3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)
You patent an idea, whereas you copyright the expression of an idea (at least in software).
"you're also going to be interested in faster hardware, more expensive equipment" Only comparing the user-premisis equipment I think that satellite communications equipment would be more expensive than a fiber transceiver. As for the network infrastructure, I don't know what would be more expensive: launching a bunch of satellites every 5-10 years, or building out fiber to everyone. At least for ground equipment, you can more cheaply replace the modems/transceivers with newer technology and keep the medium the same.
"Funny, cellphone companies don't seem to have a problem delivering various types of content to various customers." Cellular networks are pretty much the same as wired networks, with the last mile being wireless. Of course they divide the spectrum for multiple access, but you can only divide it so many ways (so many chipping codes in the case of CDMA). Which means more satellites with narrower beams, or less bandwidth per customer. I wonder if a satellite would cost less than the several cell towers it would replace?
I think a better solution is a hybrid wireless network - for difficult-to-cable areas just make a point-to-point WiMAX link, and distribute the rest with cables in the town.
Satellites can only serve so many people. They work well for television because so many subscribers are using the same broadcast content. Once every user needs different content, the model doesn't work very well, unless you add more satellites with narrower beams, or open up more of the wireless spectrum to satellites. Wires don't infringe on an already crowded wireless spectrum (a very scarce resource). If there were a great demand for the advantages of satellite internet, then there would be more subscribers (more demand), and companies would follow the money.
But satellite information takes hundreds of milliseconds to get to the surface - which is a pain in the rear for anyone who wants low-latency applications (games, 2-way voice and video). Also bad weather affects the transmissions (that isn't to say that wires aren't affected by weather - but many are buried).
If vote is to be authentic and secure, what's wrong with giving every voter a public/private key pair. I'm sure there are many good ideas out there that implement a secure voting system with public key cryptography, but neither the voters nor the politicians understand it, and hence do not consider it.
Slashdot Mirror
They printed it yesterday.
3. Ideas can't be "owned" and hence can't be "stolen". They are ethereal, replicable, and not sharply defined. It is impossible to delineate the limits to an idea, and thus any ownership thereof. (Patent and copyright law try to do this--and this is one reason they so frequently lead to absurd situations.)
You patent an idea, whereas you copyright the expression of an idea (at least in software).
Avast ye! It's talk like a pirate day. So while discussing it is acceptable, really acting like a pirate is extraneous.
"you're also going to be interested in faster hardware, more expensive equipment"
Only comparing the user-premisis equipment I think that satellite communications equipment would be more expensive than a fiber transceiver.
As for the network infrastructure, I don't know what would be more expensive: launching a bunch of satellites every 5-10 years, or building out fiber to everyone. At least for ground equipment, you can more cheaply replace the modems/transceivers with newer technology and keep the medium the same.
"Funny, cellphone companies don't seem to have a problem delivering various types of content to various customers."
Cellular networks are pretty much the same as wired networks, with the last mile being wireless. Of course they divide the spectrum for multiple access, but you can only divide it so many ways (so many chipping codes in the case of CDMA). Which means more satellites with narrower beams, or less bandwidth per customer. I wonder if a satellite would cost less than the several cell towers it would replace?
I think a better solution is a hybrid wireless network - for difficult-to-cable areas just make a point-to-point WiMAX link, and distribute the rest with cables in the town.
Satellites can only serve so many people. They work well for television because so many subscribers are using the same broadcast content. Once every user needs different content, the model doesn't work very well, unless you add more satellites with narrower beams, or open up more of the wireless spectrum to satellites. Wires don't infringe on an already crowded wireless spectrum (a very scarce resource). If there were a great demand for the advantages of satellite internet, then there would be more subscribers (more demand), and companies would follow the money.
But satellite information takes hundreds of milliseconds to get to the surface - which is a pain in the rear for anyone who wants low-latency applications (games, 2-way voice and video). Also bad weather affects the transmissions (that isn't to say that wires aren't affected by weather - but many are buried).
If vote is to be authentic and secure, what's wrong with giving every voter a public/private key pair. I'm sure there are many good ideas out there that implement a secure voting system with public key cryptography, but neither the voters nor the politicians understand it, and hence do not consider it.
Firm but Gentle