I'd say that you should be able to use any language, even one that you despise, or one that you have never ever heard of before, to solve your problem in an efficient and innovative way.
There's a difference between knowing how to program and knowing a language. If you really know how to program, then learning a new language basically amounts to finding a syntax reference for that language.
The problem is not that these kids don't have laptops, it is that the western world does have laptops. Well, computers and internet access. A lot of things that we do today would not really be feasible without computers and the net. Thus, without computers or some other advantage, these third world countries will find themselves unable to compete.
This is not an undocumented phenomenon. War can easily be carried out without guns, look at most of our history. However, once somebody has guns, unless other people get them too, some conquering is going to go on. Eg, the Zulu. Children can certainly grow up without laptops, but once Western children are growing up with laptops, peoples without laptops for their children are going to have a hard time competing.
Now of course "laptops for children" is rather more specific and rather less consequential than guns, but computing power, wider perspective, communication, etc. are not.
I have to disagree with you. Science must maintain its credibility with the public in order to keep any funding at all in the future. All might be fair in love and funding, as you say, but to mix metaphors, when playing chess, you shouldn't smash the board.
Bringing results to the press (and especially sensationalizing them) before they are ready (peer-reviewed, etc.) will result in a much higher rate of retractions, simply because scientists are sometimes wrong. This is why we have peer-review in the first place. A few high profile retractions of very hyped up results will eventually cause the non-scientific populace to lose faith in science, and then funding will be much harder to come by for everyone. Short term gains for a few that result in long term costs for many should not be endorsed by responsible people.
Donald Knuth, a professor of computer science at Stanford University and the author of numerous books on computer science and the TeX composition system, rewards the first finder of each typo or computer program bug with a check based on the source and the age of the bug. Since his books go into numerous editions, he does have a chance to correct errors. Typos and other errors in books typically yield $2.56 each once a book is in print (pre-publication "bounty-hunter" photocopy editions are priced at $.25 per), and program bugs rise by powers of 2 each year from $1.28 or so to a maximum of $327.68. Knuth's name is so valued that very few of his checks - even the largest ones - are actually cashed, but instead framed. (Barbara Beeton states that her small collection has been worth far more in bragging rights than any equivalent cash in hand. She's also somewhat biased, being Knuth's official entomologist for the TeX system, but informal surveys of past check recipients have shown that this holds overwhelmingly for nearly everyone but starving students.) This probably won't be true for just anyone, but the relatively small expense can yield a very worthwhile improvement in accuracy.
I was asking what does constitute authorized access to kernel memory. Your post seemed to imply (through the use of the word unauthorized) that there was some mode of authorized access, and I asked what it was. Don't jump all over me just because you misread what I said. Now, could you answer the original question please?
if you run rm -rf / as root you'll bork your system!
Not if you use the immutable attribute. `chattr +i files' It protects the files so they cannot be changed at all (hence the name) even by root. Of course, root can remove the attribute, so it is not a security measure, but a protection against typos and stupidity.
If you can get to kernel mem in any unauthorized way, even from root account - it is a big problem.
If root does not constitute authorized access, then what does? Is there some kind of supersuperuser that only the pentagon knows about? This doesn't make sense. I suppose you could have a separate account from root which could access kernel memory, but root can su to any account it likes, so that doesn't really help.
Ok, I understand what manifest destiny has to do with this, but the Monroe doctrine? What on earth does the Monroe doctrine have to do with Iraq and the events therein?
Also, could you give some more details about the other regime changes going badly wrong, as you seem to suggest they did? I'm not trying to suggest that they didn't, I'm just curious.
So where do the first principles present in any philosophical system come from? Even the first principles of logic, like the law of non-contradiction? Generally, they are said to be "self-evident", which boils down to "In my experience of the world, this is true". This would make those first principles empirically, or observationally, based; that is, they come from science, albeit a very simple and basic science. And now we have entered epistemology, a branch of philosophy.
Of course, one could hold some particular first principle(s) "because I want to", or "because it is interesting", or "because if I don't at least claim to, then this man over here will shoot me in the head".
Therefore they are God, not theory. An untestable hypothesis. What makes a theory a theory is testability.
Perhaps they are in a similar class of ideas as God, but being untestable is not generally considered to be the only criterion for being God. Semantic squabbling, perhaps, but I think it is important, especially in a discussion like this, to use language in the least fuzzy way possible.
No, the problem with string theory, right now at least, is that it is not merely too hard to test, it is inherently untestable and no one has yet concieved of a way to make it testable. There are 1001 string theories, just as there are 1001 Gods.
These are two different problems. Inherent untestability is not the same problem as multiplicity of theories. One could say that there are an uncountably infinite number of different Standard Models, because the 19 parameters all take on values in the continuum. Heck, there are an uncountable number of Newton's Gravitational Theories, because G is a continuous value. Show me any theory that does not show some form of multiplicity and I will be exceedingly surprised if it manages to model the universe very well at all.
Now as to inherent untestability, I don't believe that st is inherently untestable. It is untestable given our current abilities. If we built an accelerator which could probe down to ~Planck scale sizes, then if we saw evidence for string-shaped structure, we would say "Aha, st is right!", and if we did not, then we would say "Aha, st is wrong!". I'm not a string theorist, (although I am a particle physicist) but IIRC all the string theories predict a similar size for strings. We can measure the structure of the proton at current accelerators by scattering various things off of protons. Before that we measured the structure of the atom by scattering experiments (Rutherford, anyone?). With high enough energies, we could probe structure at or below the predicted size of strings. That is a perfectly fine test, just not one we can do today, or in the next 100 years (most likely).
I thought Patrick Henry's well-known speech might be relevant here, so I've copied it from "http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty. html":
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been
Actually, NASA has failed as much as everyone else. Mars has defied so many attempts to examine it that people actually started referring to a "Mars Curse".
Well, perhaps we will need precisely some of the knowledge we gain from space exploration in order to overcome problems we are facing here on earth. Perhaps if we had never had NASA or some equivalent somewhere in the world, we would have no chance of surviving the problems we might have with the environment, for instance.
It is not that we are trying to "get energy out" in the sense of produce usable electric current in transmission lines. The net energy gain or loss is how much energy you put into the reaction (like the electricity flowing through the sparkplug in your car) vs. how much energy everything in the reacting system has after the reaction is done. So if I start a fire, I put a small amount of energy in, ie I strike a match, involving a very small amount of energy of motion of the matchhead against the box, and I get a large amount of energy out, even though most of it goes to light and to heating the air around me. Whereas if I try to strike a damp match, there will be some combustion which takes place, but in order for more combustion to take place, water has to be evaporated. The energy of evaporating the water for one combustion reaction is more than the energy released by that one combustion reaction, so the match doesn't light. It fizzles. The net energy change in this case is a loss. So, in the fusion reactor, we have to have a net energy gain before we can have a reactor that can run for hours on end, because otherwise it would just fizzle instead of running.
My point in my original post was that a net energy gain is not enough. You also must have a sufficiently dense plasma in your reactor so that enough of the energy you produce stays in the plasma so that fusion keeps happening. Once this is achieved, then it can run for hours on end. In fact, once you reach this point, called ignition, your reactor will run for as long as you keep feeding it fuel. Once we reach that point, all the really hard problems are solved. Not that producing electricity from it will be trivial, but it will be a darn sight easier than reaching ignition.
Good point. Perhaps it would make more sense to think of ignition as being the initiation of a self-sustained reaction, in analogy to catching fire, rather than the self-sustained reaction itself, which would be more like "ignited". I think this is not inconsistent with Dunlap's usage.
Geez, I feel like I'm sounding as if I think Dunlap is the Bible or something. I swear he's just the source I have at hand!
Yes, but only as an undergraduate. I'm graduating this May, going to probably Ohio State, and I'll probably work on ATLAS or CMS there. I've worked at CDF for two and a half years. Why do you ask?
As a side note, your journal entry "write notes to me here" can no longer have comments added.
I noticed your URL is ohio state. I also noticed at that URL that you are no longer there. However, I am looking at Ohio for physics grad school. Any thoughts on that? I'm also in HEP, been at CDF, looking to go for ATLAS or CMS (of course). I've spoken with Richard Hughes, and worked a little bit with him and Brian Winer on a hardware upgrade at CDF, but I was wondering if you had anything to say about Ohio's physics program?
Actually, normally it is just called the "Bs". Yes that is true. I work at CDF (the collaboration that produced this result) during the summers, and for CDF during the school year.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that you should be able to use any language, even one that you despise, or one that you have never ever heard of before, to solve your problem in an efficient and innovative way.
There's a difference between knowing how to program and knowing a language. If you really know how to program, then learning a new language basically amounts to finding a syntax reference for that language.
The problem is not that these kids don't have laptops, it is that the western world does have laptops. Well, computers and internet access. A lot of things that we do today would not really be feasible without computers and the net. Thus, without computers or some other advantage, these third world countries will find themselves unable to compete.
This is not an undocumented phenomenon. War can easily be carried out without guns, look at most of our history. However, once somebody has guns, unless other people get them too, some conquering is going to go on. Eg, the Zulu. Children can certainly grow up without laptops, but once Western children are growing up with laptops, peoples without laptops for their children are going to have a hard time competing.
Now of course "laptops for children" is rather more specific and rather less consequential than guns, but computing power, wider perspective, communication, etc. are not.
Don't feed the trolls.
I have to disagree with you. Science must maintain its credibility with the public in order to keep any funding at all in the future. All might be fair in love and funding, as you say, but to mix metaphors, when playing chess, you shouldn't smash the board.
Bringing results to the press (and especially sensationalizing them) before they are ready (peer-reviewed, etc.) will result in a much higher rate of retractions, simply because scientists are sometimes wrong. This is why we have peer-review in the first place. A few high profile retractions of very hyped up results will eventually cause the non-scientific populace to lose faith in science, and then funding will be much harder to come by for everyone. Short term gains for a few that result in long term costs for many should not be endorsed by responsible people.
I was asking what does constitute authorized access to kernel memory. Your post seemed to imply (through the use of the word unauthorized) that there was some mode of authorized access, and I asked what it was. Don't jump all over me just because you misread what I said. Now, could you answer the original question please?
I bet you did it on purpose! Gosh, that would make you a... a.... a Grammar Troll! shudder
The sky is blue. Whee-hee-hee I'm insightful!
"candygram....."
"landshark....."
Ok, I understand what manifest destiny has to do with this, but the Monroe doctrine? What on earth does the Monroe doctrine have to do with Iraq and the events therein?
Also, could you give some more details about the other regime changes going badly wrong, as you seem to suggest they did? I'm not trying to suggest that they didn't, I'm just curious.
One paragraph certainly qualifies as fair use.
So where do the first principles present in any philosophical system come from? Even the first principles of logic, like the law of non-contradiction? Generally, they are said to be "self-evident", which boils down to "In my experience of the world, this is true". This would make those first principles empirically, or observationally, based; that is, they come from science, albeit a very simple and basic science. And now we have entered epistemology, a branch of philosophy.
Of course, one could hold some particular first principle(s) "because I want to", or "because it is interesting", or "because if I don't at least claim to, then this man over here will shoot me in the head".
No, the problem with string theory, right now at least, is that it is not merely too hard to test, it is inherently untestable and no one has yet concieved of a way to make it testable. There are 1001 string theories, just as there are 1001 Gods.
These are two different problems. Inherent untestability is not the same problem as multiplicity of theories. One could say that there are an uncountably infinite number of different Standard Models, because the 19 parameters all take on values in the continuum. Heck, there are an uncountable number of Newton's Gravitational Theories, because G is a continuous value. Show me any theory that does not show some form of multiplicity and I will be exceedingly surprised if it manages to model the universe very well at all.
Now as to inherent untestability, I don't believe that st is inherently untestable. It is untestable given our current abilities. If we built an accelerator which could probe down to ~Planck scale sizes, then if we saw evidence for string-shaped structure, we would say "Aha, st is right!", and if we did not, then we would say "Aha, st is wrong!". I'm not a string theorist, (although I am a particle physicist) but IIRC all the string theories predict a similar size for strings. We can measure the structure of the proton at current accelerators by scattering various things off of protons. Before that we measured the structure of the atom by scattering experiments (Rutherford, anyone?). With high enough energies, we could probe structure at or below the predicted size of strings. That is a perfectly fine test, just not one we can do today, or in the next 100 years (most likely).
I thought Patrick Henry's well-known speech might be relevant here, so I've copied it from "http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty. html":
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been
Actually, NASA has failed as much as everyone else. Mars has defied so many attempts to examine it that people actually started referring to a "Mars Curse".
Well, perhaps we will need precisely some of the knowledge we gain from space exploration in order to overcome problems we are facing here on earth. Perhaps if we had never had NASA or some equivalent somewhere in the world, we would have no chance of surviving the problems we might have with the environment, for instance.
It is not that we are trying to "get energy out" in the sense of produce usable electric current in transmission lines. The net energy gain or loss is how much energy you put into the reaction (like the electricity flowing through the sparkplug in your car) vs. how much energy everything in the reacting system has after the reaction is done. So if I start a fire, I put a small amount of energy in, ie I strike a match, involving a very small amount of energy of motion of the matchhead against the box, and I get a large amount of energy out, even though most of it goes to light and to heating the air around me. Whereas if I try to strike a damp match, there will be some combustion which takes place, but in order for more combustion to take place, water has to be evaporated. The energy of evaporating the water for one combustion reaction is more than the energy released by that one combustion reaction, so the match doesn't light. It fizzles. The net energy change in this case is a loss. So, in the fusion reactor, we have to have a net energy gain before we can have a reactor that can run for hours on end, because otherwise it would just fizzle instead of running.
My point in my original post was that a net energy gain is not enough. You also must have a sufficiently dense plasma in your reactor so that enough of the energy you produce stays in the plasma so that fusion keeps happening. Once this is achieved, then it can run for hours on end. In fact, once you reach this point, called ignition, your reactor will run for as long as you keep feeding it fuel. Once we reach that point, all the really hard problems are solved. Not that producing electricity from it will be trivial, but it will be a darn sight easier than reaching ignition.
Good point. Perhaps it would make more sense to think of ignition as being the initiation of a self-sustained reaction, in analogy to catching fire, rather than the self-sustained reaction itself, which would be more like "ignited". I think this is not inconsistent with Dunlap's usage.
Geez, I feel like I'm sounding as if I think Dunlap is the Bible or something. I swear he's just the source I have at hand!
Yes, but only as an undergraduate. I'm graduating this May, going to probably Ohio State, and I'll probably work on ATLAS or CMS there. I've worked at CDF for two and a half years. Why do you ask?
As a side note, your journal entry "write notes to me here" can no longer have comments added.
I noticed your URL is ohio state. I also noticed at that URL that you are no longer there. However, I am looking at Ohio for physics grad school. Any thoughts on that? I'm also in HEP, been at CDF, looking to go for ATLAS or CMS (of course). I've spoken with Richard Hughes, and worked a little bit with him and Brian Winer on a hardware upgrade at CDF, but I was wondering if you had anything to say about Ohio's physics program?
Actually, normally it is just called the "Bs". Yes that is true. I work at CDF (the collaboration that produced this result) during the summers, and for CDF during the school year.