So, you're saying DRM won't stop the pirates, it only inconviences and takes away fair use rights from legitimate customers, *and* the record companies know this.
What we really need are laws to make that sort of thing illegal, instead of the laws that actually legalize it. The whole thing is backwards.
#1 Your definition of 'copy' is clearly not the same one used in the article, which means your post itself is based on a 'flawed premise'. Analog copy != digital copy.
#2 Your analog copy method has many disadvantages compared to a digital copy, as already noted: lower quality copy with generational loss, 1x burn speed and a much less convenient setup.
#3 Have fun burning a mix cd using your method. Setup recorder, set levels, synchronize start play and start record, wait for end of song, stop record, repeat for each song, burn cd. As opposed to drag and drop, repeat for each cd, burn cd.
"That's what the current model does. A 10-track disc costs $10..."
No it will cost you $20, becauase you can only burn 10 tracks per month. $1 per track plus $10 per month. They also have a $5 per month service, but the previews are only 30 second clips.
Dammit! I am so tired of reading peoples comments about what AI isn't. Its an easy game to play. If you want to add something useful to the conversation, perhaps you could define what AI is.
My comment about limited shelf life was about technology in general not specifically software. Even in terms of software, when I look at what is on my drive, it is mostly recent versions. Very little of it is more than a couple of years old. Except for some of my favorite old games.:)
Yep. The biggest problem I've come across in the corporate tech market is a lack of good leadership. They don't know how to form a team, let alone a good team. They don't know how to lead, or what good leadership is. They don't recognize the value in employee retention. They say they do, but its usually just rhetoric. This is not true everywhere, but IMO it is the standard modus operandi. The truth is reflected by the attrocious rates of attrition and turn over. Look at the average length of time a tech worker stays with a given company.
This was never more clear to me than when I was lucky enough to find myself under a good leader on an outstanding team. Only to watch as upper management stomped it all to pieces. Even when they have the good thing, they can't see it.
The reason employee retention is important in the tech market was obvious to me once I thought about it. My company thinks this business is about technology, but its not; its about the people who make the technology. I know that sounds corny but listen up. Technology has a very limited shelf life. What is gold today is rust tomorrow. An outstanding product today is obsolete in a couple of years. But a team of outstanding people can continually invent new and outstanding technology. Those people will constantly reinvigorate the product line, and keep the business healthy and vibrant. So, here's my advice. If you have a successful product, then make sure you retain the people who created that product, because they - not the product - are your most valuable asset.
Well, your argument was mostly a good one, but you blew it by including this point, which was totally aside to the main point you were making.
You're saying that because the U.S. government is mostly Christian that this is therefore a religous war? That's not a very strong argument. You could apply that principle to every war the U.S. ever fought.
You are extremely weak on this point, and going out of your way to defend it is only going to make you look unobjective. Bush has not said that the bible tells us we have to attack Iraq. Religion is *not* the motivation, not even close.
$1 to $2 for a hit song doesn't sound unreasonable, but I think the median cost per song is more likely to be something around $0.50, maybe even as low as $0.25. For $5 - $10 you should get the whole disc at full cd quality.
Additionally I think they will need to make all of their content previewable via free MP3 downloads (maybe at lower quality bit rates) with a contract that limits use to 1 week or so. No fancy watermarking, just the honor system, and yes it will be abused by some. They are never going to be able to get rid of file sharing anyway, so they may as well just face the fact now.
No sir, you are the one who is incorrect. Your fault is in assuming that free and stolen have the same meaning. Something stolen has no monetary cost (free), but not all things that are free are necessarily stolen.
If you are using copyrighted works beyond fair use rights then you are breaking the law. There may be no monetary cost, but there is a moral cost. And, no I won't engage you in a lengthy esoteric discussion of I.P.
Most people will be happy to pay a fair price for a legitimate copy of a work. People buy movies on tape and DVD and they buy music on tapes and CDs. Now why would anyone do that when they can just record the movie off the air, or record the song off the radio, or download the MP3, and do all of that for 'free'? The answer is that most people are in fact fair and reasonable souls. Thieves on the other hand will just take what they can get. There have always been and will always be thieves, the content industry just needs to deal with that fact and realize that those people will never be customers anyways. The trick is determing what most people consider a fair and reasonable price. And, now we're onto the issues of economy, scarcity of a product, supply/demand etc. I'm not an economist, so I'll leave that discussion for the more qualified.
"By "peer to peer" system he simply meant "yes, you will be able to hook up your computers and play together" and nothing else."
No that's not what it means at all. What it means is a fundamental change from a client server relationship to a peer to peer relationship. This is a major change. Although the original Doom used peer to peer networking, it wasn't scalable to the limits multi-player FPS gamers expect today, which would be an 8 to 16 player game at a minimum. If anyone can pull this off J.C. can, but I am still a little concerned that they are not making any hard claims beyond a 4 player game.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. Being a good programmer is not the same thing as being a good teammate.
If your project is a team project and I assume it is then you need to hire good teammates. That means someone that can do the work *and* someone who fits into the team culture. That doesn't mean they have to be carbon copy personalities, but it does mean that they need to get along with the people they work with.
I once made a horrible mistake in this regard. We interviewed this guy and he was technically smart, but his personality seemed oddly stoic. I thought he was just nervous because of the interview. Turns out he was just weird and not in a good way. He was a loner and lacking many common sense social skills. He just did not fit in, and try as I might I could figure no way to connect with this guy. Our boss had to micromanage him to get him to do anything. Needless to say, it was not a good situation. He was not a good teammate, and although very smart, he did not contribute to the team effort to the degree which was required.
My requirements for a new hire are that 1) They are smart enough to be trained to do their job in a reasonable amount of time and 2) They are someone I can relate to on a personal level. If I can't have a casual conversation with this person then I know that working together will necessarily be less efficient.
The most productive teams I've worked on are the ones where my teammates also became my friends. These groups are spontaneously organizing. We had informal offsite get togethers often, and no one person was the central organizer of this effort. Things just happened, and work was the same way, things just got done without the need for much management. We just worked together well, because we got along with each other well.
I would also advise against hiring someone just because they would make a good friend. They have to be able to do the work too.
My last piece of advice is, if you do find yourself in the situation where the group is high functioning and high performing, don't let upper management fsck it up. Unfortuantely one of my greatest success stories also became one of my greatest tragedies, because management couldn't let well enough alone. They destroyed the team and nearly destroyed the project. It is still limping along now, but it may not survive.
Not a bad idea. There should also be a central website for each voting district that lists all of the candidates and links to their webpages. From that central location you could also opt-in to the debate mailing list and others.
The limit is more economical in nature than technological. We can already make chips with features much smaller than 0.1um. We just can't manufacture them economically today. The cost for 0.1um processing becomes cheaper with time, and at some point it becomes economically viable. The same is true for any process, ie. 0.25um, 0.18um etc. They all get cheaper with time as technology advances.
What's important is the rate at which the cost declines versus the rate of improvement in chip performance. At some point the cost of making smaller chips outweighs the perfomance benefits the chips provide. At that point the industry will fail to uphold Moore's Law, and Moore's Law will buckle.
There are also fundamental limits at which quantum effects take over, but I am not an expert in that area.
Re:The Onion has the definitive article
on
Spam Doesn't Work?
·
· Score: 1
High end turbo molecular pumps are often magnetically levitated in order to reduce friction and vibration. The cost of these pumps is higher but they have better vibration characteristics. The downside is that they are more suceptible to damage from shock. If you bang a maglev pump around too much the spindle can touch down and then something very bad is likely to happen due to the large amount of stored energy in the rotor.
I'm not sure how the maglev systems work in these pumps, I believe that there are sensors and coils that control the position of the spindle.
The energy storage density in flywheel systems isn't very high unless A) the wheel is very heavy or B) the wheel spins very fast.
The problem with (A) is that heavy usually means big. The problems with (B) are that it has to be very, very well balanced and fast spinning wheels tend to rip themselves apart unless they are made very strong, so the top speed of the wheel is limited.
Current flywheel technology really doesn't provide enough storage density for anything other than a backup UPS system, delivering power only to critical systems for a short duration of time.
Its a nice clean energy storage system, but it still has a ways to go in terms of energy density.
"Yes, there are a number of spent fuel reprocessing options. Alas, they are all more expensive than the good 'ol stand in - bury it in the back yard."
More expensive is not the same as economically infeasible. Also your cost basis does not take into account environmental issues, which is the reason we continue to burn oil. Its cheaper to keep pumping the stuff out of the ground and burning it than it is to convert to cleaner power sources, but again the environmental impact is not taken into account.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing solves the bulk of the nuclear "waste" problem. (I put waste in quotes because its not really waste its just unused fuel.) Its just a matter of time until sanity sets in and people realize that nuclear energy is far cleaner than fossil fuels.
Its well known that the Chernobyl reactor was a poor design and that nearly a dozen safety interlocks were purposely defeated when the accident occured. TMI was nothing and the plant shutdown was purely political and motivated by hysteria.
It is much easier to contain nuclear waste than it is to contain emissions from burning fossil fuels, which are exausted into the atmosphere by the thousands of tons every day. As the original poster already mentioned, burning fossil fuels releases far more radiation into our air supply than nuclear plants. Every coal plant on the planet has a radiation leak. So why don't people go into hysterics about that?
Beta decay is when a neutron decays into a proton, releasing an electron and an anti-electron neutrino. I think there is more than one type of beta decay. Gamma emission is a high energy particle released during a nuclear decay. Beta decay releases low energy alpha particles.
Iron is at the peak of the binding energy curve making it the most stable element. Fission requires a heavy atom to split into 2 lighter atoms with more binding energy per nucleon than the original atom. The net gain in binding energy is equal to the energy released by the reaction. Since all atoms lighter than iron have less binding energy per nucleon, you cannot get energy from a fission reaction with any of these lighter atoms. I think you would have to put energy in to make those reactions occur.
Well the binding energy is equal to the nuclear mass deficit. hmmm... I think residual strong force is responsible for binding the nucleus together. But I'm not clear on how that force is related to the binding energy.
Well we might be farther ahead if we didn't spend those billions to develop better technology and then shut down the programs and shelf the technology. Look into the Integral Fast Reactor program. Here is a link but I'm not able get through to it at the moment. http://neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu/ifr.html
The research *has* paid off but due to intensive lobbying from the entrenched energy industry combined with hysteria promoted by uninformed enviromentalists, we're not using the improved technology. The nuclear waste problem is largely artificial. The waste could be reprocessed and used as fuel. The only real waste we would need to store would be irradiated equipment.
Re:Doom3 != Good OpenGl 2 Implementation
on
Doom3 and OpenGL2.0
·
· Score: 1
Vendors optimize their drivers for the software that they expect their customers to run. How is that bad? Why wouldn't they optimize for the most popular software? If it wasn't for Quake, there probably wouldn't be OpenGL support at all in a popular sense.
Not to mention that putting the word "God" on *money* has to be one of the most sacrilegious ideas of all time. Its bad from both perspectives so how the hell did it get there?
Its different because the resolution is not limited by the wavelength of the exposing light. Current optical lithography resolution is fundamentally limited by the wavelength of the light you use to make the exposure. You can get better resolution by using shorter wavelengths, but then you start getting into other problems because once you get to EUV wavelengths (extreme ultra violet and we're getting there soon) you are more or less talking about soft x-rays and then you've got mask problems because x-rays are hard to block, and optics problems because x-rays are hard to deflect and focus. I won't go into other issues related to shorter wavelengths because I'm not an expert, but there are several non-trivial issues that have potentially expensive solutions.
Imprint litho resolution is determined entirely by the physical geometry of the mask and is therefore not limited by the wavelength of the exposing light or the optics used to transfer that light.
I don't think I can explain it in greater detail without using diagrams so I'll sum it up as follows. Optical litho resolution is proportional to and limited by the wavelength of the light and the resolution of the mask. Imprint litho resolution is limited by the resolution of the mask but is not limited by the wavelength of the light.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying DRM won't stop the pirates, it only inconviences and takes away fair use rights from legitimate customers, *and* the record companies know this.
What we really need are laws to make that sort of thing illegal, instead of the laws that actually legalize it. The whole thing is backwards.
Same for me.
Home: Windows for games.
Work: Windows is corporate policy.
Although at work, I program entirely in Java.
And, at home, my laptop is a PowerBook.
#1 Your definition of 'copy' is clearly not the same one used in the article, which means your post itself is based on a 'flawed premise'. Analog copy != digital copy.
#2 Your analog copy method has many disadvantages compared to a digital copy, as already noted: lower quality copy with generational loss, 1x burn speed and a much less convenient setup.
#3 Have fun burning a mix cd using your method. Setup recorder, set levels, synchronize start play and start record, wait for end of song, stop record, repeat for each song, burn cd. As opposed to drag and drop, repeat for each cd, burn cd.
"That's what the current model does. A 10-track disc costs $10..."
No it will cost you $20, becauase you can only burn 10 tracks per month. $1 per track plus $10 per month. They also have a $5 per month service, but the previews are only 30 second clips.
You are correct sir. LoTR made over $860 million at the box office. Anyone think Mariah makes anywhere near that on a tour? No band does.
http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/
Dammit! I am so tired of reading peoples comments about what AI isn't. Its an easy game to play. If you want to add something useful to the conversation, perhaps you could define what AI is.
According to the site they started on August 1st, 2001. So far they have collected ~64,000 cds. At that rate it should take them around 20 years.
http://www.nomoreaolcds.com/
My comment about limited shelf life was about technology in general not specifically software. Even in terms of software, when I look at what is on my drive, it is mostly recent versions. Very little of it is more than a couple of years old. Except for some of my favorite old games. :)
Yep. The biggest problem I've come across in the corporate tech market is a lack of good leadership. They don't know how to form a team, let alone a good team. They don't know how to lead, or what good leadership is. They don't recognize the value in employee retention. They say they do, but its usually just rhetoric. This is not true everywhere, but IMO it is the standard modus operandi. The truth is reflected by the attrocious rates of attrition and turn over. Look at the average length of time a tech worker stays with a given company.
This was never more clear to me than when I was lucky enough to find myself under a good leader on an outstanding team. Only to watch as upper management stomped it all to pieces. Even when they have the good thing, they can't see it.
The reason employee retention is important in the tech market was obvious to me once I thought about it. My company thinks this business is about technology, but its not; its about the people who make the technology. I know that sounds corny but listen up. Technology has a very limited shelf life. What is gold today is rust tomorrow. An outstanding product today is obsolete in a couple of years. But a team of outstanding people can continually invent new and outstanding technology. Those people will constantly reinvigorate the product line, and keep the business healthy and vibrant. So, here's my advice. If you have a successful product, then make sure you retain the people who created that product, because they - not the product - are your most valuable asset.
Well, your argument was mostly a good one, but you blew it by including this point, which was totally aside to the main point you were making.
You're saying that because the U.S. government is mostly Christian that this is therefore a religous war? That's not a very strong argument. You could apply that principle to every war the U.S. ever fought.
You are extremely weak on this point, and going out of your way to defend it is only going to make you look unobjective. Bush has not said that the bible tells us we have to attack Iraq. Religion is *not* the motivation, not even close.
A couple of modifications.
$1 to $2 for a hit song doesn't sound unreasonable, but I think the median cost per song is more likely to be something around $0.50, maybe even as low as $0.25. For $5 - $10 you should get the whole disc at full cd quality.
Additionally I think they will need to make all of their content previewable via free MP3 downloads (maybe at lower quality bit rates) with a contract that limits use to 1 week or so. No fancy watermarking, just the honor system, and yes it will be abused by some. They are never going to be able to get rid of file sharing anyway, so they may as well just face the fact now.
No sir, you are the one who is incorrect. Your fault is in assuming that free and stolen have the same meaning. Something stolen has no monetary cost (free), but not all things that are free are necessarily stolen.
If you are using copyrighted works beyond fair use rights then you are breaking the law. There may be no monetary cost, but there is a moral cost. And, no I won't engage you in a lengthy esoteric discussion of I.P.
Most people will be happy to pay a fair price for a legitimate copy of a work. People buy movies on tape and DVD and they buy music on tapes and CDs. Now why would anyone do that when they can just record the movie off the air, or record the song off the radio, or download the MP3, and do all of that for 'free'? The answer is that most people are in fact fair and reasonable souls. Thieves on the other hand will just take what they can get. There have always been and will always be thieves, the content industry just needs to deal with that fact and realize that those people will never be customers anyways. The trick is determing what most people consider a fair and reasonable price. And, now we're onto the issues of economy, scarcity of a product, supply/demand etc. I'm not an economist, so I'll leave that discussion for the more qualified.
"By "peer to peer" system he simply meant "yes, you will be able to hook up your computers and play together" and nothing else."
No that's not what it means at all. What it means is a fundamental change from a client server relationship to a peer to peer relationship. This is a major change. Although the original Doom used peer to peer networking, it wasn't scalable to the limits multi-player FPS gamers expect today, which would be an 8 to 16 player game at a minimum. If anyone can pull this off J.C. can, but I am still a little concerned that they are not making any hard claims beyond a 4 player game.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. Being a good programmer is not the same thing as being a good teammate.
If your project is a team project and I assume it is then you need to hire good teammates. That means someone that can do the work *and* someone who fits into the team culture. That doesn't mean they have to be carbon copy personalities, but it does mean that they need to get along with the people they work with.
I once made a horrible mistake in this regard. We interviewed this guy and he was technically smart, but his personality seemed oddly stoic. I thought he was just nervous because of the interview. Turns out he was just weird and not in a good way. He was a loner and lacking many common sense social skills. He just did not fit in, and try as I might I could figure no way to connect with this guy. Our boss had to micromanage him to get him to do anything. Needless to say, it was not a good situation. He was not a good teammate, and although very smart, he did not contribute to the team effort to the degree which was required.
My requirements for a new hire are that 1) They are smart enough to be trained to do their job in a reasonable amount of time and 2) They are someone I can relate to on a personal level. If I can't have a casual conversation with this person then I know that working together will necessarily be less efficient.
The most productive teams I've worked on are the ones where my teammates also became my friends. These groups are spontaneously organizing. We had informal offsite get togethers often, and no one person was the central organizer of this effort. Things just happened, and work was the same way, things just got done without the need for much management. We just worked together well, because we got along with each other well.
I would also advise against hiring someone just because they would make a good friend. They have to be able to do the work too.
My last piece of advice is, if you do find yourself in the situation where the group is high functioning and high performing, don't let upper management fsck it up. Unfortuantely one of my greatest success stories also became one of my greatest tragedies, because management couldn't let well enough alone. They destroyed the team and nearly destroyed the project. It is still limping along now, but it may not survive.
Not a bad idea. There should also be a central website for each voting district that lists all of the candidates and links to their webpages. From that central location you could also opt-in to the debate mailing list and others.
The limit is more economical in nature than technological. We can already make chips with features much smaller than 0.1um. We just can't manufacture them economically today. The cost for 0.1um processing becomes cheaper with time, and at some point it becomes economically viable. The same is true for any process, ie. 0.25um, 0.18um etc. They all get cheaper with time as technology advances.
What's important is the rate at which the cost declines versus the rate of improvement in chip performance. At some point the cost of making smaller chips outweighs the perfomance benefits the chips provide. At that point the industry will fail to uphold Moore's Law, and Moore's Law will buckle.
There are also fundamental limits at which quantum effects take over, but I am not an expert in that area.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3825/anti-spam_legisl ation.html
High end turbo molecular pumps are often magnetically levitated in order to reduce friction and vibration. The cost of these pumps is higher but they have better vibration characteristics. The downside is that they are more suceptible to damage from shock. If you bang a maglev pump around too much the spindle can touch down and then something very bad is likely to happen due to the large amount of stored energy in the rotor.
I'm not sure how the maglev systems work in these pumps, I believe that there are sensors and coils that control the position of the spindle.
The energy storage density in flywheel systems isn't very high unless A) the wheel is very heavy or B) the wheel spins very fast.
The problem with (A) is that heavy usually means big. The problems with (B) are that it has to be very, very well balanced and fast spinning wheels tend to rip themselves apart unless they are made very strong, so the top speed of the wheel is limited.
Current flywheel technology really doesn't provide enough storage density for anything other than a backup UPS system, delivering power only to critical systems for a short duration of time.
Its a nice clean energy storage system, but it still has a ways to go in terms of energy density.
"Yes, there are a number of spent fuel reprocessing options. Alas, they are all more expensive than the good 'ol stand in - bury it in the back yard."
More expensive is not the same as economically infeasible. Also your cost basis does not take into account environmental issues, which is the reason we continue to burn oil. Its cheaper to keep pumping the stuff out of the ground and burning it than it is to convert to cleaner power sources, but again the environmental impact is not taken into account.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing solves the bulk of the nuclear "waste" problem. (I put waste in quotes because its not really waste its just unused fuel.) Its just a matter of time until sanity sets in and people realize that nuclear energy is far cleaner than fossil fuels.
Its well known that the Chernobyl reactor was a poor design and that nearly a dozen safety interlocks were purposely defeated when the accident occured. TMI was nothing and the plant shutdown was purely political and motivated by hysteria.
It is much easier to contain nuclear waste than it is to contain emissions from burning fossil fuels, which are exausted into the atmosphere by the thousands of tons every day. As the original poster already mentioned, burning fossil fuels releases far more radiation into our air supply than nuclear plants. Every coal plant on the planet has a radiation leak. So why don't people go into hysterics about that?
I'll take a stab, just for kicks.
Beta decay is when a neutron decays into a proton, releasing an electron and an anti-electron neutrino. I think there is more than one type of beta decay. Gamma emission is a high energy particle released during a nuclear decay. Beta decay releases low energy alpha particles.
Iron is at the peak of the binding energy curve making it the most stable element. Fission requires a heavy atom to split into 2 lighter atoms with more binding energy per nucleon than the original atom. The net gain in binding energy is equal to the energy released by the reaction. Since all atoms lighter than iron have less binding energy per nucleon, you cannot get energy from a fission reaction with any of these lighter atoms. I think you would have to put energy in to make those reactions occur.
Well the binding energy is equal to the nuclear mass deficit. hmmm... I think residual strong force is responsible for binding the nucleus together. But I'm not clear on how that force is related to the binding energy.
IANA-Physicist.
Well we might be farther ahead if we didn't spend those billions to develop better technology and then shut down the programs and shelf the technology. Look into the Integral Fast Reactor program. Here is a link but I'm not able get through to it at the moment. http://neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu/ifr.html
The research *has* paid off but due to intensive lobbying from the entrenched energy industry combined with hysteria promoted by uninformed enviromentalists, we're not using the improved technology. The nuclear waste problem is largely artificial. The waste could be reprocessed and used as fuel. The only real waste we would need to store would be irradiated equipment.
Vendors optimize their drivers for the software that they expect their customers to run. How is that bad? Why wouldn't they optimize for the most popular software? If it wasn't for Quake, there probably wouldn't be OpenGL support at all in a popular sense.
Not to mention that putting the word "God" on *money* has to be one of the most sacrilegious ideas of all time. Its bad from both perspectives so how the hell did it get there?
Its different because the resolution is not limited by the wavelength of the exposing light. Current optical lithography resolution is fundamentally limited by the wavelength of the light you use to make the exposure. You can get better resolution by using shorter wavelengths, but then you start getting into other problems because once you get to EUV wavelengths (extreme ultra violet and we're getting there soon) you are more or less talking about soft x-rays and then you've got mask problems because x-rays are hard to block, and optics problems because x-rays are hard to deflect and focus. I won't go into other issues related to shorter wavelengths because I'm not an expert, but there are several non-trivial issues that have potentially expensive solutions.
Imprint litho resolution is determined entirely by the physical geometry of the mask and is therefore not limited by the wavelength of the exposing light or the optics used to transfer that light.
I don't think I can explain it in greater detail without using diagrams so I'll sum it up as follows. Optical litho resolution is proportional to and limited by the wavelength of the light and the resolution of the mask. Imprint litho resolution is limited by the resolution of the mask but is not limited by the wavelength of the light.