Linux-Advocacy Digest #713, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
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)
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)
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)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:14 GMT
Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 May 2001 16:43:51
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 14:27:14
>> >> "Dr S.J. Cornell" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Electrons are quite happy moving at (near enough) c when they are
>> >> > moving in normal, even very small, cables; they have very little
>> >> > choice, because at some point the propagating EM field has to satisfy
>> >> > boundary conditions with the outside world - not an issue when you're
>> >> > _inside_ a waveguide.
>> >
>> >You know, I really can't believe I wrote that. This is total bollocks
>> >- electrons' speeds in conductors are typically very slow. [...]
>>
>> But electrons aren't the issue; photons are the carrier particle for
>> electromagnetic force, not electrons.
>
>Absolutely. That's my entire point (elucidated later int he post);
>the motion of charge density waves is tied to the dynamics of the EM
>field, and the the propagation of a pulse down a transmission line has
>nothing to do with the size (!) of electrons, as an original poster
>stated.
>
>> And photons have only one speed:
>> c; the speed of light in a vacuum.
>
>This is true, in the strictest sense. However, when light is
>propagating through a *material* the EM field can be described as a
>spatially mesoscopic level by equations where photons travel at a
>different speed. This is because the electrons in the material don't
>oscillate in phase with the driving field field; this makes the phase
>of the EM field near that point lag behind the driving force, and
>hence the phase of the wave travels more slowly through the material.
>
>> This potential nonsensical (total bollocks, in fact) attempt to
>> represent counter-intuitive truth in language may well be doomed to
>> fail, since I honestly don't know a damn thing about the math involved.
>
>I do know about the math involved, since I took a course in quantum
>field theory when studying for my PhD (in theoretical physics).
>Anyway, your heuristic description of the propagation of photons
>through a material in terms of photons sounds broadly correct to me.
Cool! Thanks.
>> Still, the math for a relativistic explanation of light is incompatible
>> with the math for a quantum explanation of light
>
>No, quantum electrodynamics describes both the quantum and
>relativistic nature or light. It still stands as the most accurate
>and best-tested scientific theory in existance. I think you may be
>confusing this with the problems with quantum gravity, which are, to
>my knowledge, still not resolved.
But QED cannot possibly be entirely consistent with both quantum and
relativistic theories. To claim "it is the most accurate and
best-tested scientific theory" sounds real cool, and impresses
non-scientists, I guess, but it kind of spoils it if you already know
that we are well aware that, despite its strong correlation with
experimental results, it is fatally flawed, logically.
Perhaps I mispoke myself and should have said "explanation of the entire
universe" in my previous post. Would that bring me closer to "broadly
correct", professor? Isn't the only "problem with quantum gravity" the
fact that we have no clue if it really exists at all to begin with?
With my deepest and most humble gratitude;
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 ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:16 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:11:44 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Exactly. Now it should be clear why I reacted that way to TMax post.
>>Obviously TMax knows about as much about physics as he knows about
>>programming, that is, nothing at all.
>>
>>Peter
>
>So it would appear!
Guffaw. So which of you is the theoretical physicist, and which is his
butt-buddy*?
*A rhetorical device; no offense meant towards homosexuals.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:15 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 00:21:42
[...]
>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.
Well, if the math works, I guess you could say it that way. But in the
real world, IIRC, it is because the infrared frequencies are absorbed by
the glass. Certainly, a substance which is perfectly transparent to all
wavelengths of light does not heat up. Or is this a black body problem?
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:17 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:26:25
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of c.
>> >>
>> >> Radio waves are not the same as light waves.
>> >
>> >If that were true, it would be a major upset to all of physics. Where is
>> >the evidence? What papers have been written about it. Has there been
>> >the proper peer review?
>>
>> 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?
>
>T. Max, have you ever *visited* high school? You surely don't exhibit the
>knowledge of someone who graduated one.
>
>I suppose you think that infra red or ultra violet aren't light either,
>because you can't see them?
It would, indeed, be an inevitably epistemological discussion. Do you
know what that means, Ayende?
Look it up, and think harder.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:18 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 09:58:53
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:26:25
>>>In article
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of c.
>>>>
>>>> Radio waves are not the same as light waves.
>>>
>>>If that were true, it would be a major upset to all of physics. Where is
>>>the evidence? What papers have been written about it. Has there been
>>>the proper peer review?
>>
>>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?
>
>Max - you are making yourself look like an idiot. If you are going to be
>condescending and patronising, at least express yourself accurately (I am
>fairly sure you know what you are talking about (rare, but true), you are
>just using impresise terminology).
Doh! Imprecise for whom?
>Radio waves are a type of light waves.
Am I to simply *presume* that this means exactly the same thing as
"radio waves are light waves". Why is it you didn't say that, if it is
so, and why are you trying to implicate this, if it is not so?
>They are not the same as *visible*
>light waves, as they have a different range of frequencies. The common term
>"light" generally refers to visibile light, while the scientific term
>"light" (as in "the speed of light") refers to the entire electromagnetic
>spectrum, including radio waves, visibile light, and about a dozen other
>categories, depending on how you split it up.
If one wishes to engage in an epistemological discussion, one should
start off by pissing all over the table. Believe me, I am *entirely*
unconcerned with how you want to split things up. If that's
condescending and patronizing in your opinion, then that is your
problem, not mine.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:19 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 00:32:24
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> >Radio waves are not the same as light waves.
>>
>> The only difference is the *frequency*. The question is whether there
>> is any difference in the particles (quantum packets/photons) between
>> visible and radio frequencies waves. So far, your explanation has not
>> provided any, so your consideration of the frequency of the wave as
>> having anything to do with the speed of the particle are confusing.
[...]
>You are quite perceptive of the frequency factor. As the frequency
>increases the more the EM wave acts like light. It is a variable
>transformation.
But the question is, what does it mean to 'act like light', as opposed
simply being em waves? How does a lower frequency make the packets
(photons!) behave any differently?
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:19 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:20:00
>GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>>You are quite perceptive of the frequency factor. As the frequency
>>increases the more the EM wave acts like light. It is a variable
>>transformation.
>
>How can anyone be so blind and so stupid as to repeat the same drivel
>endlessly in the face of the facts? Go and look up your terms in a science
>dictionary (or half-decent encyclopedia - i.e., not some Encarta junk).
>Once you know what "EM waves", "light", "radio", and "visible light"
>actually mean, re-read your posts and cringe.
Get a clue, David.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:20 GMT
Said Kim G. S. OEyhus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Kim G. S. OEyhus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>>>As you said, it is garbage. It does not make sense at all.
>>>It is just physicsbabble, physics words put together somewhat
>>>randomly, without meaning.
>>
>>For you, maybe.
>
>Yes, for me, because as a physicist, I know what his words are supposed
>to mean.
Apparently not.
>>It made a lot of sense to me, in fact it was rather
>>fascinating, at least what I could gather given my ignorance of the math
>>and even some of the terms.
>
>The only math there was "80%" of something unspecified, and
>"1000 faster". And this math, you claim to be ignorant of.
It was 88%, IIRC, of c. I don't know what '1000 faster' you're talking
about.
>>I had never considered the issue of how
>>'particles' of light can 'speed up' after leaving an area of dense
>>matter.
>
>Thats elementary physics.
Elementary physics does not allow things to speed up and slow down of
their own accord, Mr. Physicist.
[...]
>As a physicist, I know those terms do not describe math at all,
>but physical concepts.
If this statement were true, (if you and I both know what it was
"supposed to mean", we'll say), then I'd have to say you aren't much of
a physicist. I suspect you are aware that the 'physical concepts' are
only described in math, in physics, and the terms are just used to
explain the math.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:21 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:23:32
>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>Maybe its because you never worked for the gov. at all.
>>Maybe you spent too much time trying to pass your pyhsics classes
>>without much thought to original thinking... I can't thing of one
>>original thinker... Gallileo. Are you by chance a naysayer?
>>Be being a naysayer, one can't possibly progress.
>
>You're reaching the final stages of madness - first you spouted
>techno-babble, now it's just plain babble.
Fuck 'em, GreyCloud. David and Kim are just being pigheaded; you
shouldn't be at all concerned whether they understand what you're
saying, as evidenced by their repeated insistence on trying as hard as
possible to reduce the discussion to a flame war.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:22 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:45:58
>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
>>original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
>>how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
>>Tell that crap to the NBS!
>
>To paraphrase - "why believe what thousands of scientists have proven again
>and again? Be original - make up your own science as you go along."
You say that as if Newton weren't proven incorrect.
>One of the American states (Maryland, IIRC) decided that it was too
>complicated for schools to teach about "pi" being 3.14159..., so they
>redeclared pi to be 4 and insisted that this be taught in schools.
>Fortunately, this did not last long. Perhaps GreyCloud is following this
>philosophy.
...and since this happened (allegedly), pigheaded trolls have been
trotting it out to try and refute the fact that they are being
pigheaded. It is as if you were claiming that pi only has as many
digits as you memorized in grade-school, and then it stops.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:23 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 00:43:41
[...]
>Thank you. I am not that strong in elucidating in any human language.
>But I do remember what Heiman Rickover said about the Blue Light effect
>in Nuclear reactors... "Truly astounding and we shouldn't really talk
>about it."
In a way that seems appropriate. Still, you shouldn't get too far ahead
of yourself. As I've pointed out, we "know" that photons don't actually
'exist' the way most people assume they do. That doesn't mean claiming
that photons don't exist is not going to get you flamed if you aren't
really careful, especially once some nimrod cross-posts into
sci.physics.
The point is, I think, that although your work with the DoD might have
been fascinating, if you are really going to get anywhere cracking QED's
"most perfect theory ever known to be fundamentally flawed" reputation,
let alone casting aspersions on the perfection of Maxwell's equations,
you have to go straight to the level of string theory math. Thankfully,
that puts it right out of the level where even Usenet could sustain a
flamewar on the subject. AFAIK, nobody capable of understanding the
math is also capable of operating a computer by themselves. ;-D
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:24 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 00:52:03
[...]
>You have helped to make me think more about this... the light wave
>itself is without body, but for people to see light they need that
>photon to perceive.
In "truth", the 'wave' is just a function of probability; for people to
see light, the photon must magically appear coincidentally with an
electron in their eyeball. To claim the "photon" exists at any point
other than where it is measured is itself deceptive and purely
hypothetical.
>In distant space, it would need the full pressure
>of the light wave to propel a photon... but this would necessitate a lot
>of energy to get the photon from a distant star to here.
Light waves don't "propel" photons. Photons merely stand still in time
while the universe zips past them at c. ;-)
>Other words,
>attenuation and also radial dispersion of the photons. Also a lot of
>time would be needed to get that photon from there to here. Even EM
>waves attenuate over the inverse square of the distance. How would it
>be that there is infinite energy to propel that photon from the farthest
>distances then?
This seems very similar, to my amateur eye, to the 'black body' problem
which first indicated the flaws in Maxwell's equations which would later
fell Einstein's as well.
According to Maxwell's equations, a 'black body' (an object which cannot
radiate energy; considered a 'perfectly insulated oven' in most thought
experiments) *must* have an infinite amount of energy. But this is
impossible, of course. It was theorized by the founders of quantum
physics (which later was married to particle physics as QED) that the
reason a black body 'should' have infinite energy (because all
wavelengths are present, each contributes a finite amount of energy, but
there are infinite wavelengths) but doesn't (because those wavelengths
which could not provide at least one full quanta of energy contributed
none, and while there are an infinite number of these, but a finite
number of those which can provide an integral number of quanta).
I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene; without a
doubt the best "non-scientist" explanation available of relativity,
quantum physics, and string theory, in my humble and limited opinion.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:25 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 12:14:44
[...]
>I think the two of you have been reading way above your heads.
We think you are an insulting and pathetic cretin.
>You've heard
>of wave-particle duality, and have grasped some of the ideas without
>understanding the basics. Light does not swap between being particles
>(i.e., photons) and waves as though these were two different states. It is
>both at once.[...]
This makes no logical sense at all. The only logical position would be
that it is neither. Both particle and wave are most obviously
incomplete descriptions of whatever this stuff is, whether you call it
'light', 'electromagnetic radiation', or 'radio waves'.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:26 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>>In free space, radio waves travel at *exactly* the speed of light.
>>
>> Just how many other people here are unaware that Maxwell's equations are
>> no more correct in all cases than Newton's are, Bohr's, or Einstein's
>> are?
>
>Which cases are they not correct in. They are true under all relativistic
>transforms and fit in nicely with quantum mechanics.
"Fitting in nicely" is not the issue.
>> Claiming that light travels at the speed of light *because* you can't
>> solve Maxwell's equations any other way is just the kind of gibberish
>> you've accused GreyCloud of.
>
>...?
!!!
>> In fact, IIRC, wasn't it the failure of Maxwell's equations to solve the
>> 'black body' problem correctly that caused quantum physics to first be
>> considered?
>
>No. That is wrong.
Gee, aren't you helpful.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:27 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>>>I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>>>>
>>>>radio waves travel slower than light...
>>>
>>>How embarrissing. Radio waves are light.
>>
>> How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
>> frequencies travel slower than others.
>
>Not in free space. In free space, epsilon and mu are independent of
>frequency and so the propogation speed of a wave is unrelated to the
>frequency.
So the theory goes, yes.
>> I would have thought that people on technical newsgroups, even advocacy
>> groups, would be aware of the duality of physics, and not waste time
>> quibbling about these things as if Usenet discussion will prove
>> conclusively something that all the great physicists in the world cannot
>> yet sort out.
>
>The pyhsicists have long since sorted out that the speed of light is a
>constant in free space. Not only that, but it is invariant through
>relativistic transformations as well.
Yes; physicists seem to split into two convenient groups: those who
believe something, anything, is invariant, and those who are still
discovering why this isn't the case at all.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:28 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 01:14:01
[...]
>Much better argument. How many intelligent life forms could survive
>long enough to generate strong enough EM waves to be detected here?
>Don't know.
Given a large enough galaxy (and it is) it doesn't really matter. The
thinking is that 'how many' is meaningless, unless it is a number
greater than 1.
>But then SETI presumes that ET uses EM waves. Could it not
>be possible to use another form of communications other than EM waves?
>Don't know, but I don't think it is impossible either.
It is not a 'presumption'. It is the most likely method that will
provide results for SETI, that is all. Nobody necessarily believes that
it is the only possible form. Yet, the properties of the frequencies
they study are such that they are best form, should some xenocritters
ponder the idea of communicating, or accidentally broadcast across
galactic distances and durations.
>I believe that there are intelligent life forms out on other planets,
>but it is US that cannot find out if they exist. Especially if these
>life forms are in a "dark ages" like we used to be in.
Your feel for probability is a bit skewed; the dark ages are transient,
even if recurring. IF you believe there are other sentient creatures in
the galaxy, than it is against all probability to think that one will
not occur within the necessary band of contingency to be detected by
SETI. EMR is an awfully handy form of communication, you see, and the
frequencies SETI studies were not randomly chosen.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:29 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 21:12:16
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> You too seem to be considering a narrow view of what the 'real world' is.
>
>It's a very big narrow view then.
Only as big as your imagination, yet as narrow as your perspective.
>> But is MS in their automobiles? Does it run the ATMs they bank with?
>> The planes they fly in? (God forbid...) Most of the *truly* critical
>> 'real world' things don't use MS. And yes, our mothers and non-tech
>> friends use them everyday.
>
>Microsoft would probably with to be everywhere - shudder!
Oddly enough, this is the reaction that most reasonable people have. I
suppose you're just feigning, Pete? It would be out of character for
you to be smart enough to understand why this is a frightful
possibility.
>> Even from an infrastructure level--do the routers that allow their
>> pointedy-clicketies to do all that fun stuff use MS software? (cisco) Not
>> often. How about most of the websites then enjoy? (apache) How about
>> most of the mail servers they send mail with? (sendmail)
>
>Now we're sliding into the server market, where Linux is scoring.
Linux is scoring all over. More Linux desktops come on line every day
than W2K desktops. MS is having a hell of a time getting people to buy
monopoly crapware for hundreds of dollars when they can have a
technically superior product for practically nothing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:43:45 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:02:12 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know, Pete. C++ still hasn't been standardized yet, and there
> are a few differences between compiler vendors yet.
You are mistaken. There is a C++ standard. You are correct, though,
that not all vendors have caught up.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
