IP Protection laws need to be on a "use it or lose it" basis. If you're no longer producing or providing the ability to use an IP, you lose it to the public domain.
Agreed. What do you think is a better course of action to achieve that end?
1. Lobby lawmakers. 2. Play a bunch of games you downloaded and didn't pay for.
I'm guessing most freedom-fighters here opt for option 2.
Think of it as civil disobedience which undermines respect for all law. Petitioning lawmakers is as useless as voting when concentrated interests like NIntendo select the lawmakers beforehand.
The Prius had a 1.3 kilowatt battery from its early years on. What about that is not "large format"? How exactly could Chevron justify allowing packs of that size to be made and sold in ever greater numbers but not larger packs made by combining them? That's like having the patents on a AA battery and allowing devices that use ONE of them to be made but not any that use 2 or more.
If Toyota had any balls they could easily have taken Chevron to court and won.
"Large format" refers to a large rigid prismatic cell design which is not spirally wound. They resemble the old style flooded cell NiCd or NiFe. Figure 9 in the link below shows an example:
"or for an alternative technology like lithium rechargeable to become economical
Or for a bunch of corporate crooks to get caught. From 2000 - 2011 there was price fixing collusion between Sanyo, LG, Hitachi, Panasonic, Samsung SDI and Sony that kept Li-on battery prices artificially high. Since then, prices have fallen from ~$1000 / kWh to about $150 / kWh at the cell level.
We used to use Hexane, then DCM, then ethanol for removing contaminants from lab equipment.
I always liked rinsing glassware with concentrated nitric acid and then adding a little ethanol which was recommended in one of the chemistry handbooks. Unfortunately under just the right conditions, it goes *foomp* and launches the entire corrosive mixture onto the ceiling.
The EV-1 tends to get looked at with some rose colored glasses today and almost certainly was not a viable mass market car when it was available. I know it had some fans but it was the very definition of a niche vehicle and GM was losing a substantial sum on each one sold. The biggest problem was the battery tech simply wasn't there yet. The first commercial Li-Ion battery was released around 1991 and they weren't really ready for vehicle use when the EV-1 was in production. The lead-acid and later NiMh batteries in the EV-1 really weren't good enough. Battery tech is easily the most important thing when it comes to EVs and 20 years ago it just wasn't quite there. It's kind of unfair to GM to expect them to continue to produce a vehicle with little realistic chance of being a commercially successful vehicle. Not to say GM didn't bungle the whole affair (they clearly did) but I'm not convinced the EV-1 was the answer many people remember it to be. It wasn't at all obvious at the time that continued investment in EVs was worthwhile. It really only made sense as a technology development platform and needed to have a longer term outlook than GM is probably capable of.
That said, I agree that GM could have and probably should have continued to take the technology of EVs more seriously than they did. I own a Chevy Bolt and it's a terrific little car but I have to wonder how much better it could have been if GM had been working on it for another decade... Ironically if GM had just held out a few more years Li-Ion batteries became viable just a few years after the EV-1. I think the biggest mistake was probably in them going after a mass market car first rather than taking an approach closer to what Tesla ultimately did.
I always thought GM had other motives or received an offer they could not refuse.
"If GM took EVs seriously starting when they produced EV-1 and kept going until now, there would be no need for a Tesla. The fact that GM discarded any lead they might have had is more meaningful than how many internal combustion cars they can make"
Toyota cucked themselves, too. If they worked diligently at making the Prius approach the RAV4 EV battery pack capacity over the past 2 decades and made it plug-in capable a decade sooner, they would OWN the EV market.
Tesla or anybody else would have had to wait for either the patents to run out or for an alternative technology like lithium rechargeable to become economical.
Unfortunately it's as bad from both sides. You have the people who want Tesla to fail for whatever reason, and the fanboys who can't accept that any other EV might not be a steaming pile of shit.
But as the SCOTUS has ruled before, the Constitution isn't a suicide-pact. They'll rule against this even though some could argue this is free speech. They've always ruled for safety over rights.
In this case SCOTUS will not rule that way because the states have other means to accomplish banning 3D printed firearms other than by abridging the 1st amendment for everybody. There is nothing to stop them from making unlicensed manufacturing, importation, and possession illegal within their jurisdiction. If you doubt that, just consider various "approved firearms" lists and registration requirements.
At least 3 federal agencies (NSA/CIA/FBI) have long lists of vulnerabilities to break into systems. Who wants to bet they'll share any info with this new agency?
Going by how the NSA operates, they will create new vulnerabilities for the new agency to spread for them.
You're posting this in comments to an article about yet another Spectre-class attack which affects AMD - one that is network accessible and has nothing whatsoever to do with any JIT.
You're focusing on just one of the seven Spectre related CVEs currently known.
All of the Spectre class attacks are a problem but process isolation turns them into Meltdown class attacks which access control can prevent... except on Intel.
Otherwise preventing Spectre class attacks relies on programmers and compilers and some new CPU features from preventing speculative execution where state can leak which is a much more difficult problem.
And how exactly will performing those access control chicks affect the contents of the L1 and L2 caches, and therefore their hit rate? Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
Who cares? If the speculatively loaded data is not loaded then it cannot be speculatively operated on and there is no state to leak through the caches or AVX state.
"He said the company delivered an excess of 70 percent performance improvement over the last few years." I would say 7 or more years is quite a bit more than a few.
They are counting multithreaded workloads and the best improvements from instruction set extensions like AVX2. Single threaded scalar code has not improved nearly as much.
Slashdot Mirror
IP Protection laws need to be on a "use it or lose it" basis. If you're no longer producing or providing the ability to use an IP, you lose it to the public domain.
Agreed. What do you think is a better course of action to achieve that end?
1. Lobby lawmakers.
2. Play a bunch of games you downloaded and didn't pay for.
I'm guessing most freedom-fighters here opt for option 2.
Think of it as civil disobedience which undermines respect for all law. Petitioning lawmakers is as useless as voting when concentrated interests like NIntendo select the lawmakers beforehand.
Why should a supposedly democratic country have a tax system that explicitly encourages wealth concentration by taxing capitalists less than labor?
Because capitalists have more interest in low taxes for themselves than laborers have.
There are plenty of ways a government could fix this, but there isn't enough interest among voters to make this a ballot-deciding issue.
Voters have a dilute interest. Even understanding the issue costs more to an individual voter than any benefit leading to rational ignorance.
Special interests (like Disney) have a concentrated interest so they are acutely aware of the issue and invest overwhelmingly to control the politics.
The Prius had a 1.3 kilowatt battery from its early years on.
What about that is not "large format"? How exactly could Chevron justify allowing packs of that size to be made and sold in ever greater numbers but not larger packs made by combining them?
That's like having the patents on a AA battery and allowing devices that use ONE of them to be made but not any that use 2 or more.
If Toyota had any balls they could easily have taken Chevron to court and won.
"Large format" refers to a large rigid prismatic cell design which is not spirally wound. They resemble the old style flooded cell NiCd or NiFe. Figure 9 in the link below shows an example:
http://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/...
"or for an alternative technology like lithium rechargeable to become economical
Or for a bunch of corporate crooks to get caught.
From 2000 - 2011 there was price fixing collusion between Sanyo, LG, Hitachi, Panasonic, Samsung SDI and Sony that kept Li-on battery prices artificially high.
Since then, prices have fallen from ~$1000 / kWh to about $150 / kWh at the cell level.
This was earlier.
Electric propulsion means satellites can achieve a 40-50% reduction in their mass
How do they generate thrust from electricity in space? That the point of the EmDrive, but that is only a very experimental setup for now.
If in orbit, then the Lorenz force can be used to push against the Earth's magnetic field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We used to use Hexane, then DCM, then ethanol for removing contaminants from lab equipment.
I always liked rinsing glassware with concentrated nitric acid and then adding a little ethanol which was recommended in one of the chemistry handbooks. Unfortunately under just the right conditions, it goes *foomp* and launches the entire corrosive mixture onto the ceiling.
there's something that can survive boiling in water?
The prion (protein) which causes Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease survives autoclave sterilization as some very unfortunately surgical patients discovered.
If they ever decide to harm humans we're in real trouble.
What would they do? Would they make us watch Star Trek - Discovery?
On second thought, that would be pretty bad.
The EV-1 tends to get looked at with some rose colored glasses today and almost certainly was not a viable mass market car when it was available. I know it had some fans but it was the very definition of a niche vehicle and GM was losing a substantial sum on each one sold. The biggest problem was the battery tech simply wasn't there yet. The first commercial Li-Ion battery was released around 1991 and they weren't really ready for vehicle use when the EV-1 was in production. The lead-acid and later NiMh batteries in the EV-1 really weren't good enough. Battery tech is easily the most important thing when it comes to EVs and 20 years ago it just wasn't quite there. It's kind of unfair to GM to expect them to continue to produce a vehicle with little realistic chance of being a commercially successful vehicle. Not to say GM didn't bungle the whole affair (they clearly did) but I'm not convinced the EV-1 was the answer many people remember it to be. It wasn't at all obvious at the time that continued investment in EVs was worthwhile. It really only made sense as a technology development platform and needed to have a longer term outlook than GM is probably capable of.
That said, I agree that GM could have and probably should have continued to take the technology of EVs more seriously than they did. I own a Chevy Bolt and it's a terrific little car but I have to wonder how much better it could have been if GM had been working on it for another decade... Ironically if GM had just held out a few more years Li-Ion batteries became viable just a few years after the EV-1. I think the biggest mistake was probably in them going after a mass market car first rather than taking an approach closer to what Tesla ultimately did.
I always thought GM had other motives or received an offer they could not refuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"If GM took EVs seriously starting when they produced EV-1 and kept going until now, there would be no need for a Tesla. The fact that GM discarded any lead they might have had is more meaningful than how many internal combustion cars they can make"
Toyota cucked themselves, too. If they worked diligently at making the Prius approach the RAV4 EV battery pack capacity over the past 2 decades and made it plug-in capable a decade sooner, they would OWN the EV market.
Did the patent encumbrance of large prismatic NiMH batteries have anything to do with that?
Tesla or anybody else would have had to wait for either the patents to run out or for an alternative technology like lithium rechargeable to become economical.
This is an old, well-established market where it's more likely that an existing company dies than for a startup to succeed.
Like GMC should have?
Oracle salesperson buy you hookers long time.
Unfortunately it's as bad from both sides. You have the people who want Tesla to fail for whatever reason, and the fanboys who can't accept that any other EV might not be a steaming pile of shit.
Wanting Tesla to fail is an old game.
https://www.dailykos.com/stori...
But as the SCOTUS has ruled before, the Constitution isn't a suicide-pact. They'll rule against this even though some could argue this is free speech. They've always ruled for safety over rights.
In this case SCOTUS will not rule that way because the states have other means to accomplish banning 3D printed firearms other than by abridging the 1st amendment for everybody. There is nothing to stop them from making unlicensed manufacturing, importation, and possession illegal within their jurisdiction. If you doubt that, just consider various "approved firearms" lists and registration requirements.
Pretty fucking hilarious that the party of Free Speech and Federalism is suddenly demanding censorship and Statism.
Neither party believes in federalism when they have federal power.
It's really hilarious to hear liberal states screaming "Tenth Amendment" to the top of their lungs.
Their usual position is that states' rights don't even exist . . . . but now THEY need them.
States' Rights only exist when they need them.
At least 3 federal agencies (NSA/CIA/FBI) have long lists of vulnerabilities to break into systems. Who wants to bet they'll share any info with this new agency?
Going by how the NSA operates, they will create new vulnerabilities for the new agency to spread for them.
They solved cryptic errors by failing without reporting any error. With no error, there is no error report and no problem to solve.
To borrow a phrase, "There's millennia of red heat latent in carbonate formation."
It's true that FPGA mfg's could do more to enable other tools, but their motivation is very weak.
Their motivation is negative. Practically no FPGAs are sufficiently documented for third parties to create programming tools.
You're posting this in comments to an article about yet another Spectre-class attack which affects AMD - one that is network accessible and has nothing whatsoever to do with any JIT.
You're focusing on just one of the seven Spectre related CVEs currently known.
All of the Spectre class attacks are a problem but process isolation turns them into Meltdown class attacks which access control can prevent ... except on Intel.
Otherwise preventing Spectre class attacks relies on programmers and compilers and some new CPU features from preventing speculative execution where state can leak which is a much more difficult problem.
And how exactly will performing those access control chicks affect the contents of the L1 and L2 caches, and therefore their hit rate? Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
Who cares? If the speculatively loaded data is not loaded then it cannot be speculatively operated on and there is no state to leak through the caches or AVX state.
And/or, allow users to turn off "Site Isolation" when it isn't wanted, so that it doesn't gobble up all your resources (RAM and CPU) doing it...
If the browsers and JIT compilers were not such resource hogs due to poor implementation, then this would not be a problem.
"He said the company delivered an excess of 70 percent performance improvement over the last few years."
I would say 7 or more years is quite a bit more than a few.
They are counting multithreaded workloads and the best improvements from instruction set extensions like AVX2. Single threaded scalar code has not improved nearly as much.