That's all very well if you define math to be "what looks good". But most mathematicians consider it to be something a little bit more rigorous.
Incidentally, if you think all is beautiful, try solving systems of linear equations or ODE's. Really freaking ugly maths.
Personally, I'm really skeptical about the whole "financial incentive" part.
Plenty of academics will have a "sure, I'll contribute to the community" attitude, but lets not forget that professors get paid the salaries of professors. I don't imagine a share of the adsense profits from 5 or so encyclopedia articles will be more than a relative pittance.
I could be wrong here (haven't used MS on my home comp for ages) but I thought that the adware problem was with MS Works, which is distict from MS office?
To be fair, the sacred cows of the US and Europe aren't *quite* religion, yet. Nor will you get killed over them. But, in Europe, try to suggest that 6 mil jews were killed in the holocaust and you'll be in a sticky situation.
Also, some particularly amusing US citizens fail to notice the hypocrisy in telling the middle east to grow a pair over the whole mo' cartoons deal, while trying to get flag burning made illegal.
No one may be dying over these issues, but the principle is the same.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on the prescription drugs thing. It's just plain ignorant to suggest that some drugs are ever going to be cheap.
Huge research costs to create them. Huge production costs to produce them. The obscure ones aren't exactly gonna sell like hot cakes. There will be very little competition because the huge gross profit needed to break even will probably mean that the market just won't permit more than one manufacturer to break even.
Without poking, prodding and benevelence, these capitalists just aren't going to provide to the people who they're promising to help.
Were the cinema charging 50e for a ticket, and trying to get dvd-releases banned, and trying to stop independant film-makers from using alternate showing venues.
Indeed.
They conveniently forgot to note that the actual sample set is "People who use the internet from home and have far too much time on their hands", as opposed to "all the computers in the world".
If you can't notice that distinction, then you probably don't deserve your job.
Although, it's not as if they don't have a vested interest in making wildly inaccurate claims...
I expect that the professors and research students, who have spent years of their lives learning how the human mind works, will probably have thought of this too.
I don't pretend to know a work-around to the problem, but there exist some academics willing to devote ten years of their lives to it. So it can't be that fatal an error.
I really hope that they go out of business for this. I mean they extremely deserve it. I know that they probably didn't have much of a choice to hand over the keys, but to continue advertising such security... That's not cricket.
What intentional flamebait.
In case you didn't notice Motl just launches a bunch of personal attacks on Lisi, and then makes inaccurate claims as to why Lisi is wrong.
But then again, that's all he ever does. So I suppose there's not really any reason to be surprised.
Here's what Lisi said in rebuttal to Motl's tripe:
First he makes two statements that are blatantly wrong, and uses these to justify saying there's no physics in the paper. Then he attacks the physics in the paper. Heh.
His only rational attack is based on the Coleman-Mandula theorem, the abstract of which he kindly provides a link to, but evidently didn't read, since the first assumption of the C-M theorem is stated there in the abstract, and doesn't apply in the case at hand, as stated in the paper. The only other arguments he employs are ad hominem, based on my association with other non-string researchers who I am proud to call colleagues.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all very well if you define math to be "what looks good". But most mathematicians consider it to be something a little bit more rigorous. Incidentally, if you think all is beautiful, try solving systems of linear equations or ODE's. Really freaking ugly maths.
Personally, I'm really skeptical about the whole "financial incentive" part. Plenty of academics will have a "sure, I'll contribute to the community" attitude, but lets not forget that professors get paid the salaries of professors. I don't imagine a share of the adsense profits from 5 or so encyclopedia articles will be more than a relative pittance.
I could be wrong here (haven't used MS on my home comp for ages) but I thought that the adware problem was with MS Works, which is distict from MS office?
Has HP Lovecraft taught us nothing?!
In fact, you are completely wrong. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
Indeed, for some reason a "less than" sign was ninja-ed out.
Yes! That's exactly my point: that the west has comparable problems with the concept of "Free speech that I disagree with".
To be fair, the sacred cows of the US and Europe aren't *quite* religion, yet. Nor will you get killed over them. But, in Europe, try to suggest that 6 mil jews were killed in the holocaust and you'll be in a sticky situation.
Also, some particularly amusing US citizens fail to notice the hypocrisy in telling the middle east to grow a pair over the whole mo' cartoons deal, while trying to get flag burning made illegal.
No one may be dying over these issues, but the principle is the same.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on the prescription drugs thing. It's just plain ignorant to suggest that some drugs are ever going to be cheap. Huge research costs to create them. Huge production costs to produce them. The obscure ones aren't exactly gonna sell like hot cakes. There will be very little competition because the huge gross profit needed to break even will probably mean that the market just won't permit more than one manufacturer to break even.
Without poking, prodding and benevelence, these capitalists just aren't going to provide to the people who they're promising to help.
Were the cinema charging 50e for a ticket, and trying to get dvd-releases banned, and trying to stop independant film-makers from using alternate showing venues.
Then no. I would not feel the least bit guilty.
Indeed. They conveniently forgot to note that the actual sample set is "People who use the internet from home and have far too much time on their hands", as opposed to "all the computers in the world". If you can't notice that distinction, then you probably don't deserve your job. Although, it's not as if they don't have a vested interest in making wildly inaccurate claims...
I expect that the professors and research students, who have spent years of their lives learning how the human mind works, will probably have thought of this too. I don't pretend to know a work-around to the problem, but there exist some academics willing to devote ten years of their lives to it. So it can't be that fatal an error.
Uh, isn't the stock market fractal? Good luck trying to find a fourier series for that...
I really hope that they go out of business for this. I mean they extremely deserve it. I know that they probably didn't have much of a choice to hand over the keys, but to continue advertising such security... That's not cricket.
But then again, that's all he ever does. So I suppose there's not really any reason to be surprised.
Here's what Lisi said in rebuttal to Motl's tripe: First he makes two statements that are blatantly wrong, and uses these to justify saying there's no physics in the paper. Then he attacks the physics in the paper. Heh. His only rational attack is based on the Coleman-Mandula theorem, the abstract of which he kindly provides a link to, but evidently didn't read, since the first assumption of the C-M theorem is stated there in the abstract, and doesn't apply in the case at hand, as stated in the paper. The only other arguments he employs are ad hominem, based on my association with other non-string researchers who I am proud to call colleagues.