The iphone revolutionized the telecommunications business? I think the author of that quote might even be more full of shit than the guy he's making fun of.
Ah yes, another unbiased tidbit from the guy who last week posted a thread about his "genuine concern" that the patent system was under attack by FRAND patent holders, only to be forced into spam-trolling his own thread because not everyone agreed.
Yes, it is "that bad" when the posts are blatantly sensationalized marketing pieces about random plans instead of completed projects. "Triumph in computing and robotics?" Give me a fucking break. You'd have to be completely ignorant of the history of embedded computing to write such absurdities.
What do you mean 'efficient'? It's not like they use low gain or lossy antennas on phones to prevent them from radiating too much power.
Patch antennas are used for low cost and to save space compared to the dipoles you would see on old phones. Mobile phone antennas are going to be fairly omni-directional out of necessity (because you can't expect users to correctly orient a directional antenna relative to a base station), which means they're not going to have high gain.
Rubbish. I'd be willing to bet that they're using small variations on garden variety filtering algorithms that have been available in the open literature for many years. It's difficult to believe that they've come up with super-duper-proprietary stuff that's more complex than what you would see in video/audio processing, communications signal processing, etc. Patented does not mean better.
Agreed. The 'get fit while you game' craze was a fad driven by marketing and the clueless mommies taken in by it. Motion control input is laughably inadequate for most game genres, and it's an annoyance even for games that are simple enough to support it.
Generating meeting requests? Seriously, how the fuck is that an innovation that someone skilled in the art would not be able to come up with? It's time the patent office was held responsible for enabling patent trolling by lowering the bar to the ground. How about a system where any patent that ends up being overturned requires the patent office to pay the associated legal fees? You'd need a 3rd party to conduct the reexaminations to avoid conflict of interest, but it might do something to stem the tide of handing out junk patents like penny candy.
".... but it would be interesting to see what the old Bell Labs could do with the technology."
This is a strange question. What 'technology' did LightSquared invent? Bell Labs came up with many of the fundamental ideas that are still used in wireless communications today, so it's difficult to see what they could learn from LightSquared.
Yet another non-story on RPi, the 10th in a row. It's beyond embarrassing at this point. How can one downvote articles that don't appear in the firehose?
With closed access journals, researcher submits paper hoping to improve his CV(sometimes even surrenders copyright). Peers in the field review paper, usually for free/status associated with being a reviewer for a serious journal, Journal turns around and sells the finished work back to the libraries.
There isn't any status associated with being a reviewer for one of the big journals. By and large, no one outside of the publisher even knows that you do it and it's not really something worth bragging about on a CV. People who legitimately care about their field view it as (a mildly annoying) part of their duty.
Visually you can't distinguish between the equations I create in word (in either case) from those done in LaTeX, if setup properly.
Is it so? From what I remember, the combination of Times Roman Italic + Symbol + Euclid fonts in MS Word / MathType / Scientific Word are not the same as Computer Modern in Latex. Not a drastic difference, but noticeable. What really annoyed me the most was how inline equations would always increase the line spacing. Maybe this been fixed in the more recent Word Templates?
There will always be people in science and engineering who are simply too lazy to learn Latex. It's like the people who work exclusively with a certain math package like Matlab (or a pet programming language) and flatly refuse to learn anything else, even when better options are available for the task. We can't let them win by abandoning the better tool for the more popular one!:-)
The wind isn't blowing that way just because you think it is. Even simple things such as anchoring floats at the tops and bottoms of pages has always been an inconsistent nightmare in Word. Both MathType and the Microsoft equation editor produce crappy looking regular equations, and the inline results are unspeakably horrendous.
Agreed. UPS and Fedex charge a king's ransom and the pick-up locations are not even reachable by public transit in many cities. The USPS + Canada Post combo for shipments from the States is the only economical way, and in my experience it's not nearly as slow as many are claiming.
How many more RPi non-stories are going to appear on/. before the device is actually released to the masses? The device sounds great and all, but this has gone past the point of absurdity.
And so when I point out that there are scientists out there willing to cook the numbers, exaggerate, play to politics and/or public opinion, etc. I inevitably run into those who say "Science wouldn't allow that" (like my friend who's still in the field). But science is only as good as the people practicing it. And, in any field, there are always those willing to put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.
The field of 'biomedical engineering' has done just that to secure lucrative funding. You might be on the cutting edge of signal processing and I might be looking at something garden variety, but are you doing under the guise of building a better prosthetic hand?
Aggregate percentage of total posts on this topic from:
Aussie nationalists with no clue about wireless communications: 40%
Other nationalities with no clue about wireless communications: 58%
He was appealing to what's fair rather than what's legal. I agree with him - certainly not all patents are equal with regards to how much technical meat is there, and it's ridiculous that junk, non-technical patents end up being a more powerful legal weapon just because they're not 'essential' to a standard.
The modern definition of 'radio' refers to any device that uses wireless to transmit / receive an electromagnetic signal. Your wifi modem, bluetooth device, smartphone, TV, etc., are all radios. It's not limited to traditional FM radio from 88-108 MHz. Pretty much all radios are using some form of digital communications these days, as opposed to analog modulation with FM radio. Software defined radio really isn't anything special - the low frequency part of the radio (from IF down to baseband) is handled with a digital signal processor that can be programmed to handle many different formats. It's a natural evolution of digital communications that gets tossed around as a buzzword.
Wouldn't a harsher penalty follow naturally under existing laws? Murder or assault against a minority would be argued to be premeditated if the perpetrator could be proved to be a racist looking for someone to hurt.
What is being coerced? You can't coerce someone to not be a certain race like you might coerce them to not be wealthy or not be gay.
Sorry, I overlooked the 'with the same impact' part. What form of physical assault has 'the same impact' as a piece of speech? I think what you're basically saying is that someone who incites a murder should be charged as if he committed the murder himself. Maybe, but the problem with the present case is that nothing physical has happened and the person is still being harshly punished.
If your speech impacts the health and wellbeing of others (e.g. making threatening phone calls) then you should expect similar consequences to physical actions with the same impact...after all speech is a physical action.
This is a serious contender for worst attempt at a logical inference of all time. You're seriously arguing that threatening to kill someone should be punished similarly to actually killing someone because speech requires physical action just as murder does? You, sir, are a mindless idiot that I can only hope does not hold any position with bearing on the legal system.
Terrorism? Get a grip. So if someone gets on the soapbox and says we should do violence to the 1%, this will require a new hate crime law for rich people? Attractive women require special laws because they're more likely to be raped? Where does it end?
The fact that it's the "whole fucking point" is the problem - it isn't a very strong one.
You're being taken in by misleading, grandiose claims that TFA does nothing to explain.
The most important game in wireless is increasing spectral efficiency (bps per Hz of spectrum) because it leads naturally to greater throughput for the same bandwidth allocation. If you can reach Shannon's limit on real channels then it's basically game over. It's not about some pie in the sky absolute data rate that might be achieved with a couple GHz of spectrum at your disposal when you're within spitting distance of the transmitter, which is probably the sort of experimental setup used here.
Standards are used because they actually work, whereas, again, TFA says nothing specific about these claimed breakthroughs. MIMO is an idea whose promise has gone largely unfulfilled because it is founded on some rather ideal assumptions about the radio channel - meaning that 'peak' data rates quoted in modern standards are maximum theoretical rates that are never even approached in practice.
I feel as though the line you're attempting to draw isn't so clear. Private companies also have research divisions, and they often receive some money in the forms of grants, subsidies and tax breaks to pay for that. These employees perform the same 'service' in that they don't even touch the development side of R&D. Actually, patents based purely on ideas are quite common these days and many of them never see the light of day in real products, so you have research going on that results in a lot of value for the company (with no product to show for it) and some of that is funded by taxpayers.
By the same token, although it might be the general rule for math and some of the pure sciences, not all government or university research is purely a service in the way you define it. Research labs do development as well. It's usually prototype designs rather than consumer products, but it's much closer to a real product than a paper is.
Liberals misdirecting their own supporters to pin it on the Cons? Sorry, that's conspiracy theory horse shit and a lame attempt to muddy the waters, and even the Cons backed away from trying to push that idea. There is mounting evidence that the people who received robocalls had one thing in common - they directly told Con pollsters that they weren't voting for them. So how did another party or some Randy Johnson get access to the Con database?
Slashdot Mirror
The iphone revolutionized the telecommunications business? I think the author of that quote might even be more full of shit than the guy he's making fun of.
Ah yes, another unbiased tidbit from the guy who last week posted a thread about his "genuine concern" that the patent system was under attack by FRAND patent holders, only to be forced into spam-trolling his own thread because not everyone agreed.
Yes, it is "that bad" when the posts are blatantly sensationalized marketing pieces about random plans instead of completed projects. "Triumph in computing and robotics?" Give me a fucking break. You'd have to be completely ignorant of the history of embedded computing to write such absurdities.
What do you mean 'efficient'? It's not like they use low gain or lossy antennas on phones to prevent them from radiating too much power.
Patch antennas are used for low cost and to save space compared to the dipoles you would see on old phones. Mobile phone antennas are going to be fairly omni-directional out of necessity (because you can't expect users to correctly orient a directional antenna relative to a base station), which means they're not going to have high gain.
Rubbish. I'd be willing to bet that they're using small variations on garden variety filtering algorithms that have been available in the open literature for many years. It's difficult to believe that they've come up with super-duper-proprietary stuff that's more complex than what you would see in video/audio processing, communications signal processing, etc. Patented does not mean better.
Agreed. The 'get fit while you game' craze was a fad driven by marketing and the clueless mommies taken in by it. Motion control input is laughably inadequate for most game genres, and it's an annoyance even for games that are simple enough to support it.
Generating meeting requests? Seriously, how the fuck is that an innovation that someone skilled in the art would not be able to come up with? It's time the patent office was held responsible for enabling patent trolling by lowering the bar to the ground. How about a system where any patent that ends up being overturned requires the patent office to pay the associated legal fees? You'd need a 3rd party to conduct the reexaminations to avoid conflict of interest, but it might do something to stem the tide of handing out junk patents like penny candy.
".... but it would be interesting to see what the old Bell Labs could do with the technology."
This is a strange question. What 'technology' did LightSquared invent? Bell Labs came up with many of the fundamental ideas that are still used in wireless communications today, so it's difficult to see what they could learn from LightSquared.
Yet another non-story on RPi, the 10th in a row. It's beyond embarrassing at this point. How can one downvote articles that don't appear in the firehose?
With closed access journals, researcher submits paper hoping to improve his CV(sometimes even surrenders copyright). Peers in the field review paper, usually for free/status associated with being a reviewer for a serious journal, Journal turns around and sells the finished work back to the libraries.
There isn't any status associated with being a reviewer for one of the big journals. By and large, no one outside of the publisher even knows that you do it and it's not really something worth bragging about on a CV. People who legitimately care about their field view it as (a mildly annoying) part of their duty.
Visually you can't distinguish between the equations I create in word (in either case) from those done in LaTeX, if setup properly.
Is it so? From what I remember, the combination of Times Roman Italic + Symbol + Euclid fonts in MS Word / MathType / Scientific Word are not the same as Computer Modern in Latex. Not a drastic difference, but noticeable. What really annoyed me the most was how inline equations would always increase the line spacing. Maybe this been fixed in the more recent Word Templates?
There will always be people in science and engineering who are simply too lazy to learn Latex. It's like the people who work exclusively with a certain math package like Matlab (or a pet programming language) and flatly refuse to learn anything else, even when better options are available for the task. We can't let them win by abandoning the better tool for the more popular one! :-)
The wind isn't blowing that way just because you think it is. Even simple things such as anchoring floats at the tops and bottoms of pages has always been an inconsistent nightmare in Word. Both MathType and the Microsoft equation editor produce crappy looking regular equations, and the inline results are unspeakably horrendous.
Agreed. UPS and Fedex charge a king's ransom and the pick-up locations are not even reachable by public transit in many cities. The USPS + Canada Post combo for shipments from the States is the only economical way, and in my experience it's not nearly as slow as many are claiming.
How many more RPi non-stories are going to appear on /. before the device is actually released to the masses? The device sounds great and all, but this has gone past the point of absurdity.
And so when I point out that there are scientists out there willing to cook the numbers, exaggerate, play to politics and/or public opinion, etc. I inevitably run into those who say "Science wouldn't allow that" (like my friend who's still in the field). But science is only as good as the people practicing it. And, in any field, there are always those willing to put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.
The field of 'biomedical engineering' has done just that to secure lucrative funding. You might be on the cutting edge of signal processing and I might be looking at something garden variety, but are you doing under the guise of building a better prosthetic hand?
Aggregate percentage of total posts on this topic from:
Aussie nationalists with no clue about wireless communications: 40%
Other nationalities with no clue about wireless communications: 58%
He was appealing to what's fair rather than what's legal. I agree with him - certainly not all patents are equal with regards to how much technical meat is there, and it's ridiculous that junk, non-technical patents end up being a more powerful legal weapon just because they're not 'essential' to a standard.
The modern definition of 'radio' refers to any device that uses wireless to transmit / receive an electromagnetic signal. Your wifi modem, bluetooth device, smartphone, TV, etc., are all radios. It's not limited to traditional FM radio from 88-108 MHz. Pretty much all radios are using some form of digital communications these days, as opposed to analog modulation with FM radio. Software defined radio really isn't anything special - the low frequency part of the radio (from IF down to baseband) is handled with a digital signal processor that can be programmed to handle many different formats. It's a natural evolution of digital communications that gets tossed around as a buzzword.
Wouldn't a harsher penalty follow naturally under existing laws? Murder or assault against a minority would be argued to be premeditated if the perpetrator could be proved to be a racist looking for someone to hurt.
What is being coerced? You can't coerce someone to not be a certain race like you might coerce them to not be wealthy or not be gay.
Sorry, I overlooked the 'with the same impact' part. What form of physical assault has 'the same impact' as a piece of speech? I think what you're basically saying is that someone who incites a murder should be charged as if he committed the murder himself. Maybe, but the problem with the present case is that nothing physical has happened and the person is still being harshly punished.
If your speech impacts the health and wellbeing of others (e.g. making threatening phone calls) then you should expect similar consequences to physical actions with the same impact...after all speech is a physical action.
This is a serious contender for worst attempt at a logical inference of all time. You're seriously arguing that threatening to kill someone should be punished similarly to actually killing someone because speech requires physical action just as murder does? You, sir, are a mindless idiot that I can only hope does not hold any position with bearing on the legal system.
Terrorism? Get a grip. So if someone gets on the soapbox and says we should do violence to the 1%, this will require a new hate crime law for rich people? Attractive women require special laws because they're more likely to be raped? Where does it end?
The fact that it's the "whole fucking point" is the problem - it isn't a very strong one.
You're being taken in by misleading, grandiose claims that TFA does nothing to explain.
The most important game in wireless is increasing spectral efficiency (bps per Hz of spectrum) because it leads naturally to greater throughput for the same bandwidth allocation. If you can reach Shannon's limit on real channels then it's basically game over. It's not about some pie in the sky absolute data rate that might be achieved with a couple GHz of spectrum at your disposal when you're within spitting distance of the transmitter, which is probably the sort of experimental setup used here.
Standards are used because they actually work, whereas, again, TFA says nothing specific about these claimed breakthroughs. MIMO is an idea whose promise has gone largely unfulfilled because it is founded on some rather ideal assumptions about the radio channel - meaning that 'peak' data rates quoted in modern standards are maximum theoretical rates that are never even approached in practice.
I feel as though the line you're attempting to draw isn't so clear. Private companies also have research divisions, and they often receive some money in the forms of grants, subsidies and tax breaks to pay for that. These employees perform the same 'service' in that they don't even touch the development side of R&D. Actually, patents based purely on ideas are quite common these days and many of them never see the light of day in real products, so you have research going on that results in a lot of value for the company (with no product to show for it) and some of that is funded by taxpayers.
By the same token, although it might be the general rule for math and some of the pure sciences, not all government or university research is purely a service in the way you define it. Research labs do development as well. It's usually prototype designs rather than consumer products, but it's much closer to a real product than a paper is.
Liberals misdirecting their own supporters to pin it on the Cons? Sorry, that's conspiracy theory horse shit and a lame attempt to muddy the waters, and even the Cons backed away from trying to push that idea. There is mounting evidence that the people who received robocalls had one thing in common - they directly told Con pollsters that they weren't voting for them. So how did another party or some Randy Johnson get access to the Con database?