Wouldn't a couple of mirrors ruin the whole thing?
In principle, yes. In practice, no. If you were to put a very high quality coating of silver (for visible wavelength lasers) or gold (for IR lasers) on your missile, in principle you could reflect 95 to 98% of incident light. Special optical coatings can result in >99% reflectance, but only over narrow wavelength ranges.
In other words, if the enemy knows the wavelength at which your laser operates, he can reduce the effectiveness of your laser weapons. For ground based installations, this still isn't a big problem--you just need a laser that's an order of magnitude more powerful, and you can cook even the reflective coatings on the other guy's missiles. I've done research work involving lasers in both physical chemistry and medicine, and I've seen a number of purportedly highly-reflective optical elements get toasted by a powerful enough beam. Also, high-quality optical coatings usually aren't meant to handle the stresses (physical and thermal) experienced by your typical missile (ballistic or tactical).
"What we hope this coating can do is amazing. We're also looking at making it seem invisible." . . . A prototype "smart" coating may be developed as early as 2005, she says.
Oooo. Invisible paint. For billions of dollars.
Can I sell anyone an $800 hammer before some dumb little kid says, "Look Mommy! That tank isn't wearing any paint!"
...timothy's bank (cited as a shining example in the original post) still doesn't let me in when I'm using Opera 6.05, despite my lying about the browser I'm using. Security reasons, of course. Glad I can get in with that paragon of trustworthiness, IE.
Editors: Next time check that your shining examples aren't just fool's gold.
I'm getting more and more annoyed hearing about little tiny credit unions that work happily with Opera, Moz, and Phoenix while my monolithic, monopolistic (actually, in Canada it's more properly described as an oligopoly) behemoth of a bank won't recognize my browser.
On the plus side, kudos to ING Direct (the Canadian subsidiary of the European ING Group) for supporting Opera.
Okay, there may be a more efficient way to do this, but I just sketched something out.
not(A xor {not[((not A) xor B) xor ((not B) xor A)]})
I think is equivalent to A and B. (not A is just A xor 1, so I didn't write that explicitly.) There's probably a more efficient solution, and I have to go out this morning so I'm not absolutely certain of my notation above...translating whiteboard to Slashcomment is not my forte.
Re:okay, maybe it's a stupid idea...
on
Water Computing
·
· Score: 5, Funny
But the thought just came to me of using beer instead of water. That way you could make a beer computer! Who says beer makes you shite at math? you CAN get drunk and still do 4 bit additions:)
The big problem is the head on the beer. Bubbles would probably affect the logic in unpredictable ways. In other words, if your computer got...um...sloshed, then it probably couldn't calculate a tip any better than you could.
And God help you if you tried to do any serious math. You know what they say...Don't drink and derive. It applies to you and your computer, now.
In principle, couldn't XOR be used to construct all the other gates as well? Who needs a NAND explicitly? You can make an AND from XORs. An as stated, you can also get a NOT from XORs.
Yes, of course you can build up all the NANDs you need from XORs, and then use those composite gates to build the rest of the gates--but it's more efficient to skip the middle step of constructing the NANDs.
Re:Without electronics...
on
Water Computing
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Except, of course, that assertion involves simplifying assumptions, too.
We could go as far as high school chemistry and decide that there are 2 core 1s electrons definitely associated with the oxygen, plus four more electrons that are part of lone pairs on the oxygen (probably also mostly belonging to the oxygen atom). Then there's four electrons involved in the two sigma bonds joining the oxygen to the hydrogen. Simplest story is that it shares two with each hydrogen.
If we break out the molecular orbital theory, then it starts to get kind of messy. At the lowest level, we have a really ugly n-body problem. We can't solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for this case, so we're limited to approximate numeric solutions. (Technically, we should really account for relativistic effects and use the Dirac equation, but that's overkill for lightweight atoms like these.)
Even then, solving for the wavefunctions by whatever method only gives us a probability that electrons will be located nearest a given atom. In principle, occasionally all 10 electrons could actually be closest to one of the protons, but you would have to wait a loooooong time for it to happen.
Oh, yes--if I wanted to be picky, I could also mention that pure water will still undergo spontanous autoionization to form H+ (H3O+, actually) and OH- ions, containing the same number of electrons, but now the wrong number of protons...
One more, then I'm done. Liquid water actually tends to get kind of clumpy. In the so-called 'flickering cluster' model, water molecules in the liquid phase form short-lived hydrogen bonded clumps containing several (or even several tens of) water molecules. These clumps have an electron count that depends (of course) on their size.
Water is actually an incredibly interesting beast, chemically speaking. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous, but there is a tremendous amount of very interesting stuff that it can do.
So they want to monitor usage, charge and control access according to how you're using the service.
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the whole idea of being a common carrier? Hands off, except where we want to squeeze customers for revenue?
Yep. It's a good thing that phone companies don't do things like charge for long distance usage (or local usage as well, if you're on your cell or in most of the rest of the world.)
I suppose the issue here is that they can remain a common carrier and still control (and charge for) usage as long as they don't try to control content. Read your AUP. They can block applications that have detrimental effects on their network. Gnucleus/Limewire/Kazaa do just that, I guess. As long as your ISP is up front about it, then we don't really have anything to complain about. (If they just quietly block applications without informing people, that's another issue.)
If they start interfering with your ability to access specific content, like pro-choice websites, or Scientology pages, or porn, then there should be marching in the streets.
They want open-source to get them rich, right? Less initial cost by the company, etc etc. What are the odds they'll profit-share with people they're getting rich off of? (well, ok, attempting)
Um. Isn't this one of the tenets of free software--it's not just free as in speech, it's also free as in beer.
The OSS movement (if such a 'herding cats' endeavour can truly be said to exist) should be welcoming this. One of the world's premier supercomputing projects is adopting Linux. Now you can say to CEOs, "Remember how nobody ever went wrong buying IBM? Well, now IBM is sinking $100 million into a Linux supercomputer. So yeah, we can build your corporate network. By the way, we don't have to charge you for software, either."
IBM has already been pushing Linux for enterprise solutions. It occurs to me that (just maybe) they might already be making significant contributions to Linux, both in terms of code improvements and indirect public relations benefits.
What more do you want them to do in terms of profit sharing? Mail a dollar bill to everyone that's written code for a Linux distro?
So blind people can't sit in the back seat and have someone drive them through the ATM lane at their local branch bank?
Right, and have the driver lean way back and read off all the prompts for them, because there's no way for the blind to read what is displayed on the screens...
Obviously, the only reason for there to be Braille on the drive through ATMs is because the walkup machines have Braille.
Why the walkups have Braille is an interesting question, because the blind still can't read the screens. I suppose if they memorize the order of prompts and button sequences, but that's still a pretty annoying way to access one's account.
At room temperature, most materials that we think of as "glass" are relatively poor absorbers of microwaves. However, if there is a concentrated pulse of microwaves delivered to a small region (sufficient to heat that part to ~500 degrees Celsius) then that region of glass will become much more strongly absorbing--once melting has started in a region, it will continue from there.
I don't know if room temperature absorption might be increased by selecting a different wavelength from that used in microwave ovens. I suspect that there would be incremental improvements only, but I invite experts to comment.
If you want to cut glass with a laser, use one that operates up in the infrared. Ordinary glass cuts off transmission at wavelengths longer than about 2 microns (2000 nm). Quartz optics can still be used up to ~2500 nm. There are many commercially available lasers that operate in this regime. Industrial carbon dioxide cutting lasers emit at ~10.6 microns--special (expensive, delicate, finicky) optics have to be used to even let the laser beam out of the lasing cavity.
My big concern for cutting glass with lasers would be the danger posed by specular reflections from the material being handled.
The portion of Mr. King's comment you post refers to "express permission." robots.txt is an opt out system. In opt-out systems, permission is implied unless expressly forbidden. So, the presence of a robots.txt option does not address Mr. King's comment.
The difference here is that by choosing to post content on the public internet, one can argue that a webmaster gives implicit permission for the world to view that content. If you put something on the Web, you can expect it to be viewed--it's the nature of the beast. If you want to limit access to your information to people with "express permission" to do so, then password protect part of your site, or keep it on your local intranet and accept emailed requests.
robots.txt provides an option for a webmaster to publically disseminate information but avoid having it indexed. It strikes me as an excellent compromise.
Complaining that Google indexes sites without express permission is like complaining that someone took a picture of a billboard by the highway without express permission.
The problem is that this isn't a patent on a medical product, it's a patent on a gene itself. The patent holder is asserting that any test for the mutated gene falls under the patent.
They are also refusing to license other companies to test for the gene--they want to cut out any middlemen. Even if you develop an alternate test, you still can't use it without their permission (which they are refusing to give.)
This sort of patent has a chilling effect on basic research, as well. Why bother developing novel treatments that are already sure to be covered under someone else's patent? Why fund research on this gene if there's no chance of a return on investment? How do you complete your research project when you find out that someone wants royalties on the genetic material you're using?
Since when is it a violation of a patent to see if the patented "invention" is located in a certain area?
Since now. The gene itself (and it's potentially oncogenic mutation) has been patented. The company that holds the patent requires health care agencies to send samples to them for testing. They have refused to license the testing, preferring to cut out any middlemen. Further, since they assert that their patent for the gene itself is valid, they are suing anyone who performs any alternate test for the mutated gene.
As an interesting aside, not all Canadian provinces are completely spineless. Ontario is refusing to pay royalties and is conducting its own tests. We'll see how the lawsuits play out there.
You're totally wrong. While the prime cause is still not conclusively known, for the first time we are moving towards consensus that Autism is probably a by-product of neuro-toxic mercury-poisoning.
Who are "we", and who told you that "we" are moving towards a consensus? Yes, until recently many vaccines contained traces of mercury as part of the preservative agent thimerosal.
The Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) reported in its October 2001 report Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders that there was no correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism, ADHD, speech delays, or other developmental disorders. They did recommend that thimerosal use be eliminated as part of a campaign to reduce all exposures to mercury on principle.
UC Davis has just started (in 2001) a large-scale, controlled study to examine two thousand children. Quoting the principle investigator Isaac Pessah, "We will carry out the first comprehensive analysis anywhere of the blood levels of toxins, such as mercury, pesticides and pcbs, in children with autism, compared to children without the disorder".
Quite frankly, if the NAS has studied the issue and concluded that mercury in vaccines is not correlated with autism, and UC Davis is willing to sink $5 million into a study to characterize the effects of a wide range of environmental contaminants on the development of autism--well, that doens't sound like a consensus to me.
For a serious disorder like autism, it is always very appealling to be able to say, "Yes, that's the cause. I'm glad we can fix it, and punish the people who exposed our children to this debilitating syndrome." Unfortunately, the situation isn't that simple.
If you check the web, you'll find references that cite 1) high levels of mercury in hair samples from autistic children and 2) low levels of mercury in hair samples from autistic children as "evidence" of mercury poisoning causing autism. Still other sites (particularly those that are selling chelation therapy for autism) often suggest that there isn't a good noninvasive test for mercury levels in a child, so mercury poisoning should be diagnosed by indirect tests or through consideration of symptoms (that invariably look like autism.)
The "authorities" that assert that mercury is the cause of autism unfortunately often fall into two categories. The first group consists of doctors that believe in chelation therapy (there are no large-scale controlled studies to support this conclusion) and the second group contains lawyers who have launched large class-action suits against vaccine manufacturers.
I don't mean to imply that there are no legitimate physicians and scientists who consider mercury to be the cause of autism--I myself would not be surprised if there was some environmental cause to explain the increasing incidence. But the intellectually honest among us have to admit that there is by no means a consensus--or even a strong indication--that mercury is the major cause of the disorder.
Parents in the study were asked what might have caused their child's autism. Nearly half the parents in both groups said they did not know. A third blamed genetics; smaller numbers cited immunizations, birth injury or environmental factors.
So, just about half of parents are intellectually honest, then. We don't know what causes autism--there is nothing approaching a consensus among researchers, and there are few well-designed studies that even suggest a possible cause. Asking parents what caused their child's autism is like asking a non-technical person why their hard drive crashed. The answer as likely as not will be "I dunno, maybe I've got a virus?" Interesting for investigating the biases of the hapless user, but not a useful diagnosis.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm just surprised that nobody in the study thought to blame living near power lines--unless that's an "environmental factor".
Hypothesis: The incidence of autism is higher because children aren't being allowed to eat enough dirt. Exposure to more microorganisms when young strengthens the immune system. There exists a microbe (virus, perhaps) as-yet-uncharacterized that causes autism. (This happens sometimes with diseases. For example, most stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium h. pylori and can often be cured with antibiotic therapy. This fact only came to light very recently, after decades of assuming that ulcers were essentially untreatable.) Children's weaker immune systems don't fight this pathogen as effectively as they used to, so they develop autism more frequently.
Solution: Feed all young children dirt.
This hypothesis actually has about as much grounding as many of the other suggested causes of autism. Based on very weak evidence, some parents have started to avoid immunizing their children, putting them at much greater risk for measles and other potentially deadly diseases. Bless the internet and its unquestioned authority on medicine.
I'd be careful about something condensing into the liquid nitrogen as it boils off. Like oxygen.
Worth noting, definitely--but not likely to be a problem. As long as LN2 is flowing in to the box, and the box is not perfectly sealed any oxygen that was inside when the box was closed will be slowly flushed out. I imagine that most hacks assembled from/. posts aren't quite airtight, so the concentration of oxygen in the gas mix will decay exponentially with time.
Also, since only the GPU and CPU are directly cooled with LN2, the rest of the board will stay warmer, limiting problems with O2 condensation.
In some instances, treating certain pieces of unclassified data as sensitive actually helps to protect an individual's personal data. Information gathered by the U.S. Department of Defense on its personnel is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, which does not inherently make it classified. However, because the data is sensitive, handling and transmitting it with increased care is beneficial for military personnel.
This is exactly the point that you're trying not to make. For some "sensitive" information, laws already exist outside of classification to protect it. (Personal info is protected under the Privacy Act.)
For other "sensitive" information, no such protection exists. Perhaps it would be appropriate to create another (lower) level of classification, so that what should be protected (and how) is properly codified and not left to the judgement of individual administrators.
Finally, in the context of bioterrorism, one wonders why this information is necessarily even considered sensitive--access to the pathogens is something that is of far greater concern than simply knowing of their existence. And that access is already regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
In principle, yes. In practice, no. If you were to put a very high quality coating of silver (for visible wavelength lasers) or gold (for IR lasers) on your missile, in principle you could reflect 95 to 98% of incident light. Special optical coatings can result in >99% reflectance, but only over narrow wavelength ranges.
In other words, if the enemy knows the wavelength at which your laser operates, he can reduce the effectiveness of your laser weapons. For ground based installations, this still isn't a big problem--you just need a laser that's an order of magnitude more powerful, and you can cook even the reflective coatings on the other guy's missiles. I've done research work involving lasers in both physical chemistry and medicine, and I've seen a number of purportedly highly-reflective optical elements get toasted by a powerful enough beam. Also, high-quality optical coatings usually aren't meant to handle the stresses (physical and thermal) experienced by your typical missile (ballistic or tactical).
Only if someone finds a way to chip a PS2 with it, and then posts a story about it to /..
I don't see how that applies. The parent asked about Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.
Oooo. Invisible paint. For billions of dollars.
Can I sell anyone an $800 hammer before some dumb little kid says, "Look Mommy! That tank isn't wearing any paint!"
I'm Canadian, so my posts may look a little off to some--but definitely is still definitely spelled "definitely" in the Great White North.
Editors: Next time check that your shining examples aren't just fool's gold.
I'm getting more and more annoyed hearing about little tiny credit unions that work happily with Opera, Moz, and Phoenix while my monolithic, monopolistic (actually, in Canada it's more properly described as an oligopoly) behemoth of a bank won't recognize my browser.
On the plus side, kudos to ING Direct (the Canadian subsidiary of the European ING Group) for supporting Opera.
I'm wrong; don't bother trying to check my work. Sigh. Making an AND out of XOR probably *is* impossible.
not(A xor {not[((not A) xor B) xor ((not B) xor A)]})
I think is equivalent to A and B. (not A is just A xor 1, so I didn't write that explicitly.) There's probably a more efficient solution, and I have to go out this morning so I'm not absolutely certain of my notation above...translating whiteboard to Slashcomment is not my forte.
The big problem is the head on the beer. Bubbles would probably affect the logic in unpredictable ways. In other words, if your computer got...um...sloshed, then it probably couldn't calculate a tip any better than you could.
And God help you if you tried to do any serious math. You know what they say...Don't drink and derive. It applies to you and your computer, now.
In principle, couldn't XOR be used to construct all the other gates as well? Who needs a NAND explicitly? You can make an AND from XORs. An as stated, you can also get a NOT from XORs.
Yes, of course you can build up all the NANDs you need from XORs, and then use those composite gates to build the rest of the gates--but it's more efficient to skip the middle step of constructing the NANDs.
We could go as far as high school chemistry and decide that there are 2 core 1s electrons definitely associated with the oxygen, plus four more electrons that are part of lone pairs on the oxygen (probably also mostly belonging to the oxygen atom). Then there's four electrons involved in the two sigma bonds joining the oxygen to the hydrogen. Simplest story is that it shares two with each hydrogen.
If we break out the molecular orbital theory, then it starts to get kind of messy. At the lowest level, we have a really ugly n-body problem. We can't solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for this case, so we're limited to approximate numeric solutions. (Technically, we should really account for relativistic effects and use the Dirac equation, but that's overkill for lightweight atoms like these.)
Even then, solving for the wavefunctions by whatever method only gives us a probability that electrons will be located nearest a given atom. In principle, occasionally all 10 electrons could actually be closest to one of the protons, but you would have to wait a loooooong time for it to happen.
Oh, yes--if I wanted to be picky, I could also mention that pure water will still undergo spontanous autoionization to form H+ (H3O+, actually) and OH- ions, containing the same number of electrons, but now the wrong number of protons...
One more, then I'm done. Liquid water actually tends to get kind of clumpy. In the so-called 'flickering cluster' model, water molecules in the liquid phase form short-lived hydrogen bonded clumps containing several (or even several tens of) water molecules. These clumps have an electron count that depends (of course) on their size.
Water is actually an incredibly interesting beast, chemically speaking. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous, but there is a tremendous amount of very interesting stuff that it can do.
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the whole idea of being a common carrier? Hands off, except where we want to squeeze customers for revenue?
Yep. It's a good thing that phone companies don't do things like charge for long distance usage (or local usage as well, if you're on your cell or in most of the rest of the world.)
I suppose the issue here is that they can remain a common carrier and still control (and charge for) usage as long as they don't try to control content. Read your AUP. They can block applications that have detrimental effects on their network. Gnucleus/Limewire/Kazaa do just that, I guess. As long as your ISP is up front about it, then we don't really have anything to complain about. (If they just quietly block applications without informing people, that's another issue.)
If they start interfering with your ability to access specific content, like pro-choice websites, or Scientology pages, or porn, then there should be marching in the streets.
Um. Isn't this one of the tenets of free software--it's not just free as in speech, it's also free as in beer.
The OSS movement (if such a 'herding cats' endeavour can truly be said to exist) should be welcoming this. One of the world's premier supercomputing projects is adopting Linux. Now you can say to CEOs, "Remember how nobody ever went wrong buying IBM? Well, now IBM is sinking $100 million into a Linux supercomputer. So yeah, we can build your corporate network. By the way, we don't have to charge you for software, either."
IBM has already been pushing Linux for enterprise solutions. It occurs to me that (just maybe) they might already be making significant contributions to Linux, both in terms of code improvements and indirect public relations benefits.
What more do you want them to do in terms of profit sharing? Mail a dollar bill to everyone that's written code for a Linux distro?
There's a rich irony that the parent to this post is now also marked Score: 3, Insightful.
I'm sorry; everyone knows that the sexiest geek is currently Stevie Case, aka 'Killcreek'.
Right, and have the driver lean way back and read off all the prompts for them, because there's no way for the blind to read what is displayed on the screens...
Obviously, the only reason for there to be Braille on the drive through ATMs is because the walkup machines have Braille. Why the walkups have Braille is an interesting question, because the blind still can't read the screens. I suppose if they memorize the order of prompts and button sequences, but that's still a pretty annoying way to access one's account.
I don't know if room temperature absorption might be increased by selecting a different wavelength from that used in microwave ovens. I suspect that there would be incremental improvements only, but I invite experts to comment.
If you want to cut glass with a laser, use one that operates up in the infrared. Ordinary glass cuts off transmission at wavelengths longer than about 2 microns (2000 nm). Quartz optics can still be used up to ~2500 nm. There are many commercially available lasers that operate in this regime. Industrial carbon dioxide cutting lasers emit at ~10.6 microns--special (expensive, delicate, finicky) optics have to be used to even let the laser beam out of the lasing cavity.
My big concern for cutting glass with lasers would be the danger posed by specular reflections from the material being handled.
The difference here is that by choosing to post content on the public internet, one can argue that a webmaster gives implicit permission for the world to view that content. If you put something on the Web, you can expect it to be viewed--it's the nature of the beast. If you want to limit access to your information to people with "express permission" to do so, then password protect part of your site, or keep it on your local intranet and accept emailed requests.
robots.txt provides an option for a webmaster to publically disseminate information but avoid having it indexed. It strikes me as an excellent compromise.
Complaining that Google indexes sites without express permission is like complaining that someone took a picture of a billboard by the highway without express permission.
The problem is that this isn't a patent on a medical product, it's a patent on a gene itself. The patent holder is asserting that any test for the mutated gene falls under the patent.
They are also refusing to license other companies to test for the gene--they want to cut out any middlemen. Even if you develop an alternate test, you still can't use it without their permission (which they are refusing to give.)
This sort of patent has a chilling effect on basic research, as well. Why bother developing novel treatments that are already sure to be covered under someone else's patent? Why fund research on this gene if there's no chance of a return on investment? How do you complete your research project when you find out that someone wants royalties on the genetic material you're using?
Since now. The gene itself (and it's potentially oncogenic mutation) has been patented. The company that holds the patent requires health care agencies to send samples to them for testing. They have refused to license the testing, preferring to cut out any middlemen. Further, since they assert that their patent for the gene itself is valid, they are suing anyone who performs any alternate test for the mutated gene.
As an interesting aside, not all Canadian provinces are completely spineless. Ontario is refusing to pay royalties and is conducting its own tests. We'll see how the lawsuits play out there.
Apple doesn't have forty billion in the bank. And MS isn't trying to sell hardware in addition to software.
Who are "we", and who told you that "we" are moving towards a consensus? Yes, until recently many vaccines contained traces of mercury as part of the preservative agent thimerosal.
The Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) reported in its October 2001 report Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders that there was no correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism, ADHD, speech delays, or other developmental disorders. They did recommend that thimerosal use be eliminated as part of a campaign to reduce all exposures to mercury on principle.
UC Davis has just started (in 2001) a large-scale, controlled study to examine two thousand children. Quoting the principle investigator Isaac Pessah, "We will carry out the first comprehensive analysis anywhere of the blood levels of toxins, such as mercury, pesticides and pcbs, in children with autism, compared to children without the disorder".
Quite frankly, if the NAS has studied the issue and concluded that mercury in vaccines is not correlated with autism, and UC Davis is willing to sink $5 million into a study to characterize the effects of a wide range of environmental contaminants on the development of autism--well, that doens't sound like a consensus to me.
For a serious disorder like autism, it is always very appealling to be able to say, "Yes, that's the cause. I'm glad we can fix it, and punish the people who exposed our children to this debilitating syndrome." Unfortunately, the situation isn't that simple.
If you check the web, you'll find references that cite 1) high levels of mercury in hair samples from autistic children and 2) low levels of mercury in hair samples from autistic children as "evidence" of mercury poisoning causing autism. Still other sites (particularly those that are selling chelation therapy for autism) often suggest that there isn't a good noninvasive test for mercury levels in a child, so mercury poisoning should be diagnosed by indirect tests or through consideration of symptoms (that invariably look like autism.)
The "authorities" that assert that mercury is the cause of autism unfortunately often fall into two categories. The first group consists of doctors that believe in chelation therapy (there are no large-scale controlled studies to support this conclusion) and the second group contains lawyers who have launched large class-action suits against vaccine manufacturers.
I don't mean to imply that there are no legitimate physicians and scientists who consider mercury to be the cause of autism--I myself would not be surprised if there was some environmental cause to explain the increasing incidence. But the intellectually honest among us have to admit that there is by no means a consensus--or even a strong indication--that mercury is the major cause of the disorder.
Parents in the study were asked what might have caused their child's autism. Nearly half the parents in both groups said they did not know. A third blamed genetics; smaller numbers cited immunizations, birth injury or environmental factors.
So, just about half of parents are intellectually honest, then. We don't know what causes autism--there is nothing approaching a consensus among researchers, and there are few well-designed studies that even suggest a possible cause. Asking parents what caused their child's autism is like asking a non-technical person why their hard drive crashed. The answer as likely as not will be "I dunno, maybe I've got a virus?" Interesting for investigating the biases of the hapless user, but not a useful diagnosis.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm just surprised that nobody in the study thought to blame living near power lines--unless that's an "environmental factor".
Hypothesis: The incidence of autism is higher because children aren't being allowed to eat enough dirt. Exposure to more microorganisms when young strengthens the immune system. There exists a microbe (virus, perhaps) as-yet-uncharacterized that causes autism. (This happens sometimes with diseases. For example, most stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium h. pylori and can often be cured with antibiotic therapy. This fact only came to light very recently, after decades of assuming that ulcers were essentially untreatable.) Children's weaker immune systems don't fight this pathogen as effectively as they used to, so they develop autism more frequently.
Solution: Feed all young children dirt.
This hypothesis actually has about as much grounding as many of the other suggested causes of autism. Based on very weak evidence, some parents have started to avoid immunizing their children, putting them at much greater risk for measles and other potentially deadly diseases. Bless the internet and its unquestioned authority on medicine.
Worth noting, definitely--but not likely to be a problem. As long as LN2 is flowing in to the box, and the box is not perfectly sealed any oxygen that was inside when the box was closed will be slowly flushed out. I imagine that most hacks assembled from /. posts aren't quite airtight, so the concentration of oxygen in the gas mix will decay exponentially with time.
Also, since only the GPU and CPU are directly cooled with LN2, the rest of the board will stay warmer, limiting problems with O2 condensation.
This is exactly the point that you're trying not to make. For some "sensitive" information, laws already exist outside of classification to protect it. (Personal info is protected under the Privacy Act.)
For other "sensitive" information, no such protection exists. Perhaps it would be appropriate to create another (lower) level of classification, so that what should be protected (and how) is properly codified and not left to the judgement of individual administrators.
Finally, in the context of bioterrorism, one wonders why this information is necessarily even considered sensitive--access to the pathogens is something that is of far greater concern than simply knowing of their existence. And that access is already regulated.