In case you have no clue what "Sarbanes-Oxley" is, you can check out official info and the Wikipedia article. Basically it is a set of laws that place limits on what companies (and those working for them, especially upper management) can do. This has mostly to do with declaring assets and transfers of money. It tries to prevent companies from defrauding investors and so on. These laws were enacted after the Enron scandal.
Wasabi's complaint is that under these laws, you have to declare all assets, including intellectual property. Their rationale is that using open-source software, you may be in violation of the law if you do not review and declare that usage.
As was pointed out last time this was discussed on slashdot, a company would only be in trouble if they were already doing something illegal: violating the GPL. If you violate the GPL, then you're misrepresenting your ownership of IP (claiming to have a license you don't), and thus are also violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
So what's the problem? If a company follows the GPL, then everything is fine. They have nothing to worry about. If they violate the GPL, then they're breaking multiple laws. So, as always, companies should make sure that what they are doing is legal. This in no way diminishes the extent to which GPL software can be used in commercial environments. Wasabi acts as if there is some tremendous additional legal burden to using GPL software. However it seems that Sarbanes-Oxley would equally apply if you mis-represented your ownership of non-GPL software. So there's no difference. (You can read the Software Freedom Law Center white paper for a more complete explanation.)
How different is it (live webcast) from a recorded viewing?
Actually apparently these are not even live. They are recorded daily and rebroadcast. From TFA: Thom uses a webcam to record a nightly performance before broadcasting it on the net later in the evening. (Emphasis added.)
So actually this is just drumming up support by webcasting performances you do in your basement. Still a good idea, but as you say this is no substitute for going to a live show. Sure you save the costs of going on tour, but real music lovers will be much more willing to spend money on a live show, as compared to a low-resolution webcast.
A more interesting concept would be an actual live webcast with some measure of user-feedback. Maybe pre or post online chats/interviews with the band members? Maybe the band could take live requests? Maybe the band could adjust their performance based on the number of viewers and the demographics? ("I see alot of people logging in from London... welcome! This one is for you...").
No, the 7 million canadian guns figure is total estimate (the declared # is lower, but I don't know what it is). So you have to compare registered-to-registered, or compare total-estimate to total-estimate (I did the latter). This page indicates 0.25 guns per capita in Canada and 0.82 guns per capita in the US (one would hope they used fair and equivalent numbers to come up with those figures... but who knows).
But that wasn't my point anyway. The number of guns per capita in Canada and the US may very well be exactly the same. That would not suprise me much at all. If anyone has links to hard stats, I'd be interested in reading them. However, in all cases the number of guns per capita (from what I can see) is less than 1.000, and that was my point. To suggest that there are "more guns than people" is sensationalist.
I went to pains to point out that the numbers I quote are subject to varying interpretations. Please double check them yourself. In any case, my post was not a gun-control rant... it was a "I dislike sensationalist statements" rant... nothing more.
"Bowling for Columbine" tried to make a point like that, but is it valid?
I'm not convined that there are "more guns than people in Canada." The population of Canada is 32 million. The number of guns is difficult to determine, but is in the range of 7 to 11 million (corroborated here, and numbers of 7-16 million are used in some official canadian government rhetoric). That's alot of guns... but not more guns that people. It's 0.28 guns per person, on average.
Those stats are debatable, of course. Estimating such things is hard. I also fully acknowledge that the websites I pointed to are not especially trustworthy sources (some are about gun-control, hence they will typically use the biggest stat for number of guns to make their point). However, the take-home message is that, indeed, there are lots of guns both in Canada and in the United States, yet the number of gun-related deaths (per person) in the US seems worse than in Canada. This is the point that "Bowling for Columbine" was trying to make... however it is a great exagerration to say that there are "more guns than people" in Canada.
those areas without lamp posts (unpopulated areas) will not receive any coverage
You'd be hard-pressed to find a place in Toronto that is not within 20m of a lamp post. Seriously, take a quick look. Even if this initiative is meant to include the "greater toronto area" (i.e. the city and its suburbs), every home will still be close enough to a lamp post. So there may be a few parks in the suburbs where you can't get WiFi at the centre of the park... but that's about it.
Of course, this is all assuming that they actually put a WiFi station or repeater in 1/5 of all lamp posts. Toronto is huge and frankly I can't imagine how expensive it will be to add all that hardware. Some manufacturer is about to get a sweet contract, that's for sure.
I've heard about this a couple of times now, and I'm not sure what the point of that is. If people using WiFi to goof-off during class is a major problem, then just ban laptops in class... don't ban the WiFi.
Why? Well: 1. Those who would use WiFi during class for non-class things will just use their laptop for playing offline games or whatever anyways, so it doesn't solve much. 2. Those who are actually using their laptop to help learn during class benefit from WiFi. Prof uses a term you don't know? Wikipedia it quickly. Prof refers to last classe's course notes? Download them and take a look. 3. Some students decide not to go to scheduled classes. Whether this is a good or bad idea is up for debate (with a bad prof the time is probably better spent in the library). The point is that this is a university: it's up to the students to attend class if they want. But those students who do not attend class will have their WiFi access suddenly crippled for an hour or two? Unless this restriction is localized to the classroom in question, it's just a needless blocking. If a student is skipping a class to work on something more urgent, and their WiFi doesn't work during that time period, that's annoying. (Yes they can try to find an ethernet jack I guess... but then what's the point of having the WiFi infrastructure?)
In my opinion if you're going to have campus-wide WiFi and you're going to allow students to use laptops in class, then just deal with the consequences. Force students to grow up and use the technology properly. If they are disrupting a class, then ask them to leave. If they are just wasting their own time, then that's their problem: their marks will be a reflection of the wisdom of their choices.
The problem is that the Office XML format allows for (among other things) embedding binary data. So critical parts of a document could still be wrapped up in a complicated, obfuscated way, requiring reverse-engineering and so forth (or possibly even being "off limits" entirely, depending on patents and so forth).
The ODF is entirely different, since the specification is clear that no such binary data is allowed. As often happens, the MS offering has the appearance of satisfying a need ("open and accessible!") while not actually delivering on the promise.
new Office XML specifications are freely available for anyone to download and Microsoft offers perpetual, royalty-free licenses to use them
Even if that's true, apparently the way it is worded, nothing prevents MS from releasing a derivative of their format with new licensing terms. So people will get locked into an upgrade path that at first has no costs, but eventually does. ODF on the other hand is committed to keeping the standard free.
OASIS is much more independant and impartial than MS will ever be, and I'm much more comfortable trusting them. The OpenDocument format is very clearly open and readable, meaning anyone in the future will be able to read/write the documents easily (and without paying royalties). The same cannot be said for the new Office XML. In that case, you're just trading one locked-down format for another. The question should be: "If we're going to the bother of switching to a new format, why not select the one that offers us the most accessibility and flexibility down the road?" And the answer is: "you should switch to ODF." I have no doubt that MS Word will read/write ODF witin a few years.
That's certainly worth worrying about. I'm not 100% sure here, but I think that the ODF will be administered in such a way that if you want to claim "OpenDocument compliant" on your product, you have to implement the standard fully and properly. Improper implementations can of course be produced (since the spec is openly published), but they will not be able to state/claim "OpenDocument compliant." (This can be protected with trademark law, etc.) It should be noted, however, that the standard clearly states that there will be no fees required to use it.
The OASIS faq states that "The OpenDocument format is owned by OASIS, a non-profit consortium dedicated to the open development of public XML standards." So I think they will use legal means to protect the "OpenDocument" format name from being mis-used, while allowing free implementation of the format by anyone desiring to do it properly.
If you RTFA, you'll see: The ODF Alliance was first proposed by IBM...
If you look at the list of supporters, you'll see IBM, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, Oracle, etc. The open-document format does indeed have the backing of some big companies. The fact that MS doesn't want to support will slow adoption, but there is still a significant push for this format (as the very existence of this Alliance attests to).
many corporations offer their products at a substantial discount to Educational Institution
Yes, for academic institutes, the money savings of OSS may be less significant. Then again, perhaps support contracts from OSS vendors (Red Hat, etc.) also have educational discounts? I don't really know.
So, from an education point of view, what are the these benefits that OSS offers which need to be out weighed?
You've only mentioned money. Well, for education, I would think the ability to modify, tinker and truly control the computer would be crucial (assuming that learning about how computers work is an objective... as opposed to just memorizing how to use particular applications). Again when it comes to learning, it's useful to experience a wide variety of different ideas, concepts and ways of working. F/OSS makes it possible to do this quickly and easily (and without spending tons of money): new software versions or OS distros can be downloaded and run readily. Also, F/OSS fits in much more nicely with the academic ethos of learning, sharing information, etc. (some institutes may be too pragmatic to care, mind you).
F/OSS provides numerous advantages, cost being only one of them. I think that academic institutions in particular stand to take advantage of what OSS has to offer.
It's not just you. When Apple released the news about the iMac and the MacBook Pro, Apple stock (AAPL; Nasdaq) rose about 8% during the speech! It was funny to watch the stock soar with every sentence that came out of Steeve's mouth.
This time around, however, the stock dropped 3% since today's opening price (as of 2:45pm EST anyways). I think this time around people are less impressed. It's now "business as usual" for Apple to be deliver new products in a timely fashion (everyone expected the mini to arrive). Most of the new stuff (the leather carrying case and the boombox) actually point to the fact that sales of ipods will not last forever, and so they are trying to capitalize on side-products related to the ipods. While this means some short-term gains, it is clear that they cannot continue selling ipods (and accessories) at the current rate forever.
I wouldn't say I'm underwhelmed, but this announcement was certainly not the amazing news that the intel-switch or the MacBook Pro release were.
Well such an idea sounds reasonable enough. In fact in Richard Feynman's "plenty of room at the bottom" famous speech, he describes something similar: building small machines that are then used to build even smaller machines, until finally you have atomic-scale machines. This speech is considered by many to be the "original idea" for nanotechnology.
So why don't we have nanobots yet? Well it turns out its a little more complicated than that. The basic problem is that designs for large-scale robots do not work at smaller scales. You can take macroscopic engineering principles and scale them up or down to a point, but eventually they break down. The design of a 200ft long bridge is not just a 4X scale version of a 50ft bridge, after all.
If you read Drexler's technical book on the subject (Nanosystems) he goes into detail on how various properties (strength, elasticity, conductivity) scale down to the nano realm. Some of them scale favorably, whereas others do not. Thus nano-scale robots will not merely be "small versions" of macro robots. For instance the viscosity of a liquid becomes much more important than gravity, at small scales (whereas at large scales dealing with inertia and gravity are important).
My point is that robots cannot simply build exact (but smaller) copies of themselves. The half-sized robots will be useless within a generation or two, and will require new designs, optimized for that size. (Added to that, robot designs that are self-replicating are not trivial to begin with, at any size-scale!)
Both Wikipedia and Britannica have errors in them (some are factual, some are poorly worded sentences, etc.). It turns out that for scientific content, Wikipedia is more reliable (I wouldn't be surprised if, for highly controversial topics in politics and religion, Britannica has fewer errors per entry than Wikipedia, on the other hand).
But the most important point that people should take away from this is that no source is infallible. People have to stop believing that perfect sources exist. You should consider every source of information as fallible, and double-check any facts that sound suspicious or out-of-the ordinary. For truly obscure facts, you should be doubly vigilant to obtain multiple sources. This is not new to the internet age, either. When doing research, using only a single source is very sloppy... and it always has been.
I think too many people simply accept what they are told without questioning it (witness the number of patently false emails that get forwarded). On the other hand, once you are preparred to intelligently contextualize the data you get from sources, then flawed sources like Wikipedia and Britannica become extremely useful ways of getting the information you need.
Although the encryption scheme itself just uses a classical key, the transmission of the key is done over a public channel using a quantum trick. Normally you would be crazy to just transmit the key over a public channel, but by using entangled particles (photons or whatever), you have a mathematically and physically rigorous proof that the transmission was sent without being intercepted. Thus, you know that the end-party received the key without anyone else getting a copy. If some third party does manage to evesdrop, you'll know about it (because of the way quantum entanglement works), and you'll discard the key and create a new one (and repeat as many times as needed until you're satisfied that the key is secure). Yes I'm very much glossing over the details...
The point is that the secure transmission of the key is a uniquely quantum event. You would not be able to do this without using entangled particle pairs. That's why it is a "classical encryption/quantum key transmission scheme" or "quantum cryptography" for short. I won't argue that calling it "quantum cryptography" is over-simplifying the issue, but saying that "it's just classical encryption using a quantum transmission" misses a key point: the quantum transmission is what guarantees that the key distribution is secure! Without that security, the "cryptography" isn't cryptography at all.
I think you're confusing quantum computing (which is still mostly theoretical... the largest experimental proof has only involved a few qbits, and for all we know a full-fledged computer will be impractical) and quantum cryptography, which actually has been experimentally demonstrated.
Amazing as it may sound, researchers have used commercially available fiber-optics to send quantum encrypted signals. There are even companies that will sell devices, although right now the tech is not quite ready for prime-time. Still, it has been shown in a laboratory many times, and it's not fanciful to say that it may be deployed within our lifetimes (just depends on when the technology becomes affordable, compared to its benefits).
Also, as others have pointed out, this new result actually doesn't show that quantum crypto is breakable... it only shows that under some circustances the eveasdropper can remain anonymous... but the users of the channel will still know that it has been compromised, and will thus not use the keys that have been generated. That is, quantum crypto is still mathematically unbreakable when properly implemented (assuming that Quantum Mechanics is correct, that is).
Yes but the idea is obviously to encourage the "good guys" to find and report the holes before the "bad guys" find out about them. Most people would not trade security holes for cash on the black market, but they would certainly deliver them to a security company for pay.
I know what you're getting at, but I don't think anyone should feel shafted in this case. First off, in the world of electronics/computers, you know that something better will come out in the future (or conversely that the device you are buying will be cheaper in the future). Does that mean you should wait? Well, not really (otherwise you'll wait forever). If you want the device, you pay a premium to have it now (and not six months from now). That's normal.
Also, remember that Apple was clear when they released the last iPod. They said: "it's an iPod, it stores lots of music... and it has some video-out capabilities." They were careful not to call it a "video iPod" and were very clear about what it could (and could not) do. I don't think their intention was to have everyone buy new iPods (although clearly those geeks who always need the latest toy may have bought the new version even though they already had an iPod). The intention was to upgrade the iPod to a new version with better features... which is what they've always done (colour screens, bigger drives, etc.).
At the end of the day, each consumer has to look at the specs of the device they are thinking of buying, and decide if they want it (and if they are willing to pay). That a better version of the device may come out one day is almost a given.
Previous slashdot stories covered rumours about a possible upcoming Apple tablet (see here and here). However, perhaps what was really going on was that Apple was putting in place patents related to this device.
Look at the patents in question.
US Design Patent No. D504,899, filed on May 10, 2005, looks like a patent for the design of an Apple tablet. Yet, perhaps they refrained from calling it a tablet in the patent (they call it "an electronic device") because they actually want it to cover the (much smaller) design of the video iPod.
US Patent Application No. 20060026536, filed Jan 30, 2005, is called "Gestures for touch sensitive input devices," and the images very clearly show a device that looks like a full-screen ipod with overlayed "touchwheel" (check out this news item for commentary and images.
What I'm getting at is this: ThinkSecret may very well be right (again!). The fact that these patents were filed shows that they are working on this kind of device. I think these patent applications strongly support the notion that Apple is going to try to release a next-gen device with touch-screen based input. Sounds like a cool device.
Be honest and matter-of-fact about it. Tell them the truth and hope that they are smart enough to realize how this will help the company.
You can say impressive things without lying. For instance, you can say (if it happens to be true): "I trust Linux for my home computer and all my important files." That alone means alot. Or you can say "if I were asked to place a $1000 bet on a computer OS that would run without getting infected with viruses or crashing for a whole year (while connected to the net!) I would place the bet on Linux instead of Windows."
Or, you can point out other projects/companies. For instance, according to top500.org, in 2005, 390 of the top 500 super-computers were using Linux. That means that 78% of super-computers run Linux.
For instance, the world's most powerful computer is IBM Blue Gene, and it uses Linux for its I/O nodes (more info here). Also, Google's gigantic, powerful, and distributed search engine runs using over 60,000 Linux machines (more info here, here, and on Google's Research page). The fact that big, complicated, and highly successful operations use Linux shows what it can do. In the case of Google, it shows that they trust it to deliver the security they need.
You can urge them to get a second opinion. For instance, tell them to look over Secunia's report on Windows XP compared to Ubuntu 5.10.
Ultimately, however, all you can do is provide them with an honest assessment of Linux' strengths and weaknesses, and point out in what ways the media reports are wrong. If they respect your opinion, then they'll make the right choice. If they refuse to listen to reason, then there is nothing you can do. People who are more interested in media sound-bites than expert discussion are essentially impossible to convince of anything they don't already believe. Don't waste your time, and don't buy company stock.
All black holes emit Hawking radiation, which is essentially black-body radiation (the object is trying to come into thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe, so is emitting/absorbing radiation to do so). The origin of Hawking radiation is vacuum pair production, if anyone is interested. This radiation causes the black-hole to slowly "evaporate." The temperature (hence rate of evaporation) is inversely proportional to the black-hole mass (hence size).
Micro-black-holes are (obviously) very small. Thus, they evaporate very, very quickly. In fact, they are well below the sustainable threshold, and will evaporate much faster than they accumulate new mass. Also note that these micro-black-holes have quite low mass, hence their graviational attraction is pretty much nill. They are "black holes" because their mass density is infinite, and they are thus a singularity, but nothing about "black holes" definitely implies "consumes matter indefinitely" (this only happens for black holes of sufficient size).
So, no, there is no danger with micro-black-holes eating up the entire Earth. Yes, our current theories may be incorrent (you never know), but if micro-black-holes were able to grow without bound, then you'd expect the universe to be littered with black holes all over the place (which is not the case). Thus there's no reason to worry: the LHC will not gobble up the Earth.
Hell, do we even have the capabilities to smash two high energy protons together?
Well particle accelerators have been smashing high-energy protons together for a long time... but can we smash them hard enough to create micro-black-holes? No.... not yet, anyways. But that's why the Large Hadron Collider is being built! This is the frontier of particle physics.
I'd be interested to know how they intend to measure the micro-black holes.
The LHC has been in the works for a long time, and should come online sometime in 2007. This instrument will be able to probe these questions, and set limits on the possibility of micro-black hole production, as well as extra dimensions.
The reference for the actual scientific paper in question appears to be:
"Black Holes in Many Dimensions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Testing Critical String Theory" JoAnne L. Hewett, Ben Lillie, and Thomas G. Rizzo Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261603 (2005).
We consider black hole production at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in a generic scenario with many extra dimensions where the standard model fields are confined to a brane. With ~20 dimensions the hierarchy problem is shown to be naturally solved without the need for large compactification radii. We find that in such a scenario the properties of black holes can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions, n. In particular, we demonstrate that measurements of the decay distributions of such black holes at the LHC can determine if n is significantly larger than 6 or 7 with high confidence and thus can probe one of the critical properties of string theory compactifications.
My comments (with the usual disclaimer: while I am a scientist, I'm not a particle physicist/string theorist, so I would appreciate any corrections to what I say): This work appears significant. String theory is incredibly elegant and fits in very well with other (experimentally verified) theories (quantum field theory, etc.). However, what string theory has always lacked, is experimental backup. The fact that there may be a way to experimentally test one of its predictions/requirements (that of extra dimensions) is truly significant, and will allow these fundamental theories to be advanced way beyond their current speculative nature.
As I understand it, one of the current "problems" in string theory is an over-abundance of theories. There are millions (perhaps even an infinite number) of theory-variants that are all consistent with the current string-theory formalism. Of course only one (or possibly zero) of the theories is right. An experimental test would (I hope!) help pick out which theory variant is the right one... or perhaps tell us that string theory is completely wrong! Either way it's a good thing for science and I look forward to this test being performed at the LHC.
What you say is true. However Linus has ideals too. In TFA he says "the point of the GPL is not the 'convert the infidels' logic, but something totally different: 'quid pro quo.' "
The GPL 3 is anti-DRM in a big way, and Linus doesn't agree with that, fair enough. However another aspect of it is to prevent someone from taking GPL code, and designing a hardware/software combo that will only run using unmodified versions of the code. In such an instance, they use GPL code, but their modifications are useless to the rest of the world because we can't modify their version and run it on the device. Basically they break Linus' "quid pro quo" rule. Thus part of what GPL 3 is trying to do is exactly what Linus says he believes in.
I personally think the GPL 3, as it stands, needs some revisions before being finalized. Linus is a smart man and has pointed out one of the very real problems with the current draft. But to suggest that Linus is just an engineer, with no ideological concerns whatsoever is not quite right. He's not the zealot that RMS is, but he still has (legitimate) moral concerns (otherwise he wouldn't care what license gets used). As should we all, frankly.
Yes, this distinction is important. The way the GPL 3 is worded, from what I can tell, it's trying to say: "you can't design GPL-ed software to run on a device that will not accept modified versions of the software. If you design such a device/software combo, you must release the keys so that anyone can run modified code on your device. On the other hand, if the modified software can run properly on the usual device without those private keys, then you don't have to release the keys."
It's this last sentenct of my paraphrase (in bold) that is not adequately clear in the current version of the GPL 3. What I wrote above in quotes is what the GPL 3 is trying to say in legalese (I think), but the way it is currently worded, Linus is worried that it will mean that signed (trusted) binaries will not be allowed.
Of course, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that we are reading a DRAFT of the GPL 3. So if there's something that isn't quite right, now is the time to fix it! Get involved in the discussion and tell those who are working on the GPL 3 that the wording needs fixing to make sure that it acts as intended. Linus is saying publicly that he doesn't like the way it is currently worded... but I wish he would emphasize "I think it should be reworded before the final release of GPL 3" rather than saying "I won't use GPL 3"... after all, he doesn't even know what the (final) GPL 3 will be like!
To summarize: the GPL 3 is currently a draft only. Let's get it fixed to avoid any problems in the future. I agree with RMS that it should not be possible to create a device/software combo based on GPL-code where no one is able to modify the code (and the code only makes sense in the context of the device it was made for). On the other hand I agree with Linus that we should not have a GPL that forbids signed/trusted binaries. It is possible to write a license that clearly differentiates these two cases... so let's do it!
Are you considering (or have you already implemented) some sort of official partnership with academic institutions (universities, research institutes, etc.). Such institutes of course have many knowledgeable experts who are accustomed to performing peer-review. Have you ever considered approaching, for instance, a particular department at a particular university, and asking the faculty to review their subject area(s) of expertise, and provide feedback and corrections.
If so, do you intend to have their edits/suggestions be treated identically to any other Wikipedia user, or would you give their input special status (as "experts").
If nothing of the sort is underway, what do you think of this idea? Does a more direct (and official/public) involvement of such institutes sound like a good idea? Thought?
(Note: Yes I'm well aware that a great deal of the content in many subject areas, especially sciences, already comes from these very academics... my question regardings making the partnerships more official, in order to encourage faculty who may not be aware of Wikipedia to contribute, and also to lend their "expert seal of approval" to a particular version of an article.)
Slashdot Mirror
In case you have no clue what "Sarbanes-Oxley" is, you can check out official info and the Wikipedia article. Basically it is a set of laws that place limits on what companies (and those working for them, especially upper management) can do. This has mostly to do with declaring assets and transfers of money. It tries to prevent companies from defrauding investors and so on. These laws were enacted after the Enron scandal.
Wasabi's complaint is that under these laws, you have to declare all assets, including intellectual property. Their rationale is that using open-source software, you may be in violation of the law if you do not review and declare that usage.
As was pointed out last time this was discussed on slashdot, a company would only be in trouble if they were already doing something illegal: violating the GPL. If you violate the GPL, then you're misrepresenting your ownership of IP (claiming to have a license you don't), and thus are also violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
So what's the problem? If a company follows the GPL, then everything is fine. They have nothing to worry about. If they violate the GPL, then they're breaking multiple laws. So, as always, companies should make sure that what they are doing is legal. This in no way diminishes the extent to which GPL software can be used in commercial environments. Wasabi acts as if there is some tremendous additional legal burden to using GPL software. However it seems that Sarbanes-Oxley would equally apply if you mis-represented your ownership of non-GPL software. So there's no difference. (You can read the Software Freedom Law Center white paper for a more complete explanation.)
How different is it (live webcast) from a recorded viewing?
Actually apparently these are not even live. They are recorded daily and rebroadcast. From TFA:
Thom uses a webcam to record a nightly performance before broadcasting it on the net later in the evening. (Emphasis added.)
So actually this is just drumming up support by webcasting performances you do in your basement. Still a good idea, but as you say this is no substitute for going to a live show. Sure you save the costs of going on tour, but real music lovers will be much more willing to spend money on a live show, as compared to a low-resolution webcast.
A more interesting concept would be an actual live webcast with some measure of user-feedback. Maybe pre or post online chats/interviews with the band members? Maybe the band could take live requests? Maybe the band could adjust their performance based on the number of viewers and the demographics? ("I see alot of people logging in from London... welcome! This one is for you...").
No, the 7 million canadian guns figure is total estimate (the declared # is lower, but I don't know what it is). So you have to compare registered-to-registered, or compare total-estimate to total-estimate (I did the latter). This page indicates 0.25 guns per capita in Canada and 0.82 guns per capita in the US (one would hope they used fair and equivalent numbers to come up with those figures... but who knows).
But that wasn't my point anyway. The number of guns per capita in Canada and the US may very well be exactly the same. That would not suprise me much at all. If anyone has links to hard stats, I'd be interested in reading them. However, in all cases the number of guns per capita (from what I can see) is less than 1.000, and that was my point. To suggest that there are "more guns than people" is sensationalist.
I went to pains to point out that the numbers I quote are subject to varying interpretations. Please double check them yourself. In any case, my post was not a gun-control rant... it was a "I dislike sensationalist statements" rant... nothing more.
"Bowling for Columbine" tried to make a point like that, but is it valid?
I'm not convined that there are "more guns than people in Canada." The population of Canada is 32 million. The number of guns is difficult to determine, but is in the range of 7 to 11 million (corroborated here, and numbers of 7-16 million are used in some official canadian government rhetoric). That's alot of guns... but not more guns that people. It's 0.28 guns per person, on average.
The population of the US is about 295 million. The number of guns in the US (also hard to estimate) is, according to one estimatem, around 200 million (corroborated here, although that includes estimates of undeclared guns; a different site indicates at least 60 million declared guns). That's 0.68 guns per person, on average.
Those stats are debatable, of course. Estimating such things is hard. I also fully acknowledge that the websites I pointed to are not especially trustworthy sources (some are about gun-control, hence they will typically use the biggest stat for number of guns to make their point). However, the take-home message is that, indeed, there are lots of guns both in Canada and in the United States, yet the number of gun-related deaths (per person) in the US seems worse than in Canada. This is the point that "Bowling for Columbine" was trying to make... however it is a great exagerration to say that there are "more guns than people" in Canada.
those areas without lamp posts (unpopulated areas) will not receive any coverage
You'd be hard-pressed to find a place in Toronto that is not within 20m of a lamp post. Seriously, take a quick look. Even if this initiative is meant to include the "greater toronto area" (i.e. the city and its suburbs), every home will still be close enough to a lamp post. So there may be a few parks in the suburbs where you can't get WiFi at the centre of the park... but that's about it.
Of course, this is all assuming that they actually put a WiFi station or repeater in 1/5 of all lamp posts. Toronto is huge and frankly I can't imagine how expensive it will be to add all that hardware. Some manufacturer is about to get a sweet contract, that's for sure.
I've heard about this a couple of times now, and I'm not sure what the point of that is. If people using WiFi to goof-off during class is a major problem, then just ban laptops in class... don't ban the WiFi.
Why? Well:
1. Those who would use WiFi during class for non-class things will just use their laptop for playing offline games or whatever anyways, so it doesn't solve much.
2. Those who are actually using their laptop to help learn during class benefit from WiFi. Prof uses a term you don't know? Wikipedia it quickly. Prof refers to last classe's course notes? Download them and take a look.
3. Some students decide not to go to scheduled classes. Whether this is a good or bad idea is up for debate (with a bad prof the time is probably better spent in the library). The point is that this is a university: it's up to the students to attend class if they want. But those students who do not attend class will have their WiFi access suddenly crippled for an hour or two? Unless this restriction is localized to the classroom in question, it's just a needless blocking. If a student is skipping a class to work on something more urgent, and their WiFi doesn't work during that time period, that's annoying. (Yes they can try to find an ethernet jack I guess... but then what's the point of having the WiFi infrastructure?)
In my opinion if you're going to have campus-wide WiFi and you're going to allow students to use laptops in class, then just deal with the consequences. Force students to grow up and use the technology properly. If they are disrupting a class, then ask them to leave. If they are just wasting their own time, then that's their problem: their marks will be a reflection of the wisdom of their choices.
The problem is that the Office XML format allows for (among other things) embedding binary data. So critical parts of a document could still be wrapped up in a complicated, obfuscated way, requiring reverse-engineering and so forth (or possibly even being "off limits" entirely, depending on patents and so forth).
The ODF is entirely different, since the specification is clear that no such binary data is allowed. As often happens, the MS offering has the appearance of satisfying a need ("open and accessible!") while not actually delivering on the promise.
new Office XML specifications are freely available for anyone to download and Microsoft offers perpetual, royalty-free licenses to use them
Even if that's true, apparently the way it is worded, nothing prevents MS from releasing a derivative of their format with new licensing terms. So people will get locked into an upgrade path that at first has no costs, but eventually does. ODF on the other hand is committed to keeping the standard free.
OASIS is much more independant and impartial than MS will ever be, and I'm much more comfortable trusting them. The OpenDocument format is very clearly open and readable, meaning anyone in the future will be able to read/write the documents easily (and without paying royalties). The same cannot be said for the new Office XML. In that case, you're just trading one locked-down format for another. The question should be: "If we're going to the bother of switching to a new format, why not select the one that offers us the most accessibility and flexibility down the road?" And the answer is: "you should switch to ODF." I have no doubt that MS Word will read/write ODF witin a few years.
That's certainly worth worrying about. I'm not 100% sure here, but I think that the ODF will be administered in such a way that if you want to claim "OpenDocument compliant" on your product, you have to implement the standard fully and properly. Improper implementations can of course be produced (since the spec is openly published), but they will not be able to state/claim "OpenDocument compliant." (This can be protected with trademark law, etc.) It should be noted, however, that the standard clearly states that there will be no fees required to use it.
The OASIS faq states that "The OpenDocument format is owned by OASIS, a non-profit consortium dedicated to the open development of public XML standards." So I think they will use legal means to protect the "OpenDocument" format name from being mis-used, while allowing free implementation of the format by anyone desiring to do it properly.
If you RTFA, you'll see:
The ODF Alliance was first proposed by IBM...
If you look at the list of supporters, you'll see IBM, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, Oracle, etc. The open-document format does indeed have the backing of some big companies. The fact that MS doesn't want to support will slow adoption, but there is still a significant push for this format (as the very existence of this Alliance attests to).
many corporations offer their products at a substantial discount to Educational Institution
Yes, for academic institutes, the money savings of OSS may be less significant. Then again, perhaps support contracts from OSS vendors (Red Hat, etc.) also have educational discounts? I don't really know.
So, from an education point of view, what are the these benefits that OSS offers which need to be out weighed?
You've only mentioned money. Well, for education, I would think the ability to modify, tinker and truly control the computer would be crucial (assuming that learning about how computers work is an objective... as opposed to just memorizing how to use particular applications). Again when it comes to learning, it's useful to experience a wide variety of different ideas, concepts and ways of working. F/OSS makes it possible to do this quickly and easily (and without spending tons of money): new software versions or OS distros can be downloaded and run readily. Also, F/OSS fits in much more nicely with the academic ethos of learning, sharing information, etc. (some institutes may be too pragmatic to care, mind you).
F/OSS provides numerous advantages, cost being only one of them. I think that academic institutions in particular stand to take advantage of what OSS has to offer.
It's not just you. When Apple released the news about the iMac and the MacBook Pro, Apple stock (AAPL; Nasdaq) rose about 8% during the speech! It was funny to watch the stock soar with every sentence that came out of Steeve's mouth.
This time around, however, the stock dropped 3% since today's opening price (as of 2:45pm EST anyways). I think this time around people are less impressed. It's now "business as usual" for Apple to be deliver new products in a timely fashion (everyone expected the mini to arrive). Most of the new stuff (the leather carrying case and the boombox) actually point to the fact that sales of ipods will not last forever, and so they are trying to capitalize on side-products related to the ipods. While this means some short-term gains, it is clear that they cannot continue selling ipods (and accessories) at the current rate forever.
I wouldn't say I'm underwhelmed, but this announcement was certainly not the amazing news that the intel-switch or the MacBook Pro release were.
Well such an idea sounds reasonable enough. In fact in Richard Feynman's "plenty of room at the bottom" famous speech, he describes something similar: building small machines that are then used to build even smaller machines, until finally you have atomic-scale machines. This speech is considered by many to be the "original idea" for nanotechnology.
So why don't we have nanobots yet? Well it turns out its a little more complicated than that. The basic problem is that designs for large-scale robots do not work at smaller scales. You can take macroscopic engineering principles and scale them up or down to a point, but eventually they break down. The design of a 200ft long bridge is not just a 4X scale version of a 50ft bridge, after all.
If you read Drexler's technical book on the subject (Nanosystems) he goes into detail on how various properties (strength, elasticity, conductivity) scale down to the nano realm. Some of them scale favorably, whereas others do not. Thus nano-scale robots will not merely be "small versions" of macro robots. For instance the viscosity of a liquid becomes much more important than gravity, at small scales (whereas at large scales dealing with inertia and gravity are important).
My point is that robots cannot simply build exact (but smaller) copies of themselves. The half-sized robots will be useless within a generation or two, and will require new designs, optimized for that size. (Added to that, robot designs that are self-replicating are not trivial to begin with, at any size-scale!)
Good response. I'll add to your anecedotal description of "Wikipedia vs. Britannica" that a survey performed by the highly respected Nature Magazine found that Wikipedia has fewer errors that Britannica, at least for scientific articles (see slashdot story too).
Both Wikipedia and Britannica have errors in them (some are factual, some are poorly worded sentences, etc.). It turns out that for scientific content, Wikipedia is more reliable (I wouldn't be surprised if, for highly controversial topics in politics and religion, Britannica has fewer errors per entry than Wikipedia, on the other hand).
But the most important point that people should take away from this is that no source is infallible. People have to stop believing that perfect sources exist. You should consider every source of information as fallible, and double-check any facts that sound suspicious or out-of-the ordinary. For truly obscure facts, you should be doubly vigilant to obtain multiple sources. This is not new to the internet age, either. When doing research, using only a single source is very sloppy... and it always has been.
I think too many people simply accept what they are told without questioning it (witness the number of patently false emails that get forwarded). On the other hand, once you are preparred to intelligently contextualize the data you get from sources, then flawed sources like Wikipedia and Britannica become extremely useful ways of getting the information you need.
Although the encryption scheme itself just uses a classical key, the transmission of the key is done over a public channel using a quantum trick. Normally you would be crazy to just transmit the key over a public channel, but by using entangled particles (photons or whatever), you have a mathematically and physically rigorous proof that the transmission was sent without being intercepted. Thus, you know that the end-party received the key without anyone else getting a copy. If some third party does manage to evesdrop, you'll know about it (because of the way quantum entanglement works), and you'll discard the key and create a new one (and repeat as many times as needed until you're satisfied that the key is secure). Yes I'm very much glossing over the details...
The point is that the secure transmission of the key is a uniquely quantum event. You would not be able to do this without using entangled particle pairs. That's why it is a "classical encryption/quantum key transmission scheme" or "quantum cryptography" for short. I won't argue that calling it "quantum cryptography" is over-simplifying the issue, but saying that "it's just classical encryption using a quantum transmission" misses a key point: the quantum transmission is what guarantees that the key distribution is secure! Without that security, the "cryptography" isn't cryptography at all.
I think you're confusing quantum computing (which is still mostly theoretical... the largest experimental proof has only involved a few qbits, and for all we know a full-fledged computer will be impractical) and quantum cryptography, which actually has been experimentally demonstrated.
Amazing as it may sound, researchers have used commercially available fiber-optics to send quantum encrypted signals. There are even companies that will sell devices, although right now the tech is not quite ready for prime-time. Still, it has been shown in a laboratory many times, and it's not fanciful to say that it may be deployed within our lifetimes (just depends on when the technology becomes affordable, compared to its benefits).
Also, as others have pointed out, this new result actually doesn't show that quantum crypto is breakable... it only shows that under some circustances the eveasdropper can remain anonymous... but the users of the channel will still know that it has been compromised, and will thus not use the keys that have been generated. That is, quantum crypto is still mathematically unbreakable when properly implemented (assuming that Quantum Mechanics is correct, that is).
Yes but the idea is obviously to encourage the "good guys" to find and report the holes before the "bad guys" find out about them. Most people would not trade security holes for cash on the black market, but they would certainly deliver them to a security company for pay.
I know what you're getting at, but I don't think anyone should feel shafted in this case. First off, in the world of electronics/computers, you know that something better will come out in the future (or conversely that the device you are buying will be cheaper in the future). Does that mean you should wait? Well, not really (otherwise you'll wait forever). If you want the device, you pay a premium to have it now (and not six months from now). That's normal.
Also, remember that Apple was clear when they released the last iPod. They said: "it's an iPod, it stores lots of music... and it has some video-out capabilities." They were careful not to call it a "video iPod" and were very clear about what it could (and could not) do. I don't think their intention was to have everyone buy new iPods (although clearly those geeks who always need the latest toy may have bought the new version even though they already had an iPod). The intention was to upgrade the iPod to a new version with better features... which is what they've always done (colour screens, bigger drives, etc.).
At the end of the day, each consumer has to look at the specs of the device they are thinking of buying, and decide if they want it (and if they are willing to pay). That a better version of the device may come out one day is almost a given.
Previous slashdot stories covered rumours about a possible upcoming Apple tablet (see here and here). However, perhaps what was really going on was that Apple was putting in place patents related to this device.
Look at the patents in question. US Design Patent No. D504,899, filed on May 10, 2005, looks like a patent for the design of an Apple tablet. Yet, perhaps they refrained from calling it a tablet in the patent (they call it "an electronic device") because they actually want it to cover the (much smaller) design of the video iPod. US Patent Application No. 20060026536, filed Jan 30, 2005, is called "Gestures for touch sensitive input devices," and the images very clearly show a device that looks like a full-screen ipod with overlayed "touchwheel" (check out this news item for commentary and images.
What I'm getting at is this: ThinkSecret may very well be right (again!). The fact that these patents were filed shows that they are working on this kind of device. I think these patent applications strongly support the notion that Apple is going to try to release a next-gen device with touch-screen based input. Sounds like a cool device.
Be honest and matter-of-fact about it. Tell them the truth and hope that they are smart enough to realize how this will help the company.
You can say impressive things without lying. For instance, you can say (if it happens to be true): "I trust Linux for my home computer and all my important files." That alone means alot. Or you can say "if I were asked to place a $1000 bet on a computer OS that would run without getting infected with viruses or crashing for a whole year (while connected to the net!) I would place the bet on Linux instead of Windows."
Or, you can point out other projects/companies. For instance, according to top500.org, in 2005, 390 of the top 500 super-computers were using Linux. That means that 78% of super-computers run Linux. For instance, the world's most powerful computer is IBM Blue Gene, and it uses Linux for its I/O nodes (more info here). Also, Google's gigantic, powerful, and distributed search engine runs using over 60,000 Linux machines (more info here, here, and on Google's Research page). The fact that big, complicated, and highly successful operations use Linux shows what it can do. In the case of Google, it shows that they trust it to deliver the security they need.
You can urge them to get a second opinion. For instance, tell them to look over Secunia's report on Windows XP compared to Ubuntu 5.10.
Ultimately, however, all you can do is provide them with an honest assessment of Linux' strengths and weaknesses, and point out in what ways the media reports are wrong. If they respect your opinion, then they'll make the right choice. If they refuse to listen to reason, then there is nothing you can do. People who are more interested in media sound-bites than expert discussion are essentially impossible to convince of anything they don't already believe. Don't waste your time, and don't buy company stock.
All black holes emit Hawking radiation, which is essentially black-body radiation (the object is trying to come into thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe, so is emitting/absorbing radiation to do so). The origin of Hawking radiation is vacuum pair production, if anyone is interested. This radiation causes the black-hole to slowly "evaporate." The temperature (hence rate of evaporation) is inversely proportional to the black-hole mass (hence size).
Micro-black-holes are (obviously) very small. Thus, they evaporate very, very quickly. In fact, they are well below the sustainable threshold, and will evaporate much faster than they accumulate new mass. Also note that these micro-black-holes have quite low mass, hence their graviational attraction is pretty much nill. They are "black holes" because their mass density is infinite, and they are thus a singularity, but nothing about "black holes" definitely implies "consumes matter indefinitely" (this only happens for black holes of sufficient size).
So, no, there is no danger with micro-black-holes eating up the entire Earth. Yes, our current theories may be incorrent (you never know), but if micro-black-holes were able to grow without bound, then you'd expect the universe to be littered with black holes all over the place (which is not the case). Thus there's no reason to worry: the LHC will not gobble up the Earth.
Hell, do we even have the capabilities to smash two high energy protons together?
... not yet, anyways. But that's why the Large Hadron Collider is being built! This is the frontier of particle physics.
Well particle accelerators have been smashing high-energy protons together for a long time... but can we smash them hard enough to create micro-black-holes? No.
I'd be interested to know how they intend to measure the micro-black holes.
The LHC has been in the works for a long time, and should come online sometime in 2007. This instrument will be able to probe these questions, and set limits on the possibility of micro-black hole production, as well as extra dimensions.
"Black Holes in Many Dimensions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Testing Critical String Theory" JoAnne L. Hewett, Ben Lillie, and Thomas G. Rizzo Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261603 (2005)
For those with access to PRL, the doi for the paper is: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.261603
This is the abstract: For those without access to PRL, you can view a different version of the manuscript on arXiv.
My comments (with the usual disclaimer: while I am a scientist, I'm not a particle physicist/string theorist, so I would appreciate any corrections to what I say): This work appears significant. String theory is incredibly elegant and fits in very well with other (experimentally verified) theories (quantum field theory, etc.). However, what string theory has always lacked, is experimental backup. The fact that there may be a way to experimentally test one of its predictions/requirements (that of extra dimensions) is truly significant, and will allow these fundamental theories to be advanced way beyond their current speculative nature.
As I understand it, one of the current "problems" in string theory is an over-abundance of theories. There are millions (perhaps even an infinite number) of theory-variants that are all consistent with the current string-theory formalism. Of course only one (or possibly zero) of the theories is right. An experimental test would (I hope!) help pick out which theory variant is the right one... or perhaps tell us that string theory is completely wrong! Either way it's a good thing for science and I look forward to this test being performed at the LHC.
What you say is true. However Linus has ideals too. In TFA he says "the point of the GPL is not the 'convert the infidels' logic, but something totally different: 'quid pro quo.' "
The GPL 3 is anti-DRM in a big way, and Linus doesn't agree with that, fair enough. However another aspect of it is to prevent someone from taking GPL code, and designing a hardware/software combo that will only run using unmodified versions of the code. In such an instance, they use GPL code, but their modifications are useless to the rest of the world because we can't modify their version and run it on the device. Basically they break Linus' "quid pro quo" rule. Thus part of what GPL 3 is trying to do is exactly what Linus says he believes in.
I personally think the GPL 3, as it stands, needs some revisions before being finalized. Linus is a smart man and has pointed out one of the very real problems with the current draft. But to suggest that Linus is just an engineer, with no ideological concerns whatsoever is not quite right. He's not the zealot that RMS is, but he still has (legitimate) moral concerns (otherwise he wouldn't care what license gets used). As should we all, frankly.
Yes, this distinction is important. The way the GPL 3 is worded, from what I can tell, it's trying to say: "you can't design GPL-ed software to run on a device that will not accept modified versions of the software. If you design such a device/software combo, you must release the keys so that anyone can run modified code on your device. On the other hand, if the modified software can run properly on the usual device without those private keys, then you don't have to release the keys."
... after all, he doesn't even know what the (final) GPL 3 will be like!
It's this last sentenct of my paraphrase (in bold) that is not adequately clear in the current version of the GPL 3. What I wrote above in quotes is what the GPL 3 is trying to say in legalese (I think), but the way it is currently worded, Linus is worried that it will mean that signed (trusted) binaries will not be allowed.
Of course, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that we are reading a DRAFT of the GPL 3. So if there's something that isn't quite right, now is the time to fix it! Get involved in the discussion and tell those who are working on the GPL 3 that the wording needs fixing to make sure that it acts as intended. Linus is saying publicly that he doesn't like the way it is currently worded... but I wish he would emphasize "I think it should be reworded before the final release of GPL 3" rather than saying "I won't use GPL 3"
To summarize: the GPL 3 is currently a draft only. Let's get it fixed to avoid any problems in the future. I agree with RMS that it should not be possible to create a device/software combo based on GPL-code where no one is able to modify the code (and the code only makes sense in the context of the device it was made for). On the other hand I agree with Linus that we should not have a GPL that forbids signed/trusted binaries. It is possible to write a license that clearly differentiates these two cases... so let's do it!
Are you considering (or have you already implemented) some sort of official partnership with academic institutions (universities, research institutes, etc.). Such institutes of course have many knowledgeable experts who are accustomed to performing peer-review. Have you ever considered approaching, for instance, a particular department at a particular university, and asking the faculty to review their subject area(s) of expertise, and provide feedback and corrections.
If so, do you intend to have their edits/suggestions be treated identically to any other Wikipedia user, or would you give their input special status (as "experts").
If nothing of the sort is underway, what do you think of this idea? Does a more direct (and official/public) involvement of such institutes sound like a good idea? Thought?
(Note: Yes I'm well aware that a great deal of the content in many subject areas, especially sciences, already comes from these very academics... my question regardings making the partnerships more official, in order to encourage faculty who may not be aware of Wikipedia to contribute, and also to lend their "expert seal of approval" to a particular version of an article.)