One solution... inform users about their bots
on
Zombie Report By ISP
·
· Score: 1
as far as i know, there is no easy way for the average user to find out if their computer is a zombie. it would be great if ISPs sent email notifications and then offered tools to remove malicious software. i think people would be very willing to take action, but the vast majority of people have no idea what the appropriate action is.
it is important to point out that the whole academic publishing endeavour is a lot like open source. when you publish something publicly, it becomes part of the public domain and therefore unpatentable by anyone. research scientists (even the ones in corporations) depend on being able to access this vast weath of knowledge
its true that the US congress has gone a bit far in extending patent rights (first drugs had 5 year patents, then 10, and now some have 15 years). this has created high drug prices and, to some extent, diminished (short term) competition between drug companies. patents are important, though, because drug companies have to profit from making drugs.
the academic scientific apparatus is very good at doing basic research but not so good at capitalizing on potential products. what we need is a sane balance between access to intellectual property and ownership rights. this balance should ultimately benefit us, the citizens (not corporations or governments)
stick with os x unless you have a really compelling reason to run linux on PPC. i tried (successfully) running yellow dog linux a while back. however, as of version 3, there was not a java browser plugin available for _any_ flavor of linux on ppc. that was a deal-breaker for me.
that being said, i own a powerbook, run os x on it, and love it
hey there - im happy for you that you're considering going back to school. i had a similar (though not identical) experience - i worked in the biotech industry for a while and then went to get a Ph.D. in biophysics. let me address your points as you wrote them.
1. In the sciences, at least, previous experience is very, very important. i know some people who posted here commented that its all about GRE scores and grades. i found this, personally, to be totally untrue. as i said before, im in the physical sciences, which may be a bit different. that said, the focus in my grad school is on _doing_ your own research and the admissions committee is therefore interested in what you can do.
2. In the science field, if you want a job as an academic at a US school (i.e. a prof) you will be best off coming from a US school. For masters study im not too sure, though. One thing to keep in mind is that more funding will be available to you in the US _if_ you are a US citizen (see below). Going abroad may cost you more.
3. I think you will have to be open to changing your routine and way of thinking. Industry is, generally speaking, organized and motivated very differently than school. I have found grad school to be much more challenging than industry (even though i was managing several people in the R+D dept. at the company i worked for) - the demands on your time are tougher (random, long hours) and the intellectual tasks are more difficult. Prepare to work hard! I would also reccommend talking to your signifcant other, if you have one. The change in schedule and drop in free time (no more 2-day weekends:) are things you will want to discuss with him/her. Finally, start reading to get in shape... you'll be reading lots.
4. No comment.
Also, you will want to look for external funding. This can help supplement your meager stipend or offset the cost of tuition (if you have to pay). Some places to look (in the US, for US citizens) for Comp. Sci funding are:
In the case of the EPA, you may be right. The EPA, under Bush, has undergone some extreme reorganization but i'd guess the turnover is less than 50%. However, I don't believe that environmental scientists have much to loose one way or the other. Supposing global warming were just a red herrirng, there are still many, many other topics for study that are equally important...
As for your argument about organizations policing themselves, its just not true. For example, Merck published data that was very detrimental to its buisness vis a vis Vioxx. Why? In a word, credibility. Its true that scientists are loathe to publish uninteresting or detrimental stuff. However, when witholding such information compromises their credibility they usually will.
Finally, I think you have overstated your case about research being "custom designed." Experimental design be used to mislead or even falsify conclusions. However, in the case of global warming we are not talking about one or two or even ten researchers. Nor are we discussing ten studies. We are discussing almost a thousand studies involving thousands of scientists. Unless you resort to a rather extreme conspiracy theory, the data cannot be explained away by poor or misleading experimental design.
Of course those entities don't generally publish in scientific journals (although you will find studies by oil and drug companies in the literature, occasionally) but they do fund studies. Often, these studies are done in-house and therefore susceptible to bias.
Additionally, the most famous journals like Science and Nature thrive on dissenting opinions. Humdrum research that merely extends an existing paradigm does not, generally, get published in Science. What goes there are the studies that are also big news, often because they force scientists (and everyone else) to rethink assumptions.
Usually, I stay out of Slashdot discussions on pseudo-religious scientific topics, but the comments I have read so far demand a reply. Unfortunately, many/. posters seem to forget that scientists are highly trained human beings whose job it is to answer questions such as the one being considered here.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that scientists are any different than most human beings. Individual scientists can succumb to greed, lust for fame, etc and, occasionally, will get away with publishing intentionally erroneous data. Usually when this happens, especially in an area where so many scientists are working (like climate change), their lies will be uncovered and they will be ruined (ex: cold fusion, etc).
The article being discussed here states that the vast majority of hundreds of studies on the subject have all come to the same conclusions: global warming is both real and anthropogenic. I suggest that the groundswell of/. opinion that all these researchers are wrong/lying is due to the rather unfortunate consequences of the truth. We will have to face the facts that our climate may change. Maybe for Canadians, this will be a good thing. For ocean algae and those in the lower lattitudes it will most certainly be bad.
Society invests a huge amount of money in scientific research each year, and does so in a way that ensures maximum objectivity and honesty on the part of the researchers. Averaged over time and sufficient numbers of studies, science usually hits pretty close to the mark. Therefore, to all those doubting, suck it up and deal with the damage we've done. Don't blame the messenger if you dont like the message.
That is a silly argument. I am certain that most industries (oil, automotive, etc) as well as Bushs' EPA would fund any serious scientist willing to assert that climate change was non-anthropogenic. The vast majority of researchers, especially in environmental sciences, do not have anything to gain by asserting anything one way or the other about climate change.
This article highlights one of the (many) costs of having highly focused, vocationally oriented education systems. From high school onward, the US education system emphasizes skills that will allow students to land high paying jobs. Unfortunately, we have forgotten that being a productive member of society (or of a corporation for that matter) requires more than just technical knowledge. Communication, ability to deal with others, and social awareness are all necessary traits for success.
Specialization and technical training are great things, but without a foundation of learning that enables their implementation, they're useless.
The statement that the first 1000 year old human is already 60 is ridiculously hopeful. However, we will continue to extend our lifespans, possibly indefinitely.
The body is a very, very complex machine that, for evolutionary reasons, is programmed to cease functioning after reproduction is not possible. This pesky built-in evolutionary trait (death) can be overcome by science.
It won't happen all at once, though. Treatments will extend the average lifespan a few years at a time, as has been happining since the advent of modern medicine. Its a game of cat and mouse.
In New York city, over the last 10 years, the average lifespan for males has increased 6.8 years. This means that, for those of us under 30, the average lifespan will have increased from 74 to 101 in the 40 intervening years, assuming the trend holds. Perhaps we are not so far from a practical kind of immortality.
Then again, if you're over 80 your chances of being demented are better than 50%, so it may not be much of an immortal life.
As a chemist, I must say its very odd to watch the prize in chemistry being awarded for what is, essentially, biology. This happened last year too - the chemistry prize was awarded to those who figured out how cell membrane-spanning channels worked. The work thats being done in the field of biology needs to be acknowledged, but perhaps the Nobel committee should create a separate biology prize so the chemists can get their due!
as a scientist, i have to say that its very important for the nih to address the public's access to publicly funded research results. i suspect that the nih is also trying to indirectly combat another problem - the enormous power and economic interest private science publishing groups wield. these publishing groups (nature publishing group is probably the best example) get to decide, by in large, what the scientific community pays attention to and what it ignores (.e. whats hot and whats not). this fact makes the nih nervous, as part of its policy mandate is to direct health research in the U.S.
the recognition that public investment implies public access in science research has important implications for pharmaceutical companies. these companies reap the benefits of publicly funded research in developing drugs (only 0.15c out of every drug company dollar is spent in R/D) and then make ridiculous profit selling drugs to the very same taxpayers who funded their development. if the nih were to extend this open access philosophy to the actual content of scientific publication, mandating that all publicly funded research remained in the public domain, the pharmaceutical industry as we know it would cease to exist. what would happen after that remains the subject of speculation - some say drug development would collapse due to the lack of (cash) incentive, others argue that it would revolutionize the healthcare industry by dramatically decreasing costs. either way, im glad to see the nih beginning to address these issues.
One reason this story is big, big news is that it finally vindicates the Nobel Laureate Stanley Prusiner, who originally proposed the "prion only" hypothesis to explain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. His idea, that a protein alone could cause a transmissible disease (not a bacteria or virus) was revolutionary. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee acted prematurely in awarding the Prize, because its taken 7 years to actually prove the hypothesis. Of note is that the proof came from someone else's lab!
In the end, this is news because it prevents a rather embarassing scandal involving the highest honor a scientist can recieve....
Short answer: No
Longer answer: In reality, it takes high temperatures (about 300C) or very harsh chemical conditions to destroy misfolded prion protein. Conditions in the human gut are not harsh enough to do the job.
This article and most of the attached responses make the rather obvious mistake of believing that everything good about a particular profession can be quantified by salary. Speaking as a graduate student in chemical biology, I can say that this is complete bullshi*t.
I don't work 70+ hours a week 50 weeks a year for 30K/yr (what my fellowship pays). I do it because I love it. I know that I could sell out, go get an MBA, and become a consultant making bank. Why the hell would I want to do that? Being a graduate student involves lots of time to explore problems I find interesting.
Others may make more money, but they don't have the opportunity to improve themselves that I do. Every day, I am actively encouraged to learn and grow. It's true that productivity is important, but, having worked in industry (before going to grad school) I can say that the emphasis on meeting deadlines, satisfying customers, and the bottom line in general is greatly lessened in an academic environment.
I'll take the freedom of thought and action I have over your Hummer, big screen TV, and expensive car ANY DAY
Alanine is very small as far as molecules go; it's one of the 4 key blocks for DNA
alanine is, in fact, an amino acid. the four building blocks of dna are cytidine, guanosine, thymidine, and adenosine. its also worth mentioning that doing in silico molecular dynamics simulations (which is what the original poster describes, i think) is not the same as doing genetic engineering. genetic engineering is the process of cutting, pasting, and changing dna sequences to produce novel functional characteristics. this does not require a computer at all. instead, a reasonably well-equipped laboratory is what is needed. Bio-scriptkiddies are _never_ going to become a threat. unlike computers, which are sufficiently useful for everyone to have (and thus for everyone's kids to use for hacking), the tools required to do basic genetic manipulations (centrifuge, storage systems, enzyme sets, bacterial incubators, electrophoresis setups) are both expensive and _not_ something the average person would ever buy.
bioterrorism is a real threat, but to carry it through it would (and likely will always) require a reasonably well-funded set of individuals with at least some background in experimental science.
The reason that no single bacterial species has overtaken the entire planet is because if it did, it would die out. Bacteria function within a complex ecological framework, the interconnectedness of which prevents them from living on their own. Each species of bacteria is specialized, maybe to live in bigger animals or maybe to convert sunlight to sugar. Due to this specialization, no one single species could take over the planet. Interdependence is built into evolution.
it is a wonderfully progressive step forward - chips with no lead. however, lead in processors accounts for a small fraction of lead used each year. as with so many other environmental problems, the main polluter is the automobile industry. during its lifetime, each car uses about as much lead as would be required to paint a house with lead-containing paint. most of the lead in cars is used in lead-acid batteries. perhaps our environmental r+d dollars could be better spent...
Please read the following article in Foreign Affairs. I think it outlines most of the relevant economic issues and points out some interesting political ones. Most importantly - the current alarmism about offshoring is political FUD.
go to the diebold website and you will see a patriotic picture of an eagle. the text "every vote counts. click on the eagle to find out more." reassures us that diebold really cares about preserving our democracy. unfortunately, if you click on the eagle you just end up at an empty page. too bad... i guess diebold really doesnt care about our votes...
Your mantra - genetically human is human - is too simple. For example, many different types of human cells are cultured in labs all around the world. They are derived from adult humans... every type of cell from neurons to muscle cells to adult stem cells. One of the first such cell lines ever made, HeLa, is actually named for Helen Lang, the person from whom the original cell came. All these cells are as genetically human as any cell of a similar type in your body or mine. I feel no remorse when, in the course of my research, I bleach a plate of them and kill several million of them. Scientists DO draw a distinction between a single cell, an embryo, and a child. They represent very different points on the developmental pathway, and therefore cannot be treated as equivalent. Whether you think cloning is right or wrong, you shouldn't oversimplify the situation.
A crucial distinction that is not being made in this discussion is the one between nanomaterials in general and nanorobots particularly. It is possible that one day we will be able to build functional nanobots that can live freely and replicate. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
What is more relevant and has been less well-discussed by/. is nanomaterial remediation. Carbon nanotubes are very tough and have been demonstrated to be very toxic in mice . Thought has not been given about how to dispose of materials such as these without creating a public health hazard. It is clear that nanomaterials will be used in greater and greater quantities due to their exceptional properties. Therefore, we can work to solve the inevitable disposal problem now or later. It will cost less to address disposal now.
You have to keep in mind that the "mutation rate" of a nanite would be subject to evolution as well as all of the other morphological features discussed earlier. Nanites designed to replicate with 100% fidelity could easily evolve to mutate at a constant, favorable rate. It might take a million generations, but if the doubling time for the nanites is on the order of seconds or minutes, a million generations isn't inconcievable.
...and that nice looking plasma screen TV, that aparment would be cool to live in. At least, it would be for the first few days, and then the wierd lighting colors and geometries would send you into a seizure...
Slashdot Mirror
as far as i know, there is no easy way for the average user to find out if their computer is a zombie. it would be great if ISPs sent email notifications and then offered tools to remove malicious software. i think people would be very willing to take action, but the vast majority of people have no idea what the appropriate action is.
its true that the US congress has gone a bit far in extending patent rights (first drugs had 5 year patents, then 10, and now some have 15 years). this has created high drug prices and, to some extent, diminished (short term) competition between drug companies. patents are important, though, because drug companies have to profit from making drugs.
the academic scientific apparatus is very good at doing basic research but not so good at capitalizing on potential products. what we need is a sane balance between access to intellectual property and ownership rights. this balance should ultimately benefit us, the citizens (not corporations or governments)
that being said, i own a powerbook, run os x on it, and love it
1. In the sciences, at least, previous experience is very, very important. i know some people who posted here commented that its all about GRE scores and grades. i found this, personally, to be totally untrue. as i said before, im in the physical sciences, which may be a bit different. that said, the focus in my grad school is on _doing_ your own research and the admissions committee is therefore interested in what you can do.
2. In the science field, if you want a job as an academic at a US school (i.e. a prof) you will be best off coming from a US school. For masters study im not too sure, though. One thing to keep in mind is that more funding will be available to you in the US _if_ you are a US citizen (see below). Going abroad may cost you more.
3. I think you will have to be open to changing your routine and way of thinking. Industry is, generally speaking, organized and motivated very differently than school. I have found grad school to be much more challenging than industry (even though i was managing several people in the R+D dept. at the company i worked for) - the demands on your time are tougher (random, long hours) and the intellectual tasks are more difficult. Prepare to work hard! I would also reccommend talking to your signifcant other, if you have one. The change in schedule and drop in free time (no more 2-day weekends :) are things you will want to discuss with him/her. Finally, start reading to get in shape... you'll be reading lots.
4. No comment.
Also, you will want to look for external funding. This can help supplement your meager stipend or offset the cost of tuition (if you have to pay). Some places to look (in the US, for US citizens) for Comp. Sci funding are:
National Science FoundationU.S. Dept. of Defense
Good luck!
In the case of the EPA, you may be right. The EPA, under Bush, has undergone some extreme reorganization but i'd guess the turnover is less than 50%. However, I don't believe that environmental scientists have much to loose one way or the other. Supposing global warming were just a red herrirng, there are still many, many other topics for study that are equally important... As for your argument about organizations policing themselves, its just not true. For example, Merck published data that was very detrimental to its buisness vis a vis Vioxx. Why? In a word, credibility. Its true that scientists are loathe to publish uninteresting or detrimental stuff. However, when witholding such information compromises their credibility they usually will. Finally, I think you have overstated your case about research being "custom designed." Experimental design be used to mislead or even falsify conclusions. However, in the case of global warming we are not talking about one or two or even ten researchers. Nor are we discussing ten studies. We are discussing almost a thousand studies involving thousands of scientists. Unless you resort to a rather extreme conspiracy theory, the data cannot be explained away by poor or misleading experimental design.
Additionally, the most famous journals like Science and Nature thrive on dissenting opinions. Humdrum research that merely extends an existing paradigm does not, generally, get published in Science. What goes there are the studies that are also big news, often because they force scientists (and everyone else) to rethink assumptions.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that scientists are any different than most human beings. Individual scientists can succumb to greed, lust for fame, etc and, occasionally, will get away with publishing intentionally erroneous data. Usually when this happens, especially in an area where so many scientists are working (like climate change), their lies will be uncovered and they will be ruined (ex: cold fusion, etc).
The article being discussed here states that the vast majority of hundreds of studies on the subject have all come to the same conclusions: global warming is both real and anthropogenic. I suggest that the groundswell of /. opinion that all these researchers are wrong/lying is due to the rather unfortunate consequences of the truth. We will have to face the facts that our climate may change. Maybe for Canadians, this will be a good thing. For ocean algae and those in the lower lattitudes it will most certainly be bad.
Society invests a huge amount of money in scientific research each year, and does so in a way that ensures maximum objectivity and honesty on the part of the researchers. Averaged over time and sufficient numbers of studies, science usually hits pretty close to the mark. Therefore, to all those doubting, suck it up and deal with the damage we've done. Don't blame the messenger if you dont like the message.
That is a silly argument. I am certain that most industries (oil, automotive, etc) as well as Bushs' EPA would fund any serious scientist willing to assert that climate change was non-anthropogenic. The vast majority of researchers, especially in environmental sciences, do not have anything to gain by asserting anything one way or the other about climate change.
Specialization and technical training are great things, but without a foundation of learning that enables their implementation, they're useless.
The body is a very, very complex machine that, for evolutionary reasons, is programmed to cease functioning after reproduction is not possible. This pesky built-in evolutionary trait (death) can be overcome by science.
It won't happen all at once, though. Treatments will extend the average lifespan a few years at a time, as has been happining since the advent of modern medicine. Its a game of cat and mouse.
In New York city, over the last 10 years, the average lifespan for males has increased 6.8 years. This means that, for those of us under 30, the average lifespan will have increased from 74 to 101 in the 40 intervening years, assuming the trend holds. Perhaps we are not so far from a practical kind of immortality.
Then again, if you're over 80 your chances of being demented are better than 50%, so it may not be much of an immortal life.
as a scientist, i have to say that its very important for the nih to address the public's access to publicly funded research results. i suspect that the nih is also trying to indirectly combat another problem - the enormous power and economic interest private science publishing groups wield. these publishing groups (nature publishing group is probably the best example) get to decide, by in large, what the scientific community pays attention to and what it ignores (.e. whats hot and whats not). this fact makes the nih nervous, as part of its policy mandate is to direct health research in the U.S.
the recognition that public investment implies public access in science research has important implications for pharmaceutical companies. these companies reap the benefits of publicly funded research in developing drugs (only 0.15c out of every drug company dollar is spent in R/D) and then make ridiculous profit selling drugs to the very same taxpayers who funded their development. if the nih were to extend this open access philosophy to the actual content of scientific publication, mandating that all publicly funded research remained in the public domain, the pharmaceutical industry as we know it would cease to exist. what would happen after that remains the subject of speculation - some say drug development would collapse due to the lack of (cash) incentive, others argue that it would revolutionize the healthcare industry by dramatically decreasing costs. either way, im glad to see the nih beginning to address these issues.
In the end, this is news because it prevents a rather embarassing scandal involving the highest honor a scientist can recieve....
Short answer: No Longer answer: In reality, it takes high temperatures (about 300C) or very harsh chemical conditions to destroy misfolded prion protein. Conditions in the human gut are not harsh enough to do the job.
I don't work 70+ hours a week 50 weeks a year for 30K/yr (what my fellowship pays). I do it because I love it. I know that I could sell out, go get an MBA, and become a consultant making bank. Why the hell would I want to do that? Being a graduate student involves lots of time to explore problems I find interesting.
Others may make more money, but they don't have the opportunity to improve themselves that I do. Every day, I am actively encouraged to learn and grow. It's true that productivity is important, but, having worked in industry (before going to grad school) I can say that the emphasis on meeting deadlines, satisfying customers, and the bottom line in general is greatly lessened in an academic environment.
I'll take the freedom of thought and action I have over your Hummer, big screen TV, and expensive car ANY DAY
alanine is, in fact, an amino acid. the four building blocks of dna are cytidine, guanosine, thymidine, and adenosine. its also worth mentioning that doing in silico molecular dynamics simulations (which is what the original poster describes, i think) is not the same as doing genetic engineering. genetic engineering is the process of cutting, pasting, and changing dna sequences to produce novel functional characteristics. this does not require a computer at all. instead, a reasonably well-equipped laboratory is what is needed. Bio-scriptkiddies are _never_ going to become a threat. unlike computers, which are sufficiently useful for everyone to have (and thus for everyone's kids to use for hacking), the tools required to do basic genetic manipulations (centrifuge, storage systems, enzyme sets, bacterial incubators, electrophoresis setups) are both expensive and _not_ something the average person would ever buy.
bioterrorism is a real threat, but to carry it through it would (and likely will always) require a reasonably well-funded set of individuals with at least some background in experimental science.
The reason that no single bacterial species has overtaken the entire planet is because if it did, it would die out. Bacteria function within a complex ecological framework, the interconnectedness of which prevents them from living on their own. Each species of bacteria is specialized, maybe to live in bigger animals or maybe to convert sunlight to sugar. Due to this specialization, no one single species could take over the planet. Interdependence is built into evolution.
it is a wonderfully progressive step forward - chips with no lead. however, lead in processors accounts for a small fraction of lead used each year. as with so many other environmental problems, the main polluter is the automobile industry. during its lifetime, each car uses about as much lead as would be required to paint a house with lead-containing paint. most of the lead in cars is used in lead-acid batteries. perhaps our environmental r+d dollars could be better spent...
~smell my mule~Please read the following article in Foreign Affairs. I think it outlines most of the relevant economic issues and points out some interesting political ones. Most importantly - the current alarmism about offshoring is political FUD.
~smell my mule~go to the diebold website and you will see a patriotic picture of an eagle. the text "every vote counts. click on the eagle to find out more." reassures us that diebold really cares about preserving our democracy. unfortunately, if you click on the eagle you just end up at an empty page. too bad... i guess diebold really doesnt care about our votes...
Your mantra - genetically human is human - is too simple. For example, many different types of human cells are cultured in labs all around the world. They are derived from adult humans... every type of cell from neurons to muscle cells to adult stem cells. One of the first such cell lines ever made, HeLa, is actually named for Helen Lang, the person from whom the original cell came. All these cells are as genetically human as any cell of a similar type in your body or mine. I feel no remorse when, in the course of my research, I bleach a plate of them and kill several million of them. Scientists DO draw a distinction between a single cell, an embryo, and a child. They represent very different points on the developmental pathway, and therefore cannot be treated as equivalent. Whether you think cloning is right or wrong, you shouldn't oversimplify the situation.
A crucial distinction that is not being made in this discussion is the one between nanomaterials in general and nanorobots particularly. It is possible that one day we will be able to build functional nanobots that can live freely and replicate. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
What is more relevant and has been less well-discussed by /. is nanomaterial remediation. Carbon nanotubes are very tough and have been demonstrated to be very toxic in mice . Thought has not been given about how to dispose of materials such as these without creating a public health hazard. It is clear that nanomaterials will be used in greater and greater quantities due to their exceptional properties. Therefore, we can work to solve the inevitable disposal problem now or later. It will cost less to address disposal now.
You have to keep in mind that the "mutation rate" of a nanite would be subject to evolution as well as all of the other morphological features discussed earlier. Nanites designed to replicate with 100% fidelity could easily evolve to mutate at a constant, favorable rate. It might take a million generations, but if the doubling time for the nanites is on the order of seconds or minutes, a million generations isn't inconcievable.
...is about 7yro and still works like new.
...and that nice looking plasma screen TV, that aparment would be cool to live in. At least, it would be for the first few days, and then the wierd lighting colors and geometries would send you into a seizure...