Really? Is this what you understand from guidelines?
What's your next post? "I found a very delicious and interesting recipe on web. It was delicious and I think it's worth sharing with hackers ♥."
Get out of here.
Maybe the blame is this stupid, non-central ranking mechanism which makes idiots like you and OP motivated to dump such stuff here for points and down-vote any criticism that does make sense.
Such irrelevant posts are submitted to HN on a regular basis. Relatively few (glancing at the front page now, at least) ever get to the frontage or even get a single upvote. I guess your hypotthesis is that no legitimate "hacker" upvoted the OP and hey, that's a fun hypothesis to test out. The other possibility is that not everyone shares your same definition, and having to deal with those other opinions is the price you pay in participating in an online community with more than one user
Wow, the article posted didn't seem totally out of place here. Your post, on the other hand, doesn't remotely belong here. Are you even an old timer on this site? You certainly don't write like one.
Apple builds fancy gadgets and gathers a fan-boy population, and eventually starts selling more. This really doesn't say anything about Linux desktop.
This whole thing about backward compatibility and the discussion that surrounds it is just vague. Here's a practical "true story" for you: I'm using GNU/Linux for more than 10 years now, and it is still alive.
Never had any vague binary compatibility problems either, because I'm not strangely expecting to use an ancient binary version of Gimp on my current system. That's because FOSS is source oriented, not binary.
I'm not suddenly trying to use a 15 years old graphics card whose driver is longer in the kernel either, because I don't use a 15 years old graphics card.
well said; the linux user is mostly a diy developer like me; I enjoy the fact that what I am running on my laptop runs on my servers and everywhere.. Windows can't do this, (So I was using windows server on desktop), OS/X is dead on server.. Linux is pretty much the only sane option for independent developers.
Yeah, tell me about those genius ideas invented by Apple that only 10 Einsteins could have come up with. Rounded corners?
It's too fortunate for that that nobody patented their "innovative" stuff 50 years ago because it is totally ridiculous. Want some respect as a company? Do something like research.google.com instead of trying to screw people over with overpriced candies and screwing other companies when they put their hands in your honey jar.
The problem with such interpretations is that they violate causality.
Check out Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory for history.
Concepts such as collapse of a wave function aren't necessary when you stop treating the observer in a special way and start considering observer-particle as a big quantum system.
This is not true. A wave propagates both in time and space. You're mixing these two. A negative frequency is like a wave travelling backwards in time, not left/right spatial direction.
Not quite. A wave going left forward in time is equivalent to a wave 'going right' but backwards in time. Since it is further right in the past than now, it is actually going left.
There's a lot of similar effects in Physics, especially with time and/or antimatter.
Save me the trouble an learn some basic physics.
Read Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, Chapter 7.
If it's too complicated for you, read about waves. See how they propagate in time and space, and pay special attention to what happens to the equation when you change the sign of t. If it's too difficult to imagine, try plotting using a program.
And anti-matter is not matter travelling backwards in time. See my post below.
Are we talking about the same thing?
I'm talking about particle waves, or wave functions of particles, not a function which satisfies the wave equation (a photon happens to satisfy the wave function, but I'm trying to be general here) and with frequency, I mean energy. Try changing the sign of t in Schrodinger equation and see if it simply amounts to changing the sign of your momentum vector or not.
I guess not. I had an impression of you talking about particles from the start of your comment, but then you went into "read about waves" and said to make a plot, which made it sound like you were talking about basic math. I only understand a few of the effects of altering time on physics so I'll shut up.
Which is exactly why the book has that title. The book by Jackson is required reading for any physics graduate in a field where EM radiation plays a role.
I have seen a negative sign grouped with frequency. Which was used to distinguish directionality. Most of the time it is understood from context what is meant, if not the speakers fall back on to more something more formal to ensure understanding.
Don't push the idea of a wave in space too much, that's not how stuff works in quantum mechanics. See Feynman Lectures of Physics, Vol 3, Section 3-3 for a text at the introductory level.
Indeed, that line of argument is a form of the Galileo gambit[1], which is just a way to rationalize ridicule or criticism by claiming an unfounded correlation between opposition and eventual victory. Yes, many people who eventually succeed are criticized or laughed at initially - but people who eventually fail are often criticized or laughed at initially as well.
