This would mean that yesterday, SCIENCE WAS WRONG. I keep getting reminded how this can't happen, usually from people looking at fossil records of CO2 use to cool the Earth, then supporting things to remove CO2 from all industry.
Who was it that kept saying science can't be wrong?
Are you sure they weren't just saying that your arguments of why the science is wrong were, themselves, wrong?
Science can be wrong, huh? Are ya listening guys?
Yes, but that doesn't mean that science being wrong in the way you presuppose it to be is any more likely. So, yeah. There's more entropy in the universe than thought -- but still within the theoretical upper bound, so basically this is a refined measurement not an undoing of thermodynamics and cosmology. Newton was "wrong", but it's not like we discovered that actually masses repel each other. Similarly, our climate models are certainly inaccurate and will be improved, but it is highly unlikely to be in a way where CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas and threat to the environment.
This is how science works. We guess, then we confirm it. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, is it considered fact.
To be pedantic, it's still not considered fact.
Perhaps you've been fooled by the people with the "If the government pays, I'll give whatever results they want" model.
Yeah, that's why when the government wanted the result that you do, the scientists in their direct employ still came up with the same answer as they had before and since. The administration had to tamper with the report and tone down the language, because scientists always make sure the result of their research says whatever the government wants.
Science is often wrong, because the whole process of science is one of theories refined through observation. "Science can be wrong" does not mean that your wishful thinking is an equally viable alternative. "Wrongness" is not binary.
If you follow RMS's lines, the mpeg group is just as evil because they have patents on their codecs.. wine should be completely banned, and hell, even openoffice implements a 'standard' made by microsoft in the name of compatibility (mono implements.net ecma standard also)
Samba would also have to go too, and the list goes on. All of these projects were made completely independently by enthusiasts that just wanted to make things for compatibility sake
Yeah except that's not RMS' "lines". He's not against interoperability or compatibility.
Wine doesn't implement any patented technology -- if it did, it would be a ridiculously easy target. All proprietary and patented codecs etc have to be acquired by the user. RMS' only problem with Wine is that it is largely used to run proprietary Windows software -- using free software to remain locked-in to non-free software. But the software itself is free and no danger to include in a linux distro.
Samba is similar. That's actually a project RMS loves, because it undoes proprietary lock in. They didn't implement anything patented. And when they had to in order to get all of the functionality, they did so under an agreement that was in accordance with the EU antitrust ruling.
If Microsoft's Open Specification Promise had been overseen by the EU, then maybe it wouldn't have a provision where the "irrevocable" agreement may or may not apply to future versions and that it doesn't apply to any "non-conforming" software.
If every potentially patent encumbered item were removed from a linux distro, there wouldn't be anything left, even ancient things like fat drivers still have some patent litigation around them.
Yeah, because there aren't any non-proprietary non-encumbered file systems out there, FAT is it. *giant eyeroll* If you take "potentially" to mean "realistically" rather than merely "hypothetically", then there would be plenty left. Like... just about everything in a modern distro. There were "realistic" patent problems with writing.gifs. So libgif only supported decoding them. Zomg, that leaves... only all the other image formats! You're right, that's, like, nothing!
This almost non-sensical fear of mono seems strange to me.. I consider it like wine
Well there's your problem. It's not like wine. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.
The ONLY way you could consider it non-free software is if you count anything that could possibly infringe patents...
Or if you CORRECTLY view it as something that DOES infringe patents with 100% certainty, and is only as free as Microsoft's on-going good will towards free software. Then you'll realize why everyone in the know is concerned about this project, and not Wine or Samba.
Which is exactly what rejecting Mono is all about.
Sorry, but outside of your stock broker's legal disclaimer, the past is an indicator of the future. I'm sure as hell not going to deliberately fail to learn from the past to satisfy the principle "get them for what they DO, as opposed to what they could potentially do". Oh sure the wolf has eaten people before, but he hasn't eaten me yet, so I'll just wait and see what he does.
Waiting until MS actually screws us over would make it entirely too late.
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
So if Mr. Astronaut became a lobbyist instead that'd be okay too? Or a Medal of Honor winner who pimps his heroism out to lobby for munitions makers seeking gov contracts? Guns and bombs is what he knows right?
But that's not what he's doing, now is it? He's starting a private company, with private investment, and creating what he hopes are practical solutions for other private industries and NASA.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- "cynicism" is not saying "this will end badly" without concern for the specifics of what "this" is. You have to look at the actual reality and distinguish based on that. "So if he [did something else] that'd be okay too?", implying no distinction based on the actual activity or its outcome, is the opposite of realism.
For a self described cynic (as in always asking "who benefits?") you sure do have a idealistic outlook which goes against the weight of the evidence about who lobbys and for what.
He is going to benefit, obviously so, because he's the CEO of the company. What's the problem again? He's going to get a nice NASA contract, become Yet Another Defense Contractor, and lobby congress to give NASA more funds? Oh noes!
You don't sound like a cynic to me. You sound like a betrayed idealist, with a rosy-eyed view of how things "should" be, and constantly finding that not to be the case. So you say things will end badly in some vague way, without regard to what's actually happening because it doesn't matter.
Personally, seeing someone trying to use the 'best of both worlds' of private enterprise and government contracts to drag NASA kicking and screaming out of the 60s warms my cynical heart.
So we've got a _really smart_ guy we've paid to educate, paid for many years to perform exactly 7 times... I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
Given your flippant tone, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that 7 space shuttle flights is as many as anyone has ever done. Only one other astronaut has as many missions under their belt. This is because space flight is a Big Deal. Astronauts often train for years for a single specific mission.
By the way...how do you amass enough cash to personally invest significantly in this kind of endeavor, considering otherwise "normal" governmental salaries in the 70-130k/year range?Or is he primarily a front man - a very smart one - who is helping to get money from others (perhaps old colleagues with strings to government funds?) to pursue this research.
Front-man... inventor of the technology the company makes... Yeah, same thing.
I'm not saying he's not doing interesting, and possibly valuable, research, but I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
What does that even mean? A "pass" from what? What horrible sin has he allegedly committed? Leaving NASA after a mere twenty five years and a record number of shuttle missions? Turning his research into plasma propulsion into a real invention? Throw me a bone here!
Now, if he's made a bunch of money doing other things (dot com bubble investor?), and is pursuing this as a purely speculative path, then good for him.
Oh I see. So if he'd managed to fund this venture without having done anything productive rather than inventing a new propulsion system, then you'd be cool with it.
But the US Gov pays through the nose to train these guys who then just retire and try to cash in on the Washington gravy train.
Yeah he retired after "just" twenty five years. He really screwed NASA on that one!
And what, after he retires, he's not supposed to do the most obvious things related to his education and experience? He was working on plasma rockets before he made it to NASA. So is it worse that he's planning to work on plasma rockets to sell to NASA after working for them for a quarter century, rather than going into private industry straight out of college? Why? Because it vaguely fits a stereotype of ex-government employees leaving to work for contractors?
A cynical view I know.
Yeah... What's the word where cynicism is used as a replacement for understanding? Kinda like "blind optimism", but the opposite? Blind cynicism doesn't sound right. As a cynic, I've always liked the expression "cynicism is realism plus experience". But you're not being realistic. So... what is it that you're doing?
Getting the diameter of the universe wrong is perfectly understandable. I certainly can't remember every fact like that off the top of my head.
The odd thing is that when doing the math, the conclusion that the universe is less than 50 galaxies across didn't strike you as... obviously wrong. I mean, you've seen the Hubble Deep Field, right? There are tons and tons of galaxies between us and the edge of visible space.
There's a difference between a physical object that can be described by math, and abstract language which describes math. Software is the latter. A stone is the former. My words describing the stone's trajectory are the latter. The word you see here -- "stone" -- is not a stone. You cannot literally instantiate a stone on a Turing machine because a Turing machine does not have a concept of energy condensed into matter. You can literally describe how a stone would behave, though, and that's what software does.
There is no such thing as an "anti-concept-of-math" that annihilates math. This is not true of actual matter and energy.
Oh and as far as legal standing, SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on software, but has stated explicitly "this court has never held that software is patentable" when two parties appeared to be broaching the issue. The parties of course backed down and made it clear they were not talking about pure software.
For example a game with a GUI and a physics engine isn't a symbolic representation of math, it's symbolic representation of a game world and possible user interactions.
Yes it's a symbolic representation of a "game world", but that game world is described mathematically. "GUI" and "physics engines" are just the uses to which you are putting the math -- the program itself doesn't know that a certain region of memory is attached to a RAMDAC which drives your monitor. It just knows how to calculate the values that belong at certain locations in a matrix.
It's not math, unless you are of the opinion that everything with symbols is math, including any written text...
Not any written text, but written text that describes math is math. "a^2 = b^2 + c^2" is a symbolic representation of math. "M[a] = M[a] + b" is symbolic representation of math. "add [rax], rbx" is a symbolic representation of math. When converted to its binary equivalent, it is still a symbolic representation of math. By definition.
Software is literally just a language for describing math. Unlike English, computer ISAs describe nothing but math. Every single "word" in the language is a symbolic representation of a mathematical operation.
The underlying engine could be implemented in any number of different methods, all giving slightly different results as long as they are within certain limits so that the application works correctly within it's limits.
But regardless of the specific method used, that method would be a series of mathematical instructions. What, so having a mathematical approximation that is close enough to be useful isn't math?
You seem to be making an argument based on the state of software engineering, basically saying that there isn't a rigorous mathematical foundation for why software is implemented in a certain way. Or that a programmer doesn't sit down and think about the basic mathematical properties of the methods they use.
That's fine, I appreciate that. That doesn't change the fact that software is nothing more or less than a symbolic representation of a series of mathematical operations. That's unavoidable. Just because a lot of programmers don't appreciate this fact doesn't change it.
What is a physical object? Its a collection of atoms obeying the "fundamental laws of nature" - specifically quantum mechanics - i.e. math. So if software *is* math, then objects are math too.
A physical object obeys the laws of nature.
Symbolic math describes in language the laws of nature.
Software is just another language for describing math.
It is completely different than a physical object.
The fundamental problem here is that the Supreme Court likes to say that "you can't patent ideas". But that is just silly. You can ONLY patent ideas. You can't patent a physical object - only the idea of a physical object.
But to make use of such a patent, one must create a physical object, because that's what the idea is about.
Software is not a physical object. It is literally an abstracted description of math.
Everything is math.
Some things are described by math, some things describe math. The distinction is clear.
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics
LOL. Algorithms are a subset of mathematics, no "argument" is necessary.
And the difference between software and all other patentable subject matter is that while other subject matter can be described by math, software literally describes math. That's what software is: Just another symbolic language for describing math, that happens to be conducive to being read by a machine.
Software is math in exactly the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c^2".
A stone flying through the air can be described by the math for a parabola. Language that symbolically represents that mathematical relationship is math, whether it's machine-readable or not.
All inventions can be described by math - that is nothing unique to software.
However what is unique to software is that it describes math. That's what software literally is: A symbolic representation of math.
What's the difference between a rock tossed into the air with a certain initial velocity, and the following characters on your screen: "y = y0 + v0*t - g*t^2"? Well, one is a physical object behaving in a certain way, and the other is symbolic language that describes the mathematical relationship.
What is the difference between the characters "y = y0 + v0*t - g*t^2" in your algebra textbook, the exact same characters in your text editor, and the binary output by your compiler when it processes those characters? Absolutely nothing, except that the last one is in a language that is conducive for machine interpretation. It is still nothing more than language describing math.
That's the difference between software and every other kind of patentable invention. The others can be described by math. Software is math in exactly the same sense that "1 + 2 = 3" is math.
Of course not! He's Slashdot Pedant Smart, which is so smart that it wraps around and seems dumber than a four year old. But it's not, really!
Basically it involves pretending that a very imprecise word with many definitions is actually extremely precise and has only one definition, and that you can ignore context that indicates which definition is the correct one, and instead pick whichever one you want. Then you use that definition to argue that the word was misused. This proves how smart you are.
*sigh* Remember when pedantry was about being picky about the precise definition of things that had precise definitions like technical terms? Yeah, those were the days. The grass was greener too, before all these kids trampled my lawn.
Ah I see. So the Pythagorean Theorem shouldn't be patentable, but using the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out how long to make the hypotenuse of a triangle with given sides you're constructing or how long the hypotenuse of an extant triangle with known side lengths is, should be.
I'd like to understand how a program which sets a bit in a register to turn on an LED is math.
Setting a bit in a register is simply assigning a value to a variable. Extremely basic math. Every single instruction in a computer ISA is defined as a simple mathematical operation. There is nothing in x86 or any other ISA that requires that the "register" be an electronic device rather than simply a note you take on paper or beads on an abacus, and same with moves to and from the memory array aka matrix. "add [rax + rbx], rcx", "M[a +b] = M[a + b] + c"... what's the difference? None.
The program itself has nothing to do with the fact that there being a certain voltage in a register causes an LED to turn on. Don't confuse the program with the hardware that it is running on. Hardware side effects are just that, aspects of hardware. If you ran that program on a piece of hardware that did not have an LED, it would still perform the exact same mathematical operations.
Look at the Ideal Gas Law. Is crunching the numbers in that equation anything but math, just because 'T' in the formula is a number you got from a thermometer? How does hooking that thermometer up to a computer that then performs the same calculation change the nature of that calculation? It's still just math. The program itself doesn't know or care where the number came from, for all it knows the value in the "temperature" register could be random.
In World War II and before, "computers" were human beings who performed manual calculations. They crunched the numbers for ballistic tables. Then they took those tables and gave them to artillery commanders who used them to set the angles on their cannons. Does that mean the "computer" wasn't doing math? What if, unbeknown to the "computer", their "output" was never used? How does that change math into not-math or vice versa?
Programs are math. Every single component of a program is itself math, assembling larger mathematical statements out of smaller ones is still just math. What you do with the result of that math is immaterial to its nature as math.
In some ways, CS is still tied to mathematics. It is quantifiable and therein lies its only true link to mathematics. The development and study of algorithms is what CS is all about, and to the extent that mathematics can be used to measure these things it is useful.
Please. Actual Computer Science is absolutely still math and all about math. And Software Engineering is still math in the sense that all programs are literally -- no analogy needed -- symbolic representations of math. Not "something that can be described by math", like the motion of a clock's pendulum. They are math in the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c ^2" is math.
And just because programmers often take an ad-hoc practical engineering approach to coming up with the right mathematical equations to do the job they want, doesn't change the fact that you're not doing anything more than coming up with a suitable symbolic description of math.
Some programmers don't appreciate this even as they do it. Not appreciating the fundamental nature of what you're doing doesn't make it go away.
They neglected to mention the more impressive part: they did a live demonstration for six people, all using bras she was wearing, and she removed them without taking off any other clothing.
Impressive? I call that a damn shame. Someone get the designers on the line, I need to give them a piece of my mind!
Darwinism has been disproved already, so I do not understand the attempts of science in that direction.
Ugh... They are "not attempts in that direction", they are "attempts" in the direction of the modified theory that replaced Darwinism. And so far, so good.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not believe the big bang started the engine, I think it was a higher force...
Let me lay it out for you: I'm a Christian. I believe that a "higher force", what I call God, created the universe and us. I also believe that the Big Bang is the best theory explaining how the universe as we know it came to be. The Big Bang is the "how" and the "when", God is the "who", and the "why" is unknowable unless God decides to tell us, and He had ample chance to and chose not to, probably because it would be incomprehensible anyway.
Anyway, my belief in God is an act of faith. As is your belief that the origin of species comes only partially from evolution with some "creation" factor actually being more important, because none of the evidence points in that direction.
What a banal vision of God where He creates a universe where life arises and evolution occurs, but He has to come in and poke at it from time to time to make it work right, and uses lame copy-paste methodology to do His work.
probably an alien from another solar system to I refer to as God, others call him other names.
Ugh. "aliens did it" is such a lame explanation for a non-evolutionary origin of species. If these aliens are themselves not literal supernatural Gods, then where did they come from? Star Trek's "Q" is effectively a God without any religious overtones. How is that a better explanation? It's such a cop-out.
Timelines and books about it aside (that most likely got passed down for generations before they got wrote down), I think it happened.
That's nice. There's no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against. As long as you understand that, go on believing whatever you like.
Slashdot Mirror
This would mean that yesterday, SCIENCE WAS WRONG. I keep getting reminded how this can't happen, usually from people looking at fossil records of CO2 use to cool the Earth, then supporting things to remove CO2 from all industry.
Who was it that kept saying science can't be wrong?
Are you sure they weren't just saying that your arguments of why the science is wrong were, themselves, wrong?
Science can be wrong, huh? Are ya listening guys?
Yes, but that doesn't mean that science being wrong in the way you presuppose it to be is any more likely. So, yeah. There's more entropy in the universe than thought -- but still within the theoretical upper bound, so basically this is a refined measurement not an undoing of thermodynamics and cosmology. Newton was "wrong", but it's not like we discovered that actually masses repel each other. Similarly, our climate models are certainly inaccurate and will be improved, but it is highly unlikely to be in a way where CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas and threat to the environment.
This is how science works. We guess, then we confirm it. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, is it considered fact.
To be pedantic, it's still not considered fact.
Perhaps you've been fooled by the people with the "If the government pays, I'll give whatever results they want" model.
Yeah, that's why when the government wanted the result that you do, the scientists in their direct employ still came up with the same answer as they had before and since. The administration had to tamper with the report and tone down the language, because scientists always make sure the result of their research says whatever the government wants.
Science is often wrong, because the whole process of science is one of theories refined through observation. "Science can be wrong" does not mean that your wishful thinking is an equally viable alternative. "Wrongness" is not binary.
If you follow RMS's lines, the mpeg group is just as evil because they have patents on their codecs.. wine should be completely banned, and hell, even openoffice implements a 'standard' made by microsoft in the name of compatibility (mono implements .net ecma standard also)
Samba would also have to go too, and the list goes on. All of these projects were made completely independently by enthusiasts that just wanted to make things for compatibility sake
Yeah except that's not RMS' "lines". He's not against interoperability or compatibility.
Wine doesn't implement any patented technology -- if it did, it would be a ridiculously easy target. All proprietary and patented codecs etc have to be acquired by the user. RMS' only problem with Wine is that it is largely used to run proprietary Windows software -- using free software to remain locked-in to non-free software. But the software itself is free and no danger to include in a linux distro.
Samba is similar. That's actually a project RMS loves, because it undoes proprietary lock in. They didn't implement anything patented. And when they had to in order to get all of the functionality, they did so under an agreement that was in accordance with the EU antitrust ruling.
If Microsoft's Open Specification Promise had been overseen by the EU, then maybe it wouldn't have a provision where the "irrevocable" agreement may or may not apply to future versions and that it doesn't apply to any "non-conforming" software.
If every potentially patent encumbered item were removed from a linux distro, there wouldn't be anything left, even ancient things like fat drivers still have some patent litigation around them.
Yeah, because there aren't any non-proprietary non-encumbered file systems out there, FAT is it. *giant eyeroll* If you take "potentially" to mean "realistically" rather than merely "hypothetically", then there would be plenty left. Like... just about everything in a modern distro. There were "realistic" patent problems with writing .gifs. So libgif only supported decoding them. Zomg, that leaves... only all the other image formats! You're right, that's, like, nothing!
This almost non-sensical fear of mono seems strange to me.. I consider it like wine
Well there's your problem. It's not like wine. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.
The ONLY way you could consider it non-free software is if you count anything that could possibly infringe patents...
Or if you CORRECTLY view it as something that DOES infringe patents with 100% certainty, and is only as free as Microsoft's on-going good will towards free software. Then you'll realize why everyone in the know is concerned about this project, and not Wine or Samba.
while safeguarding yourself from harm
Which is exactly what rejecting Mono is all about.
Sorry, but outside of your stock broker's legal disclaimer, the past is an indicator of the future. I'm sure as hell not going to deliberately fail to learn from the past to satisfy the principle "get them for what they DO, as opposed to what they could potentially do". Oh sure the wolf has eaten people before, but he hasn't eaten me yet, so I'll just wait and see what he does.
Waiting until MS actually screws us over would make it entirely too late.
That's not a personal attack.
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
Causality does not lie and does not make wishes.
Indeed. Causality also says that kinetic energy doesn't just disappear for no reason. There has to be a cause for acceleration.
It's not easy getting around the politically correct /. crowd.
Babble about /. censorship all you want. I gave you a chance to answer a simple question about Conservation of Energy, and you bitched out.
Because the truth which we both know is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
LOL, thanks. :)
So if Mr. Astronaut became a lobbyist instead that'd be okay too? Or a Medal of Honor winner who pimps his heroism out to lobby for munitions makers seeking gov contracts? Guns and bombs is what he knows right?
But that's not what he's doing, now is it? He's starting a private company, with private investment, and creating what he hopes are practical solutions for other private industries and NASA.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- "cynicism" is not saying "this will end badly" without concern for the specifics of what "this" is. You have to look at the actual reality and distinguish based on that. "So if he [did something else] that'd be okay too?", implying no distinction based on the actual activity or its outcome, is the opposite of realism.
For a self described cynic (as in always asking "who benefits?") you sure do have a idealistic outlook which goes against the weight of the evidence about who lobbys and for what.
He is going to benefit, obviously so, because he's the CEO of the company. What's the problem again? He's going to get a nice NASA contract, become Yet Another Defense Contractor, and lobby congress to give NASA more funds? Oh noes!
You don't sound like a cynic to me. You sound like a betrayed idealist, with a rosy-eyed view of how things "should" be, and constantly finding that not to be the case. So you say things will end badly in some vague way, without regard to what's actually happening because it doesn't matter.
Personally, seeing someone trying to use the 'best of both worlds' of private enterprise and government contracts to drag NASA kicking and screaming out of the 60s warms my cynical heart.
So we've got a _really smart_ guy we've paid to educate, paid for many years to perform exactly 7 times... I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
Given your flippant tone, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that 7 space shuttle flights is as many as anyone has ever done. Only one other astronaut has as many missions under their belt. This is because space flight is a Big Deal. Astronauts often train for years for a single specific mission.
By the way...how do you amass enough cash to personally invest significantly in this kind of endeavor, considering otherwise "normal" governmental salaries in the 70-130k/year range?Or is he primarily a front man - a very smart one - who is helping to get money from others (perhaps old colleagues with strings to government funds?) to pursue this research.
Front-man... inventor of the technology the company makes... Yeah, same thing.
I'm not saying he's not doing interesting, and possibly valuable, research, but I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
What does that even mean? A "pass" from what? What horrible sin has he allegedly committed? Leaving NASA after a mere twenty five years and a record number of shuttle missions? Turning his research into plasma propulsion into a real invention? Throw me a bone here!
Now, if he's made a bunch of money doing other things (dot com bubble investor?), and is pursuing this as a purely speculative path, then good for him.
Oh I see. So if he'd managed to fund this venture without having done anything productive rather than inventing a new propulsion system, then you'd be cool with it.
WTF is with these comments?
But the US Gov pays through the nose to train these guys who then just retire and try to cash in on the Washington gravy train.
Yeah he retired after "just" twenty five years. He really screwed NASA on that one!
And what, after he retires, he's not supposed to do the most obvious things related to his education and experience? He was working on plasma rockets before he made it to NASA. So is it worse that he's planning to work on plasma rockets to sell to NASA after working for them for a quarter century, rather than going into private industry straight out of college? Why? Because it vaguely fits a stereotype of ex-government employees leaving to work for contractors?
A cynical view I know.
Yeah... What's the word where cynicism is used as a replacement for understanding? Kinda like "blind optimism", but the opposite? Blind cynicism doesn't sound right. As a cynic, I've always liked the expression "cynicism is realism plus experience". But you're not being realistic. So... what is it that you're doing?
Getting the diameter of the universe wrong is perfectly understandable. I certainly can't remember every fact like that off the top of my head.
The odd thing is that when doing the math, the conclusion that the universe is less than 50 galaxies across didn't strike you as... obviously wrong. I mean, you've seen the Hubble Deep Field, right? There are tons and tons of galaxies between us and the edge of visible space.
"This is not a pipe."
There's a difference between a physical object that can be described by math, and abstract language which describes math. Software is the latter. A stone is the former. My words describing the stone's trajectory are the latter. The word you see here -- "stone" -- is not a stone. You cannot literally instantiate a stone on a Turing machine because a Turing machine does not have a concept of energy condensed into matter. You can literally describe how a stone would behave, though, and that's what software does.
There is no such thing as an "anti-concept-of-math" that annihilates math. This is not true of actual matter and energy.
Oh and as far as legal standing, SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on software, but has stated explicitly "this court has never held that software is patentable" when two parties appeared to be broaching the issue. The parties of course backed down and made it clear they were not talking about pure software.
For example a game with a GUI and a physics engine isn't a symbolic representation of math, it's symbolic representation of a game world and possible user interactions.
Yes it's a symbolic representation of a "game world", but that game world is described mathematically. "GUI" and "physics engines" are just the uses to which you are putting the math -- the program itself doesn't know that a certain region of memory is attached to a RAMDAC which drives your monitor. It just knows how to calculate the values that belong at certain locations in a matrix.
It's not math, unless you are of the opinion that everything with symbols is math, including any written text...
Not any written text, but written text that describes math is math. "a^2 = b^2 + c^2" is a symbolic representation of math. "M[a] = M[a] + b" is symbolic representation of math. "add [rax], rbx" is a symbolic representation of math. When converted to its binary equivalent, it is still a symbolic representation of math. By definition.
Software is literally just a language for describing math. Unlike English, computer ISAs describe nothing but math. Every single "word" in the language is a symbolic representation of a mathematical operation.
The underlying engine could be implemented in any number of different methods, all giving slightly different results as long as they are within certain limits so that the application works correctly within it's limits.
But regardless of the specific method used, that method would be a series of mathematical instructions. What, so having a mathematical approximation that is close enough to be useful isn't math?
You seem to be making an argument based on the state of software engineering, basically saying that there isn't a rigorous mathematical foundation for why software is implemented in a certain way. Or that a programmer doesn't sit down and think about the basic mathematical properties of the methods they use.
That's fine, I appreciate that. That doesn't change the fact that software is nothing more or less than a symbolic representation of a series of mathematical operations. That's unavoidable. Just because a lot of programmers don't appreciate this fact doesn't change it.
What is a physical object? Its a collection of atoms obeying the "fundamental laws of nature" - specifically quantum mechanics - i.e. math. So if software *is* math, then objects are math too.
A physical object obeys the laws of nature.
Symbolic math describes in language the laws of nature.
Software is just another language for describing math.
It is completely different than a physical object.
The fundamental problem here is that the Supreme Court likes to say that "you can't patent ideas".
But that is just silly. You can ONLY patent ideas. You can't patent a physical object - only the idea of a physical object.
But to make use of such a patent, one must create a physical object, because that's what the idea is about.
Software is not a physical object. It is literally an abstracted description of math.
Everything is math.
Some things are described by math, some things describe math. The distinction is clear.
"This is not a pipe."
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics
LOL. Algorithms are a subset of mathematics, no "argument" is necessary.
And the difference between software and all other patentable subject matter is that while other subject matter can be described by math, software literally describes math. That's what software is: Just another symbolic language for describing math, that happens to be conducive to being read by a machine.
Software is math in exactly the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c^2".
A stone flying through the air can be described by the math for a parabola. Language that symbolically represents that mathematical relationship is math, whether it's machine-readable or not.
All inventions can be described by math - that is nothing unique to software.
However what is unique to software is that it describes math. That's what software literally is: A symbolic representation of math.
What's the difference between a rock tossed into the air with a certain initial velocity, and the following characters on your screen: "y = y0 + v0*t - g*t^2"? Well, one is a physical object behaving in a certain way, and the other is symbolic language that describes the mathematical relationship.
What is the difference between the characters "y = y0 + v0*t - g*t^2" in your algebra textbook, the exact same characters in your text editor, and the binary output by your compiler when it processes those characters? Absolutely nothing, except that the last one is in a language that is conducive for machine interpretation. It is still nothing more than language describing math.
That's the difference between software and every other kind of patentable invention. The others can be described by math. Software is math in exactly the same sense that "1 + 2 = 3" is math.
You're not dumber than a four year old, are you?
Of course not! He's Slashdot Pedant Smart, which is so smart that it wraps around and seems dumber than a four year old. But it's not, really!
Basically it involves pretending that a very imprecise word with many definitions is actually extremely precise and has only one definition, and that you can ignore context that indicates which definition is the correct one, and instead pick whichever one you want. Then you use that definition to argue that the word was misused. This proves how smart you are.
*sigh* Remember when pedantry was about being picky about the precise definition of things that had precise definitions like technical terms? Yeah, those were the days. The grass was greener too, before all these kids trampled my lawn.
Ah I see. So the Pythagorean Theorem shouldn't be patentable, but using the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out how long to make the hypotenuse of a triangle with given sides you're constructing or how long the hypotenuse of an extant triangle with known side lengths is, should be.
I was going to post a reply consisting of me going "HA haha ha ha" forever, but then again you did say "supposed to".
Here's another way to look at it:
Let's say you take the same sequence of symbolic mathematical operations (the program), and do them by hand with a pencil and paper.
When you get to the part where you calculate what the value of the "LED on" bit should be, if it's set, you turn on your desk lamp.
Are those calculations on the paper math, or aren't they? And how does you turning on the lamp matter?
I'd like to understand how a program which sets a bit in a register to turn on an LED is math.
Setting a bit in a register is simply assigning a value to a variable. Extremely basic math. Every single instruction in a computer ISA is defined as a simple mathematical operation. There is nothing in x86 or any other ISA that requires that the "register" be an electronic device rather than simply a note you take on paper or beads on an abacus, and same with moves to and from the memory array aka matrix. "add [rax + rbx], rcx", "M[a +b] = M[a + b] + c"... what's the difference? None.
The program itself has nothing to do with the fact that there being a certain voltage in a register causes an LED to turn on. Don't confuse the program with the hardware that it is running on. Hardware side effects are just that, aspects of hardware. If you ran that program on a piece of hardware that did not have an LED, it would still perform the exact same mathematical operations.
Look at the Ideal Gas Law. Is crunching the numbers in that equation anything but math, just because 'T' in the formula is a number you got from a thermometer? How does hooking that thermometer up to a computer that then performs the same calculation change the nature of that calculation? It's still just math. The program itself doesn't know or care where the number came from, for all it knows the value in the "temperature" register could be random.
In World War II and before, "computers" were human beings who performed manual calculations. They crunched the numbers for ballistic tables. Then they took those tables and gave them to artillery commanders who used them to set the angles on their cannons. Does that mean the "computer" wasn't doing math? What if, unbeknown to the "computer", their "output" was never used? How does that change math into not-math or vice versa?
Programs are math. Every single component of a program is itself math, assembling larger mathematical statements out of smaller ones is still just math. What you do with the result of that math is immaterial to its nature as math.
In some ways, CS is still tied to mathematics. It is quantifiable and therein lies its only true link to mathematics. The development and study of algorithms is what CS is all about, and to the extent that mathematics can be used to measure these things it is useful.
Please. Actual Computer Science is absolutely still math and all about math. And Software Engineering is still math in the sense that all programs are literally -- no analogy needed -- symbolic representations of math. Not "something that can be described by math", like the motion of a clock's pendulum. They are math in the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c ^2" is math.
And just because programmers often take an ad-hoc practical engineering approach to coming up with the right mathematical equations to do the job they want, doesn't change the fact that you're not doing anything more than coming up with a suitable symbolic description of math.
Some programmers don't appreciate this even as they do it. Not appreciating the fundamental nature of what you're doing doesn't make it go away.
They neglected to mention the more impressive part: they did a live demonstration for six people, all using bras she was wearing, and she removed them without taking off any other clothing.
Impressive? I call that a damn shame. Someone get the designers on the line, I need to give them a piece of my mind!
Interesting. Got a link?
Yeah, "interesting" is one word for it... I don't think you want a link.
Hint: I was making teh punny. ;)
Darwinism has been disproved already, so I do not understand the attempts of science in that direction.
Ugh... They are "not attempts in that direction", they are "attempts" in the direction of the modified theory that replaced Darwinism. And so far, so good.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not believe the big bang started the engine, I think it was a higher force...
Let me lay it out for you: I'm a Christian. I believe that a "higher force", what I call God, created the universe and us. I also believe that the Big Bang is the best theory explaining how the universe as we know it came to be. The Big Bang is the "how" and the "when", God is the "who", and the "why" is unknowable unless God decides to tell us, and He had ample chance to and chose not to, probably because it would be incomprehensible anyway.
Anyway, my belief in God is an act of faith. As is your belief that the origin of species comes only partially from evolution with some "creation" factor actually being more important, because none of the evidence points in that direction.
What a banal vision of God where He creates a universe where life arises and evolution occurs, but He has to come in and poke at it from time to time to make it work right, and uses lame copy-paste methodology to do His work.
probably an alien from another solar system to I refer to as God, others call him other names.
Ugh. "aliens did it" is such a lame explanation for a non-evolutionary origin of species. If these aliens are themselves not literal supernatural Gods, then where did they come from? Star Trek's "Q" is effectively a God without any religious overtones. How is that a better explanation? It's such a cop-out.
Timelines and books about it aside (that most likely got passed down for generations before they got wrote down), I think it happened.
That's nice. There's no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against. As long as you understand that, go on believing whatever you like.
a photo of a minority at a teabag party
Uh... you might want to be more specific. Cus I'm pretty sure I saw a website devoted entirely to that subject.