Re:Why isnt the world testing deflection technolog
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Anyone that figured out a real nice way to make these NEO rocks bounce, blow up, deflect, time phase shift, or tractor away from the earth could pull some mass patents on that and laugh all the way to the bank.
Well, that's just the problem with our outdated patent system. Not enough incentive for developing killer astroid deflection systems. Before you get the chance to make your royalties, you find out the end of the world is just past your expiration date and those damn generic solutions and open source hackers are already waiting in the wings to save humankind for basement bargin prices. If you want to make any money at all you've pretty well gotta tie up your application for as long as possible and then slap injunctions on all the would-be good samaritan heroes with some killer submarine claims. We can only hope that they'll increase the term for anti-apocalyptic devices - otherwise I just can't think of any incentive to innovate.
Obviously they will start out using the usual suspects, but if the bandwidth is sufficient, I suspect that these boring old illegimate uses will evolve into more interesting illegimate and legimate uses.
Perhaps sharing entire music collections at once, or developing a good P2P TV sharing system. Maybe high resolution webcams and intra-dorm video conferencing. I think it will be interesting to see the communities and cultural shifts that emerge from this kind of concentrated bandwidth. Mini-cultural shifts from some of the above examples might include 'Dorm TV', with a floor or individual rescheduling (and retransmitting) distributely stored TV programs to fit in with classes, along with some ripped movies and home-made messages thrown into the mix. Also, in an age of reality shows, access to higher resolution web-cams/video conferencing might generate totally different perspectives on privacy, especially within an enviroment where students are already likely to share rooms, showers, and eating areas. Like those first exposed to e-mail and the web, these students will surely have different attitudes and higher expectations when they move out and begin work.
Total speculation on my part, but high bandwidth should take us well beyond mp3's and warez, making this a very interesting experiment indeed. The big question will be how this use is monitored (traffic or anecdotal) and if the university/provider will step in prematurely to stop illegal or suspect use, since so much of the ultimately interesting (and even legimate uses) are likely to sprout from initial hacks for illegimate use.
Interesting approach, but useless unless people actually understand and trust the system. For this to happen will probably require widespread adoption, an easy to understand explanation of the process, and assurances that answers really are randomized. These requirements obviously force a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario.
Explaining the whole randomization process (how it protects privacy, how it provides useful info) will be a little much for most people I think, but a good user interface might alleviate this, perhaps with a 'randomize' button that is used before hitting the 'submit' button. This would take the user input and change it right in front of their eyes. Of course many would be rightfully concerned that the randomize button is just for show (or simply encodes but doesn't anonymize), but I think that enough people might buy into the false sense of security that demonstrated 'randomization' provides to at least partly improve the % of bonafide results. Also, the system could be set up so users who don't mind submitting traceable information could be encouraged ("extra 10% off") to submit without randomization, with a simple flag sorting data into randomized/anonymous and non-randomized/non-anonymous data).
This approach would be even better if the randomization approach becomes a ubiquitous standard backed by a consistent and legally accountable and well-known entity/brand (IBM for instance). I'm not sure how well an open solution would work unless there was a central group assuming responsibility and accountability for the system, enforcing trademarks, and suing spoofers. Also, people feel safer when they feel there's someone to blame for any abuse/mistakes (hence, giving their credit card freely to a waiter but not to a website).
Also, for those living in the other side of Canada and the Northeastern US, there's the 300 person SmackdownLAN party held each year (March) in London, Ontario (about halfway between Toronto and Detroit and a few hours from Buffalo). Just hope the WWE doesn't take out any of their WWF frustration out on their familiar sounding name.
Several similar paradoxes are attributed to Zeno. The most common example is that of the fast Achilles chasing a slow turtle in an infinite race. The turtle is given a head start but Achilles is never able to catch up (or pass) as long as the turtle continues to move forward. His reasoning is that by the time Achilles reaches any point that the turtle has already been, the turtle itself has moved slightly further ahead. By the time Achilles then reaches this new position, he is closer to the turtle, but again, the turtle has moved forward to a new position. As long as you follow this logic, the gap is quickly diminished, but can never actually close.
I think his original point was to demonstrate that motion does not actually exist, and further, since we can actually observe a man passing a turtle, our perception is not the same as the logical underlying reality. Today, his paradox is often used to make the opposite argument when introducing the concepts of infinity and limits in Calculus.
For Joe Sixpack, the price of his sixpack matters. If the micros' is a buck or two higher, there's a non negligible probability that he'll take the Coors Lite over the Blanche de Chambly, even though the latter won the Gold Medal of the Beverage Testing Institute of Chicago in 1997, 1998 and 1999.
I generally agree with your point, but if we're talking stereotypes here, I don't really see the "Joe Sixpack" demographic buying anything called "Blanche de Chambly" even if it was less than a pack of Bud or Blue.
I really hope your comment title was an intentional double-entendre.
Yep. Although calling my shamelessly bad pun a 'double-entendre' suggests far more wit than it deserves. I wasn't sure if anyone would notice, based on this story being relegated to the boonies.
On that note, until today I never realized how many positive stories are posted to YRO that never make it to the main section. Looking down at the list of recent stories, almost without exception the negative ones make it to the front page and the positive ones seem lucky to be accepted at all. I wouldn't really blame the editors either, it seems that the better the news - even really important good news - the fewer the comments, and that the real outrages post hof numbers. I suppose the bias we usually attribute to the mass media is a more general one that even applies to our own community.
I suppose that good news is sometimes harder to comment on beyond a simple "I agree" - especially when it's a justification of common sense like this story. Still, I wish the Slashdot front page could be more balanced since it's otherwise such a good tool to gauge the state of affairs and trends in online rights.
Wow - I didn't mean to turn a short off-topic reply into such a long rant!
According to the Canadian Press, the winning lawyer states that "On a legal level, it's the first case in Canada that a person who has lost their domain name at the quasi-arbitration stage... has appealed to a Canadian court... and it's the first case worldwide with respect to a dot-biz decision from a court."
I hope this decisive victory (for common sense) sets some precedent for future decisions and helps to discourage at least some of the rampant ICANN abuses. Perhaps unlikely, but every victory counts.
Finally, as a Canadian I love this line from The Star article: "We're all Canadian and everyone has the right to use that word. We successfully resisted Molson's attempt to turn us all into beer." Of course, I spent most of university trying to do the same thing to myself - but mostly without Molson's help.
While we're hoping for things, I hope they BOTH lose and that consumers and independent webcasters and artists win. Actually, I also hope they both WIN, but only on the points that benefit consumers.
Unlikely I know, but when you have big money (Music) against big money (Radio) things start to get interesting and not so clear cut. Both sides will invest a lot of money to offer up compeling arguments for their side and against the other side. This is the ideal time for the little guy to come in and offer the wisdom of Solomon, selectively using the arguments of both parties to point out a rational compromise that benefits the end user and appeals to common sense.
Just a dream? Maybe. But there is a finite likelihood that a judge or lawmakers will propose a compromise. Since we agree with some of the arguments from both sides, why not lobby to ensure that the compromise is split to the consumers benefit? Also, this approach provides the politician or judge attractive rationale to justify what might otherwise be an arbitrary solution.
Not including pictures, the answer is about.05 LOC per disk, or about 20 of these 1TB disks for the entire text of the collection.
For added perspective, the Internet Archive lists a number of other comparisons to their over 100 Terabytes of web pages dating from 1996.
Finally, in 2000 the "How Much Information?" project attempted to estimate the total amount of information produced in all major mediums: from books to TV to the Internet to photos to x-rays and more. Based on their data (from a few years ago), every American musical recording produced each year could fit on a couple of these new 1TB disks (compressed) and every new DVD could probably fit on about a dozen. The Internet is harder to estimate, due to hidden content (databases, dynamic pages) but they estimated the "surface" web to be 25-50 Terabytes and total "web-connected documents" to be as high as 7,500 Terabytes!
A method of determining the location of a computer by looking up the location of the computer in a database that lists the location of computers so that information can be sent to the computer that is relevant to that computer's listed location.
I don't think this is a case of looking for prior art, this is a matter of defining obviousness.
This is simply what databases are made for. PERIOD. END OF CASE.
Most of these frivolous cases revolve around the use of databases and other common computing technologies for precisely the purpose they were intended. This patent is like getting a copy of MS Word and then patenting the use of the spell checker for detecting spelling errors in documents - that's obviously what it was made for!!!
Rather than worrying about prior art, maybe we should begin an active education campaign to define basic computing terms along with extensive examples of usage that clearly show how obvious so many of these patent applications are. Something like the IBM technical briefs that are often used to provide prior art and to prevent this very sort of thing.
Also, while I understand the logic behind the esoteric language used to define patent claims, no patent should be granted unless the patent examiner can reword the claims into the simplest equivalent wording to prove that they understand them and that they are truly novel and unobvious.
The assumptions presented in the article cannot be proved or disproved.... Until then, this stuff is simply philosophy - the earth was flat until we found out it was not.
Actually, a number of observers have described SETI as junk science, pseudo-science, bad science, or non-science mainly because of the non-falsifiability of the main hypothesis. While there are differing ideas of what strictly constitutes the "scientific method" it is true that such non-falsifiable investigations don't necessarily meet the bar of being a real "science".
However, I don't think philosophy is the right discription either - I prefer "exploration" - a venture that has traditionally led directly to many of the greatest scientific discoveries and revolutions. The value of exploration to scientific progress is undeniably large, although it is fair to subject such non-falsifiable investigations (especially expensive ones) to strong scrutiny and healthy skepticism.
Perhaps "scientific exploration" is the best description since the bulk of participants are trained scientists who employ the tools and reasoning of science, and search for evidence that will be suitable for falsifiable experiment in the normal scientific sense. Aside from the criticism of non-falsifibiliy, most of the measures employed by these scientists are subject to normal scientific justification and accountabiilty - often refined through induction, statistics, peer review, and debate.
After visiting Ballard once, I become very hopeful about the future of fuel cells, but having seen the AUTOnomy at the Detroit Auto Show I'm really giving GM the benefit of the doubt (impressed but still crossing my fingers) on addressing each of your concerns:
1. That they come up with something that is economically viable (i.e. they succeed).
This is really the big news with the AUTOnomy. They've looked at this whole fuel cell thing from a production economics standpoint rather than just the environmental, regulatory, and oil dependancy ones. Right now, tooling up for the production of a new model car takes years and might cost a Billion dollars (even more for new engines). The AUTOnomy stands to revolutionize automotive economics by creating a modular platform that can take advantage of even greater economies of scale and longer product life cycles. They probably aren't even sure if fuel cells will match the cost of internal combustion engines, but they probably have a much better handle on the increased manufacturing efficiencies.
2. That they aren't going to try to fail on purpose...
Again, in this case, greed is good (or is at least a more realistic motivation for success). They wouldn't be talking about achieving manufacturing efficiences unless they really believe in them since this will require significant capital investment, reorganization, and plant consolidation announcements many years in advance of production (i.e. very soon). As for setting up the technology to fail... maybe 10-20 years ago this was true, but the latest electric cars and hybrids are an often used but poor example of this approach. These have been pre-fuel cell pilot programs with intentionally limited volumes and basic vehicles. They have purposely limited interest and availability to early adopters only, so any bugs won't scare off the general public from future models.
3. That whatever vehicle they design LOOKS like cars do nowadays...
Finally, by focusing on the chassis, they are creating a modular vehicle platform that could conceivably accommodate practically ANY design - past, current, futuristic, or custom. I see a future where bodies and interiors become a cottage industry - from DIY hackers to specialized companies. Also, modular designs might allow you to swap your sedan body for a rented pick-up bed. As I said before, the ugly electric and hybrid designs were probably purposeful to scare the average consumer away from what are essentially beta versions.
And furthermore, the results were falsified (and then retracted) by the growing international conspiracy against fair use of used textbooks, forcing first year physics students to buy new editions every year.
I wish I remembered my top score/level so I could join in. I remember being able to play pretty much continously on both the original GameBoy version and for at least a whole class or tutorial on a variety of the HP48 calc variations.
I eventually started playing for points (on the GameBoy) by trying to get as many 4 high completions as possible and restarting my game if I missed one.
I wish my cell phone had Tetris but I'd be a little scared for fear that I won't be able to stop until I get to the same kind of skill level I had before.
Another problem that I actually do sympathize with is that this is grounds for serious lawsuits.
Yeah, I'm surprised how much this has been discounted. Although PKC makes a point about calling recommendations "primary options" to distinguish from hard advice and transfer responsibility to the provider, there is still a high degree of editorial decisions that the software publisher is making.
It's unclear from the story or their website as to how conflicting research is treated. Are different journals or studies weighed differently? How about incorporating common clinical practice that might not show up in the published articles? Or academic theories that are widely used for diagnosis and treatment but have not been conclusively proven?
In their FAQ they state that "Every question contained in a Coupler is there because an action recommended by the medical literature depends upon its answer". What if there are no conclusive actionable recommendations, but results can be inferred from related studies? Does that mean that there are any gaping holes in their content? Is this counter to a systemic approach?
Good software should be able to handle all of these questions, provide a usable and adaptive user interface, avoid unnecessary data entry, provide for local input and overrides, and maintain primary responsibility with the MD. So far, besides some good results, we have no evidence as to the quality of their program (although a tour is available on their site). And what happens if PKC is so widely adopted that it becomes the Microsoft of medical software or the AOL of medical content?
As they are currently positioned they shouldn't so causally brush off their legal exposure. They might be better off repositioning the same service as a faster and more accurate method of accessing research and best practise rather than as a guided decision making tool. This might alleviate the fears of certain doctors while also stressing that the decision lies with the practioner and the advice comes from third parties.
It may come as a surprise to most people, but diagnosis is not the hard part of medicine...
Indeed, too much focus on just reaching a proper diagnosis can lead to poor care or worse.
Although I'm not an MD, I once had a very interesting case study in an operations research class (management science, statistics, expert systems, etc.). We used decision trees to study different diagnostic and treatment procedures in an actual (although somewhat simplified) healthcare setting. The model considered the results of appropriate/inappropriate diagnosis/treatment, the cost and latency of tests, false positives and negatives, and the differing goals of each key stakeholder.
From memory, the doctors were assumed to be most worried about correct diagnosis and treatment regimen, patients were most interested in the safest and most effective prognosis, and the hospital administrators were concerned about costs and legal liability. We found that optimizing the model for these different goals produced very different outcomes.
The results were somewhat counterintuitive: increasing the accuracy of diagnosis or ordering the most tests did not necessarily increase the probability of a cure, and could even increase the probability of death depending on the role of false positives/negatives, waiting periods, and drug side-effects.
That being said, the software in question seems to be more than a just a simple diagnostic tool. Combined with a patient centric outlook, I see medical expert systems becoming obvious (and essential) reference tools as long as they provide the MD with an ability to tweak the level of detail for minor ailments and to consider clinical experience, risks, local expertise, access to equipment, patient preferences, and so on.
As a proud Canadian (in the original, true, and untrademarked sense) I find Molson's exclusive claim to the word "Canadian" especially ironic when they don't even seem to own the rights to canadian.com or canadian.ca.
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadianbeer along with some pints from our many fine Canadianmicrobreweries.
I know I'm risking some karma by sort of stating the obvious, but I like how the design is very simple yet incorporates the following important elements:
1. "O" for Open Source 2. "C" for Certification 3. A "Keyhole" for Security
The "Keyhole" element also looks a little like a stylized person so I suppose it also represents the human element of the development process (community, people power) as well as the personal/functional aspects of software (built for users, usability, productivity).
I'd also interpret the Green colour as reflecting the "natural"/"friendly" aspects of the open source process.
Just my initial reactions, and obviously you can get carried away (it's the "product" not the logo that really counts), but I think OSI's smart to have a consistent brand for certification and that their logo choice is fairly strong and representative of the "product". I like the new logo, the only nitpicks - I'm still not sure about the font choices (OSI certified, TM) and the edges/lines/contrast seem a little too blurred.
After reading the article, I essentially said to myself, "Congradulations guy, you just measured the electron mobility of chicken feather compound."
Agreed. Finding uses for waste materials is commendable, and if there are useful semiconductor applications for various composite materials then obviously renewable and natural composites should be considered (including plant and animal sources, such as chicken feathers).
However, following the simplistic logic of the article one could conclude that we could make faster planes out of lead simply because bullets go so fast or make faster integrated circuits by fashioning them out of a single chunk of metal instead of using any semiconductors or insulators. Wow, I've just discovered that copper is a better conductor than silicon - I can make a fortune by building faster chips out of pure copper!!!
As earlier posters have pointed out, I really hope that this was just a poorly researched and poorly written article that misinterpreted/misarticulated the actual science. I think someone at the Post just got in over their head when they saw "chicken" and "semiconductor" in the same sentence. Their next story in this series will be on how sand and "crystal power" replaced vacuum tubes.
...the official BBC website BBCi even issued a statement about it this morning: "Whilst the Cult team quite like the idea of Tony Head as the Doctor in a show guided by members of America's finest fantasy production team, the BBC aren't currently making any such plans."
Does anyone find it interesting that their denial is written in such a whimsical and laudatory way, with the Buffy people described as "America's finest fantasy production team"? The response certainly comes from the creatives, not the suits, and whoever wrote and approved it is either a big Buffy fan and/or there's more to the story.
Also, while they descriptively detail the rumor of "Tony Head and members of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer production team in a new 22 part series to celebrate the Time Lord's 40th anniversary" the clarification they offer is really about "Head not heading for Who" as PART of a David Fury guided series and doesn't explicitly deny the rest of the rumor that a David Fury & Co. guided series is forthcoming.
It just depends on how narrowly or broadly you read "any such plans".
Great advice, but you should also consider doing it the other way around by proposing to formally tutor them. I say "formally" because you should set up some structure so it goes beyond Dad simply helping with their homework.
Back in engineering, the best way I found to learn math was by preparing to teach something that was just beyond my present understanding. I've also had opportunities to do this at work and to stretch my abilities in an informal research setting (as the only non-PhD in a pretty technical area). You're really forced to know what you're talking about when you have to develop examples that clearly explain the concepts to others. And, as it will be your daughters, you have a real vested interest so you'll be especially concerned about not making an ass of yourself or misinforming them.
Of course, with either approach (you propose that they teach to you or you propose that you tutor them) the learning will end up going both ways so it's really just in how you make the "pitch".
Just another perspective to consider depending on how you think your daughter's might react to the otherwise excellent suggestion of teaching their Dad.
In math, a theorem is a single proven statement, while a theory is a set of statements or principles used to describe an overall system or branch of mathematics. Specifically (in math at least) a theory is a set of related theorems.
Alternatively, "theorem" is used to describe a statement that must be proven, in contrast to a "problem", which must be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone that figured out a real nice way to make these NEO rocks bounce, blow up, deflect, time phase shift, or tractor away from the earth could pull some mass patents on that and laugh all the way to the bank.
Well, that's just the problem with our outdated patent system. Not enough incentive for developing killer astroid deflection systems. Before you get the chance to make your royalties, you find out the end of the world is just past your expiration date and those damn generic solutions and open source hackers are already waiting in the wings to save humankind for basement bargin prices. If you want to make any money at all you've pretty well gotta tie up your application for as long as possible and then slap injunctions on all the would-be good samaritan heroes with some killer submarine claims. We can only hope that they'll increase the term for anti-apocalyptic devices - otherwise I just can't think of any incentive to innovate.
pr0n, mp3s, avis, vobs, warez ... the usual
Obviously they will start out using the usual suspects, but if the bandwidth is sufficient, I suspect that these boring old illegimate uses will evolve into more interesting illegimate and legimate uses.
Perhaps sharing entire music collections at once, or developing a good P2P TV sharing system. Maybe high resolution webcams and intra-dorm video conferencing. I think it will be interesting to see the communities and cultural shifts that emerge from this kind of concentrated bandwidth. Mini-cultural shifts from some of the above examples might include 'Dorm TV', with a floor or individual rescheduling (and retransmitting) distributely stored TV programs to fit in with classes, along with some ripped movies and home-made messages thrown into the mix. Also, in an age of reality shows, access to higher resolution web-cams/video conferencing might generate totally different perspectives on privacy, especially within an enviroment where students are already likely to share rooms, showers, and eating areas. Like those first exposed to e-mail and the web, these students will surely have different attitudes and higher expectations when they move out and begin work.
Total speculation on my part, but high bandwidth should take us well beyond mp3's and warez, making this a very interesting experiment indeed. The big question will be how this use is monitored (traffic or anecdotal) and if the university/provider will step in prematurely to stop illegal or suspect use, since so much of the ultimately interesting (and even legimate uses) are likely to sprout from initial hacks for illegimate use.
Interesting approach, but useless unless people actually understand and trust the system. For this to happen will probably require widespread adoption, an easy to understand explanation of the process, and assurances that answers really are randomized. These requirements obviously force a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario.
Explaining the whole randomization process (how it protects privacy, how it provides useful info) will be a little much for most people I think, but a good user interface might alleviate this, perhaps with a 'randomize' button that is used before hitting the 'submit' button. This would take the user input and change it right in front of their eyes. Of course many would be rightfully concerned that the randomize button is just for show (or simply encodes but doesn't anonymize), but I think that enough people might buy into the false sense of security that demonstrated 'randomization' provides to at least partly improve the % of bonafide results. Also, the system could be set up so users who don't mind submitting traceable information could be encouraged ("extra 10% off") to submit without randomization, with a simple flag sorting data into randomized/anonymous and non-randomized/non-anonymous data).
This approach would be even better if the randomization approach becomes a ubiquitous standard backed by a consistent and legally accountable and well-known entity/brand (IBM for instance). I'm not sure how well an open solution would work unless there was a central group assuming responsibility and accountability for the system, enforcing trademarks, and suing spoofers. Also, people feel safer when they feel there's someone to blame for any abuse/mistakes (hence, giving their credit card freely to a waiter but not to a website).
Also, for those living in the other side of Canada and the Northeastern US, there's the 300 person Smackdown LAN party held each year (March) in London, Ontario (about halfway between Toronto and Detroit and a few hours from Buffalo). Just hope the WWE doesn't take out any of their WWF frustration out on their familiar sounding name.
Several similar paradoxes are attributed to Zeno. The most common example is that of the fast Achilles chasing a slow turtle in an infinite race. The turtle is given a head start but Achilles is never able to catch up (or pass) as long as the turtle continues to move forward. His reasoning is that by the time Achilles reaches any point that the turtle has already been, the turtle itself has moved slightly further ahead. By the time Achilles then reaches this new position, he is closer to the turtle, but again, the turtle has moved forward to a new position. As long as you follow this logic, the gap is quickly diminished, but can never actually close.
I think his original point was to demonstrate that motion does not actually exist, and further, since we can actually observe a man passing a turtle, our perception is not the same as the logical underlying reality. Today, his paradox is often used to make the opposite argument when introducing the concepts of infinity and limits in Calculus.
For Joe Sixpack, the price of his sixpack matters. If the micros' is a buck or two higher, there's a non negligible probability that he'll take the Coors Lite over the Blanche de Chambly, even though the latter won the Gold Medal of the Beverage Testing Institute of Chicago in 1997, 1998 and 1999.
I generally agree with your point, but if we're talking stereotypes here, I don't really see the "Joe Sixpack" demographic buying anything called "Blanche de Chambly" even if it was less than a pack of Bud or Blue.
I really hope your comment title was an intentional double-entendre.
Yep. Although calling my shamelessly bad pun a 'double-entendre' suggests far more wit than it deserves. I wasn't sure if anyone would notice, based on this story being relegated to the boonies.
On that note, until today I never realized how many positive stories are posted to YRO that never make it to the main section. Looking down at the list of recent stories, almost without exception the negative ones make it to the front page and the positive ones seem lucky to be accepted at all. I wouldn't really blame the editors either, it seems that the better the news - even really important good news - the fewer the comments, and that the real outrages post hof numbers. I suppose the bias we usually attribute to the mass media is a more general one that even applies to our own community.
I suppose that good news is sometimes harder to comment on beyond a simple "I agree" - especially when it's a justification of common sense like this story. Still, I wish the Slashdot front page could be more balanced since it's otherwise such a good tool to gauge the state of affairs and trends in online rights.
Wow - I didn't mean to turn a short off-topic reply into such a long rant!
According to the Canadian Press, the winning lawyer states that "On a legal level, it's the first case in Canada that a person who has lost their domain name at the quasi-arbitration stage ... has appealed to a Canadian court ... and it's the first case worldwide with respect to a dot-biz decision from a court."
I hope this decisive victory (for common sense) sets some precedent for future decisions and helps to discourage at least some of the rampant ICANN abuses. Perhaps unlikely, but every victory counts.
Finally, as a Canadian I love this line from The Star article: "We're all Canadian and everyone has the right to use that word. We successfully resisted Molson's attempt to turn us all into beer." Of course, I spent most of university trying to do the same thing to myself - but mostly without Molson's help.
While we're hoping for things, I hope they BOTH lose and that consumers and independent webcasters and artists win. Actually, I also hope they both WIN, but only on the points that benefit consumers.
Unlikely I know, but when you have big money (Music) against big money (Radio) things start to get interesting and not so clear cut. Both sides will invest a lot of money to offer up compeling arguments for their side and against the other side. This is the ideal time for the little guy to come in and offer the wisdom of Solomon, selectively using the arguments of both parties to point out a rational compromise that benefits the end user and appeals to common sense.
Just a dream? Maybe. But there is a finite likelihood that a judge or lawmakers will propose a compromise. Since we agree with some of the arguments from both sides, why not lobby to ensure that the compromise is split to the consumers benefit? Also, this approach provides the politician or judge attractive rationale to justify what might otherwise be an arbitrary solution.
Not including pictures, the answer is about .05 LOC per disk, or about 20 of these 1TB disks for the entire text of the collection.
For added perspective, the Internet Archive lists a number of other comparisons to their over 100 Terabytes of web pages dating from 1996.
Finally, in 2000 the "How Much Information?" project attempted to estimate the total amount of information produced in all major mediums: from books to TV to the Internet to photos to x-rays and more. Based on their data (from a few years ago), every American musical recording produced each year could fit on a couple of these new 1TB disks (compressed) and every new DVD could probably fit on about a dozen. The Internet is harder to estimate, due to hidden content (databases, dynamic pages) but they estimated the "surface" web to be 25-50 Terabytes and total "web-connected documents" to be as high as 7,500 Terabytes!
Or, in a nutshell they've patented:
A method of determining the location of a computer by looking up the location of the computer in a database that lists the location of computers so that information can be sent to the computer that is relevant to that computer's listed location.
I don't think this is a case of looking for prior art, this is a matter of defining obviousness.
This is simply what databases are made for. PERIOD. END OF CASE.
Most of these frivolous cases revolve around the use of databases and other common computing technologies for precisely the purpose they were intended. This patent is like getting a copy of MS Word and then patenting the use of the spell checker for detecting spelling errors in documents - that's obviously what it was made for!!!
Rather than worrying about prior art, maybe we should begin an active education campaign to define basic computing terms along with extensive examples of usage that clearly show how obvious so many of these patent applications are. Something like the IBM technical briefs that are often used to provide prior art and to prevent this very sort of thing.
Also, while I understand the logic behind the esoteric language used to define patent claims, no patent should be granted unless the patent examiner can reword the claims into the simplest equivalent wording to prove that they understand them and that they are truly novel and unobvious.
The assumptions presented in the article cannot be proved or disproved .... Until then, this stuff is simply philosophy - the earth was flat until we found out it was not.
Actually, a number of observers have described SETI as junk science, pseudo-science, bad science, or non-science mainly because of the non-falsifiability of the main hypothesis. While there are differing ideas of what strictly constitutes the "scientific method" it is true that such non-falsifiable investigations don't necessarily meet the bar of being a real "science".
However, I don't think philosophy is the right discription either - I prefer "exploration" - a venture that has traditionally led directly to many of the greatest scientific discoveries and revolutions. The value of exploration to scientific progress is undeniably large, although it is fair to subject such non-falsifiable investigations (especially expensive ones) to strong scrutiny and healthy skepticism.
Perhaps "scientific exploration" is the best description since the bulk of participants are trained scientists who employ the tools and reasoning of science, and search for evidence that will be suitable for falsifiable experiment in the normal scientific sense. Aside from the criticism of non-falsifibiliy, most of the measures employed by these scientists are subject to normal scientific justification and accountabiilty - often refined through induction, statistics, peer review, and debate.
After visiting Ballard once, I become very hopeful about the future of fuel cells, but having seen the AUTOnomy at the Detroit Auto Show I'm really giving GM the benefit of the doubt (impressed but still crossing my fingers) on addressing each of your concerns:
1. That they come up with something that is economically viable (i.e. they succeed).
This is really the big news with the AUTOnomy. They've looked at this whole fuel cell thing from a production economics standpoint rather than just the environmental, regulatory, and oil dependancy ones. Right now, tooling up for the production of a new model car takes years and might cost a Billion dollars (even more for new engines). The AUTOnomy stands to revolutionize automotive economics by creating a modular platform that can take advantage of even greater economies of scale and longer product life cycles. They probably aren't even sure if fuel cells will match the cost of internal combustion engines, but they probably have a much better handle on the increased manufacturing efficiencies.
2. That they aren't going to try to fail on purpose...
Again, in this case, greed is good (or is at least a more realistic motivation for success). They wouldn't be talking about achieving manufacturing efficiences unless they really believe in them since this will require significant capital investment, reorganization, and plant consolidation announcements many years in advance of production (i.e. very soon). As for setting up the technology to fail... maybe 10-20 years ago this was true, but the latest electric cars and hybrids are an often used but poor example of this approach. These have been pre-fuel cell pilot programs with intentionally limited volumes and basic vehicles. They have purposely limited interest and availability to early adopters only, so any bugs won't scare off the general public from future models.
3. That whatever vehicle they design LOOKS like cars do nowadays...
Finally, by focusing on the chassis, they are creating a modular vehicle platform that could conceivably accommodate practically ANY design - past, current, futuristic, or custom. I see a future where bodies and interiors become a cottage industry - from DIY hackers to specialized companies. Also, modular designs might allow you to swap your sedan body for a rented pick-up bed. As I said before, the ugly electric and hybrid designs were probably purposeful to scare the average consumer away from what are essentially beta versions.
And furthermore, the results were falsified (and then retracted) by the growing international conspiracy against fair use of used textbooks, forcing first year physics students to buy new editions every year.
I wish I remembered my top score/level so I could join in. I remember being able to play pretty much continously on both the original GameBoy version and for at least a whole class or tutorial on a variety of the HP48 calc variations.
I eventually started playing for points (on the GameBoy) by trying to get as many 4 high completions as possible and restarting my game if I missed one.
I wish my cell phone had Tetris but I'd be a little scared for fear that I won't be able to stop until I get to the same kind of skill level I had before.
Another problem that I actually do sympathize with is that this is grounds for serious lawsuits.
Yeah, I'm surprised how much this has been discounted. Although PKC makes a point about calling recommendations "primary options" to distinguish from hard advice and transfer responsibility to the provider, there is still a high degree of editorial decisions that the software publisher is making.
It's unclear from the story or their website as to how conflicting research is treated. Are different journals or studies weighed differently? How about incorporating common clinical practice that might not show up in the published articles? Or academic theories that are widely used for diagnosis and treatment but have not been conclusively proven?
In their FAQ they state that "Every question contained in a Coupler is there because an action recommended by the medical literature depends upon its answer". What if there are no conclusive actionable recommendations, but results can be inferred from related studies? Does that mean that there are any gaping holes in their content? Is this counter to a systemic approach?
Good software should be able to handle all of these questions, provide a usable and adaptive user interface, avoid unnecessary data entry, provide for local input and overrides, and maintain primary responsibility with the MD. So far, besides some good results, we have no evidence as to the quality of their program (although a tour is available on their site). And what happens if PKC is so widely adopted that it becomes the Microsoft of medical software or the AOL of medical content?
As they are currently positioned they shouldn't so causally brush off their legal exposure. They might be better off repositioning the same service as a faster and more accurate method of accessing research and best practise rather than as a guided decision making tool. This might alleviate the fears of certain doctors while also stressing that the decision lies with the practioner and the advice comes from third parties.
It may come as a surprise to most people, but diagnosis is not the hard part of medicine...
Indeed, too much focus on just reaching a proper diagnosis can lead to poor care or worse.
Although I'm not an MD, I once had a very interesting case study in an operations research class (management science, statistics, expert systems, etc.). We used decision trees to study different diagnostic and treatment procedures in an actual (although somewhat simplified) healthcare setting. The model considered the results of appropriate/inappropriate diagnosis/treatment, the cost and latency of tests, false positives and negatives, and the differing goals of each key stakeholder.
From memory, the doctors were assumed to be most worried about correct diagnosis and treatment regimen, patients were most interested in the safest and most effective prognosis, and the hospital administrators were concerned about costs and legal liability. We found that optimizing the model for these different goals produced very different outcomes.
The results were somewhat counterintuitive: increasing the accuracy of diagnosis or ordering the most tests did not necessarily increase the probability of a cure, and could even increase the probability of death depending on the role of false positives/negatives, waiting periods, and drug side-effects.
That being said, the software in question seems to be more than a just a simple diagnostic tool. Combined with a patient centric outlook, I see medical expert systems becoming obvious (and essential) reference tools as long as they provide the MD with an ability to tweak the level of detail for minor ailments and to consider clinical experience, risks, local expertise, access to equipment, patient preferences, and so on.
Sorry for responding to this, but:
...and http://www.fuckyou.co.uk ... provides free webmail (in exchange for spam)
Sounds like it might be part of the MS Passport(tm) system.
As a proud Canadian (in the original, true, and untrademarked sense) I find Molson's exclusive claim to the word "Canadian" especially ironic when they don't even seem to own the rights to canadian.com or canadian.ca.
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadian beer along with some pints from our many fine Canadian microbreweries.
Also, if anyone finds this fish please do not release - please KILL it (seriously).
I know I'm risking some karma by sort of stating the obvious, but I like how the design is very simple yet incorporates the following important elements:
1. "O" for Open Source
2. "C" for Certification
3. A "Keyhole" for Security
The "Keyhole" element also looks a little like a stylized person so I suppose it also represents the human element of the development process (community, people power) as well as the personal/functional aspects of software (built for users, usability, productivity).
I'd also interpret the Green colour as reflecting the "natural"/"friendly" aspects of the open source process.
Just my initial reactions, and obviously you can get carried away (it's the "product" not the logo that really counts), but I think OSI's smart to have a consistent brand for certification and that their logo choice is fairly strong and representative of the "product". I like the new logo, the only nitpicks - I'm still not sure about the font choices (OSI certified, TM) and the edges/lines/contrast seem a little too blurred.
After reading the article, I essentially said to myself, "Congradulations guy, you just measured the electron mobility of chicken feather compound."
Agreed. Finding uses for waste materials is commendable, and if there are useful semiconductor applications for various composite materials then obviously renewable and natural composites should be considered (including plant and animal sources, such as chicken feathers).
However, following the simplistic logic of the article one could conclude that we could make faster planes out of lead simply because bullets go so fast or make faster integrated circuits by fashioning them out of a single chunk of metal instead of using any semiconductors or insulators. Wow, I've just discovered that copper is a better conductor than silicon - I can make a fortune by building faster chips out of pure copper!!!
As earlier posters have pointed out, I really hope that this was just a poorly researched and poorly written article that misinterpreted/misarticulated the actual science. I think someone at the Post just got in over their head when they saw "chicken" and "semiconductor" in the same sentence. Their next story in this series will be on how sand and "crystal power" replaced vacuum tubes.
...the official BBC website BBCi even issued a statement about it this morning: "Whilst the Cult team quite like the idea of Tony Head as the Doctor in a show guided by members of America's finest fantasy production team, the BBC aren't currently making any such plans."
Does anyone find it interesting that their denial is written in such a whimsical and laudatory way, with the Buffy people described as "America's finest fantasy production team"? The response certainly comes from the creatives, not the suits, and whoever wrote and approved it is either a big Buffy fan and/or there's more to the story.
Also, while they descriptively detail the rumor of "Tony Head and members of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer production team in a new 22 part series to celebrate the Time Lord's 40th anniversary" the clarification they offer is really about "Head not heading for Who" as PART of a David Fury guided series and doesn't explicitly deny the rest of the rumor that a David Fury & Co. guided series is forthcoming.
It just depends on how narrowly or broadly you read "any such plans".
Great advice, but you should also consider doing it the other way around by proposing to formally tutor them. I say "formally" because you should set up some structure so it goes beyond Dad simply helping with their homework.
Back in engineering, the best way I found to learn math was by preparing to teach something that was just beyond my present understanding. I've also had opportunities to do this at work and to stretch my abilities in an informal research setting (as the only non-PhD in a pretty technical area). You're really forced to know what you're talking about when you have to develop examples that clearly explain the concepts to others. And, as it will be your daughters, you have a real vested interest so you'll be especially concerned about not making an ass of yourself or misinforming them.
Of course, with either approach (you propose that they teach to you or you propose that you tutor them) the learning will end up going both ways so it's really just in how you make the "pitch".
Just another perspective to consider depending on how you think your daughter's might react to the otherwise excellent suggestion of teaching their Dad.
IANAM, but as I understand it:
In math, a theorem is a single proven statement, while a theory is a set of statements or principles used to describe an overall system or branch of mathematics. Specifically (in math at least) a theory is a set of related theorems.
Alternatively, "theorem" is used to describe a statement that must be proven, in contrast to a "problem", which must be solved.