Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Flacco")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Flacco")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: I have a soft spot now and then :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: I have a soft spot now and then :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I have a soft spot now and then :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 22 May 2001 17:12:57 +0100
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quite true. As the frequency of the EM wave increases... take note...
> the EM waves start to act LIKE light.
Well, given that light *is* an EM wave...
> When the frequencies increase the
> energies start traveling on the surface rather than thru the media,
> showing that electrical waves do travel slower at low frequencies but
> inside the media.
The `skin effect', where the current is concentrated in a thin film
(whose depth is inversely proportional to the square root of the
frequency) at the surface of the conductor, is already very pronounced
at mains frequencies (50 or 60 Hz). This is one of the reasons why
multistranded cable is used - to increase the surface area, and hence
the conductance of the cable. The current is still inside the
conductor, though, and electrical waves in conductors do not travel at
a slower speed at lower frequencies.
> Going faster requires that the energy not be impeded
> by the physical... namely copper or silver or whatever the conductor.
At the risk of repeating myself: the speed of propogation of a pulse
down a conductor has *nothing* to do with the properties of the
conductor. See T. Max's post, and my answer to it (and the post to
which you were replying, too).
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:14:43 GMT
> There has
> to be an overwhelming need for the move to justify the changes, and
> currently Microsoft's licensing changes are starting to scare us into
> exploring Linux on the desktop. unfortunately, I need to provide
> functionality similar to what users are actually using, and in the Linux
> world the functionality isn't ready for prime time.
This is one reason I suggested a pilot program. If MS licensing becomes
as odious as I expect it to (it's already there, in my opinion, but others
may have higher thresholds than I), the wise IT department who has put
some effort into exploring a "Plan B" could come out looking quite heroic.
> If it were, I think
> more companies would switch. It seems Linux is still waiting for a
> killer app.
Linux has a lot of killer apps - what Linux needs is a low-resistance
MIGRATION PATH from Windows.
> For those posters that suggested I not do calendaring or give up file
> compatibility, those aren't real-world options. I can't take
> functionality from users, and I can't sacrifice work that has been done
> in the past just to get away from Microsoft, or any company.
Try to freeze upgrades so that Linux work-alikes have a chance to mature.
OpenOffice is looking like a real contender - it just needs some time,
and an upgrade freeze would give it that time without inconveniencing
users.
> Those are
> the services and tools my users need, and unless I can replace them and
> even expand on them, I can't consider switching.
>
> Looks like, outside of internet functions, Linux is still a bust in our
> environment. And frankly, there's not much of an advantage even there
> compared to Microsoft-based solutions.
Licensing, licensing, licensing. MS has been becoming progressively more
restrictive for the last ten years at least. If you don't have an exit
strategy in place now, you may have no hope of getting out when you reach
*your* licensing threshold.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:16:58 +0200
In article <9edsjg$laa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> If
>> your assertion is correct, then the majority of 6502 instructions would
>> take 3 cycles: fetch instruction, fetch data, execute. This sounds
>> corect to me and of course would demolish Erik's point even more.
>
> Indeed. The implied addressing ones take two cycles. These include
>
> TAX, TXA, T??..., NOP, INX, INY, etc
>
> Others take more, for instance
>
> LDA #XX
>
> Takes 3 since it has 2 memory fetches (I'm pretty sure it takes 3) Zero
> page ones take more and general memory address ones take more still.
>
> -Ed
>
>
Yep, sounds right, and brings back *lots* of fond memories....
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:35:40 GMT
On Tue 22 May 2001 02:11, GreyCloud wrote:
[Snip]
>
> Well, how about a few statements that Academic physics is busily
> plugging up the holes with paper?? Actually, take a look at
> holograhpy. MIT now calls it non-local physics.
> Cut one snip of a hologram.. shine a laser thru that snip of a
> hologram.. and you still get a complete picture of the original.
> Non-locality has an immense impact on the way the universe seems to be
> made up.
>
You get the complete hologram, but the quality of the projected hologram is
degraded. After all, *something* has to give. Each part of the
holographic plate, down to the scale of perhaps a few molecules, stores a
slight variation of the interference pattern which reconstructs the
original holo-image. No non-locality about it.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:38:05 +0000 (UTC)
Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snipping to point>
:> In short, I don't want Linux to settle for being a Windows substitute.
:> I'd rather it was something so much better that people will *want* to
:> switch rather than be oblivious to the difference between the two.
: The thing is that we KNOW and APPRECIATE the advantages of Linux - but
: that makes absolutely no difference to a department full of staff and
: execs who don't really care about how cool Linux is. What's needed is a
: Windows / Office Clone distribution that will not irritate end-users,
: while still allowing us to get rid of the fetid MS underbelly.
: And, that doesn't mean that knowledgeable users have to use the MS-Clone
: distribution. God knows I wouldn't use it.
: For all of Linux's technical superiority, if the community does not learn
: how to sell to the end user, we have a problem. You can't dismiss the
: desktop market out of hand. Even in the server space, having a
: hatchet-fight with someone who outright owns the desktop is risky business
: in the long run.
Obviously Linux can't (for various technical and cultural reasons)
transform itself into a "one size fits all" OS, so I'm not terribly
worried about that. However, a lot of people see the need to provide
software and ease-of-use geared for nontechnical users. But to
truly accomplish that goal, I think we need to dispel the fallacy
that Windows and Windows-like systems are inherently easy to use
by providing something *easier* for nontechies while still powerful
enough that they can accomplish what they want.
Nontechnical folks know enough about Windows to get by, and I think
some of that existing knowledge can be leveraged on a new system
(such as mouse use, clicking, dragging and dropping, etc.) but I
still believe a better system can be devised for them that doesn't
involve all the crap that current Windows and MS-Office teaching and
support currently entails.
In short, I think we should aim higher :)
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:39:44 +0200
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <0IgO6.34584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
,snip a lot>
> You have to wonder what would have had there been a Commodore 64e, with
> faster disks, a better keyboard, and 80 column text support. Had to
> still been cheap, it might have been very succesful.
>
> [snip]
>> > Yeah, the C64 always had a problem with disk speed.
>>
>> If you want speed, try JiffyDos, 10X-15X speed increase with most
>> programs.
>
> I wonder how it works. as I recall, the C64 had intelligent controllers
> in its disk drives, and these guys controlled the speed. Thus you had to
> upgrade the disks to speed them up.
>
>> The funny thing, the C64 wasn't designed with a slow disk
>> speed, but because of compatibly with Vic20 hardware, they kept the
> Vic20
>> screw up.
>
> The Vic 20 had *disks*? Whoa. I did not know that such things were
> available for it.
>
>> The C128 finally fixed the disk speed. The disk speed should have
>> been about the same a Pet with its IEEE interface. They couldn't use
> IEEE
>> in the C64, because the price when though the roof for cables and
>> other parts.
>
> Surely they could have found something else that was fast.
>
<snip some more>
Aahh,
Commodore's braindead implementation of the IEEE-488 interface. They have
been cursed by users for that.
IEEE-488 was a parallel interface for peripherals, providing a standard
pinout and bus protocol, much like USB these days. Commodore had it
implemented in it's PET series of computers, especially the high end ones.
When they brought out the VIC-20 they cut corners on every bit of hardware
possible, and thus saddled the VIC-20 with a serial version of the same
interface. You could hook up a slow diskdrive on it, the 1540. The 1540,
like the drives used on the PET (eg the 8250) carried it's DOS onboard in
ROM, so all the computer had to worry about was data transfer. This was
handled by a MOS6520 Port Interface Adapter, which unfortunately was a
rather basic chip, as in the bit shifting to convert 8 serial bits to a
single byte to store in memory, had to be done by the processor. This
made the 1540 rather slow, but since the VIC-20 had a small memory
anyway, it was not expected to handle that much data, so the tradeoff was
deemed acceptable.
Enter the C64. It's companion drive, the 1541 did not appear on the
market at the same time, however the C64 had the same bastard IEEE
interface as the VIC-20, so it could use the 1540 drive. Alas! the C64's
IO chipset was vastly more advanced, being composed of a dual MOS6522
Common Interface Adapter, which had a bit shifter built in. Unfortunately
this couldn't be used as the 1540 couldn't handle it and for some
nebulous reason, Commodore decided to make the 1541 backwards compatible
with the VIC-20! End result was a dramatic maximum transfer speed of 3600
bits per second.
In the C128 and it's companion drive the 1571 Commodore finally decided
to use the bit shift registers in the CIA chips. Thanks to an added sync
line in the serial cable this brought up the disc speed to some 8-10
times that of the C64/1541 combo. By then it was too late however.
We Commodore users have never been very amused with this scheme, witness
the staggering amount of disk accelerators being sold throughout the
product's lifetime.
Thanks for patiently listening in on my trip down memory lane,
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:41:49 GMT
On Tue 22 May 2001 02:21, GreyCloud wrote:
[Snip]
>
> To provide a more mundane explanation of this effect... a telescope
> pointed at the sun. How long will it take to melt or distort the lenses?
> What distorts the lenses? Heat. Where did the heat come from? Quantum
> exchange and twice.
>
Bah, that's easy. When light comes into contact with any form of matter,
it does three different things: reflection, refraction, and absorption.
No material can completely eliminate any one of those actions; for
instance, no mirror is entirely reflective, and even the blackest object
will still reflect a tiny amount of light. Any light that is aborbed by an
object becomes heat, thus any object will heat up when exposed to light
because no object can have exactly 0% absorbption.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:45:57 GMT
> However, a lot of people see the need to provide
> software and ease-of-use geared for nontechnical users. But to truly
> accomplish that goal, I think we need to dispel the fallacy that Windows
> and Windows-like systems are inherently easy to use by providing
> something *easier* for nontechies while still powerful enough that they
> can accomplish what they want.
>
> Nontechnical folks know enough about Windows to get by, and I think some
> of that existing knowledge can be leveraged on a new system (such as
> mouse use, clicking, dragging and dropping, etc.) but I still believe a
> better system can be devised for them that doesn't involve all the crap
> that current Windows and MS-Office teaching and support currently
> entails.
OK, good point - as long as Windows users can slide into a Linux desktop
without getting scared, I could see that it would work. But all the
familiar functions of Windows would have to be there...
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:46:24 GMT
On Tue 22 May 2001 03:27, David Brown wrote:
[Snip]
>
> This may come as a surprise to you, but laboratory equipment can produce
> harder vacuum than outer space. Space is not empty. Even inter-galactic
> space has particles in it.
>
Slight correction: laboratory conditions can create a better vacuum than
interplanetary space. Not sure if we can produce a vacuum better than
inter-stellar space, but I'm pretty sure we can't yet equal inter-galactic
space. It's important to qualify what type of vacuum you're dealing with.
:-)
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:55:00 GMT
On Mon, 21 May 2001 15:03:35 -0700, Michael Vester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Glad to see your old sig back. You are a Linux advocate, aren't you?
>Welcome to the good guys side.
Hey, I use and recommend whatever works. This guy was interested in
Linux and I offered some assistance. My home has machines running
Win2k, Win98SE, MacOS and Linux.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:55:59 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> With all due respect of course, but can it be that you have so much
>> experience on other OS's that you overestimate your knowledge a little?
>> You constantly seem to miss things that are blindingly obvious to a lot
>> of Linux users. Can it just be that you miss something obvious because
>> you keep thinking that you know what you're doing and go:'naah, can't
>> be that. That'd be too simple'?
>
> Naa! Can't be that!
>
That would be too simple, right?
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:56:25 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:29:37 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Cool people use Unix/Linux.
>Geeks use Windows.
Cool people choose their applications and then their OS.
>Come back in a year, and guy will be much cooler.
Errr,,,,
Not exactly.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:56:54 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:25:32 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>Yeah! You've got your old sig back :-)
>>>
>>>-Ed
>>
>> I like your Psycho Rat one better :)
>
>Have you tried printing it yet?
>
>Put
>
>%!PS-Adobe-2.0
>
>as the first line, then print it on your nearest PS printer, or using
>Ghostscript.
>
>-Ed
>
Will do.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:58:18 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 05:52:12 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I suppose you think that infra red or ultra violet aren't light either,
>because you can't see them?
I can't wait to hear his explanation of where the wind comes from :)
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:25 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 20:53:41
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >It's called Standard Business Practice. Are there any business's out
>> >there that don't do this?
>>
>> None of them do, until you can prove to a judge or jury beyond any
>> reasonable doubt that they do. That's called Rule of Law.
>
>Most companies want you to buy their products. They also make sure you
>stay with their products by tying you to them in some way.
'All' companies want me to buy their products. Any attempt to forestall
competition or engross the market is illegal monopolization. The only
available "tying me to them in some way" is providing competitive
merits, or a lower price, in order to entice me to so tie myself to
their brand in order to enjoy the benefits of their product.
>> So while your ability to *unreasonably* throw around accusations of
>> felonious conduct might seem like 'thinking' from your own perspective,
>> anyone who knows a thing about monopolization or real business knows
>> that, indeed, only monopolists attempt to monopolize. You may claim the
>> distinction between attempting to compete and attempting to monopolize
>> are unreasonable; indeed, you are not alone in that claim. But it isn't
>> hard to notice that the only ones who seriously believe the claim are
>> those which have monopolies threatened by legal prosecution.
>
>So, I have a monopoly threatened by legal prosecution? Now how do I have
>that? Do I have any stake in Microsoft other than being a user?
Apparently; you've shown yourself to be a sock puppet. Most sock
puppets are professionally or fiscally entangled with Microsoft.
>No
>shares, sorry. Don't work for them either. The company I work does
>Windows work but we can easily move into other markets.
"Can"? How are we to know "can", but for your contention that "does
not" is the equivalent of "won't", Mr. Sock Puppet? You've a vested
interest in maintaining the status quo, and that status quo involves
monopoly crapware, both financially and technically self-destructive but
unavoidable being forced on consumers, both OEMs and consumers.
And so deduction indicates your company, in doing "Windows work", is
neither a reseller nor a very highly regarded end-user solutions
provider. And that You, Mr. Sock Puppet, cease to qualify even as an
end-user, yourself. Perhaps if you didn't troll COLA, you'd simply be
another sad victim of the monopoly. But it makes no sense to consider
your opinion that of a self-interested consumer, given you are known to
have vested interests as a sock puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:26 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:13:18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You'd have to be pretty clueless, Gary, not to be aware of the duality
>> of physics. If radio waves were the same as light waves, how come we
>> can't see them?
>
>One sees only what one wants to see.
Was that supposed to be mumbo-jumbo, or just gibberish?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:27 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>All EMR in a vacuum travel at the same speed "C" , which is for all
>practical purposes is the speed of light.
[...]
The speed of "radiation" is not at issue; I don't think "radiation" has
a speed. Also, it is rather apparent we couldn't possibly be talking
about what might satisfy anyone "for all practical purposes", given we
are discussing the duality of light. Claiming not to measure a wave or
a particle but 'radiation' is just begging the question.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:28 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> You'd have to be pretty clueless, Gary, not to be aware of the duality
>> of physics. If radio waves were the same as light waves, how come we
>> can't see them?
>>
>How come that we don´t see infrared?
Because the wavelengths don't cause the same changes in the molecules in
our eyeballs. Same reason we don't see radio waves themselves. It
doesn't keep infrared from being 'light'. Why should it keep radio
waves from being 'light'?
>I simply can´t believe this discussion.
Then apparently you don't understand it. As I said, it has to do with
the ineffable fact that light is both particle and wave. GreyCloud has
been questioning some of the common understanding of the issue by
explaining that by mathematically explaining light as 'quantum energy
packets', not either particle or wave, light speeds up and slows down as
it changes media.
>And that from americans, where the
>world thought they are great engineers and scientists.
Indeed; the ability to engage in free inquiry is fundamental to the work
of scientists. Engineering is not the issue here, though we must
acknowledge we can claim no leadership in the engineering involved for
the USA in quantum physics, since Reagan canceled the SSC.
>I think you should start making horseshoes again, because you will need
>them badly in the next years. Just forget about electricity and such other
>advanced stuff.
What the fuck is your problem? You know something about GreyCloud's
math, and how to refute it, that none of us are aware of? Or do you
just want to take pot-shots at Americans for no apparent reason? Are
you perhaps just foundering while you grasp for any straw to explain why
you are so unable to make sense of so dreadfully simple a discussion?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:29 GMT
Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 19:18:42
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
>>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> Radio waves are not light!
>
>It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
"Same as" means it is in the same category as light, not that it is
light. Yes, you are correct that they are both in the category 'emr'.
>>> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
>>> 88%.
>
>Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
c
>>> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>
>Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
Not all theoretical proofs of lights velocity in a vacuum would
necessarily qualify as 'measurement', perhaps.
>>> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
>>> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
>>> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>
>No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
>a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
>good vacuum.
Yet some of it is in air, as GreyCloud is pointing out. Indeed, all
direct experimental evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum is
similarly burdened, according to him. I think it is unlikely, myself,
but possible.
>>> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
>>> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
>>> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
>>> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>
>I don't know what kind of signal he's talking about, or what strength.
Ergo, you should either decline to comment, or add only information
which would be true, regardless of which or what.
>It's no mystery that we can see other stars when you consider their
>output, the inverse square law, and Earthly optics. But maybe that's not
>the signal he's talking about.
Calling it a 'signal' at all, what he is talking about, is a mistake, I
think, if only because it spoils the context.
>>> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
>>> gravitational disturbances.
>
>Maybe this makes more sense in context.
It seems to make sense in almost any context, as far as I can see. I
still don't quite understand why he thinks this 'speed of light in a
vacuum' deal has anything to do with SETI, though, or why either has to
do with his contention, here, that we shouldn't be able to see the other
side of a far-away galaxy as clearly as we do in either emr spectrum,
light or radio.
And how does he think that these could be predicated on his work with
the DoD? These are fascinating questions. But I doubt they'll be
productively explored in any real context in this cross-posted thread.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
