The autonomy of the student is still not there, even if they can sue to get their name on the patent. Why - because the PhD advisor still has the power of the "Letter of Recommendation".
Piss off your advisor and expect a less than glowing letter of recommendation. Rather than writing a blatent "...student X is a horrible researcher" they'll leave out crucial recommendations, making the student look like a lackluster potential hire wherever he or she might go.
I remember my days as a grad student working on my PhD in chemistry, and I saw this power first hand. And the professor didn't even have to exert it, just the fear of it being there was enough. I watched whole other research groups do EXACTLY what their professor said to do because of this power. Your entire career can be ruined before you even start because your PhD advisor continues to give you less than average letters of recommendation. When it comes to hire the student, who do you think the employer is going to believe? The student saying his advisor treated him or her like dirt, or the tenured professor? Unfortunately, the tenured professor wins just about every time.
Thankfully, my advisor would put our name on the patents that he did decide to pursue, but when the agreement was written as to who would get what percent of the proceeds (after the University took its share) my advisor would take the lion's share, if not all of it.
Ultimately, patent rights go to the creator of the idea, not who did the work. Patent law is so broken in this regard that all you have to do is prove the idea is your own and its original. Once you've done that, it doesn't matter who did the work to prove that the idea and claims would be valid, the patent rights go to the creator of the idea.
The great thing about the use of computer games as training tools for the military is that they avoid the following costly training expenses:
Field Exercises
Food, Fuel & Ammo
Potential accidents
Now I will say that the real thing is much different than the game, but by trying the game first, you can get used to some things, so that when you go to the real event, you make less mistakes. For example, while I was in ROTC I got to go to Ft. Knox for Armor training. While there, I got to train on the simulators for the M1 tank. Rather than running out in the real thing right away, and possibly crashing the tank or burning up a lot of fuel (M1 tank gets 0.5 mpg, no, I'm not kidding), you get to make all your mistakes in a simulator. The inside of the simulator is EXACTLY like the inside of the real tank, to closely simulute the real thing. All the vision ports are computer screens, sized appropriately to be realistic. When I used the simulator, it was full color, but 1993 geometric color graphics. So while it didn't look realistic, the effect of the training was. Further, in the simulators you can practice gunnery, gun loading, etc., so that when you go to the real thing, you're better prepared. Overall its a great system and its been a major success for the US army.
For infantry and combat simulators, the idea is the same. You're in full fatigues/battle gear, and the full-size screen changes with terrain and targets. I think they may start moving to VR setups to give a more immersive experience before they actually send you out on training exercises. The current problem is that the whole thing is pretty static, so by giving the enemy some AI, you will increase the value of the training tool. For the above mentioned M1 simulator, the enemy infantry and tank A1 is run by the instructors, so you're working against actual human soldiers.
To comment on the games though, when you get hit in the simulator, the game's over. You don't have health bars or the ability to save the game and reload. Its kill or be killed in the game. I think the tools are great, and I'm glad to see that the military is pairing up with those who can make the tools better. While these simulators and games will never be able to replace the real training exercise, they greatly improve the effectiveness of the training exercise. The whole value system behind on all this training is to make the common soldier better than cannon fodder. Quality over quantity.
Plexiglass is not Lexan. Plexiglass is the trademark, and common name now used by plastic manufacturers for polymethyl methacrylate or polyacetate plastics.
Lexan is a much different material, and if you ask for Plexiglass in any hardware store (north or south) you'll get the weaker plastic. To get Lexan, you have to ask for it.
One potential concern I see, especially with a car-bound computer, is impact resistance (potholes shake the unit around) and short-circuit fire safety. If you try using Lexan or Calibre sheet (polycarbonate) you'll improve the impact resistance of your case dramatically, and, the fire-resistance.
Plexiglass is notorious for getting brittle with heat and light exposure, both of which will happen if they sit in your car every day under the hot sun. One good summer could really do a number to the unit.
Gaming Habits and Bringing Back the Dead Games
on
Ultima Revived
·
· Score: 1
I am constantly amazed by how much games have changed, but the habits behind a good game have yet to change. I played games way into the night with old Atari games, and I still do it now with PC games. My rating system for games has always been how long do I play it into the night. If I lose all track of time, its a good one.
I currently play strategy/tactics games, and Dune: Emperor is my current late night sleep-destroyer. At least now I'm only killing my sleep rather my GPA like I did in college.
Bringing back old games is a trend I've seen with more and more platforms. Gauntlet has come back to PS2 as Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. Wolfenstein 3D will be back some time next year, and Civ III will come as well. Look how the Dune series has gone, from the almost role-playing "Dune" to its current incarnation. If a game was good enough to be remembered fondly, or at least spark a few sequel games, it will probably come back eventually. I've seen the same trend with toys and food. Toys and food go out of style, but then they come back 10 years later based on the idea that new folks are around who think the old is quite new. Also, the persons who have nostaligic memories for these items will buy them as well.
If there is one Microprose game I'd love to see come back, it would be Darklands. But, it never spawned a sequel and only a few people seemed to have liked it, so I doubt it will.
While the work done at Bell labs does indeed look unique, this experiment and breakthrough has technically already been done by Prof. James Tour (at Rice University) and Prof. Mark Reid of Yale who, in a very high-tech experiment, showed that a single molecule can conduct. It was similar to the structure shown in the Bell labs work, except it was one benzene rather than two. Tour and Reid also used self-assembly to get the molecules to line up to check conductance. The work was published in Science in late 1999.
Further, Tour and his group have synthesized molecular transistors (he calls them "Moleisters") about a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, I can't bring up his web pages to find the reference to the papers.
I think one big thing missed as to why we're not on the moon more permamently is gravity. I'll agree, that with today's money, technology, and the willpower, we could have bases on the moon now (heck, probably even Mars). However, we have yet to come up with a solution to solve the effect of the moon's gravity on our frail human bodies. The only way you can stave off muscluar atrophy and bone degenration caused by the moon's low gravity is a rigourous exercise regimen, and even then, you're still likely to have some ill effects when returning to earth. If you decide to live there, and you don't keep up with the exercise regimen, you could forget about ever coming back to Earth's gravity would probably kill you upon return. Either your bones snap or your heart gives out under the intense pressure.
Drugs that solve this problem will probably need to be created, or moon pioneers may have to literally say goodbye to Earth when they change residence.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), part of the US Dept. of Commerce, is very Unix and Linux friendly, especially in the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL).
While the majority of personal PCs used by researchers at NIST are Windows based, Linux and Unix get used for computer modeling applications of all types, and Linux is used quite a bit by ITL. While I was at NIST, there was talk of a standard PC for all of NIST, and the ITL folks were stating that the software should be open-source and not Windows based. I don't know what happened with their request, as I left before the "standard" NIST PC came to be. I suspect though that it was Windows-based so the rest of NIST would not have to learn a bunch of new, basic software.
I have to strongly disagree with the following statement: "Any journal with 'Letters' in the title typically is little or no peer review since the articles there are for fast-track publication -- this is typically where you'll see junk." Most 'Letters' journals are "short and sweet" articles, describing one or two definative experiments, and are fast-tracked for review and publishing. I can say that the following 'Letters' journals are of excellent quality: Tetrahedron Letters, Nano Letters, Organic Letters, Applied Physics Letters. Now, these are all chemical or physics journals, so maybe the 'Letters' journals you refer to of a different scientific field which I haven't read.
Now I do like your idea of the Slashdot-based review system, but implimenting it will be difficult. Right now, the scientific community has the momentum behind it of anonymous review. It has not been unheard of for scientific peers to get a competitors paper, absolutely butcher it to slow it getting out, and then use that edge to push their results out first. Scientists can be just as petty and nasty as the rest of humanity. Occasionally you'll find a good anonymous review, where you can tell the reviewer actually read it. However, the anonymous peer review has been going for so long that it will take quite a bit of effort to remove it.
Also, most of the scientific community (at least the ones I know) view article reviewing as a chore, not an opportunity to improve science or learn something new. Therefore, for such an online system to work, there would have to be some incentive. Let's say we offer pay for review, but then you're back to the problem mentioned in the original post, that money is needed to run the journal, and to get people to pay, you have to restrict access, because if its free access, who's going to pay to support it? Now there is another incentive which I don't think has been mentioned - that free access to journal contents is given to the reader, provided that reader reviews X number of articles, non-anonymously and makes themselves available for comments on the article. This way, you ensure a motivation to access the article, and, you improve the whole-peer review process. By making the reviewer available for comments by the original author, the article can be improved, or, the author has the chance to explain his conclusions or clear up language in the conclusions. Again, the article is improved. Idealistic yes, but technically feasible.
I'd like to see the scientific review process greatly improved, as I have never been satisified by the experience I have gotten for all of the papers I have gotten over my scientific career. Out of 30 publications, I can think of only 2 that went somewhat smoothly, but they each took 9 months to get the review comments back. All the others had unhelpful anonymous reviews or in a few cases, just nasty comments. The system does need to be fixed, and I think with time, especially as a new generation of scientists, willing to try new things, comes into prominence, the system will change to a more open system.
Actually no, the fuel cells are much better than batteries which you can only recharge so many times.
Now I'm not sure if what's mentioned in the Motorola article is the same type of fuel cell I'm about to mention, but I think it is.
The Dept. of Energy (Sandia or Los Alamos labs) revealed in 2000 methanol-based fuel cells. The catalytic component in the fuel cell breaks down the methanol to give either methane and water or hydrogen and CO2, I can't remember which. Anyway, the fuel cell consumes the gas to generate electricity and eventually the methanol runs out. Then - you refill the fuel cell with more methanol and start the cycle again. The researchers who made these particular fuel cells found that you can refill hundreds of times before you need to either put in a new catalyst or just clean out the catalyst support in the fuel cell.
By using methanol, you've got a wonderful renewable fuel source. Tree and wood matter (deadwood will work) is fermented to give methanol. Methanol is consumed, plant a new tree, or use more deadwood, and you've got a very nice renewable energy cycle that is indirectly powered by the sun. As long as plants grow and the sun shines, you're fine. I know my explination on the methanol production cycle is simplistic, but it ultimately works that way.
Yes, the current theme song is somewhat contemporary, but in a very pop-music format.
To combine on several threads, I'd like to see the opening theme go through changes as the series progresses. Farscape and Babylon 5 both did this, so maybe they'll do the same with Enterprise. Or better yet - how about different intros that reflect different world cultures?
Now for theme song changes you won't see:
-Enterprise theme song sung by Rob Zombie
-Techno/Rave version of Enterprise opening
-Enterprise theme song sung by Bjork (then again, maybe she should do this in light of the TOS theme song)
It certainly appears that Titanium is the next marketing gimmick metal, to imply the product is another level of value above the old. As mentioned, silver, gold, platinum and now titanium credit cards. I certainly hope they're not using titanium for the connectors to the motherboard slot. Gold is probably the most oxidation resistant metal on the planet, and it conducts much better that Titanium.
What's ironic is that Titanium is much less in value per ounce than silver. If you wanted to suggest a metal in value above platinum, you'd have to say Rhodium, Palladium, Irridium or Rhenium. But who's going to say they've got the newest in purchasing power with a "Rhodium" credit card. If you really want the next level in metal worth far more than platinum, flash out your "Plutonium" credit card.
As another view of how cheap Titanium is, you can buy Titanium crowbars from the old Soviet Union munitions factories now trying to privatize to make consumer products. They've got so much titanium lying around that they'll make just about anything out of it.
I've read Orwell - and we're not there yet, nor do I think we're heading there on our current historical path in America.
Perhaps I'm being niave, but I seriously doubt that there is grand conspiracy that began with taxes after the civil war and is about to open up with unfettered wire taps/email access that will lead to an orwellian nightmare. Taxes and other laws were created for a reason, to provide for the public good. Before taxes it was tarrifs and before that the govt. just took what it needed in war and did not even bother to concern itself with the fact that you may have needed that food/money to get through tough times. Remember that representive democracy was born of "taxation without representation". If we go back to days where governments fund their policy by brute force collection then I think we have a real problem. No one has ever liked taxes, why do you think they were so villified even in ancient times? One way or another, governments need to raise revenue for public works, and so, the current method is better than troops searching your house for all of your wealth and then taking the government's share.
I think the problem with American Govt. today is that the laws are not revisited to see if they need to be updated or changed to fit the times. Instead they get momentum on their side and its hard, as you put, to remember the historical reason behind the law. Prior generations however, do certainly get their rights of communication back. In WWII all letters were regularly screened and censored, sometimes excessively. After WWII, letters were no longer screened and censored. You now had to get a warrant to do this, and you still do need a warrant to read someone's mail.
If we use your example of opposing political party, the same email/phone/media streams that are being tapped can also be used to reveal that unauthorized monitoring of an opposing political party took place. Even with all the computer access and data mining, the sheer volume of information is more than the government law enforcement can handle, so there is no way they can arrest everyone who looks suspicious or has thoughts against the government.
I'll admit, that we as a nation tend to forget our history, and the study of history is good in that it reminds us why things were a particular way or why they were done a particular way in the past. Yes, there are plenty of historical examples of abuses of power in police states. We're not there, and if we ever get there, as I said before, history is on our side and we'll overthrow the police state. I don't think Orwell gave enough credit to human will. If you can beat down a person only so far before they realize they have nothing to loose, and they fight back, no matter what the cost. Human will has triumphed many times over tyranny, and it will again.
I would agree with you about historical prescendent, but I would also say history is on our side.
Let's say we (I'm using the "we" as in the American Population, not those of us here who have concerns about privacty issues) decide to go ahead and let the government screen all of our phone calls, email, etc. Certainly there has to be some trust involved. I know not everyone trusts the govt. to do the right job, but its a risk we take from time to time. We give up our freedom/power to act to government to act for the common good.
Now lets say we (see my definition of we above) give up some of these freedoms for security and it backfires, causing brutal crackdowns on free speech and thought, not to mention actions which are merely percieved as illegal, but not illegal in their own right. So what then? If we (again, the american people) are a bunch of sheep, then we loose and it doesn't matter. However, in the case that this occurs, I suspect the history proven statement "The Mob Rules" will allow us to take our freedoms back. If the war against terrorism ends and our freedoms are not given back, expect the very govt. which led us to victory to be voted right out of office. And if the abuse of rights continues, expect protests. And if it still continues, expect riots and eventually overthrows. The Roman Mob in ancient times, just as today, is the source of govt. power. Fail to appease the mob and the mob will overthrow you.
The Soviet Union was taken out by mobs of people who got a tiny taste of freedom and demanded more. Look at how the East Germans tore apart the Stasi secret police when momentum was finally on their side. Ferdinand Marco overthrown by Catholic-inspired "People Power" - and so on. These are just modern examples of overthrow of governments which no longer serve the interests of their people.
America has had its share of protest movements when laws and ways of govt. process had to be changed. The 60's civil rights movement is a perfect example of this. Right now, we are willing to give up some freedom for safety, because its what we need right now. We need our government to provide for the common defense, and this is one of the tools they need to use. If they exceed those usages, expect that we, as a nation, will put the government back in its place. If it gets really bad, history is on our side and we will reclaim those rights and freedoms from those who would take them from us.
Have hope - all is not lost by giving up some things now. I personally don't mind it at the moment, because I have to trust that the FBI and others are doing the right thing, and they're not going to crack down on me just because I might discuss likes of islamic architechture or something that might be construed in the loosest way as pro-islamic terrorist. I have nothing to hide and therefore, I don't worry about it. If, in the search for terrorists the FBI stumbles across a drug-smuggling ring, or a mass-murderer who lures people accross the internet and brings these people to justice - is this such a bad side effect? Again, I would say history is on our side and in time, our privacy rights and freedoms will return to us unscathed.
(Sorry for the 2nd post, but I forgot to put my ID in)
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
In light of your following comment:
"Face it folks - no matter WHAT happens, the only thing that could prevent something like this is sky marshals on EVERY flight in civilian clothes. And even then, they may not be able to overpower 5 guys with weapons (since shooting guns in the air is er, not a great idea) "
There is another option - train flight attendents to handle Tasers. I'm mostly referring to the models with range, not the physical contact variety. That way, you can hit your opponent who only has a knife or other melee weapon from a distance and disable him until you get to the ground. Also, you won't rupture the cabin.
As for wisdom of our forefathers, I fully agree, as "Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it"
My hope is we won't associate inconveience at the airport due to increased security as "loss of freedom". Wiretapping and unfettered access to phone and email is a bit excessive, but we'll have to trust that the government will use these tools to help and capture criminals, not create case files for everyone who likes discussing Doom or the Islamic faith.
I fully agree that we should not just jump to conclusions that it was Islamic militants or Osama bin-Laden. Yes, both groups hate us and would love to do such a thing, but there are plenty others who would, and if so motivated, do the same thing. Iraq is a good possibility, especially since they do have some revenue from oil sales, even if it does have to go into supposed controlled humanitarian accounts. So it could be well-funded enough to pull this off. However, there are other sources to consider here.
If you want symbolism for the attacks, look at the Ecoterrorists. By blowing up the towers, they destroy symbols of capitalist greed. By hitting the Pentagon, they strike out at the military-industrial complex which pollutes the environment. Further, they are well-educated, internet and information savvy, are financially well off due to donations, and they view the earth as more important than human life. What better way to help Earth recover than to wipe out the businesses which provide financing to the organizations which pollute the environment?
Also, we may be forgetting other now out of work terrorist groups from the 70s and 80s. Many of these groups were communist-sponsored, and many of them were never caught. They were well-trained by the KGB and were absolutely ruthless. Just as some now out-of-work KGB agents have been spotted doing private investigator work, who's to say these human predators haven't sold their services in the name of the causes they were brainwashed to believe in? What better way to support your communist cause than to hit the US where it hurts?
We could say all terrorists are guilty by profession, and all of them should be wiped out. That would solve some problems, but as long as humans exist who would give up their own life for a cause they believe so strongly in, its unlikely that terrorism will ever go away.
Certainly, the perpetrators of this should be punished, severly, and with malice. However, if we hit the wrong group and create collatoral damage, we've just created yet another group of terrorists who view their lives as second to their cause of causing us pain.
I'm willing to wait for justice and proof on this one. I admit, waiting will hurt, but if we don't do this right, we'll be setting ourselves up for more pain later.
Ebay is indeed a good choice. When I upgraded my machine last April, I was able to sell of all the parts on Ebay. I was able to sell my entire motherboard (AMD K6^2 350 MHZ) and power supply as one item, my modem (56k modem), video card (16MB Diamond Monster Fusion) and Sound Card (Sound Blaster AWE64) in short order. I kept my monitor, case, drives and keyboard when I upgraded.
I know I did not make a profit or break even, but, given how these items loose value with time as they get older and replaced with new technology, any money is better than no money.
If you do decide to go with Ebay, I found that having original manuals and CDs with the drivers get you more bids than the same items sold by someone else. You can sell of individual components or the whole thing.
Charity donations for tax purposes do work - but figuring out what the new value of your old system is with depreciation is difficult.
Chemistry is all about getting specific products, otherwise when I mix chemical A and B, I'll get products C to Z in one big mess. By chemical synthetic design, one can get very specific products.
As for small structures containing only hundreds of atoms, I'll agree on that point, although polymers are an exception to that rule, as one can synthesize polymers containing millions of atoms with speicific atom placement (thanks to catalysis). One of my concerns is that the nanoassembler and nanoparts must have some sort of weak-bonding interactions to work. If the atoms (or molecular chunks) have any more than van der waal (weak bonding) interactions, I feel that the whole system would get stuck and gunked up as more and more atoms started bonding to the nanoassembler, rather than to the desired part. I would think that to avoid this you would need to have a very low temperature environment, or your design would have to be very precise. And what happens when a cosmic ray hits the nanoassembler and destroys the whole thing? Obviously, you'll need a huge series of nanoassemblers, but how do you separate those parts damaged by cosmic rays from those which are not damaged?
Regardless, you've given me a lot to think about, and I need to read up more on what has been proposed and see what I think then. My views are based on reviews of the work, rather than sitting down and reading the original and using my chemical expertise to form my own opinion. Based on what you and others have posted, I need to do more background research. I suspect the real solution of nanotechnology will be much different than what any of us understand, as we continue to learn new phenomena which govern the nanoscale. I'll keep an eye out for your article, where are you going to publish it?
As a chemist, I can say billions or even trillions of atoms don't bother me at all. I work with "Moles" (6.022X10^23) of molecules and atoms every day.
I will take some of this criticism and read Drexler's work in detail. Perhaps I am missing something that I'm not seeing from reviews of his work. Still - we have chemical analogs of his devices today, we (and nature too for that matter) cannot place a single atom (unless its completely inert and near absolute zero) exactly where we want it to go if it does not want to be there due to unfavorable chemical bonding. If I had to guess why Chemists pooh-pooh Drexler's ideas, its that his proposed nanoassemblers are quite slow compared to chemical reactions. His devices could make what - millions of sub-devices or parts per day? In one chemical reaction, well designed and with use of catalysts and substrates which force the chemicals into one and only one configuration, I can produce far more in the same amount of time (remember, I can operate on molar scales with ease), even if my chemical yield for the reaction sucks.
What I think the real advantage of Drexler's views may be is getting conventional science to think differently about how it designs materials at the nanoscale, and how those nanoscale structures can be further manipulated in ways which chemistry cannot do (nanobots for example).
Okay, I'll bite at this one and take a read at Drexler's book.
I don't think you should look at this as an attack directly on Drexler's work, but more of a bit of realism on the limits of nanotechnology. In a way, chemists (though probably not thinking about it this way) have been practicing nanotechnology for hundreds of years. They build nanoscale strcutures all the time by simply reacting chemicals together in a flask. It doesn't sound very glamourous, but they are building nanoscale structures, as all those atoms are in precise locations, yielding a chemical structure which has certain properties and effects. The plastics industry, through the use of catalysts, has had molecular assemblers in place for 50 years. To be specific, they can take a small 3 carbon molecule (propylene) and use the catalysts to assemble a long-chain polymer one piece at a time, with atomistic repeatable control, to produce long-chain molecules with millions of carbon atoms present.
What scientists are saying when they comment against Drexler's views is that he doesn't go into the chemical specifics, and nor does he acknowledge that versions of his devices currently exist in nature or in chemical reactions. They just put things together with chemcial bond-forming reactions rather than single atom "manipulators".
You're right - but I found the claims made in the article refreshing, as they point out that the chemistry of the elements dictates what one can and cannot do at the nanoscale, not just our limits in fabrication and machining techniques.
In a way, hunter-killer cells currently exist, in the form of white blood cells. The antibodies created by chemistry or the human immune system (biochemistry) are the analytical laboratory for detecting viruses, bacteria, and maybe even cancer cells. The main reason that white blood cells don't wipe out cancer for us is that they do not have any antibodies to use to differentiate normal cells from cancer cells. Basically a cancer cell is a normally useful living cell, no different than its neighbors. What makes it different is that its reproductive programming has been set to permament high speed, rather than normal growth mode. So if you want to put this in computer terms, Cancer is basically where there is a bug in the programming (DNA), and the program is set to repeat itself and absorb more and more resources while it does, thus growing in size. If a white blood cell could be programmed (through the use of antibodies or some other genetic programming), it will recognize cancer cells from normal cells and wipe them out for us.
Nanotechnology, and all of its potential applications, will be dictated by chemistry and biochemistry, because at the nanoscale, those are the limiting factors for nanoscale design. If the atoms do not want to be in a particular arrangement because it is energetically and entropically disfavored, they will not be in that arrangement. This is why nanotechnologists look to nature, because in nature there are examples of nanotechnology that is energetically and entropically favored, and therefore, it can be built.
You are correct, that biology limits itself to C, H, O, and N, and that Nanotechnology seeks to use the rest of the perioidic table.
However, at the nanometer scale, atom and molecular bonding begin to really dominate, and therefore, architechures at that scale are predetermined by the chemistry of the atoms. The reason that biology uses C, H, O, and N are two fold. First is that they are abundant, but more importantly, its easier to make a wide range of chemical structures with these elements. Ever wonder why there is not a full Silicon version of bezene? Its becasue Silicon does not want to be forced into that sort of molecular structure, and for that matter, neither does most of the perioidic table. Its considered a major achievement in chemistry to make structures seen in nature with elements from the rest of the periodic table - and it takes a HUGE amount of effort to obtain these materials. To basically sumarize, yes, current efforts in Nanotechnology are to make biological and chemical analogs of things found in nature with elements not commonly used in nature. However, the laws of chemistry that govern these elements will pre-determine what we can and can't do. So by copying nature, we have a better chance of success for creating real nanotechnology, and eventually, picotechnology.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a Floor Wax you cow!!!
(Apologies to Dan Akroyd)
The autonomy of the student is still not there, even if they can sue to get their name on the patent. Why - because the PhD advisor still has the power of the "Letter of Recommendation".
Piss off your advisor and expect a less than glowing letter of recommendation. Rather than writing a blatent "...student X is a horrible researcher" they'll leave out crucial recommendations, making the student look like a lackluster potential hire wherever he or she might go.
I remember my days as a grad student working on my PhD in chemistry, and I saw this power first hand. And the professor didn't even have to exert it, just the fear of it being there was enough. I watched whole other research groups do EXACTLY what their professor said to do because of this power. Your entire career can be ruined before you even start because your PhD advisor continues to give you less than average letters of recommendation. When it comes to hire the student, who do you think the employer is going to believe? The student saying his advisor treated him or her like dirt, or the tenured professor? Unfortunately, the tenured professor wins just about every time.
Thankfully, my advisor would put our name on the patents that he did decide to pursue, but when the agreement was written as to who would get what percent of the proceeds (after the University took its share) my advisor would take the lion's share, if not all of it.
Ultimately, patent rights go to the creator of the idea, not who did the work. Patent law is so broken in this regard that all you have to do is prove the idea is your own and its original. Once you've done that, it doesn't matter who did the work to prove that the idea and claims would be valid, the patent rights go to the creator of the idea.
The great thing about the use of computer games as training tools for the military is that they avoid the following costly training expenses:
Field Exercises
Food, Fuel & Ammo
Potential accidents
Now I will say that the real thing is much different than the game, but by trying the game first, you can get used to some things, so that when you go to the real event, you make less mistakes. For example, while I was in ROTC I got to go to Ft. Knox for Armor training. While there, I got to train on the simulators for the M1 tank. Rather than running out in the real thing right away, and possibly crashing the tank or burning up a lot of fuel (M1 tank gets 0.5 mpg, no, I'm not kidding), you get to make all your mistakes in a simulator. The inside of the simulator is EXACTLY like the inside of the real tank, to closely simulute the real thing. All the vision ports are computer screens, sized appropriately to be realistic. When I used the simulator, it was full color, but 1993 geometric color graphics. So while it didn't look realistic, the effect of the training was. Further, in the simulators you can practice gunnery, gun loading, etc., so that when you go to the real thing, you're better prepared. Overall its a great system and its been a major success for the US army.
For infantry and combat simulators, the idea is the same. You're in full fatigues/battle gear, and the full-size screen changes with terrain and targets. I think they may start moving to VR setups to give a more immersive experience before they actually send you out on training exercises. The current problem is that the whole thing is pretty static, so by giving the enemy some AI, you will increase the value of the training tool. For the above mentioned M1 simulator, the enemy infantry and tank A1 is run by the instructors, so you're working against actual human soldiers.
To comment on the games though, when you get hit in the simulator, the game's over. You don't have health bars or the ability to save the game and reload. Its kill or be killed in the game. I think the tools are great, and I'm glad to see that the military is pairing up with those who can make the tools better. While these simulators and games will never be able to replace the real training exercise, they greatly improve the effectiveness of the training exercise. The whole value system behind on all this training is to make the common soldier better than cannon fodder. Quality over quantity.
Plexiglass is not Lexan. Plexiglass is the trademark, and common name now used by plastic manufacturers for polymethyl methacrylate or polyacetate plastics.
Lexan is a much different material, and if you ask for Plexiglass in any hardware store (north or south) you'll get the weaker plastic. To get Lexan, you have to ask for it.
One potential concern I see, especially with a car-bound computer, is impact resistance (potholes shake the unit around) and short-circuit fire safety. If you try using Lexan or Calibre sheet (polycarbonate) you'll improve the impact resistance of your case dramatically, and, the fire-resistance.
Plexiglass is notorious for getting brittle with heat and light exposure, both of which will happen if they sit in your car every day under the hot sun. One good summer could really do a number to the unit.
I am constantly amazed by how much games have changed, but the habits behind a good game have yet to change. I played games way into the night with old Atari games, and I still do it now with PC games. My rating system for games has always been how long do I play it into the night. If I lose all track of time, its a good one.
I currently play strategy/tactics games, and Dune: Emperor is my current late night sleep-destroyer. At least now I'm only killing my sleep rather my GPA like I did in college.
Bringing back old games is a trend I've seen with more and more platforms. Gauntlet has come back to PS2 as Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. Wolfenstein 3D will be back some time next year, and Civ III will come as well. Look how the Dune series has gone, from the almost role-playing "Dune" to its current incarnation. If a game was good enough to be remembered fondly, or at least spark a few sequel games, it will probably come back eventually. I've seen the same trend with toys and food. Toys and food go out of style, but then they come back 10 years later based on the idea that new folks are around who think the old is quite new. Also, the persons who have nostaligic memories for these items will buy them as well.
If there is one Microprose game I'd love to see come back, it would be Darklands. But, it never spawned a sequel and only a few people seemed to have liked it, so I doubt it will.
How about Colonization? Or better yet, Pirates!
While the work done at Bell labs does indeed look unique, this experiment and breakthrough has technically already been done by Prof. James Tour (at Rice University) and Prof. Mark Reid of Yale who, in a very high-tech experiment, showed that a single molecule can conduct. It was similar to the structure shown in the Bell labs work, except it was one benzene rather than two. Tour and Reid also used self-assembly to get the molecules to line up to check conductance. The work was published in Science in late 1999.
Further, Tour and his group have synthesized molecular transistors (he calls them "Moleisters") about a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, I can't bring up his web pages to find the reference to the papers.
I think one big thing missed as to why we're not on the moon more permamently is gravity. I'll agree, that with today's money, technology, and the willpower, we could have bases on the moon now (heck, probably even Mars). However, we have yet to come up with a solution to solve the effect of the moon's gravity on our frail human bodies. The only way you can stave off muscluar atrophy and bone degenration caused by the moon's low gravity is a rigourous exercise regimen, and even then, you're still likely to have some ill effects when returning to earth. If you decide to live there, and you don't keep up with the exercise regimen, you could forget about ever coming back to Earth's gravity would probably kill you upon return. Either your bones snap or your heart gives out under the intense pressure.
Drugs that solve this problem will probably need to be created, or moon pioneers may have to literally say goodbye to Earth when they change residence.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), part of the US Dept. of Commerce, is very Unix and Linux friendly, especially in the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL).
While the majority of personal PCs used by researchers at NIST are Windows based, Linux and Unix get used for computer modeling applications of all types, and Linux is used quite a bit by ITL. While I was at NIST, there was talk of a standard PC for all of NIST, and the ITL folks were stating that the software should be open-source and not Windows based. I don't know what happened with their request, as I left before the "standard" NIST PC came to be. I suspect though that it was Windows-based so the rest of NIST would not have to learn a bunch of new, basic software.
I have to strongly disagree with the following statement: "Any journal with 'Letters' in the title typically is little or no peer review since the articles there are for fast-track publication -- this is typically where you'll see junk." Most 'Letters' journals are "short and sweet" articles, describing one or two definative experiments, and are fast-tracked for review and publishing. I can say that the following 'Letters' journals are of excellent quality: Tetrahedron Letters, Nano Letters, Organic Letters, Applied Physics Letters. Now, these are all chemical or physics journals, so maybe the 'Letters' journals you refer to of a different scientific field which I haven't read.
Now I do like your idea of the Slashdot-based review system, but implimenting it will be difficult. Right now, the scientific community has the momentum behind it of anonymous review. It has not been unheard of for scientific peers to get a competitors paper, absolutely butcher it to slow it getting out, and then use that edge to push their results out first. Scientists can be just as petty and nasty as the rest of humanity. Occasionally you'll find a good anonymous review, where you can tell the reviewer actually read it. However, the anonymous peer review has been going for so long that it will take quite a bit of effort to remove it.
Also, most of the scientific community (at least the ones I know) view article reviewing as a chore, not an opportunity to improve science or learn something new. Therefore, for such an online system to work, there would have to be some incentive. Let's say we offer pay for review, but then you're back to the problem mentioned in the original post, that money is needed to run the journal, and to get people to pay, you have to restrict access, because if its free access, who's going to pay to support it? Now there is another incentive which I don't think has been mentioned - that free access to journal contents is given to the reader, provided that reader reviews X number of articles, non-anonymously and makes themselves available for comments on the article. This way, you ensure a motivation to access the article, and, you improve the whole-peer review process. By making the reviewer available for comments by the original author, the article can be improved, or, the author has the chance to explain his conclusions or clear up language in the conclusions. Again, the article is improved. Idealistic yes, but technically feasible.
I'd like to see the scientific review process greatly improved, as I have never been satisified by the experience I have gotten for all of the papers I have gotten over my scientific career. Out of 30 publications, I can think of only 2 that went somewhat smoothly, but they each took 9 months to get the review comments back. All the others had unhelpful anonymous reviews or in a few cases, just nasty comments. The system does need to be fixed, and I think with time, especially as a new generation of scientists, willing to try new things, comes into prominence, the system will change to a more open system.
Actually no, the fuel cells are much better than batteries which you can only recharge so many times.
Now I'm not sure if what's mentioned in the Motorola article is the same type of fuel cell I'm about to mention, but I think it is.
The Dept. of Energy (Sandia or Los Alamos labs) revealed in 2000 methanol-based fuel cells. The catalytic component in the fuel cell breaks down the methanol to give either methane and water or hydrogen and CO2, I can't remember which. Anyway, the fuel cell consumes the gas to generate electricity and eventually the methanol runs out. Then - you refill the fuel cell with more methanol and start the cycle again. The researchers who made these particular fuel cells found that you can refill hundreds of times before you need to either put in a new catalyst or just clean out the catalyst support in the fuel cell.
By using methanol, you've got a wonderful renewable fuel source. Tree and wood matter (deadwood will work) is fermented to give methanol. Methanol is consumed, plant a new tree, or use more deadwood, and you've got a very nice renewable energy cycle that is indirectly powered by the sun. As long as plants grow and the sun shines, you're fine. I know my explination on the methanol production cycle is simplistic, but it ultimately works that way.
You can get the titanium crowbars from US Cavalry (or at least you could a few years ago).
www.uscav.com
Yes, the current theme song is somewhat contemporary, but in a very pop-music format.
To combine on several threads, I'd like to see the opening theme go through changes as the series progresses. Farscape and Babylon 5 both did this, so maybe they'll do the same with Enterprise. Or better yet - how about different intros that reflect different world cultures?
Now for theme song changes you won't see:
-Enterprise theme song sung by Rob Zombie
-Techno/Rave version of Enterprise opening
-Enterprise theme song sung by Bjork (then again, maybe she should do this in light of the TOS theme song)
It certainly appears that Titanium is the next marketing gimmick metal, to imply the product is another level of value above the old. As mentioned, silver, gold, platinum and now titanium credit cards. I certainly hope they're not using titanium for the connectors to the motherboard slot. Gold is probably the most oxidation resistant metal on the planet, and it conducts much better that Titanium.
What's ironic is that Titanium is much less in value per ounce than silver. If you wanted to suggest a metal in value above platinum, you'd have to say Rhodium, Palladium, Irridium or Rhenium. But who's going to say they've got the newest in purchasing power with a "Rhodium" credit card. If you really want the next level in metal worth far more than platinum, flash out your "Plutonium" credit card.
As another view of how cheap Titanium is, you can buy Titanium crowbars from the old Soviet Union munitions factories now trying to privatize to make consumer products. They've got so much titanium lying around that they'll make just about anything out of it.
I've read Orwell - and we're not there yet, nor do I think we're heading there on our current historical path in America.
Perhaps I'm being niave, but I seriously doubt that there is grand conspiracy that began with taxes after the civil war and is about to open up with unfettered wire taps/email access that will lead to an orwellian nightmare. Taxes and other laws were created for a reason, to provide for the public good. Before taxes it was tarrifs and before that the govt. just took what it needed in war and did not even bother to concern itself with the fact that you may have needed that food/money to get through tough times. Remember that representive democracy was born of "taxation without representation". If we go back to days where governments fund their policy by brute force collection then I think we have a real problem. No one has ever liked taxes, why do you think they were so villified even in ancient times? One way or another, governments need to raise revenue for public works, and so, the current method is better than troops searching your house for all of your wealth and then taking the government's share.
I think the problem with American Govt. today is that the laws are not revisited to see if they need to be updated or changed to fit the times. Instead they get momentum on their side and its hard, as you put, to remember the historical reason behind the law. Prior generations however, do certainly get their rights of communication back. In WWII all letters were regularly screened and censored, sometimes excessively. After WWII, letters were no longer screened and censored. You now had to get a warrant to do this, and you still do need a warrant to read someone's mail.
If we use your example of opposing political party, the same email/phone/media streams that are being tapped can also be used to reveal that unauthorized monitoring of an opposing political party took place. Even with all the computer access and data mining, the sheer volume of information is more than the government law enforcement can handle, so there is no way they can arrest everyone who looks suspicious or has thoughts against the government.
I'll admit, that we as a nation tend to forget our history, and the study of history is good in that it reminds us why things were a particular way or why they were done a particular way in the past. Yes, there are plenty of historical examples of abuses of power in police states. We're not there, and if we ever get there, as I said before, history is on our side and we'll overthrow the police state. I don't think Orwell gave enough credit to human will. If you can beat down a person only so far before they realize they have nothing to loose, and they fight back, no matter what the cost. Human will has triumphed many times over tyranny, and it will again.
I would agree with you about historical prescendent, but I would also say history is on our side.
Let's say we (I'm using the "we" as in the American Population, not those of us here who have concerns about privacty issues) decide to go ahead and let the government screen all of our phone calls, email, etc. Certainly there has to be some trust involved. I know not everyone trusts the govt. to do the right job, but its a risk we take from time to time. We give up our freedom/power to act to government to act for the common good.
Now lets say we (see my definition of we above) give up some of these freedoms for security and it backfires, causing brutal crackdowns on free speech and thought, not to mention actions which are merely percieved as illegal, but not illegal in their own right. So what then? If we (again, the american people) are a bunch of sheep, then we loose and it doesn't matter. However, in the case that this occurs, I suspect the history proven statement "The Mob Rules" will allow us to take our freedoms back. If the war against terrorism ends and our freedoms are not given back, expect the very govt. which led us to victory to be voted right out of office. And if the abuse of rights continues, expect protests. And if it still continues, expect riots and eventually overthrows. The Roman Mob in ancient times, just as today, is the source of govt. power. Fail to appease the mob and the mob will overthrow you.
The Soviet Union was taken out by mobs of people who got a tiny taste of freedom and demanded more. Look at how the East Germans tore apart the Stasi secret police when momentum was finally on their side. Ferdinand Marco overthrown by Catholic-inspired "People Power" - and so on. These are just modern examples of overthrow of governments which no longer serve the interests of their people.
America has had its share of protest movements when laws and ways of govt. process had to be changed. The 60's civil rights movement is a perfect example of this. Right now, we are willing to give up some freedom for safety, because its what we need right now. We need our government to provide for the common defense, and this is one of the tools they need to use. If they exceed those usages, expect that we, as a nation, will put the government back in its place. If it gets really bad, history is on our side and we will reclaim those rights and freedoms from those who would take them from us.
Have hope - all is not lost by giving up some things now. I personally don't mind it at the moment, because I have to trust that the FBI and others are doing the right thing, and they're not going to crack down on me just because I might discuss likes of islamic architechture or something that might be construed in the loosest way as pro-islamic terrorist. I have nothing to hide and therefore, I don't worry about it. If, in the search for terrorists the FBI stumbles across a drug-smuggling ring, or a mass-murderer who lures people accross the internet and brings these people to justice - is this such a bad side effect? Again, I would say history is on our side and in time, our privacy rights and freedoms will return to us unscathed.
(Sorry for the 2nd post, but I forgot to put my ID in)
In light of your following comment:
"Face it folks - no matter WHAT happens, the only thing that could prevent something like this is sky marshals on EVERY flight in civilian clothes. And even then, they may not be able to overpower 5 guys with weapons (since shooting guns in the air is er, not a great idea) "
There is another option - train flight attendents to handle Tasers. I'm mostly referring to the models with range, not the physical contact variety. That way, you can hit your opponent who only has a knife or other melee weapon from a distance and disable him until you get to the ground. Also, you won't rupture the cabin.
As for wisdom of our forefathers, I fully agree, as "Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it"
My hope is we won't associate inconveience at the airport due to increased security as "loss of freedom". Wiretapping and unfettered access to phone and email is a bit excessive, but we'll have to trust that the government will use these tools to help and capture criminals, not create case files for everyone who likes discussing Doom or the Islamic faith.
I fully agree that we should not just jump to conclusions that it was Islamic militants or Osama bin-Laden. Yes, both groups hate us and would love to do such a thing, but there are plenty others who would, and if so motivated, do the same thing. Iraq is a good possibility, especially since they do have some revenue from oil sales, even if it does have to go into supposed controlled humanitarian accounts. So it could be well-funded enough to pull this off. However, there are other sources to consider here.
If you want symbolism for the attacks, look at the Ecoterrorists. By blowing up the towers, they destroy symbols of capitalist greed. By hitting the Pentagon, they strike out at the military-industrial complex which pollutes the environment. Further, they are well-educated, internet and information savvy, are financially well off due to donations, and they view the earth as more important than human life. What better way to help Earth recover than to wipe out the businesses which provide financing to the organizations which pollute the environment?
Also, we may be forgetting other now out of work terrorist groups from the 70s and 80s. Many of these groups were communist-sponsored, and many of them were never caught. They were well-trained by the KGB and were absolutely ruthless. Just as some now out-of-work KGB agents have been spotted doing private investigator work, who's to say these human predators haven't sold their services in the name of the causes they were brainwashed to believe in? What better way to support your communist cause than to hit the US where it hurts?
We could say all terrorists are guilty by profession, and all of them should be wiped out. That would solve some problems, but as long as humans exist who would give up their own life for a cause they believe so strongly in, its unlikely that terrorism will ever go away.
Certainly, the perpetrators of this should be punished, severly, and with malice. However, if we hit the wrong group and create collatoral damage, we've just created yet another group of terrorists who view their lives as second to their cause of causing us pain.
I'm willing to wait for justice and proof on this one. I admit, waiting will hurt, but if we don't do this right, we'll be setting ourselves up for more pain later.
Ebay is indeed a good choice. When I upgraded my machine last April, I was able to sell of all the parts on Ebay. I was able to sell my entire motherboard (AMD K6^2 350 MHZ) and power supply as one item, my modem (56k modem), video card (16MB Diamond Monster Fusion) and Sound Card (Sound Blaster AWE64) in short order. I kept my monitor, case, drives and keyboard when I upgraded.
I know I did not make a profit or break even, but, given how these items loose value with time as they get older and replaced with new technology, any money is better than no money.
If you do decide to go with Ebay, I found that having original manuals and CDs with the drivers get you more bids than the same items sold by someone else. You can sell of individual components or the whole thing.
Charity donations for tax purposes do work - but figuring out what the new value of your old system is with depreciation is difficult.
Chemistry is all about getting specific products, otherwise when I mix chemical A and B, I'll get products C to Z in one big mess. By chemical synthetic design, one can get very specific products.
As for small structures containing only hundreds of atoms, I'll agree on that point, although polymers are an exception to that rule, as one can synthesize polymers containing millions of atoms with speicific atom placement (thanks to catalysis). One of my concerns is that the nanoassembler and nanoparts must have some sort of weak-bonding interactions to work. If the atoms (or molecular chunks) have any more than van der waal (weak bonding) interactions, I feel that the whole system would get stuck and gunked up as more and more atoms started bonding to the nanoassembler, rather than to the desired part. I would think that to avoid this you would need to have a very low temperature environment, or your design would have to be very precise. And what happens when a cosmic ray hits the nanoassembler and destroys the whole thing? Obviously, you'll need a huge series of nanoassemblers, but how do you separate those parts damaged by cosmic rays from those which are not damaged?
Regardless, you've given me a lot to think about, and I need to read up more on what has been proposed and see what I think then. My views are based on reviews of the work, rather than sitting down and reading the original and using my chemical expertise to form my own opinion. Based on what you and others have posted, I need to do more background research. I suspect the real solution of nanotechnology will be much different than what any of us understand, as we continue to learn new phenomena which govern the nanoscale. I'll keep an eye out for your article, where are you going to publish it?
As a chemist, I can say billions or even trillions of atoms don't bother me at all. I work with "Moles" (6.022X10^23) of molecules and atoms every day.
I will take some of this criticism and read Drexler's work in detail. Perhaps I am missing something that I'm not seeing from reviews of his work. Still - we have chemical analogs of his devices today, we (and nature too for that matter) cannot place a single atom (unless its completely inert and near absolute zero) exactly where we want it to go if it does not want to be there due to unfavorable chemical bonding. If I had to guess why Chemists pooh-pooh Drexler's ideas, its that his proposed nanoassemblers are quite slow compared to chemical reactions. His devices could make what - millions of sub-devices or parts per day? In one chemical reaction, well designed and with use of catalysts and substrates which force the chemicals into one and only one configuration, I can produce far more in the same amount of time (remember, I can operate on molar scales with ease), even if my chemical yield for the reaction sucks.
What I think the real advantage of Drexler's views may be is getting conventional science to think differently about how it designs materials at the nanoscale, and how those nanoscale structures can be further manipulated in ways which chemistry cannot do (nanobots for example).
Okay, I'll bite at this one and take a read at Drexler's book.
I don't think you should look at this as an attack directly on Drexler's work, but more of a bit of realism on the limits of nanotechnology. In a way, chemists (though probably not thinking about it this way) have been practicing nanotechnology for hundreds of years. They build nanoscale strcutures all the time by simply reacting chemicals together in a flask. It doesn't sound very glamourous, but they are building nanoscale structures, as all those atoms are in precise locations, yielding a chemical structure which has certain properties and effects. The plastics industry, through the use of catalysts, has had molecular assemblers in place for 50 years. To be specific, they can take a small 3 carbon molecule (propylene) and use the catalysts to assemble a long-chain polymer one piece at a time, with atomistic repeatable control, to produce long-chain molecules with millions of carbon atoms present.
What scientists are saying when they comment against Drexler's views is that he doesn't go into the chemical specifics, and nor does he acknowledge that versions of his devices currently exist in nature or in chemical reactions. They just put things together with chemcial bond-forming reactions rather than single atom "manipulators".
You're right - but I found the claims made in the article refreshing, as they point out that the chemistry of the elements dictates what one can and cannot do at the nanoscale, not just our limits in fabrication and machining techniques. In a way, hunter-killer cells currently exist, in the form of white blood cells. The antibodies created by chemistry or the human immune system (biochemistry) are the analytical laboratory for detecting viruses, bacteria, and maybe even cancer cells. The main reason that white blood cells don't wipe out cancer for us is that they do not have any antibodies to use to differentiate normal cells from cancer cells. Basically a cancer cell is a normally useful living cell, no different than its neighbors. What makes it different is that its reproductive programming has been set to permament high speed, rather than normal growth mode. So if you want to put this in computer terms, Cancer is basically where there is a bug in the programming (DNA), and the program is set to repeat itself and absorb more and more resources while it does, thus growing in size. If a white blood cell could be programmed (through the use of antibodies or some other genetic programming), it will recognize cancer cells from normal cells and wipe them out for us. Nanotechnology, and all of its potential applications, will be dictated by chemistry and biochemistry, because at the nanoscale, those are the limiting factors for nanoscale design. If the atoms do not want to be in a particular arrangement because it is energetically and entropically disfavored, they will not be in that arrangement. This is why nanotechnologists look to nature, because in nature there are examples of nanotechnology that is energetically and entropically favored, and therefore, it can be built.
You are correct, that biology limits itself to C, H, O, and N, and that Nanotechnology seeks to use the rest of the perioidic table.
However, at the nanometer scale, atom and molecular bonding begin to really dominate, and therefore, architechures at that scale are predetermined by the chemistry of the atoms. The reason that biology uses C, H, O, and N are two fold. First is that they are abundant, but more importantly, its easier to make a wide range of chemical structures with these elements. Ever wonder why there is not a full Silicon version of bezene? Its becasue Silicon does not want to be forced into that sort of molecular structure, and for that matter, neither does most of the perioidic table. Its considered a major achievement in chemistry to make structures seen in nature with elements from the rest of the periodic table - and it takes a HUGE amount of effort to obtain these materials. To basically sumarize, yes, current efforts in Nanotechnology are to make biological and chemical analogs of things found in nature with elements not commonly used in nature. However, the laws of chemistry that govern these elements will pre-determine what we can and can't do. So by copying nature, we have a better chance of success for creating real nanotechnology, and eventually, picotechnology.