If the universe is going to prevent this machine from working, it's going to do it in the way that requires the least "effort" from the universe's perspective. This is probably something much different than what would seem to be the simplest and easiest from a human perspective.
The universe doesn't have limbs. It doesn't act with muscle. Fundamentally, it acts with probabilities. The universe is also the master of time, not the slave of time as humans are.
To generate a spontaneous e/m force when the beam is switched on is possible, but it would require a large number of improbabilities coming together in an instant. Similarly, it is possible for the atoms in your can of soda to spontaneously jump two feet to the left. However, this is vastly improbable, and the universe tends not to act this way.
It may be that by causing a few minor shifts in events months or years in advance, the universe can steer us towards a failed LHC with very little forced improbability. For example, simply aligning the spins of a few atoms in a researcher's brain might cause that person to make a critical decision leading to the failure of the magnets. It's a convoluted approach in human terms, but the essence of simplicity in quantum mechanical terms.
Rubberbanding can ruin a game, but so can perfectionism. I've had the most fun in racing games that allow leeway to make a couple of mistakes, and yet still seem like a fair race.
There are different types of racing gamers. There are those who like to hone their technique and drive a perfect line around the course. Then there are those like myself who like to fly into a turn much too fast, bounce off two cars, bump a guardrail, and somehow end up in the lead.
And when are we all going to have smart nano devices in our bloodstreams? They will float around, scan for all sorts of diseases, kill cancer as soon as it starts, clear clogs out of blood vessels, strengthen arterial weak points, monitor organ function and hormonal levels, and give a strikingly clear picture of an individual's state of health. Eventually, they will slow aging, and perhaps even stop and reverse it.
I agree, and I think it is surprising it has taken this long to launch this service. This is a chance for Comcast to save money on bandwidth, improve their quality of service, and do something good for their users and for the Internet at large. They can do the right thing while increasing profits!
That being said, I'm sure they can find ways to screw it up. A pop up notice in the user's malware-infected browser is not the way to notify customers.
What can you do with Flash that you can't do with html5? Have your application run across many mobile devices, if Adobe has their way.
There is no technical reason that we can't have an open source, widely accepted standard for displaying animations and multimedia content over the web. We don't need a proprietary application such as Flash any more than we need one for displaying HTML.
However, Adobe has a lot of momentum and clout. Meanwhile, the browser developers can't even agree on a single standard for embedded video. The "Open" Screen Project is a big push to extend the life of a closed source, locked down technology. If most mobile devices support Flash, and html5 support is spotty, most developers will use Flash. If most developers use Flash, most mobile device makers won't be too concerned about fully implementing html5.
We have an opportunity right now to see html5 and other open standards take hold, but it is also an opportunity for Adobe to extend their grasp. I hope that real openness wins.
The article mentions LittleBigPlanet, but I doubt the author has actually played it much. The user generated content is a huge success. 90% of the levels may be crap, but the best of the homemade levels are fantastic.
The key to making this work is allowing users to rate levels, and providing an easy way to find the best levels. The search function was pretty poor initially, but it now works quite well.
The problem is that they are selling the software, but pretending that they are licensing it. If the software is really licensed, it would be time-limited or would require regular payments. If the license is for unlimited lifetime use, then that should be called a sale by definition.
The law should then state that anything which is sold must be able to be resold, unless there is a legitimate reason why it can't be resold. A company selling software shouldn't be allowed to wave their hands and obliterate the second hand market. No company that makes physical goods has the right to restrict second hand sales, and software companies should not be treated any differently.
You make a good point. The big difference to me is that on Amazon, I am visiting a remote site. It may be displayed on my computer, but it is clear that I am using a site which I don't own.
When I am installing purchased software on my own machine, it is a much different situation. Everything involved is already mine, and so I should be able to do what I like. I can click "yes" even though I mean "no". I can use AutoCAD to create blueprints for a giant monster machine designed to demolish the Autodesk headquarters. I can choose not to install the software, and instead invite the install disk to my tea party. None of these actions have any meaning to the outside world if I do them in private.
An EULA should have the following properties:
It must be agreed to before the purchase takes place.
It must be explained in clear, simple, brief language. (This could be an "overview" section written in plain english, with the full legalese below it.)
It cannot take away certain rights, such as the First Sale doctrine.
We need to call a duck a duck, and a sale a sale. If Autodesk gives the user rights to use the software, with no expiration date and no future payments required, that is a sale. They can't just call it "licensing" because they find it convenient.
EULAs are a separate issue. They are presented to the user after the sale has been made. They appear in a form which is not taken seriously by 99% of software users. They can be accidentally agreed to by the user's friend, by a cat, by bumping the space bar. They are a contract between two entities without any meeting or any witnesses. And finally, they are just silly. I don't know if there is a legal argument for this, but the idea that clicking on a button on your own computer screen binds you to anything is absurd. Imagine a book with a wrapper on it that says, "by opening this wrapper you agree to never resell this book." Any reasonable person would laugh at this and then do what they please with the book.
Now, the DMCA would allow Autodesk to, say, validate a CD key online once only and then deny future installs on other hardware.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
I would also like to know if there is any legal case to made that Sony and Microsoft should allow for some way to resell downloadable games which have been purchased on a console.
The last few days have been difficult. What has become clear now is that the Android Open Source Project is a framework. It's licensed in such a way so that anyone can take it, modify it to their needs, and redistribute it as they please. Android belongs to everyone. This also means that big companies likes Google, HTC, Motorola, and whomever else can add their own pieces to it and share these pieces under whatever license they choose.
I've made lots of changes myself to the AOSP code, and added in code from lots of others. Building a better Droid, right?
The issue that's raised is the redistribution of Google's proprietary applications like Maps, GTalk, Market, and YouTube. These are not part of the open source project and are only part of "Google Experience" devices. They are Google's intellectual property and I intend to respect that. I will no longer be distributing these applications as part of CyanogenMod. But it's OK. None of the go-fast stuff that I do involves any of this stuff anyway. We need these applications though, because we all rely so heavily on their functionality. I'd love for Google to hand over the keys to the kingdom and let us all have it for free, but that's not going to happen. And who can blame them?
There are lots of things we can do as end-users and modders, though, without violating anyones rights. Most importantly, we are entitled to back up our software. Since I don't work with any of these closed source applications directly, what I intend to do is simply ship the next version of CyanogenMod as a "bare bones" ROM. You'll be able to make calls, MMS, take photos, etc. In order to get our beloved Google sync and applications back, you'll need to make a backup first. I'm working on an application that will do this for you.
The idea is that you'll be able to Google-ify your CyanogenMod installation, with the applications and files that shipped on YOUR device already. Or, you can just use the basic ROM if you want. It will be perfectly functional if you don't use the Google parts. I will include an alternative app store (SlideMe, or AndAppStore, not decided yet) with the basic ROM so that you can get your applications in case you don't have a Google Experience device.
I'll have more updates soon as I get all the code hammered out.
Thanks for all the support thru all of this.
This entry was posted on September 27, 2009, 9:41 am and is filed under Home.
The relevant theory here is Bell's Theorem (or Bell's Inequality.) The principle of entanglement has been shown experimentally using some clever approaches based on probability.
If you measure a specific property of two entangled particles, you are correct in saying that there is no way we could know if the result of the measurement was predetermined. However, experiments were set up in which a large number of pairs of particles were measured. Each measurement recorded one of several possible properties, chosen at random. Sometimes the same property would be measured for both particles, and sometimes different properties would be measured for each particle.
It can be shown mathematically that if the particle properties were predetermined, we would see certain probabilities emerge. In other words, for each pair of measurements, the same result would be found N% of the time. However, if the particle properties are determined at the time of measurement, the math changes, and we expect instead for the results to correlate P% of the time. This latter result is what was observed.
That is just a quick overview of the concept. I suggest reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", which provides a great explanation involving Mulder and Scully. (Really!)
I also found a nice, clear explanation of the probabilities involved here.
Someone please start one of these sites for Linux questions, particularly with regard to questions about install, graphics, sound, and drivers. It could actually make the Linux experience much smoother for someone just getting started.
I appreciate sites such as LinuxQuestions.org, but the StackOverflow approach could really bring some improvements. Looking at the highest ranked answer is a much nicer approach than scanning through 14 pages of comments.
Those are interesting ideas. I hope that the hobbyists will get into a friendly competition to see who can make the best video and achieve the highest altitude. It would be fun to see what they come up with. I'd consider trying it myself.
Actually, if you take a look at the screenshot in the article, the interface shown is nearly the same as the Chrome interface. It has the tabs on top, the lack of a standard title bar, and two dropdowns for "Page" and "Tools". Chrome uses icons instead of text for the Page and Tools menus.
I like the small footprint of the Chrome interface, but the Page and Tools menus don't have any intuitive meaning to me. I just think of them as "Menu 1" and "Menu 2". On one hand, I don't need to access these menus often, so it's nice to have them out of the way. However, it doesn't make it easy for users to find the menu options for things like Print, Options, and Bookmarks.
Slashdot Mirror
If the universe is going to prevent this machine from working, it's going to do it in the way that requires the least "effort" from the universe's perspective. This is probably something much different than what would seem to be the simplest and easiest from a human perspective.
The universe doesn't have limbs. It doesn't act with muscle. Fundamentally, it acts with probabilities. The universe is also the master of time, not the slave of time as humans are.
To generate a spontaneous e/m force when the beam is switched on is possible, but it would require a large number of improbabilities coming together in an instant. Similarly, it is possible for the atoms in your can of soda to spontaneously jump two feet to the left. However, this is vastly improbable, and the universe tends not to act this way.
It may be that by causing a few minor shifts in events months or years in advance, the universe can steer us towards a failed LHC with very little forced improbability. For example, simply aligning the spins of a few atoms in a researcher's brain might cause that person to make a critical decision leading to the failure of the magnets. It's a convoluted approach in human terms, but the essence of simplicity in quantum mechanical terms.
I found the Larry Niven story here:
All the Myriad Ways
Rubberbanding can ruin a game, but so can perfectionism. I've had the most fun in racing games that allow leeway to make a couple of mistakes, and yet still seem like a fair race.
There are different types of racing gamers. There are those who like to hone their technique and drive a perfect line around the course. Then there are those like myself who like to fly into a turn much too fast, bounce off two cars, bump a guardrail, and somehow end up in the lead.
And when are we all going to have smart nano devices in our bloodstreams? They will float around, scan for all sorts of diseases, kill cancer as soon as it starts, clear clogs out of blood vessels, strengthen arterial weak points, monitor organ function and hormonal levels, and give a strikingly clear picture of an individual's state of health. Eventually, they will slow aging, and perhaps even stop and reverse it.
I agree, and I think it is surprising it has taken this long to launch this service. This is a chance for Comcast to save money on bandwidth, improve their quality of service, and do something good for their users and for the Internet at large. They can do the right thing while increasing profits!
That being said, I'm sure they can find ways to screw it up. A pop up notice in the user's malware-infected browser is not the way to notify customers.
What can you do with Flash that you can't do with html5? Have your application run across many mobile devices, if Adobe has their way.
There is no technical reason that we can't have an open source, widely accepted standard for displaying animations and multimedia content over the web. We don't need a proprietary application such as Flash any more than we need one for displaying HTML.
However, Adobe has a lot of momentum and clout. Meanwhile, the browser developers can't even agree on a single standard for embedded video. The "Open" Screen Project is a big push to extend the life of a closed source, locked down technology. If most mobile devices support Flash, and html5 support is spotty, most developers will use Flash. If most developers use Flash, most mobile device makers won't be too concerned about fully implementing html5.
We have an opportunity right now to see html5 and other open standards take hold, but it is also an opportunity for Adobe to extend their grasp. I hope that real openness wins.
They told you it would be free, then you willingly paid $10 for it anyway?
You sure did!
No need to disclaim. If you're anything like me, you work with billions of atoms on a daily basis!
The article mentions LittleBigPlanet, but I doubt the author has actually played it much. The user generated content is a huge success. 90% of the levels may be crap, but the best of the homemade levels are fantastic.
The key to making this work is allowing users to rate levels, and providing an easy way to find the best levels. The search function was pretty poor initially, but it now works quite well.
The problem is that they are selling the software, but pretending that they are licensing it. If the software is really licensed, it would be time-limited or would require regular payments. If the license is for unlimited lifetime use, then that should be called a sale by definition.
The law should then state that anything which is sold must be able to be resold, unless there is a legitimate reason why it can't be resold. A company selling software shouldn't be allowed to wave their hands and obliterate the second hand market. No company that makes physical goods has the right to restrict second hand sales, and software companies should not be treated any differently.
You make a good point. The big difference to me is that on Amazon, I am visiting a remote site. It may be displayed on my computer, but it is clear that I am using a site which I don't own.
When I am installing purchased software on my own machine, it is a much different situation. Everything involved is already mine, and so I should be able to do what I like. I can click "yes" even though I mean "no". I can use AutoCAD to create blueprints for a giant monster machine designed to demolish the Autodesk headquarters. I can choose not to install the software, and instead invite the install disk to my tea party. None of these actions have any meaning to the outside world if I do them in private.
An EULA should have the following properties:
We need to call a duck a duck, and a sale a sale. If Autodesk gives the user rights to use the software, with no expiration date and no future payments required, that is a sale. They can't just call it "licensing" because they find it convenient.
EULAs are a separate issue. They are presented to the user after the sale has been made. They appear in a form which is not taken seriously by 99% of software users. They can be accidentally agreed to by the user's friend, by a cat, by bumping the space bar. They are a contract between two entities without any meeting or any witnesses. And finally, they are just silly. I don't know if there is a legal argument for this, but the idea that clicking on a button on your own computer screen binds you to anything is absurd. Imagine a book with a wrapper on it that says, "by opening this wrapper you agree to never resell this book." Any reasonable person would laugh at this and then do what they please with the book.
Common sense? If there was any way to apply common sense legally, the entire legal code would fit on a standard sheet of notebook paper.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
I would also like to know if there is any legal case to made that Sony and Microsoft should allow for some way to resell downloadable games which have been purchased on a console.
How about the reverse? Can we put GPS trackers on cop cars? I really want to replicate the video game minimap experience with a GPS dash unit.
Google Cache
The current state..
The last few days have been difficult. What has become clear now is that the Android Open Source Project is a framework. It's licensed in such a way so that anyone can take it, modify it to their needs, and redistribute it as they please. Android belongs to everyone. This also means that big companies likes Google, HTC, Motorola, and whomever else can add their own pieces to it and share these pieces under whatever license they choose.
I've made lots of changes myself to the AOSP code, and added in code from lots of others. Building a better Droid, right?
The issue that's raised is the redistribution of Google's proprietary applications like Maps, GTalk, Market, and YouTube. These are not part of the open source project and are only part of "Google Experience" devices. They are Google's intellectual property and I intend to respect that. I will no longer be distributing these applications as part of CyanogenMod. But it's OK. None of the go-fast stuff that I do involves any of this stuff anyway. We need these applications though, because we all rely so heavily on their functionality. I'd love for Google to hand over the keys to the kingdom and let us all have it for free, but that's not going to happen. And who can blame them?
There are lots of things we can do as end-users and modders, though, without violating anyones rights. Most importantly, we are entitled to back up our software. Since I don't work with any of these closed source applications directly, what I intend to do is simply ship the next version of CyanogenMod as a "bare bones" ROM. You'll be able to make calls, MMS, take photos, etc. In order to get our beloved Google sync and applications back, you'll need to make a backup first. I'm working on an application that will do this for you.
The idea is that you'll be able to Google-ify your CyanogenMod installation, with the applications and files that shipped on YOUR device already. Or, you can just use the basic ROM if you want. It will be perfectly functional if you don't use the Google parts. I will include an alternative app store (SlideMe, or AndAppStore, not decided yet) with the basic ROM so that you can get your applications in case you don't have a Google Experience device.
I'll have more updates soon as I get all the code hammered out.
Thanks for all the support thru all of this.
This entry was posted on September 27, 2009, 9:41 am and is filed under Home.
And the next email:
"I don't! (wink)"
Hey, everyone, there is a javascript exploit on Reddit! Click on these links to Reddit to learn more.
Incidentally, this old sock smells awful. You should smell it.
The relevant theory here is Bell's Theorem (or Bell's Inequality.) The principle of entanglement has been shown experimentally using some clever approaches based on probability.
If you measure a specific property of two entangled particles, you are correct in saying that there is no way we could know if the result of the measurement was predetermined. However, experiments were set up in which a large number of pairs of particles were measured. Each measurement recorded one of several possible properties, chosen at random. Sometimes the same property would be measured for both particles, and sometimes different properties would be measured for each particle.
It can be shown mathematically that if the particle properties were predetermined, we would see certain probabilities emerge. In other words, for each pair of measurements, the same result would be found N% of the time. However, if the particle properties are determined at the time of measurement, the math changes, and we expect instead for the results to correlate P% of the time. This latter result is what was observed.
That is just a quick overview of the concept. I suggest reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", which provides a great explanation involving Mulder and Scully. (Really!)
I also found a nice, clear explanation of the probabilities involved here.
Someone please start one of these sites for Linux questions, particularly with regard to questions about install, graphics, sound, and drivers. It could actually make the Linux experience much smoother for someone just getting started.
I appreciate sites such as LinuxQuestions.org, but the StackOverflow approach could really bring some improvements. Looking at the highest ranked answer is a much nicer approach than scanning through 14 pages of comments.
Microsoft bashing Microsoft? This smells like step one in their plan to take over Slashdot.
I know it's not cool these days to care about profanity. But I really prefer to read the /. homepage without seeing the word "fruck".
Ha, nice. I came in here looking for the Onion reference.
Those are interesting ideas. I hope that the hobbyists will get into a friendly competition to see who can make the best video and achieve the highest altitude. It would be fun to see what they come up with. I'd consider trying it myself.
Actually, if you take a look at the screenshot in the article, the interface shown is nearly the same as the Chrome interface. It has the tabs on top, the lack of a standard title bar, and two dropdowns for "Page" and "Tools". Chrome uses icons instead of text for the Page and Tools menus.
I like the small footprint of the Chrome interface, but the Page and Tools menus don't have any intuitive meaning to me. I just think of them as "Menu 1" and "Menu 2". On one hand, I don't need to access these menus often, so it's nice to have them out of the way. However, it doesn't make it easy for users to find the menu options for things like Print, Options, and Bookmarks.