Yet another way to shell out money on military projects. Sure, they may have some other uses later, but at the moment it's still purely military. And yes, I know military technology has the ability to drive technological progress
Every time I read stories like this I get an uncomfortable feeling. Currently the US is spending an estimated 2 billion dollars a week on weapons and warfare. Money that serves no durable purpose. Oil prices even went up and terrorism is at an all time high (or it just gets more media attention).
At the same time there are numerous projects and initiatives that don't see even half of that money, either social or scientific. Take ITER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER for example, the goal is to make fusion reactions a reality, their working budget for 30 years is a mere 9.3 billion dollars and this is a multinational project! If you think about it there are a lot more examples where a 2 billion weekly investment would tremendously benefit society.
But no, let's spend our money on yet another over funded electronic warfare gadget "for our troops". As a scientist, I find that waste of money repulsive. Feel free to mod me down as deep as you can.
Rowling has made enough money out of this franchise as is. In my opinion her "idea" behind Harry Potter isn't very original anyway, certainly not enough to go these lengths.
Why am I saying this? Because the Harry Potter universe looks remarkably similar to the book "Groosham Grange" written by Anthony Horowitz in 1988 almost 10 years before the first Harry Potter book was published. And guess what? Groosham Grange is about a boy that enrolls in a school for magic and the students engage in magic contests. Sounds familiar?
The thing here, in my opinion, would be to get a biological network going. Kind of the same thing that is used for the "purification" of water from sewers. That way you could get a microbial supply chain going. I really like your idea of adding photosynthesis to the mix. However, the problems with this kind of setup is keeping the entire system balanced (there is some strange and spooky math on that subject).
I don't know if the methods proposed by this company are the way to go, but I do have a strong suspicion that bioreactors will see more and more implementation in the future
Once again one of the ideas in my head is seeing implementation. I really hope I have some left by the time I make it out of the academic world and into the corporate world...
But hey, with a planet filled with 6 billion people chances are that once you think of something, several other people are having the same thought. Take the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for example, I guess there will be many more examples.
I agree completely with this statement. I kind of expected something like this would happen with Spore. There is a lot of interesting technology they want to implement in that game. The first time I saw the creature creation demo and how well the animation worked on a semi-random player designed creature I was almost knocked off my feet.
What those guys are doing is, in my opinion, very next-gen and not next-gen in the way of hyper realistic graphics or phyics. Some of the concepts in this game are very new and they are really entering new grounds. But preparing an impressive tech-demo is something different than making a working game. I would imagine all the procedural content that is going into that game is making it a hell to debug and test.
So what would be better here? Releasing the game "when it's done", meaning that all the new technologies and ideas are implemented correctly. Or release it "when it's not done, but at the release date" meaning that the beauty of the new ideas and techniques will be lost in a soup of bugs and horrible gameplay? I remember a game that promised a lot and looked very innovating but turned out to be a train wreck: Black & White. I wouldn't want Spore to go down the same drain.
I'm also a fan of console text based apps, but I do find lynx to be a bit lacking for comfortably browsing the web. I tried getting into using it, but for me it really takes away some of the "web browsing experience".
I must say I find the idea of white on black much better for screen time than black on white. I know CRTs are steadily being replaced by LCDs but a lot of people (including myself) still work with CRTs and there was a time that everyone worked with a CRT.
I always found this obsession with black on white configurations strange, it really is bad for the eyes and can cause several other problems (headaches and difficulty getting to sleep at night for instance) this is one of the reasons, or so I heard, that CRTs are being replaced in the workplace.
When you have a CRT turn off the lights and set your browser to google or start a wordprocessor, the room will be lit up entirely. Imagine yourself staring at that thing hours on end, it's like staring at a light bulb for hours. Nobody would stare at a light bulb for that long, but nobody seems to see a problem in staring at a white screen all day. I had headache problems myself with my CRT before I configured my desktop and applications to be as dark as possible, this really helped and I slept better at night.
Probably all of this has more to do with the light intensity of a CRT compared to a LCD (I remember seeing game images when closing my eyes after a long game session on a CRT as if they where burned on my retinas) than with white backgrounds. But I do find that even on an LCD I prefer black and dark colors on my desktop, since it seems to put less strain on my eyes. And because I (and I guess most people using this site) get about 10 hours or more of screen time each day, it really does matter in the long run.
As for the energy saving thing, well energy saving is so hyped right now that everyone seems to want a piece of the action. As pointed out here, I'm also not convinced this black google thing actually saves that much energy. Anyway, I did put the black google as my new start page, just because I like black backgrounds:-)
Unfortunately the Pub Pat website is still suffering from connection problems so I couldn't read the full article. However, I am familiar with Monsantos actions. In a way Monsanto could be seen as the Microsoft of biotechnology: monopolizing, buying out smaller companies, shooting people down with patent claims, etc. The thing is that when companies become bigger (or gigantic as is the case with Monsanto) they start hiring additional lawyers. That's where it all goes wrong, the evilness of a company is positively correlated wit the amount of lawyers it has on its payroll.
Scientists do what scientists do: research stuff and build stuff while making a living on the side. Lawyers do what lawyers do: try to find every possible way to use laws and legislation to keep a company safe and have it generate money while making a living on the side.
The problem is that with a growing amount of lawyers a technology company starts gravitating away from its initial ideals and slowly changes into a Jabba the Hut like all consuming, greedy creature.
Actually, there are non-economic, patent related reasons why a plant biotech company would want to restrict seed access: containment. Although sufficiently tested GM seeds still hold a potential danger when used incorrectly. When a farmer is able to retain seeds of a GM crop, the crop is effectively out of control of the developing institute. The farmer could distribute the seeds and perhaps use them in an inappropriate manner. I don't want to point fingers here, but I'm pretty certain your average farmer does not have the expertise to assess the safety of working with a certain GM crop. This could lead to the uncontrolled spreading of GM crops into the wild without anyone knowing where, what and how many. This is basicaly a two front war: ecologists on the one side who want to control spreading of potentially hazardous GM crops in to the wild. And on the other side people who are against the fact that farmers of GM crops are tied to the manufacturers of said crops. But hey, biotech will never be the good guy (apart from medical biotech that is)
It is evident, that this "precaution principle" is severely misused by Monsanto and has to be controlled in some way. What originated as a biologically sound plan has become lawyer ammo. A sad day for science
Although I must agree it is a very interesting and challenging project, I'm not convinced it will see much use in the biological research world. For starters there is one particular reason I have my doubts (from the article):
"The project is particularly daunting when you consider that modern neurology has yet to explain how the brain actually works. Yes, we know the fundamentals. But we can't be sure of every biological transaction, all the way down to the cellular level. Three years into this Cognitive Computing project, Modha's team isn't just building a brain from an existing blueprint. They're helping to create the blueprint as they build. It's reverse engineering of the highest order."
Although reverse engineering might seem as the perfect way to find out how something works from a technology point of view, this isn't necessarily true from a biological point of view. The thing is that when you reverse engineer a piece of technology you are completely certain about the underlying core principles because the technology you are reverse engineering is actually man made. With biology this is not the case.
I work in a research group that (amongst other things) tries to reverse engineer simple cellular pathways of a complexity scale that is that is far smaller than the actual function of the brain and even those attempts, although producing results, do not always conform with biological reality.
Furthermore, and I know this from experience, computer scientists and mathematicians tend to underestimate the actual complexity of such systems and the variability of biological systems within species and even within the same organism. It's not just a matter of mathematically connecting nodes in a neural net.
Let's be reasonable here, because the important aspects of the system biology of relatively "simple" biological systems remain largely elusive and difficult to simulate at the moment because not every core principle is known it seems a bit over confident to claim to simulate one of the most complex systems known without even having a complete rule book in your hands.
I fail to see what makes this article front page material. For starters CREB is a transcription factor that has implications in much more functions that neuronal ones (its just researched a lot in that context). It responds to cAMP concentrations which is a widely used secondary messenger in cellular information flow. Its present in many organisms ranging from slugs to humans.
Screening the genome for possible locations of these CREB responsive genes, is that new? Nope not exactly: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/12/44 59
"Genome-wide analysis of cAMP-response element binding protein occupancy, phosphorylation, and target gene activation in human tissues" (received for review January 14, 2005)
Im not saying that CREB isnt involved in long term memory (which it is), but this approach seems an inappropriate way to tackle the problem, I can see the false positives piling up since CREB is implemented in general cellular survival pathways and a whole plethora of other systems.
So it certainly isnt THE answer to brain function. Id really like to see that people would finaly abandon the outdated 1 to 1 gene phenotype/function view that sparks many of those populistic articles
If you really want to conceptually tackle the problem of how brain and memory works, youd better take a look at epigenetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Using antibiotics in cattle raising isnt exactly that new, due to the fact that simple infections can be prevented in the breeding process the yield is considerable higher. When there are no diseases to be overcome the animals can invest more energy in meat buildup.
There is actually not that much of a problem in using "simple" antibiotics in this process (most dangerous bacteria have become imune to those anyway) it does become a problem when those new "last line of defense" antibiotics are used. Why? Bacteria have a very evolved genetic "comminication system" called plasmids. Those plasmids are extrachromosomal DNA which contains various functions, antibiotics resistance genes are located on plasmids called resistence plasmids. The thing with plasmids is that they can be exchanged between bacteria of different species. That way high use of certain antibiotics in cattle can cause an exchange of resistance genes to bacteria that are hazardous to humans.
The same thing has actually happened with the "hospital bacteria" and hospital infections in general. When you spend a certain amount of time in a busy hospital it is possible to get infected by a particular resistant strain of bacteria because of the highly selective nature of a hospital (high use of antibiotics, lots of sick people).
To cut it short, extensive use of antibiotics (especially the ones used in human medicine) should be discouraged. Designing new antibiotics isnt exactly a matter of "throwing money at it", its becoming increasingly difficult to find something that works.
Imagine being part of the crew of that new flight when the article says: "HOPING to leave behind problems exposed by the 2003 Columbia disaster". I would certainly have my fingers crossed...
This seems like some sort of panic reaction: "IT problems, let's hire a third party, they'll know what to do." Looks like they lost fate and had an "Out with the old, in with the new" feeling.
Frankly I don't see why switching to a different language and rewriting everything would be faster and more economical than rewriting parts, finetuning and sticking to the same language. Especially considering the fact that that language is C++, would it have been brainfuck, well that would be another story.
The timing of this newspost actualy couldn't have been more on cue.
Last week some retarded, 18 year old, wannabee loser started shooting people in the city of Antwerp (Belgium) and killed two people (one of them 2 years old). Instead of blaming the malevolent actions on the lad himself, they started pointing fingers. Obviously games were immediately pointed at. Turns out they found GTA installed on his computer...
News papers later on: "Van Themsche speelde videospel na" (in English "Van Themsche (the murderer) followed a videogame". One of the reasons they had for blaming it on GTA was the fact that (hold on) you have to buy a gun in GTA prior to shootouts, the killer apparantly did the same. This relationship was enough to put the journalists in high gear and start blaming the known games: Doom, Counterstrike, Quake and GTA. Let's blame Need for Speed for speeding shall we ?
Now back on topic. I like the idea of making a game about the columbine massacre as a statement in the discussion. I think every gamer sees the humor in the project and what it is trying to say. Obviously it is not their intention of glorifying the actions of the killers, only to point out the ridiculousness of the crusade against videogames. Its people that pull triggers, not game designers. A violent person might as well get inspired by a violent movie, book, picture,... He could even lose it over a news item.
To cut it short: this scapegoating has to stop. Teens that lose it and have a shootout are a society problem. Its not something that can be solved by outlawing everything that could remotely be dangerous. We could start outlawing garden equipment, because most of it can be used to copy the behaviour of medieval lynchmobs:-)
This technology seems to solve a lot of problems with the imaging of sensitive surfaces eg biomolecules. I'd like to see how it adresses the problem of water layers on the surface to be analysed. I'd think the "microphone" would also interact with these waterlayers creating image artefacts.
In my opinion the speed gain is the most interesting aspect.
What the hell is this all about ? I could have written hundreds of articles like this. What does this article tell me :
1: That ubuntu linux is able to run on an nforce MoBo, realtek 650 sound and an nforce2 video chipset (shocking).
2: NFS can be used to mount shares over a network (so that's what the N stands for)
3: Rhytmbox can be used to play and organise music files
4: Totem is a videoplayer
So in conclusion it tells me how to install linux, it doesn't bring anything new or innovating to table. What I wanted to see was some creativity in implementing linux for "home theater" use.
Read the section about linux home entertainment in "Home hacking projects for geeks" by O'reilly instead;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another way to shell out money on military projects. Sure, they may have some other uses later, but at the moment it's still purely military. And yes, I know military technology has the ability to drive technological progress
Every time I read stories like this I get an uncomfortable feeling. Currently the US is spending an estimated 2 billion dollars a week on weapons and warfare. Money that serves no durable purpose. Oil prices even went up and terrorism is at an all time high (or it just gets more media attention).
At the same time there are numerous projects and initiatives that don't see even half of that money, either social or scientific. Take ITER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER for example, the goal is to make fusion reactions a reality, their working budget for 30 years is a mere 9.3 billion dollars and this is a multinational project! If you think about it there are a lot more examples where a 2 billion weekly investment would tremendously benefit society.
But no, let's spend our money on yet another over funded electronic warfare gadget "for our troops". As a scientist, I find that waste of money repulsive. Feel free to mod me down as deep as you can.
Rowling has made enough money out of this franchise as is. In my opinion her "idea" behind Harry Potter isn't very original anyway, certainly not enough to go these lengths.
Why am I saying this? Because the Harry Potter universe looks remarkably similar to the book "Groosham Grange" written by Anthony Horowitz in 1988 almost 10 years before the first Harry Potter book was published. And guess what? Groosham Grange is about a boy that enrolls in a school for magic and the students engage in magic contests. Sounds familiar?
The thing here, in my opinion, would be to get a biological network going. Kind of the same thing that is used for the "purification" of water from sewers. That way you could get a microbial supply chain going. I really like your idea of adding photosynthesis to the mix. However, the problems with this kind of setup is keeping the entire system balanced (there is some strange and spooky math on that subject).
I don't know if the methods proposed by this company are the way to go, but I do have a strong suspicion that bioreactors will see more and more implementation in the future
Once again one of the ideas in my head is seeing implementation. I really hope I have some left by the time I make it out of the academic world and into the corporate world...
But hey, with a planet filled with 6 billion people chances are that once you think of something, several other people are having the same thought. Take the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for example, I guess there will be many more examples.
I agree completely with this statement. I kind of expected something like this would happen with Spore. There is a lot of interesting technology they want to implement in that game. The first time I saw the creature creation demo and how well the animation worked on a semi-random player designed creature I was almost knocked off my feet.
What those guys are doing is, in my opinion, very next-gen and not next-gen in the way of hyper realistic graphics or phyics. Some of the concepts in this game are very new and they are really entering new grounds. But preparing an impressive tech-demo is something different than making a working game. I would imagine all the procedural content that is going into that game is making it a hell to debug and test.
So what would be better here? Releasing the game "when it's done", meaning that all the new technologies and ideas are implemented correctly. Or release it "when it's not done, but at the release date" meaning that the beauty of the new ideas and techniques will be lost in a soup of bugs and horrible gameplay? I remember a game that promised a lot and looked very innovating but turned out to be a train wreck: Black & White. I wouldn't want Spore to go down the same drain.
I am more than happy to wait "untill it's done".
Apart from your comment being filled with truth, it also managed to make me nearly fall from my chair in laughter. Nice satire, thumbs up
I'm also a fan of console text based apps, but I do find lynx to be a bit lacking for comfortably browsing the web. I tried getting into using it, but for me it really takes away some of the "web browsing experience".
I must say I find the idea of white on black much better for screen time than black on white. I know CRTs are steadily being replaced by LCDs but a lot of people (including myself) still work with CRTs and there was a time that everyone worked with a CRT.
I always found this obsession with black on white configurations strange, it really is bad for the eyes and can cause several other problems (headaches and difficulty getting to sleep at night for instance) this is one of the reasons, or so I heard, that CRTs are being replaced in the workplace.
When you have a CRT turn off the lights and set your browser to google or start a wordprocessor, the room will be lit up entirely. Imagine yourself staring at that thing hours on end, it's like staring at a light bulb for hours. Nobody would stare at a light bulb for that long, but nobody seems to see a problem in staring at a white screen all day. I had headache problems myself with my CRT before I configured my desktop and applications to be as dark as possible, this really helped and I slept better at night.
Probably all of this has more to do with the light intensity of a CRT compared to a LCD (I remember seeing game images when closing my eyes after a long game session on a CRT as if they where burned on my retinas) than with white backgrounds. But I do find that even on an LCD I prefer black and dark colors on my desktop, since it seems to put less strain on my eyes. And because I (and I guess most people using this site) get about 10 hours or more of screen time each day, it really does matter in the long run.
As for the energy saving thing, well energy saving is so hyped right now that everyone seems to want a piece of the action. As pointed out here, I'm also not convinced this black google thing actually saves that much energy. Anyway, I did put the black google as my new start page, just because I like black backgrounds
Unfortunately the Pub Pat website is still suffering from connection problems so I couldn't read the full article. However, I am familiar with Monsantos actions. In a way Monsanto could be seen as the Microsoft of biotechnology: monopolizing, buying out smaller companies, shooting people down with patent claims, etc. The thing is that when companies become bigger (or gigantic as is the case with Monsanto) they start hiring additional lawyers. That's where it all goes wrong, the evilness of a company is positively correlated wit the amount of lawyers it has on its payroll.
Scientists do what scientists do: research stuff and build stuff while making a living on the side. Lawyers do what lawyers do: try to find every possible way to use laws and legislation to keep a company safe and have it generate money while making a living on the side.
The problem is that with a growing amount of lawyers a technology company starts gravitating away from its initial ideals and slowly changes into a Jabba the Hut like all consuming, greedy creature.
Actually, there are non-economic, patent related reasons why a plant biotech company would want to restrict seed access: containment. Although sufficiently tested GM seeds still hold a potential danger when used incorrectly. When a farmer is able to retain seeds of a GM crop, the crop is effectively out of control of the developing institute. The farmer could distribute the seeds and perhaps use them in an inappropriate manner. I don't want to point fingers here, but I'm pretty certain your average farmer does not have the expertise to assess the safety of working with a certain GM crop. This could lead to the uncontrolled spreading of GM crops into the wild without anyone knowing where, what and how many. This is basicaly a two front war: ecologists on the one side who want to control spreading of potentially hazardous GM crops in to the wild. And on the other side people who are against the fact that farmers of GM crops are tied to the manufacturers of said crops. But hey, biotech will never be the good guy (apart from medical biotech that is)
It is evident, that this "precaution principle" is severely misused by Monsanto and has to be controlled in some way. What originated as a biologically sound plan has become lawyer ammo. A sad day for science
Although I must agree it is a very interesting and challenging project, I'm not convinced it will see much use in the biological research world. For starters there is one particular reason I have my doubts (from the article):
"The project is particularly daunting when you consider that modern neurology has yet to explain how the brain actually works. Yes, we know the fundamentals. But we can't be sure of every biological transaction, all the way down to the cellular level. Three years into this Cognitive Computing project, Modha's team isn't just building a brain from an existing blueprint. They're helping to create the blueprint as they build. It's reverse engineering of the highest order."
Although reverse engineering might seem as the perfect way to find out how something works from a technology point of view, this isn't necessarily true from a biological point of view. The thing is that when you reverse engineer a piece of technology you are completely certain about the underlying core principles because the technology you are reverse engineering is actually man made. With biology this is not the case.
I work in a research group that (amongst other things) tries to reverse engineer simple cellular pathways of a complexity scale that is that is far smaller than the actual function of the brain and even those attempts, although producing results, do not always conform with biological reality.
Furthermore, and I know this from experience, computer scientists and mathematicians tend to underestimate the actual complexity of such systems and the variability of biological systems within species and even within the same organism. It's not just a matter of mathematically connecting nodes in a neural net.
Let's be reasonable here, because the important aspects of the system biology of relatively "simple" biological systems remain largely elusive and difficult to simulate at the moment because not every core principle is known it seems a bit over confident to claim to simulate one of the most complex systems known without even having a complete rule book in your hands.
Nevertheless, an interesting project.
I fail to see what makes this article front page material. For starters CREB is a transcription factor that has implications in much more functions that neuronal ones (its just researched a lot in that context). It responds to cAMP concentrations which is a widely used secondary messenger in cellular information flow. Its present in many organisms ranging from slugs to humans.
A novel way of finding genes that might be regulated by CREB, the article doesnt discribe the exact algoritm but this isnt exactly new either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_alignment#M
Screening the genome for possible locations of these CREB responsive genes, is that new? Nope not exactly: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/12/4
"Genome-wide analysis of cAMP-response element binding protein occupancy, phosphorylation, and target gene activation in human tissues" (received for review January 14, 2005)
Im not saying that CREB isnt involved in long term memory (which it is), but this approach seems an inappropriate way to tackle the problem, I can see the false positives piling up since CREB is implemented in general cellular survival pathways and a whole plethora of other systems. So it certainly isnt THE answer to brain function. Id really like to see that people would finaly abandon the outdated 1 to 1 gene phenotype/function view that sparks many of those populistic articles
If you really want to conceptually tackle the problem of how brain and memory works, youd better take a look at epigenetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Using antibiotics in cattle raising isnt exactly that new, due to the fact that simple infections can be prevented in the breeding process the yield is considerable higher. When there are no diseases to be overcome the animals can invest more energy in meat buildup.
There is actually not that much of a problem in using "simple" antibiotics in this process (most dangerous bacteria have become imune to those anyway) it does become a problem when those new "last line of defense" antibiotics are used. Why? Bacteria have a very evolved genetic "comminication system" called plasmids. Those plasmids are extrachromosomal DNA which contains various functions, antibiotics resistance genes are located on plasmids called resistence plasmids. The thing with plasmids is that they can be exchanged between bacteria of different species. That way high use of certain antibiotics in cattle can cause an exchange of resistance genes to bacteria that are hazardous to humans.
The same thing has actually happened with the "hospital bacteria" and hospital infections in general. When you spend a certain amount of time in a busy hospital it is possible to get infected by a particular resistant strain of bacteria because of the highly selective nature of a hospital (high use of antibiotics, lots of sick people).
To cut it short, extensive use of antibiotics (especially the ones used in human medicine) should be discouraged. Designing new antibiotics isnt exactly a matter of "throwing money at it", its becoming increasingly difficult to find something that works.
Imagine being part of the crew of that new flight when the article says: "HOPING to leave behind problems exposed by the 2003 Columbia disaster". I would certainly have my fingers crossed...
This seems like some sort of panic reaction: "IT problems, let's hire a third party, they'll know what to do." Looks like they lost fate and had an "Out with the old, in with the new" feeling.
Frankly I don't see why switching to a different language and rewriting everything would be faster and more economical than rewriting parts, finetuning and sticking to the same language. Especially considering the fact that that language is C++, would it have been brainfuck, well that would be another story.
Just my thoughts
The timing of this newspost actualy couldn't have been more on cue.
Last week some retarded, 18 year old, wannabee loser started shooting people in the city of Antwerp (Belgium) and killed two people (one of them 2 years old). Instead of blaming the malevolent actions on the lad himself, they started pointing fingers. Obviously games were immediately pointed at. Turns out they found GTA installed on his computer...
News papers later on: "Van Themsche speelde videospel na" (in English "Van Themsche (the murderer) followed a videogame". One of the reasons they had for blaming it on GTA was the fact that (hold on) you have to buy a gun in GTA prior to shootouts, the killer apparantly did the same. This relationship was enough to put the journalists in high gear and start blaming the known games: Doom, Counterstrike, Quake and GTA. Let's blame Need for Speed for speeding shall we ?
Now back on topic. I like the idea of making a game about the columbine massacre as a statement in the discussion. I think every gamer sees the humor in the project and what it is trying to say. Obviously it is not their intention of glorifying the actions of the killers, only to point out the ridiculousness of the crusade against videogames. Its people that pull triggers, not game designers. A violent person might as well get inspired by a violent movie, book, picture,
To cut it short: this scapegoating has to stop. Teens that lose it and have a shootout are a society problem. Its not something that can be solved by outlawing everything that could remotely be dangerous. We could start outlawing garden equipment, because most of it can be used to copy the behaviour of medieval lynchmobs
This technology seems to solve a lot of problems with the imaging of sensitive surfaces eg biomolecules. I'd like to see how it adresses the problem of water layers on the surface to be analysed. I'd think the "microphone" would also interact with these waterlayers creating image artefacts. In my opinion the speed gain is the most interesting aspect.
Google analytics is all about Gay porn ???
someone call CNN !!
I'm wondering what the criteria are to get accepted, it doesn't seem clear from the posted link.
What the hell is this all about ? I could have written hundreds of articles like this. What does this article tell me :
1: That ubuntu linux is able to run on an nforce MoBo, realtek 650 sound and an nforce2 video chipset (shocking).
2: NFS can be used to mount shares over a network (so that's what the N stands for)
3: Rhytmbox can be used to play and organise music files
4: Totem is a videoplayer
So in conclusion it tells me how to install linux, it doesn't bring anything new or innovating to table. What I wanted to see was some creativity in implementing linux for "home theater" use.
Read the section about linux home entertainment in "Home hacking projects for geeks" by O'reilly instead