I am not convinced that MOND or the related TeVeS are the proper approaches to take. The evidence seems to weigh more in the camp for dark matter, but there could be even more exotic explanations that could exlain the gravitational lensing such as what is seen in the Bullet Cluster. Perhaps space-time itself gets a bit "wrinkly" in some parts of space, or perhaps there's a parallel universe that only interacts with ours through gravitation. Of course, verification of this would be difficult at best, so there goes the science.
I strongly hold that there are still some big surprises awaiting our discovery about the true nature of space-time. Alas, I also hold that we humans may never figure them out in time, or probably would lack the intellectual space to understand them.:-)
This is why we can't trust the government nor any of its contractors to do anything right with regards to our privacy. This type of an attitude when 33,000 people are now in danger of identity theft, credit card fraud, and who knows what else?
More importantly, why is sensitive data *stored* on the laptop at all? Should it not be kept only on a secure server, and then only accessible across a secure encrypted VPN connection on an as-needed basis? With today's storage technology, yes you could store personal and sensitive information on every man, woman, and child in the US on your laptop, but what knucklehead would even consider this a "good idea"?
Homeland Insecurity -- making us all more insecure with each passing day. Let's get rid of them.
SDI was a waste, a serious joke that never had a chance of "working", and even if it did, would've bankrupted the country if deployed, leaving the Soviets with the last laugh.
Hey, I'm an atheist, but those were the first words that came to mind when I saw the pictures. I mean, the sheer scale of this project alone is mind-boggling, let alone what it is designed to detect!!!!!!
This is for sure the stuff that sets Man apart from Animal!
Now, if we can get the US to stop blowing $billions on killing people and instead invest in human understanding of the greater universe we live in! What a dream... Oh well, the US cares more about dropping bombs on the heads of innocents...
At the same time, when the whole notion of patents was drafted, that was no such thing as "software"
There was software, in a sense. Humanity has known about algorithms at least since Euclid, and the name "algorithm" itself comes from the ninth century when Muhammad ibn Musa al-Gorithmi (transliteration may vary) published a book about arithmetic with Indian numerals. (You might also recognize him for writing the first book in the Kitab al-gebra wal-muqabala, or Book of Completion and Balancing, series.) You're probably thinking of the fact that when the USPTO was formed, there were no machines to perform arbitrary algorithms automatically. That didn't happen until the twentieth century.
Well, that's pushing the definition of "software" quite a bit. Yes, algorithms existed, but "software" could only be the stuff of metaphors. However, I do recall something about a type of loom that used punch cards to control it, but can't recall what it was called and when it was built.
Of course, if math were patentable, then network theory would already be patented, and you wouldn't be able to do your work on generalized network theory.;-)
Actually, not entirely correct. If you look into how patents work, you will see lots of patents that are derived from other patents; improvements to pre-existing patents, so my work would not necessarily be precluded.
Sounds good in principle, and would apply, I think, in the vast majority of cases.
But then, on the basis of that argument, why have patents *at all*? I mean, if I and some poor smuck on the other side of the country spends 100 hours inventing WidgetX, and I make it to the patent office before he does, does not the same apply -- his efforts have gone to waste?
It would be a bit tricky to see how copyright would apply to a physical WidgetX -- except these days, we have 3-D printers!
So, the distinctions between what is "physical" and what is "mathematical" becomes more blurred. Perhaps we should just drop the entire patenting process altogether for *anything*? Because in reality, all the arguments against *software* patents can also be applied to patents in general.
if a company spends a million bucks developing some hot algorithm, it may not wish to do so without protection, eh?
Name one algorithm that has been patented that would not have been protected by copyrights or trade secret law, and that worked to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Just one. Any one.
Automatically Defined Functions -- Koza (I think) for Genetic Programming.
According to the US constitution, the only justification for software patents is that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
I've been writing software for 39 years and have come to believe that, on balance, software patents do no such thing and should, consequently, be abolished.
Well, I've been writing software for 30 years (long enough, eh?), and I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to write off software patents in all cases. I think they should be harder to get, but if a company spends a million bucks developing some hot algorithm, it may not wish to do so without protection, eh?
If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
No. Unless your last name is "Turing" or "Knuth", you probably haven't invented anything. Even then, I guarantee that your algorithm is nowhere near as important as, say, the Lorentz transformation. Good thing he and Newton and Leibniz and Einstein didn't patent their algorithms, huh?
Wow, what a smug attitude.
While it would be considered rather passe' today, I did invent an animated GUI based on fractals to allow one to explore and drill down into heirarchial networks of arbitrary complexity. Did this back in 1997-98.
There were a few patents that were in the ballpark, but not the same at all. But they were close enough that the patent attorney and I had to hammer out on the differences in the claims.
I am currently working on a new mathematical system that I *know* does not exist anywhere else; kind of a generalization of network theory. There are a number of ideas that hint around what I have, but still does not really come close.
We all invent and create things based on the work of others; a recombination in novel ways. Certainly the ones you mention above have all done this; there is no such thing as *complete* originality. Having said that, the novel recombination can be very powerful and insightful. Anyone who works at it long enough and does enough research can do it; your name does not have to be Turing or Knuth.
At the same time, there are, admittedly, many who *think* they have something original, but don't. Too many of those. But just because there are so many "false starts" does not preclude true originality.
Well, before I got my software patent, I was firmly against them.
Then I got one, and was paid good money for it (sold it to the company I was working for).
And now it may become invalidated. Hmmm... While some software patents are ridiculous, such as the XOR algorithm and the "one-click" purchase of Amazon, others that involved true ingenuity and shrewdness perhaps should remain? If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
I am really mixed on this because of all the abuse software patents have seen. At the same time, when the whole notion of patents was drafted, that was no such thing as "software" Now, we have software running everywhere, including controlling such machines as the car you drive.
I know I will be hissed and booed, but perhaps there is *some* place for *some* software patents.
But in today's high seas of corporatism, many patents are abused anyway, and not just software ones. Big corporations will use their patents as "head whackers" where one corp will sue and counter-sue over patents just to gain market advantage, as opposed to exploiting the market for a patent. It's a fine distinction, one I am not sure about.
Internet lingo can be quite amusing at times. But quoting it for a different context is part of a more general issue as I see it with journalism: How do you convey something to an audience that's in a different context?
When the words of a speaker of a different language is "quoted", it's always translated, with all the problems that entails. When the distance is in "kilometers", it's translated to "miles"; when the currency is in "Euros", it's translated into "dollars", etc.
Many times I wish they didn't so blithely translated the units of measure or currency. And I wish they didn't translate the language either -- except I now would have to be fluent in most of the major languages of the world!
And so when it comes to chat speak, it could be put into a language class of its own. Will a "general" (read: non-Internet-literate) audience understand it? Probably not, though sometimes they may.
I personally could never be a professional journalist, because I lean much more towards quoting directly, not "writing down" to an LCD readership, etc. You ought to be intelligent and informed enough to understand the difference between baryonic matter and non-baryonic matter, right???
I don't mean to trigger a boasting flame war. I only state things about myself to prove a point. The fact that I'm great and glorious is merely a side issue.
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek...)
Kidding aside, I do take great pride in creating reusable code. The downside is that the lifetime of software is so short it all gets tossed aside eventually, anyway.
Databases, on the other hand, do tend to hang about a bit longer, and so the pride factor increases by several orders of magnitude...
You do make several interesting points, and yes, there is always the potential for abuse.
Yes, cops do lie, and I've experienced this personally. Judges sometimes make presumptions and rule on that basis too. And on and on.
I don't want to create a "special class" of rights -- we already have far too much of that already. I do want to create an awareness of the damage that is done to the innocent being dragged though this quagmire, let alone being wrongfully convicted.
I do have a "special interest" in all this since I have suffered greatly from being falsely accused, lying cops, screwball judges, and the like. It all began from one stranger whom I've never met before butting her nose into my business and fanning the flames of latent racism in a public arena.
And it's sad that being innocent should ever have to be a "special class", considering that you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But we both know that's a joke in this country.
And so, I rather have the "special class" with the awareness, despite all the problems, vs. what we have now. Alas, the government and the public does not respond to reason; it takes crass hyperbole to shift direction and attention.
This is horrible -- as you say, when you get a false positive, you have a double-injustice; convicting and destroying the life of an innocent man, and leaving the real perpetrator free to harm more people.
We have to refocus everyone on the Rights of the Innocent, and get everyone to see that putting an innocent man in jail is far worse than doing nothing at all. We should ALWAYS be open to Science in the process, and the Justice system must itself ALWAYS be open to the same scrutiny and skepticism as any scientist.
And if not, the Justice System will really be an Injustice System. How the lawyers, the prosecutors, the Judges can sleep at night is anyone's guess.
I have Verizon Fios, and it is NOT PPPoE. I was able to change the DNS setting without a hitch. You may have to do it in the "modem" itself. I have a NAT setup with a subnet behind the firewall with a DNS server, so I was able to alter the forwarding requests there.
I have been in the computer field for 30 years, and have done everything from writing low-level drivers for operating systems to creating large applications, and everything in between.
I am currently a database manager where I work, but that title belies the complexity of what I have to deal with on a daily basis. We are producing our "next gen" web application whilst keeping the old, but money generator up and running under the pressures of increasing user load.
Even though I am the database guy, my vast experience with software engineering has given me a "unique" role in knowing the developer's side and having a lot of input on their design decisions, as well as having huge impacts on systems.
One poster mentioned not having access to various skills and expertise in a variety of areas, and yes, there's a lot of that at my shop, so I tend to try to "bridge the gap" as it were, to help my DBA team interactt smoothly with Dev and Systems, etc.
Code reusability is a big issue in our development of the NextGen system, because the old code (that's currently pulling in the $$$$$) is not supportable, being written badly in PHP4 has resisted all attempts to upgrade. The NextGen approach uses OOP ery heavily, and also relies on stored procedures to keep the SQL out of the code and allow my DBA team to tweak and enhance performance without impacting the code base. It makes for a sweet division.
But I do find myself doing lots of talking and less actual "hands-on" development these days. Kinda crazy running around talking to various department heads, managers, project leaders, QA, and the like.
I guess I am speaking to a greater issue than code usability -- human communication to keep us all on the same page and to allow us to leverage each other's expertise. All of our efforts together represent the future success of our endeavors.
I like your approach. Simplicity is good. Elegant Simplicity is better. The elegant simplicity is harder to come by, because it requires you to do a LOT under the hood to make the API/GUI/Framework easy to master conceptually.
Now ask me again why I hate paying taxes. It's not OK for me to not pay taxes, but it is PERFECTLY OK for our officials to squander our precious hard-earned bucks -- well, wait, the bottom is dropping out of the USD right now, so our hard work is worth even less. Oh well...
You can "opt out" of the Verizon annoyance by modifying your DNS address by adding "2" to the last octet.
I've had to do this, and it works. No annoying Verizon snatching my failed DNS lookups!
Of course, if you try to get this out of their so-called "tech support", they will not know what you're asking for until you manage to get down to tier 2 or 3 or so. Amazing as it sounds, teir-one Verizon Fios tech support will glaze over at the mere mention of DNS, and will stupidly keep trying to get you to do inane things with your browser.
I'm all for trying and hanging Bush and his administration for treason.
And spare me the knee jerk slippery slope'isms. The guy killed his wife in cold blood - that's a far cry from burning someone for being a witch. If you can't see the fundamental difference there then you and rationality aren't even in the same zip code.
You know what, how about you be married to Hans in the next life?
Far cry? If so, then I presume you wouldn't mind being burned as a witch as opposed to being shot in cold blood?
And you accuse me of "knee jerk slippery slope'isms"?
So I guess you see absolutely no value whatsoever in understanding the conditions that may have led Hans to do what he did.
I suppose when the next would-be Hans comes along, no one will be able to help/stop him/her in time because no one bothered to understand.
I don't know about you but if I saw a friend or a co-worker going through the psychological angst that might lead to suicide or homicide, I'd want to personally help that person. But if I'm too busy being "angry at murderers", I'll never develop the necessary understanding and skills to be able to jump in an offer a hand in preventing another tragedy.
And so I would say that those who exhibit attitudes like yours will be most unhelpful at helping a fellow friend or associate deal.
I have learned my lesson in this regard, and it was quite painful. Quite. I just hope you'll never have to endure what I have. It would change you attitude, I assure you.
Slashdot Mirror
I strongly hold that there are still some big surprises awaiting our discovery about the true nature of space-time. Alas, I also hold that we humans may never figure them out in time, or probably would lack the intellectual space to understand them. :-)
More importantly, why is sensitive data *stored* on the laptop at all? Should it not be kept only on a secure server, and then only accessible across a secure encrypted VPN connection on an as-needed basis? With today's storage technology, yes you could store personal and sensitive information on every man, woman, and child in the US on your laptop, but what knucklehead would even consider this a "good idea"?
Homeland Insecurity -- making us all more insecure with each passing day. Let's get rid of them.
This is for sure the stuff that sets Man apart from Animal!
Oh, please. The rats keep trying to build a cyclotron in my basement.
A cyclotron to accelerate their pellets? Smash'em together and see what new kinds of stink will erupt?
Gotta keep an eye on them rats. Or do something to Willard...
SDI was a waste, a serious joke that never had a chance of "working", and even if it did, would've bankrupted the country if deployed, leaving the Soviets with the last laugh.
Or, they can simply cut funding for all projects, give us our tax dollars back, and we can choose to fund whatever we want.
This is for sure the stuff that sets Man apart from Animal!
Now, if we can get the US to stop blowing $billions on killing people and instead invest in human understanding of the greater universe we live in! What a dream... Oh well, the US cares more about dropping bombs on the heads of innocents...
If you can't make a profit on a truly novel and revolutionary idea after say, 10 years, then perhaps it isn't worthy of protection?
I would agree with that. And even if you DO make money off of it after 10 years, it should go into public domain anyway, I think.
Cool. Thanks for the reference.
At the same time, when the whole notion of patents was drafted, that was no such thing as "software"
There was software, in a sense. Humanity has known about algorithms at least since Euclid, and the name "algorithm" itself comes from the ninth century when Muhammad ibn Musa al-Gorithmi (transliteration may vary) published a book about arithmetic with Indian numerals. (You might also recognize him for writing the first book in the Kitab al-gebra wal-muqabala, or Book of Completion and Balancing, series.) You're probably thinking of the fact that when the USPTO was formed, there were no machines to perform arbitrary algorithms automatically. That didn't happen until the twentieth century.
Well, that's pushing the definition of "software" quite a bit. Yes, algorithms existed, but "software" could only be the stuff of metaphors. However, I do recall something about a type of loom that used punch cards to control it, but can't recall what it was called and when it was built.
Of course, if math were patentable, then network theory would already be patented, and you wouldn't be able to do your work on generalized network theory. ;-)
Actually, not entirely correct. If you look into how patents work, you will see lots of patents that are derived from other patents; improvements to pre-existing patents, so my work would not necessarily be precluded.
But then, on the basis of that argument, why have patents *at all*? I mean, if I and some poor smuck on the other side of the country spends 100 hours inventing WidgetX, and I make it to the patent office before he does, does not the same apply -- his efforts have gone to waste? It would be a bit tricky to see how copyright would apply to a physical WidgetX -- except these days, we have 3-D printers!
So, the distinctions between what is "physical" and what is "mathematical" becomes more blurred. Perhaps we should just drop the entire patenting process altogether for *anything*? Because in reality, all the arguments against *software* patents can also be applied to patents in general.
if a company spends a million bucks developing some hot algorithm, it may not wish to do so without protection, eh?
Name one algorithm that has been patented that would not have been protected by copyrights or trade secret law, and that worked to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Just one. Any one.
Automatically Defined Functions -- Koza (I think) for Genetic Programming.
According to the US constitution, the only justification for software patents is that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts". I've been writing software for 39 years and have come to believe that, on balance, software patents do no such thing and should, consequently, be abolished.
Well, I've been writing software for 30 years (long enough, eh?), and I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to write off software patents in all cases. I think they should be harder to get, but if a company spends a million bucks developing some hot algorithm, it may not wish to do so without protection, eh?
If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
No. Unless your last name is "Turing" or "Knuth", you probably haven't invented anything. Even then, I guarantee that your algorithm is nowhere near as important as, say, the Lorentz transformation. Good thing he and Newton and Leibniz and Einstein didn't patent their algorithms, huh?
Wow, what a smug attitude.
While it would be considered rather passe' today, I did invent an animated GUI based on fractals to allow one to explore and drill down into heirarchial networks of arbitrary complexity. Did this back in 1997-98.
There were a few patents that were in the ballpark, but not the same at all. But they were close enough that the patent attorney and I had to hammer out on the differences in the claims.
I am currently working on a new mathematical system that I *know* does not exist anywhere else; kind of a generalization of network theory. There are a number of ideas that hint around what I have, but still does not really come close.
We all invent and create things based on the work of others; a recombination in novel ways. Certainly the ones you mention above have all done this; there is no such thing as *complete* originality. Having said that, the novel recombination can be very powerful and insightful. Anyone who works at it long enough and does enough research can do it; your name does not have to be Turing or Knuth.
At the same time, there are, admittedly, many who *think* they have something original, but don't. Too many of those. But just because there are so many "false starts" does not preclude true originality.
Then I got one, and was paid good money for it (sold it to the company I was working for).
And now it may become invalidated. Hmmm... While some software patents are ridiculous, such as the XOR algorithm and the "one-click" purchase of Amazon, others that involved true ingenuity and shrewdness perhaps should remain? If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
I am really mixed on this because of all the abuse software patents have seen. At the same time, when the whole notion of patents was drafted, that was no such thing as "software" Now, we have software running everywhere, including controlling such machines as the car you drive.
I know I will be hissed and booed, but perhaps there is *some* place for *some* software patents.
But in today's high seas of corporatism, many patents are abused anyway, and not just software ones. Big corporations will use their patents as "head whackers" where one corp will sue and counter-sue over patents just to gain market advantage, as opposed to exploiting the market for a patent. It's a fine distinction, one I am not sure about.
When the words of a speaker of a different language is "quoted", it's always translated, with all the problems that entails. When the distance is in "kilometers", it's translated to "miles"; when the currency is in "Euros", it's translated into "dollars", etc.
Many times I wish they didn't so blithely translated the units of measure or currency. And I wish they didn't translate the language either -- except I now would have to be fluent in most of the major languages of the world!
And so when it comes to chat speak, it could be put into a language class of its own. Will a "general" (read: non-Internet-literate) audience understand it? Probably not, though sometimes they may.
I personally could never be a professional journalist, because I lean much more towards quoting directly, not "writing down" to an LCD readership, etc. You ought to be intelligent and informed enough to understand the difference between baryonic matter and non-baryonic matter, right???
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek...)
Kidding aside, I do take great pride in creating reusable code. The downside is that the lifetime of software is so short it all gets tossed aside eventually, anyway.
Databases, on the other hand, do tend to hang about a bit longer, and so the pride factor increases by several orders of magnitude...
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Yes, cops do lie, and I've experienced this personally. Judges sometimes make presumptions and rule on that basis too. And on and on.
I don't want to create a "special class" of rights -- we already have far too much of that already. I do want to create an awareness of the damage that is done to the innocent being dragged though this quagmire, let alone being wrongfully convicted.
I do have a "special interest" in all this since I have suffered greatly from being falsely accused, lying cops, screwball judges, and the like. It all began from one stranger whom I've never met before butting her nose into my business and fanning the flames of latent racism in a public arena.
And it's sad that being innocent should ever have to be a "special class", considering that you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But we both know that's a joke in this country.
And so, I rather have the "special class" with the awareness, despite all the problems, vs. what we have now. Alas, the government and the public does not respond to reason; it takes crass hyperbole to shift direction and attention.
We live in an imperfect world, alas.
We have to refocus everyone on the Rights of the Innocent, and get everyone to see that putting an innocent man in jail is far worse than doing nothing at all. We should ALWAYS be open to Science in the process, and the Justice system must itself ALWAYS be open to the same scrutiny and skepticism as any scientist.
And if not, the Justice System will really be an Injustice System. How the lawyers, the prosecutors, the Judges can sleep at night is anyone's guess.
I have Verizon Fios, and it is NOT PPPoE. I was able to change the DNS setting without a hitch. You may have to do it in the "modem" itself. I have a NAT setup with a subnet behind the firewall with a DNS server, so I was able to alter the forwarding requests there.
I am currently a database manager where I work, but that title belies the complexity of what I have to deal with on a daily basis. We are producing our "next gen" web application whilst keeping the old, but money generator up and running under the pressures of increasing user load.
Even though I am the database guy, my vast experience with software engineering has given me a "unique" role in knowing the developer's side and having a lot of input on their design decisions, as well as having huge impacts on systems.
One poster mentioned not having access to various skills and expertise in a variety of areas, and yes, there's a lot of that at my shop, so I tend to try to "bridge the gap" as it were, to help my DBA team interactt smoothly with Dev and Systems, etc.
Code reusability is a big issue in our development of the NextGen system, because the old code (that's currently pulling in the $$$$$) is not supportable, being written badly in PHP4 has resisted all attempts to upgrade. The NextGen approach uses OOP ery heavily, and also relies on stored procedures to keep the SQL out of the code and allow my DBA team to tweak and enhance performance without impacting the code base. It makes for a sweet division.
But I do find myself doing lots of talking and less actual "hands-on" development these days. Kinda crazy running around talking to various department heads, managers, project leaders, QA, and the like.
I guess I am speaking to a greater issue than code usability -- human communication to keep us all on the same page and to allow us to leverage each other's expertise. All of our efforts together represent the future success of our endeavors.
Still, a noteworthy goal.
Now ask me again why I hate paying taxes. It's not OK for me to not pay taxes, but it is PERFECTLY OK for our officials to squander our precious hard-earned bucks -- well, wait, the bottom is dropping out of the USD right now, so our hard work is worth even less. Oh well...
I've had to do this, and it works. No annoying Verizon snatching my failed DNS lookups!
Of course, if you try to get this out of their so-called "tech support", they will not know what you're asking for until you manage to get down to tier 2 or 3 or so. Amazing as it sounds, teir-one Verizon Fios tech support will glaze over at the mere mention of DNS, and will stupidly keep trying to get you to do inane things with your browser.
I'm all for trying and hanging Bush and his administration for treason.
And spare me the knee jerk slippery slope'isms. The guy killed his wife in cold blood - that's a far cry from burning someone for being a witch. If you can't see the fundamental difference there then you and rationality aren't even in the same zip code.
You know what, how about you be married to Hans in the next life?
Far cry? If so, then I presume you wouldn't mind being burned as a witch as opposed to being shot in cold blood?
And you accuse me of "knee jerk slippery slope'isms"?
So I guess you see absolutely no value whatsoever in understanding the conditions that may have led Hans to do what he did.
I suppose when the next would-be Hans comes along, no one will be able to help/stop him/her in time because no one bothered to understand.
I don't know about you but if I saw a friend or a co-worker going through the psychological angst that might lead to suicide or homicide, I'd want to personally help that person. But if I'm too busy being "angry at murderers", I'll never develop the necessary understanding and skills to be able to jump in an offer a hand in preventing another tragedy.
And so I would say that those who exhibit attitudes like yours will be most unhelpful at helping a fellow friend or associate deal.
I have learned my lesson in this regard, and it was quite painful. Quite. I just hope you'll never have to endure what I have. It would change you attitude, I assure you.