"One of the things I try to focus on with Ask Slashdot questions are issues involving trademarks and the big guy trying to rob the little guy out of a name, or a domain that they may have had for years."
And the *other* thing you focus on is people who are too lazy to do their own homework.
Where did you get these MP3's?
Umm...they blew off a passing CD onto my hard drive.
What about this "One-Click"(tm) website you are running?
I think the Feature Fairy left it there.
Do you have a license for that copy of Windows?
Windows? How did that get installed? Musta been my cat. She likes Solitaire. --
"the average human would only live about 600 years"
If the average human lives 600 years, how long does the exceptional human live?
More to the point, how do accidents represent an "upper bound"? When I get to 600 without walking in front of a car or falling on a pair of scissors, are the Probability Police going to come hunt me down so I don't "throw off the statistics"? --
It ISN'T NP-hard. Remember that an NP-hard problem is one where, even if you had a proposed solution, you can't verify the answer in polynomial time. Verifying a factorization answer is easy: just multiply. That's polynomial time, therefore factoring isn't NP-hard.
That's as opposed to Travelling Salesman where even if you have a proposed path, you'd have to check all possible paths to decide if yours was the minimum. --
"Their in-house coders pour over each microchip and line of code hundereds of times looking for even the smallest bug. This superior attention to detail is not possible using the limited resources of the open-source method."
Sure it is, here's how: Use exactly the process NASA uses know and that you are apparently comfortable with. Then ADD (not replace) more programmers by making the source available via FTP.
Adding openness to an existing project loses nothing. Yes, shifting the burden of quality OFF of some process ONTO openness may not always be a good idea (not in one go, anyway). But adding more checks doesn't lower quality. --
...you are supposed to put your DNA_FTP client into binary mode before doing the copy. Just reformat the sheep and do the copy again--it'll work, trust me. --
You give no details about that programmer's tasks, the research project or even your field of study so it's kind of hard to advise you. Why does it matter? Because different tasks require different programmers.
If you have a model of, say, planet rotation, complete with equations and all you need is someone to type it in with the right syntax--get an undergraduate to do it for you. Or a "business programmer".
If you need control and data acquisition, find an embedded programmer.
If you need supercomputer power, find someone with experience in that.
Or do you need someone with whom you can "talk science" without having to dumb it down before he can program it? (If so, contact me at dazed2d@yahoo.com--I might be interested)
It all depends on whether you are looking for specific skills or general knowledge. --
Forget the browser. Just add a "terminal client" (like X or something). Let it run against my "real" computer in the other room/across town. Then you don't even really need a processor to run apps. The tablet is really just a display and input device. --
The general ordered the troops to advance. (verb)
The soldier asked for an advance on his paycheck. (noun)
The general sent in the advance troops. (adjective)
English allows words to change it's part of speech pretty easily, or, as my friend used to say "You can verb any noun in the language." --
Let's see a show of hands of all those that have emailed a congressperson via webpage touting some issue. (Probable answer: 60%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have emailed a congressperson "manually". (Probable answer: 30%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have snailmailed a congressperson. (Probable answer: 2%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have personally spoken with a congressperson. (Probable answer:.0001%)
Not all forms of communication require an equal amount of investment by the communcator--therefore they should get unequal amounts of attention from the communicatee.
If you want your opinion read, just write it down (or print it out)--it only costs $.33 to send.
Addenda: Not all congresspeople are deleting all mail. I emailed my reps recently and got a physical (admittedly form-) letter back from one of them. --
This reminds me of that cartoon where all these equations are on the left and on the right, but in the middle is a box with "then some magic happens" written in it.
I understand your argument that W_UTM is "unknowable" (non-computable, anyway--surely GOD knows it). And I understand how to write a number in binary. Then we hit this: "Well, it turns out these 0's and 1's have no mathematical structure. They cannot be compressed."
Yeah the old "it turns out" argument. I guess he's leaving that part up to the students? Or maybe the proof is "trivial"? I can understand leaving out details, but for crying out loud this is the whole POINT of the research. WHY don't they have structure?
In any case, I still say it's unsurprising. I would have been skeptical of a claim (Godel's) that there are an infinite number of theorems without there ALSO being an infinite source for those theorems to theorize about. --
As someone else mentioned, this sounds like a pretty simple application of an (admittedly difficult) earlier result by Godel: Given a formal system of "sufficient power" there will always be theorems expressible but unprovable in that system. (And if you add the "missing theorem" to the system, the resulting system has the same "problem", ad infinitum)
Considering that Godel's stuff came out in 1933(?) and if this work really IS just a restatement of that fact then I doubt the "foundations of mathematics are in an uproar". --
Why not just port GTK to GGI*. Sure, they haven't updated in a while--but with a big name project like GTK relying on them, maybe they'd get a move on.
(Note to latecomers: GGI is a display-device agnostic graphics API--it can use svgalib, framebuffers, X windows, X root window, even paper!)
*I just tried to follow my own link and found the I couldn't resolve the name. Google's most recent cached pages have dates from December. Is GGI dead? --
"Amazon is preventing them from USING the IDEA of one-click shopping."
If "use" were the issue, Amazon would be suing ME after I visit B&N. But Amazon is suing B&N because B&N is selling the SERVICE of one-click shopping.
Same with gifs: a website is providing the SERVICE of a gif to view--since that SERVICE depends on a patent owned by Unisys, they are suing.
"Make no mistake, when someone files a patent, they're claiming exclusive USE of an idea."
Yes, but only in the marketplace. If I see cool-gadget X in the store and then go home and build one in my workshop for my own use, have I violated the patent? Well....now that I put it that way....maybe so.
Anyway, the main question still stands: If multiple entities have creations A, B and C such that A + B + C used in tandem infringe on patent P--which entity is guilty of infringement? I guess your answer would be "whoever uses A, B and C together." --
"This one is so broad that anyone using a web server/browser is an infringer."
Anyone USING a web server/browser? No. Patents don't keep anyone from USING something, they keep someone from SELLING it (as their own).
I was going to explain who it really WOULD hurt, but it brings up a question for the lawyers: Let's say someone patented a system for something like "server-based calculations that are sent in an OS-agnostic and standardized format which is then interpreted and displayed on a client PC". Then Adam Aadvark comes along, starts a company called Association A that makes software S1 that runs on a server and can spit out any data you want. Bob Bankroll starts Business B that sells a standardized format F that works with Assoc A's software S. And Charlie Cookie starts Company C whose software S2 displays the data transported by Business B's format F.
There is no collusion between the companies and the founders don't know each other. The system just evolves by natural market forces. Who is infringing on the patent? --
Tunneling over HTTP? SMTP?? WTF for? I've heard people say "so they can get around proxies". Ummm, hello--if I'm blocking it I want it blocked.
The article I read said something about a "SOAPAction" header that you could filter on. The trouble with it was three-fold though:
1) Even the article claimed it's usage wasn't widespread.
2) There didn't seem to be any requirement that the header correspond to reality.
3) What if I want to have security based on the parameter values, not on the name of the method?
What's worse, even a system admin rarely knows all the processes that are running on a Windows machine. There'll probably be SOAP servers embedded in Note-freaking-pad. Say goodbye to any sense of security... --
I agree that increasing the popularity of programming is a good thing, but I don't even know where to start explaining what's wrong with your method.
First of all, natural language at what level? Clearly I can't just say to the computer "Hey, create me a report." It's going to need to know source data, selection criteria, subtotaling, etc.
Second of all, there are many many details that go into a "solution". Natural languages skate over these because we generally don't need to specify them. Not, I hasten to add, because everybody already knows about it (in which case just tell the computer and then it would know too). Natural language just isn't all that precise about some things. "I gave the boys two balls." How many boys? Two balls each or two balls total? Gave as a gift or just handed to them?
Programming languages aren't just regular languages with a lot of extra punctuation. Each "word" in a programming language has an exactly specified meaning and function. But natural languages have fluid meanings--even the parts of speech don't stand still! "You can verb any English noun" my friend used to say.
That precise, technical quality serves two functions. The one that's obvious to every programmer is that computers don't understand anything else. The other function is: algorithms themselves often (always?) need precise definitions. Sure, the computer can create a precise algorithm from a fuzzy natural language input--but is it the one meant?
This would all be obvious if you thought about what you were saying: You want a device that can take a natural language specification and output a working program, right? We already have that device--it's called a programmer. And how often does the programmer have to come back with questions? Pretty damn often. And how many people can successfully talk to a programmer such that the programmer outputs a program that the user wanted? Not very many--that's why we have "analysts" (and humor sites about stupid users).
It all boils down to this: At least 50% of people don't know what they want. At at least 50% of the people who do, don't know how to ask for it. --
"But my cable company promised that they could hook me up this spring..."
I called my cable company (and/or checked the website) every few months for three years. The response was always "we are upgrading the equipment in your area, we'll have it in a few months".
Finally, it arrived. Scheduled to be installed on Saturday. Wednesday I get a job offer in another state so I had to cancel. I've moved now--no cable modem access here but "in a few months" there will be.
Wouldn't that be Gates' wet dream come true? I assume you mean "....NET Run On OSes Beyond Windows" though.
In any case--what's all the hubbub? I just finished reading an article about SOAP. Sounded pretty neat. About as neat as when I was reading about RPC several years ago. And still no real difference than just plain old "networking".
When I download my mail using an IMAP "FETCH" or POP3 "UIDL" how is that any different (besides generality) than a "remote procedure call" or "server object access"? Answer: It ain't. Yes, generality is important. No, it isn't a "breakthrough" or a "revolution". It certainly doesn't need to be invented (at least) 4 times (RPC, CORBA, XML-RPC, SOAP).
Sure, SOAP and.NET are all new and shiny--but what do they provide? Don't confuse the shovel with the ditch, as I read somewhere recently. Updating your shovel with no benefit to either the shoveler or the ditch is just technological masturbation.
--
Slashdot Mirror
"One of the things I try to focus on with Ask Slashdot questions are issues involving trademarks and the big guy trying to rob the little guy out of a name, or a domain that they may have had for years."
And the *other* thing you focus on is people who are too lazy to do their own homework.
And that pretty much sums up Ask Slashdot.
--
...pictures of naked women.
--
Where did you get these MP3's?
Umm...they blew off a passing CD onto my hard drive.
What about this "One-Click"(tm) website you are running?
I think the Feature Fairy left it there.
Do you have a license for that copy of Windows?
Windows? How did that get installed? Musta been my cat. She likes Solitaire.
--
"the average human would only live about 600 years"
If the average human lives 600 years, how long does the exceptional human live?
More to the point, how do accidents represent an "upper bound"? When I get to 600 without walking in front of a car or falling on a pair of scissors, are the Probability Police going to come hunt me down so I don't "throw off the statistics"?
--
I was under the impression that carbonic acid (?) prevented calcium uptake. So it seems like carbonated milk would be counter-productive.
--
It ISN'T NP-hard. Remember that an NP-hard problem is one where, even if you had a proposed solution, you can't verify the answer in polynomial time. Verifying a factorization answer is easy: just multiply. That's polynomial time, therefore factoring isn't NP-hard.
That's as opposed to Travelling Salesman where even if you have a proposed path, you'd have to check all possible paths to decide if yours was the minimum.
--
"Their in-house coders pour over each microchip and line of code hundereds of times looking for even the smallest bug. This superior attention to detail is not possible using the limited resources of the open-source method."
Sure it is, here's how: Use exactly the process NASA uses know and that you are apparently comfortable with. Then ADD (not replace) more programmers by making the source available via FTP.
Adding openness to an existing project loses nothing. Yes, shifting the burden of quality OFF of some process ONTO openness may not always be a good idea (not in one go, anyway). But adding more checks doesn't lower quality.
--
...you are supposed to put your DNA_FTP client into binary mode before doing the copy. Just reformat the sheep and do the copy again--it'll work, trust me.
--
They can offer high speed for low cost because the maximum cable length is going to be what, 3 miles?
--
You give no details about that programmer's tasks, the research project or even your field of study so it's kind of hard to advise you. Why does it matter? Because different tasks require different programmers.
If you have a model of, say, planet rotation, complete with equations and all you need is someone to type it in with the right syntax--get an undergraduate to do it for you. Or a "business programmer".
If you need control and data acquisition, find an embedded programmer.
If you need supercomputer power, find someone with experience in that.
Or do you need someone with whom you can "talk science" without having to dumb it down before he can program it? (If so, contact me at dazed2d@yahoo.com--I might be interested)
It all depends on whether you are looking for specific skills or general knowledge.
--
They are calling the new species "kenyanthropus platyops". Why? Does the skull show signs of having a duck bill?
--
Forget the browser. Just add a "terminal client" (like X or something). Let it run against my "real" computer in the other room/across town. Then you don't even really need a processor to run apps. The tablet is really just a display and input device.
--
The general ordered the troops to advance. (verb)
The soldier asked for an advance on his paycheck. (noun)
The general sent in the advance troops. (adjective)
English allows words to change it's part of speech pretty easily, or, as my friend used to say "You can verb any noun in the language."
--
Please mod him down.
--
Or understand all too well?
.0001%)
Let's see a show of hands of all those that have emailed a congressperson via webpage touting some issue. (Probable answer: 60%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have emailed a congressperson "manually". (Probable answer: 30%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have snailmailed a congressperson. (Probable answer: 2%)
Now let's see a show of hands of those that have personally spoken with a congressperson. (Probable answer:
Not all forms of communication require an equal amount of investment by the communcator--therefore they should get unequal amounts of attention from the communicatee.
If you want your opinion read, just write it down (or print it out)--it only costs $.33 to send.
Addenda: Not all congresspeople are deleting all mail. I emailed my reps recently and got a physical (admittedly form-) letter back from one of them.
--
This reminds me of that cartoon where all these equations are on the left and on the right, but in the middle is a box with "then some magic happens" written in it.
I understand your argument that W_UTM is "unknowable" (non-computable, anyway--surely GOD knows it). And I understand how to write a number in binary. Then we hit this: "Well, it turns out these 0's and 1's have no mathematical structure. They cannot be compressed."
Yeah the old "it turns out" argument. I guess he's leaving that part up to the students? Or maybe the proof is "trivial"? I can understand leaving out details, but for crying out loud this is the whole POINT of the research. WHY don't they have structure?
In any case, I still say it's unsurprising. I would have been skeptical of a claim (Godel's) that there are an infinite number of theorems without there ALSO being an infinite source for those theorems to theorize about.
--
As someone else mentioned, this sounds like a pretty simple application of an (admittedly difficult) earlier result by Godel: Given a formal system of "sufficient power" there will always be theorems expressible but unprovable in that system. (And if you add the "missing theorem" to the system, the resulting system has the same "problem", ad infinitum)
Considering that Godel's stuff came out in 1933(?) and if this work really IS just a restatement of that fact then I doubt the "foundations of mathematics are in an uproar".
--
Why not just port GTK to GGI*. Sure, they haven't updated in a while--but with a big name project like GTK relying on them, maybe they'd get a move on.
(Note to latecomers: GGI is a display-device agnostic graphics API--it can use svgalib, framebuffers, X windows, X root window, even paper!)
*I just tried to follow my own link and found the I couldn't resolve the name. Google's most recent cached pages have dates from December. Is GGI dead?
--
"Amazon is preventing them from USING the IDEA of one-click shopping."
If "use" were the issue, Amazon would be suing ME after I visit B&N. But Amazon is suing B&N because B&N is selling the SERVICE of one-click shopping.
Same with gifs: a website is providing the SERVICE of a gif to view--since that SERVICE depends on a patent owned by Unisys, they are suing.
"Make no mistake, when someone files a patent, they're claiming exclusive USE of an idea."
Yes, but only in the marketplace. If I see cool-gadget X in the store and then go home and build one in my workshop for my own use, have I violated the patent? Well....now that I put it that way....maybe so.
Anyway, the main question still stands: If multiple entities have creations A, B and C such that A + B + C used in tandem infringe on patent P--which entity is guilty of infringement? I guess your answer would be "whoever uses A, B and C together."
--
"This one is so broad that anyone using a web server/browser is an infringer."
Anyone USING a web server/browser? No. Patents don't keep anyone from USING something, they keep someone from SELLING it (as their own).
I was going to explain who it really WOULD hurt, but it brings up a question for the lawyers: Let's say someone patented a system for something like "server-based calculations that are sent in an OS-agnostic and standardized format which is then interpreted and displayed on a client PC". Then Adam Aadvark comes along, starts a company called Association A that makes software S1 that runs on a server and can spit out any data you want. Bob Bankroll starts Business B that sells a standardized format F that works with Assoc A's software S. And Charlie Cookie starts Company C whose software S2 displays the data transported by Business B's format F.
There is no collusion between the companies and the founders don't know each other. The system just evolves by natural market forces. Who is infringing on the patent?
--
My first son was born on January 8 (1999)--Stephen Hawking's birthday. My second on March 14 (2001...yes, today!)--Albert Einstein's birthday.
I can hardly wait until 2040 when the Nobel Prizes start rolling in...
--
Tunneling over HTTP? SMTP?? WTF for? I've heard people say "so they can get around proxies". Ummm, hello--if I'm blocking it I want it blocked.
The article I read said something about a "SOAPAction" header that you could filter on. The trouble with it was three-fold though:
1) Even the article claimed it's usage wasn't widespread.
2) There didn't seem to be any requirement that the header correspond to reality.
3) What if I want to have security based on the parameter values, not on the name of the method?
What's worse, even a system admin rarely knows all the processes that are running on a Windows machine. There'll probably be SOAP servers embedded in Note-freaking-pad. Say goodbye to any sense of security...
--
I agree that increasing the popularity of programming is a good thing, but I don't even know where to start explaining what's wrong with your method.
First of all, natural language at what level? Clearly I can't just say to the computer "Hey, create me a report." It's going to need to know source data, selection criteria, subtotaling, etc.
Second of all, there are many many details that go into a "solution". Natural languages skate over these because we generally don't need to specify them. Not, I hasten to add, because everybody already knows about it (in which case just tell the computer and then it would know too). Natural language just isn't all that precise about some things. "I gave the boys two balls." How many boys? Two balls each or two balls total? Gave as a gift or just handed to them?
Programming languages aren't just regular languages with a lot of extra punctuation. Each "word" in a programming language has an exactly specified meaning and function. But natural languages have fluid meanings--even the parts of speech don't stand still! "You can verb any English noun" my friend used to say.
That precise, technical quality serves two functions. The one that's obvious to every programmer is that computers don't understand anything else. The other function is: algorithms themselves often (always?) need precise definitions. Sure, the computer can create a precise algorithm from a fuzzy natural language input--but is it the one meant?
This would all be obvious if you thought about what you were saying: You want a device that can take a natural language specification and output a working program, right? We already have that device--it's called a programmer. And how often does the programmer have to come back with questions? Pretty damn often. And how many people can successfully talk to a programmer such that the programmer outputs a program that the user wanted? Not very many--that's why we have "analysts" (and humor sites about stupid users).
It all boils down to this: At least 50% of people don't know what they want. At at least 50% of the people who do, don't know how to ask for it.
--
"But my cable company promised that they could hook me up this spring..."
I called my cable company (and/or checked the website) every few months for three years. The response was always "we are upgrading the equipment in your area, we'll have it in a few months".
Finally, it arrived. Scheduled to be installed on Saturday. Wednesday I get a job offer in another state so I had to cancel. I've moved now--no cable modem access here but "in a few months" there will be.
I'm going to get DSL.
--
MS To Work To Make .NET Run OSes Beyond Windows
.NET are all new and shiny--but what do they provide? Don't confuse the shovel with the ditch, as I read somewhere recently. Updating your shovel with no benefit to either the shoveler or the ditch is just technological masturbation.
Wouldn't that be Gates' wet dream come true? I assume you mean "....NET Run On OSes Beyond Windows" though.
In any case--what's all the hubbub? I just finished reading an article about SOAP. Sounded pretty neat. About as neat as when I was reading about RPC several years ago. And still no real difference than just plain old "networking".
When I download my mail using an IMAP "FETCH" or POP3 "UIDL" how is that any different (besides generality) than a "remote procedure call" or "server object access"? Answer: It ain't. Yes, generality is important. No, it isn't a "breakthrough" or a "revolution". It certainly doesn't need to be invented (at least) 4 times (RPC, CORBA, XML-RPC, SOAP).
Sure, SOAP and
--