Some people is commenting on the article that even if it is quantum generated randomness, it may turn out not be truly random(because "nobody knows, right?").
I guess that the scientists who developed this fantasize with finding correlations in their random number sequence. That would actually be something more interesting than the actual intentions.
When it comes to software, ideas are cheap and abundant. Patents make sense when they represent something that is difficult to come up with (a diesel engine for example) and that may involve years of R&D.
But if you read that list, you'll see that ideas (even good ones) cost almost nothing, and have no value on its own. People is willing to give the ideas for free for many reasons: Because they can benefit by having the idea implemented, because of personal pride, because of a sense of community.
So for example, a patent troll (person A) would patent a good but almost obvious idea like "Autoname screenshots to have date and time for hour, instead of just 'screenshot'". And then if he is successful he would sit on the patent and wait until person B comes up with the same idea in a context were person B can actually implement it. And then sue. That's holding back innovation, not encouraging.
Except the user who wants to install the OS and start working instead of start option-hunting. Or those that don't know how to do it.
For example, did you know you can turn those annoying "OMG You don't have firewall" popups off in windows?
You can. But I think it is a semi-obscure feature (at least it is a feature I just found out).
Linux is about options. But that doesn't mean having all the options in every distribution. It means having the option of switching distributions.
Ubuntu philosophy is that of Gnome... less options to make things simpler. And the lack of customization is a common source of criticism. But you have KDE if you like full customization. So why bother?
But it means you have to consider if you want to click on it or not.
I'm thinking about my notebook's OSD indicating that volume is up, volume is down, brightness... I can't click on those (even if they could have added clicking on them as a feature to turn volume up and down).
A notification is just that, a way to let you know something.
Also, think about what happens when you are about to click something and POP! a notification that you end up clicking instead.
That sounds far fetched, but happens to me a lot of times.
I think the parent's point is that if you put a fan in an isolated box, the average temperature inside the box will increase.
Of course that if you have cold air somewhere you can move it using a fan to decrease temperature in another place. Or you can remove warm air as long as you have a source of colder air available.
And of course that moving air can aid you at lowering your body temperature by assisting you in transpiration.
I assume you are joking... but my sarcast-o-meter is not working... So I'll answer:
Not true -> Not many people think that way
That is the same as saying:
Many pople think that way -> It is true
So far it is just a logical proposition without any contradiction, a contingency. And there is no deduction that we could held as incorrect. That's what you've probably been told.
But if you consider that as a logical implication in a step of a deduction, then you are appealing to authority. Which is a fallacy.
Actually, I still don't agree with your definition.
Consensus doesn't define reality. It DOES define normality (statistically speaking) but not reality.
I think reality is defined by evidence. And that's why I think a majority can be deluded.
Notice how "reality is defined by evidence" helps us catalog the concept of "God" as being not real. You can't hide anymore in the "absence of evidence" cliche, because you have to give evidence to make something pass as real.
Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional.
Can those who believe in God or mind control be one of those true visionaries that will be proved correct in the future? Of course they can... So can those who believe in the Yeti or in Faeries... That doesn't mean we should take those concepts as "real" or those persons as not being "deluded". As far as they don't provide any evidence otherwise we can't take those concepts as real.
And that's a great thing... you don't want to believe every crazy theory someone tells you just because he and his buddies believe so. Would you throw off a bridge just because somebody and his buddies believe is the best thing to do? Would you tape explosives to yourself and blow a mall because a group of people told you so?
I think you are right in using the word "veredict". But at the same time I think it is the duty of scientists to out the kind of mental process that makes some people group into "delusion groups". Maybe that way we will progress as humans instead of being stuck into that tribal mentality that makes some people believe groups define what is real.
"A June 2007 PC Watch article suggests that the first Larrabee chips will feature 32 x86 processor cores and come out in late 2009, fabricated on a 45 nanometer process. Chips with a few defective cores due to yield issues will be sold as a 24-core version. Later in 2010 Larrabee will be shrunk for a 32 nanometer fabrication process which will enable a 48 core version."
"So long as some people will legitimately buy it if it became impossible to pirate, this strategy is perfectly valid and can be successful."
Yes, what's not valid is outlawing making a CD copy.
Also, it is not me who is complaining. Game producers are. You constantly hear about the "evils" of piracy. I'm just stating something that is obvious to me, but doesn't seem to be obvious to game producers:
If you want to make your games so they can't be copied then go on and do it. But I don't lobby to pass laws that tells me that I can't copy a CD.
"They may not be worth it to him, but certainly they are worth it to enough people that it's profitable."
Yet, we hear whining all days from the record industry, the film industry and the game industry that piracy is a grave problem. You hear all days how a great source of looses piracy is... yet, as you say, it must be still profitable.
"You are aware that teenagers make up a fairly impressive portion of the (legitimate) market for video games, right?"
Only because there is a law that says that you can't copy a game. And because it isn't their money anyway. Remove the law and *puff* the market isn't there anymore.
"So you believe a market exists for smaller games that game manufacturers aren't exploiting? You should start a video game business and exploit this before they figure it out!"
Small is the keyword here. EA doesn't care if you can make a living from making games for housewives.
"You mean "megacraptastic", like World of Warcraft? One of the most popular and profitable games in history?"
A game which falls perfectly under point d... They are making profit from an actual service, something that isn't trivially worthless as a CD copy.
"Are you really that concerned about the financial security of video game companies?"
I'm concerned about the game offering nowadays. That's why I care about the game creation process.
Yes, but the parent claimed otherwise, and attached a nicely put argument backing his claim.
You should try arguing about why you think "most professional artist would probably fall at the wrong end of this scale".
First of all, I would argue that most professional artists are currently falling on the wrong end of that scale even with copyright protections. It isn't important that you are protected if people don't care about what you produce, not even to copy it.
And second, I think the reason many artists today fail is because we are so numbed by mega productions that we don't value smaller (in budget) products.
"If the games are "so poor", why are people paying for them? "
Except that many people isn't paying for them, they play it without paying.
Producers aren't willing to factor that fact into the equation, instead they try to remove piracy, hoping that will increase their income.
I think they should be targeting to an audience that won't copy the game instead and restrict the budget to get a revenue from those sells. That means:
a. Don't create games for teenagers, teenagers don't care if you make a profit or not.
b. Create smaller games for teenagers, I mean, not all teenagers are the same.
c. Forget about megacraptastic games, there is no audience big enough to pay for that without artificial restrictions.
d. Try selling other things instead of selling a cd with bits.
Games are getting poorer each day, people noticed that and that's why piracy is increasing.
"Science and useful arts have not [ceased to be relevant to society]."
Mmm... are you sure?
I'm not talking about science, because nobody consumes science directly (consumers don't buy theorems or papers, they buy the outcome).
But let's talk about "art". Haven't you thought that maybe piracy is an indication that people doesn't think art is worth the millions that it costs to produce?
There is something very wrong in the way "art" works today. You don't need just a good record from an artist, you also need millions in marketing to hype the artist. And still, you get a fan base so unsympathetic that isn't willing to pay $20 to get the music.
Do you really think doing one good record and acting "cool" justifies the kind of money artist get as reward?
I think art is great, but it is way overrated today in many cases. And the fact that so many people doesn't really care about the artist but only in a superficial way is a sign of that.
Maybe if we removed those artificial restrictions the "Fergies" and "Gwen Stephanie" of our world would dissipate and we would get meaningful artists that people are willing to care for.
Of course, they won't make millions and millions from inventing catchy tunes... but we would have more room for real artists that can empathize with their fan base and make a decent living in the process.
And don't tell me piracy is a problem to small bands too... piracy means something reached a critical point of attention.
You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
No. That's the flaw behind the logic of asking somebody to show that something is safe. He can't.
You can only do a series of tests showing that the material doesn't have certain adverse effects on a control group under certain conditions. But there will ALWAYS be people arguing against the experiment. There will always be people saying that maybe it affects pregnant women, maybe it causes tumors after very long exposure, maybe it kills some kind of animals, or only people with certain gene, maybe it produces global warming, global cooling, water turn into wine. You can always think of a test that wasn't done, or just done for enough time.
My point is that we should draw a line, very clear and precise line. Once those basic tests have been conducted, the product is safe until proved otherwise.
That is not something as trivial as it sounds, ecology is based on your "prove that it is safe" premise. Anything that sounds scary is tagged "unsafe until proved otherwise".
Why limit to banning nanomaterials, nuclear power and genetic manipulation? Why don't we ban metals, wood, food, electricity? After all, none of those have been "proved safe" in a scientific way. Yes, we used those for centuries... but maybe tomatoes produce some kind of cancer, or maybe potatoes kill some animal that is in danger of extinction.
Safety can't be proved if you don't draw a line. And the line hasn't been drawn, and it won't be drawn until people realizes there isn't such thing as absolute safety.
Yes, you could pair both together and think you have a cause (people not wanting to carry arm) and an effect (home invasions and carjackings).
Or you could do a deeper research and find out a more complex relationship between carjackings, home invasions and even kidnappings on one side and levels of education, poverty and economic crisis on the other side.
Also, I don't know what does your friend mean by "regular occurrence". More often than in first world countries? Of course. But hardly regular, if it was "regular" I should know somebody by now who had experienced any of those. But I haven't. What is regular is the coverage by the media.
There are huge levels of poverty in my country. And that means there are high crimes levels. Yet, I only saw a gun once, when I was a kid, on my uncle's house (who is a policeman). What I mean with this is that people in general don't have a gun in their houses, even in times where there is a general feel of unsafety.
I don't know about China, but I can talk about my country again.
We had a dictatorship 30 years ago. You may think this is a counter argument to my own argument, but actually it is not. You see, the dictatorship was backed by a large sector of my country, even now you can hear some stupid people on the streets saying they would want the military government back.
The ones who rebelled against the government in some way can be divided in two groups:
* Those who fought with guns, bombs and generally violent means (Montoneros) weren't successful on taking the government down, they only gave the military government more excuses to kidnap and murder people. Even now Montoneros are look down by a large sector of the population, even those who are against the military government.
* There were also those who fought in peaceful ways. For example, the "Mothers of Plaza de Mayo". They didn't die, and the did a great job on pointing the cruelty of the dictatorship.
Notice that neither of those groups were successful in bringing the government down (The first one only made it stronger and the second one wasn't even trying, they were only claiming for the lives of their kidnapped children). The main reason for this is that there was a huge sector of the population who was with the dictatorship. The dictatorship fell on its own weight, the trigger was loosing a war against England (!). After Argentina lost, the dictatorship image fell and with that fell the dictatorship.
See? No "people rising in arms", no "farmers protecting their country"... no public backing, no dictatorship.
I have the feeling people in China still has a dictatorship because there is a big percentage of the country who wants it that way or is indifferent.
Now, after all this rambling I must say that my original post wasn't about dictatorships, it was about a democratic government being in fear of a group of its citizens. I agree that people shouldn't be afraid of their government, but that doesn't mean government should be afraid of "the people" (whatever that means) taking guns. Democratic governments should only be afraid of votes, and it should be respectful of its citizens.
By the way, in my country it is legal to have guns and defend yourself. What I mean with not being in a "gun culture" is that most people rather be robbed and then call the police than having a gun around their house. And there is not a big "guns as a sport" movement in my country (not to say there aren't people who hunt as a sport).
Slashdot Mirror
Do you usually see games with multiple endings?
Do you usually see games where you can get stuck and need to use save games?
Most of the games don't have that feature. And for games that do, then maybe automatic savegames are not the best feature.
But again, most games can be played without even reading dialogs (prince of persia is probably one of those)
Some people is commenting on the article that even if it is quantum generated randomness, it may turn out not be truly random(because "nobody knows, right?").
I guess that the scientists who developed this fantasize with finding correlations in their random number sequence. That would actually be something more interesting than the actual intentions.
Hi... I'm the asshole who posted the comment about the four horsemen.
Let me give you an example of why I think patents are not necessary for innovation in software:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
When it comes to software, ideas are cheap and abundant. Patents make sense when they represent something that is difficult to come up with (a diesel engine for example) and that may involve years of R&D.
But if you read that list, you'll see that ideas (even good ones) cost almost nothing, and have no value on its own. People is willing to give the ideas for free for many reasons: Because they can benefit by having the idea implemented, because of personal pride, because of a sense of community.
So for example, a patent troll (person A) would patent a good but almost obvious idea like "Autoname screenshots to have date and time for hour, instead of just 'screenshot'". And then if he is successful he would sit on the patent and wait until person B comes up with the same idea in a context were person B can actually implement it. And then sue. That's holding back innovation, not encouraging.
On the other hand, you have that the idea is so simple and cheap that people is willing to give it for free: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/16850/
Do you not want not to format the hard drive?
Yes, I do
Yes, I don't
No, I do
No, I don't
Wait... what?
Except the user who wants to install the OS and start working instead of start option-hunting. Or those that don't know how to do it.
For example, did you know you can turn those annoying "OMG You don't have firewall" popups off in windows?
You can. But I think it is a semi-obscure feature (at least it is a feature I just found out).
Linux is about options. But that doesn't mean having all the options in every distribution. It means having the option of switching distributions.
Ubuntu philosophy is that of Gnome... less options to make things simpler. And the lack of customization is a common source of criticism. But you have KDE if you like full customization. So why bother?
But it means you have to consider if you want to click on it or not.
I'm thinking about my notebook's OSD indicating that volume is up, volume is down, brightness... I can't click on those (even if they could have added clicking on them as a feature to turn volume up and down).
A notification is just that, a way to let you know something.
Also, think about what happens when you are about to click something and POP! a notification that you end up clicking instead.
That sounds far fetched, but happens to me a lot of times.
Whoooosh!
touche
Whoosh!
I think the parent's point is that if you put a fan in an isolated box, the average temperature inside the box will increase.
Of course that if you have cold air somewhere you can move it using a fan to decrease temperature in another place. Or you can remove warm air as long as you have a source of colder air available.
And of course that moving air can aid you at lowering your body temperature by assisting you in transpiration.
The parent is just being pedantic.
Fans don't make a whooshing sound... so what's your point? ;)
I don't know the relevance of your post... but I was just quoting the parent on that "flat earth" nonesense.
I didn't feel like refuting it because it wasn't the point of his message.
I assume you are joking... but my sarcast-o-meter is not working... So I'll answer:
Not true -> Not many people think that way
That is the same as saying:
Many pople think that way -> It is true
So far it is just a logical proposition without any contradiction, a contingency. And there is no deduction that we could held as incorrect. That's what you've probably been told.
But if you consider that as a logical implication in a step of a deduction, then you are appealing to authority. Which is a fallacy.
Actually, I still don't agree with your definition.
Consensus doesn't define reality. It DOES define normality (statistically speaking) but not reality.
I think reality is defined by evidence. And that's why I think a majority can be deluded.
Notice how "reality is defined by evidence" helps us catalog the concept of "God" as being not real. You can't hide anymore in the "absence of evidence" cliche, because you have to give evidence to make something pass as real.
Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional.
Can those who believe in God or mind control be one of those true visionaries that will be proved correct in the future? Of course they can... So can those who believe in the Yeti or in Faeries... That doesn't mean we should take those concepts as "real" or those persons as not being "deluded". As far as they don't provide any evidence otherwise we can't take those concepts as real.
And that's a great thing... you don't want to believe every crazy theory someone tells you just because he and his buddies believe so. Would you throw off a bridge just because somebody and his buddies believe is the best thing to do? Would you tape explosives to yourself and blow a mall because a group of people told you so?
I think you are right in using the word "veredict". But at the same time I think it is the duty of scientists to out the kind of mental process that makes some people group into "delusion groups". Maybe that way we will progress as humans instead of being stuck into that tribal mentality that makes some people believe groups define what is real.
I read this in wikipedia:
"A June 2007 PC Watch article suggests that the first Larrabee chips will feature 32 x86 processor cores and come out in late 2009, fabricated on a 45 nanometer process. Chips with a few defective cores due to yield issues will be sold as a 24-core version. Later in 2010 Larrabee will be shrunk for a 32 nanometer fabrication process which will enable a 48 core version."
I'm not sure if this has anything to do.
"So long as some people will legitimately buy it if it became impossible to pirate, this strategy is perfectly valid and can be successful."
Yes, what's not valid is outlawing making a CD copy.
Also, it is not me who is complaining. Game producers are. You constantly hear about the "evils" of piracy. I'm just stating something that is obvious to me, but doesn't seem to be obvious to game producers:
If you want to make your games so they can't be copied then go on and do it. But I don't lobby to pass laws that tells me that I can't copy a CD.
"They may not be worth it to him, but certainly they are worth it to enough people that it's profitable."
Yet, we hear whining all days from the record industry, the film industry and the game industry that piracy is a grave problem. You hear all days how a great source of looses piracy is... yet, as you say, it must be still profitable.
"You are aware that teenagers make up a fairly impressive portion of the (legitimate) market for video games, right?"
Only because there is a law that says that you can't copy a game. And because it isn't their money anyway. Remove the law and *puff* the market isn't there anymore.
"So you believe a market exists for smaller games that game manufacturers aren't exploiting? You should start a video game business and exploit this before they figure it out!"
Small is the keyword here. EA doesn't care if you can make a living from making games for housewives.
"You mean "megacraptastic", like World of Warcraft? One of the most popular and profitable games in history?"
A game which falls perfectly under point d... They are making profit from an actual service, something that isn't trivially worthless as a CD copy.
"Are you really that concerned about the financial security of video game companies?"
I'm concerned about the game offering nowadays. That's why I care about the game creation process.
Yes, but the parent claimed otherwise, and attached a nicely put argument backing his claim.
You should try arguing about why you think "most professional artist would probably fall at the wrong end of this scale".
First of all, I would argue that most professional artists are currently falling on the wrong end of that scale even with copyright protections. It isn't important that you are protected if people don't care about what you produce, not even to copy it.
And second, I think the reason many artists today fail is because we are so numbed by mega productions that we don't value smaller (in budget) products.
"If the games are "so poor", why are people paying for them? "
Except that many people isn't paying for them, they play it without paying.
Producers aren't willing to factor that fact into the equation, instead they try to remove piracy, hoping that will increase their income.
I think they should be targeting to an audience that won't copy the game instead and restrict the budget to get a revenue from those sells. That means:
a. Don't create games for teenagers, teenagers don't care if you make a profit or not.
b. Create smaller games for teenagers, I mean, not all teenagers are the same.
c. Forget about megacraptastic games, there is no audience big enough to pay for that without artificial restrictions.
d. Try selling other things instead of selling a cd with bits.
Games are getting poorer each day, people noticed that and that's why piracy is increasing.
"Science and useful arts have not [ceased to be relevant to society]." Mmm... are you sure? I'm not talking about science, because nobody consumes science directly (consumers don't buy theorems or papers, they buy the outcome). But let's talk about "art". Haven't you thought that maybe piracy is an indication that people doesn't think art is worth the millions that it costs to produce? There is something very wrong in the way "art" works today. You don't need just a good record from an artist, you also need millions in marketing to hype the artist. And still, you get a fan base so unsympathetic that isn't willing to pay $20 to get the music. Do you really think doing one good record and acting "cool" justifies the kind of money artist get as reward? I think art is great, but it is way overrated today in many cases. And the fact that so many people doesn't really care about the artist but only in a superficial way is a sign of that. Maybe if we removed those artificial restrictions the "Fergies" and "Gwen Stephanie" of our world would dissipate and we would get meaningful artists that people are willing to care for. Of course, they won't make millions and millions from inventing catchy tunes... but we would have more room for real artists that can empathize with their fan base and make a decent living in the process. And don't tell me piracy is a problem to small bands too... piracy means something reached a critical point of attention.
You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
No. That's the flaw behind the logic of asking somebody to show that something is safe. He can't.
You can only do a series of tests showing that the material doesn't have certain adverse effects on a control group under certain conditions. But there will ALWAYS be people arguing against the experiment. There will always be people saying that maybe it affects pregnant women, maybe it causes tumors after very long exposure, maybe it kills some kind of animals, or only people with certain gene, maybe it produces global warming, global cooling, water turn into wine. You can always think of a test that wasn't done, or just done for enough time.
My point is that we should draw a line, very clear and precise line. Once those basic tests have been conducted, the product is safe until proved otherwise.
That is not something as trivial as it sounds, ecology is based on your "prove that it is safe" premise. Anything that sounds scary is tagged "unsafe until proved otherwise".
Why limit to banning nanomaterials, nuclear power and genetic manipulation? Why don't we ban metals, wood, food, electricity? After all, none of those have been "proved safe" in a scientific way. Yes, we used those for centuries... but maybe tomatoes produce some kind of cancer, or maybe potatoes kill some animal that is in danger of extinction.
Safety can't be proved if you don't draw a line. And the line hasn't been drawn, and it won't be drawn until people realizes there isn't such thing as absolute safety.
That's why I said advanced societies have the problem of not wanting to reproduce instead of saying they don't want to have sex.
You mean "the urge to have sex is one of the most basic animal urges that exist"....
Quite different.
From what I know, advanced societies have the problem of not wanting to reproduce.
There's also the fact that I might have something to hide. And that's not something necessarily bad.
Yes, you could pair both together and think you have a cause (people not wanting to carry arm) and an effect (home invasions and carjackings).
Or you could do a deeper research and find out a more complex relationship between carjackings, home invasions and even kidnappings on one side and levels of education, poverty and economic crisis on the other side.
Also, I don't know what does your friend mean by "regular occurrence". More often than in first world countries? Of course. But hardly regular, if it was "regular" I should know somebody by now who had experienced any of those. But I haven't. What is regular is the coverage by the media.
There are huge levels of poverty in my country. And that means there are high crimes levels. Yet, I only saw a gun once, when I was a kid, on my uncle's house (who is a policeman). What I mean with this is that people in general don't have a gun in their houses, even in times where there is a general feel of unsafety.
I don't know about China, but I can talk about my country again.
We had a dictatorship 30 years ago. You may think this is a counter argument to my own argument, but actually it is not. You see, the dictatorship was backed by a large sector of my country, even now you can hear some stupid people on the streets saying they would want the military government back.
The ones who rebelled against the government in some way can be divided in two groups:
* Those who fought with guns, bombs and generally violent means (Montoneros) weren't successful on taking the government down, they only gave the military government more excuses to kidnap and murder people. Even now Montoneros are look down by a large sector of the population, even those who are against the military government.
* There were also those who fought in peaceful ways. For example, the "Mothers of Plaza de Mayo". They didn't die, and the did a great job on pointing the cruelty of the dictatorship.
Notice that neither of those groups were successful in bringing the government down (The first one only made it stronger and the second one wasn't even trying, they were only claiming for the lives of their kidnapped children). The main reason for this is that there was a huge sector of the population who was with the dictatorship. The dictatorship fell on its own weight, the trigger was loosing a war against England (!). After Argentina lost, the dictatorship image fell and with that fell the dictatorship.
See? No "people rising in arms", no "farmers protecting their country"... no public backing, no dictatorship.
I have the feeling people in China still has a dictatorship because there is a big percentage of the country who wants it that way or is indifferent.
Now, after all this rambling I must say that my original post wasn't about dictatorships, it was about a democratic government being in fear of a group of its citizens. I agree that people shouldn't be afraid of their government, but that doesn't mean government should be afraid of "the people" (whatever that means) taking guns. Democratic governments should only be afraid of votes, and it should be respectful of its citizens.
By the way, in my country it is legal to have guns and defend yourself. What I mean with not being in a "gun culture" is that most people rather be robbed and then call the police than having a gun around their house. And there is not a big "guns as a sport" movement in my country (not to say there aren't people who hunt as a sport).