Slashdot Mirror
Coolest University Tech Lab Projects in the Works
NW writes "While universities like MIT, Berkeley and CMU don't tend to shout as loudly about their latest tech innovations as do Google, Cisco and other big vendors, their results are no less impressive in what they could mean for faster, more secure and more useful networks, computers, etc. Here's a good roundup of 25 of them, from studies on putting T-Rays to use in computers to advancing wireless to the next level to outsmarting terrorists on the Web."
2-3 cm seems to be rather large, especially since it has to go through the skull - can anyone comment on this ?
Number 23 claims that driving more slowly due to cell phone use costs fuel. That's patently ridiculous -- on the highway, driving more slowly saves fuel, which is why highway speed limits were set to 55 during the last oil crisis. Driving while on the phone is still a bad idea, but not because you're going slower.
It's funny that "terahertz rays" are somehow considered "not catchy". Thus, promoting their usage had to start with their re-branding as T-Rays, which has more in common with the T-Rex than the terahertz idea. It's part of the work of the scientist today to think of a Hollywood-like publicity poster and catchy phrases in order to get grants.
"The bulk of searches (80%) proved to be informational, with the other 20% split between navigational and transactional. The researchers used an algorithm that they say classified searches with a 74% accuracy rate. "
I have a better algorithm that achieves 80% accuracy, verses their 74%....
int QueryTypeClassifier(char *str)
{
return INFORMATIONAL;
}
I better starting working on the research paper before those conference deadlines hit.
Anything involving liquid helium.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It would appear from reading the fine article that, due to a lack of grants for this leading-edge research, the 25 projects have been cut and there are only 5 left.
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
"While universities like MIT, Berkeley and CMU don't tend to shout as loudly about their latest tech innovations as do Google, Cisco and other big vendors, their results are no less impressive in what they could mean for faster, more secure and more useful networks, computers, etc."
I feel that hits the nail on the head. A lot of impressive innovations come out of universities, but it's the corporate world that makes most of the hype. Sometimes, they promote inventions that originally came from universities. Sometimes, they promote inferior technology to what already exists. But it's usually the hyped technology that wins. I think we should be paying more attention to university research.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Generally:
Universities do research.
Corporations do design.
You might be pleasantly distracted by the shiny toys that corporations make, but those toys rely on the knowledge gained in university labs.
>Light [...] at the higher frequencies (near IR)
I think it's called _infra_red. You might have meant higher wavelengths, although I still would like to see how well IR gets through rock.
Wait, wait, it was a joke, right?
I have always wondered how anybody can put a date on when a new discovery will be in public use. There are usually still obstacles to overcome. How can they assume that they will be overcome and then actually put a time frame on it?
"All I want is users with frikken lasers on their heads!"
And
"I for one welcome our new mind-controlling laser overlords"
If an individual suddenly stops communicating or socializing with others with whom they have previously had frequent contact, then the technology could alert investigators to such changes.
It happens a lot when people become bored of Facebook or whatever the social platform du jour is. There will be many false positives in a digital environment, this being one of them.
I lolled hard! Science is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
24. Open source on bug patrol
The trick is being able to quickly test interactions of up to six variables. The work stemmed from research into what really causes bugs in software. The researchers found that it is more often caused by problematic interactions between a few variables rather than a bunch even if a program, such as an e-commerce application, features hundreds of variables.
Isn't that true simply because principles such as "information hiding" and "low coupling" are now applied in all serious software? We've also known for a long time now that global variables were harmful.
Most interactions occur between six variables or less because these principles have the side effect of restricting the number of interactions between variables. Interactions with more than six variables would probably be more frequent in software that uses only global variables.
So I fail to see what's really new from their research. Haven't they just "discovered" that applying good design principles leads to low coupling?