The problem is you're assuming the corporations are controlled by a large group.
I'm sure that in some cases, if not most, these decisions are ultimately made by one or a few with all the power of the many. Just because a corporation is composed of thousands of workers or owned by thousands of investors doesn't mean that these people have any control. Moreover, most of these corporations are not formed for political purposes or around political ideas.
I'd be surprised if I read a story of any of these million dollar corporations holding a vote amongst shareholders whether and to whom they should donate a political contribution.
I know personally I have no idea, so I'll simply pose the question:
How much piracy is it estimated there is in South Korea? How much effect do they think the law has?
It's very hard to judge a law based on only how many people are affected by it. If they estimate that there are millions of people using pirated software, then 30k banned isn't that much. If they think it's in the hundreds-of-thousands, it is.
How much a law is applied is only half the story; what's important is who it's applied against. If they're only using it against the most serious offenders, then 1 strike isn't that bad.
It seems to me that it's poorly worded. As far as I can tell, it's not 'creating mass' so much as it is 'creating dependency on mass'
Normally the equations governing movement of electrons are independent of mass. In graphene it appears we should be able to make it dependent on the mass of the electron.
So I believe the article is saying that they believe they can make some particles that didn't appear to have a mass have a new equation for movement that reveals a mass for them. The article mentions that there's a theory that these particles didn't have a mass before this point; that the actual changing of rules that govern movement creates the mass.
I like to think of it as the equivalent of creating charge. You're not actually making anything; you're just moving electrons/protons so they're out of balance. Essentially this could be the same thing with gravity.
Now if this could be reversed to make something mass-less, that would be interesting
It's sensible really. It's a niche product so you're only going to sell so many of them. Manufacturing and tooling costs will dictate that only one version be made. And given how it's supposed to fit the form of your hand, you can't really make it mirrored to be used with either hand.
And I know personally, even though I'm left handed I use the mouse with my right hand. If you're gaming you're probably using both hands, and if you're doing something simple like browsing the web, either hand should do.
Be careful with the direct comparison: Without paying to read the actual paper, it's tough to say if the energy density there is for the thin sheet that acts as the battery, or for the entire sheet of paper.
Plus there's issues of packaging and scaling that lower the density you get out of a battery which hasn't been applied to the thin-sheet. Not to mention it doesn't really mention energy-density vs actual volume of the battery (It's nice if it's light, but can be limited if you need the volume of a soda-can for the power of a AA battery)
I for one noticed in the demo video that there was another robot with a female head in the background on the right. While industrial uses are probably limited, I wonder how many would pay out the $200,000 price tag for that one.
I think this part is understated. They don't verify your name with a credit card or drivers license. They post your 'real' name which is really whatever you tell them it is.
Somehow I doubt it was the idea of an antenna designer to put it on the outside where one would hold it. Anyone with any antenna theory knowledge at all knows that your gain would then be changed easily based on how it was held by a conductor (eg, you)
The only think you could blame the antenna engineer for is not properly stating what a bad idea it is. Heck, it's entirely possible they didn't have any antenna engineers and now realize that's probably idea for a product masquerading as a phone.
I read the article and come to a different conclusion. I believe the problem isn't in the technology, because from what I read it mostly worked. It mentioned some false alarms, but nobody hurts because of a false alarm. The problem here lies in the ineptitude of the people using the system.
Let's say we developed a system that detected earthquakes 1 minute before they went off, but 90% of the time it would be a false alarm. Then people proceed to ignore the alarm because it's usually wrong. Now when a real earthquake occurs, those who ignore the alarm blame it on bad technology.
I say no, this is the fault of the reaction, not the technology itself.
This isn't even an issue of trust. It's not a question of whether Google is stealing information about you, or even privacy. It's an error or a possible bug wherein the mode where the browser is in essentially *no history* mode isn't working 100% w/o history.
If this is true, then it raises issues of quality control, not trust
...it could however be that there are too many Liberal Arts graduates. Seriously though, there are gluts of some degrees but shortages of others. Generally this will reflect in the salaries they receive so it will balance out eventually. It would be sensible for the government to sponsor more specific majors, while not those who have an excess of students.
I have to agree. As with any programming, proper commenting can clear up misinterpretations and confusion.
The greater problem with web programming is not the inconsistency or complexity of it, but rather how easy it is. People who don't know the fundamentals of programming make a mess, and the people who hired them don't know any better until it explodes.
How does this affect downloading software illegally?
If the business is not subject to a contract saying what it's software will have, why should the customer be subject to the same contract about what the do with it?
Seems this would be relatively high maintenance. Anyone who owns a boat knows that stuff can and will grow on it, which will have to be cleaned off eventually, no? Setting aside the initial cost, which isn't mentioned, wouldn't the maintenance be costly?
I think that's a false comparison. Theatres are limited it the number of people that can fit in at any time, however games can manufacture the cd's ahead of time so they don't have an upper limit in the same amount of time.
The impression the article gives me is that they're giving the FTC more powers to enforce some things with the internet. The article specifically mentions user information and advertising; to me, customer data protection does fit under something the FTC would deal with, not the FCC. It just happens to be happening on the internet like so many things today.
I believe the FCC should have a broad jurisdiction on things with the internet itself, where the FTC would have a more narrow jurisdiction on some business matters.
So the patent isn't on using trial-and-error, it's on undoing things you *try* that have a negative effect on performance.
As Microsoft taught us, people who call a negative effect on performance a *bug* or *error* are mistaken; it's a *feature*. IBM is now patenting the removal of these *features*; how innovative of them.
Well, the code they're uploading would be higher-level processing that would just control what it does, not how it does it. Think of it as re-writing the main subroutine, but all the other functions are the same.
No doubt then there's still error handling to escape the process to return to normal control, and the code-upload area would be separate so even if that part froze, you could overwrite it.
A court order to remove domain name registrations could certainly be permanent. Even if it was a theoretically legitimate action (not the case here) since you have to re-register every year anyways, it's effectively a $5 loss to lose a domain permanently.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people that have used torrents know you can specify certain files to download first
The problem is you're assuming the corporations are controlled by a large group.
I'm sure that in some cases, if not most, these decisions are ultimately made by one or a few with all the power of the many. Just because a corporation is composed of thousands of workers or owned by thousands of investors doesn't mean that these people have any control. Moreover, most of these corporations are not formed for political purposes or around political ideas.
I'd be surprised if I read a story of any of these million dollar corporations holding a vote amongst shareholders whether and to whom they should donate a political contribution.
I know personally I have no idea, so I'll simply pose the question:
How much piracy is it estimated there is in South Korea?
How much effect do they think the law has?
It's very hard to judge a law based on only how many people are affected by it. If they estimate that there are millions of people using pirated software, then 30k banned isn't that much. If they think it's in the hundreds-of-thousands, it is.
How much a law is applied is only half the story; what's important is who it's applied against. If they're only using it against the most serious offenders, then 1 strike isn't that bad.
It seems to me that it's poorly worded. As far as I can tell, it's not 'creating mass' so much as it is 'creating dependency on mass'
Normally the equations governing movement of electrons are independent of mass. In graphene it appears we should be able to make it dependent on the mass of the electron.
So I believe the article is saying that they believe they can make some particles that didn't appear to have a mass have a new equation for movement that reveals a mass for them. The article mentions that there's a theory that these particles didn't have a mass before this point; that the actual changing of rules that govern movement creates the mass.
I like to think of it as the equivalent of creating charge. You're not actually making anything; you're just moving electrons/protons so they're out of balance. Essentially this could be the same thing with gravity.
Now if this could be reversed to make something mass-less, that would be interesting
It's sensible really. It's a niche product so you're only going to sell so many of them. Manufacturing and tooling costs will dictate that only one version be made. And given how it's supposed to fit the form of your hand, you can't really make it mirrored to be used with either hand.
And I know personally, even though I'm left handed I use the mouse with my right hand. If you're gaming you're probably using both hands, and if you're doing something simple like browsing the web, either hand should do.
It's not that we're getting shorter (eg, losing vertical)
We're getting fatter
Apparently they should have made their size requirement smaller. 1024 is apparently taking too much time for their site to handle.
It is a bold demonstration as to why we
Be careful with the direct comparison:
Without paying to read the actual paper, it's tough to say if the energy density there is for the thin sheet that acts as the battery, or for the entire sheet of paper.
Plus there's issues of packaging and scaling that lower the density you get out of a battery which hasn't been applied to the thin-sheet. Not to mention it doesn't really mention energy-density vs actual volume of the battery
(It's nice if it's light, but can be limited if you need the volume of a soda-can for the power of a AA battery)
I for one noticed in the demo video that there was another robot with a female head in the background on the right.
While industrial uses are probably limited, I wonder how many would pay out the $200,000 price tag for that one.
To the future of the Japanese sex industry
You find mainly articles on this story now.
And this computer agrees with me, so you scientifically look like a girl
I think this part is understated. They don't verify your name with a credit card or drivers license. They post your 'real' name which is really whatever you tell them it is.
Somehow I doubt it was the idea of an antenna designer to put it on the outside where one would hold it. Anyone with any antenna theory knowledge at all knows that your gain would then be changed easily based on how it was held by a conductor (eg, you)
The only think you could blame the antenna engineer for is not properly stating what a bad idea it is.
Heck, it's entirely possible they didn't have any antenna engineers and now realize that's probably idea for a product masquerading as a phone.
I read the article and come to a different conclusion. I believe the problem isn't in the technology, because from what I read it mostly worked. It mentioned some false alarms, but nobody hurts because of a false alarm. The problem here lies in the ineptitude of the people using the system.
Let's say we developed a system that detected earthquakes 1 minute before they went off, but 90% of the time it would be a false alarm. Then people proceed to ignore the alarm because it's usually wrong. Now when a real earthquake occurs, those who ignore the alarm blame it on bad technology.
I say no, this is the fault of the reaction, not the technology itself.
This isn't even an issue of trust. It's not a question of whether Google is stealing information about you, or even privacy. It's an error or a possible bug wherein the mode where the browser is in essentially *no history* mode isn't working 100% w/o history.
If this is true, then it raises issues of quality control, not trust
...it could however be that there are too many Liberal Arts graduates. Seriously though, there are gluts of some degrees but shortages of others. Generally this will reflect in the salaries they receive so it will balance out eventually. It would be sensible for the government to sponsor more specific majors, while not those who have an excess of students.
I have to agree.
As with any programming, proper commenting can clear up misinterpretations and confusion.
The greater problem with web programming is not the inconsistency or complexity of it, but rather how easy it is. People who don't know the fundamentals of programming make a mess, and the people who hired them don't know any better until it explodes.
How does this affect downloading software illegally?
If the business is not subject to a contract saying what it's software will have, why should the customer be subject to the same contract about what the do with it?
Seems this would be relatively high maintenance. Anyone who owns a boat knows that stuff can and will grow on it, which will have to be cleaned off eventually, no? Setting aside the initial cost, which isn't mentioned, wouldn't the maintenance be costly?
I was under the impression that some African countries are more or less doing this with little to no success in gaining immunity.
I think that's a false comparison. Theatres are limited it the number of people that can fit in at any time, however games can manufacture the cd's ahead of time so they don't have an upper limit in the same amount of time.
The impression the article gives me is that they're giving the FTC more powers to enforce some things with the internet. The article specifically mentions user information and advertising; to me, customer data protection does fit under something the FTC would deal with, not the FCC. It just happens to be happening on the internet like so many things today.
I believe the FCC should have a broad jurisdiction on things with the internet itself, where the FTC would have a more narrow jurisdiction on some business matters.
So the patent isn't on using trial-and-error, it's on undoing things you *try* that have a negative effect on performance.
As Microsoft taught us, people who call a negative effect on performance a *bug* or *error* are mistaken; it's a *feature*. IBM is now patenting the removal of these *features*; how innovative of them.
Well, the code they're uploading would be higher-level processing that would just control what it does, not how it does it. Think of it as re-writing the main subroutine, but all the other functions are the same.
No doubt then there's still error handling to escape the process to return to normal control, and the code-upload area would be separate so even if that part froze, you could overwrite it.
A court order to remove domain name registrations could certainly be permanent. Even if it was a theoretically legitimate action (not the case here) since you have to re-register every year anyways, it's effectively a $5 loss to lose a domain permanently.