At the core of the argument is the irreducibility problem. APIs combine high-level wrappers around functional pre-requisites dictated by the way computers operate on information. Most of these concepts are just semantic wrappers around set operations or popular methodologies. Examples for this are the terms 'threading' and 'multiprocessing' surrounding algorithms for scheduling, messaging and the distribution of resources at fixed offsets, 'database' around a separate organized data retrieval system (even IBM Sterling is called an XML database, although it's more of an XML REST API on top of DB2).

During community development, the names for API libraries are often built from micro-memes (ideas disseminated through a development group as semantic hooks to link together discussions).

An API doesn't solve a problem, it builds an INTERFACE that has been reduced as much as possible (for usability) to the absolute minimum exchange of information necessary to execute an algorithm. Attempting to declare intellectual property ownership over the format of an API is, simply put, a giant greased slippery slope.

Let's consider this as a symmetry experiment by swapping the IP owner out with another IP owner, such as the public domain. If we do this, then we should also be able to assume that public domain information that is used in proprietary IP requires that the IP become public domain. Solutions from mathematicians that are public domain (published in journals but accredited to them) would therefore mean that if the algorithm is used in a solution then by extension the algorithm is public domain and any API interface to the implementation is also public domain. That is to say, IP patents would all become null and void. Copyrights would apply, but only for distribution and marketing purposes.

In Python one has collections and in Java one has collections, but essentially the APIs are just common semantics around very similar ways of handling sets of information and performing combinatorics with that information.

This all comes down to the 14th amendment and the concept of equal protection. Build a solution, not a business plan of extortion that depends on sophistry and inherent lack of understanding among the lawyers and judges. Once one cuts through the semantics, we're really talking about the fact that IP patents are centered around a concept of 'first to market so we own the whole market' rather than true innovation.

And we wondered while the publish it now, make it work later trend is getting worse?

Consider this: particle physics shows us that entangled observation (not to be confused with human or intelligent observation) ties past and future events together into a causative vector of influence.

Extrapolating from this using entangled observation similar to Einstein-Rosen bridges between quantum events suggests (mathematically) that there is a correlation between frames of references in real-space once a chain of events is initiated.

This would have the effect of linking independent causative frames such that the 'arrow of time' would diverge, probabilistically, between relative frames.

Or, attempting to explain this analogically:

The light from a distant star contains a tremendous amount of observable information about a star, and a limited amount of information about exoplanets (Doppler shift, chronographic direct imaging, etc...). As technology advances, however, it should be possible to tease out (observe) direct evidence of extrasolar life from this meager data due changes over time to how life changes a planetary atmosphere (specific to biome, but similar divergence vectors).

Depending on how one interprets causative entangled observation, this could actually have a strong anthropic effect on life. Evidence that alien life, intelligent or not, exists on an exoplanet would strongly influence the actions of any intelligent species towards visiting and exploring the planet. This would be very close to a strong motivational influence towards any intelligent social network, yielding a high probability outcome of events.

Depending on distance between planets and assuming that technological development is generally rapid, there becomes a high probability chance that any technological species would, inadvertently, directly affect the development (probably adversely) of all emergent evolutionary biomes within observational range.

As a species matures, they would probably realize this at some point, and take one of two divergent vectors: Some level of apathy (no empathy, just settle habitable planets or destroy competition) or avoidance (let them develop, don't interfere). Extrapolating those two motivational vectors, it's likely that there are those that would visit for nefarious reasons, and likely that there are those that would seek to prevent that type of interference due to social morays based on the above principles.

the interpretations of QM-influenced infinite universe models. (modified QRE-based. One example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... )

My own personal interpretation of the model is that gravitational thinning between galactic clusters can encourage energetic decay (as-in particle decay) in thin regions between galaxies in order to create new galaxies. Once enough hydrogen has formed to create new stellar mega-nurseries stars form rapidly in proximity, drawing in more void-hydrogen and thus creating more stars. Of course this is purely mathematical since we would be unable to see these extra-galactic nurseries with any current technology.

Of course, I don't buy into Dark Energy or Dark Matter as invented by big-bang cosmologists. Let's face that simple reality right off, BBCs just invented the idea when required by their model breaking under observation by the Hubble telescope. A small modification of the QRE to account for ultra-low mass in neutrinos and photons allows for a higher probability of decay into a stable isotope of hydrogen when gravity and mass are worked in as order-of-magnitude vectors causative to quantum field interactions.

DISCLAIMER: Most of this stuff isn't anywhere near solid enough for publication. I'm no math genus, just barely smart enough to putz about with my own models.

Argument from ignorance. It's a pseudo-religious approach.

Could we be in a perfect simulation without knowing it? Yes.
If we were, could we prove it? No way to know, depends on its complexity and our technical sophistication.
There is no point to the premise.

The whole point to the philosophies of Mathematics and Science are to prove what we can prove through statements which can be verified and proven true or false in order to build a firm foundation of understanding.

More rich people need a minion (slaves are sooooo uncool these days) to follow them around and remind them they are only human. Memento mori.

Not true. Charter and Instructor aircraft (of which my father is both) have to be inspected every 100 hours. All planes have to be inspected yearly.

Very few pilots would risk that in AK. I'm sure a few do it, but I asked him about IFR flying in AK and he said that there aren't really enough transponders for IFR flying and they don't do a lot for mountains. You can fly under or over the weather, but flying in clouds is just a good way of becoming intimately familiar with a bugs life on a freeway. Snowcaps in white clounds at 8k-15k tend to be hard to see, and the weather can change pretty quickly.

Fail to file a flight plan and get into trouble and you're in for a very interesting, and probably quite long, vacation.

Also, the FAA keeps pretty close tabs in AK. Planes taking off regularly without flight plans are bound to attract attention. It's bad business for the hunting/fishing/tourism pilots and the forestry, oil, power and cell contracts are religious about it. About the only pilots I could see having any interest in blowing it off would be the conspiracy theory anti-gubment types and they tend to stay off the grid, which means no Uber.

Private charter to a private mail depo, not a post office. It's covered under section b.) 1.) if I understand it correctly. The charter is a private charter for a private delivery by the town of McCarthy. He has to also be a US mail carrier to pick it up legally, but once it's picked up it's in a kind of legal limbo and not really the U.S. mail anymore. Not sure of all of the regulations though.

Probably has something to do with the fact that the US Mail no longer owns or operates small craft, and there is literally no public highway to McCarthy (only a private bridge and road except for one federal walk bridge open to 4-wheelers).

He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney
He regularly takes sight-seeing tourists with him on the run, since it is allowed under their contract.
There are absolutely no regulation requirements for the travelers.
Pilots like my father are, of course, subject to all FAA regulations including medical, regular license renewal, insurance requirements, etc...
All of this information is available to anyone who asks, that would include Uber

In fact, there is far more oversight on a private pilot than on a cab driver. There is no way for Uber to know immediately if a driver with a suspended license gets into a car and picks up a fair.

In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.

There is absolutely no reason for this except airline influence. It's a convenience technology that should be covered by existing regulations, nothing more. Like Expedia for private pilots.

Infringe our right to personal defense.
Require us to use the law.
Price the law beyond our reach.
Isolate and indenture the population with a monopolized economy.

'The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.' - James A. Baldwin

This has been a common accusation of graduate students.

When I look at the real work and insight behind many published papers, it seems that there is a pretty heavy number of professors who build their reputations on the ingenuity and effort of their graduate students.

It's one of the reasons I have a deep dislike of Academic Social Authority. It's not that I don't see the need for accredited authority in education, far from it, but rather that there seems to be little or no oversight to prevent abuses in the system other than program validation at the university level.

Is this about the internet, or is this about national identity and fiscal control?

This comment has been removed for anti-fascist hate content.

sincerely,
President Hillary Rodham Trump

I'm making a note here: Huge Success
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction

There is only one Internet

everything else is an intranet /discussion