Why don't they tile these smallish panels with surface mounted bezels that flare the image out a little, so the bezel face covers up the frames of the underlying tile? Then they could make high-yield runs of small tiles into any size combinations. With the extra benefit of parallel delivery to the subunits, for faster refresh, async updates (sigma-delta regions), etc.
This has been a strategy that could have saved $billions in lost yields and years for other large displays like LCD. Why isn't it the industry standard already? I want my 2x3m desktop back from the 1970s!
Chevron refusing to license the patent prevented engineers from tweaking those problems, or putting out early-adopter models which would have funded innovation (perhaps beyond the patented NiMH). It took a long time for those first hybrids to use their battery tech. Without the patent suppression, we'd be a few years closer to 10x efficient vehicle energy and possibly 100x efficient pollution reduction. Which is precious time as we speed towards the oil peak and the Greenhouse tipping points.
Storage is cheap, bandwidth more expensive. Why not chunk up each file into many different permutations of its compressed data, with the variants recorded in the local index by fingerprint? Those fingerprints of unique chunks and the list of chunks to files can be maintained in the distributed index of many sites to each fingerprinted chunk. That would make more chances for a given content site to have a chunk that's identical to the one looked for, even if the chunk originated in a different file.
At some point, this protocol gets so far away from merely specifying a file's index in a local list to its specified remote storage server (eg. a tinyurl) for its monolithic compressed content (the best bandwidth for the least cacheable flexibility) that it's transferring more data among the distributed servers than that basic protocol. There's got to be some kind of "topological calculus" of the network connectedness and edge capacity vs node capacity that specifies the optimal distribution allocation of data to indices. Anyone?
Today at Palm Inc's Analyst Day, Palm CEO Ed Colligan officially announced that Palm will deliver a new Linux and open source based mobile computing platform combined with Palm OS Garnet technology on new products later this year.
First, that announcement didn't even exist when I posted. Will you be replying to this message in a few years when maybe someone does actually do what Access said it would have done already, last year.
Second, I said Access lied about that delivery. This announcement is by Palm Inc.
Third, it's just an announcement. By Palm, which has been extremely late or vapor with all kinds of announcements, which is why it turned the natural winner OS for PDA phones into an also-ran. They announced we'd have Cobalt phones by now, too.
So you are wrong yet again, 3 times yet again. Because yet again you didn't even read the article to which you linked. How many times do you want to be wrong about this? Have you noticed that you don't have a Linux/PalmOS smartphone in your hand?
I think spelling/grammar feedback would have fixed the replacement of 1s for ls, etc, especially now that Carroll's words are in the lexicon. A phrase recognition could also search the web to fill in low-confidence recognized text by matching against high-confidence recognized text. That's how humans do it.
The point is to leverage the language's grammar to enforce more order, and weed out more mistakes. It's not a grammar check, it's grammar clues to what the words probably are.
All the OCR available to my Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy) APT are worthless (< 50% correct characters), after trying them on real scans (usually faxes) that are perfectly clear to my eye:
clara - Free OCR program for Unix Systems gocr - A command line OCR ocrad - Optical Character Recognition program unpaper - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Will this Google OCR really work, and can I install it with APT?
Meanwhile, why is it all Optical Character Recognition, when the accuracy we expect is really Optical Word Recognition? How come spelling, grammar and phrase frequency (including typos etc) isn't used to error correct at a symbolic level higher than pixels?
Keep in mind this article is written in general terms, so you scientists out there don't need to stand in line to file corrections!
I was in the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) when we invented the popular image format. While I worked for a digital camera company inventing an 8Kx8K pixel (40bits color) scanner, having studied in pre-med college both the physics of light and brain neurology of the visual system. So I'll just jump that line of "scientists" to file this correction.
It's safe to say, however, that increasing resolution and image refresh rate alone are not enough to provide a startlingly better viewing experience in a typical flat panel or rear projection residential installation.
It's safe to say that only once you've dismissed the scientists who would correct you.
The lockstep TV screen is a sitting duck for the real operation of they eyes & brain which compensate for relatively low sampling rates with massively parallel async processing in 4D.
Joseph Cornwall's mistake in his article is to talk like viewers are a single stationary eye nailed at precisely 8' perpendicular to a 50" flat TV, sampling the picture in perfect sync with the TV's framerate. But instead, the visual system is an oculomotor system, two "moving eyes", with continuous/asynchronous sampling. Each retinal cell signals at a base rate of about 40Hz per neuron. But adjacent neurons drift across different TV pixels coming through the eyes' lenses, while those neurons are independently/asynchronously modulating under the light. Those neurons are distributed in a stochastic pattern in the retina which will not coincide with any rectangular (or regular organization of any linear distribution) grid. The visual cortex is composed of layered sheets of neurons which compare adjacent neurons for their own "difference" signal, as well as corresponding regions from each eye. The eyes dart, roll and twitch across the image, the head shakes and waves. So the brain winds up getting lots of subsamples of the image. The main artifact of the TV the eye sees is the grid itself, which used to be only a stack of lines (of nicely continuous color in each line, on analog raster TVs). When compared retinal neurons are signaling at around 40Hz, but at slightly different phase offsets, the cortex sheets can detect that heterodyne at extremely high "beat" frequencies, passing a "buzz" to the rest of the brain that indicates a difference where there is none in the original object rendered into a grid on the TV. Plus all that neural apparatus is an excellent edge enhancer, both in space (the pixels) and in time (the regular screen refresh).
Greater resolution gives the eyes more info to combine into the brain's image. The extra pixels make the grid turn from edges into more of a texture, with retinal cells resampling more pixels. The faster refresh rate means each retinal neuron has more chance to get light coordinated with its async neighbors, averaged by the retinal persistence into a single flow of frequency and amplitude modulation along the optic and other nerves.
In fact, the faster refresh is the best part. That's why I got a 50" 1080p DLP: the micromirrors can flip thousands of times a second (LCD doesn't help, and plasma as it's own different pros/cons). 1600x1200 is 1.92Mpxl, at 24bit is 46.08Mb per image. 30Hz refresh would be 1.3824Gbps. But the HDMI cable delivering the image to the DLP is 10.2Gbps, so that's over 200FPS. I'm sure that we'll see better video for at least most of that range, if not all of it. What I'd really like to see is async DLP micromirrors, that flips mirrors off the "frame grid". At first probably just some displacement from the frame boundary, especially if the displacement changes unpredictably each flip. Later maybe a stochastic shift - all to make the image flow more continuously, rather than offering a steady beat the brain/eyes can detect. And also a stochastic di
I was commenting more on why a parent would want to stop their kid from doing something they did themselves as a kid. No matter what that parent decides what was a mistake.
Kids love the logic "you did it, why can't I, you're a hypocrite", because they haven't yet changed (as far as they can remember) from who they are to who they'll be after learning from their own mistakes. Usually it's something like doing drugs or premarital sex.
But it could also be violent games. I can tell that media violence overall was a bad experience for me, though not devastating. I'm pretty OK, but I could be better. Learning from my own experience, including some gang fights, martial arts, 70s TV violence and some gaming, my kids won't have the same mix. More actual martial arts, for real experience with physical violence and confrontations - and its repercussions. No TV whatsoever until after 2 years old, then controlled (planned) TV watching with me & their mom, followed by talking about it with the TV off. Gradually more TV and gaming on their own as they create a real context for it. That's not just my judgement, it's the AMA's long, wide survey on TV's effects on development, which demonstrated clear increases in aggression disorders from any departure from that formula (theirs is more specific). My experience tells me that games, especially realistic ones (animations, immersive audio, multisession characters, logos from outside the game, etc), are even more powerful than TV in short-circuiting the reality feedback that mitigates aggression.
Take a moment to examine yourself. Are you really not too aggressive at all? Maybe you are, and that keeps you from noticing that you are: the feedback that keeps us more balanced has been crimped. Maybe you're OK (nobody's perfect), but will your kids be as lucky? The AMA study, confirmed by my own experience, says this is a subtle and comprehensive socializing experience that media jams. Be careful. I know I am. And if my kids learn it from me, my grandkids will be even more even tempered.
Because we're messed up, and we want our kids to be less messed up.
Parenting is powerful because we can teach our kids to learn from our mistakes. Even if they're mistakes we liked at the time, which might even cloud our judgement. Like wearing plaid polyester leisure suits.
I just don't see why it takes Access, a giant mobile phone developer and vendor, over 2 years to put out Linux + Cobalt (or a replacement), or even Linux + Garnet. They started with Linux and Garnet over 2 years ago, with China MobileSoft and experience devloping apps like their Web browser. Now they don't even have Linux + Garnet.
It all seems like they've got the marketing buzzword compatibility locked down, so they're not serious about the product. Though the intervening 2 years has seen PalmOS nearly die on the vine in their hands.
Garnet was the 5.4.9 version of PalmOS. Palm Inc was developing the next version, "Cobalt", supposedly multitasking etc, for years, until it sold the whole OS to Access. Access claimed it was finishing Cobalt as the GUI/compatibility layer atop Linux. Last December Palm Inc bought Garnet back from Access. Now Access is reporting that it's finally releasing something like that, but the PalmOS component is Garnet, not Cobalt - and not out yet, and the whole setup is totally chaotic. If I were a PalmOS developer, every twist in this road would make me flee further and faster for some other platform, like Windows Mobile.
Well, you've been perfectly civil. I attack people only as counterattack. And I treat ACs with pure contempt only when they hide behind the AC to make uncivil posts themselves. All too common, but I never start the dirty fighting - I just finish it.
I have these discussions and arguments online to sharpen them. The dirty fighting I do for fun, but I prefer the clean debate, if it's available. Just not enough to enforce cleanliness when it goes dirty.
What a load of crap. Software is indeed different from hardware - and I've been an FPGA programmer. The instructions, whether a series of hardcoded ones or parallel configurations, or just data, is clearly different from stuff made of molecules. Even when we're using spintronics, even the dimmest engineer will be able to distinguish the software from the hardware. Just because it can be implemented in HW or SW, doesn't mean it is implemented in both - whatever it's implemented in is what gets protected.
Meanwhile, copyrights should last a maximum of 17 years, a human generation. For primarily human readable content. For primarily machine readable content, it should be a "software generation" these days about 3-5 years.
You are arguing from pure theory - impure theory, really. Tainted with pure bullshit. Fuck your "intellectually dishonest" weasel words. You're straight up full of shit, and only posing as "intellectual". Your pragmatism is a word you don't practice. What a waste of time to straighten you out, Anonymous fraud Coward - you'll certainly gain nothing from this, judging from the patent nonsense you're pushing in your comment.
Probably just by using Windows "Recycler", so it'll be trivial for investigators to undelete. What goes around comes around, faster with every (re)cycle.
Except that it's not a virtual device. It's a description of the actions of the physical device. That description is copyrightable, which copyright also covers trivial changes. The procedure that a physical device operates is not patented, at least not in unbastardized patent systems.
Copyrights create the protection for R&D investment while competitors must wait to compete without that expense. Patents offer unnecessary extra protections, and unnecessary registration and examination cycles that copyrights can more easily forgo.
Progress in science and the useful arts includes using the invention to make the next invention. Current patent systems completely confound that progress.
Since it's a lot faster to make profits and watch inventions go obsolete, their protection should be much shorter. And the protection should not encourage inventors to merely invent and not produce a product that serves people while waiting for a licensee, or the submarine patent version. These simple reforms would make the protection also motivate to produce.
That's why I propose expiring on either, whichever comes first. If they can make a profit in the time carved out for protection, OK. Otherwise, let someone else take a crack at it. The Constitutional rule compromising our expression freedom is justified only for that single purpose. Other than that, there's no excuse.
Yeah, because the only reason you get the artificial monopoly that conflicts with other people's free expression is because totally free expression arguably conflicts with commercial competitiveness. The ROI argument is the only basis for patent monopolies. Once you've made 10x ROI, you've satisfied the commercial concession.
Expiring these after some time without exploitation doesnt' complicate the patent process. It makes it a lot easier for courts to recognize a challenge, when the patentholder fails to produce sufficient evidence. And the reasonably shortened time means all the extra complexity, including extensions and submarine patents, gets cut way down.
In other words, reduce this commercial concession back to its actual justification on a real commercial basis. That will take a lot of the strain off the entire system.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't they tile these smallish panels with surface mounted bezels that flare the image out a little, so the bezel face covers up the frames of the underlying tile? Then they could make high-yield runs of small tiles into any size combinations. With the extra benefit of parallel delivery to the subunits, for faster refresh, async updates (sigma-delta regions), etc.
This has been a strategy that could have saved $billions in lost yields and years for other large displays like LCD. Why isn't it the industry standard already? I want my 2x3m desktop back from the 1970s!
Chevron refusing to license the patent prevented engineers from tweaking those problems, or putting out early-adopter models which would have funded innovation (perhaps beyond the patented NiMH). It took a long time for those first hybrids to use their battery tech. Without the patent suppression, we'd be a few years closer to 10x efficient vehicle energy and possibly 100x efficient pollution reduction. Which is precious time as we speed towards the oil peak and the Greenhouse tipping points.
Storage is cheap, bandwidth more expensive. Why not chunk up each file into many different permutations of its compressed data, with the variants recorded in the local index by fingerprint? Those fingerprints of unique chunks and the list of chunks to files can be maintained in the distributed index of many sites to each fingerprinted chunk. That would make more chances for a given content site to have a chunk that's identical to the one looked for, even if the chunk originated in a different file.
At some point, this protocol gets so far away from merely specifying a file's index in a local list to its specified remote storage server (eg. a tinyurl) for its monolithic compressed content (the best bandwidth for the least cacheable flexibility) that it's transferring more data among the distributed servers than that basic protocol. There's got to be some kind of "topological calculus" of the network connectedness and edge capacity vs node capacity that specifies the optimal distribution allocation of data to indices. Anyone?
First, that announcement didn't even exist when I posted. Will you be replying to this message in a few years when maybe someone does actually do what Access said it would have done already, last year.
Second, I said Access lied about that delivery. This announcement is by Palm Inc.
Third, it's just an announcement. By Palm, which has been extremely late or vapor with all kinds of announcements, which is why it turned the natural winner OS for PDA phones into an also-ran. They announced we'd have Cobalt phones by now, too.
So you are wrong yet again, 3 times yet again. Because yet again you didn't even read the article to which you linked. How many times do you want to be wrong about this? Have you noticed that you don't have a Linux/PalmOS smartphone in your hand?
Will this patent monopoly on the new tech be used to kill it, just like NiMH batteries were prevented from powering cars by the car and oil corporations?
You are that fucking cool :).
I think spelling/grammar feedback would have fixed the replacement of 1s for ls, etc, especially now that Carroll's words are in the lexicon. A phrase recognition could also search the web to fill in low-confidence recognized text by matching against high-confidence recognized text. That's how humans do it.
The point is to leverage the language's grammar to enforce more order, and weed out more mistakes. It's not a grammar check, it's grammar clues to what the words probably are.
I'd prefer to get mistakes turning nonsense into sense than the ones I get the other way around that don't even preserve meaningful nonsense.
Do you have a result from scanning Jabberwocky (or other verse in a similar vein) with Google's OCR?
All the OCR available to my Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy) APT are worthless (< 50% correct characters), after trying them on real scans (usually faxes) that are perfectly clear to my eye:
clara - Free OCR program for Unix Systems
gocr - A command line OCR
ocrad - Optical Character Recognition program
unpaper - post-processing tool for scanned pages
Will this Google OCR really work, and can I install it with APT?
Meanwhile, why is it all Optical Character Recognition, when the accuracy we expect is really Optical Word Recognition? How come spelling, grammar and phrase frequency (including typos etc) isn't used to error correct at a symbolic level higher than pixels?
I was in the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) when we invented the popular image format. While I worked for a digital camera company inventing an 8Kx8K pixel (40bits color) scanner, having studied in pre-med college both the physics of light and brain neurology of the visual system. So I'll just jump that line of "scientists" to file this correction.
It's safe to say that only once you've dismissed the scientists who would correct you.
The lockstep TV screen is a sitting duck for the real operation of they eyes & brain which compensate for relatively low sampling rates with massively parallel async processing in 4D.
Joseph Cornwall's mistake in his article is to talk like viewers are a single stationary eye nailed at precisely 8' perpendicular to a 50" flat TV, sampling the picture in perfect sync with the TV's framerate. But instead, the visual system is an oculomotor system, two "moving eyes", with continuous/asynchronous sampling. Each retinal cell signals at a base rate of about 40Hz per neuron. But adjacent neurons drift across different TV pixels coming through the eyes' lenses, while those neurons are independently/asynchronously modulating under the light. Those neurons are distributed in a stochastic pattern in the retina which will not coincide with any rectangular (or regular organization of any linear distribution) grid. The visual cortex is composed of layered sheets of neurons which compare adjacent neurons for their own "difference" signal, as well as corresponding regions from each eye. The eyes dart, roll and twitch across the image, the head shakes and waves. So the brain winds up getting lots of subsamples of the image. The main artifact of the TV the eye sees is the grid itself, which used to be only a stack of lines (of nicely continuous color in each line, on analog raster TVs). When compared retinal neurons are signaling at around 40Hz, but at slightly different phase offsets, the cortex sheets can detect that heterodyne at extremely high "beat" frequencies, passing a "buzz" to the rest of the brain that indicates a difference where there is none in the original object rendered into a grid on the TV. Plus all that neural apparatus is an excellent edge enhancer, both in space (the pixels) and in time (the regular screen refresh).
Greater resolution gives the eyes more info to combine into the brain's image. The extra pixels make the grid turn from edges into more of a texture, with retinal cells resampling more pixels. The faster refresh rate means each retinal neuron has more chance to get light coordinated with its async neighbors, averaged by the retinal persistence into a single flow of frequency and amplitude modulation along the optic and other nerves.
In fact, the faster refresh is the best part. That's why I got a 50" 1080p DLP: the micromirrors can flip thousands of times a second (LCD doesn't help, and plasma as it's own different pros/cons). 1600x1200 is 1.92Mpxl, at 24bit is 46.08Mb per image. 30Hz refresh would be 1.3824Gbps. But the HDMI cable delivering the image to the DLP is 10.2Gbps, so that's over 200FPS. I'm sure that we'll see better video for at least most of that range, if not all of it. What I'd really like to see is async DLP micromirrors, that flips mirrors off the "frame grid". At first probably just some displacement from the frame boundary, especially if the displacement changes unpredictably each flip. Later maybe a stochastic shift - all to make the image flow more continuously, rather than offering a steady beat the brain/eyes can detect. And also a stochastic di
You don't even have a handle. That's what makes you not so much a free man, but rather a cheap one.
So the Pentagon has the money to fund UFO research, but Bush says they don't have the money to fund the Iraq troops past April 15, 2007.
Which programme is more deluded?
Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Moderation 0
50% Flamebait
30% Underrated
20% Insightful
Anonymous scaredy TrollMods must kill responsible free speech, while they whine about libel. They misspelled "I don't like it" as "Flamebait".
I was commenting more on why a parent would want to stop their kid from doing something they did themselves as a kid. No matter what that parent decides what was a mistake.
Kids love the logic "you did it, why can't I, you're a hypocrite", because they haven't yet changed (as far as they can remember) from who they are to who they'll be after learning from their own mistakes. Usually it's something like doing drugs or premarital sex.
But it could also be violent games. I can tell that media violence overall was a bad experience for me, though not devastating. I'm pretty OK, but I could be better. Learning from my own experience, including some gang fights, martial arts, 70s TV violence and some gaming, my kids won't have the same mix. More actual martial arts, for real experience with physical violence and confrontations - and its repercussions. No TV whatsoever until after 2 years old, then controlled (planned) TV watching with me & their mom, followed by talking about it with the TV off. Gradually more TV and gaming on their own as they create a real context for it. That's not just my judgement, it's the AMA's long, wide survey on TV's effects on development, which demonstrated clear increases in aggression disorders from any departure from that formula (theirs is more specific). My experience tells me that games, especially realistic ones (animations, immersive audio, multisession characters, logos from outside the game, etc), are even more powerful than TV in short-circuiting the reality feedback that mitigates aggression.
Take a moment to examine yourself. Are you really not too aggressive at all? Maybe you are, and that keeps you from noticing that you are: the feedback that keeps us more balanced has been crimped. Maybe you're OK (nobody's perfect), but will your kids be as lucky? The AMA study, confirmed by my own experience, says this is a subtle and comprehensive socializing experience that media jams. Be careful. I know I am. And if my kids learn it from me, my grandkids will be even more even tempered.
Because we're messed up, and we want our kids to be less messed up.
Parenting is powerful because we can teach our kids to learn from our mistakes. Even if they're mistakes we liked at the time, which might even cloud our judgement. Like wearing plaid polyester leisure suits.
I just don't see why it takes Access, a giant mobile phone developer and vendor, over 2 years to put out Linux + Cobalt (or a replacement), or even Linux + Garnet. They started with Linux and Garnet over 2 years ago, with China MobileSoft and experience devloping apps like their Web browser. Now they don't even have Linux + Garnet.
It all seems like they've got the marketing buzzword compatibility locked down, so they're not serious about the product. Though the intervening 2 years has seen PalmOS nearly die on the vine in their hands.
Garnet was the 5.4.9 version of PalmOS. Palm Inc was developing the next version, "Cobalt", supposedly multitasking etc, for years, until it sold the whole OS to Access. Access claimed it was finishing Cobalt as the GUI/compatibility layer atop Linux. Last December Palm Inc bought Garnet back from Access. Now Access is reporting that it's finally releasing something like that, but the PalmOS component is Garnet, not Cobalt - and not out yet, and the whole setup is totally chaotic. If I were a PalmOS developer, every twist in this road would make me flee further and faster for some other platform, like Windows Mobile.
Well, you've been perfectly civil. I attack people only as counterattack. And I treat ACs with pure contempt only when they hide behind the AC to make uncivil posts themselves. All too common, but I never start the dirty fighting - I just finish it.
I have these discussions and arguments online to sharpen them. The dirty fighting I do for fun, but I prefer the clean debate, if it's available. Just not enough to enforce cleanliness when it goes dirty.
I'm glad we had the chance to compare notes.
What a load of crap. Software is indeed different from hardware - and I've been an FPGA programmer. The instructions, whether a series of hardcoded ones or parallel configurations, or just data, is clearly different from stuff made of molecules. Even when we're using spintronics, even the dimmest engineer will be able to distinguish the software from the hardware. Just because it can be implemented in HW or SW, doesn't mean it is implemented in both - whatever it's implemented in is what gets protected.
Meanwhile, copyrights should last a maximum of 17 years, a human generation. For primarily human readable content. For primarily machine readable content, it should be a "software generation" these days about 3-5 years.
You are arguing from pure theory - impure theory, really. Tainted with pure bullshit. Fuck your "intellectually dishonest" weasel words. You're straight up full of shit, and only posing as "intellectual". Your pragmatism is a word you don't practice. What a waste of time to straighten you out, Anonymous fraud Coward - you'll certainly gain nothing from this, judging from the patent nonsense you're pushing in your comment.
No I don't. Every freedom I claim I claim for everyone.
What's your problem, Anonymous slave Coward?
Probably just by using Windows "Recycler", so it'll be trivial for investigators to undelete. What goes around comes around, faster with every (re)cycle.
Except that it's not a virtual device. It's a description of the actions of the physical device. That description is copyrightable, which copyright also covers trivial changes. The procedure that a physical device operates is not patented, at least not in unbastardized patent systems.
Copyrights create the protection for R&D investment while competitors must wait to compete without that expense. Patents offer unnecessary extra protections, and unnecessary registration and examination cycles that copyrights can more easily forgo.
Progress in science and the useful arts includes using the invention to make the next invention. Current patent systems completely confound that progress.
Since it's a lot faster to make profits and watch inventions go obsolete, their protection should be much shorter. And the protection should not encourage inventors to merely invent and not produce a product that serves people while waiting for a licensee, or the submarine patent version. These simple reforms would make the protection also motivate to produce.
That's why I propose expiring on either, whichever comes first. If they can make a profit in the time carved out for protection, OK. Otherwise, let someone else take a crack at it. The Constitutional rule compromising our expression freedom is justified only for that single purpose. Other than that, there's no excuse.
AFAICR, Access bought China MobileSoft after it bought PalmOS, not Palm buying CMS before Access bought them. How do you come by your chronology?
Yeah, because the only reason you get the artificial monopoly that conflicts with other people's free expression is because totally free expression arguably conflicts with commercial competitiveness. The ROI argument is the only basis for patent monopolies. Once you've made 10x ROI, you've satisfied the commercial concession.
Expiring these after some time without exploitation doesnt' complicate the patent process. It makes it a lot easier for courts to recognize a challenge, when the patentholder fails to produce sufficient evidence. And the reasonably shortened time means all the extra complexity, including extensions and submarine patents, gets cut way down.
In other words, reduce this commercial concession back to its actual justification on a real commercial basis. That will take a lot of the strain off the entire system.