Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Parsifal

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 82  Next >
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 04, 2018, 12:54:01 PM »
Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.

Your amusement also does not constitute an argument. Do the REers in this thread have any actual physics to present?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 04, 2018, 01:57:18 AM »
Arrogant or not, what I wrote about assumptions is correct. Both of you are making the same error. A theory eventually appearing incomplete is not the same as it being wrong. GR doesn't have a ready explanation for the phenomena listed in Svarrior's link, and Newton's physics were phased out in pieces during the last two centuries because it couldn't deal with fields; at no point were the premises found to be faulty in either case.

That is simply not true, at least in the case of Newton. Newtonian physics predicts that gravity operates instantaneously across all space and that an object can go faster than light simply by accelerating for long enough, both of which are directly contradicted by relativity. That is, it makes incorrect predictions (if you accept relativity, and at least special relativity is not being contested here).

If a theory that makes incorrect predictions does not qualify as incorrect, then what is your metric for correctness?

Parsifal, when you write 'I could just as easily say that Newton's theory of gravity was "conjured out of the bunk aether" because he simply thought about what might cause a large ball to attract smaller objects towards it,' this is child's play. "No, you!"

Yes, I'm glad you noticed that the intent was to demonstrate the childishness of your post.

You're right that just saying UA is bunk doesn't discredit anything because it is indeed consistent with flat Earth belief, but that's not the entire argument I put forward, is it?

It was, unless you're counting your unfounded opinion that the Earth is round and therefore all astronomical observations must align with RET as an argument.

The exact relation is that they cannot both be true at the same time. It's pretty far from unknown.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

and, flat Earth belief is not incomplete, strictly speaking; it is incorrect

Yes, you've already told us that you think the Earth is round. There is no need to place a reminder in every post.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 04, 2018, 12:00:47 AM »
If it assumes a particular cosmos, and has been repeatedly measured tested in multiple ways, and the assumptions have never led to incorrect or surprising results that were not predicted by the theory, then the assumptions are exceedingly likely to be correct.

This is bog-standard scientific arrogance. The same thing was thought of Newtonian physics, until Einstein came along. Much less time has now passed since relativity was published than elapsed between Newton's time and Einstein's. Just because we have not yet discovered inaccuracies in a model does not imply that they do not exist.

Looking at this from another angle, is it any surprise that a theory which was concocted by someone assuming RET works well with RET assumptions?

If you assume a flat Earth cosmos of whatever design, any experimental prediction will fail, because the Earth is not flat. If one holds the assumption to be true regardless, then there must be some other reason things are the way they are. This is how universal acceleration was conjured out of the bunk aether in the first place. 'If the Earth is flat, then gravity cannot exist, therefore we must experience constant universal acceleration and mistake it for gravity.'

This is gibberish based on your assumption that the Earth is round. I could just as easily say that Newton's theory of gravity was "conjured out of the bunk aether" because he simply thought about what might cause a large ball to attract smaller objects towards it. However, that does nothing to discredit the theory, because it is still perfectly consistent within RET. Assuming the Earth is flat as an axiom when discussing RET will get us nowhere, and neither will the converse.

I should point out, your wiki agrees with me that the theories are incompatible. If you think this is wrong, change the wiki.

The wiki merely states that gravity cannot be responsible for the 9.8 m s-2 of proper acceleration that we observe, because that requires the Earth to be a ball. It does not rule out the existence of gravity in any form. It is possible that this wording could be improved.

If you think this is wrong, change the wiki.

I have not said that GR and UA can coexist, merely that I do not see any reason why they cannot. I have already stated that my understanding of GR is somewhat limited, so I do not consider myself qualified to state definitively that they can.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 03, 2018, 11:16:01 PM »
Well, the answer is strictly No, because GR includes gravity.

Why is that a problem?

I ask because I'm interested in how one might reconcile the experimental tests of general relativity with another theory that precludes the existence of gravity as GR requires.

Those tests all assume a RET cosmos, as Ratboy has pointed out. The collected data would need to be reinterpreted from scratch with a FET cosmos. As I'm sure you can imagine, the majority of research funding for the past century being directed towards projects which assume RET has left us somewhat behind in this regard, so unfortunately I do not have any ready-to-eat explanations for you.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 03, 2018, 10:59:33 PM »
Those things are demonstrations of general relativity. We are talking about special relativity, which is observable in (for example) particle accelerators.

Is it possible for the theory of general relativity and the theory of universal acceleration to both be true?

I don't see why not. However, my understanding of general relativity is much more limited than my understanding of special relativity.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 03, 2018, 10:06:42 PM »
Relativity has been proven by such things as time shifts on satellites, light bending as it approaches the massive sun, and other things that do not exist in an FE world.

Those things are demonstrations of general relativity. We are talking about special relativity, which is observable in (for example) particle accelerators.

The rest of your post is just ranting which is not FED material. I have not split it off because your first sentence is at least somewhat relevant, but please try to remain on topic.

However, wouldn't Universal Acceleration mean that the entire observable Universe had to be accelerating with us?

Yes, this is part of the UA theory. See

I'm a Round Earther, and my question to you Flat Earthers is: why would a theory that violates isotropy of space (clearly there is a favored direction of acceleration) be favored over one with a simple explanation: gravity exists, and the Earth is roughly spherical?

Why is isotropy of space necessarily a simple quality?

Also, this means that an invisible force has to affect everything in the observable universe to make it accelerate with the Earth (otherwise it wouldn't); we feel the acceleration of UA as weight because of the (electromagnetic) normal force exerted on us by Earth to keep us accelerating. Why aren't we just accelerated by the invisible force? Shouldn't we feel weightless? What makes our matter on Earth different from those in the stars?

The Earth shields us from the UA's direct influence. Please do read

Of course, none of UA can explain the various experiments done with torsion balances to verify the existence of gravity. Usually these are hand-waved away by criticizing experimental procedure (such as the presence of stray charges, incorrect measurement, bad setup, etc) but in reality most of those criticisms are outright lies or misinformed.

UA cannot do that, but that is because UA does not really say anything at all about interactive forces between masses, so I would not expect it to.

It is evident that a gravitational attraction between masses must exist, otherwise the variances in observed gravity across the Earth's surface could not be explained by UA alone. The point on which FET and RET disagree is whether the Earth has sufficient gravitational attraction to pull itself into a ball. In FET, its mass (or perhaps merely the strength of gravity over long distances) is not sufficient to do this, but local gravity varies due to variation in the density of the Earth.

Following this train of thought, there is no need to deny the validity of such experiments, but nor do they verify anything about the RET model.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 03, 2018, 01:24:11 PM »
Forget observers. They aren't necessary and only lead to confusion.

Observers are fundamental to relativity because mass is relative to the observer. If you do not understand this, you have no business talking about relativity at all.

After 16 years it will have accelerated to 0.9999999999999999c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 7194825 (and my spreadsheet runs out of resolution).

If the FE wants to continue accelerating at g, then as its speed approaches c its mass will approach infinity and the energy needed to maintain g also approaches infinity.

After 16 years of accelerating at g, an object will have accelerated to over 16 times the speed of light. You have correctly surmised that, due to relativity, its acceleration decreases over time in the frame of reference you are using. Why, then, are you still saying that it is accelerating at g?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 01, 2018, 10:36:55 PM »
There are plenty of posts on this forum where FET disagrees with RET. It really doesn't matter what I say because it's not my theory; all I'm doing is providing my understanding of it.

This has nothing to do with FET or RET, this is basic relativity.

My absurd conclusion is based on what I've been taught and what I've read, and it matches every reputable source on this matter.

Your conclusion is based on mixing and matching observations from different frames of reference. Please provide one reputable source which backs up this methodology.

However, if you think it's possible to continuously accelerate to c then I'm surprised that you're too diffident to publish this more widely. If you're correct, write a paper, get some kudos for the society and win yourself a Nobel prize.

I don't think that, nor is that even close to an accurate representation of what I said.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 01, 2018, 07:31:31 PM »
1) It's not possible to accelerate to the speed of light;


2) If you try to do so the Universe changes the goalposts so that metres shrink, seconds expand and kilograms increase, all in such a way as to negate the effect of your acceleration;

I have to wonder if you really understand what's going on here because of the terminology you are using, and also what you say below (but I'll reply to that in turn). Nothing "changes the goalposts"; length contraction, time dilation and mass dilation are well understood physical effects. The universe also has no sapience with which to do anything.

However, terminology aside, this is fundamentally correct.

3) Because these factors are working against you, you need more and more energy to maintain your acceleration;

Only if you want to maintain a constant acceleration as seen by an inertial observer. This corresponds to an ever-increasing acceleration as observed by someone on the accelerating object.

This is not how UA works; we observe a constant acceleration, therefore an inertial observer would see decreasing acceleration.

4) Since it's UA, repeat steps 2 & 3 ad infinitum. As speed approaches C, your mass approaches infinity, time slows almost to a halt and meters almost vanish. The only option is to increase the energy input, but this approaches infinite as the mass approaches infinite.

5) Universal Acceleration may be valid, but I'm not aware of an infinite energy source to power it.

Step 3 does not correctly represent UA, so this does not apply.

(I'm happy to ignore time and distance if you are?).

It's not that they are being ignored, it's that it massively simplifies our analysis if we consider one instant in time from an inertial frame of reference, instead of trying to model the Earth's non-inertial frame of reference over time. The key point to keep in mind is that we do not specify which instant of time we are talking about, and therefore can draw conclusions spanning all of time (or at least, for as long as the Earth's proper acceleration remains constant) by considering individual instants.

If I've got this right, you say that mass dilation doesn't affect an accelerating FE from its own inertial FoR, i.e. it doesn't know that it's getting heavier.

But the universe knows it's getting heavier, otherwise it wouldn't have to move the goalposts. So the FoR is from the universe's point of view - to accelerate close to C through the universe you need almost infinite energy.

And here's where things get really wonky. You don't seem to understand the most basic principle of relativity, despite the fact that it is written in the name. Measurements of length, time and mass are relative to the observer. The Earth is not "getting heavier" in any objective sense; its observed mass depends on the observer, and so does its acceleration.

The problem with your argument is that you are using the Earth's mass in one frame of reference and its acceleration in another. Of course this is going to lead you to absurd conclusions.

The simplest frame of reference to use in order to see what is going on is the one in which the Earth is stationary (for an instant). In this frame of reference, it has only rest mass and is accelerating at 9.8 m s-2. If you want to switch to a frame of reference in which its mass is greater, you must also calculate its acceleration in that frame of reference.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: January 01, 2018, 07:30:42 AM »
Yes it is. It’s just that either :

a) you don’t understand it,
b) you’re trying to shill me or
c) relativity works differently on a flat earth (which would require a different universe).

In any event, congratulations for picking up something so complicated using only Zetetics.

Your postulations are irrelevant. Let's deal with facts and figures, shall we?

Let’s get this clear – the FE is ALWAYS accelerating at 9.81m/s2 in order to replace gravity, but you cannot accelerate and be stationary in the same “frame of reference”.

Incorrect. You can be stationary -- that is, have a velocity of zero -- at one instant in time while accelerating in a given inertial frame of reference. A short time before, you would be moving one way, and a short time after, you would be moving the other, but in between you have acceleration but no velocity. It is perfectly valid to consider what is happening at the instant for which you are stationary using special relativity.

At any given instant, there is an inertial frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary, and it is in that frame of reference that it has an acceleration of 9.8 m s-2. This is why only the rest mass is relevant.

Now, to perform a complete analysis involving the passage of time, we need to consider that the Earth is really in a non-inertial frame of reference, which is a case explicitly excluded from special relativity. Fortunately, we do not need to complicate our analysis in this way. It is sufficient to note that in this non-inertial frame of reference, we observe a proper acceleration (also known as "gravity") of 9.8 m s-2, which means that that is the Earth's rate of acceleration within an inertial frame of reference in which it is stationary at any given instant.

The energy need to accelerate the FE is always proportional to its total mass. At a standstill it has only rest mass, but as it accelerates it gains inertial mass. Total mass=rest mass+inertial mass.

This is nonsense. "Inertial mass" is not something you gain by accelerating. What you mean to say is that at non-zero velocities, your relativistic mass exceeds your rest mass, which is true. However, it fails to do anything to counter my point. Indeed, it is an axiom upon which my point rests.

That's the wrong way round. Assuming you mean the beginning of the acceleration, the only mass of the Flat Earth would be its rest mass (although it could still be very heavy). Acceleration would be at 9.81 m/s2 in your own time frame, and I agree as I watch you from my frame on Round Earth. However, within a few years I see you still accelerating, but much much less as the Universe stops you reaching the speed of light by adding inertial mass. And slowing down time, etc.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You start out by saying I have things the wrong way round, and spend the rest of your paragraph repeating my argument (using incorrect terminology, but nobody's perfect). I appreciate the support, but was hoping you would have some more substance to your asserted disagreement.

No, acceleration in your frame of reference remains at 9.81m/s2, otherwise your “gravity” would alter.

Correct, but we're not talking about our current frame of reference, we're talking about the frame of reference we were in 4 billion years ago. More precisely, we are talking about the inertial frame of reference in which the Earth was stationary 4 billion years ago, but I skimmed over that distinction for brevity. Perhaps I overestimated your inferential abilities.

However the Universe is ganging up on you by making your mass increase ( thereby needing more energy), time slow down (so instead of 9.81 m per second every second, it’s 9.81 m per 2 seconds, every two seconds – and increasing) and distances foreshorten (ie 9.81m becomes 8m then 7 …)

Yes, exactly. This happens as measured by an inertial observer. However, we are not inertial -- if you'll recall, the whole premise here is that we are accelerating -- so we would not expect to observe this.

Rejoice! As distances foreshorten, the Flat Earth gets even flatter - even Round Earth becomes disc-shaped  ;D

You are still accelerating, but “meters”, “kilograms” and “seconds” have changed. In my frame of reference, not yours; you can’t zetetically detect anything unusual because it’s happening to everything in your frame of reference.

Everything looks normal to you, as you whizz through the Universe at 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, but I see you as short and squashed - you're only a few inches tall. The second hands on rour clocks are barely crawling around their faces, as far as I'm concerned. If you hold a 12" ruler and point it to the ceiling, to me it seems maybe 2" high. But when you point it to the wall, at 90degrees to your acceleration, i see it magically stretch to its full length.

You don't need to explain all this to me. I understand special relativity, apparently better than you do.

Thus the energy requirement for UA goes off the scale. Einstein tells you why you can't exceed the speed of light, but that doesn't mean you can't keep accelerating. That's what your own wiki says; it just seems to stop short of considering the implications.

You've just spent your entire post explaining why this is wrong. To an inertial observer, the energy requirement (or more precisely, the power requirement, that is energy per unit time) does not increase. Instead, the acceleration decreases.

Meanwhile, to us non-inertial observers on the Flat Earth, the Earth's mass remains its rest mass, and the acceleration remains 9.8 m s-2.

If you need further clarification, I recommend reading your own post again. It contains all the answers you need.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Show me your physics
« on: December 31, 2017, 05:36:45 PM »
The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly.  As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.

No, this is not how relativity works.

We are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 in our own frame of reference, in which the Earth is stationary and does not have dilated mass. The energy requirement to accelerate it is therefore proportional to its rest mass.

If you were to observe the Earth from the frame of reference it was in 4 billion years ago, it would be very heavy, but its acceleration would also appear much slower. This is a necessary consequence of the fact that, in relativity, you cannot accelerate past the speed of light. If acceleration were still 9.8 m s-2 in this frame of reference, then we would very quickly pass the speed of light, which is impossible.

Thus, the energy requirement for acceleration remains constant.

Status Notices / Re: Scheduled maintenance, 2017-12-23
« on: December 23, 2017, 10:02:59 AM »
Maintenance complete.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Society Club at school
« on: December 22, 2017, 02:07:09 AM »
Everything is open source here. You can take anything you want and use it for your own ends.

No it isn't. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence which applies to the homepage and wiki content does not apply to other content for which we do not hold copyright, such as things our members post on the forum. Read the copying terms.

It means you can even steal our logos, pretend to be us, bus in a bunch of hobos and claim them to be TFES. Don't expect any endorsement though.

No, that isn't what it means. The aforementioned Creative Commons licence is a copyright licence, which does not grant permission to claim that you wrote the content yourself, to impersonate other people or to use their trademarks (whether or not our logo would hold up in a court of law as a trademark is yet undetermined). Read the licence.

Build the thing you are building, no objections will come from us whatever it turns out to be. And if it becomes a thing worth endorsing, then come back. :-)

This is good advice. We are a largely decentralised group of volunteers, so there is no central authority to recognise you. But by that same token, anyone here who does good work will get recognised simply by virtue of the work they are doing. The way to be recognised is to do something instead of talking about it.

Status Notices / Scheduled maintenance, 2017-12-23
« on: December 19, 2017, 11:47:56 AM »
The homepage, forum, wiki and IRC will be going offline for about five minutes on 2017-12-23, between 10:00 and 10:15 UTC.

For convenience, this means:

EST (USA east coast):
2017-12-23, 05:00-05:15

2017-12-23, 10:00-10:15

CET (Most of Europe):
2017-12-23, 11:00-11:15

AEDT (Australia east coast):
2017-12-23, 21:00-21:15

The intent is to install security updates on the server which hosts the homepage, forum, wiki and IRC. These will be non-disruptive to functionality, as the server is running a stable OS release that gets critical fixes only.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: FAO Pete Svarrior . . .
« on: December 18, 2017, 11:26:23 PM »
I'm not Pete, but we have always been called The Flat Earth Society. TFES is a commonly used abbreviation of "The Flat Earth Society", and has been since before this site existed. As you have probably noticed by now, it is used for our domain name.

However, I suspect that you are referring to this site because you have an old account here.

Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: December 18, 2017, 09:49:36 AM »
Oh.  I thought they had a reason as to why it was breached.

They do, Rushy is just being difficult as usual.

1. Does the knowledge of regular sound changes help with learning a foreign language related to a language you already know?

It can help, but it depends on how you use the knowledge and whether you're the kind of person that learns best through making logical inferences. I learned Dutch, a language closely related to English, while outside the countries where Dutch is spoken, in part by teaching myself some basic linguistics. Within 6 months of coming to Amsterdam, I have achieved the highest level of language certification offered by the Dutch government.

However, when I tried to explain some of my technique to other learners in the Dutch class I took after I got here, I mostly got blank stares and/or looks of admiration without real comprehension, leading me to believe that this approach isn't for everyone.

Also, I found it most useful in developing an intuition once I already had a basic grasp of the language. I can't imagine it helping very much for learning the basics.

2. Does knowing an archaic language from some family help with learning modern languages from that family?

I would echo Pete's comment that knowing a related modern language is easier. This is the case for a couple of reasons.

First, languages within an area are not totally isolated, they will influence each other and often share innovations that were established after their divergence. For example, consider that most languages in Western Europe today use simple case systems with articles and word order used to convey ancillary information about nouns, despite the fact that both Latin and Proto-Germanic had complex and meaningful case systems with no articles and flexible word order.

There are not very many cases of a language being totally isolated from its relatives, simply because the technology for large numbers of people to travel large distances did not exist until relatively recently. One unusual example would be Finnish and Hungarian, which are members of the Uralic language family that are divided by many countries which speak Indo-European languages. Finnish has been much more influenced by Germanic languages than by languages that it is related to over the past millennium or so, primarily due to its history of Swedish occupation. That said, I do not speak either Finnish or Hungarian, so I could not tell you how similar they actually are.

The point is that nearly all languages have been influenced by their relatives after divergence, and so their last common ancestor is likely to be less similar to them than modern neighbouring languages.

Even without grammatical innovations, there are words in modern languages which simply did not exist in their ancient counterparts. For example, Classical Latin had no word for "tomato", because the tomato was not brought to Europe until the 16th century. It also would have had no word for "television", because the television was not invented until the 20th century. The things that we need our language to refer to have changed over time, and all modern languages have adapted, but ancient languages are suited to the era in which they were spoken.

On top of all of that, it is simply easier to learn modern languages because a) they have more native speakers to learn from, b) there are more resources available to learn from, and c) there is a broader and more active corpus of media in those languages. It would be far easier to learn and compare French and Spanish to each other than to learn Latin and then either one of them.

Now, if you are interested (as I am) in ancient languages as an intellectual curiosity and a source of ancient literature, then by all means study them, but there are far better options out there if your goal is to effectively understand modern languages.

Technology & Information / Re: Building a real distributed Plan 9 system
« on: December 09, 2017, 12:35:20 PM »
Yeah, no. The bit i don't understand is why you have to have a highly controlled OS for a one size fits all solution.

"Highly controlled OS"? What? Where did you get that from?

On your laptop, run Chrome OS or Windows. Its a laptop. You are on a plane. What is the problem. You can watch a video or read your e-mails on any OS.

Are you volunteering to pay my €10000 in-flight WiFi bill for all the data I download from my NAS?

Thin client for your living room ... My smart TV runs from ... my NAS and runs off the plex server. So would my playstation if I owned one. The TV has a browser and can access all the files I'd need on it. I don't want to program in my living room. I'm only interested in content consumption in that room, not content creation.

That's great. I am not you.

Maintaining an OS ... again for content consumption most OS like Windows, MacOs, iOS, Android, Chrome OS etc have this thing called automatic update. They maintain themselves. Sure, sometimes something small goes awry, but it rarely stops you doing the basic things you do on such devices such as browse, listen to music and watch youtube.

Again, I am not you. But instead of asking me what I find irksome about maintaining my OS, you decided to lecture me on how easy it is to update yours.

Mailbox ... again you can get your mails from a regular NAS or cache out the last 50 or so like your mobile phone does.

This is sounding more and more like an offer to pay for data usage.

I'm just not seeing this.

Fortunately for me, you don't need to see why it's useful in order for it to be useful.

Unless you are a business with lots of power users needing access for all devices, this isn't necessary. You'll always do 99% of your power user work on your desktop with the big monitor, your comfy computer chair and your expensive mouse mat. The rest of the time you are using a computer like joe public and just pushing a mouse about the desk or liberally swiping at a glossy screen.

Thanks for explaining to me how I use a computer, Thork.

Just say ... its my hobby and I'm doing it because I can. I'll be happy with that. :)

That's not the whole reason. Part of it is to learn about Plan 9, because it is interesting. But I wouldn't spend the money on building a distributed computing environment only for that.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: The Moderators
« on: December 09, 2017, 04:03:24 AM »
Admin can review.

I would, except the OP has put in a bare minimum of effort when describing the problem, so I don't exactly feel motivated to take them seriously. I'm ok with continuing bans based on your judgment.

Technology & Information / Re: Building a real distributed Plan 9 system
« on: December 09, 2017, 03:54:13 AM »
I'll rephrase. I still don't know what you want it for? Like an example thing you want to do, that this set up and not something simpler would achieve. Now I'm just thinking illegal porn server, crypto exchange, illegal torrent server ... nothing good. This is your fault for being secretive.

Your lack of imagination does not make me secretive.

An example thing I would do is walk up to any computer at uni when I return to study, fire up a web browser and log in remotely to my home PC. No need to carry a laptop everywhere.

Or, I could fire up my laptop on a flight between here and Sydney to search my old e-mails remotely without needing to download my entire inbox over in-flight WiFi.

One thing I am looking forward to not doing is maintaining more than one OS installation ever again. Every Plan 9 system uses the same filesystem, the one on the file server, so installing updates on any other computer won't even be a thing anymore.

Along that vein, another thing is that the system becomes trivial to extend. If I move into a bigger house someday and I want a computer upstairs and one downstairs, I just buy some cheap shit with video out and a second monitor, plug it in, network boot from the file server and now I have two interfaces to the same OS.

Also, you are still talking as though this is a complex setup. It is not. As I already explained, Plan 9 is a distributed OS. It is no more complicated to install on multiple computers than it is to install on a single one. The various system services do not know whether they are running together on the same host, or separated by 1000 km of optical fibre. That is the whole point of it; to provide a simple and generic way to network computers, instead of the clunky and ad hoc solutions in other OSes.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 82  Next >