Most people who support the GPL view it as copyleft, not copyright. The GPL is a compromise for a non-ideal world. Basically it is exploiting the nature of current freedom-restricting legal structures (copyright) in order to guarantee freedoms that would otherwise be removed.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the GPL, since everyone would play nice and information would be free. In the real world, the GPL (and similar licenses) are a compromise that safeguard our freedoms.
Therein lies the difference. It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases. If it were merely a legal issue, then it would be hypocritical to favor one over the other. However it is not merely legal: it is a matter of ethics and wanting the world to be a certain way. Put more simply: I can be favor of law and order and civilized society in general, but still be against certain laws in particular. This is not hypocritical.
As a french-speaker, I'll add that "bricolage" is often used to mean "doing crafts" (like making decorations and stuff) even though the dictionary definition is closer to "doing odd-jobs".
Just to add to what others have posted, I think it's worth pointing out that the use of "freezing light" is misleading. Slowing down light has nothing to do with making light "colder" (whatever that means). It doesn't even matter what the temperature of the medium is.
To slow down light, you need to run it through a material with a ridiculously high refractive index. When light goes through water (n = 1.3) it travels slightly slower than it does in vacuum (n = 1.0). So to make light go very slow, you need a material with a refractive index of millions or billions. No conventional material will give you this!
One way (the only way?) to produce a medium with such a refractive index is to generate a Bose-Einstein Condensate (hereafter BEC). This is a state of matter where all the constituent atoms are in the same quantum state, hence they are all in-phase, act as a single wavefunction, and do all kinds of wacky things. Among them is generating an apparent refractive index that is very high. The only way to make a BEC, in practice, is to cool matter to nearly absolute zero.
So it is a matter of engineering that they are using cold matter to slow down light. It isn't because the light is becoming cold or any other such nonsense. It's merely that this is the only way to generate a medium that has the desired optical properties.
Who knows, in some far-off future, we may figure out a way to generate BEC-like states at higher temperatures (for instance, the BEC state is related to the superconducting state for electrons in some materials)...
Refer to my other post (in reply to GP). The "speed constant" is very much intact, when you remember that it refers to photon velocity, not the group velocity of a light beam. The group velocity can have any value: 0, positive, negative, less than c, greater than c, etc. (just like, as another poster points out, the "movement" of a shadow can have any value). The fact that the envelope of a photon interference pattern (the group velocity) travels at a certain velocity does not imply that the constituent photons were travelling at this velocity. Thus, signals still cannot be transferred at these apparently superluminal speeds.
We also now know for a fact that instantanious travel is physically possible via quantum entanglement, across any distance. Proven in a lab.
Not exactly. What has been proven in a lab is that there are inescapable correlations in entangled quanum systems. However, due to the very nature of quantum mechanics and entanglement (and things like Heisenberg indeterminacy), there is no way to use these correlations to send signals or energy instantaneously. Yes quantum correlations operate over arbitrary distance, and yes they appear to operate "instantly"... but although the extent of correlation is always predictable (using quantum theory) the exact outcome of a particular experiment is not predictable, making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions.
Physics is amazing and exciting enough without the hyperbole and misinterpretations that often weigh it down.
I'm going to have to disagree with other repliers on this one. In much of physics (such as relativity and particle physics) it is stated that nothing can travel faster than c, and that light *always* travels at c (never faster or slower). Then in optics you're told that the speed of light depends on the material the light is travelling in. Confusion is understandable.
If you want a picture of what's really going on, think of it this way: *photons* (the fundamental particles of light) always travel at the speed of light, c, as measured by any observer (like relativity says!). However, in optics, when we talk about "light" we don't usually mean individual photons, we mean a massive collection of them, and thus things change a bit. In vacuum, a light beam will travel at exactly c since all the photons travel at c. In a material, however, the photons are continually scattered by the atoms that make it up. These countless scattering events (which are essentially absorption and re-emission events) interfere and generate the final light-beam that we macroscopically observe. The interaction between the photons and the electron clouds in the material lead to time lags, if you will... so that the net macroscopic velocity appears reduced (even though, in principle, the photons travelling from one atom to the next were going at c).
There are experiments where light is "slowed" or "stopped" or even moved backward... and some where light even travels "faster than light." But what is travelling at these speeds is the emergent phenomenon (the envelope of the photon interference pattern), not the individual photons that make it up. Thus, even if the envelope of a photon wave pattern is travelling faster than c (i.e.: the calculated group velocity is >c), you still can't send a signal faster than c. The "no energy/signal can go faster than speed of light" rule is very much maintained. For more information on this, google the difference between "phase velocity" and "group velocity" of light, which will give you some insights.
The problem is that when introductory physics is taught, the difference between these different velocities is not mentioned (phase velocity != group velocity != photon velocity) And of course, news articles never mention it!!
For the recrod, this isn't the first study of human migratory patterns. Many migration routes are now well established, whereas others are in debate and should be studied further. This study will help establish better timelines, settle controversies, and maybe even provide fresh theories to be tested. They are not "fitting data to preconceived notions" just because they are using the current body of knowledge as a starting point for their study.
AFAIK the African origins of humankind are fairly well established. The fact that genetic anthropologists decided to call the oldest known common male ancestor "adam" and the oldest female one "eve" just shows that they have a sense of humour and history, not that what they do is quackery.
So, yes, it is science.
Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
I guess the reason I worded my reply with "if you believe" was that I consider it somewhat of a definition. You are right that, in the end, this concept of awareness cannot be measured or proven to exist. As a scientist, I consider such things (not subject to concrete investigation) to be thus a matter of personal taste... in a sense, they don't really exist at all. Thus, for us to have a discussion about consciousness or awareness, we have to agree on some kind of definition (which, like all definitions, is ultimately arbitrary and convenient). From that definition, we can then argue about what objects exhibit or don't exhibit conscioussness.
I think many of the arguments about intelligence, conscioussness, AI, etc. basically forget that the two parties have not yet agreed on definitions. Basically both sides have hidden axioms, which is why they can never agree.
If you think there is no mystery, try to prove that by analysing the brain of someone to any arbitrary level of detail you can say what their experience of a colour is.
These types of questions seem unfair to me on many levels. I agree with the other poster in that the question itself doesn't make sense. It presupposes a distinction between the dynamic processes of the brain and the experiences that an internal observer reports (or "feels" if you prefer). But with that axiom in place, no one will ever satisfy you that they have explained the origin of this "gap" that IMHO doesn't exist.
To give another example of why this "explain to me what their experience of colour is" question is unfair, consider this: You are suggesting that we can only claim "understanding" when we are able to communicate these supposed answers to one another. Yet it seems clear that our language will never satisfy this criteria. I can say "he is angry" but you will not be satisfied. I can show you an MRI and talk for hours about synapses, but you won't be satisfied. Rightly so. There is nothing in our language (or any other communication medium that can be imagined) that will satisfy your criteria for understanding. All communication is reductionist, but you will only accept "understanding" if it means "authentic feeling of this state."
So on the one hand I agree that we are not "truly understanding" what others are experiencing... but that is because it is an illegitimate question. The "true experience" is merely the internal state of the dynamics. We will never know what it is to be a rock or another person. We can only know what it is to be ourselves, and it doesn't make sense to ask "what would *I* feel if I were someone else?"... *you* wouldn't feel anything... you would be a different person!
I second that: Pinker's "How the Mind Works" is one of the best non-fiction general-interest books ever (it's the best I've ever read, at any rate). Pinker's style is fun and lucid. Importantly, his arguments really make sense. Evolutionary psychology treats the brain like a machine that has to be reverse engineered. Thus, it tries to deduce why we the emotions we do, based on their evolutionary advantage. Highly recommended read. It can actually give you insight into why people do the silly things they do.
Re:Next round in: free will vs. biological machine
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To my knowledge (from studying quantum mechanics and discussing with philosophers) the "quantum brain idea" doesn't make much sense. Quantum mechanics has more or less proven to us that we cannot predict all events with certainty. Some are necessarily 'random.' However, we are inherently observers that are inside the universe, interacting with all other elements within it. Thus, it is as yet not known whether the fundamental physical laws are truly random or deterministic (both are compatible with quantum mechanics). But there is no scientific support for theories that quantum mechanics "explains" free will by superpositions of states and so forth. QM is a physical theory (i.e.: set of rules) like any other.
In either case, I don't see how free will really exists. Either our actions are entirely predictable (in principle) from a set of physical laws, or our actions are controlled by fundamentally random processes (which means our actions are not controlled by us!).
And, even if there is no free will: we cannot determine it either way.
That's the crux of it, IMHO. Regardless of what is occuring at the most fundamental level, it will always be that we cannot, in principle or in practice, make proper predictions about what others are going to do. Thus, for all intents and purposes, people do have free will. I, for one, accept that free will is an illusion, but that doesn't affect the way that I make choices in my day to day life. It doesn't invalidate the way societies are run (an accused who argues to the judge that he "had no choice but to comit those actions, since free will doesn't really exist" will hear a judge retort "well then I can't stop myself from sentencing you, can I?")
Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is the ability to be programmed the same as being conscious? So my computer in front of me here is conscious, because I can program it?
If you believe that a cat is conscious, then yes your computer is also. It has a limited sort of intelligence and conscioussness... nothing compared to a human. But that is a difference of scale, not fundamentals. Then again, if you feel that only humans are conscious, then no your computer isn't, animals are not, and no other programmed system will ever meet your criteria.
What difference can it possibly make that I experience anything? Don't talk to me about processing- that can all happen equally well if I'm not staring at it.
You suggest a disparity where none exists. You are not some small gnome (homunculus) living inside a brain, watching what comes in through the eyeballs. Have you considered that perhaps what you call "conscioussness" is just the by-product of all that processing and programmed decision-making that goes on in your brain? If the decision-making doesn't happen, you are not conscious (for example, dead or asleep). If the processing occurs, then internal it "feels" like conscioussness, but externally it just looks like your brain is processing things (just like a dog or a computer or another human looks, when viewed externally).
By experience, we're not talking about neural encodings and other Neural Correlates of Consciousness. We're talking about the actual experience, itself.
Well, if you decide to define the problem in such a way that it can never be analyzed scientifically, then yes, of course, every scientifica analysis will fail. That is because you are forcing it to be a philosophical debate, and not a scientific one. Science can explain relations between things and give you predictive abilities, but it will not answer your philosophical questions. The book in question (and related research) are not attempting to alleviate your emotional objections to study of the mind, they are trying to come up with predictive models of thought.
I hope this post doesn't sound overly pointed or accusatory, but I think your characterization of modern science is not fair.
Re:Slightly Misleading
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Okay, I'll bite and respond to the quoted review...
They might tell you _that_ I'm thinking, but not _what_ I'm thinking.
Very true. We have a long way to go before statements like "a brain scan reveals our thoughts" will be valid.
Thoughts, moods, and memories--unlike bones--are not physical, empirical quantities.
They are not physical, that's for sure... but to claim that they are neither empirical nor measurable is not valid. Scientists can come up with an operational definition of any particular thought or emotion, and track empirical correlations with other measureables (like other emotions, states of mind, blood levels of chemicals, brain scan data, etc.). This operational definition of, say, "love" can be chosen so that it closely maps to what most people call "love." Whether or not the chosen definition (and resulting empirical data) actually captures "love" properly is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Each person is entitled to their own philosophy, but such conjecture is not provable.
a brain scan will not, however, tell you the nature or content of those thoughts and feelings
This is true today. Brain scans today are not able to exactly discern what thought a person is thinking. However, that doesn't mean that some sufficiently advanced combination of brain scanning techniques couldn't discern (with reasonable accuracy, say 95%) what emotion or thought a person was thinking. I'm not saying that such a technology will be invented, but at present from the scientific data available it seems plausible that this may well be done one day. More importantly, nothing has ruled out the possibility yet. The review-poster is falling into falacies of assuming that the internal state of a person's mind is unknowable in principle, just because today, in practice, we can't do this. In any case, most experts on the subject do feel that it is possible, in principle, to map a person's brain activity and make accurate guesses as to what thoughts they are thinking.
To simply reduce conscious experience to brain activity is to completely obliterate it: thoughts and feelings are reduced to electricity and neurochemicals;
This is an empassionated appeal to "the human spirit," but is utterly devoid of any persuasive argument.
what remains is a flat and faded one-dimensional cosmos
If something is "flat" it is usually two-dimensional, not one-dimensional. In any case, if something is one-dimensional, then it is redundant at best (and wrong at worst) to label it as "flat"... (sorry, I couldn't resist)
The review-poster comits the falacy of generalizing. Because a single book overstates the state-of-the-art in brain scanning, suddenly all of scientific materialism is a wasted effort? Sounds more like someone using any available argument to push a philosophical agenda.
Maybe there are some subtleties I'm not getting here, but by and large this review sounds like an unsubstantiated bash of scientific reasoning, rather than a critical review of what brain imaging can tell us about human thought.
Unless you avoid ever touching a doorknob or hand-rail, I don't see what difference this makes. Common surfaces are everywhere. We all touch them all the time. Sometimes we catch something from a common surface. Adding a palm scanner to the mix doesn't increase the risk of transmission.
Contrary to myth (i.e.: television shows), twins do not have identical fingerprints (or retinal patterns, etc.). They have identical DNA, but the patterns on your fingers are developmental. Twins have very similar fingerprints, but the exact curves depend on exactly how a person matured in the womb, and are thus distinct and distinguishable even for twins. Identical twins will have different birth marks and so forth.
So in reality, if a biometric scan is supposed to prevent the 6 billion other people on earth from opening a lock encoded to me, then my evil twin brother will also be locked out. Real biometric scanners, of course, may not be that refined.
This is one of the problems with biometrics. I would rather someone steal my bank card and demand to know my PIN, rather than having them cut off my hand or cut out my eye.
For every countermeasure there is a counter-countermeasure. If heat sensors are included, thieves will just use a lighter (or whatever) to warm a finger before using it. I've often thought that retinal scanners should check to see if blood is actually flowing in the veins/arteries in the retina, but this is not (currently) feasible I think. If this countermeasure existed, then no doubt someone would figure out a way to beat it (artificially flowing liquid through a detached eye sounds complicated, but you could probably fool the sensor by casting moving shadows on the back of a detached eye, thereby simulating the proper pulsating effect of veins...). I've also thought that eye-scanners that use the iris pattern instead of retinal pattern could emit a flash of light and monitor the rate at which the pupil contracts. This would be proof that the eye is alive (since it reacts) and could even perhaps guard against people being drugged or stressed. Again, however, I worry that someone would overcome it.
The exact form of the criminal's counter-countermeasure of course depends on how the device works, but eventually they'll figure out how to beat it. Now, a technological escalation on cracking encryption or snooping network traffic is one thing... but when it comes to biometrics, it puts peoples lives in danger. So perhaps we should rethink this whole biometric thing. Is my car or bank account really worth so much that I'm willing to endanger my hand or eye???
Open source biometrics shouldn't just be for those wacky Europeans who like OSS. Important security issues like biometrics should be engineered in an transparent fashion. This is necessary so that the citizens can be assured that their privacy is not being infringed, and that their security is being maintained.
Closed formats and security through obscurity have well documented shortcomings. For important government and security applications (voting machines, encryption, etc.) it seems like an open standard and open software is a much better way to ensure reliability, stability, fairness, and so forth. After all, security is pointless without trust... and I would argue that trust in a system is enhanced by it being open.
Yes, there are people like you who have "cost" the industry money. And there are people (like the other posters) who have spent more money because of file sharing.
Then there are people like me. I've never purchased a CD for myself in my life (although I have bought them as gifts for people). I didn't buy CDs before I started filesharing, I don't buy them now, and I don't think I ever will. I don't like the format (prefer convenience of mp3) and they are too expensive for me (I don't care about music that much).
But although I would never buy a CD, I would probably be willing to pay a reasonable fee (5$/month maybe?) to have access to an online filesharing database that had essentially every song ever made. I am willing to pay to have easy access to high-quality music files, but I'm not willing to pay to have to put up with the inconvenience of a CD or of DRM. As far as I'm concerned, the music industry should realize that music (in a digital age) is a service they are providing, not a product that the consumer is purchasing (if I own the product, why can't I do whatever I want with it, anyway?). We will pay for the service of having easy access to quality, certified digital copies of old and new music. We like new music, and we are willing to pay to have immediate access to it.
I think the industry is losing money to P2P... but not due to lost CD sales. Rather, they are wasting a viable business model. The viability of this business model was evaluated by some folks at MIT. I think there is a lost opportunity here.
In real stores in Canada you have to pay 14 - 26 $CAD for a CD before tax, which is 16 - 30 $CAD with tax.
An example.
And another example. In my experience 10$ is a rare occurance, and certainly not the "average price" of a CD anywhere I've ever shopped.
The article says: According to CRIA's own numbers, revenue from prices of an average CD in 2004 was C$10.95, down 8.8 percent from C$12.00 per CD in 1999.
Seems he's quoting revenue, not the sale price to the end consumer. If it's actually true that each CD brings in that much revenue, then CD prices are very very inflated.
All speech is by individuals. Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations?
Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion, versus when they are speaking on behalf of a corporation or government body. It's as simple as that. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)
Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.
You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit.
I agree with you on these points 100%. Frankly I think the laws are unnecessary. Either a culture will survive or it won't and we should just let society/culture evolve on its own (unless some totallitarian government is trying to destroy it, of course). I don't think the laws make sense, and ultimately I don't think they have made a difference. The proff that they haven't made a difference is, in my opinion, the very fact that they have become commonplace, somewhat ignore, and in the end not much has changed. French and English people still get along, and French people still all learn English, and English people (living in Quebec) learn french.
So the law is not being enforced?
Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything... but that's calmed down and over the last 10 years I haven't really heard any complaints. It just doesn't seem to affect the citizens.
To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all. However, in practice it turns out that things are not as bad as predicted. Life goes on and no one seems bothered. It's a waste of money, but has not infringed my rights. I am willing to put up with a bit of sillyness if it makes French people happy (even if, in my opinion, it was unnecessary). I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.
Canadian students elect a class president (and treasurer and secretary), just like in most small groups (tenant associations, astrophysics club, etc.). It wouldn't make sense to have a *prime* minister unless you have alot of *other* ministers (and most High Schools don't have a student council that requires that much administration!)
With regard to the rest of your comment: I'm sure we're all well aware of *why* the US is so interested in pushing their IP laws on the rest of the world. Of course it is in their best interest to do so: they make alot more money off of IP than other countries, so all kinds of money from around the world flows into the US. That's all well and good, but then it must be equally obvious why every other country should want to enforce much less strict IP laws. Every other country stands to gain by ignoring copyright as much as possible.
If the US doesn't like it, then they can impose martial law and disconnect their population from the internet. Of course what really happens is that the US uses their economic power in other domains in order to enforce extraction of IP money. The rich get richer. Oh well. It just bothers me how often people assume that IP exists for moral reasons, when, as you point out, it mostly exists for economic reasons.
Firstly, I consider Ads to be a corporate issue, not a private speech issue. I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals.
Secondly, there is the issue of comparing law to practice. There are many silly laws "on the books" and this bothers me. But at the end of the day, we must (unfortunately) analyze our freedoms and quality of life with regard to enforcement.
So, in Quebec, the gestapo DO NOT come knocking on your door for displaying a non-french sign. In Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. Lots of stores have english signs posted. Some even lack the french signage that is legally required. Does the military blow up their stores? No. Do they receive letters asking them to conform to the law? Rarely.
At the end of the day, I do not feel like my rights are being infringed. I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved. As I said, I think the laws are somewhat bizarre, but luckily the enforcement of these laws has been, as far as I can see, reasonable. (My main complaint being, as I said before, related to schooling...) Importantly, I have never felt that my ability to express my opinion or exercise free speech was inhibited in the slightest by these language laws.
It's not as bad as people (who don't live here) seem to think.
In Quebec, public notices and ads must be in French or have French translations (and the French version must be more prominent). All government documents must be available in both English and French in the entire country. These rules seem reasonable. And as an example, advertisements for local English newspapers are in English only... (which makes sense)
There is no censoring of private speech that I'm aware of or have ever encountered.
The only really weird thing left is the fact that children must be sent to french schools, unless their parents are English speaking. What this means is that french families and immigrating families have no choice about the language their children learn in elementary school and high school.
On the subject of MythTV (or equivalent). I like putting together computers and tweaking linux as much as the next guy, but I was thinking the other day that I might be willing to buy a fully functional MythTV box.
I really want a MythTV, but I don't have the time right now to really play with it and search for the best hardware. I was thinking that I'd be willing to buy a computer, with linux and MythTV all installed and configured properly (to work with my local cable box even?). Having someone else take care of all the hardware and software installation details would be great.
In the end, I may just build it myself, but there are lots of people I know that don't have the time, patience, and/or knowledge to build one from scratch, but are smart enough to take advantage of such a system (and maintain it). Does anyone know of a company offering such a service? Does anyone think that this has merit as a business idea?
To be fair, wikipedia is, in a way, "peer-reviewed"... although it is quite different from academic peer review.
As an academic, I know all about the strengths and weaknesses of peer review. On the one hand, it is rigorous, and immediately eliminates totally ridiculous or crank theories. On the other hand, it can suffer from biases on the part of the editors/reviewers, and novel ideas can sometimes be unfairly dismissed.
In wikipedia, content is dynamic and edited by a community, which makes it robust against many types of errors. It is also in many ways robust against the biases of individuals. However, it is true that many other types of errors will creep in and could even mislead people.
However, everyone (students especially) should realize that *all* sources of information (whether on the internet, in a respected journal, in a newspaper, etc.) have errors in them. In all cases, the reader must use their judgement to determine how much they trust the source, and how much they trust the particular information they are reading. Strange-sounding statements must always be double-checked against other sources, even if they are written in Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
In academia, when you see a reference, you have to both consider the journal it points to (is it respected? or is it crap?) and the authors of the article (good authors publishing in a lesser-known journal are still good references... idiots publishing in high profile journals are not). In the case of internet content, then, one must not only consider the source (wikipedia) but also the merit of the article itself. Some are good, some are bad. The reader (including someone reading a reference) will have to use some intelligence, and not blindly accept what they are told. Welcome to the future of information distribution.
Wikipedia is great, IMHO. The main thing holding back really is hardware. It often runs too slowly and in particular using wikipedia's built-in search often returns a "server is overloaded" response. (I guess that's why I always use Google to search for the correct wikipedia page.)
That's why I think these deals are a good thing. If companies are willing to donate bandwidth and server storage to wikipedia, that will help the project quite a bit. Of course, we are all concerned about wikipedia being corrupted by companies, and something awful happening to the whole project. I, for one, think wikimedia is smart enough and dedicated enough to avoid this. And even if they arn't, let's all remember that the whole *point* of wikimedia releasing everything under commons licensing is that *no one* (not even wikimedia) can lock the content away or commercialize it. If wikimedia starts becoming evil, someone can (and will) fork the project and re-release the entire thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who support the GPL view it as copyleft, not copyright. The GPL is a compromise for a non-ideal world. Basically it is exploiting the nature of current freedom-restricting legal structures (copyright) in order to guarantee freedoms that would otherwise be removed.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the GPL, since everyone would play nice and information would be free. In the real world, the GPL (and similar licenses) are a compromise that safeguard our freedoms.
Therein lies the difference. It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases. If it were merely a legal issue, then it would be hypocritical to favor one over the other. However it is not merely legal: it is a matter of ethics and wanting the world to be a certain way. Put more simply: I can be favor of law and order and civilized society in general, but still be against certain laws in particular. This is not hypocritical.
As a french-speaker, I'll add that "bricolage" is often used to mean "doing crafts" (like making decorations and stuff) even though the dictionary definition is closer to "doing odd-jobs".
Just to add to what others have posted, I think it's worth pointing out that the use of "freezing light" is misleading. Slowing down light has nothing to do with making light "colder" (whatever that means). It doesn't even matter what the temperature of the medium is.
To slow down light, you need to run it through a material with a ridiculously high refractive index. When light goes through water (n = 1.3) it travels slightly slower than it does in vacuum (n = 1.0). So to make light go very slow, you need a material with a refractive index of millions or billions. No conventional material will give you this!
One way (the only way?) to produce a medium with such a refractive index is to generate a Bose-Einstein Condensate (hereafter BEC). This is a state of matter where all the constituent atoms are in the same quantum state, hence they are all in-phase, act as a single wavefunction, and do all kinds of wacky things. Among them is generating an apparent refractive index that is very high. The only way to make a BEC, in practice, is to cool matter to nearly absolute zero.
So it is a matter of engineering that they are using cold matter to slow down light. It isn't because the light is becoming cold or any other such nonsense. It's merely that this is the only way to generate a medium that has the desired optical properties.
Who knows, in some far-off future, we may figure out a way to generate BEC-like states at higher temperatures (for instance, the BEC state is related to the superconducting state for electrons in some materials)...
That kind of blows the constant out of the water.
Refer to my other post (in reply to GP). The "speed constant" is very much intact, when you remember that it refers to photon velocity, not the group velocity of a light beam. The group velocity can have any value: 0, positive, negative, less than c, greater than c, etc. (just like, as another poster points out, the "movement" of a shadow can have any value). The fact that the envelope of a photon interference pattern (the group velocity) travels at a certain velocity does not imply that the constituent photons were travelling at this velocity. Thus, signals still cannot be transferred at these apparently superluminal speeds.
We also now know for a fact that instantanious travel is physically possible via quantum entanglement, across any distance. Proven in a lab.
Not exactly. What has been proven in a lab is that there are inescapable correlations in entangled quanum systems. However, due to the very nature of quantum mechanics and entanglement (and things like Heisenberg indeterminacy), there is no way to use these correlations to send signals or energy instantaneously. Yes quantum correlations operate over arbitrary distance, and yes they appear to operate "instantly"... but although the extent of correlation is always predictable (using quantum theory) the exact outcome of a particular experiment is not predictable, making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions.
Physics is amazing and exciting enough without the hyperbole and misinterpretations that often weigh it down.
I'm going to have to disagree with other repliers on this one. In much of physics (such as relativity and particle physics) it is stated that nothing can travel faster than c, and that light *always* travels at c (never faster or slower). Then in optics you're told that the speed of light depends on the material the light is travelling in. Confusion is understandable.
If you want a picture of what's really going on, think of it this way: *photons* (the fundamental particles of light) always travel at the speed of light, c, as measured by any observer (like relativity says!). However, in optics, when we talk about "light" we don't usually mean individual photons, we mean a massive collection of them, and thus things change a bit. In vacuum, a light beam will travel at exactly c since all the photons travel at c. In a material, however, the photons are continually scattered by the atoms that make it up. These countless scattering events (which are essentially absorption and re-emission events) interfere and generate the final light-beam that we macroscopically observe. The interaction between the photons and the electron clouds in the material lead to time lags, if you will... so that the net macroscopic velocity appears reduced (even though, in principle, the photons travelling from one atom to the next were going at c).
There are experiments where light is "slowed" or "stopped" or even moved backward... and some where light even travels "faster than light." But what is travelling at these speeds is the emergent phenomenon (the envelope of the photon interference pattern), not the individual photons that make it up. Thus, even if the envelope of a photon wave pattern is travelling faster than c (i.e.: the calculated group velocity is >c), you still can't send a signal faster than c. The "no energy/signal can go faster than speed of light" rule is very much maintained. For more information on this, google the difference between "phase velocity" and "group velocity" of light, which will give you some insights.
The problem is that when introductory physics is taught, the difference between these different velocities is not mentioned (phase velocity != group velocity != photon velocity) And of course, news articles never mention it!!
For the recrod, this isn't the first study of human migratory patterns. Many migration routes are now well established, whereas others are in debate and should be studied further. This study will help establish better timelines, settle controversies, and maybe even provide fresh theories to be tested. They are not "fitting data to preconceived notions" just because they are using the current body of knowledge as a starting point for their study.
AFAIK the African origins of humankind are fairly well established. The fact that genetic anthropologists decided to call the oldest known common male ancestor "adam" and the oldest female one "eve" just shows that they have a sense of humour and history, not that what they do is quackery.
So, yes, it is science.
I guess the reason I worded my reply with "if you believe" was that I consider it somewhat of a definition. You are right that, in the end, this concept of awareness cannot be measured or proven to exist. As a scientist, I consider such things (not subject to concrete investigation) to be thus a matter of personal taste... in a sense, they don't really exist at all. Thus, for us to have a discussion about consciousness or awareness, we have to agree on some kind of definition (which, like all definitions, is ultimately arbitrary and convenient). From that definition, we can then argue about what objects exhibit or don't exhibit conscioussness. I think many of the arguments about intelligence, conscioussness, AI, etc. basically forget that the two parties have not yet agreed on definitions. Basically both sides have hidden axioms, which is why they can never agree.
If you think there is no mystery, try to prove that by analysing the brain of someone to any arbitrary level of detail you can say what their experience of a colour is.
... *you* wouldn't feel anything... you would be a different person!
These types of questions seem unfair to me on many levels. I agree with the other poster in that the question itself doesn't make sense. It presupposes a distinction between the dynamic processes of the brain and the experiences that an internal observer reports (or "feels" if you prefer). But with that axiom in place, no one will ever satisfy you that they have explained the origin of this "gap" that IMHO doesn't exist.
To give another example of why this "explain to me what their experience of colour is" question is unfair, consider this: You are suggesting that we can only claim "understanding" when we are able to communicate these supposed answers to one another. Yet it seems clear that our language will never satisfy this criteria. I can say "he is angry" but you will not be satisfied. I can show you an MRI and talk for hours about synapses, but you won't be satisfied. Rightly so. There is nothing in our language (or any other communication medium that can be imagined) that will satisfy your criteria for understanding. All communication is reductionist, but you will only accept "understanding" if it means "authentic feeling of this state."
So on the one hand I agree that we are not "truly understanding" what others are experiencing... but that is because it is an illegitimate question. The "true experience" is merely the internal state of the dynamics. We will never know what it is to be a rock or another person. We can only know what it is to be ourselves, and it doesn't make sense to ask "what would *I* feel if I were someone else?"
I second that: Pinker's "How the Mind Works" is one of the best non-fiction general-interest books ever (it's the best I've ever read, at any rate). Pinker's style is fun and lucid. Importantly, his arguments really make sense. Evolutionary psychology treats the brain like a machine that has to be reverse engineered. Thus, it tries to deduce why we the emotions we do, based on their evolutionary advantage. Highly recommended read. It can actually give you insight into why people do the silly things they do.
To my knowledge (from studying quantum mechanics and discussing with philosophers) the "quantum brain idea" doesn't make much sense. Quantum mechanics has more or less proven to us that we cannot predict all events with certainty. Some are necessarily 'random.' However, we are inherently observers that are inside the universe, interacting with all other elements within it. Thus, it is as yet not known whether the fundamental physical laws are truly random or deterministic (both are compatible with quantum mechanics). But there is no scientific support for theories that quantum mechanics "explains" free will by superpositions of states and so forth. QM is a physical theory (i.e.: set of rules) like any other.
In either case, I don't see how free will really exists. Either our actions are entirely predictable (in principle) from a set of physical laws, or our actions are controlled by fundamentally random processes (which means our actions are not controlled by us!).
And, even if there is no free will: we cannot determine it either way.
That's the crux of it, IMHO. Regardless of what is occuring at the most fundamental level, it will always be that we cannot, in principle or in practice, make proper predictions about what others are going to do. Thus, for all intents and purposes, people do have free will. I, for one, accept that free will is an illusion, but that doesn't affect the way that I make choices in my day to day life. It doesn't invalidate the way societies are run (an accused who argues to the judge that he "had no choice but to comit those actions, since free will doesn't really exist" will hear a judge retort "well then I can't stop myself from sentencing you, can I?")
Is the ability to be programmed the same as being conscious? So my computer in front of me here is conscious, because I can program it?
If you believe that a cat is conscious, then yes your computer is also. It has a limited sort of intelligence and conscioussness... nothing compared to a human. But that is a difference of scale, not fundamentals. Then again, if you feel that only humans are conscious, then no your computer isn't, animals are not, and no other programmed system will ever meet your criteria.
What difference can it possibly make that I experience anything? Don't talk to me about processing- that can all happen equally well if I'm not staring at it.
You suggest a disparity where none exists. You are not some small gnome (homunculus) living inside a brain, watching what comes in through the eyeballs. Have you considered that perhaps what you call "conscioussness" is just the by-product of all that processing and programmed decision-making that goes on in your brain? If the decision-making doesn't happen, you are not conscious (for example, dead or asleep). If the processing occurs, then internal it "feels" like conscioussness, but externally it just looks like your brain is processing things (just like a dog or a computer or another human looks, when viewed externally).
By experience, we're not talking about neural encodings and other Neural Correlates of Consciousness. We're talking about the actual experience, itself.
Well, if you decide to define the problem in such a way that it can never be analyzed scientifically, then yes, of course, every scientifica analysis will fail. That is because you are forcing it to be a philosophical debate, and not a scientific one. Science can explain relations between things and give you predictive abilities, but it will not answer your philosophical questions. The book in question (and related research) are not attempting to alleviate your emotional objections to study of the mind, they are trying to come up with predictive models of thought.
I hope this post doesn't sound overly pointed or accusatory, but I think your characterization of modern science is not fair.
Okay, I'll bite and respond to the quoted review...
... always self-contradictory.
They might tell you _that_ I'm thinking, but not _what_ I'm thinking.
Very true. We have a long way to go before statements like "a brain scan reveals our thoughts" will be valid.
Thoughts, moods, and memories--unlike bones--are not physical, empirical quantities.
They are not physical, that's for sure... but to claim that they are neither empirical nor measurable is not valid. Scientists can come up with an operational definition of any particular thought or emotion, and track empirical correlations with other measureables (like other emotions, states of mind, blood levels of chemicals, brain scan data, etc.). This operational definition of, say, "love" can be chosen so that it closely maps to what most people call "love." Whether or not the chosen definition (and resulting empirical data) actually captures "love" properly is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Each person is entitled to their own philosophy, but such conjecture is not provable.
a brain scan will not, however, tell you the nature or content of those thoughts and feelings
This is true today. Brain scans today are not able to exactly discern what thought a person is thinking. However, that doesn't mean that some sufficiently advanced combination of brain scanning techniques couldn't discern (with reasonable accuracy, say 95%) what emotion or thought a person was thinking. I'm not saying that such a technology will be invented, but at present from the scientific data available it seems plausible that this may well be done one day. More importantly, nothing has ruled out the possibility yet. The review-poster is falling into falacies of assuming that the internal state of a person's mind is unknowable in principle, just because today, in practice, we can't do this. In any case, most experts on the subject do feel that it is possible, in principle, to map a person's brain activity and make accurate guesses as to what thoughts they are thinking.
To simply reduce conscious experience to brain activity is to completely obliterate it: thoughts and feelings are reduced to electricity and neurochemicals;
This is an empassionated appeal to "the human spirit," but is utterly devoid of any persuasive argument.
what remains is a flat and faded one-dimensional cosmos
If something is "flat" it is usually two-dimensional, not one-dimensional. In any case, if something is one-dimensional, then it is redundant at best (and wrong at worst) to label it as "flat"... (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Scientific materialism is
The review-poster comits the falacy of generalizing. Because a single book overstates the state-of-the-art in brain scanning, suddenly all of scientific materialism is a wasted effort? Sounds more like someone using any available argument to push a philosophical agenda.
Maybe there are some subtleties I'm not getting here, but by and large this review sounds like an unsubstantiated bash of scientific reasoning, rather than a critical review of what brain imaging can tell us about human thought.
Unless you avoid ever touching a doorknob or hand-rail, I don't see what difference this makes. Common surfaces are everywhere. We all touch them all the time. Sometimes we catch something from a common surface. Adding a palm scanner to the mix doesn't increase the risk of transmission.
Contrary to myth (i.e.: television shows), twins do not have identical fingerprints (or retinal patterns, etc.). They have identical DNA, but the patterns on your fingers are developmental. Twins have very similar fingerprints, but the exact curves depend on exactly how a person matured in the womb, and are thus distinct and distinguishable even for twins. Identical twins will have different birth marks and so forth.
So in reality, if a biometric scan is supposed to prevent the 6 billion other people on earth from opening a lock encoded to me, then my evil twin brother will also be locked out. Real biometric scanners, of course, may not be that refined.
This is one of the problems with biometrics. I would rather someone steal my bank card and demand to know my PIN, rather than having them cut off my hand or cut out my eye.
For every countermeasure there is a counter-countermeasure. If heat sensors are included, thieves will just use a lighter (or whatever) to warm a finger before using it. I've often thought that retinal scanners should check to see if blood is actually flowing in the veins/arteries in the retina, but this is not (currently) feasible I think. If this countermeasure existed, then no doubt someone would figure out a way to beat it (artificially flowing liquid through a detached eye sounds complicated, but you could probably fool the sensor by casting moving shadows on the back of a detached eye, thereby simulating the proper pulsating effect of veins...). I've also thought that eye-scanners that use the iris pattern instead of retinal pattern could emit a flash of light and monitor the rate at which the pupil contracts. This would be proof that the eye is alive (since it reacts) and could even perhaps guard against people being drugged or stressed. Again, however, I worry that someone would overcome it.
The exact form of the criminal's counter-countermeasure of course depends on how the device works, but eventually they'll figure out how to beat it. Now, a technological escalation on cracking encryption or snooping network traffic is one thing... but when it comes to biometrics, it puts peoples lives in danger. So perhaps we should rethink this whole biometric thing. Is my car or bank account really worth so much that I'm willing to endanger my hand or eye???
Open source biometrics shouldn't just be for those wacky Europeans who like OSS. Important security issues like biometrics should be engineered in an transparent fashion. This is necessary so that the citizens can be assured that their privacy is not being infringed, and that their security is being maintained.
Closed formats and security through obscurity have well documented shortcomings. For important government and security applications (voting machines, encryption, etc.) it seems like an open standard and open software is a much better way to ensure reliability, stability, fairness, and so forth. After all, security is pointless without trust... and I would argue that trust in a system is enhanced by it being open.
Yes, there are people like you who have "cost" the industry money. And there are people (like the other posters) who have spent more money because of file sharing.
Then there are people like me. I've never purchased a CD for myself in my life (although I have bought them as gifts for people). I didn't buy CDs before I started filesharing, I don't buy them now, and I don't think I ever will. I don't like the format (prefer convenience of mp3) and they are too expensive for me (I don't care about music that much).
But although I would never buy a CD, I would probably be willing to pay a reasonable fee (5$/month maybe?) to have access to an online filesharing database that had essentially every song ever made. I am willing to pay to have easy access to high-quality music files, but I'm not willing to pay to have to put up with the inconvenience of a CD or of DRM. As far as I'm concerned, the music industry should realize that music (in a digital age) is a service they are providing, not a product that the consumer is purchasing (if I own the product, why can't I do whatever I want with it, anyway?). We will pay for the service of having easy access to quality, certified digital copies of old and new music. We like new music, and we are willing to pay to have immediate access to it.
I think the industry is losing money to P2P... but not due to lost CD sales. Rather, they are wasting a viable business model. The viability of this business model was evaluated by some folks at MIT. I think there is a lost opportunity here.
In real stores in Canada you have to pay 14 - 26 $CAD for a CD before tax, which is 16 - 30 $CAD with tax. An example. And another example. In my experience 10$ is a rare occurance, and certainly not the "average price" of a CD anywhere I've ever shopped.
The article says:
According to CRIA's own numbers, revenue from prices of an average CD in 2004 was C$10.95, down 8.8 percent from C$12.00 per CD in 1999.
Seems he's quoting revenue, not the sale price to the end consumer. If it's actually true that each CD brings in that much revenue, then CD prices are very very inflated.
All speech is by individuals. Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations?
Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion, versus when they are speaking on behalf of a corporation or government body. It's as simple as that. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)
Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.
You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit.
I agree with you on these points 100%. Frankly I think the laws are unnecessary. Either a culture will survive or it won't and we should just let society/culture evolve on its own (unless some totallitarian government is trying to destroy it, of course). I don't think the laws make sense, and ultimately I don't think they have made a difference. The proff that they haven't made a difference is, in my opinion, the very fact that they have become commonplace, somewhat ignore, and in the end not much has changed. French and English people still get along, and French people still all learn English, and English people (living in Quebec) learn french.
So the law is not being enforced?
Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything... but that's calmed down and over the last 10 years I haven't really heard any complaints. It just doesn't seem to affect the citizens.
To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all. However, in practice it turns out that things are not as bad as predicted. Life goes on and no one seems bothered. It's a waste of money, but has not infringed my rights. I am willing to put up with a bit of sillyness if it makes French people happy (even if, in my opinion, it was unnecessary). I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.
Canadian students elect a class president (and treasurer and secretary), just like in most small groups (tenant associations, astrophysics club, etc.). It wouldn't make sense to have a *prime* minister unless you have alot of *other* ministers (and most High Schools don't have a student council that requires that much administration!)
With regard to the rest of your comment: I'm sure we're all well aware of *why* the US is so interested in pushing their IP laws on the rest of the world. Of course it is in their best interest to do so: they make alot more money off of IP than other countries, so all kinds of money from around the world flows into the US. That's all well and good, but then it must be equally obvious why every other country should want to enforce much less strict IP laws. Every other country stands to gain by ignoring copyright as much as possible.
If the US doesn't like it, then they can impose martial law and disconnect their population from the internet. Of course what really happens is that the US uses their economic power in other domains in order to enforce extraction of IP money. The rich get richer. Oh well. It just bothers me how often people assume that IP exists for moral reasons, when, as you point out, it mostly exists for economic reasons.
Firstly, I consider Ads to be a corporate issue, not a private speech issue. I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals.
Secondly, there is the issue of comparing law to practice. There are many silly laws "on the books" and this bothers me. But at the end of the day, we must (unfortunately) analyze our freedoms and quality of life with regard to enforcement.
So, in Quebec, the gestapo DO NOT come knocking on your door for displaying a non-french sign. In Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. Lots of stores have english signs posted. Some even lack the french signage that is legally required. Does the military blow up their stores? No. Do they receive letters asking them to conform to the law? Rarely.
At the end of the day, I do not feel like my rights are being infringed. I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved. As I said, I think the laws are somewhat bizarre, but luckily the enforcement of these laws has been, as far as I can see, reasonable. (My main complaint being, as I said before, related to schooling...) Importantly, I have never felt that my ability to express my opinion or exercise free speech was inhibited in the slightest by these language laws.
It's not as bad as people (who don't live here) seem to think.
In Quebec, public notices and ads must be in French or have French translations (and the French version must be more prominent). All government documents must be available in both English and French in the entire country. These rules seem reasonable. And as an example, advertisements for local English newspapers are in English only... (which makes sense)
There is no censoring of private speech that I'm aware of or have ever encountered.
The only really weird thing left is the fact that children must be sent to french schools, unless their parents are English speaking. What this means is that french families and immigrating families have no choice about the language their children learn in elementary school and high school.
On the subject of MythTV (or equivalent). I like putting together computers and tweaking linux as much as the next guy, but I was thinking the other day that I might be willing to buy a fully functional MythTV box.
I really want a MythTV, but I don't have the time right now to really play with it and search for the best hardware. I was thinking that I'd be willing to buy a computer, with linux and MythTV all installed and configured properly (to work with my local cable box even?). Having someone else take care of all the hardware and software installation details would be great.
In the end, I may just build it myself, but there are lots of people I know that don't have the time, patience, and/or knowledge to build one from scratch, but are smart enough to take advantage of such a system (and maintain it). Does anyone know of a company offering such a service? Does anyone think that this has merit as a business idea?
To be fair, wikipedia is, in a way, "peer-reviewed"... although it is quite different from academic peer review.
As an academic, I know all about the strengths and weaknesses of peer review. On the one hand, it is rigorous, and immediately eliminates totally ridiculous or crank theories. On the other hand, it can suffer from biases on the part of the editors/reviewers, and novel ideas can sometimes be unfairly dismissed.
In wikipedia, content is dynamic and edited by a community, which makes it robust against many types of errors. It is also in many ways robust against the biases of individuals. However, it is true that many other types of errors will creep in and could even mislead people.
However, everyone (students especially) should realize that *all* sources of information (whether on the internet, in a respected journal, in a newspaper, etc.) have errors in them. In all cases, the reader must use their judgement to determine how much they trust the source, and how much they trust the particular information they are reading. Strange-sounding statements must always be double-checked against other sources, even if they are written in Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
In academia, when you see a reference, you have to both consider the journal it points to (is it respected? or is it crap?) and the authors of the article (good authors publishing in a lesser-known journal are still good references... idiots publishing in high profile journals are not). In the case of internet content, then, one must not only consider the source (wikipedia) but also the merit of the article itself. Some are good, some are bad. The reader (including someone reading a reference) will have to use some intelligence, and not blindly accept what they are told. Welcome to the future of information distribution.
Wikipedia is great, IMHO. The main thing holding back really is hardware. It often runs too slowly and in particular using wikipedia's built-in search often returns a "server is overloaded" response. (I guess that's why I always use Google to search for the correct wikipedia page.)
That's why I think these deals are a good thing. If companies are willing to donate bandwidth and server storage to wikipedia, that will help the project quite a bit. Of course, we are all concerned about wikipedia being corrupted by companies, and something awful happening to the whole project. I, for one, think wikimedia is smart enough and dedicated enough to avoid this. And even if they arn't, let's all remember that the whole *point* of wikimedia releasing everything under commons licensing is that *no one* (not even wikimedia) can lock the content away or commercialize it. If wikimedia starts becoming evil, someone can (and will) fork the project and re-release the entire thing.