Why am I not surprised at this? I remember reading an article a while back that pointed out something amazingly obvious about legislating that studying something is illegal. (It was an article on Nanotech, and the grey goo disaster concept)
"If we legislate that studying nanotech is illegal to prevent these problems. Then these problems are more likely to happen. Why? Because the only people studying nanotech will be people who aren't concerned about those hazards since they are breaking the law already. If we let people study and legislate safety protocols, then the grey goo disaster will likely not happen. Plus, we are better off because we will have more knowledge to help humanity." (Not exact)
Replace nanotech with cloning and greygoo disaster with eugenics, and you have pretty much the same scenario.
"The control offers four different choices for changing the Windows desktop and Start Menu: "Computer Manufacturer Configuration," "Microsoft Windows," "Non-Microsoft" and "Custom."
When I change my setting to Non-Microsoft, will microsoft know? If so, will I not get updates for certain things because I am "Non-Microsoft"? Why does the system need to know that the program is "Non-Microsoft"
(I am not trying to flamebait or troll, just stating my worries considering previous Microsoft practices.)
Sure, if the US implements a law preventing people from copying material, or insists that devices made must follow this watermarking scheme. What prevents people from outside of the states from Digitizing it and then P2Ping (or otherwise) over the internet to an American citizen?
The only way I can see of blocking this would require a "Great Firewall of the US" (like China's). At that point, I think the populous will have to reconsider who they are electing into power, if it's not too late.
I remember hearing a quote a while ago in a book I read titled "The year in 1980". The book was a collection of predictions from scientists, engineers, and other academics about what the world would be like in 1980. The quote went:
"The problem with predicting the future is that you either predict that we can do far too much, or that we can do far too little."
I think this applies to these predictions. A good number of them, humourously enough, were in this book that I just quoted from. Eventually, they'll come, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I remember when I was working at the Canadian Space Agency as a co-op during the time when NEAR landed.
We were all in a total state of shock that it survived the landing, and was still transmitting. Definitely a honour to those who worked on the project.
If I remember correctly, the biggest reason they deactivated it was because there just wasn't enough energy and/or fuel to do much. Reactivating it would be a feat, but all they would really get out of it is whether the electronics survived and/or a few very faint signals.
One thing I used to love in each of the simcity games was seeing the new building pop up in my cities.
I hope that Maxis will take a hint from the Sims game and make Simcity 4 expandable, and have lots of buildings for each type. So I can have more features, buildings, and my city doesn't end up looking like a giant apartment factory (Like it has before).
If Simcity 4 is as good as it looks, I would definitely buy expansions that add buildings and special things without removing any of the other buildings. (So I can have a really varied city)
The US Army begins developing computer games to encourage (ahem, train) young children (ahem, cadets) to consider the army as a career.
Now, they begin to build fighters that can be controlled by a computer interface.
Wow, if all things work out. The world of the general in "Toys"{c} will begin. Young children playing computer games to train to fight with robotic fighting planes and machines. We now just need Robin Williams...
I don't know the artist, I don't know the music, Hell, I don't even know the song...
But at least if I liked the song, artist or music, I can download it painlessly and efficiently without any ethical quandries to consider, and all things willing, they will begin to place music and artists that I cannot easily find in the music store (or on P2P), or ones that I just like a few songs (not entire CDs) online. Then they will have my 200+ Dollars, 'cause I know there is a lot of music I would love to download, and not feel bad about it.
I think I am going to like this brave new world.:-)
(As always, this is not meant to be offensive, just IMHO)
"But if this Linux thing is so good, then why is it FREE? Can you answer me that?? Thought not. Microsoft must be better because it costs more."
This statement is more true then you would think. Speaking as a former coop employee of the government. I actually have heard this argument on the side of not purchasing Linux for the equipment. When I asked them, why don't we test out Linux on the boxes, they replied, (Not kidding)
"Well, we believe that you get what you pay for here. Since Linux is freeware, and we know how bad those things can be, we don't want to expose ourselves to the risks brought on by it."
After I desperately tried to avoid laughing at and/or killing the person who said this, I brought him aside quietly at the end of the meetings, and quickly pointed out some of the major mistakes in his logic.
1. Linux is _not_ freeware, it is open-source 2. Since Linux is open-source, the public can find and fix the security holes considerably faster then Microsoft would.
As well, I pointed him towards some valuable Linux information sites. Now finally after 5+ years of people not even considering looking at Linux in the department, mainly because of misconceptions of Linux, they are seriously considering it.
So, you can see how it's the fact that it's free, and the aura of "badness" that seems to permeate free things (ie. freeware) that explains most government decisions of this sort.
Ask them: what type of structure they have in teaching CS?
Do they teach proper programming techniques(ie. UML, functional programming, proper recursion, etc)? Do they centralize on the mathematics and theory of computing? How many languages do you teach? Which languages? What type of assignments do they give (ie. are they practical, analytical, theoretical?) How difficult are the assignments? How many hours per week should I expect in front of a computer? What types of computers do they have available for students on campus? How often are these computers available? How many computers do they have? What is the average mark for CS? (make sure you know if it is mean, mode, or median) How many non-CS courses are required for a CS degree? How many non-math courses? Which courses? How long does it take to complete a degree? What is your hiring rate for graduates? Is the degree a BMath degree, BSci degree, BCS degree or something else? Are there extra fees per term for CS majors? (UWaterloo majors pay 20%+ more then everyone else per term)
That should give you a good starting point at least.
more structure/less structure?
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
There are really only a few ways we can go with IP protection.
Laissez-Faire:
This is the way a lot of corporations are afraid to go (for obvious reasons), but with the internet and quick transfer of IP between persons, the government is having less control over IP (location (ie. Russian programmer trading Win XP to Swedish programmer, the States can't do much.)) And, it doesn't look like any of the governments are going to be able to gain back much control.
Yet, this might also have the side effect of being beneficial to the consumer. (The invisible hand of capitalism reappears after years in dormancy.) Since IP is so easily just traded amongst peers and friends with no return on the investment, methods would need to be developed in which a consumer would want to purchase a IP product. (ie. special benefits, tech support, handbook, etc.) Thus, the producer has a definite need to improve his product and remove its shortcomings, as well as lower the price considerably so the consumer has a good reason to purchase the product.
While in the short term a complete laissez-faire economy would be absolutely devestating to the corporate economy based on lawyers and laws, in the long run it has the potential to lead to better products that the consumer can buy and use.
As well, another benefit of a laissez faire economy is the fact that when it comes to artistic IP. The only people left will be the true artists who are producing music and art because they love what they do, and because they enjoy it when someone else enjoys their art. Unfortunately, they won't be rich, unless they come up with other methods for income (ie. through concerts, art shows, live theatre, producing products that give something that cannot be traded, etc.) It will, for better or worse, bring the return of the 'starving artist.'
Now, for the intellectual and academic community, this has the potential of being a godsend. Now all of the material that they couldn't afford, acquire, or just wasn't available (due to various reasons,) will suddenly be available, for free in record numbers. Scientists will still continue their research (grants pay for them), and publish their papers in various journals, just now anyone will be able to read their papers for free (I know, I know, a lot of journals offer their papers for free online already.)
So, now the laissez-faire economy seems to have some terrific points, and some down points relating to IP.
Let's examine the flipside.
more government control (responsible gov control.)
Now, to be clear, we must understand that more government control does not imply more corporate control, or more laws that make our lives difficult. More government control means that when someone produces a legitimate IP copyright, they will support that copyright, but it also would imply that the gov. is intelligent enough to realize that the letter 'e' cannot be copywritten by anyone, or if a company is using its copyright to harass other companies, it will handle the situation appropriately.
Therefore, in short I will refer to this other possible concept as le gouvernement-enlightened (LGE) {My vague attempt at french.:-}.
Now, we can see that in a LGE economy, people would be interested in producing IP as it can lead potential financial benefits in the future. Thus, large companies which keep the economy moving and many people employed would rise up from successful IP products that the public uses.
Now, unfortunately, there would naturally be a lot of resistance to forced compliance with IP laws, and many people would be upset. Yet, after a short time (and proper government legislation) the public will realize that these IP laws are more beneficial then harmful, and will understand that they too will be able to use the laws to create quality IP material and make income off of that material.
Now, immediately a few questions arise. in a LGE system, what if two people apply for the same copyright at the same time. Well, naturally the government would attempt to determine if both person had developed it independently. If so, then why not let both individuals have rights over the IP copyright, in a way it can lead to some friendly competition between individuals when licensing their IP to companies.
Another question arise, what about IP laws like the DMCA. Well, unfortunately (or fortunately) for LGE to be successful, these laws must exist. Yet, perhaps they don't need to be as restrictive as they currently are? (Ie. let academics toy with the copyright protection) It will lead to two major benefits, one the general public will not be able to "steal" IP material, but also the companies will be simulataneously forced to develop better and higher-quality encryption. Perhaps the law should have a sunset clause where after so many years, the encryption can be broken and/or publicly analyzed?
With LGE there are many unanswered questions that the government would have to figure out and solve to the optimal benefit of the people and the corporations. Too many to discuss here.
But, I hope you can see how LGE economy can potentially work as well as Laissez-Faire economy.
Most IP laws and theories are in limbo right now with the success of the internet. These are only two potential directions that can be gone and the pros/cons of each.
(This is not intended to be offensive to anyone, this is just an analysis of two potential ways of handling IP in the 21st century, and is all IMHO.)
if so, what is left to be the "system" on which the automation itself is running?
I find this statement absolutely fascinating. It's a common problem that I run into with undergrad physics majors at the university who forget (I mean no offence to anyone in particular, so please don't take this as such) that physics just uses math to model the real world, and that the electron, positron, etc are just constructs used to describe a phenomenon that we observe.
A few of my friends who study string theory and M-Theory were describing to me the wonders of string theory and how everything can be reduced to wave in membranes and string, and so on. They said to me, "The universe is made up of strings and membranes." They felt it was so simple, and that they would have a theory to explain everything that exists... This is until I looked at them and said...
"What are the strings and membranes made of?"
They never took the chance to think that while the equations worked for superstring theory, never realized that all of this math and artificial constructs they were learning was not actually the way things were, just a good model or approximation to how things are, mostly used to predict future events (to build machines that don't explode for example.:-)
While superstring theory (if successful) will help us create a more complete model of the universe that can be used to predict future events, there will likely still be unanswered questions, as it is just a model of the universe, our representation of the universe.
These cellular automaton theories that have been raised by this young genius, are just another way to model the universe, and the question remains for him,
"What system is the automaton running on?"
So, we are left with a simple conclusion. cellular automaton are fascinating mathematical constructs, that can hypothetically be used to simulate many things, but like the author said:
"And indeed in the end the PCE encapsulates both the ultimate power and the ultimate weakness of science. For it implies that all the wonders of the universe can in effect be captured by simple rules, yet it shows that there can be no way to know all the consequences of these rules, except in effect just to watch and see how they unfold."
So if his model cannot supply an effective way to know the consequences of the rules, or even statistically guess at the consequences, then perhaps it's not as useful as we (or he) believe(s).
(Please do not take this as offensive, I am just trying to give the perspective of a student studying pure mathematics, physics, computer science and psychology, not trying to pick a fight. This is all IMHO)
:-) I think a quote I heard from a great mathematician fits well here:
"May the mathematics I study and produce never have application in the real world."
Cellular automatons are fascinating mathematical recreations, and might be able to help solve mathematical problems. If they do prove useful in future physics, I think John von Neuman and Stanislaw Ulam would be glad. Otherwise, may their math never have application in the real world, and remain a mathematical curiousity.:-)
Personally, I cannot wait until the day when someone takes all of these artificial acting programs, combines them with a quality artifical voice program and then I can make full length movies on my computer with any actor I want and my own plot lines.
Man, that would lead to some awesome fan films.:-) As well as some... ahem... interesting ones.;-)
Well, I think this is a very appropriate statement. Far too many people cannot think in the OOP world, and thus end up with very convuluted code that is a pain to debug, and fix.
Now, I will admit that I haven't read this book that was reviewed, but from the review it sounds like it is rejecting the number one thing I have learned from my courses in CS: No matter what you code, make sure it is easy to read for other programmers, and easy to change. This axiom is vital to proper programming as it allows other programmers to more easily use and re-use your code as well as future developers to debug/expand your code (which they will do.) If this axiom is not followed properly, it becomes hellish to work with the convuluted code that develops (from each individual programmers "antipatterns").
"Patterns" and OOP languages make this easier to do, when you follow proper practices. This is because the languages allow a more natural flow of concepts and ideas and when one thing needs to be changed, less modifications are needed and it is more obvious where the changes are required.
Sure, if we wanted to, we could all stick to ASMBLR code and really make uber-efficient programs (I know, I know, compilers can program quality ASMBLR as well.), but the key this is not that these high-level languages were created for efficient code, they were created for efficient development. Or for the fun of things, we could all program in Scheme or Lisp, but would the development time really be an efficient use of our time? (Personally, I love Scheme)
When your learn to "think" in Java or C++ or any other OOP language, these development methods become easier to implement and easier to program.
70-80% of the maximum theoretical efficiency (Carnot) for cooling.
Just so everyone is aware, in thermodynamics the Carnot engine is not a 100% efficient engine. Actually, depending on a few variables, the carnot engine can be incredibly inefficient.
Stating that the efficiency is 70-80% of the maximum theoretical efficient (Carnot engine) for cooling doesn't mean that much, since it doesn't fit the equation we all think about.
70-80% = Energy Out/Energy In
Instead we get
70-80% = Energy Out/(Energy In * Carnot Efficiency)
Since |Carnot Efficiency| 1, we end up with a artificial increase in the actual efficiency of the engine.
I would personally like to see the results of the actual efficiency, not this skewed statistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Why am I not surprised at this? I remember reading an article a while back that pointed out something amazingly obvious about legislating that studying something is illegal. (It was an article on Nanotech, and the grey goo disaster concept)
:-)
"If we legislate that studying nanotech is illegal to prevent these problems. Then these problems are more likely to happen. Why? Because the only people studying nanotech will be people who aren't concerned about those hazards since they are breaking the law already. If we let people study and legislate safety protocols, then the grey goo disaster will likely not happen. Plus, we are better off because we will have more knowledge to help humanity." (Not exact)
Replace nanotech with cloning and greygoo disaster with eugenics, and you have pretty much the same scenario.
Just an interesting thought.
Well, it's either going to be the states or China that will colonize the moon first.
Perhaps, this senator realized that.
(This might also be an informative article)
"The control offers four different choices for changing the Windows desktop and Start Menu: "Computer Manufacturer Configuration," "Microsoft Windows," "Non-Microsoft" and "Custom."
When I change my setting to Non-Microsoft, will microsoft know? If so, will I not get updates for certain things because I am "Non-Microsoft"? Why does the system need to know that the program is "Non-Microsoft"
(I am not trying to flamebait or troll, just stating my worries considering previous Microsoft practices.)
Sure, if the US implements a law preventing people from copying material, or insists that devices made must follow this watermarking scheme. What prevents people from outside of the states from Digitizing it and then P2Ping (or otherwise) over the internet to an American citizen?
The only way I can see of blocking this would require a "Great Firewall of the US" (like China's). At that point, I think the populous will have to reconsider who they are electing into power, if it's not too late.
(IMHO, of course)
I remember hearing a quote a while ago in a book I read titled "The year in 1980". The book was a collection of predictions from scientists, engineers, and other academics about what the world would be like in 1980. The quote went:
"The problem with predicting the future is that you either predict that we can do far too much, or that we can do far too little."
I think this applies to these predictions. A good number of them, humourously enough, were in this book that I just quoted from. Eventually, they'll come, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(IMHO, as always)
I remember when I was working at the Canadian Space Agency as a co-op during the time when NEAR landed.
We were all in a total state of shock that it survived the landing, and was still transmitting. Definitely a honour to those who worked on the project.
If I remember correctly, the biggest reason they deactivated it was because there just wasn't enough energy and/or fuel to do much. Reactivating it would be a feat, but all they would really get out of it is whether the electronics survived and/or a few very faint signals.
One thing I used to love in each of the simcity games was seeing the new building pop up in my cities.
I hope that Maxis will take a hint from the Sims game and make Simcity 4 expandable, and have lots of buildings for each type. So I can have more features, buildings, and my city doesn't end up looking like a giant apartment factory (Like it has before).
If Simcity 4 is as good as it looks, I would definitely buy expansions that add buildings and special things without removing any of the other buildings. (So I can have a really varied city)
Here's to a great looking game though.
The US Army begins developing computer games to encourage (ahem, train) young children (ahem, cadets) to consider the army as a career.
Now, they begin to build fighters that can be controlled by a computer interface.
Wow, if all things work out. The world of the general in "Toys"{c} will begin. Young children playing computer games to train to fight with robotic fighting planes and machines. We now just need Robin Williams...
(As always, this is IMHO)
I don't know the artist,
:-)
I don't know the music,
Hell, I don't even know the song...
But at least if I liked the song, artist or music, I can download it painlessly and efficiently without any ethical quandries to consider, and all things willing, they will begin to place music and artists that I cannot easily find in the music store (or on P2P), or ones that I just like a few songs (not entire CDs) online. Then they will have my 200+ Dollars, 'cause I know there is a lot of music I would love to download, and not feel bad about it.
I think I am going to like this brave new world.
(As always, this is not meant to be offensive, just IMHO)
"But if this Linux thing is so good, then why is it FREE? Can you answer me that?? Thought not. Microsoft must be better because it costs more."
This statement is more true then you would think. Speaking as a former coop employee of the government. I actually have heard this argument on the side of not purchasing Linux for the equipment. When I asked them, why don't we test out Linux on the boxes, they replied, (Not kidding)
"Well, we believe that you get what you pay for here. Since Linux is freeware, and we know how bad those things can be, we don't want to expose ourselves to the risks brought on by it."
After I desperately tried to avoid laughing at and/or killing the person who said this, I brought him aside quietly at the end of the meetings, and quickly pointed out some of the major mistakes in his logic.
1. Linux is _not_ freeware, it is open-source
2. Since Linux is open-source, the public can find and fix the security holes considerably faster then Microsoft would.
As well, I pointed him towards some valuable Linux information sites. Now finally after 5+ years of people not even considering looking at Linux in the department, mainly because of misconceptions of Linux, they are seriously considering it.
So, you can see how it's the fact that it's free, and the aura of "badness" that seems to permeate free things (ie. freeware) that explains most government decisions of this sort.
Ask them: what type of structure they have in teaching CS?
Do they teach proper programming techniques(ie. UML, functional programming, proper recursion, etc)?
Do they centralize on the mathematics and theory of computing?
How many languages do you teach? Which languages?
What type of assignments do they give (ie. are they practical, analytical, theoretical?)
How difficult are the assignments? How many hours per week should I expect in front of a computer?
What types of computers do they have available for students on campus? How often are these computers available? How many computers do they have?
What is the average mark for CS? (make sure you know if it is mean, mode, or median)
How many non-CS courses are required for a CS degree? How many non-math courses? Which courses?
How long does it take to complete a degree?
What is your hiring rate for graduates?
Is the degree a BMath degree, BSci degree, BCS degree or something else?
Are there extra fees per term for CS majors? (UWaterloo majors pay 20%+ more then everyone else per term)
That should give you a good starting point at least.
There are really only a few ways we can go with IP protection.
:-}.
Laissez-Faire:
This is the way a lot of corporations are afraid to go (for obvious reasons), but with the internet and quick transfer of IP between persons, the government is having less control over IP (location (ie. Russian programmer trading Win XP to Swedish programmer, the States can't do much.)) And, it doesn't look like any of the governments are going to be able to gain back much control.
Yet, this might also have the side effect of being beneficial to the consumer. (The invisible hand of capitalism reappears after years in dormancy.) Since IP is so easily just traded amongst peers and friends with no return on the investment, methods would need to be developed in which a consumer would want to purchase a IP product. (ie. special benefits, tech support, handbook, etc.) Thus, the producer has a definite need to improve his product and remove its shortcomings, as well as lower the price considerably so the consumer has a good reason to purchase the product.
While in the short term a complete laissez-faire economy would be absolutely devestating to the corporate economy based on lawyers and laws, in the long run it has the potential to lead to better products that the consumer can buy and use.
As well, another benefit of a laissez faire economy is the fact that when it comes to artistic IP. The only people left will be the true artists who are producing music and art because they love what they do, and because they enjoy it when someone else enjoys their art. Unfortunately, they won't be rich, unless they come up with other methods for income (ie. through concerts, art shows, live theatre, producing products that give something that cannot be traded, etc.) It will, for better or worse, bring the return of the 'starving artist.'
Now, for the intellectual and academic community, this has the potential of being a godsend. Now all of the material that they couldn't afford, acquire, or just wasn't available (due to various reasons,) will suddenly be available, for free in record numbers. Scientists will still continue their research (grants pay for them), and publish their papers in various journals, just now anyone will be able to read their papers for free (I know, I know, a lot of journals offer their papers for free online already.)
So, now the laissez-faire economy seems to have some terrific points, and some down points relating to IP.
Let's examine the flipside.
more government control (responsible gov control.)
Now, to be clear, we must understand that more government control does not imply more corporate control, or more laws that make our lives difficult. More government control means that when someone produces a legitimate IP copyright, they will support that copyright, but it also would imply that the gov. is intelligent enough to realize that the letter 'e' cannot be copywritten by anyone, or if a company is using its copyright to harass other companies, it will handle the situation appropriately.
Therefore, in short I will refer to this other possible concept as le gouvernement-enlightened (LGE) {My vague attempt at french.
Now, we can see that in a LGE economy, people would be interested in producing IP as it can lead potential financial benefits in the future. Thus, large companies which keep the economy moving and many people employed would rise up from successful IP products that the public uses.
Now, unfortunately, there would naturally be a lot of resistance to forced compliance with IP laws, and many people would be upset. Yet, after a short time (and proper government legislation) the public will realize that these IP laws are more beneficial then harmful, and will understand that they too will be able to use the laws to create quality IP material and make income off of that material.
Now, immediately a few questions arise. in a LGE system, what if two people apply for the same copyright at the same time. Well, naturally the government would attempt to determine if both person had developed it independently. If so, then why not let both individuals have rights over the IP copyright, in a way it can lead to some friendly competition between individuals when licensing their IP to companies.
Another question arise, what about IP laws like the DMCA. Well, unfortunately (or fortunately) for LGE to be successful, these laws must exist. Yet, perhaps they don't need to be as restrictive as they currently are? (Ie. let academics toy with the copyright protection) It will lead to two major benefits, one the general public will not be able to "steal" IP material, but also the companies will be simulataneously forced to develop better and higher-quality encryption. Perhaps the law should have a sunset clause where after so many years, the encryption can be broken and/or publicly analyzed?
With LGE there are many unanswered questions that the government would have to figure out and solve to the optimal benefit of the people and the corporations. Too many to discuss here.
But, I hope you can see how LGE economy can potentially work as well as Laissez-Faire economy.
Most IP laws and theories are in limbo right now with the success of the internet. These are only two potential directions that can be gone and the pros/cons of each.
(This is not intended to be offensive to anyone, this is just an analysis of two potential ways of handling IP in the 21st century, and is all IMHO.)
:-)
I find this statement absolutely fascinating. It's a common problem that I run into with undergrad physics majors at the university who forget (I mean no offence to anyone in particular, so please don't take this as such) that physics just uses math to model the real world, and that the electron, positron, etc are just constructs used to describe a phenomenon that we observe.
A few of my friends who study string theory and M-Theory were describing to me the wonders of string theory and how everything can be reduced to wave in membranes and string, and so on. They said to me, "The universe is made up of strings and membranes." They felt it was so simple, and that they would have a theory to explain everything that exists... This is until I looked at them and said...
"What are the strings and membranes made of?"
They never took the chance to think that while the equations worked for superstring theory, never realized that all of this math and artificial constructs they were learning was not actually the way things were, just a good model or approximation to how things are, mostly used to predict future events (to build machines that don't explode for example.
While superstring theory (if successful) will help us create a more complete model of the universe that can be used to predict future events, there will likely still be unanswered questions, as it is just a model of the universe, our representation of the universe.
These cellular automaton theories that have been raised by this young genius, are just another way to model the universe, and the question remains for him,
"What system is the automaton running on?"
So, we are left with a simple conclusion. cellular automaton are fascinating mathematical constructs, that can hypothetically be used to simulate many things, but like the author said:
So if his model cannot supply an effective way to know the consequences of the rules, or even statistically guess at the consequences, then perhaps it's not as useful as we (or he) believe(s).
(Please do not take this as offensive, I am just trying to give the perspective of a student studying pure mathematics, physics, computer science and psychology, not trying to pick a fight. This is all IMHO)
:-) I think a quote I heard from a great mathematician fits well here:
"May the mathematics I study and produce never have application in the real world."
Cellular automatons are fascinating mathematical recreations, and might be able to help solve mathematical problems. If they do prove useful in future physics, I think John von Neuman and Stanislaw Ulam would be glad. Otherwise, may their math never have application in the real world, and remain a mathematical curiousity.
Just as a curiousity
:-)
Making a checklist of the errors M$ has made over the last year, it seems like, finally, the consumer and other companies are fighting back.
for example:
MS threatens schoolboards - Schoolboards begin to seriously consider Linux
MS threatens XBox Online games - Companies refuse to produce games for XBox Online
MS threatens...
and you get the point....
It seems that MS is not able to threaten much anymore... or at least they don't have the push that they used to. (Which is a very good thing.
Just my 2c
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)
Personally, I cannot wait until the day when someone takes all of these artificial acting programs, combines them with a quality artifical voice program and then I can make full length movies on my computer with any actor I want and my own plot lines.
:-) As well as some... ahem... interesting ones. ;-)
Man, that would lead to some awesome fan films.
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)
Well, I think this is a very appropriate statement. Far too many people cannot think in the OOP world, and thus end up with very convuluted code that is a pain to debug, and fix.
Now, I will admit that I haven't read this book that was reviewed, but from the review it sounds like it is rejecting the number one thing I have learned from my courses in CS: No matter what you code, make sure it is easy to read for other programmers, and easy to change. This axiom is vital to proper programming as it allows other programmers to more easily use and re-use your code as well as future developers to debug/expand your code (which they will do.) If this axiom is not followed properly, it becomes hellish to work with the convuluted code that develops (from each individual programmers "antipatterns").
"Patterns" and OOP languages make this easier to do, when you follow proper practices. This is because the languages allow a more natural flow of concepts and ideas and when one thing needs to be changed, less modifications are needed and it is more obvious where the changes are required.
Sure, if we wanted to, we could all stick to ASMBLR code and really make uber-efficient programs (I know, I know, compilers can program quality ASMBLR as well.), but the key this is not that these high-level languages were created for efficient code, they were created for efficient development. Or for the fun of things, we could all program in Scheme or Lisp, but would the development time really be an efficient use of our time? (Personally, I love Scheme)
When your learn to "think" in Java or C++ or any other OOP language, these development methods become easier to implement and easier to program.
This is all of course IMHO.
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)
70-80% of the maximum theoretical efficiency (Carnot) for cooling.
Just so everyone is aware, in thermodynamics the Carnot engine is not a 100% efficient engine. Actually, depending on a few variables, the carnot engine can be incredibly inefficient.
Stating that the efficiency is 70-80% of the maximum theoretical efficient (Carnot engine) for cooling doesn't mean that much, since it doesn't fit the equation we all think about.
70-80% = Energy Out/Energy In
Instead we get
70-80% = Energy Out/(Energy In * Carnot Efficiency)
Since |Carnot Efficiency| 1, we end up with a artificial increase in the actual efficiency of the engine.
I would personally like to see the results of the actual efficiency, not this skewed statistic.
.....Marvin Mouse.....
(Math, CS, Physics, Psychology Undergrad)