The article didn't say a whole lot, did it? It just said, "Gee, wouldn't photonic clocking be nice". It didn't say a whole lot about how, and whether it's feasible.
So, I'll quickly fill in what I know. To do clock distribution you need two types of components: waveguides and detectors. Let's assume you are going to work in silicon...
Waveguides function as the optical wiring, and includes things like bends and splitters. Although perhaps not trivial, it is relative straight-forward to make waveguides in or on silicon. Detectors, on the other hand, are not so easy, at least at the wavelength most people are interested in, 1550 nm. There's a number of people researching Ge growth for detectors on Si, and this does have promise, but it's not ready yet. Another option would be bonding InGaAs, but that might always be too expensive.
Now, if you want to do full up optical communication, on chip, you'll want modulators, too. These have been demonstrated by Intel and Cornell in silicon, but only at speeds around 1 Ghz. Optical amplifiers would be nice, too, and this has been demonstrated (using Raman amplification) by Intel and UCLA. (I'm not sure Raman amplification can give you the sorts of amplification and efficiency you really need, though).
(Sorry, I won't be able to respond to any replies; at least not until Monday. I'm off to bed and I'm not planning to be near a computer tomorrow).
I think the point of the parent post is that complicated controls/controllers are intimidating to people who don't play games regularly. You can make all the arguements you want about the talent of a 5 year old (Ok maybe it's someone else making the arguement), but you can't deny that easier to learn to use a controller that has one stick and two buttons, than a controller that has two sticks, a gamepad and 8 buttons. Sure you can make more complicated and interesting games with the more complicated controller, but a lot of people enjoy more simple games. (You could then make the arguement that you don't have to use all those buttons just because they are there, which I really can't argue with).
In the end it's up to developers, and I don't think developers are going after the very casual gamer. Looking at myself, for example, I used to play games regularly. I was never a heavy gamer, but I would buy a few a year. Recently my life changed (had a child), and I have less free time. I still have some free time to play games, but I don't. Why? Because the games don't fit my schedule. Besides the fact that it takes too long to learn the game (because of the time it takes to figure out what all the buttons do), I can't get anywhere in the 20 minutes intervals I have for playing. Games seem to be such that if you don't have at least an hour to sit and play, you shouldn't bother. (The other problem is that I really don't want to ignore my wife to play, and there are few multiplayer games other than sports).
They made gaming incredibly fun, and that's where video gaming really started to take off.
You've got to be kidding me. Not to demean Nintendo's achievements during their heyday, but video gaming had taken off before them. Arcade games had their heyday in the early 80's. You might say that Nintendo caused home video gaming to take off, but the Atari VCS was pretty popular back in the day. What Nintendo really did was resurrect an industry that people thought had died - still an impressive acheivement. They did this as much through a better business model (getting a cut of every piece of software) as techical innovation.
I think why people don't like the T-shirt is that it says 'know "your" roots.' My roots (and, in fact, the roots of the industry as a whole) are earlier than Nintendo.
You say games won't use it, but the fact is that the XBox could make them use it whether they're aware of it or not. The simplest example would be if it cached content as it was read from the disc so it didn't have to be reloaded each time. A second example would be if it acted like an ultra large memory card for saving games. Another example were if it were used to "hibernate" a game so someone could walk away and pick up where they left off the day before.
All of this is nice, but not required (or even all that important) to make a good game. If you don't believe me, then why didn't the Xbox outsell the PS2?
Then there are games which could use it. For example, to download patches, extra levels and so forth.
Also, nice, but not required.
A HD could mean that it could rip songs, movies etc. to disk and play them on demand. And MS could sell video on demand - films, shows, trailers and so on, as well as distributing firmware updates, patches and more on it.
Yes, and if you want these features you're going to have to shell out for a hard drive. (In fact, you might eventually be able to choose the size based on your needs).
Nothing you list is required for a good gaming experience; they are all nice extras. Many people would rather save $100 than have these extras, so why make them spend it. Now, you could say that Microsoft should include it all (or at least the hard drive) at the lower price point. Nice idea, but Microsoft has made the (probably wise) decision that there is only so much money they are willing to loose on each console sale.
Yes, they are going to gouge on the HD price as much as they can. I predict that there will eventually be a large HD option with software for a media center - but it won't be cheap.
In short, hard drive prices do go down, a lot. Especially considering that MS never upgraded the Xbox drive from the tiny 10GB hard drive it originally came with, it wasn't a significant cost.
You are confusing the cost per one unit (MB), when it is really the cost per the unit that matters. One a certain capacity minimum is reached, the hardrive doesn't get a whole lot cheaper. It costs nearly as much to make a 10 GB drive as a 160GB, since much of the cost is the assembly, mechanics, and electronics which are the same on both units.
Look at the web page you linked to. Until the mid-90's hard drives were expensive, period. In say 1997, a hard drive costs $330 (2.1 GB). In 2004, a hard drive costs $250 (250 GB). The price didn't change a lot, but the capacity went up (by 100x). Granted, there are lower capacity hardrives that are cheaper, but you see my point (I hope).
Sure, you and I might be able to buy a few really cheap 10 GB hard drives off ebay, or from a surplus shop, but with the volumes Microsoft needs, they can't.
If the "cheap" model doesn't have a hard drive, that means that developers aren't going to use the thing in their games.
Bingo! The hardrive on the original Xbox was rarely used well anyway. A few games took advantage of it, but most games were released on multiple systems, and therefore didn't. The reality is, only a few games really needed it. By adding a hardrive, Microsoft thought they were adding a component that would make the XBox significantly better than the PS2. Instead they added a component that just made it a lot more expensive to build. (And unlike the other components in the console, a hardrive's price doesn't drop over time. Capacities go up, but prices don't go down). To avoid hemoraging money again, Microsoft needed to drop the hardrive from the Xbox 360. To maintain compatibility with the original, though, they needed to at least make it an option.
I'm just surprised they would split the market like that.
Perhaps, but as you and I said, developers aren't going to use the hardrive. People who just want to play Xbox 360 (not Xbox 1) games will be able to get by just fine with the base model. People who want extras, (downloadable content, Xbox 1 compatibility, probably some media options), will need the upgraded version. Many people don't care about these extras, so why should they pay for hardware to do it?
I don't think having add-ons (or upgraded systems) is necessarily fragmenting the market. The baseline system (without a HD) will be the baseline system, and that is what developers will code for. Gaming-wise the baseline system will play almost (there may be a few special cases) all games just fine.
So, why have a HD add-on? I can think of two reasons: Xbox 1 compatibility and media capabilities. To be compatible with Xbox 1, you're going to need a (small) HD. Also, the Xbox360 might be capable of being a PVR and media jukebox (with a hardware add-on), and a big hardrive would be necessary here. By having the hardrive as an external option or add-on, the buyer can choose the size based on their needs. And if you just want to play Xbox360 games, you won't need to spend the extra money on a hardrive, at all.
Microsoft leaned with the Xbox 1 that it's expensive and unecessary to have a hardrive in a console. I agree 100% that ultimately when it comes to a console, it's about the games. But I don't think (as the PS2 and PS3 have shown) that a hardrive is necessary for good games.
Similarly, the HD-DVD option won't effect games. All games will be sold on standard DVD media. All (with possibly a few exceptions) this option does, is allow people to buy the the Xbox 360 instead of a (presumably expensive) HD-DVD player.
I agree that extending DST further in fall is bad idea. The problem is DST is very assymetric. The winter solstice is Dec. 21. If DST was actually about daylight, it should be close to symmetric around this date. However, we fall back only 2 months before this, and spring ahead 4 months after this. So, the fall transition happens too late, and the spring transition could stand to happen sooner.
call me dumb, but i don't understand how. if it's cold, i'm still going to turn on the heat, if it's dark i'm still going to turn on the lights.
OK, you're dumb. (Sorry, I had, too).
It's a simple idea, really. Let's say most people go to bed at around 11:00. At dusk, everyone turns on their house lights. With daylight saving time (DST), dusk is 8:30, so lights are on for 2.5 hours. Without DST, dusk is an hour earlier, so lights are on for 3.5 hours. (What is really happening with DST is that we are sleeping through less daylight in the morning. In the winter there is no daylight to waste in the morning so this doesn't work).
Having said this, I'm not sure the savings works out as well as the above would suggest. DST means that people like me have to run our AC's an hour longer at the hottest part of the day, wasting more energy than we save. (Presumably, the other place I would spend that time is work, at that will have AC running whether I'm there or not).
I've never seen one of these homebrew things in operation, but I share your doubts about the picture quality. Every overhead projector I've ever used has had pretty crappy geometry, and uneven illumination. They're also noisy and run pretty hot. (I know that's what the enclosure is for, but simultaneously getting rid of heat and noise is tricky).
It is possible that this will result in the loss of some of Disney's trademark rights, but that's necessary.
And this is why Disney cannot allow Steamboat Willy to fall into public domain. Which is why Disney will do everything it can to keep copyrights from ever expiring.
I wonder if a compromise can be reached. I understand Disney's need to protect it's "property", and I understand why senators will keep helping them (in a what's good for GM/Disney is good for the country sort of way). But I don't think it's fair or necessary that every single piece of work since the 20's is never going to enter the public domain because of it.
One solution that's been floating around is making copyrights cost money after 14 years or so. The cost would go up exponentially. For example at 14 years $200 to renew, at 28 years $40,000, at 46 years $1.6 million. Abadonware would fall in to public domain at 14 years, the vast majority of works will fall into the public domain at 28 years. The few things that are worth millions to corporations can stay copyrighted forever.
Another solution I just thought of (which is therefore probably worthless, but what the hell) is creating a distiction between copyrights and other "properties" such as characters. Copyrights could have a reasonably short term (14 yrs + one renewal for 28 yrs, total), but characters can be registered and protected indefinitely, like trademarks. Therefore, derivative works can only be made if they don't include a protected character's likeness. It sounds crazy at first, but think of the character as becoming something like an actor, that the studio which created it owns. Just like you can't stick an actor (or his likeness) in a film without the actor's premision, you can't stick this character in a film either.
"Terrorism" isn't really about the method; it's about who's doing it. Yes, when a country is in a declared state of war, civilians might be considered targets. There are some attempts at rules (such as Geneva Conventions), but it seems in an all out war these get thrown out the window. (As long as you win the war, it really doesn't matter how. Your enemies won't be in a position to complain).
But, OBL does not represent any country, and therefore he has no authority to declare war. His actions, therefore, quite simply, make him a criminal. This particular crime is called terrorism.
This is very important distinction, since a nation has to consider the protection of it's own citizens. It can't go off bombing anyone it has a grudge against for fear of retaliation. Someone like OBL can, (as long as he has someplace to hide).
I know exactly what you mean. I've enjoyed the first 3 seasons of Coupling, and was not impressed by the American version. I think it was the nearly word for word copying of the British version that was the problem. The American actors had a look and delivery that just didn't fit with the British scripts. I am pretty sure there was one American episode shown that was original, and I thought that episode was actually pretty funny.
I'm trying to figure out if you agree or disagree with the article. I guess the reality is that it is more complicated than that, and that's the whole point...
Societies that assign more homework as a means to improving education are taking a short cut, which doesn't work. It's like throwing money at a problem, without actually thinking about the problem. Actually improving education requires more than simply telling your students to work harder by giving them more homework. (As you point out, a real fix would require a look our culture and our priorities).
When I talk to my friends who have kids in elementary school I'm astounded by the amount of homework they have assigned. I can understand why the children and even the parents become resentful over the workload. Once this resentment sets in, people are going to try to find anyway they can get out of it. (In addition, kids can be very lazy, particularly when they are unmotivated).
I'm 34 years old, have a doctorate and am gainfully employed...
Ah, but do you have kids? It becomes a lot harder to go without a car when you have children and need to take them and their stuff everywhere. (Not impossible, but much harder). Also, the small amount of space/high cost of living, of a city becomes much less attractive, too.
I read some of the other links people have posted, and it does indeed use x rays. I still haven't found any imformation on what wavelength (or wavelength range) it uses. There is a competing product, that provides similar images, and it uses terahertz radiation.
Is this true? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have no idea. I tried to find some information about exactly how it works, but all I could find was a mention of Compton scattering. I could find no information about the wavelength. Terahertz radiation is consistent with what (little) I know about it, however.
If it is terahertz ratiation, then I wonder why the hell they call it X rays? Probably as soon as people hear, "it can see through things" they think "X rays". As you point out, teraherz radiation is very different.
How much will they need to break even on the Xbox 360 considering it has required significantly more R&D?
That depends on how their licensing is set up this time. When you sell as many units as a typical console sells, R&D costs aren't hard to recoup. What killed MS on the XBOX was that all the parts were parts made by other people who sold the parts to MS. They therefore didn't see much cost decrease do to Moore's law. (Having a built in hard drive didn't help either). If they had instead licensed the technology, they might have been able to get the parts made much cheaper over time, or better yet, integrate multiple parts onto single chips.
You are correct. I saw somewhere recently (maybe that A&E special), that it he was supposed to say "I love you, too". But, after a zillion takes Harrison Ford couldn't make that line feel natural and in character. So, he adlibed "I know", and the director liked it much better.
Interesting link on Teflon, which probably has some truth to it, but I wouldn't advise most people to throw out their teflon pans, yet. The thrust of the article seemed to be that Teflon breaks down at elevated temperatures, giving off some nasty stuff when this happens. So, just don't use the pan for very high heat applications (and don't leave an empty pan too long on a hot burner) and you'll be fine. The labelling on every teflon pan I've ever bought tells you not to use the pan with high heat (although they don't warn you about why). I would agree that teflon coated drip pans are a bad idea.
As far as reacting with acidic or watery foods, I find that hard to believe. Where I work, if you want something that's not going to react with the acids (HF, sulfuric, phosphoric, etc.), you use Teflon. It's pretty much the gold standard for not reacting. However, what could happen in a Teflon coated pan is that if the pan is scratch, then the aluminum that is exposed will react with the acid.
He, he. You just took an obviously absurd suggestion, and said it's equivalent to intelligent design. And you wonder why so many people think ID is laughable?
There is no scientific basis for ID, other than a bunch of people who lack the imagination to believe that lots of little changes can add up to big ones. (Well, a lack of imagination, and religious motivation). All current observations, models, experiments, etc., point to evolutionary theory being correct (although perhaps needing a minor tweak now and then).
As far as whether evolution is guided by some sort of devine being, or it just occurs randomly - perhaps such a discussion is worthwhile, and even belongs in school. But such discussions belong in a philosophy class, NOT SCIENCE class.
When I buy something (DVD, CD, itunes song, etc.), then I feel I own that copy and I should be free to do anything with that copy that the law allows. I don't think DRM is OK on items purchased, since DRM inevitably interferes with my legal use of something I purchased. I'm OK with DRM on rentals, as long as the terms are clear from the beginning. When I rent something, I know I don't have ownership, so restrictions are OK.
My fear with this, though, is that it could be come awfully tempting to the media holders to rent everything, and stop offering anything for sale. We could then live in a world where everything is pay-per-view/listen. I can't offer any solution to this, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The article didn't say a whole lot, did it? It just said, "Gee, wouldn't photonic clocking be nice". It didn't say a whole lot about how, and whether it's feasible.
So, I'll quickly fill in what I know. To do clock distribution you need two types of components: waveguides and detectors. Let's assume you are going to work in silicon...
Waveguides function as the optical wiring, and includes things like bends and splitters. Although perhaps not trivial, it is relative straight-forward to make waveguides in or on silicon. Detectors, on the other hand, are not so easy, at least at the wavelength most people are interested in, 1550 nm. There's a number of people researching Ge growth for detectors on Si, and this does have promise, but it's not ready yet. Another option would be bonding InGaAs, but that might always be too expensive.
Now, if you want to do full up optical communication, on chip, you'll want modulators, too. These have been demonstrated by Intel and Cornell in silicon, but only at speeds around 1 Ghz. Optical amplifiers would be nice, too, and this has been demonstrated (using Raman amplification) by Intel and UCLA. (I'm not sure Raman amplification can give you the sorts of amplification and efficiency you really need, though).
(Sorry, I won't be able to respond to any replies; at least not until Monday. I'm off to bed and I'm not planning to be near a computer tomorrow).
1.3 GHz is plenty for standard definition TV.
I think the point of the parent post is that complicated controls/controllers are intimidating to people who don't play games regularly. You can make all the arguements you want about the talent of a 5 year old (Ok maybe it's someone else making the arguement), but you can't deny that easier to learn to use a controller that has one stick and two buttons, than a controller that has two sticks, a gamepad and 8 buttons. Sure you can make more complicated and interesting games with the more complicated controller, but a lot of people enjoy more simple games. (You could then make the arguement that you don't have to use all those buttons just because they are there, which I really can't argue with).
In the end it's up to developers, and I don't think developers are going after the very casual gamer. Looking at myself, for example, I used to play games regularly. I was never a heavy gamer, but I would buy a few a year. Recently my life changed (had a child), and I have less free time. I still have some free time to play games, but I don't. Why? Because the games don't fit my schedule. Besides the fact that it takes too long to learn the game (because of the time it takes to figure out what all the buttons do), I can't get anywhere in the 20 minutes intervals I have for playing. Games seem to be such that if you don't have at least an hour to sit and play, you shouldn't bother. (The other problem is that I really don't want to ignore my wife to play, and there are few multiplayer games other than sports).
They made gaming incredibly fun, and that's where video gaming really started to take off.
You've got to be kidding me. Not to demean Nintendo's achievements during their heyday, but video gaming had taken off before them. Arcade games had their heyday in the early 80's. You might say that Nintendo caused home video gaming to take off, but the Atari VCS was pretty popular back in the day. What Nintendo really did was resurrect an industry that people thought had died - still an impressive acheivement. They did this as much through a better business model (getting a cut of every piece of software) as techical innovation.
I think why people don't like the T-shirt is that it says 'know "your" roots.' My roots (and, in fact, the roots of the industry as a whole) are earlier than Nintendo.
You say games won't use it, but the fact is that the XBox could make them use it whether they're aware of it or not. The simplest example would be if it cached content as it was read from the disc so it didn't have to be reloaded each time. A second example would be if it acted like an ultra large memory card for saving games. Another example were if it were used to "hibernate" a game so someone could walk away and pick up where they left off the day before.
All of this is nice, but not required (or even all that important) to make a good game. If you don't believe me, then why didn't the Xbox outsell the PS2?
Then there are games which could use it. For example, to download patches, extra levels and so forth.
Also, nice, but not required.
A HD could mean that it could rip songs, movies etc. to disk and play them on demand. And MS could sell video on demand - films, shows, trailers and so on, as well as distributing firmware updates, patches and more on it.
Yes, and if you want these features you're going to have to shell out for a hard drive. (In fact, you might eventually be able to choose the size based on your needs).
Nothing you list is required for a good gaming experience; they are all nice extras. Many people would rather save $100 than have these extras, so why make them spend it. Now, you could say that Microsoft should include it all (or at least the hard drive) at the lower price point. Nice idea, but Microsoft has made the (probably wise) decision that there is only so much money they are willing to loose on each console sale.
Any idea if Microsoft will be using regular HDs, or if they're going to have some sort of proprietary type that you can't just buy in a store?
/ 2113252&tid=211&tid=109&tid=10&tid=137/.
We are talking about a company who is using hardware security mechanisms to lock-out 3rd party accessory makers http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/10
What do you think?
Yes, they are going to gouge on the HD price as much as they can. I predict that there will eventually be a large HD option with software for a media center - but it won't be cheap.
In short, hard drive prices do go down, a lot. Especially considering that MS never upgraded the Xbox drive from the tiny 10GB hard drive it originally came with, it wasn't a significant cost.
You are confusing the cost per one unit (MB), when it is really the cost per the unit that matters. One a certain capacity minimum is reached, the hardrive doesn't get a whole lot cheaper. It costs nearly as much to make a 10 GB drive as a 160GB, since much of the cost is the assembly, mechanics, and electronics which are the same on both units.
Look at the web page you linked to. Until the mid-90's hard drives were expensive, period. In say 1997, a hard drive costs $330 (2.1 GB). In 2004, a hard drive costs $250 (250 GB). The price didn't change a lot, but the capacity went up (by 100x). Granted, there are lower capacity hardrives that are cheaper, but you see my point (I hope).
Sure, you and I might be able to buy a few really cheap 10 GB hard drives off ebay, or from a surplus shop, but with the volumes Microsoft needs, they can't.
If the "cheap" model doesn't have a hard drive, that means that developers aren't going to use the thing in their games.
Bingo! The hardrive on the original Xbox was rarely used well anyway. A few games took advantage of it, but most games were released on multiple systems, and therefore didn't. The reality is, only a few games really needed it. By adding a hardrive, Microsoft thought they were adding a component that would make the XBox significantly better than the PS2. Instead they added a component that just made it a lot more expensive to build. (And unlike the other components in the console, a hardrive's price doesn't drop over time. Capacities go up, but prices don't go down). To avoid hemoraging money again, Microsoft needed to drop the hardrive from the Xbox 360. To maintain compatibility with the original, though, they needed to at least make it an option.
I'm just surprised they would split the market like that.
Perhaps, but as you and I said, developers aren't going to use the hardrive. People who just want to play Xbox 360 (not Xbox 1) games will be able to get by just fine with the base model. People who want extras, (downloadable content, Xbox 1 compatibility, probably some media options), will need the upgraded version. Many people don't care about these extras, so why should they pay for hardware to do it?
I don't think having add-ons (or upgraded systems) is necessarily fragmenting the market. The baseline system (without a HD) will be the baseline system, and that is what developers will code for. Gaming-wise the baseline system will play almost (there may be a few special cases) all games just fine.
So, why have a HD add-on? I can think of two reasons: Xbox 1 compatibility and media capabilities. To be compatible with Xbox 1, you're going to need a (small) HD. Also, the Xbox360 might be capable of being a PVR and media jukebox (with a hardware add-on), and a big hardrive would be necessary here. By having the hardrive as an external option or add-on, the buyer can choose the size based on their needs. And if you just want to play Xbox360 games, you won't need to spend the extra money on a hardrive, at all.
Microsoft leaned with the Xbox 1 that it's expensive and unecessary to have a hardrive in a console. I agree 100% that ultimately when it comes to a console, it's about the games. But I don't think (as the PS2 and PS3 have shown) that a hardrive is necessary for good games.
Similarly, the HD-DVD option won't effect games. All games will be sold on standard DVD media. All (with possibly a few exceptions) this option does, is allow people to buy the the Xbox 360 instead of a (presumably expensive) HD-DVD player.
Would it benefit Ferrari in the long run to have every ghetto curb filled with Ferrari's?
Sure, or else you might get bought out by someone, like, say Fiat?
I agree that extending DST further in fall is bad idea. The problem is DST is very assymetric. The winter solstice is Dec. 21. If DST was actually about daylight, it should be close to symmetric around this date. However, we fall back only 2 months before this, and spring ahead 4 months after this. So, the fall transition happens too late, and the spring transition could stand to happen sooner.
call me dumb, but i don't understand how. if it's cold, i'm still going to turn on the heat, if it's dark i'm still going to turn on the lights.
OK, you're dumb. (Sorry, I had, too).
It's a simple idea, really. Let's say most people go to bed at around 11:00. At dusk, everyone turns on their house lights. With daylight saving time (DST), dusk is 8:30, so lights are on for 2.5 hours. Without DST, dusk is an hour earlier, so lights are on for 3.5 hours. (What is really happening with DST is that we are sleeping through less daylight in the morning. In the winter there is no daylight to waste in the morning so this doesn't work).
Having said this, I'm not sure the savings works out as well as the above would suggest. DST means that people like me have to run our AC's an hour longer at the hottest part of the day, wasting more energy than we save. (Presumably, the other place I would spend that time is work, at that will have AC running whether I'm there or not).
I don't really get why one would want DIY here...
Cost savings, and the fun of doing it, I guess.
I've never seen one of these homebrew things in operation, but I share your doubts about the picture quality. Every overhead projector I've ever used has had pretty crappy geometry, and uneven illumination. They're also noisy and run pretty hot. (I know that's what the enclosure is for, but simultaneously getting rid of heat and noise is tricky).
BTW, I think you mean DLP, no DSP.
It is possible that this will result in the loss of some of Disney's trademark rights, but that's necessary.
And this is why Disney cannot allow Steamboat Willy to fall into public domain. Which is why Disney will do everything it can to keep copyrights from ever expiring.
I wonder if a compromise can be reached. I understand Disney's need to protect it's "property", and I understand why senators will keep helping them (in a what's good for GM/Disney is good for the country sort of way). But I don't think it's fair or necessary that every single piece of work since the 20's is never going to enter the public domain because of it.
One solution that's been floating around is making copyrights cost money after 14 years or so. The cost would go up exponentially. For example at 14 years $200 to renew, at 28 years $40,000, at 46 years $1.6 million. Abadonware would fall in to public domain at 14 years, the vast majority of works will fall into the public domain at 28 years. The few things that are worth millions to corporations can stay copyrighted forever.
Another solution I just thought of (which is therefore probably worthless, but what the hell) is creating a distiction between copyrights and other "properties" such as characters. Copyrights could have a reasonably short term (14 yrs + one renewal for 28 yrs, total), but characters can be registered and protected indefinitely, like trademarks. Therefore, derivative works can only be made if they don't include a protected character's likeness. It sounds crazy at first, but think of the character as becoming something like an actor, that the studio which created it owns. Just like you can't stick an actor (or his likeness) in a film without the actor's premision, you can't stick this character in a film either.
"Terrorism" isn't really about the method; it's about who's doing it. Yes, when a country is in a declared state of war, civilians might be considered targets. There are some attempts at rules (such as Geneva Conventions), but it seems in an all out war these get thrown out the window. (As long as you win the war, it really doesn't matter how. Your enemies won't be in a position to complain).
But, OBL does not represent any country, and therefore he has no authority to declare war. His actions, therefore, quite simply, make him a criminal. This particular crime is called terrorism.
This is very important distinction, since a nation has to consider the protection of it's own citizens. It can't go off bombing anyone it has a grudge against for fear of retaliation. Someone like OBL can, (as long as he has someplace to hide).
Continuing going off-topic...
I know exactly what you mean. I've enjoyed the first 3 seasons of Coupling, and was not impressed by the American version. I think it was the nearly word for word copying of the British version that was the problem. The American actors had a look and delivery that just didn't fit with the British scripts. I am pretty sure there was one American episode shown that was original, and I thought that episode was actually pretty funny.
I'm trying to figure out if you agree or disagree with the article. I guess the reality is that it is more complicated than that, and that's the whole point...
Societies that assign more homework as a means to improving education are taking a short cut, which doesn't work. It's like throwing money at a problem, without actually thinking about the problem. Actually improving education requires more than simply telling your students to work harder by giving them more homework. (As you point out, a real fix would require a look our culture and our priorities).
When I talk to my friends who have kids in elementary school I'm astounded by the amount of homework they have assigned. I can understand why the children and even the parents become resentful over the workload. Once this resentment sets in, people are going to try to find anyway they can get out of it. (In addition, kids can be very lazy, particularly when they are unmotivated).
I'm 34 years old, have a doctorate and am gainfully employed ...
Ah, but do you have kids? It becomes a lot harder to go without a car when you have children and need to take them and their stuff everywhere. (Not impossible, but much harder). Also, the small amount of space/high cost of living, of a city becomes much less attractive, too.
I read some of the other links people have posted, and it does indeed use x rays. I still haven't found any imformation on what wavelength (or wavelength range) it uses. There is a competing product, that provides similar images, and it uses terahertz radiation.
These scanners use terahertz radiation AFAIK
Is this true? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have no idea. I tried to find some information about exactly how it works, but all I could find was a mention of Compton scattering. I could find no information about the wavelength. Terahertz radiation is consistent with what (little) I know about it, however.
If it is terahertz ratiation, then I wonder why the hell they call it X rays? Probably as soon as people hear, "it can see through things" they think "X rays". As you point out, teraherz radiation is very different.
How much will they need to break even on the Xbox 360 considering it has required significantly more R&D?
That depends on how their licensing is set up this time. When you sell as many units as a typical console sells, R&D costs aren't hard to recoup. What killed MS on the XBOX was that all the parts were parts made by other people who sold the parts to MS. They therefore didn't see much cost decrease do to Moore's law. (Having a built in hard drive didn't help either). If they had instead licensed the technology, they might have been able to get the parts made much cheaper over time, or better yet, integrate multiple parts onto single chips.
You are correct. I saw somewhere recently (maybe that A&E special), that it he was supposed to say "I love you, too". But, after a zillion takes Harrison Ford couldn't make that line feel natural and in character. So, he adlibed "I know", and the director liked it much better.
Interesting link on Teflon, which probably has some truth to it, but I wouldn't advise most people to throw out their teflon pans, yet. The thrust of the article seemed to be that Teflon breaks down at elevated temperatures, giving off some nasty stuff when this happens. So, just don't use the pan for very high heat applications (and don't leave an empty pan too long on a hot burner) and you'll be fine. The labelling on every teflon pan I've ever bought tells you not to use the pan with high heat (although they don't warn you about why). I would agree that teflon coated drip pans are a bad idea.
As far as reacting with acidic or watery foods, I find that hard to believe. Where I work, if you want something that's not going to react with the acids (HF, sulfuric, phosphoric, etc.), you use Teflon. It's pretty much the gold standard for not reacting. However, what could happen in a Teflon coated pan is that if the pan is scratch, then the aluminum that is exposed will react with the acid.
He, he. You just took an obviously absurd suggestion, and said it's equivalent to intelligent design. And you wonder why so many people think ID is laughable?
There is no scientific basis for ID, other than a bunch of people who lack the imagination to believe that lots of little changes can add up to big ones. (Well, a lack of imagination, and religious motivation). All current observations, models, experiments, etc., point to evolutionary theory being correct (although perhaps needing a minor tweak now and then).
As far as whether evolution is guided by some sort of devine being, or it just occurs randomly - perhaps such a discussion is worthwhile, and even belongs in school. But such discussions belong in a philosophy class, NOT SCIENCE class.
When I buy something (DVD, CD, itunes song, etc.), then I feel I own that copy and I should be free to do anything with that copy that the law allows. I don't think DRM is OK on items purchased, since DRM inevitably interferes with my legal use of something I purchased. I'm OK with DRM on rentals, as long as the terms are clear from the beginning. When I rent something, I know I don't have ownership, so restrictions are OK.
My fear with this, though, is that it could be come awfully tempting to the media holders to rent everything, and stop offering anything for sale. We could then live in a world where everything is pay-per-view/listen. I can't offer any solution to this, though.