Well, there's the problem. It was billed as one size fits all and they spent a huge pile of money trying to make it do that (like jatos on a pig). As a result, it's not particularly good at any of it's missions.
So how does that happen? Instead of that, or finally covering the areas that have no coverage, the telecomms will declare 3G obsolete and 4G deprecated and start over putting 5G in places that already have plenty of coverage while other places go with none. Eventually, they'll have 5G coverage where they now have 4G coverage and would get around to the places with none except by then 6G will come out and they'll lather, rinse, and repeat.
That's pretty much what happened when 2G, 3G, and 4G came out.
Meanwhile, M2M mostly happens over 2G these days. More than a few are unhappy with AT&T's announcement that they are shutting 2G down. There are a few modules for 3G targeted at M2M coming out.
Actually, it PROVES that the market has failed. Clearly, they can profitably sell media to those poorer regions for a small fraction of the price they demand from the richer regions. Put another way, the marginal cost of production is small enough to sell profitably in poorer regions for a fraction of the region 1 price.
If the market is functional, it will force the price to approach that marginal cost of production everywhere. Clearly, it hasn't done that.
A free market would mean manufacturers would be freely able to produce region free players and consumers would be welcome to re-import from regions where the price is low.
They sure do like the free market when it allows them to get things made where labor is cheap, but they sure don't like it when it allows buyers to buy the product where prices are proportionally low.
Few want to look too closely at that. It would imply that some portion of people in prison are, in fact, victims of a corporate entity and that the same entity's actions are the root cause of many crime victim's troubles. It would also indicate that a corporate entity is properly on the hook for many billions in environmental remediation.
And I find your comment hysterical considering that the cornerstone of this action is the laws and regulations of California.
That's not to say that I find the FDA to be all that effective as a regulator(they manage at the same time to make the regulatory process outrageously expensive and fail to protect the population from harm).
Because if you create high stress and have a high turnover, you will eventually hire that guy. The one who ends up on CNN where they interview his friends and neighbors where they all say 'He seemed like a normal guy, I never expected him to do something like that. I didn't even know he owned a machine gun..."
It seems they are finally interested in talking to him at the embassy. Why would they now be interested if he is häktad?
That's the thing. There's enough weirdness and logical inconsistency to cast a shadow over the whole thing, including a refusal to formally commit to not sending him to the U.S.
No. If you need that, then after the phone call, send an email summary with the important data points in it and ask if that is correct. It will still be quicker than a zillion back and forth emails or a chat.
So one link about an itty bitty propeller plane and another that indicates no material risk existed (because it was within the safety margins as GP said).
Or, considering that fecal transplants have been shown to change a person's weight, they may be right that there is a medical issue, just wrong about which one.
The act accordingly case may well be a killer. But it will happen a lot less often and be more apparent when it is the case if we could get rid of the chaff.
For example, take MP3. Act accordingly might mean don't release before x date (which is not that long from now) but all the chaff makes it unclear when X is.
It may also be that once all the chaff is removed from the pile, there is no wheat at all and the correct thing is move forward with confidence. But if you first have to run 300 patents by a lawyer who may or may not be able to give you a direct answer, that is a lot of WORK.
Getting rid of the chaff isn't the only necessary change, but it would be an improvement.
It's the invalid and questionable patents that create expense and work. If you have to get 300 patents found to be invalid, it takes a lot of time, work, and money to make it happen. If you have 30 that you must kill off, it takes a lot less.
Even if there's a genuine legitimate patent in that haystack, it helps a lot if you can find it and act accordingly.
A strong clue should be re-invention. If the second party re-invents the patent (not by reading the patent or examining an implementation of it), they should be at worst considered co-inventors, not infringers. If multiple others re-invent a thing, then it was simply obvious in the first place and no patent should have issued.
We also need to actually enforce that a patent is a reduction to practice, not the idea itself. Send a message over the network that someone else can read later is an idea. SMTP is a reduction to practice. However, tell any competent software engineer that you want to send messages to other people that they can read later and you'll get some variation on a store and forward network protocol that will inevitably resemble SMTP (but would likely differ in details), so no patent.
Further, actually enforce the requirements for the disclosure. No more filtering through a lawyer that produces a patent that most competent professionals wouldn't recognize as matching up with the actual invention. It MUST be possible for a professional with average skills in the profession to actually reproduce the patented item using only existing knowledge and the patent documents.
Still wrong, look it up. It's actually a practice that involves making a bazillion insincere trade offers to get a sense of the market, then jumping between two parties who are about to make a deal and skimming a bit for yourself.
I do know how they work, and that is crap. The HFTs don't create liquidity, they just swim in it. If there are no sincere buyers and sellers, there's nobody for them to jump in front of.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's the problem. It was billed as one size fits all and they spent a huge pile of money trying to make it do that (like jatos on a pig). As a result, it's not particularly good at any of it's missions.
So how does that happen? Instead of that, or finally covering the areas that have no coverage, the telecomms will declare 3G obsolete and 4G deprecated and start over putting 5G in places that already have plenty of coverage while other places go with none. Eventually, they'll have 5G coverage where they now have 4G coverage and would get around to the places with none except by then 6G will come out and they'll lather, rinse, and repeat.
That's pretty much what happened when 2G, 3G, and 4G came out.
Meanwhile, M2M mostly happens over 2G these days. More than a few are unhappy with AT&T's announcement that they are shutting 2G down. There are a few modules for 3G targeted at M2M coming out.
We already do pay more, and have from the beginning.
Actually, it PROVES that the market has failed. Clearly, they can profitably sell media to those poorer regions for a small fraction of the price they demand from the richer regions. Put another way, the marginal cost of production is small enough to sell profitably in poorer regions for a fraction of the region 1 price.
If the market is functional, it will force the price to approach that marginal cost of production everywhere. Clearly, it hasn't done that.
A free market would mean manufacturers would be freely able to produce region free players and consumers would be welcome to re-import from regions where the price is low.
They sure do like the free market when it allows them to get things made where labor is cheap, but they sure don't like it when it allows buyers to buy the product where prices are proportionally low.
Few want to look too closely at that. It would imply that some portion of people in prison are, in fact, victims of a corporate entity and that the same entity's actions are the root cause of many crime victim's troubles. It would also indicate that a corporate entity is properly on the hook for many billions in environmental remediation.
And I find your comment hysterical considering that the cornerstone of this action is the laws and regulations of California.
That's not to say that I find the FDA to be all that effective as a regulator(they manage at the same time to make the regulatory process outrageously expensive and fail to protect the population from harm).
Because if you create high stress and have a high turnover, you will eventually hire that guy. The one who ends up on CNN where they interview his friends and neighbors where they all say 'He seemed like a normal guy, I never expected him to do something like that. I didn't even know he owned a machine gun..."
Or they have had a significant financial setback beyond their control that they are trying to dig their way out of.
It seems they are finally interested in talking to him at the embassy. Why would they now be interested if he is häktad?
That's the thing. There's enough weirdness and logical inconsistency to cast a shadow over the whole thing, including a refusal to formally commit to not sending him to the U.S.
Sure, but since it's a summary of a phone conversation, they may need to scan and email the drawings...
But keep in mind, after talking with the police while he was still in Sweden, they told him he was free to leave, so he did.
Others report that questioning someone outside of the country is not at all without precedent.
No. If you need that, then after the phone call, send an email summary with the important data points in it and ask if that is correct. It will still be quicker than a zillion back and forth emails or a chat.
So one link about an itty bitty propeller plane and another that indicates no material risk existed (because it was within the safety margins as GP said).
Are you saying that with the same authority that said the root cause of stomach ulcers is stress?
Or, considering that fecal transplants have been shown to change a person's weight, they may be right that there is a medical issue, just wrong about which one.
The act accordingly case may well be a killer. But it will happen a lot less often and be more apparent when it is the case if we could get rid of the chaff.
For example, take MP3. Act accordingly might mean don't release before x date (which is not that long from now) but all the chaff makes it unclear when X is.
It may also be that once all the chaff is removed from the pile, there is no wheat at all and the correct thing is move forward with confidence. But if you first have to run 300 patents by a lawyer who may or may not be able to give you a direct answer, that is a lot of WORK.
Getting rid of the chaff isn't the only necessary change, but it would be an improvement.
So you're a red and flaky British person?
It's the invalid and questionable patents that create expense and work. If you have to get 300 patents found to be invalid, it takes a lot of time, work, and money to make it happen. If you have 30 that you must kill off, it takes a lot less.
Even if there's a genuine legitimate patent in that haystack, it helps a lot if you can find it and act accordingly.
A strong clue should be re-invention. If the second party re-invents the patent (not by reading the patent or examining an implementation of it), they should be at worst considered co-inventors, not infringers. If multiple others re-invent a thing, then it was simply obvious in the first place and no patent should have issued.
We also need to actually enforce that a patent is a reduction to practice, not the idea itself. Send a message over the network that someone else can read later is an idea. SMTP is a reduction to practice. However, tell any competent software engineer that you want to send messages to other people that they can read later and you'll get some variation on a store and forward network protocol that will inevitably resemble SMTP (but would likely differ in details), so no patent.
Further, actually enforce the requirements for the disclosure. No more filtering through a lawyer that produces a patent that most competent professionals wouldn't recognize as matching up with the actual invention. It MUST be possible for a professional with average skills in the profession to actually reproduce the patented item using only existing knowledge and the patent documents.
Still wrong, look it up. It's actually a practice that involves making a bazillion insincere trade offers to get a sense of the market, then jumping between two parties who are about to make a deal and skimming a bit for yourself.
HST != press releases.
Or making the 'market clock' tick in human scale quanta.
I do know how they work, and that is crap. The HFTs don't create liquidity, they just swim in it. If there are no sincere buyers and sellers, there's nobody for them to jump in front of.
Currently, the login time for a 4096 bit key is practically lost in the noise. I doubt very much that 3x-5x is at all prohibitive.
Given the NSA's research on EC, that may or may not work out better.