At last a networked digital audio recording and storage device that actually looks like a proper piece of hifi gear for the rack in the lounge.
While there are several units along these lines on the market now, they haven't really respected the basic ergonomic and stylistic standards for hifi separates in the modern home until now. This product seems to be the closest so far --- I want one, purchaseable here with a UK warranty!:-)
Lawyers should be placed on the Arc B together with telephone sanitizers, advertising account executives, hairdressers, insurance salesmen and management consultants, then sent on a direct course towards a nice distant and solid planet to save them from being eaten alive by the mutant star goat.
Arc B should of course be sent ahead of the other arcs --- there's nothing nicer than a nice clean telephone to welcome home the producers and achievers.
and what you have is no free market at all, just a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those who abuse the system
Whereas what we have at present is a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those with money to pay lawyers through the incentive of litigation for profit.
Both alternatives are bad, but the first is in general only taken up by "bad" people (in the sense of anti-social) and hence is generally frowned upon and hence is somewhat self-limiting.
In contrast, the second is painted as seeking justice despite going orders of magnitude too far in terms of financial redress, and since the benefit is obtained via the legal system, the practice is given a sheen of respectibility. The whole thing is inherently questionable (and often questioned), yet it continues to gain ground despite the distortions it creates in so many areas --- we tend to discuss mainly how the disease affects "intellectual property", patents and trademarks here on Slashdot, but of course the effect is vastly wider than that.
Without compensatory damages, there would be no downside to enagage in wrongdoing
And with that sledgehammer argument (which is valid) you justify seeking 65 million in damages for stealing a domain? There's the problem displayed in glowing neon lights.
The important thing for ordinary mortals in this case was that the original registrant got his domain back after the forgery. Done and dusted, and should now be history.
The utterly unimportant, dangerous, and despicable thing for ordinary mortals in this case is that because of the subsequent litigation for damages, the case goes on and on forever to the benefit of lawyers' pockets and judges' careers, while the original party is enticed to keep feeding the legal system by the carrot of millions in damages for doing nothing productive at all.
It's this issue of damages that so utterly distorts the fabric of modern life in countless ways, away from productive endeavours that actually create things and into litigation for profit.
Open your eyes people to the motivating forces behind patents, trademarks and other restraints on progress in the modern world, and see beyond the dollar signs. Beneath a shallow surface veneer in which it delivers useful and commonsense justice, there lurks a legal monster that creates and carefully encourages most of our daily problems in the first world.
If one micropayment per day as defined in the article adds up to US$10 per year, and if this yearly payment would prevent adds from being displayed by all the sites registering with the scheme (because they obtain an annual cut of all those $10 contributions), then this sounds like a very appealing package indeed! Roll on aggregated micropayments:-)
Notice that this doesn't prevent per-site micropayment schemes from coexisting alongside it, when there are special services or products also being offered at the sites.
You write: mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom
We do not own a copy of an Xbox, we own an actual Xbox, an individual object in its own right. We were sold that individual object, not licensed the rights to use a mere copy. Furthermore, we are not creating derivative works from the object which we possess and own, and in particular we are not cloning a new unit and hence not reducing the manufacturer's sales in any way. Instead we are enhancing our own single individual unit, and note that after modification, our original unmodified unit no longer exists, so using language appropriate to non-destructive duplication of electronic data is entirely inappropriate here.
Poor legal advice
It's not legal advice, it's commonsense advice. When the law is out of step with commonsense, it no longer fulfils its purpose of serving the people and gets widely ignored, and that's what we're seeing already. It'll probably get worse too, if the legal and political professions don't extract their collective heads from out of the sand and realize that the best way of serving big business is by serving the consumer from which all the profits of big business are derived. The current strategy of kicking the consumer is so shortsighted that it's scary that people can be so blind and stupid.
mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom
We do not own a copy of an Xbox, we own an actual Xbox, an individual object in its own right. We were sold that individual object, not licensed the rights to use a mere copy. Furthermore, we are not creating derivative works from the object which we possess and own, and in particular we are not cloning a new unit and not reducing the manufacturer's sales in any way. Instead we are enhancing our own single individual unit, and note that after modification, our original unmodified unit no longer exists, so using language appropriate to non-destructive duplication of electronic data is entirely inappropriate here.
Poor legal advice
It's not legal advice, it's commonsense advice. When the law is out of step with commonsense, it no longer fulfils its purpose of serving the people and gets widely ignored, and that's what we're seeing already. It'll probably get worse too, if the legal and political professions don't extract their collective heads from out of the sand and realize that the best way of serving big business is by serving the consumer from which all the profits of big business are derived. The current strategy of kicking the consumer is so shortsighted that it's scary that people can be so blind and stupid.
Cracking keys is a very hands-off approach to improving your Xbox or any other device. You bought the hardware, it's yours, so enhance it to your heart's content by installing a hardware mod that makes it general purpose, or get it done for you by a supplier. Voiding the warranty is no issue if you value the extended specification.
It's no different in concept to any other kind of DIY improvements that you carry out at home --- absolutely everything that you buy has patents, trademarks, or other legal constraints, but in no other industry do they see fit to limit what you can do with items that you have purchased, simply because they can. It's your equipment, do with it what you wish. (If you were merely leasing the hardware then it would cost much less and they might have a case, but here they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, take your money for an outright purchase and still lay claim to controlling your possessions. That's simply not right.)
The reason why it's not a thankless job for Craig Sanders is because he is in a worthwhile position within his company, able to control and hence take pride in the running of complete systems, not employed as a mere grease monkey without input yet always blamed when the systems are down.
I think many sysadmins on this forum will find that the following rings a bell. You begin with total control in a startup IT team, decide on and bring into operation all aspects of a solution and keep it all running perfectly for years, with near-zero downtime and great job satisfaction. Then the corporate machine takes over, basically overturns everything you've done and creates an absolute disaster, and despite ignoring utterly all your input, you are to blame since you're the sysadmin. Needless to say, job satisfaction is, let's just say, less. This ring a bell?
Craig Sanders has managed to avoid stage 2 so far. He deserves only praise, in my book.
Link to open-minded scientific position
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
If you've been trying to obtain more than a "frown" from scientists on questioning evolution then you'll know about some of the slightly better than normal critiques, like that made by creationist Timothy Wallace countering a representative article written by evolutionist Mark Isaak on the talk.origins website.
Those criticisms were then countered in turn by (open-minded evolutionist) Wayne Duck, and throughout his response you can see his open-minded scientific position quite clearly. Where Wallace makes a point using clear logic, he accepts it, rather than simply rubbishing the criticisms with more rhetoric. Note in particular the final page, in which Duck could not be more clear as to the status of evolution as a scientific theory: ultimately, while the huge weight of supporting evidence for evolution is still entire universes away from being a complete picture, it is believed by scientists to be reliable only because there is currently no other theory that comes anywhere even remotely near to providing as scientifically complete a model with substantiating evidence as does evolution. But, as he says, that could change tomorrow. It's unlikely.
Real scientists will not frown at good questions
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
It isn't frowned upon by scientists to question evolution. Only non-scientists think that science seeks out the truth about reality, and most of them are quite unaware that science only creates models and correlates them with the observed behaviour of reality, and thus has no means to determine the actual structure of reality at all.
Admittedly, scientists occasionally get a mental lapse, forget their own principles, and start pontificating as if they knew The Truth, but it's not all that common except when they're acting defensively for some reason. Of course, they lose their science hat when they do that, despite protesting that it's still firmly on their heads.
It should be said though that the questioning has to be based on sound prior research and must use the language and logical tools and methods of science, because otherwise it merely wastes the scientist's time to have to provide the questioner with remedial education --- a very good reason for "frowning". That's the main reason why non-scientists sometimes get what they consider to be an unsatisfactory response to their questions: their points are usually just empty handwaving to a scientist, simply because they lack the scientific training to do better.
Robots will benefit from Tai Chi and surpass it
on
Tai Chi Robots
·
· Score: 2
In sum, the real physical dynamics and requirements of Tai Chi cannot be simulated by a robot. A robot may *mimic* moves that look like Tai Chi, but that's all.
It's possible to interpret your words as meaning that an authentic Tai Chi practitioner can harness some magical force or hidden power of the universe which is not available to the world of physics and technology. If so, we have no point of contact for a reasoned argument, since I don't subscribe to the concept of souls or mystical essenses.
If on the other hand what you mean is that Tai Chi is so exquisitely tuned to the needs of the human body and mind that a robot could not really duplicate it, simply because it is not made of flesh and blood, then I agree completely. However, notice that a robot would not need to do so anyway. A Tai Chi master at his or her peak is ultimately just a near-perfectly balanced machine, and such a state of power, readiness and competence can be the baseline specification for the robot at design time. Furthermore, once the robot is up and running then it can fine-tune its behaviour beyond that design baseline. Such robots will appear in time, as it's really just an engineering problem to be solved.
So, assuming that we're talking about the physical world and not something mystical, robots will indeed not really do Tai Chi as you say, that is true, but they will benefit from humans practicing the art, and then surpass them inevitably.
Having said that, the future is rosy not bleak, since mankind is on a path of self-transformation in which he integrates fully with his technology. Ultimately we'll all benefit from the work of Tai Chi masters, and to some extent carry their accomplishments within ourselves.
Aren't the things that are being patented algorithms? I suppose that and (to a much lesser extent) data-structures.
Bruce has the right angle on this I believe, but doesn't take it far enough --- maybe that's tactical though.:-)
This is an area without any real uncertainties whatsoever. I've worked far too long in mathematics, science, electronic engineering, computer science, architecture, design, languages, programming and various other related things, to have any uncertainty about the meaning of the concepts underlying algorithms and software, so I may as well speak up. (:-) Any confusion out there stems purely from the use of multiple alternative terms and questionable or at least unhelpful forms of debate.
An algorithm is a recipe or method in the conventional non-computing sense (in other words, it is an expression of how something can be done). It can take numerous forms, from scrawlings on bits of paper, to bit patterns in electronic machines, poems cast out on the wind, chemical fluctuations across the myriad synapses of our brains, and countless others. The physical representation doesn't matter to the essence of an algorithm, and nor does the language used in that representation, including the language of mathematics.
Given this basic understanding, it's pretty simple to realize that there is no significant difference except in form and precision between the algorithm in a text book, its handwaved description on a patent application, a computer program defining it, the changes of process state while it's actually running, or an equivalent mathematical expression or proof of its specification. The algorithm is present in all cases, without fail. That is why software patents are so.... evil, much worse than just bad. They slice up the pie of human expression into proprietary slices, and then incarcerate us in them.
There is only one additional issue in this area that deserves a few more words, and that is data structures as Bruce mentioned above. They are not a separate part of the picture. Algorithms are always referenced to the things that they manipulate, be they spoons of sugar, mathematical values, snippets of DNA, or composite data structures in programs or systems; without data to reference, an algorithm would be entirely meaningless or nonsensical. Conversely, a data structure on its own is totally without purpose, an arbitrary aggregate; it is algorithms that give it purpose and give meaning to its current state. In the patent debates then, one can pretty safely dismiss any attempt at separation -- they are both parts of the padlock being closed around our thoughts.
Good luck in W3C -- maybe it will help a little with the patent problem, at least as a stepping stone in the bigger fight.
These so-called "supercomputers" only have the performance of a supercomputer on the class of problems which are inherently parallelizable.
Sure, but that was also true in Seymore Cray's day. Admittedly his machines provided substantially better scalar performance than normal mainframes did at the time, but their rated "supercomputer" performance was only obtainable by operating on multiple datasets simultaneously using vector operations. If your problem wasn't parallelizable, your investment was largely wasted. Fortunately, there is no lack of real-world problems that are inherently parallel.
It's worth noting also that conventional single-machine performance is inherently limited by a number of very strong physical constraints, primarily the speed of light and device leakage currents as transistor geometries become ever smaller. This really leaves us nowhere to go for pure sequential computation speedup. Quantum computers will probably live in a single box to reduce decoherence, but even they require problem breakdown into parallel solutions.
Hence the move away from scalar performance and towards multiprocessor, cluster, and distributed computing. With SETI@home delivering around 15 Teraflops on their specific problem at the distributed end of the spectrum, and with the PARAM Padma's IBM Power4 providing 2 processors per chip and 8 processors per module directly out of the IBM fabs even before assembly of multiprocessors and clusters commences, clearly computation is heading towards a future of high parallelism. And about time.:-)
It's not really possible to raise a stink with government about software patents and to expect a viable solution to the problem, unless there is a concrete, visible and professional banner under which the case can be brought. Without that, the words have no impact whatsoever when smothered by the high-profile workload on the desks of most legislators. We lack that at the moment.
With regard to the W3C issue, I'm just worried that bending to the patent wishes of the corporates here actually enshrines even further the current patent malaise.
I get a very bad sense of foreboding. One day they will come back after some patent issue blows up and tell you that "You endorsed it."
If the companies are so big-headed and self-centered that they'd walk out on W3C and set up their own "standard", let them. They won't find it all that easy, in fact there's a good chance that they'll get nowhere and just be marginalized.
Compromise is sensible and reasonable when creating technical specifications, but to knowingly open the door to an entire class of future patent claims is not, and to acceed to their "we'll leave" blackmail is entirely unacceptable.
Easy, they've got their foot on the accelerator of new technology, new ideas, new rules, and new freedoms.
In contrast, we've got our foot on the brake of new constraints like "Intellectual Property", new "growth" areas like patents on everything, and new laws to ensure that old business doesn't succumb to the new.
To which continent do you think the label of "progressive" applies best?
The only reason we're still doing as well as we are here in the "first" world is because we have a large head of steam and massive resources from past years, and a world bank that knows on which side its toast is buttered. If everyone were to start afresh right now, our only growth industry would be in lawyers and related non-producers of wealth. It's kind of depressing.
Here's a link [eads.net] to Arianspace's commercial product (a lab tool, not a positive power fusion reactor) which generates a useful neutron flux based on these IEC techniques.
Given this, presumably there can be no more discussion as to whether IEC produces fusion (although alternative mechanisms are always a possibility). Scaling up is the real question now.
Doh, that's precisely the issue! People (including yourself) support their position against guns using a "for the good of the children" argument (among other arguments), and then seek to make the law apply to everyone, even to those who do not have children in their homes.
If you claim to not see how such reasoning leads to unnecessarily broad legislation then you're not being genuine in your argumenting.
I'm not trying to counter your other arguments, but merely pointing out that this particular one is flawed through being inapplicable to those without children and hence unnecessarily reducing the effectiveness of weapons in their child-free homes. You ought to be able to see and accept the logic of that, even if it weakens your anti-gun stance somewhat.
But this is just one example of "for the good of the children" creating unfair legislation. The problem extends much further than just firearms.
Convergence of protein chemistry and A-life :-)
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 2
I wonder at what point the random processes of in vitro evolution in the lab's chemical soups would constitute something that could be called life, using a minimalist interpretation of the term? As soon as any form of self-replication is achieved? It will already have environmentally-directed behaviour after all, thanks to catalysis.
And would a 2-base minimalist "lifeform" have to be regarded as necessarily alien by 4-base life?:-)
It isn't to restrict your freedom... (although I'm having a difficult time seeing how your freedom is being restricted by this).
OK, I thought it was clear, but maybe not so, so let me spell it out.
If I possess a firearm but there are no children in my house, then I do not need to make access denial to my firearm childproof. It can be out of sight yet trivially accessible when I need it. In contrast, a parent does need to bear that extra burden of responsibility if he or she also possesses a gun.
An inappropriately broad legislation would be one which requires me to carry the same burden of responsibility as parents while not being a parent, "for the good of the children".
I believe that "the point" here is to prevent children from getting their hands on guns, which I would consider a noble cause.
All those prohibitions justified as being "for the good of the children" are pretty damn annoying to the millions that don't have children by choice and yet find their freedoms as adults restricted by inappropriately broad legislation.
If you have children, you have entered into a position where additional responsibilities apply to you. One of those might well be additional constraints on firearms, at least in terms of their accessibility. But please don't try to transfer your responsibilities onto others and thereby limit their freedoms as well.
The analogy given in the article of a car manufacturer dictating where the car may be repaired is fairly good, but maybe this analogy would be even better.
The primary purpose of a DVD player or a DVD/CD-based games console is to play media. The primary purpose of a car is to transport passengers.
Consider then the uproar that would be caused if a US car manufacturer only allowed US nationals to be transported in its cars, only Japanese nationals in Japanese-manufactured cars, and so on. That is the direct counterpart to DVD and game regionalization. It's wrong, regardless of the economic reasoning behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
Integra + Onkyo, please market this in the UK!
:-)
At last a networked digital audio recording and storage device that actually looks like a proper piece of hifi gear for the rack in the lounge.
While there are several units along these lines on the market now, they haven't really respected the basic ergonomic and stylistic standards for hifi separates in the modern home until now. This product seems to be the closest so far --- I want one, purchaseable here with a UK warranty!
Lawyers should be placed on the Arc B together with telephone sanitizers, advertising account executives, hairdressers, insurance salesmen and management consultants, then sent on a direct course towards a nice distant and solid planet to save them from being eaten alive by the mutant star goat.
Arc B should of course be sent ahead of the other arcs --- there's nothing nicer than a nice clean telephone to welcome home the producers and achievers.
and what you have is no free market at all, just a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those who abuse the system
Whereas what we have at present is a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those with money to pay lawyers through the incentive of litigation for profit.
Both alternatives are bad, but the first is in general only taken up by "bad" people (in the sense of anti-social) and hence is generally frowned upon and hence is somewhat self-limiting.
In contrast, the second is painted as seeking justice despite going orders of magnitude too far in terms of financial redress, and since the benefit is obtained via the legal system, the practice is given a sheen of respectibility. The whole thing is inherently questionable (and often questioned), yet it continues to gain ground despite the distortions it creates in so many areas --- we tend to discuss mainly how the disease affects "intellectual property", patents and trademarks here on Slashdot, but of course the effect is vastly wider than that.
Without compensatory damages, there would be no downside to enagage in wrongdoing
And with that sledgehammer argument (which is valid) you justify seeking 65 million in damages for stealing a domain? There's the problem displayed in glowing neon lights.
The important thing for ordinary mortals in this case was that the original registrant got his domain back after the forgery. Done and dusted, and should now be history.
The utterly unimportant, dangerous, and despicable thing for ordinary mortals in this case is that because of the subsequent litigation for damages, the case goes on and on forever to the benefit of lawyers' pockets and judges' careers, while the original party is enticed to keep feeding the legal system by the carrot of millions in damages for doing nothing productive at all.
It's this issue of damages that so utterly distorts the fabric of modern life in countless ways, away from productive endeavours that actually create things and into litigation for profit.
Open your eyes people to the motivating forces behind patents, trademarks and other restraints on progress in the modern world, and see beyond the dollar signs. Beneath a shallow surface veneer in which it delivers useful and commonsense justice, there lurks a legal monster that creates and carefully encourages most of our daily problems in the first world.
The funny thing about this alleged Viable System for Micropayments is that it replaces the per-site micropayments by a single aggregated payment.
:-)
cough cough
Well, whatever works I guess!
If one micropayment per day as defined in the article adds up to US$10 per year, and if this yearly payment would prevent adds from being displayed by all the sites registering with the scheme (because they obtain an annual cut of all those $10 contributions), then this sounds like a very appealing package indeed! Roll on aggregated micropayments :-)
Notice that this doesn't prevent per-site micropayment schemes from coexisting alongside it, when there are special services or products also being offered at the sites.
You write: mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom
We do not own a copy of an Xbox, we own an actual Xbox, an individual object in its own right. We were sold that individual object, not licensed the rights to use a mere copy. Furthermore, we are not creating derivative works from the object which we possess and own, and in particular we are not cloning a new unit and hence not reducing the manufacturer's sales in any way. Instead we are enhancing our own single individual unit, and note that after modification, our original unmodified unit no longer exists, so using language appropriate to non-destructive duplication of electronic data is entirely inappropriate here.
Poor legal advice
It's not legal advice, it's commonsense advice. When the law is out of step with commonsense, it no longer fulfils its purpose of serving the people and gets widely ignored, and that's what we're seeing already. It'll probably get worse too, if the legal and political professions don't extract their collective heads from out of the sand and realize that the best way of serving big business is by serving the consumer from which all the profits of big business are derived. The current strategy of kicking the consumer is so shortsighted that it's scary that people can be so blind and stupid.
mere ownership of a copy of a work or invention has never granted plenary rights to modify or make derivative works therefrom
We do not own a copy of an Xbox, we own an actual Xbox, an individual object in its own right. We were sold that individual object, not licensed the rights to use a mere copy. Furthermore, we are not creating derivative works from the object which we possess and own, and in particular we are not cloning a new unit and not reducing the manufacturer's sales in any way. Instead we are enhancing our own single individual unit, and note that after modification, our original unmodified unit no longer exists, so using language appropriate to non-destructive duplication of electronic data is entirely inappropriate here.
Poor legal advice
It's not legal advice, it's commonsense advice. When the law is out of step with commonsense, it no longer fulfils its purpose of serving the people and gets widely ignored, and that's what we're seeing already. It'll probably get worse too, if the legal and political professions don't extract their collective heads from out of the sand and realize that the best way of serving big business is by serving the consumer from which all the profits of big business are derived. The current strategy of kicking the consumer is so shortsighted that it's scary that people can be so blind and stupid.
Cracking keys is a very hands-off approach to improving your Xbox or any other device. You bought the hardware, it's yours, so enhance it to your heart's content by installing a hardware mod that makes it general purpose, or get it done for you by a supplier. Voiding the warranty is no issue if you value the extended specification.
It's no different in concept to any other kind of DIY improvements that you carry out at home --- absolutely everything that you buy has patents, trademarks, or other legal constraints, but in no other industry do they see fit to limit what you can do with items that you have purchased, simply because they can. It's your equipment, do with it what you wish. (If you were merely leasing the hardware then it would cost much less and they might have a case, but here they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, take your money for an outright purchase and still lay claim to controlling your possessions. That's simply not right.)
The reason why it's not a thankless job for Craig Sanders is because he is in a worthwhile position within his company, able to control and hence take pride in the running of complete systems, not employed as a mere grease monkey without input yet always blamed when the systems are down.
I think many sysadmins on this forum will find that the following rings a bell. You begin with total control in a startup IT team, decide on and bring into operation all aspects of a solution and keep it all running perfectly for years, with near-zero downtime and great job satisfaction. Then the corporate machine takes over, basically overturns everything you've done and creates an absolute disaster, and despite ignoring utterly all your input, you are to blame since you're the sysadmin. Needless to say, job satisfaction is, let's just say, less. This ring a bell?
Craig Sanders has managed to avoid stage 2 so far. He deserves only praise, in my book.
If you've been trying to obtain more than a "frown" from scientists on questioning evolution then you'll know about some of the slightly better than normal critiques, like that made by creationist Timothy Wallace countering a representative article written by evolutionist Mark Isaak on the talk.origins website.
Those criticisms were then countered in turn by (open-minded evolutionist) Wayne Duck, and throughout his response you can see his open-minded scientific position quite clearly. Where Wallace makes a point using clear logic, he accepts it, rather than simply rubbishing the criticisms with more rhetoric. Note in particular the final page, in which Duck could not be more clear as to the status of evolution as a scientific theory: ultimately, while the huge weight of supporting evidence for evolution is still entire universes away from being a complete picture, it is believed by scientists to be reliable only because there is currently no other theory that comes anywhere even remotely near to providing as scientifically complete a model with substantiating evidence as does evolution. But, as he says, that could change tomorrow. It's unlikely.
It isn't frowned upon by scientists to question evolution. Only non-scientists think that science seeks out the truth about reality, and most of them are quite unaware that science only creates models and correlates them with the observed behaviour of reality, and thus has no means to determine the actual structure of reality at all.
Admittedly, scientists occasionally get a mental lapse, forget their own principles, and start pontificating as if they knew The Truth, but it's not all that common except when they're acting defensively for some reason. Of course, they lose their science hat when they do that, despite protesting that it's still firmly on their heads.
It should be said though that the questioning has to be based on sound prior research and must use the language and logical tools and methods of science, because otherwise it merely wastes the scientist's time to have to provide the questioner with remedial education --- a very good reason for "frowning". That's the main reason why non-scientists sometimes get what they consider to be an unsatisfactory response to their questions: their points are usually just empty handwaving to a scientist, simply because they lack the scientific training to do better.
In sum, the real physical dynamics and requirements of Tai Chi cannot be simulated by a robot. A robot may *mimic* moves that look like Tai Chi, but that's all.
It's possible to interpret your words as meaning that an authentic Tai Chi practitioner can harness some magical force or hidden power of the universe which is not available to the world of physics and technology. If so, we have no point of contact for a reasoned argument, since I don't subscribe to the concept of souls or mystical essenses.
If on the other hand what you mean is that Tai Chi is so exquisitely tuned to the needs of the human body and mind that a robot could not really duplicate it, simply because it is not made of flesh and blood, then I agree completely. However, notice that a robot would not need to do so anyway. A Tai Chi master at his or her peak is ultimately just a near-perfectly balanced machine, and such a state of power, readiness and competence can be the baseline specification for the robot at design time. Furthermore, once the robot is up and running then it can fine-tune its behaviour beyond that design baseline. Such robots will appear in time, as it's really just an engineering problem to be solved.
So, assuming that we're talking about the physical world and not something mystical, robots will indeed not really do Tai Chi as you say, that is true, but they will benefit from humans practicing the art, and then surpass them inevitably.
Having said that, the future is rosy not bleak, since mankind is on a path of self-transformation in which he integrates fully with his technology. Ultimately we'll all benefit from the work of Tai Chi masters, and to some extent carry their accomplishments within ourselves.
Aren't the things that are being patented algorithms? I suppose that and (to a much lesser extent) data-structures.
:-)
.... evil, much worse than just bad. They slice up the pie of human expression into proprietary slices, and then incarcerate us in them.
Bruce has the right angle on this I believe, but doesn't take it far enough --- maybe that's tactical though.
This is an area without any real uncertainties whatsoever. I've worked far too long in mathematics, science, electronic engineering, computer science, architecture, design, languages, programming and various other related things, to have any uncertainty about the meaning of the concepts underlying algorithms and software, so I may as well speak up. (:-) Any confusion out there stems purely from the use of multiple alternative terms and questionable or at least unhelpful forms of debate.
An algorithm is a recipe or method in the conventional non-computing sense (in other words, it is an expression of how something can be done). It can take numerous forms, from scrawlings on bits of paper, to bit patterns in electronic machines, poems cast out on the wind, chemical fluctuations across the myriad synapses of our brains, and countless others. The physical representation doesn't matter to the essence of an algorithm, and nor does the language used in that representation, including the language of mathematics.
Given this basic understanding, it's pretty simple to realize that there is no significant difference except in form and precision between the algorithm in a text book, its handwaved description on a patent application, a computer program defining it, the changes of process state while it's actually running, or an equivalent mathematical expression or proof of its specification. The algorithm is present in all cases, without fail. That is why software patents are so
There is only one additional issue in this area that deserves a few more words, and that is data structures as Bruce mentioned above. They are not a separate part of the picture. Algorithms are always referenced to the things that they manipulate, be they spoons of sugar, mathematical values, snippets of DNA, or composite data structures in programs or systems; without data to reference, an algorithm would be entirely meaningless or nonsensical. Conversely, a data structure on its own is totally without purpose, an arbitrary aggregate; it is algorithms that give it purpose and give meaning to its current state. In the patent debates then, one can pretty safely dismiss any attempt at separation -- they are both parts of the padlock being closed around our thoughts.
Good luck in W3C -- maybe it will help a little with the patent problem, at least as a stepping stone in the bigger fight.
These so-called "supercomputers" only have the performance of a supercomputer on the class of problems which are inherently parallelizable.
:-)
Sure, but that was also true in Seymore Cray's day. Admittedly his machines provided substantially better scalar performance than normal mainframes did at the time, but their rated "supercomputer" performance was only obtainable by operating on multiple datasets simultaneously using vector operations. If your problem wasn't parallelizable, your investment was largely wasted. Fortunately, there is no lack of real-world problems that are inherently parallel.
It's worth noting also that conventional single-machine performance is inherently limited by a number of very strong physical constraints, primarily the speed of light and device leakage currents as transistor geometries become ever smaller. This really leaves us nowhere to go for pure sequential computation speedup. Quantum computers will probably live in a single box to reduce decoherence, but even they require problem breakdown into parallel solutions.
Hence the move away from scalar performance and towards multiprocessor, cluster, and distributed computing. With SETI@home delivering around 15 Teraflops on their specific problem at the distributed end of the spectrum, and with the PARAM Padma's IBM Power4 providing 2 processors per chip and 8 processors per module directly out of the IBM fabs even before assembly of multiprocessors and clusters commences, clearly computation is heading towards a future of high parallelism. And about time.
It's not really possible to raise a stink with government about software patents and to expect a viable solution to the problem, unless there is a concrete, visible and professional banner under which the case can be brought. Without that, the words have no impact whatsoever when smothered by the high-profile workload on the desks of most legislators. We lack that at the moment.
With regard to the W3C issue, I'm just worried that bending to the patent wishes of the corporates here actually enshrines even further the current patent malaise.
I get a very bad sense of foreboding. One day they will come back after some patent issue blows up and tell you that "You endorsed it."
If the companies are so big-headed and self-centered that they'd walk out on W3C and set up their own "standard", let them. They won't find it all that easy, in fact there's a good chance that they'll get nowhere and just be marginalized.
Compromise is sensible and reasonable when creating technical specifications, but to knowingly open the door to an entire class of future patent claims is not, and to acceed to their "we'll leave" blackmail is entirely unacceptable.
Don't be pushed down that road, Bruce.
Easy, they've got their foot on the accelerator of new technology, new ideas, new rules, and new freedoms.
In contrast, we've got our foot on the brake of new constraints like "Intellectual Property", new "growth" areas like patents on everything, and new laws to ensure that old business doesn't succumb to the new.
To which continent do you think the label of "progressive" applies best?
The only reason we're still doing as well as we are here in the "first" world is because we have a large head of steam and massive resources from past years, and a world bank that knows on which side its toast is buttered. If everyone were to start afresh right now, our only growth industry would be in lawyers and related non-producers of wealth. It's kind of depressing.
The two most prominent links to IEC-based fusion technology seem to be Arianespace's FusionStar FS-NG1 Neutron Generator and the Advanced Fuels Project at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
:-)
These pretty much place fusion by IEC techniques on solid ground. Now we "just" need to focus on issues of scaling up to positive-power systems.
Here's a link [eads.net] to Arianspace's commercial product (a lab tool, not a positive power fusion reactor) which generates a useful neutron flux based on these IEC techniques.
Given this, presumably there can be no more discussion as to whether IEC produces fusion (although alternative mechanisms are always a possibility). Scaling up is the real question now.
This legislation isn't only for parents.
Doh, that's precisely the issue! People (including yourself) support their position against guns using a "for the good of the children" argument (among other arguments), and then seek to make the law apply to everyone, even to those who do not have children in their homes.
If you claim to not see how such reasoning leads to unnecessarily broad legislation then you're not being genuine in your argumenting.
I'm not trying to counter your other arguments, but merely pointing out that this particular one is flawed through being inapplicable to those without children and hence unnecessarily reducing the effectiveness of weapons in their child-free homes. You ought to be able to see and accept the logic of that, even if it weakens your anti-gun stance somewhat.
But this is just one example of "for the good of the children" creating unfair legislation. The problem extends much further than just firearms.
I wonder at what point the random processes of in vitro evolution in the lab's chemical soups would constitute something that could be called life, using a minimalist interpretation of the term? As soon as any form of self-replication is achieved? It will already have environmentally-directed behaviour after all, thanks to catalysis.
:-)
And would a 2-base minimalist "lifeform" have to be regarded as necessarily alien by 4-base life?
It isn't to restrict your freedom... (although I'm having a difficult time seeing how your freedom is being restricted by this).
OK, I thought it was clear, but maybe not so, so let me spell it out.
If I possess a firearm but there are no children in my house, then I do not need to make access denial to my firearm childproof. It can be out of sight yet trivially accessible when I need it. In contrast, a parent does need to bear that extra burden of responsibility if he or she also possesses a gun.
An inappropriately broad legislation would be one which requires me to carry the same burden of responsibility as parents while not being a parent, "for the good of the children".
I believe that "the point" here is to prevent children from getting their hands on guns, which I would consider a noble cause.
All those prohibitions justified as being "for the good of the children" are pretty damn annoying to the millions that don't have children by choice and yet find their freedoms as adults restricted by inappropriately broad legislation.
If you have children, you have entered into a position where additional responsibilities apply to you. One of those might well be additional constraints on firearms, at least in terms of their accessibility. But please don't try to transfer your responsibilities onto others and thereby limit their freedoms as well.
The analogy given in the article of a car manufacturer dictating where the car may be repaired is fairly good, but maybe this analogy would be even better.
The primary purpose of a DVD player or a DVD/CD-based games console is to play media. The primary purpose of a car is to transport passengers.
Consider then the uproar that would be caused if a US car manufacturer only allowed US nationals to be transported in its cars, only Japanese nationals in Japanese-manufactured cars, and so on. That is the direct counterpart to DVD and game regionalization. It's wrong, regardless of the economic reasoning behind it.