Agreed. Someone once told me about one of
John Ellis's students asking them to do a Monte Carlo simulation, and sending the results back saying "it's not random enough". Ignorance about random number generators is everywhere.
Good post. As far as I'm aware, the guy 'who invented matrix theory' you refer to was in fact G. H Hardy, who was actually famous for his work in number theory. This really was a subject without practical applications, at least until RSA came along. Matrices have always been a useful calculational tool.
I like it. Maybe I'm alone here, but note in the article that Shuttleworth says that some notifications are important and should be treated differently (as "persistent panel indicators") - but there's no reason why you should have to click on "Wifi stopped working" and "Wifi started working", hence distracting you from what you're doing. Exploring new ideas is more important than whether they're good or bad, especially four months ahead of release.
I agree with you (maybe I wasn't clear in my post) but people still publish work done using Mathematica and Maple. The Numerical Algorithms Group have another popular closed source library that people use for linear algebra etc
Another issue is whether the compiler gives you the right results. You can never be entirely sure there's not something subtly off unless you compile it by hand and check the results, which isn't really feasible.
I don't see the big game companies feeling threatened by open source (more by piracy), but their best products are innovative, exciting and fun. I've yet to see an open-source game that comes anywhere near competing with top games.
Scientific software is another kettle of fish. There is a lot of freely available stuff, but there's also the three M's, Matlab, Mathematica and Maple, all of which are very closed source. Universities and researchers use these all the time, but it worries me that at some point Maple might (for example) close up shop, making it more difficult to check results obtained using that program. Still, all of these programs enjoy good market share, and are specialised enough that I don't see them going away anytime soon.
That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
Whoa there!
Let's be crystal clear on this. There is plenty of evidence for various aspects of GR. If you really want, you can mess around with Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but, to quote the wiki article on GR, it's 'the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data'.
What do you mean 'truly understand gravity and movement'? If you mean predict how objects will move under gravity with unparalleled precision, then I think we're already there. I'm not sure what else science could tell you. I'm not a big dark matter/energy fan either, but if all observations agree with their existence, so do I.
It's not quite that simple. QCD is a quantum field theory, so E=mc^2 is "built in". Really, the point is that experimental results (i.e. proton and neutron mass) are confirmed and a clear explanation for this "mass discrepancy" given. I wouldn't say it's proven, since lattice QCD is a (very very good) approximation to an exact theory.
A lot of science uses open source tools anyway, so this is only news in that it'll draw the public's attention to it. At CERN, the data analysis package (ATHENA) I worked on had a Python front end, used gnu tools (gcc, gdb), expressly encouraged physicists to use valgrind etc. I've forgotten how bug tracking worked, but I'm pretty sure it was something like Bugzilla.
I'm not sure about the status (open source or not) of the full analysis package, but other stuff to come out of CERN (CERNLIB, Geant3) has been. It's all good.
OK, I'm not going to just list every paper I've ever read as a counter argument. But in my experience (physicist), if such details are left out, it's because they're either common knowledge or space is limited. Admittedly, some people just bullshit but that's rare.
In Switzerland, or at the very least at the post office, you need your passport to buy a SIM card. I found it strange and unnecessary (Swiss-hating terrorists) but it beat paying the roaming fees.
Hi AlpineR,
I just finished a summer studentship at CERN on data analysis and tracking algorithms. We ran simulations (also written in C++ and python) that output data in two ways: tab-delimited and as ROOT files. ROOT may well be the answer to your needs - it can handle all the data analysis you want and gives you nice attractive graphs. It has problems, but will beat the crap out of the stuff you're using, and for free. It's also GPL'd. It's in a fairly uniform version of C++, so I doubt you would have to change much to get it to output into ROOT. I've seen physicists do impressive stuff with it.
For tab-delimited stuff, I used gnuplot. Again, it's free. Good luck!
There is a lot of good, accurate information out there, much of it published by CERN. But the problem is that people lap up failure and doomsday theories.
Well, if they want to do it right, they should just patent the drugs and then not enforce the patent.
For two reasons.
A) This is morally a good thing.
B) It would drive the pharmaceuticals companies crazy.
Re:Shuts down for the winter?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
You make a good point. In practice adjustments must always be made for this sort of thing - this is why it is so difficult to send a beam around - most of the time and energy is spent adjusting the magnets and 'tuning' the beam. But yeah, surprising as it may sound it is mainly a cost issue.
I can't remember which mathematician told this story, but apparently he received so many attempted proofs of Fermat's last theorem that he got his graduate students to answer with a stock letter:
Dear...
Thank you for your proof of Fermat's last theorem. The first mistake appears on page...
The full story is in Marcus du Sautoy's excellent book The Music of the Primes.
Re:Shuts down for the winter?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Electricity costs, mainly. EDF gives CERN a discount because we use so much of it, but they hike their prices up in the winter when people use more energy. Also, the winter shutdown gives people breathing space to decide what to do next, lessons to learn etc.
I think in the case of LHC they could probably afford to keep it running, but there's no real point. They're going to use the time to work out how to increase from their expected pre-winter centre of mass energy of 10 TeV to 14 TeV.
This is all standard accelerator practice, as far as I know.
The LHCb experiment has a large processor farm for their online data analysis, all water cooled. Apparently it makes the computer scientists very nervous. OTOH, the main computing centre just uses air cooling, so we've got a real mix of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Someone once told me about one of John Ellis's students asking them to do a Monte Carlo simulation, and sending the results back saying "it's not random enough". Ignorance about random number generators is everywhere.
Good post. As far as I'm aware, the guy 'who invented matrix theory' you refer to was in fact G. H Hardy, who was actually famous for his work in number theory. This really was a subject without practical applications, at least until RSA came along. Matrices have always been a useful calculational tool.
I like it. Maybe I'm alone here, but note in the article that Shuttleworth says that some notifications are important and should be treated differently (as "persistent panel indicators") - but there's no reason why you should have to click on "Wifi stopped working" and "Wifi started working", hence distracting you from what you're doing. Exploring new ideas is more important than whether they're good or bad, especially four months ahead of release.
Hate to break it to you, but you're bathed in much more than a few millitwatts of EM every second of every day.
My new favourite unit!
I agree with you (maybe I wasn't clear in my post) but people still publish work done using Mathematica and Maple. The Numerical Algorithms Group have another popular closed source library that people use for linear algebra etc
Another issue is whether the compiler gives you the right results. You can never be entirely sure there's not something subtly off unless you compile it by hand and check the results, which isn't really feasible.
I don't see the big game companies feeling threatened by open source (more by piracy), but their best products are innovative, exciting and fun. I've yet to see an open-source game that comes anywhere near competing with top games.
Scientific software is another kettle of fish. There is a lot of freely available stuff, but there's also the three M's, Matlab, Mathematica and Maple, all of which are very closed source. Universities and researchers use these all the time, but it worries me that at some point Maple might (for example) close up shop, making it more difficult to check results obtained using that program. Still, all of these programs enjoy good market share, and are specialised enough that I don't see them going away anytime soon.
That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
Whoa there!
Let's be crystal clear on this. There is plenty of evidence for various aspects of GR. If you really want, you can mess around with Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but, to quote the wiki article on GR, it's 'the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data'.
What do you mean 'truly understand gravity and movement'? If you mean predict how objects will move under gravity with unparalleled precision, then I think we're already there. I'm not sure what else science could tell you. I'm not a big dark matter/energy fan either, but if all observations agree with their existence, so do I.
New campaign: Shave The Mammoths
It's not quite that simple. QCD is a quantum field theory, so E=mc^2 is "built in". Really, the point is that experimental results (i.e. proton and neutron mass) are confirmed and a clear explanation for this "mass discrepancy" given. I wouldn't say it's proven, since lattice QCD is a (very very good) approximation to an exact theory.
The same question applies to sharks.
A lot of science uses open source tools anyway, so this is only news in that it'll draw the public's attention to it. At CERN, the data analysis package (ATHENA) I worked on had a Python front end, used gnu tools (gcc, gdb), expressly encouraged physicists to use valgrind etc. I've forgotten how bug tracking worked, but I'm pretty sure it was something like Bugzilla. I'm not sure about the status (open source or not) of the full analysis package, but other stuff to come out of CERN (CERNLIB, Geant3) has been. It's all good.
Obligatory: http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF195-The_Pacific_Council.jpg#185
It's true what they say, Windows is the cheaper alternative.
OK, I'm not going to just list every paper I've ever read as a counter argument. But in my experience (physicist), if such details are left out, it's because they're either common knowledge or space is limited. Admittedly, some people just bullshit but that's rare.
In Switzerland, or at the very least at the post office, you need your passport to buy a SIM card. I found it strange and unnecessary (Swiss-hating terrorists) but it beat paying the roaming fees.
My own favourite: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/
Don't forget 'died in a blogging accident' and 'x girls, y cups'.
Hi AlpineR, I just finished a summer studentship at CERN on data analysis and tracking algorithms. We ran simulations (also written in C++ and python) that output data in two ways: tab-delimited and as ROOT files. ROOT may well be the answer to your needs - it can handle all the data analysis you want and gives you nice attractive graphs. It has problems, but will beat the crap out of the stuff you're using, and for free. It's also GPL'd. It's in a fairly uniform version of C++, so I doubt you would have to change much to get it to output into ROOT. I've seen physicists do impressive stuff with it. For tab-delimited stuff, I used gnuplot. Again, it's free. Good luck!
There is a lot of good, accurate information out there, much of it published by CERN. But the problem is that people lap up failure and doomsday theories.
Yes there is, it's called the Tevatron.
Well, if they want to do it right, they should just patent the drugs and then not enforce the patent. For two reasons. A) This is morally a good thing. B) It would drive the pharmaceuticals companies crazy.
You make a good point. In practice adjustments must always be made for this sort of thing - this is why it is so difficult to send a beam around - most of the time and energy is spent adjusting the magnets and 'tuning' the beam. But yeah, surprising as it may sound it is mainly a cost issue.
I can't remember which mathematician told this story, but apparently he received so many attempted proofs of Fermat's last theorem that he got his graduate students to answer with a stock letter: Dear ...
Thank you for your proof of Fermat's last theorem. The first mistake appears on page ...
The full story is in Marcus du Sautoy's excellent book The Music of the Primes.
Electricity costs, mainly. EDF gives CERN a discount because we use so much of it, but they hike their prices up in the winter when people use more energy. Also, the winter shutdown gives people breathing space to decide what to do next, lessons to learn etc. I think in the case of LHC they could probably afford to keep it running, but there's no real point. They're going to use the time to work out how to increase from their expected pre-winter centre of mass energy of 10 TeV to 14 TeV. This is all standard accelerator practice, as far as I know.
The LHCb experiment has a large processor farm for their online data analysis, all water cooled. Apparently it makes the computer scientists very nervous. OTOH, the main computing centre just uses air cooling, so we've got a real mix of technology.