it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.
Your argument ignores the information-bearing aspect of price, and the dynamic of the market.
As oil supplies run down, price goes up[1]. If demand is also increasing, price goes up even more quickly. As the price of oil rises, the comparative advantage of oil drops[2].
As the comparative advantage of oil drops, the more attractive other fuels become, leading to research into raising the comparative advantage of oil (through efficiency), or more research into other fuels to increase their comparative advantage[3].
This process goes on continuously. As a result, efficiency will rise when it is needed and alternative fuels will come into play when they are needed. There will be no overnight "ohmygodwe'reoutofoil!"
So the question becomes: should we jink with things? I mean, it would be reasonable to assume that artificially raising the price of oil would cause increased investment in either oil efficiency or alternate fuels - we've said as much above.
If we're just considering decreased usage of oil as the only good in the system, then this would make sense. However, if that were already the case then there would be no need to tweak with the price system: the lower demand for inefficient oil-using cars would provide the exact same investment patterns into oil efficiency and alternate fuels!
So the conclusion would then be that people consider other goals within the fuel-burning realm than just the use of oil to be important. If that is the case then optimizing for reduced oil usage would hurt the other goals people have. So the best way to make people happy is to not mess with the price structure and let oil work its way out of the system naturally[4].
[1] - price is not just current-availability over demand, it also incorporates prospective supply and demand.
[2] - when you have a need (energy), you also have a selection of methods with which to fill that need. You choose the one most advantageous to you, so it doesn't matter what the absolute price of fuel is - only how it compares to other fuels.
[3] - let's say that you have 3 fuels: aberhol, bakernol, and crepetol. All other things being equal, if they are $3/kj, $4/kj, and $15/kj, it would make sense to put most of your research dollars into aberhol, followed by bakernol, and almost none into crepetol.
I think the non-ratification of the treaty has a lot more to do with the unilateral go it alone against the world spirit of the current administration
First off, I'm not a fan of the current administration. Now that the "whose pocket is he in"/"sockpuppet" stuff is out of the way, let me say:
Whenever I hear that some goal will require us to buckle down and "all pull together as a team." I remember the quote:
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." -- Terry Pratchett
Particularly when we're talking about on the order of nations. See, that's the thing: global warming solutions have always been worried about things on the level of nations. All these nations have to do X. Let's work together!
You're right on about how the first world wants to be equal some of the time. Part of the problem with the "get on the bandwagon" stuff is that it prevents us from saying "I agree with the need, but I'm not sure this is the best way to fulfill it."
Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).
The link provided above under "consensus" linked to a Wikipedia article that described different causes of "climate change" (both man-made and non), with the consensus being that the earth is warming, but we do not know if it is man-made.
Part of the problem is that there is word-pollution going on. "Climate change" is now the preferred term over "global warming", and both of these phrases sound reasonable - but they are not what they sound like. "Climate change" and "global warming" both refer to what is sometimes specifically called "anthropic climate change".
This results in some pretty pained arguments, as if someone asks "do you believe in climate change?" and you answer "yes", then you're read as saying "humans are causing the Earth to become warmer", but if you say "no", then you're read as saying "the Earth is not warming."
This is, unfortunately, typical for any popular argument.
You make a good point, allow me to run with it for a bit.
A major problem in America is our Socialist/Marketist hybrid approach. The "no more nuke plants" problem is a result of not respecting property rights - if you own the land and own the land that might be affected, you should be able to do it. We have legislatively undermined these rights, similar to the wetlands issues.
If we either respected private property or went fully socialist and had the state be in charge of land, then this would cease to be an issue.
I wouldn't want to be in the latter country, but it would solve some problems.
Further, consider the rhetoric here: China builds a nuclear reactor. The "US" can't. Since when is it the domain of the government to be in charge of scientific advances? I mean, it is now, but should it be? And should it be when we consider our country to be a private property country?
good way to meet women, horrible way to get dates.
Okay, I'd like to know right now exactly why it is that car mechanics are perceived as "hotter" than computer mechanics? Even if identically good looking.
I don't inspire nightmares in the people I meet, but I've noticed I have a lot better luck with women when I don't admit any technical knowledge - and I definitely don't offer to fix their computer.
I think part of it is the idiot geeks that I see: they're good at computers too, but they're horrible to talk to. Somehow by fixing a gal's computer I get placed in the same category.
You know, it's funny: I've noticed the opposite effect. Now mind you, I was doing work when I was young.
If I fixed someone's computer for free, if something messed up later it was my fault. My advice was also completely ignored, as I was not "knowledgable."
If I charged a little for my services, I would indeed be beholden to them for outrageous demands ($10 to fix a computer turned into a complete re-installation, a 2-hour hardware isolation job [bad power supply, as it turned out], and recovering all their old data. Thanks, mom!)
I found, however, when I charged enough, things were different. At $60/hr they want you to get in and get out with fixing whatever it is. They take your advice very seriously, as they don't want to pay for you to come around again.
As a nice side-effect, it also makes them revise their rhetoric. Funny how they "have to have" X, but when you quote them $100 to get that done it suddenly becomes much less important.
You see a similar thing in business: waiters in a cheap restaurant get abused a lot more than waiters in an expensive restaurant. If you're asked to consult on a project, demand a very high fee or your advice won't be taken seriously.
The exception to this rule is family, of course. They're often indignant that you would even conceive of charging them money for something as trivial as 8 hours of your time (and frustration. Since I've worked only on Mac and Linux now for about 5 years, working on Windows is torture). So I did the only thing I could: I converted the problem (my mother) over to a Mac. I've yet to get woken up in the morning with a tech support problem since I did that.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Knuth had what seemed like a good idea 40 years ago and can't let it go. (Actually, two of them; the other was that he could write a single comprehensive CS textbook.)
If his idea is to write a comprehensive CS textbook, then that probably is a mistake. Whatever comes out of the process certainly is interesting, however.
Your other comments rest on the assumption that you can only talk about algorithms by writing code in an actual executable language. But lots of CS books don't do that. They rely on pseudo-code, or they compare implementations in various high- and low-level languages. Even TAOCP is written so you can skip over the MIX parts.
Yes, you can skip over the MIX parts, but the point is that he is providing easily emulate-able code that precisely defines what he means. A working implementation of his concept that you can see and work with. Psuedocode cannot do this, and the various high level languages do turn into "language of the decade" competitions.
Further, as he states, he is demonstrating what it is that these high level languages are doing at the most basic level on a von-Neumann-variety machine. This is important in many cases, as the high level languages "mask"[1] this process.
[1] - scare quotes are because this masking has a purpose: elision, different way of looking at things, etc. But it is masking nonetheless when you're trying to say "what is it that this fundamentally does?"
Incidentally, you can also skip over the proof sections of TAOCP. That doesn't mean they're not a necessary part of the book.
So instead he has to update it for the machine architecture of the decade.
MIX: ~1964.
MMIX: 1999.
I think he's doing a bit better than "decade."
As he says, part of the reason for MMIX is that many of the concepts needed for a good machine of this type had not been discovered when MIX was around. Now that things are to a state where they can be well-expressed, he's using a new model. Well, that and we tend to use floating point and ASCII these days.
So, you're saying you won't have to worry about that problem?
Actually, I think I do. I am often forced to choose between a Republican and a Democrat, as there is no Libertarian on the ticket, so I worry that by voting for one I will become "invested" in him - and thus be less likely to criticize when I should. Feel more of a need to defend him.
And, should the time ever come when a Libertarian gets elected to a town counsel position (the most likely event), would I be willing to throw him out if he does bad - knowing as I do how unlikely it is that another LP candidate will come along?
I'd just like to say that these things come in cycles. They are society's response to perceived threats and changing goals. Nixon's FBI did some horrible, horrible things (black bag jobs, intimidation, assassination, etc) and was never really held accountable for it. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and though he was assassinated, he wasn't assassinated because he'd thrown a lot of people in jail without charges.
Things will change, and if we focus on changing the average opinion rather than on "holding people accountable" we'll be okay.
I see a lot of the things that we do, and I think "this is what it looked like when Rome fell." But you know what? I think things are going to get better.
Here's something else: you want more liberty? Put more in your daily life. Think about how you live today and ask yourself: what can I do to make things more free? Oppose your own inner martinet, and work for freedom around you. You'll be a lot better off, and you'll actually get much more accomplished than railing against Bush.
Just an idea.
Oh: and make sure that you don't let Democrats rest on their laurels when they're in office. One thing I hate about the current split is that Republicans often refuse to criticize the president. Don't do the same thing when it's your guy in office (note: I'm a libertarian).
Well, now-adays it's rarely "classified" it's just "sensitive." You see, sensitive doesn't have any accountability. You can actually get in trouble for classifying something that shouldn't have been.
Want an example of "sensitive"? Look up the Barlow case regarding the TSA. All details concerning airport security are considered "sensitive." This includes things such as "as a TSA examiner, are you encouraged to look for drugs?" (which would be illegal).
There's far more than that. Also, the FOIA compliance rate has gone way, way down under this administration. I believe the ACLU has hard numbers on that (not surprising, given how many FOIA requests they make).
An argument could be made that "sensitive isn't classified" and it would be correct, but it belies the reality that "sensitive" is effectively "classified."
A sibling post mentions the desire to have a "full and complete record" to allow the public to exploit inventions after they fall out of patent. This is true. Allow me to take a different tack and see if it helps explain things.
You do not have to patent an invention.
Let me stress that again: you do not have to patent an invention.
A patent is a disclosure of your invention and a description of its functioning, sufficient to make a working implementation - given the proper tools. If you give this out there is a more than reasonable chance that a competitor could solve the same problem in a different, novel way. So, many companies have their inventions remain magic, never disclosing the problems they solved or how they solved them.
This is an important concept because it phrases the patent not as a reward for your labor but as a public contract: you give the public something, the public gives you something.
So the question regarding whether or not something should be patentable should not be the effort that went into it, it should be: is the public interested in it?
This is the reason for the obviousness clause. If you were to demonstrate your product, such as a shock absorber, without revealing any of its functioning, and another company could equal or better your achievement just from looking at it, then you do not deserve a patent for that invention.
So it is with most software: how many pieces of software cannot be replicated after having their functionality demonstrated? The amount of complaining about "reverse engineering" should tell you all you need to know about that.
The "reward for things that would not be produced otherwise" is copyright. The creation and maintenance of a system whereby a company is identifiable is trademark (names, icons, colors, etc). It is easy to conflate the concepts of trademark, copyright, and patent, but they are separate and for separate purposes.
Another sibling mentioned that mathematical formulae are "discovered" not invented. This is true. Let me give you another explanation within the bounds of obviousness:
A mathematical algorithm is its functioning. Given the transformation that it supplies, you cannot help but have the algorithm itself. The algorithm is an answer: the genius is in knowing what question to ask and how to ask it. Thus the patentable invention is the application of the algorithm in a novel way.
That last bit is a bit fuzzy, sorry. it's pretty late for me.
30% and even 40% is less then 50% (duh) and thusly the minority.
Whoops, I must've gotten rushed and not been clear: the point is that even though a majority of the population thinks a certain way, that doesn't necessarily mean it translates that well over to everyday generalizations.
If you took a random group of 20 people and had to serve lunch for them, and 8 of them hate ham sandwiches, then serving ham sandwiches might not be all that good an idea.
I hope that makes what I was attempting to say a bit more clear: majority doesn't mean what we often ascribe to it. It just means >50%.
Hence it's not that great to say "the majority of men think like X, therefore the male group should get Y."
Now, as for "what thinking patterns these studies were researching?" - it's been a while. I think it was a group in Stanford in the 80's that tried to come up with male/female tests, and they kept getting those results. I believe they started off with the "nurture/discipline" modeling of parenting, then tried emotive versus logical responses.
To conclude: I think we do a disservice by focusing on gender differences rather than more fine subsets of the population. Coming up with a model of what traits are likely to cause someone to go into (or go away from) science, or perhaps even what traits/environments/educations are likely to result in adults who think.
I think a lot remains to be done regarding scientific examination of schooling.
I think the problem isn't when we say "there exist differences on average" so much as when we say "and therefore...."
As you say, "groups of individuals": any action we take towards a group has to be proportionate to that group. Want to adjust the science and math programs in a school to account for gender differences? Study the girls and boys in that school. Don't expect people to be perfect representative groups of the average.
One problem we've had for a long time with classifying patterns of thinking as either "male" or "female" is this: roughly 30% of males have a "female" thinking pattern, and roughly 30% of females have a "male" thinking pattern.
Some studies show that as 40%.
So, you can say that most males or females think in one way or another, but it's hardly representative. It's the fallacy of the mode.
I think the more important notion is one that I read a while ago: don't ask if it's inborn or not, just ask if you can change it. Our predominant concern should be with making things better.
It would be nice to know though that they are working on it. Or that they have the full staff that originally programmed it working on it. I hope that they haven't switched to some other group to do mantienance or something.
Yes, it would be nice. Actually, I would like to know what sorts of issues they're seeing (causes of, etc). I'm a sysadmin, and the prospect of getting the lowdown on what you face with that kind of massive direct-to-external-customer realtime load intrigues me.
I can understand why they don't do it, but it would be nice to hear what's going on, rather than "we're busy working on it."
I'm happy to see someone refer to Microserfs! That's an incredible book.
I keep trying to get friends to read it, it's quite short - but for some reason they avoid it like the plague. Even when I tell them it wasn't written by Microsoft.
For about the first year of my driving, I just about could not see grey cars on the road. My dad was riding with me once and he noticed that I reacted to other cars on the road, but not grey ones.
There's a huge amount of pattern recognition involved in driving - you have to have seen hours and hours of normal traffic patterns before you can see an abnormal one. Unfortunately, the reinforcement effect of having minor scares but getting out of them (and seeing all the jackasses out there) quickly convinces you that you're a "good" driver - and that goes for everyone. not just youngun's.
Also, for some people, being "good" at something means being better than those around you. This often translates to "able to move at faster speeds safely" or "able to get better performance out of the car." For some being "good" means feeling that you're in control of the situation, so they try to make sure they're going the fastest on the road, so they can thread through, "making the decisions." You can see where that goes.
I think one of the biggest problems is that there's very little feedback in cars to let you know whether or not you're driving well. Well, until you get a (non-racing-obsessed) SO later on, who will let you know all about it when you're not driving well. I actually appreciated this, I didn't know how poor my driving got when I was tired.
Well, excuse my reminiscing about being a young whippersnapper.
Grandparent is correct about strong correlation between teenage passengers in a teenager-driven car and accidents, but I'm with you on the rules thing.
I think parents should be allowed to make parenting decisions - funny, that - and decide, for example, at what age (up to age of majority, of course) their child should be able to drive, number of passengers, conditions for driving, etc.
Some parents will be total dicks about it (remember: around 16 is when your parents know they will be losing all control over you soon, and they aren't sure you're "ready" yet for the real world - never mind that they went out in the same poor shape), but there's really not much we should do about that.
I do wish there were real driving schools, though, and not these license-factories we have around here. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation teaches excellent courses on riding motorcycles (and they don't just give you the DMV's party line), I'm sure a similar course could be put together for cars.
And should be! Understanding how your car performs is the first step in knowing what you need to look out for.
My favorite was always Calculus for Majors, in which people would do these horribly complex integrals without any difficulty, but would then mess up in basic addition or multiplication.
Most mathematicians beyond a certain point don't expect you to be a calculator: they expect a mathematician.
Slashdot Mirror
it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.
Your argument ignores the information-bearing aspect of price, and the dynamic of the market.
As oil supplies run down, price goes up[1]. If demand is also increasing, price goes up even more quickly. As the price of oil rises, the comparative advantage of oil drops[2].
As the comparative advantage of oil drops, the more attractive other fuels become, leading to research into raising the comparative advantage of oil (through efficiency), or more research into other fuels to increase their comparative advantage[3].
This process goes on continuously. As a result, efficiency will rise when it is needed and alternative fuels will come into play when they are needed. There will be no overnight "ohmygodwe'reoutofoil!"
So the question becomes: should we jink with things? I mean, it would be reasonable to assume that artificially raising the price of oil would cause increased investment in either oil efficiency or alternate fuels - we've said as much above.
If we're just considering decreased usage of oil as the only good in the system, then this would make sense. However, if that were already the case then there would be no need to tweak with the price system: the lower demand for inefficient oil-using cars would provide the exact same investment patterns into oil efficiency and alternate fuels!
So the conclusion would then be that people consider other goals within the fuel-burning realm than just the use of oil to be important. If that is the case then optimizing for reduced oil usage would hurt the other goals people have. So the best way to make people happy is to not mess with the price structure and let oil work its way out of the system naturally[4].
[1] - price is not just current-availability over demand, it also incorporates prospective supply and demand.
[2] - when you have a need (energy), you also have a selection of methods with which to fill that need. You choose the one most advantageous to you, so it doesn't matter what the absolute price of fuel is - only how it compares to other fuels.
[3] - let's say that you have 3 fuels: aberhol, bakernol, and crepetol. All other things being equal, if they are $3/kj, $4/kj, and $15/kj, it would make sense to put most of your research dollars into aberhol, followed by bakernol, and almost none into crepetol.
I think the non-ratification of the treaty has a lot more to do with the unilateral go it alone against the world spirit of the current administration
First off, I'm not a fan of the current administration. Now that the "whose pocket is he in"/"sockpuppet" stuff is out of the way, let me say:
Whenever I hear that some goal will require us to buckle down and "all pull together as a team." I remember the quote:
Particularly when we're talking about on the order of nations. See, that's the thing: global warming solutions have always been worried about things on the level of nations. All these nations have to do X. Let's work together!
You're right on about how the first world wants to be equal some of the time. Part of the problem with the "get on the bandwagon" stuff is that it prevents us from saying "I agree with the need, but I'm not sure this is the best way to fulfill it."
Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).
The link provided above under "consensus" linked to a Wikipedia article that described different causes of "climate change" (both man-made and non), with the consensus being that the earth is warming, but we do not know if it is man-made.
Part of the problem is that there is word-pollution going on. "Climate change" is now the preferred term over "global warming", and both of these phrases sound reasonable - but they are not what they sound like. "Climate change" and "global warming" both refer to what is sometimes specifically called "anthropic climate change".
This results in some pretty pained arguments, as if someone asks "do you believe in climate change?" and you answer "yes", then you're read as saying "humans are causing the Earth to become warmer", but if you say "no", then you're read as saying "the Earth is not warming."
This is, unfortunately, typical for any popular argument.
Sound advice.
I have a friend of mine who insists on talking tech whenever possible. Makes me want to throttle him when there are ladies about and he pulls that.
You make a good point, allow me to run with it for a bit.
A major problem in America is our Socialist/Marketist hybrid approach. The "no more nuke plants" problem is a result of not respecting property rights - if you own the land and own the land that might be affected, you should be able to do it. We have legislatively undermined these rights, similar to the wetlands issues.
If we either respected private property or went fully socialist and had the state be in charge of land, then this would cease to be an issue.
I wouldn't want to be in the latter country, but it would solve some problems.
Further, consider the rhetoric here: China builds a nuclear reactor. The "US" can't. Since when is it the domain of the government to be in charge of scientific advances? I mean, it is now, but should it be? And should it be when we consider our country to be a private property country?
Just some things to think about.
good way to meet women, horrible way to get dates.
Okay, I'd like to know right now exactly why it is that car mechanics are perceived as "hotter" than computer mechanics? Even if identically good looking.
I don't inspire nightmares in the people I meet, but I've noticed I have a lot better luck with women when I don't admit any technical knowledge - and I definitely don't offer to fix their computer.
I think part of it is the idiot geeks that I see: they're good at computers too, but they're horrible to talk to. Somehow by fixing a gal's computer I get placed in the same category.
You know, it's funny: I've noticed the opposite effect. Now mind you, I was doing work when I was young.
If I fixed someone's computer for free, if something messed up later it was my fault. My advice was also completely ignored, as I was not "knowledgable."
If I charged a little for my services, I would indeed be beholden to them for outrageous demands ($10 to fix a computer turned into a complete re-installation, a 2-hour hardware isolation job [bad power supply, as it turned out], and recovering all their old data. Thanks, mom!)
I found, however, when I charged enough, things were different. At $60/hr they want you to get in and get out with fixing whatever it is. They take your advice very seriously, as they don't want to pay for you to come around again.
As a nice side-effect, it also makes them revise their rhetoric. Funny how they "have to have" X, but when you quote them $100 to get that done it suddenly becomes much less important.
You see a similar thing in business: waiters in a cheap restaurant get abused a lot more than waiters in an expensive restaurant. If you're asked to consult on a project, demand a very high fee or your advice won't be taken seriously.
The exception to this rule is family, of course. They're often indignant that you would even conceive of charging them money for something as trivial as 8 hours of your time (and frustration. Since I've worked only on Mac and Linux now for about 5 years, working on Windows is torture). So I did the only thing I could: I converted the problem (my mother) over to a Mac. I've yet to get woken up in the morning with a tech support problem since I did that.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Knuth had what seemed like a good idea 40 years ago and can't let it go. (Actually, two of them; the other was that he could write a single comprehensive CS textbook.)
If his idea is to write a comprehensive CS textbook, then that probably is a mistake. Whatever comes out of the process certainly is interesting, however.
Your other comments rest on the assumption that you can only talk about algorithms by writing code in an actual executable language. But lots of CS books don't do that. They rely on pseudo-code, or they compare implementations in various high- and low-level languages. Even TAOCP is written so you can skip over the MIX parts.
Yes, you can skip over the MIX parts, but the point is that he is providing easily emulate-able code that precisely defines what he means. A working implementation of his concept that you can see and work with. Psuedocode cannot do this, and the various high level languages do turn into "language of the decade" competitions.
Further, as he states, he is demonstrating what it is that these high level languages are doing at the most basic level on a von-Neumann-variety machine. This is important in many cases, as the high level languages "mask"[1] this process.
[1] - scare quotes are because this masking has a purpose: elision, different way of looking at things, etc. But it is masking nonetheless when you're trying to say "what is it that this fundamentally does?"
Incidentally, you can also skip over the proof sections of TAOCP. That doesn't mean they're not a necessary part of the book.
So instead he has to update it for the machine architecture of the decade.
I think he's doing a bit better than "decade."
As he says, part of the reason for MMIX is that many of the concepts needed for a good machine of this type had not been discovered when MIX was around. Now that things are to a state where they can be well-expressed, he's using a new model. Well, that and we tend to use floating point and ASCII these days.
So, you're saying you won't have to worry about that problem?
Actually, I think I do. I am often forced to choose between a Republican and a Democrat, as there is no Libertarian on the ticket, so I worry that by voting for one I will become "invested" in him - and thus be less likely to criticize when I should. Feel more of a need to defend him.
And, should the time ever come when a Libertarian gets elected to a town counsel position (the most likely event), would I be willing to throw him out if he does bad - knowing as I do how unlikely it is that another LP candidate will come along?
I'd just like to say that these things come in cycles. They are society's response to perceived threats and changing goals. Nixon's FBI did some horrible, horrible things (black bag jobs, intimidation, assassination, etc) and was never really held accountable for it. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and though he was assassinated, he wasn't assassinated because he'd thrown a lot of people in jail without charges.
Things will change, and if we focus on changing the average opinion rather than on "holding people accountable" we'll be okay.
I see a lot of the things that we do, and I think "this is what it looked like when Rome fell." But you know what? I think things are going to get better.
Here's something else: you want more liberty? Put more in your daily life. Think about how you live today and ask yourself: what can I do to make things more free? Oppose your own inner martinet, and work for freedom around you. You'll be a lot better off, and you'll actually get much more accomplished than railing against Bush.
Just an idea.
Oh: and make sure that you don't let Democrats rest on their laurels when they're in office. One thing I hate about the current split is that Republicans often refuse to criticize the president. Don't do the same thing when it's your guy in office (note: I'm a libertarian).
Well, now-adays it's rarely "classified" it's just "sensitive." You see, sensitive doesn't have any accountability. You can actually get in trouble for classifying something that shouldn't have been.
Want an example of "sensitive"? Look up the Barlow case regarding the TSA. All details concerning airport security are considered "sensitive." This includes things such as "as a TSA examiner, are you encouraged to look for drugs?" (which would be illegal).
There's far more than that. Also, the FOIA compliance rate has gone way, way down under this administration. I believe the ACLU has hard numbers on that (not surprising, given how many FOIA requests they make).
An argument could be made that "sensitive isn't classified" and it would be correct, but it belies the reality that "sensitive" is effectively "classified."
Excellent explanation! Care to take a stab at a similarly clear one for trademark?
That one throws a lot of people.
A sibling post mentions the desire to have a "full and complete record" to allow the public to exploit inventions after they fall out of patent. This is true. Allow me to take a different tack and see if it helps explain things.
You do not have to patent an invention.
Let me stress that again: you do not have to patent an invention.
A patent is a disclosure of your invention and a description of its functioning, sufficient to make a working implementation - given the proper tools. If you give this out there is a more than reasonable chance that a competitor could solve the same problem in a different, novel way. So, many companies have their inventions remain magic, never disclosing the problems they solved or how they solved them.
This is an important concept because it phrases the patent not as a reward for your labor but as a public contract: you give the public something, the public gives you something.
So the question regarding whether or not something should be patentable should not be the effort that went into it, it should be: is the public interested in it?
This is the reason for the obviousness clause. If you were to demonstrate your product, such as a shock absorber, without revealing any of its functioning, and another company could equal or better your achievement just from looking at it, then you do not deserve a patent for that invention.
So it is with most software: how many pieces of software cannot be replicated after having their functionality demonstrated? The amount of complaining about "reverse engineering" should tell you all you need to know about that.
The "reward for things that would not be produced otherwise" is copyright. The creation and maintenance of a system whereby a company is identifiable is trademark (names, icons, colors, etc). It is easy to conflate the concepts of trademark, copyright, and patent, but they are separate and for separate purposes.
Another sibling mentioned that mathematical formulae are "discovered" not invented. This is true. Let me give you another explanation within the bounds of obviousness:
A mathematical algorithm is its functioning. Given the transformation that it supplies, you cannot help but have the algorithm itself. The algorithm is an answer: the genius is in knowing what question to ask and how to ask it. Thus the patentable invention is the application of the algorithm in a novel way.
That last bit is a bit fuzzy, sorry. it's pretty late for me.
First off, thanks for the reply.
30% and even 40% is less then 50% (duh) and thusly the minority.
Whoops, I must've gotten rushed and not been clear: the point is that even though a majority of the population thinks a certain way, that doesn't necessarily mean it translates that well over to everyday generalizations.
If you took a random group of 20 people and had to serve lunch for them, and 8 of them hate ham sandwiches, then serving ham sandwiches might not be all that good an idea.
I hope that makes what I was attempting to say a bit more clear: majority doesn't mean what we often ascribe to it. It just means >50%.
Hence it's not that great to say "the majority of men think like X, therefore the male group should get Y."
Now, as for "what thinking patterns these studies were researching?" - it's been a while. I think it was a group in Stanford in the 80's that tried to come up with male/female tests, and they kept getting those results. I believe they started off with the "nurture/discipline" modeling of parenting, then tried emotive versus logical responses.
To conclude: I think we do a disservice by focusing on gender differences rather than more fine subsets of the population. Coming up with a model of what traits are likely to cause someone to go into (or go away from) science, or perhaps even what traits/environments/educations are likely to result in adults who think.
I think a lot remains to be done regarding scientific examination of schooling.
I think the problem isn't when we say "there exist differences on average" so much as when we say "and therefore...."
As you say, "groups of individuals": any action we take towards a group has to be proportionate to that group. Want to adjust the science and math programs in a school to account for gender differences? Study the girls and boys in that school. Don't expect people to be perfect representative groups of the average.
One problem we've had for a long time with classifying patterns of thinking as either "male" or "female" is this: roughly 30% of males have a "female" thinking pattern, and roughly 30% of females have a "male" thinking pattern.
Some studies show that as 40%.
So, you can say that most males or females think in one way or another, but it's hardly representative. It's the fallacy of the mode.
I think the more important notion is one that I read a while ago: don't ask if it's inborn or not, just ask if you can change it. Our predominant concern should be with making things better.
It would be nice to know though that they are working on it. Or that they have the full staff that originally programmed it working on it. I hope that they haven't switched to some other group to do mantienance or something.
Yes, it would be nice. Actually, I would like to know what sorts of issues they're seeing (causes of, etc). I'm a sysadmin, and the prospect of getting the lowdown on what you face with that kind of massive direct-to-external-customer realtime load intrigues me.
I can understand why they don't do it, but it would be nice to hear what's going on, rather than "we're busy working on it."
Ah well, maybe in the news rags.
Famous episode with Penn and Teller.
"We say serious things in a silly way, and people laugh. The government says silly things in a serious way and people pay attention."
I'm happy to see someone refer to Microserfs! That's an incredible book.
I keep trying to get friends to read it, it's quite short - but for some reason they avoid it like the plague. Even when I tell them it wasn't written by Microsoft.
For about the first year of my driving, I just about could not see grey cars on the road. My dad was riding with me once and he noticed that I reacted to other cars on the road, but not grey ones.
There's a huge amount of pattern recognition involved in driving - you have to have seen hours and hours of normal traffic patterns before you can see an abnormal one. Unfortunately, the reinforcement effect of having minor scares but getting out of them (and seeing all the jackasses out there) quickly convinces you that you're a "good" driver - and that goes for everyone. not just youngun's.
Also, for some people, being "good" at something means being better than those around you. This often translates to "able to move at faster speeds safely" or "able to get better performance out of the car." For some being "good" means feeling that you're in control of the situation, so they try to make sure they're going the fastest on the road, so they can thread through, "making the decisions." You can see where that goes.
I think one of the biggest problems is that there's very little feedback in cars to let you know whether or not you're driving well. Well, until you get a (non-racing-obsessed) SO later on, who will let you know all about it when you're not driving well. I actually appreciated this, I didn't know how poor my driving got when I was tired.
Well, excuse my reminiscing about being a young whippersnapper.
Grandparent is correct about strong correlation between teenage passengers in a teenager-driven car and accidents, but I'm with you on the rules thing.
I think parents should be allowed to make parenting decisions - funny, that - and decide, for example, at what age (up to age of majority, of course) their child should be able to drive, number of passengers, conditions for driving, etc.
Some parents will be total dicks about it (remember: around 16 is when your parents know they will be losing all control over you soon, and they aren't sure you're "ready" yet for the real world - never mind that they went out in the same poor shape), but there's really not much we should do about that.
I do wish there were real driving schools, though, and not these license-factories we have around here. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation teaches excellent courses on riding motorcycles (and they don't just give you the DMV's party line), I'm sure a similar course could be put together for cars.
And should be! Understanding how your car performs is the first step in knowing what you need to look out for.
Whew, good thing you live in Canada - we haven't spoken English here in the US in centuries!
My favorite was always Calculus for Majors, in which people would do these horribly complex integrals without any difficulty, but would then mess up in basic addition or multiplication.
Most mathematicians beyond a certain point don't expect you to be a calculator: they expect a mathematician.
Our society has placed great emphasis on the government as the vehicle for solving our problems.
We have reaped as we have sown, in education.