Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure if you've seen this but, E&E have a response to an earlier criticism.

Mann, Bradley & Hughes (authors of the definitive 1998 study attacked by McIntyre and McKitrick) responded today with:

"McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have [...] used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98."

Scientific observers await the peer review of the MM publication to determine whose science-fu is stronger. Meanwhile, greenhouse deniers have yet to pull rabbits out of their (*ahem*) hats to explain how the Workweek Causes Climate Changes. Or they can join Timothy in celebrating propaganda like the obviously corrupt Economist. Just remember to wear your sunscreen.

... the rebuttals from the authors of the original paper are here.

That there can be so much controversy highlights the fragility of the "models" that have been developed to support the varying points of view. It seems we really don't understand the climate process yet so maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't leap at any proposed solutions (like Kyoto) because maybe there isn't a problem.

How come not jumping to solutions based on scanty knowledge of the problem makes sense on the small scale (e.g. advice from a sysadmin to a user) but gets lost on the large scale issues (global warming)?

Very well, Dr. Sample. I accept your expertise in software. Now will you please pay attention to someone with a couple decades of experience as an electrical engineer?

Many researchers have been working since the very beginnings of radio, trying to see if there are any unknown effects that might be RF induced. To date, besides the well known thermal effects, there have been no repeatable experiments suggesting anything else.

Now I know you want to see proof this sort of thing is SAFE. But proof of safety is difficult because the very definition of safety is a political definition, not a scientifically certain group of conditions.

Because of this fuzzy and moving definition, you have to realize that safety is a very individual thing. For example, there are weather conditions in which I choose not to drive to work. However, others might. There are no absolutes in the business of safety.

If you feel, after reviewing at least five decades of serious research, that there are still a few unanswered questions regarding exposure to RF, then you are in a very small minority of experts on this subject. However, if you haven't read this research, and you still feel that there are things that aren't known well enough to make a decision, then I strongly encourage you to please do so before making such uninformed comments.

You have more to fear from your kid sticking these things in to the Microwave Oven than you do from casual use of a cell phone.

I am a father of three myself. Relax. Your child will be weird. All kids start off that way. If you're lucky, they'll get over it when they leave home and strike out on their own. Until then, if you're going to be concerned over trivial stuff like this, I've go this really cool bridge I want to sell to you...

Actually, it's almost 20 degrees F higher than high-temperature, short-time "flash" pasteurization, and more than 30 degrees F higher than normal pasteurization. More info can be found here

Stollen patents? That would explain a lot of the bloat, I guess...

Best brush up on your higher math and check out eigenvalues.

If your boss asks you to cut corners on the software that controls X-ray dosing in medical imaging equipment, your answer must be, No.

Well, either that or the single word "Therac".

(Some Therac 25 info.)

• Most Ryu make a big deal about doing things the traditional way. (Look at all the controversy that the shinkendo people caused when they decided that they were the only ones using "traditional" tsuka lengths.) This emphasis on doing things the same way as the previous generation makes it unlikely that a tradition would be changed without there being a record of it occuring. Many Ryu are so tradition-bound that they won't allow any useful innovation.
• Clavell is not a solid source for anything. I used to love shogun until I got a hold of the Musashi series by Eiji Yoshikawa. Those books have a much better reputation with people like Edwin O. Reischauer, who said:

  Comparisons with James Clavell's Shogun seem inevitable, because for most Americans today Shogun, as a book and a television mini-series, vies with samurai movies as their chief source of knowledge about Japan's past. [...] With the exception of Blackthorne, the historical Will Adams, Shogun deals largely with the great lords and ladies of Japan, who appear in thin disguise under names Clavell has devised for them. [...] Clavell freely distorts historical fact to fit his tale and inserts a Western-type love story that not only flagrantly flouts history but is quite unimaginable in the Japan of that time.

This kind of story makes you want to stick your head in the sand and not buy any critical applications from corporations...Unfortunately, for some "leaders of industry," protecting image is more important than the safety of the users. Users are expendable; image is not.

So you're saying you're not going to ever drive a car again?

Computer applications aren't the only life-critical products we depend on. You put your life in the hands of corporations every minute of the day. How are you going to make sure your house is structurally sound? Buy open-source lumber and build it yourself? Are you going to keep eating food which has been prepared by corporations?

But as you, the Pinto history and others point out, corporations will only care about the lives of their consumers to the point at which it becomes economically favorable to do so. If it's cheaper to settle 10 probable death cases than issue a recall for the faulty product, they settle. The value of human life doesn't factor in. Today's cars only sell themselves on safety because it has become economical to do so, i.e., consumers value safety and demand it from their products.

This is why we need government oversight. I'll tell you what makes me want to put my head in the sand: how we are not funding the oversight agencies enough to do their job. We just passed two tremendous tax cuts in three years; I don't know where the cuts are going, but I feel like people take safe food and transportation for granted around here. I hope at least the sand is clean.

I imagine they teach all CS undergraduates about the THERAC-25, and how simple safety measures like hardware interlocks are much, much more reliable than software...

In this case, couldn't you check dive times against a book or something to make sure you're not completely off the mark?... what about something to measure nitrogen levels? Anything so you're not relying purely on software... (or, as someone has already suggested, you could use two completely different pieces of software).

I attend the University of Guelph and recent figures indicate that the number of Computer Science students enrolling is actually increasing every year. As a matter of fact, as of last year, CS students were the largest degree program at the school (which for those of you that don't know, is renowned for it's Agricultural and Veteranarian programs), accounting for ~5%-6% of all students.

Hopefully there will still be jobs left for us when we all graduate.

1.) Could machines ever be considered 'persons', complete with legal rights and deserving of the same treatment as people? Could it be just as cruel to send a highly-intelligent machine to do a dangerous, complex job as it would be to send a person?

2.) If humanity was to be replaced by supplanted (perhaps peacefully) by an intelligent, caring, communal robo sapiens, would this be a tragedy?

3.) Implications for personal identity, problem of other minds.

4.) Impact of cloning on our perception of free will, all humans being born equal.

Secondly, Robert Nozick (in Anarchy, State and Utopia ) raised an interesting issue about the value of actually doing an act, rather than simply having the *experience* of doing that act. Imagine living most of your life in a VR simulation of your choosing, experiencing a rich panoply of scientific insights, sporting achievements or charitable good works. At what point and why do these (cease to) have any value? This is related to the question raised in The Matrix of whether Neo should take the red or blue pill.

-

Greg

That sucks, man. I'm sorry to hear it. I like the college/community radio here: independent, eclectic and we get the BBC world service on it too.

CFRU 93.3 FM Guelph

Still broadcasting streaming audio over the net :-)

Who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge? The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway? The De Havilland Comet 1? The Ocean Ranger oil rig? The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut? Pre-Challenger solid rocket boosters? Hubble space telescope optics? The Cypress Structure (collapsed in 1989 Loma Prieta eauthquake)?

I knew I should have put a caveat in there

Ok 99.99999% reliable. In most of the cases you mention the reason for failure was encountering a novel method of failure, that hadn't been seen before which is quite rightly the engineers fault for not anticipating it or basic human error which will happen in any situation, but should still be designed against by the good engineer.

Tacoma Narrows bridge - One of first examples of resonance in a large structure caused by wind. Regency hotel Walkway - Predominantly human error in communication coupled with a poor engineering decision Ocean Ranger rig - Engineering design coupled with human incompetance and poor safety routines. DeHavilland Comet- New intensity of cyclic stress strain loading in 1st commercial jet plane.L'ambiance Plaza Generally poor design in a (fairly) new technique.Rocket boostersDesign and checking failure on a massively complex project, obviously pushing the boundries. Hubble optics Not realy in the same catagory, but poor checking procedure, again pushing the envelope.Cypress StructureOver zealous engineers working to code, in an environment they didn't realy understand. Also a relatively novel construction when built.

I know it's not an excuse to say 'we didn't know it worked like that we'll do it better next time'. Compared to the number of structures built the number of failures is very small, engineers have a high level of training to keep it that way. It's a shame that (in the UK at least) we tend to sell our services cheap which doesn't reflect on the importance and responcibilty that we have. When individual code monkeys can get sued for the money a company lost due to there poor code, then they'll make themselves into engineers.

Who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge? The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway? The De Havilland Comet 1? The Ocean Ranger oil rig? The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut? Pre-Challenger solid rocket boosters? Hubble space telescope optics? The Cypress Structure (collapsed in 1989 Loma Prieta eauthquake)?

I knew I should have put a caveat in there

Ok 99.99999% reliable. In most of the cases you mention the reason for failure was encountering a novel method of failure, that hadn't been seen before which is quite rightly the engineers fault for not anticipating it or basic human error which will happen in any situation, but should still be designed against by the good engineer.

Tacoma Narrows bridge - One of first examples of resonance in a large structure caused by wind. Regency hotel Walkway - Predominantly human error in communication coupled with a poor engineering decision Ocean Ranger rig - Engineering design coupled with human incompetance and poor safety routines. DeHavilland Comet- New intensity of cyclic stress strain loading in 1st commercial jet plane.L'ambiance Plaza Generally poor design in a (fairly) new technique.Rocket boostersDesign and checking failure on a massively complex project, obviously pushing the boundries. Hubble optics Not realy in the same catagory, but poor checking procedure, again pushing the envelope.Cypress StructureOver zealous engineers working to code, in an environment they didn't realy understand. Also a relatively novel construction when built.

I know it's not an excuse to say 'we didn't know it worked like that we'll do it better next time'. Compared to the number of structures built the number of failures is very small, engineers have a high level of training to keep it that way. It's a shame that (in the UK at least) we tend to sell our services cheap which doesn't reflect on the importance and responcibilty that we have. When individual code monkeys can get sued for the money a company lost due to there poor code, then they'll make themselves into engineers.

Wasn't teflon developed to protect tubes used to process uranium?
Why, I'm so glad you asked. Teflon was first created by mistake by a researcher studying flourocarbon variants. The goal was fluids for refrigeration systems, not teflon. After a series of tests he found a strange waxy mass in the chamber. That was teflon.
It is worth noting that this is a perfect example of the sort of free-form experimentation allowed to proceed in an unplanned direction that NASA has proven so very bad at pursuing.

Rustin

The Linux kernel was almost definitely not inteded for use in brain surgery. Frankly, if I were contributing to the kernel I would be very disturbed by this. Beforehand, if there was a bug in the kernel, somebody's webserver might crash every few months or maybe some credit card numbers could be stolen, but now bugs could potentially lead to death. I don't think I could live with that. Software that's used in life and death situations requires an entirely more rigorous method of design, implementation, and testing than goes on with the Linux kernel and I don't think it would be very comforting to the kernel contributors to know that they are now dealing with life and death.

Regardless of whether or not Linux would work here, the mere fact that they chose an OS that was not meant for a task like this would make me not trust the rest of their program. Apparently, there isn't a very wide understanding that things like this need to be designed differently. That's scary.

PS - I am in no way bashing Linux - I still recommend it for nearly all situtations that aren't life and death. Follow the link in my sig if you don't believe me.

The University of Guelph has built some new apartments. They have 1 Cat-5 point in each bed-room, this is normally connected to your VoIP phone (routed via the University's central switchboard, [call-managment/or operator]), but you can use it instead for your ethernet card. It seemed like a geek's paradise, except Guelph is in the middle of no-where, about 1hr north-westish of Toronto, and it is a agriculture/food University.
I'm not exactly how their stuff works, I spent a week on a mate's floor when I was out visiting him.

Serban

MIRROR!! (Box cover art)

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mohanc/lordoftherings_fell owship_w.jpg

That's the problem. When does UNIX bocome something other than UNIX? Just because it has a POSIX compliant (mostly) kernel, and tools dosen't mean unix. People who use only the Mac part of OS X don't really directly benefit form the unixy goodness that lies beneath. They might as well be using an NT system if they want better memory management, process sharing, and just about everyhting else, than OS9.

If Apple didn't openly promote their OS as UNIX, would you even know? Unless you had access to the DTK, would it even matter? If someone decided to build a unix like environment with a kernel other than those typical to unix environemnts (like the NT) kernel, would that OS still be unix? No. Would it be compatible? Sure. Probably.

To me, UNIX is a philosophy.
A little googling digs up alot of other people who feel the same way. From The UNIX Philosophy:

1. small is beautiful
2. make each program do one thing well
3. build a prototype as soon as possible
4. choose portability over efficiency
5. store numerical data in flat files
6. use software leverage to your advantage
7. use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability
8. avoid captive user interfaces
9. make every program a filter

As I said, I like Mac OS X in general. I can still illustrate many of these things that violate the UNIX tennants in OS X (even though some of them just aren't applicable to the situation).

#1. Well, there are certianly some things about OS X that just aren't small. Finder for example.
#2. Make each program do one thing well. Well, Finder (you get that I don't dig it alot right?) can be concidered to do one thing: Provide a user interface. Does it do it well? Hrm, that's arguable, but I'll give it credit.
#8 Yeah, that's the whole point of a Macintosh, isn't it? I'll give it credit anyway.

I'm so blindly arguing that Mac OS X is less UNIXy than the average UNIX (especially than those who can actually be called by that title with a straight face), and more Macintoshy than the average UNIX. I'm not saying that it's wrong, it's a design thing. Would I do it the same way? No. I'd break the Mac-y things into smaller peices that could perform their functions better and more usefully than the whole could ever hope to, just like is done in unix (and let's admit, even unix developers get carried away and make things too big and overly complex).

You're referring to the Therac-25. A good read if you don't think that computers can kill people. Therac-25 article

The Hubble telescope was myopic because of a 1.3 millimeter error on a piece of test equipment used to make the primary mirror. The construction of the mirror was flawless, but it just happened to be the wrong shape. I've never heard about it being based on a recon design from the 70s, that's sounds pretty iffy.

Here's a short summary: Why The Hubble Space Telescope Went Wrong

Except that software can, and does kill.

This sounds a lot like setting up neural network for defense... i seem to recall some people working on neural nets that might be applicable. http://hebb.cis.uoguelph.ca/home/ns.html

Your comment contains a number of falsehoods which I will be more than happy to address:

1. all hybrid seeds are "infertile"

This happens to a false and incorrect statement. With canola it is difficult to create hybrids that are fertile and increase crop yield. Please note that this does not mean infertile; it just means difficult to reproduce. Cross-fertilized plants are rarely fertile. But that's nowhere close to never fertile.

2. farmers ,always buy new seed every year, because retained grain is a poor and inefficient way to grow your pants [must control bad jokes...]
(By the way, how does your first point of "all hybrid seeds are infertile" tie in with your second point of "new seed comes from new healthy hybrids grown for seed"? If the hybrids are all infertile, why would I grow hybrids for seed)?

While, yes, as a farmer I supplement my existing gene-lineages (both plant and animal) with external lines for hybrid vigor and outside traits every year; I also breed my existing plants and animals for specific traits. If I started off with one line of genes, and attempted to maintain that line forever, yes, I might have problems. But I don't. I select outside strains to enhance certain qualities that I believe my strains are deficient in. However, assuming I made a good starting selection of lineages, I don't need to acquire outside stock. You're talking about a minimal initial genetic selection that doesn't allow for cross-breeding over a number of generations. Sorry, but I'm aware that this could be a problem and either: start off with a reasonable selection of different genetic strains, or supplement my breeding stock every year. But if I start off with a good selection, I don't need to buy new seeds every year.

3. our assertion that "sterile seeds could spread and render entire regions infertile" is interesting

Seeds aren't the issue here. Pollen is. For example, corn cross-pollinates. If I've got some sterile corn that swoops across the pasture and cross-pollinates with my good "breeding" corn, I've got a problem. And we haven't had a chance to get to the seed part yet.

And, also, sterility is the final "hereditary property". If I've got a ewe that hasn't bred by the time she's two, I'm going to cull her. And, guess what, all of the genes that I've worked on breeding into her are gone.

By the way, if I plough the "sterile" seeds into the ground and plant a different kind of seed, I've lost time, money and productivity. The things that I grow aren't comparable to "weeds".

If making a complex program is anything like putting up a large building, then we shouldn't be suprised if most programs are seriously flawed. We've only been doing software engineering for a few decades (somewhere between 1 and 12, depending on how you define the concept). Builders and architects have been honing their skill set for for several thousand years. And they still screw up occasionaly. You can argue that such failures are tragic, but are necessary for engineering to advance.

I take about two classes from the CIS department each semester, for a total of 16.00 credits (one class is 0.5 credits)

A total of 5 math courses, including Calculus, Matrix Algebra, Numerical methods..

Finally, I must complete 4.00 credits (8 classes) in an "Area of Application".

Basically, I take computer science, and then pick a field that I am interested in to fill out my schedule. Should I chose, I can take 2.00 more credits and recieve a Minor in my area of application.

Personally, I have chosen to take Geography as my area of application because I would like to put my computer skills towards a geographical initiative of some kind.

More info about this program can be found at the University of Guelph (Ontario) Website.

My company has been a victim of spam. The "From" address was forged so the mail appeared to come from us. Finding who is actually behind "Cybernet Enterprise"is a hard thing and the telephone number only gives a cryptic ansvering machine

Read the Received: line in the header of the emails. It will tell you what IP they originated from. Look this up and complain to the appropriate ISP.

There are a number of good antispam how-to's on the web.

I saw an interesting brown-purple box sitting in the hallway at Comp Services here at U. of Guelph today. Wanted to take it. Long story short, it was a Silicon Graphics Personal Iris, weighing in at about 50 lb, and unable to run any software or OS I would have any idea how to use (I'm a Windoze luser). I liked the case though, I had visions of gutting it and sticking my old P233 in it :-)

Reference here with the priceless quote, "There was only one person programming the code for this system and he largely did all the testing". A chilling excerpt from the URL:

"A month later at the same hospital, with the same technician another fatal dosage was given. The technician made the same error of quickly changing the mode from X-ray mode to Electron mode using the 'cursor up' key. This again caused "Malfunction 54". The patient this time was receiving treatment on his face. When the overdose was administered he yelled and then began to moan. The audio equipment was working this time but the initial dose was too much for the man. He received severe neurological damage, fell into a coma and died only 3 weeks later.

Another reference here.

have it so easy. back in my day, we couldn't even use duct tape to live in space.

I'm working on a super computing project up here in Canada, known as SHARC-Net. It is a group of Beowolf clusters (using Alpha's, with all the hardware supplied and serviced by Compaq) located at 3 different universities (as a side note 2 of the clusters run Linux and the other Tru-64). The project directors had a conference call with Compaq on Friday, for which they had to sign NDA's. When the Director for the University of Guelph came out of the conference call she was very unhappy with Compaq. She told us this:

1. Compaq will be announcing to the world what they discussed on Friday.
2. It won't effect us until 2004 (which agrees with the article).
3. Had they known about this earlier it could have effected their choice of supplier for the clusters.

This is very little to work with but it does agree with the article. Needless to say, may of Compaq's customers are very unhappy with them right now (including us as we are just now bringing these clusters online).

I have a page with a couple pieces of interesting PC (Including early microsoft) history. Check them out Here

Granted it's not the New Mexico address, but still very interesting.

Included is pics of MSDOS 1.1, CP/M X86 1.0 (a tad too late), and a sheet from the Basic manual of an old Z80 based Computer (which came in a woodgrain case, probably about 1977). This Basic manual page was the only reference to Microsoft i could find.

I prefer the fungi that catch nematodes in loops and then suck them dry. They've got pictures here.

I am a 4'th year Computer engineering major.

I've had to deal with the same questions as you and it boils down to how passionate you are about certain aspects of the computer world. Be advised this is not the be-all end-all of advice.. but it may help you:

a) Do you love hardware? Do you long to learn how your motherboard works? How a CPU is built? How do you create those chips on your motherboard? Do you find electronics interesting?

b) Do you love programming? Do you strive to solve complex programming issues? Do you write tools or programs in your spare time?

If you agree with A, choose Computer engineering.

If you agree with B, choose computer science. Computer science, in most programs, is MOSTLY programming theory, with very little hardware.

Choosing route A will lead you to learn basics about computer science, but as well how computers were first designed, to how complex today's chips are, and methods on how to design them. You will do far less programming than a CS major, but you should still come out with the ability to write good programs, as well as hardware design.

There are degrees which combine the best of both software and hardware, being a Canadian I can only point out two examples. These are both Engineering examples.

Sysyms & Computing at University of Guelph

Systems Design Engineering at University of Waterloo

But for unfortunate circumstances like yours, there are a couple of things you can do:
1. Talk to your liason teacher. Co-op is still a course and there's a teacher in charge of it who monitors it all. Tell him/her about your concerns.
2. Be aware that managers may not be familar with dealing with co-op students. They may not understand that you are cheap labour. If this is the case, I doubt that they would listen to you if you complained to them, but I'm sure your liason teacher would have much more influence.

Remember that co-op is supposed to be a learning experience. If you determine that such is not the case with your placement, keep a written record of tasks that you had to do, and go over it in a non-confrontational with officials at your school. Go over it with your parents, too. Sooner or later, someone in charge will talk to the people at your placement have something done about your predicament. If the managers are not receptive, it's not unlikeley that your school will pull the plug on that employer and move you somewhere else.

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:

A very well-written paper on the touted benefits of GE.

Click me

Look at the parent message to see why I posted this.

Mirror Hosted in Canada on an .EDU type link.

Funny thing is, these pictures are dated July 1999.

Even funnier, it really did take this long (150 posts) to download the whole thing.

Mirror Hosted in Canada on .EDU type link.

Windows users: File will open with Winzip.
Unix: Need i explain?

OK, before you whip out the flamethrower, please read the rest of this comment!

The MS articles are FUD. Ugly FUD. Sick FUD. I could barely read them.

However, I can't help remembering my first experience installing Linux, about a year ago now.
It was RedHat 5.0. I had just finished the 2nd year of my Computer Science degree at Guelph
I ran into Linux via my programming classes and was interested enough (very interested) and wanted to try it for myself.

It took me a while to get it running. It was frustrating. The learning curve was steep. Dare I say, I limped back and huddled in Windows again until I built up enough courage to learn more Linux.

The point is, I was (and still am, of course) a smart person, and definitely more computer literate than the average user, but Linux was still somewhat hard to install and learn. I probably wouldn't have bothered if I wasn't intrinsically interested as a computer scientist/baby hacker.

Now go and think of the type of user that makes up the bulk of the Windows user base: it's obvious Linux needs to be as easy, if not easier, to set up than Windows if we want to take over the world. :-) Us hackers can hack it out in an "expert" mode to set up Linux, but distributions like the forthcoming Corel Linux, which aim to make Linux ultra-easy to use, are what the Linux community needs. (As long as Corel gives all of their enhancements back to the community via an OSS license, of course).

All of this, IMHO, of course. :-)

Cheers,