Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Lasers Enable Finer Chip Structures, Advance of Moore's Law

Tags:
  • Chip
Last response: in News comments
Share
December 26, 2011 11:07:13 AM

really? that good. i hope we can see a lower than 10nm architecture
Score
16
December 26, 2011 11:12:31 AM

That means we can get 32 or more cores in the mobile chips in next few years.
Score
4
December 26, 2011 11:16:29 AM

theuniquegamerThat means we can get 32 or more cores in the mobile chips in next few years.


... and over 9000 in the desktop ones :D 

Remember, whatever "mobile" has to offer, desktop will always pwn it.
Score
24
December 26, 2011 11:20:50 AM

Combine this with the molybdenite tech in the previous article and we have pocket supercomputers. Seriously the future is really exciting!!! Cant wait
Score
6
December 26, 2011 11:24:13 AM

Now THAT deserves a patent, not some buttons on scren.
Score
29
December 26, 2011 11:34:21 AM

salgado18 said:
Now THAT deserves a patent, not some buttons on scren.


No way. You're again patenting an IDEA, FFS! That will just slow the implementation down! Where would the humanity be if everyone would be patenting everything from the invention of the wheel, huh?
Score
-17
December 26, 2011 11:41:06 AM

amk-aka-Phantom said:
No way. You're again patenting an IDEA, FFS! That will just slow the implementation down! Where would the humanity be if everyone would be patenting everything from the invention of the wheel, huh?

That's real technology, a new process of production of really small circuits. It takes years of research, a lot of knowledge and study, and a hell lot of money to even make it right, so it definitely deserves a patent to these guys.

If that's not a patent, then what is?
Score
23
Anonymous
December 26, 2011 11:44:01 AM

I like this.
Score
6
December 26, 2011 11:47:02 AM

amk-aka-Phantom... and over 9000 in the desktop ones Remember, whatever "mobile" has to offer, desktop will always pwn it.

ITS OVER 9000!!!!
Score
10
December 26, 2011 11:54:53 AM

over 9000!!!!!
Score
7
December 26, 2011 12:06:32 PM

brb, going in my time machine 50 years from now. See you guys later :D 
Score
11
December 26, 2011 12:21:00 PM

LOL92 said:
really? that good. i hope we can see a lower than 10nm architecture


Here is another report on the article that states things in what is, IMHO, a more accurate manner. It implies that the technology is capable of producing features that are 1/8 the size of what is currently used in the industry with a technology that is completely compatible with existing semiconductor fabrication technology.

IMHO, it is potentially more significant than the Tom's article implies - if, of course, it is actually employed in the industry.

theuniquegamer said:
That means we can get 32 or more cores in the mobile chips in next few years.

So here's the cool thing about this, IMHO. I think the "core count" will scale as a function of area (i.e., a square function). So, for 1/8 current dimensions, you have 64x the core count. Which could mean 512 cores in the very near future. :wahoo: 
Score
9
December 26, 2011 12:26:35 PM

salgado18 said:
That's real technology, a new process of production of really small circuits. It takes years of research, a lot of knowledge and study, and a hell lot of money to even make it right, so it definitely deserves a patent to these guys.

If that's not a patent, then what is?


I really don't care. Patents = slow-downs in technical progress. I'm a selfish bastard and don't care for anything but my benefit :D  If their research was not for the benefit of the mankind but for money, they can go #@$! themselves, period.
Score
-19
December 26, 2011 12:31:12 PM

amk-aka-PhantomI really don't care. Patents = slow-downs in technical progress. I'm a selfish bastard and don't care for anything but my benefit If their research was not for the benefit of the mankind but for money, they can go #@$! themselves, period.


Oh the irony.
Score
15
December 26, 2011 2:02:47 PM

wiyosayaHere is another report on the article that states things in what is, IMHO, a more accurate manner. It implies that the technology is capable of producing features that are 1/8 the size of what is currently used in the industry with a technology that is completely compatible with existing semiconductor fabrication technology.IMHO, it is potentially more significant than the Tom's article implies - if, of course, it is actually employed in the industry.So here's the cool thing about this, IMHO. I think the "core count" will scale as a function of area (i.e., a square function). So, for 1/8 current dimensions, you have 64x the core count. Which could mean 512 cores in the very near future.
say Imho one more time..
Score
9
December 26, 2011 2:05:46 PM

amk-aka-PhantomI really don't care. Patents = slow-downs in technical progress. I'm a selfish bastard and don't care for anything but my benefit If their research was not for the benefit of the mankind but for money, they can go #@$! themselves, period.


Hmm, may I ask then what have YOU done for mankind ? :-)
Or do you just expect others to do for you ?

You can not expect a business to do research etc for free. After all they have to somehow pay their researchers, the research assistants, the staff and the janitor. Hell, YOU may be one of the people they have to pay.
there is nothing wrong with making a buck and protecting your investment of time and brainpower if it is within socially responsible limits.
Score
11
December 26, 2011 2:08:02 PM

uproller said:
Oh the irony.


Of contradicting parts of my post? That's right. Being selfish doesn't necessarily mean not doing anything for the benefit of others.
Score
-14
December 26, 2011 2:09:00 PM

freggo said:
Hmm, may I ask then what have YOU done for mankind ? :-)
Or do you just expect others to do for you ?

You can not expect a business to do research etc for free. After all they have to somehow pay their researchers, the research assistants, the staff and the janitor. Hell, YOU may be one of the people they have to pay.
there is nothing wrong with making a buck and protecting your investment of time and brainpower if it is within socially responsible limits.


Ever heard of open source? :) 
Score
-14
December 26, 2011 2:09:42 PM

Quote:
Then why don't you go into advanced computer logic and engineering and hire a bunch of researchers entirely on your own dime...and build an advanced research facility or two...and then give away each and every one of your discoveries to mankind, at no charge. :) 

If you're unwilling to do this, then "[you] can go #@$! [yourself], period."


Tesla did it. Did more than anyone else at his time.
Score
-13
December 26, 2011 2:21:00 PM

amk-aka-PhantomTesla did it. Did more than anyone else at his time.


Tesla often worked for profit - and created companies to sell his inventions. Also, we asked if you did it, not someone else. Bill Gates gives away billions - does that mean you're charitable? Or that everyone should give away everything?

Also, if you want to be Tesla, go ahead - "Because of his eccentric personality and his seemingly unbelievable and sometimes bizarre claims about possible scientific and technological developments, Tesla was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist by many late in his life.[7] He died without much money to his name.[8]"
Score
15
December 26, 2011 2:23:53 PM

amk-aka-PhantomEver heard of open source?


How many people make a living from open source companies that don't protect/sell anything at all?? Oh...right...sure some companies give away some things - but no one gives away everything, at least not without a way to monetize it in some way (support, ads, licensing, long term stable versions, etc).

Anyhow, do you create large innovative open source software for free?
Score
14
December 26, 2011 2:45:05 PM

inanition02 said:
How many people make a living from open source companies that don't protect/sell anything at all?? Oh...right...sure some companies give away some things - but no one gives away everything, at least not without a way to monetize it in some way (support, ads, licensing, long term stable versions, etc).

Anyhow, do you create large innovative open source software for free?


No. I deploy open source software on the large scale for free. Almost as much pain in the ass, if not more, trust me :D 

inanition02 said:
Also, if you want to be Tesla, go ahead - "Because of his eccentric personality and his seemingly unbelievable and sometimes bizarre claims about possible scientific and technological developments, Tesla was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist by many late in his life.[7] He died without much money to his name.[8]"


I know who he was, no need to copy Wikipedia. It's fine with me; the point of life is doing something that you enjoy, not "dying with much money to your name". That is a perfect consumerist's dream - get a family, kids, pay bills, grow old, die. Not bad things, but certainly not the main goal.

Before you swindle me into further off-topic, again, I do not care who and for how long has been developing what. Patents hold development back, and that is an undeniable fact.

inanition02 said:
Tesla often worked for profit - and created companies to sell his inventions.


Selling is fine. Patent trolling isn't, and every patent ends up like that nowadays. It's fine to patent a particular model or architecture - needs to be defined very precise, though, not "use CPU to process input" or whatever Apple comes up with in their patents - not a generalized idea.
Score
-10
December 26, 2011 2:55:21 PM

With all these advances in processor technology, skynet should be online shorty...

/rubshands =D
Score
3
December 26, 2011 3:39:03 PM

Granting a patent to this new process technology would take a lot longer as the clerk would need a week just to understand each word in the title. But just about anyone can approve a rectangular design.
Score
5
December 26, 2011 3:55:39 PM

amk-aka-PhantomEver heard of open source?


What has hardware development to do with open source ?


Score
7
December 26, 2011 4:03:41 PM

amk-aka-PhantomTesla did it. Did more than anyone else at his time.


Yes, that was a long time ago when research was a 'one man job' and you could to it on a research grant to gain personal fame ( or one woman of course as in Madam Curie ).

In the 70s I wrote video games. Took typically 2-3 month for a game written in Assembler. You could do that 'open source' or just for the fun of it.
Todays top games are made by a team of programmers at a cost well above $100.000.000.

Same with hardware, the days of Tesla and Einstein are over. Research is a team effort using hugely expensive hardware etc. Unless it is government sponsored you have to make a buck at the end to get investors.
Of course, if your research is weapons related you may get funding from various non-disclosed agencies with typically 3 letter names ;-)
Score
4
December 26, 2011 4:08:28 PM

freggo said:
What has hardware development to do with open source ?


Idea can be the same - benefit everyone and not just your paycheck.
Score
-7
December 26, 2011 4:56:52 PM

How would applications be affected if this technology became a reality?
Score
2
December 26, 2011 5:19:20 PM

JohnnyLucky said:
How would applications be affected if this technology became a reality?


Sadly, not much! How many applications use 4 cores? What about more cores, like 8 or 16? Or Hyperthreading? Or CUDA? Hell, if Windows would use all that, it would probably boot in once second provided you're using an SSD :lol:  We wouldn't even have to spend so much cash on gaming graphics because our quad-cores are currently underloaded...
Score
-6
December 26, 2011 5:27:05 PM

amk-aka-PhantomNo. I deploy open source software on the large scale for free. Almost as much pain in the ass, if not more, trust me I know who he was, no need to copy Wikipedia. It's fine with me; the point of life is doing something that you enjoy, not "dying with much money to your name". That is a perfect consumerist's dream - get a family, kids, pay bills, grow old, die. Not bad things, but certainly not the main goal.Before you swindle me into further off-topic, again, I do not care who and for how long has been developing what. Patents hold development back, and that is an undeniable fact.Selling is fine. Patent trolling isn't, and every patent ends up like that nowadays. It's fine to patent a particular model or architecture - needs to be defined very precise, though, not "use CPU to process input" or whatever Apple comes up with in their patents - not a generalized idea.


If you think that patents hold us back, as a society, you are quite stupid.

The simple fact is, the patent is what drives and motivates technological improvement. Because the inventors know their creation will 1. be secure and 2. be profitable; it drives people to create new innovations.

Where is the motivation if you knew you wouldn't make any money off your life's work.

Herp derp derp. Society is hard to understand.

Score
6
December 26, 2011 5:49:57 PM

cmcghee358 said:
If you think that patents hold us back, as a society, you are quite stupid.

The simple fact is, the patent is what drives and motivates technological improvement. Because the inventors know their creation will 1. be secure and 2. be profitable; it drives people to create new innovations.

Where is the motivation if you knew you wouldn't make any money off your life's work.

Herp derp derp. Society is hard to understand.


Asian countries crap all over your """patents""" and look at the development rates! Would be rather hard if they'd have to go through the legal system and all the fees just to implement some new tech.

You can make money off your work by selling actual product, not pretending like you're the unique creator of an idea and no one else is allowed to develop it unless they pay you royalties.

I think that misunderstanding has come far enough here.
Score
-8
December 26, 2011 6:12:16 PM

Asian countries are actually more famous for their production not their innovation sir.

They very rarely produce a new technological concept. Alot of times they make minor improvements upon it.

What you're talking about reminds me of a story about an American Government Class:

For an American Government Class the students were studying the differences between capitalism and communism. Many of the students enjoyed the idea of communism, because they felt that society had a distinct responsibility to take care of everyone. The next week the teacher graded their homework. And as expected there were a few As, more Bs, lots of Cs, and a couple Ds.

As they continued studying the next week, the students were adamant that communism was a better form of government. So the teacher said "Ok, how about we treat grading under the communist theory" So the students agreed and turned their homework in for the week. Once again, each student did about the same as the previous week. The professor added all the scores together, and found the average score; he then assigned each paper a 82%, a B-.

Well the students came in. All of the C students and D students were ecstatic! The B and A students were frustrated. The professor asked if the class wanted to continue with the communist grading technique. A large percentage answered yes, while a few said they didn't like the new grading. But the majority won.

The next week, the professor graded the papers with the new technique, and the average class score was a D+. He returned all the homework, and the class was outraged. They couldn't understand how they went from a B- to a D+ in such a short period of time.

The high scorers in the class, after losing personal motivation to succeed, stopped studying. This in turn drove everyone communal scores much lower.

Where is the motivation of creating something, if you can't reap the benefits of all your hard work? Patents protect inventions and allow intelligent and innovative people to thrive, and in turn find the motivation to advance societies policies and technologies. Without the individual motivation, it would be hard to fabricate some sort of altruistic societal motivation for such creation.
Score
6
December 26, 2011 6:17:45 PM

amk-aka-PhantomAsian countries crap all over your """patents""" and look at the development rates! Would be rather hard if they'd have to go through the legal system and all the fees just to implement some new tech.You can make money off your work by selling actual product, not pretending like you're the unique creator of an idea and no one else is allowed to develop it unless they pay you royalties.I think that misunderstanding has come far enough here.

You are basically cherry picking the fundamentals of the patent system. Sure, there are negative effects that the system brings, but what system is perfect?

Asian countries don't "crap" all over patents. They just have a different culture then here in the western world. Their belief of evolution is using an idea that already exists and making it better. Their development rates have nothing to do with the patent system. Countries like China is impossible to compete with not because of the "patent system", but many other political agendas mixed in with a labor union that no other country can compete with.

If you stop cherry picking what you believe in and using it as an argument, but rather saw the entire picture of WHY such system was implemented in the first place, it would actually hold much more weight.
Score
4
December 26, 2011 6:28:56 PM

cmcghee358 said:
Asian countries are actually more famous for their production not their innovation sir.

They very rarely produce a new technological concept. Alot of times they make minor improvements upon it.

What you're talking about reminds me of a story about an American Government Class:

For an American Government Class the students were studying the differences between capitalism and communism. Many of the students enjoyed the idea of communism, because they felt that society had a distinct responsibility to take care of everyone. The next week the teacher graded their homework. And as expected there were a few As, more Bs, lots of Cs, and a couple Ds.

As they continued studying the next week, the students were adamant that communism was a better form of government. So the teacher said "Ok, how about we treat grading under the communist theory" So the students agreed and turned their homework in for the week. Once again, each student did about the same as the previous week. The professor added all the scores together, and found the average score; he then assigned each paper a 82%, a B-.

Well the students came in. All of the C students and D students were ecstatic! The B and A students were frustrated. The professor asked if the class wanted to continue with the communist grading technique. A large percentage answered yes, while a few said they didn't like the new grading. But the majority won.

The next week, the professor graded the papers with the new technique, and the average class score was a D+. He returned all the homework, and the class was outraged. They couldn't understand how they went from a B- to a D+ in such a short period of time.

The high scorers in the class, after losing personal motivation to succeed, stopped studying. This in turn drove everyone communal scores much lower.

Where is the motivation of creating something, if you can't reap the benefits of all your hard work? Patents protect inventions and allow intelligent and innovative people to thrive, and in turn find the motivation to advance societies policies and technologies. Without the individual motivation, it would be hard to fabricate some sort of altruistic societal motivation for such creation.


Good point, bad example. You study for YOURSELF, not for grades.
Score
-4
December 26, 2011 6:29:47 PM

ikyung said:
You are basically cherry picking the fundamentals of the patent system. Sure, there are negative effects that the system brings, but what system is perfect?

Asian countries don't "crap" all over patents. They just have a different culture then here in the western world. Their belief of evolution is using an idea that already exists and making it better. Their development rates have nothing to do with the patent system. Countries like China is impossible to compete with not because of the "patent system", but many other political agendas mixed in with a labor union that no other country can compete with.

If you stop cherry picking what you believe in and using it as an argument, but rather saw the entire picture of WHY such system was implemented in the first place, it would actually hold much more weight.


I see the picture and it DOES make sense. What pisses me off is that when something new is discovered, first talk is about the patent and only THEN someone mentions the implementation - this makes me sick.
Score
-4
December 26, 2011 7:17:15 PM

amk-aka-PhantomGood point, bad example. You study for YOURSELF, not for grades.


You might study for yourself, and not grades. But in general, grades can be considered a quantifiable, reward system that represents your knowledge as well as your hard work and perseverance. The example is fitting considering the patent discussion.
Score
3
December 26, 2011 7:33:23 PM

stingstangsay Imho one more time..

Think of it this way. With a 32 nm process, the smallest features that you can define are 32 nanometers long by 32 nanometers wide. (Each device is 2D, therefore, needs a length and a width.) Thus, the surface area of the smallest device you can make is 32nm^2 or 1024 sq. nm. So now, at 1 / 8 of 32 nm., the smallest features that you can define are 8 nm long by 8 nm wide, for a surface area of 64 sq. nm. Now divide 1024 sq. nm. by 64 sq. nm. which gives 16. This means that in theory, you can fit 16 times the devices in an area the same size as the current processes allow.

Well, my original calculation was a bit off :sleep:  up too early in the morning trying to do complex math :sleep:  , but 8 cores now becomes 128. That is still a big :wahoo:  step - assuming I'm not still asleep in my assumptions about what this means for device density. :lol: 
Score
0
Anonymous
December 26, 2011 9:01:33 PM

Come, come guys. These communists are going to require a bit more than solid logic in order to break free from their chains. As long as they are actively practicing envy and hypocrisy, truth will likely fall from them like water from a duck's back.

Remember, it takes a special kind of person to feel entitled to monetary compensation for the sweat of his own brow, but claim that the next guy doesn't. It would certainly 'benefit everyone' if the A/C guy repaired everyone's A/C unit for free, but I don't expect him too as I am not mentally insane.
Score
3
December 26, 2011 11:19:17 PM

Holy hell is Amk-aka-phantom seriously trying to extol the virtues of "asian" countries?

Dude STFU, you have absolutely NO idea what your talking about. I happen to live and work in South Korea, you know the place that makes cell phones, computer memory, computer hard drives and other assorted technology. They most definitely have a patent system very similar to what the US has for the exact same reasons. LG and Samsung are always in fights over various little things, ultimately most of it it settles out of court through the various Chaebol family connections. Same with Japan, existing patent system similar to the USA's, created with the purpose of protecting investment research and development. China is the only one who doesn't respect other countries intellectual property, but only for domestic products, their very careful about abusing IP for products marked for export.

As for the whole bullsh!t line about innovates, let me tell you a secret, they don't innovate here. Many of their websites still require IE6 and run ASP. They include little .exe's that your forced to download and install to do something as simple as reserve movie tickets, conduct online banking, or watch streaming video / music. I go bonkers with my GF's laptop trying to secure the damn thing vs all the malware and adware they have strewn across their internet. On top of this my Korean counterparts (engineers who work at the Korean companies that I work with) couldn't innovate themselves out of a wet paper bag without directions. Their absolutely brilliant at making something that already exists better, but fail hardcore when asked to do something they've never done or been told how to do. And these are the graduates from KAIST, the best technological and scientific university in the ROK. These are not dumb individuals, extremely intelligent but their education lacked the necessary focus on critical thinking and problem analysis. Everything is rote memorization and method perfection. In short they perfect the method that already exists, not create a new method. For that they often bring in foreign "western" engineers to work with their own engineers to design solutions.

Japan isn't much better, a little more focus on critical thinking but still no where the amount of free thinking encouraged in the western universities and business's. And China is well ... China. Its cheaper for them to steal other countries technology then to fund the R&D themselves.
Score
1
Anonymous
December 26, 2011 11:37:30 PM

I swear it takes fewer and fewer comments for a discussion to evolve into a crap slinging tournament with each passing moment.
Score
3
December 27, 2011 12:09:31 AM

theuniquegamerThat means we can get 32 or more cores in the mobile chips in next few years.


I'm happy with quad, but sustained 4 ghz would be nice (maybe 4.5+ boost). If there's extra room for more transistors I'd like it to go to the GPU / APU. Maybe they could even call the GPU with a name that would indicate the desktop compute power equivalent ... not sure that would even be possible though.
Score
1
December 27, 2011 12:12:51 AM

JohnnyLuckyHow would applications be affected if this technology became a reality?
Basically, those applications that can be enhanced by multi-threaded coding need to be coded that way if they are not already. They would be faster if they can take advantage of multiple cores. For those applications that cannot inherently take advantage of multiple cores, there would be no noticeable improvement in performance other than gained by any speed increases that result from shrinking the dimensions of the individual parts on the chip, however, it would take less energy to run them. In some ways, this advancement is no different than the promise of multiple cores. It will allow fitting something like 16 times more transistors onto a chip and as a result, increasing core count, than can be done at this very moment.
Quote:
I swear it takes fewer and fewer comments for a discussion to evolve into a crap slinging tournament with each passing moment.

I've noticed that myself, and it is not only here.
Score
1
December 27, 2011 2:19:09 AM

theuniquegamerThat means we can get 32 or more cores in the mobile chips in next few years.


don't think CPUs thinks solid-state drives, to make a 1 TB drive that about $200 would take about 10 nm.


I already thought they used a type of laser for this, it seems very obvious
Score
2
December 27, 2011 3:27:57 AM

palladin9479 said:
Holy hell is Amk-aka-phantom seriously trying to extol the virtues of "asian" countries?

Dude STFU, you have absolutely NO idea what your talking about. I happen to live and work in South Korea, you know the place that makes cell phones, computer memory, computer hard drives and other assorted technology. They most definitely have a patent system very similar to what the US has for the exact same reasons. LG and Samsung are always in fights over various little things, ultimately most of it it settles out of court through the various Chaebol family connections. Same with Japan, existing patent system similar to the USA's, created with the purpose of protecting investment research and development. China is the only one who doesn't respect other countries intellectual property, but only for domestic products, their very careful about abusing IP for products marked for export.

As for the whole bullsh!t line about innovates, let me tell you a secret, they don't innovate here. Many of their websites still require IE6 and run ASP. They include little .exe's that your forced to download and install to do something as simple as reserve movie tickets, conduct online banking, or watch streaming video / music. I go bonkers with my GF's laptop trying to secure the damn thing vs all the malware and adware they have strewn across their internet. On top of this my Korean counterparts (engineers who work at the Korean companies that I work with) couldn't innovate themselves out of a wet paper bag without directions. Their absolutely brilliant at making something that already exists better, but fail hardcore when asked to do something they've never done or been told how to do. And these are the graduates from KAIST, the best technological and scientific university in the ROK. These are not dumb individuals, extremely intelligent but their education lacked the necessary focus on critical thinking and problem analysis. Everything is rote memorization and method perfection. In short they perfect the method that already exists, not create a new method. For that they often bring in foreign "western" engineers to work with their own engineers to design solutions.

Japan isn't much better, a little more focus on critical thinking but still no where the amount of free thinking encouraged in the western universities and business's. And China is well ... China. Its cheaper for them to steal other countries technology then to fund the R&D themselves.


STFU yourself, I live in India :kaola: 
Score
-3
December 27, 2011 4:51:41 AM

Unfortunately, the laser precision is only part of the equation... The other part is the chemistry side of it. Ivy Bridge brings us already to 22nm, and we're quickly running out of potential advancement; after all, no circuit could be made less than one atom wide, (with an atom extra in-between circuits) which makes the theoretical best scale no smaller than 1nm. (maybe around the 1.375-1.4nm process?)

'course, seeing 32-core CPUs from Intel, given that Ivy Bridge is still quad-core, (though Haswell may be 8-core) won't happen for a while... Likely the "tock" part of 11nm, which won't be until 2017, a bit over 5 years from now.

amk-aka-phantomAsian countries crap all over your """patents""" and look at the development rates! Would be rather hard if they'd have to go through the legal system and all the fees just to implement some new tech.You can make money off your work by selling actual product, not pretending like you're the unique creator of an idea and no one else is allowed to develop it unless they pay you royalties.I think that misunderstanding has come far enough here.

...Except that China hasn't really developed a god damn thing in tech: all they can do is steal, and they cannot innovate. JAPAN has innovated some, but they respect patent law.

Without any patent protection at all, there is NO commercial incentive to invent new technologies: since you can assure that others will just copy your technology immediately, and hence get ALL the benefit while having put in NONE of the millions (or billions!) of dollars into R&D. And unlike copyright law (which is broken) patents have a limited lifespan of no more than 20 years, guaranteeing that in time the technology will become entirely free. (most noted was that just a short while ago, the patent on the drug Lipitor expired)
Score
3
December 27, 2011 5:16:48 AM

cmcghee358Asian countries are actually more famous for their production not their innovation sir.They very rarely produce a new technological concept. Alot of times they make minor improvements upon it.What you're talking about reminds me of a story about an American Government Class:For an American Government Class the students were studying the differences between capitalism and communism. Many of the students enjoyed the idea of communism, because they felt that society had a distinct responsibility to take care of everyone. The next week the teacher graded their homework. And as expected there were a few As, more Bs, lots of Cs, and a couple Ds.As they continued studying the next week, the students were adamant that communism was a better form of government. So the teacher said "Ok, how about we treat grading under the communist theory" So the students agreed and turned their homework in for the week. Once again, each student did about the same as the previous week. The professor added all the scores together, and found the average score; he then assigned each paper a 82%, a B-.Well the students came in. All of the C students and D students were ecstatic! The B and A students were frustrated. The professor asked if the class wanted to continue with the communist grading technique. A large percentage answered yes, while a few said they didn't like the new grading. But the majority won.The next week, the professor graded the papers with the new technique, and the average class score was a D+. He returned all the homework, and the class was outraged. They couldn't understand how they went from a B- to a D+ in such a short period of time.The high scorers in the class, after losing personal motivation to succeed, stopped studying. This in turn drove everyone communal scores much lower.Where is the motivation of creating something, if you can't reap the benefits of all your hard work? Patents protect inventions and allow intelligent and innovative people to thrive, and in turn find the motivation to advance societies policies and technologies. Without the individual motivation, it would be hard to fabricate some sort of altruistic societal motivation for such creation.


D is poverty
C is middle-class
B is upper middle class
A is high-class
A+ is retardedly rich

so the B and A students went to about the middle class, please keep in mind that about $74,000 is about where happiness cuts off it's about there that you don't get happier more money have, it's a study I read about a while ago.

Source of having multimillions or well over six figure incomes they look like normal people. Instead of being happy with the late normal people, and just being the boss, they decided screw everything that I'm not doing this anymore.

Let's be honest here, I never can be a six-figure income, if I could just do what I like to be happy about it and make a livable income with that bit left over every month for extraneous purchases, I could live the rest my life but that, tell me someone wants to your doctor doesn't want to get doctor anymore because they don't make money, I don't want that person be my doctor, I want one wants to do because it want to help people not because they make money. If you're honestly tell me a CEO will do a good job because they don't get retarded amounts of money anymore, than I also can't think that person be a good CEO.

Using students to actually know nothing about the real world is a bad example for anything. Granted if I was in school I would've at least liked that there was a buffer between me and a bad grade. The good students brought to grade up as a good student ever bombed the test or did really bad or something got away, they would just automatically get a D or a F and had some kind of a buffer between. What's the great between an A and a D, when I was in school it was about 100 to 70 was passing anything lower than that in most classes was an f, except for one class that went down to 60 for F. for the A and B to bring the class down to a D+ they had actually not doing any work at all. And that's in the way what communism would do.

Then again it might be thinking people are littler better than they actually are, I do every now and then.
Score
0
December 27, 2011 6:11:27 AM

alidan said:
D is poverty
C is middle-class
B is upper middle class
A is high-class
A+ is retardedly rich

so the B and A students went to about the middle class, please keep in mind that about $74,000 is about where happiness cuts off it's about there that you don't get happier more money have, it's a study I read about a while ago.

Source of having multimillions or well over six figure incomes they look like normal people. Instead of being happy with the late normal people, and just being the boss, they decided screw everything that I'm not doing this anymore.

Let's be honest here, I never can be a six-figure income, if I could just do what I like to be happy about it and make a livable income with that bit left over every month for extraneous purchases, I could live the rest my life but that, tell me someone wants to your doctor doesn't want to get doctor anymore because they don't make money, I don't want that person be my doctor, I want one wants to do because it want to help people not because they make money. If you're honestly tell me a CEO will do a good job because they don't get retarded amounts of money anymore, than I also can't think that person be a good CEO.

Using students to actually know nothing about the real world is a bad example for anything. Granted if I was in school I would've at least liked that there was a buffer between me and a bad grade. The good students brought to grade up as a good student ever bombed the test or did really bad or something got away, they would just automatically get a D or a F and had some kind of a buffer between. What's the great between an A and a D, when I was in school it was about 100 to 70 was passing anything lower than that in most classes was an f, except for one class that went down to 60 for F. for the A and B to bring the class down to a D+ they had actually not doing any work at all. And that's in the way what communism would do.

Then again it might be thinking people are littler better than they actually are, I do every now and then.


You read that completely wrong.

It was illustrating how removing the incentive to innovate, especially the prospect of an individual reward based on performance, creates a situation where no-one gets anything and the results are less then average. Being a doctor required years and years of study, hours upon hours devoted to mastering a difficult and complex craft. Same thing with being an engineer or a physicist. When the scientist, the doctor and the engineer get rewarded the same as the street sweeper, the janitor, the laborer, or the store clerk, then there is absolutely no reason for them to ever put in all that hard work in the first place.

"Doing something you blah blah blah" is a fairy tail. People need to contribute something to society to earn their way. Now we have two ways to go about doing this, one being the government deciding what jobs are needed and placing everyone in those jobs, aka the communistic / socialistic way. The other way is to allow the private industry to establish the demand for jobs and allow people to freely chose which jobs to study and apply for, aka the capitalistic way. Decades later we see which of these two models proves to be more efficient at the distribution of goods and services. Every communistic country failed, the only one that prospered was China and only after adopting capitalistic economic principles. In effect their a capitalistic country ruled by a single party autocracy that limits and controls the amount of economic freedom it's people have. Of all the socialistic democratic nations, none are as developed as the capitalistic democratic nations.

As I happen to live geographically close to the worst human rights violator in the world, along with being one of the worst run country's in existence, I can often see exactly where a socialistic communistic nation leads. It is inefficient and uncaring to it's people, there is no incentive for the strongest and smartest to excel beyond their peers. There is no path to lift oneself out of the rampant poverty that is created in a socialistic system and into a better standard of living. And eventually that is what this is all about, standards of living, aka quality of life. Humans are predispositioned to being greedy, we are not a naturally altruistic species. We will seek a better life for ourselves and those we care about, and we will expend significant time and effort to accomplish this.

In other words, I'm willing to study hard and work my a$$ off to better my life and the life of those I consider friends / family. I'm not willing to expend my energy and effort making your life any better, especially if your unwilling to put in similar or greater effort then me. I do indeed see myself making over six figures, and in actuality I already do make over that. This affords me a relatively high QoL, something I will not sacrifice so that you can sit at home or do some low effort job. I earned this job and the benefits that go with it through hard work and lots of leaning and preparation. Do not expect me to sacrifice it so that others may live in mediocrity.
Score
3
December 27, 2011 6:29:06 AM

At least someone understood the analogy. Thanks Paladin. Maybe I'll look you up on my next Tour to PyongTaek/Osan AB?
Score
3
December 27, 2011 9:52:23 AM

amk-aka-phantomSTFU yourself, I live in India


Then perhaps you should go back to thinking about India - in the United States, patents are explicitly allowed for in the Constitution (which is about 224 years old)

Article I, Section 8:
"1: The Congress shall have Power ....

... 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Note they say "[d]iscoveries" and not "final products" - you secure a new innovation so that you may profit from it for a limited time - about 17 years or so. I don't disagree that some of the patent examiners have lost a bit of touch with the real world, granting patents on things that are way too broad - but the patent system as a whole is good and useful.
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!