I read most assertively those that boast that Einstein met his match with Quantum Physics. It brought down his relativity and showed the random froth that the universe is made up of.
QM does nothing to disprove relativity, and none of the early quantum physicists that I know of suggested anything of the sort.
However Einstein is still correct, Quantum Physics relies on statistics (randomness) as a patch or glue to express the universe where the laws are not known (or as Heisenburg pointed out cannot be known in classical scientific ways of measurement.)
It is not the "Laws" which are not known - Heisenbergs uncertainty principle says that all measurements have an inherent inaccuracy because the observer affects the thing being measured. It is based on sound scientific principles and can be explained to most high school students.
Einstien spent many years trying to see those laws and fought that they have to be there. He wished for a series of mathmatics that could express the world without having to resort to statistics.
I believe Einstein did eventually accept QM as a part of physics. In any case no other work has been as successful in explaining subatomic phenomena. As for not using statistics, you don't have to resort to physics to find a requirement for it.
Now like ancient days before Columbus, science simply believes that there is nothing there beyond what it can see. Whether the world is flat or the Universe random both are based on ideas of what the unseeable relm must be like. And just as maps were easier to express the world as flat, so are these theories easier to represent statistcaly.
The flatness of the world was based on ignorance - it is quite easy to show it is false, but nobody would believe it anyway. Quantum mechanics is based on observed phenomena and repeatable experiments. And there is a difference between "easier to represent statistically" and "explained using probabilistic wave functions". QM is a model developed to explain so-called "quantum phenomena". A different theory to explain it will not change the fact that pysical particles are observed to behave as wave functions.
Time and science will yet prove Einstein right. God does not play dice with the universe.
Science is not about being right, and all theories and laws have inaccuracies. QM is as sound a basis as Newtonian mechanics, just because you don't notice its effects in everyday life does not mean it cannot be verified.
As a science bigot, I try to get things correct when I argue about religion. It would be nice if you religious bigots could do the same.
consciousness is not a necessary quality of the observer. if you shoot an electron at a wall through a strong magnetic field (properly directed) the electron will choose a direction and its spin will certainly have been 'observed' regardless of whether some conscious entity watched it.
in other words, something dosen't have to be conscious to play the role of the observer in QM.
This is a paradox in QM - when does a wave function get resolved into a measurement? Your electron will get "observed" by your apperatus as being of a particular spin, however what state is your apperatus then in? According to Schrodinger it can also be described as a probability field - it has probabilities of indicating the electron is in one state or another. The apparatus's wave function is linked to the electron.
The question is, what actually happens when you observe the apparatus? Does the wave function then resolve itself into one option? Or do you now exist as a wave function experiencing the reading of each electron spin? (and if you do, why don't you experience this)
This is too hard for me to explain - see any good QM book.
It points out that evolution necessarily creates order out of chaos, and this violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Therefore, to justify why it works seems to require something that isn't subjected to the laws of thermodynamics.
Actually, it requires an agent to create the order and move the chaos to another location. There are plenty of physical processes which do this without being conscious or violating the laws of thermodynamics. Your refridgerator does this, as does your body and every other living thing on this planet.
And the poster's point is, since we have to make this assumption anyway, why not go with the explanation of a supreme Being who is not constrained by physical laws?
Because there is not a single piece of scientific evidence for this. you could equally argue that the universe was created ordered and is moving towards total entropy and we are a step on the downward spiral. Or how about consciousness being brought about by interference from another dimension - that's pretty simple. Science is usually performed by formulating a theory which fits the facts and then seeing if it stands up, not by making up a story and then doing everything in your power to defend it despite it having no rational basis or evidence for it.
This is much simpler than the convoluted, periphrastic arguments that evolution needs in order to be plausible. And isn't science all about finding the most economic theory that accounts for all the facts?
True in a sense, however a theory that is plausible still trumps one that is not. And evolution is really a pretty simple theory.
You are free to believe in whatever you want, but if you believe you are contributing to science by attempting to explain the world using mythology you are extremely deluded.
CSS is not about restricting discs to a certain region, it is copy protection. The reason it's copy protection is that standard DVD players will not play a disc copied bit by bit to another DVD. They wont play them because they are designed not to. The keys for the content scrambling system (CSS) are on a section of the disc that the writers you can buy will not write to. You can copy the information but your DVD player will not play it for you and if you try to play it on your computer you will find that approx 10% of the picture is scrambled (i.e. just enough to ruin anyones enjoyment of it).
So, I copy a DVD bit by bit and it doesn't work because there are no CSS keys on the disc. I decode it and copy it, and it doesn't work because there are no CSS keys on the disc. CSS is not a copy protection scheme because even if you do defeat it, you still can't copy the DVD (except as a poor-quality small MPEG or as images).
The MPAA are trying to criminalise any use of the content they have not specifically authorised and any method used to do this. By criminalising any DVD players not authorised by them, they can enforce any bullshit they like on the consumer, such as region codes, forced advertisements and annoying notices, etc. If their agenda was really about copying they'd be going after all copying systems and DVD pirates.
So, does it follow that that a computer can be sentient if humans are sentient? That is, a machine can perform any function that the human brain can therefore any property of the human brain can be emulated?
It also occurred to me that the chinse box could be nested - the brain interprets stimuli and provides response according to its connections (instructions), sections of the brain do the same, neurons, etc. When it boils down to it, all we have are the instructions - unless we assume some ungrounded holistic view such as "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". So is consciousness a program or an indefinable, chaotic result of a complex system?
What are the principles by which a desktop can be good to regular users? I'm speaking from personal prejudice only.
I have to say my predjudices are quite different to yours.
Simplicity - I couldn't agree less. One of the best things about Linux is that it's so configurable. Why shouldn't I choose to have buttons in different places (or no window buttons as in my current settings). I also prefer key commands over menus, launching programs from the terminal or root menu, non-modal dialogs (curse you, Microsoft!). I want to configure my applications so that I can use them well, not how Mr. Gates (or Jobs, or de Icaza) wants me to use them. Simple does not necessarily mean easy to use.
Uniformity - this is in conflict with my comments above. However, I don't see why I can't configure my applications to behave however I want. If people want to use the default controls, thats fine (and they should be able to reset them), but it's probably not how I want to operate. Uniformity of configuration methods would be nice - a Gnome standard on these would be a big plus, as long as it is flexible enough.
Elegance - as an engineer I'm tempted to say it doesn't matter, but I guess it does to some people. Anyhow, it shouldn't be the concern of the GUI designers, as long as it's configurable there are heaps of amateur artists willing to help out (eg. themes.org).
If Gnome takes the easy, ubiquitous, simple road to acceptance it will be missing out on the opportunity to introduce really new concepts. It's good to start with a set goal like replicating currently available desktops, but experimentation and variation is where Gnome can really shine.
How long till GNOME or another open-source desktop is the recognized leader?
Um.. until they start being original (and good as well). If you think about it, Gnome is copied from MS is copied from Apple is copied from Xerox... each company has just added a little piece, and many of those pieces were crap.
The GNOME desktop is great, but it seems when it is finished we will just have windows running on a more stable platform - with a couple of extra bits (I'll have to try Nautilus before passing final judgement, however).
IMHO, they really need to put some originality and creativity into the project. Some of the Linux apps out there spring to mind - LyX and Screem are the only ones I can think of at the moment.
I guess they're still trying to make Gnome a stable base at the moment. I would really like to see it turn into the hacker's GUI - configurable and extensible, but easy to use. Things like the integration of all the powerful Unix file utilities would be nice, it's a shame to have such powerful tools but have to be a hacker to use them.
OTOH, Gnome may not wish to be the "recognised leader" (and all the configurability and power in the world may not put it there). After all, a bunch of hackers is writing Gnome, any original bits are probably going to be good for them - but not necessarily for the average user. How does the Gnome team define good? Easy to learn? Easy to use? Flexible and powerful? Do they care if it's the most popular? Or if it works well?
So I suppose the NSA/CIA's job includes ripping off non-US companies, damaging the economies of other countries and creating a foreign relations nightmare for the US government. I'm sure glad my country's intelligence service isn't so "efficient".
I'm pissed off because this kind of bullshit is making life worse for everybody. So much for free trade, travel without visas and time restrictions and cooperation between companies. I hope this leads to less international cooperation with the US but it will probably just lead to an arms war of international industrial espionage.
We need to move to a protocol where address spoofing is not possible. We then should layer on top of that some sort of explicit "anonymous" packet support. We should then build on top of that explicit anonymity support in applications like e-mail packages and browsers. In other words, as a user, I should be able to simply check "mail anonymously" or "browse anonymously". On the other hand, as a mail recipient or site author, I should be able to check "refuse anonymous mail" or "refuse anonymous browsers". Make sure this support goes all the way down to the protocol level.
I hate to point this out, but anonymous accounts will work around this system. If I'm a spammer, I can get a free mail address, send off my span and guess what - it's not anonymous, it comes from a real address.
You could suggest that free accounts must have a certified ID somehow, which is one of the things the report suggests. Then you turn on some anonymity flag which sends your messages without your address. The some hacker (or the FBI) works out how to trace back the anonymous packets, and we're right back where we started. Except if you want an anonymous free account, you'll have to get it in a free country:-)
I have to admit, one of the reasons I sometimes play a female is that I feel they have more power in real life. By that I mean they're more able to deal with people, more popular and charismatic, etc.
This is most evident in chats, it's incredible how many more people seem to want to talk with you when you have a female-sounding nickname.
The funny thing is, I know one guy who always plays a female in violent games, and he's a very timid person in real life. Maybe I do the same thing a bit too - almost like it's easier to be callous if you're female. That old song just popped into my head - "The female of the species is more deadly than the male"
It really gets weird in realspace RPGs - when you try to use your feminine wiles on someone and everyone can see you're an ugly, balding guy with bad skin. Guess us wierdos will have to wait until VR becomes realistic.
I am currently writing to the ACCC (www.accc.gov.au) about region codes and CSS. I would encourage any other concerned Australian citizens to do the same.
To spell it out for you - these people are just that, people. Not some cartoonish corporate supervillians sitting around trying to think of ways to screw the public out of their god-given rights.
Yeah, just men... Just men who control huge industries and rewrite laws to suit their own purposes. Just men who impose restrictions on international trade and how their products are used to squeeze every dollar possible out of everyday people. Just men who would rather impose their controlling regime on everyday people rather than do the hard work of stopping real criminals.
Let's see - lack of social ethics, delusions of doing good, hired goons to the dirty work, lie to the public when convenient. This guy is only a lycra suit and an underground laboratory away from supervillian status.
Actually, a mechanical wheelchair with built in weapons would probably be more appropriate.
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.
All I know is that 18 months from now the technology today will seem very primitive.
The quote above is typical of someone who doesn't want to understand technology. He is purposfully ignoring the possibilities of the internet, trying to cripple it so that it conforms to his business model.
Assumption: Propriety and profiteering are better than freedom and sharing
Conclusion: The internet must be controlled or destroyed
Assumption: Our content must not be viewed, transmitted or copied outside the bounds of it's licence
Conclusion: we must make it illegal to view, copy or transmit data outside the bounds of it's licence and make it impossible to do so, just in case our licences are overridden by the law.
Making it illegal to circumvent the access prevention scheme even if used for legal acts is the really neat touch.
If people like Jack have their way, the internet won't be as we know it anymore. It'll just be another pointless cable-TV system with more channels full of meaningless shit than ever.
I have been in meetings with the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets and Jay Walker, and Jeff Bezos, and Jerry Yang, and all these people, and they don't know where it's going either.
The answers are already here - website advertising, free music samples, pay per month encyclopaedias, small fees for music downloads, convenient internet ordering.
The problem is that some industries don't want to enter the 21st century. After all, their gravy train might end! They might not be able to herd the sheep of humanity anymore! For god's sake people may start to think for themselves!!!!
It's up to new companies (or those that are willing to change) to use business models that don't screw over consumers and still make them money. And it's up to us to support them if we think they're worth it. The informed consumer can still win in the end.
Well, to me, the existance of non-linear math and "Chaos Theory" are very interesting.. the notion that there's really no such thing as "random". Things which appear unpredictable and random are actually governed by hidden patterns and rules.
Actually chaos theory proves that "random" phenomena do exist - ie. phenomena which cannot be predicted, like weather.
I really don't understand your comment as the lack of random events point towarwd a deterministic world with nothing unexplainable (esp. god). According to chaos theory unpredictable results can be obtained from simple systems, thus requiring a more holistic view of the world.
I guess you could argue that figures such as the Mandelbrot set "prove" that god exists because they contain beautiful and complex features derived from simple mathematical formula. But this doesn't prove that god exists any more than it proves that anything else exists - there is no logical link between mathematics and god.
BTW, if you want real "randomness" from science, you should be looking into quantum physics.
Slashdot Mirror
The photographic film is not the observer - you are the observer when you see the film.
Find a good book on QM if you really want to understand this
QM does nothing to disprove relativity, and none of the early quantum physicists that I know of suggested anything of the sort.
It is not the "Laws" which are not known - Heisenbergs uncertainty principle says that all measurements have an inherent inaccuracy because the observer affects the thing being measured. It is based on sound scientific principles and can be explained to most high school students.
I believe Einstein did eventually accept QM as a part of physics. In any case no other work has been as successful in explaining subatomic phenomena. As for not using statistics, you don't have to resort to physics to find a requirement for it.
The flatness of the world was based on ignorance - it is quite easy to show it is false, but nobody would believe it anyway. Quantum mechanics is based on observed phenomena and repeatable experiments. And there is a difference between "easier to represent statistically" and "explained using probabilistic wave functions". QM is a model developed to explain so-called "quantum phenomena". A different theory to explain it will not change the fact that pysical particles are observed to behave as wave functions.
Science is not about being right, and all theories and laws have inaccuracies. QM is as sound a basis as Newtonian mechanics, just because you don't notice its effects in everyday life does not mean it cannot be verified.
As a science bigot, I try to get things correct when I argue about religion. It would be nice if you religious bigots could do the same.
Actually, it requires an agent to create the order and move the chaos to another location. There are plenty of physical processes which do this without being conscious or violating the laws of thermodynamics. Your refridgerator does this, as does your body and every other living thing on this planet.
Because there is not a single piece of scientific evidence for this. you could equally argue that the universe was created ordered and is moving towards total entropy and we are a step on the downward spiral. Or how about consciousness being brought about by interference from another dimension - that's pretty simple. Science is usually performed by formulating a theory which fits the facts and then seeing if it stands up, not by making up a story and then doing everything in your power to defend it despite it having no rational basis or evidence for it.
True in a sense, however a theory that is plausible still trumps one that is not. And evolution is really a pretty simple theory.
You are free to believe in whatever you want, but if you believe you are contributing to science by attempting to explain the world using mythology you are extremely deluded.
Of course, we all know which famous scientist is the inspiration for this.
So, I copy a DVD bit by bit and it doesn't work because there are no CSS keys on the disc. I decode it and copy it, and it doesn't work because there are no CSS keys on the disc. CSS is not a copy protection scheme because even if you do defeat it, you still can't copy the DVD (except as a poor-quality small MPEG or as images).
The MPAA are trying to criminalise any use of the content they have not specifically authorised and any method used to do this. By criminalising any DVD players not authorised by them, they can enforce any bullshit they like on the consumer, such as region codes, forced advertisements and annoying notices, etc. If their agenda was really about copying they'd be going after all copying systems and DVD pirates.
So, does it follow that that a computer can be sentient if humans are sentient? That is, a machine can perform any function that the human brain can therefore any property of the human brain can be emulated?
It also occurred to me that the chinse box could be nested - the brain interprets stimuli and provides response according to its connections (instructions), sections of the brain do the same, neurons, etc. When it boils down to it, all we have are the instructions - unless we assume some ungrounded holistic view such as "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". So is consciousness a program or an indefinable, chaotic result of a complex system?
I think I'll go and lie down for a while.
I have to say my predjudices are quite different to yours.
Simplicity - I couldn't agree less. One of the best things about Linux is that it's so configurable. Why shouldn't I choose to have buttons in different places (or no window buttons as in my current settings). I also prefer key commands over menus, launching programs from the terminal or root menu, non-modal dialogs (curse you, Microsoft!). I want to configure my applications so that I can use them well, not how Mr. Gates (or Jobs, or de Icaza) wants me to use them. Simple does not necessarily mean easy to use.
Uniformity - this is in conflict with my comments above. However, I don't see why I can't configure my applications to behave however I want. If people want to use the default controls, thats fine (and they should be able to reset them), but it's probably not how I want to operate. Uniformity of configuration methods would be nice - a Gnome standard on these would be a big plus, as long as it is flexible enough.
Elegance - as an engineer I'm tempted to say it doesn't matter, but I guess it does to some people. Anyhow, it shouldn't be the concern of the GUI designers, as long as it's configurable there are heaps of amateur artists willing to help out (eg. themes.org).
If Gnome takes the easy, ubiquitous, simple road to acceptance it will be missing out on the opportunity to introduce really new concepts. It's good to start with a set goal like replicating currently available desktops, but experimentation and variation is where Gnome can really shine.
Um.. until they start being original (and good as well). If you think about it, Gnome is copied from MS is copied from Apple is copied from Xerox... each company has just added a little piece, and many of those pieces were crap.
The GNOME desktop is great, but it seems when it is finished we will just have windows running on a more stable platform - with a couple of extra bits (I'll have to try Nautilus before passing final judgement, however).
IMHO, they really need to put some originality and creativity into the project. Some of the Linux apps out there spring to mind - LyX and Screem are the only ones I can think of at the moment.
I guess they're still trying to make Gnome a stable base at the moment. I would really like to see it turn into the hacker's GUI - configurable and extensible, but easy to use. Things like the integration of all the powerful Unix file utilities would be nice, it's a shame to have such powerful tools but have to be a hacker to use them.
OTOH, Gnome may not wish to be the "recognised leader" (and all the configurability and power in the world may not put it there). After all, a bunch of hackers is writing Gnome, any original bits are probably going to be good for them - but not necessarily for the average user. How does the Gnome team define good? Easy to learn? Easy to use? Flexible and powerful? Do they care if it's the most popular? Or if it works well?
I know which I'd prefer.
So I suppose the NSA/CIA's job includes ripping off non-US companies, damaging the economies of other countries and creating a foreign relations nightmare for the US government. I'm sure glad my country's intelligence service isn't so "efficient".
I'm pissed off because this kind of bullshit is making life worse for everybody. So much for free trade, travel without visas and time restrictions and cooperation between companies. I hope this leads to less international cooperation with the US but it will probably just lead to an arms war of international industrial espionage.
I hate to point this out, but anonymous accounts will work around this system. If I'm a spammer, I can get a free mail address, send off my span and guess what - it's not anonymous, it comes from a real address.
You could suggest that free accounts must have a certified ID somehow, which is one of the things the report suggests. Then you turn on some anonymity flag which sends your messages without your address. The some hacker (or the FBI) works out how to trace back the anonymous packets, and we're right back where we started. Except if you want an anonymous free account, you'll have to get it in a free country :-)
I have to admit, one of the reasons I sometimes play a female is that I feel they have more power in real life. By that I mean they're more able to deal with people, more popular and charismatic, etc.
This is most evident in chats, it's incredible how many more people seem to want to talk with you when you have a female-sounding nickname.
The funny thing is, I know one guy who always plays a female in violent games, and he's a very timid person in real life. Maybe I do the same thing a bit too - almost like it's easier to be callous if you're female. That old song just popped into my head - "The female of the species is more deadly than the male"
It really gets weird in realspace RPGs - when you try to use your feminine wiles on someone and everyone can see you're an ugly, balding guy with bad skin. Guess us wierdos will have to wait until VR becomes realistic.
I am currently writing to the ACCC (www.accc.gov.au) about region codes and CSS. I would encourage any other concerned Australian citizens to do the same.
Yeah, just men... Just men who control huge industries and rewrite laws to suit their own purposes. Just men who impose restrictions on international trade and how their products are used to squeeze every dollar possible out of everyday people. Just men who would rather impose their controlling regime on everyday people rather than do the hard work of stopping real criminals.
Let's see - lack of social ethics, delusions of doing good, hired goons to the dirty work, lie to the public when convenient. This guy is only a lycra suit and an underground laboratory away from supervillian status.
Actually, a mechanical wheelchair with built in weapons would probably be more appropriate.
All I know is that 18 months from now the technology today will seem very primitive.
The quote above is typical of someone who doesn't want to understand technology. He is purposfully ignoring the possibilities of the internet, trying to cripple it so that it conforms to his business model.
Assumption: Propriety and profiteering are better than freedom and sharing
Conclusion: The internet must be controlled or destroyed
Assumption: Our content must not be viewed, transmitted or copied outside the bounds of it's licence
Conclusion: we must make it illegal to view, copy or transmit data outside the bounds of it's licence and make it impossible to do so, just in case our licences are overridden by the law.
Making it illegal to circumvent the access prevention scheme even if used for legal acts is the really neat touch.
If people like Jack have their way, the internet won't be as we know it anymore. It'll just be another pointless cable-TV system with more channels full of meaningless shit than ever.
I have been in meetings with the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets and Jay Walker, and Jeff Bezos, and Jerry Yang, and all these people, and they don't know where it's going either.
Now this I find a little scary.
The answers are already here - website advertising, free music samples, pay per month encyclopaedias, small fees for music downloads, convenient internet ordering.
The problem is that some industries don't want to enter the 21st century. After all, their gravy train might end! They might not be able to herd the sheep of humanity anymore! For god's sake people may start to think for themselves!!!!
It's up to new companies (or those that are willing to change) to use business models that don't screw over consumers and still make them money. And it's up to us to support them if we think they're worth it. The informed consumer can still win in the end.
Actually chaos theory proves that "random" phenomena do exist - ie. phenomena which cannot be predicted, like weather.
I really don't understand your comment as the lack of random events point towarwd a deterministic world with nothing unexplainable (esp. god). According to chaos theory unpredictable results can be obtained from simple systems, thus requiring a more holistic view of the world.
I guess you could argue that figures such as the Mandelbrot set "prove" that god exists because they contain beautiful and complex features derived from simple mathematical formula. But this doesn't prove that god exists any more than it proves that anything else exists - there is no logical link between mathematics and god.
BTW, if you want real "randomness" from science, you should be looking into quantum physics.