This is the point. The point is that they should remove the browser from the OS in order to stop them from further abusing their monopoly in the direction they were going.
Just because removing IE from the OS isn't in sync with the company's strategic vision doesn't mean that it isn't possible or reasonable.
This is the reason why we have anti-trust regulations to begin with. They have a monopoly, great. That's all fine and dandy until they start to use that monopoly to extend their scope to other theatres... in this case, the Internet.
There is no technical reason why they can't remove IE, Media Player, etc... from Windows and still have a fully functional OS. Any program should be allowed to try into the hooks for Web browsing. This is the point.
There is a utility that runs under Linux. It creates a web based monitor that lets you see how each drive is doing individually. It will also email you with every error message, should you desire.
This would be refreshing, but I doubt it would actually happen.
My whole problem with this, is why don't they realize that the major enemy in this fight is Microsoft. So far, I've seen TiVo get patents, Sonic Blue get patents, but not some from Microsoft on the PVR front.
Then again perhaps they do realize it... here's hoping.
I'm just pissed off that I had to learn about this here... instead of from *surprise* Verizon. I am one of those lucky few that did order a phone from them online... Yes, I know I was an idiot.
This is not insightful. Microsoft's web site has been made accessable to the public. So that anyone can download their *ahem* security updates. You are connecting to the Internet on your dime (dial-up, DSL, T1, what-have-you).
When you dial into TiVo's network, you are connecting to their systems on their dime. It is their network, and they should be compensated for it.
Plus, it was made pretty clear when I bought mine that there was a $10/month fee associated with it. That it was part and parcel to the entire setup, and that you had have the subscription.
Check out the TiVo FAQ site and the AVS forum, you'll find that a lot of information is known about the internals of the TiVo, and how to hack it, etc... The one thing that you won't find is a way to circumvent the subscription model. Why? Becuase TiVo has been so open with their specs and information, and no one wants to hurt that relationship. It is a company that is selling their product at about cost, and making their money on the subscriptions. They are being nice to the geek community by giving us the information on how to make our TiVo's better by ourselves. However, don't fault them because you agreed to pay a subscription fee and then didn't.
Actually, just because Utah may have a different set of norms doesn't mean that they can limit free speech, much less not enforce laws protecting it. This is a right given to us by the First Amendment, and cannot be overturned by any state law. Some speech laws, such as offensiveness, can be dictated by local norms, but I don't believe that this is the case.
My best advice is to get a lawyer (ACLU?), and get a publicist. Get your story out to everyone. Make the administration feel some pressure from outside Utah.
Does anyone know the name of the computational biology test that is done every year (or so I think) where people put their algorithms to work on a protein that has not had a structure published?
Last I knew, the best methods were tested against an unpublished (soon to be) x-ray crystal structure. This makes for a nice blinded approach to the algorithm. The algorithms have gotten better, but unfortunately, aren't too good yet. And really, the only way to verify any result is with a crystal structure (ignoring mutagensis with activity assays, etc...)
So, this means then that you are simulating folding dynamics for your algorithm. Any citation available?
I usually see this process as requiring a great deal of feedback before proceeding to the next step. For example, if R23 moves by 2.5 angstroms, how this affects to torsional strain placed upon Q102. This seems more problematic since you are essentially trying to optimize an entire model from scratch.
I guess the big concern is how you modularize the algorithm. The work of one process is directly related to the work of another, and I find it difficult to see how you can proceed without direct feedback from one process to another. Again, I think a citation would be helpful, especially to help understand how the algorithm is compartmentalized.
I can see how you could have one process calculating the thermodynamic energy of one model versus another, but then the question is, how do you choose to modify the model? Is it a matter of checking all possibilities and choosing the one with the lowest energy? This could be distributed easily, but how efficient is it?
This took them a long time to do... and this isn't exactly a good model to work from. True, this is a huge model, and is great work. I personally think that the odds are good that a Nobel prize is in the picture. Simply obtaining the protein took a long time, and the crystallization was the hard part.
But this ribosome is not the same as that of a human. I'm not sure which one this is, probably related to T. aquaticus or something like that (some thermophile), so it is going to be very different than anything coming out of the Human Genome project.
that there aren't any good... and I mean really really good algorithms that do this type of work yet. It isn't going to be the panacea that protoemic researchers are looking for.
Does anyone know exactly what models they will be using? Because there are only a few ways to actually go about this:
1 - Use a known protein structure that is similar to the one under study, but silghtly different. You can also look for common motifs in a structure / sequence to compare the two. Basically you look at the sequences, and say, "Hey, those two proteins have similar sequences, so they probably look the same too."
2 - Good old ab initio methods where you reduce the conformational energy to the optimal folding pattern. This is basically looking only at the sequence and saying "If I were a protein, what would I look like."
Both are relatively time consuming, but I'm not sure how suited distribution is to this task. The first method requires a great deal of database lookups, and the second requires a lot of computing power under the hood. With distribution, you don't have the database backend to work with, so it must be the brute force method. But I have yet to see any studies where ab initio have been anywhere near a 95% level of accuracy (compared to x-ray crystal structures). The best I've seen is around 75%. This isn't quite as helpful as it might sound. You can get some good results and working models this way, but you can't do a great deal with drug design with an inaccurate model.
They had links to the papers citing their algorithms, but they links were not yet active... If they have a better way to do this, I'll be quite impressed, but for now, I think that a machine like IBM's Blue Gene has a better chance.
And neither of these methods really takes into account post-translational modifications, phosphorylations, cleavage, activation, etc... (basically all the extra stuff your cells do to proteins before they are "activated").
Moreover, I'd say that the only difference would be the names of the keywords.
Languages like Japanese (for example) have a completely different grammatical syntax than English. But then again, so does programming... The difference between coding in one langauge or another is mainly syntax and vocabulary, just like with the differences in spoken languages.
However, all programming languages are meant to make it easier for the programmer to communicate with the machine. Since it all gets converted into machine language anyway, most programming languages have a syntax that is more mathematical. So, even if our founding coders spoke a completely different language, the syntax would probably have been based on mathematics.
This leaves only the vocabulary to be a little different... meaning that we would probably only have different keywords.
I'm personally a lot more comfortable with a guy like this whose bio includes things like "has been president and chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" I mean it really comes down to what type of voice we want on the committee... do we want the voice from a networking company, or an academic, or worse yet... a lawyer. True, the law is important in this cause, but does anyone really think that Lessig might have a clue as to how this should all work? I doubt it.
Does anyone else agree with me on that one?
Also, did anyone go through and look at the bio's? For North America, each candidate has at least 3-4 lines, with at least decent sounding qualifications. Except Lessig, he only has one... pity, it's almost as if they don't even think he's qualified.
I don't know... I like my Nokia 6190 series. It is digital, but GSM, and I have an analog adapter that stays in my car. That way I get the best of both worlds when I need it.
Correct, but it is still a problem as to how we perceive the reverse-time.
If we view time as moving away from boundry conditions, and the other state views them as moving away from their boundry conditions, but towards those defined for our spacetime, then we each perceive time as as moving forward for each other, but backwards with respect to the other.
The real question is what happens when the Sharks meet the Jets...
Yes, we are viewing time relative to us. So, since we have defined our state of being as going forwards, we view the opposite as going backwards.
I don't think you'd need another concept of time, just the understanding that we are moving in one direction in time. Therefore, by definition, moving in the other direction would be backwards.
From my understanding, he doesn't get around the second law of thermodynamics... he doesn't have to. The second law of thermodynamics is a boundry condition set forth on the system. If we changed the boundry condition so that we are not moving towards entroy, but away from it, then we have have a reversal of the second law. From what I ascertained, the law is a boundry that has been placed on our space-time. Because to us time moves forward (or what we view as forward) doesn't mean that it can't move in an opposite (again, what we view as opposite) direction for another object. This is where the application of boundry conditions occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't buy a TiVo or ReplayTV without a subscription. You used to be able to, but now that's impossible. It is part of the initial agreement.
A $99 Palm can't play full motion video.
Nope... Microsoft doesn't have to disclose anything involving security or authentication. So, chances are that they don't have to release SMB specs.
Just my initial opinion.
This is the point. The point is that they should remove the browser from the OS in order to stop them from further abusing their monopoly in the direction they were going.
Just because removing IE from the OS isn't in sync with the company's strategic vision doesn't mean that it isn't possible or reasonable.
This is the reason why we have anti-trust regulations to begin with. They have a monopoly, great. That's all fine and dandy until they start to use that monopoly to extend their scope to other theatres... in this case, the Internet.
There is no technical reason why they can't remove IE, Media Player, etc... from Windows and still have a fully functional OS. Any program should be allowed to try into the hooks for Web browsing. This is the point.
You can look at a list of all of the countries on the WIPO website.
http://www.wipo.org/treaties/docs/english/e-berne. doc
More interesting is that the US didn't become a member until 1989.
There is a utility that runs under Linux. It creates a web based monitor that lets you see how each drive is doing individually. It will also email you with every error message, should you desire.
Its a pretty slick setup, IMO.
This would be refreshing, but I doubt it would actually happen.
My whole problem with this, is why don't they realize that the major enemy in this fight is Microsoft. So far, I've seen TiVo get patents, Sonic Blue get patents, but not some from Microsoft on the PVR front.
Then again perhaps they do realize it... here's hoping.
I'm just pissed off that I had to learn about this here... instead of from *surprise* Verizon. I am one of those lucky few that did order a phone from them online... Yes, I know I was an idiot.
Alas...
Use a local IMAP server, fetchmail to retrieve the mail, and then use Evolution for local and Pine for remote...
Umm... no. They don't have an 'l' sound at all. The closest they have is 'ri' (pronounced "reee").
When you dial into TiVo's network, you are connecting to their systems on their dime. It is their network, and they should be compensated for it.
Plus, it was made pretty clear when I bought mine that there was a $10/month fee associated with it. That it was part and parcel to the entire setup, and that you had have the subscription.
Check out the TiVo FAQ site and the AVS forum, you'll find that a lot of information is known about the internals of the TiVo, and how to hack it, etc... The one thing that you won't find is a way to circumvent the subscription model. Why? Becuase TiVo has been so open with their specs and information, and no one wants to hurt that relationship. It is a company that is selling their product at about cost, and making their money on the subscriptions. They are being nice to the geek community by giving us the information on how to make our TiVo's better by ourselves. However, don't fault them because you agreed to pay a subscription fee and then didn't.
My best advice is to get a lawyer (ACLU?), and get a publicist. Get your story out to everyone. Make the administration feel some pressure from outside Utah.
Good luck
Does anyone know the name of the computational biology test that is done every year (or so I think) where people put their algorithms to work on a protein that has not had a structure published? Last I knew, the best methods were tested against an unpublished (soon to be) x-ray crystal structure. This makes for a nice blinded approach to the algorithm. The algorithms have gotten better, but unfortunately, aren't too good yet. And really, the only way to verify any result is with a crystal structure (ignoring mutagensis with activity assays, etc...)
So, this means then that you are simulating folding dynamics for your algorithm. Any citation available?
I usually see this process as requiring a great deal of feedback before proceeding to the next step. For example, if R23 moves by 2.5 angstroms, how this affects to torsional strain placed upon Q102. This seems more problematic since you are essentially trying to optimize an entire model from scratch.
I guess the big concern is how you modularize the algorithm. The work of one process is directly related to the work of another, and I find it difficult to see how you can proceed without direct feedback from one process to another. Again, I think a citation would be helpful, especially to help understand how the algorithm is compartmentalized.
I can see how you could have one process calculating the thermodynamic energy of one model versus another, but then the question is, how do you choose to modify the model? Is it a matter of checking all possibilities and choosing the one with the lowest energy? This could be distributed easily, but how efficient is it?
This took them a long time to do... and this isn't exactly a good model to work from. True, this is a huge model, and is great work. I personally think that the odds are good that a Nobel prize is in the picture. Simply obtaining the protein took a long time, and the crystallization was the hard part.
But this ribosome is not the same as that of a human. I'm not sure which one this is, probably related to T. aquaticus or something like that (some thermophile), so it is going to be very different than anything coming out of the Human Genome project.
Does anyone know exactly what models they will be using? Because there are only a few ways to actually go about this:
1 - Use a known protein structure that is similar to the one under study, but silghtly different. You can also look for common motifs in a structure / sequence to compare the two. Basically you look at the sequences, and say, "Hey, those two proteins have similar sequences, so they probably look the same too."
2 - Good old ab initio methods where you reduce the conformational energy to the optimal folding pattern. This is basically looking only at the sequence and saying "If I were a protein, what would I look like."
Both are relatively time consuming, but I'm not sure how suited distribution is to this task. The first method requires a great deal of database lookups, and the second requires a lot of computing power under the hood. With distribution, you don't have the database backend to work with, so it must be the brute force method. But I have yet to see any studies where ab initio have been anywhere near a 95% level of accuracy (compared to x-ray crystal structures). The best I've seen is around 75%. This isn't quite as helpful as it might sound. You can get some good results and working models this way, but you can't do a great deal with drug design with an inaccurate model.
They had links to the papers citing their algorithms, but they links were not yet active... If they have a better way to do this, I'll be quite impressed, but for now, I think that a machine like IBM's Blue Gene has a better chance.
And neither of these methods really takes into account post-translational modifications, phosphorylations, cleavage, activation, etc... (basically all the extra stuff your cells do to proteins before they are "activated").
Moreover, I'd say that the only difference would be the names of the keywords.
Languages like Japanese (for example) have a completely different grammatical syntax than English. But then again, so does programming... The difference between coding in one langauge or another is mainly syntax and vocabulary, just like with the differences in spoken languages.
However, all programming languages are meant to make it easier for the programmer to communicate with the machine. Since it all gets converted into machine language anyway, most programming languages have a syntax that is more mathematical. So, even if our founding coders spoke a completely different language, the syntax would probably have been based on mathematics.
This leaves only the vocabulary to be a little different... meaning that we would probably only have different keywords.
I tend to agree...
I'm personally a lot more comfortable with a guy like this whose bio includes things like "has been president and chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" I mean it really comes down to what type of voice we want on the committee... do we want the voice from a networking company, or an academic, or worse yet... a lawyer. True, the law is important in this cause, but does anyone really think that Lessig might have a clue as to how this should all work? I doubt it.
Does anyone else agree with me on that one?
Also, did anyone go through and look at the bio's? For North America, each candidate has at least 3-4 lines, with at least decent sounding qualifications. Except Lessig, he only has one... pity, it's almost as if they don't even think he's qualified.
I don't know... I like my Nokia 6190 series. It is digital, but GSM, and I have an analog adapter that stays in my car. That way I get the best of both worlds when I need it.
Correct, but it is still a problem as to how we perceive the reverse-time.
If we view time as moving away from boundry conditions, and the other state views them as moving away from their boundry conditions, but towards those defined for our spacetime, then we each perceive time as as moving forward for each other, but backwards with respect to the other.
The real question is what happens when the Sharks meet the Jets...
Yes, we are viewing time relative to us. So, since we have defined our state of being as going forwards, we view the opposite as going backwards.
I don't think you'd need another concept of time, just the understanding that we are moving in one direction in time. Therefore, by definition, moving in the other direction would be backwards.
How does that work?
From my understanding, he doesn't get around the second law of thermodynamics... he doesn't have to. The second law of thermodynamics is a boundry condition set forth on the system. If we changed the boundry condition so that we are not moving towards entroy, but away from it, then we have have a reversal of the second law. From what I ascertained, the law is a boundry that has been placed on our space-time. Because to us time moves forward (or what we view as forward) doesn't mean that it can't move in an opposite (again, what we view as opposite) direction for another object. This is where the application of boundry conditions occurs.