On the importance of evidence: a response to Halpern

Halperri argues for alternative non-Bayesian approaches to uncertainty based on problems he perceives in the Bayesian approach. In particular, he argues for a distinction between degrees of belief and statistical statements (based on the concept of random sampling). In this response I show that there is no difference between these two concepts in the Bayesian framework, and that the replacement of variables by constants in probabilistic predicate calculus expressions is valid, despite Halpern's objections. The main reason for his rejection of the simpler approach is that he does not condition his belief statements on the evidence used to form these beliefs, and so gets into trouble when new evidence is received. This failure to properly take evidence into account invalidates most of his other criticisms. While I approve of his call for more formal rigor in representing Bayesian practice, his claim to have provided a semantics is misleading – what he has provided is not operational.     

At the Crossroads of Technology and Management: Deciding which Path to Take

A friend of the author finds himself at crossroads in his career. Like so many IS professionals, he does not know whether to turn down the road marked IT or down the other headed toward management. the self-assessment questions the author offered to his friend help to guide which path to take.     

Comments, with reply, on `A noninvasive architecture to monitorreal-time distributed systems', by J. Tsai et al

The commenter maintains that the above-titled article (see ibid., vol.23, no.3, p.22-3, 1990) on unobtrusive real-time system monitoring fails to demonstrate much appreciation for the software side and as a result provides a somewhat misleading view of the state of the art in real-time system monitoring. He states that the article fails to mention that modern real-time application software written in a high-level programming language rarely conforms to the static structure assumed by the monitor. The authors reply that their article clearly states that the principal objective is to develop a hardware-based noninvasive real-time monitoring system to ensure minimal interference in the execution of a target real-time distributed computing system. They point out that the monitor does not assume that the application software has to be a static structure and present an argument in support of this claim     

Patent Claims Revisited: Examiners and Trolls

In this column, the author revisits the writing of claims, and demonstrate two other styles of writing them. In one style, he shows how to write a more narrow and focused claim. In the other style, he shows how to write claims that are beyond broad--claims that can be written prior to actually inventing anything.     

On Pantoja's problem allegedly showing a distinction between differential dynamic programming and stagewise Newton methods

In this journal, Pantoja has described a deterministic optimal control problem in which his stagewise Newton procedure yields an exact optimal solution whereas differential dynamic programming (DDP) does not. This problem is also quoted by Coleman and Liao (in another journal) as a correct instance with some emphasis on the advantage of Pantoja's procedure over DDP. Pantoja argues that the problem involves nonlinear dynamics in his terminal-cost problem formulation, and therefore DDP and stagewise Newton methods are different. The purpose of this paper is to show that, while for a general nonlinear optimal control problem DDP and Pantoja's method differ, his problem has a special structure such that it is a false example of this claim; more specifically, the reason is twofold. First, he made an obvious algebraic error in his computation. Second, his example is equivalent to a problem of linear dynamics and quadratic criterion (LQ in short). It is true that when a general LQ that involves quadratic stage costs is transformed to a terminal-cost problem, the nonlinear (quadratic) state dynamics would result from each quadratic stage cost of the LQ. Yet the LQ-solution procedure remains the same, i.e., with the same discrete (Riccati) recurrence equations that can be derived by classical dynamic programming. This means that DDP obtains the exact minimum point of the transformed terminal-cost criterion just as does the Newton method. Using a standard LQ of general type, we formally prove this equivalence in its terminal-cost version even with nonlinear state dynamics.     

The Swapping Constraint

Triviality arguments against the computational theory of mind claim that computational implementation is trivial and thus does not serve as an adequate metaphysical basis for mental states. It is common to take computational implementation to consist in a mapping from physical states to abstract computational states. In this paper, I propose a novel constraint on the kinds of physical states that can implement computational states, which helps to specify what it is for two physical states to non-trivially implement the same computational state.     

Computation and Intentionality: A Recipe for Epistemic Impasse

Searle’s celebrated Chinese room thought experiment was devised as an attempted refutation of the view that appropriately programmed digital computers literally are the possessors of genuine mental states. A standard reply to Searle, known as the “robot reply” (which, I argue, reflects the dominant approach to the problem of content in contemporary philosophy of mind), consists of the claim that the problem he raises can be solved by supplementing the computational device with some “appropriate” environmental hookups. I argue that not only does Searle himself casts doubt on the adequacy of this idea by applying to it a slightly revised version of his original argument, but that the weakness of this encoding-based approach to the problem of intentionality can also be exposed from a somewhat different angle. Capitalizing on the work of several authors and, in particular, on that of psychologist Mark Bickhard, I argue that the existence of symbol-world correspondence is not a property that the cognitive system itself can appreciate, from its own perspective, by interacting with the symbol and therefore, not a property that can constitute intrinsic content. The foundational crisis to which Searle alluded is, I conclude, very much alive.     

The pitfalls of managing a superstar

The author gives advice on how to deal with superstar employees. He has never found any literature on the matter (although some may exist), and he is frustrated that more isn't written about this problem. So he has opted to take on the issue directly, present his experiences, and hopefully provide some insight to managers so they won't make the same management mistakes he has made. He entered into people management naively, having no idea whatsoever what it involved because he co-founded a company right out of grad school, and had no idea what people management was. As the company grew, this quickly changed, and when he and his partner started hiring superstars, even more changed     

A DCT-based ownership identification method with gray-level and colorful signatures

In this paper, we propose an ownership identification method based on discrete cosine transformation (DCT). The copyright owner can select a gray-level or colorful image to be an ownership statement, which is used as a claim to the ownership of his/her work. Unlike traditional watermarking schemes, the ownership statement is not embedded into the image to be protected. Instead, our method will construct an ownership share for the author according to the feature of the original image and the ownership statement. The feature map of the original image is composed of DC coefficients of different DCT blocks. When piracy happens, the author can show his ownership share to reveal the ownership statement to prove his/her copyright. Note that the size of the ownership statement is not restricted to being smaller than that of the host image. In addition, multiple ownership statements can be registered for a single image without destroying each other. The experimental results will show the robustness of our scheme against several common attacks. Finally, we will give some discussions and comparisons with other researchers’ study.     

Comments, with reply, on `Extensions to SQL for historicaldatabases' by N.L. Sarda

The commenters point out that the author of the above-titled paper (see ibid., vol.2, p.220-30, 1990) failed to acknowledge their contemporary publications of almost identical results and the subsequent, comprehensive refinement of this work. The author replies that he did not have access to their publications. He indicates some differences between their work and his     

Comments, with reply, on 'Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: an experimental comparison' by D.A. Scanlan

The commenter maintains that what is being compared in the abovementioned article (see ibid., vol.6, no.5, p.28-36 (1989)) is the relative stability of flowcharts and pseudocode for the expression of a restricted aspect of actual programs, better isolated in the lab than in practice. He notes that the author avoids any loops in his three test algorithms. He points out that flowcharts require special output capabilities and an elaborate editor if they are to compare as a tool with pseudocode. The author responds that the commenter's point about the lack of loops in the algorithms is well taken but that he chose algorithms very similar to those used in a study with which he wished to compare his results. He addresses other points made by the commenter, defending his own approach and conclusions.<>     

The evitability of software patents

Responding to Kenneth Nichols' article in Computer (“The Age of Software Patents”, April 1999, pp. 25-31), the author disputes the two claims: “software patents are neither inherently good nor bad” and “software patents are here to stay.” The author thinks software patents are not impersonal technology, but rather a part of an intellectual patent system that is a social artifact. Because all social artifacts are fair game for judgments, software patents fall into that category. Not only does the author think it reasonable that an interested party examine the ethics and morality of any branch of the legal system (of which software patents and copyrights are a part), but he feels professionals in relevant areas have a social duty to do so. After exploring several arguments for software patents and copyrights, the author settles on the evitability of software patents, though he points out this does not ensure they will be avoided. However, he thinks there are good arguments for avoiding software patents for other more practical and just forms of monopoly for software     

Copyright and work made for hire

Legal and policy aspects of information-technology use and development are discussed. Undoubtedly the most important and powerful legal right you can have as a program writer is to own the copyright to your software. If you have written the program without being hired to do so, you can claim the copyright, usually without complications. The courts have established that programs are no different from any other literary creation. You may claim a copyright just as an author may claim a copyright to a story. Moreover, you don't have to register the copyright; it is automatically in effect when you create the program. But what if you have been hired by someone to write a program? Do you own it, or does the party who hired you? The answer lies in an analysis of the work-made-for-hire doctrine in copyright law. The law maintains that when the program is created by a person employed by another party, the program is considered work made for hire, and the party for whom the work was prepared is the author and has the copyright. This is generally the case unless the parties involved have a written agreement to the contrary     

Embedded systemsvs individualism

The dispute between individualism and anti-individualism is about the individuation of psychological states, and individualism, on some accounts, is committed to the claim that psychological subjects together with their environments do not constitute integrated computational systems. Hence on this view the computational states that explain psychological states in computational accounts of mind will not involve the subject's natural and social environment. Moreover, the explanation of a system's interaction with the environment is, on this view, not the primary goal of computational theorizing. Recent work in computational developmental psychology (by A. Karmiloff-Smith and J. Rutkowska) as well as artificial agents or embedded artificial systems (by L.P. Kaelbling, among others) casts doubt on these claims. In these computational models, the environment does not just trigger and sustain input for computational operations, but some computational operations actually involve environmental structures.     

The future: plug and pray?

In his keynote speech at the 1998 International Test Conference, held last November in Washington, D.C., the author presented a view of our increasing dependence on electronic systems and the impact this is likely to have on the way we design and test new products. Here, he summarizes his major points     

The RAS of work and play [Presiden's Message]

Asuccessful and well-attended International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) has just ended in Kobe, and I am writing this column in mid-May during my return flight from Japan. The master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him, he is always doing both. The above quote, known as "The Zen of Work and Play," synthesizes the collegial spirit, animating many of the volunteers serving our society. The recent ICRA has been inspired by this credo: a solid and sound technical program, a rich and lively social program. Beyond the hard work of the organizing team led by Kazuhiro Kosuge (general chair) and Katsushi Ikeuchi (program chair), a warm touch of color was provided by the double performance of the Robotics and Automation Society Officers Rock (RASOR) at both the banquet and farewell party: an audience of more than 1,000 for a group at their second gig on stage!     

BODY IMITATION IN AN ENCULTURATED ORANGUTAN (PONGO PYGMAEUS)

The mechanisms underlying the copying of others' actions in monkeys and apes are poorly understood. The author compared the ability of the 18-year-old, human-reared, language-trained orangutan Chantek to reproduce the same set of actions that Custance, Whiten, and Bard (1995) used with two chimpanzees. Previous studies (e.g., Miles, Mitchell, and Harper (1996)) had shown that Chantek was capable of imitating on command, but no direct comparison across studies had been attempted. The aim of this study was to investigate how he encoded observed behavior and what types of information he acquired from the experimenter. Chantek received the 48 test actions used by Custance et al. (1995). After the experimenter modeled the target action, Chantek was asked to do the same. Chantek's responses were scored for body part used, type of action performed, and general accuracy. In general, Chantek showed good accuracy in reproducing the experimenter's actions. Three types of errors were especially interesting. First, although he had a 90% matching accuracy between his own gross body areas (e.g., head, arms) and those of the experimenter, Chantek's accuracy decreased considerably for the body parts within those gross body areas. Second,Chantek performed better in those actions thatinvolved some contact between his body parts. Finally, Chantek may have had some difficulty interpreting what he was expected to reproduce (e.g., when asked to raise his index finger, he raised his arm). The author argues that an attentional bias toward certain results or goals and a less differentiated ability to encode observed actions may be important factors contributing to the observed error patterns.     

Risk control over bankruptcy in dynamic portfolio selection: a generalized mean-variance formulation

For an investor to claim his wealth resulted from his multiperiod portfolio policy, he has to sustain a possibility of bankruptcy before reaching the end of an investment horizon. Risk control over bankruptcy is thus an indispensable ingredient of optimal dynamic portfolio selection. We propose in this note a generalized mean-variance model via which an optimal investment policy can be generated to help investors not only achieve an optimal return in the sense of a mean-variance tradeoff, but also have a good risk control over bankruptcy. One key difficulty in solving the proposed generalized mean-variance model is the nonseparability in the associated stochastic control problem in the sense of dynamic programming. A solution scheme using embedding is developed in this note to overcome this difficulty and to obtain an analytical optimal portfolio policy.     

Five strategies for overcoming obviousness

The author explained the various office actions that you are likely to see a patent examiner make (under legal sections 101-103 and 112) and briefly noted some other parts of the legal code that you are unlikely to encounter (legal sections 104, 105, and 113-122). In addition, the author mentioned the possibility of the examiner filing a restriction on your patent application. The two remaining sections, 102 and 103, address novelty and obviousness, respectively. Under section 102, the examiner cites a single reference to prior art that he claims is the same as your invention. That is, he makes the claim that your invention is not novel (new). This is usually cut and dried $he is either right, or he has misunderstood at least one of the inventions. Section 103 leaves you more wiggle room to argue, since it pertains to the murky area of obviousness. In a 103, the examiner cites not just one, but two or more references and claims two things: that combining the inventions in those multiple references will produce your invention; and that conceiving such a combination is obvious. In this column, the author explains five distinct dimensions in which you can argue to overcome a section 103 rejection. You may choose to argue in multiple dimensions, but if you do, make it clear at all times which dimension you are arguing, or your argument will be confusing     

The Benefits of Exit Interviews

When they are dismissed as after-the-fact formalities, exit interviews are missed opportunities to improve the rate of employee retention. the author of this article has used exit interviews to discover five key issues that attract and keep employees, and he credits the use of these interviews with a decline in his organization's IT turnover rate.