These bands probably won't be used much for social network communications if acquired by smaller players. They may come up with more innovative uses, like sensor networks, municipal services, self driving car communications and other stuff we haven't thought up yet. The big telecoms won't do that.
By "moron" this means the people creating the security procedures, or the workers who refused to take the proper training. The solution is to fire those workers. Ie, the poster did not mean you should blame the workers who are morons, but meant that essentially no company is being this stupid unless it's actually being run by morons. In that case, you can blame the morons who are running the company.
Why would any important system be controlled by a smartphone app anyway, that's just dumb. And why would these apps be put on Google Play for the public to see? No operator is going to use an app to control machinery, instead they're going to look at the dials, use an official computer on-site, and so forth. Maybe in the IT world the sysadmin works from home, but in any mission critical application the workers are always on site.
Any apps used are likely for field service workers to get a quick update (what jobs are left to do, verify that changes are being propogated before packing up, etc). Even then, have you tried using a smartphone or tablet while wearing safety gloves?
It would be nice to see some examples of the kind of apps that are being used this way in the article.
That's the new TiVo, it's gone downhill after acquisition. But the original TiVo was a great product, it invented the entire concept of DVRs, and all the competitors had lousy products with bad UIs in comparison.
The real issue in this case is whether or not a company should sit back and let a let a larger company copy their patents or not. Not ever patent lawsuit is about patent trolls. If you think that the entire concept of patents should be abolished, TiVo has the law and the right on their side here even if you don't like their products.
The outcome is that other companies will have to legally license the technology that someone else invented instead of just stealing it. This is something TiVo invented, these were indeed novel ideas, and Comcast knew these patents existed. In a relatively short period of time these patents will expire.
This is exactly what the patent system is supposed to do: provide a temporary exclusive right to the inventor as an incentive to publish and make public the new invention instead of maintaining closely held trade secrets shared only with close trusted partners. If you throw this out, it means that the giant companies like Comcast can steal any idea they like with impunity, which ruins the business opportunities for small or independent inventors.
This is NOT similar to SCO in any way other than that a patent and a lawsuit is involved.
I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.
No, it's very different from SCO. TiVo invented their technology, and these were not obvious ideas at the time. Yes, TiVo was acquired so they're on the second owner but still the same company essentially. SCO did not invent their technology that they claimed to own in the lawsuits, they only inherited it through a long sequence of acquisitions and trades and some statements that they interpreted incorrectly. Not the same thing.
If you had a product that you invented, then comcast copies it and damages your business to the point where the world considers you an also-ran, would you just let it go as "it's just business"? Today's world has mega companies who create patents as ammunition in their fights against other mega companies; or they collaborate with an agreement not to sue each other and instead attack the smaller entities. It's not fair of course. But you shouldn't side with the mega company when the small players decide to fight back using the same ammunition. As a smallish company you have to defend yourself against the giants or you go out of business.
If you hate patents, then please attack companies like Comcast, Apple, or IBM instead; or attack the patent trolls.
When it was new, the reason for the language was to communicate with others and to make this communication easier. The idea is that if it were easier to speak with people from other countries, those people would get along better, there would be fewer wars, fewer problems of misunderstanding, and so forth. It was not invented as a nerd language.
Latin was widely useful for communication even after there were no native speakers of it. If you were a merchant then it was in your best interests to know this dead language for economic reasons. If you were an aristocrat, diplomat, scientist/philosopher, your job was easier if you knew Latin. It's how the church communicated with all of its priests and members. It was a very widely known language for centuries, and yet there was no village of native Latin speakers.
Yes, but how is that different from someone in Albania who has to learn the ridiculous language of English? It makes no sense, the spelling is arbitrary, the vocabulary is immense, irregular verbs are the norm, and so forth. They're not learning English because it's well designed, or because they desire to have a cultural exchange of ideas, or all those other reasons that people learn Esperanto. They learn English because they want to make more money in the future, get into a better school, or to be able to talk to the tourists who come buy and sell them stuff.
It doesn't mean Esperanto is puffery. It just means that it doesn't have the same sense of resigned pragmatism about it. It may not have achieved its original goals of providing better communication across cultures. Other languages have used violence and force to promote a common language, or economic pressures, or political decrees. So maybe Esperanto just needs better marketing. For several decades it was quite a popular idea, it would be good to see some come back there.
That idea doesn't require there to be an entire hamlet that speaks Esperanto before it is useful. Is it more useful to speak a language that is known only in one hamlet than Esperanto? One of those will certainly be much easier to learn, and you'll be able to send post cards back and forth with a pen pal in less than a year.
Esperanto is most definitely simplified. Sure, there's familiarity in the root words, but the rules of the language are greatly simplified on purpose.
I don't know if natural langauges naturally evolve to simpler forms, what they do is evolve towards being easier to understand verbally. Ironically, this often means more complex grammatical rules in order to make understanding easier. Ie, two people shout at each other from neighboring hilltops, it's a mess. "Did you say Pig or Dig?" Listening means you lose so much information, but you make up for it with all the extra clues that come from grammer, pronunciations, aural cues. So the word is definitely a verb because of word placement, and it's past tense because I could hear the suffix, the subject used a feminine article, and then your brain puts all those together and you understand the meaning even if you missed part of a word.
Reading is so much simpler overall here.
Plus evolution in language is a bit mixed up, and evolution never means something is advancing towards a better or more logical endpoint. There's so much mixing of languages, one group invades another group, cultures merge together, loan words arrive and native words fall out of use,
Maybe that's one reason that lingua francas come about. People learned Latin because the Romans dominated everything and didn't want to learn the local language. People today learn English because Americans rarely bother to learn someone else's language. That is, you suck up to the powers that be by learning their language; it helps you get into their schools, it helps your businesses relationships, the powers that be are going to have the books that you feel you need to read or movies to watch, etc.
So if Mandarin becomes the new popular language to know, it won't be because it's an easy language, or people are interested in the culture, or anything like that. It will be because you will get a person economic boost by knowing the language; get into better Chinese schools, better able to trade with Chinese comanies, or even work for Chinese companies, and so forth.
Note that Mandarin is already the must-know second language within China for the same reasons. And the reason in most countries why one dialect or regional language becomes dominant.
But remember, effort to learn Mandarin is very difficult, effort to learn Esperanto is very easy. That's why Mandarin isn't necessarily going to be the must-know language soon. English is only a standard language for economic and commercial reasons, not because it's easy to learn. Similar, French wasn't Lingua Franca because it was easy. Esperanto started precisely to be easy to learn and thus an easy path to be a common language. Especially if your native language is from Europe (western/central) then it's pretty straight forward.
A sack of potatos has value but it's not a currency. A certificate of IBM stock has a value, and widely accepted value that can be looked up easily and have millions of people agree on it, and is reasonably easy to convert to other forms, you can even barter with it, but it's still not currency.
The more important ingredient for currency is not that it has value, but that you can USE that value as a convenient and widely accepted medium for exchange of goods. Crypto currencies fail in this regard, and so are more like investments or speculations. Ie, the grocer's will want to see cash (and not that funny colored stuff from the neighboring country). Even if one grocer will take doge coin for some reason, it still isn't widely accepted, and so it isn't very useful to buy stuff with.
If something simple makes $100B disappear, then the "valuation" wasn't real to begin with. Don't count the chickens before they hatch, as everyone should know but not everyone uses that advice. That's why you see similar sudden plunges in stock based on a single analyst's quip. Speculative investments are often like Schrodinger's cat, you don't really know what the item is worth until you actually sell it. Just be glad the IRS doesn't tax you on what you thought your investments were going to be worth.
Ok, it won't do all relevant pieces of code, but you can search the gcc source code to find similar things. You can experiment and notice that the compiler may be more efficient if you write your for loop one way than with a different style. That's because it will do pattern matching on the intermediate code, a type of peephole optimization. Change the code slightly and the pattern doesn't match anymore.
Well sure, a computer can do a lot. But I hate watching TV on my computer, I want to watch TV from my couch. I never liked Chromecast much, because there's no remote for it. Trying to use a smart phone to control something is amazingly clumsy, especially if you've got the lights dim. Ie, turn on phone, unlock phone (slow if it's a pin), get eyes to adjust to light, push pause about 7 seconds too late.
Slashdot Mirror
These bands probably won't be used much for social network communications if acquired by smaller players. They may come up with more innovative uses, like sensor networks, municipal services, self driving car communications and other stuff we haven't thought up yet. The big telecoms won't do that.
By "moron" this means the people creating the security procedures, or the workers who refused to take the proper training. The solution is to fire those workers. Ie, the poster did not mean you should blame the workers who are morons, but meant that essentially no company is being this stupid unless it's actually being run by morons. In that case, you can blame the morons who are running the company.
Why would any important system be controlled by a smartphone app anyway, that's just dumb. And why would these apps be put on Google Play for the public to see? No operator is going to use an app to control machinery, instead they're going to look at the dials, use an official computer on-site, and so forth. Maybe in the IT world the sysadmin works from home, but in any mission critical application the workers are always on site.
Any apps used are likely for field service workers to get a quick update (what jobs are left to do, verify that changes are being propogated before packing up, etc). Even then, have you tried using a smartphone or tablet while wearing safety gloves?
It would be nice to see some examples of the kind of apps that are being used this way in the article.
That's the new TiVo, it's gone downhill after acquisition. But the original TiVo was a great product, it invented the entire concept of DVRs, and all the competitors had lousy products with bad UIs in comparison.
The real issue in this case is whether or not a company should sit back and let a let a larger company copy their patents or not. Not ever patent lawsuit is about patent trolls. If you think that the entire concept of patents should be abolished, TiVo has the law and the right on their side here even if you don't like their products.
These patents are newer than that so they're not about to expire, and they are patents that TiVo invented themselves so they're not trolls.
The outcome is that other companies will have to legally license the technology that someone else invented instead of just stealing it. This is something TiVo invented, these were indeed novel ideas, and Comcast knew these patents existed. In a relatively short period of time these patents will expire.
This is exactly what the patent system is supposed to do: provide a temporary exclusive right to the inventor as an incentive to publish and make public the new invention instead of maintaining closely held trade secrets shared only with close trusted partners. If you throw this out, it means that the giant companies like Comcast can steal any idea they like with impunity, which ruins the business opportunities for small or independent inventors.
This is NOT similar to SCO in any way other than that a patent and a lawsuit is involved.
I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.
No, it's very different from SCO. TiVo invented their technology, and these were not obvious ideas at the time. Yes, TiVo was acquired so they're on the second owner but still the same company essentially. SCO did not invent their technology that they claimed to own in the lawsuits, they only inherited it through a long sequence of acquisitions and trades and some statements that they interpreted incorrectly. Not the same thing.
If you had a product that you invented, then comcast copies it and damages your business to the point where the world considers you an also-ran, would you just let it go as "it's just business"? Today's world has mega companies who create patents as ammunition in their fights against other mega companies; or they collaborate with an agreement not to sue each other and instead attack the smaller entities. It's not fair of course. But you shouldn't side with the mega company when the small players decide to fight back using the same ammunition. As a smallish company you have to defend yourself against the giants or you go out of business.
If you hate patents, then please attack companies like Comcast, Apple, or IBM instead; or attack the patent trolls.
I prefer Lojban. But I'm a splittist.
No, it's Romani ite domum. Now write it out one hundred times. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
When it was new, the reason for the language was to communicate with others and to make this communication easier. The idea is that if it were easier to speak with people from other countries, those people would get along better, there would be fewer wars, fewer problems of misunderstanding, and so forth. It was not invented as a nerd language.
Latin was widely useful for communication even after there were no native speakers of it. If you were a merchant then it was in your best interests to know this dead language for economic reasons. If you were an aristocrat, diplomat, scientist/philosopher, your job was easier if you knew Latin. It's how the church communicated with all of its priests and members. It was a very widely known language for centuries, and yet there was no village of native Latin speakers.
Yes, but how is that different from someone in Albania who has to learn the ridiculous language of English? It makes no sense, the spelling is arbitrary, the vocabulary is immense, irregular verbs are the norm, and so forth. They're not learning English because it's well designed, or because they desire to have a cultural exchange of ideas, or all those other reasons that people learn Esperanto. They learn English because they want to make more money in the future, get into a better school, or to be able to talk to the tourists who come buy and sell them stuff.
It doesn't mean Esperanto is puffery. It just means that it doesn't have the same sense of resigned pragmatism about it. It may not have achieved its original goals of providing better communication across cultures. Other languages have used violence and force to promote a common language, or economic pressures, or political decrees. So maybe Esperanto just needs better marketing. For several decades it was quite a popular idea, it would be good to see some come back there.
That idea doesn't require there to be an entire hamlet that speaks Esperanto before it is useful. Is it more useful to speak a language that is known only in one hamlet than Esperanto? One of those will certainly be much easier to learn, and you'll be able to send post cards back and forth with a pen pal in less than a year.
Esperanto is most definitely simplified. Sure, there's familiarity in the root words, but the rules of the language are greatly simplified on purpose.
I don't know if natural langauges naturally evolve to simpler forms, what they do is evolve towards being easier to understand verbally. Ironically, this often means more complex grammatical rules in order to make understanding easier. Ie, two people shout at each other from neighboring hilltops, it's a mess. "Did you say Pig or Dig?" Listening means you lose so much information, but you make up for it with all the extra clues that come from grammer, pronunciations, aural cues. So the word is definitely a verb because of word placement, and it's past tense because I could hear the suffix, the subject used a feminine article, and then your brain puts all those together and you understand the meaning even if you missed part of a word.
Reading is so much simpler overall here.
Plus evolution in language is a bit mixed up, and evolution never means something is advancing towards a better or more logical endpoint. There's so much mixing of languages, one group invades another group, cultures merge together, loan words arrive and native words fall out of use,
Wow, that's a few dozen times more than the number of people who can speak Lojban fluently.
Maybe that's one reason that lingua francas come about. People learned Latin because the Romans dominated everything and didn't want to learn the local language. People today learn English because Americans rarely bother to learn someone else's language. That is, you suck up to the powers that be by learning their language; it helps you get into their schools, it helps your businesses relationships, the powers that be are going to have the books that you feel you need to read or movies to watch, etc.
So if Mandarin becomes the new popular language to know, it won't be because it's an easy language, or people are interested in the culture, or anything like that. It will be because you will get a person economic boost by knowing the language; get into better Chinese schools, better able to trade with Chinese comanies, or even work for Chinese companies, and so forth.
Note that Mandarin is already the must-know second language within China for the same reasons. And the reason in most countries why one dialect or regional language becomes dominant.
But remember, effort to learn Mandarin is very difficult, effort to learn Esperanto is very easy. That's why Mandarin isn't necessarily going to be the must-know language soon. English is only a standard language for economic and commercial reasons, not because it's easy to learn. Similar, French wasn't Lingua Franca because it was easy. Esperanto started precisely to be easy to learn and thus an easy path to be a common language. Especially if your native language is from Europe (western/central) then it's pretty straight forward.
A sack of potatos has value but it's not a currency. A certificate of IBM stock has a value, and widely accepted value that can be looked up easily and have millions of people agree on it, and is reasonably easy to convert to other forms, you can even barter with it, but it's still not currency.
The more important ingredient for currency is not that it has value, but that you can USE that value as a convenient and widely accepted medium for exchange of goods. Crypto currencies fail in this regard, and so are more like investments or speculations. Ie, the grocer's will want to see cash (and not that funny colored stuff from the neighboring country). Even if one grocer will take doge coin for some reason, it still isn't widely accepted, and so it isn't very useful to buy stuff with.
If something simple makes $100B disappear, then the "valuation" wasn't real to begin with. Don't count the chickens before they hatch, as everyone should know but not everyone uses that advice. That's why you see similar sudden plunges in stock based on a single analyst's quip. Speculative investments are often like Schrodinger's cat, you don't really know what the item is worth until you actually sell it. Just be glad the IRS doesn't tax you on what you thought your investments were going to be worth.
Ok, it won't do all relevant pieces of code, but you can search the gcc source code to find similar things. You can experiment and notice that the compiler may be more efficient if you write your for loop one way than with a different style. That's because it will do pattern matching on the intermediate code, a type of peephole optimization. Change the code slightly and the pattern doesn't match anymore.
A good compiler will convert a loop for finding the bit into the single instruction.
How do you manage this? I've only got 300mb a month because I got the smallest data plan possible.
Well sure, a computer can do a lot. But I hate watching TV on my computer, I want to watch TV from my couch.
I never liked Chromecast much, because there's no remote for it. Trying to use a smart phone to control something is amazingly clumsy, especially if you've got the lights dim. Ie, turn on phone, unlock phone (slow if it's a pin), get eyes to adjust to light, push pause about 7 seconds too late.
Yes, and it performs nicely. And they keep getting newer models. Inexpensive, small, and trouble free.
There will be autos without these features, it's a certainty.