Indeed, there is not much substance in the article. The fact that i distilled from it is this: FSF Europe (which is not FSF itself) got a grant from NLnet and filled a press release with speculation.
unholy marriage of private enterprise and the political state (a.k.a. socialism)
You are really showing your fears here. merging of the state with private enterprise is one of the identifiers of fascism. It has nothing to do with socialism, other than that you give your devils that name.
Yes that struck me too. They are trying to pull the inktjet trick. Why should this paper have invisible dots? Why can't it use lined or grid paper. Why does it need special paper at all? My optical mouse can certainly follow my hand movements just fine.
And aside from that, the concept looks interesting, but i cannot see this becoming the killer gadget of 2005. You need to draw your own interfaces before you can use them. When programmers make them they already look shitty, what happens when endusers have to create them. That will certainly not be an OSX-like experience.
No it isn't lift too. Is you use it as a liquid, it will weigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen ~70 kilo/m^3. the density of air at cruising altitude is in the order of 0.1 kilo/m^3. So the amount of lift you get per m^3 is 0.1 - 70 kilos, in other words no lift at all.
hmm yes, they could easily borrow such a boroscope from the airforce (pun intended). The oil residue will provide some extra lubrication and they can easily sterilise it by sticking it in a hot engine.
I am sure you have seen the site where they (aledgedly, I've never seen one fly) glue black or blue flies to the wings of a very tiny airplane? You put the flies in the fridge for a few minutes to paralise them, when they warm up they begin to move/fly again.
I don't know how these are implemented, but this sounds like an ideal application for a software radio. you just need one wideband antenna/transmitter and solve all channel splits in software. You 'only' need a few Mbs in A/D conversion(upper channel freq minus lowest channel freq) and a dedicated proc that can handle all that data on the fly.
It's way overpriced but i like this bit:
We managed the XS-3900 via the Web-based GUI and the command line, which is available via SSH (Secure Shell) or console cable
You might be able to detect HIV with pcr if the viral load is high enough (you test for HIV specific DNA fragments) or with Elisa or western blots(you test for antibodies against HIV)
Wikipedia portrays this fellow as a kook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis so make your own mind up. I guess yours was on vacation when you read his 'fascinating book'?
uhmm are the Foo Fighters very mainstream? would you expect a mainstream action from them?
There are positive aspects to the altrernative quacks: with proper monitoring it would allow studies that could not be set up in mainline science: "what happens if you stop taking your anti-AIDS medicines" It would be nice to have statistical significant data showing you die on average within 2(?) years.
You are wrong. There is no direct evidence that HIV CAUSES AIDS. The two are associated. [...cliche analogy removed...]
True, the only way to directly prove that HIV causes AIDS would be to infect someone with HIV and find them developing AIDS later. To make that statistically significant (and account for the long incubation period) you would need to do that test on a lot of people, are you willing to volunteer? No sane doctor or gouvernment will allow such a dangerous test. But you can do something less certain but quite similar with cohort studies. Take a (very) large group of people you suspect are at risk of getting AIDS and test them regularly for HIV and other viral infections. The pattern you see from such studies is HIV-infection with flu-like symptoms and several years later they develop AIDS. No one in the cohort develops AIDS withou the previous HIV infection but some people will never develop AIDS (very long gestation period). That is indeed not 100% proof, but in biology/medicine you never have 100%. If 99% is not good enough for you, then please remember that thousands of people are dying daily from AIDS and resources are finite. There is no room to make odd chance gambles.
The scientific process works via concensus (peer review). That may be not a good model as it can be very hard for breaktrough discoveries to get accepted, but it is like democracy: it may not be very good, but it is the best we have.
When I worked in this area (Approx 18 years ago), there was good statistical evidence that you needed HIV and some other second factor to get AIDS.
18 years! HIV had just been discovered back then. You could drown in all the HIV/AIDS articles that have been published since then. If that hypothesis had any merit it would have been accepted. It is not.
However, the HIV gives you AIDS explanaiton was simpler, so there was no funding to investigate the real mechanism. AFAIK, it has not been properly investigated because of political correctness in the funding bodies.
You mistake scientific correctness for political correctness. I believe it is called Ochams razor that states that, when you have two explanations for a phenomenon of equal merit, you go for the simpler one.
You are one of many people standing in the way of good science leading to a solution to a very serious problem.
And why would that be? I am not a scientist (anymore). Is my opinon standing in the way of your 'good science'? Why would the science that is conducted now be not good enough. Sure it has not found a cure yet, but with current drugs, AIDS detoriation can be stopped or reversed. With those drugs it has become a chronic disease instead of a terminal disease. I'd say that is pretty good.
As for you and all the other dissidents: It is human nature to be attracted to odd chances and underdogs. But this is not literature or fiction, and in the real world no sane person goes for a chance of 1 in a million. Science is not a religion. You are allowed to think or believe whatever you want, and if you can make a coherent point people might actually listen to you. But don't expect funding just because you are so very different. If most people think you are wrong, then you don't get the money of most people.
The hypothesis that aids is not caused by hiv has been very thoroughly disproven AFAIK. The (probable) reason one 'scientist' kept claiming that was because it made him 'famous'. Other parties that wanted to deny AIDS for political resons kept supporting this guy or held on to his theories. I can't remember his name.
As for funding: Would you give funding to 'scientists' that claimed the earth was flat or created in 7 days with no evolution? Lunatics don't get money because they are lunatics, not because their ideas need to be suppresed by gouvernment.
There are more countries in the world doing AIDS research than the US, so any errors caused by your strange funding policy would be quickly corrected in the rest of the world. The first breaktrough successes were made in Europe(france) IIRC.
As for the causes of death with AIDS: that is what you get when AIDS takes out your immune system: you die of the first petty illness that comes along.
So this 'AIDS is not caused by HIV' meme is nothing but FUD, please don't spread it any further.
Since the Interactive Gambling Act came into effect, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has only received five complaints for potential breaches. The only complaint still under investigation is about an e-mail that contained "promotion and links to an interactive gambling service offering betting exchange products." The complaint was lodged in March 2003 and is still under investigation.
Methinks they are beating their drum a bit to show they are not the civilservant slackers they appear to be.
I agree that there is no social concensus yet on how to treat IM. There is for phone, email and direct conversation, but it appears to me that the etikette I expect from my buddies on IM is not the same as they are willing to display. I hate it when the message window is closed without saying anything by the other party. that's like hanging up the phone directly after picking up. I you are busy (or) at work, there are status notifications for that. But I guess these people are to lazy to use those.
As for: "EMAIL works. IM interrupts work."
IM works faster if you use all functions (like siganlling you are busy if you are busy)
In my experience, most people have trouble understanding the business model that open source companies make their money off. They will by now have heard something about open source, so they will likely have some preformed opinion on that issue. The most conservative will insist on skewing the licence terms to the company because that how they are used to making money.
If you figure out a way to get the point across that the different business model you need for open source is not hindering your chances of succes, you will have your 'war' won. You will still have to battle the nah-sayers, but if you can show the money and how it's made, you win.
That was (more or less) the admission from the author. But I think it still was an interesting read. He was using a bayesian spamfilter mind you, not an dedicated chess engine.
But apart from the novel idea, it does not make me go install his bayesian spamfilter or develop artifical chess players.
euhm, and how is this handshaking done when there is no power for the device to do the handshaking? This sounds like BS to me, and I didn't read it in TFA.
you drip water on a metallic salt containging sodium IIRC, and you can run a light on the resulting (hydrogen) gas. Or you use it to make explosions/bangs with empty milk cans. I wonder if they plan to recycle the resulting salts or that those are just supposed to be flushed down the toilet?
As you may gave read in the article, they are not switching all desktops to OSS (but they should too IMBO)I think the cost savings came from using moodle over a commercial learning system.
We don't need to be artificially creating triggers that put roaches into a more advanced intellectual state ahead of their own natural evolution.
You seem to be falling for the ID crap. Evolution itself does not exist, it is just a concept. Evolution is not some godlike entity. Therefore it can not have any purpose, like a 'god' could have. That also means there is no 'natural evolution.' Stuff just happens. What happens to one species does always influence other species in its environment. So if mankind decides it would be a nice idea to put cockroaches in robots, then good luck on the roaches. It does not, however, change the roaches in any way. Maybe that happens when somebody starts to breed roaches selectively. But that happened for thousands of years with lifestock and has not rendered any chicken overlords yet. (Cue jokes about some dumb president)
because they get all the good chicks? I dunno, but less competition is good on that field I thought. Besides 50 quid will get you laid if you are willing to stoop. Or did you mean that 'those geeks' raised the price too much by their insatious demand?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, there is not much substance in the article.
The fact that i distilled from it is this: FSF Europe (which is not FSF itself) got a grant from NLnet and filled a press release with speculation.
Yes that struck me too. They are trying to pull the inktjet trick. Why should this paper have invisible dots? Why can't it use lined or grid paper.
Why does it need special paper at all? My optical mouse can certainly follow my hand movements just fine.
And aside from that, the concept looks interesting, but i cannot see this becoming the killer gadget of 2005. You need to draw your own interfaces before you can use them. When programmers make them they already look shitty, what happens when endusers have to create them. That will certainly not be an OSX-like experience.
No it isn't lift too. Is you use it as a liquid, it will weigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen ~70 kilo/m^3. the density of air at cruising altitude is in the order of 0.1 kilo/m^3.
So the amount of lift you get per m^3 is 0.1 - 70 kilos, in other words no lift at all.
hmm yes, they could easily borrow such a boroscope from the airforce (pun intended). The oil residue will provide some extra lubrication and they can easily sterilise it by sticking it in a hot engine.
A big dick makes every pussy tight...
I am sure you have seen the site where they (aledgedly, I've never seen one fly) glue black or blue flies to the wings of a very tiny airplane? You put the flies in the fridge for a few minutes to paralise them, when they warm up they begin to move/fly again.
It's way overpriced but i like this bit:
finally getting rid of insecure telnet!
That is very funny. I have done hundreds of pcr reactions and they all worked on DNA (or with some tricks on RNA)See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCR
But: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA are protein tests. You cannot detect proteins with pcr, nor can you use pcr to detect proteins.
You might be able to detect HIV with pcr if the viral load is high enough (you test for HIV specific DNA fragments) or with Elisa or western blots(you test for antibodies against HIV)
Wikipedia portrays this fellow as a kook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis so make your own mind up. I guess yours was on vacation when you read his 'fascinating book'?
uhmm are the Foo Fighters very mainstream? would you expect a mainstream action from them?
There are positive aspects to the altrernative quacks: with proper monitoring it would allow studies that could not be set up in mainline science: "what happens if you stop taking your anti-AIDS medicines" It would be nice to have statistical significant data showing you die on average within 2(?) years.
Shall we leave the science to scientist?
True, the only way to directly prove that HIV causes AIDS would be to infect someone with HIV and find them developing AIDS later. To make that statistically significant (and account for the long incubation period) you would need to do that test on a lot of people, are you willing to volunteer?
No sane doctor or gouvernment will allow such a dangerous test. But you can do something less certain but quite similar with cohort studies. Take a (very) large group of people you suspect are at risk of getting AIDS and test them regularly for HIV and other viral infections. The pattern you see from such studies is HIV-infection with flu-like symptoms and several years later they develop AIDS. No one in the cohort develops AIDS withou the previous HIV infection but some people will never develop AIDS (very long gestation period). That is indeed not 100% proof, but in biology/medicine you never have 100%. If 99% is not good enough for you, then please remember that thousands of people are dying daily from AIDS and resources are finite. There is no room to make odd chance gambles.
The scientific process works via concensus (peer review). That may be not a good model as it can be very hard for breaktrough discoveries to get accepted, but it is like democracy: it may not be very good, but it is the best we have.
18 years! HIV had just been discovered back then. You could drown in all the HIV/AIDS articles that have been published since then. If that hypothesis had any merit it would have been accepted. It is not.
You mistake scientific correctness for political correctness. I believe it is called Ochams razor that states that, when you have two explanations for a phenomenon of equal merit, you go for the simpler one.
And why would that be? I am not a scientist (anymore). Is my opinon standing in the way of your 'good science'? Why would the science that is conducted now be not good enough. Sure it has not found a cure yet, but with current drugs, AIDS detoriation can be stopped or reversed. With those drugs it has become a chronic disease instead of a terminal disease. I'd say that is pretty good.
As for you and all the other dissidents: It is human nature to be attracted to odd chances and underdogs. But this is not literature or fiction, and in the real world no sane person goes for a chance of 1 in a million. Science is not a religion. You are allowed to think or believe whatever you want, and if you can make a coherent point people might actually listen to you. But don't expect funding just because you are so very different. If most people think you are wrong, then you don't get the money of most people.
The hypothesis that aids is not caused by hiv has been very thoroughly disproven AFAIK. The (probable) reason one 'scientist' kept claiming that was because it made him 'famous'. Other parties that wanted to deny AIDS for political resons kept supporting this guy or held on to his theories. I can't remember his name.
As for funding: Would you give funding to 'scientists' that claimed the earth was flat or created in 7 days with no evolution? Lunatics don't get money because they are lunatics, not because their ideas need to be suppresed by gouvernment.
There are more countries in the world doing AIDS research than the US, so any errors caused by your strange funding policy would be quickly corrected in the rest of the world. The first breaktrough successes were made in Europe(france) IIRC.
As for the causes of death with AIDS: that is what you get when AIDS takes out your immune system: you die of the first petty illness that comes along.
So this 'AIDS is not caused by HIV' meme is nothing but FUD, please don't spread it any further.
Methinks they are beating their drum a bit to show they are not the civilservant slackers they appear to be.
In other news tonight it was announced that Americans have now developed the capacity to think.
Both are mere reinventions, evolution created those features by accident millions of years ago.
Oh you mean artificial sensitive skin?
this one will be able to put the toiletseat down afterwards.
I agree that there is no social concensus yet on how to treat IM. There is for phone, email and direct conversation, but it appears to me that the etikette I expect from my buddies on IM is not the same as they are willing to display.
I hate it when the message window is closed without saying anything by the other party. that's like hanging up the phone directly after picking up. I you are busy (or) at work, there are status notifications for that. But I guess these people are to lazy to use those.
As for:
"EMAIL works. IM interrupts work."
IM works faster if you use all functions (like siganlling you are busy if you are busy)
In my experience, most people have trouble understanding the business model that open source companies make their money off. They will by now have heard something about open source, so they will likely have some preformed opinion on that issue. The most conservative will insist on skewing the licence terms to the company because that how they are used to making money.
If you figure out a way to get the point across that the different business model you need for open source is not hindering your chances of succes, you will have your 'war' won. You will still have to battle the nah-sayers, but if you can show the money and how it's made, you win.
That was (more or less) the admission from the author. But I think it still was an interesting read. He was using a bayesian spamfilter mind you, not an dedicated chess engine.
But apart from the novel idea, it does not make me go install his bayesian spamfilter or develop artifical chess players.
euhm, and how is this handshaking done when there is no power for the device to do the handshaking?
This sounds like BS to me, and I didn't read it in TFA.
From TFA:"...The new findings were detailed in a peer-reviewed paper appearing in the May issue of the journal Nuclear Engineering..."
So I guess you are right that it is very old news indeed.
you drip water on a metallic salt containging sodium IIRC, and you can run a light on the resulting (hydrogen) gas.
Or you use it to make explosions/bangs with empty milk cans. I wonder if they plan to recycle the resulting salts or that those are just supposed to be flushed down the toilet?
now on to RTFA.
As you may gave read in the article, they are not switching all desktops to OSS (but they should too IMBO)I think the cost savings came from using moodle over a commercial learning system.
We don't need to be artificially creating triggers that put roaches into a more advanced intellectual state ahead of their own natural evolution.
You seem to be falling for the ID crap. Evolution itself does not exist, it is just a concept. Evolution is not some godlike entity. Therefore it can not have any purpose, like a 'god' could have. That also means there is no 'natural evolution.' Stuff just happens. What happens to one species does always influence other species in its environment. So if mankind decides it would be a nice idea to put cockroaches in robots, then good luck on the roaches. It does not, however, change the roaches in any way.
Maybe that happens when somebody starts to breed roaches selectively. But that happened for thousands of years with lifestock and has not rendered any chicken overlords yet. (Cue jokes about some dumb president)
"'Something like this is difficult to explain to superiors,' a company exec explained."
I propose laying off those superiors instead, as they have trouble understanding something that can be quite easily explained in a slashdot summary...
because they get all the good chicks? I dunno, but less competition is good on that field I thought.
Besides 50 quid will get you laid if you are willing to stoop. Or did you mean that 'those geeks' raised the price too much by their insatious demand?