It all looks very promising, the amazing technology advancement is exciting, the quality will be truly outstanding, the article is very interesting, however the real question is: will we be able to watch our favourite movies legally using our favourite, free software in the future? Will we labeled "pirates" only becuase our otherwise legal technology is inconvenient for media conglomerates and proprietary software barons?
Now when I have almost finished with my old (simplified) Rubik's cube after years of frustration, now I will have a new thing to "play" with. Thanks a lot!
This has to be the coolest thing I have ever seen. Seriously. How is it even possible? Isn't it dangerous? In any case, I'm lucky that saw the movie before it is slashdotted, because I have surely never seen anything like that before.
take a look at Mensa: "intelligence" (IQ) does not always equal sanity, rationality or behaviour, just some types of logic
Yes, I might be a good example indeed... I get your point. Just forget about it.
I'm biased as I don't think an IQ Penalty sytem will do much except stifle both the good and bad sides of Slashdot, i.e. less of all, maybe slightly less good than bad, but in no way more good.
Every system of censorship (or "moderation," if you will) will not make more good, but can only make less bad. But you may be right and a different test focused on literacy might indeed be a better idea.
According to this I should be (fairly rapidly) getting more stupid, but I am much more considerate and experienced today than I was at 21, and I think we can all agree reflection is an accumulative process...
I wouldn't personally consider military tests
comparable to TV entertainment, nor would I consider
commercial ones as such.
You talk about some cultural dependency so presumably
those tests have little in common with those in Mensa,
but in any case, the IQ is calculated in such a way that 100
is an average level among people of the same age in a given population,
so you might get more intelligent, but not as fast as other people,
so the gap between your level and the average is getting poportionally smaller.
This baby is going to be great! Transferring saves with USB is cool, but have you read the specs? The gorgeous 4.3" widescreen (yes, 16:9!) LCD alone is worth buying it, let alone the extended battery life!
I don't understand all of this "outsourcing" outrage. Doesn't India "outsource" manufacturing of soft drinks to American Coca Cola and Pepsico? Isn't it just progress, that anyone can do what one can do best, no matter where one lives? Why discriminate against people of any given nationality instead of cooperating globally? This is a perfect example. Why should people not be able to get the best medical care only because it is not available in their homeland?
The Terranova link has a comment that says the discrimination was widespread and player based. That doesn't seem like it was discrimination from the organizers of the event. So although it's sad, I don't think they're in danger of losing a lawsuit.
Losing a lawsuit?!
Even if it was done purely my game designers,
and even if it was much worse,
this is a discrimination against
female characters,
not against female players,
for any female player can play with
a male character and vice versa.
You cannot possibly discriminate against
something which is completely optional and arbitrarily
chosen by everyone!
Let me use an example.
When I say that only people with some shade of skin
can go to my restaurant or work at my company,
this is discrimination,
because no one affected can do anything about it.
But when I say that only people wearing a suit
can go to my restaurant or work at my company,
it is not discrimination.
Now, when those players cannot
see the difference between players and characters,
between the game and the reality,
now that is a problem indeed.
This is a perfect killer-application for Gmail. Now Google should concentrate on persistent documents (a la Office) productivity suit, and no one will ever need a desktop PC with a hard drive. Is this how the future will look like?
During a day much like any other, the Pharaoh announced to Egypt the arrival of a trader to the Sinai chariot stop. [...] The relations quickly turned sour, however, as his mannerisms tended towards those greatly undesirable within Egypt. He would not trade with women, and made references to trading/for/ some of them as slaves.
So, that is what it is all about?
First of all, this seems like a realistic game.
Seriously, what do you actually expect
playing a woman in ancient Egypt,
unless your name is Cleopatra?
Second of all, this is a discrimination against
female characters,
not against female players,
for any female player can play with
a male character and vice versa.
When those players cannot
see the difference between players and characters,
between the game and the reality,
now that is a problem indeed.
No more dire working conditions at least for some workers. It is a good start. A very good start. I wonder what companies would follow this trend. Judging from which one of them I would trust to do no evil, it would be Google. From the rumors I've heard, it would be Sun. Only time will tell.
Discriminatory language, riots, angry people... This is nothing! I once heard about an online game where one of the characters has commited a murder! Can you imagine?
No comments posted and the server is already Slashdotted. Of course the story doesn't say anything meaningful: "[...] a developer-run event used openly discriminatory language against the female gender. Details on the event can be found at the [host not responding]." So the question is: what was that event? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the story in the first place, assuming it is not only submitted to drive ad traffic to the website?
According to this article blocking RFID chips is very easy to do if you have physical posession of the chip. Just wrap it in tinfoil. It would seem that someone would make a bag/box/pouch--
This is insane!
A company is wondering whether it should
develop a free software friendly graphics card,
fully disclose and document all register interfaces
including the BIOS, and provide Linux and BSD
users with a fully supported video card...
A company which basically asks whether it
should make our dreams come true!
I've read the story on the front page,
I got excited, really excited.
I made a caffee and started to read Slashdot comments
expecting to see similar excitement about the fact
that finally a company making graphics card
will do exactly what we all have been asking for years.
But what does the Slashdot crowd say?
Let me quote the Score:5 replies,
the most representative and valuable voice
of the Slashdot Community;
advocates of Free Software, Open Source,
Freedom and Libery; users of Linux and BSD;
programmers and hackers;
experts and activists;
visioners and innovators;
in other words,
the very essence of modern intelligentsia:
Does your company have to divulge any proprietary secrets in order to leave everything open for this card? If so, is that okay or does that do them harm?
This new company... well, R&D is going to be expensive
what are they planning to make? The S3 Trios of yesterday?
If that's what they are gonna make, what about profit margins?
Doesn't sound like they are having a very viable business plan to me:(
Not saying that this is a viable plan
the problem is that once you build hardware, the patent law says that your competitors can't make an exact copy of it.
their complete source code may contain very secret IP such as chip limitations, workarounds, extra settings, and other things that they may not want their competitors and customers to know about.
if I were ATI or Nvidia I would be doing everything I could to keep the other party from knowing anymore about my board internals than they could.
They realize it would be foolish to try to compete with the big 2. That and a large chunk of the people out there don't game
A better question - who will buy it? I can only see one kind of customer:
- the person who only cares about "good enough", not "awesome" performance
In short the whole project would be a charity.
I think that, properly implemented, this card could provide new and useful functionality [this is the first positive Score:5 post!]
The problem is you are talking about tough shit to do.
I'm not saying an open archecture has no uses, but an expensive open 2d-only card has just about no use.
What? Create a functional and supportable video card that is platform agnostic and will just work? [What? Another positive Score:5 post?] The problem is, it is too logical. Unfortunately, it won't work in todays economic environment. Unless you are screwing over your competitors, your customers, or your employees, you can't make a buck. [Umm, no, never mind...]
I like the idea. My only thought is, are they going to have enough pull to make this happen? Graphics cards are much more than just throwing a few hundred million transistors on a chip.
Can this company create a card that's competitive? And if they can, will they get pushed out of business through patent litigation?
They may have the best drivers for their card in two years, but I don't see how they can compete with Nvidia/ATI even with opensource drivers
Matrox? Don't count on it. They've just "recently" gone from being one of the best supported video card makers, both 2D and 3D, in linux, to one of the absolut worst after they switched to a closed source model of providing their own drivers.
Unlikely
It's serving a small market(right now), requires thousands of man hours of design and testing, requires expensive fabrication equipment(too expensive for this company probably)
My God, this is truly hilarious. When I read the headline I almost choked with cappuccino because it reminded me what Eric Raymond was saying two years ago. So, Steve Ballmer wants cheaper hardware...
"The biggest problem we have right now is that people who should be paying for software aren't. There has to be...a $100 computer to go down-market in some of these countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter and cheaper." -- Steve Ballmer, 2004.
"What may kill Microsoft is the 'margin squeeze' on hardware. Hardware prices have been dropping and dropping and show no signs of stopping. As the price of hardware goes down, the percentage of the cost of a system that is for a Windows license (the 'Microsoft tax') increases. When computers cost $3000, paying $120 for Windows was hardly noticable. But when the price is around $500, it starts to make a big difference on OEM's profit margins. When prices drop below around $350 for a system, OEMS won't be able to pay the microsoft tax and still make any money." -- Eric Raymond, 2002.
Now, when the prices dropped to the level Raymond was talking about and people indeed are less and less convinced that they should pay a large percentage of their money for an operating system which doesn't even include Word, Steve Ballmer wants computers to be even cheaper to solve that problem.
Mr. Ballmer, you are right. We all know that people will more gladly pay $500 for your software if their computer costs $50. And gladlier still if it costs $10. And also we all know that it is impossible to make the software cheaper because unlike hardware it has very low profit margins and a very high per-item cost of manufacturing. We all agree with you, Mr. Ballmer, hardware should definitely get cheaper. In fact, I think that you may achieve the same effect by raising the prices of your software. Good luck.
I have no idea why has your post been moderated as Troll.
Those are very good questions.
There will be many ways to interoperate on many levels.
I'll start from the things you are asking about,
i.e. mixing languages in the same file,
and then I'll talk about what I think will be
even more important.
First of all,
in Perl 6, eval() will take an optional argument
which will be the name of the language used to compile the string:
#!/usr/bin/perl # Perl 6 program eval "Ruby code", "ruby"; # Ruby code as a quoted string eval <<ENDPY, "python"; # Python code as a here-document # Python # code ENDPY # Perl 6 code again
This is the most verbose syntax
and something similar will probably be added
to other languages, even those
with no built-in eval(),
by using some simple module or library in the worst case.
Every language compiler will be available on
the Parrot level, so it won't be an issue.
Actually,
inlining other languages code is already possible
today in Perl 5, using the Inline modules:
"The Inline module allows you to put source code from other programming languages directly 'inline' in a Perl script or module. The code is automatically compiled as needed, and then loaded for immediate access from Perl."
For example I just ran this Perl program:
#!/usr/bin/perl use Inline C; print "9 + 16 = ", add(9, 16), "\n"; print "9 - 16 = ", subtract(9, 16), "\n"; __END__ __C__ int add(int x, int y) { return x + y; } int subtract(int x, int y) { return x - y; }
It printed: "9 + 16 = 25" and "9 - 16 = -7"
but 25 and -7 were computed by C functions.
The first time I ran it, it took longer because the C code had to
be compiled, but every next time the already compiled shared object
is used and it starts instantly. When the C code changes,
the module recompiles the shared object
automatically and saves the new version.
This is a simple example which may seem useless, but
you might for example write the speed critical parts of your
Perl program in C to speed it up, etc.
without the need to learn the XS language
normally used to create
an extension interface between Perl and C.
Using other languages in Perl 5, though,
especially other than C, is probably not very elegant under the hood. Also,
you cannot pass live objects back and forth and
axpect them to behave normally, as far as I know.
Perl 5 and Python both use their own virtual machines,
with different bytecode and different behaviour,
like garbage collection, threading etc.
When Perl 6, Perl 5, Python and Ruby are running on Parrot,
they will all get compiled to the same bytecode,
with the same function calling conventions, the
same exception handling,
they will run on the same VM, with the same
threading, garbage collection, etc.
only with different data semantics,
because for example Perl strings in
numeric context are converted to numbers,
Perl 6 will have things like 0 with true boolean value, etc.
Going back to inlining other languages in Perl 6 programs,
in addition to eval(), thanks to powerful macros,
someone will easily write one which would let you write:
#!/usr/bin/perl # Perl 6 use Python; # Python no Python; # Perl 6
or an XML-style,
or some fancy bracketing, or indeed whatever syntax you'd like.
But probably more important than mixing languages in the same file,
would be the ability to use
classes and objects from other languages.
For example, you will be able to use Perl DBI module from
CPAN in a Python program, using probably something like this:
"The estimate for the number of genomes in human genetic code has been savagely revised downwards. The new estimate, of between 20,000 to 25,000 genomes..."
Only 20,000 to 25,000 genomes?
I was sure that the number of genomes in human genetic code
was closer to 6,500,000,000.
Most of people in this thread seem to be very confused, so please let me explain the most basic terms, using the most relevant quotes taken from several Wikipædia articles.
Axiom in epistemology is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. To say the least, not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.
Axioms in mathematics are not self-evident truths. They are of two different kinds: logical axioms and non-logical axioms. Axiomatic reasoning is today most widely used in mathematics.
The word axiom comes from the Greek word axioma, which means that which is deemed worthy or fit or that which is considered self-evident. The word comes from axioein, meaning to deem worthy, which in turn comes from axios, meaning worthy. Among the philosophers of the ancient Greeks an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof.
Laws of logic and mathematics describe the nature of rational thought.
Law of nature or physical law in science is a statement that describes regular or patterned relationships among observable phenomena. It is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. Laws of nature are conclusions drawn from, or hypotheses confirmed by, scientific experiments. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from legal code and religious Law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law.
Often, those who understand the mathematics and concepts well enough to understand the essence of the physical laws also feel that they possess an inherent intellectual beauty. Many scientists state that they use their perception of this beauty as a guide in in developing hypotheses, since there seems to be a connection between beauty and truth.
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories have many of the same properties as laws, but are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to change as the body of availabe experimental data and analysis develops.
Theory in mathematics is a set of statements closed under logical implication. In mathematical logic, "theory" is the term for a set of well-formed formulae consisting of certain axioms and all theorems provable from said axioms. Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that no theory (formalized using a consistent set of axioms in First-order logic), that defines the concept of natural numbers, can include all true statements.
Theory in sciences is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.
The term theoretical to describe certain phenomena often indicates that a particular result has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that
Slashdot Mirror
It all looks very promising, the amazing technology advancement is exciting, the quality will be truly outstanding, the article is very interesting, however the real question is: will we be able to watch our favourite movies legally using our favourite, free software in the future? Will we labeled "pirates" only becuase our otherwise legal technology is inconvenient for media conglomerates and proprietary software barons?
Now when I have almost finished with my old (simplified) Rubik's cube after years of frustration, now I will have a new thing to "play" with. Thanks a lot!
For those who don't know, DSV Alvin is better known as DSV-2 in most of serious historical documents.
Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers, while SCO did not?
Every time I watch the movie it seems even cooler. It should definitely go to the British Invention Show.
This has to be the coolest thing I have ever seen. Seriously. How is it even possible? Isn't it dangerous? In any case, I'm lucky that saw the movie before it is slashdotted, because I have surely never seen anything like that before.
"It's a fun entry," says Professor Wolff of Daniel Doheny's Mousemaster, a trap able to hold "12 to 15 mice in one go".
Call me old-fashioned, but how exactly cruelty towards animals can be considered fun?
Yes, I might be a good example indeed... I get your point. Just forget about it.
Every system of censorship (or "moderation," if you will) will not make more good, but can only make less bad. But you may be right and a different test focused on literacy might indeed be a better idea.
I wouldn't personally consider military tests comparable to TV entertainment, nor would I consider commercial ones as such. You talk about some cultural dependency so presumably those tests have little in common with those in Mensa, but in any case, the IQ is calculated in such a way that 100 is an average level among people of the same age in a given population, so you might get more intelligent, but not as fast as other people, so the gap between your level and the average is getting poportionally smaller.
This baby is going to be great! Transferring saves with USB is cool, but have you read the specs? The gorgeous 4.3" widescreen (yes, 16:9!) LCD alone is worth buying it, let alone the extended battery life!
I don't understand all of this "outsourcing" outrage. Doesn't India "outsource" manufacturing of soft drinks to American Coca Cola and Pepsico? Isn't it just progress, that anyone can do what one can do best, no matter where one lives? Why discriminate against people of any given nationality instead of cooperating globally? This is a perfect example. Why should people not be able to get the best medical care only because it is not available in their homeland?
Losing a lawsuit?! Even if it was done purely my game designers, and even if it was much worse, this is a discrimination against female characters, not against female players, for any female player can play with a male character and vice versa. You cannot possibly discriminate against something which is completely optional and arbitrarily chosen by everyone!
Let me use an example. When I say that only people with some shade of skin can go to my restaurant or work at my company, this is discrimination, because no one affected can do anything about it. But when I say that only people wearing a suit can go to my restaurant or work at my company, it is not discrimination.
Now, when those players cannot see the difference between players and characters, between the game and the reality, now that is a problem indeed.
This is a perfect killer-application for Gmail. Now Google should concentrate on persistent documents (a la Office) productivity suit, and no one will ever need a desktop PC with a hard drive. Is this how the future will look like?
So, that is what it is all about? First of all, this seems like a realistic game. Seriously, what do you actually expect playing a woman in ancient Egypt, unless your name is Cleopatra? Second of all, this is a discrimination against female characters, not against female players, for any female player can play with a male character and vice versa. When those players cannot see the difference between players and characters, between the game and the reality, now that is a problem indeed.
No more dire working conditions at least for some workers. It is a good start. A very good start. I wonder what companies would follow this trend. Judging from which one of them I would trust to do no evil, it would be Google. From the rumors I've heard, it would be Sun. Only time will tell.
Discriminatory language, riots, angry people... This is nothing! I once heard about an online game where one of the characters has commited a murder! Can you imagine?
No comments posted and the server is already Slashdotted. Of course the story doesn't say anything meaningful: "[...] a developer-run event used openly discriminatory language against the female gender. Details on the event can be found at the [host not responding]." So the question is: what was that event? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the story in the first place, assuming it is not only submitted to drive ad traffic to the website?
or hat.
This is insane! A company is wondering whether it should develop a free software friendly graphics card, fully disclose and document all register interfaces including the BIOS, and provide Linux and BSD users with a fully supported video card... A company which basically asks whether it should make our dreams come true!
I've read the story on the front page, I got excited, really excited. I made a caffee and started to read Slashdot comments expecting to see similar excitement about the fact that finally a company making graphics card will do exactly what we all have been asking for years.
But what does the Slashdot crowd say? Let me quote the Score:5 replies, the most representative and valuable voice of the Slashdot Community; advocates of Free Software, Open Source, Freedom and Libery; users of Linux and BSD; programmers and hackers; experts and activists; visioners and innovators; in other words, the very essence of modern intelligentsia:
Now, please, stop asking!
My God, this is truly hilarious. When I read the headline I almost choked with cappuccino because it reminded me what Eric Raymond was saying two years ago. So, Steve Ballmer wants cheaper hardware...
"The biggest problem we have right now is that people who should be paying for software aren't. There has to be...a $100 computer to go down-market in some of these countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter and cheaper." -- Steve Ballmer, 2004.
"What may kill Microsoft is the 'margin squeeze' on hardware. Hardware prices have been dropping and dropping and show no signs of stopping. As the price of hardware goes down, the percentage of the cost of a system that is for a Windows license (the 'Microsoft tax') increases. When computers cost $3000, paying $120 for Windows was hardly noticable. But when the price is around $500, it starts to make a big difference on OEM's profit margins. When prices drop below around $350 for a system, OEMS won't be able to pay the microsoft tax and still make any money." -- Eric Raymond, 2002.
Now, when the prices dropped to the level Raymond was talking about and people indeed are less and less convinced that they should pay a large percentage of their money for an operating system which doesn't even include Word, Steve Ballmer wants computers to be even cheaper to solve that problem.
Mr. Ballmer, you are right. We all know that people will more gladly pay $500 for your software if their computer costs $50. And gladlier still if it costs $10. And also we all know that it is impossible to make the software cheaper because unlike hardware it has very low profit margins and a very high per-item cost of manufacturing. We all agree with you, Mr. Ballmer, hardware should definitely get cheaper. In fact, I think that you may achieve the same effect by raising the prices of your software. Good luck.
I have no idea why has your post been moderated as Troll. Those are very good questions. There will be many ways to interoperate on many levels. I'll start from the things you are asking about, i.e. mixing languages in the same file, and then I'll talk about what I think will be even more important. First of all, in Perl 6, eval() will take an optional argument which will be the name of the language used to compile the string:
This is the most verbose syntax and something similar will probably be added to other languages, even those with no built-in eval(), by using some simple module or library in the worst case. Every language compiler will be available on the Parrot level, so it won't be an issue.
Actually, inlining other languages code is already possible today in Perl 5, using the Inline modules:
For example I just ran this Perl program:
It printed: "9 + 16 = 25" and "9 - 16 = -7" but 25 and -7 were computed by C functions. The first time I ran it, it took longer because the C code had to be compiled, but every next time the already compiled shared object is used and it starts instantly. When the C code changes, the module recompiles the shared object automatically and saves the new version. This is a simple example which may seem useless, but you might for example write the speed critical parts of your Perl program in C to speed it up, etc. without the need to learn the XS language normally used to create an extension interface between Perl and C.
Using other languages in Perl 5, though, especially other than C, is probably not very elegant under the hood. Also, you cannot pass live objects back and forth and axpect them to behave normally, as far as I know. Perl 5 and Python both use their own virtual machines, with different bytecode and different behaviour, like garbage collection, threading etc. When Perl 6, Perl 5, Python and Ruby are running on Parrot, they will all get compiled to the same bytecode, with the same function calling conventions, the same exception handling, they will run on the same VM, with the same threading, garbage collection, etc. only with different data semantics, because for example Perl strings in numeric context are converted to numbers, Perl 6 will have things like 0 with true boolean value, etc.
Going back to inlining other languages in Perl 6 programs, in addition to eval(), thanks to powerful macros, someone will easily write one which would let you write:
or POD-style:
or an XML-style, or some fancy bracketing, or indeed whatever syntax you'd like. But probably more important than mixing languages in the same file, would be the ability to use classes and objects from other languages. For example, you will be able to use Perl DBI module from CPAN in a Python program, using probably something like this:
"The estimate for the number of genomes in human genetic code has been savagely revised downwards. The new estimate, of between 20,000 to 25,000 genomes..."
Only 20,000 to 25,000 genomes? I was sure that the number of genomes in human genetic code was closer to 6,500,000,000.
I've read the headline as "Human Genome Slashdotted" and I shouted: "Dear God, we're doomed!" My God, what an embarrassment... I need sleep.
Most of people in this thread seem to be very confused, so please let me explain the most basic terms, using the most relevant quotes taken from several Wikipædia articles.
Axiom in epistemology is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. To say the least, not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.
Axioms in mathematics are not self-evident truths. They are of two different kinds: logical axioms and non-logical axioms. Axiomatic reasoning is today most widely used in mathematics.
The word axiom comes from the Greek word axioma, which means that which is deemed worthy or fit or that which is considered self-evident. The word comes from axioein, meaning to deem worthy, which in turn comes from axios, meaning worthy. Among the philosophers of the ancient Greeks an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof.
Laws of logic and mathematics describe the nature of rational thought.
Law of nature or physical law in science is a statement that describes regular or patterned relationships among observable phenomena. It is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. Laws of nature are conclusions drawn from, or hypotheses confirmed by, scientific experiments. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from legal code and religious Law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law.
Often, those who understand the mathematics and concepts well enough to understand the essence of the physical laws also feel that they possess an inherent intellectual beauty. Many scientists state that they use their perception of this beauty as a guide in in developing hypotheses, since there seems to be a connection between beauty and truth.
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories have many of the same properties as laws, but are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to change as the body of availabe experimental data and analysis develops.
Theory in mathematics is a set of statements closed under logical implication. In mathematical logic, "theory" is the term for a set of well-formed formulae consisting of certain axioms and all theorems provable from said axioms. Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that no theory (formalized using a consistent set of axioms in First-order logic), that defines the concept of natural numbers, can include all true statements.
Theory in sciences is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.
The term theoretical to describe certain phenomena often indicates that a particular result has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that
I don't think so. Legislation is not the answer to every problem.