If you RTFA, you'll see that the "gecko phenomenon" is the basis for the device's retention of memory when the power is off. The bits are encoded by whether the tubules are erect (open circuit) or bent-over and touching the substrate (closed circuit). When the power is removed, the same van der Waals forces that underpin gecko toes keeps the fiber in the down position.
What limited info I know about long-term sleep deprivation is that its very deceptive. Subjects think they are fine once they get used to it. But objective tests show significant declines in cognition performance. The point: feeling fine and being fine are two different things when it comes to sleep and the brain.
Before embarking on this, I'd get and baseline some cognitive tests (memory, reaction time, logic) to ensure that the new schedule isn't adversing affecting your brain.
A PC slot (with appropriate adaptor) is a fast way to download data off memory cards from digital cameras. Such a system is both faster and more convenient for people that take large numbers of photos (photos on multiple cards) or who want to give the memory card to a coworker for processing (one person takes the photos while a second person uploads/processes them for the public).
I know I'll miss the PC card slot until card makers will come up with adapter cards for the new ExpressCard/34 slot.
If gravity isn't quite what it seems to be in terms of strength versus distance, then studies of planetary systems should show the effect. The relationship between orbital radii and orbital periods (and orbital path) would not be quite consistent with the 1/r^2 rule for Newtonian gravity. Admittedly the distance and mass scales of a our planetary system are far smaller than the galactic scales discussed in the theory, but our ability to make extremely precise measurements of planetary distances and orbits should compensate for that.
I've always heard that I would "need" Windows for something or other. In my business it seemed prudent to own/install a copy of Software Windows and so a bought a succession of versions starting in the early 90s.
In more than 10 years of having a copy of Windows, I've needed it all of 3 times (using content on 2 MS-only CD-ROMs and some MS-Access work). Now I don't even need the emulator -- I bought a Pentium-III laptop at a garage sale for $10. It's sat unused now for 3 years.
I can understand the "because its there challenge," and I suppose some people really need to play PC-only games (I don't), but otherwise putting Windows on a Mac seems like a waste of good hardware.
I can see several countermeasures to this development. The key is that the site owner can tell which ISP is stifling the traffic or extorting extra speed payments and change elements of their site to reflect that ISP's unpleasant behavior. For any traffic coming from a Bell South or other 2-tier "badISP" customer:
Publish BadISP's tech support numbers: "If you are having trouble with this site call 1-800-BadISP" -- at about $5-$10 per call, the telco would soon see the folly of its ways.
Publicize BadISPs performance issues: "This site optimized for BadISP competitors" and provide links to non-2-tier competitors.
Post higher prices for BadISP customers: iTunes for $1.09 per song to BadISP customers to pay for "faster" service.
Creating a 2-tier internet is hardly anonymous and site owner can easily inform end-users of misbehavior.
So many vulnerabilities seem to involve writing past the extents of a data structure (stack, heap, buffer, etc.). But how does this lead to the ability to execute arbitrary code? It would seem that the system must lack an ability to clearly segment memory in the distinct data spaces or to distinguish between data and code.
Yes, malware could still crash an application or machine (to the extent that the system has inadequate input checking and nongraceful failure modes) but arbitrary code execution wouldn't be possible.
Why don't people use these concepts to plug a vast range of vulnerabilities?
As much as everyone maligns dupes, I think they do serve two valuable purposes.
Slashdot Size Effects: The large size of the slashdot community means that only the first hour of postings receives any sort of attention. Thoughtful posts that come late to the thread are lost. The dupe gives a second set of respondents a chance to be among the first 100 posts and contribute their comments.
Rumination: The first version of a thread often brings critical insights and additional facts to the topic. The dupe thread lets posters present further reflections in light of the first thread's discussion.
The biggest problem with dupes is all the inane "this is a dupe" posts. After the first "this is a dupe" post, all subsequent posts should receive an automatic -5 Redundant score.
Look at the history of Apple's processor switches. The first generation PPC machines (6100/7100/8100) were nice, but the second generation PPC machines (7500/8500/9500) were much better. The 2nd gen PPC machines had PCI instead of NuBus, a faster interleaved memory architecture, and a much improved dual-SCSI bus. With the first Macintel, it's obvious that Apple worked very quickly to put Intel Inside and I'm sure that some parts of the design represent a borrowing from PPC designs. I bet that second generation Intel machines are both faster, less likely to have flaws, and more likely to enjoy longer-term OS upgrades.
I know its ungeek of me not to want to be on the bleeding edge, but I'm waiting for the second generation machines.
I can see several countermeasures to Bell South's plan. The key is that the site owner can tell what traffic is coming from Bell South and change elements of their site to reflect Bell South's behavior. For any traffic coming from a Bell South customer (Bell South IPs):
Publish Bell South's tech support numbers: "If you are having trouble with this site call 1-800-BellSouth" -- at about $5-$10 per call, Bell South would soon see the folly of its ways.
Publicize Bell South performance issues: "This site optimized for Bell South competitors"
Post higher prices for Bell South customers: iTunes for $1.09 per song to Bell South customers.
PC owners need to take control of their PC to secure the machine. If content owners can control what content buyers do with their data, then perhaps PC owners should exert similar control. Perhaps not every application on a PC should have the right to send any bit of data over a network. Preventing keyboard loggers, file snoopers, IM buddy list readers, etc. is effectively a type of DRM -- "sorry MalWare.exe, but only one copy of that SSN is allowed". As with P2P applications, DRM is just a tool that can be used for "evil" or "good". Perhaps PC owners can use that tool to secure their data and their machines.
I'd bet that this will work more effectively if the algae/water mixture is sprayed into the power plant exhaust rather than bubbling exhaust gas. Spraying will maximize the surface area exposed to the exhaust and reduce the system's energy use. It will take much less energy to compress a small volume of algae-liquid and make small drops than it does to compress a massive volume of gas to make small bubbles.
I can even imagine a multistage sprayer. A hot-stage sprayer injects matured algae-mix into the hot exhaust gases to both cool the exhaust stream and create a desiccated algae powder (for fuel production). A cool-stage sprayer injects living alga mix into the cooled water-saturated exhaust stream. Even with the two stage process I'd bet that the "cool" stage will still run at a relatively high temperature. Perhaps the engineers will need to adapt a thermophilic algae (such as live in hot-springs) to make the system feasible.
Malware can be categorized by the goal of the creator. This can include:
Marketing: Redirecting browser windows or overlaying pop-ups to promote a product or service
Phishing: attacking an individual to extract passwords that let a criminal access the victim's accounts or identity
Vandalism: Wanton destruction of a PC or network
Spam Broadcasting: creating and controlling a botnet for spamming
Extortion: Forcing a company to pay a ransom to avoid a DDoS or the triggering of an embedded bit of malware.
Vilgilantism: Attacking P2P, spamming, or phishing networks to forestall perceived illegal activity
Espionage: Illegally accessing company or country's secrets
Military: Damaging an opponent country's IT infrastructure
Note that some of these goals target individuals and their PCs whereas other target larger organizations. One key commonality of nearly all of the goals is that they target large numbers of PCs or require large numbers of infected machines to achieve the goal. Thus immunological approaches that look for the spread of unusual code or data packet patterns can help address this problem. On the other hand, immunological approaches won't work if the malware attack targets a single individual or company -- e.g. implanting a unique virus in one computer in a company for purposes of espionage or extortion.
Note that half of the goals are very different from the stereotypical destructive virus or worm of yesteryear. With the exception of vandalism, extortion, vigilantism, and military, the other goals are essentially non-destructive. The malware creator's goals are not achieved if the malware crashes the target machine.
I'd also fault spelling and grammar checkers in the continuing decline of proper language skills/skill's. Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities. If the text passes the checker, then they're/there/their convinced it's/its fine.
I'm no speeling or grammar fiend but even I am horrified by the basic language errors that now appear in supposedly edited works (e.g., the New York Times and in books). Some people claim the trend is due to e-mail/IM, but I'd argue that a well trained person doesn't make such basic mistakes even on a fast first draft.
I've often been amused by what appears in the Properties pane of Word document sent by clients or what you can dredge up from Track Changes. Evidence of re-used documents, other projects, other clients, and deft attempts at redaction abound in the hidden metadata and edits.
The more data a computer saves (especially if hidden from plain site), the greater the chance of embarrassment and unintended leakage of sensitive info.
It seems to me that "acknowledged experts" is both the key to respect and the bottleneck for any on-line encyclopedia. The question is how does a online content system get acknowledge experts. One solution is to hire experts from the meat-space world -- those vetted by traditional academia, etc. Unfortunately, I'd argue that it's simply too costly to hire enough "real" experts to maintain 800,000 articles.
In contrast, wikipedia seeks to create content without this overhead to officially-hired experts. The greatest strength of wikipedia is that anyone can add to it. This encourages content generation. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is that anyone can add to it. This encourages vandals and idiots to add errors into entries.
What projects such as wikipedia need is a mechanism for creating experts and signaling expertise within the context of a corpus created by an open network. This means a better karma system and mechanism for filtering/de-editing entries. Perhaps the easiest mechanism would be a text color-coding scheme. Edits made recently by editors with no track record for stable contributions would be color coded red to caution the reader. The longer the edit lasts, the darker it becomes. Edits that we're made by those with a long history of non-edited additions would see their text quickly become normal black. Done well, such a system could even track contentious frontiers of knowledge -- showing both variants of contested facts in red until one side marshals enough evidence to induce stability.
Readers might even be able to pick which rendering of the wiki to view. They might ask to see only the content that has survived X viewings without an editorial incident (retraction or rewrite) or see only content written by contributors with some threshold level of expertise karma.
This example illustrates the advantages of web applications. Google was able to patch the flaw and roll it out to 100% of the user base in a short time period. Providing applications online means centralized version control and patching -- there's no waiting for all the users to patch.
The downside is that this only works if the app provider is a proprietary vendor with a closed architecture. If 3rd parties are allowed to create extensions or if users can create their own utilities/add-ons then centralized patching would likely introduce the same types of incompatibilities and breakages that current OS patches can introduce. Worse, centralized control might mean that users have no choice but to live with the patched version.
As I understand the situation (IANAL), one of the most important tests for "fair-use" of protected IP is whether profit is involved -- if you make a profit on someone else's IP, you can't claim fair-use. If university research is for profit, then it seems to run risks of not being able to make fair use of other's IP.
Arguments regarding whether patents, in general, are good or bad aside (see other posts in this thread, I'm sure), I wonder if university research can have it both ways -- both assert restrictive rights on its own IP whist claiming fair-use on other's IP.
This sounds like a recipe for disaster. I, personally, would avoid drugs that had not been tested on people genetically similar to myself. People are not identical in their ability to absorb, metabolize, respond to, or excrete medications. A drug that works well in one population can easily fail to help (or have fatal side effects) in people in a different population.
Given the existence of chemosynthetic life at ocean ridge hotspots, I wonder about the potential for life in the mantle. Surely the continuing convection in the mantle and subduction zones provides the potential for non-equilibrium chemical reactions that could be a basis for life. Perhaps some form of complex aluminosilicate chains/matrix or semi-crystalline blebs could form the basis for non-carbon-based life. I'm not expecting anything particularly mobile or obvous (a la the silcon-based Horta in Star Trek) but as long as a region supports both solid-phase and liquid-phase complex mixtures, then it seems life isn't impossible. Perhaps xenoliths are the corpolites or decomposed remnants of something down there.
This experiment is deeply flawed because he compared Adword performance of a new site to that of an existing successful site. This flaw biases the results in two ways. First, it assumes that Google's ranking system isn't biased by click-through history -- that Google doesn't up-rank a site with 12 months 15,000 click-throughs per day versus one with only 1 month of 15,000 click-throughs per day. This seems very very unlikely. If I were Google I would always up-rank incumbents that had a good history of click-throughs (and payments). Second, it assumes that people don't remember site names (that the existing successful site has no brand value). I know that I often refind casually interesting sites (those not worth remembering or book marking) by rerunning a search that found that site the first time. How many of that existing site's 15,000 click-throughs are repeat customers who recognize the site's name?
The better experiment would create two or more new sites and test adword on an even footing of history with both Google and searchers.
I've been using a Minolta Dimage 7 and then an A2 since 2001 and vastly prefer electronic viewfinders (EVF) to traditional optical ones. Some of the benefits include:
Better understanding of the exposure: On an optical finder, the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot - its too easy to see a great picture that the camera can't get. An EVF gives me a better idea if I'm blowing out the sky or losing detail in the darkness. An EVF gives me instant visual feedback on what the picture will look like before I hit the shutter button.
Extensive programmable informational overlays: An EVF can overlay a huge amount of data about the image, the camera's mode, the user-interface state, image histogram, sighting lines, etc. Or I can turn it all off for an uncluttered view.
Instant post-shutter review: An EVF can display the actual picture taken immediately after the shot. I don't have to pull the camera away from my eye to check the results on an external screen (that's hard to see in day light anyway).
Magnification: With an EVF, one can zoom into a bit of detail in the live image to check the quality of the exposure or focus. It's like using a magnifier in a darkroom or a loupe on a print (the A2 offers 4X magnification). This is something that no optical finder can handle.
No viewfinder alignment/cutoff issues: Unlike an optical veiwfinder, an EVF shows exactly 100% of the image perfectly aligned and centered. Its more WYSIWYG than an optical finder.
Amplification in darkness: In low lighting conditions the EVF can boost the gain to provide a useful image. It's not night vision by any means, but it does help.
I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs
LCD backlights are seldom bright enough when I want to sit outside (I know, I know, outside is sooo unnerdlike but sometimes it's nice to sit outside while working at a coffee-shop). But why try to compete with the ultimate light source? If the back of the laptop lid could swing open or be removed, then the sun could flood in. A diffuser/polarizer on the back of the LCD would let the sun be the perfect outdoor backlight.
Slashdot Mirror
If you RTFA, you'll see that the "gecko phenomenon" is the basis for the device's retention of memory when the power is off. The bits are encoded by whether the tubules are erect (open circuit) or bent-over and touching the substrate (closed circuit). When the power is removed, the same van der Waals forces that underpin gecko toes keeps the fiber in the down position.
What limited info I know about long-term sleep deprivation is that its very deceptive. Subjects think they are fine once they get used to it. But objective tests show significant declines in cognition performance. The point: feeling fine and being fine are two different things when it comes to sleep and the brain.
Before embarking on this, I'd get and baseline some cognitive tests (memory, reaction time, logic) to ensure that the new schedule isn't adversing affecting your brain.
A PC slot (with appropriate adaptor) is a fast way to download data off memory cards from digital cameras. Such a system is both faster and more convenient for people that take large numbers of photos (photos on multiple cards) or who want to give the memory card to a coworker for processing (one person takes the photos while a second person uploads/processes them for the public).
I know I'll miss the PC card slot until card makers will come up with adapter cards for the new ExpressCard/34 slot.
If gravity isn't quite what it seems to be in terms of strength versus distance, then studies of planetary systems should show the effect. The relationship between orbital radii and orbital periods (and orbital path) would not be quite consistent with the 1/r^2 rule for Newtonian gravity. Admittedly the distance and mass scales of a our planetary system are far smaller than the galactic scales discussed in the theory, but our ability to make extremely precise measurements of planetary distances and orbits should compensate for that.
I've always heard that I would "need" Windows for something or other. In my business it seemed prudent to own/install a copy of Software Windows and so a bought a succession of versions starting in the early 90s.
In more than 10 years of having a copy of Windows, I've needed it all of 3 times (using content on 2 MS-only CD-ROMs and some MS-Access work). Now I don't even need the emulator -- I bought a Pentium-III laptop at a garage sale for $10. It's sat unused now for 3 years.
I can understand the "because its there challenge," and I suppose some people really need to play PC-only games (I don't), but otherwise putting Windows on a Mac seems like a waste of good hardware.
Creating a 2-tier internet is hardly anonymous and site owner can easily inform end-users of misbehavior.
So many vulnerabilities seem to involve writing past the extents of a data structure (stack, heap, buffer, etc.). But how does this lead to the ability to execute arbitrary code? It would seem that the system must lack an ability to clearly segment memory in the distinct data spaces or to distinguish between data and code.
Perhaps machines need a more secure memory management scheme (such as an execute disable bit or Data Execution Prevention).
Yes, malware could still crash an application or machine (to the extent that the system has inadequate input checking and nongraceful failure modes) but arbitrary code execution wouldn't be possible.
Why don't people use these concepts to plug a vast range of vulnerabilities?
The biggest problem with dupes is all the inane "this is a dupe" posts. After the first "this is a dupe" post, all subsequent posts should receive an automatic -5 Redundant score.
Look at the history of Apple's processor switches. The first generation PPC machines (6100/7100/8100) were nice, but the second generation PPC machines (7500/8500/9500) were much better. The 2nd gen PPC machines had PCI instead of NuBus, a faster interleaved memory architecture, and a much improved dual-SCSI bus. With the first Macintel, it's obvious that Apple worked very quickly to put Intel Inside and I'm sure that some parts of the design represent a borrowing from PPC designs. I bet that second generation Intel machines are both faster, less likely to have flaws, and more likely to enjoy longer-term OS upgrades.
I know its ungeek of me not to want to be on the bleeding edge, but I'm waiting for the second generation machines.
PC owners need to take control of their PC to secure the machine. If content owners can control what content buyers do with their data, then perhaps PC owners should exert similar control. Perhaps not every application on a PC should have the right to send any bit of data over a network. Preventing keyboard loggers, file snoopers, IM buddy list readers, etc. is effectively a type of DRM -- "sorry MalWare.exe, but only one copy of that SSN is allowed". As with P2P applications, DRM is just a tool that can be used for "evil" or "good". Perhaps PC owners can use that tool to secure their data and their machines.
I'd bet that this will work more effectively if the algae/water mixture is sprayed into the power plant exhaust rather than bubbling exhaust gas. Spraying will maximize the surface area exposed to the exhaust and reduce the system's energy use. It will take much less energy to compress a small volume of algae-liquid and make small drops than it does to compress a massive volume of gas to make small bubbles.
I can even imagine a multistage sprayer. A hot-stage sprayer injects matured algae-mix into the hot exhaust gases to both cool the exhaust stream and create a desiccated algae powder (for fuel production). A cool-stage sprayer injects living alga mix into the cooled water-saturated exhaust stream. Even with the two stage process I'd bet that the "cool" stage will still run at a relatively high temperature. Perhaps the engineers will need to adapt a thermophilic algae (such as live in hot-springs) to make the system feasible.
Note that some of these goals target individuals and their PCs whereas other target larger organizations. One key commonality of nearly all of the goals is that they target large numbers of PCs or require large numbers of infected machines to achieve the goal. Thus immunological approaches that look for the spread of unusual code or data packet patterns can help address this problem. On the other hand, immunological approaches won't work if the malware attack targets a single individual or company -- e.g. implanting a unique virus in one computer in a company for purposes of espionage or extortion.
Note that half of the goals are very different from the stereotypical destructive virus or worm of yesteryear. With the exception of vandalism, extortion, vigilantism, and military, the other goals are essentially non-destructive. The malware creator's goals are not achieved if the malware crashes the target machine.
I'd also fault spelling and grammar checkers in the continuing decline of proper language skills/skill's. Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities. If the text passes the checker, then they're/there/their convinced it's/its fine.
I'm no speeling or grammar fiend but even I am horrified by the basic language errors that now appear in supposedly edited works (e.g., the New York Times and in books). Some people claim the trend is due to e-mail/IM, but I'd argue that a well trained person doesn't make such basic mistakes even on a fast first draft.
I've often been amused by what appears in the Properties pane of Word document sent by clients or what you can dredge up from Track Changes. Evidence of re-used documents, other projects, other clients, and deft attempts at redaction abound in the hidden metadata and edits.
The more data a computer saves (especially if hidden from plain site), the greater the chance of embarrassment and unintended leakage of sensitive info.
It seems to me that "acknowledged experts" is both the key to respect and the bottleneck for any on-line encyclopedia. The question is how does a online content system get acknowledge experts. One solution is to hire experts from the meat-space world -- those vetted by traditional academia, etc. Unfortunately, I'd argue that it's simply too costly to hire enough "real" experts to maintain 800,000 articles.
In contrast, wikipedia seeks to create content without this overhead to officially-hired experts. The greatest strength of wikipedia is that anyone can add to it. This encourages content generation. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is that anyone can add to it. This encourages vandals and idiots to add errors into entries.
What projects such as wikipedia need is a mechanism for creating experts and signaling expertise within the context of a corpus created by an open network. This means a better karma system and mechanism for filtering/de-editing entries. Perhaps the easiest mechanism would be a text color-coding scheme. Edits made recently by editors with no track record for stable contributions would be color coded red to caution the reader. The longer the edit lasts, the darker it becomes. Edits that we're made by those with a long history of non-edited additions would see their text quickly become normal black. Done well, such a system could even track contentious frontiers of knowledge -- showing both variants of contested facts in red until one side marshals enough evidence to induce stability.
Readers might even be able to pick which rendering of the wiki to view. They might ask to see only the content that has survived X viewings without an editorial incident (retraction or rewrite) or see only content written by contributors with some threshold level of expertise karma.
The downside is that this only works if the app provider is a proprietary vendor with a closed architecture. If 3rd parties are allowed to create extensions or if users can create their own utilities/add-ons then centralized patching would likely introduce the same types of incompatibilities and breakages that current OS patches can introduce. Worse, centralized control might mean that users have no choice but to live with the patched version.
Arguments regarding whether patents, in general, are good or bad aside (see other posts in this thread, I'm sure), I wonder if university research can have it both ways -- both assert restrictive rights on its own IP whist claiming fair-use on other's IP.
This sounds like a recipe for disaster. I, personally, would avoid drugs that had not been tested on people genetically similar to myself. People are not identical in their ability to absorb, metabolize, respond to, or excrete medications. A drug that works well in one population can easily fail to help (or have fatal side effects) in people in a different population.
I'm not even a gamer and I can tell this is just another example of sensationalist journalism.
Given the existence of chemosynthetic life at ocean ridge hotspots, I wonder about the potential for life in the mantle. Surely the continuing convection in the mantle and subduction zones provides the potential for non-equilibrium chemical reactions that could be a basis for life. Perhaps some form of complex aluminosilicate chains/matrix or semi-crystalline blebs could form the basis for non-carbon-based life. I'm not expecting anything particularly mobile or obvous (a la the silcon-based Horta in Star Trek) but as long as a region supports both solid-phase and liquid-phase complex mixtures, then it seems life isn't impossible. Perhaps xenoliths are the corpolites or decomposed remnants of something down there.
The better experiment would create two or more new sites and test adword on an even footing of history with both Google and searchers.
After the Sony debacle, I'd bet they're a little more cautious about any auto-run software on the disks.
I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs
LCD backlights are seldom bright enough when I want to sit outside (I know, I know, outside is sooo unnerdlike but sometimes it's nice to sit outside while working at a coffee-shop). But why try to compete with the ultimate light source? If the back of the laptop lid could swing open or be removed, then the sun could flood in. A diffuser/polarizer on the back of the LCD would let the sun be the perfect outdoor backlight.