Slashdot Mirror

First of all, reducing C02 doesn't really lower greenhouse gases. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, making up 98% of all greenhouse gases. We can't control water vapor.

That's a gross simplification, and may not even occur. But we don't know. We don't know how delicate the system is. And we don't know if some previously undiscovered feedback loop is going to leap up and bite us on our arses (several candidates are already known).

It was similar to the worry about global warming now, only the reverse. As we know now, this didn't happen.

Third, global temperature depends on where you measure temperature. If I measure temperature in the middle of the city, it will go way up as the city increases in size and population. If I measure it in the country, it's not going to increase. Statistics lie, that's what they're good for.

Lastly, scientists don't agree on global warming. There was a similar conference earlier this year where scientists decided that they couldn't come up with a solid decision on global warming.

There's a better article at NewScientist.com

prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.

They are trying to prove something that can't be observed, because it hasn't happened yet, can't be reliably seen to be happening...

Here is an article pointing out that the sun activity correlation fails to account for all of the warming that has occured since 1985. Note that one of the researchers involved in the original work referenced in the parent co-authored this new finding.

Now you've gone and done it. It's Politically Incorrect to question the dogma of Global Warming. They keep massaging the stats, taking a trendline from the bottom of one solar cycle to the top of another, and repeating the GW mantra that any changes must be the result of Evil Human Technology.

Now you've gone and done it. It's Politically Incorrect to question the dogma of Global Warming. They keep massaging the stats, taking a trendline from the bottom of one solar cycle to the top of another, and repeating the GW mantra that any changes must be the result of Evil Human Technology.

From a perhaps more reputable source:
New Scientist

The submitted link (pointing to Yahoo Asia) is actually a just a story reporting a story that appears on New Scientist magazine (Although their site seems to be down at this moment).

Anyway, just wanted to mention two things. One is that mouse IL-4 is inactive in humans, and vice versa.

The second is that many pathogens and parasites are thought to already manipulate cytokines to alter immune responses to their advantage, in a way perhaps similar to what the Mousepox w/ IL-4 is doing.

There is also those other strange people who want to put every bell, light and whistle on their rig, even if it is just to scare people, and intimidate the neighbors. Sort of like the Hell's Angels (with paint jobs, etc) or other motor cycle enthuthiasts with lights, radios, and enough gear to outfit a mobile home.

As a side note, this might be related to this story over the holidays describing how men in bars flaunt their mobile phones to attract women (and it works). The geek with the most impressive rack of equipment could attract the best partners. Or so the logic would go.

The only point here is that mental/emotional factors have to be considered as well.

So an opening animated graphic (or even a shockwave/flash file) would be attract to some people, beginners and otherwise. I imagine you could even have a whole operating system where many cues are not done by sound files(as in windows) but are by embedded flash files, etc. The computer could seem to be alive to the beginner, if this were done cleverly.

This would certainly attract alot of people.

Are these people the kind of people we want to attract?

I find it interesting that the various content industries are willing to go through all of that for a 90% solution in order to strip away fair use rights rather than use much simpler watermarking techniques....

Watermarking is a MUCH WORSE thing than CPRM. Watermarks are audible. Thus the music is degraded. The only good thing about watermarks is that they can be removed--that's what the SDMI hacking challenge was all about!

Also, the story refers to an original article in New Scientist magazine, which can be found here, although for some reason the link is down for me right now.

W
-------------------

Look here

New Scientist had an article on spintronics a while back (Feb 1998). Does a good job of explaining things.

I found the url for adaptive optic glasses We need the two combined! James

New Scientist also has an article about this with more info and pretty pictures.

...Conventional aerodynamics--used in the design of aircraft and helicopters--rely on "steady-state" situations such as a fixed wing moving at a constant speed or a propeller rotating at a constant rate. By contrast, the motion of insect wings is a complicated 3D affair. Nevertheless, until recently researchers were not convinced that this special motion could generate any unusual sources of lift. For years, they struggled to explain insect flight using a theory rooted in steady-state situations, not understanding why their aerodynamic sums didn't add up. Ellington summarises it neatly. "Since the 1950s, we've been looking at insect flight with the wrong picture in mind."

dnnrly

The solution is on its way, if you read here They still have not worked out how photosynthesis does what it does. You can come up with as many cute solutions as you like to the environmental problems caused by our species, if compressing air creates polution, then this is not a solution. I'm not that mathematically literate, perhaps someone has the necessary equations, what I envision is, if you can use photosynthesis to extract hydrogen from water you can then use that to power an infernal combustion engine, with the right carburetta mods. So my idea is something like an artificial leaf type thing that sits on top of your car, if the system is closed ie. the water from the exhaust being fed back up to the leaf. As I said before I don't have the math to work it out. But it would be doable if the leaf didn't have to be too big, the point is, could the current ;-) efficiency of photo voltaic cells be beaten by this route. If you have not got the drift of what I'm saying, think about the energy conversion factor of a giant redwood.

Peter.

I think a cool idea would be to actually use the energy from the keystrokes themselves to charge a cell

Have a look at this story, on just such a design by Adrian Crisan of Compaq (Houston headquarters).
It carries patent 5 911 529 which was filed well before you posted the idea, sorry 8o/

A HOVERING spy craft only 23 centimetres across could soon be flying behind enemy lines to conduct surveillance, or darting about inside buildings to help police find hostage-takers

Slashdot keeps mangling my html. Specifically the closing "/a" tags. Let's try again.

Slashdot didn't "rip" that story. It published a link to that story. You're making the same indistinction that the MPAA and the Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan is guilty of.

And by no means does New Scientist own a copyright on the UNC researchers' results ...

And by no means does New Scientist own a copyright on the UNC researchers' results ...

New Scientist issue: 21 October 2000

PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com

For a 'news' site which rips every single story from elsewhere on the internet you could at least be polite.

This came up in new scientist a while back - the article mentioned a company,
toybuilders, who do this kind of thing to create "custom toys" (action figures that look like you, etc..)

Hell, yes. Not only that, but you could probably get DoD funding for it as an ant i-radiation poisoning technology! :)

My primary point was that you don't acknowledge that the magnitude of a negative outcome, not just its probability, is a significant factor in calculating risk.

Not all those who raised concerns were mindless, ignorant anti-nuke zealots.

You mention the integirty of the RTG in the Appollo 13 accident, but not the release of plutonium during the failure of SNAP 9-A in 1964. NASA's records indicate that in 22 missions with RTG power sources, there have been three accidents, one of which resulted in the release of radioactive material(NASA. Some might examine this record and draw the conclusion that NASA's methodology in determining accident probabilities is flawed. Before Challenger, the probability of catastrophic failure during shuttle launch was calculated as being very low. After the accident, the probability was recalculated and is now estimated to be much higher...

NASA's 1995 environmental impact study indicated that a potential Cassini failure could result in 2,300 fatalities over a 50 year period. This estimate was later reduced to 120 fatalities, but the studies seemed to be an official confirmation of the negative scenarios that alarmed some people.

I agree that the risk was worth taking, but I disagree that there was no risk.

This isn't half as freaky as this cyborg eel. It may only have a few neurons, but its still a real cyborg. No pictures but this is the robot model they used, scroll down its the one in the middle. This is a picture of the lamprey eel.

I can also see the preview for 'cyborg wars' on Comedy Central.

Still, he estimates that the specific impulse -- the ratio of fuel to thrust, a measure of efficiency -- is some 1000 times better than chemical rockets. Admittedly, this figure doesn't count the overhead necessary to generate the electrical power.

And don't forget, in addition to getting the thing off the surface, you need to get outside the Earth's own magnetosphere for this sail to work. The magnetosphere is only 10 earth radii on the sun side, but it extends millions of km on the other side, away from the sun. You'd probably kick the spacecraft out perpindicular to the sun line, something that would take about as much fuel as putting a satellite in geosynchronous orbit. Practical, but it takes a lot of overhead to do just that much.

Way, WAY, beyond Moore's Law.
Here is truly, The Last Computer

* "Admittedly, it might be a bit inconvenient putting a nuclear fireball on your desk."

Looking back through slashdot's articles (via google) came across this link:Creatures from Primordial Silicon in this article http://slashdot.org/articles/99 /07/26/0238235.shtml posted by crackd.

It may not be the exact same article you were mentioning but it is still a good read.

Now if I could only get my entry for Battle Bots entry to self replicate and win by swarm :)

I saw this info sometime ago. I thought it was here. Maybe I was wrong. To view the info click here.

Well caffiene has been used as the molecule for simple quantum computers..... don't know where i read that. try NewScientist

There's an article in New Scientist on supersonic cavitating torpedos and submarines.

New Scientist: Could the future of robotics be a toy train with a taste for flesh?

See, I think the best plan would be to combine these two types of robots. Then you would have a robot that could hunt for it's own fuel!

The New Scientist article
Marshall Space Flight Center PDF file

Imagine a computer on a touch-sensitive piece of paper you could fold up and stick in your pocket...

The project is still being in the engineering phase, but there have already have been a few stories (check out New Scientist's article in 29 May 1999 issue (you may have to sign up for a free trial registration to their archive)). I know about the project because I know one of the planners. Here's two para's from the article:

Ireland's public broadcaster RTE is developing the technology, called the Wireless Interactive Network for Digital Services (WINDS), with cash from the European Union. Signals broadcast from the main transmitter follow the Digital Video Broadcasting standard used throughout Europe for terrestrial digital TV. The innovation is to make the set-top box that decodes incoming signals also work as a low-power transmitter, sending data signals to the normal roof-top or set-top aerial, which transmits them back to the broadcaster's mast.

The Irish government has allocated 1-megahertz slices of the UHF spectrum to carry the return-path signals, and each slice is split into 1000 channels that are 1 kilohertz wide. The receiver hops between channels until it finds one in its area that is clear.

I may not be resident in Ireland any more, but I do try to keep up :)

According to this article the watermark is audible. I am not buying any music with an audible watermark, I might buy music with an inaudible watermark, but only if it is significantly better than the plain old CD I can buy now.

It's based on making a huge (30km across) plasma which weighs basically nothing and using that to trap solar wind and providing a low, but very significant force- much more than ion drive but lasting a similiar period.

Anyway one of the main problems are that the hot plasma tends to melt the outside of the space craft. Perhaps a cold plasma might be better? Anyway check out the link it's cool space tech!

Seriously guys: this man goes on and on and on... A quick search on AltaVista for his name and Echelon turns up more than 20 pages of hits.

This guy never stops. He appars to be totally paranoid and he has -- as far as I can tell -- done no original research on his own.

Yes, it is worthwhile to discuss Echelon, the implications of Echelon, and, more generally, the role of intelligence services in democratic and civilised nations. But the ravings of this guy is not the right place to start a sensible discussion.

Please, can we get back to technology now? Try to read about flesh eating robots (seriously!) in the New Scientist for something more interesting than this guy.

---

"Where do you come from?"

At least the one they planned to use. Instead they are going back to the drawing board to come up with a watermarking technique that really is 'transparent' to someone listening to an authentic DVD-Audio disc.

Read about it in New Scientist

June 30, 2000: MP3 Summit Ian at MP3 Summit webcast
You can find Ian's hour long talk at the MP3 Summit about 1 hour 8 minutes into the Wednesday webcast.

June 16, 2000: Guardian Free market fight for music moguls
Interesting article in a British national newspaper.

May 27, 2000: LA Weekly Genie 1, Bottle 0
Very amusing article on Freenet and copyright. Highly recommended.

May 24, 2000: Channel 4 News Hackers stay one step ahead
A very cool news item talking about recent attempts by the British government to censor the Internet and how Freenet will make this very difficult. Includes text and streaming video of the item.

May 23, 2000: Libération L'anarchie est au bout du clavier
An interesting French article about Freenet, concentrating on the freedom of information aspects of the system rather than just copyright.

May 12, 2000: National Post Napster secured page in Internet history
Interesting description of why Freenet is not vulnerable in the same way that Napster is, although I must say that their "final thought" is slightly perplexing!

May 12, 2000: O'Reilly Network Gnutella and Freenet represent true technological innovation
A nice article concentrating, for a change, on the technical side of Freenet and Gnutella. Reasonably accurate, although it understates the efficiency improvement that Freenet should provide (describing it as of comparable efficiency to the WWW where it should be much more efficient).

May 12, 2000: Het Nieuwsblad Vrijheid van downloaden
A Belgian article about Freenet.

May 10, 2000: Houston Chronicle Software developer pledges to foil all intellectual property watchdogs
A version of the article below, doesn't require that you register.

May 10, 2000: New York Times The Concept of Copyright Fights for Internet Survival
One of the better articles; concentrates on the copyright issue. Requires free registration.

April 27, 2000: PCFormat Daily FreeNet
A brief article on Freenet.

April 27, 2000: Heise News-Ticker World Wide Anarchy: Netz ohne Kontrolle
A German article on Freenet.

April 26, 2000: CNET.com Free, anonymous information on the anarchists' Net
Entertaining article with some nice quotes.

April 17, 2000: The Irish Times Anarchy Rules Alternative Web
A rather amusing article on Freenet.

April 16, 2000: Freshmeat Client As Server: The New Model
An interesting article discussing distributed systems and how systems like Freenet are actually in a similar spirit to the original Internet.

April 13, 2000: El País Freenet propone una red sin censuras, alternativa a la WWW
A Spanish article about Freenet.

April 10, 2000: Slashdot.org FreeNet's Ian Clarke Answers Privacy Questions
A very informative interview conducted by the readership of SlashDot.org, probably the closest thing to a FAQ, aside from our faq.

March 25, 2000: ABC News Freedom on the Net?
A rehash of the New Scientist article below, but likely to reach a much larger audience.

March 25, 2000: New Scientist Out of control
A "big bad Internet"-style article, but it is reasonably well researched and seeks the opinions of those who might be considered Freenet's opposition.

March 23, 2000: Heise.de Ein Netzwerk, das Zensur unmöglich machen soll
A German article on Freenet.

March 14, 2000: OLinux Freenet, a polemic concept to deal with WWW
An English translation of a Brazilian interview with Ian Clarke. Focuses on the technical aspects of Freenet, and goes into a reasonable amount of detail as to how the system works.

March 10, 2000: Webwereld Anoniem Freenet ultieme schuilplaats voor piraten
A Dutch article on Freenet. My Dutch is a little rusty but it looks like it is primarily inspired by the Wired article below.

March 8, 2000: no spoon FreeNet : le réseau anonyme distribué qui supplantera le Web
An excellent French article on Freenet, draws an interesting parallel between Freenet and the writings of Neal Stephenson.

March 3, 2000: Need To Know sufficiently advanced technology: the gathering
A brief but excellent article again approaching Freenet from a pro-freedom standpoint.

February 24, 2000: PigDog Journal Get in on the Ground Floor of Freedom
A very positive little article describing Freenet and why they think it is interesting using some rather "colorful" language.

August 14, 1999: Brave Gnu World FreeNET
One of the first articles about Freenet back when it was 100% theory. Still an excellent introduction to the way Freenet works.

Ever heard of the Oklo reactor? I didn't think so.

Yes, boys and girls, a naturally occuring nuuuuuu-clear reactor. Produced all sorts of fun stuff including plutonium.

Also, WTF do you think happens when a star goes bang? Supernova -can get some fairly heavy stuff - they found radioactive iron-60, and expect plutonium to be found on earth in supernova debris (bottom of referenced page).

Not that it would go anywhere fast on Titan. Liquid hydrocarbons are rather poor solvents for metals and other ionic species. The material would decay where it landed, long before long it got anywhere. Too bad your greenpeace membership didn't include a science education.

Darren

Pizza Hut apparently paid 1 Million $ for their logo to appear on the side of the rocket. The image is here: It seems like corporate sponsorship of space programs is going to be on the increase. In the current issue of the New Scientist, there is an interview with one of the head honchos for MirCorp, who seems to suggest that it won't be long before each of the Mir modules is corporately sponsored. Suggestions anyone. Perhaps Hoover should sponsor the module that lost pressure ? I should think it's a pretty good vacuum in there.... :-) M.

It's not like splicing is anything new - hell we've been making corn that poisons butterflys for a while now - it's not new. Why is this news? What is the nature of the chromosome, is that what makes it so special? What does it do? Anything?

It's not like splicing is anything new - hell we've been making corn that poisons butterflys for a while now - it's not new. Why is this news? What is the nature of the chromosome, is that what makes it so special? What does it do? Anything?

If you read the New Scientist at all, you might have seen an article in it about the e-bomb, which basically is a cheap (and easily) constructed weapon that uses microwave radiation to generate a set of pulses to frizzle electronic hardware. My immediate thoughts are that a misdirected beam of microwave radiation could be fatal, frizzling the internal circuitry of the craft, should it ever get into space. I just guess that they'll have to provide some pretty effective shielding. Impressive nonetheless, though. M.

Here is a link to an article about Alex from the current article referenced in this story. http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id =ns222113

Check out bottomquark to discuss the latest science news.
GrnArrow