Indeed, this is largely an IDE feature. But certain file formats are conducive to reading by the IDE, so in a sense it is also a language issue. (at least language format)
Also, you don't need to use a memory hungry IDE. I use vi mainly, and this would still be possible. Syntax highlighting is the first step -- the representation depends on how you have things set up. This is just the next step. So a purely text representation with no information besides what is directly coded would be possible (layed out, textually, to your specifications).
So, have you ever seen anything like this? For the brace/indentation conventions, it would be easy to implement. But there are so many more things that a real bottom-up design could do.
Btw, is there a better place for us to have these discussions, which are slightly wandering off-topic?
I am glad to know that other people are thinking of this -- it means that some day, something might actually be done!;) Language-independence or something close might not be possible within our current set of languages, without lots of pain. Maybe within a certain paradigm -- such as procedural programming -- with only some pain.
But effectively, one would create a large (infinite?) set of "programming languages," each of which was equally expressive, but differed in how shortcuts were displayed and coded, and how long it took to perform specific programming tasks. But there would be no confusion, because each user could use his own "language" and have complete interdependence with others.
I actually think perl could serve as an interesting jump-off, but it might be too messy to be practical. I too would love to offer advice and extensive testing for anyone who makes a serious effort at this. I would even report bugs and write code here and there. But I certainly don't have the time nor the expertise to spearhead this. I would also like to know the history of some other attempts like this, and why they failed (Algol 60 and a few other rants were found as "physical representation independent" after extensive searching.)
I speculate part of the problem of these historically is that everyone had to learn a standard representation anyway; since the "reference representation" was printed in a book, you had to know that standard. So, if you wanted to customize your display of code you could do that, but you had to also know the "reference representation" to learn things. Now, this problem is gone since we have the internet and code is easily distributed software with books, etc. So you aren't tied to a "reference representation," but rather can view the example code in your preferred representation (unlike when code was printed in books, instead of electronically). Perhaps this, along with the advent of XML, will remove the historical impetus that hindered previous projects (plus the oodles of goodies people have invented that can be turned on and off in the past few decades).
Not really. I am not asking for new language functionality (though there is plenty of that I wouldn't mind). In a sense, I want the compiler to work in a certain language. Lets pretend that the language was stored and looked just like C. (Probably not the best way to go, but bear with me.)
Now, I want to be able to set up my IDE to let me edit that C file and display that C file how I want. Curly braces? Maybe, maybe not... just use indentation. Still, when I use indentation in my editor, it might put the braces in the C file automatically. I could pick it how I want, someone else could pick what they want, but each of our source files would be the same. You might imagine how XML fits into this. I would use indentation or a curly brace or a bracket or "start" or some other command to indicate the start of a block and it would be put in the actual code as: . Much more interesting examples can be made.
So, as a first step, no new compiler would be needed: just pick an existing language. The point is to have the representation customizable, e.g. modify vi. Or a graphical editor, so that drawing a box or rectangle or something puts in the source. Still, when you viewed it, it would look like a curly brace or say "start" or whatever display preference you had set.
In order of ease to implement and maintainability, a new language/compiler would probably be best for this, or at least a preprocessor to take the meta-language (xml) to something like C. But not necessary and not really the point.
Imagine trying to read the code for a given app that had all sorts of bizarre preferences chosen. You would have to spend a lot of time just understanding what the hell you were looking at.
No. In some sense, this is precisely the problem I try to avoid. The bizarre preferences were chosen because that programmer/company/standards bureau liked them and/or found them useful (hopefully). By storing the content of the program, and not their silly display preferences, it would load and present to me however I had it set up to display it, not according to their preferences.
In other words, they have some silly COBOL-like syntax mixed up with graphical elements. But the presentation is not in the code . When I load the file, it would display according to my preferences, perhaps looking very C-like.
I am not suggesting that the options/commands be different for each user, but rather that the presentation be different. In other words, this is the way to make there be least to learn on behalf of programmers. They don't need to know the other programmers' formatting rules, syntax, blocking options, etc. By having a 1-1 correspondence between representations, a representation suitable for you would be generated automatically.
This is less of a favorite feature, and more of a feature I wish we had. What about having the representation of the language independent of the code itself? I think this will eventually happen and could really revolutionize things. I believe the inklings of separating 'physical' representation from the code were there in some languages like Algol 60 and CS work in the 1960's, but it never caught on (perhaps hindered by other features of those works?).
In a little more detail, suppose I write a C program. It will have lots of functions and conditionals with their "blocks" surrounded by braces.
But what if I prefer my "blocks" to be started and ended by brackets instead of braces. Better yet, what if I am tired of typing these and would like indentation to control this. Or whatever -- start end commands, if you like. The point is that these are minor sytactic idiosyncracies, and we all have preferences. Why not store the code in an underlying format (XML would be okay, were it not for the bulk of it)? As long as there is a one-to-one correspondence between all possible representations, you could view it however you want.
And so on for all syntactic features. Prefer "if-fi" construction to "if () {}"? Or "if... then..."? Better yet, really like Perl's "$_"? If you want it to be displayed like this, turn it on. Otherwise, say you don't like this feature, and it will automatically replace the "$_"'s (either implicit or explicit) with the variable to which it refers. Again, no problem.
At this point, I feel like I am repeating myself, but let me continue for a little bit. It would let each user have his/her personal favorite representation. We already let them control the colors of their syntax highlighting, lets take it a step further.
Hell, if you want to use a graphical viewer for those C programs, akin to LabView, go for it! Or (in my opinion) a much better graphical programming environment with a graph structure. The point is: you write it how you want and save it. It appears to another coder how he/she wants it to appear, but the content is exactly the same.
In short: why isn't this done? It seems like a spectacular step in unifying programming languages a bit, and letting each user tailor his preferences while maintaining compatibility. As long as there was simple one-to-one correspondence, the translation from physical representation to underlying code and back would be quick and fairly easy to handle. Are there any modern projects which attempt this? Or *any* which attempt it with some success?
On a somewhat related note, is it possible to put a "hook" to a comment in the code, and with the proper viewer have that comment displayed along with the code (say when you click the "hook", move your mouse over it, or drag the "hook" to a "comment box")? If this last paragraph doesn't make sense, please ignore it.
Never doubt the power of knowing just a little bit of another language.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's just that the article oversells it. "Discussions" and all... makes it sound like they are going to chat about Bertrand Russell and Dewey over a cuppa and scone.
Start silly personal story
It reminds me of a time I was in Italy for a couple weeks. Knowing virtually no Italian, I mainly got by on butchered French and the fact that many/most of the Italians there spoke English. A handy bit of custom to know: Pepperoni on a pizza is not a salami, or other kind of meat. Rather, upon ordering a pepporoni pizza, one receives a pizza with peppers!
Beautiful, and highly recommended.
I am an American, and have been fortunate enough to spend some time abroad. I thoroughly enjoyed the local flavors. Not to mention the humiliation that most foreigners know at least as much about U.S. politics as I do (and much more about U.S. sports!).:-D
You know, I was going to ignore this. I do not agree with your argument at all, but lets skip that; I want to try to make another point.
It isn't just about not offending the "Arabs." If a U.S. soldier offends, say, an armed villager, do you think it will have good consequences? No, only damaged reputations and, worse, physical injury for our soldiers.
Say a U.S. soldier ejects from his fighter jet, landing in a somewhat peaceful village. Suppose, too, that he is in dire need of water, medecine. Maybe a radio, or telephone. Maybe a bathroom. Whatever the need is -- he will be relying on the Arabs' hospitality -- and a knowledge of Arabic will be only to the U.S. soldiers' advantage.
At the very least, it will help the reconstruction proceed quicker by allowing some interaction between the natives and the U.S. soldiers involved in the reconstruction. I doubt you would support the reconstruction, but it is inevitable. Pragmatically, it must be done (the soldier follows the politician's orders) -- and the quickest way to get the U.S. soldiers out of trouble is to get them out of there: to facilitate the reconstruction.
As I said in the beginning, I think there are lots of good reasons for U.S. soldiers to learn basics of the Arabic language, in order to protect and help them. I didn't even touch on the humanitarian or intelligence-gathering reasons for learning Arabic. But even ignoring this, this is the best course of action to protect our troops.
Is it really possible to teach the soldiers enough Arabic -- basically in their free time -- to communicate with the "villagers." Seriously, people spend years studying foreign languages, and usually only come out with mild fluency.
Admittedly, a few words can be learned, enabling simple communication. If this is all that they have in mind, this is perhaps a feasible objective. But the quote makes it sound as if the soldiers will be truly communicating in the language. The article hedges it a bit more, focusing on problem specific communication, but I don't think it is fairly labeled 'discussion.' That is, I doubt that there will be very many fruitful 'discussions' *cough* interrogations *cough* if they must occur in Arabic.
Anyway, what the hell is a virtual 'cave'? 'Camp' is the term used in the article, and I still don't understand what either word has to do with things. Help!
OpenOffice works extremely well for me, and achieves compatibility quite nicely. I even use OpenOffice on my Windows box, because it doesn't cost me anything. Besides games, what other applications are essential to you and available only on Windows?
This is a genuine question, not a suggestion that such applications don't exist. Often people ask if they can run their programs on linux, but 99% of the time "these programs" turn out to be Microsoft Office.
The market couldn't bear a $600 graphics solution in 1998, what makes them think it can handle a $900 solution 5 years later?
Because they do, in fact, have the diversified product line? There is a market for it. Assuming they properly assess demand, there is a sizable market for those interested in serious visualization, which they can tap. Probably the R&D is not terribly expensive for this, so that only a small market is needed to support it.
The reason it failed before wasn't because the market couldn't bear it. It was that 3dfx mis-assessed the marked. Perhaps NVidia won't make that mistake and won't over produce.
"Dropping $20 on an array of Mega Millions tickets
is mathematically irrational, but with or without
that $20, my life for the next two weeks will be
about the same. If I were to win, however, even
the second-best prize, it would enable me to
purchase a nice house."
This is only mathematically "irrational" if one buys the notion that the "value" of something is its average value of payoff.
Really, the "value" is dependent not only on this number, but on the whole probability distribution that governs the various possible payoffs. In other words, I value having a large probability of zero payoff but small probability of a very high payoff more than I do a certainty of small payoff. This is a personal choice, and in no way irrational. In other words, this is your argument rehashed, but it is fully within the scope of a properly developed economic theory.
In the case that this probability distribution is considered, the value or "utility" (to use the economic lingo) then becomes a functional (function whose argument is a function). How one relates this probability distribution to value is dependent on the person, the same way that the relation between any outcome to personal value is completely personal (though there may of course be social/biological trends).
So, while most mathematical economic theories use expectation values or similarly constructed average/statistical properties, there is nothing stopping one from making an equivalent theory where the payoff is a functional.
(sidenote: functionals come up in economics in other places, so it might be possible -- if people bugged them enough -- to get economists to use techniques with these functionals to treat this problem more thoroughly!)
Q. If he's supposed to be perfect, why would God change his covenant with humanity?
A. He didn't, he fulfilled the requirements of the "Old Testament Law" by a permanent sacrifice, Jesus, instead of periodic animal sacrifices.
------end quote ----
WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG?
Of course, I know better than to get involved in this... but...
You didn't answer the question. That's the point: he fulfilled the "Old Testament Law" where he hadn't before; in a loose sense, changed his covenant. Repeating the point: he had a long time before that to remedy things, so why didn't he get to it before that? What made god, at one point, go "whoops, time to send jesus to get around that stupid old testament law loophole."
Like I said, I know better, but this needs to be remedied. To make your case, actually address the question asked, don't just preach on about the aspects of Christianity that we're well aware of.
Truly, if you are "making witness," do it well enough to convince me. Incentive: if you can give me a convincing argument why god would change his covenant with humanity (by sending jesus as a permanent sacrifice) and why god would wait so long to do it, I will go back and reconsider the religion.
The economists are not so naive to equate the payoff with strictly the money received (say, in the example with riding your bike). Regarding whether you ride the bike or not, in principle they are willing to account for your personal preferences that day, and fluctuations in them; they are happy to include your personal "happiness" beyond monetary compensation.
The problem is that this is extremely difficult to quantify. So monetary pay-off tends to be relied on more than it should be, perhaps.
Nonetheless, you are right: they would be leaving out the subtlety in the bike example. Just like only considering monetary pay off here, they only consider sexual payoff there. This is merely one variable that influences the rational economic choice. A more sophisticated theory would account for all of your personal desires, not just one. The trick is controlling for everything except the one variable you are interested in the theory for.
So this alleviates the problem, in principle, raised by the bicycle, and suggests a complete economic theory of the monkey's behavior is possible. But here the fundamental assumption is that the monkey/his evolutionary coding is rational. The trick is defining rational. Rational=maximized own happiness. But this may not be what evolution codes for; or rather, evolution may ensure that the monkey "happy" when he does things which favor the propagation of its genes. Maximizing this happiness, which may happen through social consideration and altruism, is what constitutes the rational theory.
Now, is this correct? Few people would contend that a monkey is wholly, consciously rational.
It may not be necessary; there may simply be a semantics problem with two meanings of rational. In fact we come back to the definition: if actions are consistent, then we can infer "rationality" as what the person chooses to do. The person/monkey can't do anything other than what he picks to do; this is always what he/she believes will maximize his "payoff." Nobody ever does something which they believe is optimal, _given their possible options_. They would choose what they BELIEVE is optimal, _given their options_.
So perhaps this is the best of way of defining rationality. When it comes down to this, economic theory/game theory starts to break apart because of the incomplete information. So it's hard to tell how much predictive information the theory can give.
Still, it's an interesting relation!:)
~Dr. Weird~
--- parent message ---
But to then claim that the logical conclusion is that this relationship is "hard wired" into the monkey's brain is wildly speculative, sort of like measuring the probability that I will ride my bike today versus the dollars I could make doing it, and concluding that I have an economic equation hard-wired into my brain. This negates both free will and any subtlety. What if I just don't feel like riding today?
Going by the measure that most seem to be using, money divided by the amount of actual INFORMATION stored, microsoft windows easily wins this competition.
Not exactly. Chaos is SENSITIVE dependence on initial conditions.
If we move slightly from from one initial condition in phase space to another then the behavior will be VERY different after a certain period of time.
However, there is a very critical point in this. Note the phrase: A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. That is, for a short time the systems may be close, then they diverge (exponentially).
If we wait for a certain time (which depends on the system) the system's behavior will diverge. Then this can cause qualitatively different behavior.
But it takes finite time to diverge to some (arbitrarily small) measure (paths through phase space are continuous). As long as we choose initial conditions better and better, the results stay closer for a slightly longer time. However, b/c the trajectories diverge EXPONENTIALLY the following is true (roughly):
I measure the positions to some accuracy. They diverge in 1 second.
Now I measure them TEN times as accurate. They diverge in 2 seconds.
Now I measure them ONE HUNDRED time as accurate. They diverge in 3 seconds.
So perhaps this simulation will let us get the simulation's constants better by a factor of 100, and this in turn will let us predict weather (climate) 3 times as far into the future.
Note: take these numbers as a grain of salt. They are an example.
One last example of the time divergence phenomenon. Stand a pencil on end. It will tip. Which direction does it tip? Get everything INFINITELY equal (impossible) and it tips the exact same way for all time. Get the second system displaced alot, and it is nothing alike. The closer you get it, the closer it resembles the other experiment for short times (at long times it may have diverged to the point where the behavior is qualitatively different).
Yes, I believe they indirectly take this into account. The tree cutting changes carbon dioxide levels, reflection of light, etc. etc. and THESE are measured by the instruments currently used.
It isn't the trees which directly prevent global warming (or whatever) but rather their intake of C02.
~Kaden
I don't think quantum effects would multiply to a significant level, even with the exponential growth of chaos, in 50 years. But they might. A back of the envelope calculation, with crude assumptions, shows them becoming significant in a few years. (if anyone asks, I can show the calculation -- just think of the average doubling time for an uncertainty and use a typical quantum uncertainty)
However, how well we can predict weather a week in the future depends on how good our model is as well as how well we know initial conditions. I don't know which of these is the limiting factor now, but machines are always being built to do better measurements.
So at some point, we are limited by the accuracy of the model. Our models are unreliable because they are checked with a few coefficients for short periods of time.
If we could find coefficients for the models equations that nail the weather, it will still be chaotic; perhaps, though, we will be able to predict weather accurately a week or two into the future (as well as we do a day or two in the future now) if the measurements of initial conditions are increased with the model.
~Kaden
I agree that I don't trust individuals unsupervised, in general.
On the other hand I can honestly say that I would mail it back to the person who lost it. At the very least, I wouldn't take the money. I have been confronted with analogous choices a few times, and have never kept the "money."
Even if I were to steal it, that behavior wouldn't change if I were with my parents. My parents do not influence my decisions.
So, I think your analogy is horrible (no offense) but I understand the point. I certainly don't trust corporations. And I understand that I am probably being too idealistic -- it is a habit of mine. However, I still have trouble with crippling fundamental research into this area with such magnificent possibilities. Regulate the USES not the creation.
As a person who works in condensed matter physics, however, I am probably very biased, so take my opinion as you decide.
Yes, when it comes to responsibility, I implicity trust the government. They do so well in preventing weapons from being created, and in supporting good scientific research...
It has become a modern cliché: There aren't enough hours in the day. Americans are struggling to balance work and family commitments while trying to find time for a social life and recreation. A growing number of supermarkets, restaurants, gyms and other businesses are accommodating today's 24/7 culture by staying open all night. Not to mention, of course, that the Internet never shuts down. But what if you could do the same?
What if you could take a pill and stretch your day--by skipping sleep?
That sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but a drug called Provigil could make it possible. Studies have shown that this new medication allows people to remain awake and attentive when their bodies normally crave shut-eye, without suffering the unpleasant side effects and risk of addiction associated with caffeine, amphetamines and other stimulants.
Researchers caution that the long-term health consequences of avoiding slumber by taking Provigil, or any drug, aren't well understood.
And the makers of Provigil go out of their way to state that the drug is strictly for patients who feel sleepy during the day due to diagnosed medical disorders. Yet as its reputation grows, doctors may soon find themselves faced with a difficult question: When is sleepiness a sickness?
"This drug is going to bring up some very interesting ethical dilemmas," says Dr. Mark Mahowald, director of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center in Minneapolis and an expert on the causes of daytime sleepiness. "Do you prescribe a stimulant medication for someone who is intentionally sleep deprived?"
Currently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Provigil only for the treatment of one condition, narcolepsy, which causes a sudden and uncontrollable urge to sleep. But Cephalon, the West Chester, Pa.-based company that sells Provigil, hopes to win FDA approval within a few years to market the drug as a pick-me-up for people plagued by sleepiness associated with any medical condition. Many doctors in this country already prescribe Provigil "off-label," that is, for conditions not approved by the FDA (which is a common and perfectly legal practice). Those conditions include depression, sleep apnea, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis.
What's more, scientists at sleep clinics across the United States are studying whether Provigil can help those working the swing or graveyard shift, who are sometimes diagnosed with a condition known as "shift work disorder." Symptoms can include insomnia, headaches and an all-around blah feeling, in addition to problems staying focused on the job.
For 20 years, Jane Jaegers has worked the overnight shift as a 911 dispatcher for Santa Clara County--four days a week, 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. The San Jose resident loves the job, but her body has never adjusted to the odd schedule. In the wee hours of the morning, Jaegers says, her attention occasionally drifts during nonemergency calls. If she takes them in time, caffeine pills such as Vivarin and No-Doz help, but they leave Jaegers staring at the ceiling when she goes home and crawls into bed. Constantly exhausted, she has seen her social life suffer. Go to a movie? "As soon as the theater gets dark, I'm gone," says Jaegers, 55.
In December, Jaegers heard that scientists at the Sleep Disorders Clinic at Stanford University were studying Provigil, whose name is shorthand for "promotes vigilance." She signed up right away.
Every night before leaving for work, Jaegers takes two small tablets--she calls them "magic pills." Because half the people participating in the study are receiving placebo tablets, Jaegers can't be sure she's popping Provigil. But she thinks her pills are the real deal. "I just feel more alert," says Jaegers, who adds that she sleeps soundly these days too. "I'm tickled with the stuff."
Drug Is Not Classified as a Stimulant
Provigil was developed in France in the 1970s. Although no one is sure how it works, animal studies show that the medication--unlike other drugs that induce wakefulness--doesn't seem to dramatically increase levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with arousal and alertness.
Caffeine and older prescription stimulants buzz the entire central nervous system, causing jitteriness, insomnia and other unwanted effects. When people who use coffee or amphetamines to stay awake finally doze off, they often remain in bed for much longer than usual, their bodies paralyzed by the need for "rebound sleep." Provigil, meanwhile, seems to target only the part of the brain that keeps us awake. When its effects wear off, the user resumes a normal sleep pattern.
"Provigil isn't considered a stimulant per se, though it has a wakefulness effect," says Dr. Jed Black, director of the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic, who is involved in the shift-work study. Although Black says Provigil isn't effective for all patients, it helps many people haunted by daytime sleepiness keep on their toes. While a few users report mild nausea, most don't feel a thing other than awake and alert. When patients switch from older stimulants to Provigil, says Black, they often return to his office and say, "It's not working. I don't feel revved up." Yet tests usually show that their ability to stay awake is much improved.
Earlier research found that when healthy people take Provigil they are able to stay awake and on the ball for a long, long time. For example, a 1995 Canadian study showed that subjects taking the drug were able to perform well on cognitive tests while remaining awake and in good spirits for two and a half days. In another study, published in 2000, U.S. Army helicopter pilots stayed awake for 40 hours while being called upon periodically to perform maneuvers on a flight simulator. Unmedicated, the aviators became sloppy and made errors in the early morning hours. But while taking Provigil during a second 40-hour marathon, their skills and focus never wavered.
Army psychologist John Caldwell, who conducted the latter study, says more research is needed to determine whether dosing soldiers with Provigil is a safe and effective way to promote alertness. However, he says, it's possible that one day the drug could be used "as an emergency measure to briefly overcome fatigue in 'must-do' missions where total sleep deprivation is unavoidable."
What About Students and Working Parents?
But aren't many of us faced with our own "must-do missions" from time to time? If Provigil works for soldiers and pilots, won't it do the same for college students cramming for exams? Medical students on 36-hour rotations? Or a working parent with a sick child and a presentation to finish for tomorrow's big meeting with potential investors?
Cephalon spokesman Robert Grupp emphasizes that Cephalon has no plans to market Provigil to the all-nighter crowd. "It's not for people who work too long," he says. "It's for people with clinical illness." But as word spreads of Provigil's powers, it seems inevitable that the healthy-but-harried will be intrigued.
"Silicon Valley will go wild over this thing," says Andy Serwer, a columnist for Fortune magazine who admits to burning a fair amount of midnight oil when he's on deadline. Instead of swigging Jolt cola and espresso, software designers under the gun could simply take Provigil, which costs about $4 per pill--not much more than the price of a double latte.
But would executives pressure their employees to take a pill for the team? Possibly, says Serwer, if they heard that workers at other firms were pulling Provigil-fueled all-nighters. "You would be at a competitive disadvantage if you didn't," he says.
If any doctors have begun prescribing Provigil to college students and corporate workers under the gun, they're keeping the practice quiet. But Provigil does raise a difficult question for the medical community. What if people who work in positions where sleepiness can endanger themselves and others start asking their doctors for the drug?
Shift Workers Pose Dilemma for Doctors
Take long-haul truckers, for instance. According to federal regulations, they're supposed to take breaks every 10 hours. But many drivers ignore the law, even if it means navigating an 18-wheeler while bleary-eyed. A recent exposé by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured an interview with one driver who admitted to being behind the wheel of his big rig for 36 straight hours.
"Do you give that person the medication to keep him awake and not kill himself and a car full of people?" asks Mahowald, of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center. "Or do you as a matter of principle say, 'No, you cannot have this medication because you don't have the proper sleep disorder'?... Quite frankly, in the interest of public safety, I would be tempted to give the individual stimulant medication."
Not all sleep experts feel that's the right choice. "I think that becomes irresponsible," says Black. "There might be fewer accidents on our highways, but there might also be long-term health consequences" associated with using Provigil "that we aren't anticipating." Black says he will only prescribe the drug to people whose sleepiness and fatigue are caused by a medical condition or occur as a side effect from another medication. However, Black, Mahowald and other sleep researchers agree that it's unwise to think Provigil or any pill will make shut-eye optional.
"We don't understand the role sleep plays," says the Army's Caldwell. "It's a bad idea for anyone to rely on a drug of any description to maintain alertness."
And yet for Jane Jaegers and other shift workers, Provigil may mean the difference between a zombie-like existence and a normal life. And they represent a huge potential market for Cephalon. The number of shift workers in the United States increases 2% to 3% each year, says David Mitchell, a spokesman for Circadian Technologies, a Lexington, Mass., company that advises firms that want to convert to 24/7 operation.
The nationwide shift-work study should be completed by the end of this year. If the results are promising, perhaps Provigil will one day be found in the medicine cabinets of police officers, firefighters, nurses and other people who work nights. And if that happens, what's to stop the son of a shift worker from asking, "Hey, Dad, I've got a history final on Tuesday--can I bum a Provigil?"
Then again, maybe Junior won't bother asking--the medication is on sale through Internet-based pharmacies based overseas, often marketed as a "smart drug."
In "Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything" (Vintage, 2000), author James Gleick writes about our changing notion of time. Reached by e-mail, he was dubious about using a drug to lengthen our days. "In a time-obsessed age, this is the Holy Grail," said Gleick. "Cheating sleep is the closest thing we have to cheating death." However, until scientists better understand the phenomenon known as sleep, he was quick to add, "Beware of miracles."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.
I agree with this in a sense, and my answer is part philosophical, and part semantics.
In fact, there IS a natural _physical situation_ that you mention. This situation is one where all the physical variables take one unit. That is the mass of the interacting particles is one unit mass, the charge is one unit charge, etc.
But what units does one use? One uses the most PHYSICAL units. Charge comes in bundles of charge quantized at e, so measure charge in e. c (the speed of light) is constant in all frames, so measure speeds as fractions of that, etc.
So now, by using particles with unit values in this system for all relevant quantities, one gets a NATURAL (that's the semantics/opinion) system. Natural == the interacting objects are fundamental physical objects moving according to fundamental physical trajectories.
So, off of that tangent, the gravity in that situation is the weakest force; and the usual textbook ranking of the forces holds.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, you don't need to use a memory hungry IDE. I use vi mainly, and this would still be possible. Syntax highlighting is the first step -- the representation depends on how you have things set up. This is just the next step. So a purely text representation with no information besides what is directly coded would be possible (layed out, textually, to your specifications).
So, have you ever seen anything like this? For the brace/indentation conventions, it would be easy to implement. But there are so many more things that a real bottom-up design could do.
Btw, is there a better place for us to have these discussions, which are slightly wandering off-topic?
But effectively, one would create a large (infinite?) set of "programming languages," each of which was equally expressive, but differed in how shortcuts were displayed and coded, and how long it took to perform specific programming tasks. But there would be no confusion, because each user could use his own "language" and have complete interdependence with others.
I actually think perl could serve as an interesting jump-off, but it might be too messy to be practical. I too would love to offer advice and extensive testing for anyone who makes a serious effort at this. I would even report bugs and write code here and there. But I certainly don't have the time nor the expertise to spearhead this. I would also like to know the history of some other attempts like this, and why they failed (Algol 60 and a few other rants were found as "physical representation independent" after extensive searching.)
I speculate part of the problem of these historically is that everyone had to learn a standard representation anyway; since the "reference representation" was printed in a book, you had to know that standard. So, if you wanted to customize your display of code you could do that, but you had to also know the "reference representation" to learn things. Now, this problem is gone since we have the internet and code is easily distributed software with books, etc. So you aren't tied to a "reference representation," but rather can view the example code in your preferred representation (unlike when code was printed in books, instead of electronically). Perhaps this, along with the advent of XML, will remove the historical impetus that hindered previous projects (plus the oodles of goodies people have invented that can be turned on and off in the past few decades).
Now, I want to be able to set up my IDE to let me edit that C file and display that C file how I want. Curly braces? Maybe, maybe not... just use indentation. Still, when I use indentation in my editor, it might put the braces in the C file automatically. I could pick it how I want, someone else could pick what they want, but each of our source files would be the same. You might imagine how XML fits into this. I would use indentation or a curly brace or a bracket or "start" or some other command to indicate the start of a block and it would be put in the actual code as: . Much more interesting examples can be made.
So, as a first step, no new compiler would be needed: just pick an existing language. The point is to have the representation customizable, e.g. modify vi. Or a graphical editor, so that drawing a box or rectangle or something puts in the source. Still, when you viewed it, it would look like a curly brace or say "start" or whatever display preference you had set.
In order of ease to implement and maintainability, a new language/compiler would probably be best for this, or at least a preprocessor to take the meta-language (xml) to something like C. But not necessary and not really the point.
No. In some sense, this is precisely the problem I try to avoid. The bizarre preferences were chosen because that programmer/company/standards bureau liked them and/or found them useful (hopefully). By storing the content of the program, and not their silly display preferences, it would load and present to me however I had it set up to display it, not according to their preferences.
In other words, they have some silly COBOL-like syntax mixed up with graphical elements. But the presentation is not in the code . When I load the file, it would display according to my preferences, perhaps looking very C-like.
I am not suggesting that the options/commands be different for each user, but rather that the presentation be different. In other words, this is the way to make there be least to learn on behalf of programmers. They don't need to know the other programmers' formatting rules, syntax, blocking options, etc. By having a 1-1 correspondence between representations, a representation suitable for you would be generated automatically.
This is less of a favorite feature, and more of a feature I wish we had. What about having the representation of the language independent of the code itself? I think this will eventually happen and could really revolutionize things. I believe the inklings of separating 'physical' representation from the code were there in some languages like Algol 60 and CS work in the 1960's, but it never caught on (perhaps hindered by other features of those works?).
... then ..."? Better yet, really like Perl's "$_"? If you want it to be displayed like this, turn it on. Otherwise, say you don't like this feature, and it will automatically replace the "$_"'s (either implicit or explicit) with the variable to which it refers. Again, no problem.
In a little more detail, suppose I write a C program. It will have lots of functions and conditionals with their "blocks" surrounded by braces.
But what if I prefer my "blocks" to be started and ended by brackets instead of braces. Better yet, what if I am tired of typing these and would like indentation to control this. Or whatever -- start end commands, if you like. The point is that these are minor sytactic idiosyncracies, and we all have preferences. Why not store the code in an underlying format (XML would be okay, were it not for the bulk of it)? As long as there is a one-to-one correspondence between all possible representations, you could view it however you want.
And so on for all syntactic features. Prefer "if-fi" construction to "if () {}"? Or "if
At this point, I feel like I am repeating myself, but let me continue for a little bit. It would let each user have his/her personal favorite representation. We already let them control the colors of their syntax highlighting, lets take it a step further.
Hell, if you want to use a graphical viewer for those C programs, akin to LabView, go for it! Or (in my opinion) a much better graphical programming environment with a graph structure. The point is: you write it how you want and save it. It appears to another coder how he/she wants it to appear, but the content is exactly the same.
In short: why isn't this done? It seems like a spectacular step in unifying programming languages a bit, and letting each user tailor his preferences while maintaining compatibility. As long as there was simple one-to-one correspondence, the translation from physical representation to underlying code and back would be quick and fairly easy to handle. Are there any modern projects which attempt this? Or *any* which attempt it with some success?
On a somewhat related note, is it possible to put a "hook" to a comment in the code, and with the proper viewer have that comment displayed along with the code (say when you click the "hook", move your mouse over it, or drag the "hook" to a "comment box")? If this last paragraph doesn't make sense, please ignore it.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
~Dr. Weird~
I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's just that the article oversells it. "Discussions" and all... makes it sound like they are going to chat about Bertrand Russell and Dewey over a cuppa and scone.
Start silly personal story It reminds me of a time I was in Italy for a couple weeks. Knowing virtually no Italian, I mainly got by on butchered French and the fact that many/most of the Italians there spoke English. A handy bit of custom to know: Pepperoni on a pizza is not a salami, or other kind of meat. Rather, upon ordering a pepporoni pizza, one receives a pizza with peppers! Beautiful, and highly recommended.
I am an American, and have been fortunate enough to spend some time abroad. I thoroughly enjoyed the local flavors. Not to mention the humiliation that most foreigners know at least as much about U.S. politics as I do (and much more about U.S. sports!). :-D
~Dr. Weird~ (P.S. Where are you?)
It isn't just about not offending the "Arabs." If a U.S. soldier offends, say, an armed villager, do you think it will have good consequences? No, only damaged reputations and, worse, physical injury for our soldiers.
Say a U.S. soldier ejects from his fighter jet, landing in a somewhat peaceful village. Suppose, too, that he is in dire need of water, medecine. Maybe a radio, or telephone. Maybe a bathroom. Whatever the need is -- he will be relying on the Arabs' hospitality -- and a knowledge of Arabic will be only to the U.S. soldiers' advantage.
At the very least, it will help the reconstruction proceed quicker by allowing some interaction between the natives and the U.S. soldiers involved in the reconstruction. I doubt you would support the reconstruction, but it is inevitable. Pragmatically, it must be done (the soldier follows the politician's orders) -- and the quickest way to get the U.S. soldiers out of trouble is to get them out of there: to facilitate the reconstruction.
As I said in the beginning, I think there are lots of good reasons for U.S. soldiers to learn basics of the Arabic language, in order to protect and help them. I didn't even touch on the humanitarian or intelligence-gathering reasons for learning Arabic. But even ignoring this, this is the best course of action to protect our troops.
~Dr. Weird~
Admittedly, a few words can be learned, enabling simple communication. If this is all that they have in mind, this is perhaps a feasible objective. But the quote makes it sound as if the soldiers will be truly communicating in the language. The article hedges it a bit more, focusing on problem specific communication, but I don't think it is fairly labeled 'discussion.' That is, I doubt that there will be very many fruitful 'discussions' *cough* interrogations *cough* if they must occur in Arabic.
Anyway, what the hell is a virtual 'cave'? 'Camp' is the term used in the article, and I still don't understand what either word has to do with things. Help!
~Dr. Weird~
Linux-based! but...
Out of control patents. but...
Arrrgh... do I hate them or not? Slashbot brain burning...
(not a troll -- really...)
~Dr. Weird~
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
~Dr. Weird~
This is a genuine question, not a suggestion that such applications don't exist. Often people ask if they can run their programs on linux, but 99% of the time "these programs" turn out to be Microsoft Office.
Because they do, in fact, have the diversified product line? There is a market for it. Assuming they properly assess demand, there is a sizable market for those interested in serious visualization, which they can tap. Probably the R&D is not terribly expensive for this, so that only a small market is needed to support it.
The reason it failed before wasn't because the market couldn't bear it. It was that 3dfx mis-assessed the marked. Perhaps NVidia won't make that mistake and won't over produce.
This is only mathematically "irrational" if one buys the notion that the "value" of something is its average value of payoff.
Really, the "value" is dependent not only on this number, but on the whole probability distribution that governs the various possible payoffs. In other words, I value having a large probability of zero payoff but small probability of a very high payoff more than I do a certainty of small payoff. This is a personal choice, and in no way irrational. In other words, this is your argument rehashed, but it is fully within the scope of a properly developed economic theory.
In the case that this probability distribution is considered, the value or "utility" (to use the economic lingo) then becomes a functional (function whose argument is a function). How one relates this probability distribution to value is dependent on the person, the same way that the relation between any outcome to personal value is completely personal (though there may of course be social/biological trends).
So, while most mathematical economic theories use expectation values or similarly constructed average/statistical properties, there is nothing stopping one from making an equivalent theory where the payoff is a functional. (sidenote: functionals come up in economics in other places, so it might be possible -- if people bugged them enough -- to get economists to use techniques with these functionals to treat this problem more thoroughly!)
Q. If he's supposed to be perfect, why would God change his covenant with humanity?
A. He didn't, he fulfilled the requirements of the "Old Testament Law" by a permanent sacrifice, Jesus, instead of periodic animal sacrifices.
------end quote ----
WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG?
Of course, I know better than to get involved in this... but...
You didn't answer the question. That's the point: he fulfilled the "Old Testament Law" where he hadn't before; in a loose sense, changed his covenant. Repeating the point: he had a long time before that to remedy things, so why didn't he get to it before that? What made god, at one point, go "whoops, time to send jesus to get around that stupid old testament law loophole."
Like I said, I know better, but this needs to be remedied. To make your case, actually address the question asked, don't just preach on about the aspects of Christianity that we're well aware of.
Truly, if you are "making witness," do it well enough to convince me. Incentive: if you can give me a convincing argument why god would change his covenant with humanity (by sending jesus as a permanent sacrifice) and why god would wait so long to do it, I will go back and reconsider the religion.
The economists are not so naive to equate the payoff with strictly the money received (say, in the example with riding your bike). Regarding whether you ride the bike or not, in principle they are willing to account for your personal preferences that day, and fluctuations in them; they are happy to include your personal "happiness" beyond monetary compensation. The problem is that this is extremely difficult to quantify. So monetary pay-off tends to be relied on more than it should be, perhaps. Nonetheless, you are right: they would be leaving out the subtlety in the bike example. Just like only considering monetary pay off here, they only consider sexual payoff there. This is merely one variable that influences the rational economic choice. A more sophisticated theory would account for all of your personal desires, not just one. The trick is controlling for everything except the one variable you are interested in the theory for. So this alleviates the problem, in principle, raised by the bicycle, and suggests a complete economic theory of the monkey's behavior is possible. But here the fundamental assumption is that the monkey/his evolutionary coding is rational. The trick is defining rational. Rational=maximized own happiness. But this may not be what evolution codes for; or rather, evolution may ensure that the monkey "happy" when he does things which favor the propagation of its genes. Maximizing this happiness, which may happen through social consideration and altruism, is what constitutes the rational theory. Now, is this correct? Few people would contend that a monkey is wholly, consciously rational. It may not be necessary; there may simply be a semantics problem with two meanings of rational. In fact we come back to the definition: if actions are consistent, then we can infer "rationality" as what the person chooses to do. The person/monkey can't do anything other than what he picks to do; this is always what he/she believes will maximize his "payoff." Nobody ever does something which they believe is optimal, _given their possible options_. They would choose what they BELIEVE is optimal, _given their options_. So perhaps this is the best of way of defining rationality. When it comes down to this, economic theory/game theory starts to break apart because of the incomplete information. So it's hard to tell how much predictive information the theory can give. Still, it's an interesting relation! :)
~Dr. Weird~
--- parent message ---
But to then claim that the logical conclusion is that this relationship is "hard wired" into the monkey's brain is wildly speculative, sort of like measuring the probability that I will ride my bike today versus the dollars I could make doing it, and concluding that I have an economic equation hard-wired into my brain. This negates both free will and any subtlety. What if I just don't feel like riding today?
Going by the measure that most seem to be using, money divided by the amount of actual INFORMATION stored, microsoft windows easily wins this competition.
$100/0 = infinity.
Not exactly. Chaos is SENSITIVE dependence on initial conditions.
If we move slightly from from one initial condition in phase space to another then the behavior will be VERY different after a certain period of time.
However, there is a very critical point in this. Note the phrase: A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. That is, for a short time the systems may be close, then they diverge (exponentially).
If we wait for a certain time (which depends on the system) the system's behavior will diverge. Then this can cause qualitatively different behavior.
But it takes finite time to diverge to some (arbitrarily small) measure (paths through phase space are continuous). As long as we choose initial conditions better and better, the results stay closer for a slightly longer time. However, b/c the trajectories diverge EXPONENTIALLY the following is true (roughly): I measure the positions to some accuracy. They diverge in 1 second.
Now I measure them TEN times as accurate. They diverge in 2 seconds.
Now I measure them ONE HUNDRED time as accurate. They diverge in 3 seconds.
So perhaps this simulation will let us get the simulation's constants better by a factor of 100, and this in turn will let us predict weather (climate) 3 times as far into the future.
Note: take these numbers as a grain of salt. They are an example.
One last example of the time divergence phenomenon. Stand a pencil on end. It will tip. Which direction does it tip? Get everything INFINITELY equal (impossible) and it tips the exact same way for all time. Get the second system displaced alot, and it is nothing alike. The closer you get it, the closer it resembles the other experiment for short times (at long times it may have diverged to the point where the behavior is qualitatively different).
Yes, I believe they indirectly take this into account. The tree cutting changes carbon dioxide levels, reflection of light, etc. etc. and THESE are measured by the instruments currently used. It isn't the trees which directly prevent global warming (or whatever) but rather their intake of C02. ~Kaden
I don't think quantum effects would multiply to a significant level, even with the exponential growth of chaos, in 50 years. But they might. A back of the envelope calculation, with crude assumptions, shows them becoming significant in a few years. (if anyone asks, I can show the calculation -- just think of the average doubling time for an uncertainty and use a typical quantum uncertainty) However, how well we can predict weather a week in the future depends on how good our model is as well as how well we know initial conditions. I don't know which of these is the limiting factor now, but machines are always being built to do better measurements. So at some point, we are limited by the accuracy of the model. Our models are unreliable because they are checked with a few coefficients for short periods of time. If we could find coefficients for the models equations that nail the weather, it will still be chaotic; perhaps, though, we will be able to predict weather accurately a week or two into the future (as well as we do a day or two in the future now) if the measurements of initial conditions are increased with the model. ~Kaden
I agree that I don't trust individuals unsupervised, in general.
On the other hand I can honestly say that I would mail it back to the person who lost it. At the very least, I wouldn't take the money. I have been confronted with analogous choices a few times, and have never kept the "money."
Even if I were to steal it, that behavior wouldn't change if I were with my parents. My parents do not influence my decisions.
So, I think your analogy is horrible (no offense) but I understand the point. I certainly don't trust corporations. And I understand that I am probably being too idealistic -- it is a habit of mine. However, I still have trouble with crippling fundamental research into this area with such magnificent possibilities. Regulate the USES not the creation.
As a person who works in condensed matter physics, however, I am probably very biased, so take my opinion as you decide.
Yes, when it comes to responsibility, I implicity trust the government. They do so well in preventing weapons from being created, and in supporting good scientific research...
Wait. No they don't... shit.
It has become a modern cliché: There aren't enough hours in the day. Americans are struggling to balance work and family commitments while trying to find time for a social life and recreation. A growing number of supermarkets, restaurants, gyms and other businesses are accommodating today's 24/7 culture by staying open all night. Not to mention, of course, that the Internet never shuts down. But what if you could do the same?
... Quite frankly, in the interest of public safety, I would be tempted to give the individual stimulant medication."
What if you could take a pill and stretch your day--by skipping sleep?
That sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but a drug called Provigil could make it possible. Studies have shown that this new medication allows people to remain awake and attentive when their bodies normally crave shut-eye, without suffering the unpleasant side effects and risk of addiction associated with caffeine, amphetamines and other stimulants.
Researchers caution that the long-term health consequences of avoiding slumber by taking Provigil, or any drug, aren't well understood.
And the makers of Provigil go out of their way to state that the drug is strictly for patients who feel sleepy during the day due to diagnosed medical disorders. Yet as its reputation grows, doctors may soon find themselves faced with a difficult question: When is sleepiness a sickness?
"This drug is going to bring up some very interesting ethical dilemmas," says Dr. Mark Mahowald, director of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center in Minneapolis and an expert on the causes of daytime sleepiness. "Do you prescribe a stimulant medication for someone who is intentionally sleep deprived?"
Currently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Provigil only for the treatment of one condition, narcolepsy, which causes a sudden and uncontrollable urge to sleep. But Cephalon, the West Chester, Pa.-based company that sells Provigil, hopes to win FDA approval within a few years to market the drug as a pick-me-up for people plagued by sleepiness associated with any medical condition. Many doctors in this country already prescribe Provigil "off-label," that is, for conditions not approved by the FDA (which is a common and perfectly legal practice). Those conditions include depression, sleep apnea, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis.
What's more, scientists at sleep clinics across the United States are studying whether Provigil can help those working the swing or graveyard shift, who are sometimes diagnosed with a condition known as "shift work disorder." Symptoms can include insomnia, headaches and an all-around blah feeling, in addition to problems staying focused on the job.
For 20 years, Jane Jaegers has worked the overnight shift as a 911 dispatcher for Santa Clara County--four days a week, 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. The San Jose resident loves the job, but her body has never adjusted to the odd schedule. In the wee hours of the morning, Jaegers says, her attention occasionally drifts during nonemergency calls. If she takes them in time, caffeine pills such as Vivarin and No-Doz help, but they leave Jaegers staring at the ceiling when she goes home and crawls into bed. Constantly exhausted, she has seen her social life suffer. Go to a movie? "As soon as the theater gets dark, I'm gone," says Jaegers, 55.
In December, Jaegers heard that scientists at the Sleep Disorders Clinic at Stanford University were studying Provigil, whose name is shorthand for "promotes vigilance." She signed up right away.
Every night before leaving for work, Jaegers takes two small tablets--she calls them "magic pills." Because half the people participating in the study are receiving placebo tablets, Jaegers can't be sure she's popping Provigil. But she thinks her pills are the real deal. "I just feel more alert," says Jaegers, who adds that she sleeps soundly these days too. "I'm tickled with the stuff."
Drug Is Not Classified as a Stimulant
Provigil was developed in France in the 1970s. Although no one is sure how it works, animal studies show that the medication--unlike other drugs that induce wakefulness--doesn't seem to dramatically increase levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with arousal and alertness.
Caffeine and older prescription stimulants buzz the entire central nervous system, causing jitteriness, insomnia and other unwanted effects. When people who use coffee or amphetamines to stay awake finally doze off, they often remain in bed for much longer than usual, their bodies paralyzed by the need for "rebound sleep." Provigil, meanwhile, seems to target only the part of the brain that keeps us awake. When its effects wear off, the user resumes a normal sleep pattern.
"Provigil isn't considered a stimulant per se, though it has a wakefulness effect," says Dr. Jed Black, director of the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic, who is involved in the shift-work study. Although Black says Provigil isn't effective for all patients, it helps many people haunted by daytime sleepiness keep on their toes. While a few users report mild nausea, most don't feel a thing other than awake and alert. When patients switch from older stimulants to Provigil, says Black, they often return to his office and say, "It's not working. I don't feel revved up." Yet tests usually show that their ability to stay awake is much improved.
Earlier research found that when healthy people take Provigil they are able to stay awake and on the ball for a long, long time. For example, a 1995 Canadian study showed that subjects taking the drug were able to perform well on cognitive tests while remaining awake and in good spirits for two and a half days. In another study, published in 2000, U.S. Army helicopter pilots stayed awake for 40 hours while being called upon periodically to perform maneuvers on a flight simulator. Unmedicated, the aviators became sloppy and made errors in the early morning hours. But while taking Provigil during a second 40-hour marathon, their skills and focus never wavered.
Army psychologist John Caldwell, who conducted the latter study, says more research is needed to determine whether dosing soldiers with Provigil is a safe and effective way to promote alertness. However, he says, it's possible that one day the drug could be used "as an emergency measure to briefly overcome fatigue in 'must-do' missions where total sleep deprivation is unavoidable."
What About Students and Working Parents?
But aren't many of us faced with our own "must-do missions" from time to time? If Provigil works for soldiers and pilots, won't it do the same for college students cramming for exams? Medical students on 36-hour rotations? Or a working parent with a sick child and a presentation to finish for tomorrow's big meeting with potential investors?
Cephalon spokesman Robert Grupp emphasizes that Cephalon has no plans to market Provigil to the all-nighter crowd. "It's not for people who work too long," he says. "It's for people with clinical illness." But as word spreads of Provigil's powers, it seems inevitable that the healthy-but-harried will be intrigued.
"Silicon Valley will go wild over this thing," says Andy Serwer, a columnist for Fortune magazine who admits to burning a fair amount of midnight oil when he's on deadline. Instead of swigging Jolt cola and espresso, software designers under the gun could simply take Provigil, which costs about $4 per pill--not much more than the price of a double latte.
But would executives pressure their employees to take a pill for the team? Possibly, says Serwer, if they heard that workers at other firms were pulling Provigil-fueled all-nighters. "You would be at a competitive disadvantage if you didn't," he says.
If any doctors have begun prescribing Provigil to college students and corporate workers under the gun, they're keeping the practice quiet. But Provigil does raise a difficult question for the medical community. What if people who work in positions where sleepiness can endanger themselves and others start asking their doctors for the drug?
Shift Workers Pose Dilemma for Doctors
Take long-haul truckers, for instance. According to federal regulations, they're supposed to take breaks every 10 hours. But many drivers ignore the law, even if it means navigating an 18-wheeler while bleary-eyed. A recent exposé by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured an interview with one driver who admitted to being behind the wheel of his big rig for 36 straight hours.
"Do you give that person the medication to keep him awake and not kill himself and a car full of people?" asks Mahowald, of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center. "Or do you as a matter of principle say, 'No, you cannot have this medication because you don't have the proper sleep disorder'?
Not all sleep experts feel that's the right choice. "I think that becomes irresponsible," says Black. "There might be fewer accidents on our highways, but there might also be long-term health consequences" associated with using Provigil "that we aren't anticipating." Black says he will only prescribe the drug to people whose sleepiness and fatigue are caused by a medical condition or occur as a side effect from another medication. However, Black, Mahowald and other sleep researchers agree that it's unwise to think Provigil or any pill will make shut-eye optional.
"We don't understand the role sleep plays," says the Army's Caldwell. "It's a bad idea for anyone to rely on a drug of any description to maintain alertness."
And yet for Jane Jaegers and other shift workers, Provigil may mean the difference between a zombie-like existence and a normal life. And they represent a huge potential market for Cephalon. The number of shift workers in the United States increases 2% to 3% each year, says David Mitchell, a spokesman for Circadian Technologies, a Lexington, Mass., company that advises firms that want to convert to 24/7 operation.
The nationwide shift-work study should be completed by the end of this year. If the results are promising, perhaps Provigil will one day be found in the medicine cabinets of police officers, firefighters, nurses and other people who work nights. And if that happens, what's to stop the son of a shift worker from asking, "Hey, Dad, I've got a history final on Tuesday--can I bum a Provigil?"
Then again, maybe Junior won't bother asking--the medication is on sale through Internet-based pharmacies based overseas, often marketed as a "smart drug."
In "Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything" (Vintage, 2000), author James Gleick writes about our changing notion of time. Reached by e-mail, he was dubious about using a drug to lengthen our days. "In a time-obsessed age, this is the Holy Grail," said Gleick. "Cheating sleep is the closest thing we have to cheating death." However, until scientists better understand the phenomenon known as sleep, he was quick to add, "Beware of miracles."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.
I agree with this in a sense, and my answer is part philosophical, and part semantics. In fact, there IS a natural _physical situation_ that you mention. This situation is one where all the physical variables take one unit. That is the mass of the interacting particles is one unit mass, the charge is one unit charge, etc. But what units does one use? One uses the most PHYSICAL units. Charge comes in bundles of charge quantized at e, so measure charge in e. c (the speed of light) is constant in all frames, so measure speeds as fractions of that, etc. So now, by using particles with unit values in this system for all relevant quantities, one gets a NATURAL (that's the semantics/opinion) system. Natural == the interacting objects are fundamental physical objects moving according to fundamental physical trajectories. So, off of that tangent, the gravity in that situation is the weakest force; and the usual textbook ranking of the forces holds.