Linux-Advocacy Digest #645, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm! ("Andy Walker")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Weevil")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Charlie Ebert)
Re: which linux dist? ("David Dorward")
Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:14:00 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > > micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> > > Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
> >
> > I suppose you are trying to exclude
> > Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> > and I would too.
>
> What "Microsoft Unix"??
I meant that to be parsed as:
Microsoft's ((Unix and Macintosh) apps)
Not as
(Microsoft's Unix) and (Macintosh apps)
Thougth I guess I would say that
Xenix was also not really a core product
for Microsoft, either.
[snip]
> > > You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
> > > clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
> >
> > Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> > mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
>
> Your use of "black magic" is no more than your blind denial of wrong
> doing.
It's funny, though. Our friends Max and Rick seem
to envisage no connection at all between Microsoft's
actions and it's current position. It's as if they think
that market dominance is just a natural consequence
of evilness *per se*.
That's what I mean by the black magic comments.
> > Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> > behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> > things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> > years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> > is a possibility there.
>
> Max is correct. You are being totally absurd!
Well, perhaps. I know Max doesn't think
"anti-competitive" competition is black
magic, but he does seem to attribute strange
powers to it, and does not want to conteplate
the mechanism by which these powers are
realized.
He seems to think it's enough to say
"MS bad" and call that understanding
the industry. I really don't agree with that.
[snip]
> > > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > > FUD? Bull.
> >
> > What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
> >
> > I think the failure was that IBM sold it
> > to consumers as a better Windows and
> > a better DOS. There was no future in
> > doing that, ever.
>
> So you think.
So I think. The failure of OS/2 to
fulfil IBM's hopes seems to support
my thinking though.
> > Selling it to developers as a better
> > platform might have worked, but IBM
> > chose not to do that.
>
> What are you drinking tonite??
Coke.
No, no... Coca-*Cola*. :D
[snip]
> > > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE
is
> > > pretty much useless.
> >
> > Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
>
> Open32,... is microsoft into something new these days???
It's an OS/2 thing. A subset of Win32 that
OS/2 implemented so you could write apps
that would run on either OS/2 or Windows 95
with but a recompile.
It worked. Developers were understandably
uninterested.
> Their O/S is not open.
Neither was IBM's, but that never stopped
anyone. :D
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:17:13 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> > Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
>
> VMS and NT are a million miles apart. Neither are even equivalent.
> VMS is at least mature. NT crashes.
VMS is quite a lot more stable than NT, or at least
it was when I used it. More stable then any Unix
I've ever seen, too. Very impressive.
But structurally they are very similar at the low
levels. They have the same notion of system
services, the same mechanism for interrupt
handling, the same mechanism for process
scheduling.
It's quite striking.
Stability isn't the only attribute an OS can have
(or lack).
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:24:50 -0000
GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>
>From ZDNET... looks like Linux has pre-empted Windows NT recently in
>Hollywood.
>Read the article and see for yourselves... LucasFilm ltd. has converted
>mostly to Linux!
>And a few other film producers as well. After all, they do want to cut
>costs.
>
>--
>V
Film producers, unlike most industries, have always had a history of
innovation with regard to computer animation (I mean innovation in the
dictionary way, not in the Micro$oft way) and generally use the right tool
for the right job rather than throwing money at Microsoft for a makeshift
solution. In the past they have used old Amiga's re-badged as Videotoasters
to render images with Lightwave, (I think Babylon 5 was one such project, at
least in the early series) and they were using render farms that far back.
It's not uncommon for film producers to produce their own software for a
specific task and I think I heard somewhere that Blender was one such
application.
That's the thing about being on the leading edge of technology, you have to
think a bit about how to approach a problem!
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:27:47 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Just what argument did Max lose?
> >
> > He seem to have given up trying to defend
> > the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
>
> It is inferior. What delusional perceptions do you have to think that
> it is the best?
I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
platform for making desktop applications of the
conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
platform for everything.
I was saying, you see, that Windows was
near-universal on the desktop because
developers had flocked too it, and users
had to follow to use all the apps that were
being produced.
I wished to show that developers had
good reason to flock to Windows (for
desktop apps), and so didn't just do it
because the users were there.
My argument for it at the time centered around
printing support. Windows provides
a device independant printing model that
lets you redirect screen drawing commands
to the printer. This makes WYSIWYG much
easier, and it is a feature shared by the Mac,
OS/2, and NextStep, but not by other Unixes.
This puts those other Unixes out of the running
for whole categories of apps.
Now, the Mac has no API that exposes
the existance of printer fonts. This makes
for nasty problems if font substitution is
used, or slow printing if it isn't. The Mac
also uses a physical-pixel model for screen
drawing, which is hard to use when printing.
NextStep used display postscript, which meant
that printing on PostScript printers worked
wonderfully, but all non-PostScript printers
were reduced to printing bitmaps- and the latter
printers are rather more common.
OS/2 had a printing system similar to Windows,
but it's printer setup user interface was infamous
for its difficulty for years.
The situation for printing is typical; Windows
has the best tools for desktop app developers,
OS/2 comes in second and is pretty close. Most
others have serious gaps, and generic Unix
tends to have almost no support for anything
that desktop apps need.
I can extend this to some other areas with
specifics, if you want to hear it.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:28:10 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001
> [...]
> >> They stole the market place.
> >
> >Do you, like, do 50 of thoes every morning? :d
>
> Are you, like, a troll?
That term doesn't fully describe someone who is not ignorant, yet will
defend Microsoft against any accusation past or present and usually in the
full knowledge that MS is/was guilty as charged. They, of course, must
resort to dishonesty to do this, and they appear to have no conscience
whatever about it. They are not trolls in the purest sense of the term. A
troll merely makes inflammatory statements designed to get a rise out of
someone. Getting a response is a troll's reason for doing it.
Microsoft defenders actually try to defend Microsoft. They are not doing it
specifically to get a reaction (though that happens sometimes), but they
resemble trolls because they are *forced* to make outrageously dishonest
statements in order to maintain arguments that are known to be false. They
*appear* to be trolling, but in fact they are arguing in the only way that
is open to them: they deliberately lie.
They are Bill's whores.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:36:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >After some considerable reading at HP and other web sites... it appears
>> >that the PA-RISC can execute IA-64 instructions unmodified. HP has had
>> >a large hand in its development with Intel. That's about all I could
>> >find out about it. There will always be development chips available
>> >from Intel in small quantities, but from past experience the properties
>> >may change or come more closely to what Intel wanted all along...
>> >currently the IA-64 has some speed problems with certain programs having
>> >to do with the predictive jump feature... can't remember all of what
>> >I've found on other web sites, but it appears to be its biggest hurdle.
>> >
>> >--
>>
>> Oh don't do this. You don't want to hurt poor little
>> Erik Fuckenbush and Matthew Gardiners feelings.
>>
>> I mean, after all, if you go read thru Intel's own web site
>> they badmouth RISC in every article.
>>
>> You might also notice that both EF and MG are not disputing
>> that HP-9000 is currently using an Intel chip.
>>
>> If Intel makes a risc chip then why are they badmouthing
>> RISC all over the Itanium link? They really trashed it
>> bad.
>>
>> When you start talking about 64 bit processors from Intel
>> you get people refering to 3 seperate family lines from
>> Intel. All of these lines came from the IA-64 idea.
>>
>> To be honest with you at this very moment I've lost
>> some of my confidence in this issue and I'm going
>> to drop it. Not because I believe EF or MG is right
>> and not because I feel I'm right either.
>>
>> I just simply don't seem to understand why it is
>> EF and MG keep hollering it's a RISC chip from
>> the WEB site at HP and yet Intel claims they've
>> never made a RISC chip and that RISC CHIPS are
>> garbage?
>>
>> These two ideas here don't JIVE. Then there's
>> this issue of instructions set compatibility
>> as the instruction sets are the same....
>>
>> To my knowledge, Motorola and IBM were the only
>> ones to do the RISC business. They were the
>> ones who started it, not Intel.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie
>> -------
>
>Yes, I have to agree with you here. Of course, lets not forget the
>sparc risc processors either. Risc, in the beginning, was a research
>project into the efficiencies of various instruction sets. It has been
>proven that certain instructions can be implemented in RISC more
>efficiently than done in CISC. A big example of this is the VAX poly
>assembler instruction... RISC can do the same thing more efficiently
>using a combination of simple instructions, if the the simple
>instructions are guaranteed to execute in one clock cycle. This was
>very much evident in the 6502 instruction set, which ran much faster
>than the equivalent 8080 instruction set.
>HP did advertise quite a while ago their involvement in the IA-64
>development... and it wouldn't suprise me, from their past track record,
>that the IA-64 would be the spittin' image of a PA-RISC! I suspect,
>from a business standpoint, that HP would expect Intel to do a more
>efficient job of manufacturing chips than HP could do. So... for all
>intents and purposes the PA-RISC is essentially the equivalent of an
>IA-64 chip!
>
>--
It is the same chip. HP is involved in this chip seriously.
It will be Intel's next generation chip.
But I found it particularly funny when you highlighted that it
was a risc chip. EF says it was made by HP. HP doesn't make
chips EF. They never have.
Now if it IS a RISC chip which is going to be Intel's new
premier top of the line bread and butter chip, I'm going
laugh out loud.
What I was told was current HP-9000's have had the IA-64 in them
and they are slow IA-64's which run under 500 mhz.
But they are the first in use.
The ones which are to hit the PC market will be B series
and will be made to run faster clock cycles.
We run the A series.
Let's see. They have them running at 850 mhz now?
Is that right...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:39:24 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 11:28:39 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Nope. Someone is copying "me style" to create some traffic.
>>
>> My material is much better.
>>
>>
>> flatfish
>
>Whatever happened to the ++++?
Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:39:53 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip- core business silliness. This one is not fun anymore.]
> > > Dont tell me what I think.
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell you that you think. :D
>
> You try to, regularly.
I apologise. I didn't mean to.
[snip]
> > > They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
> > > may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
> >
> > Quite doubtful.
>
> But possible.
Yes, remotely possible.
[snip]
> > > Any/All of it.
> >
> > I suppose that means you know of no
> > such FUD, and just assume that MS would
> > only ever use FUD. Right?
>
> You suppose wrong.
Yet you can't point out any particular
FUD?
[snip]
> > > Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
> > > leaving "compeitors alone".
> >
> > No, I didn't.
>
> Yes, you did. Your context removing snips removes the evidence.
Interested parties can consult www.google.com to
discover if I did.
> > I am pointing out that cloning Win32 is not a threat
> > to MS and isn't viewed as such by MS- they aren't
> > scared of them.
> >
> > They are scared of their competitors, as opposed
> > to Open32 and WINE.
>
> They are scared of WINE, becasue WINE doesnt work.
They aren't scared of Open32 either, and it does
work.
[snip]
> > That said, you are clearly mistaken. Many things
> > that work do not scare MS.
>
> The only things that work, that dont scare m$, are things m$ isnt
> interested in anyway.
Things that don't impact MS's core business,
naturally.
[snip]
> > > You refuse to listen.
> >
> > Nobody has offered it to me until now;
> > you might consideder telling me about
> > this.
>
> This particular thread of converstaion is without context, becaues you
> have removed the context with your snips.
I think that's a lot better than your
approach of quoting *everything*, including
the extensive parts that you do not respond
to in any way. Saves bandwidth.
> However, you regularly
> disregard facts and quotions provided to you when they harm your
> precious m$.
I disregard *interpretations* that would do that,
yes.
[snip]
> > How come *you* get to decide that "the conversation" is
> > from users point of view?
>
> Becasue that is what the conversation started on, and you keep trying to
> change it.
You just want to exclude the real reasons for
Microsoft's success.
> > I am trying to communicate an important point to
> > you, and restricting the discussion to "users point
> > of view" is simply a way to avoid listening to it.
>
> Not when it is the user's point of view being discussed.
Yes, even when you persistantly insist on only
consider part of the story, the other bits of the
store do remain relevant.
[snip]
> > Sure. You don't have uses that a PC could
> > not fill, by 1987, that's for sure.
>
> Hmm lets see. 1987. After I got my GS, but before I got my Plus.
Ah, the IIgs. That one coulda been a contender.
> > And there *are* things that PCs could do
> > in '87 that Apple IIs couldn't.
>
> Like...
There's no Apple II product that can match
dBase, for one thing.
It had no credible desktop publishing
software, either. Ventural Publisher
and Pagemaker both had PC versions
by '87, did they not?
Most accounts have even Lotus 1-2-3
beat VisiCalc handily, actually. But
that was way before '87.
[snip- silliness that is getting boring]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:39:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <9e5gcf$7i4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Need I show you the damage the trade unions did to New Zealand's economy,
>> and there links, prior to the cold war, with the Comintern, aka, Communist
>> International, lead by the Soviet Union, (1918 is was the Russian
>> Federation).
>
>I repeat Trade Union != Communism. That communists may be in Trade Unions
>is a different matter.
>
>--
>Pete
Most communists now a day's are too busy writing drivers for Windows.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which linux dist?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:38:28 +0100
It seems that on Sat, 19 May 2001 19:07:26 +0100, someone claiming to be
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
>> I tried Mandrake 8.0 and it is brilliant as everything works out
>> immediately but I found it a bit too slow and painful to get rid of all
>> the services i did not really need.
>>
>> Which distribution would you recommend?
>
> By the sounds of it, you'd probably be better off with slackware.
Or Debain
--
David Dorward http://www.dorward.co.uk/
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:43:29 GMT
In article <9e8au0$evq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>I have been using Windows 2000 over the last couple of days, with the latest
>service pack, SP2, installed. I installed Windows 2000 on a clean hard
>disk, that is, a hard disk that has been low level formatted. Installation
>when very quickly, rebooted, the proceeded to download the latest service
>pack update, which was approx. 15400Kilobytes, (aka, 15 megs or so).
>Several times it failed, due to high demand on their, Microsofts server's,
>so I waited until around 2am, then started the download. It took around 49
>minutes, and the installation and configuration went very quickly. One thing
>to point out, the latest patch includes all the patches, that is security
>patches up to the point SP2 was released.
>
>After installing I rebooted, as it requested. Once Windows 2000 was loaded
>to the desktop I then downloaded the latest compatibility updates, Media
>Player, and DirectX (8.0a). I then rebooted again, and I reached the
>desktop. I then proceeded to install Lotus Smart Suite ME, whilst at the
>same time I also copied a collection of mp3's (using the second CD drive) to
>my hard disk. The stability has drastically improved over SP1. Disk
>defragmenter no longer crashes at the end of defrag'in my drive, which is a
>good sign :) Internet stability (which is important to us analogue modem
>users) has also increased to something close to what Linux offers. Lotus
>slides in perfectly without any compatibility issues. I do however have a
>bone of contention, I have found IE 5.5 a wowser of a browser. It is
>considerably slower than version 5. Anyone looking at install IE over 5.0,
>DON'T, you will regret it. Media Player 7 is a be-arge of an player. So I
>have stuck with good old Winamp. Very soon I will be obtaining a copy of
>Office 2002 to review, so, as they say, "watch this space".
>
>oh, only funny thing I saw on the winamp page was, "Get Winamp for Mac!"
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>--
>I am the blue screen of death,
>no body can hear your screams
>
>
Well, glad to hear you like Windows 2000 Matthew Gardiner.
Also glad to see your such a loyal Linux supporter also.
Were you and Erik Fuckenbush seperated at birth by a knife?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:46:19 GMT
In article <9e88i1$d7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> So in order to use Linux you need to be a professional? In order to use
>> Windows you don't need to be. It just works.
>
>I wonder how many newbie Windows users can upgrade their OS without any
>help?
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>
Well, obviously you think you can from that W2k service pack bulletin
here on COLA...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:49:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> > The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>> > It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>> > copper wire.
>>
Very interesting. Radio Waves are 88% the speed of light!
Humm.
This must be how we are measuring the distance from us to Voyager 1 and 2?
Are we sure about this?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:51:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>
>Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
>"Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
>photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
>effect.
>
>--
Funny thing. The last physicist from a sub I met told me the same
thing. They were particles which never slowed down below the
speed of light.
So interstellar travel is possible.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:58:31 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
> Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
> "Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
> photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
> effect.
I do not recall of any mentioning of Cherenkov radiation achieving super-c
speeds. Maybe you are confusing with the scifi term "pseudo-cherenkov
radiation" (which IIRC is supposed to be pink, rather than blue) from Joe
Haldeman's novel 'the Forever War"? He reasoned that tachyons, used in
esoteric propulsion systems, would emit an eerie pink glow as they
"returned into their own reality".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:01:33 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
> Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:51:47 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
>> >Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light)
>> >> travel at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in
>> >> space as well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the
>> >> radio waves originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple
>> >> Newtonian physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be
>> >> exactly right, but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
>> >
>> >Yep, deceptively logical. Of course, it is also deceptively logical,
>> >using Newtonian physics, that If you shine a flashlight in front of you
>> >and travel at near the speed of light that the light from the flashlight
>> >will travel at 2xc. But experiment shows otherwise. Which is what
>> >caused the upheaval in physics near the turn of the 20th century and led
>> >to the theory of relativity.
>> >
>>
>> It's been 20 years since I did VHF design, but I think .88c is the
>> speed of radio waves in a coaxial cable.
>
> Yes, it is true. So many times I had to correct many a network engineer
> on this mistake. The bottom line... if an electron were to travel at
> the speed of light that electrons' size would be infinite!
>
But electromagnetic radiation is not carried by electrons in a vacuum, but
by photons. Photons have no mass, so they are not affected by relativistic
increases of mass: Zero times infinite still remains zero.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:09:40 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed of
>> light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end will
>> therefore never be slower than light.
>>
>
> False, the National Bureau of Standards has already conceded this.
> Even NASA has to correct for timing in transmissions to its far roving
> probes.
>
> Electromagnetic waves are slower than light.... very much slower.
>
Is that the same bureau that decided that pi will be an even 3?
One more time, and then I quit this silly thread: light is a form of
electromagnetic radiation. All electromagnetic radiation is "carried" by
photons. Photons can only travel at one speed: the speed of light in a
given medium. This speed is not always the same, as it depends on the
medium, but the highest possible speed is the speed of light in vacuum (c).
One correction: as another poster indicated, individual photons will always
travel at c , but due to quantum level exchanges (don't ask!) the speed of
the wave may seem to be lower in a non-vacuum.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
