Royce McCutcheon: "That's the miracle of the franchise. You get all the equipment and know-how you need, plus a familiar brand-name people trust. You'll be on a rocket-ride to the moon! And while you're there, would you pick up some of that nice, green moon money for me Royce McCutcheon!" Homer: "No deal, McCutcheon that moon money is mine!"
I think you have this backwards. If anything, Google's share price should be depressed relative to its less opaque peers because investors are unable to accurately gauge the risk of investing in Google, which constitutes an investment "cost." Although Google's share price may be inflated because of the hype surrounding the company I think this is relatively independent of its secrecy. Even if Google was more transparent it would still be hyped (and no company divulges everything it's doing or planning to do).
Depends on your definition of complexity. Go is a more complex AI problem (because of the larger search space), but has a less complex rule set than chess.
IANAL, but most states now have statutes allowing corporate philanthropy.
For instance in Delaware, 8 Del. C. s.122(9) states that corporations may "make donations for the public welfare or for charitable, scientific or educational purposes, and in time of war or other national emergency in aid thereof." Most such statutes do not incorporate explicit limits, although they are often implied. Namely, donations should be reasonable, bear reasonable relation to corporation's interest, and should not be remote or fanciful. Although direct corporate benefit is not necessary, corporate interest has to be a motive.
As for cases, A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953) is often cited in corporate law classes as an example where a corporation was sued by its shareholders for making a corporate donation (in this case to Princeton University). The Supreme Court of N.J. held this to be okay because "modern conditions" required that corporations discharge social as well as private duties, including contributing corporate funds "within reasonable limits" in support of academic institutions.
From Fortune magazine: "One of 3M's crazy-like-a-fox traits is famous - the '15% rule' that tells researchers to spend that much of their time working on something other than their primary project."
The significant difference is that Google extends this policy to all of its developers. Since developers form a greater proportion of Google's worforce than do researchers at 3M, Google is making a much greater investment in personal projects. It will be interesting to see whether Google can maintain this policy as it gets larger, or whether it will eventually start using the separate "lab" model, like IBM and HP.
The right to make personal copies of television programming is a grey area in U.S. copyright law. Only a few personal copying uses have been explicitly recognized by the courts ("time shifting" and "space shifting" for example). Making copies for "archiving" purposes is very borderline, at least by 1984 standards.
That said, it seems likely that sharing copies among family and close friends would be considered legal (because courts in the U.S. are often but not invariably wary of interfering with what people do in a home setting). Uploading to a P2P system is, of course, a different matter.
It seems like your reasonable expectation of privacy is to be seen by other local people (and possibly photographed by odd CCTVs or tourists), but not to have your picture entered into a public internet database. I don't think this is necessarily a serious invasion of privacy, but you have to draw some distinctions.
Could this be pursued under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause? The biggest obstacle seems to be that the government only regulates one possible use for the DVD as opposed to limiting all possible uses.
It is fairly inarguable that free-trade and market pricing (w/ its theories of comparative advantage, etc) are more efficient than regulated economies.
Putting aside (possibly legitimate) concerns about uneven playing fields due to foreign industry subsidies, manipulative monetary policies, and import tariffs, the real effect that free trade has is distributional. There are always winners and losers, and in this case the American winners are capital owners (stockholders, etc.) and the losers are people employed in the IT industry.
You really have to integrate the protectionist arguments many IT employees make with a broader concern for fair distribution of society's revenues if they are to be more than just arguments for your particular narrow interests.
Where do computer scientists (people with CS degrees) fit into this debate? Many computer scientists' primary occupation involves developing and quantitatively analyzing algorithms. As such, these people do not necessarily deal with the construction of any particular functional systems, per se. Could they therefore be labeled engineers by virtue of the nature of their work?
I would say yes, since this fundamentally mathematical endeavor is akin to an engineer's derivation of equations describing the behavior of real-world systems. The discipline of engineering lies not only in the actual design and construction of things/systems, but also the development of mathematical rules that unequivocally define the behavior of such systems.
There is an excellent article on the 1GHz C3 at Tom's Hardware. Apparently it dissipates a maximum 12W of heat. That is pretty phenomenal. Anyone know how that compares to the G3?
The article claims that social and professional hierarchies are benign as long as they are based on some "natural measure of performance."
IE, "When there is some real external test of skill, it isn't painful to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. A rookie on a football team doesn't resent the skill of the veteran.... And the veteran in turn will be kindly disposed to the rookie."
This is an incredibly simple-minded view since jealousy of others' abilities and achievements can just as easily lead to petty sniping and bullying. The reason that such behavior is less prevalent in adult life has to do with the circumspection and temperance that comes with age, and not because adult hierarchies are somehow more wholesome.
That is assuming that the consumer has perfect pricing information, which he or she certainly does not in this case. See Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz for this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.
According to your link it actually does "beg the question," even if it does not conform to its original use in the 16th century.
------- Many people unaware of the technical meaning of "to beg the question" in logic use it in one of two looser senses.... The second, "to invite the obvious question, (with an inanimate subject) to raise the question", is now the most commonly heard use of the phrase, although we have found no mention of it prior to The Oxford Guide to English Usage, 1st edition (1983), and it is not yet in most dictionaries. -----
You can view Stefan Savage (one of the paper's co-authors) giving a lecture on his findings at http://stanford-online.stanford.edu. The lecture is only about 50 minutes. Click on "View Free Seminars" and then on the link for "CS548 Internet and Distributed Systems Research Seminar". The lecture is from May 16th.
Sorry, the only format is streaming Windows Media.
This actually varies between different universities. It is common for universities to cede the copyright to undergraduates for their work, while retaining more control over the work done by graduate students and professors.
There is some merit to a university's claim that it should share in the profits from work that may, in part, be funded and facilitated by its capital and resources.
You're right that it is not reasonable for the University to claim copyright for work you do as a tuition paying undergrad. You should check what your school's policy on this is.
Who says that Compaq doesn't research or innovate? This is the what has kept Alpha architecture out in front of SUN, IBM, HP, Intel, and MIPS. Of course, there are doubts to how much longer they can keep it up. Dropping NT support doesn't seem like a positive sign. (Well not for SGI at any rate.)
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory Simpsons quote:
Royce McCutcheon: "That's the miracle of the franchise. You get all the equipment and know-how you need, plus a familiar brand-name people trust. You'll be on a rocket-ride to the moon! And while you're there, would you pick up some of that nice, green moon money for me Royce McCutcheon!"
Homer: "No deal, McCutcheon that moon money is mine!"
I think you have this backwards. If anything, Google's share price should be depressed relative to its less opaque peers because investors are unable to accurately gauge the risk of investing in Google, which constitutes an investment "cost." Although Google's share price may be inflated because of the hype surrounding the company I think this is relatively independent of its secrecy. Even if Google was more transparent it would still be hyped (and no company divulges everything it's doing or planning to do).
The fight has now "brewed" (couldn't resist) into the mainstream press at BusinessWeek.
The author means "percolated," right? "Brewed into the mainstream press" makes absolutely no sense.
Depends on your definition of complexity. Go is a more complex AI problem (because of the larger search space), but has a less complex rule set than chess.
For instance in Delaware, 8 Del. C. s.122(9) states that corporations may "make donations for the public welfare or for charitable, scientific or educational purposes, and in time of war or other national emergency in aid thereof." Most such statutes do not incorporate explicit limits, although they are often implied. Namely, donations should be reasonable, bear reasonable relation to corporation's interest, and should not be remote or fanciful. Although direct corporate benefit is not necessary, corporate interest has to be a motive.
As for cases, A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953) is often cited in corporate law classes as an example where a corporation was sued by its shareholders for making a corporate donation (in this case to Princeton University). The Supreme Court of N.J. held this to be okay because "modern conditions" required that corporations discharge social as well as private duties, including contributing corporate funds "within reasonable limits" in support of academic institutions.
From Fortune magazine: "One of 3M's crazy-like-a-fox traits is famous - the '15% rule' that tells researchers to spend that much of their time working on something other than their primary project."
The significant difference is that Google extends this policy to all of its developers. Since developers form a greater proportion of Google's worforce than do researchers at 3M, Google is making a much greater investment in personal projects. It will be interesting to see whether Google can maintain this policy as it gets larger, or whether it will eventually start using the separate "lab" model, like IBM and HP.
The right to make personal copies of television programming is a grey area in U.S. copyright law. Only a few personal copying uses have been explicitly recognized by the courts ("time shifting" and "space shifting" for example). Making copies for "archiving" purposes is very borderline, at least by 1984 standards.
That said, it seems likely that sharing copies among family and close friends would be considered legal (because courts in the U.S. are often but not invariably wary of interfering with what people do in a home setting). Uploading to a P2P system is, of course, a different matter.
It seems like your reasonable expectation of privacy is to be seen by other local people (and possibly photographed by odd CCTVs or tourists), but not to have your picture entered into a public internet database.
I don't think this is necessarily a serious invasion of privacy, but you have to draw some distinctions.
Could this be pursued under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause? The biggest obstacle seems to be that the government only regulates one possible use for the DVD as opposed to limiting all possible uses.
See Takings Clause analysis and flowchart at http://faculty.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl2/takings4.htm
Putting aside (possibly legitimate) concerns about uneven playing fields due to foreign industry subsidies, manipulative monetary policies, and import tariffs, the real effect that free trade has is distributional. There are always winners and losers, and in this case the American winners are capital owners (stockholders, etc.) and the losers are people employed in the IT industry.
You really have to integrate the protectionist arguments many IT employees make with a broader concern for fair distribution of society's revenues if they are to be more than just arguments for your particular narrow interests.
I would say yes, since this fundamentally mathematical endeavor is akin to an engineer's derivation of equations describing the behavior of real-world systems. The discipline of engineering lies not only in the actual design and construction of things/systems, but also the development of mathematical rules that unequivocally define the behavior of such systems.
There is an excellent article on the 1GHz C3 at Tom's Hardware. Apparently it dissipates a maximum 12W of heat. That is pretty phenomenal. Anyone know how that compares to the G3?
x .h tml
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/inde
The article claims that social and professional hierarchies are benign as long as they are based on some "natural measure of performance."
IE, "When there is some real external test of skill, it isn't painful to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. A rookie on a football team doesn't resent the skill of the veteran.... And the veteran in turn will be kindly disposed to the rookie."
This is an incredibly simple-minded view since jealousy of others' abilities and achievements can just as easily lead to petty sniping and bullying. The reason that such behavior is less prevalent in adult life has to do with the circumspection and temperance that comes with age, and not because adult hierarchies are somehow more wholesome.
That is assuming that the consumer has perfect pricing information, which he or she certainly does not in this case. See Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz for this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.
According to your link it actually does "beg the question," even if it does not conform to its original use in the 16th century.
-------
Many people unaware of the technical meaning of "to beg the question" in logic use it in one of two looser senses.... The second, "to invite the obvious question, (with an inanimate subject) to raise the question", is now the most commonly heard use of the phrase, although we have found no mention of it prior to The Oxford Guide to English Usage, 1st edition (1983), and
it is not yet in most dictionaries.
-----
..second isn't quite as good.
You can view Stefan Savage (one of the paper's co-authors) giving a lecture on his findings at http://stanford-online.stanford.edu. The lecture is only about 50 minutes. Click on "View Free Seminars" and then on the link for "CS548 Internet and Distributed Systems Research Seminar". The lecture is from May 16th.
Sorry, the only format is streaming Windows Media.
-Sverker
This actually varies between different universities. It is common for universities to cede the copyright to undergraduates for their work, while retaining more control over the work done by graduate students and professors.
There is some merit to a university's claim that it should share in the profits from work that may, in part, be funded and facilitated by its capital and resources.
You're right that it is not reasonable for the University to claim copyright for work you do as a tuition paying undergrad. You should check what your school's policy on this is.
-Sverker
Here are some benchmarks for a G4 vs PIII vs AMD:
Intel SE440BX2 Motherboard (600mhz)
Specfp95: 15.9
SpecInt95: 24.0
Microstar MS-6167 mainboard, (650 mhz)
Specfp95: 22.6
SpecInt95: 29.4
Motorola G4 (450mhz) (Actually couldn't find exact specs but this is what I recall from somewhere:
Specfp95: ~23
SpecInt95: ~23
Note that the G4 specs aren't exact and that neither the AMD specs nor the G4 specs are for their fastest processor (450 & 650 mhz).
Who says that Compaq doesn't research or innovate? This is the what has kept Alpha architecture out in front of SUN, IBM, HP, Intel, and MIPS. Of course, there are doubts to how much longer they can keep it up. Dropping NT support doesn't seem like a positive sign. (Well not for SGI at any rate.)
Svencer