No, what will happen is that as net peak-hour loading evens out, the time-of-day price premium will dwindle to the point where marginal additional storage capacity is not a viable business proposition, then it will be an export-only product. Of course political interference in the marketplace or carbon cap-and-trade may still help persuade operators to shut down coal plants early for environmental reasons: that would keep the time-of-day premium up for a while longer. But we're nowhere near the equilibrium yet.
Ah, that was convincing, right up until the "dried", which undermines the point. USians don't really use AC for the heat, it's for the humidity. (Yeah, that too is "spectacularly stupid", what can I say...)
So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they not reap the rewards of the program and only get paid for writing it?
When one sets out to fix someone's grammar, one should tread carefully. In English usage it is unclear whether your "not" is distributive over your "and". It is therefore better to write:
"So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they get paid only for writing it and not reap the rewards of the program?"
The Osborne, the original "Compaq portable", the original "IBM Portable", and the Hyperion were all classed as "luggable" by the real people who didn't work for marketting. It was roughly the 20 to 30 pound range (yes, we were still using pounds back then) with a fat-briefcase form factor. The Osborne product was first, but 8-bit g.p. machines were doomed by then. To my mind the Hyperion was the best of them, but they were months too late in the "IBM BIOS compatibility" race and it cost them the business.
By allowing authors to benefit from their work for 70 years you do not motivate them to create more material. Hence, less material leads to stiffed creativity.
What we're discussing is something recorded (fixed) in 1965 that would come available this December. So, what struggling artist recorded a one-hit-wonder that year, retained the rights rather than selling it off to some megacatalogue-owning bank, and is now depending on its continuing sales of their "classic" for their retirement income? Something tells me this beneficiary is a pretty rare bird. These changes are being done because the businesses of Sony, Disney, and the like want them. It is simply insulting to our intelligence to dress it up as being done for the performers, most of whom will benefit not at all.
The other problem is orphaned works. Take a random video game from the 80's and try to find who owns the rights to it now. Unless it was a big name company at the time, you're likely to have to navigate through a thicket of legal acquisitions, sales, bankruptcy proceedings, etc. It can be an extremely challenging effort just to find out who owns a work published 30+ years ago.
Now imagine that it is 2095 and you want to publish a "classic" from 2015. How would you track down the rightful owner over 80 years?!!
I'd like to see a renewal system in place. Ideally with limited renewals (e.g. 2 renewals and you're done) or ever-increasing renewal fees (e.g. $5 for first renewal, $50 for 2nd renewal, $500 for 3rd, etc.). This way, you would not only have a public record of who owns what, but you would force companies to either give up their unused works or pay more for them. Maybe Star Wars is worth renewing for a 10th time, but is RANDOM_CULT_HIT_FROM_1975?
I don't know how it's done for games, but for the music recycling business there are several companies who run databases of who "owns" what and facilitate licensing. You may have heard of ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox Agency, SOCAN, RIAA, etc.? As much as their practices have been combative, it's hard to claim they make it tough to find out where to license something. That's pretty much the one thing they do well.
Scientific paywalls (preventing access to science that was funded entirely or partially by the public purse) are a crime.
We need every available quality mind, rich or poor, on some of our scientific and engineering challenges today.
I agree in principle, but I think you're being a little over the top. Most contributors (rich and poor) to today's scientific and engineering challenges work in an institute that has access to the publications they need. For those who don't, they can access most articles by typing "[ARTICLE NAME] PDF" into Google. This works surprisingly often. If it's not available, just e-mail the author for a copy. Authors want their work read and don't give a shit about the pay wall. The paywall might be there, but it's not really stopping anyone from getting what they need.
Yeah, that's closing in on the real issue. Restricting the readership of an article increases the risk that it won't be read by the one person who sees its critical flaw. That's why pay-to-read is fundamentally anti-scientific, even more so than pay-to-publish. As libraries move more and more to electronic-only subscriptions the monopolistic concentration of power in the hands of a very few companies presents an unjustified threat to our access to knowledge. Secret retractions, where the retracted paper seems never to have existed, are one example of the problem: see RetractionWatch to understand what this represents.
Smart people don't all have someone else paying for their obscenely expensive access to papers which were written on the public dime. OpenAccess should be mandatory for *all* research work done on public or (tax-exempt) charitable funds, and for *all* citations on patents. If you have to pay to read it, then it is not truly public knowledge.
What source of information is flawless and can be believed without question? Why do people exhibit good critical thinking skills when it comes to Wikipedia, but swallow wholesale what they get from Encyclopedia Britannica, CNN, Fox News, the Bible, etc?
Perhaps because those others tell them to believe, while Wikipedia tells them *not* to believe, but think critically?
Compare:
At the rate the signature collections are going, it looks like there will only be about 40% of the required number by the 22 April deadline. Better pick up the pace if you want this to go!
Just to be clear, running a school as a business (e.g. Harvard) does not equate to teaching business. Aside from the lesson that "you always pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you pay for."
Wrong. Administrators are not employees, they are volunteers taking on extra jobs, nominally to execute the rules established by the community as a whole. In a community of mostly pseudonymous volunteers it can be very difficult to detect and respond to conflicts of interest in such people. Still, the community needs to find a way to do better.
CO2 ice boils for 758 J/g
H2O ice boils for 2594 J/g
We only use water for heat engines because it's so damn cheap on Earth. Otherwise it's a pain to work with, mostly because it's a polar molecule.
The sensible response is just to run the test and find out if your DRAM has this bug. If not, then the attack already fails: no amount of coding is going to make you more resistant. If you do have the bug, return the defective product for replacement. Again, no amount of coding is going to make you more resistant. Why do people persist in thinking that everything should be fixed in software?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhhhhh...gigafactory?
"That's not an argument!!!"
No, what will happen is that as net peak-hour loading evens out, the time-of-day price premium will dwindle to the point where marginal additional storage capacity is not a viable business proposition, then it will be an export-only product. Of course political interference in the marketplace or carbon cap-and-trade may still help persuade operators to shut down coal plants early for environmental reasons: that would keep the time-of-day premium up for a while longer. But we're nowhere near the equilibrium yet.
Ah, that was convincing, right up until the "dried", which undermines the point. USians don't really use AC for the heat, it's for the humidity. (Yeah, that too is "spectacularly stupid", what can I say...)
Hmm, is that a difference between the parties, or their owners?
If you're not a real musician then you're kind of f*cked regardless.
Well, real musicians can't get much rotation for all the fakes, gyrating more-or-less naked on video, even if they're faking the f*cking too.
So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they not reap the rewards of the program and only get paid for writing it?
When one sets out to fix someone's grammar, one should tread carefully. In English usage it is unclear whether your "not" is distributive over your "and". It is therefore better to write: "So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they get paid only for writing it and not reap the rewards of the program?"
So you're saying "Becuz India"??
Woah, you live in Vancouver? Sorry, dude. Go Flames!!!
The Osborne, the original "Compaq portable", the original "IBM Portable", and the Hyperion were all classed as "luggable" by the real people who didn't work for marketting. It was roughly the 20 to 30 pound range (yes, we were still using pounds back then) with a fat-briefcase form factor. The Osborne product was first, but 8-bit g.p. machines were doomed by then. To my mind the Hyperion was the best of them, but they were months too late in the "IBM BIOS compatibility" race and it cost them the business.
By allowing authors to benefit from their work for 70 years you do not motivate them to create more material. Hence, less material leads to stiffed creativity.
What we're discussing is something recorded (fixed) in 1965 that would come available this December. So, what struggling artist recorded a one-hit-wonder that year, retained the rights rather than selling it off to some megacatalogue-owning bank, and is now depending on its continuing sales of their "classic" for their retirement income? Something tells me this beneficiary is a pretty rare bird. These changes are being done because the businesses of Sony, Disney, and the like want them. It is simply insulting to our intelligence to dress it up as being done for the performers, most of whom will benefit not at all.
The other problem is orphaned works. Take a random video game from the 80's and try to find who owns the rights to it now. Unless it was a big name company at the time, you're likely to have to navigate through a thicket of legal acquisitions, sales, bankruptcy proceedings, etc. It can be an extremely challenging effort just to find out who owns a work published 30+ years ago.
Now imagine that it is 2095 and you want to publish a "classic" from 2015. How would you track down the rightful owner over 80 years?!!
I'd like to see a renewal system in place. Ideally with limited renewals (e.g. 2 renewals and you're done) or ever-increasing renewal fees (e.g. $5 for first renewal, $50 for 2nd renewal, $500 for 3rd, etc.). This way, you would not only have a public record of who owns what, but you would force companies to either give up their unused works or pay more for them. Maybe Star Wars is worth renewing for a 10th time, but is RANDOM_CULT_HIT_FROM_1975?
I don't know how it's done for games, but for the music recycling business there are several companies who run databases of who "owns" what and facilitate licensing. You may have heard of ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox Agency, SOCAN, RIAA, etc.? As much as their practices have been combative, it's hard to claim they make it tough to find out where to license something. That's pretty much the one thing they do well.
Sometimes, on Slashdot, it's impossible to tell irony from stupidity.
This is known as a "false dichotomy". But you knew that, right?
Scientific paywalls (preventing access to science that was funded entirely or partially by the public purse) are a crime.
We need every available quality mind, rich or poor, on some of our scientific and engineering challenges today.
I agree in principle, but I think you're being a little over the top. Most contributors (rich and poor) to today's scientific and engineering challenges work in an institute that has access to the publications they need. For those who don't, they can access most articles by typing "[ARTICLE NAME] PDF" into Google. This works surprisingly often. If it's not available, just e-mail the author for a copy. Authors want their work read and don't give a shit about the pay wall. The paywall might be there, but it's not really stopping anyone from getting what they need.
Yeah, that's closing in on the real issue. Restricting the readership of an article increases the risk that it won't be read by the one person who sees its critical flaw. That's why pay-to-read is fundamentally anti-scientific, even more so than pay-to-publish. As libraries move more and more to electronic-only subscriptions the monopolistic concentration of power in the hands of a very few companies presents an unjustified threat to our access to knowledge. Secret retractions, where the retracted paper seems never to have existed, are one example of the problem: see RetractionWatch to understand what this represents.
Smart people don't all have someone else paying for their obscenely expensive access to papers which were written on the public dime. OpenAccess should be mandatory for *all* research work done on public or (tax-exempt) charitable funds, and for *all* citations on patents. If you have to pay to read it, then it is not truly public knowledge.
What source of information is flawless and can be believed without question? Why do people exhibit good critical thinking skills when it comes to Wikipedia, but swallow wholesale what they get from Encyclopedia Britannica, CNN, Fox News, the Bible, etc?
Perhaps because those others tell them to believe, while Wikipedia tells them *not* to believe, but think critically? Compare:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bi...
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At the rate the signature collections are going, it looks like there will only be about 40% of the required number by the 22 April deadline. Better pick up the pace if you want this to go!
"Through early morning fog I see..." oh, wait, I guess that's been done?
Just to be clear, running a school as a business (e.g. Harvard) does not equate to teaching business. Aside from the lesson that "you always pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you pay for."
Never before has everyone on /. agreed that a proposal couldn't possibly be any good. When do the shovels hit the ground?
Wait, wait,.... does that mean there are non-bogus business schools somewhere?
Funny you should ask. The Kannada version is http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%... and the Gujarati version is http://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/%... but I couldn't find one in Hindi or Sanskrit. Of course, in English (the language of the school) the way you say it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Wrong. Administrators are not employees, they are volunteers taking on extra jobs, nominally to execute the rules established by the community as a whole. In a community of mostly pseudonymous volunteers it can be very difficult to detect and respond to conflicts of interest in such people. Still, the community needs to find a way to do better.
Homeopathy is not herbalism. Please seek out a clue.
CO2 ice boils for 758 J/g H2O ice boils for 2594 J/g We only use water for heat engines because it's so damn cheap on Earth. Otherwise it's a pain to work with, mostly because it's a polar molecule.
What was that thing about embrace, extend, ...?
The sensible response is just to run the test and find out if your DRAM has this bug. If not, then the attack already fails: no amount of coding is going to make you more resistant. If you do have the bug, return the defective product for replacement. Again, no amount of coding is going to make you more resistant. Why do people persist in thinking that everything should be fixed in software?