. It is possible that if one discovers prior art, one could contact law firms and companies directly to sell this knowledge? One might even contact the company which is the patent-holder in question to see what it would be worth to keep this information a secret, or sell the information to the patent-holder themselves so that they may bury it.
I am not certain, but there may be laws against part of what you mentioned, namely a company holding information which they know is relevant to their patent and could knock it out. Inventors have a continuing duty of disclosure that I believe would prevent a company from "buying" prior art to keep it secret. inventors must disclose to the PTO any references that are material to the examination of their patent. I am not sure but I think this duty extends beyond issuance.
Buying such art with an intent to suppress it would basically be an admission that they knew it was material evidence, and they would therefore have a duty to tell the PTO about it.
Third (an important adjuct) we could trim the crap out of our legal system and translate it from Lawyerese. It's no coincidence that about 50% of both Senate and Congress are members of the American Bar Association. Separation of powers my ass, US law is written by lawyers for lawyers. What we need is a system where neither defendant or litigant needs a lawyer, and a streamlined process that forces both parties to stick to the primary evidence by giving a fixed amount of time to present whatever evidence and arguments they want (without interruption), then a fixed time to rebutt their opponents. This often happens in an ad hoc fashion in lower courts dealing with minor issues, but there is no reason why it shouldn't apply at all levels of civil litigation
I think you are oversimplifying a bit.
You are basically questioning the entire practice of starre decisis, which means we use previous cases as precedent. Those "rules" are what make litigation less of a roll-the-dice outcome and provide much needed certainty to litigation and to our law in general. People can look at what happened the last time this issue came up, and they will have an idea what the court is likely to say this time, or at least what it will consider when making its decision. The fact that you can look to precedence is what you seem to be complaining about, since that is what makes litigation so complicated--all the potential sources of precedent and authority. I am not trying to misconstrue or mischaracterise you, so if I have it was not intentional.
Yes, our current way of doing law makes the process more complicated and expensive, but it also vastly improves the accuracy of the results of litigation. The common law, the basis of most civil litigation and out of which commercial codes came, arose over time, with improvements made as problems were identified. Some fairly smart people had a hand in making the system. It is complex and cumbersome and perhaps hard for some people to understand (all that "lawyerese"), but it gives better results than the "OK you get your say then he gets his then I decide who wins before dinner" approach which you suggest.
You make an important point when you say that lower courts already use your suggested method to determine less important issues. It is limited to lower courts on non-issues because it is too inaccurate to use on anything important. Yet you suggest we should base our entire legal system on a set of rules which every American can understand (assuming I take your, "What we need is a system where neither defendant or litigant needs a lawyer," comment correctly). Such a system could not effectively determine the disposition of billions of dollars of assets. Well, it could DO it, it just wouldn't do a very good job. I believe people would be very unhappy with the outcome.
Now if Microsoft decided today to use that algorithm in their product, would you try to take MS to court?
YES! If you have a valid patent claim which they infringe, yes you take them to court. Or (more likely) you license it to them, because it will be cheaper for them to just pay you a license than to fight to invlaidate your patent. Unless it is a killer app. And then, you as the real inventor of a killer app that MS wants to use, have GREAT incentive to press on. Big corps lose in court. The court system isn't quite as broken as you suggest. If you have a valid claim which they legitimately infringe, I'd say you have a good shot at getting a judge or jury to agree.
This is very important to understand: When someone gets a patent for obvious invention - only this one person wins, while the rest of the world loses.
So you are just complaining about abuses of the patents system, and not the patent system itself. Obvious patents should not issue (obviously), but sometimes they do. There are legal mechanisms to take care of this, the biggest being the chance to prove the patent was obvious at the time of its making, thereby having the patent (or the obvious claim) invalidated. Given that this mechanism exists, how do you suggest we improve it?
And though I don't know the context of Jefferson'a quote, some of the points he makes suport the need for a patent system. Ideas can't be contained, once they are given to the public, anyone can use them without decreasing others' uses.
However, ideas are not FREE to begin with. Integrated circuits do not just pop into someone's head, they take much work and development and testing and the whole process is kind of expensive. Without the potential of recouping some of the investment in this endeavor, who would undertake it?
One explanation of the growth of inappropriate patents is simply that the USPTO has been seeking to expand its bureaucratic turf. The fact that their funding is proportionate to the number of patents granted only reinforces this behavior.
Did you know that the PTO does not get too keep the revenues it earns? Much of it is funneled away to other areas, and does not benefit the PTO at all.
And the PTO has absolutely NO CONTROL over how many patent applications are submitted to it each year. Therefore, assuming they are relatively objective in their work, they don't control the number of patents granted each year either. That number depends only on the number of GOOD (i.e. patentable) patent applications submitted to them. Are you suggesting they are systematically granting bad patents (and therefore knowingly breaking the law) so that they can increase their budget?
And the "endless series of IP brainfarts" are not exactly attributable to the PTO, since they don't make the big decisions on how 35 USC and its regs are interpreted. The Supreme Court makes those decisions, like on business methods. The PTO did not make business method patents legal, the Supremes did.
This has never been about the market. The only solution is legislation to restrict the scope of patents.
I agree with you there. The Supremes only interpret the law, they don't make it. Congress is the only one who can legislate to overturn some of these things we think should be beyond the scope of patentable subject matter. Some well places restrictions on DNA (like definite uses for anything patented) would work wonders IMHO. And business methods should never ever have been patented.
It's not an easy process and that's why there are specialists, and it was my understanding, though i could be wrong, that part of what the patent attorney does before filing a patent is perform research for prior art and/or other patents which would conflict with the current application.
Patent attorneys aren't required to do prior art searches, though they are a very good idea. As long as you don't KNOW of any relevant art, you are off the hook. That might sound like incentive to not research, but you must also include the cost of patents, and the desire of business not to waste $5k-$10k on an application that is easily knocked out by some art.
So then, what responsibility does this lawyer hold for such a misrepresentation, or, perhaps, what responsibility *should* he/she hold. Can they be disbarred? Or does the issue not really matter.
If the lawyer does misrepresent something, or knowingly withhold relevant material, there can be serious consequences. I believe there are even criminal penalties possible for misleading the PTO, not to mention being disbarred.
The PTO is responsible for doing the searches, that is one of their main tasks in prosecution. If they fail, and a bad patent gets issued, it isn't the end of the world, because when the owner of the bad patent tries to enforce it (by suing for infringement) the defendent can invalidate the patent by showing it should never have issued to begin with.
These extremely broad patents we are discussing will be easier to invalidate, because they are so broad. If someone can show art that existed at the time of patenting, then any anticipated patent claims will be invalidated. If someone can even show multiple references that together make the invention obvious, the patent can be invalidated.
If you want to improve this process, then let the PTO keep its money. It has a fee structure that allows it to take care of all its expenses by the fees it collects (which are numerous). But congress sees fit to appropriate that money, leaving the PTO understaffed for the job it is required to do. If there were more examiners, better paid, then our patent system would be more robust, and less "bad" patents would issue. But the taxpayers (i.e., us) don't want to pay for much of anything. Especially something so far away from our everyday lives.
...were just made "legal" a few years back. They used to NOT be patentable subject matter, but the Supremes changed that. Can't remember the case, sorry.
. I thought it might be a good idea to read the patent before I made any sweeping generalizations about the patent system, American jurisprudence, or the character of the people enforcing it.
You are one of the few sensible people here. Maybe you can patent the idea of getting the facts before you spout opinion. It is certainly a novel idea here on these boards.
There is nothing wrong with the patent, there is something wrong with the money hungry lawyers who know that there is no such thing as losing a lawsuit for them.
Do you think the lawyer went in to the patent holder, and said, "I've been perusing your IP, and I have decided that it would be good for you if you sued these people because you can win. I would be happy to handle the case"?
Such a lawyer would have violated ethical rules if s/he did that. It is direct solicitation, and a lawyer can be disbarred for it.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. Lawyers are, unfortunately, a necessary evil. They provide us recourse to a complex body of laws. The threat of being sued is one powerful thing that keeps business from breaking the law, or at least makes them think about it.
When the Shakespeare character said, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," they were trying to overthrow the government. They were villians who said that.
True, to invalidate a patent the art must show every element. But obvious elements can be very easy to show. If the claim says "payment by a credit card" then a prior art reference that says only, "payment" can make the claim obvious, because once you teach "payment" then "payment by credit card" is obvious. And you can combine references (as long as one of ordinaly skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them).
What the fuck are you talking about? You make no sense whatsoever.
Yes, I know sarcasm is hard to understand. You see, it all starts when someone says one thing, but they mean the literal opposite of what they said. I agree, it can be confusing.
The point of my particular sarcasm was to disagree with the earlier post, which I quoted. Again, I know this kind of thing is hard to follow. You see, I overtly AGREED with what that person had posted, while also stating a ridiculous analogy to their reasoning. By stating the ridiculous analogy, I was hoping to alert people that my own opinion differed from what I was actually saying. That is the sarcasm part. Again, if it makes your head hurt, just go back to sleep or drooling on your keyboard or whatever it is you are doing.
Patenting of DNA is ridiculous, in the same way that patenting a particular sequence of dominos is crazy. How can one patent a sequence of genetic material??
They can't, at least not in the USA. Your concept of what is being patented is a little off.
More importantly, how does one enforce that patent if a person/organism/sasquatch (or whatever) later expresses that sequence????!!?
That is the point. No one can enforce such a patent, no one can even HOLD such a patent. Your question is moot.
Truly your American laws are a just a little daft..
It is only your misunderstanding of them that makes you think this.
Shouldn't it be the same in biotech: if a company is stoopid enough to patent the genetic sequence of AIDS, shouldn't it be then forced to also accept legal responsibility for AIDS. I.e. face "wrongful death" lawsuits from each and every victim of AIDS. And if the company maliciously withheld treatment, or sold that treatment too expensively, add blackmail and murder to the list of accusations...
Yeah, and all those biotech companies right now that haven't yet come up with a cure for AIDS should be held responsible for millions of murders. After all, it is our right to have these companies make cures for us. And once they invest their millions, the product of their research should belong to the public, not the company. That way many more companies will doubtless join the biotech industry! Wouldn't you?
You can't protect a bare idea under current federal law. Instead you must protect a concrete manifestation, a document -copywrite- or tangiable thing -patent. In some states (California), statutes have been promulgated to protect novel ideas, which is probably the way the things go.
You are incorrect on this I believe. An idea can be patented, and an actual reduction to practice (i.e., making the thing) is NOT necessary for the granting of a patent. Ideas are PRECISELY what are protected by patent law.
Really all patenting a gene sequence is is the protection of the idea that this paticular code means something specific.
That is not at all what it means. The effect or eventual expression of a gene has nothing to do with the patent. The patents are invariably on isolation and identification techniques, or fabricating the necessary chemicals to manipulate or study a gene. Granted, these patents effectively exclude others from accesing a gene if the patented techniques of studying the gene are the only known ones. But the technique would not exist anyway had it not been for the inventor/patent holder in the first place.
Eliminate patent ownership and you poison biotech research. It would be great if industry ran on altruism but that is not the case.
Everything you say is correct, and the current state of the law. You can't just patent a DNA sequence, so that anyone who has that sequence owes you money. That is what everyone rants against, and it isn't happening that way. You are also right that since a gene exists in nature, you can't patent the gene for that reason.
And finally you are exactly right that methodologies for identifying and isolating DNA are patentable, and are the subject of what is typically called a "gene patent."
You assume that taking energy from prey kills it. It might only decrease the prey's energy temporarily, more like a parasite does to a host. A single host can take care of multiple parasites.
Do we really think that by using "neural nets" that something magic will happen?
Better chances with a neural network than with any other kind of robot brain currently known. I suppose you probably know this, but neural networks can learn. From what I have read, they compare their actual output with a desired output, and change their internal structure to more closely mimic the desired output. In short, they can learn. I don't know that much about them, but if they have complex enough internal structure, they could ultimately (with enough training) mimic almost anything. Including survival behavior, I would think. Don't know why such would be outside the realm of possibility.
That's great, wouldn't it be cheaper to simulate all this activity first?
That is what this experiment is doing. How else could you simulate the behavior of multiple interacting neural networks without building multiple neural networks and let them interact? Any simulation would have to use neural networks to simulate the behavior of the neural networks you are trying to simulate (woah, I just got dizzy)....
Forgot to add, the momentum of a photon is p=h/wavelength. No mass invovled. Photons are massless. The idea of momentum being mass*velocity is a classical approximation.
According to Lorentz transformations for special relativity, if photons had mass, it would have to be infinite since they travel at c. Photons are pure energy, radiation. Not massive particles. They have momentum (according to a QM definition, not a m*v definition), so they can move objects (lilke the solar saile xample).
And the "m" in Einsteins equation is for mass, not "matter". What would the units of "matter" be, I wonder?
But the information of the photon (i.e., its direction, wavelength, etc.) are preserved in the molecule it hits--the photon comes out again as the same photon. I think "destroying" indicates the information is lost.
And I thought that the energy of a photon went into the spin of the atoms, and didn't push electrons into higher orbitals. If this were the case, then electrons would only absorb certain photons (the ones with the energy needed to get the next level), and would reemit not the original photon, but a photon matched to the energy lost when the electron de-excited.
Excitation/de-excitation of electrons to higher energy states is how lasers work, but I thought that phenomenon was different than simple photons passing through an optical material.
I don't personally know enough about the issue to disagree with you except on one point: The volume of ice is greater than the volume of the same mass of liquid H2O. This is why ice floats.
Your post also ignores the fact that lots of the ice is now above sea level, but it would no longer be if it were to melt.
The idea of uploading your brain to a computer does bring up the question of what makes a person self aware, etc. If the mind arises totally from the brain (i.e., no soul or other component we cannot detect), then a computer that does everything a biological mind does should be the same "mind" as a human brain.
My main question for all this: How does free will come into the picture? In fact, what is free will? This is not so easy to answer, when I consider that at best our brains (the biological thing--not the mind) are only switches, however complex. These switches must either be deterministic (i.e., a single input to a unique brain state relates to a single output), or deterministic with some randomness thrown in (arising from uncertainty on a quantum level, for example).
So what part is the free will? Is it deterministic when I make a choice? Is it random? It is at best a combination of these. When I choose A or B (for example), the outcome of my choice depends on my initial brain state (i.e., the configuration of my brain's matter and energy) plus the input. This is deterministic, or at best random. There is no homonculous inside me making the choice. (And if there were, what makes him decide?)
So where does my free will arise? Is it just a product of my deterministic/random machine? If so, could we not reprogram those who make consistently wrong (i.e., criminal) choices? It would be just like reprogramming a complex neural network, using something like the techniques mentioned in the article.
What about holding people accountable for their choices? We presume that people mean the obvious results of their actions, but what part of this deterministic/random machine is responsible for the final choice? If the decisionmaker is actually deterministic or random, is it accountable? Are we ever actually free to choose other than we do?
Anyone who says the answer lies in the human soul, please stay home.
In a star, the massive outward pressure from the nuclear reaction is balanced by the inward pressure of gravity. The bigger the star, the more gravity. The more gravity, the closer the individual atoms inside the star have to be. Once the star gets big enough, some of the atoms are literally mashed together to form a new element. Example: a hydrogen (one proton) gets added to a helium (two protons), creating whatever element #3 is. This is alchemy. New elements. All the heavy elements (i.e., anything greater than atomic number 2) were supposedly made this way. We are all stardust. Every atom in our bodies went through a supernova, or so the theory goes.
In this experiment, they apparently used a particle accelerator to add a proton to sodium 21. This made magnesium (?), a new element. But it didn't last long, the proton decayed into a neutron, converting the atom back into sodium, this time with 22 nucleons (one extra neutron than before).
The reason this is news: we have never converted one element into another before (at least not this way).
Slashdot Mirror
I am not certain, but there may be laws against part of what you mentioned, namely a company holding information which they know is relevant to their patent and could knock it out. Inventors have a continuing duty of disclosure that I believe would prevent a company from "buying" prior art to keep it secret. inventors must disclose to the PTO any references that are material to the examination of their patent. I am not sure but I think this duty extends beyond issuance.
Buying such art with an intent to suppress it would basically be an admission that they knew it was material evidence, and they would therefore have a duty to tell the PTO about it.
I think you are oversimplifying a bit. You are basically questioning the entire practice of starre decisis, which means we use previous cases as precedent. Those "rules" are what make litigation less of a roll-the-dice outcome and provide much needed certainty to litigation and to our law in general. People can look at what happened the last time this issue came up, and they will have an idea what the court is likely to say this time, or at least what it will consider when making its decision. The fact that you can look to precedence is what you seem to be complaining about, since that is what makes litigation so complicated--all the potential sources of precedent and authority. I am not trying to misconstrue or mischaracterise you, so if I have it was not intentional.
Yes, our current way of doing law makes the process more complicated and expensive, but it also vastly improves the accuracy of the results of litigation. The common law, the basis of most civil litigation and out of which commercial codes came, arose over time, with improvements made as problems were identified. Some fairly smart people had a hand in making the system. It is complex and cumbersome and perhaps hard for some people to understand (all that "lawyerese"), but it gives better results than the "OK you get your say then he gets his then I decide who wins before dinner" approach which you suggest.
You make an important point when you say that lower courts already use your suggested method to determine less important issues. It is limited to lower courts on non-issues because it is too inaccurate to use on anything important. Yet you suggest we should base our entire legal system on a set of rules which every American can understand (assuming I take your, "What we need is a system where neither defendant or litigant needs a lawyer," comment correctly). Such a system could not effectively determine the disposition of billions of dollars of assets. Well, it could DO it, it just wouldn't do a very good job. I believe people would be very unhappy with the outcome.
YES! If you have a valid patent claim which they infringe, yes you take them to court. Or (more likely) you license it to them, because it will be cheaper for them to just pay you a license than to fight to invlaidate your patent. Unless it is a killer app. And then, you as the real inventor of a killer app that MS wants to use, have GREAT incentive to press on. Big corps lose in court. The court system isn't quite as broken as you suggest. If you have a valid claim which they legitimately infringe, I'd say you have a good shot at getting a judge or jury to agree.
So you are just complaining about abuses of the patents system, and not the patent system itself. Obvious patents should not issue (obviously), but sometimes they do. There are legal mechanisms to take care of this, the biggest being the chance to prove the patent was obvious at the time of its making, thereby having the patent (or the obvious claim) invalidated. Given that this mechanism exists, how do you suggest we improve it?
And though I don't know the context of Jefferson'a quote, some of the points he makes suport the need for a patent system. Ideas can't be contained, once they are given to the public, anyone can use them without decreasing others' uses.
However, ideas are not FREE to begin with. Integrated circuits do not just pop into someone's head, they take much work and development and testing and the whole process is kind of expensive. Without the potential of recouping some of the investment in this endeavor, who would undertake it?
Did you know that the PTO does not get too keep the revenues it earns? Much of it is funneled away to other areas, and does not benefit the PTO at all.
And the PTO has absolutely NO CONTROL over how many patent applications are submitted to it each year. Therefore, assuming they are relatively objective in their work, they don't control the number of patents granted each year either. That number depends only on the number of GOOD (i.e. patentable) patent applications submitted to them. Are you suggesting they are systematically granting bad patents (and therefore knowingly breaking the law) so that they can increase their budget?
And the "endless series of IP brainfarts" are not exactly attributable to the PTO, since they don't make the big decisions on how 35 USC and its regs are interpreted. The Supreme Court makes those decisions, like on business methods. The PTO did not make business method patents legal, the Supremes did.
This has never been about the market. The only solution is legislation to restrict the scope of patents.
I agree with you there. The Supremes only interpret the law, they don't make it. Congress is the only one who can legislate to overturn some of these things we think should be beyond the scope of patentable subject matter. Some well places restrictions on DNA (like definite uses for anything patented) would work wonders IMHO. And business methods should never ever have been patented.
Patent attorneys aren't required to do prior art searches, though they are a very good idea. As long as you don't KNOW of any relevant art, you are off the hook. That might sound like incentive to not research, but you must also include the cost of patents, and the desire of business not to waste $5k-$10k on an application that is easily knocked out by some art.
So then, what responsibility does this lawyer hold for such a misrepresentation, or, perhaps, what responsibility *should* he/she hold. Can they be disbarred? Or does the issue not really matter.
If the lawyer does misrepresent something, or knowingly withhold relevant material, there can be serious consequences. I believe there are even criminal penalties possible for misleading the PTO, not to mention being disbarred.
The PTO is responsible for doing the searches, that is one of their main tasks in prosecution. If they fail, and a bad patent gets issued, it isn't the end of the world, because when the owner of the bad patent tries to enforce it (by suing for infringement) the defendent can invalidate the patent by showing it should never have issued to begin with.
These extremely broad patents we are discussing will be easier to invalidate, because they are so broad. If someone can show art that existed at the time of patenting, then any anticipated patent claims will be invalidated. If someone can even show multiple references that together make the invention obvious, the patent can be invalidated.
If you want to improve this process, then let the PTO keep its money. It has a fee structure that allows it to take care of all its expenses by the fees it collects (which are numerous). But congress sees fit to appropriate that money, leaving the PTO understaffed for the job it is required to do. If there were more examiners, better paid, then our patent system would be more robust, and less "bad" patents would issue. But the taxpayers (i.e., us) don't want to pay for much of anything. Especially something so far away from our everyday lives.
...were just made "legal" a few years back. They used to NOT be patentable subject matter, but the Supremes changed that. Can't remember the case, sorry.
You are one of the few sensible people here. Maybe you can patent the idea of getting the facts before you spout opinion. It is certainly a novel idea here on these boards.
Do you think the lawyer went in to the patent holder, and said, "I've been perusing your IP, and I have decided that it would be good for you if you sued these people because you can win. I would be happy to handle the case"?
Such a lawyer would have violated ethical rules if s/he did that. It is direct solicitation, and a lawyer can be disbarred for it.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. Lawyers are, unfortunately, a necessary evil. They provide us recourse to a complex body of laws. The threat of being sued is one powerful thing that keeps business from breaking the law, or at least makes them think about it.
When the Shakespeare character said, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," they were trying to overthrow the government. They were villians who said that.
True, to invalidate a patent the art must show every element. But obvious elements can be very easy to show. If the claim says "payment by a credit card" then a prior art reference that says only, "payment" can make the claim obvious, because once you teach "payment" then "payment by credit card" is obvious. And you can combine references (as long as one of ordinaly skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them).
Yes, I know sarcasm is hard to understand. You see, it all starts when someone says one thing, but they mean the literal opposite of what they said. I agree, it can be confusing.
The point of my particular sarcasm was to disagree with the earlier post, which I quoted. Again, I know this kind of thing is hard to follow. You see, I overtly AGREED with what that person had posted, while also stating a ridiculous analogy to their reasoning. By stating the ridiculous analogy, I was hoping to alert people that my own opinion differed from what I was actually saying. That is the sarcasm part. Again, if it makes your head hurt, just go back to sleep or drooling on your keyboard or whatever it is you are doing.
They can't, at least not in the USA. Your concept of what is being patented is a little off.
More importantly, how does one enforce that patent if a person/organism/sasquatch (or whatever) later expresses that sequence????!!?
That is the point. No one can enforce such a patent, no one can even HOLD such a patent. Your question is moot.
Truly your American laws are a just a little daft..
It is only your misunderstanding of them that makes you think this.
Yeah, and all those biotech companies right now that haven't yet come up with a cure for AIDS should be held responsible for millions of murders. After all, it is our right to have these companies make cures for us. And once they invest their millions, the product of their research should belong to the public, not the company. That way many more companies will doubtless join the biotech industry! Wouldn't you?
You are incorrect on this I believe. An idea can be patented, and an actual reduction to practice (i.e., making the thing) is NOT necessary for the granting of a patent. Ideas are PRECISELY what are protected by patent law.
Really all patenting a gene sequence is is the protection of the idea that this paticular code means something specific.
That is not at all what it means. The effect or eventual expression of a gene has nothing to do with the patent. The patents are invariably on isolation and identification techniques, or fabricating the necessary chemicals to manipulate or study a gene. Granted, these patents effectively exclude others from accesing a gene if the patented techniques of studying the gene are the only known ones. But the technique would not exist anyway had it not been for the inventor/patent holder in the first place.
Eliminate patent ownership and you poison biotech research. It would be great if industry ran on altruism but that is not the case.
And finally you are exactly right that methodologies for identifying and isolating DNA are patentable, and are the subject of what is typically called a "gene patent."
But a card catalog can hardly be interpreted as anticipating and teaching hyperlinking. if that were the standard, nothing would ever be patented.
You assume that taking energy from prey kills it. It might only decrease the prey's energy temporarily, more like a parasite does to a host. A single host can take care of multiple parasites.
Better chances with a neural network than with any other kind of robot brain currently known. I suppose you probably know this, but neural networks can learn. From what I have read, they compare their actual output with a desired output, and change their internal structure to more closely mimic the desired output. In short, they can learn. I don't know that much about them, but if they have complex enough internal structure, they could ultimately (with enough training) mimic almost anything. Including survival behavior, I would think. Don't know why such would be outside the realm of possibility.
That's great, wouldn't it be cheaper to simulate all this activity first?
That is what this experiment is doing. How else could you simulate the behavior of multiple interacting neural networks without building multiple neural networks and let them interact? Any simulation would have to use neural networks to simulate the behavior of the neural networks you are trying to simulate (woah, I just got dizzy)....
Forgot to add, the momentum of a photon is p=h/wavelength. No mass invovled. Photons are massless. The idea of momentum being mass*velocity is a classical approximation.
And the "m" in Einsteins equation is for mass, not "matter". What would the units of "matter" be, I wonder?
But the information of the photon (i.e., its direction, wavelength, etc.) are preserved in the molecule it hits--the photon comes out again as the same photon. I think "destroying" indicates the information is lost. And I thought that the energy of a photon went into the spin of the atoms, and didn't push electrons into higher orbitals. If this were the case, then electrons would only absorb certain photons (the ones with the energy needed to get the next level), and would reemit not the original photon, but a photon matched to the energy lost when the electron de-excited. Excitation/de-excitation of electrons to higher energy states is how lasers work, but I thought that phenomenon was different than simple photons passing through an optical material.
We'll just have to move to Ringworld! (No, that is NOT a Tolkien reference!) Go Larry!
I don't personally know enough about the issue to disagree with you except on one point: The volume of ice is greater than the volume of the same mass of liquid H2O. This is why ice floats. Your post also ignores the fact that lots of the ice is now above sea level, but it would no longer be if it were to melt.
My main question for all this: How does free will come into the picture? In fact, what is free will? This is not so easy to answer, when I consider that at best our brains (the biological thing--not the mind) are only switches, however complex. These switches must either be deterministic (i.e., a single input to a unique brain state relates to a single output), or deterministic with some randomness thrown in (arising from uncertainty on a quantum level, for example).
So what part is the free will? Is it deterministic when I make a choice? Is it random? It is at best a combination of these. When I choose A or B (for example), the outcome of my choice depends on my initial brain state (i.e., the configuration of my brain's matter and energy) plus the input. This is deterministic, or at best random. There is no homonculous inside me making the choice. (And if there were, what makes him decide?)
So where does my free will arise? Is it just a product of my deterministic/random machine? If so, could we not reprogram those who make consistently wrong (i.e., criminal) choices? It would be just like reprogramming a complex neural network, using something like the techniques mentioned in the article.
What about holding people accountable for their choices? We presume that people mean the obvious results of their actions, but what part of this deterministic/random machine is responsible for the final choice? If the decisionmaker is actually deterministic or random, is it accountable? Are we ever actually free to choose other than we do?
Anyone who says the answer lies in the human soul, please stay home.
In this experiment, they apparently used a particle accelerator to add a proton to sodium 21. This made magnesium (?), a new element. But it didn't last long, the proton decayed into a neutron, converting the atom back into sodium, this time with 22 nucleons (one extra neutron than before).
The reason this is news: we have never converted one element into another before (at least not this way).