200 Hz pulses of neutrons and tuned ultrasound create cavities and grow bubbles in deuterated acetone which grow from 60 nanometers to 6 millimeters. At this point, they implode within nanoseconds, reaching estimated temperatures of 10^7 Celcius/Kelvin and 10^9 atmospheres (sea level) and releasing energy: tritium (hence fusion), light photons (sonoluminescence), gamma rays, and more neutrons. "Because the bubbles grow to such a relatively large size before they implode, their contraction causes extreme temperatures and pressures comparable to those found in the interiors of stars." "In future versions of the experiment, the tritium produced might then be used as a fuel to drive energy-producing reactions in which it fuses with deuterium."
I was very let down that there was no mention of the
Lunar Solar Power / LSP project, proposed by David Criswell (and I think recently reviewed by NASA). This project could not only "lift our national spirit", but prove the best long-term investment our or any country could make for global stability and prosperity. The Mars mission sends the wrong (militaristic) message to the world when too many nations hasten to blame others for their problems (which is what causes wars). The prospect of being able to power the world's population affordably, sustainably and extensibly by 2050, or even 2100, could carry a profound message of hope. Why not actually solve a real long term problem rather than leaving it to our grandchildren?
In emergencies, European doctors inject hydergine directly into the carotid artery to protect the brain. Hydergine's mechanisms of actions include the reduction in the rate of lipofuscin deposition in brain cells, increased metabolism of brain cells by improving ATP synthesis and protection to the brain from free radical damage. [1]
Hydergine(tm) [2] reputedly also prolongs brain life in oxygen-starved conditions, according to the c. 1980 book "Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach" by research Drs. Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw; but apparently also has some risks or lacks (FDA-)sufficient testing for this use, so most U.S. doctors at least don't seem to know about it in this capacity [3,4] (anyone have any info about it being used in emergency rooms in the U.S. or Canada?). They wrote then that it was over-the-counter in Europe, but that seems to no longer be true [5]. I have never taken it, but you might think twice [6] before trying it as a nootropic [7], despite their apparent wealth of knowledge [1] and its league of enthusiasts [8,9]. I am not a doctor, but all of this leads me to wonder: has Hydergine been overlooked? And if so, why? (Because of scientists' perennial fears of ruin for appearing over-zealous??)
Notes: 1 2 *formerly known as Sandoz 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (google cache)
The Spanish Influenza pandemic is the catastrophe against which all modern pandemics are measured. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 40 percent of the worldwide population became ill and that over 20 million people died. Between September 1918 and April 1919, approximately 500,000 deaths from the flu occurred in the U.S. alone. Many people died from this very quickly. Some people who felt well in the morning became sick by noon, and were dead by nightfall. Those who did not succumb to the disease within the first few days often died of complications from the flu (such as pneumonia) caused by bacteria.
One of the most unusual aspects of the Spanish flu was its ability to kill young adults. The reasons for this remain uncertain. With the Spanish flu, mortality rates were high among healthy adults as well as the usual high-risk groups. The attack rate and mortality was highest among adults 20 to 50 years old. The severity of that virus has not been seen again.
The formula for a bad pandemic seems to be (1) contagiousness; (2) deadliness; (3) opportunity to spread, which implies a both an intrinsic property: (a) "laziness"/non-greediness or a delayed onset (HIV vs. Ebola), and (b) good mixing opportunities (see the link above for examples of why second waves sometimes occur, or how even seasonal timing with the schoolyear can aid in spreading).
Exactly. Who's to say that the correlation doesn't result from predisposed subjects choosing the videogames because it provides a good outlet for their natural inclinations?
It might be much more useful to know, for example, whether or not such an outlet is helpful or hurtful in their long-term cognitive development. Given that nature often takes the shortest path, I might not be surprised to find out that it somehow even helps.
Note that, personally, I rather dislike videogames.
At the risk of being (unfairly) pegged as flamebait:
I think one of the stated purposes of Palladium aka Microsoft Trusted Computing is to give control such as whether something like this is installed back to the end user.
It seems to me that with your creative mind for and extended absence from computer/security technology, you are in a unique position to offer a fresh and almost prophetic perspective on the use of computers in general (if the subject interests you).
I am curious:
What surprises you the most about the computer lanscape of today?
What you feel is especially/conspicuously lacking?
Conversely,
what "Holy Grails" of today do you think are less than ideal?
For extra creidit, I'd love to see a computer software analogue to Hilbert's famous List of Questions, as a kind of to-do list of how computers could most benefit people (in their daily or creative life).
Bronson has one well-though-out and well-presented point. Just because it's been said before (the inscription at the Oracle of Delphi) doesn't make it any less true. My favorite quote from the article:
Only two are so smart that they would succeed at anything they chose (though having more choices makes answering The Question that much harder)
He's also right that we usually don't inherently know our calling, and that our attitudes about money and success are our biggest obstacles to finding out. And that we should be asking, 'who will I become' if I do X. Of course, there's also no ONE METHOD for everyone to answer this question. Still, I think his article/book is a helpful reminder.
I have to admit that I laughed at first when I read your question because it seems a bit off the beaten path. I also think there are already some good common sense posts. That said, and given that you specifically asked for software (which seems to imply the problem of not having x-ray vision), I would like to mention...
PDF417, a 2-D barcode capable of storing up to 1K of 7-bit Ascii data in a single symbol (at minimum error correction level). They are designed to be able to, for example, describe the contents of shipping containers. Portable scanner units exist which can read the symbols and convert them to text, although unless you are moving overseas or have way too many boxes, it won't make sense pricewise. I have written an encoder which produces symbols as PNGs (no PCL or Postscript yet, which might be better for barcode label printers) from text. You are welcome to try it out if you want to go this route (email me).
A few years ago I moved overseas with about 100 U-Haul boxes (I know, I know, really really $tupid). I labeled the boxes with a letter and a number and then wrote a master list describing the contents from the label. This system worked admirably.
As I understand it from the FAQ mentioned in the original post, Palladium enables 'trusted' computing in the sense that vendors trust the computers to operate according to policies they control. Thus, vendors can wield strong control over their markets and will be encouraged to bring out more copyrighted material without risk of loss of profits. This is Bill Gate's answer to the Software Piracy campaign MS started back in '99 or so.
The obvious question with this is: What is the control infrastrucure for Palladium? Who controls file revocation lists? Who controls policy enforcement? Who can gain control through the courts? Who can gain control without users' knowledge?
Specifically, How is storing private RSA keys on an SSC (Security Support Component) different from centralized key escrow management? (Won't the SSC vendor know or at least be able to know the private key?) Also, What are the costs of using blacklists and whitelists?
Another obvious question, although less technical, is: How this is going to succeed where eBooks have not? Back in 2000, when eBooks were the just coming out, Microsoft predicted that it would be a multibillion dollar industry with rapid growth. Digital copyright protection capability was added to their version with the hope of securing their revenue. How are eBooks doing now? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from this? Perhaps this is an instructive analogy to extrapolate from.
Finally, and perhaps most importanly (but least answerable), the two FAQs above paint rather different pictures of Palladium and TCPA. How are we to know what the effects will really be? Do we have to look at the source?
I am assuming that the title has no intrinsic value to you, and is only useful on a CV to advertise what you "really" want to do (to people otherwise clueless of your talents/destiny) in life.
It sounds like Bioinformatics/Physics is the most generic but descriptive to me (i.e. it will most widely connote what you did).
If you want to emphasize computing, one of Computational Bioinformatics, Computational Physics and Biology, Computational Biology and Physics or Computational [mixed term for Bio and Phys] might be best.
As an intrinsic name, it sounds to me like you majored in something close to Applied Structural Sciences, Natural and Artificial Sciences, Applied Formal Sciences, or Cybernetics; however, while these are denotative (at least to me), they all seem to fail to capture part of the essence. Perhaps a longer denotative name, such as Applied Structures in Physics, Biology and Computer Sciences is what you are looking for (substituting the aspect most interesting to youfor 'Structures' above).
Perhaps it is obvious, but I am mentioning Structure and Form because it seems to me you are interested in the three most basic areas of science. In ancient times, you would simply have been called a Natural Philosopher (IIRC). 'Biology' and 'Physics' come from the Greek words for 'life' (Bios) and 'nature' (Physis), although we moderns translate the latter as 'mattter'. I am guessing that your interest in Computer Science is akin to being interested in structures in mathematics, forms which are also natural or objective and which have some a priori existence. (I am not advocating the name A Priori and A Posteriori Sciences!) Plato was a "realist" in the sense that he saw Forms as pre-existing structures in both matter and in fields like mathematics where mental apperception is needed. In other words, he didn't divide mind and nature the way we do. Perhaps this search for basic forms lies behind your interests as well??
Of course, this is only my guess based on a very short description of what you did (using conventional words like Biology, Physics, etc). If you gave more detail, you might get some better suggestions. Without that, you're going to have to get lucky or perhaps you are just looking for a generic title.
This is about confinement, isolation, and deprivation (of things to do). Not a nice prospect for an up to 50 years lifespan. It is indeed very sad.
I recall an account of how some "primitive" (African tribal) people, when imprisoned, committed suicide or died of no apparent reason. The account I read was in Marie-Louise von Franz but may well have come from Laurens van der Post (12). Supposedly they thought that they had lost their soul and so had nothing more to live for.
I guess chimps are perhaps fortunate or at least different in that they don't experience a "loss of soul". I wonder whether any of them have died in captivity for no apparent medical reason: if they had, it might show a frightening similarity between chimps and humans, i.e. that chimps' "consciosness" is closer to humans than we think. Of course, I am NOT condoning this kind of cruelty!!
Whoa, there's some serious freshman math/physics confusion here! Looking at the whole thread, there are several gotchas:
1. don't confuse distance to earth's surface and distance to earth's center
2. don't confuse distance r between two objects and radius r of an object
3. think carefully when talking about limits of something over something approaching zero (they are usually not finite!)
4. don't disregard a quantity (like mass) in an equation (like that for terminal velocity) until you know all the component forces (i.e., drag)
5. don't make statements when you don't know what you're talking about!
6. (from someone else's comment): don't confuse gravitational force and acceleration
a = G(me)/r^2
correct As r->0, this is a constant, 9.81 m/s^2ouch!
First, gravitational force is proportional directly to both masses and inversely to the square of the distance r between the two center of masses. This formula would approach an infnite force as r->0. However IIRC, when an object starts to fall inside a hole in the earth, then the effective mass of the earth used in the formula decreases to the instantaneous mass bounded by the sphere of earth from the object's present height. (This is derived by calculating a net gravitational force of zero for an object inside a uniform-density spherical shell of width dr.)
Second, when we say that gravitational acceleration is constant, we mean that it is independent of the mass of the small object -- at a fixed distance from the earth's center (like near the surface) -- here we are ignoring neglegible smaller-order gravitaional variations due to, say, the earth being different from a perfect sphere, etc. The gravitational force acting any object however is of course proportional to the object's mass.
The value g=9.8m/s^2 comes from assuming some version of the earth's mean radius as the distance. So what you probably meant is as the distance from the earth's surface goes to 0 (r->r_0), the acceleration approaches a constant limit.
So really, the mass of the falling rock does not need to be considered, only the drag, which I'm not familiar in calculating, but that doesn't really matter, as I'd wager something small drags less than something big. In short, you're wrong.
Here, we've got to be really careful talking about things we don't know about. We can calculate the gravitational acceleration without knowing the mass, but as it turns out, once we calculate the drag, we have a force, and so to convert the drag force to an acceleration on the object, we have to divide by the mass, thus reintroducing this quantity into the calculation. Terminal velocity results when the two acceleration terms are equal and opposite:
drag acceleration F_drag/m = gravity g
Finally...
The parent poster is of course right, because the drag force F_drag is proportional to the object's velocity, with a proportionality constant depending on the surface area of the object (as well as another factor relating to how smooth or rough this surface is -- maybe sorta like a fractal dimension), and surface area is proportional to r^2 -- taking r now as the (average in some sense) radius of the object. Now, assuming that the object is roughly (macroscopically materially) homogeneous, we can assume it has a uniform density. Under this assumption, its mass is directly proportional to r^3 (for some suitable definition of 'average' radius). Under these circumstances, the drag acceleration is going to be proportional to drag force over mass, or r^2/r^3=1/r. Thus the original poster would seem to be completely right, that smaller obects will have a lower terminal velocity v:
g = a_drag = F_drag / m ~ v*r^2/r^3 ~ v/r
v ~ r*g
This might be verified by looking at a discussion of the Millikan experiment IIRC [although one quick reference suggests that here one wants a viscous force F_drag = c*v*r, (not r^2!) where the constant c=6*pi*eta is given by Stoke's Law, eta is the air's (?) viscosity, and flow conditions are "laminar" -- these seem like rather idealized conditions]. Note however, that even if the drag force is sometimes proportional to r and not r^2, that still the terminal velocity will be proportional to a positive power r (r^2 instead of r^1), and will still decrease (in this case even quicker) as does r.
Does anyone know whether drag forces are ever proportional to fractional powers of r (between 1 and 2), perhaps somehow related to a drag coefficient of fractal dimension (perhaps between 2 and 3)?? Just a wild thought...
In principle I agree with what you say. My only reservation is whether the original poster's company only needs a small subset of what most of these products have to offer. That's not to say that WBEM isn't rather sweeping in its capabilities, but as you say, it takes a lot of man-hours to figure it out. Also, there are many companies (Computer Associates, Tivoli, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, NetIQ, ON Technology, BMC, and Tangram) that make such products; there might be one that does specifically what the poster needs (functionality, size, platforms). At the risk of seeming pro-M$, you can find a pretty comprehensive list to start you off on their Datacenter site.
Incidentally, the name WBEM (web-based enterprise management) is somewhat of a misnomer, as it has more to to with remote, than web-based, administration and instrumentation.
Each implementation of WBEM consists of services which expose some core set of platform/application/host-specific objects via a (theoretically) platform-independent CIM object.
M$ had some sample scripts in the resource kit at one time, but the best link I can find is this. (One of these scripts found its way into Knowledge Base article Q271362; it gives you the short names of services so that you can start and stop services from a W2K command line or script; my version is here).
There seems to be a WBEM implementation for Solaris as well in JIRO, but my guess is that it's a small subset of CIM for managing storage devices.
I would recommend seeing what SW is out there from Computer Associates, Tivoli, and similar places that is "cross platform", particularly ones that might be MMC-based, or best yet that say they use WBEM/WMI/..., and get a trial version to see how interoperable it really is. Then decide how much functionality you need, and whether it's already hardwired into the implementations for your platforms or whether you want to buy something or implement it yourself.
When I stuck to the diet, my HDL-to-LDL cholesterol improved, my weight improved, my energy level improved, my muscle tone dramatically improved, and my doctor was surprised yet still skeptical.
The only difficulty sticking to the diet was practical: the industry is bloated with high-sugar and over-sweetened foods, and it is either expensive or time-consuming to stick to the diet. Several "low-carb" foods are not so, and many others now contain Aspartame, which I have unpleasant reactions to.
I thought the article was eminently balanced. It is unfortunate that scientists should be so vulnerable to political pressures.
One area the article didn't go in to detail on is the possible need to increase (Potassium) salt intake on such a diet. The Eades' book "Protein Power" suggests Morton's Lite Salt or NoSalt or a supplement of Potassium Asporotate (unless you are taking diuretics or blood pressure medicine, in which case they offer the standard caveat about consulting your physician), which is important for kidney function.
"Protein Power" is also an interesting layman read for its discussions of ketones, eicosanoids, ALA and arachidonic acid, etc. I would heartily recommend it if you want to try the diet out.
A quick look suggests it might be a bitch to clean (the surface chemistry page says it is hygroscopic); and although it appears to be strong (as in the picture of it supporting a brick), it is also a bit fragile (which also looks like a good tip in case you do actually get your hands on some).
I wasn't able to figure out whether it would build up static electricity, and, not being an engineer or even knowing/remembering what Young's modulus, among other things in the physical specs is, I am of course only guessing, but I think it might be a better sound insulator (like a lining inside the case) than structural load-bearer (like a PC case).
If you want to waste some time on it, why don't you read through the info and brainstorm some more uses for it? I'd love to hear what you come up with. Interesting stuff.
I Really enjoyed also generally agreed with your remarks about intellectual fraud (unfortunately, it's not restricted to the sciences, but exists throughout academia, from the sophists up to the present, although I am sure that doesn't mark its limits either).
However, I am still wondering (1) whether you read the interview with Mead about his book, or are just taking the first part of Elby's quote (about imprecise equipment) at face value; and (2) whether you are accusing Mead of being an intellectual fraud.
I did read the article, and looked at the sample pages from the book, and read another interesting speech of Mead's, and think that it might be possible that there is a lot of merit in wanting to consider some particles - particularly electrons - as manifolds with boundary in stead of as singular points.
To deal with the first question, I think that Mead's main intent was to say that the Copenhagen Interpretation went wrong in insisting upon dogmatic adherence to the point particle model. He says that they understandably did not have access to the kind of data we do now, such as being able to see a single electron, but even more importantly, they had no experimental experience with coherent systems. Since their only experience was of incoherent systems, then of necessity, statistical models were all they could talk about. Mead is saying that with mounting evidence of coherent systems such as Lasers, Masers, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. (he lists 10 in his book), that it appears to him that this is an even more important litmus test for understanding properties of "pure particles" (my paltry words here) than something like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Criterion.
The other thing I think Mead is addressing are logical paradoxes, which like you also mention, we all know must be created by lesser minds misapplying theoretical concepts. But like you, I feel unqualified to talk about these in physics at present. My gut feeling, however, is that dogmatism has been poisoning academic physics for decades.
Finally, our thread root poster, Elby, mentioned a "growing school" of thought. The article quotes Mead as follows:
John Cramer at the University of Washington was one of the first to describe it as a transaction between two atoms. At the end of his book, Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, John Gribbin gives a nice overview of Cramer's interpretation and says that "with any luck at all it will supercede the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard way of thinking about quantum physics for the next generation of scientists."
Does anybody here know what the numbers of scientists, Real or not, are, who are publishing articles similar to Cramer's in peer-reviewed journals?
Well, that's my quick summary. I'd be curious to know what a "Real" scientist thought about Mead's perspective; I found it very interesting. [Disclaimer: I am not a scientist although I have a fair background in graduate mathematics and a bit as well in undergrad physics. But,] In fact, I have enough experience with math to have a certain skepticism about the wisdom of unthinkingly applying things as basic as the real number field, with its Archimedean property, or the idea of a mathematical point, with unqualified enthusiasm to great unknowns such as the elementary particles of nature. And for criticizing such an unthinking approach to matter, I would like to know if I am truly justified in applauding Mead (i.e. in the name of Real science).
In any case, I would be grateful to be educated out of any of my own misconceptions. Best of luck to you in producing Real science - I hope I get to read about the results some day!
Our research is aimed at synthesizing new classes of molecules with useful and interesting electronic, optical, conformational, and spectroscopic properties. Many, but not all, of these molecules contain main-group elements such as silicon, germanium, sulfur, and phosphorus. We have recently prepared the first stable, three-coordinate silyl cations and the first stable cyclopentadienyl cation.
This sounds like it might conceivably be useful for a lot of things.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me MS is trying to protect other components from the side effects of being bundled with a GPL'd one, and that there is a bit of confusion (and paranoia) in such statements as this [my attempted clarifications are in brackets]:
[These NAS manufacturers] all provide CIFS and NFS shares, some of the[m] also provide Apple shares, and Novell shares. The point here is that
many of them are based on [a] GPLed OS. While their final product may be commercial, this [approach to] development [i.e. GPL] may restrict their use of CIFS. These products RELY on CIFS. Frankly this may be a ploy by Microsoft to sell more copies of Windows 2000 for Appliances, and take a heavy swipe at the Open Source community.
It seems to me after reading the MS CIFS license that MS actually has a valid concern: they want to publish the CIFS standard and retain intellectual property rights; they want to allow implementors of the standard to be able to implement and sell or give away their implementation and/or their source code; and they want to prohibit implementors from changing the licensing terms of other bundled software components.
Here are the salient parts of Microsoft's CIFS license:
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
3.3IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License.
Microsoft is NOT trying restrict use of CIFS. They are trying to prevent a CIFS product vendor from forcing other bundled products to adhere to the same licensing model. Put another way, the popularity of GPL has forced MS to include stipulations to protect non-GPL vendors implementing CIFS from loss of revenue. I just don't see that as a grossly evil act. (Why shouldn't someone want to protect and benefit from the value that they add?)
Also, I think that BSD licences are not specifically singled out in the MS CIFS license because MS lawyers don't consider them "viral" in the above sense of having side effects on bundled software components.
It seems to me that what would be ideal is if vendors could distribute packages in which each component might have its own licensing model: some may be GPL and some may be proprietary; but each party -- creator, implementor, vendor, and end-user -- should be able to declare, discover, and protect their rights with the least amount of legal hassle. It also seems conceivable to me that GPL is not the universal answer to this ideal any more than is closed-source corporate licenses such as MS and/or current digital rights management trends. Surely there must be efforts uderway to improve/facilitate our legal options?
I certainly hope that Samba and Linux and others can implement CIFS for free or with open source. But I don't think MS is preventing this. I also don't think that they're trying to spread FUD. In fact, as someone who is at least making an effort to be a realist, it seems to me that there might be reasonable justifications for MS's viewpoint on this issue. I'm not a great legal scenario craftsman, but suppose a vendor wants to sell a reasonably priced CIFS product for Linux with an optional SLA for a particular market in which the full samba implementation is not desired for security reasons, and the GPL hindered them. Is such a scenario conceivable? I think MS is correct in asserting the non-universality of an equation like FREE = OPEN_SOURCE = GPL. Whatever their merits, they are not the same things, and licenses must be allowed to make such differentiations.
Again, I am neither a lawyer nor a polemic. I just think it's important to see the driving force behind both sides of an issue before deciding their merits. Please correct me if I have misunderstood, misrepresented or missed the real issue. And please help create a working solution to this problem by first understanding and helping others to understand the real issues.
Slashdot Mirror
200 Hz pulses of neutrons and tuned ultrasound create cavities and grow bubbles in deuterated acetone which grow from 60 nanometers to 6 millimeters. At this point, they implode within nanoseconds, reaching estimated temperatures of 10^7 Celcius/Kelvin and 10^9 atmospheres (sea level) and releasing energy: tritium (hence fusion), light photons (sonoluminescence), gamma rays, and more neutrons. "Because the bubbles grow to such a relatively large size before they implode, their contraction causes extreme temperatures and pressures comparable to those found in the interiors of stars." "In future versions of the experiment, the tritium produced might then be used as a fuel to drive energy-producing reactions in which it fuses with deuterium."
What about NOD32 (www.nod32.com)? It seems to pass the Virus Bulletin tests quite well.
Cocoon & FOP is definitely an option, at least for relatively simpler documents.
Notes:
1
2 *formerly known as Sandoz
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (google cache)
The formula for a bad pandemic seems to be (1) contagiousness; (2) deadliness; (3) opportunity to spread, which implies a both an intrinsic property: (a) "laziness"/non-greediness or a delayed onset (HIV vs. Ebola), and (b) good mixing opportunities (see the link above for examples of why second waves sometimes occur, or how even seasonal timing with the schoolyear can aid in spreading).
The CDC has a couple good pages on pandemics, of which the spanish flu was the worst in the 20th century.
It might be much more useful to know, for example, whether or not such an outlet is helpful or hurtful in their long-term cognitive development. Given that nature often takes the shortest path, I might not be surprised to find out that it somehow even helps.
Note that, personally, I rather dislike videogames.
At the risk of being (unfairly) pegged as flamebait:
I think one of the stated purposes of Palladium aka Microsoft Trusted Computing is to give control such as whether something like this is installed back to the end user.
I am curious:
Conversely,
For extra creidit, I'd love to see a computer software analogue to Hilbert's famous List of Questions, as a kind of to-do list of how computers could most benefit people (in their daily or creative life).
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/js/browsers5.html
PDF417, a 2-D barcode capable of storing up to 1K of 7-bit Ascii data in a single symbol (at minimum error correction level). They are designed to be able to, for example, describe the contents of shipping containers. Portable scanner units exist which can read the symbols and convert them to text, although unless you are moving overseas or have way too many boxes, it won't make sense pricewise. I have written an encoder which produces symbols as PNGs (no PCL or Postscript yet, which might be better for barcode label printers) from text. You are welcome to try it out if you want to go this route (email me).
A few years ago I moved overseas with about 100 U-Haul boxes (I know, I know, really really $tupid). I labeled the boxes with a letter and a number and then wrote a master list describing the contents from the label. This system worked admirably.
The obvious question with this is: What is the control infrastrucure for Palladium? Who controls file revocation lists? Who controls policy enforcement? Who can gain control through the courts? Who can gain control without users' knowledge?
Specifically, How is storing private RSA keys on an SSC (Security Support Component) different from centralized key escrow management? (Won't the SSC vendor know or at least be able to know the private key?) Also, What are the costs of using blacklists and whitelists?
Another obvious question, although less technical, is: How this is going to succeed where eBooks have not? Back in 2000, when eBooks were the just coming out, Microsoft predicted that it would be a multibillion dollar industry with rapid growth. Digital copyright protection capability was added to their version with the hope of securing their revenue. How are eBooks doing now? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from this? Perhaps this is an instructive analogy to extrapolate from.
Finally, and perhaps most importanly (but least answerable), the two FAQs above paint rather different pictures of Palladium and TCPA. How are we to know what the effects will really be? Do we have to look at the source?
It sounds like Bioinformatics/Physics is the most generic but descriptive to me (i.e. it will most widely connote what you did).
If you want to emphasize computing, one of Computational Bioinformatics, Computational Physics and Biology, Computational Biology and Physics or Computational [mixed term for Bio and Phys] might be best.
As an intrinsic name, it sounds to me like you majored in something close to Applied Structural Sciences, Natural and Artificial Sciences, Applied Formal Sciences, or Cybernetics; however, while these are denotative (at least to me), they all seem to fail to capture part of the essence. Perhaps a longer denotative name, such as Applied Structures in Physics, Biology and Computer Sciences is what you are looking for (substituting the aspect most interesting to youfor 'Structures' above).
Perhaps it is obvious, but I am mentioning Structure and Form because it seems to me you are interested in the three most basic areas of science. In ancient times, you would simply have been called a Natural Philosopher (IIRC). 'Biology' and 'Physics' come from the Greek words for 'life' (Bios) and 'nature' (Physis), although we moderns translate the latter as 'mattter'. I am guessing that your interest in Computer Science is akin to being interested in structures in mathematics, forms which are also natural or objective and which have some a priori existence. (I am not advocating the name A Priori and A Posteriori Sciences!) Plato was a "realist" in the sense that he saw Forms as pre-existing structures in both matter and in fields like mathematics where mental apperception is needed. In other words, he didn't divide mind and nature the way we do. Perhaps this search for basic forms lies behind your interests as well??
Of course, this is only my guess based on a very short description of what you did (using conventional words like Biology, Physics, etc). If you gave more detail, you might get some better suggestions. Without that, you're going to have to get lucky or perhaps you are just looking for a generic title.
I recall an account of how some "primitive" (African tribal) people, when imprisoned, committed suicide or died of no apparent reason. The account I read was in Marie-Louise von Franz but may well have come from Laurens van der Post (1 2). Supposedly they thought that they had lost their soul and so had nothing more to live for.
I guess chimps are perhaps fortunate or at least different in that they don't experience a "loss of soul". I wonder whether any of them have died in captivity for no apparent medical reason: if they had, it might show a frightening similarity between chimps and humans, i.e. that chimps' "consciosness" is closer to humans than we think. Of course, I am NOT condoning this kind of cruelty!!
1. don't confuse distance to earth's surface and distance to earth's center
2. don't confuse distance r between two objects and radius r of an object
3. think carefully when talking about limits of something over something approaching zero (they are usually not finite!)
4. don't disregard a quantity (like mass) in an equation (like that for terminal velocity) until you know all the component forces (i.e., drag)
5. don't make statements when you don't know what you're talking about!
6. (from someone else's comment): don't confuse gravitational force and acceleration First, gravitational force is proportional directly to both masses and inversely to the square of the distance r between the two center of masses. This formula would approach an infnite force as r->0. However IIRC, when an object starts to fall inside a hole in the earth, then the effective mass of the earth used in the formula decreases to the instantaneous mass bounded by the sphere of earth from the object's present height. (This is derived by calculating a net gravitational force of zero for an object inside a uniform-density spherical shell of width dr.)
Second, when we say that gravitational acceleration is constant, we mean that it is independent of the mass of the small object -- at a fixed distance from the earth's center (like near the surface) -- here we are ignoring neglegible smaller-order gravitaional variations due to, say, the earth being different from a perfect sphere, etc. The gravitational force acting any object however is of course proportional to the object's mass.
The value g=9.8m/s^2 comes from assuming some version of the earth's mean radius as the distance. So what you probably meant is as the distance from the earth's surface goes to 0 (r->r_0), the acceleration approaches a constant limit.
Here, we've got to be really careful talking about things we don't know about. We can calculate the gravitational acceleration without knowing the mass, but as it turns out, once we calculate the drag, we have a force, and so to convert the drag force to an acceleration on the object, we have to divide by the mass, thus reintroducing this quantity into the calculation. Terminal velocity results when the two acceleration terms are equal and opposite:drag acceleration F_drag/m = gravity g
Finally...
The parent poster is of course right, because the drag force F_drag is proportional to the object's velocity, with a proportionality constant depending on the surface area of the object (as well as another factor relating to how smooth or rough this surface is -- maybe sorta like a fractal dimension), and surface area is proportional to r^2 -- taking r now as the (average in some sense) radius of the object. Now, assuming that the object is roughly (macroscopically materially) homogeneous, we can assume it has a uniform density. Under this assumption, its mass is directly proportional to r^3 (for some suitable definition of 'average' radius). Under these circumstances, the drag acceleration is going to be proportional to drag force over mass, or r^2/r^3=1/r. Thus the original poster would seem to be completely right, that smaller obects will have a lower terminal velocity v:
g = a_drag = F_drag / m ~ v*r^2/r^3 ~ v/r
v ~ r*g
This might be verified by looking at a discussion of the Millikan experiment IIRC [although one quick reference suggests that here one wants a viscous force F_drag = c*v*r, (not r^2!) where the constant c=6*pi*eta is given by Stoke's Law, eta is the air's (?) viscosity, and flow conditions are "laminar" -- these seem like rather idealized conditions]. Note however, that even if the drag force is sometimes proportional to r and not r^2, that still the terminal velocity will be proportional to a positive power r (r^2 instead of r^1), and will still decrease (in this case even quicker) as does r.
Does anyone know whether drag forces are ever proportional to fractional powers of r (between 1 and 2), perhaps somehow related to a drag coefficient of fractal dimension (perhaps between 2 and 3)?? Just a wild thought...
Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) also looks like an interesting project:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/
Incidentally, the name WBEM (web-based enterprise management) is somewhat of a misnomer, as it has more to to with remote, than web-based, administration and instrumentation.
For those who have never heard of WBEM, it was an initiative to provide a framework for cross-platform management of machines.
- WBEM = Web Based Enterprise Management
- CIM = Common Information Model
- DMTF = Distributed Management Task Force
WBEM comes in different flavors based on whose implementation on whose platform:Each implementation of WBEM consists of services which expose some core set of platform/application/host-specific objects via a (theoretically) platform-independent CIM object.
M$ had some sample scripts in the resource kit at one time, but the best link I can find is this. (One of these scripts found its way into Knowledge Base article Q271362; it gives you the short names of services so that you can start and stop services from a W2K command line or script; my version is here).
There seems to be a WBEM implementation for Solaris as well in JIRO, but my guess is that it's a small subset of CIM for managing storage devices.
I would recommend seeing what SW is out there from Computer Associates, Tivoli, and similar places that is "cross platform", particularly ones that might be MMC-based, or best yet that say they use WBEM/WMI/..., and get a trial version to see how interoperable it really is. Then decide how much functionality you need, and whether it's already hardwired into the implementations for your platforms or whether you want to buy something or implement it yourself.
I have done more investigation - personally.
When I stuck to the diet, my HDL-to-LDL cholesterol improved, my weight improved, my energy level improved, my muscle tone dramatically improved, and my doctor was surprised yet still skeptical.
The only difficulty sticking to the diet was practical: the industry is bloated with high-sugar and over-sweetened foods, and it is either expensive or time-consuming to stick to the diet. Several "low-carb" foods are not so, and many others now contain Aspartame, which I have unpleasant reactions to.
I thought the article was eminently balanced. It is unfortunate that scientists should be so vulnerable to political pressures.
One area the article didn't go in to detail on is the possible need to increase (Potassium) salt intake on such a diet. The Eades' book "Protein Power" suggests Morton's Lite Salt or NoSalt or a supplement of Potassium Asporotate (unless you are taking diuretics or blood pressure medicine, in which case they offer the standard caveat about consulting your physician), which is important for kidney function.
"Protein Power" is also an interesting layman read for its discussions of ketones, eicosanoids, ALA and arachidonic acid, etc. I would heartily recommend it if you want to try the diet out.
I wasn't able to figure out whether it would build up static electricity, and, not being an engineer or even knowing/remembering what Young's modulus, among other things in the physical specs is, I am of course only guessing, but I think it might be a better sound insulator (like a lining inside the case) than structural load-bearer (like a PC case).
If you want to waste some time on it, why don't you read through the info and brainstorm some more uses for it? I'd love to hear what you come up with. Interesting stuff.
However, I am still wondering (1) whether you read the interview with Mead about his book, or are just taking the first part of Elby's quote (about imprecise equipment) at face value; and (2) whether you are accusing Mead of being an intellectual fraud.
I did read the article, and looked at the sample pages from the book, and read another interesting speech of Mead's, and think that it might be possible that there is a lot of merit in wanting to consider some particles - particularly electrons - as manifolds with boundary in stead of as singular points.
To deal with the first question, I think that Mead's main intent was to say that the Copenhagen Interpretation went wrong in insisting upon dogmatic adherence to the point particle model. He says that they understandably did not have access to the kind of data we do now, such as being able to see a single electron, but even more importantly, they had no experimental experience with coherent systems. Since their only experience was of incoherent systems, then of necessity, statistical models were all they could talk about. Mead is saying that with mounting evidence of coherent systems such as Lasers, Masers, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. (he lists 10 in his book), that it appears to him that this is an even more important litmus test for understanding properties of "pure particles" (my paltry words here) than something like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Criterion.
The other thing I think Mead is addressing are logical paradoxes, which like you also mention, we all know must be created by lesser minds misapplying theoretical concepts. But like you, I feel unqualified to talk about these in physics at present. My gut feeling, however, is that dogmatism has been poisoning academic physics for decades.
Finally, our thread root poster, Elby, mentioned a "growing school" of thought. The article quotes Mead as follows:
Does anybody here know what the numbers of scientists, Real or not, are, who are publishing articles similar to Cramer's in peer-reviewed journals?Well, that's my quick summary. I'd be curious to know what a "Real" scientist thought about Mead's perspective; I found it very interesting. [Disclaimer: I am not a scientist although I have a fair background in graduate mathematics and a bit as well in undergrad physics. But,] In fact, I have enough experience with math to have a certain skepticism about the wisdom of unthinkingly applying things as basic as the real number field, with its Archimedean property, or the idea of a mathematical point, with unqualified enthusiasm to great unknowns such as the elementary particles of nature. And for criticizing such an unthinking approach to matter, I would like to know if I am truly justified in applauding Mead (i.e. in the name of Real science).
In any case, I would be grateful to be educated out of any of my own misconceptions. Best of luck to you in producing Real science - I hope I get to read about the results some day!
Also, I think that BSD licences are not specifically singled out in the MS CIFS license because MS lawyers don't consider them "viral" in the above sense of having side effects on bundled software components.
It seems to me that what would be ideal is if vendors could distribute packages in which each component might have its own licensing model: some may be GPL and some may be proprietary; but each party -- creator, implementor, vendor, and end-user -- should be able to declare, discover, and protect their rights with the least amount of legal hassle. It also seems conceivable to me that GPL is not the universal answer to this ideal any more than is closed-source corporate licenses such as MS and/or current digital rights management trends. Surely there must be efforts uderway to improve/facilitate our legal options?
I certainly hope that Samba and Linux and others can implement CIFS for free or with open source. But I don't think MS is preventing this. I also don't think that they're trying to spread FUD. In fact, as someone who is at least making an effort to be a realist, it seems to me that there might be reasonable justifications for MS's viewpoint on this issue. I'm not a great legal scenario craftsman, but suppose a vendor wants to sell a reasonably priced CIFS product for Linux with an optional SLA for a particular market in which the full samba implementation is not desired for security reasons, and the GPL hindered them. Is such a scenario conceivable? I think MS is correct in asserting the non-universality of an equation like FREE = OPEN_SOURCE = GPL. Whatever their merits, they are not the same things, and licenses must be allowed to make such differentiations.
Again, I am neither a lawyer nor a polemic. I just think it's important to see the driving force behind both sides of an issue before deciding their merits. Please correct me if I have misunderstood, misrepresented or missed the real issue. And please help create a working solution to this problem by first understanding and helping others to understand the real issues.