Slashdot Mirror

In context, what they say is

On the most basic level, a message might represent a statement like âoeWe will make your sun go supernova tomorrowâ. True or not, it could cause wide-spread panic.

In propaganda terms, this is spreading despair and dissension, and does not need to be true. For example, the ludicrously implausible statement that "Donald Trump is President of America" spreads fear, uncertainty and doubt throughout the world, regardless of it's truthfulness.

They do take a roundabout path to get to their point (I'm trying to remember the name of the technique ; it's not reductio ad absurdam, but it's down that rhetorical path), but by talking through why it's implausible that we'd be able to safely decode and decontaminate a complex ETI message, they show why any METI ("Messaging" counterpart to SETI) that we do should be of the simplest of data types.

Ever had that guy at work proposing "If we can add $FEATURE$ to #NEWPRODUCT#, woudn't that be great?" Well they're getting their defence against that in first.

I bet it started over beers at a conference though.

I recognise Hippke's name from something recently. [Searches] Results for "Interstellar Communication" : there has been a burst of such short papers from him over the last 6 months or so, including one on bit rates achievable from interstellar probes, which I remember reading. May have submitted it here too. Other work on Kepler data, exoplanets, exo-Trojans etc. Perfectly solid science.

In context, what they say is

On the most basic level, a message might represent a statement like âoeWe will make your sun go supernova tomorrowâ. True or not, it could cause wide-spread panic.

In propaganda terms, this is spreading despair and dissension, and does not need to be true. For example, the ludicrously implausible statement that "Donald Trump is President of America" spreads fear, uncertainty and doubt throughout the world, regardless of it's truthfulness.

They do take a roundabout path to get to their point (I'm trying to remember the name of the technique ; it's not reductio ad absurdam, but it's down that rhetorical path), but by talking through why it's implausible that we'd be able to safely decode and decontaminate a complex ETI message, they show why any METI ("Messaging" counterpart to SETI) that we do should be of the simplest of data types.

Ever had that guy at work proposing "If we can add $FEATURE$ to #NEWPRODUCT#, woudn't that be great?" Well they're getting their defence against that in first.

I bet it started over beers at a conference though.

I recognise Hippke's name from something recently. [Searches] Results for "Interstellar Communication" : there has been a burst of such short papers from him over the last 6 months or so, including one on bit rates achievable from interstellar probes, which I remember reading. May have submitted it here too. Other work on Kepler data, exoplanets, exo-Trojans etc. Perfectly solid science.

Berenstein Bears and the black hole!

The Berenstain Bears and the Wishing Star (the strong cosmic censorship edition)

When Sister does some math on black hole event horizons, she loves it and wants to understand the implications concerning the cosmic censorship hypothesis . That night, Mama reads Sister a paper about "Quasinormal modes and Strong Cosmic Censorship". Sister wishes that the basic Photon sphere mode of a black hole is consistent with SCC and the wish comes true. Next she learns about pure de Sitter modes and wishes they are consistent with SCC and the wish comes true. Then she learns about Near-Extremal modes, but sadly the math seems to indicate they aren't always consistent with SCC. Sister is very sad, so Brother tells her that she has to be careful of believing in SCC, because black hole event horizon physics researchers don't listen to greedy requests for the universality of SCC. However Sister who apparently didn't learn a thing from the experience, and what Brother tells her, then says, "Well, two out of three isn't bad!"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.105...

I hereby demonstrate my complete lack of understanding slashdot readers by linking to the full article on arxiv It's kind of an interesting mathematical exercise in the physics of charged black holes under various conditions but obviously does not reflect reality. For example, you would need a large positive cosmological constant, and an extreme ratio of charge to mass for this to be relevant. Further the clickbait headline implies some kind of retroactive erasure of the onserver when in reality it just means you can't reconstruct the past from future observations due to a breakdown in how the math works. This may not even be true at all because we know that general relativity does not fully describe spacetime at the extremes found at the surface horizons of black holes anyway.

You've got to love the title of the actual article: The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets. As if that were somehow a normal field of study, generalized so it can be applied to other cars as well.

TFA goes into this in some detail. The car is expected to make a close encounter with Earth in 2091 that will sling it into a different orbit. Exactly *what* orbit is very difficult to predict: a difference in the velocity of the car today of 1 cm/s (well within measurement error) would make a massive difference to an encounter 73 years in the future.

Once it goes through that encounter, over the next few hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years, it will undergo a series of close encounters with various planets (which are much more likely than collisions). Take a look at figure 2 of TFA, which shows the distribution of likely orbits for the car over the next couple of Myr. The initial orbit (marked by the star) just barely touches inside the orbit of Earth; but the evolved orbit (shown by the coloured background) actually has a decent chance of coming within the orbit of *Mercury*, let alone Venus.

If you look at figure 4, you'll see there's even a very small chance that it'll undergo an encounter with a planet that will sling it into the *Sun*. Earth's still the most likely target, though, because it's on the car's initial orbit; Venus is a possibility, if the orbit evolves in the right way; Mars isn't a plausible possibility because it's so much smaller than Earth or Venus.

before 2091, as being space junk and a hazard to interplanetary spacecraft.

That's if Elon's dream of cheap spaceflight and interplanetary travels becomes reality.

2091 is 73 years away. 73 years ago we were just wrapping up World War II and competing with the USSR in grabbing up some German scientists to seed the US space program.

Good thing the car will burn up on re-entry, though. A lot of commenters seem to think that "6% over a million years" means "6% AFTER a million years", when it really means "there's a 1 in 16 chance of this thing crossing paths with the Earth sometime in the next million years." All we know with reasonable certainty is that it won't happen in 2091, because until then the orbit is predictable. After that, I'm sure astronomers will be watching it with interest every 73 years. "The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets" is an interesting read, if you don't mind a PDF.

I don't like YOUR definition of intelligence. Not enough haggis.

As far as I know, intelligence means ability to gather knowledge through external experience

What, so a webcrawler is intelligent? It "gathers knowledge".

I'd typically just boil it down to "learning".

For an 'AI' to truly be intelligent at playing Go, it needs to start with a seed and be shown instructions to Go and learn how to play from that.

Keep up with the times grandpa. That's exactly what they did. No learning sets needed.

if someone programmed the rules for Go into it, then it has not learned to play through intelligence.

You need to better differentiation what you mean by "Shown instructions" and "programmed the rules".

The same 'seed' should also similarly be able to learn to play chess, do s crossword, or identify animals.

You have no idea what a "seed" is do you? It's just some nebulous term you've got rumbling around in your head that's pseudo-magical.

Anyway, the closest thing would be their method of machine learning. Which, for the link above which talks about DeepMind Alpha, it uses neural network and reinforcement learning. YEEEEESSSSSSS it self-taught go, chess and shogi. "The seed" is what DeepMind Alpha is. It's the tool that can learn things. That's the intelligence part. THE SAME TECHNIQUE is also used for object recognition. Hell, I dunno, maybe they could get deepMind to recognize pictures of cats.

Intelligence implies a certain amount of general purpose ability,

No, but general intelligence would be a lot cooler than specific, niche, narrow intelligence.

This is why a human savant that can't talk or understand anything about life but playing Go or Chess is not called 'intelligent'.

Wow, fuck you too dude. Most geeks are just some fraction of autistic savant. I know I'm better at math than English. If you're going to define my intelligence by my weakest link, then I'm going to call you an idiot for your ignorance on the current state of AI.

You can find a freely available copy of the paper at this location:

      https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.000...

Your summary of the paper is correct.

Probing Planets in Extragalactic Galaxies Using Quasar Microlensing.

Einstein dis which led him to derive E=mc2 which no one else ever did and that was a fundamental difference in how humans viewed the Universe.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Einstein wasn't first to derive E=mc2. The fundamental contribution of Einstein in this area was the full rejection of a preferred frame of reference, not E=mc2 which was previously derived and well known (by Hasenöhrl and Poincare). This is why I mentioned that it is hard to appreciate Einstein's version of E=mc2 without ideas about inertia and radiation.

General Relativity is icing on the cake, the math may be harder but the concept of bent "space-time" is far easy to think about and demonstrate to little children. Again fundamentally changing human understanding of the Universe.

Although you might think you are "demo-ing" bent space-time to children, nearly all demonstrations made to children are mere analogies, which do not effectively demo the principles at all https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.389... http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravit... (IMO no better than a scientific-like "demo" that applies constant force to an object to maintain a constant velocity and thus confusing the student about F=ma because of friction).

So arguably Einstein helped fundamentally change our view of the Universe than any single human before or since. This is why the world knows Einstein and o my a handful know who Lorentz and Hilbert were.

Certainly Einstein helped to change our view of the universe, but the reason *why* Poincare, Lorenz and Hilbert are less known to the masses is that they weren't as good at PR as Einstein.

You mean this rumor?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/...

Maybe Apple just decided to publish a paper on car, pedestrian and cyclist detection using LIDAR because they were bored?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.063...

That was Parkes.

And they were also "perytons" rather than FRBs.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.021...

Identifying the source of perytons at the Parkes radio telescope
"Perytons" are millisecond-duration transients of terrestrial origin, whose frequency-swept emission mimics the dispersion of an astrophysical pulse that has propagated through tenuous cold plasma. In fact, their similarity to FRB 010724 had previously cast a shadow over the interpretation of "fast radio bursts," which otherwise appear to be of extragalactic origin. Until now, the physical origin of the dispersion-mimicking perytons had remained a mystery. We have identified strong out-of-band emission at 2.3--2.5 GHz associated with several peryton events. Subsequent tests revealed that a peryton can be generated at 1.4 GHz when a microwave oven door is opened prematurely and the telescope is at an appropriate relative angle. Radio emission escaping from microwave ovens during the magnetron shut-down phase neatly explain all of the observed properties of the peryton signals. Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724. This and other distinct observational differences show that FRBs are excellent candidates for genuine extragalactic transients.

The idea of flying saucers being interstellar spacecraft I would argue, for a thousand and one reasons, actually might be plausible. But I would argue this now as an extension of a rather interesting physics idea. But in summary a gyroscope inside a Bose-Einstein condensate is the technology in order to induce frame dragging within the fabric of spacetime surrounding the crafts immediate region. For a while now I've been saying that the one thing I want to see is what happens when a gyroscope rotates near absolute zero. I found this paper this week only adding to my conviction. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.227... But in order to communicate I guess the cosmological argument I am trying to develop I have done this write up. To be honest, I am not too happy with my own right up but I am at the start of developing my idea and doing lots of homework. But there is a sense of urgency in wanting to communicate my idea and myself trying exactly what I need to say.... the next argument is mathematical in trying to describe a series of mechanics that explain why spacetime is spacetime. i.e. Why is straight actually straight, why is there 3D spatial dimensions and 1D time? Here the link to my line of reasoning, which ties up the anomalies in the CMB. http://www.blackomega.co.uk/so... One good way of saying my idea is it to reframe the idea to consider it is we who travel at the speed of light and light is stationary. By cooling things down with direction and alignment a craft aligns itself to put on the brake and travel through spacetime.

or everyone could just publish to https://arxiv.org/

https://journals.aps.org/prl/a...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.027...
http://sci2.esa.int/Microscope...

Obviously if you increase the speed of a mouse brain, you'll just get a fast mouse brain. But that's not how an artificial neural net works. If it clocks at 1 GHz, it can sequentially process a million different connections and still get 1 kHz overall refresh rate. The idea is that you have a neural processing unit, and an external memory, and you load a small section of the parameters and state from memory, process it, and write it back, and then process the next section.

use the timing of of incoming pulses to decide when and whether they should fire

You can encode the timing of the pulses in a number, and then process it synchronously for exactly the same effect. The big advantage of artificial nets is that you're not restricted to pulses.

unlike the "dumb switches" in a NN

They aren't so dumb anymore. Just some simple examples of modern development:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.060...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

given the enormous metabolic costs of a brain, there's probably very little actual duplication being done

Given the slow processing frequency of neurons, and the sheer amount of information that needs to be processed, it has to be done in parallel. If something is moving in the corner of your eye, you need to know right away in which corner. This is only possible if you make multiple little movement detector areas, each connected to a section of the retina. An artificial net only needs the parameters for one of them, and can then sequentially scan the entire vision area.

Your room and its contents says a lot about you. This data can be used by databrokers to update thousands of reputation scores about you. Deep learning algorithms could seek correlations with (mental) health, poverty, ambition, etc by comparing your room to that of others whom they know more about.

It doesn't matter that these are spurious correlations, or that they are wrong a lot of the times. As long as it allows some risk to be managed, then their clients will happily pay for these 'opinions' about you, which they will treat as fact.

The same thing goes for your face. They will claim they can read your BMI, sexuality and even if you're a criminal from just your face.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.031...
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
https://www.rt.com/news/368307...

As a Google CTO put it in 2012: "all data is credit data, we just don't know how to use it yet".

Here's the open access article on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.109... I don't think they determined the statistical significance

The sources that claim 4k or 10k for a 2048k key are misinformed themselves or don't know how quantum computing (theory) works.

You're more than welcome to point out the specific thing they get wrong, as there are plenty of detailed accounts of how many qubits are needed for Shor's algorithm, e.g. here's a paper discussing the trade-off of space vs. speed scaling. Much like classical digital circuitry, you need some scratch space to store intermediate values, and more space lets you use fewer operations for quicker results, or less space requires more operations.

Even the naive implementation of Shor's algorithm for n bit number requires 2n qubits, and takes special efforts to make that work with a minimum n+1 qubits by reusing a qubit n times (greatly increasing the time the whole system needs to hold together).

A big one can sterilize an entire galaxy.

Citation required. Most models of GRBs also have the radiation being strongly beamed (a few degrees beam divergence), so while it's path of death and destruction could stretch from one end of a galaxy to the other, it's not likely to take out an entire galaxy (under most circumstances).

They are most likely to occur in the center of galaxies, which may explain why all known life bearing planetary systems are in the galactic fringes (disclaimer: data is limited).

Again, citation required. GRBs require vigorous interaction of compact objects. Compact objects get scattered by gravitational interactions, which spreads them away from their formation regions. I can't think of a mechanism that would preferentially concentrate them into the centres of (symmetrical) galaxies. I'd expect them to be concentrated in star-forming regions, from where they diffuse. If they have time.

Citations :

"The ubiquitously star-forming nature of the GRB host population is one of several lines of evidence linking GRBs to massive stars" (in Introduction to Long-Duration Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies in Emission and Absorption, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.007...)
"In contrast GRBs occur in small, relatively low mass galaxies with high specific and surface star formation rates, and have a spiral fraction of only â¼10%." (in The host galaxies of core-collapse supernovae and gamma ray bursts, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.504...)

Would there be time to point to the skies, cry out "Good lord! (choke!)"?

Unlikely. The initial burst can peak in 10ms.

This would (possibly) take out the Thargoids on one hemisphere of the planet. Several hundred km of rock (modest asteroid or moonlet) protects against gamma rays pretty well and very few planets or moons rotate in less than a few hours. There would be atmospheric effects, but also confined to one hemisphere and taking months to propagate to the rest of the planet. A bad hair day for sure. Lots of diaries stop in the next days, weeks and months. Global mass extinction ... rather more dubious. Unless you're pretty close to the source.

A big one can sterilize an entire galaxy.

Citation required. Most models of GRBs also have the radiation being strongly beamed (a few degrees beam divergence), so while it's path of death and destruction could stretch from one end of a galaxy to the other, it's not likely to take out an entire galaxy (under most circumstances).

They are most likely to occur in the center of galaxies, which may explain why all known life bearing planetary systems are in the galactic fringes (disclaimer: data is limited).

Again, citation required. GRBs require vigorous interaction of compact objects. Compact objects get scattered by gravitational interactions, which spreads them away from their formation regions. I can't think of a mechanism that would preferentially concentrate them into the centres of (symmetrical) galaxies. I'd expect them to be concentrated in star-forming regions, from where they diffuse. If they have time.

Citations :

"The ubiquitously star-forming nature of the GRB host population is one of several lines of evidence linking GRBs to massive stars" (in Introduction to Long-Duration Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies in Emission and Absorption, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.007...)
"In contrast GRBs occur in small, relatively low mass galaxies with high specific and surface star formation rates, and have a spiral fraction of only â¼10%." (in The host galaxies of core-collapse supernovae and gamma ray bursts, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.504...)

Would there be time to point to the skies, cry out "Good lord! (choke!)"?

Unlikely. The initial burst can peak in 10ms.

This would (possibly) take out the Thargoids on one hemisphere of the planet. Several hundred km of rock (modest asteroid or moonlet) protects against gamma rays pretty well and very few planets or moons rotate in less than a few hours. There would be atmospheric effects, but also confined to one hemisphere and taking months to propagate to the rest of the planet. A bad hair day for sure. Lots of diaries stop in the next days, weeks and months. Global mass extinction ... rather more dubious. Unless you're pretty close to the source.

D-Wave makes quantum annealing processors - and is only useful for a sliver of useful computing (adiabatic quantum computing).

There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave systems are truly quantum machines. A number of groups found "no quantum speedup" and have shown better performance using traditional silicon, and studies have been published to that effect.

Having worked in supercomputing for a decade, I've looked hard are D-Wave's "quantum" computing, and give it slightly more credibility than the E-Cat cold fusion reactor, or Quantum vacuum thrusters.

IBM's effort is a true general purpose quantum computer - the kind that can run Shor's algorithm and render RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECC cryptography useless.

The previous interglacial periods haven't had as much CO2 in the air as we're putting in there.

Here you state that we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than existed in previous interglacial periods.
That was about 300 ppm as per the link https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa... I supplied and which you didn't dispute (yet).
Now you allege we are at 400. Minus 280 at pre-industrial revolution equals a contribution of 120 ppm.

120 is smaller than 300, so, no, we did not put in 'as much' (yet).

We are now at a level of roughly 280 ppm, consistent with the long-term variations in CO2 vs global temperature. CO2 has been at 300 ppm roughly 320,000 years ago. Are you saying we ourselves are putting more than 300 ppm in the atmosphere?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

It doesn't know what a dog or cat is, much less associate a picture of a white kitten with a picture of a tabby cat and establish a commonality between them.

You are not up to date. Neural networks nowadays surpass humans in image recognition. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.018...
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In fact, that technology is now commercially available.
These network do have a concept of dog and cat - in fact, on the output side you'll have a "dog" neuron and a "cat" neuron etc.
Check out Brandon Rohrer's channel on YT for explanations how this technology works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Also, see https://finnaarupnielsen.wordp... for a list of other things that computers are better at than humans.

FWIW: https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.553...

Incidentally, there has been some good work on improving the quality of fuzzing. In the future we may have fuzzing tools that use genetic algorithms to modify the input and get as deep into the program as they can. I don't know of any tools that have incorporated this yet, but it's an area worth paying attention to.

Neither the slashdot nor the linked article said "half the normal matter". That's why I linked the actual arrive paper.

That quote is straight from "the slashdot" so I don't know what slashdot you were reading but here is one from the paper's summary:

Observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the local universe can account for only 10% of the baryon content inferred from measurements of the cosmic microwave background and from nuclear reactions in the early Universe. Locating the remaining 90% of baryons has been one of the major challenges in modern cosmology. Cosmological simulations predict that the 'missing baryons' are spread throughout filamentary structures in the cosmic web...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10378v1

So by half the matter in the universe, we are taking 2.0-2.3% tops.

This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons -- unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space.

So by half the matter in the universe, we are taking 2.0-2.3% tops.

The actual research article written by the physicists say nothing about the universe being simulated.
arxiv link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.038...

It simply states that the particular problem they study is hard to calculate, and scales exponentially with the number of particles involved. This exponential scaling is often found for anything including quantum mechanics, and is nothing new. The new thing is proving how hard these calculations are for the particular problem the authors are studying.

The completely ridiculous conclusion that this somehow means that the universe is not a simulation comes from the author of the popular summary given in cosmos. So the slashdot header: 'research shows' is False. The research paper only showed certain things are hard to calculate.

Unless things have changed since I last read up on this issue, there are two basic problems with using randomization of MAC addresses to defeat tracking:

--Software Implementation--
Lazy method of randomization. Sometimes as simple as incrementing the value of the MAC address by 1, repeatedly over time.
There are other signatures transmitted besides the MAC address that make it trivial to identify most smartphones, especially given the previous point.

--Hardware Implementation--
Smartphone chipsets handle low-level control frames in a manner that is vulnerable to tracking. As in 100% success rate. IIRC, this will happen even if you have the WiFi off in software or are in Airplane Mode.


Source

The scenario is absurdly unlikely, of course, but it can't be absolutely ruled out, and since it can't be ruled out, it triggers the planetary protection protocol.

Yet it doesn't stop us from dropping dozens of probes and landers onto Mars and Venus...

Mars probes are sterilized and follow a rigorous planetary protection protocol. This has a large and annoying effect on the Mars program: we're not allowed to land on the spots on Mars that have even a slight likelihood of having life or an environment where any possible form of Earth life could survive.

Venus probes-- well, the surface of Venus is hostile to any possibly terrestrial forms of life, and while the upper atmosphere could possibly harbor extreme acidophiles, not anything that's likely to contaminate a probe. In any case, though, the missions to Venus went there before planetary protection protocols were put in place.

Nor did it stop the even more microscopic risk of contaminating life on Saturn itself

Cassini hit the Saturn atmosphere at a velocity of 34 km/sec-- 76,000 mph. No microscopic life is going to survive.

Think of it as hitting with the energy of a 1/3 kiloton bomb.[ref]

- slingshoting Cassini at the sun or outer space would have been even "safer".

"Safer" but utterly impossible. The reason the mission was over was it was pretty much out of fuel.

I have a suspicion that the real goal was to go out in a spectacular "suicide", in order to create publicity. Nothing wrong with that, but be open about it.

Uh, no.

Sounds like he didn't actually register a patent,

No indeed, he didn't.

but simply declared that his idea was public domain. The article isn't clear on exactly how he did so.

Wut ? It's right there even in the TFS on /. : he published the stuff back in the 2000s.

The patent office won't necessarily count that as prior art, unless it's formally published.

If you google a bit around :
- arXiv:0710.3861 - "Optimal encoding on discrete lattice with translational invariant constrains using statistical algorithms" first published in 2007 (that's the bat-shit crazy stuff that only a few mathematicians managed to understand but lay ground for the whole stuff)
- arXiv:0902.0271 - "Asymmetric numeral systems" first published in 2009 (second paper, where he re-visited these concept, and which spawned, among other the FSE - Finite State Entropy - implementation of tANS that is used by Yann Collet's Zstd - recently moved to facebook).
- arXiv:1311.2540 - "Asymmetric numeral systems: entropy coding combining speed of Huffman coding with compression rate of arithmetic coding" first published in 2013 and cites actual implementation such as ycollet's fse.

All these papers (which also cite actual real-world implementations) all predate Google's patent filing.

To actually prevent a company from monopolizing the idea, the most effective strategy would be to actually patent it and put it under a copyleft patent license... that is, patentleft.

Or you know, just publish it.
Like everybody else does in the academic world.
Formal publication DOES COUNT as prior art in most sane parts of the world.

That's also why Range-Coding, the predecessor of tANS and cousin of the patented arithmetic coding isn't patented itself: it was published.

Disclaimer: I've worked on entropy encoders for the compression of genomic data as part of the PoSeNoGap project.

Sounds like he didn't actually register a patent,

No indeed, he didn't.

but simply declared that his idea was public domain. The article isn't clear on exactly how he did so.

Wut ? It's right there even in the TFS on /. : he published the stuff back in the 2000s.

The patent office won't necessarily count that as prior art, unless it's formally published.

If you google a bit around :
- arXiv:0710.3861 - "Optimal encoding on discrete lattice with translational invariant constrains using statistical algorithms" first published in 2007 (that's the bat-shit crazy stuff that only a few mathematicians managed to understand but lay ground for the whole stuff)
- arXiv:0902.0271 - "Asymmetric numeral systems" first published in 2009 (second paper, where he re-visited these concept, and which spawned, among other the FSE - Finite State Entropy - implementation of tANS that is used by Yann Collet's Zstd - recently moved to facebook).
- arXiv:1311.2540 - "Asymmetric numeral systems: entropy coding combining speed of Huffman coding with compression rate of arithmetic coding" first published in 2013 and cites actual implementation such as ycollet's fse.

All these papers (which also cite actual real-world implementations) all predate Google's patent filing.

To actually prevent a company from monopolizing the idea, the most effective strategy would be to actually patent it and put it under a copyleft patent license... that is, patentleft.

Or you know, just publish it.
Like everybody else does in the academic world.
Formal publication DOES COUNT as prior art in most sane parts of the world.

That's also why Range-Coding, the predecessor of tANS and cousin of the patented arithmetic coding isn't patented itself: it was published.

Disclaimer: I've worked on entropy encoders for the compression of genomic data as part of the PoSeNoGap project.

Sounds like he didn't actually register a patent,

No indeed, he didn't.

but simply declared that his idea was public domain. The article isn't clear on exactly how he did so.

Wut ? It's right there even in the TFS on /. : he published the stuff back in the 2000s.

The patent office won't necessarily count that as prior art, unless it's formally published.

If you google a bit around :
- arXiv:0710.3861 - "Optimal encoding on discrete lattice with translational invariant constrains using statistical algorithms" first published in 2007 (that's the bat-shit crazy stuff that only a few mathematicians managed to understand but lay ground for the whole stuff)
- arXiv:0902.0271 - "Asymmetric numeral systems" first published in 2009 (second paper, where he re-visited these concept, and which spawned, among other the FSE - Finite State Entropy - implementation of tANS that is used by Yann Collet's Zstd - recently moved to facebook).
- arXiv:1311.2540 - "Asymmetric numeral systems: entropy coding combining speed of Huffman coding with compression rate of arithmetic coding" first published in 2013 and cites actual implementation such as ycollet's fse.

All these papers (which also cite actual real-world implementations) all predate Google's patent filing.

To actually prevent a company from monopolizing the idea, the most effective strategy would be to actually patent it and put it under a copyleft patent license... that is, patentleft.

Or you know, just publish it.
Like everybody else does in the academic world.
Formal publication DOES COUNT as prior art in most sane parts of the world.

That's also why Range-Coding, the predecessor of tANS and cousin of the patented arithmetic coding isn't patented itself: it was published.

Disclaimer: I've worked on entropy encoders for the compression of genomic data as part of the PoSeNoGap project.

I agree the article is an entirely useless puff piece, but a paper has been published, just not peer reviewed. However, I am entirely unable to decipher the paper, so it could be useless too.

BTW, no on here reads the subjects. Why not put what you want to say, where you say things instead of "see subject"? Doing what you did seems totally silly. I guess it a Reddit thing?

FYI paper already published. Here's the final paper link , and the pre-print...

Abstract

Practical quantum computers require a large network of highly coherent qubits, interconnected in a design robust against errors. Donor spins in silicon provide state-of-the-art coherence and quantum gate fidelities, in a platform adapted from industrial semiconductor processing. Here we present a scalable design for a silicon quantum processor that does not require precise donor placement and leaves ample space for the routing of interconnects and readout devices. We introduce the flip-flop qubit, a combination of the electron-nuclear spin states of a phosphorus donor that can be controlled by microwave electric fields. Two-qubit gates exploit a second-order electric dipole-dipole interaction, allowing selective coupling beyond the nearest-neighbor, at separations of hundreds of nanometers, while microwave resonators can extend the entanglement to macroscopic distances. We predict gate fidelities within fault-tolerance thresholds using realistic noise models. This design provides a realizable blueprint for scalable spin-based quantum computers in silicon.

Of course they haven't built it yet, so you never know...

Yes, so God would be the un-caused first cause since He [sic] is eternal. However, I agree with you, this would not assume the God [sic] of the Hebrew bible, but rather A God [sic] in general; a deity.

I was confused by your capitalisation, which in English usually denotes a proper noun. I carry the general rule even to the gods. Thus 'God' would usually refer to the Hebrew god (esp. where the original Hebrew text has some cognate of El, most commonly Elohim). Your usage apparently varies ... no matter.

Scientifically, we can show that the universe had a beginning, and that it is expanding, and with entropy. There are even mathematical proofs to show there had to be a beginning.

The other view perhaps is that so-called Big Bang is, as I wrote an event horizon, the mere inaccessibility to us of earlier events, being no guarantee of their non-existence. Indeed, my understanding is that there is now even an attempt to point the mathematics at what happened before the Big Bang.

However, accepting your contention that "we can show that the universe had a beginning," and bearing in mind that we cannot therefor find a physical cause that brought it into being: this contention itself is not un-problematic to the Cosmological proof. Instead of the statement "[w]hatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" being true, it may be that "most things which begin have a cause," and however small the set of objects having a beginning but no cause might be, we would have empirical evidence for at least one.

The only other possible argument you might have, is that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting. Eternal big bangs ...

Whether or not that is the only other possible argument, it is, I gather, more or less what is being proposed above. Not that I should pretend to understand far less to endorse this view, I do not need to for because ...

All of this is tangential the to point I was making. You haven't addressed my actual objection to the Argument from First Cause: Namely, that positing a god, God if you like, as the First Cause, involves illegitimately injecting all its the other attributes (including, as you would have it, God's gender for example) of that god into the role of First Cause. There is no necessary connection between having the attribute of being 'eternal' (as bare existence might be), and having, for example, a gender resembling that of XY humanoids [and on the Ontological Argument shouldn't we expect the complete XX ;) ], nor indeed any of the other attributes humans traditionally ascribe to their various gods, most especially being a self-reflective consciousness. As I wrote, that the "First Cause postulated by human thought so neatly resembles a thinking human" really is suspicious.

Only the abstract of the paper and a few figures are included at the Nature link (unless you pay $199 for an annual subscription, of course).

A pre-print of the paper, including the figures and full captions, is at arXiv here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00086

Blum has updated the comments for the proof on the official publication site.

Comments: The proof is wrong. I shall elaborate precisely what the mistake is. For doing this, I need some time. I shall put the explanation on my homepage

The previous /. post gave a link to the abstract, which is only three sentences long, here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.034.... The third sentence is "This implies P not equal NP."

Points for style, gotta give him that much. "Other guys demonstrated abstruse technical thing. We demonstrate another variant of abstruse technical thing. This implies P not equal NP."

Of course, he probably could have been even more restrained. I imagine that to people in the field the fact that the monotone and non-monotone network complexities of the clique function having the same bounds obviously implied P != NP, so he could have left the sentence out entirely, which would have been even cooler.

The previous /. post gave a link to the abstract, which is only three sentences long, here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.034.... The third sentence is "This implies P not equal NP."

First, a complete lack of evidence on a large scale of anything we'd expect to see. We have some pretty concrete ideas about construction of megastructures, such as Dyson spheres, the more plausible Dyson swarms, stellar engines (where the Class A version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine#Class_A_.28Shkadov_thruster.29 is essentially doable if one has enough material and doesn't require any exotically strong materials or the like), and many more. But we don't see any signs of any of those. And most of those will *last* for very long times once constructed. And we have searched for them both here http://home.fnal.gov/~carrigan/infrared_astronomy/Fermilab_search.htm and in other galaxies. In a similar context, we've looked for signs of K3 civilizations in about 100,000 galaxies and found essentially no signs of them https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03418.

The second problem is that if a species does survive even a relatively small amount of time, it should be able to spread throughout a galaxy. Yes, galaxies are really big, but the space is not as big as the time available. For example the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. That means that if a species starts on one end and travels spreading throughout planets at around 1% of light speed (which certainly looks doable) then it takes around a 10 million years for them to spread throughout. That's a tiny amount of time. But we don't see any signs of anything like that.

So there really does seem to be some sort of Great Filter or series of Filters, and the question is whether it is early (e.g. life is hard to arise or intelligence arises rarely) or late (civilizations wipe themselves out). And if it is the second, then we need to figure out what is going on since we don't get a do-over.

but it may not from the Universe' point of view.

According to Gerard 't Hooft, the superdeterminism loophole cannot be dismissed.

The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph...

Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory
https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.340...

but it may not from the Universe' point of view.

According to Gerard 't Hooft, the superdeterminism loophole cannot be dismissed.

The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph...

Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory
https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.340...

Here is the paywall-free link : https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08797

Deface a sign enough and it fails inspection as a sign. Now the intersection has no stop sign as far as the computer's concerned.

Nonsense. SDCs are not designed with a single point of failure. When approaching an intersection they do all of the following:

1. Look for a sign or light.
2. Access map data, which shows it is an intersection ... and also says it requires a stop.
3. Access historical data for the intersection that shows other SDCs recently stopped there.
4. Look at the road markings and tire markings that indicate cross traffic.
If these data contradict each other, the SDC will do the safe thing and stop. It will also report the missing and defaced sign.
A human is more likely to drive through the intersection than an SDC.

The actual paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08945v3
They did NOT "trick" any SDCs, nor did they even try. They just defeated an algorithm that they assumed is similar to what SDCs use for #1 in the list above.