It's interesting to decide who now becomes responsible for the content. People unilaterally agree that Napster's downfall was its central nature; the corporation, as an individual in the US, could be brought to court.
With a lot of the new(er) trading schema, i.e. Gnutella, there is no central corporation. Legally, you're dealing with multitudes of _real_ individuals (as in singular human beings). The question this leads to, of course, is who will we lay the blame on when `inappropriate' content is found by those who, arguably, should not be exposed to it?
Ok, realize that what you're saying doesn't really correlate. I'm not going to waste my time nitpicking, but I'll point out the biggest issue:
Locks are not being made weaker. Software security is. There are examples. While you wish that your sarcastic little blurb would satisfy an argument as instantaneous proof, it's simply not correct.
Right now, we have the DMCA. With the DMCA, we see weaker security in software with the idea that they'll just prosecute anybody distributing tools to break their encryption straight out of existence.
Your argument doesn't hold water. You act as though I'm promoting not using locks because breaking in is against the law. It's not the case. I'm observing that people are not locking up their software, and inferring that it just might be because people who crack their software are being jailed and looked at as criminals.
Please, if you're going to waste time here, just become a crapflooder or an obvious troll. It saves time on moderation and provides the ability to ignore you more quickly.
It's a curious point to see that, with the DMCA in place, large corporations are ready to threaten hackers/coders into submission in regards to the strength of their security rather than actually securing their products.
Adobe's format is extremely easy to crack. But the DMCA allows this, because you're not supposed to actually see how its security works. This isn't an open-source vs. closed-source argument, but security-through-obscurity falls especially flat if laws like the DMCA promote the use of bad security technology.
Mind you, the security technology that they're providing that is so poor is designed, in reality, to protect the company itself. So the companies are shooting themselves in the foot as well.
It's an interesting situation. This law not only provides a way to prosecute for something that should, arguably, not be illegal, but it promotes lousy security because we're all supposed to expect that nobody messes with it anyway.
15 years ago, tapes were the medium to buy, CD's weren't popular. I bought them for $5. $5 vs. $20 for a new release (typical of the music _I_ buy) is 4x, unless mathematics changed in the past 15 years as well.
Oh, we get to listen. But not in every way we like. Of course, the options are: buy their music, or don't buy their music.
The third is to see if anti-trust laws can work against the RIAA (it SOUNDS like a trust to me--IANAL).
What's interesting is at this point, we're not buying anything. If we're buying "the CD", then we don't really get what we pay for, because we can't use it completely. If we're buying "the music" but can't listen to it anywhere we want, we're not getting what we pay for.
Music prices have quadrupled in less than 15 years, and how we can use what we pay so much for has been dictated to us. You're paying four times as much for a quarter of the goods.
For those of you who didn't know, EFNet stands for Eris Free Network. Eris, of course, is the Greek goddess of Discord. Call me wacky, but EFNet doesn't seem to be that free of discord.
From the EFNet news page (from memory since it's now Slashdotted):
"You heard it here first. Don't shit where you sleep. You know who you are."
I hereby donate to you a rant about how you're a Microsoft corporate drone and don't know anything about the miraculous server/embedded systems/workstation/hair-regenerative power of Linux.
Troll better, if you're going to make the attempt. At present, you're just a crapflooder.
Well, it's a good thing that Linus is calling for a standard way to do it then. If people know "it's expected to be silent on success, bitch loudly on failure," then the drivers will be written that way.
<HYPERBOLE>It's not like 99% of Linux isn't rewritten every day.</HYPERBOLE>
According to you, the company shouldn't be able to strongarm itself into doing what the company wants. That is either nonsense, or absolutely true. One can't strongarm one's self.
In contrast to your argument, there are NO companies that come to mind that have gone through the excessive amount of litigation that Napster has and still have the opportunity to even exist. The court told Napster that, essentially, everything it was doing was illegal.
Napster's only option is to pull a 180 and hope for the best. If that involves forcing people to use their client, then that's what they have to do. Just because the greater majority of the Internet-wielding population wants to be able to illegally (at present, because the courts have said it is so) trade mp3's, doesn't make it legal.
Stop trying to get karma for another "Oh my God, they killed Linux!" argument. Yes, Slashdot is a pro-Linux user base. But it's irrelevant to the discussion. Your rights are not being trampled. Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and all your Linux friends will survive this without discomfort. All this means is Napster doesn't want to provide a service anymore, and as such, shouldn't have to.
Open-source is great. I've worked on a number of different open-source GPL (and other licensed) projects. But it's IRRELEVANT to the story about Napster forcing you to use their client. If you don't, they get sued and die. So leave Napster, or quit whining.
When I spent a summer doing the same thing, I learned that the easiest thing for the elder pupils to digest are models that somehow relate to the real world. For example, in breaking down a URL, discuss how it relates to a telephone number. They've used telephone numbers, and, while they might come away with vocabulary like "calling up Yahoo!", typically they'll have a greater understanding of what they are approaching.
You can break this down further with URLs. The example I used which worked well was a (modified) file cabinet. This relationship doesn't work as well today with more people using scripting like PHP and Perl for their sites (in that, you don't get to make the subfolder analogy very well, now).
Also, one CRITICAL thing is, when you're teaching a class, profile the students for a second. Is somebody not ready for the class? One Saturday, as I was teaching a class, there was one older gentleman who was getting VERY frustrated. I talked to him for a moment and he says, "That's all well and good, but HOW DO I TURN THIS THING ON?" I discussed with him separately after the class in a small scale about some basics, and let him know that I'd offer an introduction to PCs level course later on. He was appreciative.
I think, in general, you'll be okay as long as you stand up there without thinking "how do I teach these sheep to use the 'Net? I mean, it's so freakin' easy!" Make them treat you like a peer (which can be tough, I was teaching these courses at 15, and it's hard to get a 60 year old to imagine you in their position). Once they think of you as a friendly figure, it can only get better from there.
-k.
I'd prefer a big mag-lite, myself.
on
LED Flashlights
·
· Score: 5
I'm referring to the big, heavy kind. Just so that I can club "Daniel Rutter" in the head, for having that damned popup ad on his site.
Essentially, yes. We had a server with a web site divided by region. We'd sell people the right to sell web sites in those regions. We also developed the sites for them. We charged an insanely small fee for everything to the regional offices, who then charged more to the clients.
So yes, basically, it was an MLM scam. But it did have some good intent behind it. One client ended up selling his products to Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and making a hearty amount of money for it.
Of course, knowing what I know now, I would never be associated with such a company.
Oh, and I want everyone to note, that before I took all the office stuff, I had been seeing a lawyer and protecting my ass. If you're working for a legitimate business and you're getting screwed and you're leaving (seems contradictory), what worked for me probably won't work for you.
In fact, if you try it, you might just get to visit the old CEO in jail.
Luckily, I had a rightful claim to the money, and I was always hard-ass enough to make the CEO realize he would have to pay me.
When in high school, I did the same kind of thing. At 15, I was expected to maintain an ISP, repair and build PCs, teach classes (even a week-long computer camp), and maintain our network.
We were an Internet cafe, web portal, ISP, and computer store--and why not? Every one of those was making money back then.
Quickly enough, the CEO found it quite easy to just fire everybody but me and have me do everything. Don't read that sentence as hyperbole--I'm being quite literal. Eventually, I worked there, his wife was the secretary, and a middle-aged guy took on web design without being paid for 4 months (then, not at all).
I had EXCELLENT job security. The small town afforded no one who could replace me, and I was not about to go home without my paycheck. The CEO kept me paid, and I got bonuses if I seemed disillusioned (yes, I know that's poor business practice). When I was promised a Christmas bonus, I got it in writing. And I got it (a $1500 bonus is really nice when you're in high school). But nobody else was being paid.
Remember what I said about being a web portal? Imagine eFront, but more ghetto. We had tons of regional offices, who paid an absurd fee to be able to sell advertising space in a region of our web site (divided by state, county, and city). Eventually, as the CEO guzzled away the finances of the company and my moral side got the best of me, I did the only thing I could do:
I destroyed the company.
At that point, I'd get $50/hour when I came in on off-hours, and $20+ at normal times. But it felt like hush money, and as the regional license money was pissed away and not invested into the company, I knew we were going down the toilet, and I wasn't about to go with them. Of course, the FBI snooping around town helped me decide, as well.
I warned the regionals. Without me, the server would soon go down--it could maintain itself, to a degree, but if you have ever managed a 8 GB+ web site that's using FrontPage extensions to an extreme (yes, NT, sorry), you will know how unstable it can get. They prepared to wrest the company from my boss.
At that same time, he was preparing to leave town. He didn't want to go to jail, so he fled to California. The server was co-located, and I remotely managed it. My assistant, who was hired on later, also managed the checking account for our office location.
My paycheck was coming due, and the account had $600. I was owed $2000, and my co-worker was owed $800. We called to find out how we were getting paid, and we got the runaround. My co-worker liquidified the bank account, and kept it all (which I agreed to--since I had no expenses, I thought he might want to actually pay his bills and live). I moved all the office equipment into the back of my truck, and we sent out our resignations.
The company decided it was in their best interest to provide me with the hardware as payment, and then the CEO gave a horrid speech about how terrible employees we were to all the offices. They already knew the true situation, and have now taken the company from the CEO (in prison, I've heard).
The company never made it big, but I think that prevented them from dying in the dot-com crash. One of the regional offices appears to manage everything now, and they're doing a decent job, and offered to re-hire me, but I like college better.
However, from the experience, I learned a few things:
If you're being screwed, you should leave.
If you're watching someone be screwed, you should leave.
If you're screwing someone, then you're the CEO.
-k.
(sorry for the scattered nature of the post, I'm sleepy).
...but did you really want to mention your clone would be brainless, Taco?
-k.:)
Actually, the genetic map could tell all for AIDS.
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 3
Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I invite criticism); my study of virii is not very in depth. However, viruses function in a very specific way.
To replicate, the virus injects its DNA into the host cell. The viral DNA then patches itself into the host DNA, so that you have the instructions for building the virii in the cell's chromosome. When the cell divides, this DNA data is copied, and you get multiple cells which create the virus.
However, the patching-in part of the viral replication process is very interesting. Here is an example strand of DNA:
GCGTGCCAGCAG
CGCACGGTCGTC
For the virus to patch itself in, it has to split the DNA where it can. So you'll end up with something like:
GCGTGCCA GCAG
CGCA CGGTCGTC
The single-sides parts of the DNA are commonly called sticky ends, where the viral DNA might patch it. However, the viral DNA has to patch in to a part that matches up with its own sticky ends; A (adenine) pairs only with T (thymine) and C (cytosine) pairs only with G (guanine). You can see that I've followed the pairing pattern consistently (pairs are listed vertically).
For viral DNA to fit into the above example, it must look like the following:
The viral DNA must have sticky ends that match. For cosmetic purposes, I hyphenated the example and spaced it so the pairs match up. The viral DNA has a left-end sticky end of CGGT, and a right-end sticky end of GCCA. These sequences match up with the corresponding sticky ends of the host's DNA, so the virus can 'patch' in and be replicated.
Now, to relate back to the story: if we have a genetic map, and we learn specifically where AIDS patches itself in, we can likely devise a blocking mechanism. Every three DNA base pairs is a codon for an amino acid, however, many of these codons are redundant; there are 8 (IIRC) different codons for leucine, an amino acid. So, if we could find which codons match up, we could possibly substitute a different codon at the viral injection point, but code for the same amino acid (so as to create the same protein).
Anyway, it's a leap, but most science is, at first.
I was a "technical intern" for a large semiconductor company, and their program was laid out no better than the one you describe.
We were all trained on a lot of the test equipment, then dumped in the class 1 clean room with a ton of employees who had no idea we were coming.
Some of us were told "go stand over there." That could last hours, literally. I stood next to a wall (there is about 1 chair per 50 employees in the clean room) for 4 hours one time, went to lunch, stood for another 3 before I got a break.
Just a personal note: I quit and got a job for the University in their computer support area. Less pay, less hours (clean room was 12 hour shifts), but a lot more livable.
This 'new' (read rediscovered) medium seems very promising, and, in fact, it is stated in the older post that while it might cost thousands of dollars to 'print' the first model, it costs about $15 for each additional print. That is an ENORMOUSLY low duplication cost.
It's funny that in last week's post, it is acknowledged that a laptop could be made so cheaply, and once it's a cell-phone, we start having doubts.
I don't know either way, for sure. Regardless, we'll hear lots more about film-based circuitry in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to decide who now becomes responsible for the content. People unilaterally agree that Napster's downfall was its central nature; the corporation, as an individual in the US, could be brought to court.
With a lot of the new(er) trading schema, i.e. Gnutella, there is no central corporation. Legally, you're dealing with multitudes of _real_ individuals (as in singular human beings). The question this leads to, of course, is who will we lay the blame on when `inappropriate' content is found by those who, arguably, should not be exposed to it?
-k.
description of thought.
contradiction or deviation from thought of article.
semi-insightful, semi-obvious, somewhat-karma-whoring conclusion.
(posted after seeing a X != Y on every story for the past day)
Ok, realize that what you're saying doesn't really correlate. I'm not going to waste my time nitpicking, but I'll point out the biggest issue: Locks are not being made weaker. Software security is. There are examples. While you wish that your sarcastic little blurb would satisfy an argument as instantaneous proof, it's simply not correct. Right now, we have the DMCA. With the DMCA, we see weaker security in software with the idea that they'll just prosecute anybody distributing tools to break their encryption straight out of existence. Your argument doesn't hold water. You act as though I'm promoting not using locks because breaking in is against the law. It's not the case. I'm observing that people are not locking up their software, and inferring that it just might be because people who crack their software are being jailed and looked at as criminals. Please, if you're going to waste time here, just become a crapflooder or an obvious troll. It saves time on moderation and provides the ability to ignore you more quickly.
..."free" Kevin Mitnick.
It's a curious point to see that, with the DMCA in place, large corporations are ready to threaten hackers/coders into submission in regards to the strength of their security rather than actually securing their products.
Adobe's format is extremely easy to crack. But the DMCA allows this, because you're not supposed to actually see how its security works. This isn't an open-source vs. closed-source argument, but security-through-obscurity falls especially flat if laws like the DMCA promote the use of bad security technology.
Mind you, the security technology that they're providing that is so poor is designed, in reality, to protect the company itself. So the companies are shooting themselves in the foot as well.
It's an interesting situation. This law not only provides a way to prosecute for something that should, arguably, not be illegal, but it promotes lousy security because we're all supposed to expect that nobody messes with it anyway.
15 years ago, tapes were the medium to buy, CD's weren't popular. I bought them for $5. $5 vs. $20 for a new release (typical of the music _I_ buy) is 4x, unless mathematics changed in the past 15 years as well.
Oh, we get to listen. But not in every way we like. Of course, the options are: buy their music, or don't buy their music.
The third is to see if anti-trust laws can work against the RIAA (it SOUNDS like a trust to me--IANAL).
What's interesting is at this point, we're not buying anything. If we're buying "the CD", then we don't really get what we pay for, because we can't use it completely. If we're buying "the music" but can't listen to it anywhere we want, we're not getting what we pay for.
Music prices have quadrupled in less than 15 years, and how we can use what we pay so much for has been dictated to us. You're paying four times as much for a quarter of the goods.
P.S. Nice attempt at a troll/insightful.
For those of you who didn't know, EFNet stands for Eris Free Network. Eris, of course, is the Greek goddess of Discord. Call me wacky, but EFNet doesn't seem to be that free of discord. From the EFNet news page (from memory since it's now Slashdotted): "You heard it here first. Don't shit where you sleep. You know who you are."
KK: LavaRand, in haiku form, what do you think about the end of reality?
LR: new stuff eternal /
nuclear mighty jolt shy /
fish ginormous wail
KK: Beautiful words, LavaRand. Back to you, Taco.
c:\>
If you hear mono in English, it's being pronounced "mah-know".
If you hear "mah-know" in Spanish, that's mano, or hand.
Mono (mow-know) is Spanish for monkey.
Therefore, Ximian using the name "Mono" is a way to say that they're spanking the monkey.
QED
Everyone, apparently.
I hereby donate to you a rant about how you're a Microsoft corporate drone and don't know anything about the miraculous server/embedded systems/workstation/hair-regenerative power of Linux.
Troll better, if you're going to make the attempt. At present, you're just a crapflooder.
Well, it's a good thing that Linus is calling for a standard way to do it then. If people know "it's expected to be silent on success, bitch loudly on failure," then the drivers will be written that way.
<HYPERBOLE>It's not like 99% of Linux isn't rewritten every day.</HYPERBOLE>
-k.
According to you, the company shouldn't be able to strongarm itself into doing what the company wants. That is either nonsense, or absolutely true. One can't strongarm one's self.
In contrast to your argument, there are NO companies that come to mind that have gone through the excessive amount of litigation that Napster has and still have the opportunity to even exist. The court told Napster that, essentially, everything it was doing was illegal.
Napster's only option is to pull a 180 and hope for the best. If that involves forcing people to use their client, then that's what they have to do. Just because the greater majority of the Internet-wielding population wants to be able to illegally (at present, because the courts have said it is so) trade mp3's, doesn't make it legal.
Stop trying to get karma for another "Oh my God, they killed Linux!" argument. Yes, Slashdot is a pro-Linux user base. But it's irrelevant to the discussion. Your rights are not being trampled. Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and all your Linux friends will survive this without discomfort. All this means is Napster doesn't want to provide a service anymore, and as such, shouldn't have to.
Open-source is great. I've worked on a number of different open-source GPL (and other licensed) projects. But it's IRRELEVANT to the story about Napster forcing you to use their client. If you don't, they get sued and die. So leave Napster, or quit whining.
</RANT>
I'm going to have to ask you to give up the name Kupek. I've had it for years, and if you don't give it back, I probably won't actually care.
When I spent a summer doing the same thing, I learned that the easiest thing for the elder pupils to digest are models that somehow relate to the real world. For example, in breaking down a URL, discuss how it relates to a telephone number. They've used telephone numbers, and, while they might come away with vocabulary like "calling up Yahoo!", typically they'll have a greater understanding of what they are approaching.
You can break this down further with URLs. The example I used which worked well was a (modified) file cabinet. This relationship doesn't work as well today with more people using scripting like PHP and Perl for their sites (in that, you don't get to make the subfolder analogy very well, now).
Also, one CRITICAL thing is, when you're teaching a class, profile the students for a second. Is somebody not ready for the class? One Saturday, as I was teaching a class, there was one older gentleman who was getting VERY frustrated. I talked to him for a moment and he says, "That's all well and good, but HOW DO I TURN THIS THING ON?" I discussed with him separately after the class in a small scale about some basics, and let him know that I'd offer an introduction to PCs level course later on. He was appreciative.
I think, in general, you'll be okay as long as you stand up there without thinking "how do I teach these sheep to use the 'Net? I mean, it's so freakin' easy!" Make them treat you like a peer (which can be tough, I was teaching these courses at 15, and it's hard to get a 60 year old to imagine you in their position). Once they think of you as a friendly figure, it can only get better from there.
-k.
I'm referring to the big, heavy kind. Just so that I can club "Daniel Rutter" in the head, for having that damned popup ad on his site.
-k.
Essentially, yes. We had a server with a web site divided by region. We'd sell people the right to sell web sites in those regions. We also developed the sites for them. We charged an insanely small fee for everything to the regional offices, who then charged more to the clients.
So yes, basically, it was an MLM scam. But it did have some good intent behind it. One client ended up selling his products to Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and making a hearty amount of money for it.
Of course, knowing what I know now, I would never be associated with such a company.
Oh, and I want everyone to note, that before I took all the office stuff, I had been seeing a lawyer and protecting my ass. If you're working for a legitimate business and you're getting screwed and you're leaving (seems contradictory), what worked for me probably won't work for you.
In fact, if you try it, you might just get to visit the old CEO in jail.
Luckily, I had a rightful claim to the money, and I was always hard-ass enough to make the CEO realize he would have to pay me.
-k.
When in high school, I did the same kind of thing. At 15, I was expected to maintain an ISP, repair and build PCs, teach classes (even a week-long computer camp), and maintain our network.
We were an Internet cafe, web portal, ISP, and computer store--and why not? Every one of those was making money back then.
Quickly enough, the CEO found it quite easy to just fire everybody but me and have me do everything. Don't read that sentence as hyperbole--I'm being quite literal. Eventually, I worked there, his wife was the secretary, and a middle-aged guy took on web design without being paid for 4 months (then, not at all).
I had EXCELLENT job security. The small town afforded no one who could replace me, and I was not about to go home without my paycheck. The CEO kept me paid, and I got bonuses if I seemed disillusioned (yes, I know that's poor business practice). When I was promised a Christmas bonus, I got it in writing. And I got it (a $1500 bonus is really nice when you're in high school). But nobody else was being paid.
Remember what I said about being a web portal? Imagine eFront, but more ghetto. We had tons of regional offices, who paid an absurd fee to be able to sell advertising space in a region of our web site (divided by state, county, and city). Eventually, as the CEO guzzled away the finances of the company and my moral side got the best of me, I did the only thing I could do:
I destroyed the company.
At that point, I'd get $50/hour when I came in on off-hours, and $20+ at normal times. But it felt like hush money, and as the regional license money was pissed away and not invested into the company, I knew we were going down the toilet, and I wasn't about to go with them. Of course, the FBI snooping around town helped me decide, as well.
I warned the regionals. Without me, the server would soon go down--it could maintain itself, to a degree, but if you have ever managed a 8 GB+ web site that's using FrontPage extensions to an extreme (yes, NT, sorry), you will know how unstable it can get. They prepared to wrest the company from my boss.
At that same time, he was preparing to leave town. He didn't want to go to jail, so he fled to California. The server was co-located, and I remotely managed it. My assistant, who was hired on later, also managed the checking account for our office location.
My paycheck was coming due, and the account had $600. I was owed $2000, and my co-worker was owed $800. We called to find out how we were getting paid, and we got the runaround. My co-worker liquidified the bank account, and kept it all (which I agreed to--since I had no expenses, I thought he might want to actually pay his bills and live). I moved all the office equipment into the back of my truck, and we sent out our resignations.
The company decided it was in their best interest to provide me with the hardware as payment, and then the CEO gave a horrid speech about how terrible employees we were to all the offices. They already knew the true situation, and have now taken the company from the CEO (in prison, I've heard).
The company never made it big, but I think that prevented them from dying in the dot-com crash. One of the regional offices appears to manage everything now, and they're doing a decent job, and offered to re-hire me, but I like college better.
However, from the experience, I learned a few things:
If you're being screwed, you should leave.
If you're watching someone be screwed, you should leave.
If you're screwing someone, then you're the CEO.
-k.
(sorry for the scattered nature of the post, I'm sleepy).
...but did you really want to mention your clone would be brainless, Taco?
:)
-k.
Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I invite criticism); my study of virii is not very in depth. However, viruses function in a very specific way.
To replicate, the virus injects its DNA into the host cell. The viral DNA then patches itself into the host DNA, so that you have the instructions for building the virii in the cell's chromosome. When the cell divides, this DNA data is copied, and you get multiple cells which create the virus.
However, the patching-in part of the viral replication process is very interesting. Here is an example strand of DNA:
GCGTGCCAGCAG
CGCACGGTCGTC
For the virus to patch itself in, it has to split the DNA where it can. So you'll end up with something like:
GCGTGCCA GCAG
CGCA CGGTCGTC
The single-sides parts of the DNA are commonly called sticky ends, where the viral DNA might patch it. However, the viral DNA has to patch in to a part that matches up with its own sticky ends; A (adenine) pairs only with T (thymine) and C (cytosine) pairs only with G (guanine). You can see that I've followed the pairing pattern consistently (pairs are listed vertically).
For viral DNA to fit into the above example, it must look like the following:
GCGT-GCCA |INTERIOR VIRAL DNA|-GCCA GCAG
CGCA CGGT-|INTERIOR VIRAL DNA| CGGT-CGTC
The viral DNA must have sticky ends that match. For cosmetic purposes, I hyphenated the example and spaced it so the pairs match up. The viral DNA has a left-end sticky end of CGGT, and a right-end sticky end of GCCA. These sequences match up with the corresponding sticky ends of the host's DNA, so the virus can 'patch' in and be replicated.
Now, to relate back to the story: if we have a genetic map, and we learn specifically where AIDS patches itself in, we can likely devise a blocking mechanism. Every three DNA base pairs is a codon for an amino acid, however, many of these codons are redundant; there are 8 (IIRC) different codons for leucine, an amino acid. So, if we could find which codons match up, we could possibly substitute a different codon at the viral injection point, but code for the same amino acid (so as to create the same protein).
Anyway, it's a leap, but most science is, at first.
I was a "technical intern" for a large semiconductor company, and their program was laid out no better than the one you describe.
We were all trained on a lot of the test equipment, then dumped in the class 1 clean room with a ton of employees who had no idea we were coming.
Some of us were told "go stand over there." That could last hours, literally. I stood next to a wall (there is about 1 chair per 50 employees in the clean room) for 4 hours one time, went to lunch, stood for another 3 before I got a break.
Just a personal note: I quit and got a job for the University in their computer support area. Less pay, less hours (clean room was 12 hour shifts), but a lot more livable.
Intern != cheap labor.
From my first impression, it seems that this technology would be closely (if not the same) as what is discussed in last week's post:1 &mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/19/15824
This 'new' (read rediscovered) medium seems very promising, and, in fact, it is stated in the older post that while it might cost thousands of dollars to 'print' the first model, it costs about $15 for each additional print. That is an ENORMOUSLY low duplication cost.
It's funny that in last week's post, it is acknowledged that a laptop could be made so cheaply, and once it's a cell-phone, we start having doubts.
I don't know either way, for sure. Regardless, we'll hear lots more about film-based circuitry in the future.
-k.
How can something like this be patented? I mean, it's essentially a _slight_ variation on how any simple _handwritten_ list works.
You make a list. You check it. Twice.
Shit, Santa's got prior art on this.
-k.