You mean, just like it is in France? Where using encryption to encode your mail is considered criminal?????
Nice trolling: encryption is perfectly legal in France. The French chapter of the Free Software Foundation even took care of getting an official approval for encryption tools like GnuPG and OpenSSL. See http://fsffrance.org/dcssi/dcssi.fr.html#dossiers (link in French)
And for a governmental source, look at the ssi.gouv.fr website, specifically on: http://www.ssi.gouv.fr/fr/reglementation-ssi/cryptologie/index.html (link in French) first paragraph states:"Under article 30 of Law 2004-575 of June 21st, 2004 on confidence in the digital economy, the use of cryptology is free in France."
The article implies that the method is new, which is not the case - in fact it even has its wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptychography). The team (J. Rodenburg's) behind that press release is indeed among the pioneers.
The whole idea behind the technique is to illuminate the sample at different positions using an electron or X-ray beam, with an overlap between the different positions of the beam. Once this is done the algorithm reconstructs both the structure in the sample (the electronic density) and the structure of the probe (the electron or X-ray beam).
It's also used with X-rays (the last article is open access) : [1] J.M. Rodenburg, A.C. Hurst, A.G. Cullis, B.R. Dobson, F. Pfeiffer, O. Bunk, C. David, K. Jefimovs, I. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 034801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.034801 [2] P. Thibault, M. Dierolf, A. Menzel, O. Bunk, C. David, F. Pfeiffer, Science 321 (2008) 379–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1158573 [3] M. Dierolf, A. Menzel, P. Thibault, P. Schneider, C.M. Kewish, R. Wepf, O. Bunk, F. Pfeiffer, Nature 467 (2010) 436–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09419 [4] C.M. Kewish, P. Thibault, M. Dierolf, O. Bunk, A. Menzel, J. Vila-Comamala, K. Jefimovs, F. Pfeiffer, New J. Phys. 110 (2010) 325–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.004
The summary and the linked article are extremely incomplete !
Yes, Google was essentially exonerated from the charges - i.e. is not held responsible for the chosen adwords. But the buyers of adwords (the advertisers) can still be held responsible.
To quote the WSJ article:
Google isn't liable for trademark infringement when it sells linked ads to a brand's competitor. The court held that the search giant is merely a host for ads and that it is an advertiser's responsibility to make clear if its product is different from that searched for.
The good thing is that google's service/business is acknowledged as a neutral one. But the advertisers can still be held responsible if they use the trademarked brand without the right to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
For some models, the prices have dropped 300% over the past three years
Great, so this means that in 2012, to get some SSD disk you will be paid twice the price you would have paid to get them in 2009 ?
Sounds interesting, just the kind of storage I need for my perpetual motion simulations !
You mean, just like it is in France? Where using encryption to encode your mail is considered criminal?????
Nice trolling: encryption is perfectly legal in France. The French chapter of the Free Software Foundation even took care of getting an official approval for encryption tools like GnuPG and OpenSSL. See http://fsffrance.org/dcssi/dcssi.fr.html#dossiers (link in French)
And for a governmental source, look at the ssi.gouv.fr website, specifically on:
http://www.ssi.gouv.fr/fr/reglementation-ssi/cryptologie/index.html (link in French)
first paragraph states:"Under article 30 of Law 2004-575 of June 21st, 2004 on confidence in the digital economy, the use of cryptology is free in France."
The article implies that the method is new, which is not the case - in fact it even has its wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptychography). The team (J. Rodenburg's) behind that press release is indeed among the pioneers.
The whole idea behind the technique is to illuminate the sample at different positions using an electron or X-ray beam, with an overlap between the different positions of the beam. Once this is done the algorithm reconstructs both the structure in the sample (the electronic density) and the structure of the probe (the electron or X-ray beam).
For those who can access articles behind paywalls :
[1] W. Hoppe, Ultramicroscopy 10 (1982) 187–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3991(82)90038-9
[2] B.C. McCallum, J.M. Rodenburg, Ultramicroscopy 52 (1993) 85–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3991(93)90024-R
[3] P.D. Nellist, B.C. McCallum, J.M. Rodenburg, Nature 374 (1995) 630–632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/374630a0
[4] P.D. Nellist, J.M. Rodenburg, Acta Crystallogr A Found Crystallogr 54 (1998) 49–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0108767397010490
[5] T. Plamann, J.M. Rodenburg, Acta Crystallogr A Found Crystallogr 54 (1998) 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0108767397010507
[6] J.M. Rodenburg, H.M.L. Faulkner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85 (2004) 4795. http://dx.doi.org/http://link.aip.org/link/APPLAB/v85/i20/p4795/s1&Agg=doi
It's also used with X-rays (the last article is open access) :
[1] J.M. Rodenburg, A.C. Hurst, A.G. Cullis, B.R. Dobson, F. Pfeiffer, O. Bunk, C. David, K. Jefimovs, I. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 034801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.034801
[2] P. Thibault, M. Dierolf, A. Menzel, O. Bunk, C. David, F. Pfeiffer, Science 321 (2008) 379–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1158573
[3] M. Dierolf, A. Menzel, P. Thibault, P. Schneider, C.M. Kewish, R. Wepf, O. Bunk, F. Pfeiffer, Nature 467 (2010) 436–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09419
[4] C.M. Kewish, P. Thibault, M. Dierolf, O. Bunk, A. Menzel, J. Vila-Comamala, K. Jefimovs, F. Pfeiffer, New J. Phys. 110 (2010) 325–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.004
The summary and the linked article are extremely incomplete ! Yes, Google was essentially exonerated from the charges - i.e. is not held responsible for the chosen adwords. But the buyers of adwords (the advertisers) can still be held responsible. To quote the WSJ article: Google isn't liable for trademark infringement when it sells linked ads to a brand's competitor. The court held that the search giant is merely a host for ads and that it is an advertiser's responsibility to make clear if its product is different from that searched for.
The good thing is that google's service/business is acknowledged as a neutral one. But the advertisers can still be held responsible if they use the trademarked brand without the right to do so.
The following review can be interesting: Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity
Biointerphases -- December 2007 -- Volume 2, Issue 4, pp. MR17-MR71
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=VIRT01000017000017000001000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&type=ALERT
55 pages though - not for those who don't like to RTFA...