While the method of color control was clearly explained, the article didn't explain where the actual source of light would be. Will it be behind the display? Will it be shone onto the display? You can't generate light by simply providing a resonating chamber, which is what they seem to be doing.
Light generation seems to me to be the biggest draw of current.
One of the main reasons drug companies research many things at once is because they haven't had a detailed map of how the human body works.
Even the success of interferon-based drugs like Avonex against Multiple Schlerosis is considered among medical circles to be a fluke. (Those drugs were developed on the theory that MS was caused by viruses, before it was discovered the immune system played the main role.)
The modeling of an entire cell, or group of cells, is going to allow drug companies to look at a protein they know is malfunctioning, understand what it's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it, then create a drug specifically tailored to replace that protein. And this is before nanomachines become feasible for medical uses.
Now, do you think Pheizer is going to share its research with Johnson & Johnson? Each time a drug is to be tested in simulation, the cell has to be grown, computationally. And you can't simply use a binary-image copy of a previously grown cell, your cell is going to have to be grown with the defects native to the disease you're trying to treat.
Now, all I've done is give reasons why drug companies will split their focus in fewer directions.
Here's the reason they won't house their own mainframe: Experience. When a large company wants to do something major, they generally buy out a smaller, more specialized company with years of experience. There aren't going to be many left, after IBM fights with HP, buying them all out.
And IBM's going to be foolhardy enough to run an untrusted binary on their massive system? There's always liability if the program does something nasty, but I think IBM's going to want to see the source code first, even if it means seeing it under an NDA.
Like any nice idea, capitalism, corporate responsibility, the US Government, the implementation isn't always as nice as the idea.
I agree completely. Unions are a nice idea. They're essentially the only current way, aside from tragedies like the Triangle Fire, to alter working conditions.
I only have a problem with them when they have nothing to do with me, but they affect my life in a significant manner.
From my understanding, cars are rediculously expensive. The ports strike seriously messed up shipping schedules, so we're going to see higher prices on products this Christmas season. Especially for imported products, or those dependant on imported components or supplies.
I wouldn't be surprised if some oil tankers didn't get unloaded on schedule, either. (Gasoline in my area is $1.60/usgal for "regular" (grade 89), and that's "out in the sticks.")
The only people who deserve "decent jobs and livable wages" are those who earn them.
I'm not saying people should be left out to starve. "Livable" is a vague term. Do you mean, "allows survival" or "provides comfort"? If the former, then, yes, everyone deserves them. If the latter, then, no.
The whole idea behind Welfare reform is to get people to provide for themselves. Far, far too many people (IMO) are comfortable with getting money for being unemployed, while only making a token effort to find a lasting job.
If someone's comfortable, they'll try to stay where they are. If they're not comfortable, they'll try to put themselves in a situation where they are comfortable.
I wasn't picking on unions because it was "fun." I focused on them, rather than the jet-ski lobbyist, because I had more data.
Even if someone fails to "deserve" a decent job, by my standards, I still don't have a problem with them working to improve their situation. I do, however, have a serious problem when they can hang a sword not only over their employer's head, but over the head of anyone who depends on the services their employer provides.
I think unions need to be pushed into obsolesence. That means that something better would have to come along to replace them, like large fines levied against employers deemed to be treating their employees unfairly. If a company goes under for being fined too much, so be it. If the service is needed, another company will step in and take their place.
Enforcement would be easy; just require that a demographically significan portion of a company's employees request a review.
Corporations are very little more greedy than the executives who run them. And there's hardly a difference between your average greedy corporate executive and your average American citizen, career choice notwithstanding.
Look at worker unions. They used to serve only to protect their members from employers focused on profits(and for whom, the term "margin" wasn't part of the picture). While I'm sure there are some unions that still serve that purpose, I can point out a couple of instances where an American union's action has adversely affected nearly all Americans, while only union members could benefit.
I can't pull up any statistics for you, but I do know someone who earns $50k/year for unskilled labor(drives a hi-lo) at a Ford plant here in Michigan.
And I doubt you've forgotten that one union controls all major West-Coast ports.
There was a story on NPR a few days ago, about a group suing to open protected lakes for jet-ski recreational activities. Jet-skiis typically dump a quarter of their fuel unburned into the water. The woman in charge said she was "all for making jet-skiis pollute less," but did not respond as to why nobody was pressuring businesses to decrease the pollutants coming from the machines.
People have this, er, tendency, to push for legislation that's to their personal advantage, regardless of what it costs other people.
For an example, ask yourself why we haven't seen a law limiting the size of unions. Ask yourself the difference between union membership and extortion. Ask yourself why there are laws that limit personal freedoms that don't harm other people. (like laws on what is legal and illegal for sexual recreation. No, I'm not thinking of child pornography.)
I submitted it because I thought it interesting that hospitals weren't the only ones to be affected by privacy laws vs. Microsoft's licensing.
Turns out that an editor at Slashdot decided it newsworthy.
I don't mean to disclaim any blame for the article's quality; I should have read it more thoroughly. I only submitted the article because it had two of the key features I learned about in high-school journalism: Human interest(evoke feelings in the reader) and proximity(How close the topic is to the target audience.).
The quote at the end, well, I admit I didn't stop to think about the sense of it. I only read through the article quickly one and a half times, before deciding it was relevant enough to post to Slashdot.
Yeah...but being invisible doesn't protect you from physical collisions.
Besides...I don't think they'll be able to change color that quickly, at least, not for a long time. (Though, looking at the acceleration of things, "long" might only mean ten to twenty years.)
...backed by both environmentalists and auto makers would require recyclement of cars older than X years.
Environmentalists would like it, to reduce pollution. It would also force development of effecient recycling of complex devices, or development of easier-to-recycle devices.
Auto makers would like it, to gaurantee sales every so often.
If you read the article, you'd see that it mentions the problems to the "user"...discression as to what to do after that would countless use many trees of regulations.
Skip that...I discovered you can blow up all sorts of components by putting them in parallel with an eight-ohm resistor at nine volts. Of course, that speaker isn't any good any more, either.:)
Solar Cells == Photovoltaic Cells Solar Cells != Photo-Diodes
While both are PN junctions, insofar as the construction is concerned, photovoltaic cells actually produce a voltage, while photodiodes behave...differently.
When you have a photovoltaic cell, you need only connect a load to it to use EM energy for whatever work you need done.
With diodes, you have one PN junction (meaning P-type material on one side, and N-type material on the other.). To forward-bias the diode, you attach your positive voltage source to the P region, and your negative voltage source to the N region. This causes your electrons (called current carriers) to be pushed across the PN junction toward your positive voltage supply.
If you reverse-bias the diode, your current carriers will be drawn away from the PN junction, and almost no current, called leakage current, can cross.
All PN junctions are sensitive to light in that light striking silicon will produce current carriers(disclaimer: I'm only telling half the story...it can get confusion if you start considering "electron holes"...but if generation of free electrons bothers you, feel free.), wherever they strike. If they're particularly near the PN junction, they will serve to cause an increase in the leakage current, the external measurement of which is how the information is retrieved.
A rudimentary photodiode is simply a PN junction with a glass window.
There are all sorts of things you can do with semiconductors, doped or not. I keep seeing discussion proclaiming the downfall of semiconductors, but I wouldn't count on, say, quantum computing, to be able to function without supporting circuitry for the next twenty to thirty years. I hope to retire about then.:)
Slashdot Mirror
While the method of color control was clearly explained, the article didn't explain where the actual source of light would be. Will it be behind the display? Will it be shone onto the display? You can't generate light by simply providing a resonating chamber, which is what they seem to be doing.
Light generation seems to me to be the biggest draw of current.
One of the main reasons drug companies research many things at once is because they haven't had a detailed map of how the human body works.
Even the success of interferon-based drugs like Avonex against Multiple Schlerosis is considered among medical circles to be a fluke. (Those drugs were developed on the theory that MS was caused by viruses, before it was discovered the immune system played the main role.)
The modeling of an entire cell, or group of cells, is going to allow drug companies to look at a protein they know is malfunctioning, understand what it's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it, then create a drug specifically tailored to replace that protein. And this is before nanomachines become feasible for medical uses.
Now, do you think Pheizer is going to share its research with Johnson & Johnson? Each time a drug is to be tested in simulation, the cell has to be grown, computationally. And you can't simply use a binary-image copy of a previously grown cell, your cell is going to have to be grown with the defects native to the disease you're trying to treat.
Now, all I've done is give reasons why drug companies will split their focus in fewer directions.
Here's the reason they won't house their own mainframe: Experience. When a large company wants to do something major, they generally buy out a smaller, more specialized company with years of experience. There aren't going to be many left, after IBM fights with HP, buying them all out.
And IBM's going to be foolhardy enough to run an untrusted binary on their massive system? There's always liability if the program does something nasty, but I think IBM's going to want to see the source code first, even if it means seeing it under an NDA.
Like any nice idea, capitalism, corporate responsibility, the US Government, the implementation isn't always as nice as the idea.
I agree completely. Unions are a nice idea. They're essentially the only current way, aside from tragedies like the Triangle Fire, to alter working conditions.
I only have a problem with them when they have nothing to do with me, but they affect my life in a significant manner.
From my understanding, cars are rediculously expensive. The ports strike seriously messed up shipping schedules, so we're going to see higher prices on products this Christmas season. Especially for imported products, or those dependant on imported components or supplies.
I wouldn't be surprised if some oil tankers didn't get unloaded on schedule, either. (Gasoline in my area is $1.60/usgal for "regular" (grade 89), and that's "out in the sticks.")
Testing how a new drug interacts with a nearly complete biological model of a human cell? Or possibly entire tissues or organs?
The only people who deserve "decent jobs and livable wages" are those who earn them.
I'm not saying people should be left out to starve. "Livable" is a vague term. Do you mean, "allows survival" or "provides comfort"? If the former, then, yes, everyone deserves them. If the latter, then, no.
The whole idea behind Welfare reform is to get people to provide for themselves. Far, far too many people (IMO) are comfortable with getting money for being unemployed, while only making a token effort to find a lasting job.
If someone's comfortable, they'll try to stay where they are. If they're not comfortable, they'll try to put themselves in a situation where they are comfortable.
I wasn't picking on unions because it was "fun." I focused on them, rather than the jet-ski lobbyist, because I had more data.
Even if someone fails to "deserve" a decent job, by my standards, I still don't have a problem with them working to improve their situation. I do, however, have a serious problem when they can hang a sword not only over their employer's head, but over the head of anyone who depends on the services their employer provides.
I think unions need to be pushed into obsolesence. That means that something better would have to come along to replace them, like large fines levied against employers deemed to be treating their employees unfairly. If a company goes under for being fined too much, so be it. If the service is needed, another company will step in and take their place.
Enforcement would be easy; just require that a demographically significan portion of a company's employees request a review.
Corporations are very little more greedy than the executives who run them. And there's hardly a difference between your average greedy corporate executive and your average American citizen, career choice notwithstanding.
Look at worker unions. They used to serve only to protect their members from employers focused on profits(and for whom, the term "margin" wasn't part of the picture). While I'm sure there are some unions that still serve that purpose, I can point out a couple of instances where an American union's action has adversely affected nearly all Americans, while only union members could benefit.
I can't pull up any statistics for you, but I do know someone who earns $50k/year for unskilled labor(drives a hi-lo) at a Ford plant here in Michigan.
And I doubt you've forgotten that one union controls all major West-Coast ports.
There was a story on NPR a few days ago, about a group suing to open protected lakes for jet-ski recreational activities. Jet-skiis typically dump a quarter of their fuel unburned into the water. The woman in charge said she was "all for making jet-skiis pollute less," but did not respond as to why nobody was pressuring businesses to decrease the pollutants coming from the machines.
People have this, er, tendency, to push for legislation that's to their personal advantage, regardless of what it costs other people.
For an example, ask yourself why we haven't seen a law limiting the size of unions. Ask yourself the difference between union membership and extortion. Ask yourself why there are laws that limit personal freedoms that don't harm other people. (like laws on what is legal and illegal for sexual recreation. No, I'm not thinking of child pornography.)
I supplied that article. (look at my username.)
I submitted it because I thought it interesting that hospitals weren't the only ones to be affected by privacy laws vs. Microsoft's licensing.
Turns out that an editor at Slashdot decided it newsworthy.
I don't mean to disclaim any blame for the article's quality; I should have read it more thoroughly. I only submitted the article because it had two of the key features I learned about in high-school journalism: Human interest(evoke feelings in the reader) and proximity(How close the topic is to the target audience.).
The quote at the end, well, I admit I didn't stop to think about the sense of it. I only read through the article quickly one and a half times, before deciding it was relevant enough to post to Slashdot.
I added an ellipsis in order to make the grammar more correct. (shrug)
I believe the term is "punitive damages." e.g. Not actual damages caused to the "victims," but as a punishment.
If the money was to be returned to the customers, then it would have to be through court, as a civil lawsuit with the customers named as the victim.
It's a lot harder to prove someone shorted ten dollars as a "victim." It's not sexy until you're working with thousands of dollars.
As it stands, this was just a direct fine by the EU. No courts involved.
Didn't you hear? We're going to have to go through all of that again...Looks like Microsoft was wearing gauntlets when its wrists were slapped.
If you could buy 10,000 cheap licenses somewhere, chances are that your would-be customers could, too. That's what's called a "free market." :)
...is, is Microsoft basing it on a license the KMart customers sign, or on a license KMart signed?
If it's the customer's license, then, hot damn, we've got a smoking gun for monopolistic practices.
If it's a license KMart signed, well, then Microsoft is perfectly within their right.
...the first nanoluddite.
This isn't going to be a cool trend.
Yeah...but being invisible doesn't protect you from physical collisions.
Besides...I don't think they'll be able to change color that quickly, at least, not for a long time. (Though, looking at the acceleration of things, "long" might only mean ten to twenty years.)
If they're electrically powered, then, yes, there'd be EM radiation.
If they're chemically powered, the only people who could see them would be environmentalists.
...backed by both environmentalists and auto makers would require recyclement of cars older than X years.
Environmentalists would like it, to reduce pollution. It would also force development of effecient recycling of complex devices, or development of easier-to-recycle devices.
Auto makers would like it, to gaurantee sales every so often.
If you read the article, you'd see that it mentions the problems to the "user"...discression as to what to do after that would countless use many trees of regulations.
Anyone know what wavelength this device emits on?
Skip that...I discovered you can blow up all sorts of components by putting them in parallel with an eight-ohm resistor at nine volts. Of course, that speaker isn't any good any more, either. :)
Solar Cells == Photovoltaic Cells
:)
Solar Cells != Photo-Diodes
While both are PN junctions, insofar as the construction is concerned, photovoltaic cells actually produce a voltage, while photodiodes behave...differently.
When you have a photovoltaic cell, you need only connect a load to it to use EM energy for whatever work you need done.
With diodes, you have one PN junction (meaning P-type material on one side, and N-type material on the other.). To forward-bias the diode, you attach your positive voltage source to the P region, and your negative voltage source to the N region. This causes your electrons (called current carriers) to be pushed across the PN junction toward your positive voltage supply.
If you reverse-bias the diode, your current carriers will be drawn away from the PN junction, and almost no current, called leakage current, can cross.
All PN junctions are sensitive to light in that light striking silicon will produce current carriers(disclaimer: I'm only telling half the story...it can get confusion if you start considering "electron holes"...but if generation of free electrons bothers you, feel free.), wherever they strike. If they're particularly near the PN junction, they will serve to cause an increase in the leakage current, the external measurement of which is how the information is retrieved.
A rudimentary photodiode is simply a PN junction with a glass window.
There are all sorts of things you can do with semiconductors, doped or not. I keep seeing discussion proclaiming the downfall of semiconductors, but I wouldn't count on, say, quantum computing, to be able to function without supporting circuitry for the next twenty to thirty years. I hope to retire about then.
By preventing them from copying the data in your head (by RF shielding your brain), your violating their copyright.
;)
Careful...
"In Silicon Valley, paper is now worth than the ideas written on it!"
I'd be more concerned that he's actually talking to it...
But could the US enforce the rules?
Do you realize how many people would scream "foul!" if they took a foreign company to court?
The last publicized time they did that, you could (and still can) get tempers to flare just by saying "Dmitri Skylarov."