It's actually straightforward. It's the same as when parents negotiate for a baby to be in a shampoo commercial. Do you get to renegotiate the shampoo commercial contract when you turn 18 and demand all of the shampoo company's profits for the last 18 years?
The short answer is no.
The parents (probably even just the mother) of the embryo gets to negotiate away the rights to those cells, and the grown up embryo will have no rights involving those cells excepting those negotiated by the parents.
Well, how about being willing to pay to take them into their states prisons? That would be a closer parallel, I think, and one I think most anti-death penalty advocates would be happy to support with increased taxes.
I think you have to take a different perspective. GPUs are advancing continually, and at some point people whose GPUs are far enough behind the curve get tempted to upgrade.
Is anyone justifiably excited when intel releases a 200mhz speed bump cpu? It's the same thing. It implies only a new top end, and typically a decline in prices of the remainder of the curve, which at some point may bring a new CPU/GPU into your price range, and maybe you'll decide to upgrade.
Given the probably correct assumption that more computer users are GPU bound these days than CPU bound in most of their processing, GPU updates are probably the most exciting hardware news we can have (not that in general any of them are exciting, but given this is slashdot...):
CPU: not as important to most users. Network: 802.11n will be big news, but for wired, what home user cares about 1gig vs 10gig ethernet? Sound: seems to have hit a wall as far as home quality output (who needs more than 7.1 192khz 48bit reproduction w/~0 cpu usage?). Hard drives: nobody has budged platter speeds since the raptor, capacity has reached the point where most home users can buy 'enough'. Monitors: LCDs seem to have hit a wall in response time. Would be nice to see some bigger, higher res displays, and these announcements generate some buzz. 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 panels are already reasonably cheap. Upgrades here don't offer much temptation. CD/DVDs are spinning close to the media limit, and most users don't use them enough to care about going much faster.
Just to let you know, NV at least will not be doing unified fp processor in hardware in the next generation. It seems unlikely that ATI will either. It'll be at least yet one more generation before they both make that leap.
All of which is not to say that there won't be big performance gaps between this and the next generation.
I don't think you have to assume that 7950 was ATI inspired. Once Nvidia reached 7900 (and they did use up most of the 7X00 slots along the way), any upgrade to that had to be less than 8000 to avoid conflation with the next generation core. 7950 is the most obvious candidate.
Where the heck did you get a 148 speaker setup for only $70K? Because I paid almost $200k but I'm not out of the remorse period yet, and I could still return it if I could get a better deal.
Also, it's not all it's cracked up to be, because you'll find yourself replacing air filters like crazy to unclog all the angels that commit envy-suicide in your house when they see how much you are enjoying your sound system. I don't care how many fit on the head of a pin, it takes only a few trillion to completely block the airflow on a Filtrete.
The volunteers won't get anything except better medical care (while in programs like this, superior health monitoring is a necessity, so if nothing else you get checked out by competent doctors on a regular basis).
They also get the benefit of cures down the road, and the satisfaction of helping others even if a cure for their particular disease doesn't come out of the study.
There's also a strong aversion in the medical community to coercive measures being used to get people involved in medical studies. Paying people off is a form of coercion (it will disproportionately tempt the poor to become involved in a process that may be dangerous to their lives). Many doctors will not participate in research in which the subjects are paid for this reason.
Running off a sheet of $100 bills shouldn't be the crime (I'd most definitely consider it valid art to create such a work). Using them should be the crime (don't attempt to spend your artwork). Ideally I think we should move to a system of trade not based on a forgeable currency. The forgeable currency is the core problem here, if you think about it, why should painting certain paintings (money) magically make you rich while other paintings don't?
Twiddling the bank's bits isn't the same as twiddling your own bits. Fudge your own check book to show you have $1billion any time you want, I certainly think that should be legal. Just don't try to do it to the bank's data.
I'm not an astrophysicist, so feel free to consider this only mildly informed:
What they claim to have found is a very hot galaxy undergoing gravitation not explainable by the conventionally visible matter.
All of the conventional matter in the area should be hot enough to be conventionally visible.
But since they can't see enough matter to account for the gravitation we have to conclude:
1) It's dark matter. That mysterious stuff that just doesn't interact like conventional matter, but does cause gravity. 2) It's conventional matter in some seriously surprising state that we don't understand, causing it not to be visible.
And their conclusion is that #1 is the more likely explanation. #2 seems unlikely because you would expect to observe this surprising state in the local galaxy or in experiments we perform in colliders.
In case your question is not meant to be humorous, the Coalsack Nebula is not 'dark' in the same sense as dark matter. It's conventional matter that is not well lit.
If even one pico-joule of energy is created from nothing in the universe, it destroys the constancy of physical law.
It's a good thing not even one pico-joule of energy has been created from nothing in the history of the universe, otherwise we might be here to appreciate this invention.
I would guess that: 1. Is just wrong. Surely a good fraction of people have tried to market their artistic work at some point. And in slashdot, I would expect that proportion to be nearly 100% given the nature of the audience.
2. With or without any experience trying to sell an artistic work, surely an even larger proportion of the population has at least created an artistic work and can appreciate the effort involved. And surely many can appreciate the joy of seeing their materials being copied, rather than feeling wretched. Not everyone is a control freak, and real artists want their works to be appreciated by as wide an audience as possible, regardless of recompense.
3. Would obviously need to be settled by experiment, but I think the experiment is doomed due to the definitional difficulties (just how much selling of their own materials is required?)
I think on a moral level, it's fairly straightforward. Consider free speech. Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you can say, if what you say is not physically threatening anyone? Most rational people would say no. So start reading the ones and zeros off of your cd.
Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you are allowed to write down, or remember? No again. So record the spoken ones and zeros to cd.
Any restriction on such activity is clearly immoral, and the other side hasn't a leg to stand on.
That wave of violence was in Los Angeles, CA, where there were a number of car shooting fatalities, and lots of car jackings, and car vs pedestrian accidents numbered in the thousands.
Actually, my point was that bandwidth is limited by the memory interface, ie, you can't go faster than DDR2-1333 right now, whether you're using AMD or Intel.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually straightforward. It's the same as when parents negotiate for a baby to be in a shampoo commercial. Do you get to renegotiate the shampoo commercial contract when you turn 18 and demand all of the shampoo company's profits for the last 18 years?
The short answer is no.
The parents (probably even just the mother) of the embryo gets to negotiate away the rights to those cells, and the grown up embryo will have no rights involving those cells excepting those negotiated by the parents.
Well, how about being willing to pay to take them into their states prisons? That would be a closer parallel, I think, and one I think most anti-death penalty advocates would be happy to support with increased taxes.
Which is all not to mention victims of rape and incest. Do they get the abortions or not?
I think you have to take a different perspective. GPUs are advancing continually, and at some point people whose GPUs are far enough behind the curve get tempted to upgrade.
...):
Is anyone justifiably excited when intel releases a 200mhz speed bump cpu? It's the same thing. It implies only a new top end, and typically a decline in prices of the remainder of the curve, which at some point may bring a new CPU/GPU into your price range, and maybe you'll decide to upgrade.
Given the probably correct assumption that more computer users are GPU bound these days than CPU bound in most of their processing, GPU updates are probably the most exciting hardware news we can have (not that in general any of them are exciting, but given this is slashdot
CPU: not as important to most users.
Network: 802.11n will be big news, but for wired, what home user cares about 1gig vs 10gig ethernet?
Sound: seems to have hit a wall as far as home quality output (who needs more than 7.1 192khz 48bit reproduction w/~0 cpu usage?).
Hard drives: nobody has budged platter speeds since the raptor, capacity has reached the point where most home users can buy 'enough'.
Monitors: LCDs seem to have hit a wall in response time. Would be nice to see some bigger, higher res displays, and these announcements generate some buzz. 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 panels are already reasonably cheap. Upgrades here don't offer much temptation.
CD/DVDs are spinning close to the media limit, and most users don't use them enough to care about going much faster.
Just to let you know, NV at least will not be doing unified fp processor in hardware in the next generation. It seems unlikely that ATI will either. It'll be at least yet one more generation before they both make that leap.
All of which is not to say that there won't be big performance gaps between this and the next generation.
I don't think you have to assume that 7950 was ATI inspired. Once Nvidia reached 7900 (and they did use up most of the 7X00 slots along the way), any upgrade to that had to be less than 8000 to avoid conflation with the next generation core. 7950 is the most obvious candidate.
Where the heck did you get a 148 speaker setup for only $70K? Because I paid almost $200k but I'm not out of the remorse period yet, and I could still return it if I could get a better deal.
Also, it's not all it's cracked up to be, because you'll find yourself replacing air filters like crazy to unclog all the angels that commit envy-suicide in your house when they see how much you are enjoying your sound system. I don't care how many fit on the head of a pin, it takes only a few trillion to completely block the airflow on a Filtrete.
Trust me, I'm old too.
Never trust anyone over 30.
The volunteers won't get anything except better medical care (while in programs like this, superior health monitoring is a necessity, so if nothing else you get checked out by competent doctors on a regular basis).
They also get the benefit of cures down the road, and the satisfaction of helping others even if a cure for their particular disease doesn't come out of the study.
There's also a strong aversion in the medical community to coercive measures being used to get people involved in medical studies. Paying people off is a form of coercion (it will disproportionately tempt the poor to become involved in a process that may be dangerous to their lives). Many doctors will not participate in research in which the subjects are paid for this reason.
It's just that only a small fraction of that blood comes with a detailed medical history.
I think you want to know about:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/
which is an attempt to modify gravitational theory to account for the issue rather than using dark matter.
Funny, but that's easily eliminated as a cause of non-visibility (Looking at the brightness of Type IA supernova in the same spatial region).
Running off a sheet of $100 bills shouldn't be the crime (I'd most definitely consider it valid art to create such a work). Using them should be the crime (don't attempt to spend your artwork). Ideally I think we should move to a system of trade not based on a forgeable currency. The forgeable currency is the core problem here, if you think about it, why should painting certain paintings (money) magically make you rich while other paintings don't?
Twiddling the bank's bits isn't the same as twiddling your own bits. Fudge your own check book to show you have $1billion any time you want, I certainly think that should be legal. Just don't try to do it to the bank's data.
I'm not an astrophysicist, so feel free to consider this only mildly informed:
What they claim to have found is a very hot galaxy undergoing gravitation not explainable by the conventionally visible matter.
All of the conventional matter in the area should be hot enough to be conventionally visible.
But since they can't see enough matter to account for the gravitation we have to conclude:
1) It's dark matter. That mysterious stuff that just doesn't interact like conventional matter, but does cause gravity.
2) It's conventional matter in some seriously surprising state that we don't understand, causing it not to be visible.
And their conclusion is that #1 is the more likely explanation. #2 seems unlikely because you would expect to observe this surprising state in the local galaxy or in experiments we perform in colliders.
In case your question is not meant to be humorous, the Coalsack Nebula is not 'dark' in the same sense as dark matter. It's conventional matter that is not well lit.
If even one pico-joule of energy is created from nothing in the universe, it destroys the constancy of physical law.
It's a good thing not even one pico-joule of energy has been created from nothing in the history of the universe, otherwise we might be here to appreciate this invention.
I would guess that:
1. Is just wrong. Surely a good fraction of people have tried to market their artistic work at some point. And in slashdot, I would expect that proportion to be nearly 100% given the nature of the audience.
2. With or without any experience trying to sell an artistic work, surely an even larger proportion of the population has at least created an artistic work and can appreciate the effort involved. And surely many can appreciate the joy of seeing their materials being copied, rather than feeling wretched. Not everyone is a control freak, and real artists want their works to be appreciated by as wide an audience as possible, regardless of recompense.
3. Would obviously need to be settled by experiment, but I think the experiment is doomed due to the definitional difficulties (just how much selling of their own materials is required?)
I think on a moral level, it's fairly straightforward. Consider free speech. Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you can say, if what you say is not physically threatening anyone? Most rational people would say no. So start reading the ones and zeros off of your cd.
Should any entity or company be able to restrict what you are allowed to write down, or remember? No again. So record the spoken ones and zeros to cd.
Any restriction on such activity is clearly immoral, and the other side hasn't a leg to stand on.
That wave of violence was in Los Angeles, CA, where there were a number of car shooting fatalities, and lots of car jackings, and car vs pedestrian accidents numbered in the thousands.
Why do GPUs need huge drivers when CPUs don't?
CPUs have this enormous driver called the operating system.
Thanks for posting that, this is exactly why I vote for the non-incumbent in every position I don't care about.
Sounds like that would be another wonderful benefit for our society ... helps get rid of more of the leeches when we follow up with the nuking.
Actually, my point was that bandwidth is limited by the memory interface, ie, you can't go faster than DDR2-1333 right now, whether you're using AMD or Intel.
They plan to sell 8 cores.a rt=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mo zilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=intel+yorkfield&st
Evidence actually suggests that they are likely to reach 8 cores before AMD, it's on their roadmap well ahead of where it is on AMD's roadmap.