Actually, the article doesn't talk about quantum computing at all.
The only reason for quantum mechanics in this article is the fact that quantum mechanics gives a lower bound for miniaturisation (i.e. you can only keep making computer parts smaller until you get problems with the Heisenberg Unertainty Principle)
The article even specifically states that it doesn't refer to a special type of architecture.
But have any of those other projects had a 400 M$ budget.
The company seems to be quite determined, so if they can find a decent solution for the two obvious problems (wind and getting the thing certified by the state governments), there probably would be some market for them to tap.
(It's at the moment incredibly hard and to transport very bulky freight).
But as the stock price shows, quite a lot of people don't think they will be successful anymore.
Yeah, sure, according to the Berne convention stuff copyrighted in the US is also copyrighted in France. But it is only subject to French copyright laws, obviously, which are != the DMCA.
The only way such a law could even have been passed is by corporate lobbying. It is just fucking stupid that a corporate entity could get away with establishing a policy that assumes guilt before innocence. I guess our nations are nothing more than hundreds of plutocracies disguised in hundres of myriad ways.
Au contraire. The record companies were stronly against this law.
Also, it hasn't been passed lately, but is from the 60s. Its scope has only been broadened a bit to include CD burners.
This fee exists because copying of music (and some other copyrighted materials) for private use (even giving the copies away as gifts) is perfectly legal in Germany and is meant to partially reimburse the record companies for this 'loss'. It doesn't cost inordinately much (30 Marks, or about 14$ per CD burner).
What worries me a bit, is the fact that the law states that it applies to machines that are 'meant to copy' music etc., but CD burners can - unlike tape recorders - be used for completely different things.
All in all, I still wouldn't be so negative about this law. The alternative would probably be making digital copies of music illegal, which is not something I'd want.
PS: This is really old news, this story was in the German news about 2 months ago.
We're talking about a patent in Europe here, so the costs aren't quite that high.
On the EPO webpage, you can find a breakdown of the costs of a patent in Europe.
The total cost of an average patent is listed as 29800 Euro or about 25000 USD. While I agree that this is still outside the scope of most open source projects, it's quite a bit less than the 100k you quoted.
And no, these are not only the fees, but 'professional representation before the EPO' is included.
Sure it's the real deal. It's a frog stuck above a pipe that's got air flowing out of it at a high speed.
Sure it's real, but it's not air flowing through the pipe. It's a magnetic field that repels the frog upwards. How should they have got it published in a science journal otherwise:)
From what I've heard, the licensing fees Rambus wants to impose on DDR - SDRAM aren't that high - only 1 or 2 percent, so that will hardly make DDR-SDRAM more expensive than RDRAM.
Also, I don't think, Rambus will be able to make all DRAM manufacturers pay. The outcome of the lawsuits is anything but certain.
Re:he sounds like many other old-style investors..
on
Irrational Exuberance
·
· Score: 1
Coca-Cola, 3M, and other old-economy companies do not have the huge growthrates that companies like Nortel and Nokia show.. Nortel grew revenues 48% this past first quarter. Compare that to Daimler-Chrysler, which grew revenues 17% in the first quarter. Both of these are huge companies, yet Nortel almost triples their growth rate.
Do you think Nortel - or any tech stock you choose - could sustain a 50% growth rate for a longer time? They can at the moment, but this will continue for 1, 2, or maybe 3 years at most, when the corresponding markets are saturated. The stock valuations, however are very often based on the expectation that these growth rates will be sustained far longer. When it becomes clear that this can't be true, the stock prices will obviously start to slide down to a more sensible PE rate like 20-40 (even this is way higher than the 'PE' - rate of bonds, which is about 15-20 at the moment)
A Cisco, a Nortel, a Nokia.. these companies are going to continue to have unbelievable growth rates over the next ten years as the internet becomes more and more part of our day-to-day existance. I personally would like to be a part of that.
I would doubt that these even these companies can sustain the growth for as long as you think. In the long term (~10 years maybe), the growth in their revenue can not greatly exceed the growth of the GNP which is at about 6% in the US at the moment IIRC.
Another point that will impede the high growth rates of these companies is the fact that the rate of savings in the USA has actually become negative in the last years, so the average US consumers spends more money than he or she earns. It is hardly possible to sell them even more.
Why dose this dark matter exist ? Because without it the Big Bang is called into question. Of course the BB can't be wrong. We have built whole curriculums around this. It MUST be true.
The big bang theory isn't the only reason why there must be dark matter.
For example, it turns out that galaxies as we observe them could not be stable, if they were only composed of the visible stars.
I've heard of some other points that make dark matter necessary, but unfortunately, I can't think of any at the moment.
Having something in space will mean it is not going to be hearing all the crap from ground based transmitters
The telescope is supposed to detect gamma rays, so I don't see why there should be any problems with ground based transmitters.
According to the article, the telescope doesn't even detect the gamma rays directly, but only detects secondary radiation, that is emmitted, when the gamma rays hit the atmosphere, so sending it into space would be couterproductive.
It would probably be impossible to build a telescope of equivalent angular resolution in space without spending a few billion dollars, about thousand times the budget of this one.
How did the whole Echelon thing get kicked into the public attention, anyway? How did that stink get started in Europe?
I don't know exactly but there were some articles in a few European computer magazines about Echelon half a year ago. These articles quickly got copied by the major news agencies.
Maybe the UK simply fears that the EU might outlaw Echelon, so they want to have a way of scanning email traffic, which still works when/if Echelon has to leave Europe.
The viewpoint you are missing is called compensation.
The music companies surely have a right for compensation, but this should under no circumstances mean that basic principles of jurisdiction can simply be ignored. ISPs should not be made liable simply because the content is present on their servers, but only if they can be called guilty. If they immediately shut down this piracy forum after they found out about it, there is no reason, why their actions should be punished with compensation, even though it is harder or even impossible to persecute the people who downloaded the music in this case.
It seems like such a common-sense thing that you don't hold the provider liable! You're right, and this is also the standpoint of German law. It states that 'providers are only liable for outside content, if they know of this content and if it is possible and reasonable for them to prevent its use' (sorry for the bad translation). If it is the case (as it is presented in the article cited above) that AOL didn't know of the illegal content, this verdict will very likely not survive the appeal. Unfortunately, I don't have the text the judge used to justify this verdict, but another article I have read about this case indicates that he argued that AOL didn't act even though they knew about this piracy incident. This would make his standpoint at least a bit more sensible. The judge could of course simply have misunderstood the facts that were presented, because he didn't really know how everything worked technically. Incompetence of the judges with regard to the internet is unfortunately a relatively big problem in Germany jurisdiction at the moment, which has also caused several other silly verdicts.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason for quantum mechanics in this article is the fact that quantum mechanics gives a lower bound for miniaturisation (i.e. you can only keep making computer parts smaller until you get problems with the Heisenberg Unertainty Principle)
The article even specifically states that it doesn't refer to a special type of architecture.
--
This signature has been deprecated
The company seems to be quite determined, so if they can find a decent solution for the two obvious problems (wind and getting the thing certified by the state governments), there probably would be some market for them to tap. (It's at the moment incredibly hard and to transport very bulky freight).
But as the stock price shows, quite a lot of people don't think they will be successful anymore.
--
This signature has been deprecated...
Yeah, sure, according to the Berne convention stuff copyrighted in the US is also copyrighted in France. But it is only subject to French copyright laws, obviously, which are != the DMCA.
Au contraire. The record companies were stronly against this law.
Also, it hasn't been passed lately, but is from the 60s. Its scope has only been broadened a bit to include CD burners.
This fee exists because copying of music (and some other copyrighted materials) for private use (even giving the copies away as gifts) is perfectly legal in Germany and is meant to partially reimburse the record companies for this 'loss'. It doesn't cost inordinately much (30 Marks, or about 14$ per CD burner).
What worries me a bit, is the fact that the law states that it applies to machines that are 'meant to copy' music etc., but CD burners can - unlike tape recorders - be used for completely different things.
All in all, I still wouldn't be so negative about this law. The alternative would probably be making digital copies of music illegal, which is not something I'd want.
PS: This is really old news, this story was in the German news about 2 months ago.
On the EPO webpage, you can find a breakdown of the costs of a patent in Europe.
The total cost of an average patent is listed as 29800 Euro or about 25000 USD. While I agree that this is still outside the scope of most open source projects, it's quite a bit less than the 100k you quoted.
And no, these are not only the fees, but 'professional representation before the EPO' is included.
Sure it's real, but it's not air flowing through the pipe. It's a magnetic field that repels the frog upwards. How should they have got it published in a science journal otherwise :)
PS: If you're paranoid, I think it's open source, so you can make sure it doesn't contain any trojans.
Also, I don't think, Rambus will be able to make all DRAM manufacturers pay. The outcome of the lawsuits is anything but certain.
Do you think Nortel - or any tech stock you choose - could sustain a 50% growth rate for a longer time? They can at the moment, but this will continue for 1, 2, or maybe 3 years at most, when the corresponding markets are saturated. The stock valuations, however are very often based on the expectation that these growth rates will be sustained far longer. When it becomes clear that this can't be true, the stock prices will obviously start to slide down to a more sensible PE rate like 20-40 (even this is way higher than the 'PE' - rate of bonds, which is about 15-20 at the moment)
A Cisco, a Nortel, a Nokia.. these companies are going to continue to have unbelievable growth rates over the next ten years as the internet becomes more and more part of our day-to-day existance. I personally would like to be a part of that.
I would doubt that these even these companies can sustain the growth for as long as you think. In the long term (~10 years maybe), the growth in their revenue can not greatly exceed the growth of the GNP which is at about 6% in the US at the moment IIRC.
Another point that will impede the high growth rates of these companies is the fact that the rate of savings in the USA has actually become negative in the last years, so the average US consumers spends more money than he or she earns. It is hardly possible to sell them even more.
The big bang theory isn't the only reason why there must be dark matter.
For example, it turns out that galaxies as we observe them could not be stable, if they were only composed of the visible stars.
I've heard of some other points that make dark matter necessary, but unfortunately, I can't think of any at the moment.
The telescope is supposed to detect gamma rays, so I don't see why there should be any problems with ground based transmitters.
According to the article, the telescope doesn't even detect the gamma rays directly, but only detects secondary radiation, that is emmitted, when the gamma rays hit the atmosphere, so sending it into space would be couterproductive.
It would probably be impossible to build a telescope of equivalent angular resolution in space without spending a few billion dollars, about thousand times the budget of this one.
I don't know exactly but there were some articles in a few European computer magazines about Echelon half a year ago. These articles quickly got copied by the major news agencies.
Maybe the UK simply fears that the EU might outlaw Echelon, so they want to have a way of scanning email traffic, which still works when/if Echelon has to leave Europe.
The music companies surely have a right for compensation, but this should under no circumstances mean that basic principles of jurisdiction can simply be ignored.
ISPs should not be made liable simply because the content is present on their servers, but only if they can be called guilty. If they immediately shut down this piracy forum after they found out about it, there is no reason, why their actions should be punished with compensation, even though it is harder or even impossible to persecute the people who downloaded the music in this case.
sorry about the formatting, I completely forgot this is HTML.
It seems like such a common-sense thing that you don't hold the provider liable! You're right, and this is also the standpoint of German law. It states that 'providers are only liable for outside content, if they know of this content and if it is possible and reasonable for them to prevent its use' (sorry for the bad translation). If it is the case (as it is presented in the article cited above) that AOL didn't know of the illegal content, this verdict will very likely not survive the appeal. Unfortunately, I don't have the text the judge used to justify this verdict, but another article I have read about this case indicates that he argued that AOL didn't act even though they knew about this piracy incident. This would make his standpoint at least a bit more sensible. The judge could of course simply have misunderstood the facts that were presented, because he didn't really know how everything worked technically. Incompetence of the judges with regard to the internet is unfortunately a relatively big problem in Germany jurisdiction at the moment, which has also caused several other silly verdicts.