Somebody, remind me why we need a space-based scope. With adaptive optics and ground-based scopes being soooo much cheaper to build, shouldn't we be spending our money other places? Like, say the 30-meter project?
Sociologist Peiser now needs to come up with specific counterexamples, show why the search was biased, or repeat the search and obtain different results.
It would be fair if the authors of the Science article were held to the same scrutiny. Said Peiser, "The article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based."
IMHO, when (and if) the authors produce the list of articles they considered, and how they were categorized, then it will be fair to demand counter-examples from critics. Until then, I am prepared to give them both the benefit of the doubt, and a fair dose of skepticism.
No one is throwing people with alternative opinions into the Gulag.
No one is claiming such. Rather Peiser indicates that even Stalin did not try to assert he had 0% opposition. What seems ludicrous (to us) is that someone would assert there is no opposition.
It really is a consensus based on evidence, which is rather different from capitulation to state terror, I would think.
Peiser apparently is familiar with some scientists who have differing views and wonders how their publications were not considered in the Science article. Until the data are available, we cannot know. Excluding alternative views is not limited to state terror.
Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant to say was not the cost of the computation itself, but rather the cost of the effort to implement another equally-weak algorithm. Better to choose a single strong algorithm rather than go to the effort of implementing another weak one and combining MD5 with it arithmetically.
WRT "exponentially improved security", there are instances when you do get it. For example, doubling the key size in some algorithms such as Rijndael. I agree it smells of snake-oil.
Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a disturbing article.
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.
"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.
According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science.
"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.
"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.
Only marginally so. If you're going to go to the trouble of using another hash, why not go all the way and select a really good one: SHA-256? Then, since you have a really good one, why not just dump MD5?
A second pass is only arithmetically better (not exponentially so). I know this is unintuitive, but it is true. The better approach is to use a stronger hash algorithm such as SHA-256.
... using multiple algorithms because it would dramatically reduce the number of possible values that would generate the same hash value using 2 different methods.
Except that this does not give you dramatically better security. A better approach is to use a well-designed algorithm, such as SHA-256. Combining two insecure hash algorithms arithmetically only gives you an arithmetically improved security (not exponential). I know this seems unintuitive, but it is true!
NO! A better approach is to use a well-designed algorithm, such as SHA-256. Combining two insecure hash algorithms arithmetically only gives you an arithmetically improved security. I know this seems unintuitive, but it is true!
This seems intuitive, but it is wrong. The resulting improvement in security is not worth the additional cost of computing both. You do not get exponentially improved security, but only an arithmetic improvement. What you should actully recommend is a better algorithm, such as SHA-256.
This is actually untrue. Though it seems intuitive that the chances are exponentially higher, it turns out they are actually only linearly higher. Thus, the method you recommend is not advisable. Instead, choose a better hash algorithm, such as SHA-256.
There is a single point of failure here: who chooses the target of the day? Those who participate in the D-DOS vigilantism are trusting that Lycos has chosen a real scumbag. If for whatever reason the person chosen is some innocent bystander-- say a mistake was made-- then the participants have just done harm to an innocent.
Additionally, there is often the law of unintended consequences to be considered. How will those attacked in this manner retaliate? It could get really ugly.
Perhaps, you are referring to the "tyrrany of the majority"? As an American, I am aware that majority rule has its advantages and its disadvantages. The writers of our constitution were keenly aware of the possibility that a majority could dominate and in fact harm minorities. Thus, we instituted the Bill of Rights and a system of Federalism. Even today, it is not implemented perfectly, but it does serve an important purpose: protecting all people against oppression by one of the most powerful institutions: our government (which is democratically elected).
Perhaps, it seems fair that Lycos has chosen some really bad scumbags to list as the target of the day. However, if this continues, what will happen when they accidentally (or by purpose) select your online business or organization? Or worse, if perhaps some hacker breaks into Lycos and substitutes their enemy of choice for the target of the day? This kind of vigilantism will ultimately harm some innocent person irreparably.
This is why we have principles such as "no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Innocent till proven guilty, and equal protection under the law. The internet could benefit from some of these same principles.
Big problem here. The most powerful win, at everyone else's expense. It seems fine when applied to spammers, but if somebody powerful decides they don't like you anymore, you're off the net, or worse. There has to be some kind of legal protection, as the ubiquitous network becomes a necessity of living, both for the powerful and for the average-joe.
Actually, the calculus was invented more than a millenia earlier by Archimedes. Google for plimpsest. Who employed Archimedes? Oh, and what about Leibniz?
Using Java? Take a look at Nice (nice.sourceforge.net). It can use anything developed in Java-- compiles to bytecode, or you can gcj-it. And, it has an Eclipse plugin.
What I find really useful is that they have improved the language in ways that Java 1.5 should have. Improving the type-safety system. Functions as first-class expressions. Fully parameterized types. Optional parameters and NAMED parameters.
You make an excellent point. I would just add that it is not only about what GWB has done during the past 3.5 years, but also in contrast what Kerry has done over his two decades in the Senate and other significant life accomplishments.
This is probably why Kerry took such a big hit in the polls after the Swifties came out with their book and advertisements. People's character is demonstrated by what they have done. And character does matter, because it is the best indicator we have of how they will act in the future if the power of our government is vested in them.
Performance is not the biggest reason to use the GCJ. It is that you don't have to have a pre-installed Java Runtime Environment. Sun's JRE license does not allow you to redistribute, so for every install, you have to be sure there's a JRE or download it from the internet. This is most annoying, especially for disconnected networks.
With GCJ-built code, you can put everything needed on a single installation medium.
No, at worst it was a broken promise, which I do consider immoral, but perhaps less so than a bald-faced, finger-wagging lie. You again confuse assuming the best motivations with assuming the worst motivations in the people you don't agree with. At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.
If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar. (The intent was expressed by the statement "I will." If a meteor struck and killed us both, it would not make you a liar.) Instead, I say, "Well, he intended to give me $50", and I consider the circumstances and try to put myself in his shoes to understand why he may have chosen to act differently. I doing so, I try to assume the best motives that are reasonable. If instead he had made the statement "I will give you $50", and then drop a bank statement showing he owes $200,000 and does not have a dime to his name, then I know he was intentionally misleading me-- this is a lie.
Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen.
That's a little strong. I'd say "Much of what's happening in Iraq now was foreseen." In addition, I'd say that much in Iraq is going as planned-- Terrorists are being hunted, captured and killed, and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed. And, those Baathists have much fewer resources with which to fight than before.
Sorry, none of those qualify as lies, by the definition I gave. Try again & good luck.
I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.
He did ask Congress for exactly this. What you seem to be concerned with is whether he followed through on it, and to what degree. If he did more than was proposed, this was not a lie, it was an omission of information. Talk with Mr. Clinton if you can't tell the difference. He's our guiding example, isn't he?
He didn't plan carefully.
How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.
He didn't use the full power of the US military
How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made? You are assuming the worst, probably because you disagree with him on some partisan issues. But, we must not make the mistake of assuming the worst about people simply because we disagree with some things they believe and do.
Acting with "allies" at our side is a real stretch too.
Two allies counts. Say, Australia & Britain. Or, Poland & Spain? Shall I go on?
This is the Idiot Defense: "I can't possibly have been lying, because I'm too stupid to know what the truth is"....We can't tell whether he's dishonest or stupid.
There are many reasons people do not at one time know the whole truth. You again have assumed the worst in an area about which you can know very little: another persons inner motivations. If we ever hope to work together to solve our common problems, we must try to assume the best motivations in our fellow citizens, until proven otherwise. The proof you offered is severely lacking.
Thank you for explaining this. It's the first time I had a cogent explanation. My question is then why should I have to go to such lengths to understand the public policy decisions of a man running for president. The "flip-flop" issue is really this: if the man cannot communicate the reasons for his decisions in a clear manner, so that the average Joe can figure it out, then why should I support him? Surely, the Democrats had better communicators among their candidates. I think Kerry was a big mistake for them. Gephart? Lieberman? They're excellent communicators. I haven't had such trouble understanding their positions. And, I find Bush pretty transparent, too, if a little bumbling over his words at times.
Maybe, maybe not. How would you know? I think you're willing to believe the worst about someone simply because he's your opponent on unrelated partisan issues.
Pointing out Kerry's flip-flops does qualify as an issue of national importance. I'll give you that. But, it certainly isn't a mistake. Politically, it's the right thing to do to expose your opponent's flaws: use of double-talk, nuanced answers, etc.
Substantiate your claim. Name a "lie." Keep in mind the definition of the word:
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
In other words, for it to be a lie, he had to know it was false at the time he made the statement. Now, we may now realize that some of the information given about Iraq was inaccurate. But this was not known with any certainty at the time. Some expressed doubt, others expressed belief. Someone's gotta make the call when those things happen, and I will give benefit of doubt (to a Democrat or Republican) in these situations.
Flip-flopping, or rather giving such nuanced answers as to say one thing but preserve the ability to say, "I meant something else" is a very important issue. People need to be able to understand and trust their President. If he appears to be saying one thing, while actually meaning something else, then how can you ever believe a word coming out of his mouth? Most of us know how to use the word "is" and have no problem determining what is meant when it is used. However, you can create your own definitions or use words in such an obscure way as to say one thing and mean something else entirely.
I know exactly what Bush meant when he said misunderestimated, and it is pretty funny. But figuring out Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" is pretty hard. Though, I think I've finally figured out that he meant it to be a protest vote (he knew it would pass anyway), because so many of his constituents were against the war.
All politicians sell their good points and point out what they see as flaws in their competition. There's nothing sad about it. What's sad is when a person is so clouded by partisan arguments as to be unable to realise the faults in their own candidate.
How else are we going to raise the ire of the community to the level required to force a change in the system? Something has to be done, and the more of these frivolous patents that can be exposed, the more ammo we'll have to use in the debate.
Sorry, it's not just a crappy thing to patent. Nor is prior art the issue here. It is so OBVIOUS to anyone versed in the art as to be ludicrous. This is the major failing of the USPTO not to have these reviewed by someone who knows the subject matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody, remind me why we need a space-based scope. With adaptive optics and ground-based scopes being soooo much cheaper to build, shouldn't we be spending our money other places? Like, say the 30-meter project?
Sociologist Peiser now needs to come up with specific counterexamples, show why the search was biased, or repeat the search and obtain different results.
It would be fair if the authors of the Science article were held to the same scrutiny. Said Peiser, "The article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based."
IMHO, when (and if) the authors produce the list of articles they considered, and how they were categorized, then it will be fair to demand counter-examples from critics. Until then, I am prepared to give them both the benefit of the doubt, and a fair dose of skepticism.
No one is throwing people with alternative opinions into the Gulag.
No one is claiming such. Rather Peiser indicates that even Stalin did not try to assert he had 0% opposition. What seems ludicrous (to us) is that someone would assert there is no opposition.
It really is a consensus based on evidence, which is rather different from capitulation to state terror, I would think.
Peiser apparently is familiar with some scientists who have differing views and wonders how their publications were not considered in the Science article. Until the data are available, we cannot know. Excluding alternative views is not limited to state terror.
Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant to say was not the cost of the computation itself, but rather the cost of the effort to implement another equally-weak algorithm. Better to choose a single strong algorithm rather than go to the effort of implementing another weak one and combining MD5 with it arithmetically.
WRT "exponentially improved security", there are instances when you do get it. For example, doubling the key size in some algorithms such as Rijndael. I agree it smells of snake-oil.
Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a disturbing article.
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.
"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.
According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science.
"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.
"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.
Only marginally so. If you're going to go to the trouble of using another hash, why not go all the way and select a really good one: SHA-256? Then, since you have a really good one, why not just dump MD5?
A second pass is only arithmetically better (not exponentially so). I know this is unintuitive, but it is true. The better approach is to use a stronger hash algorithm such as SHA-256.
... using multiple algorithms because it would dramatically reduce the number of possible values that would generate the same hash value using 2 different methods.
Except that this does not give you dramatically better security. A better approach is to use a well-designed algorithm, such as SHA-256. Combining two insecure hash algorithms arithmetically only gives you an arithmetically improved security (not exponential). I know this seems unintuitive, but it is true!
NO! A better approach is to use a well-designed algorithm, such as SHA-256. Combining two insecure hash algorithms arithmetically only gives you an arithmetically improved security. I know this seems unintuitive, but it is true!
This seems intuitive, but it is wrong. The resulting improvement in security is not worth the additional cost of computing both. You do not get exponentially improved security, but only an arithmetic improvement. What you should actully recommend is a better algorithm, such as SHA-256.
This is actually untrue. Though it seems intuitive that the chances are exponentially higher, it turns out they are actually only linearly higher. Thus, the method you recommend is not advisable. Instead, choose a better hash algorithm, such as SHA-256.
There is a single point of failure here: who chooses the target of the day? Those who participate in the D-DOS vigilantism are trusting that Lycos has chosen a real scumbag. If for whatever reason the person chosen is some innocent bystander-- say a mistake was made-- then the participants have just done harm to an innocent.
Additionally, there is often the law of unintended consequences to be considered. How will those attacked in this manner retaliate? It could get really ugly.
Perhaps, you are referring to the "tyrrany of the majority"? As an American, I am aware that majority rule has its advantages and its disadvantages. The writers of our constitution were keenly aware of the possibility that a majority could dominate and in fact harm minorities. Thus, we instituted the Bill of Rights and a system of Federalism. Even today, it is not implemented perfectly, but it does serve an important purpose: protecting all people against oppression by one of the most powerful institutions: our government (which is democratically elected).
Perhaps, it seems fair that Lycos has chosen some really bad scumbags to list as the target of the day. However, if this continues, what will happen when they accidentally (or by purpose) select your online business or organization? Or worse, if perhaps some hacker breaks into Lycos and substitutes their enemy of choice for the target of the day? This kind of vigilantism will ultimately harm some innocent person irreparably.
This is why we have principles such as "no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Innocent till proven guilty, and equal protection under the law. The internet could benefit from some of these same principles.
Big problem here. The most powerful win, at everyone else's expense. It seems fine when applied to spammers, but if somebody powerful decides they don't like you anymore, you're off the net, or worse. There has to be some kind of legal protection, as the ubiquitous network becomes a necessity of living, both for the powerful and for the average-joe.
Actually, the calculus was invented more than a millenia earlier by Archimedes. Google for plimpsest. Who employed Archimedes? Oh, and what about Leibniz?
Using Java? Take a look at Nice (nice.sourceforge.net). It can use anything developed in Java-- compiles to bytecode, or you can gcj-it. And, it has an Eclipse plugin.
What I find really useful is that they have improved the language in ways that Java 1.5 should have. Improving the type-safety system. Functions as first-class expressions. Fully parameterized types. Optional parameters and NAMED parameters.
You make an excellent point. I would just add that it is not only about what GWB has done during the past 3.5 years, but also in contrast what Kerry has done over his two decades in the Senate and other significant life accomplishments.
This is probably why Kerry took such a big hit in the polls after the Swifties came out with their book and advertisements. People's character is demonstrated by what they have done. And character does matter, because it is the best indicator we have of how they will act in the future if the power of our government is vested in them.
Performance is not the biggest reason to use the GCJ. It is that you don't have to have a pre-installed Java Runtime Environment. Sun's JRE license does not allow you to redistribute, so for every install, you have to be sure there's a JRE or download it from the internet. This is most annoying, especially for disconnected networks.
With GCJ-built code, you can put everything needed on a single installation medium.
At best, it was a broken promise
No, at worst it was a broken promise, which I do consider immoral, but perhaps less so than a bald-faced, finger-wagging lie. You again confuse assuming the best motivations with assuming the worst motivations in the people you don't agree with. At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.
If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar. (The intent was expressed by the statement "I will." If a meteor struck and killed us both, it would not make you a liar.) Instead, I say, "Well, he intended to give me $50", and I consider the circumstances and try to put myself in his shoes to understand why he may have chosen to act differently. I doing so, I try to assume the best motives that are reasonable. If instead he had made the statement "I will give you $50", and then drop a bank statement showing he owes $200,000 and does not have a dime to his name, then I know he was intentionally misleading me-- this is a lie.
Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen.
That's a little strong. I'd say "Much of what's happening in Iraq now was foreseen." In addition, I'd say that much in Iraq is going as planned-- Terrorists are being hunted, captured and killed, and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed. And, those Baathists have much fewer resources with which to fight than before.
Sorry, none of those qualify as lies, by the definition I gave. Try again & good luck.
I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.
He did ask Congress for exactly this. What you seem to be concerned with is whether he followed through on it, and to what degree. If he did more than was proposed, this was not a lie, it was an omission of information. Talk with Mr. Clinton if you can't tell the difference. He's our guiding example, isn't he?
He didn't plan carefully.
How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.
He didn't use the full power of the US military
How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made? You are assuming the worst, probably because you disagree with him on some partisan issues. But, we must not make the mistake of assuming the worst about people simply because we disagree with some things they believe and do.
Acting with "allies" at our side is a real stretch too.
Two allies counts. Say, Australia & Britain. Or, Poland & Spain? Shall I go on?
This is the Idiot Defense: "I can't possibly have been lying, because I'm too stupid to know what the truth is"....We can't tell whether he's dishonest or stupid.
There are many reasons people do not at one time know the whole truth. You again have assumed the worst in an area about which you can know very little: another persons inner motivations. If we ever hope to work together to solve our common problems, we must try to assume the best motivations in our fellow citizens, until proven otherwise. The proof you offered is severely lacking.
Thank you for explaining this. It's the first time I had a cogent explanation. My question is then why should I have to go to such lengths to understand the public policy decisions of a man running for president. The "flip-flop" issue is really this: if the man cannot communicate the reasons for his decisions in a clear manner, so that the average Joe can figure it out, then why should I support him? Surely, the Democrats had better communicators among their candidates. I think Kerry was a big mistake for them. Gephart? Lieberman? They're excellent communicators. I haven't had such trouble understanding their positions. And, I find Bush pretty transparent, too, if a little bumbling over his words at times.
Maybe, maybe not. How would you know? I think you're willing to believe the worst about someone simply because he's your opponent on unrelated partisan issues.
Pointing out Kerry's flip-flops does qualify as an issue of national importance. I'll give you that. But, it certainly isn't a mistake. Politically, it's the right thing to do to expose your opponent's flaws: use of double-talk, nuanced answers, etc.
Substantiate your claim. Name a "lie." Keep in mind the definition of the word:
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
In other words, for it to be a lie, he had to know it was false at the time he made the statement. Now, we may now realize that some of the information given about Iraq was inaccurate. But this was not known with any certainty at the time. Some expressed doubt, others expressed belief. Someone's gotta make the call when those things happen, and I will give benefit of doubt (to a Democrat or Republican) in these situations.
Flip-flopping, or rather giving such nuanced answers as to say one thing but preserve the ability to say, "I meant something else" is a very important issue. People need to be able to understand and trust their President. If he appears to be saying one thing, while actually meaning something else, then how can you ever believe a word coming out of his mouth? Most of us know how to use the word "is" and have no problem determining what is meant when it is used. However, you can create your own definitions or use words in such an obscure way as to say one thing and mean something else entirely.
I know exactly what Bush meant when he said misunderestimated, and it is pretty funny. But figuring out Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" is pretty hard. Though, I think I've finally figured out that he meant it to be a protest vote (he knew it would pass anyway), because so many of his constituents were against the war.
All politicians sell their good points and point out what they see as flaws in their competition. There's nothing sad about it. What's sad is when a person is so clouded by partisan arguments as to be unable to realise the faults in their own candidate.
Bush is flawed. Kerry's a fraud.
How else are we going to raise the ire of the community to the level required to force a change in the system? Something has to be done, and the more of these frivolous patents that can be exposed, the more ammo we'll have to use in the debate.
/.-- keep 'em coming.
Bravo,
Sorry, it's not just a crappy thing to patent. Nor is prior art the issue here. It is so OBVIOUS to anyone versed in the art as to be ludicrous. This is the major failing of the USPTO not to have these reviewed by someone who knows the subject matter.