Why? Sounds like bog standard scientific research/publishing to me.
Scientist A: If we did X we would probably get a factor of 30 performance boost. Scientist B: Great, but first publish what we have, that way we get 2 publications out of it. Scientist A: Better put it in the "future work" in case someone else beats is to it.
Of course actually checking the paper indicates that isn't actually the case, and it is a much more specific claim than that sentence indicates:
As the device is a unipolar field-effect transistor, it is expected to switch fast. Although our design did not target high-frequency operation (for example, we used large contact pads, conductive substrate), we measured the AC response ID(f) when a sinusoidal voltage VTG(f) was applied to the top-gate. No significant damping/phase shift and no signal distortion was observed up to 1 MHz. This observation corresponds well with textbook predictions for the cutoff frequency of a metal-semiconductor field-effect transistor (at which the AC gate current ITG is equal to the drain current ID): fT = (g/2.pi.CTG) = 0.3Mhz . Here g is the transconductance, which is extracted from the transfer characteristics of our device at room temperature, and CTG, the capacitance of the top-gate. In our proof-of-concept layout, the area that contributes to CTG is unnecessarily large as it includes the bond pad of the gate structure. As the simplest example for a design improvement, we could use semi-insulating SiC for the peripheral regions of the transistor (for example, by vanadium implantation). This should reduce CTG and consequently fT is supposed to increase by a factor of ~30. The route for further speed improvements is obvious: optimization and shrinkage of the geometry, reduction of source, drain resistances, and so on.
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
Yeah, it'd be like fining a company because a bug in their inventory management and distribution system put rat poison in the breakfast cereal boxes they shipped to supermarkets. That'd show a complete laack of understanding of how distribution works.
If fact seaching for CERN (other than hits on the word concern) returns one post which uses CERN (and its reply):
Europe did jack squat towards forming the internet.
You've heard of a little thing called the world wide web, yes?
The thing you're using to post this?
Guess what - it came from CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.
Which displays a distinct lack of knowledge of either EU membership or the location of CERN and an inability to indicate quotations from what it is replying to. But it's certainly clear that it is refering to the WWW when it says "it came from CERN".
So please be specific with this people and their posts you counted at that url getting it wrong.
Having everything in one basket that you have complete control over (the company you are selling) is risky enough. Having everything in one basket that you don't have complete control over is madness.
I bet Goldman didn't take their $5,000,000 in stock, that should be a big clue that you shouldn't take that form of payment either.
HFT isn't going to steal anything from your IRA. Trading costs have fallen far more than anything HFT might be "stealing" from you. And both are driven by the same technology changes automating large chunks of stock markets. Assuming you are "investing" in an IRA and not using it for day trading or whatever.
And of course you can invest in other asset classes via an IRA, from real estate to bonds to precious metals
English is not legalize. "Steal" and "stole" in English does not mean the legal definition of stealing. "He stole my chair" does not usually mean someone actually stole the chair in the legal definition, it usually means they sat in a chair someone else considered they had the right to sit in.
And a free market can't exist without enforcable contracts, "that kind of stuff" hence shouldn't happen when you have free markets, and when it does there is a mechanism to punish the one breaking the agreements and reimburse the other.
If A and B agree to make a trade, A will give B $X and B will give a some product. Then B can not take the money and not hand over the product. To do so would be stealing. Sure legally it mightn't be classified as stealing, it might be fraud for example, but we call it stealing in normal language.
In this case X was 5,000,000 and the product was finding the best deal for selling a business. Goldman took the money, but the best deal they could find certainly wasn't getting shares in a company that Goldman thought weren't worth owning itself. Especially since suspicion of cooking the books was the reason for them not being worth owning.
In 1968 a Volkswagen Beetle was $1800 base price. Today the VW 'New Beetle' (essentially the same car) starts at $18995, ten times as much. (One can argue about features, but it's a reasonable comparison). That works out to about 8% inflation over the last 40 years. Knock of 25% of that for vaunted new capabilities, safety, whatever, that's 6%, still more than twice the official rate.
The official rate is the inflation right now, not the inflation rate from some arbitrary year in the past until now. If you look at those official rates you'll see they were cosniderably higher than 6% around 1980.
1968 - 2012 is 44 years. 8% for 44 years would make that $1800 price be $53,000 now (you clearly used 6% for 40 years and didn't knock of 25%).
Even more simply - the wages of carpenters and software engineers (for example) have both risen by a factor of 5 to 10, while the actual standard of living for people in those jobs has remained the same or dropped in that same period. Q.E.D. that is inflation - again closer to 8% than to the 2% or 3% promulgated by the government.
You made up your 8% number. 1800 -> 18995 over 40 years is 6.1% inflation. Over the 44 years from 1968 to 2012 it's 5.5% inflation. Whereas offical numbers have the CPI inflation at 4.4% over the last 44 years.
Official numbers have have prices rising by a factor of 6.6 over that time period - oh look inside your "factor of 5 to 10" range for carpenters and software engineer wage increases.
So what? It doesn't mean a given person copying a given piece of software removed a unit of income from the software producer. They may have, they may not have, they may have removed more than one, they have added some. It's the blanket statement I had an issue with.
It was a very old believe that in the mid-1980s every game for Apple computers sold exactly two copies - one on the East coast and one on the West. It was then uploaded to BBS systems and that is where everyone else, including reviewers, got their copy
A bullshit beliief so why bother repeating it?. I was not on the East or the West coast in the 1980s and I bought more than one game for the Apple II. So clearly it is false. Prince of Persia and Karateka were both released for Apple machines in the 1980s and sold significantly more than 2 copies each.
Very few titles were produced around 1986 for Apple because of this
Define "very few". 1986 doesn't seem like a bad year judging by: http://www.retrocpu.com/apple-ii/games/ Sure the Mac Plus came out in 86 which started the decline of the Apple II, but where is your evidence for a drop in games?
That's not their decision to make, though. The author, being the one who exerted the effort, chooses the value of his work. A buyer can either accept the valuation and receive the results of the effort, reject the deal, or suggest a different value that the buyer may agree to.
Sure, and I didn't say otherwise.
but you do not have the right to force that valuation on someone else.
Which I didn't try to do, so I'm not sure what the point is?
making unlicensed copies is effectively removing a unit of income from that plan.
If the person who got a copy free was going to buy it in the first place, and if them getting it doesn't result in someone else purchasing it who wouldn't have otherwise, then sure it is a lost sale. That doesn't change that it can be sold to other people though, so it can still be sold to someone else.
Sure, the author can copy it fifteen billion times, but likewise a jeweler can spend his life making fifteen billion pieces to hand out to every cheap bastard who wants one.
I'm pretty sure that typing: n=1 while true do
cp it it.$n
n=`expr $n + 1` done
doesn't take an entire life. Sure it'd waste disk space and be rather stupid to do, but I just did it for free (though I didn't try it so there's probably an error)...
Scaninavia is irrelevant if you are going by pure geography. Since Iceland isn't in Scandinavia.
If you are using pure geography half of Iceland is in Europe and half is in North America, since it sits on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where those plates meet.
You assume that, without any evidence of course. It might well be true, I'd want my money and I'd whine about it and hope the government would give me free money too. I'd also expect everyone else to laugh at me, mock me, and tell me to get stuffed.
That isn't hilarious or judgemental. It's just being selfish - which is perfectly normal for humans and apparently a requirement for banks. Wanting something that makes you better off and everyone else worse off isn't exactly a new thing. The very same people not wanting the things that make somebody else better off and everyone else worse off is also not unexpected.
You assume the original poster is in the selfish camp. However, even if they are it doesn't invalidate anything they said anyway or make them an ass or make the comments snarky. It just puts them in with most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely be wrong by 0.5 degrees is "less wrong" than being wrong by 4.5 degrees?
So have those who actually produce working games the first time sbusidise those who release garbage that needs to be patched later?
So if an armed man threatens me I'm not allowed to defend myself by say punching him the face and attempting to subdue him before he can shoot me?
But if someone punches me I can shoot them?
That seems a strange pair of rules.
So http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704630004576248600469362440.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-646126.html and http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_eEAC03XCJX2eCY9xSIDd4qDzdA just didn't happen?
Because the rest of the world understands what it is referring to, you can remain deluded if you wish.
Why? Sounds like bog standard scientific research/publishing to me.
Scientist A: If we did X we would probably get a factor of 30 performance boost.
Scientist B: Great, but first publish what we have, that way we get 2 publications out of it.
Scientist A: Better put it in the "future work" in case someone else beats is to it.
Of course actually checking the paper indicates that isn't actually the case, and it is a much more specific claim than that sentence indicates:
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
Yeah, it'd be like fining a company because a bug in their inventory management and distribution system put rat poison in the breakfast cereal boxes they shipped to supermarkets. That'd show a complete laack of understanding of how distribution works.
That wouldn't be because you are using mostly US news sources would it? Which you would expect to focus on things involving the US and US companies.
Like the 900 million euro fine for Saint Gobain, the 300 million euro fine for Air France, and so on. You can count the number of US versus the number of european companies that have had actions taken against them by digging through http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result&policy_area_id=1&case_title=
Labour, Democrat, Labor, Tory, Republican, Liberal, National - it seems they are all in together.
Just a minor tweak.
There were no 9/11 "bombers", well outside of conspiracy land.
But yes a quarter of them were married.
Wow, you keep really shitty company.
I count exactly 0.
If fact seaching for CERN (other than hits on the word concern) returns one post which uses CERN (and its reply):
Which displays a distinct lack of knowledge of either EU membership or the location of CERN and an inability to indicate quotations from what it is replying to. But it's certainly clear that it is refering to the WWW when it says "it came from CERN".
So please be specific with this people and their posts you counted at that url getting it wrong.
Having everything in one basket that you have complete control over (the company you are selling) is risky enough. Having everything in one basket that you don't have complete control over is madness.
I bet Goldman didn't take their $5,000,000 in stock, that should be a big clue that you shouldn't take that form of payment either.
HFT isn't going to steal anything from your IRA. Trading costs have fallen far more than anything HFT might be "stealing" from you. And both are driven by the same technology changes automating large chunks of stock markets. Assuming you are "investing" in an IRA and not using it for day trading or whatever.
And of course you can invest in other asset classes via an IRA, from real estate to bonds to precious metals
English is not legalize. "Steal" and "stole" in English does not mean the legal definition of stealing. "He stole my chair" does not usually mean someone actually stole the chair in the legal definition, it usually means they sat in a chair someone else considered they had the right to sit in.
And a free market can't exist without enforcable contracts, "that kind of stuff" hence shouldn't happen when you have free markets, and when it does there is a mechanism to punish the one breaking the agreements and reimburse the other.
If A and B agree to make a trade, A will give B $X and B will give a some product. Then B can not take the money and not hand over the product. To do so would be stealing. Sure legally it mightn't be classified as stealing, it might be fraud for example, but we call it stealing in normal language.
In this case X was 5,000,000 and the product was finding the best deal for selling a business. Goldman took the money, but the best deal they could find certainly wasn't getting shares in a company that Goldman thought weren't worth owning itself. Especially since suspicion of cooking the books was the reason for them not being worth owning.
The official rate is the inflation right now, not the inflation rate from some arbitrary year in the past until now. If you look at those official rates you'll see they were cosniderably higher than 6% around 1980.
1968 - 2012 is 44 years. 8% for 44 years would make that $1800 price be $53,000 now (you clearly used 6% for 40 years and didn't knock of 25%).
You made up your 8% number. 1800 -> 18995 over 40 years is 6.1% inflation. Over the 44 years from 1968 to 2012 it's 5.5% inflation. Whereas offical numbers have the CPI inflation at 4.4% over the last 44 years.
Official numbers have have prices rising by a factor of 6.6 over that time period - oh look inside your "factor of 5 to 10" range for carpenters and software engineer wage increases.
So what? It doesn't mean a given person copying a given piece of software removed a unit of income from the software producer. They may have, they may not have, they may have removed more than one, they have added some. It's the blanket statement I had an issue with.
A bullshit beliief so why bother repeating it?. I was not on the East or the West coast in the 1980s and I bought more than one game for the Apple II. So clearly it is false. Prince of Persia and Karateka were both released for Apple machines in the 1980s and sold significantly more than 2 copies each.
Define "very few". 1986 doesn't seem like a bad year judging by: http://www.retrocpu.com/apple-ii/games/
Sure the Mac Plus came out in 86 which started the decline of the Apple II, but where is your evidence for a drop in games?
Sure, and I didn't say otherwise.
Which I didn't try to do, so I'm not sure what the point is?
The two cases aren't similar at all. In one you lose something, in the other you don't.
Given most (not all) web development makes things worse, that seems like a good thing.
If the person who got a copy free was going to buy it in the first place, and if them getting it doesn't result in someone else purchasing it who wouldn't have otherwise, then sure it is a lost sale. That doesn't change that it can be sold to other people though, so it can still be sold to someone else.
I'm pretty sure that typing:
n=1
while true
do
cp it it.$n
n=`expr $n + 1`
done
doesn't take an entire life. Sure it'd waste disk space and be rather stupid to do, but I just did it for free (though I didn't try it so there's probably an error)...
DId France join the United Kingdom recently?
Scaninavia is irrelevant if you are going by pure geography. Since Iceland isn't in Scandinavia.
If you are using pure geography half of Iceland is in Europe and half is in North America, since it sits on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where those plates meet.
You assume that, without any evidence of course. It might well be true, I'd want my money and I'd whine about it and hope the government would give me free money too. I'd also expect everyone else to laugh at me, mock me, and tell me to get stuffed.
That isn't hilarious or judgemental. It's just being selfish - which is perfectly normal for humans and apparently a requirement for banks. Wanting something that makes you better off and everyone else worse off isn't exactly a new thing. The very same people not wanting the things that make somebody else better off and everyone else worse off is also not unexpected.
You assume the original poster is in the selfish camp. However, even if they are it doesn't invalidate anything they said anyway or make them an ass or make the comments snarky. It just puts them in with most people.