citing freedom for one group (end users) by way of clobbering the freedom of another group (the developers) doesn't exactly mean free in any rational definition of the word.
So yah, not exactly obvious by its name. You really have to dig to find out exactly what these guys are up to.
Statically linking to a LGPL lib requires the linker to make his/her work to be LGPL'd (or at least a portion thereof - it is a strange beast). Given that the libc is LGPL'd then the code which allows one to dynamically link is itself LGPL'd. So, one is still statically linking to LGPL'd code even if they only wish to dynamically link.
That said, how many other functions are there in libc that will be used that are LGPL'd. Is one supposed to dynamically link the libc through there own means before being able to take advantage of std c functions? The whole thing is asinine. If RMS, etc would have just made a straight forward license that plays well with others, then all this would be moot. But, he didn't and now companies are shying away from Linux development because of this.
Just look at how many companies tried to take advantage of this on a Linux and how many got bitten. Don't take into account any wrong doing on there part of how they did it because to another company that doesn't matter. All that matters is that another company tried to take advantage of Linux and got screwed in the act. All that matters is that the vast majority of companies that don't get bitten don't get bitten because they've already [L]GPL'd there work. And the vast majority of companies don't exactly like to give things away. Kinda makes it hard to make money.
That's why I say it's asinine to complain that people can't complain that companies aren't jumping on board. The GPL community has gone around and forced open many things. This has an effect and the GPL community is currently getting bitten by that. What goes around comes around.
"If you don't like the [L]GPL, then don't use it!"
Well, I think that industry has spoken. Perhaps if Linux would get a clue and license its libc, etc under an actual permissive license instead of the LGPL things would be better. As in, it's quite hard to dynamically link to a LPGL'd lib when the code to do that IS IN LIBC which is LGPL'd! Kind of largely defeats the purpose of dynamic linking doesn't it.
This kind of illustrates the "us v.s. them" mentality of RMS, etc doesn't it. Yah, "if you don't like the [L]GPL don't use it." Well, the industry at large hasn't. Given they've chosen one of the options that "you" gave them, you don't get bitch about it just because they chose the one that "you" don't like.
Re:Can we still blame pollution for this?
on
Hot Water, Hot Earth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, that post of yours could go either sarcastic or honest. Don't know you so...
At any rate, I recall that in my grade 11 Chem course we did a bit on pressure. The teacher created a "vacuum" over a bowl of water at room temperature and it boiled. That's less than an atmosphere difference and boiling. So, imagine what one more atmosphere would do to the boiling point. It'll go up quite a bit. Now try to imagine how much more pressure than that there is down at that depth i.e. at that pressure, it's really really *really* hard to make something boil.
Beyond that, I/could/ open up one of my Physics books and calculate something, but I'm not exactly that enamoured in this problem to do that. But, if you want to...
Re:Can we still blame pollution for this?
on
Hot Water, Hot Earth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
""" Seriously, though, wouldn't the water just convert to steam at that point, even if it WAS under that much water? """
That active word there is "should." Sure there/should/ be a DB around with the info in there, but is there?
Quite frankly, what this guy is saying is likely. Not really the time frame. But, it *is* likely that it would take significant work to get this done. How? Given what I've seen in industry, I have no doubt that there is a significant chance that flat files are used. So, all you need is some incompetent jackass to create a complicated convoluted horrid format for it/them and not document that. Then this guy retires, gets fired, gets laid off, whatever.
So, now you got a program that's only programmed to enable an increase salaries and the one person (or limited amount of people) that actually know what's going on are gone. And now you gotta reverse engineer the format which wouldn't exactly be trivial given the massive amount of undoubtedly undocumented spaghetti code using "clever" acronyms for variable names (also undocumented).
You're a fairly naive person aren't you. It's always been this way. It's just that this sort of thing was handled discreetly in back rooms. All that has happened now is it's been made into law.
Land of the free, eh? Thankfully, I don't live in the US!
Not to mention that any 2nd year Chemistry student will tell you that it was never dogma. The reason why they don't consider the "interior" electrons is because analytical solutions are... difficult and there influence is negligible. So, they ignore the effects because it doesn't effect the outcome.
(Aside: Engineers do the same thing. If you saw the math that they use, they regularly assume that series converge and chop off all but a few terms because it won't change the outcome in context.)
Continuing, there is a difference between computer simulations and actual experimental verification. Sure, we now have evidence of something going on that we didn't know before. Well, actually only in the details. But, what needs to happen now is predictions made, and an experiment run. THEN we'll know if these calculations hold water.
Because, last I checked, they could only shoot things out of the sky with a laser when the trajectory, speed, etc was known. Otherwise, it was impossible to get the laser aligned to hit the very fast moving object quick enough.
I whole heartedly disagree. Anyone should run screaming from anything Griffiths'. Not only is his QM book not mathematically rigorous, it's exceedingly light on theory as well. All it really does is skim the surface of something that you really need to go pretty in depth from the start. Not to mention the price. Two good options are:
Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development
Leslie E Ballentine Google Book link
Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction
Greiner
E&M doesn't really have many good books. Or really any if one considers pedagogy. It's just from a different time that doesn't really agree with modern minds. I could ask my wife which are good books, but who really cares? Just get an elementary intro from the relevant sections of Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers and be done with it. Pick up the rest as things progress or as directed by ones supervisor.
Classical Mechanics does have good books though. One of them being Goldstein's, Classical Mechanics. Also, to say it doesn't really matter just shows you how much you experimentalists haven't a clue. You need to know Classical Mechanics to a GREAT degree to really understand the higher stuff like Quantum Mechanics. But, then again, you guys don't get that far. Continue pushing your buttons and leave the theory to those that understand it.
For mathematical methods there's Boas', Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. A good table of integrals is also a necessity for any Physicist. I'd recommend "the big Russian book." I've actually called it that for so long I can't remember the real name of it and don't have immediate access to it. Ask around and someone will tell you or hand it to you. It should be in any decent library.
Sakurai isn't a terribly good book to start with: it's more of a reference. IMO a better one would be Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development by Leslie Ballentine. Also, the Feynman Lectures are quite dated and cover many topics that either aren't covered any more, or aren't covered in that depth. Not to mention some notational issues. I'm always in wonderment as to why people recommend them. Though answering my own question, it's probably because there doesn't exist a good introductory book any more.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. What I'd recommend is:
Boas, "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences"
That'll take you from proving things to applying the actual Math that you've learned. Given your background, you should be able to go through this quickly. You'd probably also benefit from:
D'Inverno, "Introducing Einstein's Relativity"
Since Relativity is in there quite a bit. But, as astrophysics applies many different fields of Physics, you'd probably benefit from:
Serway, Jewett "Physics for Scientists and Engineers"
All those are targeted at an Undergrad and should provide a decent foundation for you to take off from. But, you're still going to have a steep hill to climb given your lack of background in your chosen subject area.
That being said, I have a question for you: Why are you asking here instead of you future supervisor? (S)he is going to know *much* better what you're going to have to know than anyone here. Programs differ you know.
""" The argument is that GPL adherents desire the freedom of their code, while those on the BSD side want freedom for their projects. """
This is where I stopped reading because it's wrong. The GPL is about freedom for the user (i.e. RMS' definition of free NOT the dictionary definition). It has nothing to do with freedom for the code or any such thing. BSD is about freedom as an absolute (dictionary definition).
Btw, BSD code always stays free in the same sense as GPL code (given the dictionary definition). As in, as long as someone has the code it will always remain BSD similar to the GPL (even GPL code can go away if the file ceases to exist/CVS taken down/etc). That's how licenses work no matter how much RMS says that they don't.
The actual difference is that RMS' ideology is shoved down others throats with the GPL whereas the BSD gives others actual freedom. I personally like actual freedom and abhor people trying to shove things down my throat which is why I choose the BSD.
That being said, it all depends on ones goals. For instance, IBM (among others) give tonnes of stuff to Linux. It would be naive to think that this is selfless. What they are doing is promoting there hardware, which is what they sell, by way of giving software away. In the long run, it's going to be cheaper to pay a few people to get Linux to run on the Cell, create libraries that give easy access to the SPEs, so that Scientists/hobbyists can run stuff on the Cell than to market it in a traditional way.
On the other side of the fence are companies like Redhat/etc (newlib - non-linux targets) and Insomniac Games (Nocturnal Initiative) that have BSD/MIT licenses. Because, they are in it for the betterment of all. Not just people that think like they do. Not to sell any products.
The flame wars are all about not recognising the above and attempting to get people to believe the way "you" do. Kinda like the crusades. Because, of course "you're" right, right? Because, "you're" infallible, right? They way the truth and the light, right?
""" Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code """
Actually, Sony does do small patches. Check the history for the frequency of these updates if you don't believe me. Or do you honestly believe that small changes to the system can't have disastrous effects?
""" a natural by-product of the upgrade (like the online play server was moved or something """
Or say a protocol was change. Do you know exactly was changed? Because, I'm calling bullshit on what you're saying. That is unless you can show your insider knowledge and prove to me that this change is unnecessarily preventing on-line play.
""" But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use. """
Yah, because fixing errors in the OS is a bad idea. Get a clue. We're *far* beyond the 8-bit NES that didn't have an OS. We're in an age where consoles are basically specialised computers. Computers that have an OS which is software, which will have bugs that need to be fixed from time to time. Computers that will have features added.
But, that's ok. We don't need an evolving set of features or improvements on features or increased stability or... We'll just go back to the old model of a static stagnant system reducing the systems lifespan increasing costs for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't a Summer reference, it is a Mal reference. It is from the episode 'Our Mrs. Reynolds'.
I remember two decades ago (and still ongoing) that the US is pumping pollution into the Red River (among others) which travels into Canada. We complained and they said tough. But, apparently it's a horror if it's done to them.
Perhaps it is this that forces the US to realise that the world map doesn't end at its borders.
Just because specific conditions are necessary does NOT mean that those conditions are rare. Until we actually start looking up and have efficient methods of detecting planets we won't know either way. Talk about an abusive interpretation of COMPUTER SIMULATION results.
And the next day a /. story:
Councils Recruit Unpaid Volunteers To Spy On Their Neighbors
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/01/1144246
LOL
Actually I'm Canadian and I spent just about 2 weeks in Scotland a couple years ago. I watch/read BBC news among others and since my wife is an Academic we've spoken to many people from the UK about such things. In fact, we've yet to run into one that thinks that the UK is an appropriate place to raise a child and/or live.
I've kept an eye on my own country and have fought against many things. I've also paid attention to what has been going on abroad because such things have a tendency to end up here if the politicians think it's a "good idea" no matter how profound stupid said idea really is.
That's who I really am.
Who do I think YOU are? Some jackass that doesn't have the eyes nor the brains to see what's going on around him/her. Get a clue. The UK fell from grace years ago. Its reputation is nothing but a memory. The only problem is that the populace and the rest of the world have yet to realise it. Because, it's all for your own good right?
According to my German wife, there is a fair amount of opportunity in Germany (she cited Berlin specifically). Well, that was a couple years ago. But, it's still worth checking out.
Also, apparently you can get by fairly well with English only in the larger cities. So, that should help you acclimate.
You also might want to consider other English speaking countries such as New Zealand. Wikipedia actually has a list of countries that have English as an official language. So, you might want to check that out.
As a last note, I'd shy away from the UK as the violence there is getting bad enough that there are reports of people leaving because of it. Not to mention all the Orwellian BS.
Hope that helps. Good luck.
"""
The purpose of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is probably obvious from its name
"""
Not exactly. See, Free to most people means free. And unfortunately, RMS redefined free as Free. The devil is in the details. Reading the fine print reveals that there is profound restrictions on developers (the users of the libraries, utilities, etc). So, Free by way of the (L)GPL isn't exactly free. In other words, citing freedom for one group (end users) by way of clobbering the freedom of another group (the developers) doesn't exactly mean free in any rational definition of the word.
So yah, not exactly obvious by its name. You really have to dig to find out exactly what these guys are up to.
Statically linking to a LGPL lib requires the linker to make his/her work to be LGPL'd (or at least a portion thereof - it is a strange beast). Given that the libc is LGPL'd then the code which allows one to dynamically link is itself LGPL'd. So, one is still statically linking to LGPL'd code even if they only wish to dynamically link.
That said, how many other functions are there in libc that will be used that are LGPL'd. Is one supposed to dynamically link the libc through there own means before being able to take advantage of std c functions? The whole thing is asinine. If RMS, etc would have just made a straight forward license that plays well with others, then all this would be moot. But, he didn't and now companies are shying away from Linux development because of this.
Just look at how many companies tried to take advantage of this on a Linux and how many got bitten. Don't take into account any wrong doing on there part of how they did it because to another company that doesn't matter. All that matters is that another company tried to take advantage of Linux and got screwed in the act. All that matters is that the vast majority of companies that don't get bitten don't get bitten because they've already [L]GPL'd there work. And the vast majority of companies don't exactly like to give things away. Kinda makes it hard to make money.
That's why I say it's asinine to complain that people can't complain that companies aren't jumping on board. The GPL community has gone around and forced open many things. This has an effect and the GPL community is currently getting bitten by that. What goes around comes around.
"If you don't like the [L]GPL, then don't use it!"
Well, I think that industry has spoken. Perhaps if Linux would get a clue and license its libc, etc under an actual permissive license instead of the LGPL things would be better. As in, it's quite hard to dynamically link to a LPGL'd lib when the code to do that IS IN LIBC which is LGPL'd! Kind of largely defeats the purpose of dynamic linking doesn't it.
This kind of illustrates the "us v.s. them" mentality of RMS, etc doesn't it. Yah, "if you don't like the [L]GPL don't use it." Well, the industry at large hasn't. Given they've chosen one of the options that "you" gave them, you don't get bitch about it just because they chose the one that "you" don't like.
Well, that post of yours could go either sarcastic or honest. Don't know you so...
At any rate, I recall that in my grade 11 Chem course we did a bit on pressure. The teacher created a "vacuum" over a bowl of water at room temperature and it boiled. That's less than an atmosphere difference and boiling. So, imagine what one more atmosphere would do to the boiling point. It'll go up quite a bit. Now try to imagine how much more pressure than that there is down at that depth i.e. at that pressure, it's really really *really* hard to make something boil.
Beyond that, I /could/ open up one of my Physics books and calculate something, but I'm not exactly that enamoured in this problem to do that. But, if you want to...
"""
Seriously, though, wouldn't the water just convert to steam at that point, even if it WAS under that much water?
"""
Not under that amount of pressure.
That active word there is "should." Sure there /should/ be a DB around with the info in there, but is there?
Quite frankly, what this guy is saying is likely. Not really the time frame. But, it *is* likely that it would take significant work to get this done. How? Given what I've seen in industry, I have no doubt that there is a significant chance that flat files are used. So, all you need is some incompetent jackass to create a complicated convoluted horrid format for it/them and not document that. Then this guy retires, gets fired, gets laid off, whatever.
So, now you got a program that's only programmed to enable an increase salaries and the one person (or limited amount of people) that actually know what's going on are gone. And now you gotta reverse engineer the format which wouldn't exactly be trivial given the massive amount of undoubtedly undocumented spaghetti code using "clever" acronyms for variable names (also undocumented).
You're a fairly naive person aren't you. It's always been this way. It's just that this sort of thing was handled discreetly in back rooms. All that has happened now is it's been made into law.
Land of the free, eh? Thankfully, I don't live in the US!
... this comment on the OP was inappropriate?
"""
Which totally wouldn't have happened if Scotty was the engineer.
"""
Not to mention that any 2nd year Chemistry student will tell you that it was never dogma. The reason why they don't consider the "interior" electrons is because analytical solutions are... difficult and there influence is negligible. So, they ignore the effects because it doesn't effect the outcome.
(Aside: Engineers do the same thing. If you saw the math that they use, they regularly assume that series converge and chop off all but a few terms because it won't change the outcome in context.)
Continuing, there is a difference between computer simulations and actual experimental verification. Sure, we now have evidence of something going on that we didn't know before. Well, actually only in the details. But, what needs to happen now is predictions made, and an experiment run. THEN we'll know if these calculations hold water.
Because, last I checked, they could only shoot things out of the sky with a laser when the trajectory, speed, etc was known. Otherwise, it was impossible to get the laser aligned to hit the very fast moving object quick enough.
What? You're not already practised? You got a lot of catching up to do!
What you've done is called cherry picking. THAT dispels your argument.
Did in the last post on this topic, it came out that the judge called Googles claims of privacy infringement "speculative"?
I whole heartedly disagree. Anyone should run screaming from anything Griffiths'. Not only is his QM book not mathematically rigorous, it's exceedingly light on theory as well. All it really does is skim the surface of something that you really need to go pretty in depth from the start. Not to mention the price. Two good options are:
Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development
Leslie E Ballentine
Google Book link
Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction
Greiner
E&M doesn't really have many good books. Or really any if one considers pedagogy. It's just from a different time that doesn't really agree with modern minds. I could ask my wife which are good books, but who really cares? Just get an elementary intro from the relevant sections of Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers and be done with it. Pick up the rest as things progress or as directed by ones supervisor.
Classical Mechanics does have good books though. One of them being Goldstein's, Classical Mechanics. Also, to say it doesn't really matter just shows you how much you experimentalists haven't a clue. You need to know Classical Mechanics to a GREAT degree to really understand the higher stuff like Quantum Mechanics. But, then again, you guys don't get that far. Continue pushing your buttons and leave the theory to those that understand it.
For mathematical methods there's Boas', Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. A good table of integrals is also a necessity for any Physicist. I'd recommend "the big Russian book." I've actually called it that for so long I can't remember the real name of it and don't have immediate access to it. Ask around and someone will tell you or hand it to you. It should be in any decent library.
Sakurai isn't a terribly good book to start with: it's more of a reference. IMO a better one would be Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development by Leslie Ballentine. Also, the Feynman Lectures are quite dated and cover many topics that either aren't covered any more, or aren't covered in that depth. Not to mention some notational issues. I'm always in wonderment as to why people recommend them. Though answering my own question, it's probably because there doesn't exist a good introductory book any more.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. What I'd recommend is:
Boas, "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences"
That'll take you from proving things to applying the actual Math that you've learned. Given your background, you should be able to go through this quickly. You'd probably also benefit from:
D'Inverno, "Introducing Einstein's Relativity"
Since Relativity is in there quite a bit. But, as astrophysics applies many different fields of Physics, you'd probably benefit from:
Serway, Jewett "Physics for Scientists and Engineers"
All those are targeted at an Undergrad and should provide a decent foundation for you to take off from. But, you're still going to have a steep hill to climb given your lack of background in your chosen subject area.
That being said, I have a question for you: Why are you asking here instead of you future supervisor? (S)he is going to know *much* better what you're going to have to know than anyone here. Programs differ you know.
You're confusing Buddhism with (probably) some interpretation of Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't have any Gods.
Hey, those University world religion classes were somewhat useful after all.
"""
The argument is that GPL adherents desire the freedom of their code, while those on the BSD side want freedom for their projects.
"""
This is where I stopped reading because it's wrong. The GPL is about freedom for the user (i.e. RMS' definition of free NOT the dictionary definition). It has nothing to do with freedom for the code or any such thing. BSD is about freedom as an absolute (dictionary definition).
Btw, BSD code always stays free in the same sense as GPL code (given the dictionary definition). As in, as long as someone has the code it will always remain BSD similar to the GPL (even GPL code can go away if the file ceases to exist/CVS taken down/etc). That's how licenses work no matter how much RMS says that they don't.
The actual difference is that RMS' ideology is shoved down others throats with the GPL whereas the BSD gives others actual freedom. I personally like actual freedom and abhor people trying to shove things down my throat which is why I choose the BSD.
That being said, it all depends on ones goals. For instance, IBM (among others) give tonnes of stuff to Linux. It would be naive to think that this is selfless. What they are doing is promoting there hardware, which is what they sell, by way of giving software away. In the long run, it's going to be cheaper to pay a few people to get Linux to run on the Cell, create libraries that give easy access to the SPEs, so that Scientists/hobbyists can run stuff on the Cell than to market it in a traditional way.
On the other side of the fence are companies like Redhat/etc (newlib - non-linux targets) and Insomniac Games (Nocturnal Initiative) that have BSD/MIT licenses. Because, they are in it for the betterment of all. Not just people that think like they do. Not to sell any products.
The flame wars are all about not recognising the above and attempting to get people to believe the way "you" do. Kinda like the crusades. Because, of course "you're" right, right? Because, "you're" infallible, right? They way the truth and the light, right?
"""
Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code
"""
Actually, Sony does do small patches. Check the history for the frequency of these updates if you don't believe me. Or do you honestly believe that small changes to the system can't have disastrous effects?
"""
a natural by-product of the upgrade (like the online play server was moved or something
"""
Or say a protocol was change. Do you know exactly was changed? Because, I'm calling bullshit on what you're saying. That is unless you can show your insider knowledge and prove to me that this change is unnecessarily preventing on-line play.
"""
But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use.
"""
Yah, because fixing errors in the OS is a bad idea. Get a clue. We're *far* beyond the 8-bit NES that didn't have an OS. We're in an age where consoles are basically specialised computers. Computers that have an OS which is software, which will have bugs that need to be fixed from time to time. Computers that will have features added.
But, that's ok. We don't need an evolving set of features or improvements on features or increased stability or... We'll just go back to the old model of a static stagnant system reducing the systems lifespan increasing costs for everyone.