Oh the pain! The people complaining about the state of science education in the US are RIGHT!!
Electrolysis of salt solution produces a solution of sodium hypochlorite, similar to Clorox bleach. Nothing wrong with that, this is a GREAT disinfectant. But new technology? I DON'T THINK SO. We have been chlorinating water supplies since 1908 or so.
Some technological historians believe that the addition of chlorine to drinking water is the primary reason for increased life expectancies in the 20th century, and claim that this one innovation has done more to prevent disease than the rest of modern medicine combined.
hydrogen is NOT explosive except in some pretty odd geometries
Sorry, but hydrogen is a very dangerous material, and should not be used without extreme caution.
Hydrogen gas has the widest explosive mixture range in air of ANY known material. Ignition of a hydrogen gas - air mixture is also possible with the lowest energy spark of any other fuel-air mixture.
Not only that, but the energy released by such an explosion is greater per gram of hydrogen than any other fuel.
In addition hydrogen gas is completely odorless, meaning that there is no obvious warning that you are in a dangerous environment.
That's an interesting observation, yet planes are routinely filled with highly flammable liquids that make them go.
The technical meaning of the term flammble under most safety regulations is a material that can be ignited at a temperature less than 100 F. Methanol and hydrogen are certainly flammable, however jet fuel which is really just kerosene does not ignite at temperatures below 140 F. So strictly speaking jet fuel is NOT flammable.
You can take a bowl, fill it with jet fuel and hold a match to it and it will not ignite until you heat it up to 140+ F.
Perhaps the article is sensationalist, however the concept that 'computers are for automating and humans are for innovationg' is at the very best completely neo-luddist.
The fact is that we do not know if the human mind is a Turing Machine, or is something greater. Nor do we know if a super-Turing machine, one that could solve the Halting Problem can be built.
Until these great questions are answered that simple fact of the matter is that we do not know if a true AI can be built, and even more scary, we do not know if a computer architeture that can solve problems that are beyond the human mind is possible.
"wouldn't maintaining a whole seperate codebase "just in case" be a bit much?"
I doubt if it's a 'whole separate codebase". It's probably just an effort to makes sure the existing codebase compiles on x86 + some drivers/patches for x86 hardware specific stuff.
I don't think you will see a practical electric car unless there is a huge breakthrough in battery technology. The numnbers are just not there.
The hybrid car really looks like the answer - some sort of internal combustion engine running at a 'sweet spot' for max efficiency charging batteries, or maybe a fuel cell converting the combustion directly into electricity.
The fuel for that combustion could be a number of things including hydrogen, ethanol, natural gas, or gasoline. Eventually we hope that it will be a fuel that does not generate a net increase in greenhouse gases during it's life cycle - right now the only such fuel that qualifies for that is hydrogen produced from hydroelectric/wind/nuclear sourced electricity.
One of the problems that kills electric cars as a reasonable alternative is climate control - especially in winter. A normal gasoline engine throws off as much energy in waste heat as a it generates in mechanical power. This waste heat is easily used to heat a car interior. Since cars have really bad heat loss (lot of glass), it takes as much energy to heat a car as it does a small house. With electric cars you have a real problem because of the lack of the internal combustion engine heat.
This survey also doesn't cover large corporate internal networks.
It doesn't cover small corporate intranets either!
I had a contrating gig last year with a large pharma - they were using Netscape Enterprise on HP-UX. For some reason Netscape Enterprise seems to be very popular with VERY large companies; General Electric etc.
they claim it was "Alpha" and can "patch the patch" (read: APATCHY web server
The "patchy" web server has a security record so far superior to Microsoft's IIS that the edge is more like 4 milliseconds vs. 4 billion years.
The number and severity of compromises of IIS is legendary (the FBI has ranked IIS as the number one security problem on the internet). There have been times where the servers I administer have been recieving more hits from compromised IIS installations trying to spread virii than they have from legitimate users. The problem got so severe last summer that my broadband ISP had to block port 80 to keep their network up.
And this is NOT an issue of population base causing statistics to be skewed - the patchy web server has more installations than all others combined.
At my last three jobs, I have conveniently "forgotten" to submit a signed copy of the document that lets them own everything I create. For years now I've hated the idea that anything I do while employed (even if it's not work related) could be taken away from me.
If your idea is work related, it proabably doesn't matter if you signed the contract or not. If the idea isn't work related, many states prohibit the company from claiming rights to it,
So the effect of your not signing the contract is probably zero.
Interesting application of the shrinkwrap license
on
Shrinkwrapped Books
·
· Score: 2
Licenses for books is not a new concept; it is quite common for, say the Stanford Research Institute to publish a technology assesment or market study that is intended to be sold to a company for a pretty stiff fee. Ditto organizations like Gartner etc.
Generally these studies are delivered in the form os a book, but in addition to the normal copyright provisions goes a license that further restricts the use of the book or report - including that the contents are not to be disclosed to people unauthorized in the license. Sort of an NDA for the report.
What is new with this is the shrinkwrap aspect of the license, no doubt attempting to extend the concept of the software shrinkwrap.
I think as cgi gets better we will simply see a shift in what skills are in demand. Artists, designers, writers, editors and similar creative types will not be affected much. Modellers and such will be computer based rather than building sets from physical materials. So we will see fewer carpenters in Hollywood.
Actors? It seems to me that the great actors deliver so much in terms of interpitation of their roles that it is going to be impossible to replace them with CGI. I cannot imagine a CGI ever being able to match Alec Guiness as Fagin in Oliver Twist, or Olivier in Henry V, or Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice. They are not merely faces, but creative in their own right. Will a CGI technician be able to contribute at the same level? Would a CGI technician be able to invent a Groucho Marx or Charlie Chaplin? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if I were a Jean Claude van Damme, or similar hack, I would be very worried about CGI.
Well, I plan to buy at least two versions - I haven't decided if it's going to be the gift set or the extended version in addition to the theatrical releasse.
But I'm *really* a hard core fan, and so is my wife. To give an idea how much so, when my wife was a teenager she read WH Auden's review of LOTR, and ordered the boxed set in the original Allen & Unwin printing from England (First Ed.), complete with typos and errors (elfin anyone?). It is still one of our most prized possesions.
The word "science" generally has as it's primary meaning something like "a systematic study of natural phenomena".
Under this definition Computer Science as normally experienced is not "science". It is rather a branch of mathematics.
If you mean "computer science" as the study of natural phenomena that are then harnessed to construct computing machinery, then, yes you can have it as a science.
Perl has become popular among non-programming scientists
I'm a scientist who cut his teeth on FORTRAN, and still use it for a variety of reasons, including the richness an quality of the numeric code available for use with the language, and the most excellent optimizing compilers that can be used.
Perl has none of that.
Perl is fine for weeding through a lot of data that has been generated using automated D/A systems, but that is text processing which Perl is very strong at.
But for computationally intensive tasks, Perl is just wrong.
In several decades of programming (assembler, fortran, algol, PL/1, C, C++,...) I've never had code written in one year fail in the next.
You must not have done much work in C++ or C. The K&R C to ANSI C transition broke many of my programs, and C++, well, all I can say is that I remember having to make changes to my C++ code almost every time a new compiler version was introduced in the early 90's.
"most publically funded drug research is given away to the pharmaceutical companies"
That is clearly false, because in fact the pharmacuetical companies (pharms) contribute heavily to this research through the CRADA program. That is NOT 'giving away', rather it is 'sharing the costs'. In addition the NIH study I mentioned drew the conclusion that most of such research was fundamental, not product oriented, and was shared generally throughout the scientific community. Therefore most of the research was not 'given away' in either the financial sense (lack of payment) nor did it end up being owned by the pharms (another aspect of 'giving' in the sense that the recipient of the gift ends up with ownership).
The actual fact is that most of the publically funded scientific research, augmented with payments from the pharms ends up being given away to the scientific community as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh the pain! The people complaining about the state of science education in the US are RIGHT!!
Electrolysis of salt solution produces a solution of sodium hypochlorite, similar to Clorox bleach. Nothing wrong with that, this is a GREAT disinfectant. But new technology? I DON'T THINK SO. We have been chlorinating water supplies since 1908 or so.
Some technological historians believe that the addition of chlorine to drinking water is the primary reason for increased life expectancies in the 20th century, and claim that this one innovation has done more to prevent disease than the rest of modern medicine combined.
Here are the reactions:
anode: 2Cl- = Cl2(aq) + 2e-
cathode: 2e- + 2Na+ + 2H20 = H2(g) + 2NaOH
2NaOH + Cl2 = 2NaOCl + 2H+
To stabilize the NaOCl it is best to add a bit extra NaOH. (See LeChatlier).
You can use the H2 to power your laptop. (See fuel cells.)
See, hydrogen is only flammable in the presence of oxygen. And it's only explosive in tightly confined spaces
Sounds remarkably similar to an airplane passenger compartment to me.
hydrogen is NOT explosive except in some pretty odd geometries
Sorry, but hydrogen is a very dangerous material, and should not be used without extreme caution.
Hydrogen gas has the widest explosive mixture range in air of ANY known material. Ignition of a hydrogen gas - air mixture is also possible with the lowest energy spark of any other fuel-air mixture.
Not only that, but the energy released by such an explosion is greater per gram of hydrogen than any other fuel.
In addition hydrogen gas is completely odorless, meaning that there is no obvious warning that you are in a dangerous environment.
Remember F=MA.
Ugg.. E = mV^2. Double the velocity and you can cut the mass by a factor of 4. So, yes, flywheels can be light.
That's an interesting observation, yet planes are routinely filled with highly flammable liquids that make them go.
The technical meaning of the term flammble under most safety regulations is a material that can be ignited at a temperature less than 100 F. Methanol and hydrogen are certainly flammable, however jet fuel which is really just kerosene does not ignite at temperatures below 140 F. So strictly speaking jet fuel is NOT flammable.
You can take a bowl, fill it with jet fuel and hold a match to it and it will not ignite until you heat it up to 140+ F.
Perhaps the article is sensationalist, however the concept that 'computers are for automating and humans are for innovationg' is at the very best completely neo-luddist.
The fact is that we do not know if the human mind is a Turing Machine, or is something greater. Nor do we know if a super-Turing machine, one that could solve the Halting Problem can be built.
Until these great questions are answered that simple fact of the matter is that we do not know if a true AI can be built, and even more scary, we do not know if a computer architeture that can solve problems that are beyond the human mind is possible.
"wouldn't maintaining a whole seperate codebase "just in case" be a bit much?"
I doubt if it's a 'whole separate codebase". It's probably just an effort to makes sure the existing codebase compiles on x86 + some drivers/patches for x86 hardware specific stuff.
I don't think you will see a practical electric car unless there is a huge breakthrough in battery technology. The numnbers are just not there.
The hybrid car really looks like the answer - some sort of internal combustion engine running at a 'sweet spot' for max efficiency charging batteries, or maybe a fuel cell converting the combustion directly into electricity.
The fuel for that combustion could be a number of things including hydrogen, ethanol, natural gas, or gasoline. Eventually we hope that it will be a fuel that does not generate a net increase in greenhouse gases during it's life cycle - right now the only such fuel that qualifies for that is hydrogen produced from hydroelectric/wind/nuclear sourced electricity.
One of the problems that kills electric cars as a reasonable alternative is climate control - especially in winter. A normal gasoline engine throws off as much energy in waste heat as a it generates in mechanical power. This waste heat is easily used to heat a car interior. Since cars have really bad heat loss (lot of glass), it takes as much energy to heat a car as it does a small house. With electric cars you have a real problem because of the lack of the internal combustion engine heat.
This survey also doesn't cover large corporate internal networks.
It doesn't cover small corporate intranets either!
I had a contrating gig last year with a large pharma - they were using Netscape Enterprise on HP-UX. For some reason Netscape Enterprise seems to be very popular with VERY large companies; General Electric etc.
I am so shocked to hear Microsoft didn't follow the standards when implementing...
You left out the tag.
they claim it was "Alpha" and can "patch the patch" (read: APATCHY web server
The "patchy" web server has a security record so far superior to Microsoft's IIS that the edge is more like 4 milliseconds vs. 4 billion years.
The number and severity of compromises of IIS is legendary (the FBI has ranked IIS as the number one security problem on the internet). There have been times where the servers I administer have been recieving more hits from compromised IIS installations trying to spread virii than they have from legitimate users. The problem got so severe last summer that my broadband ISP had to block port 80 to keep their network up.
And this is NOT an issue of population base causing statistics to be skewed - the patchy web server has more installations than all others combined.
At my last three jobs, I have conveniently "forgotten" to submit a signed copy of the document that lets them own everything I create. For years now I've hated the idea that anything I do while employed (even if it's not work related) could be taken away from me.
If your idea is work related, it proabably doesn't matter if you signed the contract or not. If the idea isn't work related, many states prohibit the company from claiming rights to it,
So the effect of your not signing the contract is probably zero.
Licenses for books is not a new concept; it is quite common for, say the Stanford Research Institute to publish a technology assesment or market study that is intended to be sold to a company for a pretty stiff fee. Ditto organizations like Gartner etc.
Generally these studies are delivered in the form os a book, but in addition to the normal copyright provisions goes a license that further restricts the use of the book or report - including that the contents are not to be disclosed to people unauthorized in the license. Sort of an NDA for the report.
What is new with this is the shrinkwrap aspect of the license, no doubt attempting to extend the concept of the software shrinkwrap.
I think as cgi gets better we will simply see a shift in what skills are in demand. Artists, designers, writers, editors and similar creative types will not be affected much. Modellers and such will be computer based rather than building sets from physical materials. So we will see fewer carpenters in Hollywood.
Actors? It seems to me that the great actors deliver so much in terms of interpitation of their roles that it is going to be impossible to replace them with CGI. I cannot imagine a CGI ever being able to match Alec Guiness as Fagin in Oliver Twist, or Olivier in Henry V, or Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice. They are not merely faces, but creative in their own right. Will a CGI technician be able to contribute at the same level? Would a CGI technician be able to invent a Groucho Marx or Charlie Chaplin? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if I were a Jean Claude van Damme, or similar hack, I would be very worried about CGI.
Well, I plan to buy at least two versions - I haven't decided if it's going to be the gift set or the extended version in addition to the theatrical releasse.
But I'm *really* a hard core fan, and so is my wife. To give an idea how much so, when my wife was a teenager she read WH Auden's review of LOTR, and ordered the boxed set in the original Allen & Unwin printing from England (First Ed.), complete with typos and errors (elfin anyone?). It is still one of our most prized possesions.
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
Put the inner loop in a function and return if disaster.
And watch your code run like molasses.
The word "science" generally has as it's primary meaning something like "a systematic study of natural phenomena".
Under this definition Computer Science as normally experienced is not "science". It is rather a branch of mathematics.
If you mean "computer science" as the study of natural phenomena that are then harnessed to construct computing machinery, then, yes you can have it as a science.
I remember when we thought we could do anything with FORTRAN 4.
Well, it is Turing Complete.
Perl has become popular among non-programming scientists
I'm a scientist who cut his teeth on FORTRAN, and still use it for a variety of reasons, including the richness an quality of the numeric code available for use with the language, and the most excellent optimizing compilers that can be used.
Perl has none of that.
Perl is fine for weeding through a lot of data that has been generated using automated D/A systems, but that is text processing which Perl is very strong at.
But for computationally intensive tasks, Perl is just wrong.
In several decades of programming (assembler, fortran, algol, PL/1, C, C++, ...) I've never had code written in one year fail in the next.
You must not have done much work in C++ or C. The K&R C to ANSI C transition broke many of my programs, and C++, well, all I can say is that I remember having to make changes to my C++ code almost every time a new compiler version was introduced in the early 90's.
If public money is spent doing private research then this is not "sharing the costs".
It's not private research. The results are publically available.
OK, let's examine this statement:
"most publically funded drug research is given away to the pharmaceutical companies"
That is clearly false, because in fact the pharmacuetical companies (pharms) contribute heavily to this research through the CRADA program. That is NOT 'giving away', rather it is 'sharing the costs'. In addition the NIH study I mentioned drew the conclusion that most of such research was fundamental, not product oriented, and was shared generally throughout the scientific community. Therefore most of the research was not 'given away' in either the financial sense (lack of payment) nor did it end up being owned by the pharms (another aspect of 'giving' in the sense that the recipient of the gift ends up with ownership).
The actual fact is that most of the publically funded scientific research, augmented with payments from the pharms ends up being given away to the scientific community as a whole.
Well, /dev/null doesn't really hold all the bytes forever,
Hard drives don't hold all of your bytes forever either.