Although it's possible they ommitted data when when creating their model in order that it could be used later in testing (i didn't see in the article whether this was the case). It is quite possible that the 81% result was based on predicting results that were used in building the model (the article says they used historiacl data to build the model and then tried to predict historical results to test the model) - this would totally negate the results as meaningless. Lets see what it predicts and compare it the the actual results when they're available.
Re:Question for current players
on
Planetside For Free
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Currently if you log ion to your old account before the 28th Feb you can play for free for 30 days with your old characters. From the planet side website:
The 30-day Free service period begins whenever you log in, but you must take advantage of this special offer on or before 11:59 P.M. (PST) February 28, 2006. When your 30-day Free service period ends, your account will not remain active without entering payment information to re-activate billing.
ok so it probably was a myth, it was an amusing story when i studied there.
In any case it is now being demolished to make way for a new bigger building.
If your interested here are some links to images
I'm afraid i can't point you to the specific patents that gemstar owns but i just quickly googled "gemstar tvguide patents" and got a lot of references to suits filed by gemstar. Here is a small selection of news stories, most of which seem to be from around 2002 (i would investigate further, but this tends to wind me up;)
the aerodynamics were meant to provide less wind resistance on the side presented toward the prevailing winds (the other side not being aerodynamic), what i found unbelievable was that the building was completed before the error was noticed or that such an error could be made - but then i don't know the exact nature of the error. The story suggested plans being the wrong way round, but i think you'd notice that if all the writing was upside down - maybe his compass was broke when he plotted out the ground plan:)
This is a nice discussion and i'm glad it hasn't degenerated to flaming.
I think you understand the problems I decribe, but consider them surmountable. I would now like to give an example of a patent that affects my work (I write software for digital set top boxes). If I have any details incorrect then I apologise, and accept that if I misunderstand the situation then i may be wrong about a lot of my related points.
There is a US patent (held by Gemstar, I think) on the use of 2 dimensional grids to present electronic programme guide data on a TV. Currently this patent has been refused or at least not granted yet in the European Union. To me it seems that there is a prior art (is that the right spelling?) argument that printed TV guides have used 2 dimensional grids to display guide data for many years. The patent however has been granted in the US purely with respect to display on a TV. My point would be what does this arbitrary line relating to TV actually mean. What happens if i plug a TV out cable from my PC to the TV and display a website, using Picture in Picture say, that displays a 2D grid of guide data. Is the web site, due to my actions, now infringing on GemStar's patent, when previously it was only displayed on a computer monitor. What is the essential difference between a computer monitor and a TV that makes this distinction possible in the first place. If the distinction would be that the source technology is a computer rather than a set top box, then what about the fact that a set top box is a computer (it is you know, even if it doesn't look like one).
Another exmple of a GemStar patent is a 3 x 3 grid of buttons/links. Again this can be done on a computer without infringing the patent (i think), but on a TV, nope. This example lead to one company I worked for in Europe entering into an agreement with GemStar to pay them revenues just in case the patent was eventually granted in Europe. In this case the agreement was in some way reciprocal as an agreement was also negotiated with regard to advertising in GemStar applications to the benefit of the company i worked for, but this was only possible due to the fact the patent had not yet been granted in Europe. Other digital TV providers in Europe (with more balls:) have chosen not to bow to GemStars demands. In general they do not license their patents but insist on providing the software that implements them (at least this was the case at the time - about 3-4 years ago).
IMHO the situation is very confusing and provides most revenues to lawyers. Equally, i think the same confusion can arise in none software patents. Particularly as lawyers get smarter and abuse of the system gets more attractive.
Thus my own opinion is that the problems of the patent system are insurmountable and it is time to move on. To get back to the original point to which I replied - it seems to me a good way to demonstrate this might be in challenging all existing patents as to their validity under the current system.
On a lighter note, you seem to have ideas as to how patenting should (does?) work - maybe you could come up with and patent your own patent system:)
I understand what your saying here. But here is the problem, you have drawn an arbitrary line between idea and implementation. It is not clear that this line can be applied to all other situations, so in other cases new arbitrary lines would have to be subjectively arrived at.
Using your example I could say that I build a flying car by putting wings on it and a jet engine - can i patent a car with wings and a jet engine. You would probably say no I have to add more detail. So at what point is there enough detail. In any complex project like building a car you will probaly find that adjustments have to be made beyond the original design at the point of construction to take into account things that have not been foreseen. Every decision along the way started out as an idea and i'm not sure that repeated application of an idea constitutes "implementation" (this would apply equally to software - which is definitely a point of contention).
It sounds like nit picking and it is - it's a kind of thought experiment that gives you a headache. I guess i'm trying to point out that the line is being drawn differently for virtual (abstract?) as opposed to real "implementations". Although maybe i can't say this as the line in either case has not been adequately defined (can it be?).
As an aside i think that copyright has its problems too (i'm not going to expand on this here - so you don't have to bite).
This reminds of a possible myth that i heard while studying Maths at Manchester University. The Maths department occupied the tallest building on campus which was supposed to have been designed both aerodynamically so that it would not be affected by wind and with windows only on one side so that the sun could provide a significant amount of heating.
The story goes that during construction the site engineer actually had the plans the wrong way round and as a result the building was built back to front. As a result the building tended to sway horribly in winds and the temperature inside was almost impossible to control.
Like i say, i don't know if the story was really true but certainly there were problems with temperatures and whilen inside you could definitely tell the building was moving most of the time - it was quite disconcerting.
Comments on this thread keep referring to the difference between ideas and implementations. I don't really understand this as I cannot see where the line should be drawn. Clearly not at the point of instantiation into a physical object as then a separate patent would be required for every instance. Take a step back and you have a design which is surely an idea.
Wouldn't the arguments put forward by Andrew Brown of the Guardian (as summarised/quoted in the previous comment by D4C5CE) be equally applicable to "implementations".
Wait a sec the earth is a satellite of the sun, not a spaceship.
It is like it is because it tends to stay a relatively constant distance from the Sun (climate) and because it is the size that it is (gravity) (among other things of course, like chemical composition and age)
Maybe we should strap rockets to the earth and the sun and just take off into the cosmos.
(i can't believe i felt compelled to write this - am i stating the obvious or missing the point. Doh, no idea)
Searle seems to assume that language and intelligence have a kind of equivalence. IMHO language is a tool that we have developed in order to communicate our thoughts.
Maybe Searle's thought experiment is a proof by contradiction that language does not demonstrate intelligence. I am reminded of the bar scene in Good Will Hunting where the college dude is just spouting the thoughts of others he has read - which just shows that an intelligent entity can also behave without intelligence (creativity?), like memorizing multiplication tables or applying an algorithm (i am not discounting the possibilty that there maybe a "creativity" algorithm - "algorithm" is an example that could be incorrect here, or indeed that memory isn't an aspect of intelligence but it would seem that there is more to it than that).
In essence it seems that the look up process itself has the ability to get by in Chinese and that the actor enabling the process is largely irrelevent. Not sure what happens when the chap outside the room tries to teach the system some new information and get it to come up with new hypotheses (obviously in Chinese). I think that this would be a part of the Turing test that is being reflected - although the Turing test is I think deliberately vague about how the machine/human interaction would progress (if it wasn't it might accidentally define intelligence).
At the end of the day it probably comes down to what we regard as understanding and intelligence, which seems to be ignored (glossed over) in this experiment.
I realise that this thread isn't a discussion of Searle's thought experiment so I may have to find somewhere more appropriate to post this to get a decent response. Any ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
Although it's possible they ommitted data when when creating their model in order that it could be used later in testing (i didn't see in the article whether this was the case). It is quite possible that the 81% result was based on predicting results that were used in building the model (the article says they used historiacl data to build the model and then tried to predict historical results to test the model) - this would totally negate the results as meaningless. Lets see what it predicts and compare it the the actual results when they're available.
oh and here's a link to the full articlem ?id=67013§ion=News&month=current
http://planetside.station.sony.com/news_archive.v
Currently if you log ion to your old account before the 28th Feb you can play for free for 30 days with your old characters. From the planet side website:
not quite no one.
http://hometownsource.com/2005/February/14farmersI wondered if i could hook up a digester and fuel cell to the toilet in my house (hope you weren't about to go to lunch).
ok so it probably was a myth, it was an amusing story when i studied there.
In any case it is now being demolished to make way for a new bigger building.
If your interested here are some links to images
the old building: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/051_d emolition/26.html
during demolition: http://www.aidan.co.uk/photo5041.htm
proposed new building: http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/
I'm afraid i can't point you to the specific patents that gemstar owns but i just quickly googled "gemstar tvguide patents" and got a lot of references to suits filed by gemstar. Here is a small selection of news stories, most of which seem to be from around 2002 (i would investigate further, but this tends to wind me up ;)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-01-31-gem star.htm 3 /06/09/daily7.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/200
http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002006.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_110.html
And an example of them losing:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:87727511/GEMSTAR-T V+GUIDE+LOSES+PATENT+RULING+OVER+INTERACTIVE+TV+PR OGRAM+GUIDES.html
the aerodynamics were meant to provide less wind resistance on the side presented toward the prevailing winds (the other side not being aerodynamic), what i found unbelievable was that the building was completed before the error was noticed or that such an error could be made - but then i don't know the exact nature of the error. The story suggested plans being the wrong way round, but i think you'd notice that if all the writing was upside down - maybe his compass was broke when he plotted out the ground plan :)
This is a nice discussion and i'm glad it hasn't degenerated to flaming.
I think you understand the problems I decribe, but consider them surmountable. I would now like to give an example of a patent that affects my work (I write software for digital set top boxes). If I have any details incorrect then I apologise, and accept that if I misunderstand the situation then i may be wrong about a lot of my related points.
There is a US patent (held by Gemstar, I think) on the use of 2 dimensional grids to present electronic programme guide data on a TV. Currently this patent has been refused or at least not granted yet in the European Union. To me it seems that there is a prior art (is that the right spelling?) argument that printed TV guides have used 2 dimensional grids to display guide data for many years. The patent however has been granted in the US purely with respect to display on a TV. My point would be what does this arbitrary line relating to TV actually mean. What happens if i plug a TV out cable from my PC to the TV and display a website, using Picture in Picture say, that displays a 2D grid of guide data. Is the web site, due to my actions, now infringing on GemStar's patent, when previously it was only displayed on a computer monitor. What is the essential difference between a computer monitor and a TV that makes this distinction possible in the first place. If the distinction would be that the source technology is a computer rather than a set top box, then what about the fact that a set top box is a computer (it is you know, even if it doesn't look like one).
Another exmple of a GemStar patent is a 3 x 3 grid of buttons/links. Again this can be done on a computer without infringing the patent (i think), but on a TV, nope. This example lead to one company I worked for in Europe entering into an agreement with GemStar to pay them revenues just in case the patent was eventually granted in Europe. In this case the agreement was in some way reciprocal as an agreement was also negotiated with regard to advertising in GemStar applications to the benefit of the company i worked for, but this was only possible due to the fact the patent had not yet been granted in Europe. Other digital TV providers in Europe (with more balls :) have chosen not to bow to GemStars demands. In general they do not license their patents but insist on providing the software that implements them (at least this was the case at the time - about 3-4 years ago).
IMHO the situation is very confusing and provides most revenues to lawyers. Equally, i think the same confusion can arise in none software patents. Particularly as lawyers get smarter and abuse of the system gets more attractive.
Thus my own opinion is that the problems of the patent system are insurmountable and it is time to move on. To get back to the original point to which I replied - it seems to me a good way to demonstrate this might be in challenging all existing patents as to their validity under the current system.
On a lighter note, you seem to have ideas as to how patenting should (does?) work - maybe you could come up with and patent your own patent system :)
I understand what your saying here. But here is the problem, you have drawn an arbitrary line between idea and implementation. It is not clear that this line can be applied to all other situations, so in other cases new arbitrary lines would have to be subjectively arrived at.
Using your example I could say that I build a flying car by putting wings on it and a jet engine - can i patent a car with wings and a jet engine. You would probably say no I have to add more detail. So at what point is there enough detail. In any complex project like building a car you will probaly find that adjustments have to be made beyond the original design at the point of construction to take into account things that have not been foreseen. Every decision along the way started out as an idea and i'm not sure that repeated application of an idea constitutes "implementation" (this would apply equally to software - which is definitely a point of contention).
It sounds like nit picking and it is - it's a kind of thought experiment that gives you a headache. I guess i'm trying to point out that the line is being drawn differently for virtual (abstract?) as opposed to real "implementations". Although maybe i can't say this as the line in either case has not been adequately defined (can it be?).
As an aside i think that copyright has its problems too (i'm not going to expand on this here - so you don't have to bite).
This reminds of a possible myth that i heard while studying Maths at Manchester University. The Maths department occupied the tallest building on campus which was supposed to have been designed both aerodynamically so that it would not be affected by wind and with windows only on one side so that the sun could provide a significant amount of heating.
The story goes that during construction the site engineer actually had the plans the wrong way round and as a result the building was built back to front. As a result the building tended to sway horribly in winds and the temperature inside was almost impossible to control.
Like i say, i don't know if the story was really true but certainly there were problems with temperatures and whilen inside you could definitely tell the building was moving most of the time - it was quite disconcerting.
I like this idea a lot.
Comments on this thread keep referring to the difference between ideas and implementations. I don't really understand this as I cannot see where the line should be drawn. Clearly not at the point of instantiation into a physical object as then a separate patent would be required for every instance. Take a step back and you have a design which is surely an idea.
Wouldn't the arguments put forward by Andrew Brown of the Guardian (as summarised/quoted in the previous comment by D4C5CE) be equally applicable to "implementations".
um...
Wait a sec the earth is a satellite of the sun, not a spaceship. It is like it is because it tends to stay a relatively constant distance from the Sun (climate) and because it is the size that it is (gravity) (among other things of course, like chemical composition and age)
Maybe we should strap rockets to the earth and the sun and just take off into the cosmos.
(i can't believe i felt compelled to write this - am i stating the obvious or missing the point. Doh, no idea)
who says dogs can't solve problems that humans can - i'm sure it's just a question of motivation :)
thanks for that link - most elucidating
Searle seems to assume that language and intelligence have a kind of equivalence. IMHO language is a tool that we have developed in order to communicate our thoughts.
Maybe Searle's thought experiment is a proof by contradiction that language does not demonstrate intelligence. I am reminded of the bar scene in Good Will Hunting where the college dude is just spouting the thoughts of others he has read - which just shows that an intelligent entity can also behave without intelligence (creativity?), like memorizing multiplication tables or applying an algorithm (i am not discounting the possibilty that there maybe a "creativity" algorithm - "algorithm" is an example that could be incorrect here, or indeed that memory isn't an aspect of intelligence but it would seem that there is more to it than that).
In essence it seems that the look up process itself has the ability to get by in Chinese and that the actor enabling the process is largely irrelevent. Not sure what happens when the chap outside the room tries to teach the system some new information and get it to come up with new hypotheses (obviously in Chinese). I think that this would be a part of the Turing test that is being reflected - although the Turing test is I think deliberately vague about how the machine/human interaction would progress (if it wasn't it might accidentally define intelligence).
At the end of the day it probably comes down to what we regard as understanding and intelligence, which seems to be ignored (glossed over) in this experiment.
I realise that this thread isn't a discussion of Searle's thought experiment so I may have to find somewhere more appropriate to post this to get a decent response. Any ideas?