MRI == Magnetic Resonance Imaging. anything metallic will develop EM eddy currents in them, will heat up, and or-- be yanked forcibly out of the patient by the very strong oscillating magnetic fields being employed to produce the image. Yes-- the NFC chip contains metallic components in the wound wire antenna that is all spooled up inside that glass bead.
You want a PET scan instead. PET == Positron Emission Tomography It uses injected radioactive glucose (uses carbon 11 atoms in the glucose structure, which is a positron emitter) and a scintillation particle detector/ Xray film (captures the resulting 2 high energy gamma rays that are produced when the emitted positron collides with electrons in the patient's body) to create a mapping of the patient's soft tissues.
Or, just a simple X-Ray.
an MRI would rip the implant out of his arm at worst, and cause severe burns at the implant site at best.
Even then though, it wouldn't be true NFC-- because the near field is the first 1/4 wavelength of the broadcast frequency.
Which in this case, is 13.5 mhz-- that gives a total wavelength of about 22meters for the full wave, and 5.5 meters for the 1/4-wave Near Field.
A large actively coupling antenna could conceivably communicate over that distance by measuring signal drop in the active antenna due to the active coupling with the near field.
You're not thinking about all possible intended use cases for this.
One major one, would be "Identify discovered dead body", for the EMS. Say, for a drowning victim that has washed down a river during flooding, and clothing and other identifying documentation has been lost. In which case, you want to store useful information about the corpse, such as name, address, telephone number, etc. That's why I encluded it. URL entry could point to a national database entry for additional queries. The coroner just needs to NFC scan the corpse, and he has a positive ID.
Well meaning government regulators may require the implantation of such permanent identification measures, and like all government projects, would become subject to "Lowest bidder" restraints on quality and security controls.
If enough people have these things implanted, there would be interest in harvesting their identity data, both for faking identities, and just for tracking and analytics purposes (Say, as you walk in through the door at that department store in the mall, and walk through the RFID anti-theft sensors)
You are thinking "Personal security token"-- I am thinking "Result of government cockup by people who feel first and think never."
Thats assuming efficient encoding, and not clear text encoding. Clear text encoding would consume the full 9 bytes, as each digit consumes a full byte.
You will still have to include a delimiter or other landmark termination byte, such as a null terminator, to indicate the end of the string to make sensible use of efficiently packed data.
The "limited utilities" statement relies on "obscurity". It does not make the data any less secure. This device transmits clear text data, and attacks against NFC devices are well known to exist in the wild.
This device is a type II NFC device, which is fully readable by smartphones, and other NFC readers. There is already profusion and interest in this technology by credit card companies, and credit card thieves, as the same NFC technology is used in NFC enabled credit cards.
This device is fully readable by smartphones, and the manufacturer for the device even has an app for it.
If the use of these things became pervasive, then this device would no longer be obscure, and the "limited utilities" argument evaporates.
This device is clearly NOT intended to be a security device of any sort, and is intended as a novelty for tech enthusiasts.
However, the transmit speed would put limits on the realistic capabilities of a device using this technology that actually *IS* designed for secure cryptographic function. A key of sufficient length, with a proper response and challenge arbitration cycle would take several seconds.
Oh, I know most information is available with much digging online. The point here, was that the journalist WANTS to advertise his personal data, to create a story sensation.
Putting a live credit card number ( for a prepaid card, obviously) and some other interesting tidbits on that thing, with a tinyURL shortened web address to basically an otherwise unpublicised hit counter that then forwards again to a facebook page would let him get not only some analytics on how many actual people have accessed his NFC chip, and the records for credit card abuse would let him see how foolish putting clear text card info out, no matter how short range, is.
888 bytes is a lot of space for some damaging data.
It seems small, when we think about data these days being in the multi-gigabytes, but 888 bytes is AMPLE to completely destroy the security of your legal identity.
Say, a social security number: 9 bytes. A telephone number, with area code: 10 bytes Full name, assuming a null padded, 3 entry struct with 15char max strings and 2 delimiter bytes: 47 bytes Address, assuming 4 lines with 20 chars each (with null padding as needed)-- 40 bytes.
All that, and we are only about 1/7 to 1/8th of the data memory, or about 106 bytes.
One could squeeze a shortened URL to a facebook page, and quite a bit else in that space, such as DL number, credit card number, cellphone number, email address, and whatnot.
888 bytes can hold a LOT of very dangerous information.
antibodies are special proteins generated by your body to attach to, and then neutralize foreign bodies for elimination either in the liver, or via excretion through the renal system.
This means the bodies are fully free-floating in the circulatory system, and are much smaller in size than are red or white corpuscles. These are basically just large molecules, compared to WHOLE GODDAMN CELLS you have suspended in your blood plasma. (For a reasonable comparison, compare a golfball to a semi truck. An antibody is the size of a golfball, and the blood cell is the size of the semi truck.)
The antibody is tethered to a magnetic nanoparticle, which means that it will get stuck in soft tissues where a magnetic field is applied. So, wear a magnet on the wrist, and underneath that magnet, the nanoparticles will be held by the penetrating field lines, and they will accumulate in the soft tissue there. They can then be statistically sampled using a simple needle biopsy of this soft tissue at the collection site.
The antibodies will also stick to biproducts of certain diseases, and serve as a means to concentrate these biproducts at the collection site for effective diagnosis, even when disease is in early stages, and these biproducts would be in nearly undetectable levels in the blood serum otherwise.
The issue they need to address is what risks do the remaining aggregated particles have on the health of the patient, (Since they may not get cleared by the body after the magnetic trap is removed, and may stick around and contribute to a local pathology) and are there any histological implications of adding synthetic antibodies to the patient. (Not everyone will respond well to having synthetic antibodies introduced. Let alone a large assortment of them, all at once. What happens when these antibodies bind strongly to cellular receptor sites, but then cant or wont let go, etc.)
It's a neat idea, but I want to see LOTS of animal model studies and considerable cultured tissue in vitro studies as well before this gets anywhere near a human.
By ATT's definition of "Unlimited", as long as you are still connected, and being served data through your pipe, your connection is not "limited". EG, they are not imposing a hard limit on the total data that can be transferred using the plan.
The problem here, is that by the same methodology, any plan that sells a cap, followed by a throttle without additional charges, is functionally indistinguishable from an "unlimited" plan.
The weasels want to say "There is no such thing as a truly unlimited data plan as pertains to data thruput rates, since there is no infinitely fast medium of exchange." , and then use this as justification for throttling.
Here's my take on it:
Sell THREE different kinds of contract, and be VERY CLEAR about what each one offers:
1) Hard cap, no throttle afterward. Hitting the cap hits a hard cutoff. Don't try to spin this-- don't try to impose throttles on rate of consumption-- Sell it exactly like that.
2) Soft cap, with throttling afterwards. DONT CALL THIS UNLIMITED. This is "SOFT CAPPED" service. Not "Unlimited" service. Don't try to wiggle and redefine it. That's what it is.
3) Unlimited service. If your pipe can transport it, it goes through uninterrupted, untouched, and unmitigated in any fashion by ATT's management system. The only limits on this service are the raw rates that the infrastructure itself imposes. (EG, speed of optical fiber link, et al.)
ATT wants to do the "Fuck net neutrality!" thing, and wants to bill option #2 as "Unlimited", and sell option #3 as a "Fast lane" for "VIP customers".
This is because they dont want grandfathered "unlimited" plan users getting the VIP treatment without paying the VIP pricetag.
The FCC is right to bitch slap their asses for this. They sold "Unlimited service"-- not "Soft capped service" to those customers. They are legally obligated to provide that level of service. That's the law.
Some other enterprising ISPs have tried to play the "No,'Unlimited' meant unlimited online time! Not unlimited total transfers!" As far as I know, this has not been well recieved by the FCC either, and has been pretty much bitch-slapped as well. Time based billing made sense for modem bank distribution based utilization metrics, where a user connected at 28.8k gobbled up just as many modems as a user connecting at 56k--- Precisely one modem each. The oversubscription model at the time was to oversubscribe modem availability, based on statistical average on "Time connected.", and to "boot" users that had been hogging a connection for hours doing nothing, and to charge them for hogging service. Such nomenclature has no real bearing on modern network connection technologies, which do not use modem banks like this, and instead use bandwidth and/or timeslice (as in, milliseconds of time that the medium is guaranteed to respond in, not total use time or total connection time) based billing. Being connected 24/7 is "implied", because the connection is based (roughly) on the "ethernet" way of doing things. Not a point to point connection through a modem bank.
The modern corporate world has grown fat on using lawyers to carefully redefine words in their service contracts, and the use of lobbyists to draft laws for those lawyers to exploit for doing same--- The major impetus is to remove all culpability and legal obligation, while still appearing like they are offering such obligation in exchange for the currency and contractual commitments of their subscribers; To the point: They want to not have to be bound by their own contracts, but want their subscribers in leg irons, and want this to be legally enforceable.
The real solution to this, is to create legislation holding lawyers culpable for their actions, regardless of the demands placed upon them by their clients, in much the same way that medical doctors have to contend with malpractice. The reasons are basically the same--- A doctor is entrusted with the health and welfare of the patient, and
I use T-Mo on a "bring your own device", no contract monthly billing plan.
i get 2gb of data with unlimited calls and texts for 100/mo. I can get 1gb for 50/mo if i so choose as well. You can cut that down to 200mb and pay some insanely small ammount (I think it was 10/mo?) and i have roamed quite heavily from my initial service area, all the way into other states, and have had no trouble using data on other carrier's towers.
granted, it's not alsways 4G LTE, and is often edge or something similarly nasty, but it's still data service, and I dont have a contract.
Makes me wonder about other implications of the olfactory cells used to repair that man's spinal cord that was reported on recently.
A spinal cord does not do the same signal processing that the retina does, but it too is a long-axon type neural structure. It "Might" be possible to grow a complete retina (rather, complete eyeball-- the complete retina is a rather large part of the rear of the eye.) then attach it to a severed optic nerve using a similar approach.
Seriously, this is totally a non-issue when you think about it.
The "Oh, I cant make embryos in a dish just to smash them up in a tissue homogenizer! Oh woe is me! I guess I cant get any new cell lines now!" argument is not even wrong-- it's not even right. It's as close to a classic false dichotomy as you can get. (Can't harvest cells specifically for research, so no embryonic cell research!)
Tissue collection happens routinely for diagnostic reasons from perfectly healthy embryos created for IVF.
The easy solution? Non-destructive collection from these IVF embryos, with a consent form to release some of the tissue samples for research from the parents. Collect the sample for testing, then any remaining left over from this collection, (Collected for diagnostic testing, not research purposes) you then provide to ESC researchers with appropriate consent forms.
(For those who are willfully ignorant about this kind of thing, Pre-implantation genetic screening provides a perfect opportunity to collect these cells.)
PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
That solution has been tendered by IVF lab workers for at least 15 years that I know of. Has it gained much traction?
No.
Do people still honestly believe that the only way to get ICM cells from an IVF embryo is to run the thing through a homogenizer?
Yes.
Why?
I'd say it's not a high enough profile solution to such a high profile "Problem." Not enough controversy, and somebody doesn't get forced to eat crow, so the press does not cover it. People remain ignorant that there are non-destructive ways to collect these cells for procedures that are not principally ESC research related, and the media profits from people being ignorant but highly opinionated about "Killing babies".
This has been a solution sitting on that table for quite some time now.
Rulings like this place obstacles in the way of law enforcement doing what they want, which makes it harder for them to do what they want!
They have enacted policies and procedures that rely on being able to do what they want without any interference from the courts, and things like this will CLEARLY allow criminals to escape JUSTICE! You dont want law enforcement to LET CRIMINALS GET AWAY, DO YOU!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
That's why the various 3-letter agencies are hard at work trying to get laws drafted that will make it legal for them to do what they want! (Because they need to be able to do what they want to do what they want, so they can use the procedures that they have created that rely on them being able to do what they want!)
*In case you hadn't noticed, I am laying it on thick for a reason. This is basically the argument, boiled down and rarefied to its most basic components, being provided by law enforcement against rulings and findings like this.
Love the ad hominem. I guess you wouldn't be a slashdot AC without using one. I especially loved how you believe that I dont understand what TOR does (and that the only purpose of other peoples posts are to increase your own, personal knowledge base), or what its limitations are. Next up, you will complain about my spelling and grammar. You neednt bother though; I will spare you the expense, and admit openly that both are poor. I dont care.:P (See how I flagrantly fail to use apostrophes! Oh the humanity! Clearly I dont have a fucking clue because I cant use an apostrophe, even though I clearly do by pointing this out! OH NO!)
However, your scope of use-case is not very broad. You are assuming a person wants an easy tor node to hide all that home traffic (bank account logins, et-al), rather than for other purposes that one would want a tor node for. Say for instance, political speech, anonymizing a server that is black boxed (you can't change the software on), etc. I never said that this box needed to be the gatekeeper to the ISP. It just needs to be the gatekeeper for a TORed subnet.
Granted, there would be some added utility to the tor community at large to have so much benign traffic passing through their obfuscation network, because it would add hay to the haystack (making finding the needles harder) but it would also make the already poorly performing TOR network even more burdened, and it would in general destroy network performance, in addition to exposing lots of people to a very huge Man in the Middle.
Tor can basically be used like a vpn without a specific endpoint. This means it would be useful for people in oppressive regimes that want to send real information, free from the censors. Having a single device to configure in one's kit would be handy; especially something easily transportable, like a portable hotspot, or a router. (Just use it like a bridge instead; openwrt will let you do this. Show up at the hotel/library/Burgerking/$hotspot, use the 'free' wifi, send fully tor'd up political speech all you want.) A PORTABLE tor node that can latch onto public open networks would be quite handy, and I can definitely see a use for it.
The implication that this was for "All the interwebz!" was entirely your own fabrication, and I am hereby officially calling you out on that strawman.
The internet was not designed to prevent eavesdropping either.
Hell, ETHERNET was not designed to prevent it!
If you want a technology to prevent eavesdropping, you need to go ground up quantum crypto over optical fiber or something.
Tor is basically security through obscurity anyway. However, it is still more difficult to intercept and piece together than naked, unfiltered traffic, which is what a normal router offers.
Basically, what I am pointing out is that your argument is absurd. TOR was attacked by governments, not from within the TOR network, but by observing the traffic going into and out of its exit nodes. That is because the traffic going in and out was unencumbered at that point, because it has to talk with the regular internet. Coupled with other forensic techniques, the powers that be were able to deduce a great deal about who sent what packets through TOR.
ANY APPLIANCE WOULD SUFFER THIS ISSUE. THE INTERNET ITSELF DOES NOT PREVENT EAVESDROPPING.
Instead, the best you can do is make the message meaningless to the one who is eavesdropping. That is encryption. Even better if you use encrypted packets with a randomized route. This means that eavesdroppers will only get a few of the packets, and will not have enough data to attack the message contents.
Encryption that is worth a shit requires a beefy FPU. That's why I pointed out that current COTS routers aren't a good fit exactly-- normal packet routing does not require FPU function. However, as data security on the internet becomes more and more a requirement, and less and less of a simple paranoia thing-- (and as cost of manufacture for SoC systems comes down and economies of scale interject into the market for SoCs) then home routers with real hardfloat will emerge. At that time, it really would be possible to have a consumer device in your house that does the data fiddling for you.
Again, your objection is bullshit. Followed to its conclusion, the internet itself shouldnt be used at all.
openwrt + debian chroot + tor linux package == wireless router that simply puts everything through tor, transparently.
one could dispense with the debian chroot altogether if they did a well maintained fork of openwrt with well updated packages.
Routers are getting quite powerful these days. while they often lack hardware fpu, that can be somewhat alleviated with softfloat solutions.
keep your traffic under control, and such a box can easily handle the load. (naturally, you need to keep the number of connected devices under control, and keep packet count sane within limits of the weaksauce router's hardware.)
just saying that such an appliance can be made at home right now with old network gear and free software.
Short of growing spinnarets on a tissue sheet from cultured spider cells, (which would give the exact organs needed), there is no way to fully replicate the features of a spider's spinnaret at this time.
This suggests that a "tapered silicon nanoneedle array" that has been doped to wick away saline ions from the needle's interior through the walls of the shaft, coupled with a controlled rate of draw, and a carefully selected for mechanical pore size, tube length, and taper, could result in a passable approximation of spider silk.
It does not need to absolutely perfect; it just needs to approximate the features of spider silk. Perfect replication is likely not possible with current nano-technology.
Grown with the correct length, diameter, and taper, they would function as mechanical analogues to spider spinnarettes. Wet one side, then "brush" the other to get the thread started-- then just gently tug on the resulting fibers.
They would be very fragile things though. Would take very specialized equipment to handle, install, and prime them for service. They would also be far more fragile then ones made from insect chitin, so the drawing speed and pitch angle of the pull would have to be very carefully controlled to avoid breaking off the needles.
This is still about the protein itself, not the mechanical processing done by the spider to create the unique fibers they produce.
Basically, the spider's silk protein is a bit like a "hook and latch", much like a zipper's teeth. Mass producing the protein produces "Zipper teeth", but that does not result in the unique conformation of a zipped up zipper.
For that, you need the zipper pull.
That's what a spider's spinnarets do. As the liquid crystal solution of spider protein gets pulled into the spinnaret, it gets compressed mechanically in a special fashion, which causes spontaneous self-assembly of these "zipper teeth", into a fully assembled, fully interlocking "zipper" of interlocked protein molecules. It is this fully interlocked assemblage that gives spider silk its unique mechanical properties.
The shape and length of these structures in the spider's abdomen are crucial to correct assembly.
As the linked Nature paper I linked to points out, this process is NOT incorporated in any currently used textile processing system.
Getting bulk, high quality protein is only PART of getting mass produced spider silk. The other part is the mechanical processing.
Silkworms do not have the structures that spiders do for processing their silk. Instead, silkworms produce a kind of salivary secretion through a much larger orifice. This orifice is much larger than a spider's spinnaret, and is not the same shape. This is why silk worms producing spider proteins will not produce silk of the same quality.
Now, we have some pretty kick ass micro-pipette technology these days (and surface morphology control on silicon substrates from PV solar research) that could probably be used to create synthetic spinnarettes--- Just wet one side with the silk solution, then draw silk fibers from the other side.
I just have never heard of any serious research into creating such synthetic spinnaret technologies.
Just putting the genes into a silkworm WILL NOT PRODUCE SILK LIKE A SPIDERS!
Producing the proteins in goats wont fix the mechanical processing that spiders do.
This is why these things keeps failing. The protein is only part of the package. They need nano-structure spinnaret simulants to spin the solution with as well.
Rossi needs to produce approximately 20 test devices, with easily eject-able fuel systems. This separates the fuel system from the catalyzing system.
He needs to provide these loaded devices to independent testing labs, observed by a lawyer to assure that the independent labs dont disassemble the catalyzer, and only examine the fuel canister.
Independent verification, free from the "Rossi was there" objection, can then be performed on the device.
This is because the claims-- "My catalyzer is able to turn this stuff into this stuff, releasing energy!" does NOT require disassembly of the catalyzer. Only analysis of the fuel. Making the two easily separated solves the issue nicely. It is quite easy to falsify that claim if rossi provides such a device and fuel sample for independent testing.
That alone can make or break rossi.
Are you people asking him to compromise this way? No. You are not. Are you thus being sensible in your approach? No, no you are not.
Slashdot Mirror
an MRI scan is .... ill advised.
MRI == Magnetic Resonance Imaging. anything metallic will develop EM eddy currents in them, will heat up, and or-- be yanked forcibly out of the patient by the very strong oscillating magnetic fields being employed to produce the image. Yes-- the NFC chip contains metallic components in the wound wire antenna that is all spooled up inside that glass bead.
You want a PET scan instead.
PET == Positron Emission Tomography
It uses injected radioactive glucose (uses carbon 11 atoms in the glucose structure, which is a positron emitter) and a scintillation particle detector/ Xray film (captures the resulting 2 high energy gamma rays that are produced when the emitted positron collides with electrons in the patient's body) to create a mapping of the patient's soft tissues.
Or, just a simple X-Ray.
an MRI would rip the implant out of his arm at worst, and cause severe burns at the implant site at best.
Randomization requires active processing, which requires more persistent power supply.
NFC devices (like this one) take a coupled energy flow from the active nearby antenna, and use that to send their own return signal.
Because of this, they cant really do strong crypto functions with randomization, and are kinda limited to just "Burp back what's in my memory".
Maybe he has a very large active antenna?
Even then though, it wouldn't be true NFC-- because the near field is the first 1/4 wavelength of the broadcast frequency.
Which in this case, is 13.5 mhz-- that gives a total wavelength of about 22meters for the full wave, and 5.5 meters for the 1/4-wave Near Field.
A large actively coupling antenna could conceivably communicate over that distance by measuring signal drop in the active antenna due to the active coupling with the near field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
you might not be able to tell what the NFC chip "sent", but you could definitely tell that one was nearby.
You're not thinking about all possible intended use cases for this.
One major one, would be "Identify discovered dead body", for the EMS. Say, for a drowning victim that has washed down a river during flooding, and clothing and other identifying documentation has been lost. In which case, you want to store useful information about the corpse, such as name, address, telephone number, etc. That's why I encluded it. URL entry could point to a national database entry for additional queries. The coroner just needs to NFC scan the corpse, and he has a positive ID.
Well meaning government regulators may require the implantation of such permanent identification measures, and like all government projects, would become subject to "Lowest bidder" restraints on quality and security controls.
If enough people have these things implanted, there would be interest in harvesting their identity data, both for faking identities, and just for tracking and analytics purposes (Say, as you walk in through the door at that department store in the mall, and walk through the RFID anti-theft sensors)
You are thinking "Personal security token"-- I am thinking "Result of government cockup by people who feel first and think never."
Thats assuming efficient encoding, and not clear text encoding. Clear text encoding would consume the full 9 bytes, as each digit consumes a full byte.
You will still have to include a delimiter or other landmark termination byte, such as a null terminator, to indicate the end of the string to make sensible use of efficiently packed data.
The "limited utilities" statement relies on "obscurity". It does not make the data any less secure. This device transmits clear text data, and attacks against NFC devices are well known to exist in the wild.
This device is a type II NFC device, which is fully readable by smartphones, and other NFC readers. There is already profusion and interest in this technology by credit card companies, and credit card thieves, as the same NFC technology is used in NFC enabled credit cards.
This device is fully readable by smartphones, and the manufacturer for the device even has an app for it.
https://dangerousthings.com/sh...
If the use of these things became pervasive, then this device would no longer be obscure, and the "limited utilities" argument evaporates.
This device is clearly NOT intended to be a security device of any sort, and is intended as a novelty for tech enthusiasts.
However, the transmit speed would put limits on the realistic capabilities of a device using this technology that actually *IS* designed for secure cryptographic function. A key of sufficient length, with a proper response and challenge arbitration cycle would take several seconds.
Oh, I know most information is available with much digging online. The point here, was that the journalist WANTS to advertise his personal data, to create a story sensation.
Putting a live credit card number ( for a prepaid card, obviously) and some other interesting tidbits on that thing, with a tinyURL shortened web address to basically an otherwise unpublicised hit counter that then forwards again to a facebook page would let him get not only some analytics on how many actual people have accessed his NFC chip, and the records for credit card abuse would let him see how foolish putting clear text card info out, no matter how short range, is.
888 bytes is a lot of space for some damaging data.
Correction--- 4 lines, 20 chars each is 80 bytes, not 40. So, about 146 bytes. About 1/6th the space.
It seems small, when we think about data these days being in the multi-gigabytes, but 888 bytes is AMPLE to completely destroy the security of your legal identity.
Say, a social security number: 9 bytes.
A telephone number, with area code: 10 bytes
Full name, assuming a null padded, 3 entry struct with 15char max strings and 2 delimiter bytes: 47 bytes
Address, assuming 4 lines with 20 chars each (with null padding as needed)-- 40 bytes.
All that, and we are only about 1/7 to 1/8th of the data memory, or about 106 bytes.
One could squeeze a shortened URL to a facebook page, and quite a bit else in that space, such as DL number, credit card number, cellphone number, email address, and whatnot.
888 bytes can hold a LOT of very dangerous information.
antibodies are special proteins generated by your body to attach to, and then neutralize foreign bodies for elimination either in the liver, or via excretion through the renal system.
This means the bodies are fully free-floating in the circulatory system, and are much smaller in size than are red or white corpuscles. These are basically just large molecules, compared to WHOLE GODDAMN CELLS you have suspended in your blood plasma. (For a reasonable comparison, compare a golfball to a semi truck. An antibody is the size of a golfball, and the blood cell is the size of the semi truck.)
The antibody is tethered to a magnetic nanoparticle, which means that it will get stuck in soft tissues where a magnetic field is applied. So, wear a magnet on the wrist, and underneath that magnet, the nanoparticles will be held by the penetrating field lines, and they will accumulate in the soft tissue there. They can then be statistically sampled using a simple needle biopsy of this soft tissue at the collection site.
The antibodies will also stick to biproducts of certain diseases, and serve as a means to concentrate these biproducts at the collection site for effective diagnosis, even when disease is in early stages, and these biproducts would be in nearly undetectable levels in the blood serum otherwise.
The issue they need to address is what risks do the remaining aggregated particles have on the health of the patient, (Since they may not get cleared by the body after the magnetic trap is removed, and may stick around and contribute to a local pathology) and are there any histological implications of adding synthetic antibodies to the patient. (Not everyone will respond well to having synthetic antibodies introduced. Let alone a large assortment of them, all at once. What happens when these antibodies bind strongly to cellular receptor sites, but then cant or wont let go, etc.)
It's a neat idea, but I want to see LOTS of animal model studies and considerable cultured tissue in vitro studies as well before this gets anywhere near a human.
The issue here is weasel wording.
By ATT's definition of "Unlimited", as long as you are still connected, and being served data through your pipe, your connection is not "limited". EG, they are not imposing a hard limit on the total data that can be transferred using the plan.
The problem here, is that by the same methodology, any plan that sells a cap, followed by a throttle without additional charges, is functionally indistinguishable from an "unlimited" plan.
The weasels want to say "There is no such thing as a truly unlimited data plan as pertains to data thruput rates, since there is no infinitely fast medium of exchange." , and then use this as justification for throttling.
Here's my take on it:
Sell THREE different kinds of contract, and be VERY CLEAR about what each one offers:
1) Hard cap, no throttle afterward. Hitting the cap hits a hard cutoff. Don't try to spin this-- don't try to impose throttles on rate of consumption-- Sell it exactly like that.
2) Soft cap, with throttling afterwards. DONT CALL THIS UNLIMITED. This is "SOFT CAPPED" service. Not "Unlimited" service. Don't try to wiggle and redefine it. That's what it is.
3) Unlimited service. If your pipe can transport it, it goes through uninterrupted, untouched, and unmitigated in any fashion by ATT's management system. The only limits on this service are the raw rates that the infrastructure itself imposes. (EG, speed of optical fiber link, et al.)
ATT wants to do the "Fuck net neutrality!" thing, and wants to bill option #2 as "Unlimited", and sell option #3 as a "Fast lane" for "VIP customers".
This is because they dont want grandfathered "unlimited" plan users getting the VIP treatment without paying the VIP pricetag.
The FCC is right to bitch slap their asses for this. They sold "Unlimited service"-- not "Soft capped service" to those customers. They are legally obligated to provide that level of service. That's the law.
Some other enterprising ISPs have tried to play the "No,'Unlimited' meant unlimited online time! Not unlimited total transfers!" As far as I know, this has not been well recieved by the FCC either, and has been pretty much bitch-slapped as well. Time based billing made sense for modem bank distribution based utilization metrics, where a user connected at 28.8k gobbled up just as many modems as a user connecting at 56k--- Precisely one modem each. The oversubscription model at the time was to oversubscribe modem availability, based on statistical average on "Time connected.", and to "boot" users that had been hogging a connection for hours doing nothing, and to charge them for hogging service. Such nomenclature has no real bearing on modern network connection technologies, which do not use modem banks like this, and instead use bandwidth and/or timeslice (as in, milliseconds of time that the medium is guaranteed to respond in, not total use time or total connection time) based billing. Being connected 24/7 is "implied", because the connection is based (roughly) on the "ethernet" way of doing things. Not a point to point connection through a modem bank.
The modern corporate world has grown fat on using lawyers to carefully redefine words in their service contracts, and the use of lobbyists to draft laws for those lawyers to exploit for doing same--- The major impetus is to remove all culpability and legal obligation, while still appearing like they are offering such obligation in exchange for the currency and contractual commitments of their subscribers; To the point: They want to not have to be bound by their own contracts, but want their subscribers in leg irons, and want this to be legally enforceable.
The real solution to this, is to create legislation holding lawyers culpable for their actions, regardless of the demands placed upon them by their clients, in much the same way that medical doctors have to contend with malpractice. The reasons are basically the same--- A doctor is entrusted with the health and welfare of the patient, and
that's bull.
I use T-Mo on a "bring your own device", no contract monthly billing plan.
i get 2gb of data with unlimited calls and texts for 100/mo. I can get 1gb for 50/mo if i so choose as well. You can cut that down to 200mb and pay some insanely small ammount (I think it was 10/mo?) and i have roamed quite heavily from my initial service area, all the way into other states, and have had no trouble using data on other carrier's towers.
granted, it's not alsways 4G LTE, and is often edge or something similarly nasty, but it's still data service, and I dont have a contract.
stop spreading the FUD.
Makes me wonder about other implications of the olfactory cells used to repair that man's spinal cord that was reported on recently.
A spinal cord does not do the same signal processing that the retina does, but it too is a long-axon type neural structure. It "Might" be possible to grow a complete retina (rather, complete eyeball-- the complete retina is a rather large part of the rear of the eye.) then attach it to a severed optic nerve using a similar approach.
False dichotomy is false.
Embryonic stem cells CAN AND ROUTINELY ARE HARVESTED WITHOUT DESTROYING THE BLASTOCYST.
http://www.ivfnj.com/preimplan...
Educate yourself. Stop spreading FUD.
Seriously, this is totally a non-issue when you think about it.
The "Oh, I cant make embryos in a dish just to smash them up in a tissue homogenizer! Oh woe is me! I guess I cant get any new cell lines now!" argument is not even wrong-- it's not even right. It's as close to a classic false dichotomy as you can get. (Can't harvest cells specifically for research, so no embryonic cell research!)
Tissue collection happens routinely for diagnostic reasons from perfectly healthy embryos created for IVF.
The easy solution? Non-destructive collection from these IVF embryos, with a consent form to release some of the tissue samples for research from the parents. Collect the sample for testing, then any remaining left over from this collection, (Collected for diagnostic testing, not research purposes) you then provide to ESC researchers with appropriate consent forms.
(For those who are willfully ignorant about this kind of thing, Pre-implantation genetic screening provides a perfect opportunity to collect these cells.)
PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
That solution has been tendered by IVF lab workers for at least 15 years that I know of. Has it gained much traction?
No.
Do people still honestly believe that the only way to get ICM cells from an IVF embryo is to run the thing through a homogenizer?
Yes.
Why?
I'd say it's not a high enough profile solution to such a high profile "Problem." Not enough controversy, and somebody doesn't get forced to eat crow, so the press does not cover it. People remain ignorant that there are non-destructive ways to collect these cells for procedures that are not principally ESC research related, and the media profits from people being ignorant but highly opinionated about "Killing babies".
This has been a solution sitting on that table for quite some time now.
Yes! This is Horrible!
Rulings like this place obstacles in the way of law enforcement doing what they want, which makes it harder for them to do what they want!
They have enacted policies and procedures that rely on being able to do what they want without any interference from the courts, and things like this will CLEARLY allow criminals to escape JUSTICE! You dont want law enforcement to LET CRIMINALS GET AWAY, DO YOU!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
That's why the various 3-letter agencies are hard at work trying to get laws drafted that will make it legal for them to do what they want! (Because they need to be able to do what they want to do what they want, so they can use the procedures that they have created that rely on them being able to do what they want!)
*In case you hadn't noticed, I am laying it on thick for a reason. This is basically the argument, boiled down and rarefied to its most basic components, being provided by law enforcement against rulings and findings like this.
Love the ad hominem. I guess you wouldn't be a slashdot AC without using one. I especially loved how you believe that I dont understand what TOR does (and that the only purpose of other peoples posts are to increase your own, personal knowledge base), or what its limitations are. Next up, you will complain about my spelling and grammar. You neednt bother though; I will spare you the expense, and admit openly that both are poor. I dont care. :P (See how I flagrantly fail to use apostrophes! Oh the humanity! Clearly I dont have a fucking clue because I cant use an apostrophe, even though I clearly do by pointing this out! OH NO!)
However, your scope of use-case is not very broad. You are assuming a person wants an easy tor node to hide all that home traffic (bank account logins, et-al), rather than for other purposes that one would want a tor node for. Say for instance, political speech, anonymizing a server that is black boxed (you can't change the software on), etc. I never said that this box needed to be the gatekeeper to the ISP. It just needs to be the gatekeeper for a TORed subnet.
Granted, there would be some added utility to the tor community at large to have so much benign traffic passing through their obfuscation network, because it would add hay to the haystack (making finding the needles harder) but it would also make the already poorly performing TOR network even more burdened, and it would in general destroy network performance, in addition to exposing lots of people to a very huge Man in the Middle.
Tor can basically be used like a vpn without a specific endpoint. This means it would be useful for people in oppressive regimes that want to send real information, free from the censors. Having a single device to configure in one's kit would be handy; especially something easily transportable, like a portable hotspot, or a router. (Just use it like a bridge instead; openwrt will let you do this. Show up at the hotel/library/Burgerking/$hotspot, use the 'free' wifi, send fully tor'd up political speech all you want.) A PORTABLE tor node that can latch onto public open networks would be quite handy, and I can definitely see a use for it.
The implication that this was for "All the interwebz!" was entirely your own fabrication, and I am hereby officially calling you out on that strawman.
The internet was not designed to prevent eavesdropping either.
Hell, ETHERNET was not designed to prevent it!
If you want a technology to prevent eavesdropping, you need to go ground up quantum crypto over optical fiber or something.
Tor is basically security through obscurity anyway. However, it is still more difficult to intercept and piece together than naked, unfiltered traffic, which is what a normal router offers.
Basically, what I am pointing out is that your argument is absurd. TOR was attacked by governments, not from within the TOR network, but by observing the traffic going into and out of its exit nodes. That is because the traffic going in and out was unencumbered at that point, because it has to talk with the regular internet. Coupled with other forensic techniques, the powers that be were able to deduce a great deal about who sent what packets through TOR.
ANY APPLIANCE WOULD SUFFER THIS ISSUE.
THE INTERNET ITSELF DOES NOT PREVENT EAVESDROPPING.
Instead, the best you can do is make the message meaningless to the one who is eavesdropping. That is encryption. Even better if you use encrypted packets with a randomized route. This means that eavesdroppers will only get a few of the packets, and will not have enough data to attack the message contents.
Encryption that is worth a shit requires a beefy FPU. That's why I pointed out that current COTS routers aren't a good fit exactly-- normal packet routing does not require FPU function. However, as data security on the internet becomes more and more a requirement, and less and less of a simple paranoia thing-- (and as cost of manufacture for SoC systems comes down and economies of scale interject into the market for SoCs) then home routers with real hardfloat will emerge. At that time, it really would be possible to have a consumer device in your house that does the data fiddling for you.
Again, your objection is bullshit. Followed to its conclusion, the internet itself shouldnt be used at all.
openwrt + debian chroot + tor linux package == wireless router that simply puts everything through tor, transparently.
one could dispense with the debian chroot altogether if they did a well maintained fork of openwrt with well updated packages.
Routers are getting quite powerful these days. while they often lack hardware fpu, that can be somewhat alleviated with softfloat solutions.
keep your traffic under control, and such a box can easily handle the load. (naturally, you need to keep the number of connected devices under control, and keep packet count sane within limits of the weaksauce router's hardware.)
just saying that such an appliance can be made at home right now with old network gear and free software.
enjoy.
Short of growing spinnarets on a tissue sheet from cultured spider cells, (which would give the exact organs needed), there is no way to fully replicate the features of a spider's spinnaret at this time.
According to , the processes that transform the spinning dope from an disordered liquid crystal solution to insoluble fibers involves mechanical compression coupled with saline ion removal, and that the rate of draw from the spinning duct has a profound correlation with the tensility of the resulting fibers.
This suggests that a "tapered silicon nanoneedle array" that has been doped to wick away saline ions from the needle's interior through the walls of the shaft, coupled with a controlled rate of draw, and a carefully selected for mechanical pore size, tube length, and taper, could result in a passable approximation of spider silk.
It does not need to absolutely perfect; it just needs to approximate the features of spider silk. Perfect replication is likely not possible with current nano-technology.
One solution might be to re-purpose other tech from the bio-tech industry.
Specifically, hollow silicon nanoneedle arrays.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Grown with the correct length, diameter, and taper, they would function as mechanical analogues to spider spinnarettes. Wet one side, then "brush" the other to get the thread started-- then just gently tug on the resulting fibers.
They would be very fragile things though. Would take very specialized equipment to handle, install, and prime them for service. They would also be far more fragile then ones made from insect chitin, so the drawing speed and pitch angle of the pull would have to be very carefully controlled to avoid breaking off the needles.
Maybe pores in a sheet would work better?
Just read the article myself;
This is still about the protein itself, not the mechanical processing done by the spider to create the unique fibers they produce.
Basically, the spider's silk protein is a bit like a "hook and latch", much like a zipper's teeth. Mass producing the protein produces "Zipper teeth", but that does not result in the unique conformation of a zipped up zipper.
For that, you need the zipper pull.
That's what a spider's spinnarets do. As the liquid crystal solution of spider protein gets pulled into the spinnaret, it gets compressed mechanically in a special fashion, which causes spontaneous self-assembly of these "zipper teeth", into a fully assembled, fully interlocking "zipper" of interlocked protein molecules. It is this fully interlocked assemblage that gives spider silk its unique mechanical properties.
The shape and length of these structures in the spider's abdomen are crucial to correct assembly.
As the linked Nature paper I linked to points out, this process is NOT incorporated in any currently used textile processing system.
Getting bulk, high quality protein is only PART of getting mass produced spider silk. The other part is the mechanical processing.
Silkworms do not have the structures that spiders do for processing their silk. Instead, silkworms produce a kind of salivary secretion through a much larger orifice. This orifice is much larger than a spider's spinnaret, and is not the same shape. This is why silk worms producing spider proteins will not produce silk of the same quality.
Now, we have some pretty kick ass micro-pipette technology these days (and surface morphology control on silicon substrates from PV solar research) that could probably be used to create synthetic spinnarettes--- Just wet one side with the silk solution, then draw silk fibers from the other side.
I just have never heard of any serious research into creating such synthetic spinnaret technologies.
I thought the magic in spider silk was 2-part.
First, is the molecule-- but the second is how it gets "zipped" into a silk filament by the spider's spinnarets.
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Just putting the genes into a silkworm WILL NOT PRODUCE SILK LIKE A SPIDERS!
Producing the proteins in goats wont fix the mechanical processing that spiders do.
This is why these things keeps failing. The protein is only part of the package. They need nano-structure spinnaret simulants to spin the solution with as well.
Here's all that needs to happen:
Rossi needs to produce approximately 20 test devices, with easily eject-able fuel systems. This separates the fuel system from the catalyzing system.
He needs to provide these loaded devices to independent testing labs, observed by a lawyer to assure that the independent labs dont disassemble the catalyzer, and only examine the fuel canister.
Independent verification, free from the "Rossi was there" objection, can then be performed on the device.
This is because the claims-- "My catalyzer is able to turn this stuff into this stuff, releasing energy!" does NOT require disassembly of the catalyzer. Only analysis of the fuel. Making the two easily separated solves the issue nicely. It is quite easy to falsify that claim if rossi provides such a device and fuel sample for independent testing.
That alone can make or break rossi.
Are you people asking him to compromise this way? No. You are not. Are you thus being sensible in your approach? No, no you are not.
No, that would be Jumping to conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Not Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Since it is based on total number of assumptions made, let's count, shall we?
Yours, that this guy and his team are frauds, requires these assumptions:
This guy manipulated all samples himself, so he must have tampered with them to get these results.
The samples before and after the experiment are not the same sample.
His team must be complicit in his fraud
his measurements for his samples are specifically designed to misrepresent a non-working device as a working one.
his device does not work.
That's 5 assumptions.
Now, let's look at mine-- 'the device could be real' scenario.
The device may work
The inventor does not release his secret because he does not have good legal protection from intellectual theft
the research team he used is the same team because it is the only one who will do it for him.
the sample before and after the experiment is the same sample.
That's 4 assumptions.
Nope, 5 is not less than 4. Sorry.