I actually dearly wish that they win an injunction and Intel won't sell any processors. For a couple months. Halting what amounts to the majority of the global computational hardware infrastructure. "Sorry, we can't fix your computer because of that obscure IT-IP company". They should have the reserves to survive that -- but what do you think is going to happen to Transmeta?
...and remember: all you have to do is find one expert who testifies that the idea sure would have been obvious to him at the time. Or find one mention of a sufficiently similar idea in the proceedings of some sufficiently obscure conference in Poland. 99% of patents can be busted if you throw enough money at it, and many large companies would rather spend $100k on busting your patent than $10k on on licensing it...
There's a price at which extracting oil from tar sands makes sense.
This and similar statements are simplistic fiction. "Price" is a nebulous notion and the unit "dollar" measures, if anyhting at all, energy throughput. One dollar is a unit of energy equivalent to so-and-so-many kWh. (about 10 right now, but that can and has changed). That means that it does not matter one whit how expensive oil becomes, extractions of tar sand will not make sense IFF the extraction of 1kWh worth of product requires more than 1kWh worth of effort. When that point is reached, all the simplistic supply-and-demand fantasies will collapse, since physics knows no market elasticity.
When you have reached the point where pumping a barrel of oil costs a barrel of oil, the pumping of oil will cease to make sense, no matter how much more the prices climb.
Why was this modded flamebait? It is absolute objective truth. Something like Cassini, a European mission with American instrumentation, guidance, control and coms will never happen again because of the pigheadedness of the current US administration. This is NOT "flamebait". This is NOT "a troll". This is simply the exact precise consequences of the actions of the Bush Whitehouse and the Republican Congress.
Anybody who imagines improving international scientific exchange is either deluded or lying. ITAR and EAR have forced many nations around the globe to develop their own rocket engines, their own deep-space communications systems, their own attitude-control systems because the US will not allow foreigners access to these any more. The US has expressly and intentionally given up a great head-start and advantage on space-technology. If you disagree with that, then don't downmod the messenger, but kick YOUR senator and YOUR president out of office.
In reality, of course, the ISP sent me so-and-so-many photons and after inspecting them for quailty I returned them all because they didn't pass muster. No goods really changed hands, other than for this try-before-you-buy transaction. Therefore nothing to be taxed here.
No, your honor, I don't know what happened to those photons afterwards. Possibly the ISP sold them to someone less discerning than me?
How would one determine how to correct the image when looking down from space?
In the simplest case the same way your digital camera does autofocus: You pick a horizontal and a vertical line and adjust focus until you get the sharpest transitions along that line. Make it smarter and more expensive and cover the field and...
There's good reasons that adaptive optics are only ever mentioned in the context of looking upwards. They have little to do with physics.
It has everything to do with TFA since it still (AIUI) seems to be working on the 'make a copy' principle.
No, it doesn't. You cannot use quantum entanglement to make a copy of a state.
This process does not involve destruction of the original,
It involves transfer of the state of the original stsem to a different carrier. This leaves the previous carrier in a random state. In your nomenclature it very much involves "the destruction of the original".
Really. RTFA before you try to question implications.
I recommend that you do not respond to (2) until you've thought about this for a moment: I can win every game based on the prisoner dilemma, if I'm playing with myself as a partner.
$ cp source target ; rm -rf source
(actually, I think mv does exactly this, but just to be explicit:-) )
And nobody has corrected this yet? Is this really Slashdot?
The "cp" operation will temporarily consume twice as much space as the original before the original is removed. Actual data is being replicated. "mv" (at least within the same file system) will leave the data where it is and merely change where the pointer (i.e. directory entry) that points to it is stored. With your version you have two files temporarily and a possible duplication if the operation fails due to a power outage somewhere in the middle. The normal "mv" operation could leave you with NO files (the data is still there but unaccessible) depending on how it's implemented. (No, not on journalling file systems, but thats something else again).
In particular, a "cp ; rm" will delete your original if the cp fails due to, say, a full destination disk. So at least a "cp && rm" is advised. Which can fail, for example, if some of your source data is unreadable. While "mv" will still work, since the source data is never actually touched. Depending on your filesystem, default flags and implementation, "mv" will often also not change the last-access or creation-timestamps, file ownership and/or file permissions which may or may not be changed by cp. Also the permissions needed in the source and destination directories can be different for the two.
Really - what's up with you folks out there? Why aren't there 20 posts pointing this out already?
do you really want to die and while being (hopefully!) reassembled elsewhere?
This has nothing to do with "reassembling" anything. Merely with moving a quantum state from one place to another.
One year from now, 95% of the atoms in your body will have been replaced. Practially all the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen in your system is being replaced all the time. Does that mean you're "dying" and "being reassembled"? Doe it bother you?
What makes me me and you you is not the particles we're composed of. It is the arrangement of these particles, the structural information represented by the way the particles act, react, interact. The "management style" if you will. Taking every oxygen atom in your body and replacing it with another oxygen atom from somewhere else doesn't change anything in this arrangement. It happens all the time anyways. So what?
Every glass of water you drink contains many molecules that have passed through my body before. Through Aristoteles body. And, yes, obligatory/.-fantasy: Isabella Rosselini's body. But they're just molecules - they don't matter. What matters is the arrangement of these molecules. So teleportation moves the arrangement from place A to B without moving the atoms themselves. Which, as far as I caan see, is really all that's needed.
If the complete amount of quantum information is transferred, then neither an outsider nor an insider would be able to tell the difference because there would BE no difference.
The concept of "identical particles" in physics does emphatically NOT mean "they kinda look the same". It means "they are not subject to distinction". Exchanging the one for the other will not alter any measureable (observable, testable) aspect of the universe in any way anywhere anywhen anyhow.
That's what we mean with the word "identical"; it's just that in physics we actually, seriously, honestly mean it while in common English we only "kinda" mean it.
If you create a perfect atomic copy of a living being and then destroy the original, is the copy really the same as the original?
Yes, with absolute certainty because it is a perfect copy. If it wasn't "really the same" then it would NOT be a perfect copy. You question indicates that you need to think about the phrase "perfect copy" or otherwise about the phrase "really the same" (or maybe both) until you grasp their meaning. Hint: it's the same.
Your question is tantamount to asking: "If we make the item green, will it really be green?". The answer is "yes, by the very premise of the statement".
The ethical risks, and our inability to determine an answer to the philosophical questions
There are all kinds of technological risks and biological risks and environmental and economic and what-have-you risks, but there are no "ethical risks" whatsoever. The phrase "philosophical question" simply means "I'm too lazy to think about this terribly hard, so I pretend there's an open question here somewhere".
They have put together a vertical Linux distribution dedicated to telephony.
As opposed to a horizontal linux distribution dedicated to telephony? As opposed to a diagonal distribution? A vertical distribution that is dedicated to something other than telephony?
The sentence up there is composed as if it conveyed some kind of information, but that may be misleading...
I am interested to hear from other people in a similar position and, in particular, why or why not they chose grid software over improving the existing code to leverage better processor technology,
Not sure how "comparable" my situation is to yours (aerospace industry) but in a similar "many machines versus optimizing to exploit smaller, faster, better machines" situation we came down soundly on the side of the former. The reasoning went roughly like this:
We know today's budget. We can use it to upgrade all machines to the fastest, shiniest stuff out there and hire the people to optimize the code for that. Or we can buy vast numbers of mediocre metal and spend the programmer-money on making our tasks take advantage of this grid.
We do NOT know tomorrow's budget. The markets. The directions the businesses will go. If we have sudden extra demand AND the money to satisfy it, a gridded solution will let us simply expand the grid. A Mainframe solution will at best obsolete our current best machines (and at worst there's no computer out there fast enough for us). If we get a bump in demand but NOT adequate funding (the usual case) then a grid is as scalable as our budget will allow, while each new generation of mainframe requires massive new porting investment. If we get a drop in demand, simple/dumb grid machines can easily be turned over to other departments/tasks, while super-high-powered metal requires super-high-powered programming to make it useful.
Manpower costs more than equipment. A hundred boxes running a thin veneer of load-balancing on to of what amounts to linux can be run and maintained by a high-schooler. And if a couple of the boxes crash and burn because of mis-management it'll affect the grid only minimally. A few high-powered/specialized machines cost the price of a sysadmin who knows how to handle the thing and in case a box goes down, you've lost a significant fraction of your computing ability.
If your software is already geared towards using some large-but-unspecified grid for its operations and you get in a sudden crunch, you can buy grid-(CPU-)power by the hour without having to shell out more for equipment.
Equipment depreciates. If you need "the fastest hardware out there" you're forever going to buy new machines because todays "fastest" is tomorrow's "junk". A grid merely needs "some machines" and if they're a year or two out of date, then you can still count the depreciation against your tax burden...
Really: the only advantage to concentrating computational power is that it consumes less space and less power -- so if you're in a situation where these two are negligible against the rest of your operating costs (which is almost always the case) then there's really no good reason to mess with it.
Re:How do they check it you got it right?
on
The Next X Prize
·
· Score: 1
The current technology took over 10 years to decode one human gene set. At that rate, it would take over 1000 years to check the results for 100 people.
That was a while ago.
Our ability to directly read the human genome has been improving much faster than Moore's law.
(It will, however, ultimately become dependent upon and thus limited by Moore's law).
However, the genetic alterations here are not on the sequence level, but rather on the Epigenetic level (the state of the DNA).
In other words: gene-expression. And? Where is the news here? How is this a "shakeup"? This strikes me as trite old long-known, well-understood stuff. Genes set the range over which you can turn out, but which genes are used and how and how much and how they're balanced against others -- well, that's management. Nurture. That's what "nature vs nurture" means.
You're light-skinned or dark-skinned: that genetic. But if you sepnd much time in the sun, you'll become somewhat darker-skinned than if you spend all your time indoors. That's gene-expression. What part of this is new or earth-shaking?
The company says that a system about the same size as a tower PC and will be able to hold 4.7T bytes of data.
I may be missing somehting here somewhere (I often do) but "4.7TB of data" comes to less than 7 run-of-the-mill (by now) 750GB HDDs. Which already fit into a PC tower. Even a mini-tower. And require no new technology. And have much faster immediate random-access times than a drive that has to pick a thin disk from a spindle somewhere.
1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?).
Type "pkgtool". Option four is "Remove". Has been in there since 1994, when I started using slack.
Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.
Huh. Let me put it this way: I upgraded to V11 by typing "swaret --update && swaret --upgrade". That ain't exactly rocket science. I think I might have had to type "A" when it asked whether to install it all. That line, by the way, is run once a week from cron and keeps my system uo-to-date. What on earth is the big deal?
Oh, I see -- lack of "proper" package management. I guess that means management that requires a GUI or something like that. Well, in that case Slack might just not be for you, because it works just as well without one as with one. Hum. Odd.
What do you gain in 2.6? Just curious. I've been running 2.4 since it became available and never really thought that there was a good reason to switch from 2.2. So now I have a fine working system that happens to use 2.4. Is there something wrong with 2.4?
(No, this isn't sarcasm or anyting, I really am that naive.)
This is too general. It can be one if you do it that way.
Claiming "string theory doesn't make testable predictions" is not a testable prediction.
This is a claim. Your claim. You are claiming something. Can you support that claim? Prove it, maybe? Show evidence for it? Provide a line of reasoning that tells us that it is true?
The way you are doing it here, simply making claims without support, is indeed not science - just as you asserted above. But that doesn't mean that it has to be done this way.
I'm not sure how you could prove in the affirmative how a theory is unable to ever make a testable prediction.
Just because you are "uncertain" how something (anything) could be proven does not mean that it cannot be proven. Or that it has not indeed already been proven somewhere by someone. This is a blatant argument from ignorance here.
Note that I am not claiming that your conclusion is necessarily wrong. Even false premises can be led to correct conclusions.
It is entirely possible to examine science in a way that is itself scientific.
Ron Rivest's ThreeBallot system lets you verify that your own vote was counted, without being able to prove to anyone else how you voted (so you can't sell your vote).
Nope, doesn't work. If you can go online and check that you ballot was counted this way or that, then you can go online to show me that it was counted this way or that.
Meanwhile, I could take a simple, normal ballot as it exists today and add to it two copies: one with all bubbles filled in and one with all bubbles empty -- that would transform today's ballot into the proposed system and all it would add is lots of extraneous paper, not any knd of security.
Here, "objective" should mean by a highly-regarded author who discusses possible other viewpoints and explanations for his/her findings
The one thing that distinguishes honest people from liars is that honest people do not insist on "other viewpoints and explanations" -- they're content with the fact and let those facts speak for themsleves.
Your statement there proves conclusively that you will reject every single link handed to you that actually examines the irregularities in 2004. Every single one. Because tehre's no "alternative viewpoints" here anywhere - the facts are unambiguous. Here's from the (republican-controlled) house of representatives: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatu srept1505.pdf but I'm sure you'll find fault with even your own tax dollars at work telling you the fact of your own government defrauding you.
Reality is independent of opinion. Your opinion. My opinion. Anybodies opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
"Markets" are measured in dollars. Anybody who pretends to measure the "maket share" of a product that does not cost money is confused at best.
Yeah but ... Intel? \
I actually dearly wish that they win an injunction and Intel won't sell any processors. For a couple months. Halting what amounts to the majority of the global computational hardware infrastructure. "Sorry, we can't fix your computer because of that obscure IT-IP company". They should have the reserves to survive that -- but what do you think is going to happen to Transmeta?
...and remember: all you have to do is find one expert who testifies that the idea sure would have been obvious to him at the time. Or find one mention of a sufficiently similar idea in the proceedings of some sufficiently obscure conference in Poland. 99% of patents can be busted if you throw enough money at it, and many large companies would rather spend $100k on busting your patent than $10k on on licensing it...
There's a price at which extracting oil from tar sands makes sense.
This and similar statements are simplistic fiction. "Price" is a nebulous notion and the unit "dollar" measures, if anyhting at all, energy throughput. One dollar is a unit of energy equivalent to so-and-so-many kWh. (about 10 right now, but that can and has changed). That means that it does not matter one whit how expensive oil becomes, extractions of tar sand will not make sense IFF the extraction of 1kWh worth of product requires more than 1kWh worth of effort. When that point is reached, all the simplistic supply-and-demand fantasies will collapse, since physics knows no market elasticity.
When you have reached the point where pumping a barrel of oil costs a barrel of oil, the pumping of oil will cease to make sense, no matter how much more the prices climb.
Why was this modded flamebait? It is absolute objective truth. Something like Cassini, a European mission with American instrumentation, guidance, control and coms will never happen again because of the pigheadedness of the current US administration. This is NOT "flamebait". This is NOT "a troll". This is simply the exact precise consequences of the actions of the Bush Whitehouse and the Republican Congress.
Anybody who imagines improving international scientific exchange is either deluded or lying. ITAR and EAR have forced many nations around the globe to develop their own rocket engines, their own deep-space communications systems, their own attitude-control systems because the US will not allow foreigners access to these any more. The US has expressly and intentionally given up a great head-start and advantage on space-technology. If you disagree with that, then don't downmod the messenger, but kick YOUR senator and YOUR president out of office.
They can tax bot the Tx and Rx parts!!
But only if it is goods flowing both ways.
In reality, of course, the ISP sent me so-and-so-many photons and after inspecting them for quailty I returned them all because they didn't pass muster. No goods really changed hands, other than for this try-before-you-buy transaction. Therefore nothing to be taxed here.
No, your honor, I don't know what happened to those photons afterwards. Possibly the ISP sold them to someone less discerning than me?
How would one determine how to correct the image when looking down from space?
In the simplest case the same way your digital camera does autofocus: You pick a horizontal and a vertical line and adjust focus until you get the sharpest transitions along that line. Make it smarter and more expensive and cover the field and...
There's good reasons that adaptive optics are only ever mentioned in the context of looking upwards. They have little to do with physics.
It has everything to do with TFA since it still (AIUI) seems to be working on the 'make a copy' principle.
No, it doesn't. You cannot use quantum entanglement to make a copy of a state.
This process does not involve destruction of the original,
It involves transfer of the state of the original stsem to a different carrier. This leaves the previous carrier in a random state. In your nomenclature it very much involves "the destruction of the original".
Really. RTFA before you try to question implications.
1) This has nothing to do with TFA
2) I have no intent, nor reason to shoot myself.
I recommend that you do not respond to (2) until you've thought about this for a moment: I can win every game based on the prisoner dilemma, if I'm playing with myself as a partner.
$ cp source target ; rm -rf source :-) )
(actually, I think mv does exactly this, but just to be explicit
And nobody has corrected this yet? Is this really Slashdot?
The "cp" operation will temporarily consume twice as much space as the original before the original is removed. Actual data is being replicated. "mv" (at least within the same file system) will leave the data where it is and merely change where the pointer (i.e. directory entry) that points to it is stored. With your version you have two files temporarily and a possible duplication if the operation fails due to a power outage somewhere in the middle. The normal "mv" operation could leave you with NO files (the data is still there but unaccessible) depending on how it's implemented. (No, not on journalling file systems, but thats something else again).
In particular, a "cp ; rm" will delete your original if the cp fails due to, say, a full destination disk. So at least a "cp && rm" is advised. Which can fail, for example, if some of your source data is unreadable. While "mv" will still work, since the source data is never actually touched. Depending on your filesystem, default flags and implementation, "mv" will often also not change the last-access or creation-timestamps, file ownership and/or file permissions which may or may not be changed by cp. Also the permissions needed in the source and destination directories can be different for the two.
Really - what's up with you folks out there? Why aren't there 20 posts pointing this out already?
do you really want to die and while being (hopefully!) reassembled elsewhere?
This has nothing to do with "reassembling" anything. Merely with moving a quantum state from one place to another.
One year from now, 95% of the atoms in your body will have been replaced. Practially all the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen in your system is being replaced all the time. Does that mean you're "dying" and "being reassembled"? Doe it bother you?
What makes me me and you you is not the particles we're composed of. It is the arrangement of these particles, the structural information represented by the way the particles act, react, interact. The "management style" if you will. Taking every oxygen atom in your body and replacing it with another oxygen atom from somewhere else doesn't change anything in this arrangement. It happens all the time anyways. So what?
Every glass of water you drink contains many molecules that have passed through my body before. Through Aristoteles body. And, yes, obligatory /.-fantasy: Isabella Rosselini's body. But they're just molecules - they don't matter. What matters is the arrangement of these molecules. So teleportation moves the arrangement from place A to B without moving the atoms themselves. Which, as far as I caan see, is really all that's needed.
How could an outsider tell the difference,
If the complete amount of quantum information is transferred, then neither an outsider nor an insider would be able to tell the difference because there would BE no difference.
The concept of "identical particles" in physics does emphatically NOT mean "they kinda look the same". It means "they are not subject to distinction". Exchanging the one for the other will not alter any measureable (observable, testable) aspect of the universe in any way anywhere anywhen anyhow.
That's what we mean with the word "identical"; it's just that in physics we actually, seriously, honestly mean it while in common English we only "kinda" mean it.
If you create a perfect atomic copy of a living being and then destroy the original, is the copy really the same as the original?
Yes, with absolute certainty because it is a perfect copy. If it wasn't "really the same" then it would NOT be a perfect copy. You question indicates that you need to think about the phrase "perfect copy" or otherwise about the phrase "really the same" (or maybe both) until you grasp their meaning. Hint: it's the same.
Your question is tantamount to asking: "If we make the item green, will it really be green?". The answer is "yes, by the very premise of the statement".
The ethical risks, and our inability to determine an answer to the philosophical questions
There are all kinds of technological risks and biological risks and environmental and economic and what-have-you risks, but there are no "ethical risks" whatsoever. The phrase "philosophical question" simply means "I'm too lazy to think about this terribly hard, so I pretend there's an open question here somewhere".
Anybody who's a researcher today was a teenager in the 80ies... ;)
They have put together a vertical Linux distribution dedicated to telephony.
As opposed to a horizontal linux distribution dedicated to telephony? As opposed to a diagonal distribution? A vertical distribution that is dedicated to something other than telephony?
The sentence up there is composed as if it conveyed some kind of information, but that may be misleading...
I am interested to hear from other people in a similar position and, in particular, why or why not they chose grid software over improving the existing code to leverage better processor technology,
Not sure how "comparable" my situation is to yours (aerospace industry) but in a similar "many machines versus optimizing to exploit smaller, faster, better machines" situation we came down soundly on the side of the former. The reasoning went roughly like this:
We know today's budget. We can use it to upgrade all machines to the fastest, shiniest stuff out there and hire the people to optimize the code for that. Or we can buy vast numbers of mediocre metal and spend the programmer-money on making our tasks take advantage of this grid.
We do NOT know tomorrow's budget. The markets. The directions the businesses will go. If we have sudden extra demand AND the money to satisfy it, a gridded solution will let us simply expand the grid. A Mainframe solution will at best obsolete our current best machines (and at worst there's no computer out there fast enough for us). If we get a bump in demand but NOT adequate funding (the usual case) then a grid is as scalable as our budget will allow, while each new generation of mainframe requires massive new porting investment. If we get a drop in demand, simple/dumb grid machines can easily be turned over to other departments/tasks, while super-high-powered metal requires super-high-powered programming to make it useful.
Manpower costs more than equipment. A hundred boxes running a thin veneer of load-balancing on to of what amounts to linux can be run and maintained by a high-schooler. And if a couple of the boxes crash and burn because of mis-management it'll affect the grid only minimally. A few high-powered/specialized machines cost the price of a sysadmin who knows how to handle the thing and in case a box goes down, you've lost a significant fraction of your computing ability.
If your software is already geared towards using some large-but-unspecified grid for its operations and you get in a sudden crunch, you can buy grid-(CPU-)power by the hour without having to shell out more for equipment.
Equipment depreciates. If you need "the fastest hardware out there" you're forever going to buy new machines because todays "fastest" is tomorrow's "junk". A grid merely needs "some machines" and if they're a year or two out of date, then you can still count the depreciation against your tax burden...
Really: the only advantage to concentrating computational power is that it consumes less space and less power -- so if you're in a situation where these two are negligible against the rest of your operating costs (which is almost always the case) then there's really no good reason to mess with it.
The current technology took over 10 years to decode one human gene set. At that rate, it would take over 1000 years to check the results for 100 people.
That was a while ago.
Our ability to directly read the human genome has been improving much faster than Moore's law.
(It will, however, ultimately become dependent upon and thus limited by Moore's law).
However, the genetic alterations here are not on the sequence level, but rather on the Epigenetic level (the state of the DNA).
In other words: gene-expression. And? Where is the news here? How is this a "shakeup"? This strikes me as trite old long-known, well-understood stuff. Genes set the range over which you can turn out, but which genes are used and how and how much and how they're balanced against others -- well, that's management. Nurture. That's what "nature vs nurture" means.
You're light-skinned or dark-skinned: that genetic. But if you sepnd much time in the sun, you'll become somewhat darker-skinned than if you spend all your time indoors. That's gene-expression. What part of this is new or earth-shaking?
The company says that a system about the same size as a tower PC and will be able to hold 4.7T bytes of data.
I may be missing somehting here somewhere (I often do) but "4.7TB of data" comes to less than 7 run-of-the-mill (by now) 750GB HDDs. Which already fit into a PC tower. Even a mini-tower. And require no new technology. And have much faster immediate random-access times than a drive that has to pick a thin disk from a spindle somewhere.
1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?).
Type "pkgtool". Option four is "Remove". Has been in there since 1994, when I started using slack.
Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.
Huh. Let me put it this way: I upgraded to V11 by typing "swaret --update && swaret --upgrade". That ain't exactly rocket science. I think I might have had to type "A" when it asked whether to install it all. That line, by the way, is run once a week from cron and keeps my system uo-to-date. What on earth is the big deal?
Oh, I see -- lack of "proper" package management. I guess that means management that requires a GUI or something like that. Well, in that case Slack might just not be for you, because it works just as well without one as with one. Hum. Odd.
what you gain in 2.6 trumps 2.4
What do you gain in 2.6? Just curious. I've been running 2.4 since it became available and never really thought that there was a good reason to switch from 2.2. So now I have a fine working system that happens to use 2.4. Is there something wrong with 2.4?
(No, this isn't sarcasm or anyting, I really am that naive.)
Meta-science is not a science either.
This is too general. It can be one if you do it that way.
Claiming "string theory doesn't make testable predictions" is not a testable prediction.
This is a claim. Your claim. You are claiming something. Can you support that claim? Prove it, maybe? Show evidence for it? Provide a line of reasoning that tells us that it is true?
The way you are doing it here, simply making claims without support, is indeed not science - just as you asserted above. But that doesn't mean that it has to be done this way.
I'm not sure how you could prove in the affirmative how a theory is unable to ever make a testable prediction.
Just because you are "uncertain" how something (anything) could be proven does not mean that it cannot be proven. Or that it has not indeed already been proven somewhere by someone. This is a blatant argument from ignorance here.
Note that I am not claiming that your conclusion is necessarily wrong. Even false premises can be led to correct conclusions.
It is entirely possible to examine science in a way that is itself scientific.
Ron Rivest's ThreeBallot system lets you verify that your own vote was counted, without being able to prove to anyone else how you voted (so you can't sell your vote).
Nope, doesn't work. If you can go online and check that you ballot was counted this way or that, then you can go online to show me that it was counted this way or that.
Meanwhile, I could take a simple, normal ballot as it exists today and add to it two copies: one with all bubbles filled in and one with all bubbles empty -- that would transform today's ballot into the proposed system and all it would add is lots of extraneous paper, not any knd of security.
Here, "objective" should mean by a highly-regarded author who discusses possible other viewpoints and explanations for his/her findings
The one thing that distinguishes honest people from liars is that honest people do not insist on "other viewpoints and explanations" -- they're content with the fact and let those facts speak for themsleves.
Your statement there proves conclusively that you will reject every single link handed to you that actually examines the irregularities in 2004. Every single one. Because tehre's no "alternative viewpoints" here anywhere - the facts are unambiguous. Here's from the (republican-controlled) house of representatives: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatu srept1505.pdf but I'm sure you'll find fault with even your own tax dollars at work telling you the fact of your own government defrauding you.
Reality is independent of opinion. Your opinion. My opinion. Anybodies opinion.
Great... so what you're saying is that you have no proof that the 2004 election was stolen[...]
We have proof. It has been presented many times in many places. Denying it won't make it go away.