Of course they agreed with the ends. That's why they put that section in there. But they made clear to point out what the ends were (public utility), so that people wouldn't forget and get it mixed up with the means (government sanctioned monopolies), like you seem to want to do.
In the 1970's, I used a the CDC PLATO system, which looked more like the modern internet than the internet in the 1970's looked like the modern internet.
They would look even closer if the modern internet had PLATO's cool orange plasma displays. (IIRC, the graphics memory bits were implemented using the hysteresis of the neon grid discharges themselves.)
It's kind of odd how before there were things like Flash ads to gum up the works, hundreds of people could simultaneously share a single ~10 mips machine with a few kilobytes of iron core memory and get a halfway decent web-like experience.
And people worry about the health effects of a milliwatt-range cellphone transmitter. Beaming significant power through your living room ain't gonna happen.
Not to mention that Tesla wasn't exactly trying to power his bluetooth headphones. He built a 190-foot tower in an attempt to transmit bulk power around the countryside in competition with high-tension power lines. He went broke partly because that theory was completely bogus, and the investment in the tower was therefore lost.
So why should the artist compensation be linked to utility?
Because at least in the US, the constitution explicitly states that the reason for copyrights is utility: the collective advancement science and useful arts. It notably has nothing to say about simply rewarding people for doing work.
The thing the US is going "apeshit" about is not the Iranians having nuclear power, but having nukes.
Bingo. That's why increasing the prevalence of nuclear technology by orders of magnitude is a nonstarter. If nuclear power becomes the dominant source of energy, most every country will argue that they can't trust the Russians or anybody else to supply them with fuel. So they start developing their own fuel cycle technology, and temptation to create a little insurance against real or perceived military threats naturally follows. (Or like in Iran, the temptation comes first and the fuel technology argument follows.) With breeder reactors dotting the planet like dandelions, the situation would be impossible to police.
If nuclear power were the answer to the world's energy problems, then we'd be enthusiastically helping the Iranians with their efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle.
But it's not the answer, for the very same reasons that we're currently going apeshit over Iran's activities.
Smart people have already solved the X86 compiler problem very effectively. If you want to write a compiler for a new language and X86 assembly is too hard for you, why don't you pick up one of the many existing optimizing compiler back ends and write your language to that? That way you won't have to reinvent the wheel or learn how to use an X86, and you'll get support for *every* major CPU architecture as a bonus.
Generally, yes, mostly because the capacitance and inductance of electrical components usually scales with size. The logic speed is often limited things like R*C time constants. At high enough speeds, speed of signal transmission accross the chip comes into play as well.
Another factor is with smaller parts, more can be packed onto a die. The more parts you have, the more caching and concurrency tricks you can implement to increase speed.
more efficient?
Up to a point, but they seem to have hit a wall. Smaller inductance and capacitance means less power dissipated repeatedly charging and discharging tiny parts of the chip. But now they've made things so small that electrical current is starting to leak through the transistors even when they're "off"; this was a big problem with the hot Pentium 4s. To address that problem, they're switching to strange materials like hafnium. That seems to fix the problem for now, but we'll see how much further they can push it.
It should've been replaced a long time ago with a pure RISC instruction set
It was, when the Pentium Pro was introduced circa 1997. The instruction set the programmer "sees" is not the instruction set that the chip actually runs.
To say that an amateur could replicate the shuttle's capabilities is ludicrous.
That's irrelevant, since nobody needs, or has ever needed, the shuttle's combination of capabilities. Part of the design process is picking the appropriate feature goals to solve actual problems.
Yeah, the people at NASA could easily be outdone at their own job by a crowd of slashdot reading armchair-rocket-scientists, right?
Yes. Literally, yes.
It's hard to even imagine how anybody, even amateurs, could design a launch system that's more expensive, fragile, dangerous and overweight than the space shuttle.
The other thing people can do is to make sure they are using rechargable batteries for the remote control.
I find that a set of alkaline batteries usually lasts about 5 years in a remote control. Due to chemical deterioration, it's unlikely that consumer-grade rechargeables have a lifetime exceeding 15 years. Since rechargeables usually cost about 3X normal alkalines, they're rather likely to use about 3X the natural resources to manufacture. That means that for use in remote controls, rechargeables might very well be worse for the environment than disposable alkalines. (Not to mention that without the solar cell idea, self-discharge would require that you recharge all your remotes every few months, a major PITA.)
Rechargeable batteries are great for a lot of applications, but remote controls aren't one of them.
Then it sounds like a band would want to hire a promoter. I don't see why a band should need to sign over their copyrights and/or lock themselves into a 10-year contract just to get some promotion services. It would make more sense to just hire a promotion company who works for a fixed cut of the proceeds, like the band's manager most likely does.
Traditionally, a record label's value-add was as a gatekeeper with access to the cartel-like retail channels. Those channels are rapidly diminishing in importance as the world moves towards downloaded music. Artists won't have nearly as much reason to sign away all of their control just to be able to access the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least it's better than learning database work from a point-n-click wizard.
Of course they agreed with the ends. That's why they put that section in there. But they made clear to point out what the ends were (public utility), so that people wouldn't forget and get it mixed up with the means (government sanctioned monopolies), like you seem to want to do.
The wording makes it clear that the exclusive rights are the means, not the end.
They would look even closer if the modern internet had PLATO's cool orange plasma displays. (IIRC, the graphics memory bits were implemented using the hysteresis of the neon grid discharges themselves.)
It's kind of odd how before there were things like Flash ads to gum up the works, hundreds of people could simultaneously share a single ~10 mips machine with a few kilobytes of iron core memory and get a halfway decent web-like experience.
Yeah, I'm sure hey "enjoyed" failing to achieve his goals and then dieing alone and penniless. Whatever.
Not to mention that Tesla wasn't exactly trying to power his bluetooth headphones. He built a 190-foot tower in an attempt to transmit bulk power around the countryside in competition with high-tension power lines. He went broke partly because that theory was completely bogus, and the investment in the tower was therefore lost.
Yeah, except computers make sense in applications other than as a laboratory curiosity. Wireless power transmission doesn't.
That's a laboratory curiosity, not a technology to stake your fortune on.
Because at least in the US, the constitution explicitly states that the reason for copyrights is utility: the collective advancement science and useful arts. It notably has nothing to say about simply rewarding people for doing work.
Ye I do, ecause I do't ike he crappy overcmpressd audo uality tha ireless hones ave.
Actually - the call is coming from inside the house!
Bingo. That's why increasing the prevalence of nuclear technology by orders of magnitude is a nonstarter. If nuclear power becomes the dominant source of energy, most every country will argue that they can't trust the Russians or anybody else to supply them with fuel. So they start developing their own fuel cycle technology, and temptation to create a little insurance against real or perceived military threats naturally follows. (Or like in Iran, the temptation comes first and the fuel technology argument follows.) With breeder reactors dotting the planet like dandelions, the situation would be impossible to police.
But it's not the answer, for the very same reasons that we're currently going apeshit over Iran's activities.
It's ending up in our lakes, rivers and streams! Why aren't more people focused on this crisis??
Smart people have already solved the X86 compiler problem very effectively. If you want to write a compiler for a new language and X86 assembly is too hard for you, why don't you pick up one of the many existing optimizing compiler back ends and write your language to that? That way you won't have to reinvent the wheel or learn how to use an X86, and you'll get support for *every* major CPU architecture as a bonus.
Generally, yes, mostly because the capacitance and inductance of electrical components usually scales with size. The logic speed is often limited things like R*C time constants. At high enough speeds, speed of signal transmission accross the chip comes into play as well.
Another factor is with smaller parts, more can be packed onto a die. The more parts you have, the more caching and concurrency tricks you can implement to increase speed.
more efficient?Up to a point, but they seem to have hit a wall. Smaller inductance and capacitance means less power dissipated repeatedly charging and discharging tiny parts of the chip. But now they've made things so small that electrical current is starting to leak through the transistors even when they're "off"; this was a big problem with the hot Pentium 4s. To address that problem, they're switching to strange materials like hafnium. That seems to fix the problem for now, but we'll see how much further they can push it.
It was, when the Pentium Pro was introduced circa 1997. The instruction set the programmer "sees" is not the instruction set that the chip actually runs.
SATA connector <-> City gate
Disk drive <-> Big wooden horse
Autorun file <-> Greek soldiers
That's irrelevant, since nobody needs, or has ever needed, the shuttle's combination of capabilities. Part of the design process is picking the appropriate feature goals to solve actual problems.
Hopefully not in mid flight...
Yes. Literally, yes.
It's hard to even imagine how anybody, even amateurs, could design a launch system that's more expensive, fragile, dangerous and overweight than the space shuttle.
I find that a set of alkaline batteries usually lasts about 5 years in a remote control. Due to chemical deterioration, it's unlikely that consumer-grade rechargeables have a lifetime exceeding 15 years. Since rechargeables usually cost about 3X normal alkalines, they're rather likely to use about 3X the natural resources to manufacture. That means that for use in remote controls, rechargeables might very well be worse for the environment than disposable alkalines. (Not to mention that without the solar cell idea, self-discharge would require that you recharge all your remotes every few months, a major PITA.)
Rechargeable batteries are great for a lot of applications, but remote controls aren't one of them.
It already has.
Yeah, under the record labels creative accounting methods, it's super expensive.
Almost anybody can run a dynamic range compressor on a track and make it shine.
Traditionally, a record label's value-add was as a gatekeeper with access to the cartel-like retail channels. Those channels are rapidly diminishing in importance as the world moves towards downloaded music. Artists won't have nearly as much reason to sign away all of their control just to be able to access the market.