There's a shortage of full-text scientific papers on the internet. Even as a subscriber to several full-text services and journals, I can never seem to find online scientific papers that appear in journals that my university library doesn't have.
I know that journals want to make money by selling them, but scientific papers ARE public domain, and why should I have to pay to read them (in sometimes very poor quality - on microfilm/fiche).
If you go to the UK, where carrying firearms is illegal, even if you hold a US Federal concealed weapon permit, and you bring your gun with you, you are breaking their law. Therefore, are will be subject to arrest in the UK. Your passport only assures that during the LEGAL process, you are allowed to have legal counsel from your country of citizenship.
Simply put, you break a foreign law while on their soil, you can be tried and prosecuted as if you were their citizen.
This was demonstrated in the case where an American was caned as punishment in the Phillipines after he was proven guilty vandalizing an automobile while on Filipino soil. There were a lot of civil rights questions asked. I think the US Supreme court upheld the right of the Filipino government to prosecute the criminal. It may have violated his right from "cruel and unjust punishment" in the US, but that has no bearing on the fact that he committed the crime on foreign soil while knowing it was illegal.
what do you mean by "very little value is paper value"? If paper money is a "tiny" proportion of the total in circulation, what is being circulated? Stocks, bonds, T-bills are all paper. If there is actually non-paper money being circulated in a large amount, how come I never get paid by any of it? In fact, the dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note. This means that the Note is supposed to be a placeholder of some "actual" money. Back in the day, before abolition of the gold standard, I could trade in my dollar bill for some amount of gold, because it was established that "one dollar" in Federal Reserve Notes meant it was a placeholder for some amount of gold that actually existed somewhere.
"Another way liquidity is increased is through banks" - That's what fractional banking depends upon: that you and the borrower will not need the $1000/at the same time/. The apparent increase in liquidity isn't true, because the system collapses like an illegal pyramid scheme if every bank investor were to liquidate their holdings at the same time. However, the FDIC system does a good job of masking this discrepancy. I wonder how many people know that FDIC is a psychological tool that allows us to keep our faith in fractional banking. Thus, we can now BELIEVE that money comes from nothing.
you have to be infinitely more "technically savvy" to install GNU/Linux programs too. Especially when I download an RPM and it breaks or 10 minutes and it dumps core. So what do I usually need to do (on Linux)? Run around the net 5 times, find the currrent tarball, unzip it, configure the scripts for all the options I need, compile it and then install it.
FreeBSD installation of external program called [foobar] goes something like this:
# cd/usr/ports/foobar
# make install
# exit
% foobar
4 lines to get my favorite GNU program to run flawlessly on my FreeBSD system (since it finds the source, downloads it, patches it, compiles it and installs it automagically).
Furthermore, the FCC is supposed to ensure that the two devices not cause interference with each other. I'm quite sure there is an FCC sticker on your microwave oven.
Fact:
Congress's authorization of the Federal Reserve in 1914 is unconstitutional, but no one has enough resources or incentives to push this around in the Supreme Court.
Fact:
Because Gold is FINITE substance, it has stable value. Paper's value can change, because you can print more of it very easily (hence inflation). Paper money in effect allows the bankers to make money (valuable) out of trees (not nearly as valuable, try bartering some amount of trees for your next computer/car/house).
So why don't we all bash BIND or BIND distributed for linux? Or maybe we can bash sendmail (pun not intended) or wu-ftpd. They all have terrible track records. Every unix admin knows that.
In effect, if you really wanted to bash Microsoft, you would need to go all the way back to DOS as a single-user system and no application-kernel protection. As the system isn't even designed with multi-user security and posix safety interlocks, how do you expect it? In IE, the application is the only barrier between the web and the kernel. In UNIX, you might be able to defeat the software (like qmail) but can't root the box because you'd have to defeat 5 or so saftey interlocks presented as multiple user accounts (in the case of qmail).
If you want to make a constructive criticism, then you should have them rewrite the whole OS. This has partially been done; this vulnerability isn't as "bad" in Win2k as long as the victim isn't logged in as administrator (root).
However the second part of your second paragraph doesn't really make sense. Webbed digits is a phenotype expressed by a specific allele. It is similar to people who have the autosomal dominant trait of having 6 fingers. These two phenotypes are not the really the result of "insufficient" apoptosis, but rather, the person's genome tells it to. It's less a defect than a trait (like eye colour or hair colour).
I was just discussing this with a few colleagues yesterday:
Because tumor cells are already so screwed up genomically (if you do a karyotype + FISH, you don't see nice little arranged pairs of chromosomes, you see a MESS. Inversions, deletions, transpositions in almost every single chromosome. You even get aneuploidy), that is why they are resistant to standard apoptosis pathway applications such as Calcium or Fas-L. However, the interesting thing is, it STILL executes some stages from apoptosis, such as the flipase activation, which inverts the cell membrane. It just happens that lysosome degeneration and subsequent DNA fragmentation do not occur, so the cell is still "on".
The worst thing that happens is the inversion of the cellular membrane. This results in the cell surface markers and sensors to be oriented toward the inside of the cell, and therefore: 1) it is not detectable by immune surveillance, and 2) it shuts down cell-cell communications and thus prevents any more apoptosis signals from reaching their destinations; furthermore the new lack of sensory information is what causes the cell to lose both anchoring capabilities and so-called "contact inhibition" (where the cell will continue to divide even if there isn't enough room).
However, since the paper is talking about mitochondrial relationships to apoptosis, it is also interesting to note that because mitochondria co-exist separately from the host cell nucleus, it is possible to cause mitochondrial apoptosis, and with no energy generation available, the host cell dies along with it.
Your examples are flawed. I have not seen any cases where HTML, SSL, and Kerberos when presented to a win32 client by a unix server. No browser on the market supports XML 1.0 fully. Does this make MS wrong to not make IE fully compliant either? Many servers run unix and present SSL via apache to IE, I have not seen a single failure in authentication or presentation. The only rumor of MS-Kerberos breaking is when attempting to use a unix client to connect to a win32-Kerberos, but this rumor has been proven false by a majority of users. "If it doesn't work for you, you haven't configured it correctly"
actually, there is nothing "non-standard" about MS's Kerberos (i.e. interoperability is seamless because the protocol is implemented as MIT has specified, and documentation on integration is free from microsoft.com), and furthermore, IE conforms to W3C better than Netscape does. (e.g. how come many CSS structures don't work in netscape but do in IE?).
You don't need an MS exec to answer those questions, I've already answered them for you.
In fact, both Taiwan and Singapore have rolled out fibre to home or neighborhood fibre (where there is a fibre switch on each street and it gets converted to ethernet).
The difference between American/European and Asian telecoms is in the maturity level. The Asian telecoms are still very young and are in the expansion state, whereas American/Euro telecoms are embroiled in corporate takeovers, their CEOs trying to make an extra buck, and generally playing the "Ma Bell is in ashes let's fsck" game. The Asian telecoms were virtually nonexistant until the late 1950s and 1960s after they finally recovered from the last world war. At the same time, AT&T was THE evil empire. (Imagine that if you wanted to buy a telephone, you had to buy it from your local AT&T office).
So while the asian telecoms were just building their networks, the Americans and Europeans were laying down T-lines and E-lines, respectively. Thus, it is much easier for Asian telecoms who have not yet "institutionalized" to retrofit their systems. Note that "institutionalization" has nothing to do with "monopolization" nor does it have anything to do with "decentralization". It is the whole/mentality/ of the industry which is preventing their engineers from spending lots of money to completely rebuild the infrastructure. Much like the US auto industry and the US steel industry, the US telecom will soon fall to the likes of NTT and New Taiwan National Telecom.
The reason why I like laptops is that I can use it as a desktop replacement without the bulk and with an LCD screen for far less than it costs to put together a desktop and buy a flatscreen monitor. With my $2700 Dell Inspiron clone, I can lug around as much computing power in my backpack as the machines in the computer lab. With datajacks in nearly every room, I have full computing power in any building on campus. I haven't used my zip drive in two years since I've had a laptop because I can just plug in my laptop and do a direct file transfer over ethernet.
Furthermore, my laptop is my primary workstation. I using for work and for play. It sustains uptimes of weeks. And of course, I can shut it down or suspend and pack it up and take it with me in a matter of minutes. Try doing that with a minitower/tower and 21" monitor.
Only recently have companies discovered this niche in the laptop market. Previously, the laptop market was only interested in portability, and not performance. That is why you have seen a large improvement in multimedia, graphics, storage capacity, and screen size in laptops.
At this time I have a 15" TFT. I'm always looking for a laptop with a 17" TFT with a GeForce Chip in it. If anyone knows of a vendor that sells on, let me know!
because you are still using digital media (unless you hand compiled it:) it would be illegal.
However, in court, you can defend yourself by using the trade secrets protection. You can't be sued to reveal how it works, much in the same way that I can't sue CocaCola Company for their soda formula even if I had suspicion that they were putting crack in it (because the formula is still classified as a trade secret).
At the same time, it would not be illegal to do what a professor did: read off the source and make a recording, then compress it using mpeg.
Remember the last "Ahnold" movie _The Sixth Day_? It appeared in theatres in the Fall of 2000, and it describes a near future where everything and everyone is cloned....and recloned. Basically, the corporation would take a snapshot of your brain before you died, and would clone you, and re-upload your brain, so you resumed life as if nothing happened. This made you virtually immortal. One of the implications of this was that every clone had a genetic defect, so that their lifespans were limited, and so if they tried to turn on the corporation (like our beloved hero's clone), they would just die off within a year or two from stuff like cancer or other genetic diseases, and wouldn't be recloned, so then they would be really "dead".
This reminds me of the days when I fiddled with E, F, G and larger engine sizes for model rockets which required FAA licensing and airport control tower approval to launch (well the Fs and Gs did). As part of a project, we had to build a National Rocketry Assoc. certified launcher and radio retrieval system (homing beacon). The homing beacon operated on an unused FM frequency in the area and due to range requirements needed several banks of D-size batteries (you may have needed several watts of power). The difficulty is one like NASA's: trying to fit the peformance requirements while not exceeding payload weight. An automated cell phone which broadcasted GPS location would have been lighter (although not cheaper:)
Actually things are more secure in the military than you can imagine. I currently have a co-worker in Kosovo as a military attache in satellite communications. You try to telnet into his boxen, his telnetd has been rigged so that after the DoD disclaimer ("All authorized and unauthorized activity at this terminal is logged via IP which is traced to the ISP", etc etc) shows up as the MOTD, every keystroke you type is logged. (you don't even need to successfuly log in).
I think it would be foolish to expect that people would turn from being clueless to clueful overnight with the abolishment of copyright and licences. They WOULD NOT "come to expect to see the sources and datasheets on the things on which they depend." If such were the case, Ralph Nader would not have had to sue General Motors for the poor saftey designs of their automobiles in the late 1960s.
uh no. you seem to be confusing detection and tracking mechanisms. A plane's noise signature doesn't mean anything, because you don't use a sound-wave vector to detect it. However, a plane's *radar* signature is what makes it detectable. Thus, you have development of the F-117A "stealth fighter", the B-2 "stealth bomber", and the F-22 Raptor. This is because you want to minimize the aircraft's radar signature. Suppose there was some sort of scramjet engine, that when retrofitted onto the F-117A that allowed it to cruise at Mach 5. Sure, it's fast, but what if the new engine causes it to appear bright and green on a radar screen, and the enemy has a SAM that travels at Mach 6?
The same principle applies to a submarine. Passive sonar is used to listen to mechanical sounds traveling through the water. Preferably, you want a silent boat, one which makes NO noise, so it will be undetectable, but since all mechanical movement creates friction, this energy is converted to sound. Unless you have stopped your engines and are at 0 speed, you will hear the boat using hydrophones. Thus, you hear the rumbling of a propellor 200 feet under the ocean.
Furthermore, cavitation causes a feedback interference into the boat's own hydrophones, which decrease the ability of the sonar operator to hear the surrounding area for other boats. So when cavitating, a sub is deaf and at the same time loudly transmitting its location to every other sub or surface warship in its vicinity.
Check in/usr/ports. For nearly every open source linux "binary" there is an equivelent application ported to allow compilation using `cc` under BSD.
And if the source has truly been "gnu-ized" it will compile under `gcc`.
Allowing you to run native Linux binaries lets you run closed source applications such as Netscape or Valve's Halflife Dedicated Server which can not be recompiled for BSD.
Currently, the quietest sub in existance, the SSN-21 Seawolf class boats, is still limited to operating below 10 knots at depths of 200ft or less because the resulting cavitation from any faster velocity sounds like a flat knocking noise when listening to the target via passive sonar. As a sub, you DON'T want cavitation because it gives your position away.
I'd say the only benefit of being able to supercavitate is to travel fast enough to evade an incoming torpedo; however a torpedo with that kind of technology will basically still be able to out run the boat (simply, it takes less effort to accelerate something that is 1/100 the mass of the boat). Thus, the best strategic is STILL going to remain staying slow, deep, and using a towed array to listen in the baffles in order to stay undetected.
The University of Connecticut, while known for it's basketball team throughout the country, is also 1 of 2 Carnegie-Mellon Research One Institutions in the northeastern United States that is a public university. Here's what our student conduct code has to say about academic dishonesty:
Part VI: Academic Integrity in Undergraduate Education and Research, Section A, Para 1 states:
"A fundamental tenet of all educational institutions is academic honesty; academic work depends upon respect for and acknowledgement of the research and ideas of others. Misrepresenting someone else"s work as one's own is a serious offense in any academic setting and it will not be condoned."
Para 2 states, quoted: "Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to,"..."presenting, as one's own, the ideas or words of another for academic evaluation; doing unauthorized academic work for which another person will receive credit or be evaluated; and presenting the same or substantially the same papers or projects in two or more courses without the explicit permission of the instructors involved."
Research is based on taking pre-published information and using that background knowledge to explore and create new conclusions and ideas. In computer science, as in any other science, research is primarily involved in creating a new hypothesis, and the majority of the time spent in research is building the experiment to test the hypothesis. This isn't a lab course; experiments are created from scratch, since your experiments are original. About 75% of the time spent in research is in the lab trying to collect data. In computer science, data is collected by writing programs. However, it is logical that if someone has already created a protocol for an experiment and taken years to perfect the experiment, why should you, as someone trying to explore *new* ideas, be forced to recreate the wheel? Thus, you search in the literature, and you find that so-and-so had a similar setup and they used a set of components to build it. Because the best science is based on quantitative data, parameters are published, *for the express purpose of repeatability*.
The scientific method states that for a conclusion to gain acceptance based on experimental data, the experiment must be repeatable in the exact way it was published, and that if I would to go to the lab tommorrow and replicate an experiment using all the published parameters, I should get similar results.
In computer science, experiments are in the form of running analytical computer programs. Thus, in order to prevent reinventing the wheel, you can and SHOULD use pre-published code. However, YOU MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. Since almost everyone here on/. is a proponent of open-source, I think you can easily identify with crediting authors of code when you use them in your own projects. Published scientific data is NOT copyrighted, that is, you do NOT have to ask for permission to use the data. This is why, in EVERY formal paper, any information that was not the author's own ideas is cited. A typical research paper has around 30 citations or more; even background information needs to be citated. Otherwise, in addition to credit, how is accountibility and authenticity ensured? If I don't say where I learned that newly discovered fact X, and someone who doesn't know much about fact X reads my paper, they won't know if it's really true, of if I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a shortage of full-text scientific papers on the internet. Even as a subscriber to several full-text services and journals, I can never seem to find online scientific papers that appear in journals that my university library doesn't have.
I know that journals want to make money by selling them, but scientific papers ARE public domain, and why should I have to pay to read them (in sometimes very poor quality - on microfilm/fiche).
If you go to the UK, where carrying firearms is illegal, even if you hold a US Federal concealed weapon permit, and you bring your gun with you, you are breaking their law. Therefore, are will be subject to arrest in the UK. Your passport only assures that during the LEGAL process, you are allowed to have legal counsel from your country of citizenship.
Simply put, you break a foreign law while on their soil, you can be tried and prosecuted as if you were their citizen.
This was demonstrated in the case where an American was caned as punishment in the Phillipines after he was proven guilty vandalizing an automobile while on Filipino soil. There were a lot of civil rights questions asked. I think the US Supreme court upheld the right of the Filipino government to prosecute the criminal. It may have violated his right from "cruel and unjust punishment" in the US, but that has no bearing on the fact that he committed the crime on foreign soil while knowing it was illegal.
what do you mean by "very little value is paper value"? If paper money is a "tiny" proportion of the total in circulation, what is being circulated? Stocks, bonds, T-bills are all paper. If there is actually non-paper money being circulated in a large amount, how come I never get paid by any of it? In fact, the dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note. This means that the Note is supposed to be a placeholder of some "actual" money. Back in the day, before abolition of the gold standard, I could trade in my dollar bill for some amount of gold, because it was established that "one dollar" in Federal Reserve Notes meant it was a placeholder for some amount of gold that actually existed somewhere.
/at the same time/. The apparent increase in liquidity isn't true, because the system collapses like an illegal pyramid scheme if every bank investor were to liquidate their holdings at the same time. However, the FDIC system does a good job of masking this discrepancy. I wonder how many people know that FDIC is a psychological tool that allows us to keep our faith in fractional banking. Thus, we can now BELIEVE that money comes from nothing.
"Another way liquidity is increased is through banks" - That's what fractional banking depends upon: that you and the borrower will not need the $1000
you have to be infinitely more "technically savvy" to install GNU/Linux programs too. Especially when I download an RPM and it breaks or 10 minutes and it dumps core. So what do I usually need to do (on Linux)? Run around the net 5 times, find the currrent tarball, unzip it, configure the scripts for all the options I need, compile it and then install it.
/usr/ports/foobar
FreeBSD installation of external program called [foobar] goes something like this:
# cd
# make install
# exit
% foobar
4 lines to get my favorite GNU program to run flawlessly on my FreeBSD system (since it finds the source, downloads it, patches it, compiles it and installs it automagically).
Furthermore, the FCC is supposed to ensure that the two devices not cause interference with each other. I'm quite sure there is an FCC sticker on your microwave oven.
Fact:
Congress's authorization of the Federal Reserve in 1914 is unconstitutional, but no one has enough resources or incentives to push this around in the Supreme Court.
Fact:
Because Gold is FINITE substance, it has stable value. Paper's value can change, because you can print more of it very easily (hence inflation). Paper money in effect allows the bankers to make money (valuable) out of trees (not nearly as valuable, try bartering some amount of trees for your next computer/car/house).
you need to upgrade to either IE 5.01 SP1 or IE 5.5 SP1 (make sure the they are SP1). If you are running IE 5.01 SP2, you are safe.
So why don't we all bash BIND or BIND distributed for linux? Or maybe we can bash sendmail (pun not intended) or wu-ftpd. They all have terrible track records. Every unix admin knows that.
In effect, if you really wanted to bash Microsoft, you would need to go all the way back to DOS as a single-user system and no application-kernel protection. As the system isn't even designed with multi-user security and posix safety interlocks, how do you expect it? In IE, the application is the only barrier between the web and the kernel. In UNIX, you might be able to defeat the software (like qmail) but can't root the box because you'd have to defeat 5 or so saftey interlocks presented as multiple user accounts (in the case of qmail).
If you want to make a constructive criticism, then you should have them rewrite the whole OS. This has partially been done; this vulnerability isn't as "bad" in Win2k as long as the victim isn't logged in as administrator (root).
your first paragraph is correct.
However the second part of your second paragraph doesn't really make sense. Webbed digits is a phenotype expressed by a specific allele. It is similar to people who have the autosomal dominant trait of having 6 fingers. These two phenotypes are not the really the result of "insufficient" apoptosis, but rather, the person's genome tells it to. It's less a defect than a trait (like eye colour or hair colour).
I was just discussing this with a few colleagues yesterday:
Because tumor cells are already so screwed up genomically (if you do a karyotype + FISH, you don't see nice little arranged pairs of chromosomes, you see a MESS. Inversions, deletions, transpositions in almost every single chromosome. You even get aneuploidy), that is why they are resistant to standard apoptosis pathway applications such as Calcium or Fas-L. However, the interesting thing is, it STILL executes some stages from apoptosis, such as the flipase activation, which inverts the cell membrane. It just happens that lysosome degeneration and subsequent DNA fragmentation do not occur, so the cell is still "on".
The worst thing that happens is the inversion of the cellular membrane. This results in the cell surface markers and sensors to be oriented toward the inside of the cell, and therefore: 1) it is not detectable by immune surveillance, and 2) it shuts down cell-cell communications and thus prevents any more apoptosis signals from reaching their destinations; furthermore the new lack of sensory information is what causes the cell to lose both anchoring capabilities and so-called "contact inhibition" (where the cell will continue to divide even if there isn't enough room).
However, since the paper is talking about mitochondrial relationships to apoptosis, it is also interesting to note that because mitochondria co-exist separately from the host cell nucleus, it is possible to cause mitochondrial apoptosis, and with no energy generation available, the host cell dies along with it.
Your examples are flawed. I have not seen any cases where HTML, SSL, and Kerberos when presented to a win32 client by a unix server. No browser on the market supports XML 1.0 fully. Does this make MS wrong to not make IE fully compliant either? Many servers run unix and present SSL via apache to IE, I have not seen a single failure in authentication or presentation. The only rumor of MS-Kerberos breaking is when attempting to use a unix client to connect to a win32-Kerberos, but this rumor has been proven false by a majority of users. "If it doesn't work for you, you haven't configured it correctly"
actually, there is nothing "non-standard" about MS's Kerberos (i.e. interoperability is seamless because the protocol is implemented as MIT has specified, and documentation on integration is free from microsoft.com), and furthermore, IE conforms to W3C better than Netscape does. (e.g. how come many CSS structures don't work in netscape but do in IE?).
You don't need an MS exec to answer those questions, I've already answered them for you.
what self-respecting geek is going to wear a VR helmet? VR glasses were THE fad of like 1994 or something...
In fact, both Taiwan and Singapore have rolled out fibre to home or neighborhood fibre (where there is a fibre switch on each street and it gets converted to ethernet).
/mentality/ of the industry which is preventing their engineers from spending lots of money to completely rebuild the infrastructure. Much like the US auto industry and the US steel industry, the US telecom will soon fall to the likes of NTT and New Taiwan National Telecom.
The difference between American/European and Asian telecoms is in the maturity level. The Asian telecoms are still very young and are in the expansion state, whereas American/Euro telecoms are embroiled in corporate takeovers, their CEOs trying to make an extra buck, and generally playing the "Ma Bell is in ashes let's fsck" game. The Asian telecoms were virtually nonexistant until the late 1950s and 1960s after they finally recovered from the last world war. At the same time, AT&T was THE evil empire. (Imagine that if you wanted to buy a telephone, you had to buy it from your local AT&T office).
So while the asian telecoms were just building their networks, the Americans and Europeans were laying down T-lines and E-lines, respectively. Thus, it is much easier for Asian telecoms who have not yet "institutionalized" to retrofit their systems. Note that "institutionalization" has nothing to do with "monopolization" nor does it have anything to do with "decentralization". It is the whole
The reason why I like laptops is that I can use it as a desktop replacement without the bulk and with an LCD screen for far less than it costs to put together a desktop and buy a flatscreen monitor. With my $2700 Dell Inspiron clone, I can lug around as much computing power in my backpack as the machines in the computer lab. With datajacks in nearly every room, I have full computing power in any building on campus. I haven't used my zip drive in two years since I've had a laptop because I can just plug in my laptop and do a direct file transfer over ethernet.
Furthermore, my laptop is my primary workstation. I using for work and for play. It sustains uptimes of weeks. And of course, I can shut it down or suspend and pack it up and take it with me in a matter of minutes. Try doing that with a minitower/tower and 21" monitor.
Only recently have companies discovered this niche in the laptop market. Previously, the laptop market was only interested in portability, and not performance. That is why you have seen a large improvement in multimedia, graphics, storage capacity, and screen size in laptops.
At this time I have a 15" TFT. I'm always looking for a laptop with a 17" TFT with a GeForce Chip in it. If anyone knows of a vendor that sells on, let me know!
because you are still using digital media (unless you hand compiled it :) it would be illegal.
However, in court, you can defend yourself by using the trade secrets protection. You can't be sued to reveal how it works, much in the same way that I can't sue CocaCola Company for their soda formula even if I had suspicion that they were putting crack in it (because the formula is still classified as a trade secret).
At the same time, it would not be illegal to do what a professor did: read off the source and make a recording, then compress it using mpeg.
Remember the last "Ahnold" movie _The Sixth Day_? It appeared in theatres in the Fall of 2000, and it describes a near future where everything and everyone is cloned....and recloned. Basically, the corporation would take a snapshot of your brain before you died, and would clone you, and re-upload your brain, so you resumed life as if nothing happened. This made you virtually immortal. One of the implications of this was that every clone had a genetic defect, so that their lifespans were limited, and so if they tried to turn on the corporation (like our beloved hero's clone), they would just die off within a year or two from stuff like cancer or other genetic diseases, and wouldn't be recloned, so then they would be really "dead".
This reminds me of the days when I fiddled with E, F, G and larger engine sizes for model rockets which required FAA licensing and airport control tower approval to launch (well the Fs and Gs did). As part of a project, we had to build a National Rocketry Assoc. certified launcher and radio retrieval system (homing beacon). The homing beacon operated on an unused FM frequency in the area and due to range requirements needed several banks of D-size batteries (you may have needed several watts of power). The difficulty is one like NASA's: trying to fit the peformance requirements while not exceeding payload weight. An automated cell phone which broadcasted GPS location would have been lighter (although not cheaper :)
Actually things are more secure in the military than you can imagine. I currently have a co-worker in Kosovo as a military attache in satellite communications. You try to telnet into his boxen, his telnetd has been rigged so that after the DoD disclaimer ("All authorized and unauthorized activity at this terminal is logged via IP which is traced to the ISP", etc etc) shows up as the MOTD, every keystroke you type is logged. (you don't even need to successfuly log in).
I think it would be foolish to expect that people would turn from being clueless to clueful overnight with the abolishment of copyright and licences. They WOULD NOT "come to expect to see the sources and datasheets on the things on which they depend." If such were the case, Ralph Nader would not have had to sue General Motors for the poor saftey designs of their automobiles in the late 1960s.
uh no. you seem to be confusing detection and tracking mechanisms. A plane's noise signature doesn't mean anything, because you don't use a sound-wave vector to detect it. However, a plane's *radar* signature is what makes it detectable. Thus, you have development of the F-117A "stealth fighter", the B-2 "stealth bomber", and the F-22 Raptor. This is because you want to minimize the aircraft's radar signature. Suppose there was some sort of scramjet engine, that when retrofitted onto the F-117A that allowed it to cruise at Mach 5. Sure, it's fast, but what if the new engine causes it to appear bright and green on a radar screen, and the enemy has a SAM that travels at Mach 6?
The same principle applies to a submarine. Passive sonar is used to listen to mechanical sounds traveling through the water. Preferably, you want a silent boat, one which makes NO noise, so it will be undetectable, but since all mechanical movement creates friction, this energy is converted to sound. Unless you have stopped your engines and are at 0 speed, you will hear the boat using hydrophones. Thus, you hear the rumbling of a propellor 200 feet under the ocean.
Furthermore, cavitation causes a feedback interference into the boat's own hydrophones, which decrease the ability of the sonar operator to hear the surrounding area for other boats. So when cavitating, a sub is deaf and at the same time loudly transmitting its location to every other sub or surface warship in its vicinity.
Check in /usr/ports. For nearly every open source linux "binary" there is an equivelent application ported to allow compilation using `cc` under BSD.
And if the source has truly been "gnu-ized" it will compile under `gcc`.
Allowing you to run native Linux binaries lets you run closed source applications such as Netscape or Valve's Halflife Dedicated Server which can not be recompiled for BSD.
iBCS2 is used to run SysV binaries not BSD binaries. FreeBSD also has an iBCS ABI which allows you to run SysV binaries. Note that SCO Unix is SysV.
Currently, the quietest sub in existance, the SSN-21 Seawolf class boats, is still limited to operating below 10 knots at depths of 200ft or less because the resulting cavitation from any faster velocity sounds like a flat knocking noise when listening to the target via passive sonar. As a sub, you DON'T want cavitation because it gives your position away.
I'd say the only benefit of being able to supercavitate is to travel fast enough to evade an incoming torpedo; however a torpedo with that kind of technology will basically still be able to out run the boat (simply, it takes less effort to accelerate something that is 1/100 the mass of the boat). Thus, the best strategic is STILL going to remain staying slow, deep, and using a towed array to listen in the baffles in order to stay undetected.
The University of Connecticut, while known for it's basketball team throughout the country, is also 1 of 2 Carnegie-Mellon Research One Institutions in the northeastern United States that is a public university. Here's what our student conduct code has to say about academic dishonesty:
/. is a proponent of open-source, I think you can easily identify with crediting authors of code when you use them in your own projects. Published scientific data is NOT copyrighted, that is, you do NOT have to ask for permission to use the data. This is why, in EVERY formal paper, any information that was not the author's own ideas is cited. A typical research paper has around 30 citations or more; even background information needs to be citated. Otherwise, in addition to credit, how is accountibility and authenticity ensured? If I don't say where I learned that newly discovered fact X, and someone who doesn't know much about fact X reads my paper, they won't know if it's really true, of if I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.
Part VI: Academic Integrity in Undergraduate Education and Research, Section A, Para 1 states:
"A fundamental tenet of all educational institutions is academic honesty; academic work depends upon respect for and acknowledgement of the research and ideas of others. Misrepresenting someone else"s work as one's own is a serious offense in any academic setting and it will not be condoned."
Para 2 states, quoted: "Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to,"..."presenting, as one's own, the ideas or words of another for academic evaluation; doing unauthorized academic work for which another person will receive credit or be evaluated; and presenting the same or substantially the same papers or projects in two or more courses without the explicit permission of the instructors involved."
Research is based on taking pre-published information and using that background knowledge to explore and create new conclusions and ideas. In computer science, as in any other science, research is primarily involved in creating a new hypothesis, and the majority of the time spent in research is building the experiment to test the hypothesis. This isn't a lab course; experiments are created from scratch, since your experiments are original. About 75% of the time spent in research is in the lab trying to collect data. In computer science, data is collected by writing programs. However, it is logical that if someone has already created a protocol for an experiment and taken years to perfect the experiment, why should you, as someone trying to explore *new* ideas, be forced to recreate the wheel? Thus, you search in the literature, and you find that so-and-so had a similar setup and they used a set of components to build it. Because the best science is based on quantitative data, parameters are published, *for the express purpose of repeatability*.
The scientific method states that for a conclusion to gain acceptance based on experimental data, the experiment must be repeatable in the exact way it was published, and that if I would to go to the lab tommorrow and replicate an experiment using all the published parameters, I should get similar results.
In computer science, experiments are in the form of running analytical computer programs. Thus, in order to prevent reinventing the wheel, you can and SHOULD use pre-published code. However, YOU MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. Since almost everyone here on