Up-hill
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mvermeer Sep 19, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
> I could argue, with similar futility, that water under the right
> circumstances might flow up-hill. Funny you should mention that... just like every year, I am again telling this to my first-year geodesy students. Under the right circumstances water flows up-hill ;-) |
| PaulFerris Sep 20, 2007 2:13 AM EDT |
Yo Martin! Yep, it does, indeed. The main thought behind this is related to the way that people will take a long shot hypothetical situation (the SCO trial) and make it into something far bigger than it is. Over the years I've had a lot of clueless management question me about it -- it doesn't take much press to induce doubt. Similar case: Internet security and Windows. A lot of people argue that Linux is every bit as insecure, "potentially" as Windows. It's just not popular. They use a completely hypothetical situation and map it to reality. Believe it or not, my own brother, a Comp-Sci graduate, threw this at me one time. While at the core, this has a very small modicum of accuracy (no one really "knows" all of the potential security vulnerabilities in just about any operating system), the gaping issue here is that Linux is prevalent in a much larger slice at the end of static IP addresses as a server than it is as a desktop. The logic completely falls apart here -- it *is* as popular, in these numbers, if not greater, than Windows, and yet it's hacked far less often. Add to this the fact that the security model is generally recognized as far superior, and it's a one-two punch of misinformation. Bill Gates or Ballmer might utter this in front of a room and have the audience believe them, but the facts are not on their side. So yeah, water indeed does flow up-hill -- under the right circumstances... Like my brothers' proverbial belief that Linux was just unpopular, but potentially just as insecure (it has a similar potential to water running up hill. His argument went further in that he said something to the effect that "eventually" there would be just as many viruses for Linux as there were for windows "If it got popular". It actually spawned me writing a op-ed about it. Bascially, let's say he's right, I said. It's gonna be a while. Maybe 2-5 years before that happens (Linux, as a desktop, gets so popular on the Internet that people start writing target exploits for it -- no matter how much of a long-shot this is from a security perspective). I basically said "Let's say that's right." Hey, you got several years, pragmatically, of far less virus hassle, still, as compared to Windows. Back to reality, in other words: All the hypothetical situations (water *can* run up-hill) in the world don't change the experience a lot of us have running Linux on the Internet as a desktop. We "know" what we're going through as opposed to our friends running Windows (or we're running both in different situations a part of say, work and home use). We see the stark contrast. All the hypothetical discussions don't change the facts: We're not concerned with the virus-de-jour -- Linux simply works, safely, securely and without a ton of patching for day-to-day use. That's very practical information ;) -=FeriCyde=- |
| mvermeer Sep 20, 2007 2:52 AM EDT |
Yeah... most water flows down-hill. |
| jacog Sep 20, 2007 3:12 AM EDT |
Hmmm, actually, water will flow in the direction gravity takes it. If it's on a very slight decline, and the moon is in the right position... I am willing to bet the water will flow in the direction we earthbounders perceive as uphill. There's also a method involving the viscosity of water coupled with a warm surface... not quite sure how that works though. Ack! ... I am having a rather stupid scientific discussion in another forum with someone who's just impossible to reason with. Makes me really appreciate you LXer people... really... *snif snif* |
| mvermeer Sep 20, 2007 5:58 AM EDT |
Scientific discussion? Tell me about it ;-) Actually the argument goes as follows. Water will try to flow always to the location of the lowest energy. Potential energy is depicted in the Earth gravity field by equipotential surfaces (surfaces of same energy), which are roughly ellipsoidial. The distance between these surfaces is not constant: where gravity is strong, they are close together, and where gravity is weak, they are far apart. One of these surfaces, the one coinciding with mean sea level, is special. We call it the geoid, and we say that the height of points above this surface is their "height above sea level". This means, e.g., that when going South, the inter-surface separation will grow, as gravity gets weaker in that direction. Then, in the mountains, water may flow along one of these surfaces and thus not gain or lose energy; but at the same time, its geometric distance from the above mentioned geoid surface, i.e., its "height above sea level", will increase. That's what I meant by water flowing upward. (I'm supposed to be able to explain these things ;-) |
| dinotrac Sep 20, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
Martin - And I always thought it was because the Water Spirit had hiccups. |
| mvermeer Sep 20, 2007 7:48 AM EDT |
Dino: you won't impress anyone with such simple explanations. Get used to the ways of the world. Or welcome to life in the big city. Or... something. |
| gus3 Sep 20, 2007 8:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:it *is* as popular, in these numbers, if not greater, than Windows, and yet it's hacked far less often.How about, "it is as popular, in these numbers, if not greater, than Windows, precisely because it's hacked far less often"? That kind of stuff matters when availability matters. |
| dinotrac Sep 20, 2007 8:19 AM EDT |
>Dino: you won't impress anyone with such simple explanations. Well, Doc Martin, you and your nose-in-the-air academic friends may not understand this, but it sometimes is better to communicate simply and clearly instead of using all those smart-person words and science-y gobbledygook that real people can't possibly understand. Besides, I just think it's kind of dumb to make the Water Spirit mad. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 20, 2007 10:56 AM EDT |
> it sometimes is better to communicate simply and clearly Thus we are burdened with religion. |
| dinotrac Sep 20, 2007 11:35 AM EDT |
> Thus we are burdened with religion. So, finally!! BR admits that faith speaks directly to the truth and the heart of matters while scientists, politicians, and forum responders whose handles do not end in "ac" just burden any discussion with heavyweight but meaning-light verbiage in the interest of puffing themselves up while fogging up anything resembling the truth. |
| azerthoth Sep 20, 2007 4:59 PM EDT |
methinks dino is warming up to run for public office, that was a masterfully obfuscated "I'm always right". |
| dinotrac Sep 20, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
>methinks dino is warming up to run for public office, that was a masterfully obfuscated "I'm always right". No, but it follows logically. |
| jacog Sep 21, 2007 12:27 AM EDT |
> Scientific discussion? Tell me about it mvermeer: You asked for it, but I warn you, it's not pretty. Basically started as a couple of science fiction movie pseudo-science hypotheticals... but soon degenerated into something rather hilarious. The person to look out for is named "aknddon3", and it gets really interesting later on when we are trying to explain to him what genetic mutation is and he refuses to accept anyone's explaination. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man/news/1671612/1.php?... And I'd like you to guess his age. You'd be surprised. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 21, 2007 4:38 AM EDT |
> So, finally!! BR admits that faith speaks directly to the truth and the heart of matters... Actually, I was referring to platitudes, emotion without reason, "magic beans" non-answers, and submission to whatever the group thinks rather than thinking for one's self. |
| dinotrac Sep 21, 2007 7:03 AM EDT |
>Actually, I was referring to platitudes, emotion without reason, "magic beans" non-answers, and submission to whatever the group thinks rather than thinking for one's self. Ah, I see. You were speaking to the global warming crowd. |
| PaulFerris Sep 24, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Global warming or large round bodies. You're treading close there to old wounds. ;) Hi! --Paul |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
>dinotrac: Global warming or large round bodies. You're treading close there to old wounds. I have a large round body, therefore I tread not merely close to old wounds, but inside one! Hi back! |
| jdixon Sep 24, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
Paul: Nice to see you paying a visit. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!