10 Transparent Animals

Transparent Frog

Native to Venezuela, the Glass Frogs belong to the amphibian family Centrolenidae (order Anura). While the general background coloration of most glass frogs is primarily lime green, the abdominal skin of some members of this family is transparent, so that the heart, liver, and digestive tract are visible through their translucent skin. (Photo by Heidi and Hans-Jurgen Koch)

Transparent Head Fish

This bizarre deep-water fish called the Barreleye (Macropinna microstoma) has a transparent head and tubular eyes. It has extremely light-sensitive eyes that can rotate within his transparent, fluid-filled shield on its head, while the fish's tubular eyes, well inside the head, are capped by bright green lenses. The eyes point upward (as shown here) when the fish is looking for food overhead. They point forward when the fish is feeding. The two spots above the fish's mouth are not eyes: those are olfactory organs called nares, which are analogous to human nostrils. (Photo by MBARI)

Transparent Butterfly

Found in Central America, from Mexico to Panama, the Glasswing Butterfly (Greta Oto) is a brush-footed butterfly where its wings are transparent. The tissue between the veins of its wings looks like glass. (Photo by Hemmy)

Transparent Squid

Found on the southern hemisphere's oceans, the Glass Squid (Teuthowenia pellucida) has light organs on its eyes and possesses the ability to roll into a ball, like an aquatic hedgehog. It is prey of many deep-sea fish (eg goblin sharks) as well as whales and oceanic seabirds. (Photo by Peter Batson)

Transparent Zebrafish created by scientists

This see-through zebrafish was created in 2008 by scientists so they can study disease processes, including the spread of cancer. The transparent fish are allowing researchers at Children's Hospital Boston to directly view fish's internal organs and observe processes such
as tumor growth in real-time in living organisms. (Photo by LS)

Transparent Jellyfish Jellyfish are free-swimming members of the phylum Cnidaria. They are found in every ocean, from the surface to the deep sea. Many jellies are so transparent that they are almost impossible to see. The one above is from the Arctapodema genus, with a size of an inch-long (2.5-centimeter-long). (Photo by Bill Curtsinger)

Transparent Icefish

Fund in the cold waters around Antarctica and southern South America, the crocodile icefish (Channichthyidae) feed on krill, copep ods, and other fish. Their blood is transparent because they have no hemoglobin and/or only defunct erythrocytes. Their metabolism relies only on the oxygen dissolved in the liquid blood, which is believed to be absorbed directly through the skin from the water. This works because water can dissolve the most oxygen when it is coldest. In five species, the gene for myoglobin in the muscles has also vanished, leaving them with white instead of pink heart s. (Photo by uwe kils)

Transparent Amphipod

Called Phronima, this unusual animal is one of the many strange species recently found on an expedition to a deep-sea mountain range in he North Atlantic. In an ironic strategy for survival, this tiny shrimplike creature shows everything it has, inside and out, in an attempt to disappear.Many other small deep-sea creatures are transparent as well, or nearly so, to better camouflage themselves in their murky surroundings, scientists say. (Photo by David Shale)

Transparent Larval Shrimp

Found in the in the waters around Hawaii, this transparent larval shrimp piggybacks on an
equally see-through jellyfish. (photo by Chris Newbert/Minden Pictures)

Transparent Salp

This jellyfish-like animals known as Salps feed on small plants in the water called phytoplankton (marine algae). They are transparent, barrel-shaped animals that can range from one to 10cm in length. (Photo by DM)

The future of fuel, Grassoline

Before the oil runs out, scientists and engineers are hard at work figuring out alternatives.

"Grassoline." The word has a ring to it. It's catchy. "Grassoline" is easier to say than "cellulosic biofuel" but it means much the same thing. In the search for petroleum substitutes, ethanol made from switchgrass is a leading alternative. Switchgrass is cheap, abundant and doesn't compete with food crops. Citing a yet to be released study by the Department of Energy, George Huber and Bruce Dale say that the U.S. can produce enough cellulosic biomass every year to meet at least half of our petroleum energy requirements—and all without decreasing the amount of crops available for our food, animal feed or exports. In fact, using those numbers, the world can produce a lot more biomass than we would need to fill the global demand for fuel.

There's a catch. of course. Facilities to convert straw into liquid gold are, for now at least, prohibitively expensive. It's estimated that using current technology, a plant designed to produce 34,000 barrels of oil a day—a mere drop in the bucket of global demand—would cost over a billion dollars. Then, if it could be stoked with five thousand tons of cellulosic material each and every day for thirty years or so, it would pay for itself. There are cheaper and better ways to do it, but they haven't been perfected yet.

Maybe the plant matter would be better used as composted fertilizer and mulch, a natural way of maintaining a balance of nutrients in the soil. As for me, I was hoping for a personal model grass converter. I'd like to be able to throw my clippings in a hopper and power my lawn mower with them. Or is that too "back to the future?"

The Face Of A Young Man Hearing For The First Time

“This photo was taken by photographer Jack Bradley and depicts the exact moment this boy, Harold Whittles, hears for the very first time ever. The doctor treating him has just placed an earpiece in his left ear. Date unknown. “

It's not only Vista, but Microsoft's Calculator too failed

Microsoft's Calculator failed in following calculation.

Go to Start-->Run-->type Calc and Check the following... .

2704/50 = 54.08 Works Fine

2704/51 = 53.01960784 Works Fine

2704/52 = Try yourself Doesn't Work

2704/53 = 51.01886792 Works Fine

2704/54 = 50.07407407 Works Fine

Microsoft Calculator Failed

Try it ....

6 things that could ruin Twitter (and 5 that won't)

 Twitter is the hottest thing in technology right now. U.S. visits to Twitter.com more than doubled during the month of March alone.

All that success is prompting the Debbie Downers out there to speculate about dangers lurking in the shadows.

Well, I'm here to join them, because Twitter really is a good thing and it really could be ruined. But I'm also here to disagree with some of the doom-and-gloom scenarios.

Sure, it can go the other way. Twitter, according to some, can wreck other things. For example, Twitter can ruin moral values, health, careers,Hollywood, brands and even the movies.

But what are the threats to Twitter itself? Here are the six things that could ruin Twitter -- and the five things that can't.

The six things that could ruin Twitter

1. Buying friends. CNN announced yesterday that it had acquired@CNNBrk, a Twitter feed that serves up links to CNN breaking news stories. Now that people are rewarded for selling followers, an entire underground economy will probably emerge. Perps will use dirty tricks to build a large number of followers, then sell those accounts to big corporations. The end result will be a large number of accounts that suddenly turn into sources of Twitter spam, and a large number of users who feel they've been tricked.

2. Username squatting. When I started following @CNNBrk, I thought I was following CNN itself. I didn't learn until yesterday that it was just some dude who grabbed the CNNBrk name, copied the CNN logo and served up links to CNN content. CNN's acquisition of @CNNBrk showed everyone that username squatting on Twitter pays. Expect to see millions of people signing up using trademarked IP, hoping to cash in later.

3. Forgetting to grow a business model. The trouble with not making money is that Twitter won't be able to keep up with demand. Which means more fail whales, slowdowns and problems. (The fail whale is apicture that's displayed on Twitter when the system breaks, usually because of excess activity.)

4. Invasive advertising. Ads on Twitter would be OK. Paying to not see ads would be OK, too. But ads that cover the screen or otherwise delay posts could harm Twitter badly. Twitter is about speed and brevity. Big ads that are fine elsewhere won't work on Twitter.

5. Spam. The good news about Twitter is that everything is instantly searchable. The bad news is that everything is instantly searchable. Stories abound about a user whining about some product only to receive a quick e-mail from the company they complained about.

Companies are using Twitter's great search tools to find out in real time what people are saying about them. This could all be further automated. I'd hate to see an entire ecosystem forming around the triggering of spam to your e-mail in-box every time you tweet something. This spam could also be used as a form of "punishment" that stifles criticism. Another form of spam is unwanted ads sent as direct messages. Once this is automated, our direct-message in-boxes could be filling up with garbage. Spam ruined e-mail, and it could ruin Twitter.

6. Bugs and viruses. Twitter allows links, and links could send you to the same kind of sites and trigger the same kinds of downloads that initiate the downloading of Trojan horses onto your system. Twitter needs to stay on top of this before it becomes an industry.

The five things that cannot ruin Twitter

1. Celebrity culture. Sure, Oprah and Ashton now dominate the Twittersphere. But to say celebrity tweets, celebrity gossip and celebrity trash-talk will ruin Twitter is to not understand the very nature of the service. Twitter is the one form of communication where you can individually choose who you listen to. This is different from, say, comments on Digg or even articles in the newspaper, where you have to wade through muck to find gold. Sure, we'll be hearing more than we want to hear about celebrities on Twitter. But we'll be hearing about it on TV, in blogs, and in magazines and newspapers. Those are the things that will be ruined by celebrity twittering. But on Twitter itself, we can just turn that stuff off.

2. Media hype. Twitter is overexposed in the media. But that just wrecks media, not Twitter. There is no such thing as unwanted communication on Twitter. If you chose to follow someone, by definition you want what they tweet.

3. Marketing and PR. Again, missing the point. Twitter will be great for people who want to get marketing information and interact with PR people (I'm one of them. I'd much prefer to tweet with PR people than exchange e-mail.) But for those who don't, they can just stop following. And because of that, Twitter rewards marketers who communicate in a straightforward and appealing way and punishes anyone who uses some kind of exploitation. The marketing industry and Twitter will improve each other.

4. Big business. As Twitter's usage grows, of course, companies are going to build massive followings by doing things like raffling off expensive goods to followers. But this won't affect your own personal tweets any more than McDonald's ads affect how you make dinner. Corporations will be over there doing their thing, and you'll be over here doing yours. It only affects you if you choose to participate.

5. Google. OK, Google could ruin Twitter. But I don't think it will (if it acquires Twitter). Google would most likely grow the service even more rapidly, and keep its functionality pretty much the way it is, as they have done with other acquisitions. Plus, there are many ways Google could improve Twitter, including integrating it into Profiles, Chat and Gmail.

So if you're a Twitter user, enjoy its many great qualities while they last, because they may not. However, if the geniuses running Twitter remain faithful to the original vision (as other companies like, say, Craigslist, have done), then Twitter might stay great and become even greater.

One liners -- Hidden meanings

Today's Professional Management FUNDAS

1."We will do it" means "You will do it"

2."You have done a great job" means "More work to be given to you"

3."We are working on it" means "We have not yet started working on the same"

4."Tomorrow first thing in the morning" means "Its not getting done "At least not tomorrow!"

5."After discussion we will decide-I am very open to views" means "I have already decided , I will tell you what to do"

6."There was a slight miscommunication" means "We had actually lied"

7."Lets call a meeting and discuss" means "I have no time now, will talk later"

8."We can always do it" means "We actually cannot do the same on time"

9."We are on the right track but there needs to be a slight extension of the deadline" means "The project is screwed up, we cannot deliver on time."

10."We had slight differences of opinion "means "We had actually fought"

11."Make a list of the work that you do and let's see how I can help you" means "Anyway you have to find a way out no help from me"

12."You should have told me earlier" means "Well even if you told me earlier that would have made hardly any difference!"

13."We need to find out the real reason" means " Well I will tell you where your fault is"

14."Well Family is important; your leave is always granted. Just ensure that the work is not affected," means, "Well you know..."

15."We are a team," means, "I am not the only one to be blamed"

16."That's actually a good question" means "I do not know anything about it"

17."All the Best" means "You are in trouble "

Conficker, the Internet's No. 1 threat, gets an update

Security researchers say a worm that has infected millions of computers worldwide has been reprogrammed to strengthen its defenses while also trying to attack more machines.

Conficker, which takes advantage of a vulnerability in Microsoft's software, has infected at least 3 million PCs and possibly as many as 12 million, making it into a huge botnet and one of the most severe computer security problems in recent years.

Botnets can be used to send spam and attack other Web sites, but they need to be able to receive new instructions. Conficker can do this two ways: it can either try to visit a Web site and pick up instructions or it can receive a file over its custom-built encrypted P-to-P (Peer-to-Peer) network.

Over the last day or so, researchers with Websense and Trend Micro said some PCs infected with Conficker received a binary file over P-to-P. Conficker's controllers have been hampered by efforts of the security community to get directions via a Web site, so they are now using the P-to-P function, said Rik Ferguson, senior security advisor for the vendor Trend Micro.

The new binary tells Conficker to start scanning for other computers that haven't patched the Microsoft vulnerability, Ferguson said. A previous update turned that capability off, which hinted that Conficker's controllers maybe thought the botnet had grown too large.

But now, "it certainly indicates they [Conficker's authors] are seeking to control more machines," Ferguson said.

The new update also tells Conficker to contact MySpace.com, MSN.com, Ebay.com, CNN.com and AOL.com apparently to confirm that the infected machine is connected to the Internet, Ferguson said. It also blocks infected PCs from visiting some Web sites. Previous Conficker versions wouldn't let people browse to the Web sites of security companies.

In another twist, the binary appears to be programmed to stop running on May 3, which will shut off the new functions, he said.

It's not the first time Conficker has been coded with time-based instructions. Computer security experts were bracing for catastrophe on April 1, when Conficker was scheduled to try to visit 500 of some 50,000 random Web sites generated by an internal algorithm in order to get new instructions, but the day passed without incident.

Also worrying is that the new update tells Conficker to contact a domain that is known to be affiliated with another botnet called Waledec, Ferguson said. The Waledec botnet grew in a fashion that was similar to the Storm worm, another large botnet that has now faded but was used to send spam. It means that perhaps the same group could be linked to all three botnets, Ferguson said.

Even though Conficker doesn't appear to have been used yet for malicious purposes, it still remains a threat, said Carl Leonard, a threat research manager for Websense in Europe. The P-to-P functionality indicates a level of sophistication, he said.

"It is evident they've put a lot of effort into gathering this suite of machines," Leonard said. "They want to protect their environment and launch these updates in a way they can best capitalize on them."

Not all computers infected with Conficker will necessarily get updated quickly. To use the P-to-P update functionality, a Conficker-infected PC must search for other infected PCs, a process that isn't immediate, Ferguson.

Given that security experts differ vastly over how many computers may be infected with Conficker, it's difficult to say what percentage have the new update.

Trend Micro and Websense both cautioned their findings are preliminary, as the binary update is still being analyzed. Another security vendor, Bach Koa Internetwork Security (BKIS) of Hanoi, Vietnam, disputed the findings, saying that Trend has mistakenly analyzed a file that is related to the Waledec botnet and isn't a Conficker update.

"We affirm that there hasn't been any P-to-P update of Conficker yet," said Nguyen Minh Duc , manager of the application security department. BKISBLOGGED about their opinion.

Although Microsoft issued an emergency software patch last October, Conficker has continued to take advantage of those PCs which haven't been patched. In fact, some variants of the Conficker will actually patch the vulnerability after the machine is infected so no other malware can take advantage of it.

Good-Bye XP. Hello Windows 7

Microsoft has wanted to kill Windows XP for years. There was only one problem: the users refused to let it die. Now that Windows 7 is almost ready to go, Microsoft is, once more, trying to ax XP.

Microsoft did this to themselves. Vista was a flop. Even now, according to Net Applications' Market Share, Vista has only a lousy 23% of the desktop market. For a while, Microsoft ignored the fact that even their own executives were horrified by just how bad Vista was. But then the Linux-powered netbook came along, and Microsoft was frightened enough by its early successes that it un-retired Windows XP Home.

Now, Microsoft wants to kill off XP again. Step one will be bringing free support for XP to a close on April 14th. Step two is letting anyone and their uncle get a free copy of the Windows 7 release candidate sometime in May. The timing is by design.

Microsoft is now hanging onto their desktop market-share and gained netbook market-share because they re-released XP Home, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. The reason XP Home is so popular on netbooks isn't that it's better than Linux; it's because Microsoft is essentially giving XP Home away to netbook vendors. Microsoft can't afford to keep giving away its products, so XP needs to die as fast as possible so they can start selling users on Windows 7.

Vista? Please. It barely runs on PCs, much less netbooks. It's Windows 7 or bust as far as Microsoft is concerned.

Will Windows users go along with this and switch to 7? I suspect they will. The XP users aren't going to be completely happy with the trip though. Windows 7 is a radically cleaned up and skinnier version of Vista. I've been using 7 for several months, and it's a decent operating system. Yes, that's me, the Linux desktop guy, saying that Windows 7 is OK.

However, Windows 7 looks and feels a lot like Vista, and if you think you can just switch right over from XP to 7 without going through a learning curve, you're wrong. I think XP users will find it just as easy, or not, to switch to the Novell's new Windows-friendly SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 as to 7.

Windows 7 also has a lot of Vista badness in it still. My compadre Preston Gralla made a good point earlier this year about how if your older hardware didn't work with Vista, it still won't work with Windows 7.

So, if you're an XP user, brace yourself. This time you're not going to get a XP reprise. One way or another, you're going to be moving to a new operating system sometime soon. Microsoft wants it to be 7; I'd like to suggest that you consider a Linux such as Fedora, openSUSE, or Ubuntu as well.

How Apple will kill satellite radio this summer

Satellite radio will die soon anyway, but Apple will accidentally perform a mercy killing of Sirius XM Radio this summer. That is, if the rumors are true (and they probably are).

The first rumor is that Apple will ship in June or July a new iPhone and a new iPod Touch, both of which containing a new Broadcom BCM4329 chip that would give the gadgets 802.11n wireless. That would boost Wi-Fi, but even more interestingly enable the devices to broadcast music to any car stereo via FM. (Users simply set their car radios to the "station" that the iPhone or iPod is broadcasting on, and they can play over car speakers whatever the iPhone is playing. The feature would enable only buyers of new iPhones and new iPod touches to play audio in any car with an FM radio.

The second rumor is that both devices will get stereo Bluetooth audio streaming. That would enable anyone with a car sound system that supports Bluetooth to play iPhone and iPod Touch audio wirelessly. Although using this feature would require the right kind of car stereo, it would not require a new iPhone or iPod Touch — current devices will be able to take advantage of it.

It's likely that both of these rumors are true. If so, just about every iPhone and iPod Touch user will be able to easily play music, podcasts, streaming audio and other noise directly but wirelessly from their gadgets.

One of the most popular (and fastest growing) application types on iPhones is Pandora and its ilk, including iheart radio, Public Radio and other streaming services. People are getting used to the idea of listening to exactly what they want to hear at any time on their phones.

So how does that change things for Sirius XM Radio?

First of all, the company is hanging on by a thread. I've published the numbers before. Suffice it to say that Sirius XM Radio has so much debt that only radical increases in subscribers could allow it to survive. Only the opposite is happening. The company gets most of its new subscribers from new-car buyers who choose the satellite radio upgrade. But because of the recession, far fewer people are buying cars, and those who do buy cars aren't choosing upgrades like they used to.

Worse, the company's financial problems mean that there's no way they'll be able to afford superstars like Howard Stern in the foreseeable future.

The satellite radio proposition has always been that you get superior radio, but you have to pay a lot for it.

Changes in the iPhone mean that the best "radio" experience will be via iPhone, and at no additional charge beyond what you're going to pay for the phone and data anyway.

Sirius just can't compete with that. But even more importantly, the cultural movement toward using cell phones in general and iPhones in particular, for listening to "radio" in cars will become so conspicuous that no other company will want to loan money to Sirius -- or aquire it or partner with it. Sirius will completely run out of options.

Technology historians will one day observe what is already becoming obvious. Using rockets and orbiting satellites to deliver noise to car stereos is just a terrible idea.

* * * 

ADDENDUM: I've noticed an enormous number of comments here, via e-mail and on Twitter, Digg and elsewhere that convey the idea that capabilities for streaming audio rumored to be coming to iPhone and iPod Touch in fact are not new in the industry, and therefore the addition of those features to Apple products won't change anything.

But the existence of a feature or capability doesn't change culture -- what real people actually do. In fact there is always a pretty significant time gap between the existence of any major technology and the tipping point of adoption that signifies a broad cultural trend.

Perfect example: Listening to MP3s on cell phones was possible for many years, but hardly anyone did it until the iPhone came out. Now it's very widespread.

The same phenomenon affects social networks and similar services, too. Twitter was around for more than two years before most people had even heard of it.

In fact every long-term cultural change is preceded by a long delay between what's possible and what's practiced by a huge number of people.

In the case of streaming audio from a cell phone to a car stereo, yes, it's been possible for years.

My argument is that because the iPhone is so dominant (by far the largest-selling single cell phone model ever), and its user base so active (half of all mobile Web traffic, for example, comes from iPhones), that it's the addition of one convenience feature (wireless audio streaming) combined with another cultural shift that has already happened (cell phone-based audio) that will change the culture.

I'm predicting that knowledge of it will be so widespread that your average car buyer will be aware of the fact that he or she can just use an iPhone as a superior alternative to satellite radio. And that's what will affect satellite radio subscriptions.

Just to recap: When it comes to cultural shifts, it doesn't matter what's possible. It matters only what's practiced. Mass behavioral shifts require a tipping point, and my column here argues that easy streaming audio in Apple gadgets is precisely that tipping point.

Bill Would Grant President Unprecedented Cyber-security Powers

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced in the Senate would allow the president to shut down private Internet networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.

The headlines were all about creating a national cyber-securit czar reporting directly to the president, but the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced April 1 in the U.S. Senate would also give the president unprecedented authority over private-sector Internet services, applications and software.

According to the bill's language, the president would have broad authority to designate various private networks as a "critical infrastructure system or network" and, with no other review, "may declare a cyber-security emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from" the designated the private-sector system or network.

The 51-page bill does not define what private sector networks would be considered critical to the nation's security, but the Center for Democracy and Technology fears it could include communications networks in addition to the more traditional security concerns over the financial and transportation networks and the electrical grid.

"I'd be very surprised if it doesn't include communications systems, which are certainly critical infrastructure," CDT General Counsel Greg Nojeim told eWEEK. "The president would decide not only what is critical infrastructure but also what is an emergency."

The bill would also impose mandates for designated private networks and systems, including standardized security software, testing, licensing and certification of cyber-security professionals.

"Requiring firms to get government approval for new software would hamper innovation and would have a negative effect on security," Nojeim said. "If everyone builds to the same standard and the bad guys know those standards it makes it easier for the bad guys."

The legislation also calls for a public-private clearinghouse for cyber-threats and vulnerability information under Department of Commerce authority. The Secretary of Commerce would have the authority to access "all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

In another section of the bill, though, the president is required to report to Congress on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program "with appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections."

Nojeim complained the bill is "not only vague but also broad. Its very broad language is intended to confer broad powers." Nojeim also speculated that the bill's vague language and authority may prove to be powerful incentive for the private sector to improve its cyber-security measures.

"The bill will encourage private-sector solutions to make the more troubling sections of the bill unnecessary," he said.

According to a number of media reports, the bill was crafted with the cooperation of the White House. The legislation aims to create a fully integrated, coordinated public-private partnership on cyber-security in addition to pushing for innovation and creativity in cyber-security solutions.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), bill co-sponsor, said in a statement. "It's an understatement to say that cyber-security is one of the most important issues we face; the increasingly connected nature of our lives only amplifies our vulnerability to cyber-attacks and we must act now."

Fellow co-sponsor Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) added, "America's vulnerability to massive cyber-crime, global cyber-espionage and cyber-attacks has emerged as one of the most urgent national security problems facing our country today. Importantly, this legislation loosely parallels the recommendations in the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] blue-ribbon panel report to President Obama and has been embraced by a number of industry and government thought leaders."

The CDT's Nojeim stressed that are a "number of good things in the bill," including creation of a cyber-security czar, scholarships for cyber-security programs and collaborations between the government and the private sector. While urging Congress to change the bill, he argued that the "problematic provisions shouldn't crowd out the beneficial provisions of the bill."