For all those upholding the/. tradition of not reading the article, here are the concerns voiced by the reviewer in the acceptance letter and the 'authors' responses to them :
Dear Author,
Thank you for your contribution to the Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM). We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript:
ID : 5300285
TITLE : Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE
AUTHORS:Marcie Rathke
has been accepted. Congratulations!
Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised:
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.
2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.
(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.
(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.
(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
Please revised your paper and send it to us as soon as possible.
The author has asked me to include her responses to the referee’s comments:
1. The referee’s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.
2. The paper certainly does contain a plethora of mathematical notation, but it is to be hoped that readers with the appropriate background can infer its meaning (or lack thereof) from context.
3. It is indeed customary for a mathematical paper to contain a proof of its main result. This omission admittedly represents a slight flaw in the manuscript.
The author believes the proofs given for the referenced propositions are entirely sufficient [they read, respectively, "This is obvious" and "This is clear"]. However, she respects the referee’s opinion and would consider adding a few additional details.
4. On this point the author must strenuously object. The LATEX formatting of the manuscript is perfectly standard and in accordance with generally accepted practice. The same cannot be said of APM’s required template, which uses Microsoft Word [!].
5. Professor Rathke is pleased that the referee nevertheless recommends the paper be accepted, since clearly these minor differences of opinion in no way affect the paper’s overall validity and significance.
Bummer.
Comedy gold
Also it seems that author declined to pay the $500 it would cost to publish the paper, hmmm...
Yes, it does seem to be the case. In any case, anyone with the ability to mine asteroids at this point in time is very unlikely to be concerned with Federal law anyway
Ahh but I can disprove your disproof, or at least cast reasonable doubt:
What if someone did go back and kill Hitler, and found that the resulting future was intolerably worse as a result, the time traveller (or probably another one to avoid too many paradoxes) goes back and stops him killing Hitler in the first place to restore the current timeline as we know it. We would never know...
The calculations in the latest study were quite straightforward, but many questions remain.
“I am very interested to see if these findings can be reproduced in very different environments such as permafrost and caves,” says Michael Knapp, a palaeogeneticist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand.
Moreover, the researchers found that age differences accounted for only 38.6% of the variation in DNA degradation between moa-bone samples. “Other factors that impact on DNA preservation are clearly at work,” says Bunce. “Storage following excavation, soil chemistry and even the time of year when the animal died are all likely contributing factors that will need looking into.”
Clearly the researchers are aware of the effects of different conditions and levels of preservation and are looking into it. Would be a bit worrying if they didn't.
While this guy is clearly a vile prick, this is a dangerous precedent.
If the thought police start arresting people for being offensive on the internet then they'll be rather busy. When I read the headline I honestly thought he posted some false hope that April had been found alive or something that misled the police investigation, i.e. a legitamately arrestable offence. Yes I would like to see this guy get duffed up/ spend a few days in jail to think about how much of a disgusting moron he is, but we simply cannot arrest all the offensive people (or people who make offensive posts occasionally), so all we can do is pick and choose. What a wonderful weapon for a police state,
" Excuse me sir, some people found your article lampooning Prime Minister Cameron for lying about xxxxxx *extremely offensive*, I think you'd better come with us."
I've had them on the phone on more than occasion, the funniest time was was probably the third time they called, it was an asian sounding woman who told me my computer was sending them messages that it was infected. I asked which one as I have three, she said I could go to any one, anyway I humoured her to find out what the scam was. She took me to a remote access site (which in itself seemed perfectly legitimate), anyway at this point I'd seen enough and called her out as a scammer, her response made me laugh, 'Hey you!' She said, 'Stick the phone up your ass!' and then she hung up on me. Awesome customer service:)
Glad they've been caught.
This does not apply to me. I am exactly the same, online or offline. Whoever met me online and then offline could testify. I use some profanity in both "worlds" and I act and react the same. These realms are't different in my view. Of course, I'm maybe one of few, but I've seen other people act similarly.
I'm pretty similar myself, I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say IRL (apart from acronyms that is). I always use a pseudonym, but I usually use the same one in most sites I frequent. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I certainly feel that my online persona is me and I don't want my online persona to be thought of any differently than my real life one. Not even tempted to start calling people cocksuckers at random. Maybe I'm just weird.
My thoughts exactly, it certainly is exiting tech, but not likely to be the device that everyone has in their home. Hackerspaces could be the way forward in my mind, especially as they allow the customer to come into contact with the manufacturing process and take advantage of the resident experts.
The lack of one in my local area has led me to look in to the possibilities of starting one myself.
Yes, nothing is invented in a 'vacuum', and I did say in my original AC post that I agreed with your main point. My point was quite simply the way you glossed over a major part of computing history with something like 'The Brits muddled along with the help of thier allies and a bit a captured tech', which clearly misrepresents the facts. I made my point quite clearly (as did a few others), and neither did I suggest that Turing invented the machine by himself, I even gave a prominent mention to Tommy Flowers, a man whom many haven't heard of even if they know the gist of the story.
No taunting involved either, although from your replies arguing with points I *didn't* make I'm guessing you feel a little 'taunted'. If I was going to taunt I would ask something like, 'Which other programmable electronic computers were being built in 1943?'
I was the AC posting from work yesterday, and no I did not assert that. I see where you're coming from, Enigma code was the *reason* that Colossus was created, but not the 'basis of the machine design' in any way. No more than traffic lights are designed to stop traffic when necessary but they are not 'based on the design of a car'.
I use freetrack for flightsims and racing games etc, it's free headtracking software and can be found here: http://www.free-track.net/english/ . I put my setup together for around £30 including the PS3 etyetoy I use as the camera and the soldering iron as well! Slight modification for a webcam is needed to remove the IR filter, but it is quite straightforward as per this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJfuP7YgPA.
In conjunction with GlovePIE you can program your head movements in freetrack to any controls you desire https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie (normally I'd say glovePIE.org, but it seems to have been 'hacked' by a moron for the time being). It can be used with almost any external controller, but it works very well with Freetrack.
For instance in an FPS you could use your head to control WASD (lean forward for W, lean back for S, lean left for A, and lean right for D ) while your able hand controls the mouse. You could however use whatever variation suits you for any particular style of game.
Hope that helps.
I use freetrack for headtracking in flightsims, racing games and Arma II, it's a free version of TrackIR (overpriced and aggressive about its dubious IP so I avoid) look here: http://www.free-track.net/english/. It is quite simple to build a headset with some IR LEDs and almost any camera will work with it. I built my set-up for around £30 including the soldering iron and a second hand PS3 eyetoy modded as per these instructions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJfuP7YgPA.
In conjunction with Glovepie, software which will allow you to program controls via almost any external controller https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie.
You would be able to program custom controls for any game of your choosing.
For example in an FPS you would be able to use head movement to control WASD keys ( Lean forward for W, lean back for S, lean left for A, lean right for D) and your able hand for the mouse. Here is the link for Glovepie https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie. I would normally give you glovePIE.org, but some retarded script kiddie seems to have 'hacked' it at the moment. Happy gaming...
This is a very good article, every/. nerd worth his honors should read it. It's pushed my paranoia levels almost up to normal again. That alone was worth the time. I've been dragging out that backup HDD for my MB Air far to long and will now change that.
I'm also going to solidly review my online presence and accounts, and how they could be linked. And fix any problems that pop up.
Bottom line: Read the article, it's a healthy wake-up call and if you're like me, you need that once in a while.
My 2 cents.
Yes indeed, we may not be making the same mistakes as Mr Honan, but this should be treated as a wake up call to review your own security policies.
Mine are better that most, as I guess is the norm on Slashdot, but our time would be better spent looking for the chinks in our own online armour, rather than mocking Mr Honan for not backing up his Mac.
It was stupid though.
As a relative latecomer to Slashdot I have to agree. You only have to click one of the older 'if you enjoy this story you may also like' links, and read a genuine story followed by an interesting discussion that is actually related to the article, to realise how far downhill this place has gone. *Sigh*
James Bond will save us, and besides, that supervillian is just waiting to make a few international transfers to a bank account in Belize opened in the name of his dog before the device goes off. Who's the main suspect? Half the British government actually (and Harry Rednapp).
I would argue that, in some cases, morality and research are inseparable. How much more rapidly could our understanding of human development advance if we had no qualms about little things, such as manipulating the genes of a fetus? Mice, while a good analogue for humans, are far from perfect. Why don't we have test humans, instead of test mice? Surely, if morality doesn't matter, than research should trump in such a case.
I believe you see my point. This specific example is possibly a case of hyperbole, but the same principle applies to so many other things. Sometimes, no matter how much you would rather remove "morality" from science, it just can't happen. Scientists must make decisions concerning ethics. The Stanford prison experiment is a good example of where research trumped ethics. A huge amount on human psychology was discovered, but was the experiment ethical? Science cannot amputate itself from morality.
Absolutely, bob on. Read politics instead of morals to understand my point. Dispassionate rather than amoral.
Shouldn't post drunk.
Any worthwhile scientific avenue can be used or exploited in a positive or negative way. Human nature is the real question in point.
Science seems to be over politicised in general at the moment, and questions like this simply epitomise the situation. If scientists could just get on with, for instance, the benefits of stem cell research, with funding that had no strings attached then we would all be much better off. Leave researchers to be researchers, and moralists to be moralists and ne'er the twain shall meet. Science should not be bound by the qualms of people that don't understand what research means. The potential use of conclusive research should be debated in a moral sense, not the research itself.
"'The Government's position' means 'the best explanation of past events that cannot be disproved by available facts'."
I don't see the objection to this one.
What's missing is a bit of context, effectively 'the best lie that cannot be disproved by the available facts' was the meaning of the original joke. Sir Humphrey was careful not to use words like 'lie' where possible.
Fair point, but if it is stopped on a legal basis then surely whatever you call ACTA 2.0 it would have to differ in its content. If you simply rename it it could be stopped again under the same legal basis.
Nice post, don't really see why you've posted AC, but as someone who lives in the UK we do have an extremely high level of corporate influence in government, especially from the banks. Corupt self-interested ministers, cash for questions, the 'rock and a hard place' two party system, the list could go on and on but suffice to say we're not so far behind the US( in blatant corruption) as you might like to imagine.
As far as I know there has been no public debate on ACTA here, and that does not bode well for decisions this side of the pond.
It does not matter. You cannot patent life so even if these farmers are using second generation Monsanto seed on purpose they are doing nothing wrong.
Unfortunately you can patent life, and get away with it it seems. In what you mean though I completely agree, you shouldn't be able to patent life. This isn't even the thin end of the wedge I'm sorry to say, we're living in a ultra-capitalist world where everything is for sale and can be owned, including the blueprints for life. The saddest thing is that no-one seems to be fighting back.
100% right. If the value of the exam is the ability to solve a real world problem then give them real world conditions. If the answer is copy and pastable then the question isn't good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
For all those upholding the /. tradition of not reading the article, here are the concerns voiced by the reviewer in the acceptance letter and the 'authors' responses to them :
Dear Author,
Thank you for your contribution to the Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM). We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript:
ID : 5300285
TITLE : Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE
AUTHORS :Marcie Rathke
has been accepted. Congratulations!
Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised :
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.
2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.
(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.
(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.
(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
Please revised your paper and send it to us as soon as possible.
The author has asked me to include her responses to the referee’s comments:
1. The referee’s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.
2. The paper certainly does contain a plethora of mathematical notation, but it is to be hoped that readers with the appropriate background can infer its meaning (or lack thereof) from context.
3. It is indeed customary for a mathematical paper to contain a proof of its main result. This omission admittedly represents a slight flaw in the manuscript. The author believes the proofs given for the referenced propositions are entirely sufficient [they read, respectively, "This is obvious" and "This is clear"]. However, she respects the referee’s opinion and would consider adding a few additional details.
4. On this point the author must strenuously object. The LATEX formatting of the manuscript is perfectly standard and in accordance with generally accepted practice. The same cannot be said of APM’s required template, which uses Microsoft Word [!].
5. Professor Rathke is pleased that the referee nevertheless recommends the paper be accepted, since clearly these minor differences of opinion in no way affect the paper’s overall validity and significance.
Bummer.
Comedy gold
Also it seems that author declined to pay the $500 it would cost to publish the paper, hmmm...
I very much doubt the damages were 800 000.
It may however have cost them approaching that to properly secure their systems in the wake of the incident.
Also I never thought I'd say the words 'Theresa May made a good decision for a change', I'm sure it won't happen again.
Yes, it does seem to be the case. In any case, anyone with the ability to mine asteroids at this point in time is very unlikely to be concerned with Federal law anyway
Ahh but I can disprove your disproof, or at least cast reasonable doubt:
What if someone did go back and kill Hitler, and found that the resulting future was intolerably worse as a result, the time traveller (or probably another one to avoid too many paradoxes) goes back and stops him killing Hitler in the first place to restore the current timeline as we know it. We would never know...
FTA:
The calculations in the latest study were quite straightforward, but many questions remain. “I am very interested to see if these findings can be reproduced in very different environments such as permafrost and caves,” says Michael Knapp, a palaeogeneticist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. Moreover, the researchers found that age differences accounted for only 38.6% of the variation in DNA degradation between moa-bone samples. “Other factors that impact on DNA preservation are clearly at work,” says Bunce. “Storage following excavation, soil chemistry and even the time of year when the animal died are all likely contributing factors that will need looking into.”
Clearly the researchers are aware of the effects of different conditions and levels of preservation and are looking into it. Would be a bit worrying if they didn't.
While this guy is clearly a vile prick, this is a dangerous precedent.
If the thought police start arresting people for being offensive on the internet then they'll be rather busy. When I read the headline I honestly thought he posted some false hope that April had been found alive or something that misled the police investigation, i.e. a legitamately arrestable offence. Yes I would like to see this guy get duffed up/ spend a few days in jail to think about how much of a disgusting moron he is, but we simply cannot arrest all the offensive people (or people who make offensive posts occasionally), so all we can do is pick and choose. What a wonderful weapon for a police state,
" Excuse me sir, some people found your article lampooning Prime Minister Cameron for lying about xxxxxx *extremely offensive*, I think you'd better come with us."
I've had them on the phone on more than occasion, the funniest time was was probably the third time they called, it was an asian sounding woman who told me my computer was sending them messages that it was infected. I asked which one as I have three, she said I could go to any one, anyway I humoured her to find out what the scam was. She took me to a remote access site (which in itself seemed perfectly legitimate), anyway at this point I'd seen enough and called her out as a scammer, her response made me laugh, 'Hey you!' She said, 'Stick the phone up your ass!' and then she hung up on me. Awesome customer service :)
Glad they've been caught.
This does not apply to me. I am exactly the same, online or offline. Whoever met me online and then offline could testify. I use some profanity in both "worlds" and I act and react the same. These realms are't different in my view. Of course, I'm maybe one of few, but I've seen other people act similarly.
I'm pretty similar myself, I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say IRL (apart from acronyms that is). I always use a pseudonym, but I usually use the same one in most sites I frequent. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I certainly feel that my online persona is me and I don't want my online persona to be thought of any differently than my real life one. Not even tempted to start calling people cocksuckers at random. Maybe I'm just weird.
My thoughts exactly, it certainly is exiting tech, but not likely to be the device that everyone has in their home. Hackerspaces could be the way forward in my mind, especially as they allow the customer to come into contact with the manufacturing process and take advantage of the resident experts.
The lack of one in my local area has led me to look in to the possibilities of starting one myself.
Yes, nothing is invented in a 'vacuum', and I did say in my original AC post that I agreed with your main point. My point was quite simply the way you glossed over a major part of computing history with something like 'The Brits muddled along with the help of thier allies and a bit a captured tech', which clearly misrepresents the facts. I made my point quite clearly (as did a few others), and neither did I suggest that Turing invented the machine by himself, I even gave a prominent mention to Tommy Flowers, a man whom many haven't heard of even if they know the gist of the story.
No taunting involved either, although from your replies arguing with points I *didn't* make I'm guessing you feel a little 'taunted'. If I was going to taunt I would ask something like, 'Which other programmable electronic computers were being built in 1943?'
I was the AC posting from work yesterday, and no I did not assert that. I see where you're coming from, Enigma code was the *reason* that Colossus was created, but not the 'basis of the machine design' in any way. No more than traffic lights are designed to stop traffic when necessary but they are not 'based on the design of a car'.
FTFM
I use freetrack for flightsims and racing games etc, it's free headtracking software and can be found here: http://www.free-track.net/english/ . I put my setup together for around £30 including the PS3 etyetoy I use as the camera and the soldering iron as well! Slight modification for a webcam is needed to remove the IR filter, but it is quite straightforward as per this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJfuP7YgPA. In conjunction with GlovePIE you can program your head movements in freetrack to any controls you desire https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie (normally I'd say glovePIE.org, but it seems to have been 'hacked' by a moron for the time being). It can be used with almost any external controller, but it works very well with Freetrack. For instance in an FPS you could use your head to control WASD (lean forward for W, lean back for S, lean left for A, and lean right for D ) while your able hand controls the mouse. You could however use whatever variation suits you for any particular style of game. Hope that helps.
I use freetrack for headtracking in flightsims, racing games and Arma II, it's a free version of TrackIR (overpriced and aggressive about its dubious IP so I avoid) look here: http://www.free-track.net/english/. It is quite simple to build a headset with some IR LEDs and almost any camera will work with it. I built my set-up for around £30 including the soldering iron and a second hand PS3 eyetoy modded as per these instructions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jJfuP7YgPA. In conjunction with Glovepie, software which will allow you to program controls via almost any external controller https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie. You would be able to program custom controls for any game of your choosing. For example in an FPS you would be able to use head movement to control WASD keys ( Lean forward for W, lean back for S, lean left for A, lean right for D) and your able hand for the mouse. Here is the link for Glovepie https://sites.google.com/site/carlkenner/glovepie. I would normally give you glovePIE.org, but some retarded script kiddie seems to have 'hacked' it at the moment. Happy gaming...
This is a very good article, every /. nerd worth his honors should read it. It's pushed my paranoia levels almost up to normal again. That alone was worth the time. I've been dragging out that backup HDD for my MB Air far to long and will now change that.
I'm also going to solidly review my online presence and accounts, and how they could be linked. And fix any problems that pop up.
Bottom line: Read the article, it's a healthy wake-up call and if you're like me, you need that once in a while.
My 2 cents.
Yes indeed, we may not be making the same mistakes as Mr Honan, but this should be treated as a wake up call to review your own security policies. Mine are better that most, as I guess is the norm on Slashdot, but our time would be better spent looking for the chinks in our own online armour, rather than mocking Mr Honan for not backing up his Mac. It was stupid though.
As a relative latecomer to Slashdot I have to agree. You only have to click one of the older 'if you enjoy this story you may also like' links, and read a genuine story followed by an interesting discussion that is actually related to the article, to realise how far downhill this place has gone. *Sigh*
James Bond will save us, and besides, that supervillian is just waiting to make a few international transfers to a bank account in Belize opened in the name of his dog before the device goes off. Who's the main suspect? Half the British government actually (and Harry Rednapp).
I would argue that, in some cases, morality and research are inseparable. How much more rapidly could our understanding of human development advance if we had no qualms about little things, such as manipulating the genes of a fetus? Mice, while a good analogue for humans, are far from perfect. Why don't we have test humans, instead of test mice? Surely, if morality doesn't matter, than research should trump in such a case.
I believe you see my point. This specific example is possibly a case of hyperbole, but the same principle applies to so many other things. Sometimes, no matter how much you would rather remove "morality" from science, it just can't happen. Scientists must make decisions concerning ethics. The Stanford prison experiment is a good example of where research trumped ethics. A huge amount on human psychology was discovered, but was the experiment ethical? Science cannot amputate itself from morality.
Absolutely, bob on. Read politics instead of morals to understand my point. Dispassionate rather than amoral. Shouldn't post drunk.
Any worthwhile scientific avenue can be used or exploited in a positive or negative way. Human nature is the real question in point. Science seems to be over politicised in general at the moment, and questions like this simply epitomise the situation. If scientists could just get on with, for instance, the benefits of stem cell research, with funding that had no strings attached then we would all be much better off. Leave researchers to be researchers, and moralists to be moralists and ne'er the twain shall meet. Science should not be bound by the qualms of people that don't understand what research means. The potential use of conclusive research should be debated in a moral sense, not the research itself.
I don't see the objection to this one.
What's missing is a bit of context, effectively 'the best lie that cannot be disproved by the available facts' was the meaning of the original joke. Sir Humphrey was careful not to use words like 'lie' where possible.
Fair point, but if it is stopped on a legal basis then surely whatever you call ACTA 2.0 it would have to differ in its content. If you simply rename it it could be stopped again under the same legal basis.
Nice post, don't really see why you've posted AC, but as someone who lives in the UK we do have an extremely high level of corporate influence in government, especially from the banks. Corupt self-interested ministers, cash for questions, the 'rock and a hard place' two party system, the list could go on and on but suffice to say we're not so far behind the US( in blatant corruption) as you might like to imagine. As far as I know there has been no public debate on ACTA here, and that does not bode well for decisions this side of the pond.
It does not matter. You cannot patent life so even if these farmers are using second generation Monsanto seed on purpose they are doing nothing wrong.
Unfortunately you can patent life, and get away with it it seems. In what you mean though I completely agree, you shouldn't be able to patent life. This isn't even the thin end of the wedge I'm sorry to say, we're living in a ultra-capitalist world where everything is for sale and can be owned, including the blueprints for life. The saddest thing is that no-one seems to be fighting back.
100% right. If the value of the exam is the ability to solve a real world problem then give them real world conditions. If the answer is copy and pastable then the question isn't good enough.
....explode with delight