Russian science: What the scientists say

24hoursnews
:ATTITUDES OF RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS TO FOREIGN SUPPORT
SOURCE. Iurevich and Tsapenko (as item 2), pp. 54-69 (chapter written together with I. Dezhina)

While only a small minority of Russian scientists receive support from abroad, (1) most have sought such support at one time or another. Almost every scientific collective, the authors remark, now has its "experts on foundations" who bombard potential foreign sponsors with appeals for money.

To explore the attitudes of Russian scientists to foreign support, the Central Institute for the Study of Public Opinion (TsIOM) surveyed 250 natural and social scientists from the main regional scientific centers, including Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Saratov, and Chelyabinsk. (2)

(a) Benefits and drawbacks of foreign support

"With regard to the general influence of foreign support on Russian science, moderately positive assessments predominate." Thus 13 percent of respondents consider foreign support of Russian science absolutely essential; two-thirds think it useful but not essential; and 13 percent regard it as humiliating or harmful.

In what ways does foreign support benefit Russian science and Russian scientists?

* In the view of 49 percent of respondents, foreign support increases the QUANTITY of scientific output.

* In the view of 35 percent of respondents, foreign support improves the QUALITY of scientific output.

* In the view of 52 percent of respondents, foreign support facilitates the creation of new scientific research programs.

* In the view of 62 percent of respondents, foreign support makes its recipients more independent of the directors of their institutes.

* In the view of 37 percent of respondents, foreign support revives the interest of Russian scientists in such traditional attributes of a scientific career as the publication of articles and monographs and the acquisition of academic degrees, inasmuch as these increase one's chance of getting a grant.

* In the view of 60 percent of respondents, grants from foreign foundations are a very substantial supplement to the income of Russian scientists (typically $100-200 per month). However, 65 percent of respondents note that grants are not large enough to cover trips abroad or the purchase of new equipment. They get "eaten up" by their recipients without changing the situation of Russian science as a whole. The system is "oriented toward growing vegetables not fruit trees."

* Many respondents also stress the moral dimension of foreign support, which makes the beneficiaries feel that they are a part of world science and that at least someone values their work.

The two most commonly mentioned negative effects of foreign support are:

* that -- in the opinion of 43 percent of respondents -- it undermines good relations among scientists by sowing divisions between the envied recipients of grants and their less fortunate colleagues, and

* that the hunt for grants takes up a large part of scientists' time, distracting them from their research.

The authors note some differences in the attitudes expressed by various categories of respondents:

* Men tend to be more skeptical about the benefits of foreign support than women are.

* Older and senior scientists, especially institute directors, tend to be more skeptical than their junior colleagues.

* Natural scientists, who are unable even with foreign support to buy the equipment they need, feel that social scientists receive a disproportionate share of the available funds.

* Contrary to expectations, no significant difference was found between the views of scientists who received foreign support and the views of scientists who did not.

(b) Attitudes to different forms of foreign support

The basic form of foreign support is the award of individual (or less often collective) grants on a competitive basis. Most respondents -- 86 percent -- approve of this practice. But a number of criticisms were also frequently voiced:

* Some grants should be awarded on the basis of nomination.

* More joint research projects with foreign collaborators should be funded.

* Some areas of science that are seen as politically relevant get disproportionate support at the expense of other less politicized but no less important areas.

* More support should be given to new scientific directions and open-ended exploratory research.

(c) Motives attributed to foreign sponsors

Only 12 percent attribute purely altruistic motives to foreign sponsors, seeing them as "Santa Claus," while 40 percent believe they "are trying to buy up our ideas on the cheap" and 14 percent suggest that their goal is to protect Western scientists from competition by stemming the emigration of Russian scientists. Only a few attribute to foreign sponsors the motive of preventing Russian scientists from working for "rogue states" like Iran and Iraq or long-term strategic motives like turning Russia into a "civilized neighbor" of the West.

16 percent suspect that Western secret services may be involved in foreign funding of Russian science, but they do not regard this as such a terrible thing. Some argue that the West has an interest not in undermining but in stabilizing the Russian state.

(d) Perceptions of foreign foundations

Although most Russian scientists are interested in obtaining foreign support for their work, they are poorly informed about foreign foundations. Few respondents were able to name more than two or three foreign foundations. (3) By far the best known and most highly regarded is the Soros Foundation, which is mentioned by 83 percent of respondents. The Ford and MacArthur Foundations are quite widely known. German and other non-American foreign foundations are rarely mentioned.

Only 35 percent of respondents think that they have an adequate understanding of the mechanism by which grants are allocated; 54 percent say they have a vague idea, and 7 percent admit that they have no idea whatsoever. Many confess that they find the allocation of grants by the MacArthur Foundation in particular "a complete enigma." This ignorance, the authors comment, is "fertile ground for the circulation of all sorts of rumors and the attribution to foreign foundations of dubious aims."

What, in the opinion of respondents, are the main factors influencing a scientist's chances of obtaining a grant?

* the personal connections of applicants (68 percent)

* their skill in writing applications (55 percent)

* their objective scientific achievements (29 percent)

* their formal status, i.e. post occupied and academic degree (27 percent)

* their informal authority (22 percent)

The majority of respondents see the process by which grants are awarded as subjective, chaotic, and corrupt. Here are some typical statements:

-- "The main thing here is the administrative apparatus of distribution, which keeps part of the money for itself."

-- "This sphere is quite corrupt."

-- "Our grant bureaucrats have concentrated in their hands power that Soviet bureaucrats never dreamed of."

-- "I do not exactly know this mechanism, but I have the a priori opinion that it's a mafia grouping."

Resentment is directed especially at the many employees of foreign foundations who are Russian emigres or people from specific politicized institutions such as the Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada. Respondents say that the emigres left Russia a long time ago and have a poor knowledge of the contemporary state of Russian science.

Thus the appreciation that respondents feel for the support offered by foreign foundations is marred by their acute dissatisfaction with the way that the foundations operate.

NOTES

(1) The authors' estimate is 4 percent, but it is not clear whether this refers to all those who have ever received foreign support or to those receiving such support at a particular moment in time. "Scientist" is used in the broad sense of the Russian "uchenyi" to include not only natural and social scientists but also scholars in the humanities.

(2) Of the 250, 200 completed questionnaires while 50 were interviewed in depth. The time of the survey is not specified, but appears to have been some time in the early 1990s.

(3) Curiously, some respondents thought that purely Russian foundations such as the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research were foreign foundations. Perhaps they were not aware that Russian foundations actually exist.

MIT research helps convert brain signals into action

Lakshminarayan Srinivasan (S.M., Ph.D. 2006) is part of a team that develops standardizing math equations to allow neural prostheses to work better. He is currently a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology and a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Nervous System Repair at Massachusetts General Hospital.
sponsored by careerbd Brain the most wonderful thing in the space . their are many belivers that if sometime we can discover our brain we may live life diffrent
MIT researchers have developed a new algorithm to help create prosthetic devices that convert brain signals into action in patients who have been paralyzed or had limbs amputated.

The technique, described in a paper published as the cover article in the October edition of the Journal of Neurophysiology, unifies seemingly disparate approaches taken by experimental groups that prototype these neural prosthetic devices in animals or humans.

"The work represents an important advance in our understanding of how to construct algorithms in neural prosthetic devices for people who cannot move to act or speak," said Lakshminarayan "Ram" Srinivasan (S.M., Ph.D. 2006), lead author of the paper.

Srinivasan, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Nervous System Repair at Massachusetts General Hospital and a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), began working on the algorithm while a graduate student in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

Trauma and disease can lead to paralysis or amputation, reducing the ability to move or talk despite the capacity to think and form intentions. In spinal cord injuries, strokes, and diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), the neurons that carry commands from the brain to muscle can be injured. In amputation, both nerves and muscle are lost.

Neural prosthetic devices represent an engineer's approach to treating paralysis and amputation. Here, electronics are used to monitor the neural signals that reflect an individual's intentions for the prosthesis or computer they are trying to use. Algorithms form the link between neural signals that are recorded and the user's intentions that are decoded to drive the prosthetic device.

Over the past decade, efforts at prototyping these devices have divided along various boundaries related to brain regions, recording modalities, and applications. The MIT technique provides a common framework that underlies all these various efforts.

The research uses a method called graphical models that has been widely applied to problems in computer science like speech-to-text or automated video analysis. The graphical models used by the MIT team are diagrams composed of circles and arrows that represent how neural activity results from a person's intentions for the prosthetic device they are using.

The diagrams represent the mathematical relationship between the person's intentions and the neural manifestation of that intention, whether the intention is measured by an electoencephalography (EEG), intracranial electrode arrays or optical imaging. These signals could come from a number of brain regions, including cortical or subcortical structures.

Until now, researchers working on brain prosthetics have used different algorithms depending on what method they were using to measure brain activity. The new model is applicable no matter what measurement technique is used, according to Srinivasan. "We don't need to reinvent a new paradigm for each modality or brain region," he said.

Srinivasan is quick to underscore that many challenges remain in designing neural prosthetic algorithms before they are available for people to use. While the algorithm is unifying, it is not universal: the algorithm consolidates multiple avenues of development in prostheses, but it isn't the final and only approach these researchers expect to see in the years to come. Moreover, energy efficiency and robustness are key considerations for any portable, implantible bio-electronic device.

Through a better quantitative understanding of how the brain normally controls movement and the mechanisms of disease, he hopes these devices could one day allow for a level of dexterity depicted in movies, such as actor Will Smith's mechanical arm in the movie, "I, Robot."

The gap between existing prototypes and that final goal is wide. Translating an algorithm into a fully functioning clinical device will require a great deal of work, but also represents an intriguing road of scientific and engineering development for the years to come.

Other authors on the paper are Uri Eden (Ph.D. 2005), assistant professor in mathematics and statistics at Boston University; Sanjoy Mitter, professor in EECS and MIT's Engineering Systems Division; and Emery Brown, professor in brain and cognitive sciences, HST, and anesthesia and critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital. The cover image for the October issue of Journal of Neurophysiology that depicts this research was designed by Rene Chen (B.S. 2007) and Eric Pesanelli.

This work was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Toshiba plans to begin selling TVs with OLED screens as soon as panels are ready.

Toshiba Corp. plans to begin selling televisions with OLED (organic light-emitting diodes) screens as soon as panels are ready, according to a company spokeswoman.

The first Toshiba OLED television sets should hit the market in 2009, said Yuko Sugahara [CQ], a company spokeswoman.

OLED screens offer higher contrast and faster response times than LCD (liquid crystal display) screens. OLED screens can also be thinner since no backlight is required. The carbon-based materials used to make OLEDs illuminate themselves when an electrical current is applied.

However, OLEDs are difficult to manufacture and degrade over time. Manufacturers are therefore working on ways to improve production yields and increase the lifespan of the screens.

Sony Corp. became the first company to introduce an OLED television on Monday, with the release of its XEL-1. The television, which goes on sale in December, has an 11-inch screen and has an estimated of lifespan of around 30,000 hours. That's enough time to watch eight hours of television per day for 10 years, Sony said.

While Sony was first to market with an OLED television, a lot of work remains to be done before the screens are ready for widespread adoption. The XEL-1 will be available in limited quantities, with Sony expecting to produce just 2,000 sets per month.

OLED
An organic light-emitting diode (OLED) is any light-emitting diode (LED) whose emissive electroluminescent layer comprises a film of organic compounds. The layer usually contains a polymer substance that allows suitable organic compounds to be deposited. They are deposited in rows and columns onto a flat carrier by a simple "printing" process. The resulting matrix of pixels can emit light of different colors.

Such systems can be used in television screens, computer displays, portable system screens, advertising, information and indication. OLEDs can also be used in light sources for general space illumination, and large-area light-emitting elements. OLEDs typically emit less light per area than inorganic solid-state based LEDs which are usually designed for use as point-light sources.

A great benefit of OLED displays over traditional liquid crystal displays (LCDs) is that OLEDs do not require a backlight to function. Thus they draw far less power and, when powered from a battery, can operate longer on the same charge. OLED-based display devices also can be more effectively manufactured than LCDs and plasma displays. But degradation of OLED materials has limited the use of these materials. See Drawbacks.

OLED technology was also called Organic Electro-Luminescence (OEL), before the term "OLED" became standard.

Brain drain

As if the mainstream media didn’t have enough trouble navigating the uncharted realm of digital innovation, they are losing many of the young, technologically astute employees who could be their guides.“What am I doing here?” a talented young designer and programmer working at a publishing company asked me recently. “These guys don’t get it. I’ve got to get out. I’m just wasting my time.”Like the

OSI model and 'Network troubleshooting and diagnostics'

sponsored by www.careerbd.net
One commonly used framework for troubleshooting that helps structure your response to a known network problem is the International Standards Organisation (ISO) Open Systems Interconnect (OSI) model. If you've worked with networking devices for any period of time, you are likely already familiar with OSI. It's the framework that encapsulates much of modern networking, and most network protocols live somewhere within its seven layers. Where you may not have used it before is as a troubleshooting guide for triaging an unknown problem on the network.



Figure 1: The OSI model is an excellent mental framework to assist the troubleshooter with identifying network problems.

Without going into too much detail on the history and use of model, let's take a look at how you can extend the OSI model into a framework for problem isolation. Figure 4.1 shows the seven layers in the OSI model and some issues that typically occur related to each layer. Let's discuss each of the layers in-turn from the bottom-up:

At the Physical layer, problems typically involve some break in the physical connectivity that makes up the network. Broken network connections, cabling and connector issues, and hardware problems that inhibit the movement of electricity from device to device typically indicate a problem at this layer.

At the Data Link layer, we move away from purely electrical problems and into the configuration of the interface itself. Data Link problems often have to do with Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) problems in relating IP addresses to Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. These can be caused by speed and duplex mismatching between network devices or excessive hardware errors for the interface. An incorrectly configured interface within the device operating system (OS) or interference for wireless connections can also cause problems at the Data Link layer.

At the Network layer, we begin experiencing problems with network traversal. Network layer problems typically occur when network packets cannot make their way from source to destination. This may have something to do with incorrect IP addressing or duplicate IP addresses on the network. Problems with routing data or ICMP packets across the network or protocol errors can also cause problems here. In extreme cases, an external attack can also spike error levels on network devices and cause problems identified at the Network Layer.

At the Transport layer, we isolate problems that typically occur with TCP or UDP packets in Ethernet networks. These may have to do with excessive retransmission errors or packet fragmentation. Either of these problems can cause network performance to suffer or drop completely. Problems at this layer can be difficult to track down because unlike the lower layers they often don't involve a complete loss of connectivity. Additionally, Transport layer problems can often involve the blocking of traffic at the individual IP port layer. If you've ever been able to ping a server but cannot connect via a known port, this can be a Transport layer problem.

The Session, Presentation, and Application layers are often lumped together because more recent interpretations of the OSI model tend to grey the lines between these three layers. The troubleshooting process for these three layers involves problems that have to do with applications that rely on the network.

These applications could involve DNS, NetBIOS, or other resolution, application issues on residing OSs, or high-level protocol failures or misconfigurations. Examples of these high-level protocols are HTTP, SMTP, FTP, and other protocols that typically "use the network" rather than "run the network." Additionally, specialised external attacks such as "man-in-the-middle" attacks can occur at these levels.

Network problems can and do occur at any level in the model. And because the model is so highly understood by network administrators, it immediately becomes a good measuring stick to assist with communicating those problems between triaging administrators. If you've ever worked with another administrator who uses language like, "This looks like a Layer 4 problem," you can immediately understand the general area (the Transport layer) in which the problem may be occurring.

You'll hear seasoned network administrators often refer to problems by their layer number. For example, when you hear "that's at layer 3," it can mean an IP connectivity problem. Layer 4 can reveal the problem is due to a network port closure. Network administrators jokingly refer to problems that occur with a system and not part of their network as those "at layer 7."
Let's talk about three different ways in which you can progress through this model during a typical problem isolation activity.

Three different approaches

Network administrators who use OSI as a troubleshooting framework typically navigate the model in one of three ways: Bottom-Up, Top-Down, and Divide-and-Conquer. Depending on how the problem manifests and their experience level, they may choose one method over another for that particular problem. Each of these approaches has its utility based on the type of problem that is occurring. Let's look at each.

Bottom-Up

The Bottom-Up approach simply means that administrators start at the bottom of the OSI model and work their way up through the various levels as they strike off potential root causes that are not causing the problem. An administrator using the Bottom-Up approach will typically start by looking at the physical layer issues, determine whether a break in network connectivity has occurred, and then work up through network interface configurations and error rates, and continue through IP and TCP/UDP errors such as routing, fragmentation, and blocked ports before looking at the individual applications experiencing the problem.

This approach works best in situations in which the network is fully down or experiencing numerous low-level errors. It also works best when the problem is particularly complex. In complex problems, the faulting application often does not provide enough debugging data to the administrator to give insight as to the problem. Thus, a network-focused approach works best.

Top-Down

The Top-Down approach is the reverse of the Bottom-Up approach in that the administrator starts at the top of the OSI model first, looking at the faulted application and attempting to track down why that application is faulted. This model works best when the network is in a known-good state and a new application or application reconfiguration is being completed on the network. The administrator can start by ensuring the application is properly configured, then work downward to ensure that full IP connectivity and appropriate ports are open for proper functionality of the application. Once all upper-level issues are resolved, a back-check on the network can be done to validate its proper functionality. As said earlier, this approach is typically used when the network itself is believed to be functioning correctly but a new network application is being introduced or an existing one is being reconfigured or repurposed.

Divide-and-Conquer

The Divide-and-Conquer approach is a fancy name for the "gut feelling" approach. It is typically used by seasoned administrators who have a good internal understanding of the network and the problems it can face. The Divide-and-Conquer approach involves an innate feelling for where the problem may occur, starting with that layer of the OSI model first, and working out from that location. This approach can also be used for trivial issues that the administrator has seen before.

However, this approach has the downfall of often being non-scientific enough to properly diagnose a difficult problem. If the problem is complex in nature, the Divide-and-Conquer approach may not be structured enough to track down the issue.

Figure 4.: Depending on the type of problem, a Bottom-Up, Top-Down, or Divide-and-Conquer approach may be best for isolating the root cause of the problem.


No matter which approach you use, until you begin to develop that "gut instinct" for your network and its unique characteristics, you should consider a structured method for your troubleshooting technique. Although utilising a structured method can increase the time needed to resolve the problem, it will track down the problem without missing key items that drive resolution "band-aiding."

Technology War.- Law and order.-

No doubt the worlds Technology Market is going to trimendous up.. with the so the global leader of administration should more concious about the constructive technology , SLOGAN IS WE WANT CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY VOID DESTRUCTIVE
We need updated law for technology governanceApple Users Talking Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Locking
You bought the iPhone, you paid for it, but now Apple is telling you how you have to use it, and if you don't do things they way they say, they're going to lock it. Turn it into a useless "brick." Is this any way to treat a customer? Apparently, it's the Steve Jobs way. But some iPhone users are mad as heck, and they're not going to take it anymore.

In a Saturday post on Apple's own iPhone discussion forums, a user who goes by the handled of "myndex" has posted the provocatively entitled message "iPhone Class Action Lawsuit." Despite its title, it's not notice of an actual lawsuit. Rather, myndex is seeking comments from other forum users on what they think of suing Apple over its refusal to service users who've unlocked their iPhones or loaded them up with "unauthorized" applications. [Update, Sun 1:40 pm. As commenter "Poli," below, notes, myndex's entry on Apple's discussions.apple.com forums appears to have been removed by Apple some three hours after this Wolfe's Den post appeared. For that reason, at the end of this entry I've added screen captures of mydex's mirror post from the macrumor board.]

Here's an summary of the post:

"To: iPhone Owners denied warranty service. Seeking respondents for possible class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. relating to refusal to service iPhones and related accessories under warranty...There are three potential classes in this case: 1) Persons who own an iPhone and used software to access the available flash drive space on the iPhone [iPhoneDrive]; 2) Persons who installed 3rd party software on the iPhone for the purpose of expanding its functionality; 3) Persons who unlocked their iPhone to allow for its use on networks other than AT&T (NYSE: T)."
Should Apple be worried? Perhaps more for the groundswell myndex could create than an immediate legal action.

A quick search indicates that "myndex" likely isn't a lawyer. More probably he's a Mac guy. You get this from his Web site--mydex.com—which is something called Myndex Technologies. "We are a research and devlopment organization," the site says. A WhoIs search reports the site is registered out of Carson City, Nevada.

The other, more troubling, reason his suit might not fly is that some respondents on the site seem to be suffering from Apple-induced Stockholm syndrome. Writes one: "I would love to tinker with my iPhone, but it's not worth bricking it or voiding my warranty. Anyone who turns his shiny new phone into an iBrick by messing with the firmware AFTER he was warned and demands compensation... well... I have no sympathy."

Here's another: "I'm not saying what this new [Apple] update did was right but then again neither was modifying the phone to do what it was not intended to do no matter how useful the modifications were."

Personally, I'm with this poster, who shows some backbone:

"I'm afraid I'm not with Apple on this one. Seems to me that Apple's usage terms are onerous and unreasonable (can't put a file on your iphone which is as much a handheld computer as it is a telephone or an ipod?) What, we live in the digital equivalent of the iron curtain?"
I'm not averse to Myndex succeeding, because Apple's stance really bothers me. It seems like Jobs has turned the famous "Pottery Barn" rule on its ear. In the iPhone world according to Apple, it's "You bought it, we [might] break it."

The sheer hypocrisy of it all rankles. Here's a company whose CEO has railed again the inclusion of digital-rights management (DRM) encryption software on competitors' music files. Many people supported Jobs in his stance, assuming it was, at least in part, a philosophic nod in favor of consumer's rights. However, in light of the latest iPhone fiasco, a sober observer would say that was probably just a cynical business move to get onboard where he figured consumers were heading with or without Apple. (That's on top of the first iPhone mess: Jobs's precipitous early price cut, which blew a big raspberry at early adopters.)

Here's some background on what specifically Apple is doing. As InformationWeek reported on Sept. 24:

"Apple warned that unlocking programs used to connect the iPhone to cellular networks other than AT&T's causes 'irreparable damage' that would likely result in the modified device becoming inoperable when this week's Apple-supplied software update is released."
Sadly, as The New York Times noted on Saturday, Sept. 29, in its story Altered iPhones Freeze Up, this has indeed come to pass:

"Joel Robison, a systems network engineer near Seattle, said his phone stopped working immediately after he installed the upgrade. He said that when he took it to an Apple store, he was accused of having unlocked the phone. But he said that with the exception of one aborted attempt to install a piece of outside software, he had made no modifications to the phone. 'Their accusation was very damaging to my opinion of Apple’s service,' Mr. Robison said."
Damaging to his opinion? Heck yeah! What additional message do consumers need that Apple's iPhone arrogance has run amuck?

Still, one has to admit that Apple's stance is not unexpected. Nor is the corporate speak emanating from Cupertino in response to consumer concerns. This quote, in the Times' story from Apple spokeswoman Jennifer Bowcock, is priceless:

"If the damage was due to use of an unauthorized software application, voiding their warranty, they should purchase a new iPhone."
You can't buy this kind of publicity, can you?

In light of myndex's threatened suit, it's relevant to examine whether Apple's position that it totally controls the iPhone after a customer has bought it, opens Apple up to any legal action. An iPhone isn't software, so Apple can't hide behind a EULA or the position that customers are only "renting" or licensing the device and don't really own it. Or can they?

AT&T, the only wireless carrier offering the iPhone, has volleyed the issue back into Apple's court. An AT&T customer document entitled "Essential information before you buy," contains this gem: "iPhone is covered by the Apple Warranty. There is no eligibility for the wireless phone insurance program." The iPhone box says an AT&T contract is required for use and activation of all features of the phone, which makes for something of a round-robin situation here.

The iPhone manual (download, here) has this: "Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the product’s use."

I'm not a lawyer, so don't know whether all this stuff puts Apple in a completely defensible position. To a layperson, it seems like there's a difference between damage that's out of Apple's control and Apple going out of its way to mess up your phone.

However, at least one lawyer doesn't agree with me. Here's Noah Funderburg, an assistant dean at the University of Alabama School of Law, quoted in the Times' story. "Anyone who hacks must know that they are taking certain risks," Funderburg told the paper. "If they aren’t willing to assume the risks upfront--like a brick iPhone--then maybe they should not hack the device."

There's been at least one prior iPhone suit, but it was about the fact that consumers can't get at the battery. Myndex's missive seems to be the first chatter about a "brick" suit.

What's next? Will Mr. Jobs tell iPhone users who they can and can't call, and when.
Hey, here's an idea, which comes by way of analogy with the way Apple treats iPhone hackers: If anyone messes around with stock-options, then their job turns into a "brick."

Back STORY
Hackers Get their iPhones (Back)
Annie Oakley (played by Steve Jobs): Anything you can hack, I can lock better. I can code anything better than you.
Frank Butler (played by a chorus of anonymous hackers): No you can’t!
Oakley: Yes I can!….
So it stretches the brain to think of Ethel Merman wearing a black turtleneck and jeans. Then again, “There’s No Business Like Show Business” could just as well have been written for Mr. Jobs.
In any case, there is certainly a battle of the egos between Apple and the hacking community over the iPhone. And this weekend, some sharpshooting coders have been able to restore at least some of the modifications to their iPhones that Apple had wiped away.
To recap the story: Last Thursday Apple released an upgrade to the iPhone firmware (the code that controls the phone operations). Users that had installed unauthorized software, found their new programs unusable. Those who had unlocked their phones to use networks other than AT&T—in violation of their agreement with apple-could not use their phones at all. In other words, their iPhones had been bricked.
Then, a user of the Hackintosh Forum who goes by the screen name KMAC1985 discovered a rather peculiar maneuver: If you hold down the power button and the home button on the phone for 10 seconds, then release the power button, the phone will enter a state that will allow it to restore the 1.0.2 software from a connected computer. (The details are here. For the visual, here is a music video tutorial.)
Users are reporting in forum comments that this can take several hours, and that it works for some phones but not others. (See coverage from The Unofficial Apple Weblog and Gizmodo.)
The forums seem to indicate that by downgrading the firmware to the previous version, iPhones can again use third-party applications. If a phone had been frozen by Apple’s firmware update, this procedure will allow it again to operate as music and video players and connect to a Wi-Fi network. The restoring the 1.0.2 firmware alone will let a phone connect to AT&T or any other cellular network.
Jesus Diaz, a reporter for Gizmodo, reports that he has been able to make calls again from his previously bricked iPhone. This involves, among other steps, using a modified SIM chip called a Turbo SIM. Commenters here seem to think this is a difficult solution.
Meanwhile the IPhone Dev Team, a loose collection of hackers organized through this Web site, says it is hard at work creating new hacks that will make it easier to install unauthorized applications, fix bricked iPhones, and continue to unlock iPhones.
The comment sections to our previous posts on the iPhone upgrade (here, here and here) have seen active debate over the legitimacy of modifying iPhones. Some argue that the hackers are simply defending their rights to use the hardware they bought. Others say that since Apple made clear that the iPhone could be used only on the AT&T network and only with its official software, the hackers simply shouldn’t have bought one expecting an open device.
From a literal point of view, I see the point of the latter argument. I’d have a hard time arguing that Apple misled iPhone buyers.
Even so, I’m not sure that Apple needs to be playing so tough. Apple’s policy is that if your iPhone has been turned into a brick, buy a new one. But couldn’t the company, at least, release software that restores iPhones to their original subservient state?
More important, I’m not sure it is a tenable position in the long term to maintain such an adversarial role with a group of customers. The iPhone captures people’s imagination because it offers a flexible interface on a small device, and there have been dozens of nifty applications developed for it so far.
If Apple doesn’t create a way for developers to create new applications, this war will get uglier. But we’ve seen this musical before

Media remix

There could be two reasons advertising expenditures for the major media declined in the first half of this year for the first time since the tech bubble burst in 2001. Or, maybe three.One cause could be that advertisers, fearing a weak economy, are cutting back on expenditures to sustain their bottom lines. The other is that advertisers are funneling more dollars into non-traditional media. And