Well, since I'm doing a PhD in DNA damage and repair I should inform you that studying this sort of thing is not that hard. We routinely bombard our cell lines (cultivated cells that we grow in test tubes) with UV or gamma rays and see what happens. Usually you get double strand breaks that are quite troublesome to repair.
The experimental methodology is simple: stick a mobile phone-like source of radiation in a fixed distance and then examine the cells (with specific DNA damage markers) to see if anything happened. I could try putting my cell phone close to a test tube and call repeatedly and see if I get some DNA damage (that would be very very sloppy and un-scientific, of course).
Things become quite complicated after that because you simply cannot generalize a statement like "Mobile causes DNA damage in fibroblasts" to "Mobile causes cancer in humans". The inverse is also true "Mobile does not damage fibroblast DNA after 10mins of exposure" does not necessarily imply that "Mobile is safe for children to make 4-hour calls every day". I'd bet, however, that the media would go wild over any remotely interesting link between mobiles and DNA.
Finally, as a side note, there are many, many things that damage DNA. The amount of exposure is crucial to determine whether a mutagen is practically dangerous. For those worrying I'd suggest to stop smoking first instead.
I won't waste my precious time with an extensive analysis.
a) Linux is technologically superior to Windows. By technologically I mean as in "filesystem", "stability", "networking", "security" and "performance". There is some very impressive development going on in areas that are normally unseen (scheduler, VFS, memory management, networking stack etc) to the end user.
b) Linux is about control and hack value. The people that actually write the code (instead of whining in Slashdot) have their own priorities. In the end, polished GNU/Linux programs can be technically excellent. The developers do NOT care about world domination. Take it or leave it, it's free.
c) Many countries and companies have strong reasons to support Linux for their own good. Places like India and China (AND Europe) would really prefer using Linux instead of the prohibitively expensive MS products. If 10% of India + China use Linux, that's equal to the US population. (also note that many of these people don't have computers so they are not yet addicted to the MS Way of Doing Things(R)).
d) If you prefer Windows, stop bitching about it and keep using them.
It's OK, really. I don't try to convert people to Linux (although, interestingly, people do try to convert me to Windows--at that point I usually shove Tanenbaum's book up their asses).
then shift to neutral for downhill/flat coasting will really decrease your car's fuel consumption- though I'm in Western Oregon, we have more hills here to take advantage of, might not work in the plains.
All modern cars turn fuel consumption OFF when you are going downhill without pressing the gas pedal with any gear except neutral. This is because the energy of the car keeps the engine rotating. When you use neutral you consume SOME fuel simply in order to keep the engine revolving (however, with neutral the car does not decelerate). Also, moving with low speed in the plains (~55 mph?) is very energy efficient, much more than going up and down hills. You simply cannot get back 100% of the energy that you spent to climb the hill.
There is a huge difference between the US and the proposed EU patent system. While in the US "prior art" is all that practically matters, in the EU a patent is described as being "a significant advancement to the state of the art in that field". This means that for something to be patentable, it must be non-obvious. This is clearly open to interpretation and in any case of patent infringment one could claim that said patent is invalid because it is not really state of the art.
Another point to remember is that patents DO expire (well, at least in my country). I'd bet that in any reasonable patent scheme the Windows 95 patents should have expired by now (which is a reasonable time frame for any company selling software, after all MS no longer supports Win 95!!).
What I want to know is how much money these processors will save in power consumption compared to how much more they will cost over their single core cousins... No one has said anything about that yet.
Well, supposedly it will cost cheaper, because the chip companies
do that to increase production yield. Building simple dual parts is easier than complex single parts. A dual 2.4 GHz will be much easier to build than a single 3.8 (which represents top of the line). Plus, if any part of the chip fails, they can still market it as "single core" or "lower cache" version by eliminating the faulty part. If the chip companies had good yield and regularly increasing speeds they wouldn't have been forced to invent dual core chips. The simple truth is they just can't build faster AND profitable single core processors. Even if AMD, for example, could build a slightly faster Athlon (e.g. Athlon 4200+ or 4400+) it wouldn't be as profitable.
The power consumption issue is highly significant (a) because it is related to heat dissipation and its consequent problems (b) because it will decrease your power bill. Judging from top-of-the line pentiums (have you seen their stock coolers?) we would either have to go water
cooling or accept this thermal density (which is said to approach that of a nuclear reactor in heat/surface) as a practical limit. We are doing the latter and increasing chip area (dual core die is much larger) while keeping heat dissipation the same by lowering frequencies.
Now, also, how many OSs (and applications) are prepared for dual-core support? Are there any available systems that are stable and do that?
Well, any system that supports HyperThreading (which, ingeniously, paved the road for SMP support in everyday applications) should do just fine. To make this plain: windows XP and Linux will support a dual core chip like any SMP configuration. Software support is quite good for many modern applications plus there is always a vast benefit in responsiveness when running multiple applications together.
From a hardware standpoint, there is no magic involved, a simple BIOS flash is sufficient to support dual core chips in modern motherboards (at least in the AMD world). I can't tell about the intel world.
Everyone here seems to think that this is about the money, control etc, etc. The fact is that (a) in most (serious?) countries any long range electromagnetic emission must be controlled and approved (including VHF, cellular phones, TV, FM radio) so that we don't saturate the frequency band and (b) people demand reasonable safety standards, which means that I don't want my neighbor having a 100kw hobbyist TV station or a 100W WiFi or whatever I think is dangerous. This is standard practice for all long range EM broadcasts and WiFi could not be the sole exception.
Corporate/For profit WiFi will depend on specific power requirements, specific licenses for antenna placement and other restrictions (which may be well overcome by illegal means, but that is not the point). I clearly see the beauty of WiFi public networks (and have even considered participating in our local "free" underground network) but we should ask for a legal framework for public WiFi instead of no law at all.
Personally, I think evolution (even post-darwinian evolution) isn't going to last much longer (i.e. big problems developing within the next three decades).
I hate being pedantic, but you commited a very common mistake: evolution is a fact. It means that life (animals, bacteria, fungi etc) changes over time. It has been observed and may be explained by various theories. The Theory Of Natural Selection is what you usually mean and is by far the most widely accepted mechanism for evolution.
Anyway, I was intrigued by the fact that you anticipate major problems with the theory of natural selection (i.e. Darwinian) in the near future. Sure, a gradual refinement may allow the explanation of some niche phenomena (e.g. life in extreme conditions or very early life forms). However, the theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time remarkably well and I would only expect minor corrections to be made and not a complete overhaul. I am really curious to hear your argument to the contrary.
Can somebody help to make me less ignorant and point me at an online EU-civics 101 tutorial that outlines how the EU government is organized, what are the responsibilities of the major components and a general overview of the rules?
It's not that complicated. The parliament is directly elected by the people (we actually voted for them, on a national basis). The council is indirectly elected because it comes from national governments (that have been elected by us). The commission is something like a central "think tank", governed by ~30 appointed commissioners. It can be dismissed by the elected bodies, which ultimately have a far greater power.
The important think to realize is that the parliament and the council are very strongly bound to national interests and are not really capable of forming a eu-wide policy. As a matter of fact they usually fight each other for the intra-eu balance of power. The commission is trying to provide a unifying background to all this by thinking of the eu as a whole and providing consistent long-term guidance and advice.
The general idea is that the commission proposes something and the other institutions try to sort it out and adapt it to each nations interests. In the short term some of the propositions may be hurtful for some nations, which is why they react.
The system generally works quite accurately and efficiently in long term matters (e.g. patents) but can be cumbersome in an immediate crisis. Saying that the people do not want patents is quite inaccurate. The 99% of the people are not even aware of the issue which means that this is a low-profile matter for most (contrary e.g. to the distribution of EU funds!). On the other hand, there is very strong pressure to adopt the patent laws. I'd say that given this balance of power (people not caring and high profile corporations pressuring for patent adoption) the EU has withstood remarkably well.
I have far greater faith in the commission to guard my long term interests than in the national (elected) bodies, which usually only care about their nation's interest (which can be directly opposed to my nation's interests). Software patents are not necessarily evil if they are reasonably implemented (and I do NOT mean 1-click shopping or "the-act-of-moving-the-mouse" to be meaningful patents). They might even benefit the european IP companies by providing incentive for development. After all, the EU will necessarily move away from heavy industry and agricultural production. Currently patents are provided by national patent offices and we really need a eu-wide policy.
For those really interested, the relevant information is publicly provided in several sites, including europa.eu.int. You can even read the original 2002 proposal itself (which, btw also mentions the open source community and the eurolinux alliance) in pdf form. Also note that the commission had submitted the pre-proposal as an open request for comments document on the internet (available since 2000). European citizens had 2 years to comment on the matter. Is this direct democracy or what?
Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about. There are many random fluctuations in electronic devices which can be measured, and when combined with a pseudo RNG, produce perfectly gaussian distribution. This is the principle under which black box RNGs operate.
(a) A gaussian distribution arises from sampling any continuous variable. This is the central limit theorem (roughly).
(b) Typical pseudo-RNGs do not return a gaussian distribution. Usually they return a uniform distribution.
(c) Who says that getting a gaussian distribution satisfies each and every possible criterion for randomness? Maybe it is good enough for you, but I'm not that easily convinced. Perhaps you should spend some time thinking/reading what "random" means.
For those of you that have not spent some time reading Knuth's Vol.2, there is an extensive analysis of what "randomness" is and how to get it. Clearly, a deterministic machine (=chip) cannot produce really random sequences. I did not bother to check the actual working details of those machines, but I would say that the only truly random phenomena are quantum phenomena and only these would be acceptable in a serious scientific study. Sure, modern chips get away by generating random-like sequences that are good enough to simulate true randomness for most purposes. This applies to HW random generators in most PCs. However, they are not, in principle, acceptable as real random number generators (even if they are equally well suited for applications).
From a theoretical standpoint a truly random quantum system is immune to interference, while HW random number generators use an external (to the system) source of randomness, accepted to represent noise. This is the actual approach used in the kernel's/dev/random that draws data from various external events. It has been shown, under some circumstances to be less than reliable, because the event is external wrt to the kernel but still inside our frame of reference (e.g. we control the keyboard and the ethernet port and, potentially, the power fluctuations etc etc).
Another significant point to consider is this: a truly random sequence is by definition infinite and it contains all possible subsequences of finite length. In an infinite series of coin tosses we MUST get all finitely long sequences of heads-only or tails-only. This means that given a long enough random subsequence (like the one that is produced by this machine), we will always be able to choose parts of it that are highly unlikely and statistically significantly different. Given that (a) every day something "important" happens somewhere and (b) we can always choose non-random "looking" parts of the sequence the credibility of this experiment is quite doubtful.
A proper experimental design would not associate (chosen!) events with (chosen!) subsequences, but would instead prove that the source itself is systematically non-random due to an unknown cause of interference. When all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce traditional sources of interference, we would be open to creative speculation about its source.
Another way to approach this is to make "a priori" (very important!) choices of "trigger" events and then assign very specific, "a priori" defined, time limits to the analysis. E.g. violent death of more than 1000 people in less than 1 hour is accepted as a trigger and we only correlate this to a contiguous 2h of data surrounding and including the event. The prior choice of experimental trigger conditions and rules makes a world of difference to the reliability of the test.
To be fair, most scientific apps are nowadays written in Java, and are hence multiplatform...
I find this rather hard to believe! Scientific applications are supposed to be extremely demanding and are the driving force behind expensive workstations and huge clusters. Traditionally, I would expect scientific applications to be coded in C/C++ and Fortran, or maybe some special languages. In my experience with Java applications, they are usually much slower than their native counterparts.
While this isn't directly related to the article, there are some connections. Personally, it has ruined my life. Nothing can make you feel good about yourself. I received a 1580 "equivalent" on my PSAT's last year. Did I feel happy about it? No. I felt so incompetent for missing that math problem, and so amazingly stupid for not getting that reading comprehension question rated as "medium" right.
I'm failing 5 out of 6 of my classes right now, basically assuring that any hopes of a succesful life is ruined. It's a great feeling.
Well, this fulfills several criteria for the diagnosis of a psychiatric ailment. A chronic behaviour of this type would be compatible with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, although it is very hard to make educated guesses without a thorough interview. I would encourage you to seek professional help because (a) you are obviously distressed and (b) you have objective difficulties in work.
This is a simple question, but since I am completely Apple-illiterate I'd like to know for sure. Can I plug a nice USB audio card on the mini? Will it work? An Audigy NX would be a nice choice for games, a firewire m-audio would be nice for recording. Generally speaking, do PC USB peripherals work with apple computers or do I need "special" expensive Mac versions?
If the first generation simply speeds up OpenGL and DirectX, it'll have a solid market as a GPU.
Only if it can compete with NVidia and ATI offerings at the same approximate price level (the silicon is probably huge so it will cost more than a typical NVidia/ATI product). Do note that Nvidia chips are already "SMP-capable" (in a rough way) by working in SLI mode. Gigabyte has already built a dual GPU card (SLI 2x6600 on a single PCIe card) that appears quite promising. This technology could possibly scale to multi-GPU cards in the future, if competition demands it. I'd probably imagine Cell chips as PCIe "extension cards" for people with special vector-processing needs instead. The GPU market is a tough one...
My AMD64 runs fine without a fan - currently sitting at 39 C/102 F.
Mine too, but this is not the default specified solution. You could run any chip without a fan using a big enough heatsink. However, the simple point I raised is generally valid: every generation of AMD/Intel desktop processors needs more cooling than the previous and usually this implies a fan. I run a low-noise PC but I don't consider my components to be "default", while a fanless by default 4.0GHz high performance processor is something to note.
P.
P.S. I also run my Radeon 9800Pro without a fan. I'm now considering a fanless power supply so that I can run a really noiseless PC.
Well, perhaps "cool!" is not the correct response...
It says with a heat sink only. Not with a fan! The last chip that worked without a fan was the 486DX33 and 486DX40(I'm talking mainstream desktop PC hardware, not mobile solutions). You could probably stick a fan and get it down to 40 degress, while a Pentium 560 will produce liquid plasma and/or a fusion reaction if operated without a fan.
There are several assumptions that lead to tremendous theoretical performance figures. The simple fact is that like the Itanium, the Cell processor depends on some rather complicated software that will solve issues like parallelism, coherency etc. The article clearly states that the Cell architecture is a combination of software and hardware (1st page). This is good because performance can always increase (via a better OS or microcode) but it is also bad because it means that initial versions may not stand up to their performance claims.
Also, let's not forget that developers will be unable to keep up, unless some highly sophisticated libraries and languages are made available. I really don't expect the majority of developers to be able to cope with massive parallelism from the beggining (not just 2x SMP or hyperthreading, this needs a totally different mindset).
To sum this up: the hardware will deliver, but the software is a critical unknown in the equation. I have faith in IBM;-)
Even if you replace every damaged cell, there are still supercellular structures (tissues, organs) that have to be maintained. You are probably going to need a lot of wholesale organ replacement. Living things have elvolved to grow their organs from small or large by multiplying cells in a certain pattern. I'm not sure that cell replacement can adequately maintain that pattern
Several tissues will "build" themselves once the relevant "gene program" is activated. A stem cell is capable of building skin, liver and everything you can think of if you provide an appropriate environment and some guidance. This can be hard for some organs (e.g. brain), but simple structures (e.g. skin, fibrous tissue) can already be "cultivated" with relatively little infrastructure. I expect major advances in this field. It is not as far as you think it is.
Also note, that if you incorporate "new" stem cells in an existing structure they will respect this tissue structure and function appropriately. Cells speak to each other and do not destroy an existing tissue structure, unless they are severely out of hand. That's why bone marrow transplantation works.
It all comes down to the brain, in the end. Maintaning the rest of the body may eventually be possible. But, even if you could get a brain transplant, would that still be you? (obviously not). If you could download your "personality" on a new brain, would that still be you? (probably yes, but it sounds weird, doesn't it?). I'd say that combating Alzheimer's is going to be hard enough for the next decade. Until then, going past the 80s won't matter for a significant part of the population.
P.
P.S. Major issue: Also, do not forget that there is a distance between knowing something and actually making it happen. We know that we must stay slim and exercise, yet the population is getting fatter and fatter. Imagine if the secret to immortality involves (a) extremely restrictive diet (b) very strenuous exercise (c) several important limitations in your lifestyle. Will we make it? Sure, science may find the solution, but we will have to apply it. Everyone quietly assumes that it is only about medicine, technology, doctors and money. Our own lifestyle is probably a very important part of the immortality "recipe" and we are usually reluctant to change.
I have occasionaly stumbled upon some wikis and I fail to realise what is so great about them. I think that wikis suck. Information without form and proper structure is not particularly valuable. You need a human editor to make this mess into knowledge (not just a pile of info). I suppose that wikis are very easy to maintain, but in the end you simply cannot compare the quality of a wiki with something that has proper editing and supervision.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, don't hesitate to correct me.
P.
Why would you want a PC when a Mac can be had for that low price. What does the PC have that the Mac doesn't?
GAMES Many people say that games are a major problem for widespread linux adoption. Why, when it comes to Macs, nobody cares about games? Sure, it's quite cool but it isn't a workstation, it is a multi-purpose computer. Not being able to play games is a serious handicap for a multi-purpose computer. And seriously, do 2-3 inches make a difference on your desk? It's not like you're carrying it in your pocket. (note to some other poster: there is NO WAY the mini will manage Doom 3 with more than single-digit FPS, absolutely no way on a Radeon 9200 and with 1.25 GHz cpu--unless of course you have some twisted idea of playing that involves 320x200 and ultra-low quality settings)
MEDIA I wanted to buy the Mini but the single most important use I could figure (besides coolness) would be a media box. Frankly, a media box that plays DVDs with a 16-bit analog stereo output is not really worth much (no multichannel!?!? a $80 pc sound card will give you 7.1 and 96/24bit). If I wanted an "mp3 box" I'd buy an iPod and hook it to my stereo instead! Also note that you have to pay extra for a TV output (ok, it's cheap, but it is standard on every PC VGA!) and there is no video input, which is necessary on a media box.
I really want to find a use for the mini (besides being a cool gadget) but in the end I'll probably buy it for my parents so that I can use it ocassionaly and satisfy my curiosity.
P.
To the original poster, this is a complete PC with 10/100 Lan, 2xUSB2.0, 1xFirewire, 6-channel audio, SPDIF out, ATI 9250 128MB VGA with TV-out, DVD-RW dual layer 16x, 80GB slim and silent HD, an Athlon 2600+ and 512 MB CL2.5 RAM that costs less than $500. All parts from newegg. No software included, besides the software that accompanies retail hardware.
Biostar iDEQ Barebone System for Socket A AMD CPU, Model IDEQ 210V Item# N82E16856115014 $154.00
NEC 16X Double Layer DVD±RW Drive, Black, Model ND-3520A BK, OEM Item# N82E16827152035 $61.00
SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive, Model SP0802N, OEM Drive only Item# N82E16822152010 $56.49
Understanding requires money, manpower, and specialized resources. We are far past the days when a man like Pasteur could make a significant advance on his own.
This is true, but it is a vicious circle. The cost of research has skyrocketed exactly because every research activity involves paying some bio-supplies company for patented materials and techniques. If a lab needs (say) $100000 per year to do serious research, they will patent/sell anything they can so that they can survive. Scientists themselves are not rich, usually, becauses science is about 0wning your research field (in a mature way, I suppose).
Anyway, the necessity for "money" is quite artificial and is magnified because (a) bio-sciences advance very rapidly (b) in every iteration/advance everyone tries to make up for previous research costs plus profit. The only way I can think for this to stop is if research that has been done with institutional/government funding is always released for free, thereby bringing some eqilibrium and providing low cost alternatives in the long term.
The simple fact is that medicine will become very expensive in the near future and people will rely on it to a greater extent (ageing population, better standards of health care etc). A (legislative, social, economical, ethical) solution must be found really soon.
Why is a "Monster cable" better than something I duct-taped together for transmitting digital signals? Is the uber-secret alloy in the cable gently massaging the individual bits to produce never-before-seen/heard clarity in sound/video? Rofl!
Do you think that a 1080p (~2MPixel) signal at 24bit and 60Hz is a trivial amount of bandwidth? A nice DVD player will typically feature a 108MHz DAC to provide sufficient data to the monitor. This is not the kind of data rate you can pass through just any cable. Sure, an HDMI compliant cable should give adequate results (which, by the way there is NO WAY you can build, it is rather complicated, not plain cat5 UTP) but it is quite possible that some applications would require a higher quality cable (e.g. you need 8m instead of 1m of cable for your ceiling-mounted HDMI DLP projector).
Do you think that "digital" signal is somehow magically different from an analog signal and is totally immune to all analog phenomena? Why don't you try passing 100MBps from my phone lines, then?
I'd never advise anyone to buy $200 cables (even if this might seem a small part of a $10000 setup). But be reasonable! A nice $30-50 cable is not a bad choice. As a matter of fact, quality of construction becomes increasingly important for digital circuits because the tolerance for analog noise/errors is getting smaller. I wouldn't be surprised if USB3 of firewire1600 had some rather special requirements. And your memory,CPU and motherboard has gold contacts, I suppose? (why?)
Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the ways in which it has changed since it began. I have never heard a remotely plausible theory regarding the origin of life. People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.
Some quick facts: (a) "Evolution" is a scientific fact because it has been observed in nature. Really! That's what Darwin's trips around the globe were about. (b) The "Theory of Natural Selection" is just a theory that explains "evolution", but no serious scientist ever proposed something else, which makes it equally plausible to many other scientific theories. (c) "Evolution" and "natural selection" are assumed to start from very primitive "cell-like" formations that you'd be hard pressed to call "alive", not necessarily from monkey-ancestors, which are extremely advanced (phylogenetically almost human). (d) Scientists can make major modifications to living organisms (genetic engineering) and some have even built a virus from scratch (buying basic components from various companies). Sure, a virus is just a bunch of DNA and a protein envelope, but it is (almost) alive, by most definitions. A simple (man-nade) bacterium is not far, I think. Maybe in 20 years time...
Regarding the origin of life: some famous experiments have shown (in laboratory conditions) that with sufficient heat, time and simple chemical substrates (things like CO2, urea and simple sugars) you can spontaneously get rather complex bio-molecules, like amino-acids or nucleotides. Membranes will automatically form if appropriate molecules are available (soap, for example automatically makes membranes, that's why it encloses "dirt" molecules inside). It is reasonable to assume that the above substrates slowly combined into stable forms that gradually evolved. No magic involved here, just a lot of time and patience. Sure, it isn't trivial and it has been a billion year process, but there are no evidence of a sudden "switch" from non-life to life (creation).
One would say that God made a universe where life is possible, even maybe inevitable. The purpose of life is a religious and spiritual issue and everyone can choose their own interpretation. How it came to be is being scientifically worked upon.
You should note that ALL the latest cards from NVidia are able to do DirectX9, including pixel and vertex shaders 2.0 (and 3.0). ATI cards are also feature-complete across their whole range. Maybe some video acceleration or other exotic feature is missing from the cheapest parts, but they can run almost anything (even if at ridiculously slow speeds).
For example, ATI X300 (~70-80$) and NVidia FX5200 (sub-50$ range) both fully support DirectX9 and OpenGL 1.5. It is even possible that you could get away with a directX8.1 part (e.g. Radeon9200 or NVidia 4000) for slightly less $$$.
So, just stick *any* ATI X??? or NVidia 5??? or 6??? and you have full support. This is probably the cheapest upgrade MS has forced on windows users;-)
P.
For >95% of users, I see no need to have computers faster than 2Ghz. Maybe I'm getting old... oh, and music these kids listen to...
Well, maybe I'm getting old, too. I remember a few years ago when I was reading a review in a magazine, a phrase stuck and I never forgot it: "The pentium 120 is a massive overkill for the vast majority of users"
Today most users think that a 1GHz CPU is not good enough for word processing.
Anyway, just to be a little on topic, I'd like to say that BY FAR the most stable part of our computers is RAM. I have had 2x512GB PC2700 CL2 for roughly 2 years and it costs the same (I had bought it 180 Euros then). Plus, noone buys more than that. I was always a very aggressive memory buyer and even today you will have to pay a huge load of money for 1GB dimms. (and you cannot get PC3200 CL2 1GB dimms, as far as I know)
Slashdot Mirror
The experimental methodology is simple: stick a mobile phone-like source of radiation in a fixed distance and then examine the cells (with specific DNA damage markers) to see if anything happened. I could try putting my cell phone close to a test tube and call repeatedly and see if I get some DNA damage (that would be very very sloppy and un-scientific, of course).
Things become quite complicated after that because you simply cannot generalize a statement like "Mobile causes DNA damage in fibroblasts" to "Mobile causes cancer in humans". The inverse is also true "Mobile does not damage fibroblast DNA after 10mins of exposure" does not necessarily imply that "Mobile is safe for children to make 4-hour calls every day". I'd bet, however, that the media would go wild over any remotely interesting link between mobiles and DNA.
Finally, as a side note, there are many, many things that damage DNA. The amount of exposure is crucial to determine whether a mutagen is practically dangerous. For those worrying I'd suggest to stop smoking first instead.
P.
a) Linux is technologically superior to Windows. By technologically I mean as in "filesystem", "stability", "networking", "security" and "performance". There is some very impressive development going on in areas that are normally unseen (scheduler, VFS, memory management, networking stack etc) to the end user.
b) Linux is about control and hack value. The people that actually write the code (instead of whining in Slashdot) have their own priorities. In the end, polished GNU/Linux programs can be technically excellent. The developers do NOT care about world domination. Take it or leave it, it's free.
c) Many countries and companies have strong reasons to support Linux for their own good. Places like India and China (AND Europe) would really prefer using Linux instead of the prohibitively expensive MS products. If 10% of India + China use Linux, that's equal to the US population. (also note that many of these people don't have computers so they are not yet addicted to the MS Way of Doing Things(R)).
d) If you prefer Windows, stop bitching about it and keep using them. It's OK, really. I don't try to convert people to Linux (although, interestingly, people do try to convert me to Windows--at that point I usually shove Tanenbaum's book up their asses).
P.
P.
There is a huge difference between the US and the proposed EU patent system. While in the US "prior art" is all that practically matters, in the EU a patent is described as being "a significant advancement to the state of the art in that field". This means that for something to be patentable, it must be non-obvious. This is clearly open to interpretation and in any case of patent infringment one could claim that said patent is invalid because it is not really state of the art.
Another point to remember is that patents DO expire (well, at least in my country). I'd bet that in any reasonable patent scheme the Windows 95 patents should have expired by now (which is a reasonable time frame for any company selling software, after all MS no longer supports Win 95!!).
P.
The power consumption issue is highly significant (a) because it is related to heat dissipation and its consequent problems (b) because it will decrease your power bill. Judging from top-of-the line pentiums (have you seen their stock coolers?) we would either have to go water cooling or accept this thermal density (which is said to approach that of a nuclear reactor in heat/surface) as a practical limit. We are doing the latter and increasing chip area (dual core die is much larger) while keeping heat dissipation the same by lowering frequencies.
Well, any system that supports HyperThreading (which, ingeniously, paved the road for SMP support in everyday applications) should do just fine. To make this plain: windows XP and Linux will support a dual core chip like any SMP configuration. Software support is quite good for many modern applications plus there is always a vast benefit in responsiveness when running multiple applications together.From a hardware standpoint, there is no magic involved, a simple BIOS flash is sufficient to support dual core chips in modern motherboards (at least in the AMD world). I can't tell about the intel world.
P.
Corporate/For profit WiFi will depend on specific power requirements, specific licenses for antenna placement and other restrictions (which may be well overcome by illegal means, but that is not the point). I clearly see the beauty of WiFi public networks (and have even considered participating in our local "free" underground network) but we should ask for a legal framework for public WiFi instead of no law at all.
P.
I hate being pedantic, but you commited a very common mistake: evolution is a fact. It means that life (animals, bacteria, fungi etc) changes over time. It has been observed and may be explained by various theories. The Theory Of Natural Selection is what you usually mean and is by far the most widely accepted mechanism for evolution.
Anyway, I was intrigued by the fact that you anticipate major problems with the theory of natural selection (i.e. Darwinian) in the near future. Sure, a gradual refinement may allow the explanation of some niche phenomena (e.g. life in extreme conditions or very early life forms). However, the theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time remarkably well and I would only expect minor corrections to be made and not a complete overhaul. I am really curious to hear your argument to the contrary.
P.
It's not that complicated. The parliament is directly elected by the people (we actually voted for them, on a national basis). The council is indirectly elected because it comes from national governments (that have been elected by us). The commission is something like a central "think tank", governed by ~30 appointed commissioners. It can be dismissed by the elected bodies, which ultimately have a far greater power.
The important think to realize is that the parliament and the council are very strongly bound to national interests and are not really capable of forming a eu-wide policy. As a matter of fact they usually fight each other for the intra-eu balance of power. The commission is trying to provide a unifying background to all this by thinking of the eu as a whole and providing consistent long-term guidance and advice.
The general idea is that the commission proposes something and the other institutions try to sort it out and adapt it to each nations interests. In the short term some of the propositions may be hurtful for some nations, which is why they react.
The system generally works quite accurately and efficiently in long term matters (e.g. patents) but can be cumbersome in an immediate crisis. Saying that the people do not want patents is quite inaccurate. The 99% of the people are not even aware of the issue which means that this is a low-profile matter for most (contrary e.g. to the distribution of EU funds!). On the other hand, there is very strong pressure to adopt the patent laws. I'd say that given this balance of power (people not caring and high profile corporations pressuring for patent adoption) the EU has withstood remarkably well.
I have far greater faith in the commission to guard my long term interests than in the national (elected) bodies, which usually only care about their nation's interest (which can be directly opposed to my nation's interests). Software patents are not necessarily evil if they are reasonably implemented (and I do NOT mean 1-click shopping or "the-act-of-moving-the-mouse" to be meaningful patents). They might even benefit the european IP companies by providing incentive for development. After all, the EU will necessarily move away from heavy industry and agricultural production. Currently patents are provided by national patent offices and we really need a eu-wide policy.
For those really interested, the relevant information is publicly provided in several sites, including europa.eu.int. You can even read the original 2002 proposal itself (which, btw also mentions the open source community and the eurolinux alliance) in pdf form. Also note that the commission had submitted the pre-proposal as an open request for comments document on the internet (available since 2000). European citizens had 2 years to comment on the matter. Is this direct democracy or what?
P.
(a) A gaussian distribution arises from sampling any continuous variable. This is the central limit theorem (roughly).
(b) Typical pseudo-RNGs do not return a gaussian distribution. Usually they return a uniform distribution.
(c) Who says that getting a gaussian distribution satisfies each and every possible criterion for randomness? Maybe it is good enough for you, but I'm not that easily convinced. Perhaps you should spend some time thinking/reading what "random" means.
P.
For those of you that have not spent some time reading Knuth's Vol.2, there is an extensive analysis of what "randomness" is and how to get it. Clearly, a deterministic machine (=chip) cannot produce really random sequences. I did not bother to check the actual working details of those machines, but I would say that the only truly random phenomena are quantum phenomena and only these would be acceptable in a serious scientific study. Sure, modern chips get away by generating random-like sequences that are good enough to simulate true randomness for most purposes. This applies to HW random generators in most PCs. However, they are not, in principle, acceptable as real random number generators (even if they are equally well suited for applications).
From a theoretical standpoint a truly random quantum system is immune to interference, while HW random number generators use an external (to the system) source of randomness, accepted to represent noise. This is the actual approach used in the kernel's /dev/random that draws data from various external events. It has been shown, under some circumstances to be less than reliable, because the event is external wrt to the kernel but still inside our frame of reference (e.g. we control the keyboard and the ethernet port and, potentially, the power fluctuations etc etc).
Another significant point to consider is this: a truly random sequence is by definition infinite and it contains all possible subsequences of finite length. In an infinite series of coin tosses we MUST get all finitely long sequences of heads-only or tails-only. This means that given a long enough random subsequence (like the one that is produced by this machine), we will always be able to choose parts of it that are highly unlikely and statistically significantly different. Given that (a) every day something "important" happens somewhere and (b) we can always choose non-random "looking" parts of the sequence the credibility of this experiment is quite doubtful.
A proper experimental design would not associate (chosen!) events with (chosen!) subsequences, but would instead prove that the source itself is systematically non-random due to an unknown cause of interference. When all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce traditional sources of interference, we would be open to creative speculation about its source.
Another way to approach this is to make "a priori" (very important!) choices of "trigger" events and then assign very specific, "a priori" defined, time limits to the analysis. E.g. violent death of more than 1000 people in less than 1 hour is accepted as a trigger and we only correlate this to a contiguous 2h of data surrounding and including the event. The prior choice of experimental trigger conditions and rules makes a world of difference to the reliability of the test.
P.
I find this rather hard to believe! Scientific applications are supposed to be extremely demanding and are the driving force behind expensive workstations and huge clusters. Traditionally, I would expect scientific applications to be coded in C/C++ and Fortran, or maybe some special languages. In my experience with Java applications, they are usually much slower than their native counterparts.
P.
Well, this fulfills several criteria for the diagnosis of a psychiatric ailment. A chronic behaviour of this type would be compatible with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, although it is very hard to make educated guesses without a thorough interview. I would encourage you to seek professional help because (a) you are obviously distressed and (b) you have objective difficulties in work.
P.
This is a simple question, but since I am completely Apple-illiterate I'd like to know for sure. Can I plug a nice USB audio card on the mini? Will it work? An Audigy NX would be a nice choice for games, a firewire m-audio would be nice for recording. Generally speaking, do PC USB peripherals work with apple computers or do I need "special" expensive Mac versions?
P.
If the first generation simply speeds up OpenGL and DirectX, it'll have a solid market as a GPU.
Only if it can compete with NVidia and ATI offerings at the same approximate price level (the silicon is probably huge so it will cost more than a typical NVidia/ATI product). Do note that Nvidia chips are already "SMP-capable" (in a rough way) by working in SLI mode. Gigabyte has already built a dual GPU card (SLI 2x6600 on a single PCIe card) that appears quite promising. This technology could possibly scale to multi-GPU cards in the future, if competition demands it. I'd probably imagine Cell chips as PCIe "extension cards" for people with special vector-processing needs instead. The GPU market is a tough one...
P.
My AMD64 runs fine without a fan - currently sitting at 39 C/102 F.
Mine too, but this is not the default specified solution. You could run any chip without a fan using a big enough heatsink. However, the simple point I raised is generally valid: every generation of AMD/Intel desktop processors needs more cooling than the previous and usually this implies a fan. I run a low-noise PC but I don't consider my components to be "default", while a fanless by default 4.0GHz high performance processor is something to note.
P.
P.S. I also run my Radeon 9800Pro without a fan. I'm now considering a fanless power supply so that I can run a really noiseless PC.
85 Celcius operation with heat sink
Well, perhaps "cool!" is not the correct response...
It says with a heat sink only. Not with a fan!
The last chip that worked without a fan was the 486DX33 and
486DX40(I'm talking mainstream desktop PC hardware, not mobile solutions). You could probably stick a fan and get it down to
40 degress, while a Pentium 560 will produce liquid plasma and/or a fusion reaction if operated without a fan.
P.
There are several assumptions that lead to tremendous theoretical performance figures. The simple fact is that like the Itanium, the Cell processor depends on some rather complicated software that will solve issues like parallelism, coherency etc. The article clearly states that the Cell architecture is a combination of software and hardware (1st page). This is good because performance can always increase (via a better OS or microcode) but it is also bad because it means that initial versions may not stand up to their performance claims.
;-)
Also, let's not forget that developers will be unable to keep up, unless some highly sophisticated libraries and languages are made available. I really don't expect the majority of developers to be able to cope with massive parallelism from the beggining (not just 2x SMP or hyperthreading, this needs a totally different mindset).
To sum this up: the hardware will deliver, but the software is a critical unknown in the equation. I have faith in IBM
P.
Even if you replace every damaged cell, there are still supercellular structures (tissues, organs) that have to be maintained. You are probably going to need a lot of wholesale organ replacement. Living things have elvolved to grow their organs from small or large by multiplying cells in a certain pattern. I'm not sure that cell replacement can adequately maintain that pattern
Several tissues will "build" themselves once the relevant "gene program" is activated. A stem cell is capable of building skin, liver and everything you can think of if you provide an appropriate environment and some guidance. This can be hard for some organs (e.g. brain), but simple structures (e.g. skin, fibrous tissue) can already be "cultivated" with relatively little infrastructure. I expect major advances in this field. It is not as far as you think it is.
Also note, that if you incorporate "new" stem cells in an existing structure they will respect this tissue structure and function appropriately. Cells speak to each other and do not destroy an existing tissue structure, unless they are severely out of hand. That's why bone marrow transplantation works.
It all comes down to the brain, in the end. Maintaning the rest of the body may eventually be possible. But, even if you could get a brain transplant, would that still be you? (obviously not). If you could download your "personality" on a new brain, would that still be you? (probably yes, but it sounds weird, doesn't it?). I'd say that combating Alzheimer's is going to be hard enough for the next decade. Until then, going past the 80s won't matter for a significant part of the population.
P.
P.S. Major issue: Also, do not forget that there is a distance between knowing something and actually making it happen. We know that we must stay slim and exercise, yet the population is getting fatter and fatter. Imagine if the secret to immortality involves (a) extremely restrictive diet (b) very strenuous exercise (c) several important limitations in your lifestyle. Will we make it? Sure, science may find the solution, but we will have to apply it. Everyone quietly assumes that it is only about medicine, technology, doctors and money. Our own lifestyle is probably a very important part of the immortality "recipe" and we are usually reluctant to change.
I have occasionaly stumbled upon some wikis and I fail to realise what is so great about them. I think that wikis suck. Information without form and proper structure is not particularly valuable. You need a human editor to make this mess into knowledge (not just a pile of info). I suppose that wikis are very easy to maintain, but in the end you simply cannot compare the quality of a wiki with something that has proper editing and supervision. Perhaps I'm missing something here, don't hesitate to correct me. P.
GAMES
Many people say that games are a major problem for widespread linux adoption. Why, when it comes to Macs, nobody cares about games? Sure, it's quite cool but it isn't a workstation, it is a multi-purpose computer. Not being able to play games is a serious handicap for a multi-purpose computer. And seriously, do 2-3 inches make a difference on your desk? It's not like you're carrying it in your pocket. (note to some other poster: there is NO WAY the mini will manage Doom 3 with more than single-digit FPS, absolutely no way on a Radeon 9200 and with 1.25 GHz cpu--unless of course you have some twisted idea of playing that involves 320x200 and ultra-low quality settings)
MEDIA
I wanted to buy the Mini but the single most important use I could figure (besides coolness) would be a media box. Frankly, a media box that plays DVDs with a 16-bit analog stereo output is not really worth much (no multichannel!?!? a $80 pc sound card will give you 7.1 and 96/24bit). If I wanted an "mp3 box" I'd buy an iPod and hook it to my stereo instead! Also note that you have to pay extra for a TV output (ok, it's cheap, but it is standard on every PC VGA!) and there is no video input, which is necessary on a media box.
I really want to find a use for the mini (besides being a cool gadget) but in the end I'll probably buy it for my parents so that I can use it ocassionaly and satisfy my curiosity.
P.
To the original poster, this is a complete PC with 10/100 Lan, 2xUSB2.0, 1xFirewire, 6-channel audio, SPDIF out, ATI 9250 128MB VGA with TV-out, DVD-RW dual layer 16x, 80GB slim and silent HD, an Athlon 2600+ and 512 MB CL2.5 RAM that costs less than $500. All parts from newegg. No software included, besides the software that accompanies retail hardware.
Biostar iDEQ Barebone System for Socket A AMD CPU, Model IDEQ 210V
Item# N82E16856115014
$154.00
NEC 16X Double Layer DVD±RW Drive, Black, Model ND-3520A BK, OEM
Item# N82E16827152035
$61.00
SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive, Model SP0802N, OEM Drive only
Item# N82E16822152010
$56.49
Mushkin 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-3200 - Retail
Item# N82E16820146219
$64.99
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ "Barton", 55 Watt, 333MHz FSB, 512K Cache Processor - OEM
Item# N82E16819103507
$91.00
MSI ATI RADEON 9250 Video Card, 128MB DDR, TV-Out, 8X AGP, Model "RX9250-T128" -RETAIL
Item# N82E16814127148
$45.00
Product total: $472.48
Shipping & Handling: $ 0.00
Total (Before tax): $ 472.48
Anyway, the necessity for "money" is quite artificial and is magnified because (a) bio-sciences advance very rapidly (b) in every iteration/advance everyone tries to make up for previous research costs plus profit. The only way I can think for this to stop is if research that has been done with institutional/government funding is always released for free, thereby bringing some eqilibrium and providing low cost alternatives in the long term.
The simple fact is that medicine will become very expensive in the near future and people will rely on it to a greater extent (ageing population, better standards of health care etc). A (legislative, social, economical, ethical) solution must be found really soon.
P.
Do you think that "digital" signal is somehow magically different from an analog signal and is totally immune to all analog phenomena? Why don't you try passing 100MBps from my phone lines, then?
I'd never advise anyone to buy $200 cables (even if this might seem a small part of a $10000 setup). But be reasonable! A nice $30-50 cable is not a bad choice. As a matter of fact, quality of construction becomes increasingly important for digital circuits because the tolerance for analog noise/errors is getting smaller. I wouldn't be surprised if USB3 of firewire1600 had some rather special requirements. And your memory,CPU and motherboard has gold contacts, I suppose? (why?)
P.
Some quick facts: (a) "Evolution" is a scientific fact because it has been observed in nature. Really! That's what Darwin's trips around the globe were about. (b) The "Theory of Natural Selection" is just a theory that explains "evolution", but no serious scientist ever proposed something else, which makes it equally plausible to many other scientific theories. (c) "Evolution" and "natural selection" are assumed to start from very primitive "cell-like" formations that you'd be hard pressed to call "alive", not necessarily from monkey-ancestors, which are extremely advanced (phylogenetically almost human). (d) Scientists can make major modifications to living organisms (genetic engineering) and some have even built a virus from scratch (buying basic components from various companies). Sure, a virus is just a bunch of DNA and a protein envelope, but it is (almost) alive, by most definitions. A simple (man-nade) bacterium is not far, I think. Maybe in 20 years time...
Regarding the origin of life: some famous experiments have shown (in laboratory conditions) that with sufficient heat, time and simple chemical substrates (things like CO2, urea and simple sugars) you can spontaneously get rather complex bio-molecules, like amino-acids or nucleotides. Membranes will automatically form if appropriate molecules are available (soap, for example automatically makes membranes, that's why it encloses "dirt" molecules inside). It is reasonable to assume that the above substrates slowly combined into stable forms that gradually evolved. No magic involved here, just a lot of time and patience. Sure, it isn't trivial and it has been a billion year process, but there are no evidence of a sudden "switch" from non-life to life (creation).
One would say that God made a universe where life is possible, even maybe inevitable. The purpose of life is a religious and spiritual issue and everyone can choose their own interpretation. How it came to be is being scientifically worked upon.
P.
You should note that ALL the latest cards from NVidia are able to do DirectX9, including pixel and vertex shaders 2.0 (and 3.0). ATI cards are also feature-complete across their whole range. Maybe some video acceleration or other exotic feature is missing from the cheapest parts, but they can run almost anything (even if at ridiculously slow speeds). For example, ATI X300 (~70-80$) and NVidia FX5200 (sub-50$ range) both fully support DirectX9 and OpenGL 1.5. It is even possible that you could get away with a directX8.1 part (e.g. Radeon9200 or NVidia 4000) for slightly less $$$. So, just stick *any* ATI X??? or NVidia 5??? or 6??? and you have full support. This is probably the cheapest upgrade MS has forced on windows users ;-)
P.
Well, maybe I'm getting old, too. I remember a few years ago when I was reading a review in a magazine, a phrase stuck and I never forgot it: "The pentium 120 is a massive overkill for the vast majority of users" Today most users think that a 1GHz CPU is not good enough for word processing.
Anyway, just to be a little on topic, I'd like to say that BY FAR the most stable part of our computers is RAM. I have had 2x512GB PC2700 CL2 for roughly 2 years and it costs the same (I had bought it 180 Euros then). Plus, noone buys more than that. I was always a very aggressive memory buyer and even today you will have to pay a huge load of money for 1GB dimms. (and you cannot get PC3200 CL2 1GB dimms, as far as I know)
P.