Rhe question IMNSHO is whether the QM effects _must_ be taken into account when modelling the brain. The always _can_ be taken into account, because of the correspondence principle.
But philosophicaly there is always this non-deterministic "backdoor" of QM-effects.
And I think - without reading Penroses book (thanks for the link, I always liked his writings in scientific american) - proponents of a simpler theory (disregarding QM) should be in charge of showing why their modell is sufficent and not the other way around.
Given the (seemingly non-) progress of AI, cognition theory and others in trying to explain the human brain and self-consciousness I tend to think that new theories might really be required.
No, you can always find an experiment where quantum effects have impact on macroscopic objects.
Take Schroedinger's cat or build an interplanetary weapon which either destroys venus or mars, depending on whether a given electron has positive or negative spin. I guess the latter is macrosopic enough (while not really real live:))
Or take snooker, I read somewhere that after the nth (don't remember n, it was 100, maybe 12) reflection of the ball QM-effects are big enough to make it impossible to precompute the trajectories.
Many problems in real live are not well-posed (or well-behaving, don't know the correct english term from the theory PDEs), which means that the solutions do not depend continuosly from the input data. This means that for these kind of problems we cannot hope that statistic effects smooth out the QM effects.
And this proves that all physical entities are subject to the laws of QM.
But I concede that it would be reasonable to ask whether the human brain has an imminent dependence on QM which is "strong" enough to be measurable for a span of a lifetime.
I guess we (I) have a semantic problem here.
I thought the notion "non-deterministic" in relation a quantum computer is based on the fact that it is, well, a quantum computer...
If we define determistic as "computable", i.e. given a process, we are able to define "measures" (possibilites in QM) which can be predicted by a theory, and therefore call this given process determistic, then I fail to name non-deterministic processes.
Hmmm, reading your first sentence I shouldn't post that, but...
1. Proposition: Every object of the laws of Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic
2. Proposition: Every physical entity is object to the laws of Quantum Mechanics (modulo relativistic effects)
3. Proposition: Human brains are physical entities.
...
The only questions seems to be to what extent human brains are non-deterministic...
I have two links for you, from an os-agnostic source, the german computer magazine c't:
The first is in only german and show iis and apache are at the same speed (with 2.4pre-kernel IIRC).
The second article is really interesting (and in english). They measured downtime of business class webservers and compared nt to solaris and linux.
To quote the beginning of the article:
To Be Up or Not To Be Up Analysis of Web Server Downtimes
Stability is one of the major criteria for web server performance. Although it is commonly accepted that Windows NT and IIS cannot match Unix and Apache servers in this field, there are hardly any tests to confirm this assumption. An availability test of the major German internet businesses clarifies the situation.
And there's another interesting problem with that infamous "runas". It's directly related to COM, and it shows that it's not easy to get an intuitive view for the user concerning the security of these "components".
You can read about it here. Especially interesting is David Leblancs mail and that of Russ.
Where do you draw the border when _elevating_ rights with runas (for instance installing something from ms which nowadays often automagically involves Internet Explorer _and_ requires Administrator privileges).
1. Anything that requires some sort of rare, specialized knowledge. High-end scientific software, high-end accounting software, etc. The pool of developers that would be able to contribute to something in this category is just too small to make a purely open-source model workable.
I guess ERP-software would fill in here as well. But even in the field of monsters like SAP R/3 I could see them get some pressure. Not from your usuall hobbiests, but perhaps from big consulting agencies like Anderson, McKinsey...
They all want (have) to expand their markets, that means there could come some time where some of the bigs in Enterprise Consulting may try to break into the markets of SAP via some joint open source ERP-software effort, eventually based on previous-closed-source software which they could acquire (Baan?). This could for instance be triggered by SAP coming in their way in the field of "classical" consulting too much.
The same fiction could be applied for many fields, because there is often some tension between companies having just the knowledge and others additionally having the programmers to implement it (and getting the big bucks).
ME is based on old (in fact win 3.1) code. For instance it uses DOS-compatible "PSP-based process scheduling" (no idea what that is)
ME watches config.sys and autoexec.bat for modifications, i.e. they still seem to have a function
DOS-application still can be run in a "DOS-box"
MS themselves did state that ME will be the last Windows based on the old technology, so a kind of MS-DOS is still there underneath.
I think they just wanted to broaden the impression that ME is "pure 32-bit" (as if that was an advantage on its own...) and perhaps they wanted to stop the possibility of legacy (dos) drivers reducing the stability of the whole system.
... wasn't it *HER* fault for letting the single get out in the first place?
Nooo, didn't you notice the new tricks for that stuff. I guess she released it in an self-extracting cab-file with a shrink-wrap license that stated that you have to treat that song as a trade secret...
I would find it extremely interesting if, in the 21st century, it were shown that many of these conjectures were also proved to be undecidable. It would certainly explain why some of them have taken so long to figure out.
Not really. The question would still remain why it had taken so long to figure out their undecidebality.
It is not inconceviable that the internet services sections could go with IE. Think about it, there are lots of companies that have specific, special versions of IE for their ISP services (like RoadRunner). The custom programming is very likely not for free.
Wrong, you can do it yourself. Have a look at ieak.microsoft.com.
But it's quite telling that this is the second one on slashdot who fell for it. Not telling about slashdot's reader, but telling about the perception of the RIAA.
i feel that rh and va linux are only "big" linux companies that are investing back into free software community. i have never seen penguin computing or any other linux companies contributing back to the community.....
My feeling is suse does quite alot too, paying kernel developers (aa, andi kleen), sponsoring reiser fs, working on xfree (Dirk Hondel is a vice-president of suse IIRC), helping with pppoe (they were the first incorporating the pppox kernel patches in their dist). I hope they will also fund the legal side of open source. Don't know about the others, though.
I have YET to recieve ANY of the 'vbs' email worms in any email i've ever recieved
Hehe, subscribe to linux-kernel, I laughed my ass off when I got this email. There followed two or three automated virus warnings no human bothered to answer. Pretty ironic it was.
The problem is that Microsoft has made that nearly impossible. To publically release a reverse engineered version of Microsoft's Kerberos extensions, the authors would need to be able to prove that they had no access to Microsoft's trade secrets.
No. It's the other way round. And if they really reverse engineered it it's easy to proove that anyway (500 postings to a mailing list discussing various problems; showing some dissassembly blabla...). \begin{paranoia mode} %Using tex here so/. cannot fuckup anything But maybe they suspect someone (for instance samba developers) has a "contact" into microsoft which leaks some "hints". In this case they have silenced that source w.r.t their kerberos stuff because now every developer is aware that he may have to present a stringent documentation of his reverse engineering work and that there mustn't be any "intelligent guessing" involved \end{paranoia mode}
I have a book that says "No part of this publication may be reproduced..." on page 3. Skipping directly to page 5 does not mean that I'm exempt from this legally binding statement.
Let's forget the books are always copyrighted without written disclaimer. But what if this "No part of this publication may be reproduced..." was written in arabic letters while the rest is in english, is it still legal binding in the US?
IOW, tell me how to read the EULA in Linux (without vmware and wine). IIRC it's possible to unpack that thingy in linux, there's a cab-library for linux and that document was a self extracting.cab (not.zip!)
your company doesn't want to distribute the code => they are not violating the GPL in any case you do that in your work time => they can deny you the right to distribute the patches, cause they have the (copy-)rights to the portions of the code you did in your worktime.
This seems to be a typical case where releasing company work under GPL makes extreme sense, because they already have seen the quality of OSS-code (the old version of your software).
But IMO (IANAL etc.) you would have a problem if you released the code you did in your worktime without the companies permission, just because it plainly isn't your code.
Slashdot Mirror
Rhe question IMNSHO is whether the QM effects _must_ be taken into account when modelling the brain. The always _can_ be taken into account, because of the correspondence principle.
But philosophicaly there is always this non-deterministic "backdoor" of QM-effects.
And I think - without reading Penroses book (thanks for the link, I always liked his writings in scientific american) - proponents of a simpler theory (disregarding QM) should be in charge of showing why their modell is sufficent and not the other way around.
Given the (seemingly non-) progress of AI, cognition theory and others in trying to explain the human brain and self-consciousness I tend to think that new theories might really be required.
No, you can always find an experiment where quantum effects have impact on macroscopic objects. :))
Take Schroedinger's cat or build an interplanetary weapon which either destroys venus or mars, depending on whether a given electron has positive or negative spin. I guess the latter is macrosopic enough (while not really real live
Or take snooker, I read somewhere that after the nth (don't remember n, it was 100, maybe 12) reflection of the ball QM-effects are big enough to make it impossible to precompute the trajectories.
Many problems in real live are not well-posed (or well-behaving, don't know the correct english term from the theory PDEs), which means that the solutions do not depend continuosly from the input data. This means that for these kind of problems we cannot hope that statistic effects smooth out the QM effects.
And this proves that all physical entities are subject to the laws of QM.
But I concede that it would be reasonable to ask whether the human brain has an imminent dependence on QM which is "strong" enough to be measurable for a span of a lifetime.
I guess we (I) have a semantic problem here.
I thought the notion "non-deterministic" in relation a quantum computer is based on the fact that it is, well, a quantum computer...
If we define determistic as "computable", i.e. given a process, we are able to define "measures" (possibilites in QM) which can be predicted by a theory, and therefore call this given process determistic, then I fail to name non-deterministic processes.
Hmmm, reading your first sentence I shouldn't post that, but ...
1. Proposition: Every object of the laws of Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic
2. Proposition: Every physical entity is object to the laws of Quantum Mechanics (modulo relativistic effects)
3. Proposition: Human brains are physical entities.
...
The only questions seems to be to what extent human brains are non-deterministic...
I have two links for you, from an os-agnostic source, the german computer magazine c't:
The first is in only german and show iis and apache are at the same speed (with 2.4pre-kernel IIRC).
The second article is really interesting (and in english). They measured downtime of business class webservers and compared nt to solaris and linux.
To quote the beginning of the article:
To Be Up or Not To Be Up
Analysis of Web Server Downtimes
Stability is one of the major criteria for web server performance. Although it is commonly accepted that Windows NT and IIS cannot match Unix and Apache servers in this field, there are hardly any tests to confirm this assumption. An availability test of the major German internet businesses clarifies the situation.
And there's another interesting problem with that infamous "runas". It's directly related to COM, and it shows that it's not easy to get an intuitive view for the user concerning the security of these "components".
You can read about it here. Especially interesting is David Leblancs mail and that of Russ.
Where do you draw the border when _elevating_ rights with runas (for instance installing something from ms which nowadays often automagically involves Internet Explorer _and_ requires Administrator privileges).
Man, you seem to be young. ...
Every current vidcart has at least 20fold the memory of my first compus (zx81, c64)
1. Anything that requires some sort of rare, specialized knowledge. High-end scientific software, high-end accounting software, etc. The pool of developers that would be able to contribute to something in this category is just too small to make a purely open-source model workable.
...
I guess ERP-software would fill in here as well. But even in the field of monsters like SAP R/3 I could see them get some pressure. Not from your usuall hobbiests, but perhaps from big consulting agencies like Anderson, McKinsey
They all want (have) to expand their markets, that means there could come some time where some of the bigs in Enterprise Consulting may try to break into the markets of SAP via some joint open source ERP-software effort, eventually based on previous-closed-source software which they could acquire (Baan?). This could for instance be triggered by SAP coming in their way in the field of "classical" consulting too much.
The same fiction could be applied for many fields, because there is often some tension between companies having just the knowledge and others additionally having the programmers to implement it (and getting the big bucks).
"if we let this open source thing get out of hand pretty soon people will start making their own entertainment and give it away for free ....."
...
Well, they'll always be able to sell porn, cause these longhairs will not have the nice chicks on their hand
I'll believe the last "Old Technology" when I see it.
So do I, but the statement from MS shows clearly that there is in fact "Old Technology" in ME.
Some facts from a review i read (on german c't):
MS themselves did state that ME will be the last Windows based on the old technology, so a kind of MS-DOS is still there underneath.
I think they just wanted to broaden the impression that ME is "pure 32-bit" (as if that was an advantage on its own
can you actually use all of those copies at once?
Yupp, you could instantly form the biggest team for SETI@home
... wasn't it *HER* fault for letting the single get out in the first place?
...
Nooo, didn't you notice the new tricks for that stuff.
I guess she released it in an self-extracting cab-file with a shrink-wrap license that stated that you have to treat that song as a trade secret
c:\> copy c:\virii\iloveyou.vbs.txt c:\napsterout\mygreatestmetallicahits\unforgiven-u nforgiven.mpg
I would find it extremely interesting if, in the 21st century, it were shown that many of these conjectures were also proved to be undecidable. It would certainly explain why some of them have taken so long to figure out.
Not really. The question would still remain why it had taken so long to figure out their undecidebality.
It is not inconceviable that the internet services sections could go with IE. Think about it, there are lots of companies that have specific, special versions of IE for their ISP services (like RoadRunner). The custom programming is very likely not for free.
Wrong, you can do it yourself. Have a look at ieak.microsoft.com.
But it's quite telling that this is the second one on slashdot who fell for it. Not telling about slashdot's reader, but telling about the perception of the RIAA.
As subject says, let's find out. If /. can interview (sic!) "Me"-tellicer, what about Chuck D. Perhaps he's curious about _his_ bedfellas too.
NB: Most congressional offices don't put the priority on email communcation that this community does.
:)
Unless they get 20.000 a day or the subject is "loveletter".
i feel that rh and va linux are only "big" linux companies that are investing back into free software community. i have never seen penguin computing or any other linux companies contributing back to the community.....
My feeling is suse does quite alot too, paying kernel developers (aa, andi kleen), sponsoring reiser fs, working on xfree (Dirk Hondel is a vice-president of suse IIRC), helping with pppoe (they were the first incorporating the pppox kernel patches in their dist).
I hope they will also fund the legal side of open source.
Don't know about the others, though.
I have YET to recieve ANY of the 'vbs' email worms in any email i've ever recieved
Hehe, subscribe to linux-kernel, I laughed my ass off when I got this email.
There followed two or three automated virus warnings no human bothered to answer. Pretty ironic it was.
The problem is that Microsoft has made that nearly impossible. To publically release a reverse engineered version of Microsoft's Kerberos extensions, the authors would need to be able to prove that they had no access to Microsoft's trade secrets.
No. It's the other way round. And if they really reverse engineered it it's easy to proove that anyway (500 postings to a mailing list discussing various problems; showing some dissassembly blabla...).
\begin{paranoia mode} %Using tex here so
But maybe they suspect someone (for instance samba developers) has a "contact" into microsoft which leaks some "hints". In this case they have silenced that source w.r.t their kerberos stuff because now every developer is aware that he may have to present a stringent documentation of his reverse engineering work and that there mustn't be any "intelligent guessing" involved
\end{paranoia mode}
I have a book that says "No part of this publication may be reproduced ..." on page 3. Skipping directly to page 5 does not mean that I'm exempt from this legally binding statement.
..." was written in arabic letters while the rest is in english, is it still legal binding in the US?
.cab (not .zip!)
Let's forget the books are always copyrighted without written disclaimer.
But what if this "No part of this publication may be reproduced
IOW, tell me how to read the EULA in Linux (without vmware and wine). IIRC it's possible to unpack that thingy in linux, there's a cab-library for linux and that document was a self extracting
your company doesn't want to distribute the code => they are not violating the GPL in any case
you do that in your work time => they can deny you the right to distribute the patches, cause they have the (copy-)rights to the portions of the code you did in your worktime.
This seems to be a typical case where releasing company work under GPL makes extreme sense, because they already have seen the quality of OSS-code (the old version of your software).
But IMO (IANAL etc.) you would have a problem if you released the code you did in your worktime without the companies permission, just because it plainly isn't your code.