Re:Authors implies diamond theft reasonable respon
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
I have no problem with people downloading legal music, and its effect on the RIAA. The author, however, believes people have the right to copy music to avoid paying for cds, and likens it to buying a man-made diamond instead of a deBeers diamond. My point is that if he wants a better analogy, he should tell people to knock off jewelry stores if they think diamonds are unfairly priced.
Re:Authors implies diamond theft reasonable respon
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
My point is that knocking off a jewelry store is a closer analogy to downloading copyright songs than manufacturing diamonds. Yes theft is not the same as copyright infringement, but both serve to lower the value of the owner's assets, so copyright infringement can be even more harmful than theft. By endorsing copyright infringement, he might as well tell people to steal diamonds, if he's going to use that analogy.
logic circuits don't like trinery and beyond
on
Beyond Binary Computing?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Most logic circuits, from an analog perspective, are amplifiers. Rather than operating in the linear region, however, these amplifiers, are overdriven to force the output to rail at one extreme or the other , producing a high or low voltage level (0 or 1). CMOS works particularly well iunder these conditions because, in steady state, only a small leaskage current flows through the circuit when it's railed. As the author indicates, you can design logic by comparing a voltage to a fixed threshold, such as in ECL, CML, SCFL, etc., but these circuits are based on differential amplifiers, which typically burn significant current at all times. Not to mention that it's difficult to imagine a circuit which can generate more than to voltage values that does not use significant current at all times. Therefore, it seems the price of non-binary logic in most cases is increased power, which is not a trade-off anyone's willing to make (Flash RAM is an exception because of it's unique nature).
Exactly. It's really a circuit problem, not a device problem, as the author implies. The author thinks SiGe HBT's will be the miracle device to create multivalue logic. Most high performance bipolar logic is done using ECL/CML type circuits. These circuits can easily be adapted to handle multivalue input levels, which I believe is what the author eluded to. However, these circuits require continuous current to operate, which means very high power. CMOS, on the other hand, assuming a small leakage, only burns significant power during logic transistions. Also bipolar devices are bigger than MOS devices. SiGe HBTs are not the answer for digital logic.
Authors implies diamond theft reasonable response
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
By claiming that it is ok to use p2p technology as an alternative to buying cds or music online through legitimate sources, using the authors own analogy, he's implying that it's ok to steal diamonds from DeBeers because you think the price is too high. That's a more accurate analogy than the one he actually makes, anyway. A manufactured diamond is a legitimate competitive product. Copying a song because you don't want to pay for it, but still want it, unfairly lowers the value of the owners product, which is no better than theft of the product outright.
" If it is your own network and you aren't the government, you can block whatever messages you want."
One would think this would be true. However, in the US, there are a number of silly anti-competitive laws that limit your freedom to run your business the way you see fit. All C I Host has to do is claim AOL is trying to put them out of business by refusing to receive their e-mail, and next thing you know, their in court for anti-competitve practices.
Basically this guy is saying that the variance of transistor parameters will increase in the futute, so more attention must be paid to circuit design to avoid producing a lot of chip that perform poorly. People already use monte carlo sims to determine the effects of process variation in analog designs, and to bound digital design performance. Digital circuit designers must look at new ways to overcome the issue of transistor performance variations, rather than accepting them as inevitable is the message, I believe.
Sure Windows has bugs that lend themselves to security problems. But nowheere in the article does he prove that Windows is more insecure than Linux or MacOS. All he can claim is that the default settings on Windows aren't the best choices for security, and that Red Hat and MacOS do a better job. I'd call relying on default settings user error, not a problem with the Windows code itself. You might as well say Solaris is insecure by design since (with Solaris 8 anyway), the default install runs sendmail, allowing spam relaying and leaves the telnet and ftp ports open, which can result in stolen passwords.
I don't think the people calling this meeting are interested in GPL. They want to discuss relaxing IP rights in developing countries. No IP rights means no GPL, since GPL relies on copyright, which is a form of IP. Basially, their goal is not to promote GPL, but public domain software in deveopling countries.
ATM machines should be used for voting. If the network is secure enough to prevent people from stealing money from the machines, it's probably secure enough to prevent voter fraud. The govt. just needs to issue an electronic card to each registered voter. Plus you get extra voter turnout from people who needed money that day.
To expand on my comment, weakening IP rights in developing countries is not good for OSS. Basically it turns a GPL license into public domain software. Don't expect to be able to enforce GPL in countries that don't respect IP.
from the article: "Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems."
From this statement, the agenda of this meeting is more than just OSS considerations, but an erosion of IP rights, which is contrary to WIPO's interests, so why should they host it?
from the article: "Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems." and "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO,"
You missed the main point it seems. They are NOT interested in hosting discussions that involve eroding of intellectual property rights.
With less rules, there would be more incentive for more companies to get involved, and then there would be a free market for power, so the possibility of gouging would go away. Under regulation, you're at the mercy of the govt., which means low to no profit. Not worth the risk.
"California went through rolling blackouts that were largely due to a poorly-executed deregulation of that state's power industry. "
The CA power crisis was a direct result of the failure to build a single power plant in CA for the last 15 years. The fact that the state was playing around with a half-assed form of deregulation in which the price to the consumer was still regulated is a coincidence. The fact is, CA wasn't able to supply enough power for itself, so was forced to by power on the open market.
The first link describes an utterly stupid defense by SCO, if it's true. The backup copy rule is an exception to exclusive copyright by the copyright holder, meant to protect the consumer. If the copyright holder wishes to grant you more rights to copy their stuff, this law shouldn't be able to prevent that, unless the law was very poorly written. Obviously the intent of the law was to protect consumers, not restrict their ability to copy even if the producer allows them to copy.
The last posted link has an interesting fact I haven't seen before. Apparently, part of IBM's agreement with SCO allows them to create and distribute derivative works as long as they write the code themselves. So, assuming IBM didn't actually copy SCO code, and assuming this information is true, SCO's case against IBM is looking pretty bad. This doesn't get linux completely off the hook, however, if the linux code violates SCO's copyright.
" Sun doesn't mind because their revenue doesn't necessarily come from Solaris, it comes from servers and support contracts. Whether they slap Solaris on a box or Linux, won't matter as long as they are still the ones supplying the hardware with redundant power supplies, "
Sun should be worried since they use the Apple business strategy of using software to lock you into buy their hardware. Once a client no longer needs Solaris, they no longer need Sun's overpriced, underperforming hardware.
I think you're putting the horse before the cart. The 1st thing you need, as several people have already mentioned is a noise source whose statistcal characteristics are understood. A good source might be resistor noise, shot noise, noise during avalanche breakdown, etc. That, along with the appropriate amplification and a a/d converter on a motherboard are needed first. Once you get the motherboard manufacturers on-board with this idea, then the software to open source software to generate random numbers is trivial.
"Bleah. I realize this question is for her, but I've always hated this question. It's either slanted or ignorant. The simple truth is that $5,000 for someone who makes 200k just isn't worth as much to someone who makes 20k. The wealthiest SHOULD pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the truth is that in many cases they actually DON'T."
What gives you the right to keep your money just because you claim to need it more. That's the basis for the current tax system. The government has decided what people should want and need. People are rewarded by the govt. for having children, buying a house, etc. and penalized for making more money. The declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our tax system takes away the latter two. It says you are a slave if you make money to those who do not make as much money, since taxing you more and them less is the same as giving your money to them. Our tax system makes a mockery of the pursuit of happiness by trying to define what happiness is and rewarding you accordingly. Money has objective value. You have no right to tell someone that a particular some of money is worth less to him because he has more, and that he must give it to you because you have less. Such experiments have been tried by countries such as the USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. There are real cosequences beyond morality for embracing such ideas.
"First of all, I can see why someone might naively associate income with level of productivity but this, simply, isn't true. (In all fairness I'll admit that I could be wrong but I'd like to see either a scientific study or some sort of economic principle justifying this)..."
Money is a respesentation of work. Think of it as a container for storing your work until you need it to barter. The amount of money someone gives you for a product or service is their estimate of what this product or service is worth relative to their time spent working at their occupation. Therefore, there is a definite correlation between productivity and income. Your income is what others estimate your work is worth in terms of their work. This is the best measure available of productivity, since to give value to someone elses work in this manner, you must give of your own work. This is what trade is all about. The only reason money exists is that it's really annoying if you want a loaf of bread, but the baker doesn't particularly want a bike, for instance, if you assemble bikes. Of course consumption keeps the ecomomy going. If there was no wants or needs, there would be no reason to be productive. Most people don't get rich from the stock market or by banking money. Those are ways to keep your money from losing value due to inflation, and make modest gains, on average. People get rich from finding a need, and developing a business that produces that product and sells it. Look at Ford and Carnegie as examples. These people make the world go around. Their inventions and ideas have brought us from hunter and gatherer tribal societies to modern societies where people specialize in their work and trade freely to obtain their needs and wants without having to directly work to obtain them. It takes a great deal of talent in many different fields to make a business come together, and the leaders who make it happen should not be punished by govt. for being successful, they should be rewarded. I simply submit that we treat them fairly since we owe our jobs and way of life in general to these people. Yes, everyone works hard for their money, but that doesn't mean everyone's work is equally valuable. If I decide to dig a hole in my backyard, it requires a fair amount of work, but since no one is interested in a hole in my back yard, that wouldn't be very productive work. You can't just say everyone's work is equal and use govt as a tool to even out the wealth. Doing so removes the incentive to be productive and place your energies in other areas that you will be rewarded for.
I would use the SCO case as a litmus test for the GPL. The GPL's legal basis is in copyright. The GPL itself forbids anyone to submit code for which they do not own the copyright. If SCO's claim is true, the code in question should not be under GPL, by GPL's own standard. Therefore, even if SCO wins, it doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the GPL. It simply means that you can't always take someone's word at face value when you enter into a contract with him, which is a problem for any sort of contract, not just GPL.
If you're working for a CLEC and placing your job security on the promise that the govt. will keep its guns pointed at the people who own the phone networks and demand they lease their network at whatever the govt. decides is a "Fair rate", then you shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along who thinks the govt. is overstepping their bounds.
" If you win, there will be a recall every year from now on, as the Demos won't take this lying down. Are you prepared to spend all your time fighting recalls instead of running the state?"
Yes, Willie Brown is threatening to start a recall of his own IMMEDIATELY if a repulican wins
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with people downloading legal music, and its effect on the RIAA. The author, however, believes people have the right to copy music to avoid paying for cds, and likens it to buying a man-made diamond instead of a deBeers diamond. My point is that if he wants a better analogy, he should tell people to knock off jewelry stores if they think diamonds are unfairly priced.
My point is that knocking off a jewelry store is a closer analogy to downloading copyright songs than manufacturing diamonds. Yes theft is not the same as copyright infringement, but both serve to lower the value of the owner's assets, so copyright infringement can be even more harmful than theft. By endorsing copyright infringement, he might as well tell people to steal diamonds, if he's going to use that analogy.
Most logic circuits, from an analog perspective, are amplifiers. Rather than operating in the linear region, however, these amplifiers, are overdriven to force the output to rail at one extreme or the other , producing a high or low voltage level (0 or 1). CMOS works particularly well iunder these conditions because, in steady state, only a small leaskage current flows through the circuit when it's railed. As the author indicates, you can design logic by comparing a voltage to a fixed threshold, such as in ECL, CML, SCFL, etc., but these circuits are based on differential amplifiers, which typically burn significant current at all times. Not to mention that it's difficult to imagine a circuit which can generate more than to voltage values that does not use significant current at all times. Therefore, it seems the price of non-binary logic in most cases is increased power, which is not a trade-off anyone's willing to make (Flash RAM is an exception because of it's unique nature).
Exactly. It's really a circuit problem, not a device problem, as the author implies. The author thinks SiGe HBT's will be the miracle device to create multivalue logic. Most high performance bipolar logic is done using ECL/CML type circuits. These circuits can easily be adapted to handle multivalue input levels, which I believe is what the author eluded to. However, these circuits require continuous current to operate, which means very high power. CMOS, on the other hand, assuming a small leakage, only burns significant power during logic transistions. Also bipolar devices are bigger than MOS devices. SiGe HBTs are not the answer for digital logic.
By claiming that it is ok to use p2p technology as an alternative to buying cds or music online through legitimate sources, using the authors own analogy, he's implying that it's ok to steal diamonds from DeBeers because you think the price is too high. That's a more accurate analogy than the one he actually makes, anyway. A manufactured diamond is a legitimate competitive product. Copying a song because you don't want to pay for it, but still want it, unfairly lowers the value of the owners product, which is no better than theft of the product outright.
" If it is your own network and you aren't the government, you can block whatever messages you want."
One would think this would be true. However, in the US, there are a number of silly anti-competitive laws that limit your freedom to run your business the way you see fit. All C I Host has to do is claim AOL is trying to put them out of business by refusing to receive their e-mail, and next thing you know, their in court for anti-competitve practices.
Basically this guy is saying that the variance of transistor parameters will increase in the futute, so more attention must be paid to circuit design to avoid producing a lot of chip that perform poorly. People already use monte carlo sims to determine the effects of process variation in analog designs, and to bound digital design performance. Digital circuit designers must look at new ways to overcome the issue of transistor performance variations, rather than accepting them as inevitable is the message, I believe.
Sure Windows has bugs that lend themselves to security problems. But nowheere in the article does he prove that Windows is more insecure than Linux or MacOS. All he can claim is that the default settings on Windows aren't the best choices for security, and that Red Hat and MacOS do a better job. I'd call relying on default settings user error, not a problem with the Windows code itself. You might as well say Solaris is insecure by design since (with Solaris 8 anyway), the default install runs sendmail, allowing spam relaying and leaves the telnet and ftp ports open, which can result in stolen passwords.
Does the Star Trek tricorder count as prior art? E-pass's vaporware is just as fictional.
I don't think the people calling this meeting are interested in GPL. They want to discuss relaxing IP rights in developing countries. No IP rights means no GPL, since GPL relies on copyright, which is a form of IP. Basially, their goal is not to promote GPL, but public domain software in deveopling countries.
ATM machines should be used for voting. If the network is secure enough to prevent people from stealing money from the machines, it's probably secure enough to prevent voter fraud. The govt. just needs to issue an electronic card to each registered voter. Plus you get extra voter turnout from people who needed money that day.
To expand on my comment, weakening IP rights in developing countries is not good for OSS. Basically it turns a GPL license into public domain software. Don't expect to be able to enforce GPL in countries that don't respect IP.
from the article: "Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems."
From this statement, the agenda of this meeting is more than just OSS considerations, but an erosion of IP rights, which is contrary to WIPO's interests, so why should they host it?
from the article: "Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems." and "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO,"
You missed the main point it seems. They are NOT interested in hosting discussions that involve eroding of intellectual property rights.
With less rules, there would be more incentive for more companies to get involved, and then there would be a free market for power, so the possibility of gouging would go away. Under regulation, you're at the mercy of the govt., which means low to no profit. Not worth the risk.
"California went through rolling blackouts that were largely due to a poorly-executed deregulation of that state's power industry. "
The CA power crisis was a direct result of the failure to build a single power plant in CA for the last 15 years. The fact that the state was playing around with a half-assed form of deregulation in which the price to the consumer was still regulated is a coincidence. The fact is, CA wasn't able to supply enough power for itself, so was forced to by power on the open market.
The first link describes an utterly stupid defense by SCO, if it's true. The backup copy rule is an exception to exclusive copyright by the copyright holder, meant to protect the consumer. If the copyright holder wishes to grant you more rights to copy their stuff, this law shouldn't be able to prevent that, unless the law was very poorly written. Obviously the intent of the law was to protect consumers, not restrict their ability to copy even if the producer allows them to copy.
The last posted link has an interesting fact I haven't seen before. Apparently, part of IBM's agreement with SCO allows them to create and distribute derivative works as long as they write the code themselves. So, assuming IBM didn't actually copy SCO code, and assuming this information is true, SCO's case against IBM is looking pretty bad. This doesn't get linux completely off the hook, however, if the linux code violates SCO's copyright.
" Sun doesn't mind because their revenue doesn't necessarily come from Solaris, it comes from servers and support contracts. Whether they slap Solaris on a box or Linux, won't matter as long as they are still the ones supplying the hardware with redundant power supplies, "
Sun should be worried since they use the Apple business strategy of using software to lock you into buy their hardware. Once a client no longer needs Solaris, they no longer need Sun's overpriced, underperforming hardware.
I think you're putting the horse before the cart. The 1st thing you need, as several people have already mentioned is a noise source whose statistcal characteristics are understood. A good source might be resistor noise, shot noise, noise during avalanche breakdown, etc. That, along with the appropriate amplification and a a/d converter on a motherboard are needed first. Once you get the motherboard manufacturers on-board with this idea, then the software to open source software to generate random numbers is trivial.
"Bleah. I realize this question is for her, but I've always hated this question. It's either slanted or ignorant. The simple truth is that $5,000 for someone who makes 200k just isn't worth as much to someone who makes 20k. The wealthiest SHOULD pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the truth is that in many cases they actually DON'T."
What gives you the right to keep your money just because you claim to need it more. That's the basis for the current tax system. The government has decided what people should want and need. People are rewarded by the govt. for having children, buying a house, etc. and penalized for making more money. The declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our tax system takes away the latter two. It says you are a slave if you make money to those who do not make as much money, since taxing you more and them less is the same as giving your money to them. Our tax system makes a mockery of the pursuit of happiness by trying to define what happiness is and rewarding you accordingly. Money has objective value. You have no right to tell someone that a particular some of money is worth less to him because he has more, and that he must give it to you because you have less. Such experiments have been tried by countries such as the USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. There are real cosequences beyond morality for embracing such ideas.
"First of all, I can see why someone might naively associate income with level of productivity but this, simply, isn't true. (In all fairness I'll admit that I could be wrong but I'd like to see either a scientific study or some sort of economic principle justifying this)..."
Money is a respesentation of work. Think of it as a container for storing your work until you need it to barter. The amount of money someone gives you for a product or service is their estimate of what this product or service is worth relative to their time spent working at their occupation. Therefore, there is a definite correlation between productivity and income. Your income is what others estimate your work is worth in terms of their work. This is the best measure available of productivity, since to give value to someone elses work in this manner, you must give of your own work. This is what trade is all about. The only reason money exists is that it's really annoying if you want a loaf of bread, but the baker doesn't particularly want a bike, for instance, if you assemble bikes. Of course consumption keeps the ecomomy going. If there was no wants or needs, there would be no reason to be productive. Most people don't get rich from the stock market or by banking money. Those are ways to keep your money from losing value due to inflation, and make modest gains, on average. People get rich from finding a need, and developing a business that produces that product and sells it. Look at Ford and Carnegie as examples. These people make the world go around. Their inventions and ideas have brought us from hunter and gatherer tribal societies to modern societies where people specialize in their work and trade freely to obtain their needs and wants without having to directly work to obtain them. It takes a great deal of talent in many different fields to make a business come together, and the leaders who make it happen should not be punished by govt. for being successful, they should be rewarded. I simply submit that we treat them fairly since we owe our jobs and way of life in general to these people. Yes, everyone works hard for their money, but that doesn't mean everyone's work is equally valuable. If I decide to dig a hole in my backyard, it requires a fair amount of work, but since no one is interested in a hole in my back yard, that wouldn't be very productive work. You can't just say everyone's work is equal and use govt as a tool to even out the wealth. Doing so removes the incentive to be productive and place your energies in other areas that you will be rewarded for.
" Oh come on, you're not seriously advocating that you should pay the same amount of tax as Bill Gates are you?"
No, but the same percentage. We should have a flat tax.
I would use the SCO case as a litmus test for the GPL. The GPL's legal basis is in copyright. The GPL itself forbids anyone to submit code for which they do not own the copyright. If SCO's claim is true, the code in question should not be under GPL, by GPL's own standard. Therefore, even if SCO wins, it doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the GPL. It simply means that you can't always take someone's word at face value when you enter into a contract with him, which is a problem for any sort of contract, not just GPL.
If you're working for a CLEC and placing your job security on the promise that the govt. will keep its guns pointed at the people who own the phone networks and demand they lease their network at whatever the govt. decides is a "Fair rate", then you shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along who thinks the govt. is overstepping their bounds.
" If you win, there will be a recall every year from now on, as the Demos won't take this lying down. Are you prepared to spend all your time fighting recalls instead of running the state?"
Yes, Willie Brown is threatening to start a recall of his own IMMEDIATELY if a repulican wins