Yeah, you're right - Mensa lets people join it based on the GRE score too. And the last time I checked, 1/3rd of GRE was based on your verbal abilities.
Not just that, what about those who were raised in a different language? Mensa clubbing them all into one big group of "non-intelligentsia" because they couldn't ace a few puzzles is quite amusing, to say the least.
I do not know if Mensa made a mistake or not, but I do know that MS (and MSR) has some smart folks - more smart folks than I've met at the local Mensa.
Your comment brings up something else to mind, though - if such abilities are related to one's upbringing and origin, the same could be said of what Mensa considers to be "intelligence", too.
For all you know, you may have the ability (whatever - musical, mathematical etc) and not know it at all. Or you might have the ability and do well otherwise, but not in test conditions.
> I'm trying to understand what the real crux of your argument is.
Mensa claims to have the top 1-2% of the intelligentsia of the human population, but establishes the standard for this intelligence on the mere ability to solve mathematical and logical problems.
That would imply that they measure intelligence solely as a function of one's ability to solve these kinda problems, and anyone who does not fit the bill isn't smart enough for them.
They can go ahead and do all that they want, but the fact that they club the rest of the world into a "you're not smart enough to join us" lump does grate on me.
How would you react to a worldwide club of intelligentsia who say that only those who paint Spunky (as another reader put it) will be considered intelligent?
That's how Mensa sounds to me - quite ridiculous. Their basis of what they consider intelligence is amusing, that's all.
See, if you consider artistic talents to be skills, then so are mathematical or logical abilities. Intelligence by that definition could also be construed as a gift of sorts, no different from someone who can draw.
I'm a sciences guy - I feel extremely comfortable under quantitative stuff, and do quite well in stuff related to that, too.
However, I know for a fact that I suck at qualitative stuff - and I've seen lots of people for whom those qualitative abilities are second nature. And some of these people lack the mathematical and logical skills that I do not find all that extraordinary.
Inherently, I've always known that I'll be in the sciences. And some of those folks have always known that they'd be in the arts.
The difference is, the society considers my abilities to be intelligence for the simple reason that it has easy, tangible, real world application. And perhaps because I fall under the minority of folks who are enjoy doing this stuff.
However, that does not necessarily make me smarter than them, atleast in my book. I know for a fact that I couldn't draw for nuts, even if I took lessons my entire life. Or for that matter, analyze and come up with designs. Or a lot of other things. These people can, and that is just no different from the way I do a math problem.
It is all the same, we're just using different abilities that each of us has been gifted with, that is all.
While I would agree that it is overrated, I would also add that its definition is being skewed by a handful few.
No, I'm saying that IQ is not all that is there to intelligence.
You may get a fewer false positives, but you will get a lot of false negatives - lots of intelligent people who're good at other things might flunk the tests.
> What is intelligence, then, and how do you > measure it?
There is no single measure, which was exactly my point.
Intelligence is not one thing, and you cannot have a single quantitative measure of it and label it as, "If you do well in these these tests, you'll fall under the top 1-2% of the intelligent folks in the world".
That is absolute bullshit. Solving mathematical and logical problems is just one facet of intelligence, there are several others - many, many more.
What about folks who cook amazingly well? Or paint amazingly well? Or who have a skill for language? There are a million other things - these could be people who'd not touch math or logic with a 10 foot pole, but could probably be extremely intelligent, in their own way.
I mean, would you say Michelangelo is dumb if he flunked a few multiple choice questions you threw at him? I think not. That was just my point.
> (For what it's worth, I think IQ, intelligence, > and Mensa are all overrated).
What irritates me about Mensa is the fact that they consider intelligence to be purely a function of a few odd tests.
Hmm, how weird.
I've known some incredibly intelligent people who'd probably flunk these tests - folks that can play music so amazingly well and reproduce exact notes after hearing them just once.
The point is, intelligence is not a function of how well you can do in a few puzzles. And more importantly, it is not all that hard to ace the Mensa test if you prepare well enough for it - just spend a while solving puzzles and patterns, and it'll be a cakewalk.
It's almost like a self-righteous organization of sorts - hey, lookie! We can solve all these cool puzzles, therefore we'll pretend that we are smarter more than you all are.
"...that propose treating laser-burned retina by means of transplanting nerve cells from the human brain stem into the eye. Transplants can survive in the injured eye, migrate to damaged areas, and stimulate the regeneration of retina."
w00t!
If this comes by, then it would indeed be a giant leap for application of stem cells. The question, ofcourse, is how easy are the donor stem cells to acquire. Perhaps some of the bio geeks on Slashdot could enlighten us:-)
The bottom line is that M$ is on a winning streak and we need to cross our fingers in the hopes that some judge is brave enough to step up against them.
Err... perhaps they really had good grounds for winning?
Your argument seems to imply that everything MS does is bad/evil and that they shouldn't be allowed to win any case.
The idea is that justice is fair -- if MS had a fair argument, they win. As simple as that. It's not a question of "bravery", it is a question of whether they had fair grounds for winning.
I do not know about the case you are talking about, but in this case it is quite clear that UC was the one cheating, not MS.
If someone hacks into your wifi, you're not liable (but you'd have to prove it). But you are expected to take care of it to ensure that it is secure and such misuse does not happen.
Look up on google, am certain there are several precedents to this.
In which case it would boil down to who has the bigger wallet.
MSFT could fry Joe Small-Guy if they were competing the way you said. Windows was a lousy OS, and am fairly certain that it was most certainly not merit that made it as popular as it is today.
Which is why, Joe Small Guy has a patent to protect him and his ideas.
Yes because I believe the subject matter to be excluded from patent protection.
I didn't quite catch that.
Wouldn't state granted monopolies would be more inkeeping with socialist thinking?
The "good for all at the cost of the individual's contribution" comes just as close.
I thought they were to provide a time limited monopoly and opportunity for reward to an inventor?
Which would most certainly encourage his/her to pursue and profit from the work, and which cannot happen unless they're allowed to protect others from ripping it off in the first place.
The playing field is far from level however!
That's a matter of opinion.
That's a patent on a mechanical device!
> I can patent a musical method, too, if I can > prove it has a utility value and it is unique.
Good luck with that.
It constitutes a musical method. A musical method patent requires a utility value and that is usually provided for by an application.
But is there a reason to let you to prevent everyone else from rediscovering the same thing??
Profit =)
You don't want people to use your idea for free, then just don't disclose it!
Yup. That's what a trade-secret is. Example - Coca Cola doesn't want you to use their idea, so rather than patent the whole process, it's a tradesecret.
You still can try to sell your invention..You can't sell it? well maybe it's not that useful...
Protecting a trade-secret is not easy and takes a LOT of effort. So, it's your call really. Coke prefers to, you may not.
Actually, when I was at a certain famous national lab, you'd be automatically granted access to most journals the moment you even visit certain websites.
For example, you visit Phy. Rev. or Annalen der Physik and you'd notice that you do not even need to login, the website grants you complete access automatically. Which is kinda cool if you ask me =)
The journals are usually paid for - and granting free access to them online would mean that they are distributing those journals - which the journals may not appreciate.
All math eventually is applied, it remains pure only for a while. The question is how long a while.
If your mathematical method satisfies the pre-requisites for a patent, you'd be granted one. What's wrong with that?
I still fail to see WHY you should not be awarded a patent for a unique, new work with no prior art that has tangible utility value. It's your idea and you have every right to profit from it.
Go ahead, please enlighten the moron for kinda having a different belief system than yours.
If they were given time and resources to solve that problem, they would have. If somebody had sufficient interest in solving that problem, they would have.
Not necessarily.
Somebody may still solve that problem independently and be unable to seek just rewards for their skill because of the patent.
Well, that is the reward you get for solving the problem first.
I doubt that there's anything patentable myself, it's propbably just sufficiently abstracted that the PO can't see the math through the semantics!
Aren't you assuming a bit too much? Perhaps he did genuine work and merited the patent - is that too hard to accept?
Nobody has any rights to a monopoly, we allow patents on certain things because there is a benefit to society in doing so. Individuals not being able to write software because of the patent minefield is not of benefit to society and never will be!
Nice socialist thinking there. Patents are a means of encouraging the inventor to protect his or her work. If the individual was smart enough to come up with it, more power to him! If others can circumvent that, more power to them!
If I come up with something good enough to give me a monopoly, do not blame me. The rules are the same for everyone. Leverage it to get better yourself.
*shrug*
> I can patent a musical method, too, if I can > prove it has a utility value and it is unique.
Good luck with that.
Oh, really? Perhaps you should look at US Patent US5936172: Musical method for musical instruments such as pianos, and a pedal mechanism therefor.
Someone else invented it before you, you were unfortunate enough to have been the second.
If they did give you the right to do so, then it would become extremely easy for folks to misuse the argument for anything and everything else.
I'm not sure about patents, but for Copyrights you can rake up what is called a clean-room defense - basically say that your expression of an idea came up entirely independent of the other one.
It's hard to prove, but if you indeed do, you're allowed to keep your work.
But I do not believe it works for patent (and I'm not sure if it should, either, especially since the patented work would be put out for everyone to see).
The simple fact is, when many people are faced with the same problem some will independently come up with similar (if not identical) solutions.
But how will you ensure that the first person to come up with it profits from his solution? Or are you saying that he should not? Or are you saying that he should let others who may copy his idea (or claim that it was uniquely derived at) also profit?
He was the first, he does what he deems fit with it. What's wrong with that?
Your analogy is better, but what I meant was that if I was the first to patent something and if there is no prior art, then there is no reason for me to let anyone else use it.
If my advisor has come up with something that's good and unique, with no prior art, then there is no reason why he should not patent and benefit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hurt your puny little intellect now, did he?
Cut him a little slack, the parent poster asked for it.
Yeah, you're right - Mensa lets people join it based on the GRE score too. And the last time I checked, 1/3rd of GRE was based on your verbal abilities.
Not just that, what about those who were raised in a different language? Mensa clubbing them all into one big group of "non-intelligentsia" because they couldn't ace a few puzzles is quite amusing, to say the least.
I do not know if Mensa made a mistake or not, but I do know that MS (and MSR) has some smart folks - more smart folks than I've met at the local Mensa.
Oh well.
I wasn't aware of that, thank you!
Your comment brings up something else to mind, though - if such abilities are related to one's upbringing and origin, the same could be said of what Mensa considers to be "intelligence", too.
For all you know, you may have the ability (whatever - musical, mathematical etc) and not know it at all. Or you might have the ability and do well otherwise, but not in test conditions.
Either way, Mensa amuses me.
> I'm trying to understand what the real crux of your argument is.
Mensa claims to have the top 1-2% of the intelligentsia of the human population, but establishes the standard for this intelligence on the mere ability to solve mathematical and logical problems.
That would imply that they measure intelligence solely as a function of one's ability to solve these kinda problems, and anyone who does not fit the bill isn't smart enough for them.
They can go ahead and do all that they want, but the fact that they club the rest of the world into a "you're not smart enough to join us" lump does grate on me.
How would you react to a worldwide club of intelligentsia who say that only those who paint Spunky (as another reader put it) will be considered intelligent?
That's how Mensa sounds to me - quite ridiculous. Their basis of what they consider intelligence is amusing, that's all.
See, if you consider artistic talents to be skills, then so are mathematical or logical abilities. Intelligence by that definition could also be construed as a gift of sorts, no different from someone who can draw.
I'm a sciences guy - I feel extremely comfortable under quantitative stuff, and do quite well in stuff related to that, too.
However, I know for a fact that I suck at qualitative stuff - and I've seen lots of people for whom those qualitative abilities are second nature. And some of these people lack the mathematical and logical skills that I do not find all that extraordinary.
Inherently, I've always known that I'll be in the sciences. And some of those folks have always known that they'd be in the arts.
The difference is, the society considers my abilities to be intelligence for the simple reason that it has easy, tangible, real world application. And perhaps because I fall under the minority of folks who are enjoy doing this stuff.
However, that does not necessarily make me smarter than them, atleast in my book. I know for a fact that I couldn't draw for nuts, even if I took lessons my entire life. Or for that matter, analyze and come up with designs. Or a lot of other things. These people can, and that is just no different from the way I do a math problem.
It is all the same, we're just using different abilities that each of us has been gifted with, that is all.
While I would agree that it is overrated, I would also add that its definition is being skewed by a handful few.
> So are you saying that IQ != intelligence?
No, I'm saying that IQ is not all that is there to intelligence.
You may get a fewer false positives, but you will get a lot of false negatives - lots of intelligent people who're good at other things might flunk the tests.
> What is intelligence, then, and how do you
> measure it?
There is no single measure, which was exactly my point.
Intelligence is not one thing, and you cannot have a single quantitative measure of it and label it as, "If you do well in these these tests, you'll fall under the top 1-2% of the intelligent folks in the world".
That is absolute bullshit. Solving mathematical and logical problems is just one facet of intelligence, there are several others - many, many more.
What about folks who cook amazingly well? Or paint amazingly well? Or who have a skill for language? There are a million other things - these could be people who'd not touch math or logic with a 10 foot pole, but could probably be extremely intelligent, in their own way.
I mean, would you say Michelangelo is dumb if he flunked a few multiple choice questions you threw at him? I think not. That was just my point.
> (For what it's worth, I think IQ, intelligence,
> and Mensa are all overrated).
Yup, you're spot on.
Something like that :-)
And the worst part is, calling yourself as one of the world's top 1-2% of artists just because you can draw Spunkys. Bah.
I couldn't agree more.
What irritates me about Mensa is the fact that they consider intelligence to be purely a function of a few odd tests.
Hmm, how weird.
I've known some incredibly intelligent people who'd probably flunk these tests - folks that can play music so amazingly well and reproduce exact notes after hearing them just once.
The point is, intelligence is not a function of how well you can do in a few puzzles. And more importantly, it is not all that hard to ace the Mensa test if you prepare well enough for it - just spend a while solving puzzles and patterns, and it'll be a cakewalk.
It's almost like a self-righteous organization of sorts - hey, lookie! We can solve all these cool puzzles, therefore we'll pretend that we are smarter more than you all are.
Nah!
Goohole!
How does that sound? Bad, I suppose.
I was just about to point out to that article.
:-)
In fact, Russian scientists recently found a way to repair damaged retina using stem cells.
More information can be found here.
From the article:
"...that propose treating laser-burned retina by means of transplanting nerve cells from the human brain stem into the eye. Transplants can survive in the injured eye, migrate to damaged areas, and stimulate the regeneration of retina."
w00t!
If this comes by, then it would indeed be a giant leap for application of stem cells. The question, ofcourse, is how easy are the donor stem cells to acquire. Perhaps some of the bio geeks on Slashdot could enlighten us
I know!
:-p
That's why they call them heavenly bodies!
The bottom line is that M$ is on a winning streak and we need to cross our fingers in the hopes that some judge is brave enough to step up against them.
Err... perhaps they really had good grounds for winning?
Your argument seems to imply that everything MS does is bad/evil and that they shouldn't be allowed to win any case.
The idea is that justice is fair -- if MS had a fair argument, they win. As simple as that. It's not a question of "bravery", it is a question of whether they had fair grounds for winning.
I do not know about the case you are talking about, but in this case it is quite clear that UC was the one cheating, not MS.
Nice strawman argument.
If someone hacks into your wifi, you're not liable (but you'd have to prove it). But you are expected to take care of it to ensure that it is secure and such misuse does not happen.
Look up on google, am certain there are several precedents to this.
Yes.
If you are the one signed up with your name on the agreement/lease/whatever, the onus is upon you to prevent misuse of the service you've agreed to.
In which case it would boil down to who has the bigger wallet.
MSFT could fry Joe Small-Guy if they were competing the way you said. Windows was a lousy OS, and am fairly certain that it was most certainly not merit that made it as popular as it is today.
Which is why, Joe Small Guy has a patent to protect him and his ideas.
You see, it works both ways.
Yes because I believe the subject matter to be excluded from patent protection.
I didn't quite catch that.
Wouldn't state granted monopolies would be more inkeeping with socialist thinking?
The "good for all at the cost of the individual's contribution" comes just as close.
I thought they were to provide a time limited monopoly and opportunity for reward to an inventor?
Which would most certainly encourage his/her to pursue and profit from the work, and which cannot happen unless they're allowed to protect others from ripping it off in the first place.
The playing field is far from level however!
That's a matter of opinion.
That's a patent on a mechanical device!
> I can patent a musical method, too, if I can
> prove it has a utility value and it is unique.
Good luck with that.
It constitutes a musical method. A musical method patent requires a utility value and that is usually provided for by an application.
But is there a reason to let you to prevent everyone else from rediscovering the same thing??
Profit =)
You don't want people to use your idea for free, then just don't disclose it!
Yup. That's what a trade-secret is. Example - Coca Cola doesn't want you to use their idea, so rather than patent the whole process, it's a tradesecret.
You still can try to sell your invention..You can't sell it? well maybe it's not that useful...
Protecting a trade-secret is not easy and takes a LOT of effort. So, it's your call really. Coke prefers to, you may not.
Which is a good thing, in many ways.
Actually, when I was at a certain famous national lab, you'd be automatically granted access to most journals the moment you even visit certain websites.
For example, you visit Phy. Rev. or Annalen der Physik and you'd notice that you do not even need to login, the website grants you complete access automatically. Which is kinda cool if you ask me =)
I agree.
The journals are usually paid for - and granting free access to them online would mean that they are distributing those journals - which the journals may not appreciate.
Heh?
All math eventually is applied, it remains pure only for a while. The question is how long a while.
If your mathematical method satisfies the pre-requisites for a patent, you'd be granted one. What's wrong with that?
I still fail to see WHY you should not be awarded a patent for a unique, new work with no prior art that has tangible utility value. It's your idea and you have every right to profit from it.
Go ahead, please enlighten the moron for kinda having a different belief system than yours.
It's unfortunate you see it that way.
I see it as a way for him to benefit from his effort and skill - he benefits from it and that helps him perform better, coming up with better idea.
And if a non-profit group does ask him for the use of his patent, he usually grants them the rights.
So what's wrong with any of this?
If they were given time and resources to solve that problem, they would have. If somebody had sufficient interest in solving that problem, they would have.
Not necessarily.
Somebody may still solve that problem independently and be unable to seek just rewards for their skill because of the patent.
Well, that is the reward you get for solving the problem first.
I doubt that there's anything patentable myself, it's propbably just sufficiently abstracted that the PO can't see the math through the semantics!
Aren't you assuming a bit too much? Perhaps he did genuine work and merited the patent - is that too hard to accept?
Nobody has any rights to a monopoly, we allow patents on certain things because there is a benefit to society in doing so. Individuals not being able to write software because of the patent minefield is not of benefit to society and never will be!
Nice socialist thinking there. Patents are a means of encouraging the inventor to protect his or her work. If the individual was smart enough to come up with it, more power to him! If others can circumvent that, more power to them!
If I come up with something good enough to give me a monopoly, do not blame me. The rules are the same for everyone. Leverage it to get better yourself.
*shrug*
> I can patent a musical method, too, if I can
> prove it has a utility value and it is unique.
Good luck with that.
Oh, really? Perhaps you should look at US Patent US5936172: Musical method for musical instruments such as pianos, and a pedal mechanism therefor.
Why?
Someone else invented it before you, you were unfortunate enough to have been the second.
If they did give you the right to do so, then it would become extremely easy for folks to misuse the argument for anything and everything else.
I'm not sure about patents, but for Copyrights you can rake up what is called a clean-room defense - basically say that your expression of an idea came up entirely independent of the other one.
It's hard to prove, but if you indeed do, you're allowed to keep your work.
But I do not believe it works for patent (and I'm not sure if it should, either, especially since the patented work would be put out for everyone to see).
The simple fact is, when many people are faced with the same problem some will independently come up with similar (if not identical) solutions.
But how will you ensure that the first person to come up with it profits from his solution? Or are you saying that he should not? Or are you saying that he should let others who may copy his idea (or claim that it was uniquely derived at) also profit?
He was the first, he does what he deems fit with it. What's wrong with that?
Your analogy is better, but what I meant was that if I was the first to patent something and if there is no prior art, then there is no reason for me to let anyone else use it.
If my advisor has come up with something that's good and unique, with no prior art, then there is no reason why he should not patent and benefit from it.
As a matter of fact, I *have* been involved in a patent infringement lawsuit. Software patent lawsuit, actually. At the receiving end, no less.
And oh, my family owns a law firm. So much for your assumptions. Bah.