How much does it really matter to use compiler optimizations for HD? Do you have any numbers, benchmarks, etc.?
The big ones, but also enabled in many pre-compiled packages:
* cmov, about 10% (supported by Pentium Pro and later, but not some VIA processors)
* enabling MMX & SSE, about 10-15%
Total you can add about 30-35% with full optimization on a P4, vs. compiling for a Pentium Pro, which is the default. These numbers are somewhat old, but there is no reason to think they have changed appreciably.
If you search the MythTV mailing lists you will find these and even better numbers. Video is one of those things that is much better supported on modern instruction sets than the classic i386 ISA; hence the dramatic improvement. Using a compiler like icc might yield some good improvements over gcc too.
a) Improve productivity: The driver is on the job. As a capitalistic society we strive to improve productivity and, while sad, monitoring does do this. Then it should be his employer to mandate this, not big brother.
NYC Hacks are not employees. Most rent a car for 12 hour block of time from a corporate fleet, then they collect fares and hope to make more than the cost of the 12 hour rental.
There are still a couple hacks out there that own their own cars, but the city tries it's best to prevent this by selling most taxi medallions in packs of 20 or more that can't be split so you need access to millions of dollars of capitol to buy yourself into a job making ~$20/hr on average before expenses when you own your own cab.
The only reason cabs are still cheap despite everything the city does to squeeze as much money as possible out of the drivers is because there is a steady stream of fresh immigrants who don't have can't hired for any job but can scrounge up a few hundred dollars for a hack license and can afford to lose a few hundred dollars in taxi rental fees while they learn how to avoid picking up people who might want to go outside of Manhattan, to avoid people with baggage during rush hour because they might want to go to the airport, avoid people who might tip badly, etc. After a few weeks they can be earning $40+ a day, spread that over 7 days of 12 hour shifts a week and you have a good $480, if you then learn to be chatty or not depending on the customer you can earn $800+ in a short 84 hour work week. The downside is that you have to pay for all the damage your customers do to the car and occasionally have to pay for $3000-5000 advertising devices to be installed in the cars which some of your customers will try to break to get rid of the annoyance and others will deny you your tip out of their annoyance.
I normally tip well, but I never tip a hack in an SUV and I never tip them if they display ads on the car, and I complain loudly and don't tip when they have those god awful LCD's displaying ads inside the car. If these things really do have LCDs screens it will be just another reason to hate these things.
As for the "benefits" like linking your second-by-second whereabouts to your bank account by paying by credit card, let me pass on that one. But we should probably investigate anyone that pays for a cab this way, the only reasons I can fathom is to establish an alibi for some crime they are committing or because they are too gullible to be allowed outside the grounds of the mental institution without supervision.
c) Bad Routes avoided: Looking at a map gives you some idea where you are and the driver would be less likely to take longer routes. Puts you, the consumer in control You are either a tourist that klnows next to nothing about e.g. road works or are a regular and do not need the device. Obviously, the writer of "c) Bad Routes avoided" is someone who has never driven in NYC. Taking the 3 mile route is often faster than the 1 mile one. The only big thing is the tolls. Due to some bad public policy most bridges in NYC do not have any tolls. The tunnels, which do have tolls, are much faster for this reason and cabs will often take them unless you tell them to take a bridge. Since you pay for the tunnels on top of your fare it's no skin off their back to take the tunnels, and they will be ready to look for their next fare that much more quickly. All I can see coming out of GPS in the back seet is that some tourists will get upset that the cab rounded the block, not realizing that there were one way streets preventing the more direct route.
All in all, I think proponents of this technology just want to make sure the future looks as much like a Philip k. Dick sci-fi horror story as possible to satisfy their smugness in having known the terrible future of mankind.
Just print out a catalog of all the voters that need to vote in that election office. If someone votes, then you mark him as "was voting already" but not recording the time of his vote. At the end of the day you have a list of people that voted and a list of votes, but you can't do any correlation on it.
And this is what most voting districts in the U.S. do. It seems that the people who put together the voting system were trying to screw up. First, the ballots printed out by the machine should not be timestamped or numbered and should be placed in the ballot box by the voter. Second, if you are going to register voters their names should be printed in each district should be printed out and the voter should sign next to their name before they use the machine or have access to place a ballot into the ballot box but no other notation should be used and the poll workers should have a number of official pens all the same color, if you don't register voters they should be stamped with permanent ink and obviously the same color ink should be used all day. Third, at the end of the day you count the ballots in the ballot box in plain view of interested voters, if it doesn't agree with the estimate made by the computer you withdraw your initial estimate and you count again, if it still doesn't agree with the estimate you submit the hand counted numbers for your district.
Once you start thinking about voting security this isn't all that difficult, but it's also not trivial and must be thought about and talked about before you make any changes.
I'm very big into my HTPC, but I only use Myth for the occasional HD antennae recording. And I only get two channels in good enough to record. I will never pay (not even $20/year) to receive a measly two channels worth of guide info that I might check out once a week and never in the summer.
You might want to try setting up EIT parsing in MythTV. You will not get the same quality of data, but if you only watch two channels it should be easy enough for you to create a recording rules for the programs you are interested in with just that EIT data. You'll probably need to create search rules, which take longer to schedule than regular program rules. However, with just two channels it should still only take a second or two.
MythTV has had support for DVB and ATSC EIT for some time. The two problems with ATSC EIT are that it only works for ATSC broadcasts and that the FCC only requires about 12 hours of data. The first problem means that 80% of what is on cable TV is not included, and PVRs work best with 8 or more days of data. In my area only PBS carries 2 weeks of data, some broadcast stations ignore the law and don't provide any EIT, and the rest provide only 12 to 24 hours of data.
Even when you have 14 days of EIT data it is not as good for scheduling as full listings data with cast and crew and unique identifiers for each program. But, then again this data will be useful to some, and I'm sure MythTV and others will learn some tricks to extend the usefulness of EIT now that TMS listings are no longer a no-cost proposition.
It's more than the fact that Teddy Stevens wanted me and the rest of the country to pay for most of the costs of a local bridge. It's the nowhere part that really gets me. Before NYC built it's East River bridges with city money there were numerous ferry services and hundreds of thousands of people on the other side. If Anchorage had 500,000 people living on the less populated side of the bay I really wouldn't mind some of my money helping them build that bridge, say 20% federal money, 40% state money and 40% local money. If the bridge connected something important to the interstate network or cut down on green house gases with a mass transit provision (light rail connection?) then I could see a 40% federal contribution.
When there are no people and no active competing ferry services it just screams "White Elephant Project!"
not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.
Conlaw this isn't incorrect, but is somewhat misleading, I think CRCulver statement is essentially more accurate in it's simplicity.
First, "per curiam" opinions are rarely issued. Except in a few isolated instances (Gore v. Bush), they contain only things that are completely non-controversial. Basically this means the court was unanimous on the it being unconstitutional for the executive branch to attempt to prevent the publication of state secrets. The normal opinions contained more nuanced restraints on government abuse. The essential here is prior restraint, the government can't stop you from publishing a top secret document, but it may be possible for them to punish you afterward: "Turn over the name of the people who leaked the info to you, at some point someone must have leaked information while under NDA!"
In this case, it would have been a crime for the FBI to demand that the Washington Post hand over the documents or to order them not to publish them. But the FBI probably didn't act in such a ham fisted way, they probably asked nicely and then offered an exclusive interview with some government official as quid pro quo. They knew the Post is a two bit paper and fold in a nanosecond. If it had been a respectable paper like the Wall Street Journal they probably would have taken a slightly more nuanced approach.
No matter what the details, warrantless searches are one of the most serious crimes a government can commit against it's people, up there with government sponsored rape squads. Next are torture and murder. I hope the traitors and criminals responsible for ordering and implementing this program all get the death sentence when this scheme unravels. I can live with life sentences without parole and stripping of all assets for those only involved in the cover-up, but only if they cooperate with the trials of the government officials involved in the criminal enterprise.
This may explain why my 89 Camry has been broken into three times in the last year. It never has anything valuable in it and has a 3rd party immobilizer, but it's still $75 & 20 minutes of my time get the right rear window replaced each time it happens. Maybe next year they will move on to the 1990 Camry.:)
Except for the military and intelligence portion of this one: unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials
All these indicators describe any decent graduate student. If they have family that happen to work for the military or intelligence branches of their home governments then this one would be pretty typical as well. The year I entered my Ph.D program there was not one student who didn't hold a foreign passport. We should just put a fence up around the whole country and declare it a prison, no one should leave and visitor entry would be strictly controlled, that would be more sane than this FBI scheme.
Sonny Bono may have been a bad person, but you can't blame him for the Sonny Bono act. This rape of the American public was done in his name after his death, ostensibly to protect his great-great-great-great-great granddaughter from possibly having to contribute to society if all her ancestors after the late great Sonny Bono had been deadbeats.
If he had read the article he would have seen that the record was patented not copyrighted. As a copyright notice was required until very recently to claim a US copyright this record was never copyrighted. Further, copyright terms were much shorter in your grandfather's day, and the copyright would have expired long ago even if they had applied for all the extensions available under law.
Imagine that a rogue military group took over White House and CNN claimed that president resigned when in fact he didn't. That's pretty much what happened in Venezuela.
You mean like calling the winner in a tight race when all the polls in a state aren't even closed yet? then having to correct it which led to a long drawn out situation that to this date, die hard believers still won't accept the true winner?
Oh, I don't think many people still believe Bush won Florida. jk:)
Legally, it doesn't matter. Congress accepted Florida's electors and the electoral college voted for Bush. Even if somehow the Supreme Court reconsidered their decision now and decided that they made a mistake and all the votes should be counted, it wouldn't mean Bush wasn't elected president. It is the electors that elect the president (or the congress if they fail to reach majority), not the states and certainly not the people.
If the news said Bush quit to save his own life and later retracted it, nothing would have happened to them outside their creditability being shot.
I like your spin, but you don't buy it yourself do you? "Nothing would have happened" if ABC supported a failed coup orchestrated by China and ABC got most of its funding from coup plotters? I dunno, I wonder if Bushy would have even waited for the stations' free-beer government granted monopolies to come up for renewal. You are talking about the country where Lite-Brites cause paranoid officials to shut down a whole city. And these officials are not punished in any way!
If they're going to park their kids in front of the tv as a babysitter, I actually prefer them to use PG-13 movies... I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, but putting on R rated movies with no parental guidance sounds like the worst of both worlds.
Doesn't this sort of depend on why it got an R rating? If it got it because it didn't come from an MPAA member and depicted two teenage girls kissing well then I think it is better than the average PG-13 movie full of violence and boobie obsession. If it got the rating because it has gore galore well then it might be worse than the average PG-13. The ratings are a very blunt instrument by which to judge the suitability of a movie for a child, there are many NC-17 movies which are much healthier for a kid to watch than many G movies (of course, a 5 year old would be bored to death by these same NC-17 movies). I think any parent judging a movie's suitability for children based on the MPAA rating alone should not be a parent.
You shouldn't change what you teach because someone may be offended. You should only change it if it is wrong.
Of course, and actually teaching controversial subjects makes for a great learning environment. If you teach a kid something she already knows she yawns and goes back to sleep, if you teach her something she's heard a conflicting viewpoint on then she'll wake up and confront your viewpoint. This gives the teacher an opportunity to stress the importance of knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, and the value of differering interpretations of the facts as well as the relative value of arguing on the knowns first then coming up with plausible hypothesis for the known unknowns and turning up facts to back those up and the value of research to flesh out the important unknown unknowns and finally living with the ambiguity of unknowns. It's that last bit which separates children from adults.
I personally think a balanced view of the crusades in the UK curriculum is as likely as the UK having a balanced view of the Holocaust. I'll believe it when I see the UK schools teaching the importance of removing the heads from the Queen and the Lords & Ladies of their fair land.
Yes Fariq, my forefather went to your homeland and killed the children and ate them for dinner, but you have to understand they were quite hungry after all that killing, if they hadn't eaten babies they wouldn't have had the energy to move on to the next village for their next massacre so you see it was a little sad but quite understandable. Some of them even felt a little remorse, see this letter from John the Good, "Ay, after raping Mary and killing her and her family we sat down to dinner, the heathen were quite poor and had no meate so we were forced by God Almighty to eat heathen flesh. The parents' meate was quite stringy so we ate the babies mostly. But I tell ye, they eyes of the one of them infants reminded me o'little Johny. I had to cut off it's heade, feet and hands before I could eat any more. By the Wayse, tastes like pork."
Most likely, "balanced" means they dig up every letter from the Denis Kucinich of their day to the George W. Bush of their day pleading with him to end the inhumanity. Then they predent this was relevant to the overall murderous sentiment of the day.
Ah, but it is not AllofMP3.com depriving you of your royalties. Those royalties are sitting in an escrow account in Moscow collecting dust because the RIAA doesn't want to accept the cash. Accepting the cash would mean they would need to dispurse them to you with a very small cut for themselves. They want more of the money to go to them and not to you.
Just because your record label doesn't want to pay you the royalties AllofMP3 has collected on your behalf that doesn't mean they don't give you 'jack shit' for your music, it just means you are either too dumb to collect the check or more likely you hired a RIAA member to act as your agent and they are not collecting the money for their own reasons. It is also quite likely that you aren't talking about your music at all, but a recording whose copyright you sold to an RIAA member, in which case you have a contract dispute with them, not a dispute with AllofMP3.com
But all this aside, AllofMP3 is a good lesson in why we can't continue selling copies of music. What they are doing is selling music at prices that make sense in their economy, actually they are a bit pricey for Russia. What they are doing is practicing arbitrage. Arbitrage is the what drives the global economy and trying to stop it is a fools errand (see DVD region codes and various other failed schemes attempted in the last 500 years).
So what to do? Well we can differentiate the product line, sell cheap and expensive versions of the same thing, Tide comes in bags in third world countries and bottles in first world countries. It's the same stuff, but if our local Stop-n-shop started selling Tide in bags you would expect to pay less. This can only account for a 25-30% markup in the rich countries, and the income differential is more like 1000%, so to maximize your income you price for the rich countries and sales in the rest of the world go to a very tiny market segment. BTW This is basically how textbooks work today, they are printed only in paperback in some countries and only in hardback in other countries. But with things as easily and cheaply copied as music we won't be able to keep it out of poor childrens hands like we do textbooks (Try to convince someone living on a $2 a day that they are an evil pirate and should pay $25 for each CD, the $0.25 they do pay is a major outlay.) At my local deli all the detergent bottles have Spanish directions and the batteries are from Israel (Duracells, shipped from here to the Middle East and back).
We can try to attach a social stigma to buying things cheap, "Oh, you have the J.C. Penny Madonna? I have the Gucci Madonna!" This only goes so far.
We can sell everything close to 3rd world price, say $0.50. I don't imagine this would be popular with most copyright holders.
We can move to a donation model. I've considered this myself and from what I can gather from the stats you can expect to get about 10% buy in if you can hold their attention. Your market expands maybe 4x, and you can't increase the donation amount much above current sale price, so your take falls to about 50% of current take. Plus there is the business risk of trying this out, what if everyone just listens to your particular album a couple times and then toss it, they may not give you a donation. And there is a fairness issue, I don't mind people paying less because they have less, but I do mind the millionare moocher.
We can move to a survey based royalty system. You could keep payments to artists about the same as they are now and increasing each year as the music "buying" world gets bigger. In this system each government would pay the artist on a local scale based on the number of people listening to the artists music in that country. This would have to be paid out of taxes, perhaps CD-ROM and internet connection taxes, perhaps just the general fund. This would be the fairest system to artists and consumers alike, but would be opposed because of the 'taxes are evil' growd and because in this scheme the artist gets the royalty and pays it to the label
I bought a Dell 2405FPW monitor early on in the production run and it had this nasty habbit of making a high pitched noise and shutting off about four hours after it was turned on in the morning. So I did some googling and found out that this was caused by overheating. So I did what any geek would do and placed a fan so as to cool the beasty this gave me a good 10 hour run before it would shut itself off. But the problem was fixed in revision 3 of the hardware and there was a quiet recall being done. So I called up Dell to get a replacement, they had never heard of the problem and made me go through 5 hours of 'lower the resolution to X, did the whine go away?', 'No?, try turning the monitor 90 degrees, did the whine go away?", "No? Try plugging the monitor into a different circuit, did the whine go away?" "No? Try reinstalling the operating system, did the whine go away?" Now I refused the offer to have her call me back after each step and kept her on the phone through all of this, if they waste my time I want somebody in India to finish the novel she's reading on Dell's dime. After all this, they did agree to cross ship me a replacement monitor, which while marked 'used', was the new revision of the hardware. I haven't had a problem since, I can even leave the sucker on overnight and turn off the A/C in winter now.
All the major vendors have terrible support, except maybe Lenovo, but I don't think Dell is being singled out so much as they are the first to be hit.
What really bugs me about Dell is the SPAM. It's relentless in both electronic an paper formats. They even ignore it when you put them on the unsolicited pornography list with the post office; I would really love it if the Attorney General busted them for this and fined them individually for every piece of computer-porn they mailed through the US postal system. Dell's e-mail SPAM occationally makes it through my SPAM filters which really irks me, they've only lost about $10,000 a year in my business and probably make it up multiply by all the asshats that respond to SPAM so I don't really expect them to stop sending SPAM. But I don't understand why they won't stop sending *ME* SPAM, since they should be able to see from their sales receipts that they obviously lost me as a customer with that idiotic move.
It does not have to be a complete embargo: we just gradually tighten the screws until they shout Uncle. If we do it gradually, then we have time to adjust.
If we have time to adjust so do they. Embargoes only work against when you can either corner the market on an critical good, like oil or copper, or you are embargoing a small country which trades primarily with you. So the USA can coerce Canada and OPEC can coerce the anyone, but the USA will have a hard time coercing most of the world with an embargo.
I'm most annoyed that Disney can prevent anyone in the USA from opening up a theme park using these characters. For 90% of them the copyright expired long ago, or should have. A 14 year copyright made sense two hundred years ago, but now we should be talking about 2 year copyrights with a 2 year extension if the author is still alive, not life + X years, that's just insanity.
I maintain it wasn't the Government's to grant. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the right to create contractural obligations for anonymous 3rd parties.
Umm,
The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You don't have any exclusive rights to your writings [read performance] other than the ones that the congress grants you. Congress has decided not give you exclusive rights to published performaces of your songs and also to grant SoundExchange the right to collect taxes on people playing copyrighted musical performances. If you, the person who holds the copyright, plays a recording of your music you do not have to pay SoundExchange for the privledge.
While I think this system is corrupt, it appears to be well within the limits of the constitution. The congress isn't creating any contractual obligations at all. Until a few years ago broadcasters didn't pay anything for playing a performance of a song, now they pay a tax to SoundExchange. The congress has the right to collect taxes and has the right to subcontract this work out to private entities, and they have the right to grant or not grant you exclusive rights to your writings.
There is a license which artists must grant under law, a compulsory license,... As with the GPL, anyone may accept. Anyone may decline. If you decline, you have no rights to perform the song...
This makes no sense to me at all. First you say that I must grant this compulsory license. Then you turn around and say I may decline the license. I can't find a way to read this that isn't self-contradictory. Do I have to grant the license, or can I decline (to grant) it?
By "you" he meant the person playing or broadcasting the song. A performing music artist must grant the compulsory licesense, but she may grant additional licesenses. So as a performing artist you are free to sell your music to a webcaster directly or through an agency other than SoundExchange, but a webcaster is free to license the song from the SoundExchange, and in that case you don't see a penny unless you join SoundExchange.
It is SoundExchange's connection with the RIAA which is a problem. The RIAA is a lothesome organization and all it's members should suffer the corporate death penalty and those people working for it or their members should be tortured for the rest of their natural lives. I wouldn't join SoundExchange if RIAA goons shot my wife and threatened to kill my children next. The collection agency should be an arm of the government, giving private entities the right to collect taxes is just asking for more corruption in American politics.
A possible reason for the Inuit is snow. I'm from northern Canada. UV reflects from snow and you'll actually get burned crispy if you're out on snow or ice when the sun is up MUCH faster than you do on regular ground.
I'm pretty sure it was their diet. Fish oils are very high in Vitamin D. Pretty much everyone is Iceland takes a daily cod liver suppliment. The parents take it in pill forms, the kids get it by the spoonful.
You are more than welcome to start your own company if this is the case.
Actually I got out of bio research, there is very good money in it for a programmer, but I'm hate dealing with medical researchers on a personal level. Too skeevy.
My view is I don't know jack about making medications, so I let the professionals do it on their terms.
The problem is the big lumbering giants of the past are getting in the way, and they are still dominating the debate. Today it makes sense to give a company some protection for the first three years after they get it past the regulatory hurdles in first world countries. But there is no point in fighting for this because by the time you won that battle three years of protection would be way too long. The whole house of cards will come tumbling down soon enough. In fifteen years you will have a little machine on your desk which will synthesize any chemical you want, folded the way you want it, and there will be a wikipedia entry with a dozen unapproved but patent free drugs you can synthesize for your malady. There will be still cries of medicinal piracy echoing in congress, and news stories every night about the dangers of making your own drugs. It will be an interesting time, but a strong dose reality and millions of men and women will reshape the law to fit reality.
The strong IP protections that pharma has now were shaped 50 years ago when they created a single pill that you took with water and it cured you. It didn't matter that the pill cost $10 rather than $2, when it saved you a $1000 of suffering or saved your life. The miracle stage of this industry is long gone.
It's rich countries' health care systems negotiating with the pharma companies that say you must sell it to us as cheap as you sell it to anyone else. Therefore, in order to maximize profits, they have to have a certain base price. If they were allowed to tier their pricing according to ability to pay, they *would* sell cheaply to certain areas.
Tiered pricing on equivalent medicines invites arbitrage, this is why big pharma doesn't do it unless the rich countries promise to send anyone who buys low and sells high to prison. The rich countries have done this for certain AIDS drugs, but it is just as stupid as when cities subsidise sports franchises and when they raise taxes on startups to subsidise established businesses to 'save jobs'. If you take away the monopoly protections the prices will be low everywhere, without subsidies or state violence, because capitalism will then be able to work its magic. With monopoly protections it's up to the central goverments to steer the markets and they usually go with the best bribe; the best bribe comes from those who had the best ideas in the distant past, not those who have the best ideas now. The way big pharma does tier their pricing is by selling less effective drugs in poorer countries, so when I spent some time in Peru I took bigger anti-biotic pills for more days when I was sick. If I tried to buy the drugs I was used to I usually couldn't find them in the pharmacies and in the rare cases when I could find them they cost just as much as they do in New York City. Of course, on the public health level this just breeds anti-biotic resistant stains that quickly spread the world over.
In an ideal world all medical and software patents would be voided today. Ghandi broke the patent on salt production, someone equally charismatic might break these patents. But unless that person shows up soon I think we will see this system lumber on a decade or two before collapsing in a most spectacular way.
Note: I don't cry for all the countless millions who will die, countless millions die all the time for much stupider reasons. I actually do understand why people think medical patents are useful, they were increadably useful. I know that making this arguement now is not going to convince many people, but the case against medical patents will only grow. A year ago I made an exception for medical patents potentially
Let me guess, if we gave all those 8 month old rape victims guns they could fight off their 25 y.o. attackers?
just look at how Mugabe destryed Zimbabwe by taking away land from one group of people to give it to another group
Yep, and that group inherited their land people who stole it from the other group with a lot more death and destruction than Mugabe's policies have resulted in. Isn't Mugabe just enforcing your property rights above all else mantra by taking the land away from land thieves, er, I mean land pirates?
We would NOT be better off if it became unprofitable to develop new drugs in the first place.
The cost of developing drugs is plumeting to the point where anyone with access to a few computers can come up with a dozen candidate drugs in a few weeks. It is the safety testing which still costs some money, but even this is much less than it used to be because there are plenty of poor people in the world which will take experimental drugs for a few $ a week. If we shortened patent lengths to compensate for this they would be shorter than the first mover advantage, so what is the point of maintaining this phantom property right at the expense of real property rights? Why not let the guy in India or Brazil with a chemical factory create, test and market drugs without an artificial monopoly right? He is already willing to do it without the monopoly because he makes lots of money doing it. Just because some old-pharma companies haven't joined the 21st century we are going to prop them up with phantom property rights which haven't made any sense economically for years now?
Slashdot Mirror
How much does it really matter to use compiler optimizations for HD? Do you have any numbers, benchmarks, etc.?
The big ones, but also enabled in many pre-compiled packages:
* cmov, about 10% (supported by Pentium Pro and later, but not some VIA processors)
* enabling MMX & SSE, about 10-15%
Total you can add about 30-35% with full optimization on a P4, vs. compiling for a Pentium Pro, which is the default. These numbers are somewhat old, but there is no reason to think they have changed appreciably.
If you search the MythTV mailing lists you will find these and even better numbers. Video is one of those things that is much better supported on modern instruction sets than the classic i386 ISA; hence the dramatic improvement. Using a compiler like icc might yield some good improvements over gcc too.
NYC Hacks are not employees. Most rent a car for 12 hour block of time from a corporate fleet, then they collect fares and hope to make more than the cost of the 12 hour rental.
There are still a couple hacks out there that own their own cars, but the city tries it's best to prevent this by selling most taxi medallions in packs of 20 or more that can't be split so you need access to millions of dollars of capitol to buy yourself into a job making ~$20/hr on average before expenses when you own your own cab.
The only reason cabs are still cheap despite everything the city does to squeeze as much money as possible out of the drivers is because there is a steady stream of fresh immigrants who don't have can't hired for any job but can scrounge up a few hundred dollars for a hack license and can afford to lose a few hundred dollars in taxi rental fees while they learn how to avoid picking up people who might want to go outside of Manhattan, to avoid people with baggage during rush hour because they might want to go to the airport, avoid people who might tip badly, etc. After a few weeks they can be earning $40+ a day, spread that over 7 days of 12 hour shifts a week and you have a good $480, if you then learn to be chatty or not depending on the customer you can earn $800+ in a short 84 hour work week. The downside is that you have to pay for all the damage your customers do to the car and occasionally have to pay for $3000-5000 advertising devices to be installed in the cars which some of your customers will try to break to get rid of the annoyance and others will deny you your tip out of their annoyance.
I normally tip well, but I never tip a hack in an SUV and I never tip them if they display ads on the car, and I complain loudly and don't tip when they have those god awful LCD's displaying ads inside the car. If these things really do have LCDs screens it will be just another reason to hate these things.
As for the "benefits" like linking your second-by-second whereabouts to your bank account by paying by credit card, let me pass on that one. But we should probably investigate anyone that pays for a cab this way, the only reasons I can fathom is to establish an alibi for some crime they are committing or because they are too gullible to be allowed outside the grounds of the mental institution without supervision. c) Bad Routes avoided: Looking at a map gives you some idea where you are and the driver would be less likely to take longer routes. Puts you, the consumer in control
You are either a tourist that klnows next to nothing about e.g. road works or are a regular and do not need the device. Obviously, the writer of "c) Bad Routes avoided" is someone who has never driven in NYC. Taking the 3 mile route is often faster than the 1 mile one. The only big thing is the tolls. Due to some bad public policy most bridges in NYC do not have any tolls. The tunnels, which do have tolls, are much faster for this reason and cabs will often take them unless you tell them to take a bridge. Since you pay for the tunnels on top of your fare it's no skin off their back to take the tunnels, and they will be ready to look for their next fare that much more quickly. All I can see coming out of GPS in the back seet is that some tourists will get upset that the cab rounded the block, not realizing that there were one way streets preventing the more direct route.
All in all, I think proponents of this technology just want to make sure the future looks as much like a Philip k. Dick sci-fi horror story as possible to satisfy their smugness in having known the terrible future of mankind.
Just print out a catalog of all the voters that need to vote in that election office. If someone votes, then you mark him as "was voting already" but not recording the time of his vote. At the end of the day you have a list of people that voted and a list of votes, but you can't do any correlation on it.
And this is what most voting districts in the U.S. do. It seems that the people who put together the voting system were trying to screw up. First, the ballots printed out by the machine should not be timestamped or numbered and should be placed in the ballot box by the voter. Second, if you are going to register voters their names should be printed in each district should be printed out and the voter should sign next to their name before they use the machine or have access to place a ballot into the ballot box but no other notation should be used and the poll workers should have a number of official pens all the same color, if you don't register voters they should be stamped with permanent ink and obviously the same color ink should be used all day. Third, at the end of the day you count the ballots in the ballot box in plain view of interested voters, if it doesn't agree with the estimate made by the computer you withdraw your initial estimate and you count again, if it still doesn't agree with the estimate you submit the hand counted numbers for your district.
Once you start thinking about voting security this isn't all that difficult, but it's also not trivial and must be thought about and talked about before you make any changes.
I'm very big into my HTPC, but I only use Myth for the occasional HD antennae recording. And I only get two channels in good enough to record. I will never pay (not even $20/year) to receive a measly two channels worth of guide info that I might check out once a week and never in the summer.
You might want to try setting up EIT parsing in MythTV. You will not get the same quality of data, but if you only watch two channels it should be easy enough for you to create a recording rules for the programs you are interested in with just that EIT data. You'll probably need to create search rules, which take longer to schedule than regular program rules. However, with just two channels it should still only take a second or two.
MythTV has had support for DVB and ATSC EIT for some time. The two problems with ATSC EIT are that it only works for ATSC broadcasts and that the FCC only requires about 12 hours of data. The first problem means that 80% of what is on cable TV is not included, and PVRs work best with 8 or more days of data. In my area only PBS carries 2 weeks of data, some broadcast stations ignore the law and don't provide any EIT, and the rest provide only 12 to 24 hours of data.
Even when you have 14 days of EIT data it is not as good for scheduling as full listings data with cast and crew and unique identifiers for each program. But, then again this data will be useful to some, and I'm sure MythTV and others will
learn some tricks to extend the usefulness of EIT now that TMS listings are no longer a no-cost proposition.
It's more than the fact that Teddy Stevens wanted me and the rest of the country to pay for most of the costs of a local bridge. It's the nowhere part that really gets me. Before NYC built it's East River bridges with city money there were numerous ferry services and hundreds of thousands of people on the other side. If Anchorage had 500,000 people living on the less populated side of the bay I really wouldn't mind some of my money helping them build that bridge, say 20% federal money, 40% state money and 40% local money. If the bridge connected something important to the interstate network or cut down on green house gases with a mass transit provision (light rail connection?) then I could see a 40% federal contribution.
When there are no people and no active competing ferry services it just screams "White Elephant Project!"
not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.
To me, that sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.
What about just requiring someone who has worked on overturning at least one patent more than the number they have worked on securing?
Conlaw this isn't incorrect, but is somewhat misleading, I think CRCulver statement is essentially more accurate in it's simplicity.
First, "per curiam" opinions are rarely issued. Except in a few isolated instances (Gore v. Bush), they contain only things that are completely non-controversial. Basically this means the court was unanimous on the it being unconstitutional for the executive branch to attempt to prevent the publication of state secrets. The normal opinions contained more nuanced restraints on government abuse. The essential here is prior restraint, the government can't stop you from publishing a top secret document, but it may be possible for them to punish you afterward: "Turn over the name of the people who leaked the info to you, at some point someone must have leaked information while under NDA!"
In this case, it would have been a crime for the FBI to demand that the Washington Post hand over the documents or to order them not to publish them. But the FBI probably didn't act in such a ham fisted way, they probably asked nicely and then offered an exclusive interview with some government official as quid pro quo. They knew the Post is a two bit paper and fold in a nanosecond. If it had been a respectable paper like the Wall Street Journal they probably would have taken a slightly more nuanced approach.
No matter what the details, warrantless searches are one of the most serious crimes a government can commit against it's people, up there with government sponsored rape squads. Next are torture and murder. I hope the traitors and criminals responsible for ordering and implementing this program all get the death sentence when this scheme unravels. I can live with life sentences without parole and stripping of all assets for those only involved in the cover-up, but only if they cooperate with the trials of the government officials involved in the criminal enterprise.
3. 1989 Toyota Camry
:)
This may explain why my 89 Camry has been broken into three times in the last year. It never has anything valuable in it and has a 3rd party immobilizer, but it's still $75 & 20 minutes of my time get the right rear window replaced each time it happens. Maybe next year they will move on to the 1990 Camry.
Except for the military and intelligence portion of this one:
unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials
All these indicators describe any decent graduate student. If they have family that happen to work for the military or intelligence branches of their home governments then this one would be pretty typical as well. The year I entered my Ph.D program there was not one student who didn't hold a foreign passport. We should just put a fence up around the whole country and declare it a prison, no one should leave and visitor entry would be strictly controlled, that would be more sane than this FBI scheme.
America: Land of the slaves, home of scared.
Sonny Bono may have been a bad person, but you can't blame him for the Sonny Bono act. This rape of the American public was done in his name after his death, ostensibly to protect his great-great-great-great-great granddaughter from possibly having to contribute to society if all her ancestors after the late great Sonny Bono had been deadbeats.
mod parent down!
If he had read the article he would have seen that the record was patented not copyrighted. As a copyright notice was required until very recently to claim a US copyright this record was never copyrighted. Further, copyright terms were much shorter in your grandfather's day, and the copyright would have expired long ago even if they had applied for all the extensions available under law.
You mean like calling the winner in a tight race when all the polls in a state aren't even closed yet? then having to correct it which led to a long drawn out situation that to this date, die hard believers still won't accept the true winner?
Oh, I don't think many people still believe Bush won Florida. jk
Legally, it doesn't matter. Congress accepted Florida's electors and the electoral college voted for Bush. Even if somehow the Supreme Court reconsidered their decision now and decided that they made a mistake and all the votes should be counted, it wouldn't mean Bush wasn't elected president. It is the electors that elect the president (or the congress if they fail to reach majority), not the states and certainly not the people.
If the news said Bush quit to save his own life and later retracted it, nothing would have happened to them outside their creditability being shot.
I like your spin, but you don't buy it yourself do you? "Nothing would have happened" if ABC supported a failed coup orchestrated by China and ABC got most of its funding from coup plotters? I dunno, I wonder if Bushy would have even waited for the stations' free-beer government granted monopolies to come up for renewal. You are talking about the country where Lite-Brites cause paranoid officials to shut down a whole city. And these officials are not punished in any way!
If they're going to park their kids in front of the tv as a babysitter, I actually prefer them to use PG-13 movies... I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, but putting on R rated movies with no parental guidance sounds like the worst of both worlds.
Doesn't this sort of depend on why it got an R rating? If it got it because it didn't come from an MPAA member and depicted two teenage girls kissing well then I think it is better than the average PG-13 movie full of violence and boobie obsession. If it got the rating because it has gore galore well then it might be worse than the average PG-13. The ratings are a very blunt instrument by which to judge the suitability of a movie for a child, there are many NC-17 movies which are much healthier for a kid to watch than many G movies (of course, a 5 year old would be bored to death by these same NC-17 movies). I think any parent judging a movie's suitability for children based on the MPAA rating alone should not be a parent.
I spotted a former intern of mine in the "Google Dorks" picture. The "kid" looks older than most of his co-workers...
(And, no I'm not old. I haven't even bought my mid-life-crisis-car yet.)
You shouldn't change what you teach because someone may be offended. You should only change it if it is wrong.
Of course, and actually teaching controversial subjects makes for a great learning environment. If you teach a kid something she already knows she yawns and goes back to sleep, if you teach her something she's heard a conflicting viewpoint on then she'll wake up and confront your viewpoint. This gives the teacher an opportunity to stress the importance of knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, and the value of differering interpretations of the facts as well as the relative value of arguing on the knowns first then coming up with plausible hypothesis for the known unknowns and turning up facts to back those up and the value of research to flesh out the important unknown unknowns and finally living with the ambiguity of unknowns. It's that last bit which separates children from adults.
I personally think a balanced view of the crusades in the UK curriculum is as likely as the UK having a balanced view of the Holocaust. I'll believe it when I see the UK schools teaching the importance of removing the heads from the Queen and the Lords & Ladies of their fair land.
Yes Fariq, my forefather went to your homeland and killed the children and ate them for dinner, but you have to understand they were quite hungry after all that killing, if they hadn't eaten babies they wouldn't have had the energy to move on to the next village for their next massacre so you see it was a little sad but quite understandable. Some of them even felt a little remorse, see this letter from John the Good, "Ay, after raping Mary and killing her and her family we sat down to dinner, the heathen were quite poor and had no meate so we were forced by God Almighty to eat heathen flesh. The parents' meate was quite stringy so we ate the babies mostly. But I tell ye, they eyes of the one of them infants reminded me o'little Johny. I had to cut off it's heade, feet and hands before I could eat any more. By the Wayse, tastes like pork."
Most likely, "balanced" means they dig up every letter from the Denis Kucinich of their day to the George W. Bush of their day pleading with him to end the inhumanity. Then they predent this was relevant to the overall murderous sentiment of the day.
Ah, but it is not AllofMP3.com depriving you of your royalties. Those royalties are sitting in an escrow account in Moscow collecting dust because the RIAA doesn't want to accept the cash. Accepting the cash would mean they would need to dispurse them to you with a very small cut for themselves. They want more of the money to go to them and not to you.
Just because your record label doesn't want to pay you the royalties AllofMP3 has collected on your behalf that doesn't mean they don't give you 'jack shit' for your music, it just means you are either too dumb to collect the check or more likely you hired a RIAA member to act as your agent and they are not collecting the money for their own reasons. It is also quite likely that you aren't talking about your music at all, but a recording whose copyright you sold to an RIAA member, in which case you have a contract dispute with them, not a dispute with AllofMP3.com
But all this aside, AllofMP3 is a good lesson in why we can't continue selling copies of music. What they are doing is selling music at prices that make sense in their economy, actually they are a bit pricey for Russia. What they are doing is practicing arbitrage. Arbitrage is the what drives the global economy and trying to stop it is a fools errand (see DVD region codes and various other failed schemes attempted in the last 500 years).
So what to do? Well we can differentiate the product line, sell cheap and expensive versions of the same thing, Tide comes in bags in third world countries and bottles in first world countries. It's the same stuff, but if our local Stop-n-shop started selling Tide in bags you would expect to pay less. This can only account for a 25-30% markup in the rich countries, and the income differential is more like 1000%, so to maximize your income you price for the rich countries and sales in the rest of the world go to a very tiny market segment. BTW This is basically how textbooks work today, they are printed only in paperback in some countries and only in hardback in other countries. But with things as easily and cheaply copied as music we won't be able to keep it out of poor childrens hands like we do textbooks (Try to convince someone living on a $2 a day that they are an evil pirate and should pay $25 for each CD, the $0.25 they do pay is a major outlay.) At my local deli all the detergent bottles have Spanish directions and the batteries are from Israel (Duracells, shipped from here to the Middle East and back).
We can try to attach a social stigma to buying things cheap, "Oh, you have the J.C. Penny Madonna? I have the Gucci Madonna!" This only goes so far.
We can sell everything close to 3rd world price, say $0.50. I don't imagine this would be popular with most copyright holders.
We can move to a donation model. I've considered this myself and from what I can gather from the stats you can expect to get about 10% buy in if you can hold their attention. Your market expands maybe 4x, and you can't increase the donation amount much above current sale price, so your take falls to about 50% of current take. Plus there is the business risk of trying this out, what if everyone just listens to your particular album a couple times and then toss it, they may not give you a donation. And there is a fairness issue, I don't mind people paying less because they have less, but I do mind the millionare moocher.
We can move to a survey based royalty system. You could keep payments to artists about the same as they are now and increasing each year as the music "buying" world gets bigger. In this system each government would pay the artist on a local scale based on the number of people listening to the artists music in that country. This would have to be paid out of taxes, perhaps CD-ROM and internet connection taxes, perhaps just the general fund. This would be the fairest system to artists and consumers alike, but would be opposed because of the 'taxes are evil' growd and because in this scheme the artist gets the royalty and pays it to the label
Even for hardware I wouldn't call them good.
I bought a Dell 2405FPW monitor early on in the production run and it had this nasty habbit of making a high pitched noise and shutting off about four hours after it was turned on in the morning. So I did some googling and found out that this was caused by overheating. So I did what any geek would do and placed a fan so as to cool the beasty this gave me a good 10 hour run before it would shut itself off. But the problem was fixed in revision 3 of the hardware and there was a quiet recall being done. So I called up Dell to get a replacement, they had never heard of the problem and made me go through 5 hours of 'lower the resolution to X, did the whine go away?', 'No?, try turning the monitor 90 degrees, did the whine go away?", "No? Try plugging the monitor into a different circuit, did the whine go away?" "No? Try reinstalling the operating system, did the whine go away?" Now I refused the offer to have her call me back after each step and kept her on the phone through all of this, if they waste my time I want somebody in India to finish the novel she's reading on Dell's dime. After all this, they did agree to cross ship me a replacement monitor, which while marked 'used', was the new revision of the hardware. I haven't had a problem since, I can even leave the sucker on overnight and turn off the A/C in winter now.
All the major vendors have terrible support, except maybe Lenovo, but I don't think Dell is being singled out so much as they are the first to be hit.
What really bugs me about Dell is the SPAM. It's relentless in both electronic an paper formats. They even ignore it when you put them on the unsolicited pornography list with the post office; I would really love it if the Attorney General busted them for this and fined them individually for every piece of computer-porn they mailed through the US postal system. Dell's e-mail SPAM occationally makes it through my SPAM filters which really irks me, they've only lost about $10,000 a year in my business and probably make it up multiply by all the asshats that respond to SPAM so I don't really expect them to stop sending SPAM. But I don't understand why they won't stop sending *ME* SPAM, since they should be able to see from their sales receipts that they obviously lost me as a customer with that idiotic move.
It does not have to be a complete embargo: we just gradually tighten the screws until they shout Uncle. If we do it gradually, then we have time to adjust.
If we have time to adjust so do they. Embargoes only work against when you can either corner the market on an critical good, like oil or copper, or you are embargoing a small country which trades primarily with you. So the USA can coerce Canada and OPEC can coerce the anyone, but the USA will have a hard time coercing most of the world with an embargo.
I'm most annoyed that Disney can prevent anyone in the USA from opening up a theme park using these characters. For 90% of them the copyright expired long ago, or should have. A 14 year copyright made sense two hundred years ago, but now we should be talking about 2 year copyrights with a 2 year extension if the author is still alive, not life + X years, that's just insanity.
I maintain it wasn't the Government's to grant. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the right to create contractural obligations for anonymous 3rd parties.
Umm,
The Congress shall have Power . . .
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You don't have any exclusive rights to your writings [read performance] other than the ones that the congress grants you. Congress has decided not give you exclusive rights to published performaces of your songs and also to grant SoundExchange the right to collect taxes on people playing copyrighted musical performances. If you, the person who holds the copyright, plays a recording of your music you do not have to pay SoundExchange for the privledge.
While I think this system is corrupt, it appears to be well within the limits of the constitution. The congress isn't creating any contractual obligations at all. Until a few years ago broadcasters didn't pay anything for playing a performance of a song, now they pay a tax to SoundExchange. The congress has the right to collect taxes and has the right to subcontract this work out to private entities, and they have the right to grant or not grant you exclusive rights to your writings.
There is a license which artists must grant under law, a compulsory license, ... As with the GPL, anyone may accept. Anyone may decline. If you decline, you have no rights to perform the song ...
This makes no sense to me at all. First you say that I must grant this compulsory license. Then you turn around and say I may decline the license. I can't find a way to read this that isn't self-contradictory. Do I have to grant the license, or can I decline (to grant) it?
By "you" he meant the person playing or broadcasting the song. A performing music artist must grant the compulsory licesense, but she may grant additional licesenses. So as a performing artist you are free to sell your music to a webcaster directly or through an agency other than SoundExchange, but a webcaster is free to license the song from the SoundExchange, and in that case you don't see a penny unless you join SoundExchange.
It is SoundExchange's connection with the RIAA which is a problem. The RIAA is a lothesome organization and all it's members should suffer the corporate death penalty and those people working for it or their members should be tortured for the rest of their natural lives. I wouldn't join SoundExchange if RIAA goons shot my wife and threatened to kill my children next. The collection agency should be an arm of the government, giving private entities the right to collect taxes is just asking for more corruption in American politics.
A possible reason for the Inuit is snow. I'm from northern Canada. UV reflects from snow and you'll actually get burned crispy if you're out on snow or ice when the sun is up MUCH faster than you do on regular ground.
I'm pretty sure it was their diet. Fish oils are very high in Vitamin D. Pretty much everyone is Iceland takes a daily cod liver suppliment. The parents take it in pill forms, the kids get it by the spoonful.
You are more than welcome to start your own company if this is the case.
Actually I got out of bio research, there is very good money in it for a programmer, but I'm hate dealing with medical researchers on a personal level. Too skeevy.
My view is I don't know jack about making medications, so I let the professionals do it on their terms.
The problem is the big lumbering giants of the past are getting in the way, and they are still dominating the debate. Today it makes sense to give a company some protection for the first three years after they get it past the regulatory hurdles in first world countries. But there is no point in fighting for this because by the time you won that battle three years of protection would be way too long. The whole house of cards will come tumbling down soon enough. In fifteen years you will have a little machine on your desk which will synthesize any chemical you want, folded the way you want it, and there will be a wikipedia entry with a dozen unapproved but patent free drugs you can synthesize for your malady. There will be still cries of medicinal piracy echoing in congress, and news stories every night about the dangers of making your own drugs. It will be an interesting time, but a strong dose reality and millions of men and women will reshape the law to fit reality.
The strong IP protections that pharma has now were shaped 50 years ago when they created a single pill that you took with water and it cured you. It didn't matter that the pill cost $10 rather than $2, when it saved you a $1000 of suffering or saved your life. The miracle stage of this industry is long gone.
It's rich countries' health care systems negotiating with the pharma companies that say you must sell it to us as cheap as you sell it to anyone else. Therefore, in order to maximize profits, they have to have a certain base price. If they were allowed to tier their pricing according to ability to pay, they *would* sell cheaply to certain areas.
Tiered pricing on equivalent medicines invites arbitrage, this is why big pharma doesn't do it unless the rich countries promise to send anyone who buys low and sells high to prison. The rich countries have done this for certain AIDS drugs, but it is just as stupid as when cities subsidise sports franchises and when they raise taxes on startups to subsidise established businesses to 'save jobs'. If you take away the monopoly protections the prices will be low everywhere, without subsidies or state violence, because capitalism will then be able to work its magic. With monopoly protections it's up to the central goverments to steer the markets and they usually go with the best bribe; the best bribe comes from those who had the best ideas in the distant past, not those who have the best ideas now. The way big pharma does tier their pricing is by selling less effective drugs in poorer countries, so when I spent some time in Peru I took bigger anti-biotic pills for more days when I was sick. If I tried to buy the drugs I was used to I usually couldn't find them in the pharmacies and in the rare cases when I could find them they cost just as much as they do in New York City. Of course, on the public health level this just breeds anti-biotic resistant stains that quickly spread the world over.
In an ideal world all medical and software patents would be voided today. Ghandi broke the patent on salt production, someone equally charismatic might break these patents. But unless that person shows up soon I think we will see this system lumber on a decade or two before collapsing in a most spectacular way.
Note: I don't cry for all the countless millions who will die, countless millions die all the time for much stupider reasons. I actually do understand why people think medical patents are useful, they were increadably useful. I know that making this arguement now is not going to convince many people, but the case against medical patents will only grow. A year ago I made an exception for medical patents potentially
First of all, AIDS is a preventable disease.
Let me guess, if we gave all those 8 month old rape victims guns they could fight off their 25 y.o. attackers?
just look at how Mugabe destryed Zimbabwe by taking away land from one group of people to give it to another group
Yep, and that group inherited their land people who stole it from the other group with a lot more death and destruction than Mugabe's policies have resulted in. Isn't Mugabe just enforcing your property rights above all else mantra by taking the land away from land thieves, er, I mean land pirates?
We would NOT be better off if it became unprofitable to develop new drugs in the first place.
The cost of developing drugs is plumeting to the point where anyone with access to a few computers can come up with a dozen candidate drugs in a few weeks. It is the safety testing which still costs some money, but even this is much less than it used to be because there are plenty of poor people in the world which will take experimental drugs for a few $ a week. If we shortened patent lengths to compensate for this they would be shorter than the first mover advantage, so what is the point of maintaining this phantom property right at the expense of real property rights? Why not let the guy in India or Brazil with a chemical factory create, test and market drugs without an artificial monopoly right? He is already willing to do it without the monopoly because he makes lots of money doing it. Just because some old-pharma companies haven't joined the 21st century we are going to prop them up with phantom property rights which haven't made any sense economically for years now?