He got these ideas when one day he found that extremely complex events can be expressed in relatively simple equations. Seeing that complex events can be so reduced, that's where is '4 lines of code' is coming from. He believes that the falling of a raindrop is of equal complexity as the behavior of gases in a nebula - a single equation can predict both.
Maybe it can't be proven, per se, but nothing scientific can be. All scientific theories are that - just theories. None of it should be dogma, for that would violate the principles of science. There's nothing lost if such equations must be considered hypotheses that have yet to be proven wrong.
This isn't meant to create a tidy artificial universe. It's to prove that the real universe can be predicted by simple equations. Whether he succeeds or not - that's the problem. There's no middle ground. Either this will be the waste of a brilliant mind (read his background in the latest Wired) or the greatest revolution in the history of science and a certain Nobel Prize.
This is the first planet seen outside the solar system, okay? Previously we'd been able to detect planets through other means (ie a larger planet's gravitational influence on its star) but now it seems we've been able to get an actual visual of one. That's why this is news.
You know, when it was Microsoft giving computers to schools, they were evil monopolists. Now Apple is doing essentially the same thing, but I hear no vehement protest. And as other people have written, the Apple presence in schools did have a considerable effect one what computers they wanted at home. Of course, Microsoft was using the offer to get out of the anti-trust suit, but the impact on the future consumers (formerly known as kids) is still there...
Another testament to the bias of Slashdot, I suppose.
I don't care as much what's in the treaty. It could be that all nations must begin emptying their stockpiles of cute purple kittens for all I care. What the issue is, at least to me, is that we had little/no idea this was coming. Who's supposed to inform the public that our nation's signing crazy treaties? Most of the media's too busy with the Afghanistan operations...
Democracy is all about accountability. The reason democracy doesn't quite work is because that principle is not fulfilled. When the majority of the citizens don't know what their government is doing, then you get them signing strange purple kitten treaties. Or stuff like this. That is why it is that aspect of this treaty that I hold issue with.
My French teacher was ranting on this a few weeks ago. French students have it so tough... They have this gigantic test at the end of their senior year (and it's not a joke at all like our standardized tests) and if they fail, they don't graduate. Without a diploma, there's almost no way you can get employed but as a waitress, etc. So people end up in high school for ages, trying again and again. It's really tough, perhaps cruel, but it keeps les français at a very high standard of education.
Compared with other countries, American education is a joke. I attend a public school ranked 33rd in the nation, and I take the AP/Enriched courses whenever possible... and I still am able to slack off. French foreign exchange students soon become drunkards and party animals here - because it's such a letdown from their previous education. They no longer have to work for their grades. This cannot be sustained. We've become used to being on top of the world, but comparing the sad state of our education to that of other countries, eventually the power balance has got to shift.
They say to give the CIA more free reign over what they do, that it would make them more effective. This only solidifies my doubts. They're no more effective, it seems - just have free reign to do stupid things. Like kill cats. Or fail to assassinate Fidel Castro how many times...?
But we know about those, so perhaps I am incorrect. Perhaps we only hear about what they do wrong; after all, the failure means that it is no threat to our security (except our loss of faith in the CIA?). After all, it's whatever succeeded that would need to be kept secret, so that it could continue to work. You have to wonder... if they make enough stupid mistakes, and know they're stupid enough to be benign in regard to security, perhaps the CIA is somewhat smarter than we think. They know what they do wrong, then perhaps they know what they do right. They'll just never get credit for any of it.
Bacteria already create themselves. They divide. Unless they were looking to infect all the people who work with transistors by switching the transistors with bacteria or something, I don't really see your point. There are much more effective ways to conduct a biological/chemical attack.
We've done virtually nothing with the first planet, but for one flyby long ago. Sure, it's small, but it's actually pretty interesting. For one thing, it has a huge deviation compared to other planets in that it's way too dense for its size. Mercury may have an iron core like Earth, and there was something about a sulfur-precipitating model I heard of (long time ago...may be wrong...). We know virtually nothing about Mercury, but it's probably the oddest planet we've discovered yet. I think it would be worth the moolah to send a probe there, or at least a more detailed flyby. We might learn why Mercury's s weird, and some major stuff about planet creation. Who knows? Everyone likes Mars because of the possibility of life, but Mercury as a planet is cooler IMO.
Even if the spammer does put an address, etc., like Green's asking, he's still are able to send buttloads of spam. All you can do is complain, really. If the spammer doesn't have an address, etc. on it, it's illegal, but that absence and other spammer tactics means that it would be harder to track the spammer down and prosecute them. And would the DoJ be too concerned with going after spammers with more pressing issues at hand (Sept. 11, DMCA havoc, etc.)?
I applaud Congressman Green, for he does seem to be fairly tech-literate and reasonable. I just worry his anti-spam bill may be toothless. But at least he understands some of the issues around the tech world. Maybe he could do something about the DMCA next....
True, people are human. The terrorists are human. And they are wrong. There must be some standard that even imperfect humans can be held to.
It can be agreed that terrorism is wrong. The US has supported terrorists (i.e. OBL) and still does (Northern Alliance). That is wrong.
It is true that governments make mistakes, but something as blatant as terrorism (and on multiple occasions) is surely wrong. It's like OBL saying "Oops, sorry."
I fear for what may come of the US's support of the Northern Alliance. It was that sort of support that brought the Taliban and OBL to power in the first place. Have we not learned from history? We cannot do anything about what the US has done in the past, but we need to act otherwise in the future, or it is most certainly wrong.
What are the chances that the universe just appears in a humongous explosion all of a sudden? Hand of God, if you ask me. What are the chances that random amino acids in a primordial stew would turn into a furless, physically impotent, but uniquely rational creature? Had to be some greater influence there. We were made curious, and we act on it. And every time these discoveries come out, I am amazed that everything could be Just So, that human life could be brought about.
Not so much a church/state issue, more like a conflict of interest. What is strange is that the DoJ knows first-hand how M$ software and bundles can take over a computer almost entirely (for better or worse, but probably illegally) but they still choose to use the software anyway! I suppose it's almost BECAUSE of the monopoly - since everybody else uses M$, they have to also use it to be compatible.
Who else would write the stuff? Politicians' secretaries? The government needs a large number of people experienced in coding etc. A company is such a concentrated group. Certainly easier than hiring hundreds of individual hax0rs. Though the companies my create the software, they are hired by the government. The government will control that software, and can then make it free.
It does seem rather repressive to take that many domains. It also adds to the problem of running out of domains, since the number of domains is limited (until people get past.com,.org, etc...). But the controls may be good for two reasons. First, then you can't have some student put up a porn site at namethisschool.net while the university's site is at namethisschool.edu or something. The confusion would be really bad, in regards to high schoolers researching colleges, or parents trying to learn what's happening at Johnny's school, and getting the URL wrong. Also, though it does seem like a waste of tuition, perhaps it is more of an investment. Later, when webspace is harder to find, the university could sell off some of those domains and use the money to hire teachers, fund scholarships, etc.
If it keeps people from being killed...
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1
I suppose this is where the technology is going - completely automated wars. However, this is against a poor nation - Afghanistan. We wouldn't need people on our side, but we'd be killing people on theirs. Is that right? Do we, as a developed nation, have the right to use that against those without much technology? And, if no one is killed (on our side) will we be more likely to head into wars, without consideration for the rest of the world? These questions need to be answered as the technology progresses.
Could these have been used before?
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1
I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. I think they require to be launched pretty nearby to what you want to look at. That's probably why we want to go through Pakistan - to put the facilities for maintaining and launching these things there. Or maybe my knowledge is outdated, and they can fly farther, perhaps from the United States directly, or can fit on a carrier. I had never heard they could fire missiles before, either.
"We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security," said House Democratic Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo. "We're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."...Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., repeated the warning: "When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently."
And yet only Barbara Lee voted out of concern for that. If congresspeople do truly see that their actions against the people's rights have huge consequences, and end up only extending the harms of the terrorist attacks, why do they vote otherwise? Because the public calls for extensive action. Because they want to look 'tough' on terrorism. Surely something should be done. But indiscriminate rights violations are not the way to respond to the attacks. It is a short-sighted knee jerk, with long-term consequences.
First, know that I sympathize strongly for the victims of this tragedy and their families. However, I don't think that looking critically at what Congress may or may not do about it disrespects them. Rather, it seems the other way around. The United States is so great, so loved, because it was one of the first countries to truly value the rights of the individual. To go back on our own principles in the name of our principles seems worse than a contradiction. Of course action will be taken. It must. But if that action is irrational, and does more harm than good, then it does not respond to the tragedies. It furthers them. Proceed, but proceed with great caution.
Now that we have had but a tiny, awful taste of the hell that war is, how would a wholesale solution be even a solution? How would killing civilians with abandon, violating the sanctity of lives elsewhere, sanctify the lives lost Tuesday? I'm not saying that nothing should be done. Nor am I saying that we should put all rights on hold while we nuke Afghanistan. Both extremes are emotionally charged, and both are undesirable. The government, as it moves forward, must proceed with reason.
Re:Remain rational for months - no witchhunts
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely. And in that, let's not all accuse Osama bin Laden yet. I know it seems like he's the most likely culprit, but don't assume that! Please! At my school, EVERYONE immediately assumed that it was some Arab country/faction/whatever. But there are a considerable number of people I know who are/look of Arab ancestry. I can vouch that none of them participated in the bombings. (Duh!) So let's not let this cause another internment! Please!
I'm not even sure this was another country. Indeed, after Oklahoma City everyone thought it was those Arabs. Turned out it was an American. Whoever did this was absolutely organized, it is true, but that doesn't mean Americans couldn't do it. They used a different tactic than what's been used before - kamikaze hijackings. The whole thing seems so surreal, so impossible, it's almost like one of our crummy American blow-em-up movies.
Even if it was another country, I still don't want war to result. Surely our country is large enough that we could respond in a more civilized manner! It's just it remains for our leaders and our citizens to find the guts and rationality to do so.
In the early days of astronomy, there was some rich guy (name escapes me) with a telescope who described 'canals' on Mars and dark blobs bordering them varying as the seasons, which he presumed were vegetation. Later nobody could ever find the dark patches or canals, so it was assumed that it was an optical illusion or something. Now, though no canals, they've found modern varying dark blotches. Another mistake, or has that guy been vindicated?
Airplanes are also often struck by lightning in mid-flight. However, the outer shell of metal diverts the electricity away from the passengers, electronics, peanuts, etc. so it's almost never a big deal. This is also the reason why cars are a pretty good shelter in a thunderstorm - the metal outside keeps the bolt from frying the passengers.
The whole point of the free market is the valuing of fair competition. If your product is awful, other companies will have something better and you'll go out of business. But if there is one huge company, who gets to the top with an OK product, but then their product becomes an abusive piece of junk, but the company still has the advantage of size, money, etc. to squash any small startups' competition (with ads, propaganda, legions of lawyers, etc.), obviously the free market doesn't work then! The customer must buy a dumb product, without choice! In monopoly cases, the government must get involved for the very benefit of the free market!
First, many people don't know the extent of Microsoft's abuses. How many people do you think actually read this legalese? Or even Slashdot articles? Not that many people read even the insipid stories newspapers print! They put up with Windows out of ignorance. Second, many people have little choice. For instance, look at school districts. They get into Microsoft early, when it's not too malicious (as far as is known) and the situation worsens after each upgrade until it is intolerable! If they had the choice, I'm sure schools' would choose another OS, but by now they're too tangled in license agreements, procedure problems, and budget shortfalls to do so. The software itself fills a certain niche in the market, for those who don't need that much function, and that is why it is purchased. Super. But how many of these customers would change their mind if they knew their privacy was being violated to such an extent? That the software, instead of innocently doing its job, was also screwing with other parts of the computer without the customer's permission? I think they would care, if they could understand what Windows does.
Slashdot Mirror
He got these ideas when one day he found that extremely complex events can be expressed in relatively simple equations. Seeing that complex events can be so reduced, that's where is '4 lines of code' is coming from. He believes that the falling of a raindrop is of equal complexity as the behavior of gases in a nebula - a single equation can predict both.
Maybe it can't be proven, per se, but nothing scientific can be. All scientific theories are that - just theories. None of it should be dogma, for that would violate the principles of science. There's nothing lost if such equations must be considered hypotheses that have yet to be proven wrong.
This isn't meant to create a tidy artificial universe. It's to prove that the real universe can be predicted by simple equations. Whether he succeeds or not - that's the problem. There's no middle ground. Either this will be the waste of a brilliant mind (read his background in the latest Wired) or the greatest revolution in the history of science and a certain Nobel Prize.
This is the first planet seen outside the solar system, okay? Previously we'd been able to detect planets through other means (ie a larger planet's gravitational influence on its star) but now it seems we've been able to get an actual visual of one. That's why this is news.
You know, when it was Microsoft giving computers to schools, they were evil monopolists. Now Apple is doing essentially the same thing, but I hear no vehement protest. And as other people have written, the Apple presence in schools did have a considerable effect one what computers they wanted at home. Of course, Microsoft was using the offer to get out of the anti-trust suit, but the impact on the future consumers (formerly known as kids) is still there...
Another testament to the bias of Slashdot, I suppose.
I don't care as much what's in the treaty. It could be that all nations must begin emptying their stockpiles of cute purple kittens for all I care. What the issue is, at least to me, is that we had little/no idea this was coming. Who's supposed to inform the public that our nation's signing crazy treaties? Most of the media's too busy with the Afghanistan operations...
Democracy is all about accountability. The reason democracy doesn't quite work is because that principle is not fulfilled. When the majority of the citizens don't know what their government is doing, then you get them signing strange purple kitten treaties. Or stuff like this. That is why it is that aspect of this treaty that I hold issue with.
My French teacher was ranting on this a few weeks ago. French students have it so tough... They have this gigantic test at the end of their senior year (and it's not a joke at all like our standardized tests) and if they fail, they don't graduate. Without a diploma, there's almost no way you can get employed but as a waitress, etc. So people end up in high school for ages, trying again and again. It's really tough, perhaps cruel, but it keeps les français at a very high standard of education.
Compared with other countries, American education is a joke. I attend a public school ranked 33rd in the nation, and I take the AP/Enriched courses whenever possible... and I still am able to slack off. French foreign exchange students soon become drunkards and party animals here - because it's such a letdown from their previous education. They no longer have to work for their grades. This cannot be sustained. We've become used to being on top of the world, but comparing the sad state of our education to that of other countries, eventually the power balance has got to shift.
They say to give the CIA more free reign over what they do, that it would make them more effective. This only solidifies my doubts. They're no more effective, it seems - just have free reign to do stupid things. Like kill cats. Or fail to assassinate Fidel Castro how many times...?
But we know about those, so perhaps I am incorrect. Perhaps we only hear about what they do wrong; after all, the failure means that it is no threat to our security (except our loss of faith in the CIA?). After all, it's whatever succeeded that would need to be kept secret, so that it could continue to work. You have to wonder... if they make enough stupid mistakes, and know they're stupid enough to be benign in regard to security, perhaps the CIA is somewhat smarter than we think. They know what they do wrong, then perhaps they know what they do right. They'll just never get credit for any of it.
Golly gee, I've refuted myself again.
I wonder also... perhaps the actual creators were ANTI -DMCA, and snuck this past some imcompetent manager? If so... that is really cool!
Bacteria already create themselves. They divide. Unless they were looking to infect all the people who work with transistors by switching the transistors with bacteria or something, I don't really see your point. There are much more effective ways to conduct a biological/chemical attack.
We've done virtually nothing with the first planet, but for one flyby long ago. Sure, it's small, but it's actually pretty interesting. For one thing, it has a huge deviation compared to other planets in that it's way too dense for its size. Mercury may have an iron core like Earth, and there was something about a sulfur-precipitating model I heard of (long time ago...may be wrong...). We know virtually nothing about Mercury, but it's probably the oddest planet we've discovered yet. I think it would be worth the moolah to send a probe there, or at least a more detailed flyby. We might learn why Mercury's s weird, and some major stuff about planet creation. Who knows? Everyone likes Mars because of the possibility of life, but Mercury as a planet is cooler IMO.
Even if the spammer does put an address, etc., like Green's asking, he's still are able to send buttloads of spam. All you can do is complain, really. If the spammer doesn't have an address, etc. on it, it's illegal, but that absence and other spammer tactics means that it would be harder to track the spammer down and prosecute them. And would the DoJ be too concerned with going after spammers with more pressing issues at hand (Sept. 11, DMCA havoc, etc.)?
I applaud Congressman Green, for he does seem to be fairly tech-literate and reasonable. I just worry his anti-spam bill may be toothless. But at least he understands some of the issues around the tech world. Maybe he could do something about the DMCA next....
True, people are human. The terrorists are human. And they are wrong. There must be some standard that even imperfect humans can be held to.
It can be agreed that terrorism is wrong. The US has supported terrorists (i.e. OBL) and still does (Northern Alliance). That is wrong.
It is true that governments make mistakes, but something as blatant as terrorism (and on multiple occasions) is surely wrong. It's like OBL saying "Oops, sorry."
I fear for what may come of the US's support of the Northern Alliance. It was that sort of support that brought the Taliban and OBL to power in the first place. Have we not learned from history? We cannot do anything about what the US has done in the past, but we need to act otherwise in the future, or it is most certainly wrong.
What are the chances that the universe just appears in a humongous explosion all of a sudden? Hand of God, if you ask me. What are the chances that random amino acids in a primordial stew would turn into a furless, physically impotent, but uniquely rational creature? Had to be some greater influence there. We were made curious, and we act on it. And every time these discoveries come out, I am amazed that everything could be Just So, that human life could be brought about.
Not so much a church/state issue, more like a conflict of interest. What is strange is that the DoJ knows first-hand how M$ software and bundles can take over a computer almost entirely (for better or worse, but probably illegally) but they still choose to use the software anyway! I suppose it's almost BECAUSE of the monopoly - since everybody else uses M$, they have to also use it to be compatible.
Who else would write the stuff? Politicians' secretaries? The government needs a large number of people experienced in coding etc. A company is such a concentrated group. Certainly easier than hiring hundreds of individual hax0rs. Though the companies my create the software, they are hired by the government. The government will control that software, and can then make it free.
It does seem rather repressive to take that many domains. It also adds to the problem of running out of domains, since the number of domains is limited (until people get past .com, .org, etc...). But the controls may be good for two reasons. First, then you can't have some student put up a porn site at namethisschool.net while the university's site is at namethisschool.edu or something. The confusion would be really bad, in regards to high schoolers researching colleges, or parents trying to learn what's happening at Johnny's school, and getting the URL wrong. Also, though it does seem like a waste of tuition, perhaps it is more of an investment. Later, when webspace is harder to find, the university could sell off some of those domains and use the money to hire teachers, fund scholarships, etc.
I suppose this is where the technology is going - completely automated wars. However, this is against a poor nation - Afghanistan. We wouldn't need people on our side, but we'd be killing people on theirs. Is that right? Do we, as a developed nation, have the right to use that against those without much technology? And, if no one is killed (on our side) will we be more likely to head into wars, without consideration for the rest of the world? These questions need to be answered as the technology progresses.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. I think they require to be launched pretty nearby to what you want to look at. That's probably why we want to go through Pakistan - to put the facilities for maintaining and launching these things there. Or maybe my knowledge is outdated, and they can fly farther, perhaps from the United States directly, or can fit on a carrier. I had never heard they could fire missiles before, either.
"We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security," said House Democratic Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo. "We're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."...Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., repeated the warning: "When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently."
And yet only Barbara Lee voted out of concern for that. If congresspeople do truly see that their actions against the people's rights have huge consequences, and end up only extending the harms of the terrorist attacks, why do they vote otherwise? Because the public calls for extensive action. Because they want to look 'tough' on terrorism. Surely something should be done. But indiscriminate rights violations are not the way to respond to the attacks. It is a short-sighted knee jerk, with long-term consequences.
First, know that I sympathize strongly for the victims of this tragedy and their families. However, I don't think that looking critically at what Congress may or may not do about it disrespects them. Rather, it seems the other way around. The United States is so great, so loved, because it was one of the first countries to truly value the rights of the individual. To go back on our own principles in the name of our principles seems worse than a contradiction. Of course action will be taken. It must. But if that action is irrational, and does more harm than good, then it does not respond to the tragedies. It furthers them. Proceed, but proceed with great caution.
Now that we have had but a tiny, awful taste of the hell that war is, how would a wholesale solution be even a solution? How would killing civilians with abandon, violating the sanctity of lives elsewhere, sanctify the lives lost Tuesday? I'm not saying that nothing should be done. Nor am I saying that we should put all rights on hold while we nuke Afghanistan. Both extremes are emotionally charged, and both are undesirable. The government, as it moves forward, must proceed with reason.
I agree completely. And in that, let's not all accuse Osama bin Laden yet. I know it seems like he's the most likely culprit, but don't assume that! Please! At my school, EVERYONE immediately assumed that it was some Arab country/faction/whatever. But there are a considerable number of people I know who are/look of Arab ancestry. I can vouch that none of them participated in the bombings. (Duh!) So let's not let this cause another internment! Please!
I'm not even sure this was another country. Indeed, after Oklahoma City everyone thought it was those Arabs. Turned out it was an American. Whoever did this was absolutely organized, it is true, but that doesn't mean Americans couldn't do it. They used a different tactic than what's been used before - kamikaze hijackings. The whole thing seems so surreal, so impossible, it's almost like one of our crummy American blow-em-up movies.
Even if it was another country, I still don't want war to result. Surely our country is large enough that we could respond in a more civilized manner! It's just it remains for our leaders and our citizens to find the guts and rationality to do so.
In the early days of astronomy, there was some rich guy (name escapes me) with a telescope who described 'canals' on Mars and dark blobs bordering them varying as the seasons, which he presumed were vegetation. Later nobody could ever find the dark patches or canals, so it was assumed that it was an optical illusion or something. Now, though no canals, they've found modern varying dark blotches. Another mistake, or has that guy been vindicated?
#6 has all ready been done. It's called slashdotting.
Airplanes are also often struck by lightning in mid-flight. However, the outer shell of metal diverts the electricity away from the passengers, electronics, peanuts, etc. so it's almost never a big deal. This is also the reason why cars are a pretty good shelter in a thunderstorm - the metal outside keeps the bolt from frying the passengers.
The whole point of the free market is the valuing of fair competition. If your product is awful, other companies will have something better and you'll go out of business. But if there is one huge company, who gets to the top with an OK product, but then their product becomes an abusive piece of junk, but the company still has the advantage of size, money, etc. to squash any small startups' competition (with ads, propaganda, legions of lawyers, etc.), obviously the free market doesn't work then! The customer must buy a dumb product, without choice! In monopoly cases, the government must get involved for the very benefit of the free market!
First, many people don't know the extent of Microsoft's abuses. How many people do you think actually read this legalese? Or even Slashdot articles? Not that many people read even the insipid stories newspapers print! They put up with Windows out of ignorance. Second, many people have little choice. For instance, look at school districts. They get into Microsoft early, when it's not too malicious (as far as is known) and the situation worsens after each upgrade until it is intolerable! If they had the choice, I'm sure schools' would choose another OS, but by now they're too tangled in license agreements, procedure problems, and budget shortfalls to do so. The software itself fills a certain niche in the market, for those who don't need that much function, and that is why it is purchased. Super. But how many of these customers would change their mind if they knew their privacy was being violated to such an extent? That the software, instead of innocently doing its job, was also screwing with other parts of the computer without the customer's permission? I think they would care, if they could understand what Windows does.