Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged worm

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Giusi Schiavone

Human-Like Brain Found in Worm : Discovery News - 1 views

news.discovery.com/...worm-human-brain.html

brain worm

shared by Giusi Schiavone on 13 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • Giusi Schiavone on 13 Oct 10
     
    'mushroom' (invertebrate brain) or 'cauliflower'(vertebrate cerebral cortex)? Both are responsible for associative learning and memory formation.
  • duncan barker on 13 Oct 10
     
    thats disgusting
LeopoldS

Global Innovation Commons - 4 views

www.globalinnovationcommons.org

innovation open IP

shared by LeopoldS on 31 Oct 09 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • LeopoldS on 31 Oct 09
     
    nice initiative!
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Ma Ru on 31 Oct 09
     
    Any viral licence is a bad license...
  • Francesco Biscani on 31 Oct 09
     
    I'm pretty confident I'm about to open a can of worms, but mind explaining why? :)
  • LeopoldS on 01 Nov 09
     
    I am less worried about the can of worms ... actually eager to open it ... so why????
  • Francesco Biscani on 01 Nov 09
     
    Well, the topic GPL vs other open-source licenses (e.g., BSD, MIT, etc.) is old as the internet and it has provided material for long and glorious flame wars. The executive summary is that the GPL license (the one used by Linux) is a license which imposes some restrictions on the way you are allowed to (re)use the code. Specifically, if you re-use or modify GPL code and re-distribute it, you are required to make it available again under the GPL license. It is called "viral" because once you use a bit of GPL code, you are required to make the whole application GPL - so in this sense GPL code replicates like a virus. On the other side of the spectrum, there are the so-called BSD-like licenses which have more relaxed requirements. Usually, the only obligation they impose is to acknowledge somewhere (e.g., in a README file) that you have used some BSD code and who wrote it (this is called "attribution clause"), but they do not require to re-distribute the whole application under the same license. GPL critics usually claim that the license is not really "free" because it does not allow you to do whatever you want with the code without restrictions. GPL proponents claim that the requirements imposed by the GPL are necessary to safeguard the freedom of the code, in order to avoid being able to re-use GPL code without giving anything back to the community (which the BSD license allow: early versions of Microsoft Windows, for instance, had the networking code basically copy-pasted from BSD-licensed versions of Unix). In my opinion (and this point is often brought up in the debates) the division pro/against GPL mirrors somehow the division between anti/pro anarchism. Anarchists claim that the only way to be really free is the absence of laws, while non-anarchist maintain that the only practical way to be free is to have laws (which by definition limit certain freedoms). So you can see how the topic can quickly become inflammatory :) GPL at the current time is used by aro
  • Francesco Biscani on 01 Nov 09
     
    whoa, the comment got cut off. Anyway, I was just saying that at the present time the GPL license is used by around 65% of open source projects, including the Linux kernel, KDE, Samba, GCC, all the GNU utils, etc. The topic is much deeper than this brief summary, so if you are interested in it, Leopold, we can discuss it at length in another place.
  • LeopoldS on 01 Nov 09
     
    Thanks for the record long comment - am sure that this is longest ever made to an ACT diigo post! On the topic, I would rather lean for the GPL license (which I also advocated for the Marek viewer programme we put on source forge btw), mainly because I don't trust that open source is by nature delivering a better product and thus will prevail but I still would like to succeed, which I am not sure it would if there were mainly BSD like licenses around. ... but clearly, this is an outsider talking :-)
  • LeopoldS on 01 Nov 09
     
    btw: did not know the anarchist penchant of Marek :-)
  • Ma Ru on 01 Nov 09
     
    Well, not going into the discussion about GPL/BSD, the viral license in this particular case in my view simply undermines the "clean and clear" motivations of the initiative authors - why should *they* be credited for using something they have no rights for? And I don't like viral licences because they prevent using things released under this licence to all those people who want to release their stuff under a different licence, thus limiting the usefulness of the stuff released on that licence :) BSD is not a perfect license too, it also had major flaws And I'm not an anarchist, lol
Marcus Maertens

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment - 1 views

www.nature.com/...ere-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

PHY science space

shared by Marcus Maertens on 18 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Marcus Maertens on 18 Feb 14
     
    Event Horizon - a modern myth?
  • dejanpetkow on 18 Feb 14
     
    GR is valid on large scales and is, therefore, a simplification of the unknown GUT. As such, the mathematical solutions obtained in GR are strictly speaking valid only within GR. Certainly, the solution called black hole is an extremely heavy object and at the same time extremely small - a point without geometrical extension. The latter is heavily in conflict with the validity range of the underlying theory and, hence, makes lots of people (including experts unlike me) question the concept of black holes despite the fact that something has been "observed" which fits into this concept. Regarding the movie: Event Horizon might be a myth but it emphasizes what Sante said in on of his presentations: Don't use a black hole for travelling, take the worm hole instead. The constructor of Event Horizon created a black hole not considering that the damn thing has no exit...where did he think the Event Horizon would end?
LeopoldS

BBC News - Stuxnet worm 'targeted high-value Iranian assets' - 0 views

www.bbc.co.uk/...technology-11388018

computer virus defence

shared by LeopoldS on 25 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 25 Sep 10
     
    fascinating ....
  • Ma Ru on 25 Sep 10
     
    Nice... enter cyber-warfare...
Ma Ru

Ghost of Oisin - Electric Sea Worms - 2 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...8570387.stm

nrg environment renewable

shared by Ma Ru on 16 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Ma Ru on 16 Mar 10
     
    Now you can peep inside.
Luís F. Simões

Ralph Langner: Cracking Stuxnet, a 21st-century cyber weapon | Video on TED.com - 2 views

www.ted.com/..._21st_century_cyberweapon.html

INF cyberwarfare TED

shared by Luís F. Simões on 04 Apr 11 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • When first discovered in 2010, the Stuxnet computer worm posed a baffling puzzle. Beyond its unusually high level of sophistication loomed a more troubling mystery: its purpose. Ralph Langner and team helped crack the code that revealed this digital warhead's final target -- and its covert origins. In a fascinating look inside cyber-forensics, he explains how.
Thijs Versloot

A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists - 1 views

www.businessinsider.com/g-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12

life physics mathematics

shared by Thijs Versloot on 15 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 15 Dec 14
     
    Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. The simulation results made me think of Jojo's attempts to make a self-assembling space structure. Seems he may have been on the right track, just not thinking big enough
  • johannessimon81 on 15 Dec 14
     
    :-P Thanks Thijs... I do not agree with the premise of the article that a possible correlation of energy dissipation in living systems and their fitness means that one is the cause for the other - it may just be that both go hand-in-hand because of the nature of the world that we live in. Maybe there is such a drive for pre-biotic systems (like crystals and amino acids), but once life as we know it exists (i.e., heredity + mutation) it is hard to see the need for an amendment of Darwin's principles. The following just misses the essence of Darwin: "If England's approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that "the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve." Darwin's principle in its simplest expression just says that if a genome is more effective at reproducing it is more likely to dominate the next generation. The beauty of it is that there is NO need for a steering mechanism (like maximize energy dissipation) any random set of mutations will still lead to an increase of reproductive effectiveness. BTW: what does "better at dissipating energy" even mean? If I run around all the time I will have more babies? Most species that prove to be very successful end up being very good at conserving energy: trees, turtles, worms. Even complexity of an organism is not a recipe for evolutionary success: jellyfish have been successful for hundreds of millions of years while polar bears are seem to be on the way out.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page