Slashdot Mirror

That type of vulnerability is called "It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway".

Koush had his tether app taken down down by a few carriers. Despite that those users may have been paying for a tethering plan, and the app wasn't violating the market/developer terms. Anyways, I assume that this will be mostly rooting apps, and tether apps, and the like.

See https://plus.google.com/u/0/103583939320326217147/posts/Kd39ccKPL68 for the motivation.

Something I have always wondered: Suppose they do manage to decrypt her disk (or in another case, the disk isn't even encrypted). What prevents them from planting a couple of incriminating files? How could you ever prove it?

There have been too many cases where it seemed, um, convenient for CP to "unexpectedly" turn up on a defendant's computer. To pick a random example out of zillions: "deputies discovered pornographic images of children on Krohl’s personal computer and hard drive during a unrelated investigation". Somehow, this seems to happen a lot. If they are after your marijuana plant, how logical is it to search your computer? "Look what we found! Perhaps you want to plea bargain?"

Want to see how often it happens? Browse through the results of this Google query...

Better Apple than the Republic of Texas. One of the goals that Jobs had with this iTextbook thing was to avoid situations like crackpots in Texas having undue influence on textbooks sold nationwide. If they are cheap to create and to purchase, states that understand things like 'facts' and 'scientific method' won't be stuck with book publishers who are beholden to a board that collectively thinks Genesis was a literal document of actual events.

But Al Gore lives in a big house and lies about inventing the Internet, so he's a big weenee and we don't have to listen to him lalalalalalalalalala

You left out his wife's backing of censorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

and, about the house, he feels real bad about that, and has bought all sorts of green credits to make up for it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't see why transforming the Arctic from ice (white and highly reflective) to liquid (darker in color and absorbs solar energy in the top 10 meters), might want to think about how many white cows would have to be replaced with black cows to have the same net effect. (Answer: even in post-McDonalds America, there aren't enough cows to equal the surface area of the Arctic ice cap)

> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.

Those rules are called physics.

Only a tiny, tiny part of physics. The whole point here is that people can invent quantum algorithms even if they are completely illiterate about physics in general.

Agreed. Check out Mermin's book (shut up & calculate guy). The algorithms appear to come from insights in number theory more than physics in general. The most compact & handy representations of the algorithms are... that's right--circuits. Open simulators are available for download.

The field is ripe for hackers to lend a hand. There's no reason to be intimidated by self appointed guardians of the turf. Most physicists didn't have a clue about the importance of entanglement--the primary resource making quantum computation possible--some ten years after it was demonstrated. The Aspect experiments in 1982 are to this day often referred to as the turning point.

They also did everything in their power to discourage learning about entanglement in the decades prior. It's an attitude that's difficult to penetrate. Appears to be somewhat rooted in big egos in an environment hostile to one's reputation--i.e. the usual suspects. The field has been invigorated by those interested in building stuff, who aren't afraid of accepting some odd logic & learning the tool sets.

> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.

Those rules are called physics.

Only a tiny, tiny part of physics. The whole point here is that people can invent quantum algorithms even if they are completely illiterate about physics in general.

Agreed. Check out Mermin's book (shut up & calculate guy). The algorithms appear to come from insights in number theory more than physics in general. The most compact & handy representations of the algorithms are... that's right--circuits. Open simulators are available for download.

The field is ripe for hackers to lend a hand. There's no reason to be intimidated by self appointed guardians of the turf. Most physicists didn't have a clue about the importance of entanglement--the primary resource making quantum computation possible--some ten years after it was demonstrated. The Aspect experiments in 1982 are to this day often referred to as the turning point.

They also did everything in their power to discourage learning about entanglement in the decades prior. It's an attitude that's difficult to penetrate. Appears to be somewhat rooted in big egos in an environment hostile to one's reputation--i.e. the usual suspects. The field has been invigorated by those interested in building stuff, who aren't afraid of accepting some odd logic & learning the tool sets.

Not really. Quantum computers are only practical in that scientists and engineers have managed, through herculean efforts, have made simple machines that can solve utterly trivial computing problems for which no apparatus whatsoever is necessary or desired.

A practical quantum computer would be a quantum computer suitable for solving practical computing problems on a basis that's competitive with other types of computers.

Correct--quantum computers are not the next FTP server. Nor are graphics cards much good for Excel.

Maybe engineers will figure out how to make such computers in the next few decades, but maybe not. Meanwhile, the capacity of conventional computers continues to push out ahead.

Such authoritative predictions are littered throughout the commentary on the field. Perhaps produced by those uncomfortable with a technology built upon a mysterious process for which there is no authority. More useful than additional replicas, would be to provide a solid basis for these exuberant predictions. Somehow, despite the best efforts of the critics, the tech is picking up steam in overcoming showstoppers such as error correction.

For those interested in learning something about the history of the subject, The Age of Entanglement, When Quantum Physics was Reborn. is well researched, intelligent, & engaging. For the latest advances--both fundamental & technical--the origin of the paper in this post is a prolific producer of relevant work.

Wow, we're on Slashdot......almost like being On The Cover of the Rolling Stone.

Answers to various questions and comments:
- We support the Linux toolchain; compilers, debuggers, etc., fortunate to have some of the original gcc team. Ported pieces of various kernels to TOMI Aurora to make certain we had not left anything out and to test the memory manager. Aurora was for use in a tablet type device.
- TOMI Borealis was optimized for Big Data and unstructured data apps like MapReduce that choke at the Memory Wall. Linux could probably be ported without too much difficulty. Most massively parallel installations will use something really light weight instead.
- Potential users said give them more integer cores instead of adding FPU. We gladly cede the FP world to Itanium.
- For raw FP horsepower within a reasonable power budget, its tough to beat Nvidia's GPU approach. That is probably why 3 of the top 10 supercomputers are GPU accelerated. http://www.top500.org/ GPU-type architectures will likely be the future of scientific computing. Venray is focused on Memory Wall limited areas such as Big Data.
- From the computer architecture perspective, the distinction between Big Data and Small Data is whether the datasets will primarily fit within the onboard caches. Video compression, graphics acceleration, encryption, and much of LINPAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK) would be classed as Small Data since most of the computing can be done without leaving the caches (high locality). Legacy architectures choke on Big Data since the datasets overflow the caches and there is much much less data reuse.
- MapReduce is important because it is currently the most visible Big Data application thanks to Google. http://research.google.com/archive/mapreduce.html
- Venray believes Big Data applications are the future of computing. So does McKinsey Consulting. http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Technology_and_Innovation/Big_data_The_next_frontier_for_innovation We leave it to others to accelerate MS Office and Call of Duty.
- The future of Big Data appears to be RAM resident, not disk, not even flash. (See Fred Ho's work at IBM.) https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/fredho66/?lang=en_us
- re: Mitsubish 3DRAM and other similar ventures, iRAM, Exacute, Gilgamesh, etc....they embedded DRAM into logic. Contrast with TOMI that embeds CPU cores into DRAMs.....our benefits are performance and particularly cost: http://www.edn.com/photo/294/294788-microprocessor_vs_memory_transistors_graph.jpg
- We chose a modified RISC architecture rather than a special purpose one such as Gilgamesh in order to make programming simpler with well understood Linux tools such as gcc. Submit your gcc C, C++, or Fortran to http://www.venraytechnology.com./ Statistics are returned in standard dGen format.
- TSV (through silicon vias) and HMC (hybrid memory cube) are valid attempts to push back the Memory Wall. Discussed in Part 1 for EDN. http://www.edn.com/article/520059-The_future_of_computers_Part_1_Multicore_and_the_Memory_Wall.php Decision may be determined by cost.
- Would love to dispense with caches because they add transistors. 4K data and 4K instruction caches sped us up about 10x. Unlike legacy architectures, TOMI cache lines load in a single DRAM cycle.
- Yes love Raspberry Pi. http://www.raspberrypi.org/
- Quad-

just because businesses in your perspective may have closed, moved, or simply become less popular in $years since your last experience doesn't mean that the US is somehow a: lacking in culture or b: that those cuisines no longer exist. In fact, single lazy google searches of everything you referenced pulls up examples for all of them. I just spent 10 seconds on google and found places. Quantity can and will vary, as will quality. This is the nature of any business, let alone restaurants.

Just because of the corporations building shit on every corner with a profit motive doesn't mean local cultural businesses don't exist. Your thinking is just as generally inaccurate as the concept of Canada's "protect our culture" regimes. They are ignorant in the face of a global marketplace, which we have. Just because people are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds doesn't mean local restaurants can't possibly be in business too.

just because businesses in your perspective may have closed, moved, or simply become less popular in $years since your last experience doesn't mean that the US is somehow a: lacking in culture or b: that those cuisines no longer exist. In fact, single lazy google searches of everything you referenced pulls up examples for all of them. I just spent 10 seconds on google and found places. Quantity can and will vary, as will quality. This is the nature of any business, let alone restaurants.

Just because of the corporations building shit on every corner with a profit motive doesn't mean local cultural businesses don't exist. Your thinking is just as generally inaccurate as the concept of Canada's "protect our culture" regimes. They are ignorant in the face of a global marketplace, which we have. Just because people are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds doesn't mean local restaurants can't possibly be in business too.

just because businesses in your perspective may have closed, moved, or simply become less popular in $years since your last experience doesn't mean that the US is somehow a: lacking in culture or b: that those cuisines no longer exist. In fact, single lazy google searches of everything you referenced pulls up examples for all of them. I just spent 10 seconds on google and found places. Quantity can and will vary, as will quality. This is the nature of any business, let alone restaurants.

Just because of the corporations building shit on every corner with a profit motive doesn't mean local cultural businesses don't exist. Your thinking is just as generally inaccurate as the concept of Canada's "protect our culture" regimes. They are ignorant in the face of a global marketplace, which we have. Just because people are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds doesn't mean local restaurants can't possibly be in business too.

For the record, you just failed to cite anything to the contrary. Instead you were insulting, and wrong.

They are at bus stations. You can read various news and commentary from this "google" thingy, or just watch the videos if you prefer.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=tsa+bus+stations

They are not, to my knowledge, running vehicle checkpoints though.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.

This this this.

See:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/24/rape-victim-arrested-refusing-tsa-pat/

additionally...
https://www.google.com/search?q=arrested+for+refusing+tsa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I have never seen a US city consider making public services free on a holiday

Maybe you should look harder?

http://totaltrafficla.com/2011/12/31/free-bus-train-rides-for-new-years-eve/21231

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/malerts/SFMuniNewYearsEve.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=free+new+years+taxi

Linux is now Windows

Google has various types and sizes of ads. You can see most of what they support in their help docs here. Their text ads are obviously from google, the picture ads are less obvious.

I used to run a fan site for an MMO and I used google adsense for my ads (only 1 ad on the page). The graphical ad shown tended to be relative to the content on my site (it would be advertisements for other MMOs like WoW or LotR). There were also text ads for other random junk. The nice thing about how google ads work is that they give you 3 common ad size (and various less-common sizes), and those sizes can fit graphical or text based ads. What is shown will depend on the viewer and the content of your site.

Block sites on google yourself, like Experts Exchange.

http://www.google.com/reviews/t?hl=en

Not relevant.
For the longest time, you've been able to block domains in google.

http://www.google.com/reviews/t (If logged in)

that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?

Profit. They don't want to be known as the search provider to be avoided because they point to link farmers / aggregators / web spammers.

If 90% of power users actively decide to block site X because it completely sucks when logged in using

http://www.google.com/reviews/t?hl=en

Then they may as well block that site for everybody.

I don't think I ever claimed people who disagreed with me must be stupid or evil. I brought up Cheney because it seemed you had implied I thought people who disagreed with me were stupid. Cheney isn't. Probably the smartest guy I ever met is on the conservative end of the spectrum, and he seemed like a nice guy to me.

Good that you're able to recognize that. However, it doesn't square with your previous statement that Bush's policies show him to be an idiot. (I definitely don't agree that Cheney is evil, at least any more so than the average politician, but I'm trying to to stay on the topic of intelligence as much as possible). I'll narrow things down to the Iraq War, since that's the most controversial. By any standard that judged Obama to be intelligent, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Bolton, and Rumsfeld would have to be as well. They all agreed with the policy and the arguments given for it. So did quite a few similarly-intelligent leaders outside the US. If the policy or the reasons for it brand Bush as stupid, wouldn't they all have to be stupid and/or evil? What about, say, (then) President Aleksander Kwaniewski of Poland (incidentally, Distinguished Scholar at Georgetown U)? And unless all of them are stupid or evil, how does it follow that Bush is?

All that notwithstanding, it is clear to me that there is one end of the liberal/conservative spectrum that is rabidly anti-intellectual, and one that isn't.

In my experience, people on the right are much more likely to have read the important books of the left, than vice-versa. Your average conservative is much more likely to have read Marx or Keynes than the average liberal is to have read Hayek or Bastiat (again, among those I've met or had discussions with). It is true that a lot of the right distrusts intellectuals, but that's not the same thing as a dislike of intellect/intelligence. Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society goes into great depth on that very distinction.

Bush did his best to impersonate a "just plain folks" kind of everyman for his entire public life. I believe part of it was political theater (nobody needs to clear that much brush) and the other part was the fact that (IMHO again) he was and is completely incurious.

I don't see how one can judge whether someone is incurious or not, without seeing how they react to an idea presented to them. Give me some examples to indicate why you think Obama is curious and Bush isn't, please.

His success never depended on brainpower, so he never did much with what he had. Maybe he could have been another Einstein, but he didn't need to develop whatever grey matter he has, much as I might be a helluva mammoth hunter, but I've never had to find out.

If by that you mean "he's from a rich and powerful family and never had to develop his brain", then you have to apply that to quite a few people that the left holds up as geniuses: all three of the Kennedy brothers, Al Gore, and FDR, to name a few. Interestingly enough, your theory is at odds with no less a leftist than Lenin, who formulated his "vanguard of the proletariat" doctrine based on the theory that the workers didn't have enough spare time to think and therefore needed intellectuals to lead them in the proper direction. Personally I think the both theories have a bit of truth in them but wind up being a wash.

In any case, as I said, my original assertion wasn't that Bush had a higher IQ than Obama, or anything in that vein. It was that, as a pilot, Bush has previously interacted with technology in a way that more-closely resembles what an average Slashdot reader does than Obama has. To give one of the shorter examples from the F-102 Pilot's Manual:

Leasing square feet of retail or warehouse space and staffing it is a fair penny more than than server costs. Bandwidth is cheap. It's not an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

The last time I checked Apple spent a $1B to build their last data center. Google spends about $500M on each of theirs. The money spent isn't on space or staff; it's on equipment and construction costs. There is more to a data center than cheap bandwidth. Many here on slashdot seem to forget servers cost money; routers (the industrial kind not the one you get at Best Buy) cost money.

And like I said, it's different when developers can ignore those channels and do it themselves through online sales direct to consumers (digital download or boxed copy mailing).

Yes and all of that costs money and time. Do you think that copies mail themselves or that it costs a developer no time/money to create their website, host it, and operate it? Do you think that it costs them nothing to use a turnkey e-commerce solution? Do you think that credit card companies don't charge independent developers fees for online sales?

I'm not in support of any of the app stores getting cuts as large as they do when they position themselves as gatekeepers to the platform. Microsoft or Apple.

30% is very low compared to what it used to be. 45% was more common and you still had to pay fees on top. 30% is also what Android charges.

People pick the platform for the apps, they already give the parent OS-makers additional revenue in people choosing them and not the other device/OS instead.

So you are saying that everyone should take money to recuperate their operating expenses out of altruism? I think at 30% all the sites makes some profit. They don't make a lot of profit though.

Yes there is a line.

Corporations always do what's necessary to bolster their bottom line and it is always at the expense of people.

By all means, post an example - just one would be more than sufficient since I stated an absolute - of a corporation lobbying on the behalf of the public good AND that is detrimental to their profits.

Just one to blow me out of the water and I'll kiss goatse on the ass.

The Sierra Club is incorporated.

Greenpeace is also a corporation.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=15545+Ranchview+Court+minnetonka+mn&ll=44.973056,-93.474383&spn=0.02365,0.039353&hnear=15545+Ranchview+Ct,+Minnetonka,+Hennepin,+Minnesota+55391&gl=us&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6

After a bit of googleing seems to be where they plan to put it. This is not the prime area of Minnetonka, just north of a highway, no lake, behind some car dealerships, and on a swamp. It is also only about 1/2 mile from a middle school. You need to go about two mile southwest from there for the major homes or the west side of lake Minnetonka.

As for the fan and generator noise, probably quieter than the 2 major highways (I394 & I494) right near there same for the generators(especially if steps are taken to minimize the sound of both). I'd bet ambient daytime sound levels are rather high there.

Fun facts, I drive within 0.25 miles of this site everyday on my way to work, I work in the same building as the architect in question, and work for a company that makes HVAC units for datacenters among other uses.

Yeah, I thought about that after posting. I used 'lignin' as a blanket statement for any and all methods here. But this has been tried before, as I implied; here's a 1979 news clipping about floating kelp being gasified into methane for use as fuel, for instance. (I can't load these Google News archive pieces in Chrome for some reason, btw).

There have been heaps of schemes for sea-based algae farms growing biofuels, too. Lignin isn't an issue there either. There seems little new in this approach; would it be able to compete with good ol' corn based ethanol? There's so much built infrastructure for that already, and massive corporations throwing their weight behind it. TFA mentions a potential yield of 1% of US demand being met by about 1% of available offshore area, which might be utilized for fuel additives; but how could such a scheme compete with their terrestrial equivalents? Which is why I've always had my doubts about these approaches, to justify going offshore for any resource you need something with high yields and profits, meaning hydrocarbons or fish, pretty much. It just isn't worth it attempting to mine the seafloor yet.

Google code search is still up, just at a different URL here:
http://code.google.com/codesearch

And it's not limited to just Google's own code. From this blog post: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-code-search-still-available.html

Fortunately you don't have to be connecting from the US if you don't want to be.

No, you are wrong, here is an example: http://google.com/codesearch

Troll much? From the link you supplied hoping no one would think for themselves.

No, you are wrong, here is an example: http://google.com/codesearch

Troll much? From the link you supplied hoping no one would think for themselves.

Look at the Business Software Alliance Members

Why would Microsoft and Apple buy Hollywood companies to kill those bills when when they agree with SOPA and PIPA? I don't see them on any of the "companies that oppose SOPA and PIPA" lists. Copyright is even more important for Microsoft and Apple (and the other members of the Business Software Alliance).

I sort-of agree with the article, but unfortunately the game producers (which IMHO are the successors to Hollywood entertainment complex) tend to support those bills! Electronic Arts supports it directly (instead of hiding in the Business Software Alliance, and pretending that they don't support it).

The real problem here is the open floodgates of money (and corruption) since the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling that Corporations can contribute unlimited quantities of money to any politician. Congress or these people need to update the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law to limit corporate donations to those of an individual. As an individual, I cannot contribute unlimited quantities of money to a politician, so why should a corporation be able to? I don't expect congress to act on this, since they are the recipients of this new orgy of cash.

We need to lobby congress ourselves, or at least donate to these people to lobby on our behalf, in opposition of these bills.

DMCA is an abomination, and these bills take it to the next level of absurdity. There are no technical or legislative measures that can ever prevent all piracy! These MegaCorporations have already eroded our fair use rights with DMCA. They are already censoring free speech and shutting down fair use, with unwarranted DMCA takedown notices. There are no checks and balances to their power, and now they want to turn every citizen of this country into a felon. Enough is enough!

We could kill these bills with two amendments. The first one would be to require a different copyright symbol to apply the new law to a copyrighted work (or a company could go "all in" with all of their copyrighted works). This would be an opt-in arrangement. The second amendment would be to make any copyrighted works subject to these laws have an expiration time of one year from the copyright date. This would kill or neuter the bills. No copyright holder in their right mind would permit their works to expire in one year, even if they had one year of guaranteed "no piracy."

The next thing we need to do is to repeal the CTEA that will effectively make copyright permanent. In its place, the government could put in place a law where copyright extensions are possible, but with a fee that doubles every year, starting at USD $1M per year (from the original pre-CTEA copyright expiration dates). Given the small number of copyrights that this would apply to, a government-run website could easily disseminate a list of works that have had their copyrights extended, such as the original Mickey Mouse Cartoon that caused the CTEA to be enacted. Our government could certainly use the money! All other works not on that list (that have expired due to the original time limits) would then become part of the Public Domain! Copyrights were never intended to be "forever."

While both you and I are aware of that, there are many people who are mislead into believing that dropbox is a backup service.

Heck, go look at their sales pitch.

"Dropbox - Secure backup, sync and sharing made easy"

This is plastered all over their web site, advertising, and over a million linked sites

And you are probably correct, if they took the server down no data would be deleted.
That would be why I specifically asked about the data being deleted.

However, consider what would happen if someone disconnected the front end web farm from the storage system during a federal seizure. Also, what about catastrophic failure at the datacenter?

Are we certain that the dropbox servers wouldn't assume that there was no data for a little while?
I haven't seen the code, so we can only hope that the system is properly designed.

Or, we can do exactly what I said in the original post, and KEEP LOCAL BACKUPS.

While both you and I are aware of that, there are many people who are mislead into believing that dropbox is a backup service.

Heck, go look at their sales pitch.

"Dropbox - Secure backup, sync and sharing made easy"

This is plastered all over their web site, advertising, and over a million linked sites

And you are probably correct, if they took the server down no data would be deleted.
That would be why I specifically asked about the data being deleted.

However, consider what would happen if someone disconnected the front end web farm from the storage system during a federal seizure. Also, what about catastrophic failure at the datacenter?

Are we certain that the dropbox servers wouldn't assume that there was no data for a little while?
I haven't seen the code, so we can only hope that the system is properly designed.

Or, we can do exactly what I said in the original post, and KEEP LOCAL BACKUPS.

oh yeah ? and then where is that self-perpetuating, end-of-hollywood idea ? it has been more than a decade since internet has entered living rooms. where is that idea ?

apple does not have the means to catalogue all spendings of almost every western citizen on the planet, and link those spending directly to their identity. if they had it, maybe they could do it.

There's apparently more truth than I realized to the saying "never argue with an idiot, they'll only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Rather than acknowledge any of the actual trends that are occurring around you, you instead shoot from the hip of your wonderfully insightful gut and instead respond with "oh yeah? prove it!" ?

Well, after this post I guess it's up to the mods, because I'm done with this bullshit you're trying to perpetuate.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/9/2693228/ubuntu-tv-has-unity-inspired-ui-will-ship-on-televisions-by-end-of
Unity, on TV sets, by the end of this very year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV#Second_generation
Apple TV second generation sales (Good thing SOPA blackout is over)
http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-tv-review
Apple TV Reviews

http://www.google.com/tv/
http://googletv.blogspot.com/2011/01/samsung-and-google-tv.html

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/from_ces_a_few_hints_about_the_future_of_tv.php
CES 2010: Apps on smart TV's, "The Future of TV"

You're on the fucking internet for god sake, use it to get learned.

No, you are wrong, here is an example: http://google.com/codesearch
No more service, and no replacement (don't believe what they say, this service was indexing all source code on the Internet, not Google's only).

Google is killing every service that doesn't return quick money. This means that Google just stopped all innovation (except a few star projects, like Google car, but what does an advertisement's company do in the automobile's domain anyway ? It's so ... out of place).

Why would you want to take risks when you can make money with existing products ?
Why would you put money in Research when you can concentrate on Development ?
Oh, that's right: let's buy any startup that has an interesting idea, and kill the idea if it doesn't make money.

Google is ranked as the 2nd most innovative company in 2010:
http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/innovative_companies_2010.html
Let's see how it will do in the next rankings.

The problem with Google is now greed.

Seriously. Apple has 76B sitting in the bank, Microsoft has 55B. Time Warner has a market cap of 37B, hell even the media giant that is Disney/Pixar has a market cap of only 70B. A lot of the music companies are a fair bit smaller.

The distribution channels (Apple, Google, etc) are bending over backwards on deals with companies that they could acquire in a hostile takeover tomorrow if they wanted to. It's crazy.

Although generality is good, we might ask what the "ideal" abstraction for a particular application is. In my opinion, it is a programming language that is designed precisely for that application: one in which a person can quickly and effectively develop a complete software system. It is not general at all; it should capture precisely the semantics of the application domain - no more and no less. In my opinion, a domain-specific language is the "ultimate abstraction".

One approach is not to directly program the GPU, but to use library provided (domain-specific) high-level parallel primitives (map,fold,reduce,..) to describe the computation. The library in question then compiles the final low-level code. These libraries are often implemented as domain-specific embedded languages. Topic is a subject for active research, but some more or less mature implementations already exist, some of which are:

• thrust provides STL-like algorithms for C++ while targeting CUDA and OpenMP as backends.
• ArBB implements a parallel array programming library for C++ built on a general purpose virtual machine targeting SSE, AVX and possibly MIC in the future.
• accelerate is an embedded language for array computations in Haskell and at the moment implements backends for CUDA and ArBB.

According to this whitepaper, the DNA sequencing is "unequivocally uncopyable".

A bit further on, they only say 'resistant to reverse engineering or replication', which is probably closer to the truth. Here's a patent filed by the company, which looks like it might be referring to the same technology:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100285985

My reading of the simplest version of this is that they take some target DNA (e.g. derived from a plant genome, and possibly cut up and re-ligated to swap things around), and design a single 'forward' PCR primer and multiple 'reverse' primers that bind the target sequence at various positions. They retain the forward primer and template DNA , and paint the object to be protected with a pooled selection of the reverse primers (different objects or companies could use different selections of reverse primers).

To authenticate an object, they extract DNA from the object (i.e., the pool of reverse primers) and mix it together with their single forward primer, template, and standard PCR reagents. Running the PCR gives them a series of amplification products of defined sizes (determined by the selection of reverse primers), which effectively 'fingerprint' the object. To make things difficult for a forger, the pool of primers painted on the object will probably contain a complex mixture of confounding sequences that don't bind the target sequence, and there may also be multiple genuine primer sets designed to different target sequences. Since the forger won't have access to the target sequence(s), they'll have no way of knowing which primers are important, and will therefore have to determine the sequence of all of them and then have them re-synthesised.

tl;dr - Replicating the label is not trivial.

Kevin Ryan was a chemist who did water testing. He was fired from a division of UL after he sent out an email representing his opinion on melting steel as the opinion of UL.

He had more than one chance to have his say in court, and couldn't even file the pages in the correct order:

http://sites.google.com/site/resipsa2006/kevinryanv.ullitigation

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsEwgESVy5A1_ezNhAwLOKqiKrpxKfAi-5v52EtQiTBjFEC-Pr

I also wonder why they mention DVI. DVI and HDMI is basically the same video signal.

Just that DVI has no sound and no DRM capability.

So when you don't need sound or have an additional soundcard, and you don't play content with DRM (Like in 99% of workplaces) you can simply replace the DVI -> DVI monitor cable with a HDMI -> DVI Monitor cable. Starting at $2 it seems.

Not every substance has this property, but yes: the field is called pharmacogenetics/genomics.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2001/0629globaleconomics_brainard.aspx

Although it is probably more accurate to go back to Reagan as the 'start' of our policy changes, you should remember that the 1990's were close to unprecedented in terms of the lowering of tariffs and the signing of 'free trade' agreements.

This, more than anything, is what set in place the 'race to the bottom' in terms of wages and manufacturing costs.

We've never had lower union membership than we do today. It's around 12% of the workforce. Look at those numbers in the 70's and 80's. Much higher.

We choose to not have child labor, polluted rivers, and choose cleaner air than our cheap labor competitors. Without tariffs in place that recognize this manufacturing costs difference between us and china, of course an international market is going to race to the bottom and build things in China.

But that alone isn't the only issue. Another huge issue is that China directly subsidizes industries in order to drive out competition in other Countries. Take Solar panels for instance. The cost of labor is actually a pretty small part of the overall manufacturing cost. Yet China has overtaken US solar panel manufacturers. They produce and export something like 16,000 megawatts of panels per year, and only use 500 megawatts per year locally. They can do this, because the Chinese government directly uses tax payer money to massively subsidize solar panel production.

And of course, you'll want to read up on China's currency manipulation....

China isn't playing fair in our post 1990 "free market".

If we want a "free market" without protective tariffs, then the only way to compete with China is to artificially lower the value of the dollar, remove environmental regulation so our cities look like Hong Kong, and directly subsidize key businesses with tax payer dollars so we can undersell below our cost of production.

Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're allowed to publicly hate whatever they like.

FTFY.

VGA Adapter

You almost had a point there until you got around to trolling with the "people who respect the constitution" part.

On the contrary, the point was reinforced by that, if perhaps not on purpose.

Here's someone who respects the constitution who is apparently fair game, though the GP may not have had her in mind as she is not Christian, conservative or Republican.

A salvage expert (former CEO of the leading company in that field Smit Tak) says it can't be done in the following Dutch newspaper article (google translated):

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fm.trouw.nl%2Farticle%2F15%2F3126744%2FIn-stukken-zagen-dat-is-enige-optie.html&act=url

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=nome+alaska&daddr=Seattle,+WA&hl=en&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=61.065158,135.263672&oq=seattle+&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=5

Someone should submit that to Google, would be much funnier with a mush your sled 1000 miles.

Except when your device is already made with Arduino, and then it needs to do something new that is DSP. Then you need DSP with Arduino. Even if it's "stupid" it might be necessary. Most application development must use the HW already present in its installed base, or die trying.

Since DSP (or rather NSP, since "Native Signal Processing" is what non-DSP CPUs were needed to do when there was no DSP but only a CPU in the installed base) isn't impossible on microcontrollers, just somewhat impractical on many of them. Yet the AVR ATMega is common in Arduino, and includes a HW multiplier that can be used for multiply-accumulate that is the core of DSP:

The component that makes a dedicated digital signal processor (DSP) specially suit-
able for signal processing is the Multiply-Accumulate (MAC) unit. This unit is
functionally equivalent to a multiplier directly connected to an Arithmetic Logic Unit
(ALU). The megaAVR microcontrollers are designed to give the AVR family the ability
to effectively perform the same multiply-accumulate operation. This application note
will therefore include examples of implementing the MAC operation.

Meanwhile, new Arduino Due boards include ARM processors with HW multipliers.

Even if the processor/microcontroller has no HW MAC, it can do DSP - just less efficiently. If its application needs DSP, it can do it.

Unless the developer just insists it's stupid. Then the Arduino cannot do it. But not because of the chip.

Also, to go with my other post: http://www.lawyerswithdepression.com/

http://www.google.com/search?q=lawyers+with+depression
"About 20,200,000 results (0.10 seconds)"

That said, there are a lot of lawyers out there fighting the good fight, building bridges between people, and doing the right thing.

See also: http://lawschoolscam.blogspot.com/
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/better_look_3800/3816_law-school-scam.html

Or:
http://www.google.com/search?q=law+school+scam
"About 2,940,000 results (0.10 seconds)"