Let H be the set of all possible headlines. Let Q be the set of all strings ending in a question mark. Let E[v,U,t,p] denote the evaluation of natural language question v, where E[v,U,t,p] in { TRUE, FALSE, UNDEFINED }, and where evaluation is performed in universe U and at time t corresponding to position p. Let T(U,p) be the function that returns the time of a given universe U at a specified position p.
Then, for all v in intersection(H,Q), for all U, for all p in U, and t >= T(U,p), it holds that E[v,U,t,p] = FALSE.
The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
Of course, I should have used a formal language to write down this assertion, but it would have taken me at least a week, so I took the cheap and easy route of using prose, like all mathematicians do, by the way.
It still does not make sense. What do you mean by "contains energy"? Something may contain a gazillion Joules, if I cannot get the energy out, then that means nothing to me. If I have a heap of bricks of mass "m", can I even use them to power my wrist watch?
Then, the uncertainty principle. It seems really difficult to apply in an actual situation. Is that law even used in simulators for quantum mechanical systems? It really makes little sense, even if knowing the equation. It is almost like reading "if a pony shows up on the scene, gravity is reversed". How am I supposed to evaluate that rule? To what exactly does it apply? How do I put it in a simulator?
Until popular science explains stuff in more clear terms, I'm not reading any of it any longer.
Ok, let's be fundamental about this. Isn't it strange that we should consider "software" as different from other intellectual property? If X hours of work have been invested into the invention of a clever software routine, then, it would be strange if a patent could not be granted for that work while a patent would be granted for some physical apparatus that also took X hours to develop. (Don't think about the stupid "one-click-buy" software patents, but more along the lines of an ingenious differential-equation solver).
So, I don't think a law that says "patents are granted, but not for software" would be a good one. If we would abolish patents, we should do it in all fields. Remember that the US has to rely on IP protection, for a substantial part of the work done in this country is intellectual. Therefore allowing software patents could in fact be beneficial.
As an aside: in the end, everything is mathematics. Software is mathematics; but also a physical apparatus, or even a medicine can be described mathematically. So, based on this argument, there should be no distinction in IP law.
What should happen, though, is that "stupid" patents should be rejected. I will explain how this could be accomplished.
First, split the patent-office in two parts. The first part, call it the "patent intake office", will *pay* an amount for each patent that they grant. The second member, call it the "evaluation office", will, after 5 years after issue of the patent, determine the societal impact of the patent. If the impact is large, an amount is paid to the intake-office.
(Note that the patent office will initially *pay* for patents that they grant. This is in contrast with the current situation, where the office receives money for each patent that is granted.)
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved. And even software, if ingenious and useful, may be granted a patent.
That's the general problem with capitalism. People at the bottom of the hierarchy get the smallest compensation and the worst working conditions. As you go higher in the hierarchy, the reward is bigger and the conditions are better.
If you could give 1 dollar extra to be given to the person who actually made your iPhone, then that would be a huge reward for this person. However, under the capitalist framework, with a simple increase in price that money could never reach that person. It would get stuck in the intermediate levels.
Ever buy a new _ and tell people about it? Or get a message from a friend about their cool new _? That's all this is. Get over yourselves.
If this was just some small and relatively obscure part of the internet, then sure. But this is actually Google doing this. There are PhDs working on this tech! These are people that could (and should) instead be using their intellectual capabilities for solving the world's problems.
Are there any algorithms out there that can take a movie, and produce a sharp photo (or a series of sharp photos)? By "sharp", I mean much sharper than each of the individual frames of the movie.
I.e., the algorithm should use information between subsequent frames to sharpen the image.
Of course, the explanation is: the actual clock frequency went up, but the silicon vendors couldn't put those hefty numbers on the package of the chip, since the actual performance of the chip stayed behind (due to all those hidden features). I hope it makes sense now.
You forgot that you also have to craft your own CPU.
Ever wondered why CPU's didn't get any faster than 3.5 to 4 GHz? That's right, the NSA has since crammed in so many "features" that it became technically impossible to make them run any faster.
The problem with this view is that as the whole market moves to HFT, we just translated all of our problems to a smaller timescale! And there is an even bigger problem, because as dt->0, the time to take a decision becomes so small that the decision will be less informed and less intelligent.
So what you are saying is that we don't particularly need HFT as implemented now, but we need a difference in timescale to solve market instabilities. That may be so. But, first, I need proof that these chosen timescales actually have this stabilizing behavior (and not actually pose a threat to stable markets). And further, I need a justification that some parties get access to a trading system that operates in the smaller timescales (HFT), while others do not. Because that simply is not fair, and in the end will lead either to an agglutination of money and power, OR to an accumulation of traders at the smallest technically possible timescale (and remember that according to your own beliefs, at a single timescale the markets are unstable).
There were citations to that earlier in the topic - I'm at work now so can't go back and look them up.
Ok. Of course, I'll go through google scholar and double check their validity based on references.
Unless the congress sets a maximum value and lets the SEC handle the implementation as a regulatory activity
The _speed of change_ of the actual tax value should be limited, not its value. (Like a low-pass filter)
I've been responding mainly to various commenters' lack of knowledge (excepting yourself, of course!:D )
After reading your comments, I'm still far from convinced that HFT is such a good idea. HFT seems to be an exponent of laissez faire capitalism, but as the latter turned out to be not such a brilliant economic model after all, the former needs to be treated with suspicion until proven not harmful to society.
All of the research shows the opposite to be the case.
Such a strong assertion requires citations of course.
Now every movement of the government, or even every signal that the government might do something, causes waves in the market - the opposite of what is desired.
The whole idea was to introduce a tax and _slowly_ increase it. Letting a boat enter the water sufficiently slow will not cause waves. You might also think of it as boundaries which slowly deform.
There is sort of a fallacy here, I forgot the name of.
the market is now just more efficient and the information more perfect
That does not justify it. Here's the reason: if we could speed up HFT trading to the order of femtoseconds, then that would be an improvement too. Will we achieve that? Due to the speed of information being limited to the speed of light, nope. Will markets suddenly collapse because we can't reach that? Not likely.
In my opinion HFT traders are filling a gap in the market that should not exist.
And there is nothing against introducing a tax if it is sufficiently low, and slowly increasing that tax while closely watching the effects.
If market equilibration is so essential, then why don't we let our government run this? (*) What we see now is that random entities participate in the process in a quite random way, leading to instabilities and collapse of markets.
Let's take out some of the inpredictibility by introducing this tax.
Answer to (*): they will, after we have introduced the tax.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it also hold for capitalism?
But aside all that, what a GREAT dad!
Yes, he built a cockpit in his son's bedroom. What TFA didn't say is that the entry door is located in his own bedroom.
Let H be the set of all possible headlines.
Let Q be the set of all strings ending in a question mark.
Let E[v,U,t,p] denote the evaluation of natural language question v, where E[v,U,t,p] in { TRUE, FALSE, UNDEFINED }, and where evaluation is performed in universe U and at time t corresponding to position p. Let T(U,p) be the function that returns the time of a given universe U at a specified position p.
Then, for all v in intersection(H,Q), for all U, for all p in U, and t >= T(U,p), it holds that E[v,U,t,p] = FALSE.
The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
Of course, I should have used a formal language to write down this assertion, but it would have taken me at least a week, so I took the cheap and easy route of using prose, like all mathematicians do, by the way.
Disclaimer: IANAM (not a mathematician)
Let's take a simple one - E=mc^2.
It still does not make sense. What do you mean by "contains energy"? Something may contain a gazillion Joules, if I cannot get the energy out, then that means nothing to me. If I have a heap of bricks of mass "m", can I even use them to power my wrist watch?
Then, the uncertainty principle. It seems really difficult to apply in an actual situation. Is that law even used in simulators for quantum mechanical systems? It really makes little sense, even if knowing the equation. It is almost like reading "if a pony shows up on the scene, gravity is reversed". How am I supposed to evaluate that rule? To what exactly does it apply? How do I put it in a simulator?
Until popular science explains stuff in more clear terms, I'm not reading any of it any longer.
There really should be a single, global registry for all trademarks, because, with the internet, every business is a global business.
In fact, we could use "whois" for all our trademark needs.
Commontag, a venture launched in 2009 to tackle tagging, has proved to be all but a failure ...
Apparently, your best bet is with this company.
Ok, let's be fundamental about this. Isn't it strange that we should consider "software" as different from other intellectual property? If X hours of work have been invested into the invention of a clever software routine, then, it would be strange if a patent could not be granted for that work while a patent would be granted for some physical apparatus that also took X hours to develop. (Don't think about the stupid "one-click-buy" software patents, but more along the lines of an ingenious differential-equation solver).
So, I don't think a law that says "patents are granted, but not for software" would be a good one. If we would abolish patents, we should do it in all fields.
Remember that the US has to rely on IP protection, for a substantial part of the work done in this country is intellectual. Therefore allowing software patents could in fact be beneficial.
As an aside: in the end, everything is mathematics. Software is mathematics; but also a physical apparatus, or even a medicine can be described mathematically. So, based on this argument, there should be no distinction in IP law.
What should happen, though, is that "stupid" patents should be rejected. I will explain how this could be accomplished.
First, split the patent-office in two parts. The first part, call it the "patent intake office", will *pay* an amount for each patent that they grant. The second member, call it the "evaluation office", will, after 5 years after issue of the patent, determine the societal impact of the patent. If the impact is large, an amount is paid to the intake-office.
(Note that the patent office will initially *pay* for patents that they grant. This is in contrast with the current situation, where the office receives money for each patent that is granted.)
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved. And even software, if ingenious and useful, may be granted a patent.
I'd rather like to see they blocked violence in TV programs and games.
The real problem in the system is all the junk patents that get issued.
The real problem with a bridge made out of pudding is that people tend to get wet. Oh well, let's build it anyway.
Nope. When you see lots of ads, you will turn sad.
That's basically how it works.
I don't understand. That's the definition of a hierarchy.
This only shows how deeply ingrained this distorted worldview is.
Do you think that the entry-level people should have the best compensation, and as they gain responsibility their compensation should go down?
If the people at the top had any sense of responsibility, they would not let people at the bottom suffer like this.
That's the general problem with capitalism.
People at the bottom of the hierarchy get the smallest compensation and the worst working conditions. As you go higher in the hierarchy, the reward is bigger and the conditions are better.
If you could give 1 dollar extra to be given to the person who actually made your iPhone, then that would be a huge reward for this person. However, under the capitalist framework, with a simple increase in price that money could never reach that person. It would get stuck in the intermediate levels.
Ever buy a new _ and tell people about it? Or get a message from a friend about their cool new _? That's all this is. Get over yourselves.
If this was just some small and relatively obscure part of the internet, then sure.
But this is actually Google doing this. There are PhDs working on this tech!
These are people that could (and should) instead be using their intellectual capabilities for solving the world's problems.
This is not cool.
And in the US, the IRS mines you!
Are there any algorithms out there that can take a movie, and produce a sharp photo (or a series of sharp photos)?
By "sharp", I mean much sharper than each of the individual frames of the movie.
I.e., the algorithm should use information between subsequent frames to sharpen the image.
Of course, the explanation is: the actual clock frequency went up, but the silicon vendors couldn't put those hefty numbers on the package of the chip, since the actual performance of the chip stayed behind (due to all those hidden features).
I hope it makes sense now.
In addition, when you use Chrome in "incognito mode", that will actually trigger the NSA to have a closer look at what you're doing.
You forgot that you also have to craft your own CPU.
Ever wondered why CPU's didn't get any faster than 3.5 to 4 GHz?
That's right, the NSA has since crammed in so many "features" that it became technically impossible to make them run any faster.
The problem with this view is that as the whole market moves to HFT, we just translated all of our problems to a smaller timescale!
And there is an even bigger problem, because as dt->0, the time to take a decision becomes so small that the decision will be less informed and less intelligent.
So what you are saying is that we don't particularly need HFT as implemented now, but we need a difference in timescale to solve market instabilities. That may be so. But, first, I need proof that these chosen timescales actually have this stabilizing behavior (and not actually pose a threat to stable markets). And further, I need a justification that some parties get access to a trading system that operates in the smaller timescales (HFT), while others do not. Because that simply is not fair, and in the end will lead either to an agglutination of money and power, OR to an accumulation of traders at the smallest technically possible timescale (and remember that according to your own beliefs, at a single timescale the markets are unstable).
The problem is that the people doing this are not idiots. They are the ones making the profits. They make everybody else look like idiots.
There were citations to that earlier in the topic - I'm at work now so can't go back and look them up.
Ok. Of course, I'll go through google scholar and double check their validity based on references.
Unless the congress sets a maximum value and lets the SEC handle the implementation as a regulatory activity
The _speed of change_ of the actual tax value should be limited, not its value. (Like a low-pass filter)
I've been responding mainly to various commenters' lack of knowledge (excepting yourself, of course! :D )
After reading your comments, I'm still far from convinced that HFT is such a good idea. HFT seems to be an exponent of laissez faire capitalism, but as the latter turned out to be not such a brilliant economic model after all, the former needs to be treated with suspicion until proven not harmful to society.
All of the research shows the opposite to be the case.
Such a strong assertion requires citations of course.
Now every movement of the government, or even every signal that the government might do something, causes waves in the market - the opposite of what is desired.
The whole idea was to introduce a tax and _slowly_ increase it. Letting a boat enter the water sufficiently slow will not cause waves.
You might also think of it as boundaries which slowly deform.
Because that's the opposite of equilibration.
There is sort of a fallacy here, I forgot the name of.
the market is now just more efficient and the information more perfect
That does not justify it. Here's the reason: if we could speed up HFT trading to the order of femtoseconds, then that would be an improvement too. Will we achieve that? Due to the speed of information being limited to the speed of light, nope. Will markets suddenly collapse because we can't reach that? Not likely.
In my opinion HFT traders are filling a gap in the market that should not exist.
And there is nothing against introducing a tax if it is sufficiently low, and slowly increasing that tax while closely watching the effects.
I _really_ need to get to work!
So should all those HFT traders :)
If market equilibration is so essential, then why don't we let our government run this? (*)
What we see now is that random entities participate in the process in a quite random way, leading to instabilities and collapse of markets.
Let's take out some of the inpredictibility by introducing this tax.
Answer to (*): they will, after we have introduced the tax.
Tax them! These speculative transactions do not add value to the economy.