Maybe you're right. If so, I'm glad TechDirt is rebalancing the Overton Window that corporate lobbyists are dragging to protect only profits and propaganda, at the expense of people's speech and press rights. Without countertrolls in other directions, the rightwing trolls always win.
You are probably right. Or at least your version is the most sensible version, which is far from a guarantee that it's what the WIPO is implementing.
However, even your version would require the accused infringing copier to prove that their copy was obtained legally, not from the newly copyrighted broadcast whose owner would accuse the new broadcast of infringement. Sure, in principle the burden would be on the accuser to prove the other copy was copied from their newly copyrighted broadcast. But in practice, especially in a global regime rather than in a US legal system, the rich broadcaster will intimidate the rest of the smaller players into fearing the rich broadcaster will make it punishingly expensive to insist the rich broadcaster prove their accusation.
If the US Copyright Office registered copying transactions, where a copier pointed to the original that they were lawfully copying, and received a crypto token with which they watermarked their copy, they might be much safer. But then all the "free speech/press" copying would require registration with the government (and its extra costs and risks), which is far from freedom. It would be closer to the British monarch's copyright license required by anyone publishing, which we destroyed at great cost and risk in a revolution by which we previously established the government to protect our rights, not burden us with bureaucracy that protects private profits.
Thanks. Though on rereading it I give it a -1 wordo and -1 punctuation, because "manufacturing and producing heavy physical products" should be "manufacturing and distributing heavy physical products"
and
"the creators of the best content - the content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition - is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income." should be "the creators of the best conten. Tthe content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition, is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income."
I can't mod, either, nor can I edit after posting. Why can't "News for Nerds" have versioned comments? That's been a much more common request/complaint than anything Slashdot implemented in its recent SW upgrade, which has only made the GUI a little worse.
The profitable privileges of the distributor have always conflicted with the free speech/press rights of the people. The US Constitution's original power to Congress to create something like copyright (a temporary monopoly "to promote progress in science and the useful arts") was a 1700s compromise with our rights that never really worked, like any compromise with rights. But it was the best our predecessors came up with in the generations when the publishing business was mostly defined by manufacturing and producing heavy physical products dressed up with the copyrighted content.
Since the 1900s, broadcasting has decreased the dependency on processing and moving matter for sale with content copied on it to make profits. We're far past the point where copyright is necessary for even the original 17 years. In 17 years a generation's new pop culture book becomes folk culture from the previous generation. But that takes only maybe 10 years for a TV show, 5 years for a movie, 3 years for a song, a couple years for a digital game. The profit curves match those pop->folk expirations, so the profits that promote science and the "useful" arts as incentive to create by those who'd do something else if profits didn't incent them also expire pretty quickly. The profits from the folk phase, the "long tail", are a bonus too small to justify to any realistic capitalist financier the initial creation, and are the product of as much work by the audience perpetuating the content as work by the creator or distributor. And of course most artists and inventors create their work not for the profits, but by the compulsion to create, which is typically what drives the creators of the best content - the content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition - is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income.
In the 2000s, copyright for even the extended periods bought by the copyright industry from successive 1900s Congresses overall interferes with progress in science and the useful arts. It always conflicted with our speech/press rights. There is no justification for extending it beyond the original 17 years except simple corruption: the regulators are captured by the copyright industry, and violate the people's rights to press/speech as well as the progress in science and the useful arts that we need. The copyright changes that can trade progress for compromise of our rights would cut sharply the length of the monopoly, and release the content from control after the time the content has its shot at repaying the investment in creating it.
This app is interesting, because it doesn't require the PC to know anything about the phone picking up its state, or that the transfer is happening. The phone needs only recognize the URI that the PC is displaying, using the phone's camera and the software.
But what about PC state that isn't in that URI? Like when the onscreen state is composed of more than one URI, like a single window with multiple frames each pointed at a different URL? Or like multiple windows, each pointed at a different URL? Some of which windows are hidden by more foregrounded windows, a fullscreen foreground window? How about all the local state of the PC that's not stored at a network location that a URI can point at, for the phone to retrieve?
What I'd like would be an app that registers the PC and the phone to each other, or rather to a remote registry server that can authenticate each of PC and phone. On either phone or PC press/click/tap something that sends the current state (of current foreground app, or all apps) to the server; on the other device of the pair tell it to pick up the state (or a subset). Or an ongoing "checkin" of state of both devices to the server, from which either device (or a new authorized device) can pick up state.
Indeed, that feature would be excellent for even a single device. When I close apps or shutdown a PC (or phone), to recover from a crash or to save power, when I'm back up I want to restore all my app states (especially open window positions and their contents - from the network or from files). I want to get last state, or a bookmarked "favorite" state from some previous time - even on the same device, but later. And I want to be able to grab state from remote devices I can't snap with a photo, like my desk in another part of the office when I drop into another office.
In Linux this would seem to be easy to implement for windows (which apps have which windows open in which positions), because X makes that state storeable and settable. The OS network stack could track the URLs retrieved by each app and register them, and (depending on the app) reset app windows to a stored URL. Other app state storage for retrieval would need app changes. But a revision to GNOME that installs tools in the toolkit available to all apps would make this easy for the next version of every app to implement. In Android I don't know; maybe the windowing or app widget toolkit makes it even easier. If not, then Android is new enough that a new version of the OS could offer these features. Google seems very interested in getting the features, because it's working on this camera based approach, so Google could put the version I describe into the OS.
We don't have as many earthquakes or tsunamis here as they have in Japan. But we do have exactly the same industry that's immune to public reaction or the liabilities of risk. The US reaction to Fukushima is to make laws to cap nuke plants liability in the event of catastrophe. Which means yet again the power corps (monopolies and cartels) have capitalism for profits, but socialism for losses. This is already true, because nuke plants are uninsurable in the market so the public covers their insurance. But now it's even more starkly true. And what's even more starkly true is that the US nuke government/industry complex is interested in only that "innovation", not in any other changes even when events confront us with the actual risks and damages from these expensive, hazardous boondoggles our Cold War legacy has forced on us.
The technical problems can be patched. The business problems, especially the corruption of a government captured by the industry it regulates, show no sign of any of hope for patch. And that means not even the necessary technical solutions will be applied, when they cost a little profit.
If the reader has no network connection, how does it validate the payment? Credit card "trust me now, validate later" doesn't scale, and has already hit its limits far before most people pay with mobile devices.
All the scenarios you mentioned are solved by QR codes displayed by the phone and the cash register, with cameras on each. No new tech needed on the phones, and existing tech on the cash registers. Including no network connection. Even dumb phones can do QR if they have cameras, which are so cheap that practically all phone should have them. Much more useful than some extra NFC HW.
Acoustic coupling means my phone, that I hold against my face, is getting all the germs from all the other phones (and so faces) inserted into the coupler. And it's yet more gear on the phone, and its battery, and something to go wrong.
A femtocell that costs nothing to the shop but enables payment (and calls) is pretty simple to set up, if there's no signal in that particular place.
WiFi, Zigbee, femtocell, both phone and cash register have cameras and QR code displays...
Or just (cf. femtocell) see that cell networks get their signal everywhere, which is a much more important basic requirement than micropayments added to the few but important places where signal doesn't travel yet. Femtocells cost $150 each +$5 a month, but are free from carriers whenever anyone asks for one and there really is no signal. Like inside a mall.
Keeping your phone# when switching phones makes it less likely that the old phone# is attached to the new person. Besides, the text goes in the other direction anyway, and the cash register is identified at the time of purchase with its current address.
I don't understand why the specific method of the phone giving the cash register some money is some kind of roadblock. Why the phone needs some new method of communicating with the cash register. The phone has a million ways to send a message to the cash register and get a message back. Why can't the phone just text a One-Time Password to the cash register? Or use HTTPS? Or USSD, the GSM infrastructure high priority message used for topping off prepaid phones? Or any of a number of other comms techniques? Phones in Scandinavia have been texting parking meters, and getting texted when the meter's running down, for years. The money can be transferred by digital "check" between banks, or the telco can collect micropayment notices to be paid back like a credit card at the end of the month - or your phone privileges are cut off by the telcos cartel, harsher than a credit rating hit.
The infrastructure for these transactions are everywhere already. I'm impressed by the cleverness of this "inaudible" signaling, but it all seems an unnecessary waste of time.
Because without rules, and with less consistent rules, countries are disadvantaged in trade against other countries that have consistent rules. "Consistent" doesn't mean "one size fits all". And a country like the US is free to negotiate rules approved by its internal, elected organization: the Senate.
The problem is that Americans don't oversee our own political system properly. We don't primary candidates within the parties, we don't insist candidates face their records in general elections. Hell, we don't even run regular people for school boards, while we watch our schools turn into brand training factories undermined by anti-reason. With that kind of bloated apathy and deep incompetence, of course we'll get trade regimes that benefit only the most organized and rich among us. The US can enact nearly any kind of trade rules it wants - and it does, because what "it wants" is what its plutocrats want. If Americans organized ourselves even a little like the plutocrats are organized, the largely democratic structure we've still got would process trade that worked well for many more of us. Until that happens, what "should" happen, what "could" happen, are just Slashdot posts.
I'm all for enforcing the effects of trade according to domestic policy by enforcing tariffs. But the more systematic trade rules are made globally, the more the trade is executed according to the values of what's traded, rather than according to how it's traded. Trade is not a matter of right, but what's best for consumers, producers, freighters, marketers, and the rest of the apparatus surrounding trade is for the rules to be consistent, not a special case for each country.
Not that any of this means that there's any such thing as "free trade" or "fair trade". It's all a system, that can always be gamed. And indeed countries have governments to protect their people from being exploited in those ways. But the more complex the trade rules are, the more openings for gaming.
I tend to agree about the rules of the WTO, which should be abandoned because they're smokescreens that never enforce the actually mythical "free trade". But some world trade organization with rules is necessary. Because trade is most effective when conducted by consistent, well understood rules. However mutual they might be is up to the parties involved. The US operates under many rules these days that disadvantage both foreigners and Americans, because they advantage some rich Americans and some of their powerful trade partners.
Sure, but you didn't completely disagree with me. Indeed, you explicitly completely agreed with me:
"in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite"" "No, a group can't really be hypocritical" [because] "while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior" "there's no such thing as a group of humans where they all agree on everything all the time."
I am not a flag-waver. I am not a hypocrite. Nor is the US, as a country is incapable of hypocrisy.
When the FBI fights phishing that uses trademark infringement to steal millions from civilians the way that it fights copyright infringement that "steals" little if anything, I'll be impressed with the Federal response to the network security crisis.
When the eavesdropping is "in channel", doesn't require material access to the transmitting medium, the eavesdropping could be the fastest, preferred, mode of signaling on the link. Spinning the quantum wheel of "how associated" is the linked topology is going to precede what state info gets distributed most widely, therefore presenting the highest possibility of sync to another signal in the system - dominating it. So modulating the the wheel's state is going to get ahead, leaving everyone on the signal angling to write to it, not just read it. Picking up the traces in the reverb that come from the eavesdropper will make the eave less secret.
Indeed, if I'm tuning into some quantum state to exchange with it, the leading edge that makes its modulation of the remote state the first is the one I'm most aiming to use.
That is a good start, and sufficient to show it's routine.
FWIW, I'm no hypocrite. I don't defend most of those specific bailouts, especially the banks and aerospace ones, and also the way the railroad one neutered the railroad industry. The NYC bailout is almost entirely different - that's not a private subsidy, though it enabled the corporations that drove the bankruptcy to get even further from paying their way. Nor do I say that government subsidies to private interests, particularly strategic industries, are always unethical.
And even in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite" - hypocrisy is a human characteristic, while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior. There is selective enforcement of government subsidies, which mostly advantages China at the expense of the US. Though it evidently advantages the Americans who have the disproportionate power to weaken the US protection of its general welfare, while profiting from benefits to China.
I understand that English is probably not the Huawei spokesperson's first language. But calling the claim that China's $60B government credit line is an unfair competition subsidy "hogwash" means that Huawei is denying that it is a subsidy, or that it exists. It exists, and it it is a subsidy. It's debatable how wrong or illegal it is. But it's is not "hogwash".
If that's true, then Huawei's denial is the hogwash. It's a wordgame (and a shellgame with the money).
The correct response from the US is more demand-side financing guaranteed by the US government. Far better than all the supply-side giveaways that don't really grow market or efficiency, and clearly necessary given China's cash advantages.
Your examples are really demonstration only that the US spent at least 37 years between those bailouts not "routinely handing over loans and credit lines to companies". You need continuous examples over that long period of time to show it's "routine". Indeed, their relative infrequency shows that they're extraordinary. Not that any are necessarily OK, but saying they're "routine" is not supported by what you show.
China routinely prevents countries like the US from defending its domestic industries by insisting that government subsidies are unfair trade competition. Yet here China is doing precisely that, subsidizing Huawei to compete with foreign competition. It's an argument within the rules that China is using to make gains. It's within those rules that the argument is either wrong or right.
Or, rather, that the rules are wrong. I agree with the Chinese that it's OK to subsidize domestic companies in their foreign competitions where their success is strategically important to the domestic country. At least in some cases, that the rules would prohibit. The rules against such subsidies are what should lose this argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're right. If so, I'm glad TechDirt is rebalancing the Overton Window that corporate lobbyists are dragging to protect only profits and propaganda, at the expense of people's speech and press rights. Without countertrolls in other directions, the rightwing trolls always win.
You are probably right. Or at least your version is the most sensible version, which is far from a guarantee that it's what the WIPO is implementing.
However, even your version would require the accused infringing copier to prove that their copy was obtained legally, not from the newly copyrighted broadcast whose owner would accuse the new broadcast of infringement. Sure, in principle the burden would be on the accuser to prove the other copy was copied from their newly copyrighted broadcast. But in practice, especially in a global regime rather than in a US legal system, the rich broadcaster will intimidate the rest of the smaller players into fearing the rich broadcaster will make it punishingly expensive to insist the rich broadcaster prove their accusation.
If the US Copyright Office registered copying transactions, where a copier pointed to the original that they were lawfully copying, and received a crypto token with which they watermarked their copy, they might be much safer. But then all the "free speech/press" copying would require registration with the government (and its extra costs and risks), which is far from freedom. It would be closer to the British monarch's copyright license required by anyone publishing, which we destroyed at great cost and risk in a revolution by which we previously established the government to protect our rights, not burden us with bureaucracy that protects private profits.
Thanks. Though on rereading it I give it a -1 wordo and -1 punctuation, because
"manufacturing and producing heavy physical products"
should be
"manufacturing and distributing heavy physical products"
and
"the creators of the best content - the content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition - is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income."
should be
"the creators of the best conten. Tthe content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition, is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income."
I can't mod, either, nor can I edit after posting. Why can't "News for Nerds" have versioned comments? That's been a much more common request/complaint than anything Slashdot implemented in its recent SW upgrade, which has only made the GUI a little worse.
The profitable privileges of the distributor have always conflicted with the free speech/press rights of the people. The US Constitution's original power to Congress to create something like copyright (a temporary monopoly "to promote progress in science and the useful arts") was a 1700s compromise with our rights that never really worked, like any compromise with rights. But it was the best our predecessors came up with in the generations when the publishing business was mostly defined by manufacturing and producing heavy physical products dressed up with the copyrighted content.
Since the 1900s, broadcasting has decreased the dependency on processing and moving matter for sale with content copied on it to make profits. We're far past the point where copyright is necessary for even the original 17 years. In 17 years a generation's new pop culture book becomes folk culture from the previous generation. But that takes only maybe 10 years for a TV show, 5 years for a movie, 3 years for a song, a couple years for a digital game. The profit curves match those pop->folk expirations, so the profits that promote science and the "useful" arts as incentive to create by those who'd do something else if profits didn't incent them also expire pretty quickly. The profits from the folk phase, the "long tail", are a bonus too small to justify to any realistic capitalist financier the initial creation, and are the product of as much work by the audience perpetuating the content as work by the creator or distributor. And of course most artists and inventors create their work not for the profits, but by the compulsion to create, which is typically what drives the creators of the best content - the content created solely for profits, especially large expected profits with no competition - is typically the least valuable creation, and most dependent on an artificial government monopoly to protect income.
In the 2000s, copyright for even the extended periods bought by the copyright industry from successive 1900s Congresses overall interferes with progress in science and the useful arts. It always conflicted with our speech/press rights. There is no justification for extending it beyond the original 17 years except simple corruption: the regulators are captured by the copyright industry, and violate the people's rights to press/speech as well as the progress in science and the useful arts that we need. The copyright changes that can trade progress for compromise of our rights would cut sharply the length of the monopoly, and release the content from control after the time the content has its shot at repaying the investment in creating it.
This app is interesting, because it doesn't require the PC to know anything about the phone picking up its state, or that the transfer is happening. The phone needs only recognize the URI that the PC is displaying, using the phone's camera and the software.
But what about PC state that isn't in that URI? Like when the onscreen state is composed of more than one URI, like a single window with multiple frames each pointed at a different URL? Or like multiple windows, each pointed at a different URL? Some of which windows are hidden by more foregrounded windows, a fullscreen foreground window? How about all the local state of the PC that's not stored at a network location that a URI can point at, for the phone to retrieve?
What I'd like would be an app that registers the PC and the phone to each other, or rather to a remote registry server that can authenticate each of PC and phone. On either phone or PC press/click/tap something that sends the current state (of current foreground app, or all apps) to the server; on the other device of the pair tell it to pick up the state (or a subset). Or an ongoing "checkin" of state of both devices to the server, from which either device (or a new authorized device) can pick up state.
Indeed, that feature would be excellent for even a single device. When I close apps or shutdown a PC (or phone), to recover from a crash or to save power, when I'm back up I want to restore all my app states (especially open window positions and their contents - from the network or from files). I want to get last state, or a bookmarked "favorite" state from some previous time - even on the same device, but later. And I want to be able to grab state from remote devices I can't snap with a photo, like my desk in another part of the office when I drop into another office.
In Linux this would seem to be easy to implement for windows (which apps have which windows open in which positions), because X makes that state storeable and settable. The OS network stack could track the URLs retrieved by each app and register them, and (depending on the app) reset app windows to a stored URL. Other app state storage for retrieval would need app changes. But a revision to GNOME that installs tools in the toolkit available to all apps would make this easy for the next version of every app to implement. In Android I don't know; maybe the windowing or app widget toolkit makes it even easier. If not, then Android is new enough that a new version of the OS could offer these features. Google seems very interested in getting the features, because it's working on this camera based approach, so Google could put the version I describe into the OS.
We don't have as many earthquakes or tsunamis here as they have in Japan. But we do have exactly the same industry that's immune to public reaction or the liabilities of risk. The US reaction to Fukushima is to make laws to cap nuke plants liability in the event of catastrophe. Which means yet again the power corps (monopolies and cartels) have capitalism for profits, but socialism for losses. This is already true, because nuke plants are uninsurable in the market so the public covers their insurance. But now it's even more starkly true. And what's even more starkly true is that the US nuke government/industry complex is interested in only that "innovation", not in any other changes even when events confront us with the actual risks and damages from these expensive, hazardous boondoggles our Cold War legacy has forced on us.
The technical problems can be patched. The business problems, especially the corruption of a government captured by the industry it regulates, show no sign of any of hope for patch. And that means not even the necessary technical solutions will be applied, when they cost a little profit.
If the reader has no network connection, how does it validate the payment? Credit card "trust me now, validate later" doesn't scale, and has already hit its limits far before most people pay with mobile devices.
All the scenarios you mentioned are solved by QR codes displayed by the phone and the cash register, with cameras on each. No new tech needed on the phones, and existing tech on the cash registers. Including no network connection. Even dumb phones can do QR if they have cameras, which are so cheap that practically all phone should have them. Much more useful than some extra NFC HW.
Acoustic coupling means my phone, that I hold against my face, is getting all the germs from all the other phones (and so faces) inserted into the coupler. And it's yet more gear on the phone, and its battery, and something to go wrong.
A femtocell that costs nothing to the shop but enables payment (and calls) is pretty simple to set up, if there's no signal in that particular place.
WiFi, Zigbee, femtocell, both phone and cash register have cameras and QR code displays...
Or just (cf. femtocell) see that cell networks get their signal everywhere, which is a much more important basic requirement than micropayments added to the few but important places where signal doesn't travel yet. Femtocells cost $150 each +$5 a month, but are free from carriers whenever anyone asks for one and there really is no signal. Like inside a mall.
Keeping your phone# when switching phones makes it less likely that the old phone# is attached to the new person. Besides, the text goes in the other direction anyway, and the cash register is identified at the time of purchase with its current address.
QR code on the cash register and cameraphone, already working.
Why not? SSL is cheap and easy, as are WANs. Why does it make more sense to add an entire new local network tech than to use the existing WANs?
I don't understand why the specific method of the phone giving the cash register some money is some kind of roadblock. Why the phone needs some new method of communicating with the cash register. The phone has a million ways to send a message to the cash register and get a message back. Why can't the phone just text a One-Time Password to the cash register? Or use HTTPS? Or USSD, the GSM infrastructure high priority message used for topping off prepaid phones? Or any of a number of other comms techniques? Phones in Scandinavia have been texting parking meters, and getting texted when the meter's running down, for years. The money can be transferred by digital "check" between banks, or the telco can collect micropayment notices to be paid back like a credit card at the end of the month - or your phone privileges are cut off by the telcos cartel, harsher than a credit rating hit.
The infrastructure for these transactions are everywhere already. I'm impressed by the cleverness of this "inaudible" signaling, but it all seems an unnecessary waste of time.
Because without rules, and with less consistent rules, countries are disadvantaged in trade against other countries that have consistent rules. "Consistent" doesn't mean "one size fits all". And a country like the US is free to negotiate rules approved by its internal, elected organization: the Senate.
The problem is that Americans don't oversee our own political system properly. We don't primary candidates within the parties, we don't insist candidates face their records in general elections. Hell, we don't even run regular people for school boards, while we watch our schools turn into brand training factories undermined by anti-reason. With that kind of bloated apathy and deep incompetence, of course we'll get trade regimes that benefit only the most organized and rich among us. The US can enact nearly any kind of trade rules it wants - and it does, because what "it wants" is what its plutocrats want. If Americans organized ourselves even a little like the plutocrats are organized, the largely democratic structure we've still got would process trade that worked well for many more of us. Until that happens, what "should" happen, what "could" happen, are just Slashdot posts.
I'm all for enforcing the effects of trade according to domestic policy by enforcing tariffs. But the more systematic trade rules are made globally, the more the trade is executed according to the values of what's traded, rather than according to how it's traded. Trade is not a matter of right, but what's best for consumers, producers, freighters, marketers, and the rest of the apparatus surrounding trade is for the rules to be consistent, not a special case for each country.
Not that any of this means that there's any such thing as "free trade" or "fair trade". It's all a system, that can always be gamed. And indeed countries have governments to protect their people from being exploited in those ways. But the more complex the trade rules are, the more openings for gaming.
I tend to agree about the rules of the WTO, which should be abandoned because they're smokescreens that never enforce the actually mythical "free trade". But some world trade organization with rules is necessary. Because trade is most effective when conducted by consistent, well understood rules. However mutual they might be is up to the parties involved. The US operates under many rules these days that disadvantage both foreigners and Americans, because they advantage some rich Americans and some of their powerful trade partners.
Sure, but you didn't completely disagree with me. Indeed, you explicitly completely agreed with me:
"in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite""
"No, a group can't really be hypocritical"
[because]
"while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior"
"there's no such thing as a group of humans where they all agree on everything all the time."
I am not a flag-waver. I am not a hypocrite. Nor is the US, as a country is incapable of hypocrisy.
When the FBI fights phishing that uses trademark infringement to steal millions from civilians the way that it fights copyright infringement that "steals" little if anything, I'll be impressed with the Federal response to the network security crisis.
When the eavesdropping is "in channel", doesn't require material access to the transmitting medium, the eavesdropping could be the fastest, preferred, mode of signaling on the link. Spinning the quantum wheel of "how associated" is the linked topology is going to precede what state info gets distributed most widely, therefore presenting the highest possibility of sync to another signal in the system - dominating it. So modulating the the wheel's state is going to get ahead, leaving everyone on the signal angling to write to it, not just read it. Picking up the traces in the reverb that come from the eavesdropper will make the eave less secret.
Indeed, if I'm tuning into some quantum state to exchange with it, the leading edge that makes its modulation of the remote state the first is the one I'm most aiming to use.
That is a good start, and sufficient to show it's routine.
FWIW, I'm no hypocrite. I don't defend most of those specific bailouts, especially the banks and aerospace ones, and also the way the railroad one neutered the railroad industry. The NYC bailout is almost entirely different - that's not a private subsidy, though it enabled the corporations that drove the bankruptcy to get even further from paying their way. Nor do I say that government subsidies to private interests, particularly strategic industries, are always unethical.
And even in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite" - hypocrisy is a human characteristic, while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior. There is selective enforcement of government subsidies, which mostly advantages China at the expense of the US. Though it evidently advantages the Americans who have the disproportionate power to weaken the US protection of its general welfare, while profiting from benefits to China.
I understand that English is probably not the Huawei spokesperson's first language. But calling the claim that China's $60B government credit line is an unfair competition subsidy "hogwash" means that Huawei is denying that it is a subsidy, or that it exists. It exists, and it it is a subsidy. It's debatable how wrong or illegal it is. But it's is not "hogwash".
If that's true, then Huawei's denial is the hogwash. It's a wordgame (and a shellgame with the money).
The correct response from the US is more demand-side financing guaranteed by the US government. Far better than all the supply-side giveaways that don't really grow market or efficiency, and clearly necessary given China's cash advantages.
No, I don't. And I'm pretty well grown. Indeed, capitalism's other faces helped grow me up pretty fast.
Your examples are really demonstration only that the US spent at least 37 years between those bailouts not "routinely handing over loans and credit lines to companies". You need continuous examples over that long period of time to show it's "routine". Indeed, their relative infrequency shows that they're extraordinary. Not that any are necessarily OK, but saying they're "routine" is not supported by what you show.
China routinely prevents countries like the US from defending its domestic industries by insisting that government subsidies are unfair trade competition. Yet here China is doing precisely that, subsidizing Huawei to compete with foreign competition. It's an argument within the rules that China is using to make gains. It's within those rules that the argument is either wrong or right.
Or, rather, that the rules are wrong. I agree with the Chinese that it's OK to subsidize domestic companies in their foreign competitions where their success is strategically important to the domestic country. At least in some cases, that the rules would prohibit. The rules against such subsidies are what should lose this argument.