I'm not sure that industry can solve this mess that government created."
I don't know about Australia, but if it has to do with protecting or accumulating wealth - the modern intent of patents - in America, then any associated government mess that has been created in the last 30 years was at the behest of, paid for, and crafted by industry.
Hence, the average American's and the nation's interests are rarely represented. You only get "messes" when legislation is focused solely on the interests of a few.
Who is to say that you mom isn't being routinely buying crack for sex, and somebody goofed the size of the planned "bump"?;)
P.S.: You are employing Glenn Beck "logic". Please don't.
Oh, I'm sorry...I was not aware that/. had experts in high frequency trading; at that, experts who had the wherewithal to evade the layers of non-transparency created by firms claiming a need to "protect proprietary algorithms" and so on. So you do know exactly what those computer programs are doing, and can vouchsafe that they are never employed to manipulate the direction of trading of individual stocks, entire sectors, or the market itself?
I would urge you to share your information. You could create quite the interesting Slashdot article, were you to convey the source and depth of your knowledge in that arena. I have no doubt that such an article would pique even more interest than an explanation of your familiarity with drugs and prostitution.
The sad fact is that what we in the United States are creating is a system of specialized monopolies, whether real or where the number of players is so small that a move by any one player is immediately copy-catted by all. Broadband television and internet access provision is, you might say, on the cutting edge of that movement.
And on top of that we have layered "the commodities market", where the increasing concentration of wealth enables a shrinking handful to tie up raw materials (to include energy, of course) and hold them off the market until they get the price that they want. Not a big deal, you may say - but it is when the individuals making those market plays have accumulated so much personal wealth since the advent of "flood-up/trickle-down" economics that it would take five of their lifetimes before they felt any personal economic pressure to sell.
Particularly in those areas where the consumer's needs are the most profound due to the nature of "modern life", such as health and automobile insurance, internet and television provision, entertainment, and energy, we increasingly simply do not have a competitive system of free enterprise where the consumer benefits from the laws of supply and demand; instead, we have monopolization and extortion.
The assumption of an "honest" error, that is; who is to say that the market isn't being routinely manipulated, and somebody goofed the size of the planned "bump"?
Some of the Democrats are the same as Republicans, no doubt. They typically do America the favor of naming themselves as "Blue Dogs"...and are sometimes also or otherwise identified as "neoliberals".
Actually, I have been an Independent my whole life. I sound like a Democrat because the impact of the Republican policies of blocking all attempts to wean America from foreign oil, "flood-up/trickle-down" economics, deregulation, and inequitable free trade have so damaged America that I had no choice other than to recognize the fact that the Republicans are the greatest threat the American people have faced in our entire history.
Sure, the Republicans have seen to it that some few Americans have vastly increased their rate of wealth accumulation, but they've done so by taking it out of the American people's hide.
I am, in fact, a six-year Army veteran; when the right - the Republicans - began to try to transform America from a democracy into a hereditary aristocracy of a few wealthy and many, many poor (to include such abominations as naming corporations as super-citizens with the rights accorded to a real American citizen multiplied by the wealth they can bring to bear) they named themselves my enemy according to the oath that I swore.
Well, I believe it; however, I'll pass on the title of "idiot". I would observe that the derogatory nature of your introduction of Al Gore into the conversation rather defines your position on the subject of environmental responsibility. No doubt you fall among those who believe that mankind is incapable of altering the world "because it is too big to affect", and so however man uses it or whatever man pumps into it is no big deal?
While I cannot say that this is true of you, I have found that people who have such beliefs have often never been outside of their niche in the U.S. of A. Curiously, I have also found that people who hold that "too big to affect" belief often tend to pee in other people's swimming pools.
Which company is actually using a smaller proportion of the patents they sued over, and which of them has the most patents at issue working in products and current research?
So if you patent something but cannot afford to begin using your patent because you don't have the funding to build large-scale manufacturing facilities, but mega-corporation "A" does have massive production facilities and pirates your patent and starts cranking out product, you lose?
Iraq under Sadam after first Gulf war, wasn't producing oil at 100% therefore; the price of oil was historically (at the time) high.
When oil prices are high, US economy goes into the toilet because our economy is based on cheap oil.
I would argue with that; you have to remember that there were oil men from Texas in the White House.
Increasing tension in the Middle East drives speculation which in turn increases oil prices
Speculation enables plain old-fashioned price gouging and thus incredible profits
High oil prices are good for Texas as they subsidize their state government with healthy severance taxes on the market value of oil
High oil prices provide an excellent lever to use to force the opening of near-shore drilling as well as ANWR
The Bush Administration was so interested in seeing the right people make a lot of money that when energy prices really began getting out of control they flat-out refused to do anything about the hedge funds
My point being that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with lowering the price of energy, which would have been good for ALL of the American people; rather, it had to do with enabling a few people to increase their rate of wealth accumulation. Consider: The former objective is Democratic; the latter, Republican.
Then the only safe thing to do is ban the internet and go back to snail mail and legions of government officials manually opening, reading, and if need be censoring each and every letter and package.
Oh...you don't allow the government to open and filter each and every letter? Well I'll be...
My point being that the only real differences between the internet and snail mail are speed, volume, and delivery cost. In fact, you can deliver a lot nastier payload via snail mail than you can over the internet. Once you have filtering - the inspection of every packet - authorized for the internet, it makes a lovely argument and precedent for snooping and censoring your snail mail, too.
Take, for instance, the recent oil and ongoing oil spill in the gulf...in 2003, an oil industry-friendly White House scrapped plans to make the oil companies tighten up their spill prevention act; a requirement to use the acoustic BOP was tossed because the oil industry argued that it was too expensive and "might not work anyway".
Now we have an oil spill that is going to cost...a lot...to clean up, perhaps because of a desire to avoid spending $500K. I find that to be irksome, when I know that the CEO of BP took home $6.15 million in 2009 even though profits were way down from the year before.
And I find the thought of that same drive to make as much profit as possible being at the intersection of the planet and space to be worrisome...you can do a lot of damage if you ram big things loaded with rocket fuel into other things - or the planet - while going multiples of the speed of sound.
Like RAM and NOR-type flash, the technology features fast random
access times. This enables the execution of code directly from the
memory, without an intermediate copy to RAM. The read latency of
PCM is comparable to single bit per cell NOR flash, while the read
bandwidth can match DRAM. In contrast, NAND flash suffers from long
random access times on the order of 10s of microseconds that prevent
direct code execution.
Write/erase speed
PCM is capable of achieving write speeds like NAND, but with lower
latency and with no separate erase step required. NOR flash features
moderate write speeds but long erase times. As with RAM, no separate
erase step is required with PCM, but the write speed (bandwidth and
latency) does not match the capability of RAM today. The capability
of PCM is expected, however, however, to improve with each process
generation as the PCM cell area decreases.
see conditions begin to favor agile, much smaller businesses that can efficiently produce most important things at home
I tend to disagree; while conditions may differ elsewhere, our Supreme Court's transformation of corporations into super-citizens will in fact encourage corporations to become ever bigger so as to ever better afford the purchase of both political advertising and politicians. Given enough political control, a corporation can simply and effectively modify the rules of the game to make "doing business" prohibitively expensive or complex unless you are already of sufficient size.
And they will do that; the important thing to remember is that our corporations have grown themselves to the size that they are now for the competitive advantage that size provides in the pursuit of profit; they do not, in fact, like competition, and size provides more and better opportunities to eliminate competition.
Glad to see you mention the vulnerabilities that can be introduced via the chipsets...a lot of people focus on the code and don't understand what you can do with a single chip - and "invisibly", for all practical purposes.
Just as well; I probably would have used the exact same words that you used in response again. This exchange should teach me one thing:
If you use somebody else's words, you inherit the clueless rant.
Roughly as private as a venture which depends on obtaining weather reports built using taxpayer investment. Or as private as a venture requiring the use of roads built using taxpayer investment. Etc... etc...
In other words, for reasons unknown, you wish to hold commercial space ventures to a standard no other business venture must meet. I hate to break it to you...It's part of that "public good" thing.
How much good is the public going to realize from these private space ventures? I somehow do not see the average American dropping $1x10e6 for a tourist ride.
If your response is that the private ventures will "someday" return something of value to the American people as a whole, then I would ask what is it? When will it arrive? How will these private ventures pay for the use of the American people's space facilities in the meantime?
To use the words that business uses to cut American jobs, ensuring that these private space ventures pay their own way rather than be subsidized is "just good business".
"I hate to break it to you", but business pays federal taxes on gasoline and diesel to reimburse the public for the use of our roads and highways, landing fees at our airports, and on and on; "for reasons unknown" you seem to want to exempt space ventures from being treated equally....
lolll...oh, I have no problem with this nation going into space; in fact, I figure that we either do that, or that we'll eventually collectively drown in the toxins so much American industry fled to China et al in order to freely produce.
I do, however, have a problem with this nation subsidizing a few people's drive for wealth. What kind of fees are we going to charge the emerging "private" space industry to recoup our investment in infrastructure, for instance?
People pay federal gas taxes, to use your road analogy...
Try voting an executive in a corporation who decides to "shape" whatever political content on the web that you have an interest in into the void out of office.
You can do that to a President, you know. But there are many, many areas in the country where ISPs have monopolies; if not outright, then de facto in that there is only one high-speed provider with DSL or dial-up providing the only alternatives in most of the country.
...one court convicting someone of "denial of service" even though he denied no service after another court has told Comcast that they can deny service for any old reason that they please.
We're not seeing the application of "justice" in America; we're seeing the application of that malapropism: Might makes right.
...but then I realized that, while there were the predictable rants to the effect that government having anything to do with "commercial space flight" was a bad thing somehow, there were no observations on the irony of "commercial space flight" being reliant upon existing and massive taxpayer-funded infrastructure and the continued maintenance and improvement of same.
How "private" is a venture that depends upon the preexistence of a trillion dollar taxpayer investment to ensure that they don't get a free colonoscopy from a bolt or other bit of space debris that is traveling at 22,000 MPH??
I am still waiting for the "commercial space flight venture" that starts out in a truly "private" manner by building ground communications and tracking stations around the planet - to include a facility equivalent to the Air Force Space Command's tracking site at NORAD.
"Commercial space flight" is not so much a "venture" as it is a new and fascinating form of wealth transfer. Pat yourself on the back: If you have paid any Federal taxes in the last 50 years, you're helping somebody else explore the possibility of getting extremely wealthy through the use of the facilities you built.
Thing is, whoever should choose to do such a thing wouldn't do it - if they were wise - until the crucial final four months before a Presidential election.
If implemented well, the ability to shape traffic added to the Supreme Court's designation of corporations as super-citizens would get you that one critical election; there simply would not be time to run any objections through America's courts - particularly in light of the fact that "interested parties" might simply shove the case to the Supreme Court, where outcomes are somewhat...predictable.
Once you have the White House, the House, and the Senate, you can just make whatever you did legal - and salt the Department of Justice so as to ensure that no cases were brought under any inconvenient predecessor statutes.
I do believe precedence - political, if not judicial - exists for the latter steps.
So you're saying that you don't mind if a corporation that wants to build a nuclear waste dump in your backyard buys your ISP and shapes any disagreement with their plans into non-existence? It is not like that is anything other than a trivial task given the rapidly evolving state of deep packet inspection...
As it stands now, an ISP whose CEO is in favor of political party "A" can have all traffic - to include "grass roots" campaign donations - flowing to or from any organization representing political party "B" "shaped" right into the e-toilet...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that industry can solve this mess that government created."
I don't know about Australia, but if it has to do with protecting or accumulating wealth - the modern intent of patents - in America, then any associated government mess that has been created in the last 30 years was at the behest of, paid for, and crafted by industry.
Hence, the average American's and the nation's interests are rarely represented. You only get "messes" when legislation is focused solely on the interests of a few.
Who is to say that you mom isn't being routinely buying crack for sex, and somebody goofed the size of the planned "bump"? ;)
P.S.: You are employing Glenn Beck "logic". Please don't.
Oh, I'm sorry...I was not aware that /. had experts in high frequency trading; at that, experts who had the wherewithal to evade the layers of non-transparency created by firms claiming a need to "protect proprietary algorithms" and so on. So you do know exactly what those computer programs are doing, and can vouchsafe that they are never employed to manipulate the direction of trading of individual stocks, entire sectors, or the market itself?
I would urge you to share your information. You could create quite the interesting Slashdot article, were you to convey the source and depth of your knowledge in that arena. I have no doubt that such an article would pique even more interest than an explanation of your familiarity with drugs and prostitution.
The sad fact is that what we in the United States are creating is a system of specialized monopolies, whether real or where the number of players is so small that a move by any one player is immediately copy-catted by all. Broadband television and internet access provision is, you might say, on the cutting edge of that movement.
And on top of that we have layered "the commodities market", where the increasing concentration of wealth enables a shrinking handful to tie up raw materials (to include energy, of course) and hold them off the market until they get the price that they want. Not a big deal, you may say - but it is when the individuals making those market plays have accumulated so much personal wealth since the advent of "flood-up/trickle-down" economics that it would take five of their lifetimes before they felt any personal economic pressure to sell.
Particularly in those areas where the consumer's needs are the most profound due to the nature of "modern life", such as health and automobile insurance, internet and television provision, entertainment, and energy, we increasingly simply do not have a competitive system of free enterprise where the consumer benefits from the laws of supply and demand; instead, we have monopolization and extortion.
The assumption of an "honest" error, that is; who is to say that the market isn't being routinely manipulated, and somebody goofed the size of the planned "bump"?
Some of the Democrats are the same as Republicans, no doubt. They typically do America the favor of naming themselves as "Blue Dogs"...and are sometimes also or otherwise identified as "neoliberals".
Actually, I have been an Independent my whole life. I sound like a Democrat because the impact of the Republican policies of blocking all attempts to wean America from foreign oil, "flood-up/trickle-down" economics, deregulation, and inequitable free trade have so damaged America that I had no choice other than to recognize the fact that the Republicans are the greatest threat the American people have faced in our entire history.
Sure, the Republicans have seen to it that some few Americans have vastly increased their rate of wealth accumulation, but they've done so by taking it out of the American people's hide.
I am, in fact, a six-year Army veteran; when the right - the Republicans - began to try to transform America from a democracy into a hereditary aristocracy of a few wealthy and many, many poor (to include such abominations as naming corporations as super-citizens with the rights accorded to a real American citizen multiplied by the wealth they can bring to bear) they named themselves my enemy according to the oath that I swore.
Well, I believe it; however, I'll pass on the title of "idiot". I would observe that the derogatory nature of your introduction of Al Gore into the conversation rather defines your position on the subject of environmental responsibility. No doubt you fall among those who believe that mankind is incapable of altering the world "because it is too big to affect", and so however man uses it or whatever man pumps into it is no big deal?
While I cannot say that this is true of you, I have found that people who have such beliefs have often never been outside of their niche in the U.S. of A. Curiously, I have also found that people who hold that "too big to affect" belief often tend to pee in other people's swimming pools.
Which company is actually using a smaller proportion of the patents they sued over, and which of them has the most patents at issue working in products and current research?
So if you patent something but cannot afford to begin using your patent because you don't have the funding to build large-scale manufacturing facilities, but mega-corporation "A" does have massive production facilities and pirates your patent and starts cranking out product, you lose?
I would argue with that; you have to remember that there were oil men from Texas in the White House.
My point being that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with lowering the price of energy, which would have been good for ALL of the American people; rather, it had to do with enabling a few people to increase their rate of wealth accumulation. Consider: The former objective is Democratic; the latter, Republican.
...communications interface.
Then the only safe thing to do is ban the internet and go back to snail mail and legions of government officials manually opening, reading, and if need be censoring each and every letter and package.
Oh...you don't allow the government to open and filter each and every letter? Well I'll be...
My point being that the only real differences between the internet and snail mail are speed, volume, and delivery cost. In fact, you can deliver a lot nastier payload via snail mail than you can over the internet. Once you have filtering - the inspection of every packet - authorized for the internet, it makes a lovely argument and precedent for snooping and censoring your snail mail, too.
Open that door, and a monster will walk in.
I have another concern, too...the profit motive.
Take, for instance, the recent oil and ongoing oil spill in the gulf...in 2003, an oil industry-friendly White House scrapped plans to make the oil companies tighten up their spill prevention act; a requirement to use the acoustic BOP was tossed because the oil industry argued that it was too expensive and "might not work anyway".
Now we have an oil spill that is going to cost...a lot...to clean up, perhaps because of a desire to avoid spending $500K. I find that to be irksome, when I know that the CEO of BP took home $6.15 million in 2009 even though profits were way down from the year before.
And I find the thought of that same drive to make as much profit as possible being at the intersection of the planet and space to be worrisome...you can do a lot of damage if you ram big things loaded with rocket fuel into other things - or the planet - while going multiples of the speed of sound.
It has been my experience that 1600 seats @free per seat will often offset a single missing cell border.
Read Speed
Like RAM and NOR-type flash, the technology features fast random access times. This enables the execution of code directly from the memory, without an intermediate copy to RAM. The read latency of PCM is comparable to single bit per cell NOR flash, while the read bandwidth can match DRAM. In contrast, NAND flash suffers from long random access times on the order of 10s of microseconds that prevent direct code execution.
Write/erase speed
PCM is capable of achieving write speeds like NAND, but with lower latency and with no separate erase step required. NOR flash features moderate write speeds but long erase times. As with RAM, no separate erase step is required with PCM, but the write speed (bandwidth and latency) does not match the capability of RAM today. The capability of PCM is expected, however, however, to improve with each process generation as the PCM cell area decreases.
see conditions begin to favor agile, much smaller businesses that can efficiently produce most important things at home
I tend to disagree; while conditions may differ elsewhere, our Supreme Court's transformation of corporations into super-citizens will in fact encourage corporations to become ever bigger so as to ever better afford the purchase of both political advertising and politicians. Given enough political control, a corporation can simply and effectively modify the rules of the game to make "doing business" prohibitively expensive or complex unless you are already of sufficient size.
And they will do that; the important thing to remember is that our corporations have grown themselves to the size that they are now for the competitive advantage that size provides in the pursuit of profit; they do not, in fact, like competition, and size provides more and better opportunities to eliminate competition.
lolll...ask Wal*Mart.
Glad to see you mention the vulnerabilities that can be introduced via the chipsets...a lot of people focus on the code and don't understand what you can do with a single chip - and "invisibly", for all practical purposes.
Just as well; I probably would have used the exact same words that you used in response again. This exchange should teach me one thing:
If you use somebody else's words, you inherit the clueless rant.
Roughly as private as a venture which depends on obtaining weather reports built using taxpayer investment. Or as private as a venture requiring the use of roads built using taxpayer investment. Etc... etc...
In other words, for reasons unknown, you wish to hold commercial space ventures to a standard no other business venture must meet. I hate to break it to you...It's part of that "public good" thing.
How much good is the public going to realize from these private space ventures? I somehow do not see the average American dropping $1x10e6 for a tourist ride.
If your response is that the private ventures will "someday" return something of value to the American people as a whole, then I would ask what is it? When will it arrive? How will these private ventures pay for the use of the American people's space facilities in the meantime?
To use the words that business uses to cut American jobs, ensuring that these private space ventures pay their own way rather than be subsidized is "just good business".
"I hate to break it to you", but business pays federal taxes on gasoline and diesel to reimburse the public for the use of our roads and highways, landing fees at our airports, and on and on; "for reasons unknown" you seem to want to exempt space ventures from being treated equally....
lolll...oh, I have no problem with this nation going into space; in fact, I figure that we either do that, or that we'll eventually collectively drown in the toxins so much American industry fled to China et al in order to freely produce. I do, however, have a problem with this nation subsidizing a few people's drive for wealth. What kind of fees are we going to charge the emerging "private" space industry to recoup our investment in infrastructure, for instance? People pay federal gas taxes, to use your road analogy...
Try voting an executive in a corporation who decides to "shape" whatever political content on the web that you have an interest in into the void out of office.
You can do that to a President, you know. But there are many, many areas in the country where ISPs have monopolies; if not outright, then de facto in that there is only one high-speed provider with DSL or dial-up providing the only alternatives in most of the country.
...one court convicting someone of "denial of service" even though he denied no service after another court has told Comcast that they can deny service for any old reason that they please.
We're not seeing the application of "justice" in America; we're seeing the application of that malapropism: Might makes right.
...but then I realized that, while there were the predictable rants to the effect that government having anything to do with "commercial space flight" was a bad thing somehow, there were no observations on the irony of "commercial space flight" being reliant upon existing and massive taxpayer-funded infrastructure and the continued maintenance and improvement of same.
How "private" is a venture that depends upon the preexistence of a trillion dollar taxpayer investment to ensure that they don't get a free colonoscopy from a bolt or other bit of space debris that is traveling at 22,000 MPH??
I am still waiting for the "commercial space flight venture" that starts out in a truly "private" manner by building ground communications and tracking stations around the planet - to include a facility equivalent to the Air Force Space Command's tracking site at NORAD.
"Commercial space flight" is not so much a "venture" as it is a new and fascinating form of wealth transfer. Pat yourself on the back: If you have paid any Federal taxes in the last 50 years, you're helping somebody else explore the possibility of getting extremely wealthy through the use of the facilities you built.
Thing is, whoever should choose to do such a thing wouldn't do it - if they were wise - until the crucial final four months before a Presidential election.
If implemented well, the ability to shape traffic added to the Supreme Court's designation of corporations as super-citizens would get you that one critical election; there simply would not be time to run any objections through America's courts - particularly in light of the fact that "interested parties" might simply shove the case to the Supreme Court, where outcomes are somewhat...predictable.
Once you have the White House, the House, and the Senate, you can just make whatever you did legal - and salt the Department of Justice so as to ensure that no cases were brought under any inconvenient predecessor statutes.
I do believe precedence - political, if not judicial - exists for the latter steps.
So you're saying that you don't mind if a corporation that wants to build a nuclear waste dump in your backyard buys your ISP and shapes any disagreement with their plans into non-existence? It is not like that is anything other than a trivial task given the rapidly evolving state of deep packet inspection...
As it stands now, an ISP whose CEO is in favor of political party "A" can have all traffic - to include "grass roots" campaign donations - flowing to or from any organization representing political party "B" "shaped" right into the e-toilet...