They were taken with Casio QV-3000EX/Ir digital camera. Unfortunately there's no serial or USB driver for Linux for the camera, so I have to boot to the damned winshit to download the pics (it's actually the only thing I use it for). It would be great if the USB storage driver guys or gPhoto guys would get a driver working at last.
The first panorama was made with the Casio Panorama program; it works under WINE just fine. Two panoramas were done with GIMP. Other pics were brightened with xv. The despecle filter of GIMP helps a little with noisy pictures, but perhaps not enough.
I chose Casio QV-3000 especially for its bright lens (F/2.0) and long exposure time (60s), which are important for astrophotography.
Great, if we now collect the "pieces of Mir" for a few centuries (or millenia), we can probably build a huge (Babylon 5 sized or bigger) space station out of them.
Quite difficult stuff, even for a CS major. Having at least familiarity with automatas and formal languages is recommended, although still far too little.
There's some quite weird stuff in some of his books. I can't say I would recommend reading his stuff without healthy sceptic attitude...
Speaking of Moore's Law, does this mean that in 18 months we'll have scientists promising half-atom transistors?
Naah, they start with Lawrencium 262, then in a few months they kick out a few neutrons and protons to make Fermium 256 (just to make these calculations easier). Then, with 18 month steps: Xenon 128, Zirconium 64, Sulphur 32, Oxygen 16, Beryllium 8 (9 is more stable though), Helium 4, Hydrogen 2, and finally Hydrogen 1 (ehm...a single proton).
Thus, it takes 12 years before they have to go to subatomics!
I get about 3 days using it as a straight PDA, taking notes, calendar, Pocket Word and Excel, even a few games of Solitaire.
I guess you don't keep the iPaq on all the time? Even the official capacity reported by Compaq is just 12 hours with an "average use pattern" (with WinCE).
Deep sleep mode? You mean not switched on?
Yes, I think that's what they mean with "deep sleep".
It seems that the processor has 3 power consumption modes: running, idle, and sleep mode. The processor is usually "idle" most of the time, when the machine is turned on. One table at www.handhelds.org reports some 400mW power consumption (in Linux?) when you do something with it, which would mean about 2-3 hours of use (950mW lithium batteries).
In deep sleep mode the machine uses almost no power at all. Linux can currently be put to sleep, but...eh...the poor penquin can't be awakened from it... 8-o... so you probably have to reset it and lose the DRAM contents (?)...
Linux also currently uses about 20 times more power in deep sleep than WinCE, and 150mW more in idle mode. It seems that they are actively working on these problems.
Disclaimer: I don't know really anything about iPaq, but have been trying to find these facts just to make the decision whether to buy or not.
I've been pondering between Palm III, Vx, and iPaq lately. It's a tough choise. Why? Let's see.
iPaq wins, of course, clearly with about everything except battery time. I'm not sure about exactly how long the iPaq batteries last (they don't mention it anywhere), but I think it's something like 3-4 hours of active use. In deep sleep mode the batteries last a few days (?), I think, except with Linux they last only about 8 hours because of problems with the sleep mode.
It that's true, it effectively makes iPaq at least very troublesome, or actually useless. No taking iPaq to work without the cradle, or to long lectures, or even to a local LUG or PUG meeting. No thanks, I need a real PDA, not a toy. Palms last for weeks (or at least days).
After that, the 32 MB DRAM, where your DOOM port and other cool stuff were installed, goes empty, right? Useful, eh?
The important stuff can, of course, be stored in the Flash ROM. But, you have to store the damn operating system there too! Thus, with 32+16MB memory, you end up with maybe a few MBs of permanent user memory.
Of course, if you fail the bootloader installation (for Linux), you have a nice new $500 paperweight (well, ok, I think Compaq will fix it, but I guess that takes weeks if not months?).
Besides, it's (1) immoral to buy Microsoft garbage, (2) insane to buy it when you don't even want it, and actually throw it away permanently in the first day (after using it to load Linux). Well, I guess it has to be done first by those who develop it, but it feels so damn bad...
The sensible, non-developer solution would thus be to get a Palm (or whatever) first, and play with that until Compaq sells iPaqs with preloaded Linux (or something like that). The difficult decision is: To be or not to be an active developer?
And it even has the Magi suite of tools! I want a Palm today!
Anyhow, they didn't mention if the optimized port still compiles on other architectures. It seems that standard Python on Linux takes some 1.4MB of memory (most of it shared), so this 191+64kB would be really nice, especially for embedding in other apps. But I guess the glibc libraries are bloat+++ compared to Palm's libraries.
RMS really should try to practice writing more briefly and to the point.
In his letter he rambles to great lengths about semantics of the "free software", which the Microsoft official or Allchin didn't even mention in their statements. Then he continues rather incoherently, speaking about some American "freedoms" and "human rights", which are not really relevant, because Microsoft isn't arguing for restricting any rights, but asking creators and users of GPLed software to consider its wider implications for economical and technological progress.
RMS's comments on Microsoft's "embrace and extend"-strategy are of course a very good point. He made a small mistake by talking about Kerberos "software" and not the protocol, which is what Microsoft actually embraced and extended.
I bet RMS has gathered, over the years, a vast number of concise arguments for using GNU GPL in software business. He probably has read many other people's arguments too. Just choose the central arguments for the particular case, and adapt them intelligently. And forget the non-relevant ones, as much as you'd like to advertise them.
But, it does look like Microsoft would love to have the Committee of Unamerican Activities still around... RMS RUN! QUICK!!!
Oh, they can't? Just take a quick look at the case where the American company engineered and patented a rice that tasted like Basmati, and now demand that Indian farmers of the original Basmati rice pay them license fees.
The company wanted to engineer a rice that tastes like the famous Indian Basmati rice. I'm not sure how they engineered it, probably by genetic manipulation. Then they patented the modified rice, and also its flavour. Then they started enforcing the patent against the original Basmati rices, which the Indian farmers have been farming for centuries. Now they are trying to use WTO to patent their rice also in India. Then the farmers would have to buy licences for their own Basmati rice.
Yes, this really is true. The farmers are of course quite pissed off and try to fight against the company in USA. I'm not sure what the status of the tragedy is right now.
IANAL, but... It may be that SSHCS's behaviour isn't only about bashing free software competition, but also about preventing possible corporate hijacking of the product and company name. Imagine what might happen if they didn't try to enforce the trademark. Some company in USA or elsewhere might register itself as "SSH Communications Services", and start advertising and selling their own security product called "SSH". That product could be different, strictly closed and incompatible with SSH standards. If there's some international law that prevents exactly same company name, just choose "SSH Communications International" or just "SSH inc."
I'm not sure if such hijacking is legally possible, or worthwhile, but it would really be unfair and damaging to SSHCS, or any company, which is why we have the trademark laws. This may be one reason why they may have to enforce it.
The reaction of SSH Communications Services may thus be quite understandable and acceptable. But that doesn't of course negate the fact that Tatu and SSHCS made a legally fatal mistake in giving the protocol, the free version of the product, the commercial version, and the company the same name.
I wouldn't say that SSH is really "loosing money" dramatically. Their last financial review tells that their turnover increased by 138% during the period. Their profits went down to negative (-6Mmk compared to 13Mmk in 1999), because of increased staff expenses (they hired some 100 people apparently to R&D).
Anyhow, I don't see how this would be relevant. Companies should have equal rights and obligations regardless of their profits.
Perhaps OpenSSH project could show their kind appreciation to Tatu and SSH Communications by giving it proper credits in their documentation, and perhaps by advertising it as the primary support and service company for secure shell products. Perhaps it would also be good manner to put disclaimer notices on their web pages, making it more explicit that OpenSSH has nothing to do with SSH Communications, if that is Tatu's problem.
I strongly doubt that this would be a question of shell commands.
Besides, I believe 'ssh' command is usually just a symbolic link to either ssh1 or ssh2 binary. Thus you can always name the software as "openssh" or whatever you like, "ksdhfjsdf", and just add the symbolic link.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Dec 31 03:07/usr/local/bin/ssh -> ssh1*
It's not clear to me if the letter was just a kind request to the OpenSSH community, or if there's some threat behind it. I hope not, for the sake of SSH Communication's public image.
Although SSH is a trademarked product name, it is also the name of an open protocol. Even Tatu himself uses the name "SSH1" to refer to a protocol version instead of some obscure "IETF SECSH" name, which most people have never heard about.
OpenSSH is a project and software name that clearly indicates that it is not the original product, but an (open and free) implementation of the SSH protocols; at most a derivative product. It is not confusing in any way.
The *SSH suffix probably does have some "advertising value" for OpenSSH, as it also clearly indicates what the software is about, and people can more easily pay attention to it. This may create some competition pressure for SSH Communications. Thus we can understand Tatu's reaction, but it doesn't give him justification to bash the "competitors" unfairly.
I believe that Tatu's decision for opening the original SSH program license and the protocol was a good decision, as it gave the product great publicity and established a wide base of users. The company might not even exist anymore without that decision. OpenSSH still continues to do that service, at least to some degree.
Perhaps the decision has later become a disadvantage that now "causes financial damage" for the company, as it has grown bigger and well-known, and can support itself without the publicity from the free version. So what? What moral (or legal) justification does that change of strategy give for bashing those who still benefit from the old strategy?
I don't know if Tatu has complained to OpenSSH about its name before, but he definitely should have done so as soon as possible, when OpenSSH project was started in 1999. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't have heard about it then. Denying the use of the name later can't be interpreted as much else but unfair bashing. Over a year is a long time in "Internet time".
SSH software has been a great gift for the Internet community, and OpenSSH might not exist without it. We should all be very thankful to Tatu for creating SSH (to a reasonable degree!). If OpenSSH people find it easy to change their name, and want to respect Tatu's wishes, just change it.
I once tried Microsoft's IRC server. It has a politically correct system that prevents certain words in nicknames and channel names, such as the horrible F-word, nig-word, etc.
The funniest word which the server refused was "evangelisluterilainen". That's Finnish name for "Evangelic Lutheran" (the major Christian sect here), and it seems to be the only Finnish word that contains the letters "*slut*".
Slut also means "closed" or "end" in Swedish. No sluts for Microsoft, eh?
Ps. I hope I haven't doomed Slashdot to be eternally blocked by major filtering software by saying the horrible dirty word... EVANGELISLUTERILAINEN!
Great gadget. Now attach some small automatic guns in it, wire the "alive person"-detector to the gun, and drop 10,000 of those in an appropriate country. After a chopper is out of ammo, it can choose to chop one final head.
Are you sure the heli^H^Hadchopper wasn't financed by military?
160,000 applications when there are supposed to be just 60,000 genes in humans. Some overlapping, eh?
Hmm, I guess they might want patent specific alleles too. Interesting. I can't understand this thing though; evolution "designed" humans, guided by the natural selection, right? Since when has it been appropriate to patent someone (or something) else's design?
Another thing comes to my mind. Some researchers developed an evolutionary algorithm that evolves eletronic circuits. They evolved some complex filters which had actually been patented by human engineers some decades ago. If evolution is such a good designer, why is it acceptable to steal its inventions under your patent, while this isn't accepted with regards to human designer?
You might want to compare R2D2s beeps with those of a robotic owl called Bubo in an older movie called "Battle of the Titans" (??), which tells the classic Greek myth of Perseus and Andromeda. The owl was sent by Athena (if I remember correctly) to help Perseus.
Some sounds of the owl which I recorded from the movie are here:
The similarity is striking! There were also some other very similar themes between the BotT and Star Wars. I don't remember the movie too well anymore, but you definitely should watch it. The characters and themes were very "starwarsy". Or...perhaps we should say that Star Wars was very battle-of-the-titanous. I think there was some obiwankenobish character there (you can hear his voice on the short mp3 above). And princess Andromeda was turned to princess Leia, of course. And they laughed in a very similar manner.
The robotic owl was dropped in a stream and rescued, it was damaged during the final combat, etc. It behaved very much like R2D2: a funny and 'cute' character.
Let's see... I have this bottle of glycerol on my shelf... Rub on skin... No wait, must experiment on animals first...
Hey Mörkö, come here! Mörkööö!! (my pet rat) Let's try this stuff on your tail...
Wow, INVISIBLE RAT!
No, I'm not joking, of course I tried it. It's quite safe stuff, sometimes used to warm bodyparts. It's even added in some foods.
Fortunately, the rat stayed mostly visible. Otherwise I would be now chasing an invisible rat desperately around my apartment. Radar rat race... pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pip piiii...
There's one nice argument that can always be used to justify any violation of privacy:
Only those who need to hide something, are afraid of this technology. Honest law-abiding people do not need to hide anything from the police. Therefore, people who oppose this technology are mostly criminals.
Currently we have the technology to track cars. And what are they planning in UK? To make it mandatory to install tracking device in all new cars, to allow police to track traffic violations.
If this people-tracking technology were to come public, there would soon be all kinds of "reasons" to force people to use them. For example:
Your insurance wouldn't cover some accidents unless you're wearing the tracking device.
Tourists would be required to wear them, so that they wouldn't stay in the country illegally.
Military personnel would of course be forced to wear them, "just for safety". (Compare: drug tests, polygraphs).
Companies would require employees to have the devices, and have police to track them. Reason: criminal employees are a danger to companies, and its completely voluntary to work for the company. (Compare: the drug tests and polygraphs now practiced by many companies)
Parents would of course be allowed to track their children (they have right to do that, you know).
Known criminals and inmates would of course be tracked.
Tracking device could be installed or activated by court order without the consent OR knowledge of the person, if there are "reasons" to suspect certain crimes. (This reasoning is VERY common, as we know).
Laroussi has literally put plasma on the table: devising an apparatus that creates a mini-plasma inside a plexiglass cube by passing an electric current through helium gas via specially calibrated electrodes.
Excuse me, but to my understanding the ordinary neon fluorescent lamps also contain "plasma" (when they are lit), caused by "electric current vis specially calibrated electrodes"....
Myelin sheath actually consists of Schwann cells, which are wrapped many times around the axons of the neurons. Schwann cells are classified as glial cells.
I remember Schwann cells contain a lot of fat, which is white. I'm not sure why - might be that fat is a good electric or chemical insulator. The white-gray colouring of the brain is their product (neurons are gray); very long axons connecting the gray cortical regions are covered by myelin sheaths, to increase the speed of the transmissions.
These results from the in vitro experiments are apparently very preliminary and should be taken with a grain of salt.
It should be noted that all cells communicate with nearby cells. This is an important part of our ontogeny (growth), and function. Therefore it's rather obvious that neurons communicate with glia cells at least somehow.
It should be noted that the glia cells do not necessarily perform any neural computation:
Whether this glutamate release pathway is used during physiological signaling or is recruited only under pathophysiological conditions is not well defined.
"Pathophysiological" means "unnatural". Anyhow, it might be just signaling that guides how the neurons or glia cells grow (during our ontogeny or afterwards). The changes in activation of the nearby neurons might be just a side effect, although it would nevertheless affect their computations, if the glutamate is actually released at postnatal (after birth) age (I understood that this is not known).
- A novice artificial neural networks researcher who knows only very very little about neurobiology
Most artificial neural networks (ANNs) model the biological neural computation only in a very abstract way. This abstraction is "computationally complete" and can thus model practically any kind of neural or non-neural computation, including the communications behaviour of the glial or any other cells. Excluding the very very hypothetical (and in my opinion unlikely) quantum computation.
One should note that biological neurons are very complicated things, when compared to most artificial neurons, and their computational capability is much higher. Simulating them with typical artificial neurons would require a lot of them. But then again, we don't really know how efficiently the biological neurons process information, and it is very difficult to say if they are even as efficient as the typical artificial neurons.
- An ANN researcher, although my knowledge of biological neurosciences is rather limited.
Slashdot Mirror
http://magi.yok.utu.fi/~magi/kuvia/series/display. cgi/aurora.ser?height=768
They were taken with Casio QV-3000EX/Ir digital camera. Unfortunately there's no serial or USB driver for Linux for the camera, so I have to boot to the damned winshit to download the pics (it's actually the only thing I use it for). It would be great if the USB storage driver guys or gPhoto guys would get a driver working at last.
The first panorama was made with the Casio Panorama program; it works under WINE just fine. Two panoramas were done with GIMP. Other pics were brightened with xv. The despecle filter of GIMP helps a little with noisy pictures, but perhaps not enough.
I chose Casio QV-3000 especially for its bright lens (F/2.0) and long exposure time (60s), which are important for astrophotography.
Great, if we now collect the "pieces of Mir" for a few centuries (or millenia), we can probably build a huge (Babylon 5 sized or bigger) space station out of them.
Some entire book texts there, etc.
Quite difficult stuff, even for a CS major. Having at least familiarity with automatas and formal languages is recommended, although still far too little.
There's some quite weird stuff in some of his books. I can't say I would recommend reading his stuff without healthy sceptic attitude...
Naah, they start with Lawrencium 262, then in a few months they kick out a few neutrons and protons to make Fermium 256 (just to make these calculations easier). Then, with 18 month steps: Xenon 128, Zirconium 64, Sulphur 32, Oxygen 16, Beryllium 8 (9 is more stable though), Helium 4, Hydrogen 2, and finally Hydrogen 1 (ehm...a single proton).
Thus, it takes 12 years before they have to go to subatomics!
I guess you don't keep the iPaq on all the time? Even the official capacity reported by Compaq is just 12 hours with an "average use pattern" (with WinCE).
Deep sleep mode? You mean not switched on?
Yes, I think that's what they mean with "deep sleep".
It seems that the processor has 3 power consumption modes: running, idle, and sleep mode. The processor is usually "idle" most of the time, when the machine is turned on. One table at www.handhelds.org reports some 400mW power consumption (in Linux?) when you do something with it, which would mean about 2-3 hours of use (950mW lithium batteries).
In deep sleep mode the machine uses almost no power at all. Linux can currently be put to sleep, but...eh...the poor penquin can't be awakened from it... 8-o ... so you probably have to reset it and lose the DRAM contents (?)...
Linux also currently uses about 20 times more power in deep sleep than WinCE, and 150mW more in idle mode. It seems that they are actively working on these problems.
Disclaimer: I don't know really anything about iPaq, but have been trying to find these facts just to make the decision whether to buy or not.
iPaq wins, of course, clearly with about everything except battery time. I'm not sure about exactly how long the iPaq batteries last (they don't mention it anywhere), but I think it's something like 3-4 hours of active use. In deep sleep mode the batteries last a few days (?), I think, except with Linux they last only about 8 hours because of problems with the sleep mode.
It that's true, it effectively makes iPaq at least very troublesome, or actually useless. No taking iPaq to work without the cradle, or to long lectures, or even to a local LUG or PUG meeting. No thanks, I need a real PDA, not a toy. Palms last for weeks (or at least days).
After that, the 32 MB DRAM, where your DOOM port and other cool stuff were installed, goes empty, right? Useful, eh?
The important stuff can, of course, be stored in the Flash ROM. But, you have to store the damn operating system there too! Thus, with 32+16MB memory, you end up with maybe a few MBs of permanent user memory.
Of course, if you fail the bootloader installation (for Linux), you have a nice new $500 paperweight (well, ok, I think Compaq will fix it, but I guess that takes weeks if not months?).
Besides, it's (1) immoral to buy Microsoft garbage, (2) insane to buy it when you don't even want it, and actually throw it away permanently in the first day (after using it to load Linux). Well, I guess it has to be done first by those who develop it, but it feels so damn bad...
The sensible, non-developer solution would thus be to get a Palm (or whatever) first, and play with that until Compaq sells iPaqs with preloaded Linux (or something like that). The difficult decision is: To be or not to be an active developer?
Anyhow, they didn't mention if the optimized port still compiles on other architectures. It seems that standard Python on Linux takes some 1.4MB of memory (most of it shared), so this 191+64kB would be really nice, especially for embedding in other apps. But I guess the glibc libraries are bloat+++ compared to Palm's libraries.
In his letter he rambles to great lengths about semantics of the "free software", which the Microsoft official or Allchin didn't even mention in their statements. Then he continues rather incoherently, speaking about some American "freedoms" and "human rights", which are not really relevant, because Microsoft isn't arguing for restricting any rights, but asking creators and users of GPLed software to consider its wider implications for economical and technological progress.
RMS's comments on Microsoft's "embrace and extend"-strategy are of course a very good point. He made a small mistake by talking about Kerberos "software" and not the protocol, which is what Microsoft actually embraced and extended.
I bet RMS has gathered, over the years, a vast number of concise arguments for using GNU GPL in software business. He probably has read many other people's arguments too. Just choose the central arguments for the particular case, and adapt them intelligently. And forget the non-relevant ones, as much as you'd like to advertise them.
But, it does look like Microsoft would love to have the Committee of Unamerican Activities still around... RMS RUN! QUICK!!!
The company wanted to engineer a rice that tastes like the famous Indian Basmati rice. I'm not sure how they engineered it, probably by genetic manipulation. Then they patented the modified rice, and also its flavour. Then they started enforcing the patent against the original Basmati rices, which the Indian farmers have been farming for centuries. Now they are trying to use WTO to patent their rice also in India. Then the farmers would have to buy licences for their own Basmati rice.
Yes, this really is true. The farmers are of course quite pissed off and try to fight against the company in USA. I'm not sure what the status of the tragedy is right now.
I'm not sure if such hijacking is legally possible, or worthwhile, but it would really be unfair and damaging to SSHCS, or any company, which is why we have the trademark laws. This may be one reason why they may have to enforce it.
The reaction of SSH Communications Services may thus be quite understandable and acceptable. But that doesn't of course negate the fact that Tatu and SSHCS made a legally fatal mistake in giving the protocol, the free version of the product, the commercial version, and the company the same name.
Anyhow, I don't see how this would be relevant. Companies should have equal rights and obligations regardless of their profits.
Perhaps OpenSSH project could show their kind appreciation to Tatu and SSH Communications by giving it proper credits in their documentation, and perhaps by advertising it as the primary support and service company for secure shell products. Perhaps it would also be good manner to put disclaimer notices on their web pages, making it more explicit that OpenSSH has nothing to do with SSH Communications, if that is Tatu's problem.
Besides, I believe 'ssh' command is usually just a symbolic link to either ssh1 or ssh2 binary. Thus you can always name the software as "openssh" or whatever you like, "ksdhfjsdf", and just add the symbolic link.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Dec 31 03:07 /usr/local/bin/ssh -> ssh1*
Although SSH is a trademarked product name, it is also the name of an open protocol. Even Tatu himself uses the name "SSH1" to refer to a protocol version instead of some obscure "IETF SECSH" name, which most people have never heard about.
OpenSSH is a project and software name that clearly indicates that it is not the original product, but an (open and free) implementation of the SSH protocols; at most a derivative product. It is not confusing in any way.
The *SSH suffix probably does have some "advertising value" for OpenSSH, as it also clearly indicates what the software is about, and people can more easily pay attention to it. This may create some competition pressure for SSH Communications. Thus we can understand Tatu's reaction, but it doesn't give him justification to bash the "competitors" unfairly.
I believe that Tatu's decision for opening the original SSH program license and the protocol was a good decision, as it gave the product great publicity and established a wide base of users. The company might not even exist anymore without that decision. OpenSSH still continues to do that service, at least to some degree.
Perhaps the decision has later become a disadvantage that now "causes financial damage" for the company, as it has grown bigger and well-known, and can support itself without the publicity from the free version. So what? What moral (or legal) justification does that change of strategy give for bashing those who still benefit from the old strategy?
I don't know if Tatu has complained to OpenSSH about its name before, but he definitely should have done so as soon as possible, when OpenSSH project was started in 1999. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't have heard about it then. Denying the use of the name later can't be interpreted as much else but unfair bashing. Over a year is a long time in "Internet time".
SSH software has been a great gift for the Internet community, and OpenSSH might not exist without it. We should all be very thankful to Tatu for creating SSH (to a reasonable degree!). If OpenSSH people find it easy to change their name, and want to respect Tatu's wishes, just change it.
The funniest word which the server refused was "evangelisluterilainen". That's Finnish name for "Evangelic Lutheran" (the major Christian sect here), and it seems to be the only Finnish word that contains the letters "*slut*".
Slut also means "closed" or "end" in Swedish. No sluts for Microsoft, eh?
Ps. I hope I haven't doomed Slashdot to be eternally blocked by major filtering software by saying the horrible dirty word... EVANGELISLUTERILAINEN!
Are you sure the heli^H^Hadchopper wasn't financed by military?
160,000 applications when there are supposed to be just 60,000 genes in humans. Some overlapping, eh? Hmm, I guess they might want patent specific alleles too. Interesting. I can't understand this thing though; evolution "designed" humans, guided by the natural selection, right? Since when has it been appropriate to patent someone (or something) else's design? Another thing comes to my mind. Some researchers developed an evolutionary algorithm that evolves eletronic circuits. They evolved some complex filters which had actually been patented by human engineers some decades ago. If evolution is such a good designer, why is it acceptable to steal its inventions under your patent, while this isn't accepted with regards to human designer?
Some sounds of the owl which I recorded from the movie are here:
http://magi.yok.utu.fi/~magi/foo/bubo-r2d2.mp3
The similarity is striking! There were also some other very similar themes between the BotT and Star Wars. I don't remember the movie too well anymore, but you definitely should watch it. The characters and themes were very "starwarsy". Or...perhaps we should say that Star Wars was very battle-of-the-titanous. I think there was some obiwankenobish character there (you can hear his voice on the short mp3 above). And princess Andromeda was turned to princess Leia, of course. And they laughed in a very similar manner.
The robotic owl was dropped in a stream and rescued, it was damaged during the final combat, etc. It behaved very much like R2D2: a funny and 'cute' character.
Hey Mörkö, come here! Mörkööö!! (my pet rat) Let's try this stuff on your tail...
Wow, INVISIBLE RAT!
No, I'm not joking, of course I tried it. It's quite safe stuff, sometimes used to warm bodyparts. It's even added in some foods.
Fortunately, the rat stayed mostly visible. Otherwise I would be now chasing an invisible rat desperately around my apartment. Radar rat race... pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pip piiii...
Then you need just to adjust the code a little and change a certain variable from ISS to
mProtectedTarget = new StaticOrbit (mySqlDb->query("FROM countries SELECT coordinates WHERE countryname='USA'\\g"));
and do a little
mInputPower *= 10.0;
to swipe away any bothersome ICBMs that might accidentally collide with the protected target.
-
Only those who need to hide something, are afraid of this technology. Honest law-abiding people do not need to hide anything from the police. Therefore, people who oppose this technology are mostly criminals.
Currently we have the technology to track cars. And what are they planning in UK? To make it mandatory to install tracking device in all new cars, to allow police to track traffic violations.If this people-tracking technology were to come public, there would soon be all kinds of "reasons" to force people to use them. For example:
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Ahh, that explains it!
Excuse me, but to my understanding the ordinary neon fluorescent lamps also contain "plasma" (when they are lit), caused by "electric current vis specially calibrated electrodes"....
I remember Schwann cells contain a lot of fat, which is white. I'm not sure why - might be that fat is a good electric or chemical insulator. The white-gray colouring of the brain is their product (neurons are gray); very long axons connecting the gray cortical regions are covered by myelin sheaths, to increase the speed of the transmissions.
It should be noted that all cells communicate with nearby cells. This is an important part of our ontogeny (growth), and function. Therefore it's rather obvious that neurons communicate with glia cells at least somehow.
It should be noted that the glia cells do not necessarily perform any neural computation:
"Pathophysiological" means "unnatural". Anyhow, it might be just signaling that guides how the neurons or glia cells grow (during our ontogeny or afterwards). The changes in activation of the nearby neurons might be just a side effect, although it would nevertheless affect their computations, if the glutamate is actually released at postnatal (after birth) age (I understood that this is not known).- A novice artificial neural networks researcher who knows only very very little about neurobiology
One should note that biological neurons are very complicated things, when compared to most artificial neurons, and their computational capability is much higher. Simulating them with typical artificial neurons would require a lot of them. But then again, we don't really know how efficiently the biological neurons process information, and it is very difficult to say if they are even as efficient as the typical artificial neurons.
- An ANN researcher, although my knowledge of biological neurosciences is rather limited.