Learn TeX [or LaTeX] and be set for life. Go to a job interview and they'll usually ask you "do you know Word/excel/PPT?" If you respond with "No, sorry, but I know LaTeX" you'll probably get a puzzled look and won't be getting a call back.
Actually a better breakdown would be 20% used it to program games in class (blackjack, poker, football, etc), 75% used it to play games in class, then there was that one girl in the front row who actually tried to pay attention in class.
All those are examples of annoyances, and are more likely to occur due to failure of the media (oops dropped/stepped on/scratched/microwaved my CD) than failure of the drive. Would you advocate people spend $50 on a titanium alloy CD with a scratch resistant nano-ceramic coating to go with their high-quality $500 CD drive to protect their precious data?
The US is all talk and ego and with not that much punch when it comes to a lot of things. No Europe is all talk, the US drops bombs (whether right or wrong). Cross the US and things explode, cross the EU and they will pass legislation to officially say "we don't like what you did" But seriously, too many times Europe or other nations bow down to US imposed rules. Copyright, patents, trade, etc. Sure the people may be vocal against policies, but the one universal truth is politicians can be bought.
In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it. What part of "implied" don't you understand? When you purchase an item you enter into an implied contract, no signing need, there are understood rights and limitations. When you buy a CD or book, there are implied limitations that you only own a copy and that you don't have distribution rights. A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it. You don't own the copyright, you are granted limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership means you can do whatever you want with somethiing. From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder For those cases you need an explicit license, something in writing from the copyright holder So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it. I never said you need a license or permission to read a book, but you need some sort of legal permission to come into possession whether purchase from copyright holder or transfer of license beyond first sale. can for example buy it in a store. That is a transfer of license. The store has to give up all rights to that particular copy once you buy it. The copyright owner has no right to regulate after first sale (from copyright holder to store/distributor), but all previous terms and conditions still apply (you can't make copies and distribute) If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones. At least have an understanding of terms like "implied" and "license." I'm not saying copyright owners have rights above and beyond what is outlined in copyright law. I am stating that through purchase you are in fact limited by those laws and that you are granted an implied license from the copyright owner only for use under those conditions. Any change to those implied terms requires an explicit license between the parties (ie EULA, or broadcast license)
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with. You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place. When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license(legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it You make it sound like getting a license to use music is all bad. CD broken and no backups? You still have the right to the music contained as you didn't buy the CD you bought a license to the music the CD was just the medium to get it to you, though the RIAA is challenging this. So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought. Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there. You can do whatever you want with the CD, if you look at the quote I cited, the CD itself is a physical object that isn't protected. What is protected is the information and expressions contained. Only intellectual property can be protected by copyright. A hammer is not protected, it's design is (under patents), a CD is not protected, the music on it is (under copyright) ow, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a copy to read or listen to? You have to obtain the information somehow. The point was you can't legally give a copy of a CD away (without transferring all your rights to the other person), unless granted such license by the copyright owner.
When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it? You get an implied license giving you all the rights granted under copyright law. If you look at your CD it probably has a little area where it says "copyright Sony Music" or something similar. The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense since it is a physical object, the closest comparison would be when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer, you don't own the design of the hammer if it is innovative and protected intellectual property (patented). And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..? The terms are those of copyright law the publisher retains certain rights, and you have certain rights. In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not. True it's handled on a case by case basis, but show me a case where a non-educational reproduction that impacts the potential market for sales has been upheld. In Playboy vs Frena the court found "PEI's right under 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3) to distribute copies to the public has been implicated by Defendant Frena. Section 106(3) grants the copyright owner "the exclusive right to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work." and in Harper & Row vs Nation Enterprises "More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work." There are fair uses (ie mix tapes, backups, adaption to run on other devices, etc), but making copies and giving them to friends is not one
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about? License - official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing When you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law. The physical object has no meaning, beyond existing as a medium to contain the information. 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters? It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107. By allowing your friend to copy the music, it impacts the potential market for the copyrighted work. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Go to your local jam band concerts, frequent the college shows, screw the big labels, use your own mind and broaden it. If the money goes independent, then so will the artists. Maybe most people don't care. Most people don't want to listen to intelligent and creative music played through $40 speakers at a smoky, dirty, bar. They want their music pre-packaged and easy to consume while they listen to it at a frat party. And the artists who want to keep making sixty cents for every ten bucks their parent company makes can go right ahead. They're done getting my money. 100% of $500 is $500, 6% of $1,000,000 is $60,000... there's a reason bands sell out to "the man"
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car? Yes. What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it? Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music. Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me? Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material. for a friend? Nope Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to? Yes, you can make a million copies if you want, so long as you distribute. It's not all that simple. It's not that hard either. If your friend wants to listen to a song, you can loan him the original CD (and not retain any copies for yourself). When he is done he can return it to you. He can also record the song off a radio broadcast and listen to that. Beyond that, there are different levels of violating rules. Copying songs has been going on for decades, the difference is the internet allows violations on a much larger scale. Sure burning a CD for a friend is a violation, but it's probably too small to be prosecuted. However, making a CD available for worldwide distribution probably will get some attention.
If you're not going to spend any money, what costs do you have to recover from creating the invention? But getting a patent could encourage somebody to invest to make that invention a reality. The point about patents is that they're there to encourage people to invest the time and money into making something new and real. The point about patents is that they are there to make ideas public so others can leverage and learn from them. In exchange for documenting how your idea works so anybody can use it in the future, you are given a short-term monopoly for that idea. I think the issue is that the pace of development has increased in the last 200 years, so that 20 years no longer qualifes as "short-term"
this is precisely one of the things that I worry about, that they'll indeed just repackage a pro game with some different logos, and that just wouldn't be the same. It's not like college football and pro football are significantly different. The core engine should be the same, it's the same sport. The only slight tweaks you can really do are off the field, with the primary difference being recruiting vs contract negotiations. Everything else you can do would just be there to add "flavor." Making sure players go to class isn't a compelling feature, and the NCAA probably doesn't want the game to deal with arrests, illegal booster contributions, etc.
If Joe Techie lives in a country where a gallon of milk is almost $4 and the average cost of a house is $200,000 - how can you expect him to survive on the wages of someone who lives in a country where that would buy five houses?! Move.
American television is in the business of farming, farming willing consumers, farming willing corporate citizens, farming conformance Television is in the business of making money. They make money by selling time to special interests so they may share their propaganda, whether its "Save the children for thirty cents a day" or "Consume a giant tasty burger." TV programming is just there to attract and keep people viewing Just as prehistoric hunters, pastoral peoples and farmers domesticated cattle and sheep and dogs, etc., so too has the economic elite (through TV, primarily) domesticated a certain breed of homo sapiens It's not the "economic elite" its the fact that there are leaders and followers. Since the beginning of man, leaders have risen, rich, poor, in control of goverment, or rebelling against it. All these leaders have leveraged every means of communications at their disposal to convince people to follow them. And TV is the primary tool. If you look historically, religion is the primary tool. 50 million people tuned into the "Friends" finale, 1 Billion+ mourned the death of the Pope.
Re:They just want better pricing from Intel
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 1
Actually AMD spends more for marketing as a percentage of revenue. In 2004 Intel spent $4.7B in marketing vs $32.7B in revenue (14.3%), AMD spent $800M in marketing vs $5B in revenue (16%)
Re:They just want better pricing from Intel
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Problem is, Intel manufacturing is so expensive, they can't afford to give Dell any more of a discount Intel can manufacture cheaper than AMD. If you look at the 2004 financial numbers, Intel has much better gross margins than AMD. Intel Revenue: $34.2B Intel Cost of Sales: $14.5B Intel Gross Margin: 58% AMD Revenue: $5B AMD Cost of Sales: $3B AMD Gross Margin: 40%
I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop. If it's anything like most engineers' experience with technology development... The original proposal was for a fully functional AI that could positively identify the target type, the threat level, and respond appropriately. It would include lethal and non-lethal force responses for enemy targets, as well as not disturb civilians or wildlife that wander through the area. The AI would require a team of 30 engineers and 16 months to fully develop and test. But of course to save on costs, management decided to go with a simpler and cheaper AI they feel will meet the customer's needs: "If it moves, kill it"
I fail to see how funding people's wages is any different than funding chemistry research. Where does most of the cost of refining chemicals come from? Wages to people for the slow and ardruous task of making them.
There is a big difference in initial and iterative costs for physical sciences vs computer science. For initial startup for CS a university may invest millions on new computer equipment for students to build and test their programs. In physical sciences a university may invest millions on a piece of equipment to run the experiment, but they also have to invest millions more on one or more metrologies to analyze the experiment and infrastructure for chemical delivery, chemical disposal system, chemcial storage. The cost of chemicals is not wage related, its the cost of buying them from companies, since it's essential that the chemicals you have are pure and consistant. The biggest difference is in the iterative costs. For CS the cost of iterations is relatively low, you just recompile your code, in physical sciences you have to consume more physical resources. Also in some fields such as Mat. Sci. or MechE, the university doesn't always have resources available to build what you need. So each time you want to do an experimental run, you have to pay for an outside company to create your metal ingot, or custom machine the part you need, which can quickly get very expensive
The first IP company I come up with, Rambus, is not the public enemy you are trying to turn those, Rambus is a bad example, they tried to extort other RAM manufacturturers because they steered standards committees towards using technology they were patenting. As others have mentioned ARM is a good example. If you look at companies like nVidia, they are also very heavy on the IP side, as most of the work they do is designing GPU, the manufacturing is done by silicon foundaries.
Consider if you will for a brief moment the vast difference between the average executive and the average programmer. Programmers are generally broad-picture thinkers who solve largely complicated problems that regular folks can't possibly wrap their heads around. The executive runs on a schedule and uses reports and correspondance to understand what is going on, because business folks have to judge their employees and projects I'm an engineer and I would argue against the idea that most programmers (and I would put engineers in this categorty too) are "broad-picture thinkers" They tend to be very focused on achieving the goal, and not so much how the goal is achieved. A good example is yesterday's article where the high-school kids beat the MIT students in the robotics competition. The MIT entry actually performed the task better than the high school entry, but in the non-task related areas the high school entry made up the difference. Sure you can create the world's greatest database, but they don't need that, they need one that meets the specifications, is on time and on budget. Most managers I've worked with were either promoted from the engineering ranks, or were MBA's with a technical degree (mostly masters in engineering). They don't just forget all the technical stuff they learned in school. Sometimes it seems like they know less than you, but that's because you work on something 50-60 hours a week, while they get their information in 15 minute powerpoint snippets.
I see sitting in coffeeshops or at conferences or whatever are using Macs. Mostly iBooks, but some PowerBooks, too. That's huge. I think the 5% number may still refer to desktops, but Macs are taking a big chunk of the notebook market. A big chunk of the coffee shop going notebook market, people who can afford a couple $5 lattes everyday. Apple is really appealing to the BMW type crowd. A little more expensive, but solid quality and a definate sense of style. I enjoy my powerbook, but there are definately better bang-for-the-buck PC alternatives.
The previous comment suggests that some people are so mentally deranged that they have to know everything that's happening right now, they have no patience and no endurance, it's all NOW NOW NOW. It's not just knowing what is going on now, its also to get more complete information. All information sources are biased, its nice to be able to get multiple sources, as well as quickly research related information. The pace of the world is increasing, I just like to keep up
I know what you mean but surely it's better than what's happening now with people working 80hrs/week and getting screwed? It depends on how you define better. What unions tend to do is enforce mediocrity. Some people love game programming so much they will put in 70-80 hours just out of passion. Imagine putting in those kinds of hours and not being recognized or promoted because you don't have the requisite number of years. Would you accept security at the expense of meritocracy. The reason game programmers can be exploited is because there is a line of people who would do anything to get into the industry. There are many jobs you can go into if you are a programmer however, kids dream of making games, not databases.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm sure companies like Apple and Napster have to pay taxes for sales in Canada. Just tack on another 25%.
Learn TeX [or LaTeX] and be set for life.
Go to a job interview and they'll usually ask you "do you know Word/excel/PPT?"
If you respond with "No, sorry, but I know LaTeX" you'll probably get a puzzled look and won't be getting a call back.
Actually a better breakdown would be 20% used it to program games in class (blackjack, poker, football, etc), 75% used it to play games in class, then there was that one girl in the front row who actually tried to pay attention in class.
All those are examples of annoyances, and are more likely to occur due to failure of the media (oops dropped/stepped on/scratched/microwaved my CD) than failure of the drive. Would you advocate people spend $50 on a titanium alloy CD with a scratch resistant nano-ceramic coating to go with their high-quality $500 CD drive to protect their precious data?
The US is all talk and ego and with not that much punch when it comes to a lot of things.
No Europe is all talk, the US drops bombs (whether right or wrong).
Cross the US and things explode, cross the EU and they will pass legislation to officially say "we don't like what you did"
But seriously, too many times Europe or other nations bow down to US imposed rules. Copyright, patents, trade, etc. Sure the people may be vocal against policies, but the one universal truth is politicians can be bought.
In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it.
What part of "implied" don't you understand? When you purchase an item you enter into an implied contract, no signing need, there are understood rights and limitations. When you buy a CD or book, there are implied limitations that you only own a copy and that you don't have distribution rights.
A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it.
You don't own the copyright, you are granted limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership means you can do whatever you want with somethiing.
From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder
For those cases you need an explicit license, something in writing from the copyright holder
So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it.
I never said you need a license or permission to read a book, but you need some sort of legal permission to come into possession whether purchase from copyright holder or transfer of license beyond first sale.
can for example buy it in a store.
That is a transfer of license. The store has to give up all rights to that particular copy once you buy it. The copyright owner has no right to regulate after first sale (from copyright holder to store/distributor), but all previous terms and conditions still apply (you can't make copies and distribute)
If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones.
At least have an understanding of terms like "implied" and "license." I'm not saying copyright owners have rights above and beyond what is outlined in copyright law. I am stating that through purchase you are in fact limited by those laws and that you are granted an implied license from the copyright owner only for use under those conditions. Any change to those implied terms requires an explicit license between the parties (ie EULA, or broadcast license)
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with.
You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place. When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license(legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it
You make it sound like getting a license to use music is all bad. CD broken and no backups? You still have the right to the music contained as you didn't buy the CD you bought a license to the music the CD was just the medium to get it to you, though the RIAA is challenging this.
So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought.
Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there. You can do whatever you want with the CD, if you look at the quote I cited, the CD itself is a physical object that isn't protected. What is protected is the information and expressions contained. Only intellectual property can be protected by copyright. A hammer is not protected, it's design is (under patents), a CD is not protected, the music on it is (under copyright)
ow, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do
Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a copy to read or listen to? You have to obtain the information somehow. The point was you can't legally give a copy of a CD away (without transferring all your rights to the other person), unless granted such license by the copyright owner.
When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
You get an implied license giving you all the rights granted under copyright law. If you look at your CD it probably has a little area where it says "copyright Sony Music" or something similar. The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense since it is a physical object, the closest comparison would be when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer, you don't own the design of the hammer if it is innovative and protected intellectual property (patented).
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
The terms are those of copyright law the publisher retains certain rights, and you have certain rights.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
True it's handled on a case by case basis, but show me a case where a non-educational reproduction that impacts the potential market for sales has been upheld. In Playboy vs Frena the court found "PEI's right under 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3) to distribute copies to the public has been implicated by Defendant Frena. Section 106(3) grants the copyright owner "the exclusive right to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work." and in Harper & Row vs Nation Enterprises "More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work."
There are fair uses (ie mix tapes, backups, adaption to run on other devices, etc), but making copies and giving them to friends is not one
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about?
License - official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing
When you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law. The physical object has no meaning, beyond existing as a medium to contain the information.
202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters?
It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107. By allowing your friend to copy the music, it impacts the potential market for the copyrighted work.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Go to your local jam band concerts, frequent the college shows, screw the big labels, use your own mind and broaden it. If the money goes independent, then so will the artists.
Maybe most people don't care. Most people don't want to listen to intelligent and creative music played through $40 speakers at a smoky, dirty, bar. They want their music pre-packaged and easy to consume while they listen to it at a frat party.
And the artists who want to keep making sixty cents for every ten bucks their parent company makes can go right ahead. They're done getting my money.
100% of $500 is $500, 6% of $1,000,000 is $60,000... there's a reason bands sell out to "the man"
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car?
Yes.
What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it?
Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music.
Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me?
Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material.
for a friend?
Nope
Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to?
Yes, you can make a million copies if you want, so long as you distribute.
It's not all that simple.
It's not that hard either. If your friend wants to listen to a song, you can loan him the original CD (and not retain any copies for yourself). When he is done he can return it to you. He can also record the song off a radio broadcast and listen to that.
Beyond that, there are different levels of violating rules. Copying songs has been going on for decades, the difference is the internet allows violations on a much larger scale. Sure burning a CD for a friend is a violation, but it's probably too small to be prosecuted. However, making a CD available for worldwide distribution probably will get some attention.
If you're not going to spend any money, what costs do you have to recover from creating the invention?
But getting a patent could encourage somebody to invest to make that invention a reality.
The point about patents is that they're there to encourage people to invest the time and money into making something new and real.
The point about patents is that they are there to make ideas public so others can leverage and learn from them. In exchange for documenting how your idea works so anybody can use it in the future, you are given a short-term monopoly for that idea.
I think the issue is that the pace of development has increased in the last 200 years, so that 20 years no longer qualifes as "short-term"
this is precisely one of the things that I worry about, that they'll indeed just repackage a pro game with some different logos, and that just wouldn't be the same.
It's not like college football and pro football are significantly different. The core engine should be the same, it's the same sport. The only slight tweaks you can really do are off the field, with the primary difference being recruiting vs contract negotiations. Everything else you can do would just be there to add "flavor." Making sure players go to class isn't a compelling feature, and the NCAA probably doesn't want the game to deal with arrests, illegal booster contributions, etc.
If Joe Techie lives in a country where a gallon of milk is almost $4 and the average cost of a house is $200,000 - how can you expect him to survive on the wages of someone who lives in a country where that would buy five houses?!
Move.
American television is in the business of farming, farming willing consumers, farming willing corporate citizens, farming conformance
Television is in the business of making money. They make money by selling time to special interests so they may share their propaganda, whether its "Save the children for thirty cents a day" or "Consume a giant tasty burger." TV programming is just there to attract and keep people viewing
Just as prehistoric hunters, pastoral peoples and farmers domesticated cattle and sheep and dogs, etc., so too has the economic elite (through TV, primarily) domesticated a certain breed of homo sapiens
It's not the "economic elite" its the fact that there are leaders and followers. Since the beginning of man, leaders have risen, rich, poor, in control of goverment, or rebelling against it. All these leaders have leveraged every means of communications at their disposal to convince people to follow them.
And TV is the primary tool.
If you look historically, religion is the primary tool. 50 million people tuned into the "Friends" finale, 1 Billion+ mourned the death of the Pope.
Actually AMD spends more for marketing as a percentage of revenue. In 2004 Intel spent $4.7B in marketing vs $32.7B in revenue (14.3%), AMD spent $800M in marketing vs $5B in revenue (16%)
Problem is, Intel manufacturing is so expensive, they can't afford to give Dell any more of a discount
Intel can manufacture cheaper than AMD. If you look at the 2004 financial numbers, Intel has much better gross margins than AMD.
Intel Revenue: $34.2B
Intel Cost of Sales: $14.5B
Intel Gross Margin: 58%
AMD Revenue: $5B
AMD Cost of Sales: $3B
AMD Gross Margin: 40%
Now I am aware of how hostile those two nations are but I mean comon, once both sides have robots, what next?
Bigger robots
I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop.
If it's anything like most engineers' experience with technology development...
The original proposal was for a fully functional AI that could positively identify the target type, the threat level, and respond appropriately. It would include lethal and non-lethal force responses for enemy targets, as well as not disturb civilians or wildlife that wander through the area. The AI would require a team of 30 engineers and 16 months to fully develop and test.
But of course to save on costs, management decided to go with a simpler and cheaper AI they feel will meet the customer's needs: "If it moves, kill it"
I fail to see how funding people's wages is any different than funding chemistry research. Where does most of the cost of refining chemicals come from? Wages to people for the slow and ardruous task of making them.
There is a big difference in initial and iterative costs for physical sciences vs computer science.
For initial startup for CS a university may invest millions on new computer equipment for students to build and test their programs. In physical sciences a university may invest millions on a piece of equipment to run the experiment, but they also have to invest millions more on one or more metrologies to analyze the experiment and infrastructure for chemical delivery, chemical disposal system, chemcial storage. The cost of chemicals is not wage related, its the cost of buying them from companies, since it's essential that the chemicals you have are pure and consistant.
The biggest difference is in the iterative costs. For CS the cost of iterations is relatively low, you just recompile your code, in physical sciences you have to consume more physical resources. Also in some fields such as Mat. Sci. or MechE, the university doesn't always have resources available to build what you need. So each time you want to do an experimental run, you have to pay for an outside company to create your metal ingot, or custom machine the part you need, which can quickly get very expensive
The first IP company I come up with, Rambus, is not the public enemy you are trying to turn those,
Rambus is a bad example, they tried to extort other RAM manufacturturers because they steered standards committees towards using technology they were patenting. As others have mentioned ARM is a good example. If you look at companies like nVidia, they are also very heavy on the IP side, as most of the work they do is designing GPU, the manufacturing is done by silicon foundaries.
Consider if you will for a brief moment the vast difference between the average executive and the average programmer. Programmers are generally broad-picture thinkers who solve largely complicated problems that regular folks can't possibly wrap their heads around. The executive runs on a schedule and uses reports and correspondance to understand what is going on, because business folks have to judge their employees and projects
I'm an engineer and I would argue against the idea that most programmers (and I would put engineers in this categorty too) are "broad-picture thinkers" They tend to be very focused on achieving the goal, and not so much how the goal is achieved. A good example is yesterday's article where the high-school kids beat the MIT students in the robotics competition. The MIT entry actually performed the task better than the high school entry, but in the non-task related areas the high school entry made up the difference. Sure you can create the world's greatest database, but they don't need that, they need one that meets the specifications, is on time and on budget.
Most managers I've worked with were either promoted from the engineering ranks, or were MBA's with a technical degree (mostly masters in engineering). They don't just forget all the technical stuff they learned in school. Sometimes it seems like they know less than you, but that's because you work on something 50-60 hours a week, while they get their information in 15 minute powerpoint snippets.
I see sitting in coffeeshops or at conferences or whatever are using Macs. Mostly iBooks, but some PowerBooks, too. That's huge. I think the 5% number may still refer to desktops, but Macs are taking a big chunk of the notebook market.
A big chunk of the coffee shop going notebook market, people who can afford a couple $5 lattes everyday. Apple is really appealing to the BMW type crowd. A little more expensive, but solid quality and a definate sense of style. I enjoy my powerbook, but there are definately better bang-for-the-buck PC alternatives.
The previous comment suggests that some people are so mentally deranged that they have to know everything that's happening right now, they have no patience and no endurance, it's all NOW NOW NOW.
It's not just knowing what is going on now, its also to get more complete information. All information sources are biased, its nice to be able to get multiple sources, as well as quickly research related information.
The pace of the world is increasing, I just like to keep up
I know what you mean but surely it's better than what's happening now with people working 80hrs/week and getting screwed?
It depends on how you define better. What unions tend to do is enforce mediocrity. Some people love game programming so much they will put in 70-80 hours just out of passion. Imagine putting in those kinds of hours and not being recognized or promoted because you don't have the requisite number of years. Would you accept security at the expense of meritocracy.
The reason game programmers can be exploited is because there is a line of people who would do anything to get into the industry. There are many jobs you can go into if you are a programmer however, kids dream of making games, not databases.