There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. We'll supply your +1.
And on the desktop side, ZDNet reports that AMD will remain committed to the hobbyist market with socketed CPUs.
On a related note, I find it quite weird that Intel willfully forfeits their own future over to motherboard makers. It makes little sense to me to depend on third parties you've absolutely no control on to fix the price of the final product that your current customers -- computer makers -- end up buying, irrespective of the fact that Intel itself makes motherboards. I must be missing something besides the obvious (aka it's thinner, which incidentally ensures that AMD has to do this too for laptops). Slashdotter insights welcome...
And even if it does make actual sense... Given that Intel's CPU market share is roughly twice as large as AMD's, won't motherboard makers get more economies of scale for Intel CPU motherboards, that AMD -- socketed or not -- simply won't be able to compete with in the long term?
It seems to me that the actual claims and subsequent description are on (1) a method to wirelessly charge devices, with one device serving as secondary power source source for another device if needed, and with devices up to a meter away from the primary and secondary power sources; (2) a method that improves the efficiency of charging high capacity batteries as a bonus from the circuit needed to do (1); and (3) using (1) and (2) to charge a mouse and keyboard (explicit in the claims). Evidently, (1) and (2) could also be used to charge phones and tablets in an office environment too.
At any rate, I merely scanned the patent, but contrary to what TFS and TFA suggest, Apple didn't patent wireless charging, or even long range wireless charging. What Apple patented is cooperative and efficient wireless charging of a network of devices; in particular of peripherals located on a desk. I presume that plenty of researchers are working on the same kind of stuff, but assuming it hadn't been done yet, nobody can argue with a straight face that this patent is without merits.
What makes you think that only happens SOUTH of the Rio Grande?
But for all of their imperfections and occasional overzealousness, the US or Canadian administrations remain, at they end of the day, some of the most efficient and least corrupt administrations out there.
Isn't 2.7Bn larger than the combined market value of every yellow pages business in the world combined? Might anyone know how the Judge came up with a figure this large?
I disagree with the implication that the solution to rampant corruption is to pay up or go somewhere else.
Actually, that implication is precisely right, bar the occasional official who wants your ass in addition to the money for not paying up immediately -- so as to make an example for those who might do the same.
Just across the Rio Grande, there are several countries where corruption is rampant. Open a restaurant in any of them and see for yourself if you don't take my word for it: If you don't pay up to whoever asks you to when you start to see any level of success (which could be the police, the taxman, the hygiene inspector, the alcohol license inspector, the local mafia, you name it), you're basically foocked. You'll end up with incessant inspections by patrols, inspectors, Molotov cocktails, "warning" shots, etc.
On paper you're right -- never negotiate with criminals. In practice, however, you are dead wrong unless you can back that statement with the police or the military, because whoever is racketeering you has infinitely more resources than you do, and/or little to nothing to lose.
Actually, "Urheberrecht" is due to an EU directive, which mandated the whole thing throughout the EU a bit over a decade ago. It applies to the whole EU today.
Also, if memory serves, it was pushed forward by the -- at the time French -- EC commissioner in charge of property rights (though I'd need to double check that, so take the latter point with a grain of salt), on grounds that (this much I'm sure of) a workers' writing/coding/music/movie shouldn't ever belong to his editor or publisher, but to the author himself. The best authors can do since is to grant an exclusive license -- even as an employee to code consulting firms, which incidentally caused issues in legal departments back then to weed things out the proper way. (And it was a huge mess in some firms, since they assumed US laws were the norm.)
In simplistic terms, it's a bit like on iOS devices: they'll only boot software that is signed by Apple, thus preventing low-level viruses and such from tampering with the OS.
In more complicated terms, I'll defer to the wiki page.
I beg to ask... Who schedules to ship a new product, especially one like this, immediately after Christmas?!? Either you plan to ship several weeks before Christmas for shoppers to buy it, or you ship several weeks later when people return from whatever type of vacation they took. Definitely not during that week of each year, between Christmas and New Years Eve, when potential customers already have made their Christmas purchases and occasionally maxed out their credit card, and potential reviewers are skying nowhere near their editors.
Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.
Ignoring the fact that I'm already happily married and childfree...no. I already know I don't want kids. And yes, I can know that even though I haven't already tried raising them - just as I don't have to stop shaving and move to rural Pennsylvania to know that don't want to live as an Amish. You don't actually have to try out a lifestyle to know that it's not for you.
I'll defer to a separate commenter: it's the kind of stuff you only know when you actually experience it. (I'd wager it's probably true for the Amish lifestyle too, btw. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go that route myself, but I can kind of see what kind of sense they might make out of it.)
Except that you're forgetting that those retirees have been paying into the system the whole time they were working. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from it now that it's their turn to retire?
Because part of paying into that system should include having kids that (at least potentially) contribute into it?
maybe I shouldn't have been burdened with the cost of their education and picking up the slack from your tax breaks - after all, you're the one who decided to have those kids. Plus, there's the fact that they're also benefitting from all the productive work I did throughout my lifetime. I've done plenty for your kids. So we can either go our separate ways and everyone pays for themselves, or we can keep cooperating and scratching each other's backs. But you can't have it both ways.
Well, in addition to my prior point, education is a drop in the water in that very system, considering that 80% of your healthcare costs typically occurs during the last year of your life. Irrespective of unions, the going rate is much higher in healthcare than it is in teaching. Also, there's a strong argument to be made that if kids, mine or another's, don't get education (regardless of how it's funded), they produce less economic output to pay for benefits handed over to retirees.
In other words, by funding education, you're (slightly) scratching your own back in addition to mine. But when my children are funding your retirement, you're (very energetically) scratching your own back unless you had kids. And thus, your point is essentially moot.
That being said, I'd like to raise a separate issue here, because your reasoning is that of some person who is going to make retirement with millions upon millions of savings. If that's the case, which I hope for you, then good for you. For normal people though, this is the exception, rather than the rule. And if you are amongst the normal people, then I strongly suggest that you revisit the whole idea of getting medicare/medicaid (or whatever applies to you) as you know it when you retire, because more than a few youngsters object to the idea of paying for it considering that they won't get any of it themselves -- they simply won't, and revisiting your retirement plan may be in order.
the current french are franks, who were invaders in the early part of the last millenium. same with most other europeans. they were the barbarians who invaded the roman empire and settled down.
Not. Back then, a so-called invasion was when a few thousand warriors took over a whole area. The locals stayed and bred with the invaders, plain and simple. Or got raped, because it was customary until the 19th century to plunder/rape/raze a place you conquered as a bonus payment for troops. Contrary to what you're suggesting, population wasn't anymore on the run at large because of some odd newcomer than they did a few years ago when Iraq invaded Koweit. The French are a mixed-breed of the huge variety of people who overran the place in the past two millennia -- and there were many, especially if you consider the areas which only became French in more recent history. The place basically was a boulevard throughout history. Not to mention recent immigration. If there's a melting pot nation anywhere on Earth, France comes close second to the likes of America or Brazil.
Or the more sensible thing is unless you have a couple hundred grand in the bank for the lawyer's fee don't be running Tor until we get better laws.
I take a slight issue with that. This isn't so much about "Fight the power!" than it is about the nature of law and how it evolves. Because --at least in Western countries-- law is a malleable beast that only evolves through parliaments and courts.
Parliaments are heavily lobbied. You can reasonably forget them if you're expecting any change in the right direction in the immediate. At least until Joe Schmo wakes up to the fact that he is being fucked in the ass to high heaven by lobbyists.
Courts, by contrast, are mostly independent. In addition to precedents that they set, it is a judge's prerogative, at the end of the day, to rule things in such a way that a law --voted by elected lawmakers, no less-- is given closer examination by a higher court on grounds that it isn't constitutional or contradicts customary behavior.
Anyway, my issue is this: by avoiding to run a Tor nod until you get better laws, you basically create customary behavior in the process -- if only kiddy porn, warez, music and movie downloaders ever end up prosecuted for running Tor nods, it will eventually be wrong to run one at all. And the lobbyists will subsequently win a landslide victory in your parliament. In this sense, "until we get better laws" seems like euphemism for "never."
It might be the most fulfilling thing you can do. But guess what? It's not for everyone.
Hence the likely. I didn't expect to get modded Flamebait though. Presumably by you?
Raising kids isn't like eating sushi - those who aren't inclined to do it shouldn't "give it a try" just because they might like it.
Which, I assume, you haven't. Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.
Also, while you personally weren't making the "not having kids is selfish" argument, other people did, and so I'm going to point out that having kids to get a sense of "fulfillment" is a supremely selfish thing to do.
I wouldn't raise that specific argument myself indeed, but I'd raise this equally explosive one: in countries where retirees are paid by contributions paid by those who work, retirees should probably expect their retirement to be subjected to how many children they contributed to society. As in, no child, no retirement; one child, half-retirement; two children or more, full retirement. Because, well duh, someone has to pay for this crap at the end of the day, and my children shouldn't be burdened with your retirement if you were pussy hounding throughout your entirely life.
right about the same time as women going into the work force and becoming independent and having children later.
Actually, it's right about the same time as refrigerators and wash-machines became widespread (less household chores), and women got to take the pill (no unwanted child-rearing burden). That women went into the workforce and had children later is a mere consequence of the latter two. By some accounts (e.g. J.M. Roberts), btw, these two events happen to be the single-most important (as in society shaping) of the 20th century -- with antibiotics, computing and telecommunications coming close behind.
instead of peaks and valleys like before we will probably have a nice smooth birth rate going forward as people have kids later in life
Insofar as I'm aware, there were no peaks and valleys before. Only high birth rates, due to lack of effective contraception. Then again I'm no specialist, so take this with a grain of salt. If the past century is any indicator though, the birthrate varies with the economic conditions, i.e. with how much you trust that your children will have a good life.
This is a problem with the US economy in general - it is based on growth.
Can you name an economy that is based on anything but growth?
Those European/Asian countries that have been around for thousands of years are more stable, and have economies based more on sustainable goods and services.
Which ones? Germany and China? Seriously? Sorry, but no. Both are driven by exports and excess savings, and they recycle profits by lending the latter to their customers. If their customers default (and they probably will) and set up stiffer trade barriers (which they likely will too), they'll tank... Hard... Much harder than economies that traded goods and services for funny money. Oh, and they both have major demographic problems due to low birth rates. And China additionally has a major rebalancing problem on its hands.
One of the main economic numbers that drives the US stock market is "new housing starts" - a number based solely on having the population continually increasing.
I suspect that Bernanke has a lot more to do with it than you suggest. He's continuing to inject liquidity into the banking system. Since the money isn't getting lent out to businesses and consumers, it needs to go somewhere, and that somewhere happens to be asset markets.
Once that slows down - and can't even be propped up by the banks fudging mortgages - the entire country is headed for a depression.
The entire country is likely headed for a depression no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of ways to bribe people, perhaps you would like come out to this extremely nice 5* restaurant whilst we discuss the matter. We'll supply your +1.
FTFY
And on the desktop side, ZDNet reports that AMD will remain committed to the hobbyist market with socketed CPUs.
On a related note, I find it quite weird that Intel willfully forfeits their own future over to motherboard makers. It makes little sense to me to depend on third parties you've absolutely no control on to fix the price of the final product that your current customers -- computer makers -- end up buying, irrespective of the fact that Intel itself makes motherboards. I must be missing something besides the obvious (aka it's thinner, which incidentally ensures that AMD has to do this too for laptops). Slashdotter insights welcome...
And even if it does make actual sense... Given that Intel's CPU market share is roughly twice as large as AMD's, won't motherboard makers get more economies of scale for Intel CPU motherboards, that AMD -- socketed or not -- simply won't be able to compete with in the long term?
Or gang-spread by proxy.
You said it better than I could. :-)
Methinks it's a pretty smart idea, too.
It seems to me that the actual claims and subsequent description are on (1) a method to wirelessly charge devices, with one device serving as secondary power source source for another device if needed, and with devices up to a meter away from the primary and secondary power sources; (2) a method that improves the efficiency of charging high capacity batteries as a bonus from the circuit needed to do (1); and (3) using (1) and (2) to charge a mouse and keyboard (explicit in the claims). Evidently, (1) and (2) could also be used to charge phones and tablets in an office environment too.
At any rate, I merely scanned the patent, but contrary to what TFS and TFA suggest, Apple didn't patent wireless charging, or even long range wireless charging. What Apple patented is cooperative and efficient wireless charging of a network of devices; in particular of peripherals located on a desk. I presume that plenty of researchers are working on the same kind of stuff, but assuming it hadn't been done yet, nobody can argue with a straight face that this patent is without merits.
What makes you think that only happens SOUTH of the Rio Grande?
But for all of their imperfections and occasional overzealousness, the US or Canadian administrations remain, at they end of the day, some of the most efficient and least corrupt administrations out there.
Isn't 2.7Bn larger than the combined market value of every yellow pages business in the world combined? Might anyone know how the Judge came up with a figure this large?
I disagree with the implication that the solution to rampant corruption is to pay up or go somewhere else.
Actually, that implication is precisely right, bar the occasional official who wants your ass in addition to the money for not paying up immediately -- so as to make an example for those who might do the same.
Just across the Rio Grande, there are several countries where corruption is rampant. Open a restaurant in any of them and see for yourself if you don't take my word for it: If you don't pay up to whoever asks you to when you start to see any level of success (which could be the police, the taxman, the hygiene inspector, the alcohol license inspector, the local mafia, you name it), you're basically foocked. You'll end up with incessant inspections by patrols, inspectors, Molotov cocktails, "warning" shots, etc.
On paper you're right -- never negotiate with criminals. In practice, however, you are dead wrong unless you can back that statement with the police or the military, because whoever is racketeering you has infinitely more resources than you do, and/or little to nothing to lose.
I wish I had mod points. +1 funny/insightful. :-)
Actually, "Urheberrecht" is due to an EU directive, which mandated the whole thing throughout the EU a bit over a decade ago. It applies to the whole EU today.
Also, if memory serves, it was pushed forward by the -- at the time French -- EC commissioner in charge of property rights (though I'd need to double check that, so take the latter point with a grain of salt), on grounds that (this much I'm sure of) a workers' writing/coding/music/movie shouldn't ever belong to his editor or publisher, but to the author himself. The best authors can do since is to grant an exclusive license -- even as an employee to code consulting firms, which incidentally caused issues in legal departments back then to weed things out the proper way. (And it was a huge mess in some firms, since they assumed US laws were the norm.)
A developer who downloads code for use in his project, without checking the licence first, shouldn't be coding in the first place. Seriously...
In simplistic terms, it's a bit like on iOS devices: they'll only boot software that is signed by Apple, thus preventing low-level viruses and such from tampering with the OS.
In more complicated terms, I'll defer to the wiki page.
Any odds that, instead of or in addition to the rate of mutation going faster, the survival rate has also increased over the same period?
Err, did you bother to read... anything?
Evidently not enough, lol. I stuck to the misleading title and went... wow!
I beg to ask... Who schedules to ship a new product, especially one like this, immediately after Christmas?!? Either you plan to ship several weeks before Christmas for shoppers to buy it, or you ship several weeks later when people return from whatever type of vacation they took. Definitely not during that week of each year, between Christmas and New Years Eve, when potential customers already have made their Christmas purchases and occasionally maxed out their credit card, and potential reviewers are skying nowhere near their editors.
Ignoring the fact that I'm already happily married and childfree...no. I already know I don't want kids. And yes, I can know that even though I haven't already tried raising them - just as I don't have to stop shaving and move to rural Pennsylvania to know that don't want to live as an Amish. You don't actually have to try out a lifestyle to know that it's not for you.
I'll defer to a separate commenter: it's the kind of stuff you only know when you actually experience it. (I'd wager it's probably true for the Amish lifestyle too, btw. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go that route myself, but I can kind of see what kind of sense they might make out of it.)
Except that you're forgetting that those retirees have been paying into the system the whole time they were working. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from it now that it's their turn to retire?
Because part of paying into that system should include having kids that (at least potentially) contribute into it?
maybe I shouldn't have been burdened with the cost of their education and picking up the slack from your tax breaks - after all, you're the one who decided to have those kids. Plus, there's the fact that they're also benefitting from all the productive work I did throughout my lifetime. I've done plenty for your kids. So we can either go our separate ways and everyone pays for themselves, or we can keep cooperating and scratching each other's backs. But you can't have it both ways.
Well, in addition to my prior point, education is a drop in the water in that very system, considering that 80% of your healthcare costs typically occurs during the last year of your life. Irrespective of unions, the going rate is much higher in healthcare than it is in teaching. Also, there's a strong argument to be made that if kids, mine or another's, don't get education (regardless of how it's funded), they produce less economic output to pay for benefits handed over to retirees.
In other words, by funding education, you're (slightly) scratching your own back in addition to mine. But when my children are funding your retirement, you're (very energetically) scratching your own back unless you had kids. And thus, your point is essentially moot.
That being said, I'd like to raise a separate issue here, because your reasoning is that of some person who is going to make retirement with millions upon millions of savings. If that's the case, which I hope for you, then good for you. For normal people though, this is the exception, rather than the rule. And if you are amongst the normal people, then I strongly suggest that you revisit the whole idea of getting medicare/medicaid (or whatever applies to you) as you know it when you retire, because more than a few youngsters object to the idea of paying for it considering that they won't get any of it themselves -- they simply won't, and revisiting your retirement plan may be in order.
In Australia we ditched $1 and $2 notes[...]
In the USA, we still like to pretend our currency has value.
Quote from a French politician:
Q: "What's the point of €.01 and €.02 coins anyway? Won't store owners just round prices to the nearest €.05, leading to price inflation?"
A: "The answer lies in the question." -- Laurent Fabius
Couldn't they have torrented a pdf file to make their case?
the current french are franks, who were invaders in the early part of the last millenium. same with most other europeans. they were the barbarians who invaded the roman empire and settled down.
Not. Back then, a so-called invasion was when a few thousand warriors took over a whole area. The locals stayed and bred with the invaders, plain and simple. Or got raped, because it was customary until the 19th century to plunder/rape/raze a place you conquered as a bonus payment for troops. Contrary to what you're suggesting, population wasn't anymore on the run at large because of some odd newcomer than they did a few years ago when Iraq invaded Koweit. The French are a mixed-breed of the huge variety of people who overran the place in the past two millennia -- and there were many, especially if you consider the areas which only became French in more recent history. The place basically was a boulevard throughout history. Not to mention recent immigration. If there's a melting pot nation anywhere on Earth, France comes close second to the likes of America or Brazil.
Until she panics at the idea of not having any. :-)
Or the more sensible thing is unless you have a couple hundred grand in the bank for the lawyer's fee don't be running Tor until we get better laws.
I take a slight issue with that. This isn't so much about "Fight the power!" than it is about the nature of law and how it evolves. Because --at least in Western countries-- law is a malleable beast that only evolves through parliaments and courts.
Parliaments are heavily lobbied. You can reasonably forget them if you're expecting any change in the right direction in the immediate. At least until Joe Schmo wakes up to the fact that he is being fucked in the ass to high heaven by lobbyists.
Courts, by contrast, are mostly independent. In addition to precedents that they set, it is a judge's prerogative, at the end of the day, to rule things in such a way that a law --voted by elected lawmakers, no less-- is given closer examination by a higher court on grounds that it isn't constitutional or contradicts customary behavior.
Anyway, my issue is this: by avoiding to run a Tor nod until you get better laws, you basically create customary behavior in the process -- if only kiddy porn, warez, music and movie downloaders ever end up prosecuted for running Tor nods, it will eventually be wrong to run one at all. And the lobbyists will subsequently win a landslide victory in your parliament. In this sense, "until we get better laws" seems like euphemism for "never."
Just wait to find the right woman.
It might be the most fulfilling thing you can do. But guess what? It's not for everyone.
Hence the likely. I didn't expect to get modded Flamebait though. Presumably by you?
Raising kids isn't like eating sushi - those who aren't inclined to do it shouldn't "give it a try" just because they might like it.
Which, I assume, you haven't. Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.
Also, while you personally weren't making the "not having kids is selfish" argument, other people did, and so I'm going to point out that having kids to get a sense of "fulfillment" is a supremely selfish thing to do.
I wouldn't raise that specific argument myself indeed, but I'd raise this equally explosive one: in countries where retirees are paid by contributions paid by those who work, retirees should probably expect their retirement to be subjected to how many children they contributed to society. As in, no child, no retirement; one child, half-retirement; two children or more, full retirement. Because, well duh, someone has to pay for this crap at the end of the day, and my children shouldn't be burdened with your retirement if you were pussy hounding throughout your entirely life.
right about the same time as women going into the work force and becoming independent and having children later.
Actually, it's right about the same time as refrigerators and wash-machines became widespread (less household chores), and women got to take the pill (no unwanted child-rearing burden). That women went into the workforce and had children later is a mere consequence of the latter two. By some accounts (e.g. J.M. Roberts), btw, these two events happen to be the single-most important (as in society shaping) of the 20th century -- with antibiotics, computing and telecommunications coming close behind.
instead of peaks and valleys like before we will probably have a nice smooth birth rate going forward as people have kids later in life
Insofar as I'm aware, there were no peaks and valleys before. Only high birth rates, due to lack of effective contraception. Then again I'm no specialist, so take this with a grain of salt. If the past century is any indicator though, the birthrate varies with the economic conditions, i.e. with how much you trust that your children will have a good life.
This is a problem with the US economy in general - it is based on growth.
Can you name an economy that is based on anything but growth?
Those European/Asian countries that have been around for thousands of years are more stable, and have economies based more on sustainable goods and services.
Which ones? Germany and China? Seriously? Sorry, but no. Both are driven by exports and excess savings, and they recycle profits by lending the latter to their customers. If their customers default (and they probably will) and set up stiffer trade barriers (which they likely will too), they'll tank... Hard... Much harder than economies that traded goods and services for funny money. Oh, and they both have major demographic problems due to low birth rates. And China additionally has a major rebalancing problem on its hands.
One of the main economic numbers that drives the US stock market is "new housing starts" - a number based solely on having the population continually increasing.
I suspect that Bernanke has a lot more to do with it than you suggest. He's continuing to inject liquidity into the banking system. Since the money isn't getting lent out to businesses and consumers, it needs to go somewhere, and that somewhere happens to be asset markets.
Once that slows down - and can't even be propped up by the banks fudging mortgages - the entire country is headed for a depression.
The entire country is likely headed for a depression no matter what.