Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. (from The Salient Facts, paragraph 6)
The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop (Mosanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118). (further along in the same paragraph)
Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 per cent was Roundup Ready Canola. The respondents brought an action against the appellants for patent infringement. The trial judge found the patent to be valid and allowed the action, concluding that the appellants knew or ought to have known that they saved and planted seed containing the patented gene and cell and that they sold the resulting crop also containing the patented gene and cell. (from the beginning of the decision)
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize from the outset that we are not concerned here with the innocent discovery by farmers of "blow-by" patented plants on their land or in their cultivated fields. Nor are we concerned with the scope of the respondents' patent or the wisdom and social utility of the genetic modification of genes and cells - a practice authorized by Parliament under the Patent Act and its regulations. (from Introduction, paragraph 2)
The write-up is inflammatoy and flat-out wrong. Whether you are for or against genetically engineered/modifed foods, please get the facts right and don't mislead people about a very important legal decision.
You claim to be 18. You are not old, although you do opine like an elderly pessimist....I was enamored by the sensible and meaningful content that dominated the internet. It was intelligent. As the internet has trickled down to the masses, we are now plagued by commercialism, ignorance and stupid people, spam, congestion, and far too much subscription-based content.
This is the natural tendency when much larger crowd of people flock to something. This is how things evolve. It's like your favourite bar (or for you, restaurant): when you first "discover" it, it's usually subdued and quaint. You tell a few people about this great place and suddenly, more people show up. It's not so quaint anymore, but the drinks/food/service is still good and it keeps people coming back. More and more people are enjoying it and are grateful you told them, but their reasons for liking it are not the same as yours. For you, the place has lost its initial appeal, so you frequent less often. Then you get resentful for other people taking away your place. (If it's a fad, then you can eventually go back.) Once you realize this is the way of the world, it's easier to accept and move on. If you don't like it, you start your own little, subdued, quaint place.
Frankly, I doubt your attitude is either helpful or correct. While there is a plethora of crap on the Internet, there is still a lot of value. I've been using it for 8 years as well, and I use it more now than I did then. Honestly, you can take your dark cloud and so sulk in the corner. I'm going to revel in the exploration of the endpoints of the Internet.
They still don't explain how a human in itself can generate more energy than it costs to maintain that very same human alive and well in the Matrix.
You know, the idea of sentient robots isn't fully explained either, and I consider this to be a major plot hole. Since this movie is not scientifically exact and doesn't have a Tolkien-esque history, I feel compelled to join you in your nitpicking.
For example, say that humans posess a unique ability to harvest immense amounts metaphysical energy, and that the Matrix somehow taps this energy. Much better than the 'new form of fusion' crap explanation.
I must be new to the world of suspension of disbelief, 'cause tapping metaphysical energy and a 'new form of fusion' seem equally implausible to me.
This is blind devotion and you should just stop that. It's religious zealotry. Either that, or provide an argument for your reasoning, which you have not done.
The teacher could even bring his own laptop, add their AIM screen names to his AIM account, and talk to students via AIM.
I'm going to assume you don't mean during class, since that is a monumentally bad idea (have we reduced ourselves to the point where we would rather use IM to communicate, even when in the same room?). If it is outside of class, it doesn't add that much value because it is rarely the case (from my experience) that students and teachers have the same schedule. The IM notes would just sit in limbo most of the time. This is what email is for - asynchronous communication.
This is college not highschool, a teacher cannot try to blame the students for lack of attention, students pay you with THEIR money so that you can get their attention, these people want to learn and pay to learn...
Wrong, wrong, wrong. So very wrong. This is the attitude that is plauging universities right now. A univeristy education is not a service. Paying tutition does not equate to a degree. Paying tuition is, essentially, a fee that provides access to a large communitity for independent learning with some help along the way.
A university teacher's job is not to get your attention. Rather, it is your job to pay attention. This is not the absolute (we still have teacher evaluations at UWO) but it is the kernel of the teaching philosophy at university. Nonetheless, what it means is that if some student is diddling away in the corner doing nothing, it is not my responsibility to get him to learn. I assume that he is here because he wants to learn and will participate as he sees fit. If he does not meet the requirements I clearly set out for the course, he will fail.
Sound harsh? Sure it is, but life is not about having your hand held. Sometimes, you have to take the initiative. Students that do take an active interest in their education by making an effort in some vein will most likely be rewarded. Having a problem with the material? It is the student's job to seek out the teacher, not the opposite. (Of course, if the teacher is not available, then it's not all that fair but again, this is the primary idea.)
I am pleading with you, stop taking the viewpoint that "I am paying for this, so I deserve better!" on every aspect of university. It is not helping.
[clip stuff about boring lectures]
I agree with you that a teacher should make an effort to provide an interesting lecture. I try to do that (and I hope I succeeded on some level). But now we address the problem of those who will simply come to class with a laptop and not pay attention.
Frankly, I don't care if that is what they are doing so long as it is not distracting others. I don't know why they even bother coming to class if all they are going to do is watch a movie or read email. However, if they are interfering with my lecture, I will not stand for it (cell phones going off in class, the Windows sound, etc. are all examples of distractions). Students who don't care about the lecture are left to their own devices.
Often, that device is the Internet. My courses are run such that coming to class is a greater benefit that not and I do this by saying up front that "coming to class is not a substitute for reading the notes or textbook". My notes do not cover everything and neither does the textbook.
This is a somewhat underhanded way of making the student work at their education a bit more. The material I lecture about is often learned quite well by experimentation (hrm, what happens if I do this?...). I try to motivate students in my class to do this using on-screen demos and other such mechanisms.
The laptop in the classroom is not suited for every type of material. I could ramble on forever about different teaching methodologies but let me say this: computers in the classroom are not going to solve everything. There are many factors that play into it and the teacher must weigh all of them when they make up the course. It's a very difficult balance to achieve that is fair and reasonable (what if everyone doesn't have a laptop, for example?). I also do not think it is the teacher's job to force students to pay attention so long as the distracted student is not distracting others. Design your course around some classroom work and try to get those who are passive about education to be more active, especially if they are doing poorly.
I liked the article, but I followed the link to strings are hard and I wasn't so impressed with the guy. To quote"
As every compiler writer knows, lexing and parsing are the slowest part of compiling.
How about optimizing compilers? I find I get performance hits when I turn on optimizations in gcc when I specify -O3 as opposed to -O0. Somehow, I doubt it's a result of lexing or parsing.
It's a gross generalization and I strongly suspect that sort of thing permeates all his writings, given that he spouts off on XML in the aforementioned article as well.
My God. You mean they want to make an app that does one job only, and does it well? But that's so... so... Unix! I thought we were supposed to be making everything the same as Windows. I mean, IE has chat and email and... oh, wait. Nevermind.
I realize this is said in jest, but it touches on an underlying feeling people seem to have about the Mozilla project: "It's too big and bloated!", "It should be small apps strung together!", "It violates the Unix philosophy!"
You are forgetting a very, very important point: Mozilla is not a *nix app. Sure, it's very popular on *nix machines, but that doesn't mean it's a *nix app. I quote mozilla.org's description of itself:
Mozilla is an open-source web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability. We coordinate the development and testing of the browser by providing discussion forums, software engineering tools, releases and bug tracking....
Now, we intend to use the name Mozilla as the generic term referring to internet client software developed through our open source project....
So, Mozilla is a set of technologies, but not a specific [technology] (in biologic terms, Mozilla is a genus; a particular product is a species).
There is nothing in there about making "the best browser for *nix". The point is, Mozilla is meant to work on multiple platforms, which means you can't just take the *nix philosophy and use it everywhere. It doesn't work that easily. Faulting Mozilla for not following the *nix philosophy is like faulting an Office suite for having bad support for programming: that wasn't the point in the first place.
Now that Mozilla is pretty mature, we will start to see the sub-projects develop that tailor Mozilla for various platforms. Phoenix is just one of these and that is the point of Mozilla.
You mean, like looking at the big number in each corner of the paper? Different question: Are you telling me that you need a color-based mnemonic to remember a numeric-based mnemonic as to the representation of the value of the currency? IOW, Red=5 is easier to remember than 5=5?
It sounds like you don't think the number will be printed on the bill in addition to the colour.
As a Canadian, I am used to coloured money (with the number) and while I am currently at Caltech for a month, I can tell you that looking in my wallet to see American money all the time is a rather different experience. For starters, I have to check the bills more meticulously to see how much I have. With Canadian money, I can just glance at my wallet and have a pretty good idea. ("Oh - I have a bunch of 5s" or "Good - I got a 20 in there")
While anecdotal (thus, not proof of anything), I found it interesting that I've never had a problem with lack of recognition of bills in Canada but when I was at the Tampa airport last year, I got a snack and the clerk gave me a 20 instead of a 10 for change. Neither one of us noticed right away. This was one of my only purchases while there.
Except don't forget that the time-complexity of a serial computer is the space-complexity of a parallel computer, for example this one. note that the solution has to be present at the beginning of the algorithm, which for a SAT problem with a few hundred variables would quickly use up all the matter in the universe.
This assumes one thing: that we continue to use the same encodings we have up to this point. I doubt this will be the case. I'm sure ways will be found to come up with better encodings and methods for solving problems of this scale. The field is only 8 years old, remember.
I don't think DNA will be viable for most standard computational tasks, or for a practial turing machine.
No (respected) person in the field of DNA computing thinks that DNA computing will be practical for everyday tasks. It's just too slow. (For that matter, no turing machine is practical. Every try to program one?)
For the record, I (Geoff Wozniak) am a graduate student of Dr. Lila Kari, a well known member of the field of DNA computing. Incidently, Lila was involved in the project talked about in the article.
However, what DNA computing could be useful for in the future is solving problems that can take electronic computers far too long to figure out. Consider the SAT problem that was solved in this article. Suppose we are able to get DNA to solve SAT problems with hundreds of variables. Sure, it might take a week to do it, (maybe even a month), but it sure beats waiting for millions of years.
Quantum computers, however, could change the whole spectrum. However, they are not as evolved as "DNA computers" are right now and I suspect they may take a longer time to be viable.
Biological systems don't use DNA to do logical operations (that I know of), and the only thing they use it for is for data storage (instructions for building proteins). The only operations (under normal circumstances) an organism does with DNA is copy. Mutations (reversals, transpositions, etc.) occur because of chemical errors. That is the only operation it does really.
Biological systems do a lot more than just copy. Look up work by Landweber and Kari on ciliates and gene rearrangement, for starters. In addition to copy, biological systems also to extracting/cutting, filtering, and pasting/annealing.
You mentioned data storage. Here is where the real benefit of DNA could come into use. The way genes are expressed using only A, C, G, T is quite remarkable. The real advantage of DNA computation lies, imo, in the encoding proerties of DNA. The language of DNA has incredible error-detecting/correcting capabilities. Our work is focusing on learning more about this language and using it for the computational process in some way. I/O would be slow to DNA, but if it can store huge quantities of information, it's worth the effort, especially if better ways for long term storage can be found (of which there is a good chance).
You have to think outside of the conventional computing process to see why DNA computation is so interesting. The problem is that "computers" and "electronic" seem to be synonymous, which they are most certainly not.
Before you get all alarmist about the fact that Canada is looking to reform their Copyright Act to incoporate the points in the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 (WTC), you would do well to read what the deparment who drafted the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues has to think about copy protection measures:
2. Legal Protection of Technological Measures
b) Perspective
...
The departments are of the view that providing a sanction against an act of circumvention, where the act is motivated by an infringing purpose, may [already] be addressed under copyright principles. A broader prohibition, including a prohibition against the manufacture and distribution of circumvention devices, may, in its effect protect rights that are beyond the scope of copyright protection (e.g. contractual rights). Such broader prohibitions may need to be considered under different policy principles and under a different legal regime.
What is important to note here is that the department feels that anti-circumvention may already be covered by copyright law and that restricting devices to circumvent protection is too broad. If you read the original paper (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html) the tone is very much in favour of making these laws so that they strike a balance between the public and rights holders (i.e., those who provide content).
Of course, this is not the final law and there is much to be addressed. However, the outlook, in my opinion, is good. There is no way the reform, as discussed on the department's site (so far) is indicative of DMCA-ish measures. People should keep this in mind before shooting their mouths off about Canadian copyright reform (of course, this is/. we are talking about).
This does not mean, however, that those interested in truely keeping the balance of copyright in a sane manner can just be apathetic. My comments are registered on the department's site and I'm probably going to one of the meetings (either in Toronto or Ottawa).
I might as well chime in with my super-fun-time story about telemarkets calling my place once.
Now, I must admit I don't get that many calls. However, they still get to me. At any rate, a friend of mine was over at my place and my roommate was home when I got the call...
Drone: Hello, I'm calling from etc. you know the drill
Me: Well, I can't say I'm terribly interested...
Drone: pitch continues
(At this point, my friends realize I'm on the phone with a telemarketer. They decide it's time for fun.)
Roommate: (bellowing) Junior! Get back in that box!
Friend: (timidly, in child-like voice) No daddy! No! I don't want to go back in there!
Roommate: I told you to get in that box! Do as you're told or you got a beating coming!
Friend: (crying sounds)
(All this time, I remain pretty silent, although trying very hard not to laugh.)
Drone: Uh, is everything OK?
Me: (flatly) Yes. Everything is fine. It's the TV.
In Canada we have a GST as well. To be honest, I did not notice a major shift in pricing after its introduction. The GST is just bringing out in the open what has been hidden for so long. The only annoying thing is that it got applied to a lot more.
What's funny is that ever since its introduction, the GST has been hated by the people, but all election promises to get rid of it have faltered for the simple reason that it brings in lots of cash for the government.
Just a side note, I guess, to give more insight into the GST idea...
If tab is put up in partial form, then I'm not sure where the line gets drawn. As you mentioned, posting the whole thing is the bad thing. I was referring to this. I don't use tabs anymore, so I haven't gone looking for them for a long time.
You are also correct that you cannot copyright chord changes. What you do have copyright on, however, is the arrangement of the piece and its performance. Note that this is not like a patent or trademark! Other people can still use it, they just can't use the exact same one. When you publish/post (full) tablature, you are essentially copying the original arrangement. If you only give out certin "licks" or "riffs", I doubt that's a major infringement. Of course, I don't know where the line is drawn - that's always been the fuzzy part about this.
Nevermind that some of these tabs (as was some of the lyrics on lyrics.ch) are "backward engineered", in that they are other people's interpretations of what the lyrics or tabs might be or probably are. They'll be determined to keep control to the point they'll make their tabs completely unusable. Copyright holders need to look at things in a different light.
By your argument, I could read a book and post my interpretation of the book on the web. This interpretation would have a significant amount of content from the originial - so much so that it is very recognizable as the original. (For a song, this just means getting the "hook".) Basically, this is called copying and under IP laws (for many moons) it has been illegal. How do we know these people aren't just buying tab books (or even borrowing them) and just copying that to the web? I mean, Christ, these people are simply copying! It's that simple. Pure and simple, posting tabluature is very clear violation of copyright.
Interpretations of music, namely performances, have always costed those who play them. However, it is utterly unfeasible to follow all live performances, so establishments that have live performaces pay blanket fees based on the number of cover performaces they will or did have (based on some statistics, like how often they have live performaces, etc.). So even your interpretations argument does not hold.
I don't think the Harry Fox agency is being unreasonable. They are protecting the copyrights of the musicians who sat and wrote the music. If the musicians are willing, let them give away the tablature.
Besides, if you want to be a decent musician (namely guitarist), put down the tab, open your ears and listen to what you want to play and attempt to recreate it. Hell, you may even write something original in the process. This is generally how music is written anyway.
True, but when everyone is having trouble, it's a good sign they're getting bad advice or not trying very hard. And of course, after they do poorly, they blame the prof, department, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The write-up is inflammatoy and flat-out wrong. Whether you are for or against genetically engineered/modifed foods, please get the facts right and don't mislead people about a very important legal decision.
Woz
Granted I was young...
...I was enamored by the sensible and meaningful content that dominated the internet. It was intelligent. As the internet has trickled down to the masses, we are now plagued by commercialism, ignorance and stupid people, spam, congestion, and far too much subscription-based content.
You claim to be 18. You are not old, although you do opine like an elderly pessimist.
This is the natural tendency when much larger crowd of people flock to something. This is how things evolve. It's like your favourite bar (or for you, restaurant): when you first "discover" it, it's usually subdued and quaint. You tell a few people about this great place and suddenly, more people show up. It's not so quaint anymore, but the drinks/food/service is still good and it keeps people coming back. More and more people are enjoying it and are grateful you told them, but their reasons for liking it are not the same as yours. For you, the place has lost its initial appeal, so you frequent less often. Then you get resentful for other people taking away your place. (If it's a fad, then you can eventually go back.) Once you realize this is the way of the world, it's easier to accept and move on. If you don't like it, you start your own little, subdued, quaint place.
Frankly, I doubt your attitude is either helpful or correct. While there is a plethora of crap on the Internet, there is still a lot of value. I've been using it for 8 years as well, and I use it more now than I did then. Honestly, you can take your dark cloud and so sulk in the corner. I'm going to revel in the exploration of the endpoints of the Internet.
They still don't explain how a human in itself can generate more energy than it costs to maintain that very same human alive and well in the Matrix.
You know, the idea of sentient robots isn't fully explained either, and I consider this to be a major plot hole. Since this movie is not scientifically exact and doesn't have a Tolkien-esque history, I feel compelled to join you in your nitpicking.
For example, say that humans posess a unique ability to harvest immense amounts metaphysical energy, and that the Matrix somehow taps this energy. Much better than the 'new form of fusion' crap explanation.
I must be new to the world of suspension of disbelief, 'cause tapping metaphysical energy and a 'new form of fusion' seem equally implausible to me.
Woz
I've lectured two classes at the University of Western Ontario (CompSci) in the last year: Compiler Theory and Organization of Programming Languages. Let me say that your comments are spoken like a true student, but still contain some decent ideas.
Look, technology is good, WiFi is good...
This is blind devotion and you should just stop that. It's religious zealotry. Either that, or provide an argument for your reasoning, which you have not done.
The teacher could even bring his own laptop, add their AIM screen names to his AIM account, and talk to students via AIM.
I'm going to assume you don't mean during class, since that is a monumentally bad idea (have we reduced ourselves to the point where we would rather use IM to communicate, even when in the same room?). If it is outside of class, it doesn't add that much value because it is rarely the case (from my experience) that students and teachers have the same schedule. The IM notes would just sit in limbo most of the time. This is what email is for - asynchronous communication.
This is college not highschool, a teacher cannot try to blame the students for lack of attention, students pay you with THEIR money so that you can get their attention, these people want to learn and pay to learn...
Wrong, wrong, wrong. So very wrong. This is the attitude that is plauging universities right now. A univeristy education is not a service. Paying tutition does not equate to a degree. Paying tuition is, essentially, a fee that provides access to a large communitity for independent learning with some help along the way.
A university teacher's job is not to get your attention. Rather, it is your job to pay attention. This is not the absolute (we still have teacher evaluations at UWO) but it is the kernel of the teaching philosophy at university. Nonetheless, what it means is that if some student is diddling away in the corner doing nothing, it is not my responsibility to get him to learn. I assume that he is here because he wants to learn and will participate as he sees fit. If he does not meet the requirements I clearly set out for the course, he will fail.
Sound harsh? Sure it is, but life is not about having your hand held. Sometimes, you have to take the initiative. Students that do take an active interest in their education by making an effort in some vein will most likely be rewarded. Having a problem with the material? It is the student's job to seek out the teacher, not the opposite. (Of course, if the teacher is not available, then it's not all that fair but again, this is the primary idea.)
I am pleading with you, stop taking the viewpoint that "I am paying for this, so I deserve better!" on every aspect of university. It is not helping.
[clip stuff about boring lectures]
I agree with you that a teacher should make an effort to provide an interesting lecture. I try to do that (and I hope I succeeded on some level). But now we address the problem of those who will simply come to class with a laptop and not pay attention.
Frankly, I don't care if that is what they are doing so long as it is not distracting others. I don't know why they even bother coming to class if all they are going to do is watch a movie or read email. However, if they are interfering with my lecture, I will not stand for it (cell phones going off in class, the Windows sound, etc. are all examples of distractions). Students who don't care about the lecture are left to their own devices.
Often, that device is the Internet. My courses are run such that coming to class is a greater benefit that not and I do this by saying up front that "coming to class is not a substitute for reading the notes or textbook". My notes do not cover everything and neither does the textbook.
This is a somewhat underhanded way of making the student work at their education a bit more. The material I lecture about is often learned quite well by experimentation (hrm, what happens if I do this?...). I try to motivate students in my class to do this using on-screen demos and other such mechanisms.
The laptop in the classroom is not suited for every type of material. I could ramble on forever about different teaching methodologies but let me say this: computers in the classroom are not going to solve everything. There are many factors that play into it and the teacher must weigh all of them when they make up the course. It's a very difficult balance to achieve that is fair and reasonable (what if everyone doesn't have a laptop, for example?). I also do not think it is the teacher's job to force students to pay attention so long as the distracted student is not distracting others. Design your course around some classroom work and try to get those who are passive about education to be more active, especially if they are doing poorly.
Woz
Let's look at it objectively, and see what it has to teach us, instead of straight-jacketing it into familiar metaphors.
If that was the case, you would never get a research grant.
Woz
The problem is he was too generic in that statement. Say that lexing and parsing take the most time in compilation is far too general for my tastes.
I wasn't saying anything about XML (or certainly didn't mean to).
Woz
I liked the article, but I followed the link to strings are hard and I wasn't so impressed with the guy. To quote"
As every compiler writer knows, lexing and parsing are the slowest part of compiling.
How about optimizing compilers? I find I get performance hits when I turn on optimizations in gcc when I specify -O3 as opposed to -O0. Somehow, I doubt it's a result of lexing or parsing.
It's a gross generalization and I strongly suspect that sort of thing permeates all his writings, given that he spouts off on XML in the aforementioned article as well.
Woz
I realize this is said in jest, but it touches on an underlying feeling people seem to have about the Mozilla project: "It's too big and bloated!", "It should be small apps strung together!", "It violates the Unix philosophy!"
You are forgetting a very, very important point: Mozilla is not a *nix app. Sure, it's very popular on *nix machines, but that doesn't mean it's a *nix app. I quote mozilla.org's description of itself:
There is nothing in there about making "the best browser for *nix". The point is, Mozilla is meant to work on multiple platforms, which means you can't just take the *nix philosophy and use it everywhere. It doesn't work that easily. Faulting Mozilla for not following the *nix philosophy is like faulting an Office suite for having bad support for programming: that wasn't the point in the first place.
Now that Mozilla is pretty mature, we will start to see the sub-projects develop that tailor Mozilla for various platforms. Phoenix is just one of these and that is the point of Mozilla.
Woz
You mean, like looking at the big number in each corner of the paper? Different question: Are you telling me that you need a color-based mnemonic to remember a numeric-based mnemonic as to the representation of the value of the currency? IOW, Red=5 is easier to remember than 5=5?
It sounds like you don't think the number will be printed on the bill in addition to the colour.
As a Canadian, I am used to coloured money (with the number) and while I am currently at Caltech for a month, I can tell you that looking in my wallet to see American money all the time is a rather different experience. For starters, I have to check the bills more meticulously to see how much I have. With Canadian money, I can just glance at my wallet and have a pretty good idea. ("Oh - I have a bunch of 5s" or "Good - I got a 20 in there")
While anecdotal (thus, not proof of anything), I found it interesting that I've never had a problem with lack of recognition of bills in Canada but when I was at the Tampa airport last year, I got a snack and the clerk gave me a 20 instead of a 10 for change. Neither one of us noticed right away. This was one of my only purchases while there.
Woz
Now you are asking to be pooped on (17 MG file).
Woz
So when do I get my damn soma?
Woz
For Microsoft to build a campaign against UNIX would be like Coke or Pepsi promoting a campaign against the evils of water.
In fact, Coca-Cola is fighting tap water:
Just Say No to H2O
Woz
Except don't forget that the time-complexity of a serial computer is the space-complexity of a parallel computer, for example this one. note that the solution has to be present at the beginning of the algorithm, which for a SAT problem with a few hundred variables would quickly use up all the matter in the universe.
This assumes one thing: that we continue to use the same encodings we have up to this point. I doubt this will be the case. I'm sure ways will be found to come up with better encodings and methods for solving problems of this scale. The field is only 8 years old, remember.
Woz
I don't think DNA will be viable for most standard computational tasks, or for a practial turing machine.
No (respected) person in the field of DNA computing thinks that DNA computing will be practical for everyday tasks. It's just too slow. (For that matter, no turing machine is practical. Every try to program one?)
For the record, I (Geoff Wozniak) am a graduate student of Dr. Lila Kari, a well known member of the field of DNA computing. Incidently, Lila was involved in the project talked about in the article.
However, what DNA computing could be useful for in the future is solving problems that can take electronic computers far too long to figure out. Consider the SAT problem that was solved in this article. Suppose we are able to get DNA to solve SAT problems with hundreds of variables. Sure, it might take a week to do it, (maybe even a month), but it sure beats waiting for millions of years.
Quantum computers, however, could change the whole spectrum. However, they are not as evolved as "DNA computers" are right now and I suspect they may take a longer time to be viable.
Biological systems don't use DNA to do logical operations (that I know of), and the only thing they use it for is for data storage (instructions for building proteins). The only operations (under normal circumstances) an organism does with DNA is copy. Mutations (reversals, transpositions, etc.) occur because of chemical errors. That is the only operation it does really.
Biological systems do a lot more than just copy. Look up work by Landweber and Kari on ciliates and gene rearrangement, for starters. In addition to copy, biological systems also to extracting/cutting, filtering, and pasting/annealing.
You mentioned data storage. Here is where the real benefit of DNA could come into use. The way genes are expressed using only A, C, G, T is quite remarkable. The real advantage of DNA computation lies, imo, in the encoding proerties of DNA. The language of DNA has incredible error-detecting/correcting capabilities. Our work is focusing on learning more about this language and using it for the computational process in some way. I/O would be slow to DNA, but if it can store huge quantities of information, it's worth the effort, especially if better ways for long term storage can be found (of which there is a good chance).
You have to think outside of the conventional computing process to see why DNA computation is so interesting. The problem is that "computers" and "electronic" seem to be synonymous, which they are most certainly not.
Woz
You should submit more. Insightful response.
Lord knows the majority of others won't think more, that's for sure...
Woz
What is important to note here is that the department feels that anti-circumvention may already be covered by copyright law and that restricting devices to circumvent protection is too broad. If you read the original paper (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html) the tone is very much in favour of making these laws so that they strike a balance between the public and rights holders (i.e., those who provide content).
Of course, this is not the final law and there is much to be addressed. However, the outlook, in my opinion, is good. There is no way the reform, as discussed on the department's site (so far) is indicative of DMCA-ish measures. People should keep this in mind before shooting their mouths off about Canadian copyright reform (of course, this is
This does not mean, however, that those interested in truely keeping the balance of copyright in a sane manner can just be apathetic. My comments are registered on the department's site and I'm probably going to one of the meetings (either in Toronto or Ottawa).
Woz
Even if the script is good, we're still gonna get clubbed over the head with wooden acting on this one, if the trailers are any indication.
I saw Life As A House with Hayden Christensen. He can act. Here's to hoping Lucas remembered how to direct on this one.
Woz
Subscribe to the kernel mailing list.
Woz
When I showed the picture to my girlfriend, she thought it was a cityscape :)
Woz
I might as well chime in with my super-fun-time story about telemarkets calling my place once.
Now, I must admit I don't get that many calls. However, they still get to me. At any rate, a friend of mine was over at my place and my roommate was home when I got the call...
Drone: Hello, I'm calling from etc. you know the drill
Me: Well, I can't say I'm terribly interested...
Drone: pitch continues
(At this point, my friends realize I'm on the phone with a telemarketer. They decide it's time for fun.)
Roommate: (bellowing) Junior! Get back in that box!
Friend: (timidly, in child-like voice) No daddy! No! I don't want to go back in there!
Roommate: I told you to get in that box! Do as you're told or you got a beating coming!
Friend: (crying sounds)
(All this time, I remain pretty silent, although trying very hard not to laugh.)
Drone: Uh, is everything OK?
Me: (flatly) Yes. Everything is fine. It's the TV.
Drone: (slight pause) Well, I'll be going now.
(hangs up)
--
Woz
In Canada we have a GST as well. To be honest, I did not notice a major shift in pricing after its introduction. The GST is just bringing out in the open what has been hidden for so long. The only annoying thing is that it got applied to a lot more.
What's funny is that ever since its introduction, the GST has been hated by the people, but all election promises to get rid of it have faltered for the simple reason that it brings in lots of cash for the government.
Just a side note, I guess, to give more insight into the GST idea...
Woz
If tab is put up in partial form, then I'm not sure where the line gets drawn. As you mentioned, posting the whole thing is the bad thing. I was referring to this. I don't use tabs anymore, so I haven't gone looking for them for a long time.
You are also correct that you cannot copyright chord changes. What you do have copyright on, however, is the arrangement of the piece and its performance. Note that this is not like a patent or trademark! Other people can still use it, they just can't use the exact same one. When you publish/post (full) tablature, you are essentially copying the original arrangement. If you only give out certin "licks" or "riffs", I doubt that's a major infringement. Of course, I don't know where the line is drawn - that's always been the fuzzy part about this.
Nagash
Nevermind that some of these tabs (as was some of the lyrics on lyrics.ch) are "backward engineered", in that they are other people's interpretations of what the lyrics or tabs might be or probably are. They'll be determined to keep control to the point they'll make their tabs completely unusable. Copyright holders need to look at things in a different light.
By your argument, I could read a book and post my interpretation of the book on the web. This interpretation would have a significant amount of content from the originial - so much so that it is very recognizable as the original. (For a song, this just means getting the "hook".) Basically, this is called copying and under IP laws (for many moons) it has been illegal. How do we know these people aren't just buying tab books (or even borrowing them) and just copying that to the web? I mean, Christ, these people are simply copying! It's that simple. Pure and simple, posting tabluature is very clear violation of copyright.
Interpretations of music, namely performances, have always costed those who play them. However, it is utterly unfeasible to follow all live performances, so establishments that have live performaces pay blanket fees based on the number of cover performaces they will or did have (based on some statistics, like how often they have live performaces, etc.). So even your interpretations argument does not hold.
I don't think the Harry Fox agency is being unreasonable. They are protecting the copyrights of the musicians who sat and wrote the music. If the musicians are willing, let them give away the tablature.
Besides, if you want to be a decent musician (namely guitarist), put down the tab, open your ears and listen to what you want to play and attempt to recreate it. Hell, you may even write something original in the process. This is generally how music is written anyway.
Nagash
True, but when everyone is having trouble, it's a good sign they're getting bad advice or not trying very hard. And of course, after they do poorly, they blame the prof, department, etc.
Woz
There is an old joke about C being portable assembly. This is what I was referring to.
Woz