It is worthwhile to point out that cosmological diversity is only one kind of "multiverse" theory. In it, all of the various universes are embedded in a larger space. Such theories are not therefore unscientific, in the sense of being intrinsically unfalsifiable, or unverifiable: Because the various universes have topological relation to one another, there is a continuum of existence connecting them, and they may interact in yet unforseen ways. Our current inability to design experiments to detect such interactions is merely an artifact of ignorance.
But there are many other forms of ontological multiplicity which do not involve topological continuum. The outstanding example is the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. In that theory, rather than the actual state of affairs in the universe being the sole real instantiation of the phi wavefunction, created by the act of observation (as in the classical Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr et al), the quantum wave function is considered to be a representation of the distribution of an infinite multiplicity of alternatives, all equally "real".
I find the Everett interpretation to be much preferrable, on several grounds, not the least of which is that it is consistent with the mathematical concept of probability distribution in a way which the Copenhagen interpretation is not, but others disdain it because it implies the real existence of entities which are not, so they say, in principle, detectable. Again, this complaint fails because it is an argument from ignorance: The current inability, at a given level of human understanding and technology, to design a verifying or falsifying experiment, does not relate to the truth or falsity of the hypothesis. Cophenhagenists are quite comfortable supposing that unseen cats are undead, and any truth not currently known is not yet true. I think this is a much larger leap of faith than is needed to create a working understanding.
Oh but they are not unfalsifiable in principle, only in current practice. This is a crucial distinction between a physical and a metaphysical theory. The Higgs boson, when postulated, was an hypothesis unfalsifiable in practice. But clearly it is a physical, rather than a metaphysical, hypothesis.
Now suppose that someone, let's call him Zweistein, proposes a theory of multiple universes which is incapable of producing a falsifiable prediction. We may say that the good Zweistein's theory is a metaphysical theory. But suppose that it is subsequently elaborated by his intellectual descendent, Dreistein. Suppose further that the specific elaborations of Dreistein provide the basis for constructing an experiment which is capable of disproving his elaboration of the original work of Zweistein.
Clearly Dreistein's theory is a physical theory. If it's predictive power proves out in experiment, not only is it a physical theory, but it becomes then an operational hypothesis and the basis for further science. Should we then discount the prior work of Zweistein which was necessary for the later, more practically useful results? Of course not.
Yes, some ideas may not be sufficiently precise to be falsified. But their future elaborations may not fall into the same category. We should not discount or discard speculation which is consistent with observation, but rather let it live on in its proper domain, to produce what useful future results that it can produce.
Writing material which is readable to the average tech-interested layperson is easy. Doing that while avoiding insipidity and simplification to the point of being misleading.... ummm.... priceless?
You can't get the benefit of directly targeted, topical practical experience from Google.
Why is it that every time anybody asks a question, some knee jerks and launches the 'ask google' football?
I admit that some questions are pure google fodder. This one is not. It seeks opinions that are likely to be difficult to the point of impracticability to find in a google search. There are an infinitude of searches which might be appropriate, and a large number than might be productive, but no obvious means of constructing them.
Ability, perhaps. Right -- never. You make the gibberish a phrase encrypted with your private key. Then your claim would be taken seriously by a court.
As regards the speakerphone, I think a headset is vastly preferable. Background noise is reduced with a good noise- cancelling mike, and you can go on walk-about, which makes long phone calls survivable.
I've been telecommuting since 1991. (I took a 2 year stint in an office during '95,'96.) A quiet personal space and a second phone line are essential. That can just mean your office is in the bedroom, and it is off-limits (with occasional exceptions) when you shut the door. The second line might be a vonage account -- I can't imagine many people would tolerate telecommuting without stable broadband in this era.
I've never had an employer who called out-of-hours more than very rarely, and when I did get those calls, I was always more than pleased to do so. I've always been able to run on my own schedule.
The real down side has been working for large organizations where office politics are the key factor in upward career mobility. The best telecommuting environment of all is clearly the virtual organization, where the technical staff are sufficiently distributed so that nobody has a water-cooler advantage, and politics are of diminished importance compared to technical excellence and business competence. That's what my current employer is like, so I'm a pig in the muck right now, happy as can be -- well, modulo the fact that about half of my work content sucks, but that's not a bad average in this industry.
Being able to actually participate in your children's developmental years is priceless. Watch out for creeping workaholism. I can't seem to escape it entirely. Partly that comes from the inherent uncertainty of being unable to *see* your boss' body language day-by-day. If you're more secure, psychologically, than I am, you shouldn't have such a problem.
One cool thing is, if you are a coder or architect, you will get 2-4x as much work done. Just make sure that you PICK UP THAT PHONE often. IRC is a great way to collaborate too, but email and chat just don't have the bandwidth of a voice conversation. Be especially careful not to let the desire to get things done lend a nasty tone to your email (it took me years to learn how to express myself without offending others inadvertently in email) -- or to let a hyperbolic humor diminish your respect and credibility. These are pitfalls which are more easily avoided in face-to-face relationships.
Remember that when you do travel to meet co-workers, much of the value is in extra-curricular social time. It's at least as important as the agenda-based meetings.
Firstly, as well as sinking a lot of CO2, the US also produces a lot. You'd get more global benefit from a 5% production reduction in the US than a 50% reduction in, say, Bangladesh.
Secondly, follow the money. The US can afford more proactive measures than can a developing economy.
I.e., it does not answer the question. In fact, the article directly linked contained nothing which would allow you to rigorously infer whether the effect observed was a newly observed consequence of the laws of Gauss and Faraday, or something contradictory to the implications of QED as it is currently formulated.
You can not determine from the article under what circumstances the angular accelleration occurs. You can not determine whether it is linear, logarithmic, exponential, hyperbolic, or parabolic. You cannot determine whether it is uniform.
In fact, I'd say that this article tells the reader approximately nothing, except that some university PR flack doesn't understand their subject.
The Israelis often claim that Palestinian medical facilities are used as cover for terrorist operations. That's why they feel free to fire on ambulances. By administration logic, anyone who funds medical care for Palestinians is a financier of terrorism.
Mosques, of course, are notorious as the organizational cover for Islamic fundamentalist terror operations.
As for schools, well, the Taliban emerged from the Islamic schools of Balochistan. The only way to prevent the emergence of an empowered class of intelligent and educated Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is to eliminate the schools that produce them.
Being a Canadian does very little to protect you from the abuses of the American government. In as much as the U.S. has assumed the power and authority to kill any person on earth at the unchecked command of the President, your life is safe only as long as you do not offend him. The nation of Canada and the Canadian way of life is secure only so long as it is not offensive to the purposes and plans of his power base, which is not the American electorate, by the way.
Oh that's no protection. Look at Manuel Noriega. We killed a couple thousand panamanians in order to put him in club fed. Heck, we can designate him an enemy combatant and blow him away with a sidewinder, just like we do to Americans and Yemeni nationals in Yemen, another ally in our global terror campaign.
I agree that the use of the term 'disappeared' as a verb is no longer appropriate in the Hawass case. However, there are roughly 1200 people who have in fact 'disappeared' from the U.S. who are believed to have been removed by INS or DOJ in the past year and a half.
The U.S. has reserved and excercised the assumed right to designate any individual, whether a citizen or non-citizen, as a terrorist, and to kill them. The U.S. has also reserved the right to designate any person, citizen or non-citizen, domestically or abroad, as an enemy combatant, regardless of whether or not they were engaged in active combat, and to detain them indefinitely without access to legal counsel.
These powers are reserved to the office of an unelected official who has repeatedly expressed a preference for dictatorship over democracy, and has waged war against non-beligerent nations on false pretexts, without a declaration of war by the Congress, as required by the founding laws of the United States. This act is defined as a Crime against Peace, by the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, VI(a)i. When the Nazi government of Germany did this, those responsible were hung by the neck until dead.
If you and your wife are both working outside of the home, or too engaged with work to parent effectively, you should hire a full-time nanny. The nanny should be a long-term position, lasting at least through first grade, not a revolving door job. The nanny will be your child's actual parent. You will be a roommate.
> baby monitors can wreck havoc upon wifi systems, even if they > aren't in the same frequency range. Don't ask me how...
Noisy harmonics. This stuff qualifies for the low bar at the FCC because it's low power.
> I have stopped trying to figure it out. We only use the monitor > when it is necessary.
That's good, because otherwise you'll end up with a baby like an insane Rhesus monkey from some 1980's psychology experiment, or one of those North Korean triplets.
He's wrong. I've been doing XP and pair programming with colleagues a thousand miles away for 2 years now, and it works a lot better than cube-sharing. There are less distractions (which is always a huge issue for coding) and things get documented instead of slacked. We will IRC or VOIP-chat or phone while we code, depending on the circumstances.
Re:Open Source and DRM are fundamentally incompati
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
Abstractly considered, there is fundamentally no difference between a source distribution and a binary distribution. The practical difference that is most relevant in this case is that a binary is more inconvenient to read. But plenty of people spend long hours running softice and know x86 opcode tables better than their mother's face.
Whether the source is open or closed, I don't think there's a difference with regard to the accessibility of the plain text content, or of the private keys. Binaries can be patched with a finite additional effort beyond that required to modify source and recompile. Signatures can be forged on a patched binary no less easily than they can be forged on a compilation from source.
The difference is moot, in my opinion. Please correct my error, if you perceive one.
There are plenty of broken business models to go around. I was not born to support every incompetent business operator who wants me to give my sweat for their bits. If RedHat is to be a profitable business, it will remain so by improving its business models and practices, not by depending on charitable contributions to Bob Young's Ferrari fund.
The point being made in these cases is that the protesters are willing to subordinate your personal convenience, yes, even your rights, to a more important purpose: Intervening to save lives. It is the same reasoning which motivates many people who favor the war: They typically do not discount the lives of the Iraqis who will die defending their home against invasion, but simply subordinate those issues to what they consider to be a greater good, whether it is defense contracts, or the perpetuation Sharon government, or a fat load of Iraqi crude. The crucial issue in both cases is whether they are *right*.
The article actually addresses this very issue. Using actual words. They were in English too, amazingly, so that anyone who read the/. article could also read those informative little squiggles.
Slashdot Mirror
It is worthwhile to point out that cosmological
diversity is only one kind of "multiverse" theory.
In it, all of the various universes are embedded
in a larger space. Such theories are not therefore
unscientific, in the sense of being intrinsically
unfalsifiable, or unverifiable: Because the various
universes have topological relation to one another,
there is a continuum of existence connecting them,
and they may interact in yet unforseen ways. Our
current inability to design experiments to detect
such interactions is merely an artifact of
ignorance.
But there are many other forms of ontological
multiplicity which do not involve topological
continuum. The outstanding example is the
Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In that theory, rather than the actual state of
affairs in the universe being the sole real
instantiation of the phi wavefunction, created
by the act of observation (as in the classical
Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr et al), the
quantum wave function is considered to be a
representation of the distribution of an infinite
multiplicity of alternatives, all equally "real".
I find the Everett interpretation to be much
preferrable, on several grounds, not the least
of which is that it is consistent with the
mathematical concept of probability distribution
in a way which the Copenhagen interpretation is
not, but others disdain
it because it implies the real existence of
entities which are not, so they say, in principle,
detectable. Again, this complaint fails because
it is an argument from ignorance: The current
inability, at a given level of human understanding
and technology, to design a verifying or falsifying
experiment, does not relate to the truth or falsity
of the hypothesis. Cophenhagenists are quite
comfortable supposing that unseen cats are undead,
and any truth not currently known is not yet true.
I think this is a much larger leap of faith than
is needed to create a working understanding.
Oh but they are not unfalsifiable in principle,
only in current practice. This is a crucial
distinction between a physical and a metaphysical
theory. The Higgs boson, when postulated, was
an hypothesis unfalsifiable in practice. But
clearly it is a physical, rather than a metaphysical,
hypothesis.
Now suppose that someone, let's call him Zweistein,
proposes a theory of multiple universes which
is incapable of producing a falsifiable prediction.
We may say that the good Zweistein's theory is a
metaphysical theory. But suppose that it is
subsequently elaborated by his intellectual
descendent, Dreistein. Suppose further that the
specific elaborations of Dreistein provide the
basis for constructing an experiment which is
capable of disproving his elaboration of the
original work of Zweistein.
Clearly Dreistein's theory is a physical theory.
If it's predictive power proves out in experiment,
not only is it a physical theory, but it becomes
then an operational hypothesis and the basis for
further science. Should we then discount the
prior work of Zweistein which was necessary for
the later, more practically useful results?
Of course not.
Yes, some ideas may not be sufficiently precise
to be falsified. But their future elaborations
may not fall into the same category. We should not
discount or discard speculation which is consistent
with observation, but rather let it live on in
its proper domain, to produce what useful future
results that it can produce.
Writing material which is readable to the average tech-interested
layperson is easy. Doing that while avoiding insipidity and
simplification to the point of being misleading.... ummm....
priceless?
You can't get the benefit of directly targeted, topical
practical experience from Google.
Why is it that every time anybody asks a question, some
knee jerks and launches the 'ask google' football?
I admit that some questions are pure google fodder.
This one is not. It seeks opinions that are likely to be
difficult to the point of impracticability to find in a
google search. There are an infinitude of searches which
might be appropriate, and a large number than might be
productive, but no obvious means of constructing them.
Ability, perhaps. Right -- never. You make the gibberish
a phrase encrypted with your private key. Then your claim
would be taken seriously by a court.
As regards the speakerphone, I think a headset is vastly
preferable. Background noise is reduced with a good noise-
cancelling mike, and you can go on walk-about, which makes
long phone calls survivable.
I've been telecommuting since 1991. (I took a 2 year stint
in an office during '95,'96.) A quiet personal space and a
second phone line are essential. That can just mean your
office is in the bedroom, and it is off-limits (with occasional
exceptions) when you shut the door. The second line might be
a vonage account -- I can't imagine many people would tolerate
telecommuting without stable broadband in this era.
I've never had an employer who called out-of-hours more than
very rarely, and when I did get those calls, I was always more
than pleased to do so. I've always been able to run on my
own schedule.
The real down side has been working for large organizations
where office politics are the key factor in upward career
mobility. The best telecommuting environment of all is
clearly the virtual organization, where the technical staff
are sufficiently distributed so that nobody has a water-cooler
advantage, and politics are of diminished importance compared
to technical excellence and business competence. That's what
my current employer is like, so I'm a pig in the muck right
now, happy as can be -- well, modulo the fact that about half
of my work content sucks, but that's not a bad average in this
industry.
Being able to actually participate in your children's
developmental years is priceless. Watch out for creeping
workaholism. I can't seem to escape it entirely. Partly
that comes from the inherent uncertainty of being unable to
*see* your boss' body language day-by-day. If you're more
secure, psychologically, than I am, you shouldn't have such
a problem.
One cool thing is, if you are a coder or architect, you will
get 2-4x as much work done. Just make sure that you PICK UP
THAT PHONE often. IRC is a great way to collaborate too, but
email and chat just don't have the bandwidth of a voice
conversation. Be especially careful not to let the desire
to get things done lend a nasty tone to your email (it took
me years to learn how to express myself without offending
others inadvertently in email) -- or to let a hyperbolic
humor diminish your respect and credibility. These are
pitfalls which are more easily avoided in face-to-face
relationships.
Remember that when you do travel to meet co-workers, much of
the value is in extra-curricular social time. It's at least
as important as the agenda-based meetings.
For two basic reasons:
Firstly, as well as sinking a lot of CO2, the US also
produces a lot. You'd get more global benefit from a
5% production reduction in the US than a 50% reduction
in, say, Bangladesh.
Secondly, follow the money. The US can afford more proactive
measures than can a developing economy.
He's gone, Jim.
Once they have professed "faith in the system", there's
precious little hope for critical thought.
I.e., it does not answer the question. In fact, the
article directly linked contained nothing which would allow
you to rigorously infer whether the effect observed was
a newly observed consequence of the laws of Gauss and Faraday,
or something contradictory to the implications of QED as
it is currently formulated.
You can not determine from the article under what circumstances
the angular accelleration occurs. You can not determine whether
it is linear, logarithmic, exponential, hyperbolic, or parabolic.
You cannot determine whether it is uniform.
In fact, I'd say that this article tells the reader
approximately nothing, except that some university PR
flack doesn't understand their subject.
Online activism is a legitimate topic for YRO, and the more so
when it is in defense of the rights of geeks.
The Israelis often claim that Palestinian medical facilities
are used as cover for terrorist operations. That's why they
feel free to fire on ambulances. By administration logic,
anyone who funds medical care for Palestinians is a financier
of terrorism.
Mosques, of course, are notorious as the organizational cover
for Islamic fundamentalist terror operations.
As for schools, well, the Taliban emerged from the Islamic
schools of Balochistan. The only way to prevent the emergence
of an empowered class of intelligent and educated Islamic
fundamentalist terrorists is to eliminate the schools that
produce them.
Being a Canadian does very little to protect you from
the abuses of the American government. In as much as the
U.S. has assumed the power and authority to kill any person
on earth at the unchecked command of the President, your
life is safe only as long as you do not offend him. The
nation of Canada and the Canadian way of life is secure only
so long as it is not offensive to the purposes and plans of
his power base, which is not the American electorate, by the
way.
Oh that's no protection. Look at Manuel Noriega. We killed
a couple thousand panamanians in order to put him in club fed.
Heck, we can designate him an enemy combatant and blow him away
with a sidewinder, just like we do to Americans and Yemeni
nationals in Yemen, another ally in our global terror campaign.
I agree that the use of the term 'disappeared' as a verb
is no longer appropriate in the Hawass case. However, there
are roughly 1200 people who have in fact 'disappeared' from
the U.S. who are believed to have been removed by INS or DOJ
in the past year and a half.
The U.S. has reserved and excercised the assumed right to
designate any individual, whether a citizen or non-citizen,
as a terrorist, and to kill them. The U.S. has also reserved
the right to designate any person, citizen or non-citizen,
domestically or abroad, as an enemy combatant, regardless
of whether or not they were engaged in active combat, and
to detain them indefinitely without access to legal
counsel.
These powers are reserved to the office of an unelected
official who has repeatedly expressed a preference for
dictatorship over democracy, and has waged war against
non-beligerent nations on false pretexts, without a
declaration of war by the Congress, as required by the
founding laws of the United States. This act is defined
as a Crime against Peace, by the Principles of the Nuremberg
Tribunal, VI(a)i. When the Nazi government of Germany did
this, those responsible were hung by the neck until dead.
If you and your wife are both working outside of the home,
or too engaged with work to parent effectively, you should
hire a full-time nanny. The nanny should be a long-term
position, lasting at least through first grade, not a revolving
door job. The nanny will be your child's actual parent.
You will be a roommate.
> baby monitors can wreck havoc upon wifi systems, even if they
> aren't in the same frequency range. Don't ask me how...
Noisy harmonics. This stuff qualifies for the low bar at
the FCC because it's low power.
> I have stopped trying to figure it out. We only use the monitor
> when it is necessary.
That's good, because otherwise you'll end up with a baby like
an insane Rhesus monkey from some 1980's psychology experiment,
or one of those North Korean triplets.
He's wrong. I've been doing XP and pair programming with
colleagues a thousand miles away for 2 years now, and
it works a lot better than cube-sharing. There are less
distractions (which is always a huge issue for coding) and
things get documented instead of slacked. We will IRC or
VOIP-chat or phone while we code, depending on the circumstances.
Zauri.
Abstractly considered, there is fundamentally no difference
between a source distribution and a binary distribution.
The practical difference that is most relevant in this case
is that a binary is more inconvenient to read. But plenty
of people spend long hours running softice and know x86
opcode tables better than their mother's face.
Whether the source is open or closed, I don't think there's
a difference with regard to the accessibility of the plain
text content, or of the private keys. Binaries can be patched
with a finite additional effort beyond that required to
modify source and recompile. Signatures can be forged on
a patched binary no less easily than they can be forged on
a compilation from source.
The difference is moot, in my opinion. Please correct my
error, if you perceive one.
...one might ask why *almonds* smell like
almonds. And people *eat* that stuff!
> But last time I checked the expensive bit for LCD screens ...I should have flipped it.
Voila, problem solved.
There are plenty of broken business models to go
around. I was not born to support every incompetent
business operator who wants me to give my sweat for
their bits. If RedHat is to be a profitable
business, it will remain so by improving its business
models and practices, not by depending on charitable
contributions to Bob Young's Ferrari fund.
The point being made in these cases is that the
protesters are willing to subordinate your personal
convenience, yes, even your rights, to a more
important purpose: Intervening to save lives.
It is the same reasoning which motivates many
people who favor the war: They typically do not
discount the lives of the Iraqis who will die
defending their home against invasion, but simply
subordinate those issues to what they consider to
be a greater good, whether it is defense contracts,
or the perpetuation Sharon government, or a fat
load of Iraqi crude. The crucial issue in both
cases is whether they are *right*.
The article actually addresses this very issue. /. article
Using actual words. They were in English too,
amazingly, so that anyone who read the
could also read those informative little squiggles.