Slashdot Mirror

Folding@Home is the major benefactor of Google Compute. Curing cancer (or at least Alzheimer's) is already on the to-do list for Google. . .

The link you provide, among other things, says that forest area is not decreasing, which is a blatant lie popularised by master jester Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics) in his "skeptical environmentalist". The lie is originated by the plotting of forest area as published by FAO since the end of WW2, without correcting for the fact that countries were continuously joining the FAO and that first estimates were not precise, and had no conventional definiton of "forest area". The myth is well debunked here.

The author is a CS professor, not a climatologist. His credibility is quite low on this issue. The fact that he disagrees with pretty much any climatologist on the planet is also a pointer.

More attention should be paid toward colonizing Venus instead.

http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/2p-star.html
http://fp3.antelecom.net/gcifu/applemuseum/lis a2.html
Never linked on here before

a) Read the response to the c & d. He did not violate any agreements. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/archives/CIS%20letter .pdf
b) No one has sued anyone here, try RTFA.

Written on the blog, dated July 22nd.

"Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA."... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

Yeah, and FedEx really pissed off Jose's lawyer too. They demanded that she take down her comments at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

There are dumber things to do than to tell a university lawyer that they can't print their opinions. But offhand, I can't think of any. And even better yet, she's not just some staff lawyer, she's the Executive Director for the Center for Internet and Society Cyberlaw Clinic.

Your earlier claims of parody appear to have no merit as Mr. Avila's screen shots that we have seen do not mention any social or other commentary regarding FedEx. In fact, his site appears to be a blatant attempt to make money because he asked viewers of the site to send him money and also included a reference to PayPal.

Jose Avila: I'm broke! See how broke I am? I'm funny too! Can't you spare just a little change?

Lawyer: See! Right there, I told you so! If you allow Mr. Avila to continue using the FedEx trademark, customers will become confused, and may think they're donating money to the REAL FedEx corporation!

The response to the letter (warning pdf)here.

Some interesting citings. I like the one about Mattel vs teh guy who made sex poses with barbies and sold them as art.

From the furniture creator's blog:
"Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA."... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/"

His blog is available at http://furniture.weblogswork.com/

Private universities are not, to the best of my knowledge, non-profits.

Indeed they are. Universities are without, any exception I know of, chartered as non-profit, charitable institutions that are tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code. If they weren't charities, then you would not be able to deduct your donations to them from your taxes.

For example see:
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/ofs/tax_services/gen_ex e.shtml
http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/83-33.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/legal/legalfacts_su.h tml

and especially:

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/rrr/02/12.htm

So, my extensive analogy is not off at all.

If a University were organized as a private, for-profit enterprise, which is certainly conceivable, there would be no immorality in productizing knowledge -- by which I mean subjecting access to it so it can be sold for the highest possible profit. At least there would be no immorality that stems from its identity as a University: for profit entitites are first and formost profit making, and only secondarily whatever else they may be.

You mean like this:

http://www.db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

?

grib.

In their computer technology. Lego to server farms!

IANAL, but this seems very similar to the Skylink vs. Chamberlain case. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/vol_1_no_1/00 1496.shtml/

Observation has a special meaning in quantum mechanics. Pretty much it's classical measurements of the quantum system. My gab then about negative information being "virtual" gives a little hint.

No no no. The particle is only entangled with the slits when the slit records which one the particle went through. But this is exactly the case when all the probabilities are positive, because the particle behaves classically. When the particle shows interference, then it is not entangled with the slits.

Guess I have to explain myself. For two slits, we have two partial wave functions which is the contribution to the particle's total wavefunction from travelling along that path through one slot. The two are correlated/entangled with one another. Observing which slot the particle travels through destroys that entanglement.

Feynman's use of negative probabilities (which is different to information!) was a calculational trick, and is really cool, but it is not what you and the parent seem to think it is. I think I'm right here. It's not a great leap from negative probabilities to negative information. After all, what's a two state system with a negative probability of existing, but a bit of negative information? Plus, and I'm not demeaning the current work, negative information is a calculational trick as well.

Finally, I think the concept of negative information (you have to search for "negative information" in the long article) in the classical sense has been around for a few decades in philosophy though as a way to form negations. Ie, you subtraction the information that is described by statement P from "all possibility" to get "not P".

And I recall discussing the idea of "negative information" in the quantum sense with Tom Etter and Jim Bowery (who goes by the name Baldrson on slashdot) back around 2000 (we all worked at Hewlett Packard at the time though those two were contractors). Though the phrase doesn't appear in either persons' online works (according to Google).

My take is that people have been hankering to apply the concept of negative information to quantum mechanics for some time. What may be new is that we appear now to have a rigorous math formulation of the concept.

Paul Kunz was generating dynamic web pages from database queries on the IBM mainframe at SLAC that hosted the very first web server in the United States.

-jcr

Keep in mind that Google's crawler, and presumably Yahoo!'s as well, tries to visit the more important pages first. So even if Google is missing half of the pages in Yahoo!, it probably still covers most of the ones you'd want to find.

(Indeed, covering fewer pages might be a wise strategy, other things equal, since it leaves more crawling time available to revisit known important pages that may have changed.)

As far as I know, prioritized crawling was first described in this 1998 paper by the Google folks. Note that the paper considers the original PageRank metric, which has since evolved. http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/papers/efficient-cr awling.ps .

The pen that can write upside down (likely the Fisher Space Pen) was completely privately developed and was not funded or supported by the government or space program.

Perhaps the reason you don't see many spinoffs from the space program is that they are literally all around you. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Miniaturization is often quoted, and it is quite true. There are many other examples, many in medicine and industry.

I think there may be a few things you have overlooked but they are easy enough to find.

Jim

I'm not arguing against your point, as such, but I thought I'd shamelessly copy/paste the following from here, as an example of the utility of game theory applied to a cold war scenario (I apologise for not bothering to paraphrase) :-

Both the USA and the USSR maintained the following policy. If one side launched a first strike, the other threatened to answer with a devastating counter-strike. This pair of reciprocal strategies, which by the late 1960s would effectively have meant blowing up the world, was known as 'Mutually Assured Destruction', or 'MAD'. Game theorists objected that MAD was mad, because it set up a Prisoner's Dilemma as a result of the fact that the reciprocal threats were incredible. Suppose the USSR launches a first strike against the USA. At that point, the American President faces the following situation. His country is already destroyed. He doesn't bring it back to life by now blowing up the world, so he has no incentive to carry out his threat, which has now manifestly failed to achieve its point. Since the Russians know this, they should ignore the threat and strike first! Of course, the Americans are in exactly the same position. Each power will recognize this incentive on the part of the other, and so will anticipate an attack if they don't preempt it. What we should therefore expect, because it is the only [Nash equilibrium] of the game, is a race between the two powers to be the first to attack.

Nuclear is limited by Uranium reserves


Incorrect, for any practical sense of "limited".

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclea r-faq.html

Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg

Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.j pg

Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jpg

Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g0681 .jpg

Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Athert on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en

Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%2520079.JPG&imgrefurl=h ttp://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm&h=1536&w= 2048&sz=661&tbnid=AN0nR-46KkoJ:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150& hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalerie%2Bplame%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

As a poor analogy, metal furnature layed out in the open will never assemble itself by the force of gravity. One of many complications is that gravity doesn't produce the torque needed to fasten nuts and bolts.

It defies all physics and mathematics.

It is wrong to deny that we have 'faith' in the future of science to come up with an explanation and pretend that our science has nothing to do with 'faith'.

It is not a religious issue for everybody but a strictly philosophical and scientific one.

WEEELLLLLL,

He also says several times that the cogito is the first item of knowledge. (Med. 3, AT 7:35, Prin. 1:194, AT 8a:7).

Also, "perfect" knowledge for Descartes means 'indefeasible' knowledge, and you're right, there is some question as to whether the cogito counts as this. I'm actually leaning toward your view though. From the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:

Other texts can be cited in support of the interpretation of the cogito as indefeasible Knowledge. For example, we have seen texts making clear that it resists hyperbolic doubt. Often overlooked, however, is that it is only subsequent to the introduction of the cogito that Descartes has his meditator first notice the manner in which clear and distinct perception is both resistant and vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt: the extraordinary certainty of such perception resists hyperbolic doubt while it is occurring; it is vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt upon redirecting one's perceptual attention.

It's got to be a clear and distinct impression to qualify...which also leads to the question of how and when we have clear and distinct perception of a non-deceiving God.

Check it out

The very basis of both science and philosophy is that the truth can be ascertained by evidence, reasoning, argument, etc.

Philosophy is not just the statement of non-provable ideologies

Another metric is Eigentrust out of Standard: link (warning: PDF). If I recall correctly, it computes the trustworthiness of a peer by computing its left principal eigenvector. This is the same method Google uses to rank pages in its search algorithm.

- shadowmatter

Yet, are there things that are more important than money?

Fortunately, many of my peers in the United States of America feel that some things are more important than money. Consider the case of Stanford University. It is probably the most commercial of the elite universities and has strong ties to industry. Yet, Stanford University recently divested its investments in Chinese companies like PetroChina, which is commited to indifference to the Sudanese victims of human-rights abuses.

What surprises me about the lead article in this discussion is that Boston Common Asset Management, which (to my knowledge) is not an official advocate of socially responsible investing, has done such a clearly socially responsible act. Does anyone know of any funds managed by Boston Common Asset Management? I want to invest a significant amount of my 401K monies into those funds.

Like Stanford's Board of Trustees, I too am committed to the cause of human rights. I invest exclusively in socially responsible mutual funds.

By the way, there is a significant and measurable difference between Western society and non-Western society. In the West, you will often see incidents of this kind, where shareholders actually demand that companies support human rights. Cisco will change. Reebok has already changed and is now an official supporter of Amnesty International. Can anyone find examples of such shareholder activism in, say, the Chinese province of Taiwan?

"And, of course, they aren't making some kind of patent requiring exclusivity. So anybody who *does* want to do it themselves, still can."

I'm a bit confused. Isn't exclusivity and licensing the point of patents? Amazon doesn't have a great track record of non-exclusivity.

Amazon Patents User Viewing Histories
Amazon Patents Cookies (from the "are you f'ing kidding me dept.)
Amazon One-Click Shopping

From what I can see, Amazon's primary business may be Amazon.com. But, it's secondary business is certainly to patent the obvious and the mundane, then attack its rivals with them. And there are plenty of rival companies out there already doing this for many services, not just web. In fact, you can sell web services over eBay now, using Paypal, also owned by eBay. How is this different?

from the webpage:

"A Simple Solution. PwdHash is an browser extension that transparently converts a user's password into a domain-specific password. The user can activate this hashing by choosing passwords that start with a special prefix (@@) or by pressing a special password key (F2). PwdHash automatically replaces the contents of these password fields with a one-way hash of the pair (password, domain-name). As a result, the site only sees a domain-specific hash of the password, as opposed to the password itself. A break-in at a low security site exposes password hashes rather than an actual password. We emphasize that the hash function we use is public and can be computed on any machine which enables users to login to their web accounts from any machine in the world. Hashing is done using a Pseudo Random Function (PRF)."

It also works on IE, and the same site has SpoofGuard for IE. SpoofGuard is an antiphising extention. I don't use IE but spreading the word on the above makes the web a safer place.

from the webpage:

"A Simple Solution. PwdHash is an browser extension that transparently converts a user's password into a domain-specific password. The user can activate this hashing by choosing passwords that start with a special prefix (@@) or by pressing a special password key (F2). PwdHash automatically replaces the contents of these password fields with a one-way hash of the pair (password, domain-name). As a result, the site only sees a domain-specific hash of the password, as opposed to the password itself. A break-in at a low security site exposes password hashes rather than an actual password. We emphasize that the hash function we use is public and can be computed on any machine which enables users to login to their web accounts from any machine in the world. Hashing is done using a Pseudo Random Function (PRF)."

It also works on IE, and the same site has SpoofGuard for IE. SpoofGuard is an antiphising extention. I don't use IE but spreading the word on the above makes the web a safer place.

The very nature of Open source makes it an exploitable resource for companies like MSFT that make Proprietory software.

Its quite easy to steal ideas from Linux and incorporate into our own and not honor the open source license.

Tell me, who enforces open source license?

Open source people won't have the hords of lawyers to protect the intellectual property like the companies such as MSFT or Amazon do.

Each of your eyes itself is a scintillator. See also http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/applications/pho totubes.html High energy particles coming from the cosmic ray can produce light in your eyes. Normally you do not notice it because of its low intensity and because you are busy watching something else. Relax.

This is the best by far I have heard. Demands a couple listenings: you will laugh.

Why don't you do it yourself? ;)

And if possible put the replies here :)

I don't think so.

Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support life on earth.

Source: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen. html

The page I cited has actual numbers to back up its claims. You provide nothing with which to back up your claims. I think I trust that page more than you.

"People who dismiss concepts like 'intelligent design' out of hand may often like to refer to themselves as scientific, but in fact dismissing something like that out of hand is the very reverse of scientific."

It is dissmissed because it is an article of faith and scientific investigation cannot prove God exists (apparently the Christian God himself said the same thing in the Bible, Hebrews 11:6, John 20:29). Even if all the scientists on the planet agreed with your faith, so what? How would it impact on science?

"At the very least there exists the possibility of a test; as we learn more about genetics and actually perform large scale genetic engineering it is possible that we may find that we can 'detect' GMO's which we create ourselves.
Once that happens, its a legitimate project to apply such a test to organisms which we believe to be of natural origin and, of course, to ourselves."

GMO's can already be easily 'detected' (commonly used by Monsanto to sue the pants off farmers who dare to modify crops the old-fashioned way). We can detect GMO's because we are looking for a gene that is not naturally found in those plants (ie: we put it there). Dolly the sheep is a clone and we can't tell the difference from a "natural" sheep (ie: we did not "Modify" the organisim, we copied it). The human genome has been mapped along with quite a few other critters, much of the information is in the public domain so it should be "easy" to find the God gene or whatever you think you are looking for. (Disclaimer: "Easy" but not quick. It will take you many years to get an education in science and then many more to specialise in genetics but the end result will be worth your effort)

"Unfortunately, many people (many of them calling themselves scientists) would argue that 'its a waste of time' because 'obviously intelligent design is just wrong'. Not very scientific eh."

See above, scientifically, ID is neither right or wrong it is a matter of faith and thus irrelevant to science. It could accurately be described as a "waste of [lab] time". (Disclaimer: science is based on the faith that real and abstract objects exist idependently of human observation, the behaviour of these objects can be predicted by observation and experimentation (ie: we can discover natural laws). This philosophy is generally credited to Plato, although you could try Popper for something more up to date. Phycopaths have a different "faith", ie: they exist but other people are a figment of thier imagination. There are many other "faiths" but Plato's brand of scientific faith is so ingrained into the everday, many do not even recognise they have it.)

"Perhaps a redefinition of science is in order, something closer to the definition of religion... 'Thou shalt not challenge the orthodoxy.'"

Redefining science as religion has been done before but it is more common to redefine religion as science. I think I will stick with the current definition and credo, 'Thou must challenge orthodoxy'.

"IMO, the true scientist witholds judgement until the experiments have been done and the data is in front of them."

IMO, faith is the absence of judgement. I am sure all respectable scientists would agree with your last statement, can you point to or propose an experiment that could determine what the one true faith should be? If you can't come up with an experiment, perhaps you should petition the Pope, he is interested in faith and his church has a huge wad of cash to waste on such things. (Disclaimer: "True scientists" are not interested in religiously motivated anecdotes.)

"I am not a deist nor an atheist nor agnostic. I am a non-dualist. There is no difference between what we think of as god and what we think of as anything other than god: its all one big thing"

That's nice but just because your

"People who dismiss concepts like 'intelligent design' out of hand may often like to refer to themselves as scientific, but in fact dismissing something like that out of hand is the very reverse of scientific."

It is dissmissed because it is an article of faith and scientific investigation cannot prove God exists (apparently the Christian God himself said the same thing in the Bible, Hebrews 11:6, John 20:29). Even if all the scientists on the planet agreed with your faith, so what? How would it impact on science?

"At the very least there exists the possibility of a test; as we learn more about genetics and actually perform large scale genetic engineering it is possible that we may find that we can 'detect' GMO's which we create ourselves.
Once that happens, its a legitimate project to apply such a test to organisms which we believe to be of natural origin and, of course, to ourselves."

GMO's can already be easily 'detected' (commonly used by Monsanto to sue the pants off farmers who dare to modify crops the old-fashioned way). We can detect GMO's because we are looking for a gene that is not naturally found in those plants (ie: we put it there). Dolly the sheep is a clone and we can't tell the difference from a "natural" sheep (ie: we did not "Modify" the organisim, we copied it). The human genome has been mapped along with quite a few other critters, much of the information is in the public domain so it should be "easy" to find the God gene or whatever you think you are looking for. (Disclaimer: "Easy" but not quick. It will take you many years to get an education in science and then many more to specialise in genetics but the end result will be worth your effort)

"Unfortunately, many people (many of them calling themselves scientists) would argue that 'its a waste of time' because 'obviously intelligent design is just wrong'. Not very scientific eh."

See above, scientifically, ID is neither right or wrong it is a matter of faith and thus irrelevant to science. It could accurately be described as a "waste of [lab] time". (Disclaimer: science is based on the faith that real and abstract objects exist idependently of human observation, the behaviour of these objects can be predicted by observation and experimentation (ie: we can discover natural laws). This philosophy is generally credited to Plato, although you could try Popper for something more up to date. Phycopaths have a different "faith", ie: they exist but other people are a figment of thier imagination. There are many other "faiths" but Plato's brand of scientific faith is so ingrained into the everday, many do not even recognise they have it.)

"Perhaps a redefinition of science is in order, something closer to the definition of religion... 'Thou shalt not challenge the orthodoxy.'"

Redefining science as religion has been done before but it is more common to redefine religion as science. I think I will stick with the current definition and credo, 'Thou must challenge orthodoxy'.

"IMO, the true scientist witholds judgement until the experiments have been done and the data is in front of them."

IMO, faith is the absence of judgement. I am sure all respectable scientists would agree with your last statement, can you point to or propose an experiment that could determine what the one true faith should be? If you can't come up with an experiment, perhaps you should petition the Pope, he is interested in faith and his church has a huge wad of cash to waste on such things. (Disclaimer: "True scientists" are not interested in religiously motivated anecdotes.)

"I am not a deist nor an atheist nor agnostic. I am a non-dualist. There is no difference between what we think of as god and what we think of as anything other than god: its all one big thing"

That's nice but just because your

Had any good Welsh wine lately?

This previous article claims that Google Scholar was inferior compared to other services like Highwire. Has it been changed much in the last month, or is it still not as good as it could be?

Yes, I realize that it's still in "beta", but "beta" may as well mean "v1.0" to google.

You don't hire Alan Kay to write code, you numbnut.

Why is that? Alan Kay has great influence on programming practice, shouldn't you expect him to program as well? Look at Don Knuth. He is a once-in-century figure in computer science, and is fantastically knowledgable, but he writes programs all the time. I suspect Alan Kay does as well.

I totally agree, it is a problem of organization. The choice to have more information faster is a good thing, but it is a personal decision on how to harness and use it.

It is interesting to note the case of Donald E Knuth (of The Art of Computer Programming fame), no doubt one of the most productive and eminent scientists of our age. He stopped using email 15+ years ago!!

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.ht ml/

And the point is well made. Email can be a distraction and the solution has to come from the consumer of the technology in terms of deciding how to use it.

But what do we do to the itch for checking slashdot every 3 minutes :) ?

OOP there it is.
OOP there it is....
OOP
OOP

game pings will be -12

You're trying to be funny, but this is an excellent point: 100 MBps is the bandwidth, and says nothing about the latency.

Us geeks know it's really about the latency, but I guess that's too complicated a word for CNN and other mass media. "Speed" sounds simpler, and most people don't understand the difference between bandwidth and latency.

Many of the things I do with cable/DSL today would be better if my network connection had lower latency. Some would be better with more bandwidth. Unfortunately, news reports always use the word "speed" to mean "bandwidth", and ignore latency altogether. So the chances of the latency improving are slim.

And that means this won't be 50x faster for a lot of things, and may in fact be slower for many uses. Aah, progress...

Clearly, you don't pay much attention to the glossy ads in Infoworld and CIO magazine. FUD marketing out the wazoo for exactly these types of devices.

This is actually a very hard problem to solve. I've written quite a bit on the subject, but I'll attempt to provide a few quick helpful points.

If you have some form of perimeter security, it becomes easier, but still very resource-intensive (both technology resources and human resources). I'm assuming that you're not at a university, or some other type of organization that has a wide open network, because if you were, you wouldn't care.

For a good list of fun tools, look here:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/nmtf/nmtf-tools. html

But beyond the rinky-dink stuff, at the most basic level, you want to make two choices right up front:
How important is the real-time interdiction to you?
Do you want signature-based tools, anomaly-based tools, or both?

If you would be content with a good system that doesn't have the ability to mitigate threats in real-time, then that widens your possible solution space quite a bit. In this area, you definitely get what you pay for. FOSS tools that have this capability are way behind commercial tools in ease of maintenance, configuration, and how many types of attacks they work against. So that requirement limits your options considerably.

A similar situation exists when we look at the detection method, signature vs. anomaly. Signature-based systems are a dime a dozen, but they don't cover the really dangerous stuff. Anomaly-based systems are somewhat more useful against the scarier threats, but no FOSS solution comes anywhere close to the commercial offerings. If you choose a FOSS alternative for an anomaly-based IDS/IPS, you will spend so much effort tuning and maintaining that you won't have any time left to respond to issues, and you will still not get adequate results.

I should point out that you have also limited yourself by considering only NIDS/IPS systems. The proper bundle of technologies and tools could give you the real intelligence that you need, whether or not it included NIDS/IPS. Other classes of tools, like SIMS, accounting systems, or deception environments have their uses too.

There are plenty of other aspects to consider, but that would take pages to discuss. All of this could be moot depending on your traffic loads, user demographics, platform constituency, infrastructure design, org chart, geographic distribution, existing IT policies, etc. etc. etc. There's just no universal solution.

Admittedly this is a little late, but I just came across caselaw that exactly on point.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/vol_2_no_3/00 2728.shtml

Internet Archive's Web Page Snapshots Held Admissible as Evidence The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit effort to preserve Internet sites and other digital media and make them available online.
IA's spiders regularly crawl the World Wide Web, making copies of web pages and storing them permanently in an enormous digital archive. Using the "Wayback Machine", one of the Archive's popular services, users can input the address of a web page and call up a series of dated copies, allowing them to see what the page contained at the times it was accessed by the IA spider.

Polska is the American provider of TV Polonia, a Polish-language television channel. According to its pleadings in the case, it had reached a deal with EchoStar, which operates the Dish Network satellite TV service, to provide TV Polonia to Dish Network. The contract included marketing rights, giving EchoStar the right to use Polska's trademarks to sell subscriptions to its television service. The deal was scheduled to expire in stages: absent a renewal, EchoStar's marketing rights would expire in April of 2001, and programming would stop a year afterwards. The deal was not renewed, and Polska alleges that EchoStar continued to use the "TV Polonia" name to market its satellite service after its rights to exploit that trademark had expired. EchoStar pointed out that Polska seemed to have no problem with advertisements stating that TV Polonia could be found on the Dish Network, since Polska had one on its own website after the expiration of marketing rights. EchoStar offered IA snapshots dated to various times in 2001 as proof of the past content of Polska's website. As part of a series of motions in limine, Polska attempted to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source.

Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Polska's assertion of hearsay, holding that the archived copies were not themselves statements susceptible to hearsay exclusion, since they merely showed what Polska had previously posted on its site. He also noted that, since Polska was seeking to suppress evidence of its own previous statements, the snapshots would not be barred even if they were hearsay. Over Polska's objection, Judge Keys accepted an affidavit from an Internet Archive employee as sufficient to authenticate the snapshots for admissibility.

Those of us who can't part with as much cash as we'd like can certainly help out by donating spare cycles to Folding@Home. Protein folding simulations have applications in helping cure Alzheimer's as well as cystic fibrosis and mad cow disease.

...you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something - your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

What if I didn't like your reply to my post, however? You did disagree with me, after all. Should I be able to remove my post and demand anyone who had a copy of it delete that as well? Of course not.

This is something that depends on the forum, and the way it's normally handled is for the forum to have rules about what permissions you have to give as a requirement of posting. Contract law allows you to yield your rights or to offer licenses or other things like that, and a possible way of accepting a contract is to say "if you post here, you agree to our terms and conditions".

But it doesn't have to follow from first principles about what you think is workable or even what you think is good for a group. And it especially doesn't follow that just because I post to your forum that you're allowed to later make other unrelated uses.

This is very analogous to well-established copyright law that says if I paint a painting and sell it to you, I am not (no matter what you wish) giving you the right to publish pictures of that painting. You have to separately purchase the rights to reproduce the painting, to sell prints, to feature it in a magazine, etc.

You do however, have fair use exceptions that would likely protect you from a problem if, for example, you replied to me here and quoted some of my text for the purpose of continuity of public dialog, especially if you did so in the same forum but probably even if you wrote a book in which you wanted to detail your upsetness at me.

I say "probably" because there could be cases in which you just "mostly quoted me" and "said very little yourself" and were trying to piggy back fame for yourself by putting a thin veneer of yourself over something that tried to exploit me. e.g., I can't just post a pirated copy of Star Wars on the net and then at the end add an extra few frames where I say "Wasn't that awful?" but where secretly it just becomes a vehicle for displaying the movie in a royalty-free way.

I just think that once you've posted something for free to the public, you can't go back and tell everyone that they have to delete any copies they may have.

Hmmm. First, it would help me if you were using phrases like "I think you shouldn't be able to..." because the fact is that in some cases you can. I can't tell if you are telling me what you think is the law, or you are just speaking about what you wish were the law.

I don't agree that this follows a priori. And I'm not sure why the "for free" is in there. You mean if I charged the public $100 to see my commentary, I'd have more right to remove it? You'd think in the abstract that as money increased, there'd be more assumption that the public had some ownership in it. But that's not even true. My copyright transfers only if I say it does--that is, if I offer that as part of the deal. But certainly if it's a gift (the notion of free here you're using is, I assume, "as in beer"), I don't see that you have leverage to demand rights.

If you want that type of control, you should have to get the user to positively acknowledge agreement to those terms before allowing them to access your work.

When it comes to IP law, for better or worse (I think better, you think worse), it works the other way. The reason is to protect and incentivize content creators. People willing to use others' creations need little incentive to use the creation--they need incentive to see that the creator isn't chewed up and spit out without even so much as a thank you.

Btw, "libel" is the thing you mean, not "liable" (which sounds like "liability", another unrelated branch of law). But, by the way, what keeps Newsweek from retra

3-D chips do decreases wire length, according to the thesis and the IEEE paper in the links below, 56% less interconnect is required for a 5 layer chip. Wafer bonding has been thoroughly investigated, and processes compatible with standard CMOS have been found and will soon find a use in memory (I'm sure I read something about a start-up stacking chips for memory, I think it was called Tezzaron).

http://www-mtl.mit.edu/researchgroups/icsystems/3d csg/publications.html

http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee311/NOTES/3DProc_I EEE.pdf

The big problems facing the industry are the lack of good design tools and the issues associated with yield and heat. Design tools will be developed as the processes become more refined. Yield issues and heat will likely need to be taken into consideration in the design. Consider if you have an 80% yield on each wafer; when you have 5 layers of silicon--assuming defects are not correlated to the location on the chip, and no defects due to the bonding process--your yield reduces to 33%. Of course, we are able to have more redundancy with more silicon layers, so we can design systems that are fault tolerant (google: fault tolerant architectures. lots of good stuff). The costs of the chips will probably direct represent the decrease in yield -- good designs and tools will likely save companies a lot of money (i shouldn't give away my secrets before i patent them :-)

Cooling the higher density chips is probably the most major hurdle towards development of 3-D circuits. A few of these documents hint that microfluidic cooling systems may be the solution. Georgia Tech researchers made an advance on this end a few weeks ago by presenting a microfluidic manufacturing process compatible with standard CMOS design:

http://www.physorg.com/news4657.html

Expect lots of great things in the years to come. For now you can probably expect 3-D integration to creep into specialty mixed signal chips that are extremely expensive, and memory where heat generation is less of a problem. Microfluidic cooling technologies will be adopted in the near term for 2-D high power chips. The first 3-D micro-processor architectures will probably use extra layers for clock distribution, global interconnect systems, and power distribution systems. Caching systems will likely be added to as a third layer until new design approaches (and better tools) allow for the design of multi-layer integration with logic interspersed between the layers.

Also note that this clause was added by the DMCA, and only went into effect starting April 26, 2002.

I have to disagree. Lately I've started running the protein folding screen saver from http://folding.stanford.edu/ on the 3 computers I have (Mine, my wife's, and the Smoothwall box). I've noticed that my computer (NON-overclocked AMD 2100+ with 3 big fans on the stock case) is blowing pretty dang hot air.

I think this article will help me mod the case and cool of my CPU so I don't shorten the life expectancy of any of my hardware.