Slashdot Mirror

Sounds like they have several drugs in the pipeline that may block some of the effects of the disease but the search is furious to find a drug that will safely block the function of the beta-amyloid peptide.

laso check out this older article at tech review about printable computing

Also "Technology Review" had some articles about microphotonics in their July issue: http://www.techreview.com/articles/july00/fairley. htm (there are some worthwhile links at the bottom of the article too).

The computer in question was taking it's cues from the patient's brain waves, though. The armies of monkeys with robotic brains are still a long ways off, mainly due to the difficulties in getting AI systems to do image recognition, which is quite possibly the most challenging problem in AI research today.

--

This site disagrees, and claims various bits of supporting evidence from DOE, municipal governments, and other sources.

Don't just dogmatize your beliefs, investigate them!

From Google's page:

Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

Or from a recent interview with the inventor:

Q: Couldn't I create a series of Web pages at every site offering free space, link them to each other, and thereby create higher rankings for myself?
A: No, that wouldn't work. The way the math is designed, you need external approval.

Bandwith, like ram or processor power, gains new uses when it increases in power.

300 baud was fine for all text bbs'. Now with DSL, listening to the radio over the internet, and maybe some low quality tv- is fine. When people have much larger bandwith, they will find new uses for it. TV, videoconferencing, 3D, etc... Don't expect current bandwith usage to reflect opon future usage- users and creators will always, like a sponge, absorb all power they can.

An interesting article about fiber to the home is in this technology review article.

this information was available in the most recent (July/August) issue of MIT Technology Review... it's even available online! http://www.techreview.com/artic les/july00/amato.htm and by the way, it's katerina witt, not nancy kerrigan
-ravat'iklan

that was at http://www.techreview.com/arti cles/may00/waldrop.htm

Simson Garfinkel wrote an eye-opening backgrounder that explores this question. A quote:

Cargill says he thinks companies have stopped sending people to meetings because they realize that the General Assembly's Advisory Council Committee merely rubber-stamps what Berners-Lee wants to do.

It's just basic design common-sense that you don't create top-down 'standards' groups who dictate the rules of human factors without ever testing the standards, and without having the slightest understanding of what human-factors is all about.

I have an old rant about this.

I've written an essay, "In Search of Webs Past," on the topic of archiving the Web. It's in the current issue of Technology Review. One of the things I point out is that the Internet Archive (because of some of the legal problems mentioned in the original post, and additional issues) is not going to be the sole solution for archiving the Web. I do see such archiving as very necessary from several standpoints besides the "slice of life" historical one - media history and criticism being one of them. Those with an interest in these aspects of the topic might wish to take a look at my essay, and continue the discussion either here or at the Tech Review forum about the essay.

-Nick M.

I've written an essay, "In Search of Webs Past," on the topic of archiving the Web. It's in the current issue of Technology Review. One of the things I point out is that the Internet Archive (because of some of the legal problems mentioned in the original post, and additional issues) is not going to be the sole solution for archiving the Web. I do see such archiving as very necessary from several standpoints besides the "slice of life" historical one - media history and criticism being one of them. Those with an interest in these aspects of the topic might wish to take a look at my essay, and continue the discussion either here or at the Tech Review forum about the essay.

-Nick M.

I've written an essay, "In Search of Webs Past," on the topic of archiving the Web. It's in the current issue of Technology Review. One of the things I point out is that the Internet Archive (because of some of the legal problems mentioned in the original post, and additional issues) is not going to be the sole solution for archiving the Web. I do see such archiving as very necessary from several standpoints besides the "slice of life" historical one - media history and criticism being one of them. Those with an interest in these aspects of the topic might wish to take a look at my essay, and continue the discussion either here or at the Tech Review forum about the essay.

-Nick M.

Like their competitors at Yale and Rice, a West Coast collaboration of chemists and computer scientists from Hewlett-Packard and the University of California, Los Angeles, have recently characterized molecules capable of acting as electronic switches and memory (see past issue: "Computing After Silicon," TR September/October 1999). R. Stanley Williams, who heads the effort at HP, says his team expects to build a prototype of a logic circuit that integrates a small number of nanoscale molecular devices within 18 months. "We have the switches and wires-the components to actually make true nanocircuitry," says Williams.

The GUI has been hailed as one of the greatest advancements towards usability of a computer, but has it really contributed more? Would you rather have a TUI machine that could do tasks like take a letter you've written and send it to all the people in a list that you give the machine with simple voice commmands, or would you rather flashy icons and glitzy themes that don't really accomplish anything? Clearly, linux users have seen that a TUI environment with scripting is much better than a GUI environment anyday. The only problem with the current TUI is that is uses arcane (at least to newbies) commands. I think that the move towards voice recognition and understanding of human language will represent a far greater leap revolution in the use of machines. The god of MIT's computer department, Michael Dertouzos also agrees: Column in TechReview by Dertouzos

I think something we need to keep in mind is that this whole thing isn't over yet. The issue of such absurdly broad patents as Bezos' and Walker's, while they have been tested somewhat in the courts, still have a long way to go.

Seth Shulman at Technology Review gives a good, fairly even overview of the situation. He quotes a patent lawyer who, I think, makes a particularly interesting point, "when there has been enough perceived inequity in the patent system, industry has revolted and other mechanisms have kicked in." In the case of e-commerce patents, he predicts "the courts will probably step in. Congress may have to step in. But you have to remember that all these forces, including broad societal forces, come together in a confluence that creates the law."

I think the reaction and outcry to this issue have been, at the same time, excessive and necessary. Excessive in the sense that I think it will ultimately be resolved: I think it will ultimately be seen that this sort of patent defeats the purpose of the patent system. Necessary in the sense that, in situations like this, excessive reaction is necessary in order to drive the needed changes.


--

I think something we need to keep in mind is that this whole thing isn't over yet. The issue of such absurdly broad patents as Bezos' and Walker's, while they have been tested somewhat in the courts, still have a long way to go.

Seth Shulman at Technology Review gives a good, fairly even overview of the situation. He quotes a patent lawyer who, I think, makes a particularly interesting point, "when there has been enough perceived inequity in the patent system, industry has revolted and other mechanisms have kicked in." In the case of e-commerce patents, he predicts "the courts will probably step in. Congress may have to step in. But you have to remember that all these forces, including broad societal forces, come together in a confluence that creates the law."

I think the reaction and outcry to this issue have been, at the same time, excessive and necessary. Excessive in the sense that I think it will ultimately be resolved: I think it will ultimately be seen that this sort of patent defeats the purpose of the patent system. Necessary in the sense that, in situations like this, excessive reaction is necessary in order to drive the needed changes.


--

But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.

Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.

These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:

• 1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this
• intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.

  2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.

  3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.

For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

In your recent article in the May 2000 MIT Technology Review, couched in rather a lot of words and obfusticated with marginally related scare stories, you seem to have a rather skewed view of the role of copyright, implying that once upon a time readers purchased from publishers ink-splattered pieces of paper bound together and covered, with copyright adding a modicum to the price (said increase being passed on to the person, the author, responsible for the unique and particular arrangement of those ink splatters) which was a minor and therefore tolerable annoyance, but now that modern electronics allow readers to perform for themselves the service previously provided by publishers, and even to serve as publisher for other readers, that same copyright that financially rewarded the author for his/her labors is no longer acceptable. Is that your philosophy, now that publishers can be supplanted by technology we might as well go ahead and deprive the authors of any financial reward for their labors and ignore their wishes concerning their creations? Do you feel that they have some obligation to society to create with no hope or thought of financial reward? If they have dark skin shall we inform them of another obligation to society to labor without reward, this time involving cotton fields? Or to put it more simply, now that we can bypass publishers, let's go ahead and fuck over the authors, just because we can? 'Cause it sure sounds that way to me.

Recently you wrote an interesting article about how readers of eBooks may lack the rights readers of paper books currently have.

This article got me wondering what would become of libraries if, a few decades from now, most written information was electronic. (Because of lower electronic publishing costs I believe paper's days are numbered.) One option could be having vast numbers of books stored on a system of public servers free of charge, or for a small charge. Or we could turn to the system, like most newspapers online do for their archives, of charging (too much) for everything downloaded.

As a reader I would much prefer the former option. But extending the concept of the library into the electronic relm raises problems. I don't think that publishers, their (small) profits at stake, or writers, facing the prospect of no one paying for their work since they can download it for free, would support such a system, and I don't know what they'd put in its place.

How do you envision the digital libraries of the future (both the ideal and those we're likely to have)? Can we keep the information public while still protecting the rights of writers?

I want a 100Mb/sec fiber pipe to my condo, and I want it now! (grin)

I've been unsuccessfully trying to find this link every time you've posted a nanotech story. In this MIT Tech Review nanotach special issue, several articles discuss how, while nanotech research is proceeding well, virtually every expert working in the field feels that Eric Drexler-type nanoassembly is impossible. Basically, the Drexler mentality has been popular among CS people who can think of greta ways to use that technology if it existed but hasn't caught on among the people who actually have to deal with all the weird forces at nanoscales.

Unfortunately it's not available online but you might want to see if you can find a hard copy.

At http://www.techreview.com/tr100/profiles.html you can find full lists of the TR100 sorted by name and category, as well as separate sub-lists for each category (biotech, chemistry/materials, hardware, software, telecom/web). Links on these lists will pull up expanded descriptions of each TR100 member. There's also a search option available on this page.

For what it's worth, the TR100 has been online since November 4; it's odd that Slashdot has waited nearly two months to publicize this award!

The correct URL is http://www.techreview.com/tr100/

Congrats again to Miguel and the other TR100 winners.

I dont believe his speech at the gala is archived anywhere without charge, but it was worthy of an open source project leader. He gave many thanks and raise to the other volunteers on GNOME and other GNU pioneers. Mostly he was just very excited about the whole thing like the rest of us.

Miguel recieved funding just 10 days after the Nov 4th, 1999 event and him being named the top of the 100.

It can be found here http://www.techreview.com /tr100/nominee-info/tr100_2.html

For some commentary on the Xybernaut from Steve Mann's Cyborg crew up in the University of Toronto, look here.

Well, you have to consider what you really want it for. Conveniently, if what you really want is a palmtop, there's an easy option open to you: buy a palmtop.

Xybernaut, the manufacturer of the $10,000 wearable system from the above Hammacher-Schlemer(sp?) ad, isn't really trying to sell to consumers; their target is big industrial clients. If you're wearing something for your job, who cares what it looks like as long as it gets the job done? And it does. They focus on the "hands-free computing" aspect-- the computer is designed so you can use it no matter where you are without touching it--so they really want speech recognition, which means big processing power, which means Palms are out. But if you're lying upside down under a tank with a bolt in one hand and a wrench in the other you can say "where does this part go?" and it'll show you the schematic-- very handy.

Not so great for a day at the mall, though. The "Wearable Computing" research community tends to focus on the "ubiquitous computing" aspect-- you have a computer with you running all the time wherever you go-- for which palmtops have really captured the consumer market niche even if you have to strech the word "wearable" to include stuffing it in a shirt pocket. The I/O isn't as seamless as an MIT Lizzy or Xybernaut MA IV-- it takes 2 hands to write/type input into a palm computer and the output isn't spoken to you or held continuously in your visual field-- but they *do* fit in a shirt pocket and they're easy on the battery power and software to do all sorts of nifty stuff is readily available.

So far, nobody's really gone after the consumer wearable market in a big way, that I know of. And when they do, the killer app will probably be some sort of "Augmented Reality" toy or tool. Something that genuinely needs all that processing power and the visually intrusive head-mounted display and so on. There are less dorky-looking displays-- I'm still waiting for MicroOptical Corp to release their almost-invisible eyeglass displays to the general market-- but you still have to shell out the bucks for them and that puts a limit on how many people will.

So, I don't think it's just the dorky look or cumbersome heft that's keeping wearable computers off the fashion pages. Some people will put up with anything, as long as it's worth it. But for most people it isn't really worth it-- yet.

For a more pro-wearable view, and some good links, check out Steve Mann's take on the subject-- a prolific wearable pioneer.

The MIT Technology Review (May-June 99 issue) covered systems like this, although from the photo it would appear that Olympus/IBM have reduced the form factor still more. The magazine has an article about Steve Mann's work on wearable computers.

Steve's gear is actually built into his clothing and displayed via a pair of heavy glasses. He makes use of wireless networking where-ever he goes so his computer can assist him with info, etc (even to the point of setting up his own transmitters, etc if he's in a convention). With the aid of his system, he can appear to know about almost any topic. Fascinating stuff that's really taking you into Gargoyle land...

The system referred to in the BBC article is still a little too obtrusive/clunky for my liking. Much better than the old Compaq "Portable" that was my first mobile, however :)

The MIT Technology Review (May-June 99 issue) covered systems like this, although from the photo it would appear that Olympus/IBM have reduced the form factor still more. The magazine has an article about Steve Mann's work on wearable computers.

Steve's gear is actually built into his clothing and displayed via a pair of heavy glasses. He makes use of wireless networking where-ever he goes so his computer can assist him with info, etc (even to the point of setting up his own transmitters, etc if he's in a convention). With the aid of his system, he can appear to know about almost any topic. Fascinating stuff that's really taking you into Gargoyle land...

The system referred to in the BBC article is still a little too obtrusive/clunky for my liking. Much better than the old Compaq "Portable" that was my first mobile, however :)

Tech Review did an article on Lord Bill's Boys-in-the-Back-Room back in January. (Same issue they covered linux.) (Alas, no link to the M$ article.)

Basically the article pointed out that The-Boys-From-Redmond are the only software house with a research arm (remember Xerox is fundamentally a hardware company.), M$ has beaucoup bucks, and a lot of big name people, but still has yet to create any sort of breakthrough. (compare to XeroxPARC that created the GUI in only a few years)

The article suggests that the reason is that M$ is too secure in its position, and thus won't take the risks needed to motivate an R&D lab. Also the lab is too product driven and thus doesn't have the freedom just to go off and play.

However, M$ Research has contributed to pretty much every recent major M$ product. Such contributions include data compression, and speech recognition. Oh yeah, you know that inference engine help uses in Office? M$ Research did that.

Quote For You!

M$ Research Director Dan Ling on where M$ needs to do more research (pg49):
"The amount of time and effort that goes into testing software and getting the bugs out is enormous. And yet there are still bugs, and people still complain and say nasty things. We're trying to think about breakthroughs that we can make to dramtically improve the quality of software."

(2 weeks later M$ "innovates" lint.)

Tech Review did an article on Lord Bill's Boys-in-the-Back-Room back in January. (Same issue they covered linux.) (Alas, no link to the M$ article.)

Basically the article pointed out that The-Boys-From-Redmond are the only software house with a research arm (remember Xerox is fundamentally a hardware company.), M$ has beaucoup bucks, and a lot of big name people, but still has yet to create any sort of breakthrough. (compare to XeroxPARC that created the GUI in only a few years)

The article suggests that the reason is that M$ is too secure in its position, and thus won't take the risks needed to motivate an R&D lab. Also the lab is too product driven and thus doesn't have the freedom just to go off and play.

However, M$ Research has contributed to pretty much every recent major M$ product. Such contributions include data compression, and speech recognition. Oh yeah, you know that inference engine help uses in Office? M$ Research did that.

Quote For You!

M$ Research Director Dan Ling on where M$ needs to do more research (pg49):
"The amount of time and effort that goes into testing software and getting the bugs out is enormous. And yet there are still bugs, and people still complain and say nasty things. We're trying to think about breakthroughs that we can make to dramtically improve the quality of software."

(2 weeks later M$ "innovates" lint.)

In 1969, an infant born at 28 weeks would typically die. In 1999, that same infant has a probability of survival greater than 0.90. That doesn't come without cost - personal as well as financial - I can assure.

http://www.techreview.com/articles/apr95/Soloman.h tml
http://www2.medsch.wisc.edu/childrenshosp/parents_ of_preemies/survival.html

So, what happens when a "preemie" or preterm infant is born? What disabilities can they face?

http://www2.medsch.wisc.edu/childrenshosp/parents_ of_preemies/index.html

I contend that having the ability and freedom to discuss concepts of euthanasia and heroic efforts to save lives raises awareness in society. Individuals born as preterm infants live today because people can talk about the issues, and can subsequently choose to act or not.

Graham

Well this contest seems silly to me. If you read the link provided by an earlier comment, you'll see that the creator of Brutus.1 already believes his machine will loose. The author states:
...It seems pretty clear that computers will never best human storytellers in even a short story competition. It is clear from our work that to tell a truly compelling story, a machine would need to understand the "inner lives" of his or her characters.... For example, a person can think experientially about a trip to Europe as a kid, remember what it was like to be in Paris on a sunny day with an older brother, smash a drive down a fairway, feel a lover's touch, ski on the edge, or need a good night's sleep. But any such example, I claim, will demand capabilities no machine will ever have.
I too believe that before a computer can create an acceptable story with believable human characters, you'll need a computer capable of mimicking human characteristics. You can't have believable human characters without a computer capable of being a believable human. Computer Science is a long way away from this, and Brutus, while interesting, is no closer to this holy grail of AI.

This writeup has a sample of Brutus.1's work. It does read pretty well. From this and several other examples, though, it appears that Brutus only knows one plotline.

There was an article in the May 1998 issue of MIT Technology Review which had a sample story called "Betrayal" (very original name) written by Brutus...

Here's the link: http://www.techreview.com/a rticles/ma98/bringsjord.html

Can't remember if this is something I saw here in /. so just in case...

The Virtual Alchemists - how you'd design such a molecular computer.

...and of course if you can make it into an ink, you can just as easily tatoo a computer onto any part of yer body.

There's already a guy over at MIT that's got everything you need. Technology Review has this article about him. He has a *really* nice setup, too much to describe hear. Oh, and it runs Linux (he said that Windoze made the processor run to hot)! Life doesn't get much better than this!!

There's already a guy over at MIT that's got everything you need. Technology Review has this article about him. He has a *really* nice setup, too much to describe hear. Oh, and it runs Linux (he said that Windoze made the processor run to hot)! Life doesn't get much better than this!!

Late in the article it gingerly touched on the shaky part of the whole arena: stem cells. These "undifferentiated" proto-cells can theoretically grow into any type of cell. There are a bunch of people who would like to stop all research in this area - because the best source of stem cells is aborted fetuses.

Technology Review had an article about this in their Jul/Aug 1998 issue.