The main reason that VGA is going to die is that it requires a DAC (digital to analogue converter) in the PC chipset and a ADC in the panel (along with multi-sync PLL timing circuits). Continuing to make high-quality high-speed DACs and ADC and multi-sync PLLs are silly when you can have a digital connection to the monitor which saves you area, pins and design time.
There are 2 reasons DVI is going to die. One reason is a connector problem. PC system manufacturers save money by only having a DP connection to their monitor (not DVI or HDMI connectors and forcing everyone else to use dongles if they need DVI or HDMI). Laptop manufactures are space constrained and only want to support 1 connector (microDP or HDMI). The second reason is that vendors of computer specific panels don't want to have to pay a license fee to Silicon Image for TMDS (unless they have to). By only supporting DP on panels made specifically for the PC market, the panel vendors don't have to use TMDS (DP uses pci-e/ethernet-like 8b10b signalling instead of the patented TMDS) and save money.
I don't think anyone ever really cared about unencrypted DVI. All "newer" PC graphics cards support HDCP encryption over DVI and MSFT's OS requires sensing that HDCP encryption is enabled on DVI before playing premium content over DVI. This is a non-issue unless you card is over 12 years old (there was a small window of time where there was unencrypted DVI) . If your old DVI monitor didn't support HDCP, you couldn't have played premium content on that monitor with any remotely modern graphics card or system. Nobody really cares at all about VGA capture cards (who has these anymore?). What intel and amd do on future platforms is moot in this area for most involved with DRM.
On the projector issue (brought up by other folks), many modern projectors have HDMI/DP or are going wireless anyhow, so if your old laptop PC had an DVI output (highly unlikley because of connector space), you would need to use a DVI2HDMI converter on it anyhow... The only other standard connector was VGA which for these up-coming new laptops w/o VGA people will need to go out and buy wireless projectors (or HDMI/DP projectors) . Older dual-dvi or VGA projectors say used in home theater systems, well, let's just call that planned obolesence, AMD and Intel never did care about this market at all.
It's really all just about system cost.
In related news, computer manufacturers drop floppy disc drives from their new systems. Millions of users of floppy discs have their backup systems rendered obsolete. Thousands complain that the Software industry force computer manufacturers into this position to stop piracy. The outrage continues...
I think most folks have missed the sublty in the decision and the dissent. As my submission on this topic didn't make it, I'll just repost my view here.
Although the jist of the argument is if congress has the right to restore or extend copyright protection to works that were prior legally in the public domain in the USA before the treaty was in effect to come into compliance with the treaty, that wasn't the whole argument. The Berne Convention and the Uruguay Rounds allowed for a country to have restricted terms for works that had restored copyright to account for any disruption pulling things out of the public domain might cause. Apparently, the US congress decided to just do a blanket restoration of rights instead of any restricted terms which were allowed by the Treaty (specifically article 18 of the Berne Convention).
The subtle legal argument was that if by granting blanket restoration of rights congress overstepped its authority granted by the constitution by not restricting the rights as much as was allowed, but still compliant with the convention. In a disenting opinion authored by Justices Breyer and Alito voices the view that this legal implementation "does not serve copyright's traditional public ends, namely the creation of monetary awards that motivate the create activity of authors", but only grants its restored copyrights only to works already produced. Whereas just providing for minimal restored rights allowed by the treaty would still promote the activity of future authors by giving them the global opportunities for monetary rewards that would come by international copyright harmonization.
It's subtle, but an important distinction that, unfortuantly, seems to have been botched by the majority of the court (in my opinion). It's clear to me that the court generally agrees that congress has this specific power to change copyright in the context of this treaty (under the promotion of authorship provisions), but disagrees on if Congress actually stepped across the line on this specific implementation law. It isn't about compliance with an international treaty in general (the Parent/poster didn't make this mistake, but several other posters did), as it is certainly the court's perogative to say that the signing the treaty was against the consitution, if that were the case.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 2
Why, for example, are people allowed to leave estates to their children (or others or even charities) at all? If you didn't give the money away while you were alive, why allow any last will in testiments? Why any tax exemptions for inherited monies? Is it a flaw in our system of laws that we allow into our legal system a mechanism that gives deference to the wishes of a dying person to directly provide for thier progeny? That's a good question in my opinion.
Of course one of the realities is that people who craft and vote on laws tend to have progeny (or close relatives or causes)... The motivation for many folks is to work hard to provide for certain parts of society in preference to society as a whole and this is reflected in our legal heritiage. Maybe this is a mistake. Maybe X years after an author's death where (X= 75years) is unreasonable, and there should be no expectation of providing any value beyond your death. Even X=1 is falling down that slippery slope, right?
However, if you really want to see the result of unassignable copyright, say imagine a regime where if someone working on the Linux kernel (or pick your favorite GPL project) died, and all of a sudden there's no GPL protection on that part of the source code? So now you assign the copyright (say to a company or other legal entity that doesn't die) and gets some money. Then a competitor comes in, there's a lawsuit and the competitor just decides it's cheaper to hire out a contract on the original author? Yikes!
There are probably solutions to all these problems, but no simple ones. Also likely is that with any finite system of laws, there will be loopholes that cause people to reel in disgust, but one thing is for sure. Nothing is probably going to change overnight as although the current system has flaws, instability and unpredictibility of copyright regime is probably a worse outcome, so the ideal thing is to change slowly over time.
So it appears to me, that you are trying to draw a distinction between a semi-private performance vs some sort of more one-time public performance of subject material. Would you agree if they had "tickets" to attend the speech, then it would be protected? If a movie was shot in front of the Lincoln Memorial would that make the film (or at least that scene of the film), required to be in the public domain?
As it turns out, there is specific case law that tried to make that determination. As CBS apparently had one of the most extensive collection of audio-visual camera there at the time and therefore had the copyright to their interpretation of events. They tried to use these archives w/o the permission of MLK's estate and the estate sued them. AFAIK, lawsuit addressed the specific issue of the speech on the lincoln memorial being considered a "limited-performance" (where copyright was not forfieted) as opposed to a public performance (which would have kicked it to the public domain). You can read the details here...
Short answer, the press coverage of the speech did not invalidate the copyright, it requires distribution to "go beyond customary sources of press or broadcasting" to put things in the public domain. E.g., if they had printed pamphlets of the speech and distributed them outside the channels of the press, they would have lost protection to the public domain. However, copyright common law does not force authors whose message happens to be newsworthy to choose between press coverage and protecting their copyright.
Well, its a code book. The trick is to use that churches bible (since they will already have a standardised bible for that reason).
Although churches often suggest specific (newer) bible editions to new parishoners that don't have them, many parishoners use bibles that have been handed down to them though their parents/granparents/etc for sentimental reasons... Even the bibles that often are put into the backs of the pews (some churches, most pews these days only have singalong sheets) are donated from various sources or accumulated over the years from different editions/publishers. Bibles editions are sometimes quite different (even though most are based on the King James)...
I guess that's what I should have expected from anon/. people, assuming they must know how things that they never have participated in operate...
Of course you could be for conspiracy theories that US destroyed its own space shuttles like Challenger.
What do you call NASA brass launching Challenger anyhow when they knew of a cold weather O-ring burnthrough problem and that an O-ring failure would cause catestrophic failure? I'd say that the US did destroy it's own space shuttles (although maybe not deliberatly).
If this was a car and the car company's engineers knew about a problem that was likely to kill the occupants in cold weather and told said brass, one might make an argument that the company brass (and thust the company) allowed for the destruction of it's own cars by allowing these defective cars to be sold to be driven in cold weather (and I'm sure that argument would be made by a lawyer). Many might argue that they probably should be recalling those cars to fix the problem before something catestrophic actually did occur.
For those fond of car analogies, please search for "cold weather gas tank strap recall" for a recent version of this analogy...
Taking this to the logical conclusion, since now in the smartphone market, the "chip" is an SOC (the CPU + chipset logic on the same silicon die), OEMs will just buy the SOC chip and throw away the whole thing... Hmm, that sounds like something that will happen.
Intel often made decent, albeit low-end, chipsets. Fortunatly for them most folks today don't really buy smartphones based on latent hardware capabilities that they probably won't use (but just "in-case"), but software features. In this case, they have less to worry about. The downside is that the smartphone business likely won't support their current gross-profit-margin strategy of selling CPUs that run 2% faster for 50% more money.
Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).
Not saying that SK doesn't have any alterior motive, but there is quite a bit of precident (e.g., the browser wars of the PC-age) that indicate that perhaps there is some thing to be said about unbundling services. If you are so enamored with google, perhaps you should google "rule-of-reason" sometime...
Perhaps some device manufacturer might want to strike deals with alternate email, social network or marketplace that give them back a share of the profits. For instance, on a notebook I recently purchased, it had Chrome pre-installed. I'm sure that the OEM got a better deal for that than microsoft was offering...
One of the big things that improves the speed of innovation is the ability to fail. This is still one of the big problems that needs to be conquered. You need lots of groups trying different avenues to ferret out the key innovations that push the state of the art forward. One of the problems with the command-style-economies is that although they could build up industries efficiently, they are simultaneously captive to those industries by continued government funding resuting in economic inefficiency (in the best case), or a military/industrial complex (in the worst case). From what I can tell, basically you need lots of serial entrepenuers, copy-cat followers and venture capital to push tech forward.
Not to say that the USA has this problem licked (see the defense spending culture or wall street as examples), but there are no clear signs yet that china, europe or russia has a sustainable approach to this problem that the USA seems to have. If they get better at figuring out how to fund innovation and defund obsolete industries, they will probably have both the ingredients needed to create a sustainable tech revolution that could wean itself from the USA tech industry.
From what it appears, right now china and europe are in focus-on-money mode trying to attract multi-national corporate investment which gets lots of progress quickly, but doesn't seem that sustainable as the government is still picking the winners and losers (e.g. who gets the tax breaks and who gets the operating licences). I honestly don't follow the situation in russia very closely for tech, but my understand is that big investment is still mostly in traditional industries rather than tech (natural resource expliotation). If this is true, the result of this is a problem of not enough native customers for native tech companies (another problem for sustainable growth).
Not to say they won't get there, but at least it seems to me that the evidence isn't there that they are on the cusp of anything... Remember, the leaders/founders of Intel and Nvidia didn't just graduate from school and start billion dollar companies. They worked for other multi-million dollar companies before starting those companies. And not all of those people that worked for those same multi-million dollar companies and left to start companies went on to found billion dollar companies either. And it wasn't just about Intel and Nvidia either, if Applied Materials didn't exist, you probably wouldn't have Intel fabs (or TSMC fabs) and so-on and so-forth. A whole ecosystem of companies need to exist. And for each of them, there needed to be some losers for there to be winners and some people willing to take a chance to lose some money to make some money.
Education was only 1/2 the problem. Ironically, education is perhaps the easiest 1/2 to solve (in the USA, apparently we just import people to educate and to do the education).
This leads to the real question (or does it beg for it, since it's standing in the street in rags with a sign "please ask!"):
After decades of flight, why the fuck do we not have reliable sensors?
Apparently we do have reasonably reliable pitot sensors (a device that attempts to infer airspeed by measuring the stagnation pressure of the air fluid flow). Most (~75%) of all A330s in service used the pitot tubes made by Goodrich (a US firm). However, the AF447 flight equipment used an older pitot tube made by Thales (a French firm) which apparently had a history of icing problems. Sadly, it may be a case of NIH that allowed these less safe older pitot tube sensors to be continued to be used. Eventually, the Eurpoean Aviation Safety Agency issued a Airworthiness Directive that required replacement of at least 2 of the 3 airspeed indicators with either the Goodrich or a new improved Thales pitot tube.
Of course there are many vendors of pitot tubes sensor and they vary in design and decing efficiency and apparently these old Thales ones had some history of being problematic in the deicing department. This is not unlike saying why don't we have reliable car tires or reliable computer disc drives after all these decades. It's because the industry keeps on trying to "improve" and/or "cost-reduce" things and sometimes people don't get it quite right. Mistakes are part of the price of progress.
I seem to remember when denver international airport made similar arguments in support for an automated baggage handling system. The system managed to mutulate bags worse than any human baggage handlers and was eventually completely abandoned. Not saying that meatware is better than computer AI, but remember, that computer AI is programmed by meatware. Since it is programmed by meatware, there's no guarantee that it will converge to anything worthwhile, yet we keep trying and maybe (with luck), we'll get something better than nothing.
I guess I know too much about sausage and journalism to trust software written by meatware.
Which is actually Airbus relies on sensor input over the "pilot". Boeing believes in the opposite. I'm inclined to believe Airbus in that the majority of accidents are human error over computer error.
Sometime in a flight like AF447 the computer doesn't know jack either and gives up the ghost. In the AF477 flight(equipment airbus A330), apparently, the pitot sensors gave inconsistent readings and the autopilot disengaged. What insued was apparently what can happen when you have pilots that are error prone and a computer that doesn't know what the hell to do to help them. In these situations, I think it's prudent to still have a system that defaults to the pilot as if they knew what to do when they know the sensors have crapped out and apparently even Airbus agrees with this. Unfortunatly, it appears that the AF447 pilots were not up to the challenge in this circumstance.
Yeah, you pay "analyst" (aka sales people), to figure out how they can do thing (to earn the highest amount of commission)... NOT!
Of course executives shouldn't make implementation decisions at all. They also usually shouldn't really be listening to the people who have to build the system for gory details about implementation.
Executives should be making risk and cost decisions. If they need information about risk, they should be shouldn't be paying analysts to figure out how to do things, they should be asking analysts about how they did things in the past and why they should be believed about this new project and make sure that the answers are valid (hard to determine correctness apriori). Very few things that an executive should be making decisions about are turnkey, they are generally frought with risk (on both project completion and market requirements) and unseen costs and schedule impacts and it's the executive's job to ferret this out. Often it isn't a choice between A and B, it's a choice between [A-Z], and the proper answer is omega after you sort through all the competing proposals from people that didn't talk to each other. Then stand back and watch to see how it unfolds (and make course corrections if necessary).
I'm curious how this is related to thyroid hormones. Is the linked article incorrect?
Thanks,
NCOR1 apparently can be called TRAC-1 (thyroid-hormone- and retinoic-acid-receptor-associated co-repressor 1) as described in this wiki article
It is a misnomer to say NCOR1 is a thyroid hormone as I believe the NCOR1 protein really operates on the Thyroid hormone receptors and modulates their response and is thus working in (or near) the muscles in this case, not anywhere near the thyroid.
NCoR1 (nuclear receptor corepressor number 1) is coregulatory protein which (according to this paper) apparently inhibits MEF2 (myocite enhancer factor number 2) and PPAR (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor) and ERRs (estrogen related receptors). MCoR1 is encoded by the NCOR1 gene. Since it is a co-regulator, blocking the expression of this gene will allow for more MEF2, PPAR, and ERRs activity causing more muscle generation and more mitochondrial activity (according to this paper anyhow). There are four MEF2 variants in humans which all seem to do slightly different things. Not sure how all these things work with NCoR1. PPAR and ERRs on the other hand deals with mitochondrial activity. Increase mitochondrial efficiency might mean more efficient conversion of sugar into energy..
On the other hand, Myostatin is a growth factor (TGF8) that generally inhibits muscle development. Myostain is encoded by the MSTN gene (in humans). Blocking this growth factor seems to increase muscle development by increasing muscle fiber size. There seems to be some indication that myostatin somehow just keeps muscle stem cells from differentiating into muscle cells (by promoting the formation of MyoD) and that if you knock Myostatin out, then those muscle stem cells just become muscle cells. Other indications are that myostatin inhibition also inhibits MEF2C (one of the 4 human MEF2 variants). Also, in some studies, inhibiting Myostatin increases the number of fast glycolytic (type IIB or so called fast-twitch) fiber which develop. However, myostatin seems to do the opposite for tendons, so where you are stronger, your tendons might get more brittle.
Not sure how the former is different from the latter, but if it can promote more type I or type IIA muscle rather than type IIB and if there is an increase in mitochondrial genesis (allowing more energy/power), that would be a difference.
It could have had something to do with him showing up to said meeting in full uniform with all his medals prominately displayed.
Although that story makes for good historical drama, but more likely the Continental Congress chose George Washington because he offered his services w/o any desire of compensation. Charles Lee (the main competing candidate) apparently made it be known that he wanted to be reimbursed by the Continental Congress for the properties he would lose in England for joining the revolutionary army. Since the Continental Congress didn't have much money, I think that choice was more based on dollars and cents and the fact that Lee was born in Britian (Washington was born in Virginia).
Of course after Washington gained the respect for the war effort, his back story makes a good case for being President, but if he wasn't leading the Continental Army, the first president could well have been John Adams (or maybe even Thomas Jefferson).
Sometimes great leaders are drafted from the ranks, and George Washington was one of those. Essentially he was drafted out of retirement to gain fame and respect during the war. He was living a rather comfortable aristocratic (1%) life in semi-retirement when he took up the cause of the american revolution.
One of the main problems with the recent arab-spring "protest" movements is that in many respects, it happened too fast. There was no time for anyone to prove their worthiness (so to speak), by demonstrating their commitment to "the cause" over any extended period of time to gain a base of political power. This leaves a dangerous power vaccuum where a charismatic (power-seeking) leader, rather than a leader that has a deep commitment to a movement (and are vetted/drafted from among the ranks) can hijack political power for their own narcissitic purposes...
Today the arab spring movements seem to be more similar to the a "Bourgeoisie" revolutions of the past (emerging middle/upper class) say like the american revolution, french revolution or the even the english revolution. Basically, they are overthrowing a monarchy (basically a dictatorship) and since there are people with a vested economic state in the smooth outcome, there is some pressure to make the transition an improvement for the middle/upper class. That may or may not be great for people on the bottom of the economic or political totem poll. This is unlike a 99% revolution (say like some of the communist revolutions of the past), where major economic upheaval meant that the outcome was basically rolling the dice.
On the other hand, the french revolution is a potential example of how rocky the road to normalcy may be. Perhaps it could be more like South Africa, but as noted, there doesn't seem to be a George Washington or Nelson Mandela to guide the transition.
What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?
Just because protesters consider a conflict to be a civil war doesn't count. For the Geneva conventions to kick in, the protesters must be organized against the current government, be have a military structure (e.g., chain of command that can give attack orders and surrender), be in actual control of some amount of territory (not just "occupy", provide at least minimal normal govermental functions) and exercise some sort of control over the population (have some reason that many of the folks in neigborhood you are occupying would recognize you as the government if you "won"). Otherwize, they are just civilian protesters and are outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
They're meant to portray what women think that men want them to be. Men don't like bones, but women think they do, so they're more likely to buy something that they think will make them more boney.
Half the stuff women do to make themselves more attractive is based on mis-conceptions...
That part, I believe, is a mis-conception. I think most women by clothes to impress other women, not men. So they are likely to make a buying decision based on if it makes themselves more attractive to other women (usually "attractive" in the sense of "you-look-good-girl" sense, although there are some girls that swing the other way). Apparently, that's what they want and that is what they are getting. The fact that clothes may or may not be attractive to men seems to be sort of irrelavent to their decision making process as they usually know most men they care to impress are generally impressed enough by a simple "hello" and a warm touch. Being attractive to other men is just collateral damage.
Even if the fission reactions require external input to proceed there will still be decay heat after it stops. How do these reactors propose to deal with said decay heat?
Depends on the reactor.
For the travelling wave reactor proposed by TerraPower is sort of a hybrid fast-breeder which periodically shuffles the fuel to have a relatively stationary "burn-zone" and nearby "breed-zone" (which eventually gets shuffled into the burn-zone when it absorbs enough neutrons to become fissile). To my knowledge, it doesn't have any inherent safetly features to remove decay heat over a standard liquid metal coolant reactor other than the thermal transients are much slower in liquid metal and the standard configurations allow for some natural coolant circulation to carry heat away from the core when pumps fail.
Say for a pebble bed reactor, because of the negative feedback due to doppler broadening and the fact the fuel is mixed with U238 (a better absorber of fast neutrons than the fuel), the core generates less power as the temperature rises. The reaction doesn't stop, it just idles at a safe temperature until all the fuel is consumed. The reactor of course needs to be designed so that it can passively radiate the "idle" heat (which is part of the attraction of pebble bed reactors).
As I understand this, in the classical photosynthesis model, energy transfer is sort of modeled like the incoming sunlight excites a population of light absorbing "antennea" pigments which transfer the energy to reaction centers where long term energy storage is initiated (e.g., the CO2->sugar conversion). If the energy transfer was "classically" photoelectric, you'd see a system where light excites a population of antenna of different pigments, which then re-emit the energy at a wavelength compatible with the photosynthesis.
If this was true, you could potentially measure electric field and look for frequency of absorbtion and re-emission (they would look like 2 frequency peaks). However, if there were some sort of state coupling, you'd also see beat frequencies corresponding to the difference in energies between various pigments and the re-emission. That in itself is not that interesting, but the fact that when they sent in pulses, these frequencies corresponding to beat frequencies seems to persist longer than the expected coherence time which apparently suggests that coherence lasts long enough to transit all the way from the antenna/pigments to the location of energy conversion (in this case 660 femtoseconds).
The next step is to hypothesize that you can use QM and treat the full system as essentially coherently absorbing light at with the exactly correct antenna/pigment and re-emitting it essentially lossless to the conversion point, rather than it absorbing a collection/population of antenna over a period of time (some of them efficiently, some of them less efficienty), and re-emitting the energy (the classical model). Of course this is a pretty big step and is not a constructive argument, but it is in line with observations about photosynthetic efficiency and there is now more measurements to back up the potential (QM/coherence) pathway which might be able to explain that efficiency..
That's like saying graphene is just a slice of graphite (since small amounts of graphene can be made by cleaving graphite)... CNTs aren't currently made by rolling up graphene and many of the specific properties of CNTs are because of *how* they are rolled (specifically the n,m chiral values and the diameter)...
I'm sure a single nanotube would be almost as transparent as a single layer of graphene.
Strangely, graphene is quite opaque for a single layer of material, but since it has very good conductivity, you don't need thick layers of the stuff to make wire meshes needed to control stuff like LCD panels (as opposed to other forms of semi-transparent conductors say like indium tin oxide). Single nanotubes likewize aren't very transparent, although they are of course very, very thin (several angstroms), and therefore block very little light even when you put lots of CNT wires on a transparent substrate.
Citation please. That implies that the "smart" are way smarter than the "dumb" are dumb. In my experience, the smart really aren't as smart as they think they are and the dumb folks aren't that dumb as they are told they are.
IANALE (I am not a layout engineer), but it's my understanding that it is not an easy task to actually figure out how many transistors are contained within a modern chip. The CAD tools used aren't anything like Photoshop, where you can pop up an info window and see how many pixels it has.
Actually, it is really easy to figure out how many transistors there are. Generally, you run both LVS (logic vs schematic) and DRC (design rule checking) tools on the final layout data base. These tools look at all the transistors in the layout data base and compares them to the original design (LVS) and to make sure that the active areas of the transistors are spaced out accordingly to make sure they can be fabricated into masks that yield (the base rules are provided by the silicon foundary often augmented by the library provider). After you run these tools, AFAIK it just tells you how many transistors it checked. You might tell the tool to skip some parts of the design (say like rams) in the final netlist, but generally the parts you skip have been run through the tools before hand or in parallel.
Of course running these tools takes a long time, and sometimes they are not finished running before the chip is fabricated for the first time. Sometimes, you send off the design or tape it out, and then you kick off running these tools so the chip starts to go to the mask-maker whist you are still running the LVS/DRC tools, but generally you know the results of LVS/DRC before you go into production (or your company probably isn't meeting your ISO 900x certification requirements). If nothing else, the fab will make you sign a yield waver if you don't run DRC (basically, they won't guarantee any working parts).
Slashdot Mirror
The main reason that VGA is going to die is that it requires a DAC (digital to analogue converter) in the PC chipset and a ADC in the panel (along with multi-sync PLL timing circuits). Continuing to make high-quality high-speed DACs and ADC and multi-sync PLLs are silly when you can have a digital connection to the monitor which saves you area, pins and design time.
There are 2 reasons DVI is going to die. One reason is a connector problem. PC system manufacturers save money by only having a DP connection to their monitor (not DVI or HDMI connectors and forcing everyone else to use dongles if they need DVI or HDMI). Laptop manufactures are space constrained and only want to support 1 connector (microDP or HDMI). The second reason is that vendors of computer specific panels don't want to have to pay a license fee to Silicon Image for TMDS (unless they have to). By only supporting DP on panels made specifically for the PC market, the panel vendors don't have to use TMDS (DP uses pci-e/ethernet-like 8b10b signalling instead of the patented TMDS) and save money.
I don't think anyone ever really cared about unencrypted DVI. All "newer" PC graphics cards support HDCP encryption over DVI and MSFT's OS requires sensing that HDCP encryption is enabled on DVI before playing premium content over DVI. This is a non-issue unless you card is over 12 years old (there was a small window of time where there was unencrypted DVI) . If your old DVI monitor didn't support HDCP, you couldn't have played premium content on that monitor with any remotely modern graphics card or system. Nobody really cares at all about VGA capture cards (who has these anymore?). What intel and amd do on future platforms is moot in this area for most involved with DRM.
On the projector issue (brought up by other folks), many modern projectors have HDMI/DP or are going wireless anyhow, so if your old laptop PC had an DVI output (highly unlikley because of connector space), you would need to use a DVI2HDMI converter on it anyhow... The only other standard connector was VGA which for these up-coming new laptops w/o VGA people will need to go out and buy wireless projectors (or HDMI/DP projectors) . Older dual-dvi or VGA projectors say used in home theater systems, well, let's just call that planned obolesence, AMD and Intel never did care about this market at all.
It's really all just about system cost.
In related news, computer manufacturers drop floppy disc drives from their new systems. Millions of users of floppy discs have their backup systems rendered obsolete. Thousands complain that the Software industry force computer manufacturers into this position to stop piracy. The outrage continues...
I think most folks have missed the sublty in the decision and the dissent. As my submission on this topic didn't make it, I'll just repost my view here.
Although the jist of the argument is if congress has the right to restore or extend copyright protection to works that were prior legally in the public domain in the USA before the treaty was in effect to come into compliance with the treaty, that wasn't the whole argument. The Berne Convention and the Uruguay Rounds allowed for a country to have restricted terms for works that had restored copyright to account for any disruption pulling things out of the public domain might cause. Apparently, the US congress decided to just do a blanket restoration of rights instead of any restricted terms which were allowed by the Treaty (specifically article 18 of the Berne Convention).
The subtle legal argument was that if by granting blanket restoration of rights congress overstepped its authority granted by the constitution by not restricting the rights as much as was allowed, but still compliant with the convention. In a disenting opinion authored by Justices Breyer and Alito voices the view that this legal implementation "does not serve copyright's traditional public ends, namely the creation of monetary awards that motivate the create activity of authors", but only grants its restored copyrights only to works already produced. Whereas just providing for minimal restored rights allowed by the treaty would still promote the activity of future authors by giving them the global opportunities for monetary rewards that would come by international copyright harmonization.
It's subtle, but an important distinction that, unfortuantly, seems to have been botched by the majority of the court (in my opinion). It's clear to me that the court generally agrees that congress has this specific power to change copyright in the context of this treaty (under the promotion of authorship provisions), but disagrees on if Congress actually stepped across the line on this specific implementation law. It isn't about compliance with an international treaty in general (the Parent/poster didn't make this mistake, but several other posters did), as it is certainly the court's perogative to say that the signing the treaty was against the consitution, if that were the case.
Why, for example, are people allowed to leave estates to their children (or others or even charities) at all? If you didn't give the money away while you were alive, why allow any last will in testiments? Why any tax exemptions for inherited monies? Is it a flaw in our system of laws that we allow into our legal system a mechanism that gives deference to the wishes of a dying person to directly provide for thier progeny? That's a good question in my opinion.
Of course one of the realities is that people who craft and vote on laws tend to have progeny (or close relatives or causes)... The motivation for many folks is to work hard to provide for certain parts of society in preference to society as a whole and this is reflected in our legal heritiage. Maybe this is a mistake. Maybe X years after an author's death where (X= 75years) is unreasonable, and there should be no expectation of providing any value beyond your death. Even X=1 is falling down that slippery slope, right?
However, if you really want to see the result of unassignable copyright, say imagine a regime where if someone working on the Linux kernel (or pick your favorite GPL project) died, and all of a sudden there's no GPL protection on that part of the source code? So now you assign the copyright (say to a company or other legal entity that doesn't die) and gets some money. Then a competitor comes in, there's a lawsuit and the competitor just decides it's cheaper to hire out a contract on the original author? Yikes!
There are probably solutions to all these problems, but no simple ones. Also likely is that with any finite system of laws, there will be loopholes that cause people to reel in disgust, but one thing is for sure. Nothing is probably going to change overnight as although the current system has flaws, instability and unpredictibility of copyright regime is probably a worse outcome, so the ideal thing is to change slowly over time.
But he didn't mind plagiarizing others' work when it suited him....
"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal"
- TS Eliot
"Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal"
-Igor Stravinsky
"Good artists copy; great artists steal"
-Pablo Picasso
So it appears to me, that you are trying to draw a distinction between a semi-private performance vs some sort of more one-time public performance of subject material. Would you agree if they had "tickets" to attend the speech, then it would be protected? If a movie was shot in front of the Lincoln Memorial would that make the film (or at least that scene of the film), required to be in the public domain?
As it turns out, there is specific case law that tried to make that determination. As CBS apparently had one of the most extensive collection of audio-visual camera there at the time and therefore had the copyright to their interpretation of events. They tried to use these archives w/o the permission of MLK's estate and the estate sued them. AFAIK, lawsuit addressed the specific issue of the speech on the lincoln memorial being considered a "limited-performance" (where copyright was not forfieted) as opposed to a public performance (which would have kicked it to the public domain). You can read the details here...
Short answer, the press coverage of the speech did not invalidate the copyright, it requires distribution to "go beyond customary sources of press or broadcasting" to put things in the public domain. E.g., if they had printed pamphlets of the speech and distributed them outside the channels of the press, they would have lost protection to the public domain. However, copyright common law does not force authors whose message happens to be newsworthy to choose between press coverage and protecting their copyright.
Well, its a code book. The trick is to use that churches bible (since they will already have a standardised bible for that reason).
Although churches often suggest specific (newer) bible editions to new parishoners that don't have them, many parishoners use bibles that have been handed down to them though their parents/granparents/etc for sentimental reasons... Even the bibles that often are put into the backs of the pews (some churches, most pews these days only have singalong sheets) are donated from various sources or accumulated over the years from different editions/publishers. Bibles editions are sometimes quite different (even though most are based on the King James)...
I guess that's what I should have expected from anon /. people, assuming they must know how things that they never have participated in operate...
Of course you could be for conspiracy theories that US destroyed its own space shuttles like Challenger.
What do you call NASA brass launching Challenger anyhow when they knew of a cold weather O-ring burnthrough problem and that an O-ring failure would cause catestrophic failure? I'd say that the US did destroy it's own space shuttles (although maybe not deliberatly).
If this was a car and the car company's engineers knew about a problem that was likely to kill the occupants in cold weather and told said brass, one might make an argument that the company brass (and thust the company) allowed for the destruction of it's own cars by allowing these defective cars to be sold to be driven in cold weather (and I'm sure that argument would be made by a lawyer). Many might argue that they probably should be recalling those cars to fix the problem before something catestrophic actually did occur.
For those fond of car analogies, please search for "cold weather gas tank strap recall" for a recent version of this analogy...
Taking this to the logical conclusion, since now in the smartphone market, the "chip" is an SOC (the CPU + chipset logic on the same silicon die), OEMs will just buy the SOC chip and throw away the whole thing... Hmm, that sounds like something that will happen.
Intel often made decent, albeit low-end, chipsets. Fortunatly for them most folks today don't really buy smartphones based on latent hardware capabilities that they probably won't use (but just "in-case"), but software features. In this case, they have less to worry about. The downside is that the smartphone business likely won't support their current gross-profit-margin strategy of selling CPUs that run 2% faster for 50% more money.
We shall see what they do about that...
Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).
Not saying that SK doesn't have any alterior motive, but there is quite a bit of precident (e.g., the browser wars of the PC-age) that indicate that perhaps there is some thing to be said about unbundling services. If you are so enamored with google, perhaps you should google "rule-of-reason" sometime...
Perhaps some device manufacturer might want to strike deals with alternate email, social network or marketplace that give them back a share of the profits. For instance, on a notebook I recently purchased, it had Chrome pre-installed. I'm sure that the OEM got a better deal for that than microsoft was offering...
One of the big things that improves the speed of innovation is the ability to fail. This is still one of the big problems that needs to be conquered. You need lots of groups trying different avenues to ferret out the key innovations that push the state of the art forward. One of the problems with the command-style-economies is that although they could build up industries efficiently, they are simultaneously captive to those industries by continued government funding resuting in economic inefficiency (in the best case), or a military/industrial complex (in the worst case). From what I can tell, basically you need lots of serial entrepenuers, copy-cat followers and venture capital to push tech forward.
Not to say that the USA has this problem licked (see the defense spending culture or wall street as examples), but there are no clear signs yet that china, europe or russia has a sustainable approach to this problem that the USA seems to have. If they get better at figuring out how to fund innovation and defund obsolete industries, they will probably have both the ingredients needed to create a sustainable tech revolution that could wean itself from the USA tech industry.
From what it appears, right now china and europe are in focus-on-money mode trying to attract multi-national corporate investment which gets lots of progress quickly, but doesn't seem that sustainable as the government is still picking the winners and losers (e.g. who gets the tax breaks and who gets the operating licences). I honestly don't follow the situation in russia very closely for tech, but my understand is that big investment is still mostly in traditional industries rather than tech (natural resource expliotation). If this is true, the result of this is a problem of not enough native customers for native tech companies (another problem for sustainable growth).
Not to say they won't get there, but at least it seems to me that the evidence isn't there that they are on the cusp of anything... Remember, the leaders/founders of Intel and Nvidia didn't just graduate from school and start billion dollar companies. They worked for other multi-million dollar companies before starting those companies. And not all of those people that worked for those same multi-million dollar companies and left to start companies went on to found billion dollar companies either. And it wasn't just about Intel and Nvidia either, if Applied Materials didn't exist, you probably wouldn't have Intel fabs (or TSMC fabs) and so-on and so-forth. A whole ecosystem of companies need to exist. And for each of them, there needed to be some losers for there to be winners and some people willing to take a chance to lose some money to make some money.
Education was only 1/2 the problem. Ironically, education is perhaps the easiest 1/2 to solve (in the USA, apparently we just import people to educate and to do the education).
This leads to the real question (or does it beg for it, since it's standing in the street in rags with a sign "please ask!"):
After decades of flight, why the fuck do we not have reliable sensors?
Apparently we do have reasonably reliable pitot sensors (a device that attempts to infer airspeed by measuring the stagnation pressure of the air fluid flow). Most (~75%) of all A330s in service used the pitot tubes made by Goodrich (a US firm). However, the AF447 flight equipment used an older pitot tube made by Thales (a French firm) which apparently had a history of icing problems. Sadly, it may be a case of NIH that allowed these less safe older pitot tube sensors to be continued to be used. Eventually, the Eurpoean Aviation Safety Agency issued a Airworthiness Directive that required replacement of at least 2 of the 3 airspeed indicators with either the Goodrich or a new improved Thales pitot tube.
Of course there are many vendors of pitot tubes sensor and they vary in design and decing efficiency and apparently these old Thales ones had some history of being problematic in the deicing department. This is not unlike saying why don't we have reliable car tires or reliable computer disc drives after all these decades. It's because the industry keeps on trying to "improve" and/or "cost-reduce" things and sometimes people don't get it quite right. Mistakes are part of the price of progress.
have you SEEN the way meatware AI operates a car?
I seem to remember when denver international airport made similar arguments in support for an automated baggage handling system. The system managed to mutulate bags worse than any human baggage handlers and was eventually completely abandoned. Not saying that meatware is better than computer AI, but remember, that computer AI is programmed by meatware. Since it is programmed by meatware, there's no guarantee that it will converge to anything worthwhile, yet we keep trying and maybe (with luck), we'll get something better than nothing.
I guess I know too much about sausage and journalism to trust software written by meatware.
Which is actually Airbus relies on sensor input over the "pilot". Boeing believes in the opposite. I'm inclined to believe Airbus in that the majority of accidents are human error over computer error.
Sometime in a flight like AF447 the computer doesn't know jack either and gives up the ghost. In the AF477 flight(equipment airbus A330), apparently, the pitot sensors gave inconsistent readings and the autopilot disengaged. What insued was apparently what can happen when you have pilots that are error prone and a computer that doesn't know what the hell to do to help them. In these situations, I think it's prudent to still have a system that defaults to the pilot as if they knew what to do when they know the sensors have crapped out and apparently even Airbus agrees with this. Unfortunatly, it appears that the AF447 pilots were not up to the challenge in this circumstance.
Yeah, you pay "analyst" (aka sales people), to figure out how they can do thing (to earn the highest amount of commission)... NOT!
Of course executives shouldn't make implementation decisions at all. They also usually shouldn't really be listening to the people who have to build the system for gory details about implementation.
Executives should be making risk and cost decisions. If they need information about risk, they should be shouldn't be paying analysts to figure out how to do things, they should be asking analysts about how they did things in the past and why they should be believed about this new project and make sure that the answers are valid (hard to determine correctness apriori). Very few things that an executive should be making decisions about are turnkey, they are generally frought with risk (on both project completion and market requirements) and unseen costs and schedule impacts and it's the executive's job to ferret this out. Often it isn't a choice between A and B, it's a choice between [A-Z], and the proper answer is omega after you sort through all the competing proposals from people that didn't talk to each other. Then stand back and watch to see how it unfolds (and make course corrections if necessary).
I'm curious how this is related to thyroid hormones. Is the linked article incorrect?
Thanks,
NCOR1 apparently can be called TRAC-1 (thyroid-hormone- and retinoic-acid-receptor-associated co-repressor 1) as described in this wiki article
It is a misnomer to say NCOR1 is a thyroid hormone as I believe the NCOR1 protein really operates on the Thyroid hormone receptors and modulates their response and is thus working in (or near) the muscles in this case, not anywhere near the thyroid.
IANAB, but...
NCoR1 (nuclear receptor corepressor number 1) is coregulatory protein which (according to this paper) apparently inhibits MEF2 (myocite enhancer factor number 2) and PPAR (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor) and ERRs (estrogen related receptors). MCoR1 is encoded by the NCOR1 gene. Since it is a co-regulator, blocking the expression of this gene will allow for more MEF2, PPAR, and ERRs activity causing more muscle generation and more mitochondrial activity (according to this paper anyhow). There are four MEF2 variants in humans which all seem to do slightly different things. Not sure how all these things work with NCoR1. PPAR and ERRs on the other hand deals with mitochondrial activity. Increase mitochondrial efficiency might mean more efficient conversion of sugar into energy..
On the other hand, Myostatin is a growth factor (TGF8) that generally inhibits muscle development. Myostain is encoded by the MSTN gene (in humans). Blocking this growth factor seems to increase muscle development by increasing muscle fiber size. There seems to be some indication that myostatin somehow just keeps muscle stem cells from differentiating into muscle cells (by promoting the formation of MyoD) and that if you knock Myostatin out, then those muscle stem cells just become muscle cells. Other indications are that myostatin inhibition also inhibits MEF2C (one of the 4 human MEF2 variants). Also, in some studies, inhibiting Myostatin increases the number of fast glycolytic (type IIB or so called fast-twitch) fiber which develop. However, myostatin seems to do the opposite for tendons, so where you are stronger, your tendons might get more brittle.
Not sure how the former is different from the latter, but if it can promote more type I or type IIA muscle rather than type IIB and if there is an increase in mitochondrial genesis (allowing more energy/power), that would be a difference.
It could have had something to do with him showing up to said meeting in full uniform with all his medals prominately displayed.
Although that story makes for good historical drama, but more likely the Continental Congress chose George Washington because he offered his services w/o any desire of compensation. Charles Lee (the main competing candidate) apparently made it be known that he wanted to be reimbursed by the Continental Congress for the properties he would lose in England for joining the revolutionary army. Since the Continental Congress didn't have much money, I think that choice was more based on dollars and cents and the fact that Lee was born in Britian (Washington was born in Virginia).
Of course after Washington gained the respect for the war effort, his back story makes a good case for being President, but if he wasn't leading the Continental Army, the first president could well have been John Adams (or maybe even Thomas Jefferson).
... There is no George Washington apparent...
Sometimes great leaders are drafted from the ranks, and George Washington was one of those. Essentially he was drafted out of retirement to gain fame and respect during the war. He was living a rather comfortable aristocratic (1%) life in semi-retirement when he took up the cause of the american revolution.
One of the main problems with the recent arab-spring "protest" movements is that in many respects, it happened too fast. There was no time for anyone to prove their worthiness (so to speak), by demonstrating their commitment to "the cause" over any extended period of time to gain a base of political power. This leaves a dangerous power vaccuum where a charismatic (power-seeking) leader, rather than a leader that has a deep commitment to a movement (and are vetted/drafted from among the ranks) can hijack political power for their own narcissitic purposes...
Today the arab spring movements seem to be more similar to the a "Bourgeoisie" revolutions of the past (emerging middle/upper class) say like the american revolution, french revolution or the even the english revolution. Basically, they are overthrowing a monarchy (basically a dictatorship) and since there are people with a vested economic state in the smooth outcome, there is some pressure to make the transition an improvement for the middle/upper class. That may or may not be great for people on the bottom of the economic or political totem poll. This is unlike a 99% revolution (say like some of the communist revolutions of the past), where major economic upheaval meant that the outcome was basically rolling the dice.
On the other hand, the french revolution is a potential example of how rocky the road to normalcy may be. Perhaps it could be more like South Africa, but as noted, there doesn't seem to be a George Washington or Nelson Mandela to guide the transition.
What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?
Just because protesters consider a conflict to be a civil war doesn't count. For the Geneva conventions to kick in, the protesters must be organized against the current government, be have a military structure (e.g., chain of command that can give attack orders and surrender), be in actual control of some amount of territory (not just "occupy", provide at least minimal normal govermental functions) and exercise some sort of control over the population (have some reason that many of the folks in neigborhood you are occupying would recognize you as the government if you "won"). Otherwize, they are just civilian protesters and are outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
They aren't meant to be attractive to men.
This part you have right...
They're meant to portray what women think that men want them to be. Men don't like bones, but women think they do, so they're more likely to buy something that they think will make them more boney.
Half the stuff women do to make themselves more attractive is based on mis-conceptions...
That part, I believe, is a mis-conception. I think most women by clothes to impress other women, not men. So they are likely to make a buying decision based on if it makes themselves more attractive to other women (usually "attractive" in the sense of "you-look-good-girl" sense, although there are some girls that swing the other way). Apparently, that's what they want and that is what they are getting. The fact that clothes may or may not be attractive to men seems to be sort of irrelavent to their decision making process as they usually know most men they care to impress are generally impressed enough by a simple "hello" and a warm touch. Being attractive to other men is just collateral damage.
Even if the fission reactions require external input to proceed there will still be decay heat after it stops. How do these reactors propose to deal with said decay heat?
Depends on the reactor.
For the travelling wave reactor proposed by TerraPower is sort of a hybrid fast-breeder which periodically shuffles the fuel to have a relatively stationary "burn-zone" and nearby "breed-zone" (which eventually gets shuffled into the burn-zone when it absorbs enough neutrons to become fissile). To my knowledge, it doesn't have any inherent safetly features to remove decay heat over a standard liquid metal coolant reactor other than the thermal transients are much slower in liquid metal and the standard configurations allow for some natural coolant circulation to carry heat away from the core when pumps fail.
Say for a pebble bed reactor, because of the negative feedback due to doppler broadening and the fact the fuel is mixed with U238 (a better absorber of fast neutrons than the fuel), the core generates less power as the temperature rises. The reaction doesn't stop, it just idles at a safe temperature until all the fuel is consumed. The reactor of course needs to be designed so that it can passively radiate the "idle" heat (which is part of the attraction of pebble bed reactors).
Back in '07, this article was published...
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~dtngo/Article/Nature_446_782_2007.pdf
As I understand this, in the classical photosynthesis model, energy transfer is sort of modeled like the incoming sunlight excites a population of light absorbing "antennea" pigments which transfer the energy to reaction centers where long term energy storage is initiated (e.g., the CO2->sugar conversion). If the energy transfer was "classically" photoelectric, you'd see a system where light excites a population of antenna of different pigments, which then re-emit the energy at a wavelength compatible with the photosynthesis.
If this was true, you could potentially measure electric field and look for frequency of absorbtion and re-emission (they would look like 2 frequency peaks). However, if there were some sort of state coupling, you'd also see beat frequencies corresponding to the difference in energies between various pigments and the re-emission. That in itself is not that interesting, but the fact that when they sent in pulses, these frequencies corresponding to beat frequencies seems to persist longer than the expected coherence time which apparently suggests that coherence lasts long enough to transit all the way from the antenna/pigments to the location of energy conversion (in this case 660 femtoseconds).
The next step is to hypothesize that you can use QM and treat the full system as essentially coherently absorbing light at with the exactly correct antenna/pigment and re-emitting it essentially lossless to the conversion point, rather than it absorbing a collection/population of antenna over a period of time (some of them efficiently, some of them less efficienty), and re-emitting the energy (the classical model). Of course this is a pretty big step and is not a constructive argument, but it is in line with observations about photosynthetic efficiency and there is now more measurements to back up the potential (QM/coherence) pathway which might be able to explain that efficiency..
Carbon nanotubes are just rolled up graphene.
That's like saying graphene is just a slice of graphite (since small amounts of graphene can be made by cleaving graphite)... CNTs aren't currently made by rolling up graphene and many of the specific properties of CNTs are because of *how* they are rolled (specifically the n,m chiral values and the diameter)...
I'm sure a single nanotube would be almost as transparent as a single layer of graphene.
Strangely, graphene is quite opaque for a single layer of material, but since it has very good conductivity, you don't need thick layers of the stuff to make wire meshes needed to control stuff like LCD panels (as opposed to other forms of semi-transparent conductors say like indium tin oxide). Single nanotubes likewize aren't very transparent, although they are of course very, very thin (several angstroms), and therefore block very little light even when you put lots of CNT wires on a transparent substrate.
... Most people are below average...
Citation please. That implies that the "smart" are way smarter than the "dumb" are dumb. In my experience, the smart really aren't as smart as they think they are and the dumb folks aren't that dumb as they are told they are.
IANALE (I am not a layout engineer), but it's my understanding that it is not an easy task to actually figure out how many transistors are contained within a modern chip. The CAD tools used aren't anything like Photoshop, where you can pop up an info window and see how many pixels it has.
Actually, it is really easy to figure out how many transistors there are. Generally, you run both LVS (logic vs schematic) and DRC (design rule checking) tools on the final layout data base. These tools look at all the transistors in the layout data base and compares them to the original design (LVS) and to make sure that the active areas of the transistors are spaced out accordingly to make sure they can be fabricated into masks that yield (the base rules are provided by the silicon foundary often augmented by the library provider). After you run these tools, AFAIK it just tells you how many transistors it checked. You might tell the tool to skip some parts of the design (say like rams) in the final netlist, but generally the parts you skip have been run through the tools before hand or in parallel.
Of course running these tools takes a long time, and sometimes they are not finished running before the chip is fabricated for the first time. Sometimes, you send off the design or tape it out, and then you kick off running these tools so the chip starts to go to the mask-maker whist you are still running the LVS/DRC tools, but generally you know the results of LVS/DRC before you go into production (or your company probably isn't meeting your ISO 900x certification requirements). If nothing else, the fab will make you sign a yield waver if you don't run DRC (basically, they won't guarantee any working parts).