You're correct in that taxpayer money does supplement most universities budgets. However, taxpayer money mainly funds administrative costs, some operating costs, and faculty/staff salaries. At most universities, the majority of research funding comes from outside sources.
The reason Federal grants allow PI's to patent their discoveries made with Federal dollars is that there is extra motivation for innovation, and eventually (in theory) the invention will become part of the public domain when the patent expires.
Whereas a useful new pharmaceutical usually has a lifetime of decades and therefore yields benefits after patent expiration, advances in technology are typically useful for less time than the patent lifetime. Thus, I think the Feds intentions aren't quite fulfilled in those cases.
One point that no one has made thus far is that the plaque is more likely to be a beaver than a rat, as the mascot for both MIT and Caltech is, in fact, a beaver. If you look closely, you can see a beaver tale on the plaque.
Sorry if the point wasn't clear. I specifically mentioned proteins to remind folks that there are natural self-replicating systems. There are also artificial replicating systems on the same scale, but these are generally based on DNA, RNA, PNA, or peptide scaffolds. I consider these cases different as they are based on what nature has already devised, and because they are limited to specific prearranged building blocks. As Pete Schultz (one of the pioneers of artificial peptides and even life forms) would say, we need more variety. However, even the state of the art manipulations these folks make still depend on cellular machinery and exclude many (that is, most) useful elements.
A lot of "nano-technology" is only good at manipulating one or two elements at a time. The concept of complete fabrication from basic atomic arrangements is pretty far-fetched as one must controllably disassemble existing structures, then reassemble the desired structure with complete atomic specificity, and one must do this with a setup that itself is on the nanometer scale!
I don't doubt the advancement of nanotech, but I greatly doubt the feasibility of the sci-fi projection of it. I foresee much more in the area of designer proteins/other natural polymers or in specific materials that micro-machines.
The biggest obstacle that I think nanotech faces is that of fundamental interactions of atoms. While dip-pen lithography, atomic force microscopes and the like allow manipulation of small numbers of atoms, they don't provide methods of attaching complex arrays of atoms (of different elements) to form the specific structures necessary for a "fabricator" or nanomachine. Presumably, these devices would be on the order of scale of proteins (the original nano-tech), but would incorporate a wider range of functionality than just C, O, N, S, and P. It's difficult to concieve how one might place exactly one *boron* atom at *that* precise location to get the vacant electronic orbital that is needed and forge the new chemical bonds, all the while holding all the other atoms in exact place. Elements have specific rules for connection to others, and most elements are very reactive in a non-bonded state. This would make handling of all the neccessary "building blocks" nearly impossible to build anything approaching a complex machine.
All the other chemists I've talked to (I am a chemist in an academic environment) are agreed that nanotechnology will provide great advances in materials, electronics, and diagnostics; however, the pie-in-the-sky nano-factories that will create nono-bots and the like require Mega-leaps of the imagination that are not supported by anything in chemistry.
Unfortunately, the common rebuttle to "saying just don't use it doesnt't cut it; the action itself is still wrong" most heard is "what does it matter anyway; it's too late because XXX is insecure and XXX is also insecure, so why worry about the latest?"
The fact is (which is made pretty clear in the article) that Google's precendent may define greatly how the courts and other businesses see future privacy issues. I think this makes the worry and discussion relevant. Worry and discussion should also be directed at the other sources of potential privacy invasion that you mentioned. The fact that Ashcroft might have his grubby ear on your line right now does not mean in the least that we should give up on demanding more protection from that very scenario. Just because you choose not to participate in what the world is doing, does not mean it won't affect you.
I don't want to target google, nor support effort on only one front, but would like to see similar concern over all aspects of personal data and communications.
"DiVX, the Circuit City self-destructing DVD technology, in the end wasn't killed by geek complaints. It was killed by people who didn't buy it."
This argument is made a few times in the comments, but the flag issue is different enough to still warrant concern. Folks didn't buy the DivX tech because they could easily buy a lasting DVD. The difference was readily apparent to most every consumer. Few want to buy something that has a very limited lifespan when they can pay a little more and have a movie for years and years. The enforced broadcast flag technology, however, will come on ALL TV's after July 2005, meaning there's no alternative to buying into the MPAA's scheme. Most people won't even know what they are getting until they try to record that first time and call up their geeky brother-in-law to find out what's wrong. The average Joe is not likely to know what they're buying; all they know is they need to watch the latest "america's dummest reality."
As it appears (see Geer's comments as posted above in the discussions) that this case could be decided quickly or at least decisively against SCO, the SCO spin could actually backfire and make it look like AutoZone has actually defended Linux in a court of law. Let's hope that the press keeps the focus of the headlines the same and announces "AutoZone Defense Linux against SCO!"
As a chemist in a fully equiped lab, I've been able to find *interesting* applications around the home for anything that can fit in a pocket...
A lot can be found by google search. The traditional applications still stand -- dry ice bombs, sodium thrown in water or on ice (potassium can make some nice explosions), and liquid nitrogen experiments.
Liquid nitrogen can be poured on hydrocarbon based compounds, and as it condenses liquid oxygen the hydrocarbons are oxidized. When everything evaporates, you have a small amount of primary explosive. Liquid oxygen makes fire interesting all by itself, too.
There are less violent chemical hacks. Nothing's better than playing poker with "gold" pennies. Just cook some copper pennies up in a sodium hydroxide solution with zinc, then amalgamate 'em with a blowtorch. Viola, brass plated pennies.
Also, nothing gets rid of hard water deposits like a 50% nitric acid solution. (Hydrochloric acid solutions work, too, and don't eat copper; then again, they don't produce nice red smoke, either.)
Nothing cleans grease like hexanes (often mixed with isopropanol or toluene), so bike chains, etc. become much easier to clean.
As long as you're careful, you can usually get better results than commercial products.
Ironic that a hamster site shows what a bunch of lemmings slashdotters are. Everbody races to the links at once until a server crashes to a grisly death...
Call into where he works the day before, tell them he's sick, then take him away for a long weekend. Very little is better than a free day off work, and nothing is better than a day off work with romance.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct in that taxpayer money does supplement most universities budgets. However, taxpayer money mainly funds administrative costs, some operating costs, and faculty/staff salaries. At most universities, the majority of research funding comes from outside sources. The reason Federal grants allow PI's to patent their discoveries made with Federal dollars is that there is extra motivation for innovation, and eventually (in theory) the invention will become part of the public domain when the patent expires. Whereas a useful new pharmaceutical usually has a lifetime of decades and therefore yields benefits after patent expiration, advances in technology are typically useful for less time than the patent lifetime. Thus, I think the Feds intentions aren't quite fulfilled in those cases.
One point that no one has made thus far is that the plaque is more likely to be a beaver than a rat, as the mascot for both MIT and Caltech is, in fact, a beaver. If you look closely, you can see a beaver tale on the plaque.
Sorry if the point wasn't clear. I specifically mentioned proteins to remind folks that there are natural self-replicating systems. There are also artificial replicating systems on the same scale, but these are generally based on DNA, RNA, PNA, or peptide scaffolds. I consider these cases different as they are based on what nature has already devised, and because they are limited to specific prearranged building blocks. As Pete Schultz (one of the pioneers of artificial peptides and even life forms) would say, we need more variety. However, even the state of the art manipulations these folks make still depend on cellular machinery and exclude many (that is, most) useful elements.
A lot of "nano-technology" is only good at manipulating one or two elements at a time. The concept of complete fabrication from basic atomic arrangements is pretty far-fetched as one must controllably disassemble existing structures, then reassemble the desired structure with complete atomic specificity, and one must do this with a setup that itself is on the nanometer scale!
I don't doubt the advancement of nanotech, but I greatly doubt the feasibility of the sci-fi projection of it. I foresee much more in the area of designer proteins/other natural polymers or in specific materials that micro-machines.
The biggest obstacle that I think nanotech faces is that of fundamental interactions of atoms. While dip-pen lithography, atomic force microscopes and the like allow manipulation of small numbers of atoms, they don't provide methods of attaching complex arrays of atoms (of different elements) to form the specific structures necessary for a "fabricator" or nanomachine. Presumably, these devices would be on the order of scale of proteins (the original nano-tech), but would incorporate a wider range of functionality than just C, O, N, S, and P. It's difficult to concieve how one might place exactly one *boron* atom at *that* precise location to get the vacant electronic orbital that is needed and forge the new chemical bonds, all the while holding all the other atoms in exact place. Elements have specific rules for connection to others, and most elements are very reactive in a non-bonded state. This would make handling of all the neccessary "building blocks" nearly impossible to build anything approaching a complex machine.
All the other chemists I've talked to (I am a chemist in an academic environment) are agreed that nanotechnology will provide great advances in materials, electronics, and diagnostics; however, the pie-in-the-sky nano-factories that will create nono-bots and the like require Mega-leaps of the imagination that are not supported by anything in chemistry.
Unfortunately, the common rebuttle to "saying just don't use it doesnt't cut it; the action itself is still wrong" most heard is "what does it matter anyway; it's too late because XXX is insecure and XXX is also insecure, so why worry about the latest?"
The fact is (which is made pretty clear in the article) that Google's precendent may define greatly how the courts and other businesses see future privacy issues. I think this makes the worry and discussion relevant. Worry and discussion should also be directed at the other sources of potential privacy invasion that you mentioned. The fact that Ashcroft might have his grubby ear on your line right now does not mean in the least that we should give up on demanding more protection from that very scenario. Just because you choose not to participate in what the world is doing, does not mean it won't affect you.
I don't want to target google, nor support effort on only one front, but would like to see similar concern over all aspects of personal data and communications.
Some folks already use these walls when they play quake....
"DiVX, the Circuit City self-destructing DVD technology, in the end wasn't killed by geek complaints. It was killed by people who didn't buy it."
This argument is made a few times in the comments, but the flag issue is different enough to still warrant concern. Folks didn't buy the DivX tech because they could easily buy a lasting DVD. The difference was readily apparent to most every consumer. Few want to buy something that has a very limited lifespan when they can pay a little more and have a movie for years and years. The enforced broadcast flag technology, however, will come on ALL TV's after July 2005, meaning there's no alternative to buying into the MPAA's scheme. Most people won't even know what they are getting until they try to record that first time and call up their geeky brother-in-law to find out what's wrong. The average Joe is not likely to know what they're buying; all they know is they need to watch the latest "america's dummest reality."
As it appears (see Geer's comments as posted above in the discussions) that this case could be decided quickly or at least decisively against SCO, the SCO spin could actually backfire and make it look like AutoZone has actually defended Linux in a court of law. Let's hope that the press keeps the focus of the headlines the same and announces "AutoZone Defense Linux against SCO!"
As a chemist in a fully equiped lab, I've been able to find *interesting* applications around the home for anything that can fit in a pocket...
A lot can be found by google search.
The traditional applications still stand -- dry ice bombs, sodium thrown in water or on ice (potassium can make some nice explosions), and liquid nitrogen experiments.
Liquid nitrogen can be poured on hydrocarbon based compounds, and as it condenses liquid oxygen the hydrocarbons are oxidized. When everything evaporates, you have a small amount of primary explosive. Liquid oxygen makes fire interesting all by itself, too.
There are less violent chemical hacks. Nothing's better than playing poker with "gold" pennies. Just cook some copper pennies up in a sodium hydroxide solution with zinc, then amalgamate 'em with a blowtorch. Viola, brass plated pennies.
Also, nothing gets rid of hard water deposits like a 50% nitric acid solution. (Hydrochloric acid solutions work, too, and don't eat copper; then again, they don't produce nice red smoke, either.)
Nothing cleans grease like hexanes (often mixed with isopropanol or toluene), so bike chains, etc. become much easier to clean.
As long as you're careful, you can usually get better results than commercial products.
Ironic that a hamster site shows what a bunch of lemmings slashdotters are. Everbody races to the links at once until a server crashes to a grisly death...
Call into where he works the day before, tell them he's sick, then take him away for a long weekend. Very little is better than a free day off work, and nothing is better than a day off work with romance.
It looks like mom was right: Porn is eeevil. The fruit of evil is spam.