The kinetic energy is proportional to speed^2 (E=1/2 m v^2), so a car at 120mph has 4 times the energy of a car at 60mph. Thus, doubling in energy is not like doubling in speed.
The only cases I used one was to debug stuff that potentially locks the computer up. I.e. kill a process or reboot the computer after a certain time if nothing happens. Don't know if that counts....
Same magazine also said that is you used the power of the additional processors in the PS3 (for integer calculations) then 18 PS3s will land you in the supercomputer top 500 list....
Sorry, I was saying that to get 6500 bits in a single pixel, you'd need something like 700 different frequencies with 10 bit separation each - which you obviously can not do on a regular screen, and with current technology is pretty much impossible, I think. (especially the printing part)
I have to admit that the first time I heard about 16qam was in your post. But you can't make 96 bits out of 16 bits. 16 bits have 65536 possible states. You can not code more than 65536 states using 65536 states.
600dpi times 8*11 inches makes 32M dots. To get 26GB you need 6500 bits per dot. This gives either an amazing resolution in color separation (as opposed to, say, 32 bits on a screen - maybe 700 different frequencies, each with 10bit separation), or much higher dot density - something like 50000dpi!
Their idea seems to be that the computer might be compromised, but the server is secure - so if the server creates the images, you can at least be secure against automated attacks - i.e. without human intervention. (because the attacker does not have access to the algorithm that created the images) This can work for as long as there are some tasks that humans can do and computers not.
If the computer is the last step in the authentication, then you are right. If you have a small little device that tells you "in this step use a->1, d->2, f->3 etc." then transaction can be secure even through a comprimised computer.
Probably a mistake in the article... but if they just randomly rotate the keypad, then take (mouse x-min(mouse x))/key size, and you get 10 possible pins. Try 10, and you are done.
If they randomly permute, then things would be a bit harder. If they randomly permute and have OCR-resistant digits, the pin would be very secure (though, if enough money is involved, a cracker would probably be ready to actually look at the image...)
I am sorry - it seems I am over my head here, and can not get hold of "the facts". If Gracenote did release all the public data before closing the door, then I don't have a problem with what they did. But it seems that there are people who claim that they did not. E.g. Rakarra said:
And no, Gracenote did not "release the database to the FreeDB," FreeDB copied a two-year-old mirror that had been made before Gracenote was formed, before it closed the database. Gracenote's position has been that the data was owned by them. In fact, they used the arguement that XMCD added copyright tags to each submission setting the copyright to the CDDB maintainer, copyrights which then passed to Gracenote when they were formed and said maintainer was an employee.
In any case, it seems my comments were made without sufficient information, and possibly wrong.
If what you said is right, then I have no problem with what cddb did. But I think the public data is not freely available, and that freedb was not a fork, but that instead all the data had to be gathered from scratch.
Can you maybe give a link to where the data can be downloaded freely? Is it used by freedb?
I have no problem with them using the info that I contributed for their own cause. I have no problem with people selling linux, or the wikipedia on a DVD. My problem is that they do not make the public part of their database - the part that was contributed by 1000s of users - freely available to the public. The fact that they only stole 5 minutes of my time doesn't make it any less of a theft.
If they had announced ahead of time "please contribute to our database, and eventually we will change the access rights so that only qualified clients can access the database.", I am not sure that I and other people would have contributed our time (i.e. money) to them. (and I mean client in the sense of computer program, not customer).
I submitted data to cddb. Why did I do it? Why take the time to type in the tracks?
Because I thought that I am submitting my data to the public. I thought that if I submit my data, so will others, and we'll have a public resource that everybody can use. But suddenly, that public resource turned private - I could not use it freely as before. They tricked me into giving them a resource, and then treated it as if it is their own property. It is as if I gave a dollar to a public project - say a server to run slashdot on, thinking that if everybody contributed a dollar to that resource, then the public will have a resource - slashdot will have a fast server. And then slashdot suddenly turned around, took the $100k that people contributed, added another $100k from their own money, and said that now you can only access slashdot under certain conditions. It is true that what they did was legal, but I think it was highly unethical. They for sure tricked me out of 5 minutes of my time.
It seems that the user who controls the wireless card will have access to the wireless card, and thus in this case you could potentially have a wireless virus.
In some cases it could be that the user would have access to all network cards, which would mean that from a virus/spam sending/worm point of view the computer will be usefull to the hacker, even if it is otherwise secure.
Maybe keyloggers will be prevented, and writing to the disc, i.e. malware surviving the next reboot. But in general it seems to me that in this case not much is gained from moving the driver to user space.
I must have been a bit upset. Don't know why. Well, actually, it was 'cause I got lost on the way home. Anyway, saying that the grandparent was biased because he (or she) was "on their side", was low. You did the right thing! You left! Sorry. But you still didn't understand the article...
You must not actually have read the article (well, this is slashdot), or maybe not understood it. It could also be that you're biased, since you're "from their camp..." But, above, he alreeady answered you concern. As I answered to someone else,
What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You are not suing them for that. When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)
This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.
(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall: (1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and (2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.
Not only did he read the whole thing (well, I'm not actually sure of that - all I'm sure of is that he read more than you), but he already replied to your concern in the article. What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You're not suing them for that. When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)
This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.
(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall: (1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and (2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.
I hate to agree with the parent post, but as far as I can see, the only reason for the requirements for travel documents is to keep the public out of the terminal areas. I think this is in order to reduce the load in the security checkpoints. Though in my opinion, this should have been a temporary measure, till security checks were expanded enough, so that they can handle all the public that gets to the terminal area - to pick up friends, and such. Sadly, it seems things will not go back to that state - probably mainly for economic reasons.
West Yorkshire. A large number of crimes have recently been solved in this slumbering community. Using a new forensic technique, crime investigators were able to implicate most of the current police force in what was previously reported to be "unsolved" or "mysterious" crimes. 'As our DNA evidence clearly shows, the whole police department was involved in the crimes and their cover up. The crimes were then classified as "unsolved" to cover up their tracks. We have never seen such a wide spread of corruption.' Unidentified sources claimed that the are similar investigation of the police force in 3 other communities.
There does not need to be any contradiction between science and faith, as long as each keeps to its own domain.
Science is not about truth. Science is a method that we have built to understand and predict the universe. However, the thing that science comes up with is not the truth, and does not approach the truth.
Thus, the truth could be that the universe was created 2 minutes ago, with a complete slashdot discussion on the big-bang/evolution, and everything else in it. And it could be that it was created so that there is no observation that can be made that would distinguish this universe from one created 15 billion years ago. Though that possibility (a universe created 2 minutes ago) can be the truth, it is not a valid scientific theory, since it isn't testable. Thus science can not, and often does not claim to be about the truth (unless we redefine the concept of truth).
Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system. It does not need proof, and is usually hurt by proof. If you have proof, you wouldn't need a belief system. religion can be about the truth - that the universe was really created 6000 years ago, or really runs as a simulation on god's computer. But usually religion is also about other things - like providing a meaning to existence, or morals, ethics, and sometimes even a system of laws (all these can create other problems which are even more off-topic). When religion does provide with the truth, then you have to accept that "evidence against" this truth might be found. But just because something is unlikely does not make it false. It could easily be that the truth is very unlikely - that why you'd need to believe in it. You can also believe that science does approach the truth, or maybe even that it will eventually find it, or already has. That is also a belief system. It is a very convenient belief system for scientists, from the point of view of providing a motivation to do further research.
* HIV is not still HIV. HIV did not exist 100 years ago, SIV existed in apes, and jumped to humans, and then changed. It has a different name, whether you want to call it a different species is upto you, because HIVs don't mate, so the regular definitions do not aply. It is different, and occupies a different niche, though.
Lets jump over your yawns to darwin's finches. How many species of finches live on the galapagos islands? I think it is wrong to call them all "one species". What about the different species of giant tortoises, are they also all one species? How come we can not recreate the species from which we have a single male left over - (lonesome george)? Before Darwin, people had no problem with calling all the different finches on the Galapagos island different species. It is just that on the Galapagos island it is so obvious that they all had a common origin, that Darwin had to conclude that species can not be stationary, they must change. And, after "on the origin of species" was published, people had to change the concept of species in order to try to still hold the immutable species concept. The changes that are observed now in one species of finches on the galapagos are similar to the changes that lead to the evolution of the different species. Are they a new species? Not yet. Will the become a new species? Who knows, but our current observations and thought do not provide any barrier that would prevent them from doing so.
* In vitro evolution, or artificial evolution are models. Just as we compute the path of a spaceship or the planets, or an atomic bomb in a model, we do a model of evolution. Without models, science would not exist. A model turns theory into predictions. These models tell us that conceptually, Darwin's idea of natural selection works. This is not clear to begin with, and certainly not all types of natural selection work. The in-vitro models of evolution allow us to understand how the process of evolution works. There actually is a branch of the philosophy of science that believes that one can not test theories using observations. That one always needs a controlled experiment, and that observations in nature can never be controlled enough. (But I don't buy into this)
One needs to distinguish between concepts. * Common descent * Natural selection * Speciation * Evolution
Common descent is what tells us that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Do you have any other reason for explaining why the DNA of chimps and humans are so close?
Natural selection is what creates functions in organisms. As was stated above, this is observed often - though the timescale at which things happen is quite long.
Speciation is a complicated concept. It seems that there are different ways in which a new species can arise - it can first use a different niche, and then stop being able to mate, or fist stop being able to mate (maybe because of a mountain in the middle), and then diverge in function. We do observe all stages of speciation separately, but the concept of the species is not defined well enough to point at cases where we observed a new species arising (see HIV example above).
Evolution includes all the concepts above. You seem to want to talk about evolution as speciation - I have no problem with that. Let us talk about that for a second. However, I'll drop the species concept. I think the species concept is a historical artefact that we inherited from pre-darwinian biology. Instead I'd like to know which two organisms that we observe on earth, according to your opinion are so different that they do not share a common ancestor.
So, you do accept that HIV and SIV share a common ancestor, right? As do the finches with the shorter beaks and those with the longer beaks mentioned above? What about the other finches on Galapagos island? Do they have a common ancestor? Which of them do? What about the chimpanzees? Currently we have chimps living in Africa all the way from the Kongo to the western shores of Africa. It is debated
What exactly is wrong with observing "natural selection" cases? Aren't these exactly cases of evolution in action? * peppered moth: selection for wing coloring * mutations in HIV after it jumped species to humans. Many other mutations are observed in bacteria and other pathogens that make them resistant to drugs. We are currently waiting in fear for the birdflue to undergo such a change. * Invasive species: many mutations are observed in invasive species that make them more adapted to the environment. * Recently, direct observation of the evolution of beak size in Darwin's finches was reported (Science 14 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5784, pp. 224 - 226) * Evolution of RNA sequences: many experiments have evolved RNA sequences that perform various functions. One example among many is converting an RNA enzyme to a DNA enzyme (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/0603 27083737.htm) * Artificial evolution: in many experiment run in computers, evolution is able to create new structures, from bridges to sorting algorithms
Finally, I think it is worthwhile to mention one important piece of evidence that has recently been completed. When Darwin suggested in the 19th century that humans and apes had a common ancestor, he was ridiculed. Till then humans were seen as different from all animals, having been created on a different day of creation. In that time, nothing was known of the DNA. Today, we managed to sequence the human and the chimp genome. We know that humans and chimpanzees differ in 1% of their DNA sequence. In fact, the DNA sequence of a human is closer to that of a chimp than the chimp is to an Orangutan, or than the chimp is to any other living species, with the exception of the bonobo. The human is the chimp and bonobo's closest relative. I think that is quite an amazing prediction to make more than 100 years in advance. In fact, predictions like this are the strongest corroborations in science: making a prediction that is absolutely unthinkable based on the current belief.
Slashdot Mirror
The kinetic energy is proportional to speed^2 (E=1/2 m v^2), so a car at 120mph has 4 times the energy of a car at 60mph. Thus, doubling in energy is not like doubling in speed.
I think that is only if you want to see the comet at night. During the day, you can watch it from both hemispheres.
The only cases I used one was to debug stuff that potentially locks the computer up. I.e. kill a process or reboot the computer after a certain time if nothing happens. Don't know if that counts....
Same magazine also said that is you used the power of the additional processors in the PS3 (for integer calculations) then 18 PS3s will land you in the supercomputer top 500 list....
(Sorry, I can't provide a link...)
Sorry, I was saying that to get 6500 bits in a single pixel, you'd need something like 700 different frequencies with 10 bit separation each - which you obviously can not do on a regular screen, and with current technology is pretty much impossible, I think. (especially the printing part)
I have to admit that the first time I heard about 16qam was in your post. But you can't make 96 bits out of 16 bits. 16 bits have 65536 possible states. You can not code more than 65536 states using 65536 states.
600dpi times 8*11 inches makes 32M dots. To get 26GB you need 6500 bits per dot. This gives either an amazing resolution in color separation (as opposed to, say, 32 bits on a screen - maybe 700 different frequencies, each with 10bit separation), or much higher dot density - something like 50000dpi!
You are right to some degree, but also wrong.
Their idea seems to be that the computer might be compromised, but the server is secure - so if the server creates the images, you can at least be secure against automated attacks - i.e. without human intervention. (because the attacker does not have access to the algorithm that created the images) This can work for as long as there are some tasks that humans can do and computers not.
If the computer is the last step in the authentication, then you are right. If you have a small little device that tells you "in this step use a->1, d->2, f->3 etc." then transaction can be secure even through a comprimised computer.
Probably a mistake in the article... but if they just randomly rotate the keypad, then
take (mouse x-min(mouse x))/key size, and you get 10 possible pins. Try 10, and you are done.
If they randomly permute, then things would be a bit harder. If they randomly permute and have OCR-resistant digits, the pin would be very secure (though, if enough money is involved, a cracker would probably be ready to actually look at the image...)
In any case, it seems my comments were made without sufficient information, and possibly wrong.
But hey, this is
If what you said is right, then I have no problem with what cddb did. But I think the public data is not freely available, and that freedb was not a fork, but that instead all the data had to be gathered from scratch.
Can you maybe give a link to where the data can be downloaded freely? Is it used by freedb?
I have no problem with them using the info that I contributed for their own cause. I have no problem with people selling linux, or the wikipedia on a DVD. My problem is that they do not make the public part of their database - the part that was contributed by 1000s of users - freely available to the public. The fact that they only stole 5 minutes of my time doesn't make it any less of a theft.
If they had announced ahead of time "please contribute to our database, and eventually we will change the access rights so that only qualified clients can access the database.", I am not sure that I and other people would have contributed our time (i.e. money) to them. (and I mean client in the sense of computer program, not customer).
I submitted data to cddb. Why did I do it? Why take the time to type in the tracks?
Because I thought that I am submitting my data to the public. I thought that if I submit my data, so will others, and we'll have a public resource that everybody can use. But suddenly, that public resource turned private - I could not use it freely as before. They tricked me into giving them a resource, and then treated it as if it is their own property.
It is as if I gave a dollar to a public project - say a server to run slashdot on, thinking that if everybody contributed a dollar to that resource, then the public will have a resource - slashdot will have a fast server. And then slashdot suddenly turned around, took the $100k that people contributed, added another $100k from their own money, and said that now you can only access slashdot under certain conditions.
It is true that what they did was legal, but I think it was highly unethical. They for sure tricked me out of 5 minutes of my time.
It seems that the user who controls the wireless card will have access to the wireless card, and thus in this case you could potentially have a wireless virus.
In some cases it could be that the user would have access to all network cards, which would mean that from a virus/spam sending/worm point of view the computer will be usefull to the hacker, even if it is otherwise secure.
Maybe keyloggers will be prevented, and writing to the disc, i.e. malware surviving the next reboot. But in general it seems to me that in this case not much is gained from moving the driver to user space.
I must have been a bit upset. Don't know why. Well, actually, it was 'cause I got lost on the way home. Anyway, saying that the grandparent was biased because he (or she) was "on their side", was low. You did the right thing! You left! Sorry.
But you still didn't understand the article...
You must not actually have read the article (well, this is slashdot), or maybe not understood it. It could also be that you're biased, since you're "from their camp..."
But, above, he alreeady answered you concern. As I answered to someone else,
What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You are not suing them for that.
When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)
This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.
(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.
Not only did he read the whole thing (well, I'm not actually sure of that - all I'm sure of is that he read more than you), but he already replied to your concern in the article. What you are talking about is whether or not they are allowed to call you. Indeed, it seems that according to the law, they are allowed to call you. You're not suing them for that.
When they call you (since they're allowed to), if they use an arificial or pre-recorded message, it has to include who is calling, and what their phone number is. You are suing them for not doing that (if indeed they haven't...)
This is section (d), which applies in any case, especially in those cases where the organization is allowed to call you.
(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player which placed the call) or address of such business, other entity, or individual.
I hate to agree with the parent post, but as far as I can see, the only reason for the requirements for travel documents is to keep the public out of the terminal areas. I think this is in order to reduce the load in the security checkpoints. Though in my opinion, this should have been a temporary measure, till security checks were expanded enough, so that they can handle all the public that gets to the terminal area - to pick up friends, and such. Sadly, it seems things will not go back to that state - probably mainly for economic reasons.
Doesn't the shuffle have the best sound quality of the set? (look it up through google)
West Yorkshire. A large number of crimes have recently been solved in this slumbering community. Using a new forensic technique, crime investigators were able to implicate most of the current police force in what was previously reported to be "unsolved" or "mysterious" crimes. 'As our DNA evidence clearly shows, the whole police department was involved in the crimes and their cover up. The crimes were then classified as "unsolved" to cover up their tracks. We have never seen such a wide spread of corruption.' Unidentified sources claimed that the are similar investigation of the police force in 3 other communities.
The article compares 2001 to 2005? Other than globalization, there were two minor events that could have a small influence the job count:
1. In 2001 the dot-com-bubble burst
2. In 2001 9/11 happened, bringing with it 2 wars
Where these events so minor that they aren't even worth mentioning in the article?
When the apple airport first came out, I thought the main purpose of the wireless port on the macs was to provide free wireless access in airports...
There does not need to be any contradiction between science and faith, as long as each keeps to its own domain.
Science is not about truth.
Science is a method that we have built to understand and predict the universe. However, the thing that science comes up with is not the truth, and does not approach the truth.
Thus, the truth could be that the universe was created 2 minutes ago, with a complete slashdot discussion on the big-bang/evolution, and everything else in it. And it could be that it was created so that there is no observation that can be made that would distinguish this universe from one created 15 billion years ago. Though that possibility (a universe created 2 minutes ago) can be the truth, it is not a valid scientific theory, since it isn't testable. Thus science can not, and often does not claim to be about the truth (unless we redefine the concept of truth).
Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system. It does not need proof, and is usually hurt by proof. If you have proof, you wouldn't need a belief system. religion can be about the truth - that the universe was really created 6000 years ago, or really runs as a simulation on god's computer. But usually religion is also about other things - like providing a meaning to existence, or morals, ethics, and sometimes even a system of laws (all these can create other problems which are even more off-topic). When religion does provide with the truth, then you have to accept that "evidence against" this truth might be found. But just because something is unlikely does not make it false. It could easily be that the truth is very unlikely - that why you'd need to believe in it.
You can also believe that science does approach the truth, or maybe even that it will eventually find it, or already has. That is also a belief system. It is a very convenient belief system for scientists, from the point of view of providing a motivation to do further research.
* HIV is not still HIV. HIV did not exist 100 years ago, SIV existed in apes, and jumped to humans, and then changed. It has a different name, whether you want to call it a different species is upto you, because HIVs don't mate, so the regular definitions do not aply. It is different, and occupies a different niche, though.
Lets jump over your yawns to darwin's finches. How many species of finches live on the galapagos islands? I think it is wrong to call them all "one species". What about the different species of giant tortoises, are they also all one species? How come we can not recreate the species from which we have a single male left over - (lonesome george)? Before Darwin, people had no problem with calling all the different finches on the Galapagos island different species. It is just that on the Galapagos island it is so obvious that they all had a common origin, that Darwin had to conclude that species can not be stationary, they must change. And, after "on the origin of species" was published, people had to change the concept of species in order to try to still hold the immutable species concept. The changes that are observed now in one species of finches on the galapagos are similar to the changes that lead to the evolution of the different species. Are they a new species? Not yet. Will the become a new species? Who knows, but our current observations and thought do not provide any barrier that would prevent them from doing so.
* In vitro evolution, or artificial evolution are models. Just as we compute the path of a spaceship or the planets, or an atomic bomb in a model, we do a model of evolution. Without models, science would not exist. A model turns theory into predictions. These models tell us that conceptually, Darwin's idea of natural selection works. This is not clear to begin with, and certainly not all types of natural selection work.
The in-vitro models of evolution allow us to understand how the process of evolution works. There actually is a branch of the philosophy of science that believes that one can not test theories using observations. That one always needs a controlled experiment, and that observations in nature can never be controlled enough. (But I don't buy into this)
One needs to distinguish between concepts.
* Common descent
* Natural selection
* Speciation
* Evolution
Common descent is what tells us that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Do you have any other reason for explaining why the DNA of chimps and humans are so close?
Natural selection is what creates functions in organisms. As was stated above, this is observed often - though the timescale at which things happen is quite long.
Speciation is a complicated concept. It seems that there are different ways in which a new species can arise - it can first use a different niche, and then stop being able to mate, or fist stop being able to mate (maybe because of a mountain in the middle), and then diverge in function. We do observe all stages of speciation separately, but the concept of the species is not defined well enough to point at cases where we observed a new species arising (see HIV example above).
Evolution includes all the concepts above. You seem to want to talk about evolution as speciation - I have no problem with that. Let us talk about that for a second. However, I'll drop the species concept. I think the species concept is a historical artefact that we inherited from pre-darwinian biology. Instead I'd like to know which two organisms that we observe on earth, according to your opinion are so different that they do not share a common ancestor.
So, you do accept that HIV and SIV share a common ancestor, right? As do the finches with the shorter beaks and those with the longer beaks mentioned above?
What about the other finches on Galapagos island? Do they have a common ancestor? Which of them do?
What about the chimpanzees? Currently we have chimps living in Africa all the way from the Kongo to the western shores of Africa. It is debated
What exactly is wrong with observing "natural selection" cases? Aren't these exactly cases of evolution in action?3 27083737.htm)
* peppered moth: selection for wing coloring
* mutations in HIV after it jumped species to humans. Many other mutations are observed in bacteria and other pathogens that make them resistant to drugs. We are currently waiting in fear for the birdflue to undergo such a change.
* Invasive species: many mutations are observed in invasive species that make them more adapted to the environment.
* Recently, direct observation of the evolution of beak size in Darwin's finches was reported (Science 14 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5784, pp. 224 - 226)
* Evolution of RNA sequences: many experiments have evolved RNA sequences that perform various functions. One example among many is converting an RNA enzyme to a DNA enzyme (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060
* Artificial evolution: in many experiment run in computers, evolution is able to create new structures, from bridges to sorting algorithms
Finally, I think it is worthwhile to mention one important piece of evidence that has recently been completed. When Darwin suggested in the 19th century that humans and apes had a common ancestor, he was ridiculed. Till then humans were seen as different from all animals, having been created on a different day of creation. In that time, nothing was known of the DNA. Today, we managed to sequence the human and the chimp genome. We know that humans and chimpanzees differ in 1% of their DNA sequence. In fact, the DNA sequence of a human is closer to that of a chimp than the chimp is to an Orangutan, or than the chimp is to any other living species, with the exception of the bonobo. The human is the chimp and bonobo's closest relative.
I think that is quite an amazing prediction to make more than 100 years in advance. In fact, predictions like this are the strongest corroborations in science: making a prediction that is absolutely unthinkable based on the current belief.