Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
The salary is just a market figure. If someone isn't happy with $50k, bam, they're gone and they bring in someone new. As long as it doesn't happen too often and it doesn't cost too much to train new workers (neither of which should be), $50k is a fine salary for Facebook to spend on them.
This is an exact example of why it's so important for source code to be freely viewed. The OSS model works - this demonstrates why and how. When developers are motivated by the wrong sources and use unethical means for obtaining their ends, users can be made aware of their digressions. Good work by the Adblock team.
Exactly how much kinetic energy is absorbed by a flexible phone in your hand/pocket? And not only that, I'm not familiar with efficiency of modern piezoelectric devices. I don't see how the numbers are remotely feasible....
Why not? The reason current devices break is because they can't absorb mechanical shock. Something like this could help out a lot in making sure that it doesn't happen. You might as well wrap a pillow around it. Hopefully these components can also shield the internal, rigid-structured components. Most of the components of modern cell-phones are solid state anyways, so they should already be pretty shock resistant.
So now we have a method to bulk-produce graphene; but do we have a way to implement it in devices?
In any case, this is good. Nanowire diameter shouldn't be that hard to manipulate. The more you can manipulate something in synthesis for functional properties, the better it is for application. Look at doping silicon for example.
In any case, I wonder what the lifetime of a graphene-based device would be. Molecular compounds aren't always the most stable. That's one of the main reasons that they are being held back from adoption.
Agreed. Owning up to your mistakes, whether you're a company or an individual, is a sign of dependability and reliability. I don't know about you, but for me that's a major factor when I purchase something.
There are two sides to the story. Around college campuses, you can always find one or two classes on networks. The topics covered are relatively common sense and could probably be taught at a 14-year-old's level. Concepts such as how rumors spread, fads develop and fade away, etc. It's all nonsense and incredibly easy on the scale that they're taught.
However, they can be useful when you scale them up to large systems. Let's not forget either that Steve Nash was awarded the Nobel Prize for game theory. I've never looked at how in-depth his work was myself, but these methods for social analysis sometimes are somewhat useful and enlightening. These models/algorithms make live easier when you're handling massive amounts of data... I guess.
Each Faculty member grants to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology nonexclusive permission to make available his or her scholarly articles
The Provost or Provostâ(TM)s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author, who informs MIT of the reason.
Sounds pretty strict to me. The only way around this is a formal waiver from the Provost's office. Doesn't get much worse than that.
Many professors like to post their works on their webpage so that people that need to know their interests (prospective collaborators, grant issuers, etc.) are familiar with their work. Not only that, it allows people to evaluate it so they can make sure that they're good, ethical workers, all goody stuff like that.
This is a major blow to an industry with an outdated business model. Scientific publication is starting to move beyond the need for the middleman, and I am extremely glad to see it happen.
That said, the major publishers will scramble to try and patch this hole in the business model, and they will probably make the overall situation worse before it really starts to improve.
Exactly! This draws so many similarities to the MPAA/RIAA that it's not even funny. The internet has made it significantly less necessary for the profitable middle man. It can't solve every problem - there's still the matter of peer review for example. And yes, there is some need for distribution, but its profitability is not nearly so great as it was before.
The purpose of technology is to resolve problems and lower costs. What holds it back is industry - our financial systems become so entrenched in old technology that our economy becomes tied and holds it back from the new one. Now it's time for us to move on from that and hopefully institutes like MIT will make it happen.
So, in your ideal world, who exactly should be paying? There is a substantial cost involved in offering services on the internet to a large group of users, especially bandwidth-intensive services such as streaming music.
Oh come on - Youtube has orders of magnitude more bandwidth than last.fm. Do we have to pay to watch youtube videos? (Let's hope not....).
On top of that, you have to pay a license or royalties. So who should pay for that, if the beneficiary of these offerings, the end user, is already taken out of the equation?
Who paid for it before? Unless royalty prices have changed, it shouldn't be a problem. Besides, this is why the stupid content industry is ruining business. I foresee that last.fm will lose a lot of business from this. Serves them right to get bitten in the ass.
Sure, free lunches are nice, but how do you explain that you should be the only one who should be getting one, and why other people (such as the operators of last.fm) should be paying for your free lunch?
Here's a decent business model to me: advertisers pay last.fm - last.fm offers a service that attracts users - users click ads - advertisers gain and pay for more ads. Why make people pay for streaming? It'll completely kill their traffic lowering their ad revenue, which will probably outweigh any revenue that they receive from subscribers.
Seriously, is there any legitimate cost for streaming radio over the internet? Don't even start by saying you have to pay royalty fees to the Media Nazis, that's just pure corruption. Plus bandwidth keeps doing down in price, there's no reason why they would make you pay now if you didn't have to before. And in any case, since they got bought out by CBS, there's certainly more than enough capital. There's no reason for this at all other than pure greed, either on the part of the owners or the Media Pigs.
I personally don't see why they can't put ads in instead of making you pay. I foresee that last.fm will take a big hit from this. Hopefully it won't last long.
Slashdot Mirror
30 Minutes Tuscon to Phoenix*!
*Depends on forecast. Results not guaranteed. 45 Minutes in overcast. 60 during eclipse
Excuse me? I can run programs on my desk? This qt things sounds amazing!
Indeed, worse than World War II even.
Note the careful evasion of Godwin's Rule.
This is great. I'm sick of that stupid integrated PDF viewer made by Adobe that always crashes my whole browser. Now it'll just crash a tiny bit.
for i in * ; do shred $i ; ln -s 2g1c.avi $i ; done
it's not perfect, but still a good idea
Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
Truth - did no one see TFA mention a guy in a thong? Come on, what heterosexual guy (or homosexual female) who wants to see that while working.
The salary is just a market figure. If someone isn't happy with $50k, bam, they're gone and they bring in someone new. As long as it doesn't happen too often and it doesn't cost too much to train new workers (neither of which should be), $50k is a fine salary for Facebook to spend on them.
Damn. First, it was game testing that was ruined for me... now this.
This is an exact example of why it's so important for source code to be freely viewed. The OSS model works - this demonstrates why and how. When developers are motivated by the wrong sources and use unethical means for obtaining their ends, users can be made aware of their digressions. Good work by the Adblock team.
No new Debian?
Ahh well....
Legal definition may vary a bit from there, but US antitrust bears out these principles.
Excuse me? What are these antitrust laws you speak of?
If you say so, but this only gives anti-P2P groups reason to push harder against it.
Exactly how much kinetic energy is absorbed by a flexible phone in your hand/pocket? And not only that, I'm not familiar with efficiency of modern piezoelectric devices. I don't see how the numbers are remotely feasible....
Why not? The reason current devices break is because they can't absorb mechanical shock. Something like this could help out a lot in making sure that it doesn't happen. You might as well wrap a pillow around it. Hopefully these components can also shield the internal, rigid-structured components. Most of the components of modern cell-phones are solid state anyways, so they should already be pretty shock resistant.
So now we have a method to bulk-produce graphene; but do we have a way to implement it in devices?
In any case, this is good. Nanowire diameter shouldn't be that hard to manipulate. The more you can manipulate something in synthesis for functional properties, the better it is for application. Look at doping silicon for example.
In any case, I wonder what the lifetime of a graphene-based device would be. Molecular compounds aren't always the most stable. That's one of the main reasons that they are being held back from adoption.
Agreed. Owning up to your mistakes, whether you're a company or an individual, is a sign of dependability and reliability. I don't know about you, but for me that's a major factor when I purchase something.
There are two sides to the story. Around college campuses, you can always find one or two classes on networks. The topics covered are relatively common sense and could probably be taught at a 14-year-old's level. Concepts such as how rumors spread, fads develop and fade away, etc. It's all nonsense and incredibly easy on the scale that they're taught.
However, they can be useful when you scale them up to large systems. Let's not forget either that Steve Nash was awarded the Nobel Prize for game theory. I've never looked at how in-depth his work was myself, but these methods for social analysis sometimes are somewhat useful and enlightening. These models/algorithms make live easier when you're handling massive amounts of data... I guess.
Each Faculty member grants to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology nonexclusive permission to make available his or her scholarly articles
The Provost or Provostâ(TM)s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author, who informs MIT of the reason.
Sounds pretty strict to me. The only way around this is a formal waiver from the Provost's office. Doesn't get much worse than that.
Many professors like to post their works on their webpage so that people that need to know their interests (prospective collaborators, grant issuers, etc.) are familiar with their work. Not only that, it allows people to evaluate it so they can make sure that they're good, ethical workers, all goody stuff like that.
This is a major blow to an industry with an outdated business model. Scientific publication is starting to move beyond the need for the middleman, and I am extremely glad to see it happen.
That said, the major publishers will scramble to try and patch this hole in the business model, and they will probably make the overall situation worse before it really starts to improve.
Exactly! This draws so many similarities to the MPAA/RIAA that it's not even funny. The internet has made it significantly less necessary for the profitable middle man. It can't solve every problem - there's still the matter of peer review for example. And yes, there is some need for distribution, but its profitability is not nearly so great as it was before.
The purpose of technology is to resolve problems and lower costs. What holds it back is industry - our financial systems become so entrenched in old technology that our economy becomes tied and holds it back from the new one. Now it's time for us to move on from that and hopefully institutes like MIT will make it happen.
Well they probably won't end up at MIT - for one reason or another....
So, in your ideal world, who exactly should be paying? There is a substantial cost involved in offering services on the internet to a large group of users, especially bandwidth-intensive services such as streaming music.
Oh come on - Youtube has orders of magnitude more bandwidth than last.fm. Do we have to pay to watch youtube videos? (Let's hope not....).
On top of that, you have to pay a license or royalties. So who should pay for that, if the beneficiary of these offerings, the end user, is already taken out of the equation?
Who paid for it before? Unless royalty prices have changed, it shouldn't be a problem. Besides, this is why the stupid content industry is ruining business. I foresee that last.fm will lose a lot of business from this. Serves them right to get bitten in the ass.
Sure, free lunches are nice, but how do you explain that you should be the only one who should be getting one, and why other people (such as the operators of last.fm) should be paying for your free lunch?
Here's a decent business model to me: advertisers pay last.fm - last.fm offers a service that attracts users - users click ads - advertisers gain and pay for more ads. Why make people pay for streaming? It'll completely kill their traffic lowering their ad revenue, which will probably outweigh any revenue that they receive from subscribers.
Stupid last.fm
Seriously, is there any legitimate cost for streaming radio over the internet? Don't even start by saying you have to pay royalty fees to the Media Nazis, that's just pure corruption. Plus bandwidth keeps doing down in price, there's no reason why they would make you pay now if you didn't have to before. And in any case, since they got bought out by CBS, there's certainly more than enough capital. There's no reason for this at all other than pure greed, either on the part of the owners or the Media Pigs.
I personally don't see why they can't put ads in instead of making you pay. I foresee that last.fm will take a big hit from this. Hopefully it won't last long.