Thinking that a small group of fanatical social outcasts can affect any change whatsoever
Last time I checked, Slashdot had over 500 000 registered users. That's only registered users and I don't think it's out of the question to assume there are twice as many (if not more) unregistered users. These are largely people in the IT industry. So, you're saying that 1 000 000 people (at least) in the IT industry cannot "affect any change whatsoever"? Perhaps you should have put more thought into it.;-)
Oops, I see someone has already made this point... Oh well.
Allowing the police to search with a warrant is giving up your freedom.
You said it: Allowing the police... giving up your freedom. This is voluntarily giving up of your freedom to support a common justice. Critical points, don't you think?
If what you want (or the majority) is to kill innocent people, should that be allowed? No. Government is not about always about doing what the people want, but also about protecting the few from the many (ie. upholding freedom and justice).
It's nice that you argue that the Imperial system is a coherent single system,
I never said that imperial wasn't coherent (nor did I say it was). I would argue that all unit systems are coherent, otherwise they'd be pretty useless. I did say (or tried to say) that SI is more consistent and clear in it's structure and choice of units, magnitudes and def'ns.
On the other hand, the metric system called SI, which is used with Litres, is somehow a hodgepodge of different systems.
You are the one who originally said SI is a hodgepodge, but now you're saying that it's not? Is this now what you meant? It is essentially what this sentence is saying.
Things that are measured take singular: money is coming in from..., where counted things take plural: cattle are coming in from...
Very well, so what is this in response to? I don't see how this has much to do with what I said...
But that did not stop you from demanding the source for the recent status of the mole.
Of course I did. As I've said many times before, am I just supposed to believe any statement you make? Before (and while) I engage in discussions, I demand that my opponent make reasoned, informed and therefore referenced arguments, otherwise what's the point? Without evidence you might as well say the sky is red and gravity repels. And if I can learn something in the process by reading a good reference, then all the better.
Historical prospective makes metrology easier to understand.
Perhaps it does. But historical perspectives are not what our discussion is supposed to be about.
Notes on the definition of "ampere".
Are these your own definitions and arguments, or taken from the documents you referenced?
Unlike the other definitions, the ampere is defined to set the permeability of free space to a fixed value. Specifically, it can be written so that it is 1e-7 H/m [...] Therefore, we are entitled to regard the ampere defined to preserve the permeability of space, and that the H/m as the most important fixed value.
You start off good, but then you go bad. It seems you're just shooting off a bunch of facts without any attempt to construct a logical argument. Your conclusion does not follow from any of your statements. Perhaps all this is explained in the document you referenced, but since I don't have time to look through it now, it will have to wait for another day.
A definition, can only be true for a specific case.
A def'n of what? There are many def'ns that are general and apply to many things, not just specific cases. Isn't what you just stated a general def'n to apply to all def'ns?
You can not define an equation.
Define in what sense? I can make up an arbitrary, meaningless equation that has no real world correlation. It's not very useful, but I defined it.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of any of the base units, or even in the derived units, that imply the relationships involved. Units can not be intrinictly coherent. They are coherent to a body of equations.
Isn't that what I've been saying for the past two posts? I believe I specifically said (many times but not in these exact words) that we have a set of mathematical relationships describing phenomena and that the units used to quantify these relationships must be consistent according to these mathematical relationships. The units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they are consistent with the systems. I never stated that the SI units are absolute and had to be defined that way. I only said the mathematical relationships of the phenomena must be preserved, ie. the defined system of units must be consistent with them.
CGS units are coherent, as are SI units. But they are not coherent to the other's equations.
With the conversion factors placed in the appropriate locations I'm sure they are (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but then again I don't know for certain.
One has a series of relationships that define things.... [etc.]...So how many base units for electricity? four or six?"
This is all well and good, but you are seriously straying from the subject at hand. We got into this long and protracted discussion because you said that SI was a hodgepodge system meant to clip the wings of foreign aspirations (or some such things which you still haven't explained) and then made some questionable (still) unbacked statements of how much better Imperial (or other system) is than SI.
There is no reason that in future some compelling reason will evolve for us to associate the candela with the watt. I mean, they used to measure resistances in miles (of copper wire).
No argument here. All I've said is that as long as the relationships inherent in the mathematics are preserved, you can do whatever the hell you want with the units.
You are looking at the number, not the practical implication of measurement. Have you ever tried to construct a cube of a specific volume. It's easy to do a cylinder, since these can be turned on a lathe, which is why you see lots of cylinder measures. But a cube?
Well, how precise are talking here? Besides, I don't see how changing the name from volume to capacity and using a different unit will somehow magically alleviate the problems of constructing a container of sufficiently accurate volume/capacity. Once the capacity/volume is known (in whatever units), it's possible to convert into cylindrical dimensions (with some practical loss in precision due to pi).
History is important, because it decides the evolving patterns[...]
I never argued otherwise, but this has nothing to do with why SI is a bad unit system and Imperial (or whatever your preference) is good. This is what we are discussing. All this stuff you talked about would have been very interesting had it been on topic, but it is not what we started originally discussing. Let's get back to the issue at hand.
Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system.
Well, now you're getting philosophical, and since we seem to have our hands full enough with factual details, please stay away from philosophical statements. I didn't see any references on the site on the subject of "Spirit of the SI" which mentions liters and philosophical uses of the system. In the section entitled "Rules" which outlines use, the liter is not mentioned. So apart from philosophical statements and statements of how people use SI with liters (and hence, are not strictly using SI), then liters are not part of SI.
Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.
I agree, most don't have 1 million one dollar coins, but 1 million 1 dollar coins is 1 million dollars. So I disagree that they are entirely different animals. 1 million dollars is still a quantity, ie. it has a magnitude (in terms of a number) and a unit (dollar). Just because it is more a abstract and general quantity than something like 1 million 1 dollars bills, doesn't make it less of a quantity.
The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development.
For the most part, only current usage is relevant to this discussion. To use your expression, "anything over that is unbridled pedantry". I never argued any history with you, but argued statements you made about SI. Therefore discussing SI as it currently stands is the issue on the table.
You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.
No, I simply hadn't come across it. Now that I have, it changes nothing.
When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.
You forgot the H and a few other little things. The correct substitution is "(kg.m^2/s^2.H)^1/2" for "A", and no, I'm not just being anal because this is very important.
All you're describing is a dependent mathematical relationship. The H cancels with H, the m's and kg's cancel with their parallels in the mag. perm. and so of course you're left with 1 for H/m.
This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.
Look, when you're dealing with a mathematical system where multiple variables are dependent on one another, it doesn't matter what you choose as your base of reference as long as you preserve the relationships. So your above example where H/m becomes 1 just means that in the relationship for A, somewhere you're dividing by quantities which cancel with the mag. perm. It's not that somehow H/m is "baser" than A or more independent than A. All the variables are mutually dependent on one another. There is no such thing as an inherently independent or dependent variable in mathematical relationships. A variable is independent only if you define it to be so. Consequently, you cannot have worked out what was "truly independent" because there is no such thing. Short of some mathematical proof you provide, that is the way mathematics works.
So the only thing "actually being defined" is the relationship between A, H, the mag. perm., etc. Now SI chooses to isolate A and use it as a base of reference in measurements. You can use anything else from that same relationship as a base if you like, but SI chose A and that's fine. If you read the Background->"History of SI" on that site, you'll see alot of references to their choosing "a mutually coherent set of units" which is what I'm explaining now. The units adhere to a set of relationships and the set of base units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they maintain the relationships (coherence) and the derivable units cover the entire set of necessary measurements.
In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.
Yes, but once again, what's your point? Now you're working in different systems with different standards, so obviously your numbers will be different. You tried to use this example to damn SI, yet I don't see how this is anything but a simple factual statement.
You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).
That seems strong evidence in favour of a unified unit system.
They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see why one would be more accurate than the other. Any measure of capacity with one unit can be easily converted to a measure of volume in another with perfect precision.
Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.
You're right, it doesn't make me a historian, and I never claimed to be. Fortunately, we are not discussing history but mathematics and logic where I do have alot of experience. I hope you noticed that I have never made any statements based on any history or interpretation thereof; it's not a subject I know, and it's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. You damned SI for various reasons, and I am arguing those reasons since they appear illogical. I brought up and discussed no history other than what you brought to the table, and even then I didn't argue them because I didn't see them as relevant to the point (I still don't).
The intensity of light in this item was originally measured in foot-candles, the intensity at one foot from one candle. Now, the metre-candle is called a lux, and a microlux is either a kilometre-candle, or metre-microcandle, both of which is 0.000001 lux, or one microlux.
You seem to be confused again: intensity is not the same as intensity over an area. Candela is intensity, lux is intensity per unit area.
Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway.
I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand? And measuring volume using meters cubed is quite intuitive since it uses only one unit of distance/length and the definition of volume = l x w x h. That's clean and clear. Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary.
When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.
By all means do. That doesn't mean everybody has trouble visualizing such things. I have certainlyhave no problem constructing a skyscraper out of 55 houses. And for your information, you can do scaling like that in metric as well, I don't see why imperial systems are superior in this respect.
>Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.
It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.
No, actually it's not, and if you'd bothered to read the site I linked to, you'd have known that. In fact, if you check out the page under the heading "Units outside the SI", you'd find *gasp!*, liters.
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
What's the difference? A quantity is a number of some denomination. Here's a definition of 'number': a concept of quantity derived from zero and units. Here's a def'n of 'quantity': That which can be increased, diminished, or measured; especially (Math.), anything to which mathematical processes are applicable. What can mathematical processesbe applied to? Numbers. What are quantities? Numbers. What are Numbers? Quantities. Clear?
The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.
Once again, sources? You make grand claims without providing any references for your info. Am I just supposed to believe you? All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website (which you didn't even bother to check to see the truth).
Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.
I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second. We can just as easily just say that the Amp is the base unit and therefore the Coulomb is an Ampere second. You don't seem to understand that dependencies are entirely relative, and that's the beauty of mathematics. Math doesn't care what you choose as your base reference. As long as your relationships are the same, your expression is the same. Consequently, SI sets Ampere as a base of reference, and defines other units based on it. The Ampere therefore has no dependencies, by definition.
>The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
If it is, I fail to see your point. You just rearranged the relationship between Henrys and Amperes. This is mathematically correct and applies to all systems of measurement since they have similar relationships. This does not imply that Amperes are somehow dependent on meters, kg or anything else. Henrys are dependent on m, kg, s and A, so if you re-substitute for H, you get A again. Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:
1. y = x + 1 (look! y is a function of x!) 2. x = y - 1 (gasp! now x is a function of y!)
If you define x as the independent variable and just rearrange the equation as in 2., does that mean that all of a sudden y is now the independent variable? No it doesn't. x and y are dependent on each other according to the relationship given in 1., and if you define x as independent, then it shall remain so until you change the def'n. This is the identical situation with Amperes and Henrys, where A is def'd as the indep. var.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.
lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2. Furthermore, if you had actually read the SI site I pointed to, you'd see that candela is the base definition, and lumen is def'd as luminous flux (not intensity) which incidentally is derived to equal candela. You really should look into that reading thing I mentioned. It's quite helpful.
The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.
Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?
This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion? That's the kind of problems you end up having. If everyone has to convert units because everyone else is using a different system, you have greater oppoprtunity for error. Why take the chance? Why not just standardize a good unit system, and move on to more important matters than unit conversion? They did. It's called SI.
Capacities are'nt though.
Why not? They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement.
Oh well, none of your comments stuck.
I think they held up pretty well actually. Especially considering your counter-points didn't actually counter or prove anything.
Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.
Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here.
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said
WTF are you talking about? Care to explain this? Obviously not enough said.
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about.
Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.
Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size.
An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet. Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.
People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.
Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7.
No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity.
The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole.
Source please? Or were you just talking out of your ass (again) ?
The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.
The Ampere does not depend on meters and kilograms. In fact, it depends on no other units, hence the reason it is a base unit. Perhaps you might care to explain why you believe this? Furthermore, Henry per meter is not free of dependency on meter or kilograms. The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
Yet the "Ampere is afforded the status of "base unit". The size of the candela depends on the square metre, but the lux does not.
Once again, you seem to confuse base unit with derived units. The candela is base, and therefore independent of all other units. The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
I'm sorry, care to clarify your incredibly vague point? The flux of coulombs? Also, perhaps you should keep in mind that an entity and it's flux are distinct and so should be different. I think you are confused.
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
And you would know this... how exactly?
Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No.
Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters.
And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.
He said sticking to the letter, ie. using m^2kg/(s^2A^1) instead of Weber. Perhaps you should try reading next time. You know: left to right, top to bottom, group words into sentences, take tylenol for any headaches.
Furtermore, you fail to demonstrate a superior and more consistent system. Are we just supposed to believe your word that SI sucks and that anything else is better? Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility. So why should anyone listen to you? In the unlikely case you'd like to abolish your ignorance, try this page which outlines SI quite well.
Just as an example, inspiration from Aqua would be a theme that has a pleasant colours, shiny (perhaps even translucent) buttons and many of the Aqua "goodies" yet uses a different colour scheme and perhaps even different layout. You get your translucency, your pretty colours and you don't have to deal with Apple.
Making a clone of Aqua is like opening a GPL program and copying practically line for line into a new file and closing and selling that product. You didn't use the source! You just took inspiration from the code and made an almost identical copy. I don't think anyone will dispute that stealing code that way is unethical (not to mention illegal).
Why should graphics and design be any different? A GUI is a graphical design and a bunch of supporting code which makes it dynamic. If you copied a piece of art and started distributing it as your own isn't that unethical to you?
If you took most of the clips from a movie and arranged them in such a way that it was very similar to the original, is that stealing? Would that be unethical in your opinion? The movie company would be down your throat in a second and I bet most people would say, "Hell ya! You shouldn't steal something like that. It cost them millions to make that". But it's ok for GUI's? Somehow ethics, common sense and the law cease to work simply because we're dealing with computers now? Seems a very hypocritical view.
If look at a mac, say I'll do an skin that looks&feels exactly the same that's okay.
You're right, that is ok, but only as long as it's for personal use. As soon as you start distributing it, it's no longer ok.
But you can do well do light blue buttons, blurred color shift, with round edges,
Sure you can, but why does everyone insist on having the identical Aqua colour scheme? Can't they be just a little original and come up with their own? Then they wouldn't even have to worry about Apple. The small price of putting a little thought and effort into being original seems a small price to pay to be relieved of lawyers.
Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done.
Those nefarious, evil bastards.
We're not designing the technology for them.
Oh, good. So I guess it's ok if we break it then. Yoink!
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future.
And all this time I thought that it was the legal system's job to deal with law-breakers. I stand corrected: I guess the record companies are now charged with handling our laws.
From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label.
Oh, so the law no longer governs the fair use of a purchased item, now the record companies have that power. Hm. This must be an extension of the fact that the record companies are now making and enforcing our laws. I guess this also means that a person no longer owns the items they buy. So what is the law now? Do we just pay for the privilege of using said items?
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
Hey! You mean there's an authorized way of stealing music?
How many copies do you allow people to make?
It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now.
Right, cause if I'm making more than six copies, I must be pirating it. And the record companies are really trustworthy, so we should let them decide.
Perhaps this is the source of the mental blocks people have when they stand against fair-use and creating technologies like this. They seem to think the record labels should have absolute power over what the user does with an item they purchased and now own.
Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich,
Oh no, of course not. How many billions of dollars a year are music sales? How much would the music companies pay to ensure that they couldn't be copied? How many protection schemes have already been tried? How many have already failed? Do you notice how they keep trying? Uh-huh, this is definitely a losing market, no money here.
The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
It doesn't become public domain, it's still protected by law and owned by the creator. If I create a machine and start selling it, is the design now public domain? No, of course not. Where is this guy from? Mars?
Apple is lame attempting to lock people out of assimulating a decent theme.
Is everyone so unoriginal that they can't come up with their own stuff? Do you have to copy someone else all the time, even after they've asked you not to?
Well too bad Xerox can sue thier ass for copying a window environment similar to thier own.
They tried, they lost.
This is why once my Multifli code gets out, I'll have a GPL, but I will lock it out of any use on OS/X.
Well hey, no one can stop you from being an idiot.
Also Why don't we design a theme that rivals Aqua,
Hey! There's an original idea!
copyleft it,
Sure, it's your decision (just like it's Apple's).
and make it illieagal for them to assimulate it.
They wouldn't be interested anyway.
Apples days are numbered anyway.
uhuh. Are you a financial analyst? You have some inside info you'd like to share?
I have a multiplatform environment at home. I've got... [blah, blah]... w 1.3GHZ Athlon and 256MB DDR RAM Linux box, everything is supported by the 2.4x kernel, including the DVD ROM and 1394 firewire.
That's nice. Obviously you know what you're talking about since you have so many computer in such an impressive setup.
This box is much faster then the Apple G4 that I had on lone. My kernel compile times are less than half the time taken with the G4.
If I hadn't been so impressed with your knowledge of computers (based on that impressively long-winded description) this statement would normally indicate someone completely ignorant of CPU architecture. Someone with your impressive knowledge would have to know that the G4 is a RISC CPU, and that compilation for RISC architectures is significatantly more complicated than CISC CPUs. You see, the RISC architecture moves code optimization into the compiler, while CISC moves it onto the CPU. Consequently, compilation for RISC machines undergo more optimization cycles. But I'm sure you already knew that! You had to! I mean, you have a ethernet access to your mpeg player! If that's not an indication of expertise, I don't know what is. Well, besides an engineering degree like I have...
Yes the CPU speed is faster on the AMD
I'm glad you noticed that too.
And the 7200RPM hard drives aren't bad either.
Ya, I'm sure those would help a little. Just a LITTLE though.
So, go ahead apple. be a scrooge and put all your eforts into preventing others from using a simular desktop. What goes around comes around. You take from the Open Source movement and you don't reciprocate.
So make pretty-coloured GUI with fancy buttons and transparency, just don't rip the buttons, background colours and look from Aqua. That's inspiration in this situation; an Aqua clone is not akin to inspiration from an algorithm.
Yes, but if you buffer overflowed a Mac server you wouldn't actually be able to DO anything to or with the system. Classic Mac OS has no remote command execution facilities. You can't send AppleScript events, you can't move things, you can't do anything that the system doesn't have an extension for. If someone installed an extension which allowed Mac OS to recieve and process Apple events from the network adapter, then it's possible. Not otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Heard of the GPL? Download the source, now it's yours and AOL doesn't own it.
Thinking that a small group of fanatical social outcasts can affect any change whatsoever
;-)
Last time I checked, Slashdot had over 500 000 registered users. That's only registered users and I don't think it's out of the question to assume there are twice as many (if not more) unregistered users. These are largely people in the IT industry. So, you're saying that 1 000 000 people (at least) in the IT industry cannot "affect any change whatsoever"? Perhaps you should have put more thought into it.
Oops, I see someone has already made this point... Oh well.
Ah, but that library is NOT yours. Why should you have a say over how someone else's code is used?
Allowing the police to search with a warrant is giving up your freedom.
You said it: Allowing the police... giving up your freedom. This is voluntarily giving up of your freedom to support a common justice. Critical points, don't you think?
If it's truly yours, then you can do with it what you will. The GPL has no say over that.
Try smoking too...
If what you want (or the majority) is to kill innocent people, should that be allowed? No. Government is not about always about doing what the people want, but also about protecting the few from the many (ie. upholding freedom and justice).
I'm sorry, was that meant "tongue-in-cheek"? :-)
Insightful? +3?! LOL! This actually got modded up?!
I would love to continue this discussion, but unfortunately I have too much work to do. See you around.
It's nice that you argue that the Imperial system is a coherent single system,
..., where counted things take plural: cattle are coming in from ...
... [etc.] ...So how many base units for electricity? four or six?"
I never said that imperial wasn't coherent (nor did I say it was). I would argue that all unit systems are coherent, otherwise they'd be pretty useless. I did say (or tried to say) that SI is more consistent and clear in it's structure and choice of units, magnitudes and def'ns.
On the other hand, the metric system called SI, which is used with Litres, is somehow a hodgepodge of different systems.
You are the one who originally said SI is a hodgepodge, but now you're saying that it's not? Is this now what you meant? It is essentially what this sentence is saying.
Things that are measured take singular: money is coming in from
Very well, so what is this in response to? I don't see how this has much to do with what I said...
But that did not stop you from demanding the source for the recent status of the mole.
Of course I did. As I've said many times before, am I just supposed to believe any statement you make? Before (and while) I engage in discussions, I demand that my opponent make reasoned, informed and therefore referenced arguments, otherwise what's the point? Without evidence you might as well say the sky is red and gravity repels. And if I can learn something in the process by reading a good reference, then all the better.
Historical prospective makes metrology easier to understand.
Perhaps it does. But historical perspectives are not what our discussion is supposed to be about.
Notes on the definition of "ampere".
Are these your own definitions and arguments, or taken from the documents you referenced?
Unlike the other definitions, the ampere is defined to set the permeability of free space to a fixed value. Specifically, it can be written so that it is 1e-7 H/m [...] Therefore, we are entitled to regard the ampere defined to preserve the permeability of space, and that the H/m as the most important fixed value.
You start off good, but then you go bad. It seems you're just shooting off a bunch of facts without any attempt to construct a logical argument. Your conclusion does not follow from any of your statements. Perhaps all this is explained in the document you referenced, but since I don't have time to look through it now, it will have to wait for another day.
A definition, can only be true for a specific case.
A def'n of what? There are many def'ns that are general and apply to many things, not just specific cases. Isn't what you just stated a general def'n to apply to all def'ns?
You can not define an equation.
Define in what sense? I can make up an arbitrary, meaningless equation that has no real world correlation. It's not very useful, but I defined it.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of any of the base units, or even in the derived units, that imply the relationships involved. Units can not be intrinictly coherent. They are coherent to a body of equations.
Isn't that what I've been saying for the past two posts? I believe I specifically said (many times but not in these exact words) that we have a set of mathematical relationships describing phenomena and that the units used to quantify these relationships must be consistent according to these mathematical relationships. The units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they are consistent with the systems. I never stated that the SI units are absolute and had to be defined that way. I only said the mathematical relationships of the phenomena must be preserved, ie. the defined system of units must be consistent with them.
CGS units are coherent, as are SI units. But they are not coherent to the other's equations.
With the conversion factors placed in the appropriate locations I'm sure they are (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but then again I don't know for certain.
One has a series of relationships that define things.
This is all well and good, but you are seriously straying from the subject at hand. We got into this long and protracted discussion because you said that SI was a hodgepodge system meant to clip the wings of foreign aspirations (or some such things which you still haven't explained) and then made some questionable (still) unbacked statements of how much better Imperial (or other system) is than SI.
There is no reason that in future some compelling reason will evolve for us to associate the candela with the watt. I mean, they used to measure resistances in miles (of copper wire).
No argument here. All I've said is that as long as the relationships inherent in the mathematics are preserved, you can do whatever the hell you want with the units.
You are looking at the number, not the practical implication of measurement. Have you ever tried to construct a cube of a specific volume. It's easy to do a cylinder, since these can be turned on a lathe, which is why you see lots of cylinder measures. But a cube?
Well, how precise are talking here? Besides, I don't see how changing the name from volume to capacity and using a different unit will somehow magically alleviate the problems of constructing a container of sufficiently accurate volume/capacity. Once the capacity/volume is known (in whatever units), it's possible to convert into cylindrical dimensions (with some practical loss in precision due to pi).
History is important, because it decides the evolving patterns[...]
I never argued otherwise, but this has nothing to do with why SI is a bad unit system and Imperial (or whatever your preference) is good. This is what we are discussing. All this stuff you talked about would have been very interesting had it been on topic, but it is not what we started originally discussing. Let's get back to the issue at hand.
Have a nice evening.
Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system.
:-)
Well, now you're getting philosophical, and since we seem to have our hands full enough with factual details, please stay away from philosophical statements. I didn't see any references on the site on the subject of "Spirit of the SI" which mentions liters and philosophical uses of the system. In the section entitled "Rules" which outlines use, the liter is not mentioned. So apart from philosophical statements and statements of how people use SI with liters (and hence, are not strictly using SI), then liters are not part of SI.
Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.
I agree, most don't have 1 million one dollar coins, but 1 million 1 dollar coins is 1 million dollars. So I disagree that they are entirely different animals. 1 million dollars is still a quantity, ie. it has a magnitude (in terms of a number) and a unit (dollar). Just because it is more a abstract and general quantity than something like 1 million 1 dollars bills, doesn't make it less of a quantity.
The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development.
For the most part, only current usage is relevant to this discussion. To use your expression, "anything over that is unbridled pedantry". I never argued any history with you, but argued statements you made about SI. Therefore discussing SI as it currently stands is the issue on the table.
You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.
No, I simply hadn't come across it. Now that I have, it changes nothing.
When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.
You forgot the H and a few other little things. The correct substitution is "(kg.m^2/s^2.H)^1/2" for "A", and no, I'm not just being anal because this is very important.
All you're describing is a dependent mathematical relationship. The H cancels with H, the m's and kg's cancel with their parallels in the mag. perm. and so of course you're left with 1 for H/m.
This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.
Look, when you're dealing with a mathematical system where multiple variables are dependent on one another, it doesn't matter what you choose as your base of reference as long as you preserve the relationships. So your above example where H/m becomes 1 just means that in the relationship for A, somewhere you're dividing by quantities which cancel with the mag. perm. It's not that somehow H/m is "baser" than A or more independent than A. All the variables are mutually dependent on one another. There is no such thing as an inherently independent or dependent variable in mathematical relationships. A variable is independent only if you define it to be so. Consequently, you cannot have worked out what was "truly independent" because there is no such thing. Short of some mathematical proof you provide, that is the way mathematics works.
So the only thing "actually being defined" is the relationship between A, H, the mag. perm., etc. Now SI chooses to isolate A and use it as a base of reference in measurements. You can use anything else from that same relationship as a base if you like, but SI chose A and that's fine. If you read the Background->"History of SI" on that site, you'll see alot of references to their choosing "a mutually coherent set of units" which is what I'm explaining now. The units adhere to a set of relationships and the set of base units can be arbitrarily chosen as long as they maintain the relationships (coherence) and the derivable units cover the entire set of necessary measurements.
In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.
Yes, but once again, what's your point? Now you're working in different systems with different standards, so obviously your numbers will be different. You tried to use this example to damn SI, yet I don't see how this is anything but a simple factual statement.
You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).
That seems strong evidence in favour of a unified unit system.
They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see why one would be more accurate than the other. Any measure of capacity with one unit can be easily converted to a measure of volume in another with perfect precision.
Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.
You're right, it doesn't make me a historian, and I never claimed to be. Fortunately, we are not discussing history but mathematics and logic where I do have alot of experience. I hope you noticed that I have never made any statements based on any history or interpretation thereof; it's not a subject I know, and it's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. You damned SI for various reasons, and I am arguing those reasons since they appear illogical. I brought up and discussed no history other than what you brought to the table, and even then I didn't argue them because I didn't see them as relevant to the point (I still don't).
So your point is irrelevant.
Have a nice day.
You seem to be confused again: intensity is not the same as intensity over an area. Candela is intensity, lux is intensity per unit area.
Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway.
I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand? And measuring volume using meters cubed is quite intuitive since it uses only one unit of distance/length and the definition of volume = l x w x h. That's clean and clear. Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary.
When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.
By all means do. That doesn't mean everybody has trouble visualizing such things. I have certainlyhave no problem constructing a skyscraper out of 55 houses. And for your information, you can do scaling like that in metric as well, I don't see why imperial systems are superior in this respect.
>Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.
It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.
No, actually it's not, and if you'd bothered to read the site I linked to, you'd have known that. In fact, if you check out the page under the heading "Units outside the SI", you'd find *gasp!*, liters.
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
What's the difference? A quantity is a number of some denomination. Here's a definition of 'number': a concept of quantity derived from zero and units. Here's a def'n of 'quantity': That which can be increased, diminished, or measured; especially (Math.), anything to which mathematical processes are applicable. What can mathematical processesbe applied to? Numbers. What are quantities? Numbers. What are Numbers? Quantities. Clear?
The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.
Once again, sources? You make grand claims without providing any references for your info. Am I just supposed to believe you? All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website (which you didn't even bother to check to see the truth).
Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.
I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second. We can just as easily just say that the Amp is the base unit and therefore the Coulomb is an Ampere second. You don't seem to understand that dependencies are entirely relative, and that's the beauty of mathematics. Math doesn't care what you choose as your base reference. As long as your relationships are the same, your expression is the same. Consequently, SI sets Ampere as a base of reference, and defines other units based on it. The Ampere therefore has no dependencies, by definition.
>The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
Whence A^2 = kg.m/s^2.[H/m]
You're kidding right? Is this what you mean:
If it is, I fail to see your point. You just rearranged the relationship between Henrys and Amperes. This is mathematically correct and applies to all systems of measurement since they have similar relationships. This does not imply that Amperes are somehow dependent on meters, kg or anything else. Henrys are dependent on m, kg, s and A, so if you re-substitute for H, you get A again. Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:
If you define x as the independent variable and just rearrange the equation as in 2., does that mean that all of a sudden y is now the independent variable? No it doesn't. x and y are dependent on each other according to the relationship given in 1., and if you define x as independent, then it shall remain so until you change the def'n. This is the identical situation with Amperes and Henrys, where A is def'd as the indep. var.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.
lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2. Furthermore, if you had actually read the SI site I pointed to, you'd see that candela is the base definition, and lumen is def'd as luminous flux (not intensity) which incidentally is derived to equal candela. You really should look into that reading thing I mentioned. It's quite helpful.
The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.
Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?
This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion? That's the kind of problems you end up having. If everyone has to convert units because everyone else is using a different system, you have greater oppoprtunity for error. Why take the chance? Why not just standardize a good unit system, and move on to more important matters than unit conversion? They did. It's called SI.
Capacities are'nt though.
Why not? They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement.
Oh well, none of your comments stuck.
I think they held up pretty well actually. Especially considering your counter-points didn't actually counter or prove anything.
Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.
Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here.
Have a nice day!
No, no, no! YOU have a nice day.
How about rings (on each finger) that can detect vertical and horizontal movement.
:-)
hehe. So what command would flipping the birdie be?
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said
WTF are you talking about? Care to explain this? Obviously not enough said.
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about.
Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.
Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size.
An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet. Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.
People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.
Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7.
No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity.
The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole.
Source please? Or were you just talking out of your ass (again) ?
The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.
The Ampere does not depend on meters and kilograms. In fact, it depends on no other units, hence the reason it is a base unit. Perhaps you might care to explain why you believe this? Furthermore, Henry per meter is not free of dependency on meter or kilograms. The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
Yet the "Ampere is afforded the status of "base unit". The size of the candela depends on the square metre, but the lux does not.
Once again, you seem to confuse base unit with derived units. The candela is base, and therefore independent of all other units. The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
I'm sorry, care to clarify your incredibly vague point? The flux of coulombs? Also, perhaps you should keep in mind that an entity and it's flux are distinct and so should be different. I think you are confused.
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
And you would know this... how exactly?
Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No.
Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters.
And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.
He said sticking to the letter, ie. using m^2kg/(s^2A^1) instead of Weber. Perhaps you should try reading next time. You know: left to right, top to bottom, group words into sentences, take tylenol for any headaches.
Furtermore, you fail to demonstrate a superior and more consistent system. Are we just supposed to believe your word that SI sucks and that anything else is better? Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility. So why should anyone listen to you? In the unlikely case you'd like to abolish your ignorance, try this page which outlines SI quite well.
Have a nice day!
I was just thinking that. :-)
Eyestrain? With THAT kind of pr0n, what about... umm... OTHER strain... errr... never mind...
Just as an example, inspiration from Aqua would be a theme that has a pleasant colours, shiny (perhaps even translucent) buttons and many of the Aqua "goodies" yet uses a different colour scheme and perhaps even different layout. You get your translucency, your pretty colours and you don't have to deal with Apple.
Sure it is, where should the difference be?
Making a clone of Aqua is like opening a GPL program and copying practically line for line into a new file and closing and selling that product. You didn't use the source! You just took inspiration from the code and made an almost identical copy. I don't think anyone will dispute that stealing code that way is unethical (not to mention illegal).
Why should graphics and design be any different? A GUI is a graphical design and a bunch of supporting code which makes it dynamic. If you copied a piece of art and started distributing it as your own isn't that unethical to you?
If you took most of the clips from a movie and arranged them in such a way that it was very similar to the original, is that stealing? Would that be unethical in your opinion? The movie company would be down your throat in a second and I bet most people would say, "Hell ya! You shouldn't steal something like that. It cost them millions to make that". But it's ok for GUI's? Somehow ethics, common sense and the law cease to work simply because we're dealing with computers now? Seems a very hypocritical view.
If look at a mac, say I'll do an skin that looks&feels exactly the same that's okay.
You're right, that is ok, but only as long as it's for personal use. As soon as you start distributing it, it's no longer ok.
But you can do well do light blue buttons, blurred color shift, with round edges,
Sure you can, but why does everyone insist on having the identical Aqua colour scheme? Can't they be just a little original and come up with their own? Then they wouldn't even have to worry about Apple. The small price of putting a little thought and effort into being original seems a small price to pay to be relieved of lawyers.
Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done.
Those nefarious, evil bastards.
We're not designing the technology for them.
Oh, good. So I guess it's ok if we break it then. Yoink!
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future.
And all this time I thought that it was the legal system's job to deal with law-breakers. I stand corrected: I guess the record companies are now charged with handling our laws.
From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label.
Oh, so the law no longer governs the fair use of a purchased item, now the record companies have that power. Hm. This must be an extension of the fact that the record companies are now making and enforcing our laws. I guess this also means that a person no longer owns the items they buy. So what is the law now? Do we just pay for the privilege of using said items?
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
Hey! You mean there's an authorized way of stealing music?
How many copies do you allow people to make?
It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now.
Right, cause if I'm making more than six copies, I must be pirating it. And the record companies are really trustworthy, so we should let them decide.
Perhaps this is the source of the mental blocks people have when they stand against fair-use and creating technologies like this. They seem to think the record labels should have absolute power over what the user does with an item they purchased and now own.
Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich,
Oh no, of course not. How many billions of dollars a year are music sales? How much would the music companies pay to ensure that they couldn't be copied? How many protection schemes have already been tried? How many have already failed? Do you notice how they keep trying? Uh-huh, this is definitely a losing market, no money here.
The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
It doesn't become public domain, it's still protected by law and owned by the creator. If I create a machine and start selling it, is the design now public domain? No, of course not. Where is this guy from? Mars?
Apple is lame attempting to lock people out of assimulating a decent theme.
... [blah, blah] ... w 1.3GHZ Athlon and 256MB DDR RAM Linux box, everything is supported by the 2.4x kernel, including the DVD ROM and 1394 firewire.
:-)
Is everyone so unoriginal that they can't come up with their own stuff? Do you have to copy someone else all the time, even after they've asked you not to?
Well too bad Xerox can sue thier ass for copying a window environment similar to thier own.
They tried, they lost.
This is why once my Multifli code gets out, I'll have a GPL, but I will lock it out of any use on OS/X.
Well hey, no one can stop you from being an idiot.
Also Why don't we design a theme that rivals Aqua,
Hey! There's an original idea!
copyleft it,
Sure, it's your decision (just like it's Apple's).
and make it illieagal for them to assimulate it.
They wouldn't be interested anyway.
Apples days are numbered anyway.
uhuh. Are you a financial analyst? You have some inside info you'd like to share?
I have a multiplatform environment at home. I've got
That's nice. Obviously you know what you're talking about since you have so many computer in such an impressive setup.
This box is much faster then the Apple G4 that I had on lone. My kernel compile times are less than half the time taken with the G4.
If I hadn't been so impressed with your knowledge of computers (based on that impressively long-winded description) this statement would normally indicate someone completely ignorant of CPU architecture. Someone with your impressive knowledge would have to know that the G4 is a RISC CPU, and that compilation for RISC architectures is significatantly more complicated than CISC CPUs. You see, the RISC architecture moves code optimization into the compiler, while CISC moves it onto the CPU. Consequently, compilation for RISC machines undergo more optimization cycles. But I'm sure you already knew that! You had to! I mean, you have a ethernet access to your mpeg player! If that's not an indication of expertise, I don't know what is. Well, besides an engineering degree like I have...
Yes the CPU speed is faster on the AMD
I'm glad you noticed that too.
And the 7200RPM hard drives aren't bad either.
Ya, I'm sure those would help a little. Just a LITTLE though.
So, go ahead apple. be a scrooge and put all your eforts into preventing others from using a simular desktop. What goes around comes around. You take from the Open Source movement and you don't reciprocate.
uhhuh
Well, I'm done. Have a nice day.
So make pretty-coloured GUI with fancy buttons and transparency, just don't rip the buttons, background colours and look from Aqua. That's inspiration in this situation; an Aqua clone is not akin to inspiration from an algorithm.
Yes, but if you buffer overflowed a Mac server you wouldn't actually be able to DO anything to or with the system. Classic Mac OS has no remote command execution facilities. You can't send AppleScript events, you can't move things, you can't do anything that the system doesn't have an extension for. If someone installed an extension which allowed Mac OS to recieve and process Apple events from the network adapter, then it's possible. Not otherwise.
He was talking solely about web servers.
And how many sites are running IIS simply because it's enabled by default on NT and 2K boxes? Alot more than these small Apache sites I'd imagine.