Slashdot Mirror

qazwsx789 writes "The first public release of bash-3.0 is now available via ftp and from the usual GNU mirror sites. For the official release notes by the author, Chet Ramey, check his usenet post."

alertpopes writes "Looking for a great education AND a dedicated personal fiber internet connection in your dorm room? Students enrolling at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH get both! Just don't bring any 10/100 equiptment - it's gigabit only around here. All students have access to over 16,000 fiber ports throughout the university plus 802.11g campus-wide! Registered students must buy a Netgear GC102 Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter through the University eStore for a mere $216.50 to connect to the service, but isn't it worth it? CWRU recommends the purchase of either a Dell or Apple for incoming students to meet networking requirements. The University was voted the 'Most wired Campus' by Yahoo! Internet Life magazine in 1999."

TMB writes "Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkman, astrophysicists at Case Western Reserve University (and in LK's case, author of a number of books including Physics of Star Trek), just submitted this nice little paper to Phys. Rev. Letters. It claims that in an accelerating universe, the existence of a future event horizon puts a fundamental physical limit on the total amount of calculation that can be done, even in an infinite time. This limit is much smaller than the traditional Hawking-Beckenstein entropy. Among other things, this implies that and Moore's Law must have a finite lifetime, here calculated to be 600 years, and that consciousness must be finite."

TMB writes "Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkman, astrophysicists at Case Western Reserve University (and in LK's case, author of a number of books including Physics of Star Trek), just submitted this nice little paper to Phys. Rev. Letters. It claims that in an accelerating universe, the existence of a future event horizon puts a fundamental physical limit on the total amount of calculation that can be done, even in an infinite time. This limit is much smaller than the traditional Hawking-Beckenstein entropy. Among other things, this implies that and Moore's Law must have a finite lifetime, here calculated to be 600 years, and that consciousness must be finite."

server1 writes "In what could be the largest public wireless service in the world, Case Western Reserve University is opening more than 1,230 Cisco Aironet 1200 Series wireless access points on September 1, providing free Internet access to faculty, students, staff and visitors to the Case campus and University Circle." Good news for Clevelanders looking for some free wireless internet access.

Well, one science journalist's opinion, anyway. Charles Seife writes for Science magazine and is the author of Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. These are his answers to your questions, and they're very detailed, to the point where you may want to set aside more than a few minutes of quiet time to read and digest them. Q1) "Publishing hype" by BobTheLawyer (#6606631)

A1)I'm not embarrassed at all because it's not hype. Scientists now know how the universe will end. Of course, as with all things scientific, there's a big honking asterisk on the word "know," but before I get to that, let me explain why I feel justified in making such an arrogant statement.

We're in the middle of a scientific revolution, in the honest-to-god paradigm-shift sense. This revolution started in 1997 when two groups of astronomers, the High-Z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project used the bright flashes of a particular type of dying star (a type-Ia supernova) to measure the expansion of the universe at different times in the past. Since then, a whole raft of astronomical observations -- of faint patterns in the afterglow of the big bang, of distributions of galaxies, of the composition of intergalactic clouds of gas, of distortions of light going around massive bodies -- have all forced cosmologists into a remarkable consensus about the composition of the universe and, yes, its fate.

Just to give you a little taste of what the difference in the state of knowledge was like: in 1997, if you asked an astronomer how old the universe is, you'd get an answer somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years. Now, you'll get an answer of 13.7 billion years, plus or minus about 100 million. That's a big jump in precision. Similarly, before 1997, nobody had a clue how the universe would end; now, cosmologists agree on its fate. Some of the details haven't been worked out (what an understatement!), but the gross picture of the ultimate fate of the cosmos seems to be pretty well established for the first time in history. And by the end of the decade, a lot of the details will be fleshed out.

The ongoing revolution isn't just astronomical; it's physical. A decade ago, nobody knew whether neutrinos have mass. (For those who aren't particle physicists, neutrinos are particles that so rarely interact with matter that they can easily pass through the Earth without noticing the big chunk of mass they've passed through. This property makes them exceedingly hard to study.) Now, neutrino physicists are in accord -- and they've concluded that neutrinos, collectively, weigh about as much as all the visible stars and galaxies in the universe combined. High-energy physicists are using an accelerator in Long Island to recreate the condition of the universe a few microseconds after the big bang. By next year, they will formally announce the creation of a new state of matter that existed only in the very, very early universe. (There are alreadystrong hints that they've succeeded.) And another particle accelerator under construction in Geneva is very likely going to discover the particle responsible for exotic dark matter. (More on this shortly.)

All these experiments, all these observations, are pointing in exactly the same direction; they reveal the composition of the universe and its fate. But as with any good scientific revolution, such as relativity or quantum mechanics, it generates more questions than it answers. Scientists now know how the universe will end, but that understanding comes at the cost of a new mystery in physics.

As to the asterisk on the word "know," scientists are acutely aware that their theories are subject to revision. But at the same time, they have good reasons for being confident about their theories -- and they are more confident about some theories than about others. The new cosmological picture that's emerged has a darn high confidence rating; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the scientific world wouldn't accept the ideas of dark matter, much less dark energy, if there weren't a number of independent lines of evidence that forced scientists to make that conclusion. And while they're not confident about many of the details of the cosmos and the mechanisms that shape it, they are pretty sure that the overall picture is correct. (More on this coming, too.)

Q2) [Almost] Serious question! by Noryungi (#6606694)

and

Q3) Why does the rate of expansion change? by Anonymous Coward (#6606745)

A2,3) The universe will end in... umm... you really want me to give away the ending to my book?

Actually, I reveal the answer in chapter four, because the understanding of the fate of the universe is just the beginning of the current cosmological revolution. So it's not a spoiler to say...

-- drum roll -- the universe will die a heat death, or "Dark & Cold" by your terminology.

In a big bang universe governed by the laws of general relativity, there are two possibilities. (Actually, there are more than two, but all the cases boil down to two real outcomes.) Big crunch or heat death, fire or ice.

The fate of the universe depends on how the universe expands. In general, things that expand cool down and things that are compressed heat up. (This is what causes a propane container to feel so cold after a barbecue -- all the gas that expanded.) After the big bang the universe was extremely hot and was seething with energy. As it expanded, it cooled; free-roaming quarks condensed into protons and neutrons, and wound up as hydrogen, helium, and a handful of other light elements and isotopes. About 400,000 years after the big bang, the universe cooled enough so that the electrons could combine with the nuclei and form neutral atoms. Now, about 14 billion years later, the universe is a pretty cool place.

The expansion of the universe is like a cannonball shot into the air. As the cannonball flies ever higher, the force of gravity tries to drag it back to earth, reducing its upward velocity and slowing it down as it zooms upward. If gravity is very strong, then the cannonball rapidly loses its speed and quickly comes crashing back to the ground. On the other hand, if gravity is very weak, then the cannonball might escape the pull of the earth entirely and zoom away into outer space.

Similarly, the big bang gave the universe an initial cannonshot of expansion. If the mutual gravitational attraction of the objects in the universe is very strong (if there's a lot of matter in the universe) the expansion will slow down, halt, and eventually reverse itself. After the cooling phase of expansion, the universe will begin to swallow itself, getting smaller and smaller each day. This will make it heat up. The skies will get brighter and brighter as galaxies and stars get closer and closer together, and eventually, the universe will become a bath of radiation once more. Electrons will separate from atoms, atoms and then protons and neutrons will shiver into their components, and the universe will collapse in a "big crunch," a reverse big bang. The cosmos will die a death by fire.

On the other hand, if there's not much matter in the universe, then the expansion of the universe will continue forever. The expansion will slow down, but it will never halt and never reverse itself. The universe continues to cool down, and for a long time, space will look pretty much as it does now. Stars will be born and die, and galaxies will age. The night sky would get darker and darker as distant objects get too dim to view, and eventually, as the hydrogen in the universe is consumed, stars and galaxies will begin to wink out. Many billions of years hence, the universe will be a lifeless soup of dim light and dead matter. It will be a death by ice.

In 1997 and 1998, the two supernova teams used the brightness of distant supernovae to measure the rate of expansion at different times in the past. (Because the speed of light is finite, looking into the distance is the same as looking into the past. This causes no end of tense problems when writing a book about cosmology.) What they found was absolutely gobsmacking. Not only was the universe's expansion not slowing down very much -- it was speeding up! The cannonball was zooming into the air faster and faster as if it were propelled by some sort of weird antigravity force. Not only was the cannonball going to escape, it is so OUTTA HERE! This means a death by ice.

Yegads -- an antigravity force. This was a really hard thing for scientists (and probably you) to accept. But there's a number of different lines of evidence that support the idea, and in the book I go through those lines of evidence in great detail. I'll have to settle for a brief summary here. In 2000, a balloon experiment known as Boomerang took very detailed pictures of the ubiquitous afterglow of the big bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This afterglow has hot and cold spots in it, and for years, scientists have been making very, very detailed predictions about the size and distribution of those spots. The results of the Boomerang experiment and the DASI and WMAP experiments matched those predictions incredibly well, giving scientists great confidence in the underlying theory. It also allowed them to figure out the amount of matter and energy in the universe, and 73% of the "stuff" in the cosmos was dark energy, this antigravity force.

There are a number of other lines of evidence, too; the current distribution of galaxies, for example, implies the presence of an antigravity force, and just last month, scientists made a very nice measurement of something known as the late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. This effect can't occur unless you have something like dark energy counteracting gravity's pull.

Unfortunately, a fuller exposition requires a lot more writing -- it takes up several chapters in my book. (Shameless plug). But in summary, there's a number of independent observations that all point to the existence of a dark energy. Furthermore, the theories underlying the idea have made very specific predictions that have been verified with incredible precision. It's extraordinary stuff, but no matter how scientists look at it, they're forced by extraordinary evidence to make the same conclusion.

Yes, it's true that scientists don't know the mechanism of dark energy (though they're not entirely at sea) but there's little doubt that the cannonball is zooming into space faster and faster. They don't know precisely why, but the universe is being pushed toward its icy death by an antigravity force. Scientists are watching it happen.

And you don't need to wait billions of years to know the outcome -- you don't need to observe something directly to conclude that it's going to happen. The planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. So why don't people object to the statement that it takes about 250 years to complete an orbit? Just as you don't have to wait until 2180 to confirm the conclusions of Newtonian dynamics, you don't need to witness the end of the universe to be able to figure out its fate or validate the theory that leads you to that prediction.

Q4) Dark Matter by notcreative (#6606772)

A4) You are correct; the nature and location of dark matter are crucial puzzles in modern cosmology, but I think that the answers will be pretty much in hand by the end of the decade.

I've already mentioned results (most notably WMAP) that reveal the amount of "stuff" in the universe, and 73% of it is dark energy. The rest is matter. But the grand total of the matter locked up in visible stars is a mere 0.5% of the stuff in the universe. What is the other 26.5%? That's dark matter, and, in fact, there are two different types.

Scientists have known for decades that most of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes. In the 1960s, Vera Rubin measured the motion of stars wheeling around the center of the Andromeda galaxy and concluded that there had to be a lot more matter pulling on those stars than could be seen.

Despite what some contrarians say, dark matter isn't dogma; viable alternatives, like Moti Milgrom's MOND are taken seriously, if not accepted. Unfortunately, all of the alternatives, including MOND, fail in crucial ways. Besides, you can see dark matter, both directly and indirectly. The MACHO and OGLE projects see the twinkle of stars caused by a passing chunk of dark matter, and they can see the distortion of light caused by a huge amount of unseen mass sitting on the fabric of spacetime. (Distant galaxies are stretched into arcs around this gravitational lens.) This is allowing scientists to figure out just where dark matter resides. But at the same time, a number of observations lead scientists to conclude that the minority of the matter (dark or light) in the universe is ordinary, atomic matter -- the stuff of stars, planets, and people. Again, it will take too long to describe all the lines of evidence, but one powerful way of measuring the number of atoms in the universe is to look at the proportion of hydrogen to deuterium, helium, and lithium in primordial gas clouds. In the first three minutes of the universe, atoms were fusing, just as they do in a hydrogen bomb. The universe was a giant pressure cooker, turning protons and neutrons into heavier elements. If there are a lot of atoms, then there is a lot of fusion and a lot of heavy elements made; if there are not very many atoms, then the universe winds up being almost entirely hydrogen. By looking at the ratios of heavy elements to light elements, scientists concluded that atomic matter makes up about 4% of the "stuff" in the universe -- which is precisely what other measurements, like the CMB ones -- imply, too.

So, 27% of the stuff in the universe is matter: 4% "atomic" matter, leaving 23% to be made of "exotic" matter, stuff that's not made of atoms. I've already described some of that exotic matter; neutrinos make up about 0.5% of the stuff in the universe, about the same as the visible matter in the universe. What's the remainder?

That's the big open question, but one that I'd wager will be solved by the end of the decade. There are very good reasons -- particle physics ones, rather than cosmological ones -- for believing that the main constituent of dark matter is a proposed particle known as the LSP. If it is, then the LHC accelerator in Geneva will find it. If not, then the LSP almost certainly doesn't exist and the puzzle will be compounded -- but I think that scientists are extremely optimistic. Again, there's lots more detail in the book about the justification for this.

Q5) variable constants by Cally (#6607000)

A5) The point's well taken, and I'll get to it after a few remarks.

First, you're right in that the supernovae serve much the same purpose as Cepheid variable stars do -- they're both objects of known brightness, or "standard candles," that allow astronomers to make a precise measurement of the distance to a faraway galaxy. However, they are not the same thing. Cepheids are stars that pulsate and the rate of that pulsation reveals its intrinsic brightness. They're what Hubble used to spot the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but they're relatively dim and impossible to find in very distant galaxies. Type-Ia supernovae are standard candles that are much, much brighter than Cepheids, and so can be seen halfway across the universe. (And as you note, since distant supernovae mean ancient supernovae, they reveal the expansion rate of the universe billions of years ago.)

Second, the time-varying speed of light (or more precisely, the time-varying fine structure constant) is a controversial idea. The scientists that made the observation in question are pretty solid and they're taken seriously. However, my impression is that mainstream thinking is that the results are due to a systematic error. That aside, the effect, even if real, is very small, and it has nothing to do with interpreting the data from standard candles. The interpretation there is quite well established; there's little question that scientists are seeing an expansion of the universe;. Alternative theories, like tired light, fail in countless ways and scientists have even seen the relativistic time dilation caused by the motion of the distant object.

But, yes, it's natural for a layperson to conclude that the concordance cosmological model is looking increasingly kludge-y, and you're naturally led to wonder whether scientists are trying to prop up a failing model with the equivalent of epicycles or aether. I don't think this is the case for a few reasons.

For one thing, the theory isn't really getting added to and made more complex; it's getting subtracted from and being made more simple. This seems counterintuitive, but it comes from the fact that modern big bang theory is really a class of theories, rather than one set-in-stone dictum about the way the universe is. All these theories agree on the basic physics about the manner of the universe's birth, the forces that drive the universe, and the physics behind them; the difference between the theories are the values of a handful of parameters that are not predicted by the theory. These parameters are inputs rather than outputs, and by pinning down the values of these inputs, the acceptable class of theories gets narrower and narrower.

Dark energy is one of these inputs. Although nobody took it seriously before 1998 -- everyone thought that the value of the parameter in question was zero -- it was lurking there nonetheless. It turns out that this parameter is not only non-zero, it's really big, much to everyone's surprise. But this doesn't add complexity to the model, especially since other parameters, such as the "curvature" of the universe as a whole, which many physicists thought would be non-trivial, turn out not to be important after all. (In other words, the universe seems to be slate flat, rather than saddle-shaped or sphere-like.)

So, from a mathematical viewpoint, the model is no more complex than it was in 1997, and is, in fact, significantly leaner. But what about from a physical viewpoint? Dark matter and dark energy seem to fly in the face of Occam. But here, too, the increase in complexity is much less than it appears. Long before this cosmological revolution, astronomers knew that dark matter had to exist; more recently, they've begun to see it. Even without worrying about cosmological questions, astrophysicists had accepted the existence of dark matter. Cosmological measurements like WMAP showed that these astrophysicists were right -- it was an independent confirmation that dark energy exists and that it comes in two forms, something that other astronomers had concluded a while ago.

Dark energy, on the other hand, has more claim to being a "hack" to the theory. It really is something new and unexpected (even though it was always a mathematical possibility, nobody in the physics world suspected it actually existed.) Nevertheless, the groundwork was already there, and modern big bang theory implicitly requires the existence of a form of dark energy in the very early universe. And since the 1930s, scientists knew that even the deepest vacuum is full of energy and can exert pressure (something known as the Casimir effect, which I describe in this book and in my previous book, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea). Thus, the idea of dark energy wasn't completely alien to physics before 1997, and in some sense, it was a necessary component.

Yes, it's possible that scientists are looking at the cosmos in the wrong way, and somebody will establish a simpler, more elegant theory that takes all these threads and weaves them together. (More on this shortly.) But at the moment, far from having a kludged-up theory, cosmologists have a leaner (if weirder) theory than ever before -- one that makes very precise predictions that are getting verified with stunning accuracy. I think this argues for increased confidence in the theory rather than for increased fear that it's falling apart.

Q6) Universe's container by bios10h (#6606748)

A6) It freaks a lot of people out. There's a lot of philosophical problems with having an infinite universe -- for example, if the universe is truly infinite, and if, as scientists believe, the number of quantum states of a finite volume is finite, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that, some great distance away, there's a bizarro-you on bizarro-earth reading bizarro-Slashdot. On the other hand, there's no positive evidence that I can think of that the universe is truly infinite; it's just the sparest conclusion in a mathematical sense, if not a philosophical sense.

But an infinite universe is not a foregone conclusion. Earlier this year, Max Tegmark at the University of Pennsylvania published an intriguing paper that looked at slight anomalies in the WMAP data that seem to imply that the universe is not only finite, but shaped like a donut. Nobody takes the idea terribly seriously, not even the author, because there are other statistical tests that seem to rule the donut-shaped universe out. But it's the sort of thing that people are looking at very closely.

Whether it's finite or infinite, in a mathematical sense, there's really no need for the universe to be "in" anything -- there are models where our universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional space, but there are models where it isn't. Philosophically, though, I don't see any advantage to embedding the universe in something bigger -- as you say, it just punts the problem forward. (Who, then, will contain the containers?)

It's one of those things that is hard to get comfortable with -- and even when you accept it, it sometimes can cause pangs of uncertainty. Quantum mechanics does this, too... it's just something that's hard to wrap your head around. Take solace in the fact that it's hard for everyone else, too.

Q7) How ultimate is the end of the universe? by Lane.exe (#6606766)

A7) If there were a collapse-type universe, yes, there could be a reboot and a new big bang. (And if Microsoft built the universe, a reboot would be coming sooner rather than later. *duck*)

In fact, the theory behind the cosmic microwave background stemmed from calculations to see whether this was possible. Remember the expansion-cooling/contraction-heating bit I mentioned a while ago? A physicist at Princeton was trying to figure out whether matter would break apart into its constituents in a collapsing universe, so he looked at how the universe heated up as it compressed. He then realized that his calculations worked equally well in reverse -- the young expanding universe was very hot but cooling -- and it had to have an afterglow: the CMB.

There are restrictions on this rebirth argument, though. For one thing, the fact that the universe will expand forever prevents a big crunch in our future, so we're at the end of the line if such a line existed. And in 2001, Alan Guth proved a mathematical theorem that shows that bang/crunch/bang universes can't have an infinite history; they must have started some finite time in the past. (Though there are a few ways around the theorem if you reject a few assumptions.) So yes, it's possible, but there is no reason to believe it actually happened, and there are very good reasons for thinking it won't happen in the future.

Q8) comparable ramifications? by sstory (#6606658)

A8) I'm not going to give the usual B.S. answers about spinoffs (though there are some). And I'm not going to evade the question by saying that genomics hasn't yielded any transformation, because the potential is certainly there. But I will answer this question obliquely.

If I asked you, "Quick! What's the most important scientific achievement of the 20th century?" how would you respond?

You would probably answer relativity or quantum mechanics, or perhaps the Apollo landings. Probably some would say the atom bomb. I suspect that only a handful of people would mention the computer, and even fewer people would say penicillin. (Am I right?)

Science has two faces -- it can transform society (for better or worse), and it can advance human knowledge. The two are not inextricably bound, though they often come together.

Relativity was a profound shift in our understanding of the way the universe works, but you have to look pretty hard to see a direct effect on our lives. Conversely, penicillin wasn't a central advance in understanding biological systems, but it affected all of us -- I suspect many people here on Slashdot wouldn't be alive today without penicillin and its descendants.

For me, though, relativity is a greater scientific triumph than penicillin -- even though penicillin is probably much more important to us. It altered our view of the universe and gave us a greater understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe -- it was a philosophical advance as much as it was a technical one. That's why we seem to admire Einstein more than Fleming and Newton more than Jenner.

The present cosmological revolution won't change our lives dramatically; heck, a good spam filter would probably have more direct effect on our quality of life. But at the same time, it will finally answer some of the most ancient questions of humanity -- where did the universe come from and how will it end -- and when it ends, we will have a firm grasp of the answer of the latter if not the former. It will be a towering intellectual achievement, and I think that is what will set it apart from even the human genome project.

Q9) What is the next paradigm shift? by geeber (#6606890)

A9) I disagree with the idea that there's no paradigm shifts left -- indeed, I think we're in the middle of one now. I think that it will be associated with one in the Standard Model of particle physics that will begin before the end of the decade.

It's hard to say where future paradigm shifts lie, but there are lots and lots of outstanding questions in science, some of which are incredibly basic, yet totally out of scientists' reach. For example, neurologists have a very good idea about how individual neurons work -- how they connect and communicate. But when it comes to explaining how a large sloppy hunk of neurons becomes a conscious entity, they're completely at sea. I don't think there's even a good definition of consciousness, which is crucial if you're going to study it seriously. Even more basic -- scientists are struggling to define what life is. There's a heck of a lot more work to do, and plenty of room for paradigm shifts.

Speaking of paradigm shifts, I'd like to take a bit of issue with the term (which I've used myself a number of times in the responses to these questions.)

For those who don't know, the idea of a "paradigm shift" comes from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a seminal work in history of science. While I think that Kuhn's idea of a paradigm shift has a lot of merit -- models and philosophies do change suddenly and dramatically in the face of mounting conflicting evidence and despite resistance -- I think the term itself is misleading. It implies the complete abandonment of one idea and acceptance of a replacement.

In my view, this is not the way modern science works -- I think that science is cumulative. Each model extends and corrects the previous one, and while there might be a dramatic shift philosophically, there is almost never a dramatic shift physically. Relativity, for example, made a profound change in the way we think about time and space and gravity, yet the functional difference between Newton and Einstein is pretty small. All these complicated tensor equations are approximately equal to Newton's laws in the vast, vast majority of cases -- it's only under conditions of extreme gravity, extreme speed, extreme energy, or extreme time that relativistic predictions diverge from Newton's. Similarly with quantum mechanics.

While I think that relativity and quantum mechanics are paradigm shifts, they're not rejections of the Newtonian picture as much as they are extensions. The paradigm shift can be huge philosophically, but its effects tend to be small in magnitude. And with these small corrections, scientists extend the applicability of their model of the universe -- they can explain the orbit of Mercury or the photoelectric effect -- and in the cases where Newton's laws were strong, these models boil down to Newton's laws.

If I remember my Kuhn correctly, he explicitly rejected the idea of cumulative science; he really saw each model getting completely replaced by its successor, rather than as an extension -- and this leads, at least in my view, to the excesses of postmodernism.

I think that this issue goes to the heart of the questions about how scientists can be sure about the end of the universe if their models can be replaced at any time. To that I'd argue that, yes, all models are provisional, but even with "paradigm shifts" models are usually extended rather than replaced. The central findings of the previous model still hold with good accuracy in most cases, even if the philosophical underpinnings are badly shaken. Maybe scientists are missing some crucial understanding that will simplify the way we look at the universe -- and scientists are seriously pondering alternate models to things as widely accepted as the inflationary big bang -- but even if such a shift occurs, it probably won't invalidate today's discoveries.

Q10) What will it mean? by boatboy (#6607285)

A10) One thing's certain. If I knew the answers, I'd be even more insufferable than I am now.

Seriously, I'm not sure that knowing the answers would have a profound moral and sociological effect. While I think that asking and answering big questions is a hallmark of a prospering society, a society doesn't necessarily draw strength or stability from its intellectual curiosity. (For example, Athenian democracy lasted only about 80 years if I remember right.) Even the most profound philosophical ideas can wind up having little real effect on the everyday functioning of a civilization -- for example, I think that Godel's incompleteness theorem hasn't changed society in the slightest.

As for the next big question, I think there are some in biology: what is life? What is consciousness? How did life arise? Are we alone in the universe? In physics, I think there are profound questions yet to be answered in a realm that I'd describe as "information theory" in the broadest sense -- what's really going on in a black hole? What makes quantum mechanics so weird? And I think that answering the question about the true nature of dark energy will probably have to await a future cosmological revolution. But one of the wonderful things about science is that you don't really know what big questions are within your grasp until you begin to grasp them. We'll know the next revolution when it appears.

Editor's note: Due to long answer lengths, we linked to the questions instead of running them directly here in order to keep this page from getting too large. This was an experiment. If you have comments or questions about Slashdot interview formatting, please email Roblimo.

czarneki writes "This is the first book from Phobos Books, a new science fiction publisher based in New York. It's a collection of winning short stories from their 2001 fiction contest, and Orson Scott Card was one of the judges as well as the editor for the book. I knew nothing about this book before finding it in the sci-fi anthology section of the bookstore, and I only picked it up because OSC's name was on the cover. (For an unknown company and an unknown set of authors, this book has an impressive set of people associated with it: Doug Chiang, the design director for the new Star Wars movies, did the cover, and Lawrence Krauss of The Physics of Star Trek wrote a foreword.)" With that pedigree, I'm sure you'll want to read the rest of czarneki's review, below. Empire of Dreams and Miracles author Orson Scott Card and Keith Olexa pages 262 paperback publisher Phobos Books rating 9 out of 10 reviewer czarneki ISBN 097200260X summary A good science fiction anthology of new authors who write well

I'm a regular reader of the sci-fi magazines, and I have to say, the stories in this collection are so much better than 95% of what gets published in those magazines. Maybe it's because the big-circulation magazines are so desperate for readership that they prefer to publish only stories from well-known authors, and many of them seem to use the short-story format only as a place to dump ideas that just don't quite make it into novels. The unknown authors in this anthology, on the other hand, seem to come up with fresh ideas and take pains to craft good short stories around them. This is probably what OSC is referring to when he writes in the foreword to the collection that in order "to find deep novelty, readers of science fiction must find new writers as well as new tales from old friends."

Okay, enough of that. What are the stories like? There's a lot here that Slashdot readers would find provocative and interesting. My favorite in the collection is "Twenty-Two Buttons" (my first reaction when I saw this title was: On a mouse or keyboard? Alas, that's not the sort of buttons we are talking about). The story takes place in a future where pollution, crime, and lawlessness have turned the Outside into a myth, and people spend all of their time inside their houses. They manage to go to work and school, find friends and lovers, and have contact with people outside the family only through the Net (ok, ok, so some of us already are living that way, but still), which is heavily censored and monitored by the government -- in fact, the story implies that the dangerousness of the Outside is exaggerated in order to justify the government's control over the Net (draw your own paranoid analogies with the present). This has some fascinating consequences. For example, children make play dates over the Net and rely on VR projections to learn to socialize. Families meet each other through a kind of Net dating service for whole families, and though two families may be from opposite ends of the continent, they manage to sit down "together" to have dinner, the VR screen going down the middle of the table. (I actually kind of wish that were true. Why should I be stuck with the people who happen to have moved in next to me?) Since physically moving yourself and your possessions from one place to another is so expensive, once you are married you are pretty much truly stuck. The main character in the story had an affair over the Net because he connected with the woman he could only touch through the mediation of technology so much better than his wife, but when the affair was discovered he was too afraid of the Outside to join the other woman. In the end the other woman did in fact leave the protected life on the Net and go Outside, and she tantalizingly sent him the buttons from her blouse, inviting him to "come out and play." (The actual story is so much better than my crappy summary, sorry.) This is the story in the collection with the most un-sci-fi-ish prose style, but it actually works really well.

"Carthaginian Rose" is based on an idea from Ray Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines. Basically, the idea is that we'll soon (as in within 30 years) be able to scan people's brains into computers powerful enough to simulate neural activities -- and instant immortality! The scanning technology initially will be kind of crude, and so we might need to do it destructively on some people to try it out (Kurzweil speculated that a person facing imminent death may volunteer to be the first test subject). The story takes this idea and speculates on what kind of person that first volunteer would be and how someone might be driven to happily, willingly, and even work hard at being destructively scanned.

The title story, "Empire of Dreams and Miracles," is probably the craziest story of the bunch. It involves a future so far off that people literally kill for sport (the victims are then brought back to life). The entertainment industry is centered around competition among the killer-artists to bring the most pleasure and novelty to each kill, and the psychology of a culture with no real death but a lot of colorful imitations of it is described with a great deal of detail and imagination. The images are eye-popping and they come at you one after another, giving you almost no time to absorb each one (so you end up feeling a little like the sensation-saturated inhabitants of this future). The fascination with violence, death, and the sexual energies in both can be seen as a satire of our own world or just really good mood setting.

"Who Lived in a Shoe" is about alien house hunting. For any slashdot readers who have looked for a dwelling the story will resonate. It's a funny, light piece that is less sci-fi than fantasy. Some of the houses that the main characters visit on their search may well appeal to the crowd here. This story shows the wide range and styles in this collection.

There are eight other stories in the collection, ranging from Twilight Zone-like horror to cosmology-as-religion. There are space stations and artificial intelligences, social commentary as well as pure fantasy. All of the stories are well-written short stories, not aborted attempts at novels or sketches that go nowhere. OSC wrote an introduction to each story and it's interesting to get his take on each.

To be sure, sometimes the writing in these stories is not as polished as one could wish, but you see that kind of roughness even in the mass-circulation magazines. After all, we are talking about sci-fi here, not the Atlantic Monthly. All in all, given the diverse range of ideas, characters, and styles in this collection and the fact that these are all fresh, new talents in the field, this is my second favorite short fiction anthology for the year (it was my first favorite anthology until Ted Chiang's Stories of Your Life -- you just can't argue with all those Nebulas).

You can purchase Empire of Dreams and Miracles from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

GospelHead821 writes "According to this article in Popular Science, a chemistry student at the University of Tulsa is driving research into use of toxin-munching "sulfate-reducing bacteria" (SRBs) to help cleanup toxic, solid effluent from abandoned zinc and lead mines near her home. Where does the beer come in? Apparently, it has proved an excellent food source for the bacteria and helps to extend the lifespan of the normally short-lived SRBs by several months. Currently, the procedure is in the testing phase, with models being employed to simulate the conditions that would be present in a large-scale detoxification plant, which in turn, is based on the natural wetlands from which these bacteria hail."

the_code_poet asks: "I'm a lead developer for a software development company, and one of my responsibilities has been writing an installer for our product (of which Linux is one of the platforms). In keeping with UNIX tradition, the installer is written in shell (thats /bin/sh), but as many of you know there is no Bourne shell for Linux - only bash. This has caused inconsistencies (mostly bugs in bash) when writing a generic UNIX sh script that works fine on commerical *NIX's." For a semi-complete list of differences between bash and sh, you will want to check out section C1 of the Bourne Again Shell FAQ. To be honest, I have yet to run into much trouble with a script starting with #!/bin/sh with /bin/bash, and I've been using the latter for years. If any of you have had problems related to this, please tell us what the problem was and how you solved it. Also: would anyone out there be interested in writing a real Bourne Shell for Linux?

"On every distro I've ever seen /bin/sh is just a soft link to /bin/bash. If bash is invoked with sh as its name (argv[0]) then its supposed to act like Bourne - but that just doesnt happen (for example: export FOO=bar is *not* valid Bourne shell syntax, you must say FOO=bar; export FOO)

Do you think that the startup scripts for most distributions would break because, even though they say #!/bin/sh at the top, they REALLY mean #!/bin/bash?

Given that there is no real Bourne shell for Linux, and that bash has an exhorbitant file size. Quoting bash's man page, here: '...it's too big and too slow' for something that is to be used as the defacto-standard shell for scripting, do you think its a worthy venture to set out to write a small, tight, pure Bourne shell?

*asbestos disclaimer*: This has nothing to with Bash as an interactive user shell and has nothing to do with a holy war over who's favorite shell is better than whomever's."

While doing a small bit of research on this question, I noted there was another Bourn-compatible shell out there called "ash", yet it's billed as doing "some things better and some things worse than bash". Does anyone use it, and find it better than bash for their shell scripting needs?

GospelHead821 writes: "It's been one hundred years since the first Erector Set was patented in Europe under the name of Meccano (It is sold under this name in Europe to this day). Unfortunately for Erector, the advent of plastic Lego bricks in 1958 spelled misfortune for the more complex, metal frame construction kit. Erector fans should keep an eye out, though! The Brio Corp. may be looking to reintroduce the Erector Set to the United States sometime soon. I remember playing with an old Erector Set when I was a kid, but I haven't seen one in quite a while. Here's hoping it makes a comeback. As versatile as Legos are, there's just something unconvincing about a Martian Destroyer Robot made out of plastic." My ranking is Capsula > Erector > Tinker Toys > Lincoln Logs > Lego.

Manhigh writes: "According to Space.com a rather large celestial body has been found orbiting the Sun in the Kuiper belt, beyond Neptune. It will probably never be classified as a planet since even Pluto's status as a planet is somewhat controversial. Here's an excerpt from the article: 'Under one assumption about the object's reflectivity (albedo), 2001 KX76 is probably 788 miles (1,270 kilometers), making it 44 miles larger across than Charon and even bigger than Ceres, the largest known asteroid.'"

Ocean Quigley writes: "These researchers at Case Western University are making liquids float in magnetic fields, just as if they were in Zero G. By varying the strength of the fields, they can emulate changes in gravity. Take a look at: http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univco mm/liqbridge.htm." Very neat thinking on the part of these researchers -- don't fight gravity directly, but merely counteract it! Unfortunately, it doesn't look like a technique that can be applied to human beings yet, so you still need a plane or an elevator for your low-G experiences ;)

[Dilbert] writes "I saw this first on ArsTechnica. The machine is a 486SX, fully SVGA compatible, 16 meg of ram, 2 16550A serial ports, hda = 16 meg flash, hdb = 340 meg IBM microdrive. Oh yeah, also built-in 10T ethernet, a floppy header, and parallel port. Granted, most of the ports are brought off the main unit via a 68-pin scsi-style cable to a little port board, but the meat of the machine is still tiny. The manufacturer is Tiqit Computers." Don't lose it in your couch ;)

The Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Junger v. Daley Tuesday, finding that source code is expressive speech. PeterD.Junger had sued in 1997 to allow posting of some crypto code on the Internet, on the grounds that it is expressive and not merely functional. The court found in his favor: "Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment." Read on for an excerpt from the ruling (or go read the whole thing yourself, lazy!).

See also the Wired article. And may I just say how delightful it is that the court compared source code to written music -- and to the works of JacksonPollack!

Excerpt from the court opinion:

The issue of whether or not the First Amendment protects encryption source code is a difficult one because source code has both an expressive feature and a functional feature. The United States does not dispute that it is possible to use encryption source code to represent and convey information and ideas about cryptography and that encryption source code can be used by programmers and scholars for such informational purposes. Much like a mathematical or scientific formula, one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.

The district court concluded that the functional characteristics of source code overshadow its simultaneously expressive nature. The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection. Rather, the appropriate consideration of the medium's functional capacity is in the analysis of permitted government regulation.

The Supreme Court has explained that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance," including those concerning "the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts" have the full protection of the First Amendment. ... This protection is not reserved for purely expressive communication. The Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protection for symbolic conduct, such as draft-card burning, that has both functional and expressive features. ...

The Supreme Court has expressed the versatile scope of the First Amendment by labeling as "unquestionably shielded" the artwork of Jackson Pollack, the music of Arnold Schoenberg, or the Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll. ... Though unquestionably expressive, these things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.

Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.

The Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Junger v. Daley Tuesday, finding that source code is expressive speech. PeterD.Junger had sued in 1997 to allow posting of some crypto code on the Internet, on the grounds that it is expressive and not merely functional. The court found in his favor: "Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment." Read on for an excerpt from the ruling (or go read the whole thing yourself, lazy!).

See also the Wired article. And may I just say how delightful it is that the court compared source code to written music -- and to the works of JacksonPollack!

Excerpt from the court opinion:

The issue of whether or not the First Amendment protects encryption source code is a difficult one because source code has both an expressive feature and a functional feature. The United States does not dispute that it is possible to use encryption source code to represent and convey information and ideas about cryptography and that encryption source code can be used by programmers and scholars for such informational purposes. Much like a mathematical or scientific formula, one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.

The district court concluded that the functional characteristics of source code overshadow its simultaneously expressive nature. The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection. Rather, the appropriate consideration of the medium's functional capacity is in the analysis of permitted government regulation.

The Supreme Court has explained that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance," including those concerning "the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts" have the full protection of the First Amendment. ... This protection is not reserved for purely expressive communication. The Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protection for symbolic conduct, such as draft-card burning, that has both functional and expressive features. ...

The Supreme Court has expressed the versatile scope of the First Amendment by labeling as "unquestionably shielded" the artwork of Jackson Pollack, the music of Arnold Schoenberg, or the Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll. ... Though unquestionably expressive, these things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.

Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.

David Carlin writes "SunHelp.org has a link in the Rumor Mill about Apache and Perl5 being included in Solaris 8. Click here for the official word from Sun. "

dkh2 writes "Today on ZDNet: A U.S. District Court has denied a request by Disney, InfoSeek and others to stay a preliminary injunction against their familiar green and yellow logo. The injunction orders Disney to remove the logo immediately from all broadcast and internet media and gives them 60 days to remove it from other more solid forms." And Disney/Infoseek has started to comply. You can see the change at Go.com right now.

Dymaxion writes "September 2nd is officially the 30th birthday of the Internet, being the day that the first packets were sent between the Sigma 7 mainframe that was the first internet node and its Honeywell based IMP (Internet Message Processor) at UCLA. There is a party at UCLA to celebrate the event, and although the deadline for RSVP's is over for that party, go ahead and throw your own. "

kelvin asks: "How do I get a digitizer tablet, specifically the Calcomp Ultraslate, to work in Linux?" What is the overall digitizer support like under Linux? I would expect this kind of support is crucial if Linux wants to eventually break into the professional graphics markets.

jose nazario writes "hey, just a quick note to say that L0phtcrack, nmap and the IPsec draft all got high nods from InfoWorld's Golden Gaurdian awards for 1998. a brief quote, "The developing IPSec standard also is represented in the third portion of 1998's Goldie, which we bestow on the scope of open-source security solutions. Self-reliance is a central tenet of the security administrator's bible, and 1998 saw the release and improvement of some useful tools for security administrators." enjoy. "

First off, various website and software announcements: Rik van Riel wrote in to say that the The Linux Memory Management home page, including the More than 1GB Faq, as moved. Jennifer wrote in to tell us that eterm now has its own domain. Rak wrote in to send us a link to a new site aiming to keep up with GNOME Development. chrism wrote in to say that Brian Paul of Mesa Fame is looking for a new home for said software. Email if you can help. Now that the straight stuff is out of the way, some fun stuff: kweiheri tron wrote in to send us a link to a telescope that you can control online. Eli sent us a link to the Bonsai Potato. It's just crazy. Jamie Wilkinson sent us a link to www.retards.com. It's not what you might think it is. A couple of other folks have written in recently and mentioned Smartass.org. It's a nifty site. Check it out.

Benjamin Karas writes "Total Impact announced that they will sell computers, for $15,000, that have 3 4-G3 PCI cards in them. Wouldn't that be nice for Gimp! " If multiple CPU boxes can be had this cheaply, perhaps we'll see support for more than 4 CPUs.

Peter D. Junger writes "I am sending this message, at the suggestion of Eric Raymond, to both the slashdot news service at www.slashdot.org and comp.os.linux.announce." Click below to read the whole message. I am the plaintiff in the case of Junger v. Daley in which I seek to enjoin the government from enforcing the export regulations that require one to get a license before publishing cryptographic software on the Internet or the World Wide Web or transmitting it outside the United States by electronic means. The basis of the suit is the claim that the writing and publication of software is speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I am afraid that most people believe that the importance of Junger v. Daley turns on the fact that the encryption of electronic messages is essential if we our to retain any vestige of privacy in electronic communications, and I, of course, agree that this is an important issue. I have always taken the position, however, that the true issue in my case, and in the Bernstein case which raises similar issues, is whether the First Amendment protects the writing, publication, and communication of software in general, not just encryption software.

As you probably know, in the Bernstein case Judge Patel of the Northern District of California held that software is speech that is protected by the First Amendment and the government has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, in my case Judge Gwin of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Ohio has recently held that software is not protected by the First Amendment because it is a ``functional device'' like a telephone circuit, saying:

The Bernstein court's assertion that ``language equals protected speech'' is unsound. ``Speech'' is not protected simply because we write it in a language. Instead, what determines whether the First Amendment protects something is whether it expresses ideas....

``Fighting words'' are written or spoken in a language. While spoken or written in language, they are excluded from First Amendment protection. See, e.g., Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250,1255 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 118 S. Ct. 439 (1997) (observing that words ``which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace'' are not protected because they ``are no essential part of any exposition of ideas ....'') (quoting Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572. Similarly, commercial advertisements are written in a language, but are afforded a lesser level of protection under the First Amendment. See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980) (acknowledging that the government may ban forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform). Furthermore, the court in Bernstein I misunderstood the significance of source code's functionality. Source code is ``purely functional,'' ... in a way that the Bernstein Court's examples of instructions, manuals, and recipes are not. Unlike instructions, a manual, or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes. While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption.

While finding that encryption source code is rarely expressive, in limited circumstances it may communicate ideas. Although it is all but unintelligible to most people, trained computer programmers can read and write in source code. Moreover, people such as Plaintiff Junger can reveal source code to exchange information and ideas about cryptography.

Therefore, the Court finds that exporting source code is conduct that can occasionally have communicative elements. Nevertheless, merely because conduct is occasionally expressive, does not necessarily extend First Amendment protection to it. As the Supreme Court has observed, ``[i]t is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity--for example, walking down the street or meeting one's friends at the shopping mall--but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment.'' City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25 (1989).

Now you know, and I know, that Judge Gwin was wrong in his conclusion. I am, however, more and more convinced that most people, and most legislators and most judges, would tend to agree with Judge Gwin, and with the government, which argued in my case that:

The linchpin of plaintiff's First Amendment argument is that ``software is speech.'' This notion ... has unknown and potentially harmful implications. If it were necessary to decide the matter, the more prudent judicial finding would be that encryption software, whatever its informational value, is properly treated as a functional item. The common sense understanding of software -- as recognized by courts -- is as a set of instructions to a computer microprocessor that enables a computer to function a certain way. The common use of software is to perform tasks on a computer, ranging from word-processing, electronic mail, exploring the Internet, playing games, or encrypting data.

Much software, however, is designed to cause substantial harm. Software exists to spread and install ``viruses'' that can destroy computer hard-drives or the files they contain. Software also exists to ``hack'' into secure computer systems, such as banking and telephone systems. Such software can be used to invade privacy, commit fraud, and substantially disrupt or even endanger people's lives -- not because it contains a harmful ``idea'' but because it can do harmful things. Those who transmit such software cannot validly claim they were merely distributing an ``idea'' or ``speech'' when that ``speech'' destroyed a computer hard-drive, shut down a phone system, or hacked into a bank account.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize what a threat this view is to the Open Software movement, which, as Eric Raymond has pointed out is dependent on the free exchange of ideas, usually in the form of freely available source code for computer programs, over the Internet. It is already the case that programmers in the United States may not take part in the development of open cryptographic software, since they may not distribute their versions of the code over the Internet; consider the case of GNU Privacy Guard, for example. And over the past year, Congress has given serious consideration to laws that would make it a crime to ``manufacture'' encryption software without a back door permitting government access to encrypted data or to ``manufacture'' software that could be used in commiting copyright violations, where, of course, ``manufacture'' means simply ``write''.

I have created an electronic discussion list called SoftSpeech to discuss the issues raised by Judge Gwin's decision, and I would like to invite you to subscribe and join in our discussions. Information about the discussion list, including how to subscribe, is available at the SoftSpeech web site

I also hope that you will encourage others in the Open Software movement to join in our discussions and, more importantly, to express their concern about the need for constitutional protection for the writings of programmers just as for other writings. There is an important educational and public relations job to be done here.

Finally, we will be filing a notice of appeal shortly in my case, and my lawyers assure me that it would be most helpful if some of the organizations that support the Open Software movement, like The Linux Journal and RedHat, to give just two examples, would be willing to submit an amicus brief supporting the claim to First Amendment protection for software. There were several amicus briefs filed in the Bernstein case, and we expect that the same amici will file briefs in support of our position in my appeal. But none of these briefs discussed the issue from the point of view of the Open Software movement.

I would welcome your suggestions as to organizations and individuals who might be willing to join in signing such an amicus brief. Everyone here knows, of course, about Open Software and how important it is, and is going to be, for the healthy development of the Internet and the Web and the entire world economy in this Information Age. Most judges on the other hand will not have heard about it yet. The purpose of amicus briefs---an ``amicus'' is a ``friend of the court''---is to inform the court of issues---like the importance of free speech for programmers to the development of Open Software---in which the ``friend'' has special interest and expertise.

-- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL

Peter D. Junger writes "I am sending this message, at the suggestion of Eric Raymond, to both the slashdot news service at www.slashdot.org and comp.os.linux.announce." Click below to read the whole message. I am the plaintiff in the case of Junger v. Daley in which I seek to enjoin the government from enforcing the export regulations that require one to get a license before publishing cryptographic software on the Internet or the World Wide Web or transmitting it outside the United States by electronic means. The basis of the suit is the claim that the writing and publication of software is speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I am afraid that most people believe that the importance of Junger v. Daley turns on the fact that the encryption of electronic messages is essential if we our to retain any vestige of privacy in electronic communications, and I, of course, agree that this is an important issue. I have always taken the position, however, that the true issue in my case, and in the Bernstein case which raises similar issues, is whether the First Amendment protects the writing, publication, and communication of software in general, not just encryption software.

As you probably know, in the Bernstein case Judge Patel of the Northern District of California held that software is speech that is protected by the First Amendment and the government has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, in my case Judge Gwin of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Ohio has recently held that software is not protected by the First Amendment because it is a ``functional device'' like a telephone circuit, saying:

The Bernstein court's assertion that ``language equals protected speech'' is unsound. ``Speech'' is not protected simply because we write it in a language. Instead, what determines whether the First Amendment protects something is whether it expresses ideas....

``Fighting words'' are written or spoken in a language. While spoken or written in language, they are excluded from First Amendment protection. See, e.g., Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250,1255 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 118 S. Ct. 439 (1997) (observing that words ``which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace'' are not protected because they ``are no essential part of any exposition of ideas ....'') (quoting Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572. Similarly, commercial advertisements are written in a language, but are afforded a lesser level of protection under the First Amendment. See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980) (acknowledging that the government may ban forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform). Furthermore, the court in Bernstein I misunderstood the significance of source code's functionality. Source code is ``purely functional,'' ... in a way that the Bernstein Court's examples of instructions, manuals, and recipes are not. Unlike instructions, a manual, or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes. While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption.

While finding that encryption source code is rarely expressive, in limited circumstances it may communicate ideas. Although it is all but unintelligible to most people, trained computer programmers can read and write in source code. Moreover, people such as Plaintiff Junger can reveal source code to exchange information and ideas about cryptography.

Therefore, the Court finds that exporting source code is conduct that can occasionally have communicative elements. Nevertheless, merely because conduct is occasionally expressive, does not necessarily extend First Amendment protection to it. As the Supreme Court has observed, ``[i]t is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity--for example, walking down the street or meeting one's friends at the shopping mall--but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment.'' City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25 (1989).

Now you know, and I know, that Judge Gwin was wrong in his conclusion. I am, however, more and more convinced that most people, and most legislators and most judges, would tend to agree with Judge Gwin, and with the government, which argued in my case that:

The linchpin of plaintiff's First Amendment argument is that ``software is speech.'' This notion ... has unknown and potentially harmful implications. If it were necessary to decide the matter, the more prudent judicial finding would be that encryption software, whatever its informational value, is properly treated as a functional item. The common sense understanding of software -- as recognized by courts -- is as a set of instructions to a computer microprocessor that enables a computer to function a certain way. The common use of software is to perform tasks on a computer, ranging from word-processing, electronic mail, exploring the Internet, playing games, or encrypting data.

Much software, however, is designed to cause substantial harm. Software exists to spread and install ``viruses'' that can destroy computer hard-drives or the files they contain. Software also exists to ``hack'' into secure computer systems, such as banking and telephone systems. Such software can be used to invade privacy, commit fraud, and substantially disrupt or even endanger people's lives -- not because it contains a harmful ``idea'' but because it can do harmful things. Those who transmit such software cannot validly claim they were merely distributing an ``idea'' or ``speech'' when that ``speech'' destroyed a computer hard-drive, shut down a phone system, or hacked into a bank account.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize what a threat this view is to the Open Software movement, which, as Eric Raymond has pointed out is dependent on the free exchange of ideas, usually in the form of freely available source code for computer programs, over the Internet. It is already the case that programmers in the United States may not take part in the development of open cryptographic software, since they may not distribute their versions of the code over the Internet; consider the case of GNU Privacy Guard, for example. And over the past year, Congress has given serious consideration to laws that would make it a crime to ``manufacture'' encryption software without a back door permitting government access to encrypted data or to ``manufacture'' software that could be used in commiting copyright violations, where, of course, ``manufacture'' means simply ``write''.

I have created an electronic discussion list called SoftSpeech to discuss the issues raised by Judge Gwin's decision, and I would like to invite you to subscribe and join in our discussions. Information about the discussion list, including how to subscribe, is available at the SoftSpeech web site

I also hope that you will encourage others in the Open Software movement to join in our discussions and, more importantly, to express their concern about the need for constitutional protection for the writings of programmers just as for other writings. There is an important educational and public relations job to be done here.

Finally, we will be filing a notice of appeal shortly in my case, and my lawyers assure me that it would be most helpful if some of the organizations that support the Open Software movement, like The Linux Journal and RedHat, to give just two examples, would be willing to submit an amicus brief supporting the claim to First Amendment protection for software. There were several amicus briefs filed in the Bernstein case, and we expect that the same amici will file briefs in support of our position in my appeal. But none of these briefs discussed the issue from the point of view of the Open Software movement.

I would welcome your suggestions as to organizations and individuals who might be willing to join in signing such an amicus brief. Everyone here knows, of course, about Open Software and how important it is, and is going to be, for the healthy development of the Internet and the Web and the entire world economy in this Information Age. Most judges on the other hand will not have heard about it yet. The purpose of amicus briefs---an ``amicus'' is a ``friend of the court''---is to inform the court of issues---like the importance of free speech for programmers to the development of Open Software---in which the ``friend'' has special interest and expertise.

-- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL

Danny Kumamoto writes "NYTimes has a good overview of the two encryption SW cases before the appeal courts in the US: link Junger vs. US link where the judge (Gwin) rules that encryption SW is like a device (i.e., can opener) and is not a protectable speech. Bernstein vs. US link on the other hand considers SW to be like a foreign speech and is protectable. One collateral effect: If Judge Gwin's reasoning wins, then any SW will become patentable not protected merely by copyright... "

Danny Kumamoto writes "NYTimes has a good overview of the two encryption SW cases before the appeal courts in the US: link Junger vs. US link where the judge (Gwin) rules that encryption SW is like a device (i.e., can opener) and is not a protectable speech. Bernstein vs. US link on the other hand considers SW to be like a foreign speech and is protectable. One collateral effect: If Judge Gwin's reasoning wins, then any SW will become patentable not protected merely by copyright... "

Apparently June is Officialy the Lets-Talk-About-Linux month in the mainstream press, cuz we've got a steady stream of them. Christopher Blizzard sent us an article on NASA, Linux and Multiprocessing and one called Is Linux the Business? from ZDUK's Linux Focus Week. We also have a Freeware Roundup over at InfoWorld. Aaron Stone sent us another InfoWorld article, this one examines Linux and Business and comes up positive.