It's true that hackers could find exploits if they had the source -- but is that any worse than just having the exploits freely available, as is the case with (e.g.) Internet Explorer?
If the government really has a problem with open source, they can go ahead and contract to reimplement things from scratch. But for non-classified applications (such as serving documents available under the Freedom of Information Act), I see nothing wrong with open source solutions, especially if it can save the taxpayer some money! www.doe.gov, incidentally, is running Apache.
I'm not sure you could make an effective case for Microsoft to use open source. Open source works for IBM because they are at heart a hardware company, and secondly a service provider; open source means less spent on software development and more software which runs on their hardware. Further, they can help open source projects and provide support and consulting to companies who run open source applications on IBM hardware. nVIDIA benefits in a similar way: they make hardware, and more OS support for their cards equals more potential buyers.
Microsoft depends entirely on software for its existence. Contributing to open source probably seems counterproductive from their point of view. Why should they loan out their expertise to support open source and possibly help competing products to emerge? Open source means revenue loss in the eyes of upper management. MS would have to change their business model to more consulting and service rather than software development in order to benefit from open source -- a big change considering how MS has grown by becoming the biggest software developer around.
It produces so much power at such a low (apparently) cost that it actively discourages the development and implementation of alternative truly renewable energy sources as solar, wind and water power. Just like with oil, we can run out of "nuclear fuel".
With regard to developing so-called renewable sources: Continuing to burn fossil fuels is having the same effect. It's cheaper and already in place, so why switch? And what is wrong with saving money?
Solar power? Hmm, good choice, but do you know how they make solar cells? Current technology uses (IIRC) gallium arsenide crystals and fluorinated solvents. So there is a disposal problem there during manufacturing and at the end of working life. The sun only delivers 2400 watts / m^2 maximum -- do some calculations, you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household, let alone business! And what do you do at night or on a cloudy day?
Wind power: the best solution until it shows up in your backyard. Which it will have to, again due to amount of power you can extract: the wind isn't always blowing, and you don't want to lose too much in transmission from the wind mill.
Water power: (GASP!) Tide power or river dams? Either way, the fish of the world thank you for your support!
It leaves a highly toxic, radioactive and extremely expensive heritage to our children.
But a relatively small amount compared to greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, an extremely small amount compared to the amount of coal we strip out of the ground. Go re-read my comment, it's possible to recycle waste now, and new designs will use fuel more efficiently. And do some research into the amount of natural radiation, you'll be surprised. We would never have discovered nuclear energy if there weren't so much uranium strewn about already...
Also, could you post figures to back up your claim that we'll run out of nuclear fuel?
Well, on the up side for the USA, this will drive up energy costs in Europe, which will in turn drive American economic growth with its cheaper but less environmentally friendly power.
I'd be all in favor of Kyoto, but we would need to build more nuclear power plants to keep energy costs down, which the environmental lobby won't support either. (The only people who think solar and wind are viable are people who own stock in companies that produce solar and wind energy. Gotta love those subsidies)
It's unfortunate sometimes when arguments are won by the people who shout the loudest.
I recently traveled through London's Gatwick airport where my picture was taken (presumably for face recognition). There seem to be a number of technical problems with such a system anyways: what if I don't look straight at the camera, or I grow a beard, or puff out my cheeks? It seems to me that since humans have two eyes and depth perception that face recognition is based on 3-D structure rather than the flat image captured by the camera. It would be difficult and expensive to obtain a database of 3-D face images, and probably difficult and expensive to capture 3-D images and search 3-D databases.
Of course, you should argue that if you're waiting for terrorists to board a plane so you can identify them by face recognition, your intelligence operations are sorely lacking!
You've got a point there, there is no evidence to suggest that they are selected for or against. In fact, it's possible that there could be as many as 30 amino acids genetically encoded. This is just a WAG, of course; 4^3 possible codons, but if you consider the last base to be a "wobble" base in every codon (i.e., purine or pyrmidine), that cuts it to 32, then you have a start and stop codon, cutting it to 30 (even this depends a lot on your tRNA's).
Frequency distribution of codons show that some codons are simply more common, and some amino acids can be coded 6 ways (e.g. serine) while there's only one way to code methionine. I suggested selection because the most likely way that this distribution occured was mutation of tRNA's and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases for uncommon amino acids, which implies genetic selection. There's a raft in literature on genetic evolution I'm not familiar with though (have to admit I got a "C" on my paper about that)
It's possible to substitute synthetic tRNA's in the lab to insert non-standard amino acids -- no reason it's doesn't happen in nature, all it would take is a "mutated" (from the point of view of the codon table in Voet and Voet) aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase to attach a different compound to the tRNA. It would be interesting to study whether this was conserved since the beginning of time or emergence of a new pathway.
It's not surprising that there are tRNA's in rare organisms that encode for "non-standard" amino acids -- evolution just selected against them, since the common 20 are so prevalent and easy to produce or obtain from food. Humans actually use 22 amino acids, but two of them are not genetically encoded, but produced by modifying the finished protein (hydroxylation of proline and lysine during collagen biosynthesis. Rice and beans are not sufficient, you need vitamin C to make collagen) Some bugs live in places where "non-standard" amino acids are probably preferred to make proteins more suited to the enivronment -- extreme conditions like Antarctic ice, or thermal vents.
It's important to remember that amino acids aren't the only building blocks -- cell membranes are made of lipids, cholesterol, and polysaccharides (sugars). There are many possible modifications beyond the amino acid sequence. For instance, immune markers (blood type, etc.) are sugar chains which are tacked onto proteins. Sugars on the surface of viruses help them bind to cells. Another common modification is phosphorylation: addition of phosphate to a protein, which is a common method of activating (or deactivating) proteins.
The body also uses lipid derivatives, steroids, and most importantly vitamins to obtain chemical functions not provided by amino acids (catalysis, cell signaling, etc.)
Why is the current system of ID by social security number (or taxpayer ID for business and non-citizens) not adequate for accessing online services? It seems to be working OK for Education's direct student loan system, and for the IRS.
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that 8.7% of electricity generated comes from natural gas. I would think it would be technically feasible to convert these plants to hydrogen, since it would probably use similar pipeline and boiler design. The CO2 emissions decrease would be substantial.
It would be interesting to see the effect of burning hydrogen and putting a lot more water vapor into the air... (Looks like rain again today!)
The article states that 150 meters down corresponds to about 100 years ago. However, the thermal conductivity of the crust at each site should be different, meaning that local adjustments need to be made to temperature readings.
The process of drilling generates frictional heat which will affect local temperature readings. Even if the holes are old, wouldn't air or water passing through affect the temperature?
Speaking of water, did the authors do a thorough seismic survey to check for aquifers, geothermal vents, other activity which might affect the temperature?
What's the relative standard? To assume that the surface temperature is the current temperature is dangerous, since it is more affected by daily solar heating, cooling from precipitation, etc.
616 bore holes seems like a lot until you consider that the land surface area of Earth is 148 million square kilometers. If you picked out , say, 616 members of the U.S. population, there is a (significant) chance they will all be engineers, but it's incorrect to assume from this observation that everyone in the U.S. is an engineer. Site selection will have a big impact from reasons previously stated.
Granted, the full article has not been printed yet, so all we have is a journalist's take. But I will be watching for the full article.
Most data from publicly funded projects does get published eventually. Data is often withheld for many reasons. Usually, the scientists simply want first credit for the work - early release of info would give competing labs an advantage. In this case, it's not to push a project to market, but to show goos results to get further funding for the same or related projects. There is a limited amount of funding available from government sources (NIH, NSF, etc.) and the review committees who look at grants demand to see results before they fund research. Current and past publications are indications of the scientist's success. Also, publications are often used as a meter-stick of productivity and original thinking when deciding tenure and graduation of Ph.D.'s so there is considerable interest in keeping data secret to get the publication. Publications will not be accepted if it's been done already by your competitor.
Relating to genetic research specifically, whether it's patented, published, or not, there is a huge heap of genetic data in the NIH GenBank database:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
IANAL but I believe you can subpoena federally funded projects under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552). This would probably be very obnoxious though, but I think I read somewhere that certain large corporations have tried this to effectively steal research data from federally funded projects for their own private (secret, unpublished) efforts.
No one ever said that they were banning it. If you had even bothered to read the 5 to 6 lines of Slashdot summary, you would've seen that they are investigating the incidents.
Sorry, it was a knee-jerk response to the "nanny state" comment at the end. (also the article notes it is restricted in Normay, Denmark, and France). Maybe I need to cut back on the Red Bull.:)
But the article does state the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether it is safe for human consumption, so a ban is a possible outcome.
the average consumer is going to have no idea what most of those ingredients on the side of the can will do
Who here isn't familiar with the effects of caffeine?
It is an outrage that the government would investigate a potentially defective product that could be lethal!
There is an important difference here between defective cars and Red Bull. With the car, you may not know there is a defect, and the manufacturer probably doesn't want you to know, so you certainly want someone (e.g., the government) maintaining some oversight!
But with Red Bull, the ingredients are on the side, and I have seen warning labels on cans of similar products. You know what it is, and you should understand what you're getting into when you drink it!
I would rather take personal responsibility over the chemicals I put into my body rather than have someone watching over my shoulder and banning Red Bull, etc. to "protect" me.
NASA tried this before from 1955-1972 or so. The project was called "NERVA" (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications). Here's a link. Follow the Rover/NERVA link for the project I'm thinking of. The rest of the page covers other nuclear propulsion projects.
I heard on the radio that most people get their news from TV. The problem with mass media is that it still presents the "spin" of the owners and producers, and the fewer outlets there are, the fewer opinions there would be. TV news caters to the lowest common denominator anyways, and leans more to the left than I would rather see.
I like Internet media. I enjoy reading Drudge Report and WorldNetDaily, which carry stories you won't see (first) in mainstream media. At the very least, it forces the mainstream media to catch up and cover some stories and opinions they wouldn't had wanted to. Here's hoping Internet media sites can survive, I think it's the closest we can get to "freedom of the press".
When I started here at Georgia Tech, I was required to sign an agreement with the institute stating that any marketable research I cranked out would become their property, though I am entitled to some sliver of the profit. Somehow I thought they did this everywhere, given how much money you can make off such royalties.
If no such agreement is in place, that really limits their right to claim your work, particularly at an academic institution. I don't think graduate work constitutes "work for hire", or at least it's a gray area.
Of course Dubya will protect the rights of religions. He will appoint Jerry Falwell as "religion czar" to ensure equal rights. For instance, due process shall be upheld with thorough and efficient witch hunts and tribunals; fair punishment by burning them all at equal-sized stakes at the same temperature.
As far as tax cuts and defense spending... hey, tax cuts and Star Wars worked for Reagan, why not try it again?
At least slashdot.net gives a link to the real thing...
I have bookmarks for most sites I go to, or use a search engine or portal, so I haven't typed too many URL's, consequently I haven't run into a typo site for a long time. I suspect a lot of users won't run into them either, for similar reasons.
Wrong or not, typosquatting seems pointless... seems to me you'd attract more visitors with proper spelling.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that hackers could find exploits if they had the source -- but is that any worse than just having the exploits freely available, as is the case with (e.g.) Internet Explorer?
If the government really has a problem with open source, they can go ahead and contract to reimplement things from scratch. But for non-classified applications (such as serving documents available under the Freedom of Information Act), I see nothing wrong with open source solutions, especially if it can save the taxpayer some money! www.doe.gov, incidentally, is running Apache.
I'm not sure you could make an effective case for Microsoft to use open source. Open source works for IBM because they are at heart a hardware company, and secondly a service provider; open source means less spent on software development and more software which runs on their hardware. Further, they can help open source projects and provide support and consulting to companies who run open source applications on IBM hardware. nVIDIA benefits in a similar way: they make hardware, and more OS support for their cards equals more potential buyers.
Microsoft depends entirely on software for its existence. Contributing to open source probably seems counterproductive from their point of view. Why should they loan out their expertise to support open source and possibly help competing products to emerge? Open source means revenue loss in the eyes of upper management. MS would have to change their business model to more consulting and service rather than software development in order to benefit from open source -- a big change considering how MS has grown by becoming the biggest software developer around.
It produces so much power at such a low (apparently) cost that it actively discourages the development and implementation of alternative truly renewable energy sources as solar, wind and water power. Just like with oil, we can run out of "nuclear fuel".
With regard to developing so-called renewable sources: Continuing to burn fossil fuels is having the same effect. It's cheaper and already in place, so why switch? And what is wrong with saving money?
Solar power? Hmm, good choice, but do you know how they make solar cells? Current technology uses (IIRC) gallium arsenide crystals and fluorinated solvents. So there is a disposal problem there during manufacturing and at the end of working life. The sun only delivers 2400 watts / m^2 maximum -- do some calculations, you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household, let alone business! And what do you do at night or on a cloudy day?
Wind power: the best solution until it shows up in your backyard. Which it will have to, again due to amount of power you can extract: the wind isn't always blowing, and you don't want to lose too much in transmission from the wind mill.
Water power: (GASP!) Tide power or river dams? Either way, the fish of the world thank you for your support!
It leaves a highly toxic, radioactive and extremely expensive heritage to our children.
But a relatively small amount compared to greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, an extremely small amount compared to the amount of coal we strip out of the ground. Go re-read my comment, it's possible to recycle waste now, and new designs will use fuel more efficiently. And do some research into the amount of natural radiation, you'll be surprised. We would never have discovered nuclear energy if there weren't so much uranium strewn about already...
Also, could you post figures to back up your claim that we'll run out of nuclear fuel?
Nope, Clinton and Gore put us exactly where we are today by killing any program related to nuclear power, including but not limited to:
- Killing the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne Nat'l Lab. This reactor design would recycle fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced.
- Killing transmutation experiments which might have been used to treat existing waste.
- Stalling waste disposal programs e.g. Yucca Mountain.
Well, on the up side for the USA, this will drive up energy costs in Europe, which will in turn drive American economic growth with its cheaper but less environmentally friendly power.
I'd be all in favor of Kyoto, but we would need to build more nuclear power plants to keep energy costs down, which the environmental lobby won't support either. (The only people who think solar and wind are viable are people who own stock in companies that produce solar and wind energy. Gotta love those subsidies)
It's unfortunate sometimes when arguments are won by the people who shout the loudest.
I recently traveled through London's Gatwick airport where my picture was taken (presumably for face recognition). There seem to be a number of technical problems with such a system anyways: what if I don't look straight at the camera, or I grow a beard, or puff out my cheeks? It seems to me that since humans have two eyes and depth perception that face recognition is based on 3-D structure rather than the flat image captured by the camera. It would be difficult and expensive to obtain a database of 3-D face images, and probably difficult and expensive to capture 3-D images and search 3-D databases.
Of course, you should argue that if you're waiting for terrorists to board a plane so you can identify them by face recognition, your intelligence operations are sorely lacking!
You've got a point there, there is no evidence to suggest that they are selected for or against. In fact, it's possible that there could be as many as 30 amino acids genetically encoded. This is just a WAG, of course; 4^3 possible codons, but if you consider the last base to be a "wobble" base in every codon (i.e., purine or pyrmidine), that cuts it to 32, then you have a start and stop codon, cutting it to 30 (even this depends a lot on your tRNA's).
Frequency distribution of codons show that some codons are simply more common, and some amino acids can be coded 6 ways (e.g. serine) while there's only one way to code methionine. I suggested selection because the most likely way that this distribution occured was mutation of tRNA's and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases for uncommon amino acids, which implies genetic selection. There's a raft in literature on genetic evolution I'm not familiar with though (have to admit I got a "C" on my paper about that)
It's possible to substitute synthetic tRNA's in the lab to insert non-standard amino acids -- no reason it's doesn't happen in nature, all it would take is a "mutated" (from the point of view of the codon table in Voet and Voet) aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase to attach a different compound to the tRNA. It would be interesting to study whether this was conserved since the beginning of time or emergence of a new pathway.
It's not surprising that there are tRNA's in rare organisms that encode for "non-standard" amino acids -- evolution just selected against them, since the common 20 are so prevalent and easy to produce or obtain from food. Humans actually use 22 amino acids, but two of them are not genetically encoded, but produced by modifying the finished protein (hydroxylation of proline and lysine during collagen biosynthesis. Rice and beans are not sufficient, you need vitamin C to make collagen) Some bugs live in places where "non-standard" amino acids are probably preferred to make proteins more suited to the enivronment -- extreme conditions like Antarctic ice, or thermal vents.
It's important to remember that amino acids aren't the only building blocks -- cell membranes are made of lipids, cholesterol, and polysaccharides (sugars). There are many possible modifications beyond the amino acid sequence. For instance, immune markers (blood type, etc.) are sugar chains which are tacked onto proteins. Sugars on the surface of viruses help them bind to cells. Another common modification is phosphorylation: addition of phosphate to a protein, which is a common method of activating (or deactivating) proteins.
The body also uses lipid derivatives, steroids, and most importantly vitamins to obtain chemical functions not provided by amino acids (catalysis, cell signaling, etc.)
Why is the current system of ID by social security number (or taxpayer ID for business and non-citizens) not adequate for accessing online services? It seems to be working OK for Education's direct student loan system, and for the IRS.
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that 8.7% of electricity generated comes from natural gas. I would think it would be technically feasible to convert these plants to hydrogen, since it would probably use similar pipeline and boiler design. The CO2 emissions decrease would be substantial.
It would be interesting to see the effect of burning hydrogen and putting a lot more water vapor into the air... (Looks like rain again today!)
Some issues worth thinking about:
The article states that 150 meters down corresponds to about 100 years ago. However, the thermal conductivity of the crust at each site should be different, meaning that local adjustments need to be made to temperature readings.
The process of drilling generates frictional heat which will affect local temperature readings. Even if the holes are old, wouldn't air or water passing through affect the temperature?
Speaking of water, did the authors do a thorough seismic survey to check for aquifers, geothermal vents, other activity which might affect the temperature?
What's the relative standard? To assume that the surface temperature is the current temperature is dangerous, since it is more affected by daily solar heating, cooling from precipitation, etc.
616 bore holes seems like a lot until you consider that the land surface area of Earth is 148 million square kilometers. If you picked out , say, 616 members of the U.S. population, there is a (significant) chance they will all be engineers, but it's incorrect to assume from this observation that everyone in the U.S. is an engineer. Site selection will have a big impact from reasons previously stated.
Granted, the full article has not been printed yet, so all we have is a journalist's take. But I will be watching for the full article.
Most data from publicly funded projects does get published eventually. Data is often withheld for many reasons. Usually, the scientists simply want first credit for the work - early release of info would give competing labs an advantage. In this case, it's not to push a project to market, but to show goos results to get further funding for the same or related projects. There is a limited amount of funding available from government sources (NIH, NSF, etc.) and the review committees who look at grants demand to see results before they fund research. Current and past publications are indications of the scientist's success. Also, publications are often used as a meter-stick of productivity and original thinking when deciding tenure and graduation of Ph.D.'s so there is considerable interest in keeping data secret to get the publication. Publications will not be accepted if it's been done already by your competitor.
Relating to genetic research specifically, whether it's patented, published, or not, there is a huge heap of genetic data in the NIH GenBank database:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
IANAL but I believe you can subpoena federally funded projects under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552). This would probably be very obnoxious though, but I think I read somewhere that certain large corporations have tried this to effectively steal research data from federally funded projects for their own private (secret, unpublished) efforts.
Sorry, it was a knee-jerk response to the "nanny state" comment at the end. (also the article notes it is restricted in Normay, Denmark, and France). Maybe I need to cut back on the Red Bull. :)
But the article does state the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether it is safe for human consumption, so a ban is a possible outcome.
the average consumer is going to have no idea what most of those ingredients on the side of the can will do
Who here isn't familiar with the effects of caffeine?
There is an important difference here between defective cars and Red Bull. With the car, you may not know there is a defect, and the manufacturer probably doesn't want you to know, so you certainly want someone (e.g., the government) maintaining some oversight!
But with Red Bull, the ingredients are on the side, and I have seen warning labels on cans of similar products. You know what it is, and you should understand what you're getting into when you drink it!
I would rather take personal responsibility over the chemicals I put into my body rather than have someone watching over my shoulder and banning Red Bull, etc. to "protect" me.
NASA tried this before from 1955-1972 or so. The project was called "NERVA" (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications). Here's a link. Follow the Rover/NERVA link for the project I'm thinking of. The rest of the page covers other nuclear propulsion projects.
I heard on the radio that most people get their news from TV. The problem with mass media is that it still presents the "spin" of the owners and producers, and the fewer outlets there are, the fewer opinions there would be. TV news caters to the lowest common denominator anyways, and leans more to the left than I would rather see.
I like Internet media. I enjoy reading Drudge Report and WorldNetDaily, which carry stories you won't see (first) in mainstream media. At the very least, it forces the mainstream media to catch up and cover some stories and opinions they wouldn't had wanted to. Here's hoping Internet media sites can survive, I think it's the closest we can get to "freedom of the press".
Why would Compaq support UCITA? Don't they owe their existence to reverse engineering?
(Compaq built the first IBM PC clone by reverse engineering the IBM BIOS)
When I started here at Georgia Tech, I was required to sign an agreement with the institute stating that any marketable research I cranked out would become their property, though I am entitled to some sliver of the profit. Somehow I thought they did this everywhere, given how much money you can make off such royalties.
If no such agreement is in place, that really limits their right to claim your work, particularly at an academic institution. I don't think graduate work constitutes "work for hire", or at least it's a gray area.
Of course Dubya will protect the rights of religions. He will appoint Jerry Falwell as "religion czar" to ensure equal rights. For instance, due process shall be upheld with thorough and efficient witch hunts and tribunals; fair punishment by burning them all at equal-sized stakes at the same temperature.
As far as tax cuts and defense spending... hey, tax cuts and Star Wars worked for Reagan, why not try it again?
At least slashdot.net gives a link to the real thing...
I have bookmarks for most sites I go to, or use a search engine or portal, so I haven't typed too many URL's, consequently I haven't run into a typo site for a long time. I suspect a lot of users won't run into them either, for similar reasons.
Wrong or not, typosquatting seems pointless... seems to me you'd attract more visitors with proper spelling.