The Earth radiates more energy to space than it receives from the Sun. (The -- small -- extra energy comes from radioactive decay within the Earth.) We do not live off the energy from the Sun.
The difference is in the "quality" of the energy or, more precisely, it's entropy. The Sun is a much hotter object than the Earth; the entropy of the Sun's energy is therefore much less than the entropy of the energy when it is radiated from the Earth. (A system that receives the heat dQ (in a reversible process) increases its entropy by dS = dQ / T where T is the absolute temperature.)
The Earth therefore has a "negative entropy surplus" (talk about double negatives!).
Negative entropy means order. (A system's entropy is proportional to the logatithm of the number of states it can have. Less entropy is therefore fewer states or more order.)
Order means complex structures. Complex structures like life, like you and me.
You are right about the Universe dying the entropic death if it is expanding or flat (see my reference above), but not if it is contracting. But in any case we die. Somebody please figure out a way to create new universes before that happens.
In the long run, though space travel is neat and fun and interesting, it is not going to solve any of the long term problems of the human species.
I guess in the very long run we are all dead. The Universe may be flat and will eventually run out of entropy. Then we die.
However, the rest of your argument is silly. Some points; -
Not everyting regenerates. We live of the entropy (note: not energy) provided by the Sun's radiation. That's what keeps things regenerating. It won't last forever and, more to the point, there are limits to the efficiency we can obtain. Resources are never unlimited.
However, leaving the Earth will give us more resources even in the fairly short term. We could live up there quite comfortably. In space, I mean. We have had the technology to build space colonies for decades.
This means you don't have to take everything from the Earth. We can live up there. The Earth's ability to sustain life is not in any way reduced. With additional trade from space colonies the ability will arguably be increased. It is not a zero sum game.
[T]he illusion of solving the problems of the human species through space travel is just that, an illusion.
Yes and no. Space travel is the future of the human species but it does not by itself solve many problems anymore than long distance sea-faring and the discovery of the Americas solved anything. But it is a key to greater prosperity and for extending the life of the Human race. We should not waste time in persuing this goal. Be fruitful and increase...
Traveling to another planet to explore, in a precursor to either inhabitation or mining, would be an even better use of this technology. I for one hope that world governments wake up
Amen to govenrnments waking up, but I would focus on the mining rather than the inhabitation.
The next "giant step" for mankind is surely to live in space. Think space colonies, not planets. We (or USA at least) have had the technology to establish permanent habitation in space for decades. (I was looking for my old copy of O'Neil's book, but couldn't find it.) We can do this, but we do not seem to have the will.
<RANT>
You Americans really p*ss me off: you live in probably the best country in the world (OK: I have only lived and worked in half-a-dozen countries so I can't speak for eveywhere. But to all the Amricans who might have forgotten it: your country isn't half bad:-)) But you insist on sitting on your hands, shooting each other up (Washington DC used to have the highest murder rate in the world save for a few active war-zones), arguing about presidential cigars, suing each other,.... instead of leading the technology, the exploration of the world, and the future of Civilization. You drive me up the wall....
Are you seriously suggesting that the enslavement of human beings is in any way comparable to someone not letting you hack on their software?
Give the original poster some credit: he was arguing that intellectual property right is an outdated concept.
His argument seems to be that there are some things you can not own. Humans being one of them (and hence the reference to slavery). In current law ideas is another example: you can own the expression of an idea (copyright) and the application of an idea (patent), but not the idea itself.
The original poster suggests that intelectual property is such an un-ownable thing.
I'm not sure what's more appalling - the fact that you believe that access to code you didn't produce is a moral right is anything like the abolishment of slavery, or the fact that someone somewhere moderated you up as Insightful...
I'm glad it was moderated up [thanks moderator]! It is an interesting point, and an interesting question:
What things should it be possible to own? What ethics or principles determines "ownability"?
I questioned the "perfect identity" between law and ethics. Law and ethics are different things. The laws may be ethical, but they are not ethics.
And the laws may be un-ethical. Try to persuade the state of Texas (or any of the other nations, states and teritories that still practise the death penalty) that "you shall not kill".
Bertrand cites examples of racial laws as un-ethical. I'm sure you can find your own examples.
If you can find some other use for law, I'd like to know what it is.
This is a silly example, but I'm tired: In England it is the law that you must drive your car in the left side of the road.
This is not more or less ethcal than the more common law of driving cars in the right side. In fact, I can not find a single ethical argument for driving in either side.
The purpose of the law is to make life practical; to enable people to move from A to B with less effort and greater speed.
Less effort and greater speed are not ethical goals, I would suggest.
You can probably find other laws and regulations that are purely practical (and would be a better example than mine!).
Hm, yes, I missed that one. Well spotted!! He is not only confused in his ethics, he is also contradictory. You can make an obscene profit, as long as he is not loosing out on the cash.
Previously ([37], [118]) I thought his ethics was just confused, but as I read further through the article I realise that Bertrand has completely lost it.
The free software advocates must recognize that some issues are more important than who owns software
Eh, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? There are always more important issues, but that does not make all issues unimportant.
And what does gun control have to do with free or open source software!? Beats me. But even if we try to follow his thread of thought we end up at:
Given the choice between
a society where all software would be proprietary, and civilized measures would be in place preventing.. a disturbed... [person] from buying a... gun without any background check...;
any ethically-conscious person would choose the former
A couple of points are in order, lest anybody should be persuaded by Mr. Meyer's ravings:
You sould always be very nervous when somebody claim they speak for "any ethically-conscious person". Not everybody will agree with the Law According to Bertrand, and to brand them all as un-ethical shows Mr. Meyer as a bigot.
The two choices offered are not the only ones. We can choose to free software and restrain the right to bear arms, if we want.
I do not particularly care for Eric's views on guns, but, as the saying roughly goes (Voltaire again, I think), I will defend his right to express those views. That freedom is important, and it is sad that Bertrand does not recognise this.
In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.
An example: ursury. [My aplogies to./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]
The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.
I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.
2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.
2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':
...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.
The categories identified here--donated, taxpayer-funded, privately funded, taxpayer-sponsored and privately-sponsored--seem to exhaust the economic possibilities...
I know people who have been unemployed, living off unemployment benefits or other state aid, who have contributed to free software as a way of learning new skills and proving them to potential employers. This possibility is not really covered by Bertrand's list, though it could be argued that it is similar to the situation at a University (except that there is no doubt about the ownership).
A similar problem is with people who live at home from their parents' income. Again it could be considered "privately funded".
Buttet says his company has applied for a patent on "technology that enables the production of cost effective credit card sized modular pocket internet appliances."
Does anybody have more information on this patent? It sounds scary.
The bill has an explicit defence where "the tipping-off occurred entirely as a result of software designed to give an automatic warning that a key had been compromised".
Does such software exist? Or could we write it, and how would it work?
To clarify my previous post. The relevan section of the bill seems to be (my emphasis:
49. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence if- (a) he fails to comply, in accordance with any section 46 notice, with any requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information; and (b) he is a person who has or has had possession of the key.
(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence (subject to subsection (4)) for that person to show- (a) that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it; but (b) that he did, before that time, make a disclosure, to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key, of all such information in his possession as was required by that person to enable possession of the key to be obtained.
(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence (subject to subsection (4)) for that person to show- (a) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so; (b) where the key was not in his possession at that time, that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before that time, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b); and (c) that as soon after that time as it was reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or (if earlier) of sufficient information to enable possession of the key to be obtained, he made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.
(4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (2) or (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable- (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both; (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
The fine is unlimited.
IANAL so somebody else will have to comment on the details.
Authorisation of surveillance and human intelligence sources
Clause 26: Lawful surveillance etc
182. This clause provides that all conduct defined in clause 25 will be lawful, provided it is carried out in accordance with the authorisation to which it relates. Authorised conduct may cover any action taken either in the UK or abroad.
183. Furthermore, there will be no civil liability arising out of conduct which is incidental to the authorised conduct. However, this is only the case where the incidental conduct should not have been separately authorised either under this Bill or under existing legislation.
I take your point about emigration: many countries are currently going crazy on this issue.
However, maybe it will become like tax: a reason to move to one country over another. Since highly skilled IT people seems to be more mobile than others (except, perhaps, in the UK wher a study showed that 80% of the population lived within 5 miles of their birthplace) that could give a competitive advantage to such countries. Assuming, of course, that you belive in the "new e-conomy" and think that the stupid governments will not manage to shut the internet down completely.
So like we have tax exiles in Spain and other sunny places, could we have "Freedom Exiles" in the future?
... just say you forgot the password in all the fuss.
Unfortunately, under then new encryption laws that the article mentions, you go to jail if you do not reveal the encryption key.
What if you have forgotten it? In a word: tough. You'll have plenty of time in jail to contemplate your loss of memory.
Yes, you go to jail even if you have genuinely lost the key.
These laws are absurd...
Re:The problem is *storage*
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
True, but not necessarily all the states. I belive all you need to keep are the current champions for the least number of moves to a victory for White, for Black, and for neither. As soon as a new candidate passes the largest of these three numbers, the game can be abandoned.
You are spot-on, Sunday-paper thinking or not.
Think about doing a complete search. The first game you run through White wins (say). Back up one move and analyse all the responses Black could have made. If just one of them leads to Black winning, you can back up one node in the tree without need to store the positions along the White win branch.
You still need to store quite a bit, though. The point is, I guess, that we don't know how much, so we don't know if it is theoretically possible.
Still, there might be other proofs, that do not requite a complete search. That would be neat.
Re:I don't understand the question.
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 2
(I think... IANACP, so maybe there are situations of infinite recursion. Can a chess game be chaotic?)
Short answer: No, unless both players want it.
According to the rules of chess you may claim a draw at the third repeat of any position. This means that there are no infinite games if any one of the players claims the draw.
However, the draw is not automatic, so I guess that with suitable co-operation you could have an infinite game.
Police said investigators were able to nab Mafiaboy because he bragged about his exploits in online chat rooms.
Yeah, right! 'Cause nobody ever lies on IRC.
The story also mentiones the same conspiracy theory:
Computer security consultant Brian Martin said the alias Mafiaboy was mentioned almost immediately after the denial-of-service attacks.
"Mafiaboy was a name thrown out the first week," Martin said. "The question is... was it the same one? Was he a glorified patsy or something? One arrest, three months... a single charge? Sounds like the [FBI] was under a lot of pressure for a high-profile bust. Not the first time."
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let's get the physics straight:
The Earth radiates more energy to space than it receives from the Sun. (The -- small -- extra energy comes from radioactive decay within the Earth.) We do not live off the energy from the Sun.
The difference is in the "quality" of the energy or, more precisely, it's entropy. The Sun is a much hotter object than the Earth; the entropy of the Sun's energy is therefore much less than the entropy of the energy when it is radiated from the Earth. (A system that receives the heat dQ (in a reversible process) increases its entropy by dS = dQ / T where T is the absolute temperature.)
The Earth therefore has a "negative entropy surplus" (talk about double negatives!).
Negative entropy means order. (A system's entropy is proportional to the logatithm of the number of states it can have. Less entropy is therefore fewer states or more order.)
Order means complex structures. Complex structures like life, like you and me.
You are right about the Universe dying the entropic death if it is expanding or flat (see my reference above), but not if it is contracting. But in any case we die. Somebody please figure out a way to create new universes before that happens.
IAAP.
I guess in the very long run we are all dead. The Universe may be flat and will eventually run out of entropy. Then we die.
However, the rest of your argument is silly. Some points; -
Yes and no. Space travel is the future of the human species but it does not by itself solve many problems anymore than long distance sea-faring and the discovery of the Americas solved anything. But it is a key to greater prosperity and for extending the life of the Human race. We should not waste time in persuing this goal. Be fruitful and increase...
Amen to govenrnments waking up, but I would focus on the mining rather than the inhabitation.
The next "giant step" for mankind is surely to live in space. Think space colonies, not planets. We (or USA at least) have had the technology to establish permanent habitation in space for decades. (I was looking for my old copy of O'Neil's book, but couldn't find it.) We can do this, but we do not seem to have the will.
<RANT>
You Americans really p*ss me off: you live in probably the best country in the world (OK: I have only lived and worked in half-a-dozen countries so I can't speak for eveywhere. But to all the Amricans who might have forgotten it: your country isn't half bad</RANT>
Anyhow: space colonies. I'm ready, when do we go?
I assume you are referring to this urban legend on the Darwin Arwards web site. It's a good story, and there may be some truth to it.
Next time include the reference.
Give the original poster some credit: he was arguing that intellectual property right is an outdated concept.
His argument seems to be that there are some things you can not own. Humans being one of them (and hence the reference to slavery). In current law ideas is another example: you can own the expression of an idea (copyright) and the application of an idea (patent), but not the idea itself.
The original poster suggests that intelectual property is such an un-ownable thing.
I'm glad it was moderated up [thanks moderator]! It is an interesting point, and an interesting question:
What things should it be possible to own? What ethics or principles determines "ownability"?
I questioned the "perfect identity" between law and ethics. Law and ethics are different things. The laws may be ethical, but they are not ethics.
And the laws may be un-ethical. Try to persuade the state of Texas (or any of the other nations, states and teritories that still practise the death penalty) that "you shall not kill".
Bertrand cites examples of racial laws as un-ethical. I'm sure you can find your own examples.
This is a silly example, but I'm tired: In England it is the law that you must drive your car in the left side of the road.
This is not more or less ethcal than the more common law of driving cars in the right side. In fact, I can not find a single ethical argument for driving in either side.
The purpose of the law is to make life practical; to enable people to move from A to B with less effort and greater speed.
Less effort and greater speed are not ethical goals, I would suggest.
You can probably find other laws and regulations that are purely practical (and would be a better example than mine!).
Hm, yes, I missed that one. Well spotted!! He is not only confused in his ethics, he is also contradictory. You can make an obscene profit, as long as he is not loosing out on the cash.
Sad.
Previously ([37], [118]) I thought his ethics was just confused, but as I read further through the article I realise that Bertrand has completely lost it.
Eh, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? There are always more important issues, but that does not make all issues unimportant.
And what does gun control have to do with free or open source software!? Beats me. But even if we try to follow his thread of thought we end up at:
A couple of points are in order, lest anybody should be persuaded by Mr. Meyer's ravings:
Enough! of this madness. Next subject, please!
Where did this guy learn ethics?
An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]
I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.
The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.
I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.
Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.
Nitpicking again, I know, but
I know people who have been unemployed, living off unemployment benefits or other state aid, who have contributed to free software as a way of learning new skills and proving them to potential employers. This possibility is not really covered by Bertrand's list, though it could be argued that it is similar to the situation at a University (except that there is no doubt about the ownership).
A similar problem is with people who live at home from their parents' income. Again it could be considered "privately funded".
Any other examples?
I guess this is the position taken by proponents of Islamic law: the relligious law is the whole of the law.
I'd be interested to know if the readers of slashdot agree with this statement of Bertrand Meyer in the article.
I think the conventional form of this quote is The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (Similar...)
Living nearby I prefer Shelly's description:
(No, I dont know what this has to do with the article either...)
Nope, can't find any Swiss patents for SMARTDATA or ACS in the available databases.
A search for SMARTDATA found it in an unlikely place.
Maybe we really will be able to buy stuff with this card :-)
Does anybody have more information on this patent? It sounds scary.
The bill has an explicit defence where "the tipping-off occurred entirely as a result of software designed to give an automatic warning that a key had been compromised".
Does such software exist? Or could we write it, and how would it work?
It sounds like a nifty idea.
To clarify my previous post. The relevan section of the bill seems to be (my emphasis:
The fine is unlimited.
IANAL so somebody else will have to comment on the details.
I take your point about emigration: many countries are currently going crazy on this issue.
However, maybe it will become like tax: a reason to move to one country over another. Since highly skilled IT people seems to be more mobile than others (except, perhaps, in the UK wher a study showed that 80% of the population lived within 5 miles of their birthplace) that could give a competitive advantage to such countries. Assuming, of course, that you belive in the "new e-conomy" and think that the stupid governments will not manage to shut the internet down completely.
So like we have tax exiles in Spain and other sunny places, could we have "Freedom Exiles" in the future?
If so, where would you go?
Unfortunately, under then new encryption laws that the article mentions, you go to jail if you do not reveal the encryption key.
What if you have forgotten it? In a word: tough. You'll have plenty of time in jail to contemplate your loss of memory.
Yes, you go to jail even if you have genuinely lost the key.
These laws are absurd...
You are spot-on, Sunday-paper thinking or not.
Think about doing a complete search. The first game you run through White wins (say). Back up one move and analyse all the responses Black could have made. If just one of them leads to Black winning, you can back up one node in the tree without need to store the positions along the White win branch.
You still need to store quite a bit, though. The point is, I guess, that we don't know how much, so we don't know if it is theoretically possible.
Still, there might be other proofs, that do not requite a complete search. That would be neat.
Short answer: No, unless both players want it.
According to the rules of chess you may claim a draw at the third repeat of any position. This means that there are no infinite games if any one of the players claims the draw.
However, the draw is not automatic, so I guess that with suitable co-operation you could have an infinite game.
1. d4 d5 2. Qd3 Qd6 3. Qd1 Qd8 4. Qd3 Qd6 5. Qd1 Qd8 ...
Assume for the purpose of solving the game that player will claim the draw.
Yeah, right! 'Cause nobody ever lies on IRC.
The story also mentiones the same conspiracy theory:
I guess we'll never know...?
Ehh, can't think of any, but that doesn't mean they are not right. You know: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't me they are not out to get you."
I appreciate 2600's cynical attitude and they do have a point, don't they:
There is (yet) no way to validate the authorities' claims. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.)
The log (if it is real) seems like a lot of coincidence.
Still, I'm left with a "so what" feeling. So what if the authorities have/have not captured a cracker?
So what if the authorities do not have a clue?
So what? What's the story here?