As a publishing scientist, I would venture another question: "Why should I publish in a journal that is not freely available? Why would I pick a journal that limits its readership?"
Because it matters.
The prestige/merits of publishing in a magazine people actually *pay* for is obviously far greater. Because people pay for it they demand a higher quality and selection is tougher. In other words: what is more valuable: something you have to pay for or something you get for free? And no, inherent merits don't count.
I am not saying this is a good thing, just that this is the way (I think) it works.
Last time this story came around, it wasn't clear to me that this guy did not know his researchers had donated their eggs. If he'd been a cold bastard and put all the blame on the researchers in question as soon as he found out, he'd probably have got away with it. Instead he tried to protect them, and this is what he gets for it.
You will never know what happened, neither will I. The only thing we know is that these eggs were used (let's assume that is true, because even that you cannot know). Everything else is hypothesis and should be treated as such.
Maybe he was to blame, maybe someone else. One way or another unethical stuff happened and the boss takes the blame.
Note that this does not necessarily mean his career is over. Just think of German scientists being adopted by the US after WWII. If this guy is really an international authority, he will be back in business in no time.
I hate to say it that teaching electromagnetics in an engineering school and having built microwave transmitters myself, I have some idea what I am talking about.
ANY heating system has a 100% efficiency by definition (*). Difference is that ohmic losses are easy to achieve (put a resistor in the liquid and there you go), while creating microwave energy is no picnic.
MAYBE their system has some advantages, but they are clearly not theromodynamical in nature and they are not apparent from the article.
But what exactly was unethical about lab workers also being donors in the first place?
The line between voluntary and reluctant donation is very vague because it can be assumed that lab workers can easily be put under pressure to donate their eggs. Afterwards it is hard to prove that they did it (in)voluntarily. To avoid this discussion their genetic material should not be used alltogether.
You can't heat water up quickly enough with conventional resistance-based electric elements, as it would require huge amount of electricity. Not so with microwaves.
Since Joule we know that energy (e.g. electrical) and heat are equivalent. It doesn't matter how you convert it: bulb,resistor, microwaves...
What does optical interconnect have to do with this? You could already build such a setup now, using e.g. scsi devices. The reason why we don't is because it does not exactly improve reliability. If you have a bad contact at the bottom of the pile everything is lost.
That the fermentation somewhat inhibits new contamination sounds logical, but does not contradict my statement that the water was drinkeable because of being boiled, not because it was fermented. To the best of my knowledge cholera would not have gone away by fermentation.
Ordinary water tended to have nasty bugs in it, so the way to get rid of them was to either boil it (and make tea, as they did in the East) or ferment it (as they did in the West).
AFAIK the reason why 'fermented' waters (aka beer) are safe is not because they are fermented but because it was boiled before being fermented. Even in the Middle Ages.
Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again
on
Drink Decaf and Die
·
· Score: 1
In moderation of course.
Indeed, moderation is your friend. Except 'funny', of course because that doesn't help your karma a bit.
Most likely the target audience doesn't care about that. At the moment they get old/experienced enough to do so they can still install redhat on their machine.
Anyone else noticing the irony of the first person who may be immune to a deadly disease being gay and thus probably not reproducing?
Since aids was initially (afaik) a disease mostly spread under gays, they probably still have a higher percentage of infection and therefore a higher chance of recovering from it, no?
This is completely correct. Any cryptologist could have predicted this give or take a certain margin. Even more: if I were them, I would not have started without an initial estimate.
However, this is not the point. The point is to prove ANYONE (not only cryptanalyst) that it CAN be broken, though it takes some processing, and there is no alternative for doing.
Wrong. It is closed source companies who put the code before the user. Open source is about protecting the user by allowing unhindered access to code for modification and redistribution.
It is THEIR code. And they are willing to release it in binary form to users, and you want to deprive users of it. If you don't want it, don't use it. If you want to use more hardware 'goodies' than the manufacturerer will let you, hack the card yourself.
To AVOID that a processor with DDR support would be put in a DDR2-socket and vice-versa a new socket was needed. The extra pins that would thus become available could alledgedly be used for an integrated PCI-express controller on the processors. [...]
Second paragraph:
Furthermore the photo's show that the Socket F (just like the intel socket 775) is equipped with pins making contact with the processor. The CPU will no longer be pinned down into the socket, but the socket is an LGA socket. Meticulous counting showed that the socket F, also called socket 1207, only has 1206 contacts, just like the Socket 479 only had 498. This CPU socket also supports DDR II
533-, 667-, and 800 memory, being AMD's shot at competition with Intel's FB-dimm plans. The latter [Intel] will present its dual-core platform 'Dempsey' in April, with among others the Greenrcreek chipset with FB DIMM support.
this raises an interesting problem: how can you know what part you are fencing in? If you mark a circle with radius 1m, are you fencing in the 'inside' or the 'outside'? Hard to tell since there are no oceans. And what if you put the fence around the equator?
Indeed, wired was wrong. I knew this too, as probably many geeks around here did. But to hold it against them is going a bit too: this is not the kind of vital information that they will start doublechecking immediately. This is no article about debunking urban legends, it is about famous bugs.
Actually the reply was: "That's the problem with randomness - you can never be sure.", which is not quite the same. And the sequence was "nine... nine... nine".
Worse: I recall this from memory
Worst: and checked if on the cartoon, pinned on a wall a few offices away.
The problem is that some people mistake their 'insights' for the 'official' religious statement. I had a Christian education in Europe (but I am an agnost now). For me it is incredible to watch American TV priests attributing what THEY think to God. I find this rather pretentious, these men just want to be in the spotlight, they use God (wether He exists or not) for their own agenda.
Sure that this is typical for nerds? I know lots of people, not all of them nerds, that don't like to go to bed in the evening and don't like to come out in the morning. I rather think that nerds may have a higher chance of being single, lacking social control by someone else therefore just derail.
Indeed the Shannon limit gives you the maximum number of bits you can transmit per second with an 'arbitrarily low probability of error' (error free). So maybe you will need infinite processing power or an infinite time etc, but this is what you can ultimately get. Any bit rate above this limit can NOT be realised with an arbitrarily low probability of error. The Shannon limit doesn't care how you do this although Shannon gave some clues.
So it matters that the data is error-free.
Your question is a bit unclear to me. In case you mean that the bit rate is 50% of the Shannon capacity and these bits can even be corrupted, the final throughput will obviously be even lower. First of all because some bits will be invalid (and these don't count) and moreover because you even don't know which ones! In the extrenme case the channel has a 50% bit error rate it is perfectly worthless because you could as well toss a coin at the receiver (also 50% chance of being accidentally the same as the bit you transmitted).
Symbols that are indistinguishable will generally not be discarded. Say you transmit 2 bits and either expect a receive signal of (e.g. in volts) 0,1,2 or 3, you could argue that a received '1.51' is hardly convincing. This is exactly where coding comes into play.
Older coding systems (such as Reed-Solomon) decided this counts as a 2 just as much as 1.9999 would have, called 'hard decoding'. Newer techniques use 'soft decoding' and take into account the probability of the decision (so in out example the decoder "wouldn't be so sure" about the 2). You can intuitively see that this will perform better. To exploit this additional knowledge about the 'reliability' of the decisions, some redundancy is added at the transmitter (i.e. some 'logic' is introduced between succesive symbols). Due to noise mistakes will be made at the receiver and the 'logic' will be violated. The receiver will now revise some of its decisions to comply to the logic again, and the best candidates to revise will be the decisions with low reliability. Even though additional redundancy was introduced, there will be an overall gain.
The real thruth is that 'signals looking like noise' is an old idea, called spread spectrum, invented (among others) by actress Hedy Lamarr during the second world war.
Another real truth is that worldwide THOUSANDS of researchers are investigating digital communications and what these guys have come up with IS NOT NEW. Modulation has reached perfection with OFDM. The only things you can do (imho) to improve bit rates is use improved coding techniques or use multiple antennas (search for 'mimo transmission'). I am not saying that the stuff these people have made will never work, only that it certainly is NOT new or revolutionary. Especially the side band claim is ridiculous. As posted already: low side bands = low information rate.
"At one watt, we can cram 7.4 bits into one cycle of a sine wave. At two watts, we can fit 14.8 bits into one cycle of a sine wave, and so on."
How does that work?
The easiest way (to explain) to make it work is to assume that for each period you change the amplitude of the sine wave, e.g. you transmit a sine wave of 1V, 2V, 3V... or 128V. At the receiver you measure the amplitude (number from 1 to 128) and this would allow you to transmit 7 bits. At the same time you can transmit cosine waveforms and play the same trick (another 7 bits). This would be one way to transmit 14 bits/Hz, albeit not what these guys (pretend to) do.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it matters.
The prestige/merits of publishing in a magazine people actually *pay* for is obviously far greater. Because people pay for it they demand a higher quality and selection is tougher. In other words: what is more valuable: something you have to pay for or something you get for free? And no, inherent merits don't count.
I am not saying this is a good thing, just that this is the way (I think) it works.
You will never know what happened, neither will I. The only thing we know is that these eggs were used (let's assume that is true, because even that you cannot know). Everything else is hypothesis and should be treated as such.
Maybe he was to blame, maybe someone else. One way or another unethical stuff happened and the boss takes the blame. Note that this does not necessarily mean his career is over. Just think of German scientists being adopted by the US after WWII. If this guy is really an international authority, he will be back in business in no time.
ANY heating system has a 100% efficiency by definition (*). Difference is that ohmic losses are easy to achieve (put a resistor in the liquid and there you go), while creating microwave energy is no picnic. MAYBE their system has some advantages, but they are clearly not theromodynamical in nature and they are not apparent from the article.
(*)except one creating matter of course.
The line between voluntary and reluctant donation is very vague because it can be assumed that lab workers can easily be put under pressure to donate their eggs. Afterwards it is hard to prove that they did it (in)voluntarily. To avoid this discussion their genetic material should not be used alltogether.
Since Joule we know that energy (e.g. electrical) and heat are equivalent. It doesn't matter how you convert it: bulb,resistor, microwaves...
What does optical interconnect have to do with this? You could already build such a setup now, using e.g. scsi devices. The reason why we don't is because it does not exactly improve reliability. If you have a bad contact at the bottom of the pile everything is lost.
That the fermentation somewhat inhibits new contamination sounds logical, but does not contradict my statement that the water was drinkeable because of being boiled, not because it was fermented. To the best of my knowledge cholera would not have gone away by fermentation.
AFAIK the reason why 'fermented' waters (aka beer) are safe is not because they are fermented but because it was boiled before being fermented. Even in the Middle Ages.
Indeed, moderation is your friend. Except 'funny', of course because that doesn't help your karma a bit.
Yes, estimates are we'll have to bite this bullet somewhere in 2018.
Most likely the target audience doesn't care about that. At the moment they get old/experienced enough to do so they can still install redhat on their machine.
Since aids was initially (afaik) a disease mostly spread under gays, they probably still have a higher percentage of infection and therefore a higher chance of recovering from it, no?
He was on TV yesterday, saying he is the luckiest man on earth and he wants to help others by cooperating with doctors.
However, this is not the point. The point is to prove ANYONE (not only cryptanalyst) that it CAN be broken, though it takes some processing, and there is no alternative for doing.
It is THEIR code. And they are willing to release it in binary form to users, and you want to deprive users of it. If you don't want it, don't use it. If you want to use more hardware 'goodies' than the manufacturerer will let you, hack the card yourself.
Second paragraph:
Furthermore the photo's show that the Socket F (just like the intel socket 775) is equipped with pins making contact with the processor. The CPU will no longer be pinned down into the socket, but the socket is an LGA socket. Meticulous counting showed that the socket F, also called socket 1207, only has 1206 contacts, just like the Socket 479 only had 498. This CPU socket also supports DDR II 533-, 667-, and 800 memory, being AMD's shot at competition with Intel's FB-dimm plans. The latter [Intel] will present its dual-core platform 'Dempsey' in April, with among others the Greenrcreek chipset with FB DIMM support.
this raises an interesting problem: how can you know what part you are fencing in? If you mark a circle with radius 1m, are you fencing in the 'inside' or the 'outside'? Hard to tell since there are no oceans. And what if you put the fence around the equator?
Indeed, wired was wrong. I knew this too, as probably many geeks around here did. But to hold it against them is going a bit too: this is not the kind of vital information that they will start doublechecking immediately. This is no article about debunking urban legends, it is about famous bugs.
Worse: I recall this from memory
Worst: and checked if on the cartoon, pinned on a wall a few offices away.
The problem is that some people mistake their 'insights' for the 'official' religious statement. I had a Christian education in Europe (but I am an agnost now). For me it is incredible to watch American TV priests attributing what THEY think to God. I find this rather pretentious, these men just want to be in the spotlight, they use God (wether He exists or not) for their own agenda.
Sure that this is typical for nerds? I know lots of people, not all of them nerds, that don't like to go to bed in the evening and don't like to come out in the morning. I rather think that nerds may have a higher chance of being single, lacking social control by someone else therefore just derail.
...albeit not for a very long time.
So it matters that the data is error-free.
Your question is a bit unclear to me. In case you mean that the bit rate is 50% of the Shannon capacity and these bits can even be corrupted, the final throughput will obviously be even lower. First of all because some bits will be invalid (and these don't count) and moreover because you even don't know which ones! In the extrenme case the channel has a 50% bit error rate it is perfectly worthless because you could as well toss a coin at the receiver (also 50% chance of being accidentally the same as the bit you transmitted).
Symbols that are indistinguishable will generally not be discarded. Say you transmit 2 bits and either expect a receive signal of (e.g. in volts) 0,1,2 or 3, you could argue that a received '1.51' is hardly convincing. This is exactly where coding comes into play.
Older coding systems (such as Reed-Solomon) decided this counts as a 2 just as much as 1.9999 would have, called 'hard decoding'. Newer techniques use 'soft decoding' and take into account the probability of the decision (so in out example the decoder "wouldn't be so sure" about the 2). You can intuitively see that this will perform better. To exploit this additional knowledge about the 'reliability' of the decisions, some redundancy is added at the transmitter (i.e. some 'logic' is introduced between succesive symbols). Due to noise mistakes will be made at the receiver and the 'logic' will be violated. The receiver will now revise some of its decisions to comply to the logic again, and the best candidates to revise will be the decisions with low reliability. Even though additional redundancy was introduced, there will be an overall gain.
Another real truth is that worldwide THOUSANDS of researchers are investigating digital communications and what these guys have come up with IS NOT NEW. Modulation has reached perfection with OFDM. The only things you can do (imho) to improve bit rates is use improved coding techniques or use multiple antennas (search for 'mimo transmission'). I am not saying that the stuff these people have made will never work, only that it certainly is NOT new or revolutionary. Especially the side band claim is ridiculous. As posted already: low side bands = low information rate.
The easiest way (to explain) to make it work is to assume that for each period you change the amplitude of the sine wave, e.g. you transmit a sine wave of 1V, 2V, 3V... or 128V. At the receiver you measure the amplitude (number from 1 to 128) and this would allow you to transmit 7 bits. At the same time you can transmit cosine waveforms and play the same trick (another 7 bits). This would be one way to transmit 14 bits/Hz, albeit not what these guys (pretend to) do.