Slashdot Mirror

WinZip jobs support encryption of your zipped data using either standard Zip 2.0 encryption or WinZip's advanced AES encryption ...

WinZip's AES implementation was sharply criticized in a 2004 paper by Tadayoshi Kohno:

http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/users/tkohno/papers/WinZip /

"Zip 2.0 encryption" is a joke, of course, but WinZip's lack of encryption for the metadata (file names, sizes, dates, etc.) made their AES implementation a lot less useful than it ought to have been.

Anybody know if they finally fixed it?

>I never said faith was better.
Contradicted by this in your original post, "My faith does not need to subject itself to new "understandings" of science. The possibility of findings being discovered as faulty is pretty good.", implying science is greatly flawed and therefore faith is superior.

>But since there's a great war in science pitting theists against atheists.
There is not religious war in science, the only "war" is against dumbasses, who happen to be mostly evangelical christian creationists, instead of people trying to invent perpetual motion.

>If you feel the need to evangelize to me... - evangelize
1 : to preach the gospel to
2 : to convert to Christianity

>appriciate ->appreciate.

>But I would appriciate it if you would be objective...
And the next sentance is some petty attempt at my intelligence, from someone who probably doesn't know what QFT even stands for, much less what it's used for.

>...many variables are obscure or hidden or confusing.
A lot of programming languages contain obscure or confusing statements if you aren't familier with them, just like the gravitationl constant's units of m3 kg-1 s-2 are illogical by "common sense". As for hidden variables, are you talking about about what science hasn't discovered, or saying these hidden variables can't be discovered by science?

Re:relativity. SR deals with objects traveling > .1c, GR deals with gravitation. QFT is the current description of the weak force which governs radioactive decay. GPS satilites signals need to be corrected by GR.

>You haven't argued any of the points I made in the analogy...
Back those "points" up with some evidence that you know what you're talking about and I will.

As you persist on painting science as some hodgepoge group with your flawed analogies, here's a defn "Science is a procedure for converting observations into "understanding", or more precisely into general rules about what will be observed given certain conditions." There are dissenting voices, like a professor of geology that believes the grand canyon was created in a few days and the earth is 6000 years old, and scientists have fought hard to keep science from being perverted by including beliefs like that from being called science.

This post is evidence that your information is wrong, hence blatent falsehoods etc. Care to actually provide something of substance instead of ignorance and attempts at flames?

Shooting holes though your poorly thought our rhetoric with you have massive emotional investment in is not flaming. - from somebody's sig.

Another extreme are the Radio Galaxies.

---
If I live inside a black hole - will I be able to see light then?

Because it used to be, well, green.

600 years ago the temperature in Greenland was much warmer than it is now.

Interstingly enough, the chart here that is refered to in your link shows that the temperature in Greenland has been cooling for the last, say, 10 thousand years, plus or minus 5 degrees. So if it is warming now, perhaps it is just a recovery to the way it has been in the past.

And this was preceded by a 20 degree increase in temperature in the previous 10 thousand years.

If the earth goes through 20 degree temperature swings as a matter of course, then I can't imagine that there is much that mankind can do to prevent them.

Radiochemistry. For example,

Ice Core Science and Fluctuating Temperatures:
... The isotopes of interest are hydrogen (H) and its heavy sibling deuterium (D), as well as oxygen-16 and oxygen-18, which have been described previously in connection with the deep-sea record in foraminifers. Water vapor turns to precipitation over the polar ice sheet more readily when it has the composition HOD and H18OH than if it is normal water, H16OH. As air cools upon climbing up an ice shield, water changes phase from vapor to liquid, thus losing D and 18O preferentially. This means that the coldest snow has the least D and 18O in it.

With this basic information (and some statistics and isotope chemistry) we can extract a temperature record from the ice on Greenland for the last 100,000 years. For Antarctica, a record going back 400,000 years has been reconstructed.

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I undermine my argument? My point is that evolutionists CAN'T explain away the counterexamples. They're direct contradictions! If my evidence isn't compelling, how come you can't explain it away, genius?

1. Playing your game, you provided the much more compelling response. There was no need.

2. Evolution explains adaptations and and species divergence, which no, isn't completely understood, but it isn't magic. It says nothing about the psychology of individuals. It only explains a biological process. Evolution has no more motivation, than thermodynamics. Since you don't understand this, it shows that you do not have an understanding of what you're trying to discuss.

3. Evolution deals with populations as a whole, not individuals. Actions of an infantismal miniority do not dictate the course of a population in the general sense. Even if the hhuman race decided to throw themselves off cliffs tomorrow, that does not mean that evolution did not, and was not continuing to occur in all the other species.

4. I fail to see how free-will and technological advancement allowing the manipulation of the environment and ones one bodily function (e.g. contraceptives) has anything to do with whether or not species diverge and generall move from simpiler to more complex and diversified species. Again, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

That's because you weren't thinking; I explained it above. Did you somehow COMPLETELY FORGET about my reference to environmentalists, the VHME, and the people working on an anti-human virus? Were you unable to infer that "humanity annihilator" refers to someone who ... wants to annihilate humanity?

No I didn't forget. It is completly immaterial.

And finally a personal comment. Grow some balls and sign your name.

The largest dimension on the Apollo landers is 9.07 m, diagonally between the landing legs (it's a 21 foot square). The moon's closest approach to the earth is 363,104 km. Divide those two numbers, and you get the angular size in radians: 2.36e-8 radians, or 0.00487 arcsecond.

With a 27m diameter, the diffraction limit on telescope resolution is 10^8 cycles/radian. So if there were no atmosphere, it would be barely possible.

With an atmosphere, there are problems. A typical good seeing limit is 1 arcsecond (corresponding to 1864 m on the moon). The best on the planet (Dome C, in the middle of Antarctica, at a very good time) is 0.2 arcseconds (373 m on the moon).

It's possible for adaptive optics to get good enough to allow that much correction, but it's going to be difficult.

Hoewever, if you want optical evidence for the Apollo landings, just shine a bright light at the moon and look for the retroreflector arrays the astronauts left there. That experiment has been done a zillion times in the last few decades.

I agree, it'll be easier to build (although OWL will use multiple segments/single focus).

But...when I read "..milli-arcsecond" resolution (in the optical!) on the OWL site, in spite of its competitors, my knees got weak, my toes curled...And I'm a grown man.

I and the guy who teaches the class I TA for recently had students calculate how large a primary would be necessary to read a homework page on the moon, from Earth. (assuming, of course, diffraction-limited seeing...hah!). Needless to say, even OWL wouldn't cut the mustard. But it'll be way, way cool, even without laser beams.

Oh - and speaking of laser beams and telescopes: Apache Point Apollo Laser. (I've been down to see this...very cool!)

Computer Science as an industry is following that of the TV and VCR repair men. When TVs and VCRs are expensive they get em fixed....Early on there was Computer Science. Now they have splintered into various factions like various specialized sciences following certain areas, (MIS,IT,DBAs,Programming, etc.)

And then there are people who still do real Computer Science as opposed to programming or "Computer Related Work". There's a nice quote by Dijkstra to the effect that Computer Science is as much about computers as Astronomy is about telescopes. Computer Science is still going quite strong, and there is active and intersting research into a variety of fields.

I am a mathematcian, so I am not really all that up on all the various interesting areas of CS are these days except for the odd bits that cross my path. One of those is Algebraic Specification, which is an effort to formalise the design and specification of systems (software) using algebraic techniques. In practice this could mean vastly more reliable software down the line. For now it means a lot of hard slog involving a lot of pure math (universal algebras, category theory, etc.) which doesn't involve a computer in any way shape or form. You can get some idea of the sort of thing they're doing here, or here, or just google Algebraic Specification. It's pretty exciting stuff from the mathematician's point of view (some very lovely mathematics finding practical application).

Don't misinterpret what CS is, and what it offers.

Jedidiah.

When gasoline becomes a non-option, it will be hydrogen.

Have you ever actually seen a fully electric car?

The Simpsons joke isn't far off.

Advanced [batteries] are little more than reversible fuel cells.

Electrolysis is more like 90%, and usually even higher.

Electricity at even $0.10/kWh is so much cheaper than gas it's not funny.

there's nothing stopping [fuel cells] from also being 90% efficient.

Easier for whom? Easier for the people whose homes are demolished to make way for the coal strip mines?

Go electric, and people will be able to make their own "motor fuel" with panels on the roof or some airfoils in the breeze (someone else's panels or someone else's airfoils will work just fine too). They won't have to buy another expensive piece of hardware to take water apart so that the car can put it back together again, and they won't have to pay for the losses of the double conversion. As for batteries, the iron lithium phosphate chemistry has gotten rid of the cobalt and thermal runaway issues in Li-ion, and the price has been coming down steadily year over year. They'll be ready before hydrogen fuel cells will, and then we won't need hydrogen fuel cells (unless we want them to be one more source of juice for the grid, rather than the sole source for the car).

Batteries with enough performance to go 300 miles cost too much today, but that's not a problem. Outfit hybrid cars with enough batteries to go 20 miles before they have to start burning gasoline, and you can replace something like 2/3 of all gasoline with electricity. Batteries enough to go 20 miles are fairly cheap.

What if the global warming nuts turn out to be right?

Here is his email, just in case you want a clickable link:

agt@ucsd.edu

For a real-world application of robot dog hacking accessible to people who don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on toys that they "hack," check out Natalie Jeremijenko's Feral Robots site. Instead of wasting your time making your mp3s play back through your expensive toy, you can make cheap robot dogs do something truly useful, like find toxic chemicals at a possible school building site. Do something worthwhile, don't just consume.

yes, 20-40m sounds really bad compared to GPS, but different applications need different accuracy. Imagine how many applications can do well with 1 mile accuracy location system, e.g. http://local.google.com/ uses your zip code and it works well. Currently our computers/laptops have almost no sense of location at all, and if Wi-Fi provides a cheap way to do location and enables cool applications, why not?
I co-authored a paper discussing various issues in such a WPS system. One of our conclusion is that AP moves/turnovers have slight impact on accuracy http://ramp.ucsd.edu/~ycheng/pubs/mobisys05placela b.pdf

The paper worth reading here is: Cheng et al's "Accuracy Characterization for Metropolitan-scale Wi-Fi Localization" which explores the issues related to AP density, churn, positioning algorithm, etc. See: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/groups/sysnet/miscpapers/mo bisys05p124.pdf

Actually, Mars's magnetic field is weak -- indeed, it does not have a global field created by an active core, but rather weak patches -- link

Here on Earth, the visible aurora has little to do with the magnetosphere either. While ionized particles from the solar wind are funneled towards the magnetic poles of the Earth (imagine spiralling along the field lines), the actual light is caused when atmospheric gas is bombarded by these particles, kicking them into higher energy states. These energy states tend to be unstable, so the molecules drop down a state and the energy is released as a photon. The specific colour released has to do with the particule kind of gas that is discharging.

... it shows me what a void there is still to fill!

ISI has had a fantastic run providing bibliometric research tools for nearly 30 years, but only to deep-pocket libraries. WebOfScience finally brought the ISI analysis of academic pubs into 21st century, and so it is no surprise that they quickly bumped into Google, who brought fundamentally the same insight (citation impact/in-degree is a great clue) to the Web. If GoogleScholar has simply nudged Thomson (who bought ISI in 1992) to broaden the market for this tool, that's already progress in my book.

For now, the interesting part to me is a compare/contrast of just what each brings to the party. While this review by Péter Jacsó' (his earlier review is also helpful) is part of Thomson/Gale's site, I think it's unfair to see it simply as a vendor whitepaper; he identifies serious flaws in GoogleScholar. But even with the price differential aside, it must be clear to all that WoS has some serious issues, too! (Some of you might be interested in an author-focused comparison I did recently between GS and WoS: Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data , arXiv.org preprint arXiv:cs.IR/0504046, 11 Apr 05). Do they really want to hold up the interface to WoS as a virtue?! Checkout the touchgraph browser for CiteSeer as an example of what we can hope for. And while there isn't yet an API to GoogleScholar, screen-scraping at least lets us do some experiments over this corpus; WoS does not seem willing to provide similar access (I've tried:).

These aren't the only two vendors, of course: GoogleScholar was certainly inspired by the CiteSeer (originally at NEC, now at UPenn) project; it continues to be an innovative force. Our local, generally well-stocked library doesn't carry Scopus (too expensive?), but I hear good things about it. Entrez/PubMed has been mentioned and (while it is great in many other dimensions!) I don't see it is as especially relevant until the citation linkages it is beginning to build via PubMedCentral come online. And when the NIH's "Open Access" policy (cf. [Science 11 February 2005; 307: 825 DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5711.825], but not without a subscription:) starts to kick in, and as changing standards regarding exchange of ``open citation'' information (e.g, CrossRef) propagate, the pace of change is bound to accelerate.

Looking a bit farther afield for suggestions of what might be coming, some of you lawyer-types may appreciate what Shepards does for case law searching. They orignally started doing simply the manual "inversion" of citation links that ISI does, but grew into an entirely new source of independent analysis of the arguments connecting the two documents. Imagine how helpful it could be if scientific and web citations carried as much third-party (ie, from neither the cited or citing authors) metadata!

My guess is that the Business Week article linked in the parent comment is better than the New Scientist article at explaining the researcher's intentions. Here's a quote from the Business Week article: "The Blue Brain Project will search for novel insights into how humans think and remember."

If you've been around scientific research, it is not difficult to understand that this research has little chance of producing anything valuable.

There are several reasons:

1) The research is equivalent to trying to understand how a computer operates without understanding the programming of the computer.

2) The quote from the Business Week article above is probably unintentionally accurate. Probably the Business Week writer interviewed someone from the lab, and that person, not being as skilled as the New Scientist writer at hiding the truth, revealed what they actually are doing. Probably the Business Week writer did not understand the significance of what he wrote, but just thought it was an interesting quote.

The significance of "search for novel insights" is that they do not intend to do theory-driven science. In theory-driven science, you have novel insights before you do an experiment. Otherwise, as thousands of years of human history have proven, investigation is mostly a waste of time.

Instead, the researchers will just do the "scientific" equivalent of playing.

3) Researchers found in the early 70's that research proposals that promised a better understanding of the brain or intelligence would get funded. The research that is actually done is research that is funded, not necessarily research that is useful.

They found that brain and intelligence research would be funded, but there was a problem. It was, and is, extremely difficult to do useful research, or even to think of a direction for research that would be useful in finding new understanding.

To be more certain of funding, researchers began wildly over-estimating the value of their proposed research, and thereby taking advantage of any ignorance on the part of grant-givers. Partly this was because the researchers deliberately lied. Partly it was because the researchers would discuss their research in a way that would encourage others to over-estimate. The researchers take advantage of a social weakness; people want to believe there is progress in understanding ourselves.

Thomas J. Watson, Jr., former CEO of IBM came to the conclusion that the talk of artificial intelligence was not to be believed, and said so publically. I was not able to find the quote. Mr. Watson was expressing a low opinion of the research in intelligence at the time.

4) Research about the brain and intelligence is far more difficult than other research. That's partly because the architecture of the brain is far more complicated than that of a computer.

Digital computers use binary. Biological computers use many more levels than two, and we are far from fully understanding the architecture.

This (poorly edited) PDF file from UCSD has some basic facts about the brain: Levels of neurophysiological description. From page 2: "100 billion neurons in the brain; 1/20th [of] 1 hair width in diameter; Speed transmission 2-120 metres/sec; each neuron has about 10,000 contacts with other neurons.

From page 17: "Each neuron [of the 30 billion neurons] has about 10,000 connections with other neurons. These connections use many different neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters differ in their strength, timing, and whether they excite or inhibit the postsynaptic neuron. If excitatory + inhibitory = threshold the postsynaptic neuron fires!" [slight editing for clarity]

here's one and another.
there's plenty more.

From the first link:

"The thermohaline circulation is a global ocean circulation. It is driven by differences in the density of the sea water which is controlled by temperature (thermal) and salinity (haline). In the North Atlantic it transports warm and salty water to the North."

Since the Argo project measures these attributes along with current direction and possibly speed, it is the perfect way to either confirm or disconfirm this finding. If Dr. Wadhams is correct, in his prediction that the poler ice caps will melt by 2020 the earliest, then we can be in for a very wild ride as the climate changes.

1. intelligent design is not exclusively Christian
2. seperation of church and state does not mean that that theories put forth by scientific groups, or even purely religous groups should not be taught as theories in a classroom.
3. there seems to be a lack of defense for ID, and a lot of wild flaming, so i would encourage people to investigate things, rather than taking anything said here as a basis for any credible information on the issues. I have yet to see any information or links provided to current research being done into ID. Most references are being drawn from older purely "creationist" material.

Here are some links...
Institute for creation research...yah these are are Christians scientists supporting ID and creationism... so go ahead and get angry if that offends you.
http://www.icr.org/index.html
http://www.icr.org/research/

here is the site of a college ID group. has a lot of links, and im sure there are some people willing to debate with anyone interested in actually hearing someone defend ID... not that it seems anyone here is.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml

there must be more "good" ID links, but i do not know them. if anyone else has some i would encourage their being posted

I have heard what are... to me... very credible arguments for ID, Though i do not have the knowledge or time to defend it in this forum.
well, my shift at work just ended, so its time to get productive. hope this post has made this a more rational place -ben

"Dude man, no need to be pedantic. no one uses BASIC, and no one used pascal outside of the classroom. Java is the first of those to be WIDESPREAD in PRACTICAL use.Dude man, no need to be pedantic. no one uses BASIC, and no one used pascal outside of the classroom. Java is the first of those to be WIDESPREAD in PRACTICAL use."

Dude no one uses Basic??? I guess you have been a practicing Amish until you posted this.
I guess you have never heard of Visual Basic? While I find it nasty I would bet a LOT of people use it. We will not even go into the huge numbers of people that first learned to program using Basic on their TRS-80s, Commodores, Apples, Ti's, Sinclairs, and Ataris.
Pascal only used in the classroom? The Apple Lisa and Mac where supposed to have Pascal as their native development environments. If fact you used to have to convert your c style strings into Pascal style strings before using any system call on the Mac.
Here is a link the help educate you. http://alumni.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol1no3/features/p ascal.htm

There is a nice summary of the issues on this site. http://physics.ucsd.edu/lhmedia/ It made sense to me, and I'm only a Biologist. The difference is the use of microwaves rather than visible light. Published in the May 2001 issue of Science

1. The majority of the student body at any university in Duke's class/caliber is going to be "middle-to-upper-middle class students with parents that are paying for college." Do you think that tier is cheap? How many full ride scholarships will they give out? And I would certainly want my say in where I would be spending the next 4-5 years. What if your parents wanted you to study arctic wildlife at UAF and you wanted to study beach wildlife at UCSD? Wouldn't you want a say in that? If not, have fun on the frozen tundra. I'll be on the beach with the girls if you need me. Insert obilgatory Girls/Slashdot comment here.
2. Did you honestly evaluate the colleges that you applied to by the (pseudo) free trinkets they gave you? "Hey Ma! Isn't this frisbee neat? I want to go there 'cause they have ultimate frisbee intramurals!" As for who gets the bill, I'm absolutely sure that its tacked on somewhere to the student's bill. Probably something like "Electronics Lab Fee" "Portable Lecture Device Fee" "Insert some stupid name for a fee" or even under "General Fee."
3. Duke's reputation and offerings are stong enough that they do not need to lure students with an iPod. Academics, Athletics, etc.
4. Profit? Perhaps, but that comment has no bearing in this discussion, regardless of the /. joke you are trying to pull.

As for my own opinion of Duke's iPod program, now that I've rebutted your post, I see it as a positive. Yes, you can put music on there; yes, you could never use it for your studies; but, the potential is there for you to use it to record lectures on, transport large chunks of data from the ASTR lab to your dorm computer for further evaluation, or to store the entire works of your collegiate career, from ENGL-101 to your senior thesis. Isn't that what college is about, developing potential?

Amigori

Got to say, UCSD is getting a very strong group in networking. Savage and Voelker and Snoeren, plus the folks at SDSC, plus CalIT2 (Larry Smarr's latest deal). Watch that space...

--Seen

That is the most blatant example of a prior art rip-off I have even seen...

Schools like UCSD have begun to offer undergraduate programs in bioinformatics. At UCSD, the course load is more or less the core of computer science (up to advanced data structs/algorithms) plus biochem/molecular bio (genetics/biochem/mobio/cellbio), then a 6-quarter sequence of integrated bioinformatics classes. Programs like these try to produce future scientists at the interface of biology and computer science.

ACM talk
Schmidt
Hölzle

The two-meter-(6-foot)-long orange glider with a four-foot wingspan will slowly make its way northwest, crossing the Gulf Stream and reaching the continental shelf on the other side before turning around and heading back to Bermuda, where it will be recovered in July.

I'll bet they just drop it with an anchor, follow some dots across a computer screen for laughs and the NSF grant committee, and come back in a few months to pick it up.

It's probably just a big novelty display Sharpie somebody stuck some lawnmower blades on.

1. Steal big tradeshow prop
2. Add Ph.D. after your name
3. Drop in the water to big fanfare
4. Profit!

The specs for the batteries are: 13 MJ from 52 DD Li CSC cells (12 kg). If you look at the design pic, it says "56 D cell pack." Is this the lithium D cell you mentioned?

I don't understand how it can pitch downward and still descend, or viceversa, though...

According to the scheme, it's got movable ballast (the battery packs) which shift its balance and adjust pitch and roll. But how can it pitch down and still descend if the bladder is only on its tail?

As the bladder fills with water, it should start to sink tail-first -- the "PITCH" battery pack doesn't look like it can go fore enough of the robot's center to pitch it down, and the "ROLL" one can't be heavy enough to make it pitch, as that would prevent it from ascending head-first... I'm puzzled...

from the site:

What is SPRAY?

'Spray,' shown above, is an underwater glider developed under ONR support by Scripps and Woods Hole scientists (Sherman et al., 2001) to provide a small long-range autonomous platform for long-term ocean measurements. 'Spray' uses primary-lithium-battery power and a hydraulic pump to periodically change its volume to alternately glide upwards and downwards. This results in a see-saw path at descent/ascent angles of 18-25 degrees and forward speeds of 25-35 cm/s. Heading and ascent/descent rate are controlled without control surfaces by moving weight (battery packs) inside the hull to change roll and pitch, much as a hang glider is controlled. As shown below, at the surface Spray rolls 90o to raise one of its wings, each of which contains a combined GPS/Iridium antenna. Using the wings to house antennas eliminates the drag associated with separate antenna housings and allows redundant systems so that communication and navigation can continue even if one antenna is damaged, as happened when one Spray was run over by a surface vessel...

FreeHeel

http://spray.ucsd.edu/pic/spray.jpg

"'Spray' uses primary-lithium-battery power and a hydraulic pump to periodically change its volume to alternately glide upwards and downwards. This results in a see-saw path at descent/ascent angles of 18-25 degrees and forward speeds of 25-35 cm/s. Heading and ascent/descent rate are controlled without control surfaces by moving weight (battery packs) inside the hull to change roll and pitch, much as a hang glider is controlled."

Excerpt from TFA, http://spray.ucsd.edu/

http://spray.ucsd.edu/pic/spray.jpg

"'Spray' uses primary-lithium-battery power and a hydraulic pump to periodically change its volume to alternately glide upwards and downwards. This results in a see-saw path at descent/ascent angles of 18-25 degrees and forward speeds of 25-35 cm/s. Heading and ascent/descent rate are controlled without control surfaces by moving weight (battery packs) inside the hull to change roll and pitch, much as a hang glider is controlled."

Excerpt from TFA, http://spray.ucsd.edu/

Damnit, why doesn't the <sub> tag work.

Hooptie

The paper http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/users/tkohno/papers/PDF/ shows that they were able to get less than 7 bits of identifying information when monitoring communications for 2 hours. So they would only be able to distinguish 1 out of 128 machines. That would only be useful if there was a very small set of candidate machines.

I don't know if you noticed, but he has a history of breaking, oh, WinZip, Diebold voting machines, and SSH.

I don't know if you noticed, but he has a history of breaking, oh, WinZip, Diebold voting machines, and SSH.

I don't know if you noticed, but he has a history of breaking, oh, WinZip, Diebold voting machines, and SSH.

I don't know if you noticed, but he has a history of breaking, oh, WinZip, Diebold voting machines, and SSH.

I saw a presentation by Gabriele Wienhausen (provost of Sixth College at UCSD) about their "digital playroom". I couldn't find a page for it, but did find a press release about Sony donating a bunch of stuff.

Basically it's a room that students need to swipe their ids to enter. Once inside, they've got free access to camcorders, digital cameras, lots of computers, etc. I think it's unattended, and open very long hours (24/7 during finals).

The key is making the students feel like the equipment is theirs, so taking it would be stealing from their friends. Otherwise, any unattended system is going to be plagued by theft.

-esme

Is it this paper: Attacking and Repairing the WinZip Encryption Scheme?

Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.

"Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans"

Straight from the horses mouth.

Define "quite some time." I can't find any information about the history of the Biological Engineering program at Guelph, but the University of California, San Diego has had a Bioengineering program since 1966. Furthermore, research and teaching in fields that would currently be classified as bio/biological/biomedical engineering have been going on at MIT in various departments for "quite some time," they just never bothered to formalize it as its own department or degree program. Personally, I think it is better to specialize in some biological or engineering field first, then work out the applications to bio/biological/biomedical engineering, but recently a grant-giving organization called the Whitaker Foundation has been handing out money left and right to anyone placing the strings "bio" and "engineering" in close proximity to each other, so I can hardly blame MIT for formalizing their biological engineering activity now.

Define "quite some time." I can't find any information about the history of the Biological Engineering program at Guelph, but the University of California, San Diego has had a Bioengineering program since 1966. Furthermore, research and teaching in fields that would currently be classified as bio/biological/biomedical engineering have been going on at MIT in various departments for "quite some time," they just never bothered to formalize it as its own department or degree program. Personally, I think it is better to specialize in some biological or engineering field first, then work out the applications to bio/biological/biomedical engineering, but recently a grant-giving organization called the Whitaker Foundation has been handing out money left and right to anyone placing the strings "bio" and "engineering" in close proximity to each other, so I can hardly blame MIT for formalizing their biological engineering activity now.

Define "quite some time." I can't find any information about the history of the Biological Engineering program at Guelph, but the University of California, San Diego has had a Bioengineering program since 1966. Furthermore, research and teaching in fields that would currently be classified as bio/biological/biomedical engineering have been going on at MIT in various departments for "quite some time," they just never bothered to formalize it as its own department or degree program. Personally, I think it is better to specialize in some biological or engineering field first, then work out the applications to bio/biological/biomedical engineering, but recently a grant-giving organization called the Whitaker Foundation has been handing out money left and right to anyone placing the strings "bio" and "engineering" in close proximity to each other, so I can hardly blame MIT for formalizing their biological engineering activity now.

"Oh, gee this is a hard one. Would that manmade structure be called... a PIER?"
As already pointed out, they are often rebuilt. During the 1983 el nino, almost every single pier in southern California was either totally demolished or suffered extensive damage.

I'm actually smart enough to think of the most obvious manmade coastal structure BEFORE making that challenge... :)

"Wave energy will be focused on the best surf sites..."
There is a LOT more to good surf spots than just wave energy focus. Bottom contours play a huge role.

And wave energy is highly variable. Sure, if you put these things immediately in front of a surf spot (meters, not km), they may block it. But at 1 to 2km away, the swells will not be going directly through them every time to reach a surf spot.

And waves behave like, well waves. Drop a rock in a pond and try to block a 1 foot section of the waves from reaching the shore.

San Clemente island does not block swells from reching San Diego, or any other coastal region for that matter Catalina can -- it's much closer -- but only when the swell is a certain direction. Which makes my point that wave energy highly variable (and note that Catalina is a frickin island!).

For a good view of wave energy, check CDIP. http://cdip.ucsd.edu/?nav=recent&units=english&tz= PST&sub=nowcast&xitem=socal_now

-Pie

i first saw this article about 1.5 years ago:
Computer Science Undergraduates Complete Multiplayer, Online Games.

Course Website (CSE 125)

San Diego , Monday, June 21, 2004 -- Earlier this month, five teams of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) students showcased their respective online, multiplayer games to a packed audience in Peterson Hall on the UCSD campus. The games were part of CSE 125, a project-based course on Software System Design and Implementation, taught each spring by CSE professor Geoff Voelker (and TA'd this year by CSE 125 alum John Rapp).

it looks like a really fun and interesting course and would love to take it.

i first saw this article about 1.5 years ago:
Computer Science Undergraduates Complete Multiplayer, Online Games.

Course Website (CSE 125)

San Diego , Monday, June 21, 2004 -- Earlier this month, five teams of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) students showcased their respective online, multiplayer games to a packed audience in Peterson Hall on the UCSD campus. The games were part of CSE 125, a project-based course on Software System Design and Implementation, taught each spring by CSE professor Geoff Voelker (and TA'd this year by CSE 125 alum John Rapp).

it looks like a really fun and interesting course and would love to take it.

Personal financial interest drives most science these days.

• Anthropology
• Chemistry
• Physics (high-energy, solid state, plasma, etc.)
• Planetary geology (Spirit/Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens)
• Cosmology
• Biology
• Paleontology

Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.

It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human...

In the case of climate research, there is one hell of a lot of prestige which would come with a correct debunking of the global-climate models which all predict warming. There might even be a Nobel in it. But note that I did say correct debunking; anyone withoute the facts on their side need not apply. Have you noticed where the huge majority of the climate scientists (who have the facts such as they are) stand today?

do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?

Regarding climate science, I refer you to this entry:

The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch "climate skeptics".
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.