How would this make open source less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
1) Download source code instead of binaries. 2) Review source code for "stealth code" 3) Compile.
Lather, rinse, repeat. This is naively simplistic, of course; searching large-ish apps for undesirable code is hard to impossible. But on platforms where OSS is the norm, chances are that someone will try anyway (especially when spyware starts leaving footprints on their firewall). It's our culture.
And for some reason, I'm reminded of a line from the second Harry Potter book: "Never trust something that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain!"
I wonder if it would be possible to screw up their database by submitting a list of the most common quotes and phrases...or maybe just wordlists. Every other paper tested would be plagiarising the English dictionary.
i noticed that no one has commented about these nanobots
Well they're not really nanobots... at least not in the sense that they're manmade, capable of motion, or even controllable.
What these guys have called nanobots are nothing but tiny fragments of microtubules. They "move" about the cell by being pushed around by kinesin proteins coating the membrane surface...kind of like surfing across a big mosh pit.
Our cells contain kinesin molecules that blindly "walk" down the length of microtubules, moving cargo from one part of a cell to another. If anything, these are the real nanobots, since they actually do the moving.
It would have been nice to see the article compare this to the latest technologies in STM (scanning tunneling microscopy).
It doesn't compare. These images are film/CCD captured. What these guys have done is to put flourescent molecules on proteins that "walk" down microtubules. So instead of just seeing the whole microtubule skeleton at once (which you could do with a specific stain), you see a version that "develops" as the proteins traverse it. Yea.
No, it is legal (theoretically, though exceptions can be discovered) to sell any device that may be used for an illegal purpose, so long as it can be demonstrated to have a legal purpose.
Yup...as long as there is significant legal use ("significant" being any measurable level, not a majority), the device isn't illegal. The precedent was set in some old case (anyone recall the details?) where a VCR company was sued because its products were being used to copy movies. The VCR company won, on the basis of significant fair use.
Unfortunately, Napster tried this defense and failed...even though were plenty of people who used Napster to distribute and download public-domain/free music.
Re:Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie..
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 1
just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11.
Reread what Katz wrote. He acknowledges that the movie was delayed three months, so I doubt he thinks the movie was put together in a matter of a couple weeks. And he notes that the movie uses the pre-9/11 characterization of the government: bumbling and ineffective.
To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.
This is a post 9/11 movie. It debuted after 9/11, and addresses the relationship between our government and terrorism. Who cares when it was written? Blackhawk Down is set in the late 90's. If it had been produced before 9/11, it's plot probably would have been the same -- and yet, we have no problem calling it a "post-9/11 genre" film.
The law says if you write it, it's yours automatically.
Not necessarily. Work done under commission is implicitly the property of the employer, not the employee. In the case of beta testing, a software company solicits advice from testers, "paying" them by not charging for use of their software.
And there's nothing illegal about a company using someone else's idea -- unless that idea is patented, copyrighted, or acknowledged as hands-off in a mutual NDA. We see this all the time.
Don't you actually need an appelate court (second instance) to set a precedent? AFAIK, lower courts (first instance) do not set precent unless confirmed later on.
Probably, but i'm not a lawyer either. Or a law student:)
I figure even if the stuff I was referring to doesn't bear legal clout, it's still a warning to UNICOM of what they'll be up against if they move the fight to Texas.
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him
True, the judgement is based on jurisdiction.
But the court goes on to explain why UNICOM wouldn't have a claim to the domain anyway: that a name, phone number, and resume do not make a site "highly commercial", and that Chip was (obviously:) unaware of UNICOM's trademark rights when he registered to the domain name.
So they establish some precedent that would make it very hard for UNICOM to appeal under a different jurisdiction.
Perhaps he *is* dead. Imagine it: this "Dr." Barton figures he has more credibility if Mandelbrot backs his work. So he stages his own little Weekend at Mandelbrot's.
Anyone ever wonder if Stephen Hawking has just been incredibly well-preserved, and all the while, some junior physicist remotely hijacks his wheelchair and voice synthesizer?
There's huge advantages to DVDs that the article overlooks entirely
Not to mention the fact that it costs only $0.02 to stamp out a DVD (it's the same process that creates those damned AOL cds I get in cereal boxes), and they still command a higher price than VHS in stores.
So a 1.5 Gb file is enough to encode an entire human being.
Nope. 3M basepairs, four possible bases per pair. Takes two bits to describe four possible states, and so the unannotated sequence requires 6 billion bits of storage -> 750 billion bytes -> 715.2MB.
And genomic sequences generally aren't very random.... telomeric sequences, satellite DNA, common promoters, copied genes -- all of them can be easily abstracted and compressed out.
I'd expect that even with mapping annotations, the whole shebang would easily fit on a CD-ROM.
In my university no calculators are allowed during exams, and if you're stupid enough to use them in class you don't have much chance of passing the exam (simply because you wont understand)
What university is that shortsighted? True, I can see forbidding a calculator when you're actually testing a student's ability to calculate. When a student is first learning about integrals and matrices and such, they'll appreciate the material more if they get a glimpse under the hood. But it doesn't take that many examples to get there, either.
And when you start dealing with actual math applications instead of the math itself -- as plenty of classes do -- complex or repetitive calculations just get in the way of abstract *thought*. When I'm solving a fluid dynamics problem in a physics class, I'll demonstrate *more* learning by choosing the correct expression to evaluate and letting my calculator handle the integration and unit conversions. And I'll be able to solve more problems in less time, increasing my curriculum exposure.
While calculators are obviously good, lets keep 'em out of school!
It would be really exciting, if thit lets you preserve direction, but it seems to me that combining of the "standing still" and "preserving the direction" is next to impossible.
It'd probably violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If you preserved direction while completely stopping a photon for as long as you wanted, you'd arbitrarily decrease its momentum scalar (you choose the speed of light and therefore introduce real time to a timeless particle). You'd also have all the time in the world to measure its original direction with arbitrary precision (just fire your original photon from a huge distance), and to pinpoint the location of its future emission.
Too much knowledge about both a photon's momentum vector and location = too much knowledge, according to Heisenberg.
But I'm speaking out of pure intuition and not any real physics knowledge, so don't take my word for it.
Actually, i use a different technique Than the one which is taught to be proper - i learned on my own. Almost failed typing class even though I typed faster than the techer
Same here. I learned to type by learning where all of the keys were - so I subconsciously hit keys with whatever fingertip happened to be closest.
Of the dark hues (RGB), green appears brightest to the eye.
But this article refers to resolution, detail - based on the concentration of blue cones on the retina. A person would have more difficulty reading tiny glowing blue text than green... so there's no point in providing that extra detail.
every little region of Germany has its own accent (not unlike England, actually), but the schools teach and enforce a single "correct" pronunciation.
Yup, Hochdeutsch. I grew up in Rheinland-Pfalz, which was notorious for its accent. My school definitely made us aware of the distinction, but I wouldn't say they "enforced" the higher standard.
Slashdot Mirror
How would this make open source less susceptible to hosting a stealth component, or how would this prevent stealth components from piggy backing during an installation?
1) Download source code instead of binaries.
2) Review source code for "stealth code"
3) Compile.
Lather, rinse, repeat. This is naively simplistic, of course; searching large-ish apps for undesirable code is hard to impossible. But on platforms where OSS is the norm, chances are that someone will try anyway (especially when spyware starts leaving footprints on their firewall). It's our culture.
And for some reason, I'm reminded of a line from the second Harry Potter book: "Never trust something that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain!"
I wonder if it would be possible to screw up their database by submitting a list of the most common quotes and phrases...or maybe just wordlists. Every other paper tested would be plagiarising the English dictionary.
What these guys have done is to put flourescent molecules on proteins that "walk" down microtubules.
I got that backwards. See my earlier post. Flourescent microtubule fragments are randomly pushed around on a fixed surface of kinesin.
i noticed that no one has commented about these nanobots
Well they're not really nanobots... at least not in the sense that they're manmade, capable of motion, or even controllable.
What these guys have called nanobots are nothing but tiny fragments of microtubules. They "move" about the cell by being pushed around by kinesin proteins coating the membrane surface...kind of like surfing across a big mosh pit.
Our cells contain kinesin molecules that blindly "walk" down the length of microtubules, moving cargo from one part of a cell to another. If anything, these are the real nanobots, since they actually do the moving.
It would have been nice to see the article compare this to the latest technologies in STM (scanning tunneling microscopy).
It doesn't compare. These images are film/CCD captured. What these guys have done is to put flourescent molecules on proteins that "walk" down microtubules. So instead of just seeing the whole microtubule skeleton at once (which you could do with a specific stain), you see a version that "develops" as the proteins traverse it. Yea.
> moissanite
:)
(fx:googles) Oh. Ok, I take back what I said about it not being found naturally.
I actually don't know whether moissanite is natural or not.
I always assumed it was synthetic.
So I wasn't trying to make a point or anything with that post...I was just proud of myself for remembering the name for silicon carbide
silicon carbide
Ah, moissanite. 9.3 on the Moh's scale, if I remember correctly.
No, it is legal (theoretically, though exceptions can be discovered) to sell any device that may be used for an illegal purpose, so long as it can be demonstrated to have a legal purpose.
Yup...as long as there is significant legal use ("significant" being any measurable level, not a majority), the device isn't illegal. The precedent was set in some old case (anyone recall the details?) where a VCR company was sued because its products were being used to copy movies. The VCR company won, on the basis of significant fair use.
Unfortunately, Napster tried this defense and failed...even though were plenty of people who used Napster to distribute and download public-domain/free music.
just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11.
Reread what Katz wrote. He acknowledges that the movie was delayed three months, so I doubt he thinks the movie was put together in a matter of a couple weeks. And he notes that the movie uses the pre-9/11 characterization of the government: bumbling and ineffective.
To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.
This is a post 9/11 movie. It debuted after 9/11, and addresses the relationship between our government and terrorism. Who cares when it was written? Blackhawk Down is set in the late 90's. If it had been produced before 9/11, it's plot probably would have been the same -- and yet, we have no problem calling it a "post-9/11 genre" film.
I am.
I'm not really a lawyer, and I thought I had posted this anonymously.
So much for that attempt at humor. Sorry guys.
We are not lawyers.
I am.
The law says if you write it, it's yours automatically.
Not necessarily. Work done under commission is implicitly the property of the employer, not the employee. In the case of beta testing, a software company solicits advice from testers, "paying" them by not charging for use of their software.
And there's nothing illegal about a company using someone else's idea -- unless that idea is patented, copyrighted, or acknowledged as hands-off in a mutual NDA. We see this all the time.
will be a NEC MobilePro 880
I'd go with a Sony PictureBook. Though it costs a little more (mine was $1200 new), it weighs less and doesn't force you to use Windows CE.
Don't you actually need an appelate court (second instance) to set a precedent? AFAIK, lower courts (first instance) do not set precent unless confirmed later on.
:)
Probably, but i'm not a lawyer either. Or a law student
I figure even if the stuff I was referring to doesn't bear legal clout, it's still a warning to UNICOM of what they'll be up against if they move the fight to Texas.
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him
:) unaware of UNICOM's trademark rights when he registered to the domain name.
True, the judgement is based on jurisdiction.
But the court goes on to explain why UNICOM wouldn't have a claim to the domain anyway: that a name, phone number, and resume do not make a site "highly commercial", and that Chip was (obviously
So they establish some precedent that would make it very hard for UNICOM to appeal under a different jurisdiction.
Of course, he wishes he were dead. }:-> .
;)
Perhaps he *is* dead. Imagine it: this "Dr." Barton figures he has more credibility if Mandelbrot backs his work. So he stages his own little Weekend at Mandelbrot's.
Anyone ever wonder if Stephen Hawking has just been incredibly well-preserved, and all the while, some junior physicist remotely hijacks his wheelchair and voice synthesizer?
Talk about morbid paranoia
There's huge advantages to DVDs that the article overlooks entirely
Not to mention the fact that it costs only $0.02 to stamp out a DVD (it's the same process that creates those damned AOL cds I get in cereal boxes), and they still command a higher price than VHS in stores.
I miss Beagle Bros. I remember having their giant chart of peeks and pokes on my wall... man, that was useful.
So a 1.5 Gb file is enough to encode an entire human being.
Nope. 3M basepairs, four possible bases per pair. Takes two bits to describe four possible states, and so the unannotated sequence requires 6 billion bits of storage -> 750 billion bytes -> 715.2MB.
And genomic sequences generally aren't very random.... telomeric sequences, satellite DNA, common promoters, copied genes -- all of them can be easily abstracted and compressed out.
I'd expect that even with mapping annotations, the whole shebang would easily fit on a CD-ROM.
In my university no calculators are allowed during exams, and if you're stupid enough to use them in class you don't have much chance of passing the exam (simply because you wont understand)
What university is that shortsighted? True, I can see forbidding a calculator when you're actually testing a student's ability to calculate. When a student is first learning about integrals and matrices and such, they'll appreciate the material more if they get a glimpse under the hood. But it doesn't take that many examples to get there, either.
And when you start dealing with actual math applications instead of the math itself -- as plenty of classes do -- complex or repetitive calculations just get in the way of abstract *thought*. When I'm solving a fluid dynamics problem in a physics class, I'll demonstrate *more* learning by choosing the correct expression to evaluate and letting my calculator handle the integration and unit conversions. And I'll be able to solve more problems in less time, increasing my curriculum exposure.
While calculators are obviously good, lets keep 'em out of school!
Nice contradiction.
It would be really exciting, if thit lets you preserve direction, but it seems to me that combining of the "standing still" and "preserving the direction" is next to impossible.
It'd probably violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If you preserved direction while completely stopping a photon for as long as you wanted, you'd arbitrarily decrease its momentum scalar (you choose the speed of light and therefore introduce real time to a timeless particle). You'd also have all the time in the world to measure its original direction with arbitrary precision (just fire your original photon from a huge distance), and to pinpoint the location of its future emission.
Too much knowledge about both a photon's momentum vector and location = too much knowledge, according to Heisenberg.
But I'm speaking out of pure intuition and not any real physics knowledge, so don't take my word for it.
Actually, i use a different technique Than the one which is taught to be proper - i learned on my own. Almost failed typing class even though I typed faster than the techer
Same here. I learned to type by learning where all of the keys were - so I subconsciously hit keys with whatever fingertip happened to be closest.
The whole "home key" thing just killed my rate.
i thought its green..
Of the dark hues (RGB), green appears brightest to the eye.
But this article refers to resolution, detail - based on the concentration of blue cones on the retina. A person would have more difficulty reading tiny glowing blue text than green... so there's no point in providing that extra detail.
Make me a wireless one, and I'll pay you $50 for it.
Yeah, and you'll be paying that every month for batteries.
every little region of Germany has its own accent (not unlike England, actually), but the schools teach and enforce a single "correct" pronunciation.
Yup, Hochdeutsch. I grew up in Rheinland-Pfalz, which was notorious for its accent. My school definitely made us aware of the distinction, but I wouldn't say they "enforced" the higher standard.