Isn't this pretty much the same as taking a loan at a bank and buying bitcoins? Couldn't the "bubble" be explained by extremely low interest rates?
Banks create money out of thin air when you take a loan. The only difference is they destroy that newly created money when you pay the loan back (but keep the interests).
Absolutely. At some point, the electrons in the transistor experience quantum tunneling - i.e. they jump over the gate. Which means it's not a very useful gate anymore...
There’s nothing special about quantum tunneling versus ordinary conduction. You lower the energy barrier, the probability of crossing the barrier increases exponentially. Think about how GAA works. Makes no sense from the electrostatic perspective, right? All it’s doing is lowering the tunneling barrier from source to drain. The issue with size is the ratio of energy states in the interfaces between materials versus bulk crystal.
Something like G Suite Business, gives me my own email domain , all their apps, unlimited data storage for $12 per user. Which if you have over 1TB worth of data, definitely worth it. It will cost you more for less features with Arq. Under 1 TB and no use for anything I said, Arq cloud definitely where it's at.
Seems like the unlimited storage is only valid if you have more than 5 accounts. Otherwise, it's capped at 1tb. Is that your experience as-well, or are you grandfathered in another plan?
I wonder if they could take the mesure from the underside of the plane (90 degrees difference from the front)? It might help for bird strike, not much for ice.
I wonder if a small array of microphones couldn't be used to accomplish the same thing by cross-correlating the sound made by airflow hitting adjacent surfaces at different angles.
Seems like a bad idea to use mechanical vanes for this, especially if you're going to bet the whole farm on a single instrument as Boeing seems to have done.
I'm not too knowledgeable about patents, but maybe we need a "liberal" patent? Something that can't be used to sue other people, but protects you from being sued.
That isn't exactly how defensive patents work. Part of the deal is to build up a portfolio you can counter sue with and then force a patent sharing agreement where the two parties agree not to sue either either for any patents.
Its just a mutually assured destruction arms race. The system is broken.
How would that work? If company A receives a "defensive" patent on a technology design, and company B decides to use that patented design without a license, seems like they'd be able to without any recourse. In which case, does the patent system even make sense anymore? I think that's the bigger question in the context of software.
That's the point. The idea of having a "defensive patent" is to avoid having trolls patenting the same thing and then going after small companies with no means to defend themselves in a patent suit. For instance: https://www.x-plane.com/2015/12/patent-troll-update/.
Anyone would be free to use the patent. But trolls can't sue with it.
The way the system is supposed to work is that simply publishing should be sufficient to prevent anyone else from registering future patents on anything that you've published. After all, publishing creates prior art which should invalidate any future patents covering your technology.
I feel like this is just a loose-loose situation that instead of encouraging and protecting small innovators from the power of established companies instead just locks them out. Patents are essentially MAD (except of course for the part where everyone dies if it goes wrong). Like nukes, these patents aren't actually useful. They are only necessary because everyone else has them and the people actually under threat are the less powerful people that don't. This is very different from say pharma patents, where companies seem to directly benefit from Patents in their intended way.
I wonder if it's time for a Patent Denuclearization... but I'm not exactly sure how that could look like.
Not since the US changed to first-to-file. A patent can be issued to another party and you can be sued for using your own invention. If an examiner never finds your prior art you're still on the hook to deal with the expensive legal process of defense and invalidation.
Elsewhere prior use is an absolute defence against being sued for patent infringement; I've not seen USA caselaw on this specific issue but I can't see how it could be different.
Prior use in public would count as "prior art" and void a patent too.
Np. All this marketing show is quite elaborate and it's hard to get true answers. Thanks for that top level comment by the way, this whole thread is crazy with speculation and misunderstanding.
It's a strange message that one. On one hand, we can totally do raytracing now without any specialized API. Screen space reflection is raytracing, but only on what's visible on screen.
On the other, you can't possibly use raytracing as your only rendering technique for the amount of details in AAA video games. There's a reason we are not doing that now.
New hardware more tailored for that kind of work will help, but don't expect the next GTA (or whatever) to have a full raytracing rendering like you see in those demo. Noticed the tiny size of the scenes?
We'll see what the next generation of consoles brings us - especially since current gen are using AMD hardware and they've been really silent about this DXR announcement.
Banks create money out of thin air when you take a loan. The only difference is they destroy that newly created money when you pay the loan back (but keep the interests).
See : https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/banking-101-video-...