And using the numbers you just did, should indicate to everyone present that some people need to work on their reading comprehension skills (and their math).
Really? I quote from the article:
A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance.
Nowhere does it say "71% of apps using open source code are in violation" it reports that 71% of apps are in violation of OSS licenses. Since their own figures show that less that 71% of apps actually use open source this is rather hard to achieve. They might have MEANT to say 71% of apps using open source but they did not ACTUALLY say that...I suspect in order to make a more attention grabbing, but far less accurate, headline.
I leave it to the reader to figure out the exact number of infringing apps. I'll help... 71% of 68. Go on, I know you can do it.
Indeed I can but perhaps you should have too before writing your reply because 71% of 68 is 48.28. That's right one app is apparently 28% in compliance. So it is clear someone does need to work on their reading comprehension and basic arithmetic skills but I don't think that person is me.
If I shoot a man who's trying to kill me, would it be ironic for me to believe that most shootings are bad?
No, but then I would expect you to regard the fact that you had to shoot someone as a bad thing as well even it is was in self defense. I take it from this that you regard the American revolution as a bad thing which just necessary like a shooting in self-defense. Since I've never heard an American express that view before I admit I had not considered that. So looked at from your point of view I understand why you would not find it ironic. However given the more typically portrayed American view it is ironic.
The word "most" isn't that difficult to comprehend.
It isn't...so perhaps you are having trouble understanding the "irony" part after all so let me explain. For people from a country founded by revolutionaries you would not expect them to regard most* revolutions as a bad thing. Hence the OP was ironic.
* even if they are trying to use most to mean "all of them except the one I happen to agree with"
...that a CS degree should require you to pass the bar exam before you write code.
Given that the article refers to scanning 635 apps of which 68 contain OSS licensed code and then uses this data to claim that 71% of apps are not in compliance I would say that basic arithmetic would be the first thing to require before worrying about more challenging topics like laws.
Exactly what has this got to do with the topic of "fact-free science"? Whether or not you support abortion rights has nothing to do with science. Science can provide input to the debate such as the survivability of the unborn child/fetus, how fetuses are terminated etc. but what you do with that information depends on your personal moral code and beliefs which, while they may be rational (or not) are not science.
Going back to your original comment, you pointed out that WW scattering will violate unitarity within the energy reach of the LHC. So the LHC will discover the mechanism of EWSB, whatever it is.
No, all that means is that we have to find that the WW scattering cross-section diverges from the SM (sans Higgs) prediction. There is no guarantee that this is due to the EWSB mechanism, although I would be surprised if it is not.
mSUGRA....I think it's a travesty that this theory has been so heavily used by experimentalists.
Having to pick a SUSY-breaking model is not nice but, unless you have a clever way of drawing a 100+ dimensional parameter space and enough computing power to be able to simulate a reasonable number of samples you have to do something to make the problem manageable. So it is less a travesty and more a necessary evil because we have to have something to aim at i.e. some idea of final states to look for. Generic analyses are no where near as powerful as focussed ones because backgrounds inevitably end up being a lot higher because if you don't know what your signal is you cannot be sure that a cut will not remove it.
Every true advance in science has come from reductionism. To think that the universe might just be a complicated mess is an ideological cancer caused by the lack of direction on the theory side.
As they say in financial adverts: past performance is no guarantee of future success! For example SUSY causes the force couplings to converge generally independent of the exact parameter set. While I personally may agree that it is unlikely that the universe is a complex mess it is conceivable to have theories with multiple parameters where the required behaviour generally comes out regardless of the actual choice of parameters i.e. only small variations would result. In many ways this would be perhaps even more beautiful than trying to reduce the universe to 0 or 1 parameter which gave us what we observe. So while I might agree that the universe is probably not a complicated mess I'm not willing to rule out that possibility.
I clearly was talking about supersymmetry here....I did indicate that the LHC will discover the origin of mass...
Sorry but you'll have to forgive me if I take a statement such as "Unfortunately physicists stopped looking for falsifiable theories a long time ago." as clearly being broader than just SUSY. Indeed your whole argument is phrased as a general issue with SUSY being one particular example. Hence my counter argument. I should also point out that it is not at all certain that the LHC will discover the origin of fundamental particle masses (not all mass), only that it will confirm or rule out the SM Higgs boson.
You exemplify everything that is wrong with modern theoretical physics, and the inability of most practitioners to recognize the qualities of a desirable theory
Perhaps this is just me being too modern but I always thought most desirable theory was the one which agreed with the data. SUSY might have a lot of free parameters but it is actually very good at explaining some of the problems with the SM and if we find it, it is very likely that SUSY breaking mechanism will remove most of those parameters. For example gravity mediated breaking models reduce the parameters to 4.5 (the 0.5 being a sign). Of course until we know what the breaking mechanism is we have to stick with the generic breaking models.
As an experimentalist I would certainly prefer a theory with fewer parameters (I loved working on direct CP violation with kaons), both aesthetically and to make my life easier, but science is about understanding the universe, warts and all. It is very satisfying when that results in a minimalistic theory but while you may think that it should always do that the universe may not agree.
Unfortunately physicists stopped looking for falsifiable theories a long time ago.
Really? Care to explain how the Standard Model will survive if we fail to find a Higgs at the LHC then since the WW scattering cross-section will violate unitarity around 1 TeV without a Higgs. Hence we will either see the SM Higgs or exclude it. Seems pretty falsifiable to me.
Supersymmetry is not a theory, but a principle, the simplest theory built upon it has 120 new free parameters. That's to be compared with the 19 of the Standard Model.
Actually you will find that SUSY has exactly the same number of free parameters as the Standard Model. The only different being that with the Standard Model we have measured the parameters which has allowed us to simplify things e.g. no flavour changing neutral currents, mixing angles etc. These greatly constrain the free parameters. If SUSY is out there I would expect it to be similarly rapidly constrained once we can start measuring it. The problem you are complaining about here is that theory is ahead of experiment and whomever is out in front is in unknown territory which they cannot explain.
If you look at the 1950's and 60's when experimentalists were finding new particles left, right and centre the situation was reversed. Experimentalists were frustrated by finding all these particles and not know why there were so many and where all these apparently free parameters (mass, spin etc.) came from. It is always more fun to be in the group who is behind because then when you publish it is your paper which increases our understanding but that does not mean that something is wrong with the system - there will always be someone ahead.
Physics at this level is like abstract mathematics: it exists for its own sake. Practical applications of this physics is like practical applications of number theory: just not in the plan.
Completely wrong. I don't know a single physicist who believes that. The reason we do what we do is because we are curious about the universe and want to find better ways to exploit it...but the first step in that is understanding. Practical applications are always part of the plan. The problem is that since we don't yet know the physics we don't yet know how to use it practically. 100 years ago "Physics at this level" was quantum mechanics which, since you are reading this article on a silicon based device, has turned out to be extremely useful. Of course absolutely nobody at the time could possibly have predicted the development of the integrated circuit from an understanding of quantum mechanics.
Even today early particle physics detector and accelerator technology is produced better medical imaging and treatment options. Just because we cannot imagine how today's discoveries will be used in 70-100 years form now does not mean that we don't fully expect them to be used for something.
The question then that I would have is "Why don't people who are trying to come up with practical applications act 'as if' the theory were true?"
...because that would be a very good way to waste a lot of time. First question is "which theory" do you take to be true? Simple Standard Model Higgs or a Supersymmetric Higgs, or even a 2-higgs doublet model without supersymmetry? Next question is what is the mass of the Higgs bosons in your accepted theory? The problem with any unknown model is that there are free parameters which are unknown and so the phase space opens out so fast that it becomes impossible to concentrate any amount of effort on one particular area.
The other problem is that any effort may be completely wasted. For example Columbus set off to find a passage to India. Had you attempted to set up an Indian spice importing operation before he had returned you would have looked like a complete idiot.
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
Rather that the "you cannot do that" security paradigm how about trying a new one: "the easiest way to do something should be a secure way to do it"? The problem with the "you cannot do that" paradigm is that invariably you can actually do it with enough hacking, which is rarely secure, and once that happens the method to do it spreads because lots of people want it.
I would prefer that if I so ask it, the device will obey me even at my peril or its own.
If they are really true to Asimov's laws they'll also need to implement the zeroth law which was to protect humanity from harm even if that meant not protecting one or more humans from harm. Preventing users trying new innovative and sometimes crazy ideas with their hardware is arguably harmful to humanity as a whole. However it is also possibly harmful to their bottom line so I expect this one of the laws will get conveniently forgotten.
On topic: what's the problem with memorising a ZIP-code to somewhere other than where you live?
Two reasons.If they want the zip code for idle curiosity why even bother? I could just say 5 random numbers. However where I have had more problem is buying petrol where they require that the ZIP code to match that on your credit card billing address. So memorizing a valid ZIP code would not help since there is no way any 5 numbers will match a postcode with letters!
California used to be really bad at that particularly near SF airport when trying to fill a rental car for return. In fact I've had several garages refuse to serve me without a ZIP code so I am very happy to hear that this is no longer legal.
I would also note that the Indian and Chinese systems of astrology are quite different from the 'Western' one.... So in that sense, it can be a self-fulfilling descriptive discipline (I resist calling it a science, although it might thus be considered a limited sort of social science.)
They are not different in any important details: gaze at the stars, mumble some hocus pocus and then make up a good story. Saying "abracadabra" instead of "shazam" before pulling a rabbit out of a hat does not make the trick different in any meaningful way. Even if you regard it as a self-fulfilling prophecy this is no way whatsoever makes it a science! Science is about figuring out how things work. If there was even a hint of science in astrology they would be making concrete predictions and testing them and, if they were shown to have an effect, they would then start testing to see whether the cause was the moon rising in pegasus or a psychological effect.
I'm not American but that doesn't surprise me since, like the UK, Canada and elsewhere it uses an adversarial court system which has more emphasis on who can tell then best story than on reality and astrologers are really good at telling stories.
Well, this is a little more like suing a limo company that specialises in clients who walk out of banks with bags of money, wearing masks and waving guns around...
Why not go for a more realistic example. Most car manufacturers sell vehicles capable of travelling well over the maximum speed limit on public roads and yet I have yet to see one of them being successfully sued for encouraging drivers to speed. Of course technically you could use them to drive at high speeds on private roads but the overwhelming use of the vehicles is on public roads where they cannot exceed $LEGAL_MAX m/s.
It seems that this is exactly like Hotfile: you can use the service to share legal files but the overwhelming use is to share illegal files. The only difference is that big corporations gain from selling fast cars but lose when people share files.
Slashdot Mirror
And using the numbers you just did, should indicate to everyone present that some people need to work on their reading comprehension skills (and their math).
Really? I quote from the article:
A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance.
Nowhere does it say "71% of apps using open source code are in violation" it reports that 71% of apps are in violation of OSS licenses. Since their own figures show that less that 71% of apps actually use open source this is rather hard to achieve. They might have MEANT to say 71% of apps using open source but they did not ACTUALLY say that...I suspect in order to make a more attention grabbing, but far less accurate, headline.
I leave it to the reader to figure out the exact number of infringing apps. I'll help... 71% of 68. Go on, I know you can do it.
Indeed I can but perhaps you should have too before writing your reply because 71% of 68 is 48.28. That's right one app is apparently 28% in compliance. So it is clear someone does need to work on their reading comprehension and basic arithmetic skills but I don't think that person is me.
If I shoot a man who's trying to kill me, would it be ironic for me to believe that most shootings are bad?
No, but then I would expect you to regard the fact that you had to shoot someone as a bad thing as well even it is was in self defense. I take it from this that you regard the American revolution as a bad thing which just necessary like a shooting in self-defense. Since I've never heard an American express that view before I admit I had not considered that. So looked at from your point of view I understand why you would not find it ironic. However given the more typically portrayed American view it is ironic.
The word "most" isn't that difficult to comprehend.
It isn't...so perhaps you are having trouble understanding the "irony" part after all so let me explain. For people from a country founded by revolutionaries you would not expect them to regard most* revolutions as a bad thing. Hence the OP was ironic.
* even if they are trying to use most to mean "all of them except the one I happen to agree with"
...that a CS degree should require you to pass the bar exam before you write code.
Given that the article refers to scanning 635 apps of which 68 contain OSS licensed code and then uses this data to claim that 71% of apps are not in compliance I would say that basic arithmetic would be the first thing to require before worrying about more challenging topics like laws.
In case you haven't noticed, most revolutions suck. That's why the founders....
That doesn't seem like a long time to me, how often do most countries get a new constitution?
New one? The UK has had a roughly contiguous form of government since 1066 and still hasn't managed to get even one yet.
Exactly what has this got to do with the topic of "fact-free science"? Whether or not you support abortion rights has nothing to do with science. Science can provide input to the debate such as the survivability of the unborn child/fetus, how fetuses are terminated etc. but what you do with that information depends on your personal moral code and beliefs which, while they may be rational (or not) are not science.
Who wants to see one dimensional characters in 3D?
...but I don't know you. ;-) However being a physics prof myself I do know a lot of other physicists.
Going back to your original comment, you pointed out that WW scattering will violate unitarity within the energy reach of the LHC. So the LHC will discover the mechanism of EWSB, whatever it is.
No, all that means is that we have to find that the WW scattering cross-section diverges from the SM (sans Higgs) prediction. There is no guarantee that this is due to the EWSB mechanism, although I would be surprised if it is not.
mSUGRA....I think it's a travesty that this theory has been so heavily used by experimentalists.
Having to pick a SUSY-breaking model is not nice but, unless you have a clever way of drawing a 100+ dimensional parameter space and enough computing power to be able to simulate a reasonable number of samples you have to do something to make the problem manageable. So it is less a travesty and more a necessary evil because we have to have something to aim at i.e. some idea of final states to look for. Generic analyses are no where near as powerful as focussed ones because backgrounds inevitably end up being a lot higher because if you don't know what your signal is you cannot be sure that a cut will not remove it.
Every true advance in science has come from reductionism. To think that the universe might just be a complicated mess is an ideological cancer caused by the lack of direction on the theory side.
As they say in financial adverts: past performance is no guarantee of future success! For example SUSY causes the force couplings to converge generally independent of the exact parameter set. While I personally may agree that it is unlikely that the universe is a complex mess it is conceivable to have theories with multiple parameters where the required behaviour generally comes out regardless of the actual choice of parameters i.e. only small variations would result. In many ways this would be perhaps even more beautiful than trying to reduce the universe to 0 or 1 parameter which gave us what we observe. So while I might agree that the universe is probably not a complicated mess I'm not willing to rule out that possibility.
I clearly was talking about supersymmetry here....I did indicate that the LHC will discover the origin of mass...
Sorry but you'll have to forgive me if I take a statement such as "Unfortunately physicists stopped looking for falsifiable theories a long time ago." as clearly being broader than just SUSY. Indeed your whole argument is phrased as a general issue with SUSY being one particular example. Hence my counter argument. I should also point out that it is not at all certain that the LHC will discover the origin of fundamental particle masses (not all mass), only that it will confirm or rule out the SM Higgs boson.
You exemplify everything that is wrong with modern theoretical physics, and the inability of most practitioners to recognize the qualities of a desirable theory
Perhaps this is just me being too modern but I always thought most desirable theory was the one which agreed with the data. SUSY might have a lot of free parameters but it is actually very good at explaining some of the problems with the SM and if we find it, it is very likely that SUSY breaking mechanism will remove most of those parameters. For example gravity mediated breaking models reduce the parameters to 4.5 (the 0.5 being a sign). Of course until we know what the breaking mechanism is we have to stick with the generic breaking models.
As an experimentalist I would certainly prefer a theory with fewer parameters (I loved working on direct CP violation with kaons), both aesthetically and to make my life easier, but science is about understanding the universe, warts and all. It is very satisfying when that results in a minimalistic theory but while you may think that it should always do that the universe may not agree.
Unfortunately physicists stopped looking for falsifiable theories a long time ago.
Really? Care to explain how the Standard Model will survive if we fail to find a Higgs at the LHC then since the WW scattering cross-section will violate unitarity around 1 TeV without a Higgs. Hence we will either see the SM Higgs or exclude it. Seems pretty falsifiable to me.
Supersymmetry is not a theory, but a principle, the simplest theory built upon it has 120 new free parameters. That's to be compared with the 19 of the Standard Model.
Actually you will find that SUSY has exactly the same number of free parameters as the Standard Model. The only different being that with the Standard Model we have measured the parameters which has allowed us to simplify things e.g. no flavour changing neutral currents, mixing angles etc. These greatly constrain the free parameters. If SUSY is out there I would expect it to be similarly rapidly constrained once we can start measuring it. The problem you are complaining about here is that theory is ahead of experiment and whomever is out in front is in unknown territory which they cannot explain.
If you look at the 1950's and 60's when experimentalists were finding new particles left, right and centre the situation was reversed. Experimentalists were frustrated by finding all these particles and not know why there were so many and where all these apparently free parameters (mass, spin etc.) came from. It is always more fun to be in the group who is behind because then when you publish it is your paper which increases our understanding but that does not mean that something is wrong with the system - there will always be someone ahead.
Physics at this level is like abstract mathematics: it exists for its own sake. Practical applications of this physics is like practical applications of number theory: just not in the plan.
Completely wrong. I don't know a single physicist who believes that. The reason we do what we do is because we are curious about the universe and want to find better ways to exploit it...but the first step in that is understanding. Practical applications are always part of the plan. The problem is that since we don't yet know the physics we don't yet know how to use it practically. 100 years ago "Physics at this level" was quantum mechanics which, since you are reading this article on a silicon based device, has turned out to be extremely useful. Of course absolutely nobody at the time could possibly have predicted the development of the integrated circuit from an understanding of quantum mechanics.
Even today early particle physics detector and accelerator technology is produced better medical imaging and treatment options. Just because we cannot imagine how today's discoveries will be used in 70-100 years form now does not mean that we don't fully expect them to be used for something.
The question then that I would have is "Why don't people who are trying to come up with practical applications act 'as if' the theory were true?"
The other problem is that any effort may be completely wasted. For example Columbus set off to find a passage to India. Had you attempted to set up an Indian spice importing operation before he had returned you would have looked like a complete idiot.
I'm not sure, but its probably quoted in an inertial frame relative to the solar system barycenter.
In that case it is a very slow probe since the orbital velocity of the earth vs. the solar system centre of mass is about 30km/s.
I don't remember a "zeroth law" in the book.
See, it is already being conveniently forgotten! ;-)
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
Rather that the "you cannot do that" security paradigm how about trying a new one: "the easiest way to do something should be a secure way to do it"? The problem with the "you cannot do that" paradigm is that invariably you can actually do it with enough hacking, which is rarely secure, and once that happens the method to do it spreads because lots of people want it.
I would prefer that if I so ask it, the device will obey me even at my peril or its own.
If they are really true to Asimov's laws they'll also need to implement the zeroth law which was to protect humanity from harm even if that meant not protecting one or more humans from harm. Preventing users trying new innovative and sometimes crazy ideas with their hardware is arguably harmful to humanity as a whole. However it is also possibly harmful to their bottom line so I expect this one of the laws will get conveniently forgotten.
On topic: what's the problem with memorising a ZIP-code to somewhere other than where you live?
Two reasons.If they want the zip code for idle curiosity why even bother? I could just say 5 random numbers. However where I have had more problem is buying petrol where they require that the ZIP code to match that on your credit card billing address. So memorizing a valid ZIP code would not help since there is no way any 5 numbers will match a postcode with letters!
California used to be really bad at that particularly near SF airport when trying to fill a rental car for return. In fact I've had several garages refuse to serve me without a ZIP code so I am very happy to hear that this is no longer legal.
It's even more fun when you don't actually live in the US and are just visiting. They typically get very confused when you start saying letters.
I would also note that the Indian and Chinese systems of astrology are quite different from the 'Western' one .... So in that sense, it can be a self-fulfilling descriptive discipline (I resist calling it a science, although it might thus be considered a limited sort of social science.)
They are not different in any important details: gaze at the stars, mumble some hocus pocus and then make up a good story. Saying "abracadabra" instead of "shazam" before pulling a rabbit out of a hat does not make the trick different in any meaningful way. Even if you regard it as a self-fulfilling prophecy this is no way whatsoever makes it a science! Science is about figuring out how things work. If there was even a hint of science in astrology they would be making concrete predictions and testing them and, if they were shown to have an effect, they would then start testing to see whether the cause was the moon rising in pegasus or a psychological effect.
I'm not American but that doesn't surprise me since, like the UK, Canada and elsewhere it uses an adversarial court system which has more emphasis on who can tell then best story than on reality and astrologers are really good at telling stories.
Well, this is a little more like suing a limo company that specialises in clients who walk out of banks with bags of money, wearing masks and waving guns around...
Why not go for a more realistic example. Most car manufacturers sell vehicles capable of travelling well over the maximum speed limit on public roads and yet I have yet to see one of them being successfully sued for encouraging drivers to speed. Of course technically you could use them to drive at high speeds on private roads but the overwhelming use of the vehicles is on public roads where they cannot exceed $LEGAL_MAX m/s.
It seems that this is exactly like Hotfile: you can use the service to share legal files but the overwhelming use is to share illegal files. The only difference is that big corporations gain from selling fast cars but lose when people share files.
And up is down!
Only after exchange of a W boson.
Seems consistent to me.
Not if you like to be consistent with reality.