There are places in Europe below sea level. Dams and dikes are a practical solution. Building them around our coasts would create jobs. I never understood this whole "OMG we'll flood the coasts" screaming. If this is an issue then start lobbying Washington for funds to build dams. And BTW, we did not have a problem resettling all the people from New Orleans on very short notice. Resettling the coasts would take years and is entirely doable on that time scale. The main questions are whether we expect sea levels to continue rising, the time scale and the cheapest way to deal with it.
Only problem is, you cannot predict something unless you know the mechanism. Without knowing what is the driver for change, you are in the "correlation does not imply causality" land. Someone like me can reasonably propose that the previous 50 years of warming mean nothing since the next 50 will be cooling. You need a comprehensive model with testable predictive power, otherwise you can only react to what happened in the past.
4WD : the fact remains that it is a lot easier to drive in the winter with a 4WD than without especially in areas where streets are not cleaned well after snowstorms.
tire pressure sensors : You have never run over a nail on a highway, have you? I have.
You also did not mention other tech which is very useful, like backup cameras. I do not trust mine enough to just backup looking at the display so it does not replace actually turning and looking but it does allow me to back out of very tight spots because I can get very close to other cars without hitting them.
"If your making the claim that the sum total of research in this area is entirely wrong and false"
Ah, nothing like a strawman argument (misspelled to boot). My claim is simply that the conclusions are not precise enough to inform the public or shape public policy.I explicitly said that all one needs to get there is a few orders of magnitude improvement in precision.
"The universe does not obey well ordered rules and you can only hope to get high accuracy estimates over short periods of time in relatively simple/stable conditions."
Which is why almost always, scientists are better off interacting with engineers, making discoveries that lead to drugs and devices which do work predictably over short time scales rather than talking to the public or trying to shape public policy. The rest of that long passage you wrote is drivel aimed at the strawman, not the argument I am making.
"That isn't climatology, nor is that possible. Not even in 100 years. [...] this requirement is absurd and is not the goal."
You do not provide any reason other than feasibility. Which is not a concern. If it takes the age of the universe to get there then fine.
"As a comparison, look at something much simpler: Orbital dynamics. It is only accurate near term and incurs significant error bars the further out you go."
Sigh. Again, we do not base public policy on orbital dynamics.
"If you had actually looked in the equations that drive climatological models you'd realize your requirements don't make any sense."
If you did any science at all, and I mean real science, you'd know that equations represent some balance of players in the process. They are not some characters that a wise man once wrote and it is set in stone. If you do not know all the players in your system then your equations are incomplete. Corrections from a single overlooked factor could easily be far more than 500% especially in a chaotic system.
"Not all models may incorporate the latest and greatest biological models, but some, if not most, do."
You are funny. My point was that the latest and greatest are not good enough because biosphere is not well mapped out. What happens if we discover a new species of bacteria capable of sequestering carbon 100 times more efficiently than anything seen to date. Even if it is a small currently negligible colony, the potential impact of its growth could be enormous. Are you willing to guarantee that such species does not exist or cannot be genetically engineered (also see my comment on unpredictability of human behavior)?
"Only the major impacts of human activity need to be accounted for, and most of those can be parametrized to give a good approximation."
If you can predict scientific advances and their influence on the industry and on the climate over a century then you are indeed deserving of a Nobel prize. Otherwise, you are just proving my point about overreaching with climate modeling conclusions.
"The models are fine. The problem is a lack of data." (for ocean currents)
Hmm, even if the models are fine which is doubtful at best, the lack of data is a big one in itself. Should we base public policy on lack of data? And absent copious amounts of data, how do you know the models are fine? Just curious.
"As new data and research comes in, the models are improved. Scientists use the models to validate or invalidate their research and make predictions."
This is good. I agree, climate research is real science so long as it is kept within the community. It becomes "climate research" when you go to the policy makers and ask them to make decisions based on something that could be invalidated (to use your word).
"You basically discredited decades of research and thousands of scientists"
No. I only discredited those who chose to use this for public discourse prematurely. Perhaps thousands of years prematurely.
"Bullshit. You need to read up on eugenics. The basic science was sound. Selective breeding for favorable traits goes ba
Why do we need low spreads? Seems like if spreads are high then you will think twice about investing which is great as it discourages speculation. And if indeed, maximizing spreads is in fact desirable to ensure maximum consideration prior to investment and hence maximum system stability, then why do we need market makers in the first place?
A second question. When all market makers run HFT algos, does this not raise the possibility where machines constantly flip securities to each other without them being passed on to an actual investor? Because that would be bad. It would inhibit meaningful price discovery for one thing and consequently, resource allocation in the greater economy would be suboptimal.
I am not a scientist if I am being a skeptic? Hmm. That's news to me. Oh, you mean I cannot be skeptical of peer reviewed publications? Um, sorry that still does not make sense. Science is all about predictive power and scientific process is all about skepticism at every step.
The main problem with climate "science" is precisely what you mentioned: chaos. Or sensitive dependence on initial conditions if you will. Hence, to be scientific one needs to push initial conditions measurements and then one needs to push modeling tools until you can predict things on relevant time and energy (temperature) scales. If as you say I am "not going to get that kind of accuracy in climatology" then you'll pardon me while I discount everything written in climate research prognostications.
I am not arguing against climate modeling. Indeed, we are at an early stage of something interesting. But modeling "local" effects needs to be pushed several orders of magnitude farther before bringing anything to public attention. 10 m would be local in my book. 0.1 degree is precise in my book. 100 years is a good time scale in my book. These are not arbitrary. These are the relevant scales in the problem. You are just confirming that nothing climate researchers have produced so far is usable to inform the public or make policy.
Current models do not take into account too many things. Biological activity is poorly modeled because many sources of such activity are not even known (especially microorganisms). Human activity is poorly documented and poorly forecasted on the scale of decades. Solar activity is still largely a mystery as this article shows clearly. We do not even have a good model for how ocean currents and ocean salinity interrelate (as evidenced by continued debate on what conditions would be needed to shut down the thermohaline circulation aka the ocean conveyor belt). What exactly can we model with any precision (i.e. comparable to the precision under controlled laboratory conditions)?
Finally, I do not think there is any conspiracy but thanks for a personal attack. Science history knows many examples where people reached premature conclusions and prematurely started to alert the public to their findings. For instance, development of genetics prompted many scientists to develop eugenics which then led to declaration of some humans to be sub-humans. This then led to public policy decisions which were nothing short of disastrous. It happened because scientists over-reached in their conclusions, misled by the predictive power of genetics but oblivious to the precision necessary to judge species evolutionary fitness and it happened because politicians found these theories convenient for their purposes. Let's not step on the same rake twice, shall we?
0.1 degree precision is needed simply because that is the relevant scale. If the warming were claimed on a 1 degree/year scale then I would ask for 1 degree precision.
Now why I ask for every single station is an interesting question. The main reason is that many monitoring stations are set up improperly. If you look at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png you will notice that most are in populated areas. Few are in the ocean or away from civilization. For the US, there is a CRN rating and once you discount all reading from non-CRN1 stations the data gets pretty meager. Therefore most (98% in the US) readings are entirely not believable until you show a model that accurately accounts for all influences on all stations. And CRN1 are only marginally more believable because they are still not constantly guarded and random influences are still possible. Basically, the predictive power per station is needed because this is not a controlled experiment and so you need to show that all influences are accounted for before making any analysis.
The kind of science I study allows for 0.001 Kelvin precision under controlled conditions. I am therefore being generous with my requirements for climate "science".
Finally, here is a quick lesson for _you_. I predict that I will find at least one coin lying on the road during the rest of my lifetime. I also predict that a broken analog clock is right twice a day. Look ma, I can make scientific predictions. Seriously, scientific predictions need to be precise and the degree of precision is determined by the scale of the problem. In this case, the time scale is a few decades and the temperature scale is 0.1 degrees.
Speaking as a scientist... What science? Climate change occurs over decades and e.g. temperature changes per year are fractions of a degree. Show me a model which can accurately predict climate over a couple of decades with 0.1 degree precision for all available weather stations and we would have an informed discussion.
Science is all about predictive power. Right now all climate predictions and warnings and the like are made by a bunch of charlatans extrapolating wildly, both climate change advocates and deniers alike. We do need more climate research but it will not produce believable results for decades if not centuries and we need to be OK with that because the grand vision is a comprehensive model of all processes on the planet and their interrelation and impact. Until we get there, climate researchers should STFU in public. Hacks like Al Gore should be seen for what they are. Period.
Oh shit, so now regular people are going to start writing like spammers to avoid filters. Great! Now how am I going to tell spam from valid emails? Thanks a lot Canon!
Buffalo is well situated but NYC and Boston are way far. Within 3 hours drive of Buffalo, you got Toronto Cleveland Rochester Syracuse Ithaca
All of these places have good educational institutions (including Cornell in Ithaca).
And prostitution is legal in Canada. So if you are a typical sleazy PHB or utterly sexless geek then... if you need to go visit your datacenter by spending a weekend in Toronto, things aren't so bad. If you are a woman though, uh, you better like nature or something.
Dunno about a terrorist, but if a rich guy wants to take out his wife who is flying out to a vacation... Or a mobster who wants to take out a witness... Or a rich nutjob whose serial killer MO is to target planes of a specific airline...
Anyone with money and a specific target is greatly aided by ADS-B (the specific receiver implementation is not the issue). Hence it is of great use to rich criminals. And of course, given the extent of collateral damage for such a targeted strike, the criminal automatically gets classified as terrorist even if inducing mass terror was not the intent.
You do, in fact. Geocentric and Heliocentric models are totally equivalent but the problem is that in a geocentric model you need an infinite number of epicycles and that's too cumbersome to be practical. But there is no philosophical or mathematical contradiction with choosing an Earth-centric reference frame.
Huh? How does a server help with a local archive of emails? Does any of these servers help with importing emails (pre-mbox arapnet emails for instance or dbx emails for a more modern example)? Does it provide fast searching (including.doc and.ppt awareness)? This may be a storage approach but does not begin to deal with the question raised.
I am in the same boat as the original poster. And I think the question has not yet been answered. My requirements (and I suspect the original guy's too) are:
1. A client that can import and store emails in a wide variety of formats
2. A client that can search emails (including office format and PDF attachments) quickly 2a. A figure of merit: 100000 emails, 10 gigs, 100 msec or less for search (core i7, plenty of RAM, SSD) 2b. Ideally search would allow SQL-like searches on any field and understand regexp
3. A client that requires no IP stack to function so it could be run on a machine detached from internet (I have on-line and off-line machines for security and I disable IP stack on off-line machines to prevent temptation to use them online if my other machine fails).
4. Crucially, a client that is easy to install, configure, and use. If your solution involves configuring a server or worse yet, configuring a server in a virtual machine then it is not workable. I do not have the time to figure it all out and I suspect only real sys-admins would consider this a solution.
Mostly agree although I would argue that heat capacity may or may not show anything depending on the nature of phase transition. For instance, a percolative transition may not be easy to dig out.
And funnily enough, the original high Tc paper that basically got the Nobel prize did not show Meissner but it was indeed shown soon after.
I want tabs arranged vertically. Period. Can't get that with Opera as far as I know. In Firefox, just instal verttabbar extension and you got a usable interface.
That and the combo of AdBlock, betterprivacy, flashblock, ghostery, and TACO.
Give me these things and I will consider leaving Firefox.
IPad looks surprisingly cool. The thing that makes the device for me is the redesigned keynote which can do slide transitions and animations. Couple this with slate form factor and light weight and this looks like a perfect machine to lug around at conferences. I will probably wait until the dual digitizer mods appear though because I want to be able to take notes with this as well.
First, this is not a type II. It's not a BCS superconductor at all. In fact, given that they do not show Meissner effect, one wonders how they conclude it is a superconductor. Heck, the paper does not even show resistance - just a density of states which is depressed at Fermi level. That could be due to anything (like a CDW). This paper seems like it is full of shit until proven otherwise. I would not pass it if I were the reviewer.
"a computer program is not a patentable invention."
That's a useless declaration. What we need is a clear statement that "an algorithm is not a patentable invention." We need to make sure thing like RSA cannot be patented. Banning specific crypto stack implementations from being patentable is crap.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
There are places in Europe below sea level. Dams and dikes are a practical solution. Building them around our coasts would create jobs. I never understood this whole "OMG we'll flood the coasts" screaming. If this is an issue then start lobbying Washington for funds to build dams.
And BTW, we did not have a problem resettling all the people from New Orleans on very short notice. Resettling the coasts would take years and is entirely doable on that time scale.
The main questions are whether we expect sea levels to continue rising, the time scale and the cheapest way to deal with it.
Only problem is, you cannot predict something unless you know the mechanism. Without knowing what is the driver for change, you are in the "correlation does not imply causality" land. Someone like me can reasonably propose that the previous 50 years of warming mean nothing since the next 50 will be cooling. You need a comprehensive model with testable predictive power, otherwise you can only react to what happened in the past.
I generally agree with your post but...
4WD : the fact remains that it is a lot easier to drive in the winter with a 4WD than without especially in areas where streets are not cleaned well after snowstorms.
tire pressure sensors : You have never run over a nail on a highway, have you? I have.
You also did not mention other tech which is very useful, like backup cameras. I do not trust mine enough to just backup looking at the display so it does not replace actually turning and looking but it does allow me to back out of very tight spots because I can get very close to other cars without hitting them.
"If your making the claim that the sum total of research in this area is entirely wrong and false"
Ah, nothing like a strawman argument (misspelled to boot). My claim is simply that the conclusions are not precise enough to inform the public or shape public policy.I explicitly said that all one needs to get there is a few orders of magnitude improvement in precision.
"The universe does not obey well ordered rules and you can only hope to get high accuracy estimates over short periods of time in relatively simple/stable conditions."
Which is why almost always, scientists are better off interacting with engineers, making discoveries that lead to drugs and devices which do work predictably over short time scales rather than talking to the public or trying to shape public policy.
The rest of that long passage you wrote is drivel aimed at the strawman, not the argument I am making.
"That isn't climatology, nor is that possible. Not even in 100 years. [...] this requirement is absurd and is not the goal."
You do not provide any reason other than feasibility. Which is not a concern. If it takes the age of the universe to get there then fine.
"As a comparison, look at something much simpler: Orbital dynamics. It is only accurate near term and incurs significant error bars the further out you go."
Sigh. Again, we do not base public policy on orbital dynamics.
"If you had actually looked in the equations that drive climatological models you'd realize your requirements don't make any sense."
If you did any science at all, and I mean real science, you'd know that equations represent some balance of players in the process. They are not some characters that a wise man once wrote and it is set in stone. If you do not know all the players in your system then your equations are incomplete. Corrections from a single overlooked factor could easily be far more than 500% especially in a chaotic system.
"Not all models may incorporate the latest and greatest biological models, but some, if not most, do."
You are funny. My point was that the latest and greatest are not good enough because biosphere is not well mapped out. What happens if we discover a new species of bacteria capable of sequestering carbon 100 times more efficiently than anything seen to date. Even if it is a small currently negligible colony, the potential impact of its growth could be enormous. Are you willing to guarantee that such species does not exist or cannot be genetically engineered (also see my comment on unpredictability of human behavior)?
"Only the major impacts of human activity need to be accounted for, and most of those can be parametrized to give a good approximation."
If you can predict scientific advances and their influence on the industry and on the climate over a century then you are indeed deserving of a Nobel prize. Otherwise, you are just proving my point about overreaching with climate modeling conclusions.
"The models are fine. The problem is a lack of data." (for ocean currents)
Hmm, even if the models are fine which is doubtful at best, the lack of data is a big one in itself. Should we base public policy on lack of data? And absent copious amounts of data, how do you know the models are fine? Just curious.
"As new data and research comes in, the models are improved. Scientists use the models to validate or invalidate their research and make predictions."
This is good. I agree, climate research is real science so long as it is kept within the community. It becomes "climate research" when you go to the policy makers and ask them to make decisions based on something that could be invalidated (to use your word).
"You basically discredited decades of research and thousands of scientists"
No. I only discredited those who chose to use this for public discourse prematurely. Perhaps thousands of years prematurely.
"Bullshit. You need to read up on eugenics. The basic science was sound. Selective breeding for favorable traits goes ba
Why do we need low spreads? Seems like if spreads are high then you will think twice about investing which is great as it discourages speculation. And if indeed, maximizing spreads is in fact desirable to ensure maximum consideration prior to investment and hence maximum system stability, then why do we need market makers in the first place?
A second question. When all market makers run HFT algos, does this not raise the possibility where machines constantly flip securities to each other without them being passed on to an actual investor? Because that would be bad. It would inhibit meaningful price discovery for one thing and consequently, resource allocation in the greater economy would be suboptimal.
I am not a scientist if I am being a skeptic? Hmm. That's news to me. Oh, you mean I cannot be skeptical of peer reviewed publications? Um, sorry that still does not make sense. Science is all about predictive power and scientific process is all about skepticism at every step.
The main problem with climate "science" is precisely what you mentioned: chaos. Or sensitive dependence on initial conditions if you will. Hence, to be scientific one needs to push initial conditions measurements and then one needs to push modeling tools until you can predict things on relevant time and energy (temperature) scales. If as you say I am "not going to get that kind of accuracy in climatology" then you'll pardon me while I discount everything written in climate research prognostications.
I am not arguing against climate modeling. Indeed, we are at an early stage of something interesting. But modeling "local" effects needs to be pushed several orders of magnitude farther before bringing anything to public attention. 10 m would be local in my book. 0.1 degree is precise in my book. 100 years is a good time scale in my book. These are not arbitrary. These are the relevant scales in the problem. You are just confirming that nothing climate researchers have produced so far is usable to inform the public or make policy.
Current models do not take into account too many things. Biological activity is poorly modeled because many sources of such activity are not even known (especially microorganisms). Human activity is poorly documented and poorly forecasted on the scale of decades. Solar activity is still largely a mystery as this article shows clearly. We do not even have a good model for how ocean currents and ocean salinity interrelate (as evidenced by continued debate on what conditions would be needed to shut down the thermohaline circulation aka the ocean conveyor belt). What exactly can we model with any precision (i.e. comparable to the precision under controlled laboratory conditions)?
Finally, I do not think there is any conspiracy but thanks for a personal attack. Science history knows many examples where people reached premature conclusions and prematurely started to alert the public to their findings. For instance, development of genetics prompted many scientists to develop eugenics which then led to declaration of some humans to be sub-humans. This then led to public policy decisions which were nothing short of disastrous. It happened because scientists over-reached in their conclusions, misled by the predictive power of genetics but oblivious to the precision necessary to judge species evolutionary fitness and it happened because politicians found these theories convenient for their purposes. Let's not step on the same rake twice, shall we?
0.1 degree precision is needed simply because that is the relevant scale. If the warming were claimed on a 1 degree/year scale then I would ask for 1 degree precision.
Now why I ask for every single station is an interesting question. The main reason is that many monitoring stations are set up improperly. If you look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
you will notice that most are in populated areas. Few are in the ocean or away from civilization.
For the US, there is a CRN rating and once you discount all reading from non-CRN1 stations the data gets pretty meager. Therefore most (98% in the US) readings are entirely not believable until you show a model that accurately accounts for all influences on all stations. And CRN1 are only marginally more believable because they are still not constantly guarded and random influences are still possible. Basically, the predictive power per station is needed because this is not a controlled experiment and so you need to show that all influences are accounted for before making any analysis.
The kind of science I study allows for 0.001 Kelvin precision under controlled conditions. I am therefore being generous with my requirements for climate "science".
Finally, here is a quick lesson for _you_. I predict that I will find at least one coin lying on the road during the rest of my lifetime. I also predict that a broken analog clock is right twice a day. Look ma, I can make scientific predictions.
Seriously, scientific predictions need to be precise and the degree of precision is determined by the scale of the problem. In this case, the time scale is a few decades and the temperature scale is 0.1 degrees.
Physics actually. But nice troll.
Speaking as a scientist... What science?
Climate change occurs over decades and e.g. temperature changes per year are fractions of a degree.
Show me a model which can accurately predict climate over a couple of decades with 0.1 degree
precision for all available weather stations and we would have an informed discussion.
Science is all about predictive power. Right now all climate predictions and warnings and the like are
made by a bunch of charlatans extrapolating wildly, both climate change advocates and deniers alike.
We do need more climate research but it will not produce believable results for decades if not centuries
and we need to be OK with that because the grand vision is a comprehensive model of all processes
on the planet and their interrelation and impact. Until we get there, climate researchers should STFU
in public. Hacks like Al Gore should be seen for what they are. Period.
OK, now I have seen it all... A goatse linked labeled "informative"... Who was the genius behind that moderation (no pun intended)?
Oh shit, so now regular people are going to start writing like spammers to avoid filters.
Great! Now how am I going to tell spam from valid emails? Thanks a lot Canon!
Buffalo is well situated but NYC and Boston are way far. Within 3 hours drive of Buffalo, you got
Toronto
Cleveland
Rochester
Syracuse
Ithaca
All of these places have good educational institutions (including Cornell in Ithaca).
And prostitution is legal in Canada. So if you are a typical sleazy PHB or utterly sexless geek then...
if you need to go visit your datacenter by spending a weekend in Toronto, things aren't so bad.
If you are a woman though, uh, you better like nature or something.
Dunno about a terrorist, but if a rich guy wants to take out his wife who is flying out to a vacation...
Or a mobster who wants to take out a witness...
Or a rich nutjob whose serial killer MO is to target planes of a specific airline...
Anyone with money and a specific target is greatly aided by ADS-B (the specific receiver
implementation is not the issue). Hence it is of great use to rich criminals. And of course,
given the extent of collateral damage for such a targeted strike, the criminal automatically
gets classified as terrorist even if inducing mass terror was not the intent.
You do, in fact. Geocentric and Heliocentric models are totally equivalent but the problem is that in a geocentric model you need an infinite number of epicycles and that's too cumbersome to be practical. But there is no philosophical or mathematical contradiction with choosing an Earth-centric reference frame.
Huh? How does a server help with a local archive of emails? Does any of these servers help with importing emails (pre-mbox arapnet emails for instance .doc and .ppt awareness)? This may be a storage approach but does
or dbx emails for a more modern example)? Does it provide fast searching (including
not begin to deal with the question raised.
I am in the same boat as the original poster. And I think the question has not yet been answered. My requirements (and I suspect the original guy's too) are:
1. A client that can import and store emails in a wide variety of formats
2. A client that can search emails (including office format and PDF attachments) quickly
2a. A figure of merit: 100000 emails, 10 gigs, 100 msec or less for search (core i7, plenty of RAM, SSD)
2b. Ideally search would allow SQL-like searches on any field and understand regexp
3. A client that requires no IP stack to function so it could be run on a machine detached from internet
(I have on-line and off-line machines for security and I disable IP stack on off-line machines to prevent
temptation to use them online if my other machine fails).
4. Crucially, a client that is easy to install, configure, and use. If your solution involves configuring a server
or worse yet, configuring a server in a virtual machine then it is not workable. I do not have the time to
figure it all out and I suspect only real sys-admins would consider this a solution.
Mostly agree although I would argue that heat capacity may or may not show anything depending on the nature of phase transition. For instance, a percolative transition may not be easy to dig out.
And funnily enough, the original high Tc paper that basically got the Nobel prize did not show Meissner but it was indeed shown soon after.
I want tabs arranged vertically. Period. Can't get that with Opera as far as I know. In Firefox, just instal verttabbar extension and you got a usable interface.
That and the combo of AdBlock, betterprivacy, flashblock, ghostery, and TACO.
Give me these things and I will consider leaving Firefox.
The article does not read like Flash advocacy. It reads more like a bunch of reasons why Flash will die slowly rather than fail outright.
2 (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm)
1 (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1092.cfm)
What's my prize?
Judging by the style of writing I expected the signature to read:
Dildongo Longo
Central sperm bank of Nigeria
IPad looks surprisingly cool. The thing that makes the device for me is the redesigned keynote which can do slide transitions and animations. Couple this with slate form factor and light weight and this looks like a perfect machine to lug around at conferences. I will probably wait until the dual digitizer mods appear though because I want to be able to take notes with this as well.
First, this is not a type II. It's not a BCS superconductor at all.
In fact, given that they do not show Meissner effect, one wonders how they conclude it is a superconductor. Heck, the paper does not even show resistance - just a density of states which is depressed at Fermi level. That could be due to anything (like a CDW). This paper seems like it is full of shit until proven otherwise. I would not pass it if I were the reviewer.
"a computer program is not a patentable invention."
That's a useless declaration. What we need is a clear statement that "an algorithm is not a patentable invention."
We need to make sure thing like RSA cannot be patented. Banning specific crypto stack implementations from
being patentable is crap.
No it's FrostyPiss. Oh wait...