...be it your government, press or even computer. I don't understand people who think we can achieve a utopian future where there is no malware in our public spaces and yet we are still open and free. It takes the community, working together in constant vigilence, to keep the streets clean and the law respected. Look at the human body, it is an amazing information system and yet it spends upwards of 10% of its resources fighting malware. If manmade system x is not doing the same it is either not as adaptable or the malware it faces is pretty pathetic compared to what nature can design. Walled gardens are the end of free and open systems that are essential to creativity. MS expanding the defenses of their operating system is not anti-trust. And it won't solve the problem of course.

Yes, the spot diameter(405nm) is the same as blu-ray but the length of the pit is shorter due to the faster switching speeds. This the real breakthrough and where the increased storage density is coming from. Also, 100w peak power at these speeds is not that much actually. Even at 1ghz, the average power is so low I doubt these can barely warm a piece of paper. I have seen IR laser diodes in 5mm plastic cases that are rated at 100w peak. Trust me, the average power is actually well below 100mw. The higher peak power doesn't increase recording density but does increase recording speed (which is a desired trait as density goes up).

Prigogine's belief that determinism is no longer a viable scientific belief is at odds with quite a few other scientists - including Darwin. But more interesting... You or someone you know now has proof that isolated simple systems can produce complex systems in universe time scales? Do tell.

Animals have been shown in the past to be able to exhibit various adaptions (beaks, spots, hair color, eye color, etc) by turning on a particular gene in their set. What this study adds is some information on how likely the adapted animal will mate with the non-adapted form. But this isn't all that new either, some guys prefer blondes (look at its effect on Iceland). Now an animal without an eye producing an eye and not by activating existing genes would be a neat trick. Basically you would have spontaneous generaiton of complexity (complexity here being different than mere information). Information theory has no problem with adaption but it does have a problem with spontaneous generation of complexity out of a less complex system.

This may be a minor annoyance in orbit but for a long trip to Mars it becomes more important to crew moral and reducing "cabin fever".

You would think.. The rate for the shuttle is about $10k a pound last I checked. This has not stopped them from carrying aboard big heavy outdated Maglites weighing several pounds when smaller, brighter LED flashlights can easily be found. From pictures I have seen, the shuttle crew uses 3D cell size mags (along with 2AA size). I estimated how much the tax payers where paying to carrying those things in orbit with all their spare batteries (since they have such a poor runtime). I came up with over 20lbs of flashlights and batteries costing the taxpayer over $200k a launch. I suspect they have to use them since mag has a bunch of lobbyists. But I am sure this is not the only example.

-kbaud

Speed cameras were originally tried in 1969 in Texas but they were taken down when people started shooting the cameras. The system was called Orbis. See pg 20 of the January 2008 Popular Mechanics. The systems eventually came back and stayed, maybe because people are now more tolerant of surveillance.

To be really picky for the math lovers, I actually don't think pi or the Mandelbrot plots are as complex (in the true meaning of complex) as some people think. They might appear complex because they unpack into a very large system with a lot of points. But a good test of complexity is to apply data compression. When you compress a string of data to it smallest size, you can more clearly see true complexity (measured in size). Compressing a set doesn't change its complexity otherwise it would be 'lossy'. If we train a system to apply various formulas to a very long string of numbers and one of the formulas produces the same result, then the formula is interchangeable with the long string. Of course you need time to parse and enough memory to keep notes but eventually you find that the true complexity of pi is the smallest script that can produce it.

The alternative is to accept an incongruity: we say that both sides of the equation are equal while also saying that one side is more complex.

You were saying that you found proof that a simple system can produce a complex system. This means less complexity is producing more complexity without any donations of complexity from outside systems. Not only does the Mandelbrot not help you, I don't see any other example that does.

You mentioned a "window" that allows a fraction of the whole to be viewed. I think you were possibly referring to imaginary perspective and not mathematics. In math, you either work with all the data or a fraction of it. If you work with fractions of it and unless you fudge the numbers, you cannot produce the same exact result as a formula that works with the whole.

Therefore, we reach another incongruity. Either your window is equal in complexity to the system it is viewing and your claim that a simple system produced a complex system still wants for proof or you are saying the window only represents a fraction of the entire system and therefore the window is not equal to the whole complex system. For one system that is not equal to another system to somehow then become equal to that system, it must gain the information it is missing either from the other system or from somewhere else. Either way, the simple system must borrow from other systems and therefore can't be said to solely, "produce" the complex system. Next, we have a shell game or a simple admission of spontaneous creation of information.