Absolutely, this is an option that the Internet (and high-speed communication in general) has given us which wasn't available before. But even still, these kickstarted companies will have to charge much more to their initial customers if another company can swoop in and steal all their R&D the moment they have a successful product. The moment that happens the competitor will only have to pay incremental manufacturing costs, not the R&D which accumulated during the design process, and to be competitive the original company will have to lower their prices once competition starts up. So in order to break even the original customers will need to pay high enough costs that the original run will cover all R&D. This higher costs will stifle innovation.
people that argue that patents don't contribute at all to spurring innovation (something that anyone who has ever pitched his idea to a VC with the objective of funding a startup will reject out of hand)
I think that's exactly the point those people miss. Sure, you can come up with as much innovation as you want without any patent protections. But, if you ever want anybody to pay for your innovation to become more than just figments of your imagination, they need to know that they will be getting their money back.
You took the time to write that whole thing, but didn't even RTFA? She reported it to the police, and they weren't interested because neither were locals.
Almost. The overlap causes destructive interference, so the only place where the write occurs is in the centre where there *isn't* overlap. But yeah, this is single layer.
As far as I'm aware, they haven't done that with any enterprise stuff. And as for monetizing things besides using ads, AppEngine much? CloudSQL? Cell-tower Geo-location services?
Google has no problem with paid apps when it is dealing with enterprise customers. It just seems that they'd rather not deal with extracting payments from personal consumers, letting their advertising customers do that for them.
That actually depends, because the new AMD architectures share a FPU between cores in a module, so if you have a *mixed* integer and FP load, AMD comes out tops, otherwise if it is pure integer Intel's superior caching algorithms tend to push it in front, and for pure FP the AMD chips tend to bottleneck. Something like CAD, a mix of FP and integer is perfect for AMD. Games, which are more FP than integer, not so much. Server work, where the cache isn't likely to give much of an advantage, AMD is again competitive.
Really, it all depends on the workload, and of course also whether it was compiled with the Intel compiler which will disable all SSE on AMD platforms =)
I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of latencies that USB introduces. Check out here, where they got 1ms, +- 1 ms. http://psas.pdx.edu/news/2012-07-25/ A full millisecond between a hardware interrupt and output on the other end of the USB. Consider that a $1 8-bit 8MHz micro can do that 3 orders of magnitude faster, and you can see why it is terrible for anything that involves lots of small packets. For instance, if you want to send 10 byte packets over ethernet, doing it with USB-ethernet and not buffering (as would be the case if you wanted to continuously update something, like an audio DAC) would mean that you are limited to 10kb/s on average. Even ISA does better than that.
Sticking USB in between the computer and the Ethernet interface adds several milliseconds of latency to every transfer you do. Have millions of small files on a network share? You're screwed.
Why don't you just read the fucking article instead of trying to come up with your own wackjob explanation? He quite clearly explains it:
One of the most common critiques of my theory was this - maybe there were questions with only 3 or 4 mark intervals in all subjects making certain marks mathematically unattainable. My counterargument? All numbers from 94 to 100 are attainable and have been attained. What does this mean? It means that increments of 1 to 6 are attainable. By extension, all numbers from 0 to 100 are achievable. Let me give you an example. If 99 and 98 were definitely achievable with deductions of 1 and 2 respectively, this means one of two cases - there is a question A worth 1 mark that made 99 occur, and a question B worth 2 maks that made 98 occur, which meant getting A and B both wrong would mean 97 could occur. Case 2 - Question A was worth 1 mark, and question B was worth 1 mark too. The 99 got A wrong, and the 98 got A and B wrong. By this logic, if 97 were not possible, it would mean that there is no other question of 1 mark in the examination or that nobody got a 2 point question wrong and question A or B.
Basically, because 99, 98 and 97 were all attained, then any increment of 1, 2 or 3 points should be possible. The fact that nobody got 80% in any subject in the entire country points to widespread tampering.
The thing is, the capsid's only 'function' is to keep the contents safe and prevent the immune system from recognising it as a threat. Because of this, it can mutate very quickly while still being viable, because it doesn't contain any essential machinery for the virus's infection vectors. There is more genetic variance in the HIV population of a single person after a year of infection than there is in all mammals. Trying to create a drug which targets a non-essential, rapidly changing component, like the capsid, is like trying to kill mammals by targeting something with the nose of a mole, and expecting it to also work on elephants, whales and humans. All it does is select for the ones that don't have mole noses.
TLDR: creating a drug to target the capsid is useless because the capsid is non-essential to viral function and thus mutates extremely quickly.
The exact same questions can be asked of the Bush Administration. How did they get away with the illegal wiretapping? Why was nobody punished for the bad intel on the WMDs in Iraq?
Seriously, it goes on both sides. Both administrations have been worse than Nixon.
Just a quick pointer, most evolution (in mammals at least) isn't through mutations, but through recombination. Just as an example, in humans, on average there is only one new mutation (ie. one corrupted base-pair) per two generations. When you consider the size of the genome is equivalent to 3.5GB of data, that is virtually nothing.
Then compare that to something like HIV, which only has a genome size of 1.2KB of data, but still averages about 1 to 2 mutations per generation.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, this is an option that the Internet (and high-speed communication in general) has given us which wasn't available before. But even still, these kickstarted companies will have to charge much more to their initial customers if another company can swoop in and steal all their R&D the moment they have a successful product. The moment that happens the competitor will only have to pay incremental manufacturing costs, not the R&D which accumulated during the design process, and to be competitive the original company will have to lower their prices once competition starts up. So in order to break even the original customers will need to pay high enough costs that the original run will cover all R&D. This higher costs will stifle innovation.
people that argue that patents don't contribute at all to spurring innovation (something that anyone who has ever pitched his idea to a VC with the objective of funding a startup will reject out of hand)
I think that's exactly the point those people miss. Sure, you can come up with as much innovation as you want without any patent protections. But, if you ever want anybody to pay for your innovation to become more than just figments of your imagination, they need to know that they will be getting their money back.
Yeah, and Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are vegecidal maniacs!
FTFY
You took the time to write that whole thing, but didn't even RTFA? She reported it to the police, and they weren't interested because neither were locals.
So, basically, your entire post is irrelevant.
Almost. The overlap causes destructive interference, so the only place where the write occurs is in the centre where there *isn't* overlap. But yeah, this is single layer.
$600M. But yeah.
If you're not using your computer, you should expect keyloggers and never sign into anything which doesn't have 2-factor authentication.
As far as I'm aware, they haven't done that with any enterprise stuff. And as for monetizing things besides using ads, AppEngine much? CloudSQL? Cell-tower Geo-location services?
Google has no problem with paid apps when it is dealing with enterprise customers. It just seems that they'd rather not deal with extracting payments from personal consumers, letting their advertising customers do that for them.
Yeah, but making a recording of calls, and keeping them in case we need them later, that is a whole new level of Orwell.
Samsung?
That actually depends, because the new AMD architectures share a FPU between cores in a module, so if you have a *mixed* integer and FP load, AMD comes out tops, otherwise if it is pure integer Intel's superior caching algorithms tend to push it in front, and for pure FP the AMD chips tend to bottleneck. Something like CAD, a mix of FP and integer is perfect for AMD. Games, which are more FP than integer, not so much. Server work, where the cache isn't likely to give much of an advantage, AMD is again competitive.
Really, it all depends on the workload, and of course also whether it was compiled with the Intel compiler which will disable all SSE on AMD platforms =)
I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of latencies that USB introduces. Check out here, where they got 1ms, +- 1 ms.
http://psas.pdx.edu/news/2012-07-25/
A full millisecond between a hardware interrupt and output on the other end of the USB. Consider that a $1 8-bit 8MHz micro can do that 3 orders of magnitude faster, and you can see why it is terrible for anything that involves lots of small packets. For instance, if you want to send 10 byte packets over ethernet, doing it with USB-ethernet and not buffering (as would be the case if you wanted to continuously update something, like an audio DAC) would mean that you are limited to 10kb/s on average. Even ISA does better than that.
Use Android, get a custom ROM and don't install Google Apps. Easy peasy.
Sticking USB in between the computer and the Ethernet interface adds several milliseconds of latency to every transfer you do. Have millions of small files on a network share? You're screwed.
"I won a class action lawsuit against Acer and all I got was this stupid flash drive."
Why don't you just read the fucking article instead of trying to come up with your own wackjob explanation? He quite clearly explains it:
One of the most common critiques of my theory was this - maybe there were questions with only 3 or 4 mark intervals in all subjects making certain marks mathematically unattainable. My counterargument? All numbers from 94 to 100 are attainable and have been attained. What does this mean? It means that increments of 1 to 6 are attainable. By extension, all numbers from 0 to 100 are achievable.
Let me give you an example. If 99 and 98 were definitely achievable with deductions of 1 and 2 respectively, this means one of two cases - there is a question A worth 1 mark that made 99 occur, and a question B worth 2 maks that made 98 occur, which meant getting A and B both wrong would mean 97 could occur. Case 2 - Question A was worth 1 mark, and question B was worth 1 mark too. The 99 got A wrong, and the 98 got A and B wrong. By this logic, if 97 were not possible, it would mean that there is no other question of 1 mark in the examination or that nobody got a 2 point question wrong and question A or B.
Basically, because 99, 98 and 97 were all attained, then any increment of 1, 2 or 3 points should be possible. The fact that nobody got 80% in any subject in the entire country points to widespread tampering.
Yeah, it should be a criminal offence for an officer to turn off their camera during duty hours.
The thing is, the capsid's only 'function' is to keep the contents safe and prevent the immune system from recognising it as a threat. Because of this, it can mutate very quickly while still being viable, because it doesn't contain any essential machinery for the virus's infection vectors. There is more genetic variance in the HIV population of a single person after a year of infection than there is in all mammals. Trying to create a drug which targets a non-essential, rapidly changing component, like the capsid, is like trying to kill mammals by targeting something with the nose of a mole, and expecting it to also work on elephants, whales and humans. All it does is select for the ones that don't have mole noses.
TLDR: creating a drug to target the capsid is useless because the capsid is non-essential to viral function and thus mutates extremely quickly.
Oh wait...
BS. From somebody living in another country.
The exact same questions can be asked of the Bush Administration. How did they get away with the illegal wiretapping? Why was nobody punished for the bad intel on the WMDs in Iraq?
Seriously, it goes on both sides. Both administrations have been worse than Nixon.
This is fucking hilarious... Hillary Clinton is a Nazi? How did this get modded informative?
Bigotry isn't just about race, you know. Class, gender, sexual orientation, hair colour... it's about the behaviour, not what the difference is.
And picking up trash? Are you volunteering to pay them for that?
That works, but it loses you efficiency. If you could generate the colour spread you wanted directly it would be much more efficient.
Just a quick pointer, most evolution (in mammals at least) isn't through mutations, but through recombination. Just as an example, in humans, on average there is only one new mutation (ie. one corrupted base-pair) per two generations. When you consider the size of the genome is equivalent to 3.5GB of data, that is virtually nothing.
Then compare that to something like HIV, which only has a genome size of 1.2KB of data, but still averages about 1 to 2 mutations per generation.