on which it says: "With the Android-based operating system, the GD300 easily accommodates current and emerging applications or 'apps' for warfighters, first responders or commercial field service users."
So, they DO make android products. As to whether it is a SCAM: that may still be the case; I have no idea as to what the ratio is between MS products and Android products.
And I do not like herring, that does not bode well for my intelligence then. On the other side, it should not be difficult to find groups with noted individuals of exceptional intelligence who do NOT like herring. (Anyone caring to actually read the wikipedia article? I know, I know, it is against/. tradition, but it IS for a good cause, at least I think so;-0).
Transforming into the 'rest frame' of the Earth is indeed possible, and yes, those transformations are essential in (General) relativity. But: this introduces 'forces' or 'fields'. Much like the coriolis effect... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect).
Somehow I do not think that this is wat the organisers mean...
Stunning to read (sorry, counter to slashdot tradition I actually ventured into the article!) that some of the organisers have PhD's including some 'in Astrophysics' or even 'general relativity'. Ah well, it reminds me of my days as a physics student in which I was tought the mathematics behind general relativity (manifolds etc etc) by a mathematics PhD student that believed in an alternative universe in which a rod could have 'absolute stiffness' (and in which a force on one end of the rod would be transmitted instanteneously to the other end) without wanting to be bothered with 'KITT clash with KARR means end of universe' problems...
Re:Unfortunately this aint taught in school..
on
The Design of Design
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It is a crime (or should I say misdemeanor) to use the title 'Doctor' in the Netherlands, if you are neither a Medical Doctor [MD] nor a philosophical doctor [PhD]. I would assume this true in other parts in the world too, including the States, but I could of course be mistaken.
(Interestingly, the title 'professor', often the title of the one who is coaching the PhD student, is not protected in the Netherlands: you could start your own 'institution' and give yourself this title)
I didn't say what GP did, but I happen to agree with him (OK, GP COULD be a 'she', but this being./ I am taking my chances that it is a 'he'). And I understand (or at least think I do;-0) the difference between copyright and patent. I agree that patents are 'broader'. Taking you example of a hammer: good thing you could defeat my copyrighted wooden handle hammer; how else would I get a metal handled one? The fact that (for software) copyright is "less broad" than patents is (IMHO) a GOOD thing. Ie: less is more.
Sorry, not buying this. I am no fan of MS, but typing 'why is windows so expensive' in my search bar on firefox (which defaults to results on Google.com) gives as FIRST hit a newstory about how this query turns up a query about Apple, the second is about... Apple.
Seriously, did you try it with quotes? (No, didn't try it myself). Surely, there are more articles on WHY the hardware of APPLE is relatively EXPENSIVE, compared to laptops & pc's which run WINDOWS?
As long as you do not put "" around the query, I would not put it down to dishonesty. (I would expect that the query "why is windows not so expensive" also gives a first hit to Apple?").
Well, taking some chances here, certainly in a crowd that does read sites like slashdot:
I think there is another reason: Slashdot isn't well known enough. I know that Slashdot ís a popular site (I read it myself!), but perhaps "slightly more" with "geeks-with-a-crush-on-linux/apple/BSD/fill-in-other-non-M$ OS", and less with IT managers.
Put another way: in Microsoft-office-support-environments (with operators that manage Windows machines), the fraction of IT-managers (and other people that determine which sites should be BLACKlisted) that know Slashdot may be marginally small.
When a blacklist is put together, sites like Facebook & Youtube would therefore be mentioned much earlier in that 'blacklisting brainstormsession', than would be Slashdot or Digg... (Besides, blocking Youtube would mean more in freeing resources than blocking Slashdot would). So nobody even thinks about blocking Slashdot.
Now, when sites like Slashdot were to appear on WHITElists, now, THAT would be a reason to think of something like 'misuse of power'. But not putting it on a BLACKlist...
I still remember one of the physics professors stating during a seminar "I can understand why you THINK you have free will". Disclaimer: he said it in Dutch.
Well, there is LAW, stating that Pi is 4... (At least, that is what internet told me a few years ago. On the other hand: a quick google doesn't provide me with a link).
Idea behind this is not so strange, though: the background is in taxes. The age-old question: how to tax a piece of land in the form of a circle;-0
I have no modpoints, or I would have modded you 'up'! You strike at what I think is the crucial 'way out' for any professional, who is put in a situation of (possibly) conflicting interests: Take a step back.
As a consultant, I am sometimes in a position in which my position at the client would have me do "intake interviews" (is that the correct way to say it?) with collegues from the same consultancy company. The (possibly) conflicting interests: those of the client, wanting the best 'man (woman) for the job' and those of my company, wanting to post as many consultants as possibly. My "standard trick": I ask someone else to do the interview. I have in the past been asked to name a possible candidate for my team (and have done so), asking another consultant (working at the same client but working for a rivaling consultancy company) to do the interview.
The same behaviour should in my opinion guide a wikipedia editor: he (she) should: - Get paid to give advice on how to edit the text. Or even: completely write it. But... - the submission should be under a different id. In other words: the article should not get any reputability just because the (supposedly) well known/highly regarded editor wrote it. And... - the editor should refrain from having anything to do with this article. This could go as far as not even linking to the article, but that might be asking too much in the case of wikipedia. In either case, the article (and edits thereof) should evolve as if the editor had not been involved at all, but had just lent his(her) brains for the little time spent in writing the first few versions. If the article at any point in the future would be up for arbitration of any kind, the editor should 'excuse' himself, the same way a judge will retire from a case in which he (she) has any real or imaginary interest in the result. (The dutch terms are 'wraken' or 'verschonen'; sorry, don't know the English words for it).
The site in question seems to work fine from Europe. That was actually my guess beforehand: indeed, how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas... So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins', ie those of certain ISP's. (Those which are not one of their choosing).
Your statement is one that has been made many times before. Each time I read it, it strikes me as a peculiar notion.
The reason: most (?all?) advances in math has been because there is a problem 'somewhere' that needs solving. And then the mathematics is developed to 'solve' that problem. It is true of differential equations, as invented by Newton (he introduced the 'dx' as an infinitely small deviation). It is true of the theories of manifolds, needed in string theory, as well as in general relativity.
In my opinion, mathematics is the tool in which 'real world' is made 'discussable' by man. And thus it is succesfull in physics. But also in economics (diffusion equation and the stock market, anyone?). Or in health (outbreak of illness). Or in biology (predator/prey cycli). Indeed, even the things we do NOT understand, we can write down in mathematics; i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty relation (a well known citation by Niels Bohr: there are two types of people who say they understand Quantum mechanics: the liars, and the luncatics).
I did my PhD on (Theoretical) Physics in 1997, with a Dutch University. Our universities are more 'even', meaning the difference between 'the best' and 'the worst' is smaller than in the States. Off course, being Dutch, I would emphasize that our Universities are better that those in the US, but you might disagree;-0 Seriously though, I have some experiences which I would like to share with you. 1) In my PhD time, I spent a desk (a room, actually) with two other PhD students, in succession. I.e.: first with the one, later with the other. Especially with the other: he was doing his PhD on the Quantum Hall effect, while I was doing mine on Quantum electrodynamics. In those years we frequently confronted each other with problems in our own field. It learned me that while the subjects of our thesis were relatively close, we still missed some of the knowledge of each others field to really understand the relevant problem we faced. 2) I remember being (almost) upset when I learned that PhD students from a different (Dutch) University didn't know the "e^(-kT)" expression used in thermodynamics. This was 'elementary' in our University. So, off course my University was better than his;-0 but that is beside the point: what YOU think is 'absolutely neccessary' for a MSc or PhD might not be that common. 3) Mathematics, like Physics, is a broad area. Indeed, you could make a career (and become rich! [citation needed]) solving some 'simple' problems in area's like prime number theory. And while there ARE quite some links between different fields of mathematics, it is not difficult to 'miss' PDE's while still doing some very high level mathematics.
It has been a while since I did my PhD in (Theoretical) Physics. In that time, I did read some 'math books for physicists'. I do recall reading some 'mathematics for mathematiciancs' books as well. They were of the form 'theorem... corollary... theorem... corollary... proof... '. Not really simple to read, and indeed (for me) not simple to learn from.
Indeed, I happen to think that the UNDERSTANDING of mathematics comes from doing physics (indeed, many (most?) advances in mathematics comes from physicists trying to understand/explore some theoretical model. String theory, anyone?). Off course, you are welcome to disagree with me.
However, I do not understand the quest for a 'physics book for mathematicians': I happen to think there is no such thing!
A good physics book on a mathematical subject is probably what you need. My suggestion: speak to a PhD student in physics at your University (note: I am assuming that you are at some University that has PhD's on both mathematics as well as physics), and ask him (her?) for a good book on PDE's. Good chance, this is what you are looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you actually read the article and click on the link to gdi's website, you should get this link:
http://www.gd-itronix.com/index.cfm?page=Products:gd300
on which it says:
"With the Android-based operating system, the GD300 easily accommodates current and emerging applications or 'apps' for warfighters, first responders or commercial field service users."
So, they DO make android products. As to whether it is a SCAM: that may still be the case; I have no idea as to what the ratio is between MS products and Android products.
Chips,
And I do not like herring, that does not bode well for my intelligence then. /. tradition, but it IS for a good cause, at least I think so ;-0).
On the other side, it should not be difficult to find groups with noted individuals of exceptional intelligence who do NOT like herring.
(Anyone caring to actually read the wikipedia article? I know, I know, it is against
Better yet, make that:
I for one welcome our new site:Slashdot.org
That should really do it ;-0
Kind regards,
Roel
Hmmm... So Britannica still on top?
But this link (is with smoothing=0) gives a different result:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Britannica%2CWikipedia&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
Not that I know whether smoothing=0 is better or worse then smoothing=3
Kind regards,
Roel
Transforming into the 'rest frame' of the Earth is indeed possible, and yes, those transformations are essential in (General) relativity. But: this introduces 'forces' or 'fields'.
Much like the coriolis effect... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect).
Somehow I do not think that this is wat the organisers mean...
Stunning to read (sorry, counter to slashdot tradition I actually ventured into the article!) that some of the organisers have PhD's including some 'in Astrophysics' or even 'general relativity'. Ah well, it reminds me of my days as a physics student in which I was tought the mathematics behind general relativity (manifolds etc etc) by a mathematics PhD student that believed in an alternative universe in which a rod could have 'absolute stiffness' (and in which a force on one end of the rod would be transmitted instanteneously to the other end) without wanting to be bothered with 'KITT clash with KARR means end of universe' problems...
Hmmm... Is this like, a corrolary, on Godwin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) law ;-0
Whoooooooshh!
It is a crime (or should I say misdemeanor) to use the title 'Doctor' in the Netherlands, if you are neither a Medical Doctor [MD] nor a philosophical doctor [PhD].
I would assume this true in other parts in the world too, including the States, but I could of course be mistaken.
(Interestingly, the title 'professor', often the title of the one who is coaching the PhD student, is not protected in the Netherlands: you could start your own 'institution' and give yourself this title)
I didn't say what GP did, but I happen to agree with him (OK, GP COULD be a 'she', but this being ./ I am taking my chances that it is a 'he'). And I understand (or at least think I do ;-0) the difference between copyright and patent.
I agree that patents are 'broader'. Taking you example of a hammer: good thing you could defeat my copyrighted wooden handle hammer; how else would I get a metal handled one?
The fact that (for software) copyright is "less broad" than patents is (IMHO) a GOOD thing.
Ie: less is more.
Sorry, not buying this. ... Apple.
I am no fan of MS, but typing 'why is windows so expensive' in my search bar on firefox (which defaults to results on Google.com) gives as FIRST hit a newstory about how this query turns up a query about Apple, the second is about
Seriously, did you try it with quotes? (No, didn't try it myself).
Surely, there are more articles on WHY the hardware of APPLE is relatively EXPENSIVE, compared to laptops & pc's which run WINDOWS?
As long as you do not put "" around the query, I would not put it down to dishonesty.
(I would expect that the query "why is windows not so expensive" also gives a first hit to Apple?").
Sorry to reply to my own post, and not wanting to karma *****, the update is now shown in the main story, thus making my parent post redundant ;-(
There is an update:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/
Well, taking some chances here, certainly in a crowd that does read sites like slashdot:
I think there is another reason: Slashdot isn't well known enough.
I know that Slashdot ís a popular site (I read it myself!), but perhaps "slightly more" with "geeks-with-a-crush-on-linux/apple/BSD/fill-in-other-non-M$ OS", and less with IT managers.
Put another way: in Microsoft-office-support-environments (with operators that manage Windows machines), the fraction of IT-managers (and other people that determine which sites should be BLACKlisted) that know Slashdot may be marginally small.
When a blacklist is put together, sites like Facebook & Youtube would therefore be mentioned much earlier in that 'blacklisting brainstormsession', than would be Slashdot or Digg... (Besides, blocking Youtube would mean more in freeing resources than blocking Slashdot would). So nobody even thinks about blocking Slashdot.
Now, when sites like Slashdot were to appear on WHITElists, now, THAT would be a reason to think of something like 'misuse of power'.
But not putting it on a BLACKlist...
Kind regards (and no insult intended),
Roel
Would be interesting, all those travel expenses to a Texas court, for patentcases filed in that special court in Texas...
I know, I know, just kidding!
I still remember one of the physics professors stating during a seminar "I can understand why you THINK you have free will".
Disclaimer: he said it in Dutch.
Well, there is LAW, stating that Pi is 4...
(At least, that is what internet told me a few years ago. On the other hand: a quick google doesn't provide me with a link).
Idea behind this is not so strange, though: the background is in taxes. The age-old question: how to tax a piece of land in the form of a circle ;-0
I have no modpoints, or I would have modded you 'up'!
You strike at what I think is the crucial 'way out' for any professional, who is put in a situation of (possibly) conflicting interests:
Take a step back.
As a consultant, I am sometimes in a position in which my position at the client would have me do "intake interviews" (is that the correct way to say it?) with collegues from the same consultancy company. The (possibly) conflicting interests: those of the client, wanting the best 'man (woman) for the job' and those of my company, wanting to post as many consultants as possibly.
My "standard trick": I ask someone else to do the interview. I have in the past been asked to name a possible candidate for my team (and have done so), asking another consultant (working at the same client but working for a rivaling consultancy company) to do the interview.
The same behaviour should in my opinion guide a wikipedia editor: he (she) should:
- Get paid to give advice on how to edit the text. Or even: completely write it. But...
- the submission should be under a different id. In other words: the article should not get any reputability just because the (supposedly) well known/highly regarded editor wrote it. And...
- the editor should refrain from having anything to do with this article. This could go as far as not even linking to the article, but that might be asking too much in the case of wikipedia.
In either case, the article (and edits thereof) should evolve as if the editor had not been involved at all, but had just lent his(her) brains for the little time spent in writing the first few versions.
If the article at any point in the future would be up for arbitration of any kind, the editor should 'excuse' himself, the same way a judge will retire from a case in which he (she) has any real or imaginary interest in the result.
(The dutch terms are 'wraken' or 'verschonen'; sorry, don't know the English words for it).
The site in question seems to work fine from Europe. That was actually my guess beforehand: indeed, how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas...
So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins', ie those of certain ISP's.
(Those which are not one of their choosing).
Guess Disney should be glad to be in the States, and not somewhere in Europe where our Dutch Neelie could get at them ;-0
(See e.g. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/1328249 ).
Yes but... ;-0
The big question is:
If the three patents are 'processed in parallel' by the USPTO, would that constituate prior art
Mod parent up!
The youtube video demonstrates many of the arguments in this discussion...
Hmmm... No, mine says: 'Slashdot | MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Trough OEMs - Mozilla Firefox'.
Oh... Wait...
Hmmm... A new trend? No longer reading 'have not RTFA' but 'have not Viewed TFA'? /. coming to.
Dear oh dear, what is
Your statement is one that has been made many times before. Each time I read it, it strikes me as a peculiar notion.
The reason: most (?all?) advances in math has been because there is a problem 'somewhere' that needs solving. And then the mathematics is developed to 'solve' that problem. It is true of differential equations, as invented by Newton (he introduced the 'dx' as an infinitely small deviation).
It is true of the theories of manifolds, needed in string theory, as well as in general relativity.
In my opinion, mathematics is the tool in which 'real world' is made 'discussable' by man. And thus it is succesfull in physics. But also in economics (diffusion equation and the stock market, anyone?). Or in health (outbreak of illness). Or in biology (predator/prey cycli).
Indeed, even the things we do NOT understand, we can write down in mathematics; i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty relation (a well known citation by Niels Bohr: there are two types of people who say they understand Quantum mechanics: the liars, and the luncatics).
I did my PhD on (Theoretical) Physics in 1997, with a Dutch University. Our universities are more 'even', meaning the difference between 'the best' and 'the worst' is smaller than in the States. Off course, being Dutch, I would emphasize that our Universities are better that those in the US, but you might disagree ;-0 ;-0 but that is beside the point: what YOU think is 'absolutely neccessary' for a MSc or PhD might not be that common.
Seriously though, I have some experiences which I would like to share with you.
1) In my PhD time, I spent a desk (a room, actually) with two other PhD students, in succession. I.e.: first with the one, later with the other.
Especially with the other: he was doing his PhD on the Quantum Hall effect, while I was doing mine on Quantum electrodynamics. In those years we frequently confronted each other with problems in our own field. It learned me that while the subjects of our thesis were relatively close, we still missed some of the knowledge of each others field to really understand the relevant problem we faced.
2) I remember being (almost) upset when I learned that PhD students from a different (Dutch) University didn't know the "e^(-kT)" expression used in thermodynamics. This was 'elementary' in our University. So, off course my University was better than his
3) Mathematics, like Physics, is a broad area. Indeed, you could make a career (and become rich! [citation needed]) solving some 'simple' problems in area's like prime number theory.
And while there ARE quite some links between different fields of mathematics, it is not difficult to 'miss' PDE's while still doing some very high level mathematics.
It has been a while since I did my PhD in (Theoretical) Physics. In that time, I did read some 'math books for physicists'. ... corollary ... theorem ... corollary ... proof ... '. Not really simple to read, and indeed (for me) not simple to learn from.
I do recall reading some 'mathematics for mathematiciancs' books as well. They were of the form 'theorem
Indeed, I happen to think that the UNDERSTANDING of mathematics comes from doing physics (indeed, many (most?) advances in mathematics comes from physicists trying to understand/explore some theoretical model. String theory, anyone?).
Off course, you are welcome to disagree with me.
However, I do not understand the quest for a 'physics book for mathematicians': I happen to think there is no such thing!
A good physics book on a mathematical subject is probably what you need. My suggestion: speak to a PhD student in physics at your University (note: I am assuming that you are at some University that has PhD's on both mathematics as well as physics), and ask him (her?) for a good book on PDE's. Good chance, this is what you are looking for.