The conclusions section ties it all together, but too often that section is just a wordier restatement of the abstract. The conclusions are also where you're most likely to find the speculative crap that excites journalists and potential sources of funding.

When a subject has been politicized, the conclusions section will often conclude things that are somewhat divergent from, or even directly contradictory to, the actual results of the paper. This is because, in a politicized environment, the funders may pay attention to the conclusions section and only fund new projects for those who come to the "right" conclusions. Scientists finding unpopular-with-funders results may protect their careers by stating the funder-correct results in the conclusions but making it clear in the body of the paper that things are really otherwise.

The first time I encountered this was during the '60s and '70s, with research on what are now called "recreational drugs". The contrast was hilarious. (Eventually the government effectively shut down research on such drugs, for decades. Perhaps they figured out what was going on?)

IMHO governments, with politicians' power at stake and the public purse to fund them, play far more of this selective-funding game than corporate interests.

Errr... factoring primes is one of the least computationally intensive problems possible. The factors are always 1 and the number itself. I think you meant finding prime factors.

I'm sure he means "factoring the PRODUCT OF large primes".

It's an easy slip to make. (I've done it myself. B-b )

I can't tell the difference between a bar of gold, and a bar of gold hollowed out and filled with lead*.

Archimedes sorted that problem years ago.

Yes, but his method won't work if you make an undersized ingot of titanium and cast a little gold around it. Same specific gravity, to within the resolution of even some extremely accurate measurement tools.

Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?

Not according to the BATF and federal prosecutors.

One of the things F-troop has been doing is sending people into gun shows to ask gun-smithly people what the internal differences are between a semi- and full-auto models of various gun designs, such as the M-16 (select-fire) and AR-15 (semi-auto only).

If they reply with information, they are then busted for conspiracy to convert a gun to full auto in violation of federal laws and regulations.

Lots of people are in jail for that, now.

It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled.

It's exactly a paperweight until you MAKE THE FIRST CUT. Then it's over 80% and legally "a gun" for BATF purposes.

I understand the paperwork isn't bad. But then there's the fee and waiting to get approved. Someone told me it took a long time to get the approval.

It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you. (And few things annoy them more than trying to get around their regulations.)

They have a track record of boobytrapping the paperwork and geting people jailed for typos and minor slipups. Honest errors, misunderstanding of details of what you're supposed to do, missing a deadline, etc. Also stuff where THEY made the error but YOU can't prove it.

They'll also just keep grinding you in court, even if you actually are legal, once they start in on you. They'll keep it up until you're broke and have to fold. They have a conviction percentage rate in the high 90s.

Long felony sentences in federal prisons (and NOT the "country club" kind). They love to do things like giving you a count per round of ammunition or whatever, and run them consectutive, too. The federal prisons have no "time off for X" or probation: You serve the whole sentence. If you survive to get out, much of a lifetime later, you have lost your civil rights, including voting and owning or even handling guns (and you jepoardize any gun-owning friends or relatives by living with them or just being in their presence).

Look it up on the web. Lots of horror stories out there. The number of people in federal prison for gun paperwork "crimes" is staggering.

If you want to do this, keep it legal and keep a low profile. Really build it in your state. Really never take it out of state. Really never sell it. (I shudder to think how one handles inheritance of such a gun ...) To do otherwise is to open the giant economy can of worms.

Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".

I cant tell you how many job postings I read that said things like you need 5 years experience with X,Y, and Z.... only problem is Y and Z have only been out for 2 years and 4 years respectively.

Some of that is cluelessness in HR departments. (I recall a time where the jobs adds were filled with posts for entry level sysadmins, which demanded enough years of Unix experience that only Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, M. D. McIlroy, and J. F. Ossanna MIGHT qualify. B-) )

But some of it is part of the "hire a cheap H1B" game. By making the requirements impossible (or rejecting all but a handfull of people who already receive astronomical fees on the consulting market), they can claim that "There are no available US citizens quaified for the post." Then they hire an H1B.

Of course the H1B doesn't have the qualifications, either. But his resume is inflated (typically by his recruiting firm, without his knowledge or approval).

The employer knows the game, and isn't expecting the claimed skills to be present - just enough skill to do the actual job. But a citizen who similarly inflated his resume would be in serious trouble as a result.

The boss gets his cheap laborer, the H1B gets his job and visa, the recruiter gets his fee. Everybody is happy except the rejected US candidates.

So who checks for fraud? The boss is happy. The rejected candidates are in no position to investigate or initiate a claim. The government is not interested. (The boss' company is a big political contributor.) Nobody else has standing.

... the NSA owns congress. Enough said.

I guess that dates me. When I was growing up it was J. Edgar Hoover via the FBI. B-b

"Electroluminescent"? Is this REALLY thin? Or is the voltage substantial, like approaching three digit volts? (Or some third option, like a very low voltage electroluminescent material?)

(I'd check the referenced paper but can't get the time for that for another 12 hours, so if someone else gets to it, please follow up.)

Regardless, this looks very promising. Even if it turns out not to be practical, it should put the pressure on manufacturers to get a move on with commercial products at reasonable price points and improved form factors - or lead to the rise of disruptive competitors.

I don't have a firm opinion yet on the internals and suitability of systemd, or whether its improvements are worth the thrash. Having been burned by a number of changes (including, notably, init -> upstart), I'm likely to be a hard sell on the cost-benefit tradeoff of "fixing'' what it purports to fix.

But the discussion around it makes it remind me of a movie "character":

The Master Control Program in Tron.

For regulation to work... You have to not poke the bear.

If you only have a "right" while nobody exercises it, and it goes away as soon as a few people do, did you actually have it? Hardly!

Rights unused can be silently abrogated. You have to use them occasionally, to test whether this has happened, so you can take corrective action if it has.

(If nothing else, it's easy for law enforcement personnel to start assuming that something that doesn't occur often is actually banned. So important things like carrying guns need to be done occasionally, just to keep them aware that it's really OK.)

Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states.

If you can't do something "just because", it's not a right.

In fact its open carry demonstrations that have eduated police forces in many areas, bringing peace between law enforcement personnel and gun-toting ordinary citizens in many places where open carry was legal but had fallen out of use. It also brings the issue to visibility and educates others, especially those who grew up when it was rare, that they DO have these rights, when they hadn't been taught they did. It is a fine icebreaker for bringing out related facts - like the actual numbers on safety and the effect of gun carry on crime and injury rates.

Yes, "Poking the Bear" can also have bad effects: For instance, California's draconin gun bans got started largely when the Black Panthers carried rifles into the gallery of the State Legislature, back during the period of the Civil Rights riots when it was legal. But black people at the time were de-facto banned from carrying guns (which was much of why they could be oppressed). The legislature just made that unconstitutional infrigemet de-jure.

Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?

Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.

"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."

The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.

In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.

Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.

If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.

I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.

A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.

Is the key spacing the same as a standard piano keyboard? If not, how does it deviate?

Can it, in combination with some particular, commonly-available, MIDI software package(s), be programmed to have the same touch characteristics and sound as a piano, harpsichord, etc.? If so, are the configurtation parameters to produce equivalent performance already available?

Spock in Amok Time is good Spock, just rageful and murderous. Evil Spock (with a goatee -- that's how you can tell he's evil) was from episode 33, "Mirror, Mirror."