JetLib News

Xemu writes “Computer’s don’t make children fat, but watching TV for the same length of time does. This is shown by a recent Swedish study of all school children in Lund’s county conducted by RN Pernilla Garmy. The results were clear: The child’s obesity was directly affected by placing a TV in the child’s room, but placing a computer in the room had no effect at all. One theory is that it’s common to have a snack in front of the TV, while a computer requires a more active user, for example when chatting or playing games.”

Source: Study Shows TV Makes Kids Fat, Computers Don’t

Pickens writes “The Washington Post reports that professors have banned laptops from their classrooms at George Washington University, American University, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Virginia, among many others, compelling students to take notes the way their parents did: on paper. A generation ago, academia embraced the laptop as the most welcome classroom innovation since the ballpoint pen, but during the past decade it has evolved into a powerful distraction as wireless Internet connections tempt students away from note-typing to e-mail, blogs, YouTube videos, sports scores, even online gaming. Even when used as glorified typewriters, laptops can turn students into witless stenographers, typing a lecture verbatim without listening or understanding. ‘The breaking point for me was when I asked a student to comment on an issue, and he said, “Wait a minute, I want to open my computer,”‘ says David Goldfrank, a Georgetown history professor. ‘And I told him, “I don’t want to know what’s in your computer. I want to know what’s in your head.”‘ Some students don’t agree with the ban. A student wrote in the University of Denver’s newspaper: ‘The fact that some students misuse technology is no reason to ban it. After all, how many professors ban pens and notebooks after noticing students doodling in the margins?’”

Source: Professors Banning Laptops In the Lecture Hall

gollum123 sends an excerpt from the NY Times on how Google has taken a lead in language translation, in one of the company’s few unqualified successes as it attempts to broaden is offerings beyond search. “…Google’s quick rise to the top echelons of the translation business is a reminder of what can happen when Google unleashes its brute-force computing power on complex problems. The network of data centers that it built for Web searches may now be, when lashed together, the world’s largest computer. Google is using that machine to push the limits on translation technology. Last month, for example, it said it was working to combine its translation tool with image analysis, allowing a person to, say, take a cellphone photo of a menu in German and get an instant English translation. …in the mid-1990s, researchers began favoring a so-called statistical approach. They found that if they fed the computer thousands or millions of passages and their human-generated translations, it could learn to make accurate guesses about how to translate new texts. It turns out that this technique, which requires huge amounts of data and lots of computing horsepower, is right up Google’s alley. …Google’s service is good enough to convey the essence of a news article, and it has become a quick source for translations for millions of people.”

Source: Google’s Computing Power Refines Translation

b4dc0d3r writes “How do you make sense of the various model numbers or naming schemes for CPUs, graphics cards, and the related chipsets? All I want is something that will run Oblivion and output full 1080 video to a TV. Last time I built my own computer I just went to Pricewatch, made a few easy choices, and everything came to my door. Do I really have to research the differences among Core i5, Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Semperon, Athlon, Phenom…? And that’s just the processor. Is there a reference somewhere? In short, how do you buy a computer these days?”

Source: Making Sense of CPU and GPU Model Numbers?

whisper_jeff writes “I work in a design studio where the production director is also the owner’s son (translation = he can do no wrong). He is fond of accessing a designer’s computer via filesharing and working directly on files off of the designer’s computers rather than transferring the files to his computer to work on them there. In so doing, he causes the designer’s computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing. Given that there is no way he’s going to change his ways (since he doesn’t see anything wrong with it…), I was wondering if there was a way to throttle a user’s shared access to a computer (Mac OSX 10.5.8) so that his remote working would have minimal impact on our work. Google searches have revealed nothing helpful (maybe I should Bing it… :) so I was hoping someone with more technical expertise on Slashdot could offer a suggestion.”

Source: Throttle Shared Users With OS X — Is It Possible?

alphadogg writes “Three University of Michigan computer scientists say they have found a way to exploit a weakness in RSA security technology used to protect everything from media players to smartphones and e-commerce servers. RSA authentication is susceptible, they say, to changes in the voltage supply to a private key holder. While guessing the 1,000-plus digits of binary code in a private key would take unfathomable hours, the researchers say that by varying electric current to a secured computer using an inexpensive purpose-built device they were able to stress out the computer and figure out the 1,024-bit private key in about 100 hours – all without leaving a trace. The researchers in their paper outline how they made the attack (PDF) on a SPARC system running Linux.”

Source: Researchers Find Way To Zap RSA Algorithm

sammcj writes “I work at a public hospital in the computer / technical department and (amongst others) was recently outraged by an email that was sent around our department: ‘(XXXX) District Health Board — Information Services is strategically a Microsoft shop and when talking to staff / customers we are to support this strategy. I no longer want to see comments promoting other Operating Systems.’ We have also been told to remove Firefox found on anyone’s computer unless they have specific authorisation from management to have it installed under special circumstances. Now, I could somewhat understand this if I was working in a company that sold and promoted the use of Microsoft software for financial gain, but I work in the publicly / government funded health system. Several of the IT big-wigs at the DHB are seemingly blindly pro-Microsoft and seem all too quick to shrug off other, perhaps more efficient alternatives. As a taxpayer, I want nothing more than to see our health systems improve and run more efficiently. I am not foolish enough to say all our problems would be solved overnight by changing away from Microsoft’s infrastructure, but I am convinced that if we took less than half the money we spend on licensing Microsoft’s software alone and invested that in training users for an open source system, we would be far better off in the long run. I would very much like to hear Slashdot’s ideas / opinions on this ‘Strategic Direction’ and the silencing of our technical opinions.”

Source: A Public Funded “Microsoft Shop?”

An anonymous reader writes “I work at a public hospital in the computer / technical department and (amongst others) was recently outraged by an email that was sent around our department: ‘(XXXX) District Health Board — Information Services is strategically a Microsoft shop and when talking to staff / customers we are to support this strategy. I no longer want to see comments promoting other Operating Systems.’ We have also been told to remove Firefox found on anyone’s computer unless they have specific authorisation from management to have it installed under special circumstances. Now, I could somewhat understand this if I was working in a company that sold and promoted the use of Microsoft software for financial gain, but I work in the publicly / government funded health system. Several of the IT big-wigs at the DHB are seemingly blindly pro-Microsoft and seem all too quick to shrug off other, perhaps more efficient alternatives. As a taxpayer, I want nothing more than to see our health systems improve and run more efficiently. I am not foolish enough to say all our problems would be solved overnight by changing away from Microsoft’s infrastructure, but I am convinced that if we took less than half the money we spend on licensing Microsoft’s software alone and invested that in training users for an open source system, we would be far better off in the long run. I would very much like to hear Slashdot’s ideas / opinions on this ‘Strategic Direction’ and the silencing of our technical opinions.”

Source: A Public Funded “Microsoft Shop?”

klaasb writes “North Korea’s self-developed computer operating system, named ‘Red Star,’ was brought to light for the first time by a Russian satellite broadcaster yesterday. North Korea’s top IT experts began developing the Red Star in 2006, but its composition and operation mechanisms were unknown until the internet version of the Russia Today TV program featured the system, citing the blog of a Russian student who goes to the Kim Il-sung University in Pyongyang.”

Source: North Korea’s Own OS, Red Star

magacious writes “Gtec has showcased a computer that can read your mind over at the CeBIT trade show in Germany. Designed primarily to help those who can’t write or speak, the system makes use of a skull cap and wireless technology to transform brain waves into letters. It’s the first patient-ready computer-brain interface, according to its Austrian makers. It takes around 30 seconds per letter for the computer to recognise what you’re saying the first time you use it, according to Gtec, but this improves vastly with practice. ‘”One second per letter is very tough,” Gtec’s Engelbert Grunbacher said, adding users can usually easily get to five or 10 letters per minute. “You learn to be relaxed, focused. You improve.”‘ It might look quite wacky (pictures here) and at €9,000 the system is not cheap, but it could help enhance the lives of many people who have a great deal to say but no real way of saying it.”

Source: The Computer That Can Read Your Mind