Slashdot Mirror

Just because it's released under CC, doesn't mean that people must give you a copy of it for free on demand.

Now, if he released the paper on the condition that no one ever charge for it

If publishers are really contributing nothing ... stop publishing through them!

Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access. If scientists are so bigoted they only deign to acknowledge work published in overpriced, unnecessary, exploitative publishers' journals, the problem is on the scientists' end.

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/in dex.htm/ refers to a 1978 reference (Freid). It seems that some ideas keep popping up, only the technology actually available to do it has progressed from imaginary to real.

I think your suspicions are probably correct.

Lucky Imaging relies on the fact that every so often, a really high-quality image makes it through the atmosphere almost unperturbed (based on the Kolmogorov model of turbulence). While I don't know whether the same model can be applied to cosmic gas clouds, there may be another model that could accurately model the phase distortions those clouds impress upon a wavefront.

To achieve this one must take many very short-exposure (compared to the time-scale of atmospheric turbulence, or gas-cloud turbulence in the case we're considering) images of the source. However, distant (or dim) objects often require reasonably long exposure times in order to collect a large enough amount of light to be able to see the image. The problem with this technique may simply be that the exposure time necessary for the Lucky Image algorithm to work is too short to actually collect enough light to create a good image in the first place.

The technique they're using, while interesting, needs more justification.

I'm wary when I see people doing any selection on random data because there's the problem of selection bias; throwing away the hundred results that don't match what they want and keeping the one that does. Just getting an image that seems plausible is not good enough.

Their quality measure isn't one I'd use. They should be comparing the technique-plus-low-resolution-optics against high-resolution-optics directly. That is, doing image differencing of images taken at the same time and seeing what differences there are. They may well have good reason for assuming it's all okay but until somebody does that test they cannot assume they've removed all the variability that the atmosphere provides; there could be all sorts of hidden biases due to various atmospheric, molecular and statistical effects.

---

"Intellectual Property" is unspeak. All inventions are the result of intellect. A better name is ECI - easy copy items.

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI _vs_AO.htm
Is an article comparing Lucky to Adaptive. It looks like Lucky can work with dimmer objects then the Adaptive.

Additionally, while they don't mention details in the article, I presume they have a specially designed camera.

They are using a new kind of CCD that somehow lowers the noise floor. Details are at:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI _Why%20Now.htm

In fact this site (same basic place) is much more informative than the press release and answers a lot of questions:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/in dex.htm

Additionally, while they don't mention details in the article, I presume they have a specially designed camera.

They are using a new kind of CCD that somehow lowers the noise floor. Details are at:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI _Why%20Now.htm

In fact this site (same basic place) is much more informative than the press release and answers a lot of questions:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/in dex.htm

TFA mentions that they can achieve images better than Hubble. The sample image they show, of the Cat's Eye Nebula, isn't as sharp as the Hubble image of the same object.

Probably they can push their technique harder than this initial image suggests (it was mainly comparing the "lucky" image with a conventional, blurry, ground-based image)... But I just thought it would be good to show Hubble's pictures alongside.

DIY.

If you have a cheap laptop around, you can install Dasher. It requires virtually no mouse movement to write text, and it's actually fun to use too!

While I'd agree that simple pencil and paper is often easiest, I thought I'd post this link to Dasher, which is a pretty cool little program for alternative methods of text entry... it can be eye controlled, breath controlled, finger controlled, pretty much anything, and apparently has a fairly quick learning curve, after which you can enter text over 30 words per minute-

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/

It's worth mentioning the analysts who don't think the numbers justify the valuations (in any given bubble). In a market where these stocks are climbing due to the actions of even a limited number of morons/dodgy folk, it's silly not to buy in and make money yourself (not to mention you'll likely get fired if you don't). The trick is getting out at the right time, and there are a number of groups who became bearish before the last peak, and made a killing. Sadly, it's most often the amateurs who fail to do this and get burned, which enhances the reputation for evil of Wall Street types (they probably are evil in other ways too).

It's also worth mentioning that according to research I've done (on behalf of http://www.cerf.cam.ac.uk/) not as many companies went properly bust as many as people tend to assume. A large proportion were bought out, and a lot had to delist (hence the sting for investors).

The summary of the project I helped with (http://www.cerf.cam.ac.uk/projectdetail.php?proje ctid=6) talks a bit about some relevant points. It's possible these bubbles may be the only workable mechanism for large infrastructure changes: they simply can't be justified by rational behaviour, so irrational behaviour is the only option. The fact that capital markets can generate this can be seen as a strength - the US is still the biggest economy in the world, after all. The problem, again, is that it tends to be the inexperienced investors who lose most.

In my opinion, the next big bubble of significance is more likely to be China. US investors and businesses are getting better at accepting (if not avoiding) the downturns, but the Chinese are new to this. With the number of registered share-trading accounts in China now larger than the number of Communist party members, would the government survive a crash?

It's worth mentioning the analysts who don't think the numbers justify the valuations (in any given bubble). In a market where these stocks are climbing due to the actions of even a limited number of morons/dodgy folk, it's silly not to buy in and make money yourself (not to mention you'll likely get fired if you don't). The trick is getting out at the right time, and there are a number of groups who became bearish before the last peak, and made a killing. Sadly, it's most often the amateurs who fail to do this and get burned, which enhances the reputation for evil of Wall Street types (they probably are evil in other ways too).

It's also worth mentioning that according to research I've done (on behalf of http://www.cerf.cam.ac.uk/) not as many companies went properly bust as many as people tend to assume. A large proportion were bought out, and a lot had to delist (hence the sting for investors).

The summary of the project I helped with (http://www.cerf.cam.ac.uk/projectdetail.php?proje ctid=6) talks a bit about some relevant points. It's possible these bubbles may be the only workable mechanism for large infrastructure changes: they simply can't be justified by rational behaviour, so irrational behaviour is the only option. The fact that capital markets can generate this can be seen as a strength - the US is still the biggest economy in the world, after all. The problem, again, is that it tends to be the inexperienced investors who lose most.

In my opinion, the next big bubble of significance is more likely to be China. US investors and businesses are getting better at accepting (if not avoiding) the downturns, but the Chinese are new to this. With the number of registered share-trading accounts in China now larger than the number of Communist party members, would the government survive a crash?

will doubtfully be more than about 80% efficient (electrically).

Compare to direct solar heating, where damn near 100%

Some of the work I do may require something like this, so I'm considering implementing Guy Fawkes over syslog.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/fawkes.pdf

From the paper:

6.2 Tamper-evident audit trails

It is a well known problem that an intruder can often acquire root status by using well known operating system weaknesses, and then alter the audit and log information to remove the evidence of the intrusion. In order to prevent this, some Unix systems require that operations on log and audit data other than reads and appends be carried out from the system console. Others do not, and it could be of value to arrange alternative tamper-evidence mechanisms.

A first idea might be to simply sign and timestamp the audit trail at regular intervals, but this is not sufficient as a root intruder will be able to obtain the private signing key and retrospectively forge audit records. In addition, the intervals would have to be small (of the order of a second, or even less) and the computation of RSA or DSA signatures at this frequency could impose a noticeable system overhead.

In this application, the Guy Fawkes protocol appears well suited because of the low computational overhead (two hash function computations per signature) and the fact that all secrets are transient; this second's secret codeword is no use in forging a signature of a second ago.

Bullshit.

They've also not made it useable by people without arms, or by people without brains. So? Your point is what, exactly? That we are an evil society because we (the sighted) dare to actually use our eyes?

No, what you are proposing is a considerable change in the entire design. A highly visual touchscreen device isn't exactly going to be blind-friendly with one or two minor modifications.

I'll support any change that does not impact me or the other 99% of the people in any major negative way. If it costs another $5 to make a blind-friendly iPhone, fine with me. Well, as long as that doesn't mean $5 for the blind, $5 for the arm-less, $5 for the deaf, etc etc etc.

However, I do think there is some wisdom in going forward without looking out for the slowest one at every step. If only because otherwise you wouldn't get forward at all. I'm sure most of the nice technology that makes life easier for disabled people would have never been developed if it had been a requirement from day one

Might this be the first step towards legislating mandatory adoption of Trusted Computing as a way of controlling the internet and content, using the tried-and-true "think of the children!" method of bulldozing reasoned opposition by those that prefer their computers do what *they* want, instead of what corporations and the government wants?

For those unfamiliar, here's a link to an EFF page on Trusted Computing.

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php

Here's another link to an excellent piece by Ross Anderson.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Not trying to be all tinfoil-hat-like, but it seems these days that it's trumped-up issues like this that precede an attempt to limit freedoms and increase control of the population. Awareness of these possibilities is the first and most important step to preventing a world none of us wants to live in.

Cheers!

Strat

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/

This is a '2D' typing system i.e. workable with a mouse or equivalent - could well be quicker with fingers.

I got up to about 15 wpm with minimal practice. Apparently you can get 30 wpm with a bit more. I reckon it could also be tweaked if additional keys were available for certain very common words, and if the underlying probability model was trained to your personal habits.

More crazily, a phone or similar with acceleration detection could also incorporate whole-phone movements. So you might write a word with Dasher (or whatever), and then flick your wrist to the right for a space, left for a comma, away from you for a full stop, down for a carriage return, etc. Or you could make a system like Monkeyball on the Wii, where Dasher works with a pseudo-physical simulation of a ball on the screen, which you 'roll' to select letters and words (sorry, not very clearly explained if you've not used Dasher and played Monkeyball - an elite minority!).

Sorry, you are wrong on two counts:

a) modern LCD panels do not have a square pulse. In order to achieve fast switching times, the frame-to-frame differences are actually overdriven. Say you are currently at pixel value 100, and want to go to 150. You would actually drive the pixel at 170 or so, such that at the end of the new frame, the time-averaged transmission over the frame interval is the desired 150. The numbers are made up of course, but the principle holds.

b) CRT phosphors have a non-zero decay period, but they are actually fairly fast. So much so, that you can measure easily where the electron gun is at any given point in time. This is how light pens work (used to be the input device of choice before the mouse and touchscreens, now http://www.fastpoint.com/ seems to be the only manufacturer), or how security researchers manage to read the screen content from a reflection on the wall: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ieee02-optical.pdf

Actually, I hurt my hand recently and was using my PC one-handed. The solution I found I preferred is to go 100% mouse and use the virtual keyboard in Win 2k - it's actually pretty good! Surprised me. I play FPS games and even the odd ported lightgun game (House of the Dead etc) with a mouse, so I'm probably a lot better than average at hitting lots of small targets fast, but I think anyone who's familiar with a mouse could get to an adequate 20 words-per-minute with a day of practice. I'd be tiring to write an essay like that but it's fine for email.

The other odd thing is that Ubuntu and Fedora both apparently lack a virtual keyboard... I hate to see my favourite OS pwned by MS, particularly since Ubuntu is supposed to be the accessible one.

p.s. Mods, he was joking...

Check out Dasher some time -- quick, efficient mouse-based text input.

(it has limitations -- you'd struggle to program with it -- but it's pretty cool)

Remember folks, although the remote attestation features of TCPA could be used by online services to force you to use a particular "trusted" application/OS stack, locking you in to a configuration like "IE on Vista", that's not why they are there.

The point of TCPA isn't to enforce DRM or strengthen software monopolies. It's all about things that benefit you, like preventing cheating in online games, and... erm... many other things.

TCPA is a misunderstood technology. The EFF, the FSF and security experts are just making a knee-jerk reaction to something that they don't understand. Let me explain:

1. TCPA doesn't take away your ability to run whatever software you want. If every online service requires you to use (say) Vista, and uses TCPA to enforce this, you can just opt out of the Internet entirely and carry on running Linux or .*BSD or whatever. It's your choice.

2. TCPA doesn't spy on you, although it might be used to prevent you modifying software that does. But then you can just opt out of using that software. Again, it's your choice.

So, say yes to TCPA! Like atomic bombs and subdermal RFID chips, the technology isn't inherently evil, and it will certainly never be abused to reduce competition in the software marketplace, preventing free software interoperating with online services.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

-- http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/

Nah, they'll just start wearing shirts with this pattern on them.

Rich

Xen is one of several virtualization technologies available for running Linux and Windows systems (others include VMWare, Qemu, KVM (kernel virtual machines), UML, and Parallels). Xen's primary benefit is the ability to run as a "hypervisor", such that the guest OS instances are "paravirtualized". While this requires a modified OS kernel, the performance overhead is very small (2-4%). Disclaimer: I worked for XenSource running performance benchmarking tests 2005-2006.

The other mode for running Xen guests, with qualifying "VT" hardware from Intel or AMD, is called "full virtualization", and uses on-chip support to allow running virtualized OSs with an unmodified kernel. The benefit is easier virtualization of more operating systems, the downside is a greater performance hit than paravirtualization. Exactly how much I can't say as I wasn't part of this testing, but it seems to be roughly the 30% or so you'd see with VMWare.

There are other downsides of virtualization, particularly concerning high-speed video and audio, though these are being addressed. The primary market is in server farms where workloads can be allocated and dynamically adjusted among physical resources, but it's still something you might keep in mind.

Karsten M. Self

Sorry, but no cigar. You just can't make it expensive enough for it to deter spammers while at the same time making it cheap enough for ordinary people to use without nuisance.

IMHO, reputation systems are the way to go. However, there's the little matter of getting the entire world to use SPF first.. otherwise the spammers can just joe-job someone with good reputation.

Cambridge University Engineering Dept does all 3D CAD teaching using Pro Engineer. On Knoppix boxes with NVidia graphics hardware. It runs very fast, even with moderately complex models.

In Arthur Clarke's "Fountains of Paradise" the cable was made of monocrystalline diamond. I don't know how the tensile strength of compares to that of other carbon structures, but this paper (PDF) mentions values of over 1200 GPa at certain orientations, much better than what's needed for a space elevator. So, the real breakthrough needed is how to manufacture enough monocrystalline diamond fiber at a reasonable price.

The last time I used it, even dasher was faster than voice recognition.

It can take longer than 2 years for a script to go from paper to cinema. What you are suggesting means that your copyrighted work (the script) could be out of copyright before the edit is even started.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher

Beware: if you search for ice regelation on google, some web sites propagate the error that the mechanism of ice skaing is regelation. As you can calculate in the question sheet, regelation does not give sufficient depression of the melting point over long enough for it to be important for ice skating.

It seems clear from the literature (but disappointing) that regelation is not the cause of the ice being slippery when you ice skate. A paper published in Physics Today in December 2005 and listed in the references for this demonstration, discusses the concept, initially proposed by Faraday, that a microscopic layer of water, found on ice even at very low temperatures, is responsible for ice being slippery. On the other hand, regelation apparently is a primary contributing cause for the motion of glaciers, as discussed in one of the references.

There is a lot of discussion about whether this really demonstrates regelation, but rather simply conduction of heat by the wire to the ice cube so that it will melt, followed by freezing over of the cut due to conduction of heat away from the cut to the surrounding ice.

This is a bit out of date, but here is some comparison between Xen, User Mode Linux, and Vmware 3.2 (which is the most recent version that allows publication of benchmarks).

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/xen/per formance.html

Xen is always faster than Vmware, with the exact amount varying depending on the specific load. They've all improved since then, of course.

The movie industry were inspired by the Connection Machine series of supercomputers. Every processor
in the computer had a LED that lit up when it was in use, and since there were thousands of processors,
there were thousands and thousands of lights.

Very large image

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/cha rger/

either god said make them your slaves or your whores. you can choose, but it is his direct command to you as a christian.

And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do?

You are commanded to kill all non christians/jews that live in the holy land by your god.

"Art's effect is due to the tension resulting from the clash of the collocation of elements of two (or more) systems [of interpretation]. This conflict has the function of breaking down automatism of perception and occurs simultaneously on the many levels of a work of art . . . . All levels may carry meaning."

Christians just love to ignore what they are commanded to do by the direct word of god (and never "un-commanded" by Jesus") and claim interpretation. its pretty darn straight forward.

Sorry, but I abhor this article, and using these two questions to judge the quality of their respective country's education systems is just stupid. There are no specifics there whatsoever about how hard the respective questions are seen to be. The question from a first year British University course is a low end question which would be set to check a baseline of mathematical knowledge in the undergrads, something that the examiner fully expect everyone to correctly answer. Because it's a University diagnostic question, I also doubt that cost saving when it comes to marking was ever a deciding factor. Equally, we don't know if the pre-entry question from China was aimed at the brightest or dumbest of students, though I'd guess closer to the top end. My point is that it would have taken only a different spin and different questions (say, from the STEP papers, which are also pre-entry examination papers for Cambridge/Warwick maths applicants) to make a story about how British education was much better than maths schooling in China - only it wouldn't make as good a story.

Come on! There was a paper on this exact topic presented at Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2004. Don't you guys keep up with your journals?

Kuhn, Markus G. "Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays." Privacy Enhancing Technologies,
4th International Workshop, PET 2004, Toronto, Canada, May 26-28, 2004. Revised Selected Papers. Springer.

Paper link:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf

And author homepage:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/

IIRC, this paper has some really interesting stuff that totally debunks the notion that laptops, or indeed LCDs in general, are more TEMPEST-safe than CRTs. I believe the high speed digital signals (which, in laptops, transit proprietary buses but are no more protected for it, and are in fact less shielded than external cables) actually make the attacks *easier.* There's also interesting stuff about introducing interference into the signals to distort evesdropping, but I think it does not work satisfactorily. Basically, until we all use encrypted DVI (shudder--concieved to limit the ablility of consumers to interact with and utilize their own equipment by the MAFIAA--but still possibly useful for privacy), our video signals are being broadcast constantly. Some irony there...

Come on! There was a paper on this exact topic presented at Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2004. Don't you guys keep up with your journals?

Kuhn, Markus G. "Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays." Privacy Enhancing Technologies,
4th International Workshop, PET 2004, Toronto, Canada, May 26-28, 2004. Revised Selected Papers. Springer.

Paper link:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf

And author homepage:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/

IIRC, this paper has some really interesting stuff that totally debunks the notion that laptops, or indeed LCDs in general, are more TEMPEST-safe than CRTs. I believe the high speed digital signals (which, in laptops, transit proprietary buses but are no more protected for it, and are in fact less shielded than external cables) actually make the attacks *easier.* There's also interesting stuff about introducing interference into the signals to distort evesdropping, but I think it does not work satisfactorily. Basically, until we all use encrypted DVI (shudder--concieved to limit the ablility of consumers to interact with and utilize their own equipment by the MAFIAA--but still possibly useful for privacy), our video signals are being broadcast constantly. Some irony there...

I recently finished a research project on this subject and have actually had a chance to read a few of Kuhn's paper. From what I've seen and what other researchers have done, not a lot of thought has gone into making most equipment EMSEC compatible, so I'm not at all surprised by this finding. Most of the time, having "secure" equipment isn't required as very few individuals beyond large government entities have the money, resources and knowledge to be able to conduct such an attack. Extensive design and testing is required to ensure that equipment conforms to EMSEC standards and most companies are simply not willing to spend the extra money to certify their equipment for something very few people know anything about. According to Kuhn (see Security Limits for Compromising Emanations - warning PDF) emissions levels need to be as much as six orders of magnitude lower to prevent unauthorized snooping on most modern equipment.

Another paper that is very relevant to this article is from a Japanese group who did research on the same topic (LCDs, laptops, etc) A Trial of the Interception of Display Image using Emanation of Electromagnetic Wave - again, a PDF. What's interesting to note from this paper is the fact that the researchers found that minor inconsistencies in the production of the equipment caused slightly different synchronous frequencies to be detected. This means in an office it could be possible for an attacker to "choose" which monitor they wish to look at by its frequency signature.

This really isn't new news; the work was done in 2004 and presented as

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf

as well as countermeasures; randomising the low-order bit of all your pixels anew in every frame would be ideal, but using colours which have the same number of bit transitions in 'black' and 'white' works almost as well. Looks a bit ugly to have your screen entirely in off-greens and off-pinks, but that's the price of security.

HDCP actually helps against this kind of thing, because there are no long lengths of wire carrying unencoded video signal.

Of course the list is secret, because publishing it would be tantamount to publishing a list of "good terrorist and child porn sites", and no government would want to do that!

If it's the same "clean feed" technology that the UK government forces all ISPs to "voluntarily" use, then you might like to look at this paper (pdf) which describes how to use the system to discover what sites it is blocking, and perhaps will give you some ideas on how to circumvent it.

It isn't surprising that VMWare would be bad at a web-app workload. See the original paper on Xen:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/papers/ 2003-xensosp.pdf

Top of page 9 has a chart comparing native Linux, Xen, VMWare, and UML for different workloads. They show VMWare degrading performance by over 70% for SPECWEB 99.

Web applications are OS intensive; while VMWare is quite good at pure CPU-bound tasks, it has to perform a lot of emulation whenever you are running inside the OS. So it will stink at anything with lots of small IO, lots of metadata operations, or lots of process creation/switching. For example, VMWare shows a whopping 90% slowdown for OLTP database workloads, according to the Xen paper, and it really isn't surprising. The OS microbenchmarks in the above paper (page 10) show that VMWare has abysmal performance for things like fork(), exec(), mmap(), page faults, and context switches.

Basically, Xen doesn't have to emulate the OS, because they make modifications to the OS. VMWare does dynamic binary rewriting (think fancy emulation) to run an unmodified OS; they therefore pay through the nose in performance overhead for OS-intensive workloads.

I agree that the Semantic Web people haven't read their epistemology texts. Here's an interesting article on this topic, explaining how essentially, all this "web-of-meaning" stuff was tried by NLP/AI researchers decades ago, and plain does not work.

The article concludes that a "weak" version of the semantic web may be possible - no clever inference or anything, just a set of data interchange standards. Which is basically the XML / data interchange standards bit of Web 2.0.

But as the blog entry says, even that might not happen due to commercial interests. The obvious (and oh so Slashdot) thing to say at this point is that we need open, not-for-profit data interchange standards - but of course the commercial sites would then refuse to use them. Or if they did, they'd probably try to embrace-and-extend them.

Nevertheless, the current double level doesn't seem to be lethal, and there's records showing much higher levels of CO2 in the past, and given the fact that you need 150,000 ppm - yes, 150 thousand parts per million to be lethal, I think we're safely away from that level as well...

There is a setting that tells windows that the system clock is UTC. It is HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\TimeZoneInfo rmation\RealTimeIsUniversal. When set to the value 1, windows will apparently treat the system clock as UTC. However, according to Markus Kuhn there are several bugs, involving the system debugger and the code that calculates DST changes when the key is active.

A good design by contract system can and should catch a lot of these errors at compile time.

That is the difference.

If you only catch something at runtime with an assert it is already too late.

Among the Haskell programming community there is a tongue-in-cheek saying, "if it compiles it is correct." This happens because the type system is so strong, it is hard to write a program that compiles, but doesn't do what it is designed to do.

Design by contract offers similar benefits to more imperative languages.

Though, even the Haskell community sees benefits in contracts: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nx200/research/escH-hw.ps

I personally find classic Eiffel style contracts or Extended Static Checking dovetail nicely with unit testing, improving coverage.

You just want your username not to be outdated!

So indeed, there is a personal reason this issue riles me up.

I tend to think the authors of the article are refering to the problems of a "useable form" for the structures and easy access of many of these databases. The first problem is mearly a problem of converting between the various structural file formats out there, something a good programmer (or grad student) can solve is a few weeks or less. The second is a bureaucrat issue and not a scientific one.