This article only brings up losses and problems with the spreadsheet format. I'm sure, however, that there are inaccuracies in company word documents, e-mail, and other forms of communication. How should spreadsheets be any different?
They are more difficult to detect and a 'small' mistake can have gigantic implications. You won't accidentally write 'We will divide the product's price by 10', but you can easily type a 100 instead of a 10 (just a simple example).
Analog TV emission is wasteful. Spectrum is a scarce resource (at least the ranges which are well-suited for long distances) and digital transmission makes much better use of it.
Digital TV is indeed more efficient because of the possibility of (digital) compression. However: in Europe for instance, most subscribers have cable TV. And if you want more channels, just buy a dish.
A better reason why broadcasters want to use digital TV is because it blends better with other digital services.
Spectrum is also a public resource, and some of us don't want to see it being wasted any longer. Your right to use outdated technology collides with my right to put the frequencies to better use.
Do you actively use the spectrum yourself? Do you have a transmitter? Are you in charge of the modulation type broadcaster's use? I don't think so. It's very simple: you pay for the bandwidth, you do whatever you want with it (within certain limits, and of course taking international agreements into account).
Most people don't care what modulation is used as long as they can watch TV. Moreover they won't care about a lack of channels because they can watch satellite if they wish to do so.
Do you think people will gladly pay for a new TV just for the comforting tought that the spectrum is now put to better use (as a side remark: define 'better'...).
Fire dept, police, air traffic control, all of those use analog transmissions. I don't see anyone standing on their hind legs because of this 'inefficiency'.
Bottom line: the reason why broadcasters are doing this is because of the possiblilty to add (extra $$$) digital services and pay-per-view.
Were you doing it? No, I thought not. Evidently then, yes, yes we did need a/. article.
I was doing this 13 years ago: took the hood from the machine and put some additional fans on. And yes, if the problem were with my HD now, I would do it again. IMHO your reasoning makes little sense: it is not because I am not doing this (now) that I need the article to think of the idea.
As a side remark: I would secure the fan a little better than using *one* possibly rotating point which could cause the fan to crash into my HD. Moreover the title is misleading (as others have pointed out) because obviously the cost is much higher.
They set aside $10k for one copy of the Electronics mag, knowing all sorts of them would go missing, thus increasing the value of *their* copy, while creating quite a stir. Intel will put it up for auction since the value was increased, or they might keep it around, collecting value.
Don't you think they would lose some credibility when the whole world knows the _WANT_ this magazine, and afterwards they sell it at eBay? Their business is making chips, no trading magazines.
Didn't these people ever stop and think about how suspicious it will look when Intel sees the "property of Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries" stamp? Talk about dumb criminals.
From the text:'PDF is great for one thing and one thing only: printing documents'
I don't agree. PDFs are e.g. also interesting to give presentations. Acroread (or alternatives) exists on _every_ platform, it behaves predictable and doesn't have all the fance crap which I don't want anyway.
I generally consider things to be obsolete when they have been replaced by something better. How does this apply to Hubble?
In general: yes. In this case: no. A better telescope isn't going to pop up by itself suddenly (rendering Hubble obsolete). As far as I understand the discussion, it is between investing more money in Hubble OR in this new telescope which _would_ make Hubble obsolete if it were built. In other words: it isn't about what (existing) telescope is better, but about what telescope technology is better.
Who is the Gordon fellow? He thinks he is soooo smart that he can comment on the already tried and true Moore's Law
You moron! He is the one who wame up with the law. I can prove it, 'cause I have the original magazine lying around here somewhere. If you don't believe me, give me your address and I'll send it to you to check yourself. Tssk!
I think you're missing my point. (Probably because I was trying harder to be funny versus insightful.)
No I wasn't. You may have _had_ a (different) point you were trying to make, but imho I drew a logical conclusion from your post. Anyway, I am not in the least a supporter of mucis indusry nazis, but I can still understand the guy.
Napster could indeed help beginning musicians, but honestly I think most people just saw it as an easy and cheap way to get music which already was very popular.
And it was that hard-line approach that was hypocritical. That P2P could help bands in the same way that tape sharing helped his
Who is being a hypocrite here? I can hardly imagine that he wants to deprive beginning musicians from spreading their work. What he wants to avoid is people distributing HIS work without paying for it.
What frustrates me somewhat (no direct reply to your post, but an observation in general): for some reason on/. the issue seems to be wether this sould be called theft or 'copyright infringement'. IMHO this discussion is rather academic. Try to devise some stuff of your own which you intend to sell. See if you like it when people can reap the fruit of your work without paying for it, and see if you like this, whether called theft, copyright infringement or whatever.
Male mind has been mapped already
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 2, Funny
No, they are a completely different semiconductor material which is doped with something else. I once did an internship at a semiconductor lab (IMEC) where InP devices were developed (back then: 100 or so GHz). I recall they are VERY fragile (as opposed to Si which you can really kick around). Anyway, when the smallest features on chip are getting smaller, all processing (making masks etc.) needs to be more precise too, which will increase the cost. I think this is more important than the cost of the materials.
Good question, I asked myself the same one. They did NOT use a string of divider flipflops, as they only just developed the transistor itself, and to do the division the flipflops should be made of a superior technology.
I know special methods exist to predict the f_s from low-frequency measurements. Maybe they measure the amplification at a some 'low' frequencies (GHz range) and extrapolate the gain-bandwidth pruduct from this?
Slashdot Mirror
How is this a problem, and for whom?
Paratrooper multiplayer
Not completely: you forgot the sea monster was 64-headed, and Beowulf and each of his 15 brothers only fought 4 heads. Or something...
He can just use a mirror to shine it back at them...
They are more difficult to detect and a 'small' mistake can have gigantic implications. You won't accidentally write 'We will divide the product's price by 10', but you can easily type a 100 instead of a 10 (just a simple example).
Digital TV is indeed more efficient because of the possibility of (digital) compression. However: in Europe for instance, most subscribers have cable TV. And if you want more channels, just buy a dish. A better reason why broadcasters want to use digital TV is because it blends better with other digital services.
Spectrum is also a public resource, and some of us don't want to see it being wasted any longer. Your right to use outdated technology collides with my right to put the frequencies to better use.
Do you actively use the spectrum yourself? Do you have a transmitter? Are you in charge of the modulation type broadcaster's use? I don't think so. It's very simple: you pay for the bandwidth, you do whatever you want with it (within certain limits, and of course taking international agreements into account).
Most people don't care what modulation is used as long as they can watch TV. Moreover they won't care about a lack of channels because they can watch satellite if they wish to do so. Do you think people will gladly pay for a new TV just for the comforting tought that the spectrum is now put to better use (as a side remark: define 'better'...). Fire dept, police, air traffic control, all of those use analog transmissions. I don't see anyone standing on their hind legs because of this 'inefficiency'.
Bottom line: the reason why broadcasters are doing this is because of the possiblilty to add (extra $$$) digital services and pay-per-view.
I was doing this 13 years ago: took the hood from the machine and put some additional fans on. And yes, if the problem were with my HD now, I would do it again. IMHO your reasoning makes little sense: it is not because I am not doing this (now) that I need the article to think of the idea.
As a side remark: I would secure the fan a little better than using *one* possibly rotating point which could cause the fan to crash into my HD. Moreover the title is misleading (as others have pointed out) because obviously the cost is much higher.
Apart from this: a genial hack.
Don't you think they would lose some credibility when the whole world knows the _WANT_ this magazine, and afterwards they sell it at eBay? Their business is making chips, no trading magazines.
Give your GF a piece of glass instead of a diamond ring, and she will explain you the difference no doubt...
Let me guess, you're with Caltech...
I don't agree. PDFs are e.g. also interesting to give presentations. Acroread (or alternatives) exists on _every_ platform, it behaves predictable and doesn't have all the fance crap which I don't want anyway.
Unfortunately, on short term the guy is probably right.
In general: yes. In this case: no. A better telescope isn't going to pop up by itself suddenly (rendering Hubble obsolete). As far as I understand the discussion, it is between investing more money in Hubble OR in this new telescope which _would_ make Hubble obsolete if it were built. In other words: it isn't about what (existing) telescope is better, but about what telescope technology is better.
How do you feel about Randomly generated paper accepted to conference?
Are you sure about this? IANAL, but I know reverse engineering stuff in general is NOT a right, but forbidden.
You moron! He is the one who wame up with the law. I can prove it, 'cause I have the original magazine lying around here somewhere. If you don't believe me, give me your address and I'll send it to you to check yourself. Tssk!
What is this? Timster's Law or so?
Anyway, it isn't complete. According to Zorbas' Law, any post mentioning moderation in general gets modded up.
Pssst: look, I mentioned moderation in general (hint, hint...)
I bet Max Ary has one!
d'OH. Sorry, didn't read the additional clauses yet...
No I wasn't. You may have _had_ a (different) point you were trying to make, but imho I drew a logical conclusion from your post. Anyway, I am not in the least a supporter of mucis indusry nazis, but I can still understand the guy.
Napster could indeed help beginning musicians, but honestly I think most people just saw it as an easy and cheap way to get music which already was very popular.
And it was that hard-line approach that was hypocritical. That P2P could help bands in the same way that tape sharing helped his
Who is being a hypocrite here? I can hardly imagine that he wants to deprive beginning musicians from spreading their work. What he wants to avoid is people distributing HIS work without paying for it.
What frustrates me somewhat (no direct reply to your post, but an observation in general): for some reason on /. the issue seems to be wether this sould be called theft or 'copyright infringement'. IMHO this discussion is rather academic. Try to devise some stuff of your own which you intend to sell. See if you like it when people can reap the fruit of your work without paying for it, and see if you like this, whether called theft, copyright infringement or whatever.
here
This needs not be hypocritical. Coca cola can hand out free cans to promote their newest product, but you cannot steal it from stores.
PS: Notice that you yourself said it _hurts_ them. What did you expect in reaction?
LEDs are (or at least used to be afaik) made of GaAs, which also doesn't sound to common I guess. Yet they are _everywhere_.
No, they are a completely different semiconductor material which is doped with something else. I once did an internship at a semiconductor lab (IMEC) where InP devices were developed (back then: 100 or so GHz). I recall they are VERY fragile (as opposed to Si which you can really kick around). Anyway, when the smallest features on chip are getting smaller, all processing (making masks etc.) needs to be more precise too, which will increase the cost. I think this is more important than the cost of the materials.
I know special methods exist to predict the f_s from low-frequency measurements. Maybe they measure the amplification at a some 'low' frequencies (GHz range) and extrapolate the gain-bandwidth pruduct from this?