The whole "software is brittle" agenda is cleary his own.
Yeah, so?
It's true. A small random change generally breaks it. Also, it is infexible, and unchanged software doesn't deal well with changed data or changed requirements.
It's very unlike life or DNA. Life handles small, random changes. Most of the time they don't affect it. Sometimes they hurt it. Sometimes they improve it.
This pliability and flexibity is the polar opposite of software.
Lanier is looking for (and promoting) ways to make software more like life.
I don't know if his "solutions" are viable, but I completely agree with his premise that "sofware is brittle". (By the way, I have done computer programming for nearly 30 years, starting with FORTRAN and lately in C#.)
(Of course, one other side of this coin is that evolution as a method of sofware development would probably be glacially slow compared to current methods. So the statement "sofware is brittle" does not contain any indication of the solution. It's kind of like making a statement that the number xyz is composite. It is often a lot easier to say a number is composite than it is to actually factor the number.)
Your first comment is true in the general 3-body problem, but certain cases are actually stable over a long period of time. Namely, when two of the bodies are in a very tight orbit which is not significantly perturbed by the 3rd body.
So, the system approximates a stable two body system.
Another similar case is 4 stars, where there are two close pairs in orbit around each other. This idea can be extrapolated to any number of stars as long as each pair is not significantly perturbed by its non-pair neighbors.
There are three stars (Polaris A, Polaris B, and Polaris Ab) in orbit around each other (in various ways). That's why it's called a triple star.
A and B are indeed very far from each other. I don't know how long the period is, but it is probably on the order of hundreds or thousands of years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well outside of Polaris A.
A and Ab are in a very close orbit, with a period of around 30 years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well inside of Polaris A.
You can say Polaris B sucks, but that won't affect it, or the triple star system at all. Polaris B is easily visible in small amateur telescopes. It makes Polaris a very pretty star to look at.
The only people I am criticizing are people who take Burkhard Heim's theory too credulously, without proof.
I am in favor of people trying to prove it, or disprove it. It may turn out to be unprovable or undisprovable. It may turn out to be a gigantic waste of time.
I am fairly certain it will not turn out to be true, because if it were true, it would be sensational. But it's not, because there are no results yet. There is no evidence that it's true yet. Something is missing.
Kaluza-Klein is a failed theory of physics. It's probably fine math, but there's utterly no evidence for it. I don't know if it predicts or allows things that are demonstrably false.
Read some of the entries. Or simply look at the domain names of the pages found.
Then take the following test to see if he's actually a revolutionary physicist of Gallileo's, Newton's, Einstein's or Feynmann's stature, or merely just another 2-bit crackpot.
The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.
OK - so far, so good.
Good? Since when does a magnetic field, intense or otherwise, have anything to do with a gravitational field?
There's no evidence. There's no theory. It's just something somebody made up.
The "article" cited by the paranoiac submitter is an opinion piece, and it is rife with humor, starting with the author's name. The submitter (and a lot of readers here) are taking this opinion piece way too seriously.
I've bought 4 computers that had rebates associated with them. I never got around to sending in the first three, but I did the work on the 4th, and got my $150.
The rebate process could be made a lot easier, but I don't think it is in their interest to do that -- their main benefit is being able to advertise a slightly lower price.
It was not that much of a hassle to get the rebate, so I just figured it was worth 15 minutes and 37 cents to do it.
Maybe it's just me, but as a programmer, I have often thought that it should be conceptually easy to write a program that simulates an ant, since there cannot be much to an ant. Certainly not much sophisticated processing ability.
Yet it seems surprisingly difficult.
One possible conclusion is that the step-wise algorithmic programming models we use add far more complexity to certain problems, such as simulating ant behavior.
This revelation about negative scent markers helps me understand ants better, and may help me understand an alternative programming model with which to program ant behavior.
At least, it suggests that ant behavior is not as simple as I had thought.
As a programmer interested in science, I find this extremely interesting.
The problem with the SonyBMG situation is that the technology they used contained a security vulnerability of which they were unaware. They have apologized for their mistake, ceased manufacture of CDs with that technology,and pulled CDs with that technology from store shelves.
The title of the article is completely bogus and misleading.
Chapter 3 (a look at the cutting edge of time protocols, specifically the Interplanetary Internet) should be pretty short.
In a relativistic universe, the concept of absolute simultaneity is gone. Given two events separated in space (like two nearby supernovae, or two alarm clocks going off), depending on their speeds and distances, two observers may disagree on which one occurred first, even after they make various relativistic corrections for their own speed.
If two observers can't agree on simultaneity of two events, they will not be able to agree on the correct time.
Of course, this won't matter practically within the solar system, but between solar systems, it could start to make a difference.
The title and descripive text has nothing to do with the article.
"IBM scientists have measured a fundamental magnetic property of a single atom -- the energy required to flip its magnetic orientation."
That is what the article is about. In the course of measuring the energy, they flipped the spin of the atom (not of an electron, nor of the components of the atom). The article doesn't even mention the spin of electrons or the components of the atom.
Vandenberg Minuteman launches to the Kwajalein test range are easy to see from Sacramento.
They rise about 30 degrees above the horizon, and the second-stage flameout and staging is easy to see. They leave beautiful aqua-marine colored contrails.
Maybe we should cut the author some slack on his or her wording. I suspect English is not his or her first language, judging from some other grammatical goofs.
Perhaps the wording he or she chose was designed for consumption by PHBs.
O'Keefe is going to have to ask Congress for an extra $1.6B, which isn't budgeted. Isn't this about 5 times the amount a manned mission costs to do the same thing?
Slashdot Mirror
It's true. A small random change generally breaks it. Also, it is infexible, and unchanged software doesn't deal well with changed data or changed requirements.
It's very unlike life or DNA. Life handles small, random changes. Most of the time they don't affect it. Sometimes they hurt it. Sometimes they improve it.
This pliability and flexibity is the polar opposite of software.
Lanier is looking for (and promoting) ways to make software more like life.
I don't know if his "solutions" are viable, but I completely agree with his premise that "sofware is brittle". (By the way, I have done computer programming for nearly 30 years, starting with FORTRAN and lately in C#.)
(Of course, one other side of this coin is that evolution as a method of sofware development would probably be glacially slow compared to current methods. So the statement "sofware is brittle" does not contain any indication of the solution. It's kind of like making a statement that the number xyz is composite. It is often a lot easier to say a number is composite than it is to actually factor the number.)
Your first comment is true in the general 3-body problem, but certain cases are actually stable over a long period of time. Namely, when two of the bodies are in a very tight orbit which is not significantly perturbed by the 3rd body.
So, the system approximates a stable two body system.
Another similar case is 4 stars, where there are two close pairs in orbit around each other. This idea can be extrapolated to any number of stars as long as each pair is not significantly perturbed by its non-pair neighbors.
There are three stars (Polaris A, Polaris B, and Polaris Ab) in orbit around each other (in various ways). That's why it's called a triple star.
A and B are indeed very far from each other. I don't know how long the period is, but it is probably on the order of hundreds or thousands of years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well outside of Polaris A.
A and Ab are in a very close orbit, with a period of around 30 years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well inside of Polaris A.
You can say Polaris B sucks, but that won't affect it, or the triple star system at all. Polaris B is easily visible in small amateur telescopes. It makes Polaris a very pretty star to look at.
The only people I am criticizing are people who take Burkhard Heim's theory too credulously, without proof.
I am in favor of people trying to prove it, or disprove it. It may turn out to be unprovable or undisprovable. It may turn out to be a gigantic waste of time.
I am fairly certain it will not turn out to be true, because if it were true, it would be sensational. But it's not, because there are no results yet. There is no evidence that it's true yet. Something is missing.
Perhaps rather than saying "failed", I should say "unproven" by factual evidence.
Maybe "failed" should be reserved for disproven theories.
But, by this definition, Newton's theory of gravity is a "failed" theory. So that seems unsatisfactory.
Kaluza-Klein is a failed theory of physics. It's probably fine math, but there's utterly no evidence for it. I don't know if it predicts or allows things that are demonstrably false.
Do a Google search on "Burkhard Heim".
Read some of the entries. Or simply look at the domain names of the pages found.
Then take the following test to see if he's actually a revolutionary physicist of Gallileo's, Newton's, Einstein's or Feynmann's stature, or merely just another 2-bit crackpot.
Good? Since when does a magnetic field, intense or otherwise, have anything to do with a gravitational field?
There's no evidence. There's no theory. It's just something somebody made up.
The engine is based on physical theory that doesn't exist, therefore, it's not based on anything.
There is no theory of gravity or electro-magnetism that ties these things together. If there were such a theory, it would be huge news indeed.
Different ... because it is the best.
I work in an office with 6 programmers. 5 are over 50, and one is around 46. We are very productive, and tend not to make rookie mistakes.
I'd say one key to being successful when you're older is to make an effort to stay flexible and always be willing to learn.
The "article" cited by the paranoiac submitter is an opinion piece, and it is rife with humor, starting with the author's name. The submitter (and a lot of readers here) are taking this opinion piece way too seriously.
I've bought 4 computers that had rebates associated with them. I never got around to sending in the first three, but I did the work on the 4th, and got my $150.
The rebate process could be made a lot easier, but I don't think it is in their interest to do that -- their main benefit is being able to advertise a slightly lower price.
It was not that much of a hassle to get the rebate, so I just figured it was worth 15 minutes and 37 cents to do it.
Maybe it's just me, but as a programmer, I have often thought that it should be conceptually easy to write a program that simulates an ant, since there cannot be much to an ant. Certainly not much sophisticated processing ability.
Yet it seems surprisingly difficult.
One possible conclusion is that the step-wise algorithmic programming models we use add far more complexity to certain problems, such as simulating ant behavior.
This revelation about negative scent markers helps me understand ants better, and may help me understand an alternative programming model with which to program ant behavior.
At least, it suggests that ant behavior is not as simple as I had thought.
As a programmer interested in science, I find this extremely interesting.
This "singing" iceberg is just like a river "singing" or the ocean "singing", or the wind howling. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing to see here, move along.
The title of the article is completely bogus and misleading.
Chapter 3 (a look at the cutting edge of time protocols, specifically the Interplanetary Internet) should be pretty short.
In a relativistic universe, the concept of absolute simultaneity is gone. Given two events separated in space (like two nearby supernovae, or two alarm clocks going off), depending on their speeds and distances, two observers may disagree on which one occurred first, even after they make various relativistic corrections for their own speed.
If two observers can't agree on simultaneity of two events, they will not be able to agree on the correct time.
Of course, this won't matter practically within the solar system, but between solar systems, it could start to make a difference.
I think you mean 26 months, rather than years.
"We" are doing that, certainly, but "we" don't all agree on what sort of society "we" want to build on top of it.
Cut the lines, then dump all your Motie warriors and watchmakers and become an envoy of peace to an alien race.
The title and descripive text has nothing to do with the article.
"IBM scientists have measured a fundamental magnetic property of a single atom -- the energy required to flip its magnetic orientation."
That is what the article is about. In the course of measuring the energy, they flipped the spin of the atom (not of an electron, nor of the components of the atom). The article doesn't even mention the spin of electrons or the components of the atom.
Vandenberg Minuteman launches to the Kwajalein test range are easy to see from Sacramento.
They rise about 30 degrees above the horizon, and the second-stage flameout and staging is easy to see. They leave beautiful aqua-marine colored contrails.
10 billion particles cannot simulate a glass of milk, let alone the universe.
Just in terms of mass, each particle in the "universe" simulation must represent between 10 and 100 galaxies.
So the simulation actually represents the gravitational interactions of groups of early galaxies, not really the whole "universe".
Maybe we should cut the author some slack on his or her wording. I suspect English is not his or her first language, judging from some other grammatical goofs.
Perhaps the wording he or she chose was designed for consumption by PHBs.
O'Keefe is going to have to ask Congress for an extra $1.6B, which isn't budgeted. Isn't this about 5 times the amount a manned mission costs to do the same thing?
Is it worth it?