There may not be any proof as yet, as the technology is still in its nascent stages, but I'd much prefer that the companies, in covering their collective backsides, acknowledge a possible risk than try to cover it up or deny the existence of any risks whatsoever.
I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...
Unfortunately we're now bound by the Berne Convention which pretty much explicitly states copyright is automatic, regardless of merit, and applies 50 years posthumously.
eh? I've never had ink smearing off my Australian banknotes, no matter how new or old. It's as flexible and as thin as paper, and far less tear-prone. I haven't had a bank note "deteriorate" on me, and the oldest ones I've seen have the same kind of fading you might see on a paper note. It even has a translucent "window" as a security device, or so they tell us. They're damnably hard to counterfiet, though we shouldn't be under the illusion that it would be impossble.
Australia replaced its whole active money supply by 1996, and other countries have followed suit. Yes, the US money in criculation is huge, far more so than the Australian or other currencies which have gone down the same path. The average note in circulation lasts about 2 years, and polymer notes last more like 5 years, so you're going to end up saving money in the long run, pun not intended. No-one is saying throw the baby out with the bathwater - just as there are newer designs of notes, newer materials can be introduced alongside the old ones; it's just the US is so hidebound in its attachment to the form of money as it is today in some mistaken veneration of its symbolism, as though money has never changed its design in the past, that it is unlikely that such an action would be possible in the short term.
Come back in 6 months and you'll be able to start testing your predictions. We're down to 4 or 5 free blocks to allocate to the RIRs, and then they'll allocate onwards. Not that IPv6 is on any publically visible agenda, at least until this article came along.
That said, the internet we have today is largely a set of conventions based on patch jobs that were later formalised in the RFC process - IPv6 at least has been around for a while. Someone's going to make a lot of money out of this stuff - if you're halfway through a uni course in technology, make sure you pay extra attention in the networking classes (and if they're still talking IPv4, tell them it's the equivalent of discussing COBOL as a cutting edge language!).
The point being made that any official "declassification" is, to use the barn-door analogy, like saying "ok, open the door and let the horses out" 30 years after the horses bolted. Pointless bureacracy - it's one thing to keep something classified when there has been a leak to a limited audience, such as might occur through espionage, but when it is so public the only sensible thing to do would be to declassify documents (or parts thereof) as they are made available publically. To blanket ban the NY Times because of the potential for classified material to be available is simply playing peekaboo with the regulations.
Depends what criteria you're applying as "better". Nature tends to assign the ability to spread and recreate a higher value than objective strength or intelligence.
Externalities in space are kinda hard to enforce, given there is no jurisdiction in space for any single government. For that matter, how does one go about enforcing an externality in space?
Not at all. The PS3 hardware might have cost more than the retail price, but its software certainly didn't, and nor did its accessories, all of which contributed to the overall revenue stream. GM does not have the luxury of selling the Volt with a linked product that provides it with a revenue stream irrespective of the original unit cost.
Apple designs the container to hold a bunch of commodity parts, and sells it with a big fat margin - the Volt does not have commodity parts in an industry only just starting to retool to parts usable in a hybrid, and cannot afford to sell at a big margin due to its target market and functions provided. Doesn't matter how much hype, people aren't going to shell out twice as much for a car that doesn't provide them with twice the benefit.
That it was developed here is was likely due to the R&D tax incentives, which allowed R&D costs to be written off tax bills at 45%, which given the corporate tax rate is 30% meant R&D spending was very effective. That is, until June 2010 at least - since July, the laws have limited this to companies with turnover of less than $20 million. Note this applied for wholy-owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations too.
In any case, this depends entirely on whether this is talking about total cost on the back of 10,000 produced and R&D done, or whether they're losing money on a per-unit basis. Not that they should can it just because the first production run is not profitable, but it certainly limits the ability to spend on other things until the Volt starts at least covering its own costs. If it's the same in 2 years they'll definitely be looking at a significant write-down.
If it's illegal and they can charge Assange of something, they should issue a warrant and initiate formal proceedings. Either there's not enough evidence, or it isn't actually a crime to publish, though without a doubt whoever leaked is going to have the book thrown at them.
Microsoft and Apple's costs might be higher on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but the profit margin is (Revenue - Costs)/Costs. My point remains - the software has a big fat margin, especially in near-monopoly environments, and provision of physical services doesn't.
Interestingly? Microsoft's profit is almost totally based on ephemeral software that costs pennies to produce copies of once the development is done, and Apple's is a combination of software and premium priced hardware. Both dominate markets and collect hefty premiums doing so. Say what you will about the service providers, but they've got a physical infrastructure to maintain and at least a pinch more competition than their counterparts you've lisetd there. There's no meaning in comparing across industries with companies that are not close peers in terms of operating environments.
and then again... Assets under management (AUM) isn't necessarily the measure of a big bank, nor of a bank with the ability to swing markets. Indeed, banks with large assets under management tend to be more heavily capitalised and as a result less able to jump on creative ways to play with your wealth. The American banks still hold the crown for profits and for risk appetite, and that's the ones you have to watch for.
Oh, I don't argue that it would be a good idea to implement something along those lines. For one, a faulty/infected computer doesn't kill people, whereas a faulty car certainly could. Analogies break down when you go into details.
If it were to happen though, I can't imagine the inspection shops would be staffed by anyone other than computer techs who can demonstrate their competence and be able to understand quirky setups such as yours. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia, the mechanic doing the equivalent of the MoT must be certified and registered with the local motor registry.
In fairness to NASA, Apple does schedule their announcements about a week out, like NASA has with this one, and plenty of rumours have been sparked just on the back of that announcement. They just need a "one more thing" moment to make it complete.
How about reading up on Mordechai Vanunu and see if that doesn't look like a smoking gun.
Those countries listed would only have a theoretical capability to weaponise in the sense that they have (or had) nuclear facilities - it does not imply that they are close to a weapons program like Israel looks likely to be. The list of countries with ICBM delivery vehicles overlaps quite distinctly with the list of countries with nuclear weapons, barring the discrepancy of Israel if they don't have nukes.
I'm curious though how you would suggest that they would not have nukes on Israeli soil? Unless you mean it in a literal sense the weapons being on Israeli subs?
International policy is pragmatic and filled with realpolitik; if a state was to truly obtain nuclear capabilities, do you think there is any way to roll that back involuntarily? Sanctions failed against India and Pakistan following their tests in the late 90s.
Israel could have been crushed by a united Arab force years ago, but it's not in the interests of any of the governments to do so, and the hidden stick behind the back that everyone knows is there speaks louder than the stick everyone's known about for 65 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You willing to bet your own kids' vision on that?
There may not be any proof as yet, as the technology is still in its nascent stages, but I'd much prefer that the companies, in covering their collective backsides, acknowledge a possible risk than try to cover it up or deny the existence of any risks whatsoever.
I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...
Unfortunately we're now bound by the Berne Convention which pretty much explicitly states copyright is automatic, regardless of merit, and applies 50 years posthumously.
eh? I've never had ink smearing off my Australian banknotes, no matter how new or old. It's as flexible and as thin as paper, and far less tear-prone. I haven't had a bank note "deteriorate" on me, and the oldest ones I've seen have the same kind of fading you might see on a paper note. It even has a translucent "window" as a security device, or so they tell us. They're damnably hard to counterfiet, though we shouldn't be under the illusion that it would be impossble.
Australia replaced its whole active money supply by 1996, and other countries have followed suit. Yes, the US money in criculation is huge, far more so than the Australian or other currencies which have gone down the same path. The average note in circulation lasts about 2 years, and polymer notes last more like 5 years, so you're going to end up saving money in the long run, pun not intended. No-one is saying throw the baby out with the bathwater - just as there are newer designs of notes, newer materials can be introduced alongside the old ones; it's just the US is so hidebound in its attachment to the form of money as it is today in some mistaken veneration of its symbolism, as though money has never changed its design in the past, that it is unlikely that such an action would be possible in the short term.
For it to be much use it needs to be untraced/uncontrolled and legal tender.
Let me say to you sir: that's how terrorists think.
</sarcasm>
American banknotes aren't made of out literal "paper", either - it's actually a cotton "paper" that ensures it lasts a reasonable amount of time.
That said, we in Australia aren't half so attached to our money as somehow symbolising the nation, and are quite willing to embrace change.
Cue misguided references to Jurassic Park in 3... 2...
Let me whip out my crystal ball and predict...
Come back in 6 months and you'll be able to start testing your predictions. We're down to 4 or 5 free blocks to allocate to the RIRs, and then they'll allocate onwards. Not that IPv6 is on any publically visible agenda, at least until this article came along.
That said, the internet we have today is largely a set of conventions based on patch jobs that were later formalised in the RFC process - IPv6 at least has been around for a while. Someone's going to make a lot of money out of this stuff - if you're halfway through a uni course in technology, make sure you pay extra attention in the networking classes (and if they're still talking IPv4, tell them it's the equivalent of discussing COBOL as a cutting edge language!).
Except for the part where local applications have been administered by IT departments of corporations for years. Incumbency is a huge advantage.
The point being made that any official "declassification" is, to use the barn-door analogy, like saying "ok, open the door and let the horses out" 30 years after the horses bolted. Pointless bureacracy - it's one thing to keep something classified when there has been a leak to a limited audience, such as might occur through espionage, but when it is so public the only sensible thing to do would be to declassify documents (or parts thereof) as they are made available publically. To blanket ban the NY Times because of the potential for classified material to be available is simply playing peekaboo with the regulations.
sandwitch
Now there's a witch that really will melt with water!
I, for one, love the fact that this is modded "redundant".
Depends what criteria you're applying as "better". Nature tends to assign the ability to spread and recreate a higher value than objective strength or intelligence.
Externalities in space are kinda hard to enforce, given there is no jurisdiction in space for any single government. For that matter, how does one go about enforcing an externality in space?
(... in space!!)
Not at all. The PS3 hardware might have cost more than the retail price, but its software certainly didn't, and nor did its accessories, all of which contributed to the overall revenue stream. GM does not have the luxury of selling the Volt with a linked product that provides it with a revenue stream irrespective of the original unit cost.
Apple designs the container to hold a bunch of commodity parts, and sells it with a big fat margin - the Volt does not have commodity parts in an industry only just starting to retool to parts usable in a hybrid, and cannot afford to sell at a big margin due to its target market and functions provided. Doesn't matter how much hype, people aren't going to shell out twice as much for a car that doesn't provide them with twice the benefit.
That it was developed here is was likely due to the R&D tax incentives, which allowed R&D costs to be written off tax bills at 45%, which given the corporate tax rate is 30% meant R&D spending was very effective. That is, until June 2010 at least - since July, the laws have limited this to companies with turnover of less than $20 million. Note this applied for wholy-owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations too.
In any case, this depends entirely on whether this is talking about total cost on the back of 10,000 produced and R&D done, or whether they're losing money on a per-unit basis. Not that they should can it just because the first production run is not profitable, but it certainly limits the ability to spend on other things until the Volt starts at least covering its own costs. If it's the same in 2 years they'll definitely be looking at a significant write-down.
If it's illegal and they can charge Assange of something, they should issue a warrant and initiate formal proceedings. Either there's not enough evidence, or it isn't actually a crime to publish, though without a doubt whoever leaked is going to have the book thrown at them.
Microsoft and Apple's costs might be higher on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but the profit margin is (Revenue - Costs)/Costs. My point remains - the software has a big fat margin, especially in near-monopoly environments, and provision of physical services doesn't.
Interestingly? Microsoft's profit is almost totally based on ephemeral software that costs pennies to produce copies of once the development is done, and Apple's is a combination of software and premium priced hardware. Both dominate markets and collect hefty premiums doing so. Say what you will about the service providers, but they've got a physical infrastructure to maintain and at least a pinch more competition than their counterparts you've lisetd there. There's no meaning in comparing across industries with companies that are not close peers in terms of operating environments.
and then again... Assets under management (AUM) isn't necessarily the measure of a big bank, nor of a bank with the ability to swing markets. Indeed, banks with large assets under management tend to be more heavily capitalised and as a result less able to jump on creative ways to play with your wealth. The American banks still hold the crown for profits and for risk appetite, and that's the ones you have to watch for.
That depends, is it carrying a coconut?
Oh, I don't argue that it would be a good idea to implement something along those lines. For one, a faulty/infected computer doesn't kill people, whereas a faulty car certainly could. Analogies break down when you go into details.
If it were to happen though, I can't imagine the inspection shops would be staffed by anyone other than computer techs who can demonstrate their competence and be able to understand quirky setups such as yours. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia, the mechanic doing the equivalent of the MoT must be certified and registered with the local motor registry.
In fairness to NASA, Apple does schedule their announcements about a week out, like NASA has with this one, and plenty of rumours have been sparked just on the back of that announcement. They just need a "one more thing" moment to make it complete.
The "Black"/Bubonic plague never went away, you realise - in fact, according to Wikipedia, there was a case reported in Oregon in 2010.
Note also that immunity isn't inherited quite so rapidly as you suggest - otherwise we wouldn't need vaccinations, now would we?
How about reading up on Mordechai Vanunu and see if that doesn't look like a smoking gun.
Those countries listed would only have a theoretical capability to weaponise in the sense that they have (or had) nuclear facilities - it does not imply that they are close to a weapons program like Israel looks likely to be. The list of countries with ICBM delivery vehicles overlaps quite distinctly with the list of countries with nuclear weapons, barring the discrepancy of Israel if they don't have nukes.
I'm curious though how you would suggest that they would not have nukes on Israeli soil? Unless you mean it in a literal sense the weapons being on Israeli subs?
International policy is pragmatic and filled with realpolitik; if a state was to truly obtain nuclear capabilities, do you think there is any way to roll that back involuntarily? Sanctions failed against India and Pakistan following their tests in the late 90s.
Israel could have been crushed by a united Arab force years ago, but it's not in the interests of any of the governments to do so, and the hidden stick behind the back that everyone knows is there speaks louder than the stick everyone's known about for 65 years.