You asked why change the status quo. The article answers your question of why. It gives the reasons for a need to change. No need to restate it if you can read the article.
Four months per crime when years were possible, the judge was being nice. This wasn't the case of a hacker being railroaded for just perusing some systems he hacked into. There was malicious intent here, he invaded privacy and publicly distributed the results,
1. Why? Why change the status quo that is quite profitable for the ISPs?
That's kind of the point of the article, profit to the detriment of the consumer.
How will it improve anything for the users when 2 bps will be declared web browsing speed, 1kbps for generous ISPs?
The ISPs communicate concepts of speed now, they can do it then.
Who pays for the support calls for "I don't understand this minimum maximum business. Explain it to me. Give 5 examples."
ISPs already communicate concepts of speed before the signing of the contract. Nothing different here except instead of just giving an unrealistic hyped maximum, they are giving a more realistic minimum.
Speed test site will tell the speed in Mbps? Or "web browsing speed" which is not well defined? Can you decide before posting?
Dumbed-down concepts are already communicated by ISPs in addition to the numbers. TWC advertises multiple HD streams, etc., then a Mbps number for the high-speed package. People who know to test the stated Mbps can, the rest don't care. Only now they don't automatically complain when they don't see the high number, because they're looking to make sure they get at least the low number because that's what was promised (not the high number). This has the benefit of making customers happier, because they'll usually see higher than advertised (remember, the low number is only for high-congestion periods).
Or an expensive support call where the customer thinks himself smart as he ran a speed test, so immediately starts abusing the support representative upon any hesitation.
Like they don't do that now when they don't get the theoretical rarely-reached high number, which is the only one advertised.
Apple pretty clearly follows classic Braun designs:
Inspirational as to general theme, not copy. One impressionist isn't necessarily copying another.
Apple has some of the highest profit margins and lowest R&D percentages in the industry.
As percentage is a BS metric since Apple has higher profit margins, R&D will look low, punished for success. Apple also doesn't do much pure research like IBM or Intel, instead directing most research into actual products. Apple also doesn't build foundries and have to R&D smaller processes (at least not yet), billions saved. While Apple now develops custom SOC, the architecture is still licensed, not developed. Different businesses, different R&D patterns.
Who will explain what an SLA means to the customer?
If you want minimum A minimum speed, pay B. If you want X minimum speed, pay Y. Both come with Z maximum speed. Express speed in any way users can understand like "Web browsing speed" or "HD movie watching speed" just like they do now. Users will need to know they paid a certain amount for a certain minimum level of service, no more.
Users don't need to know the scheduling behind it, but the more tech savvy of those on the lower plan may notice they only get W speed during peak hours, but usually get Z speed at night. This is no more complicated than current plans, and much more honest since they don't only tell you theoretical max speeds. "I went to a speed test site and it came out half of what I pay my ISP for, what a ripoff!" No more ISP response of "You should have read the fine print..."
They don't achieve the same goal. With an amount cap, everybody could still be downloading during peak hours, and almost nobody using it late at night.
I suggested basically an SLA. If you want to be ensured 4 Mbps (or whatever, calculate based on network capacity) then you pay more. If you don't mind being cut as low as 1 Mbps (or less, again, whatever the capacity dictates) during congestion periods, then you pay less. Adjust prices and minimum data rates to a point where the network can get saturated, but everybody gets a minimum operable amount at least during that saturation. If someone who pays less wants to watch movies eight hours straight on 4G overnight, who cares, it's not burdening the network. Right now that guy would exceed his data cap in no time. If somebody wants to watch 4G video when the network is congested, then he gets to pay extra for it.
Give me much better gas mileage per volume of fuel, which means I can drive the same distance and produce less pollution. Environmentally conscious Europe now sells about 50% of new cars as diesel.
Why? Even the great Steve Jobs himself said, "good artists copy, great artists steal".
Out of context. Jobs was referring to the Picasso quote. The meaning is that good artists just copy what others do (Samsung). Great artists find forgotten inspirations and make something revolutionary from it.
The iMac G4 was inspired by Luxo Jr. from Pixar, which in turn was inspired by the Luxo desk lamp Lasseter had on his desk. You can't say the iMac is a copy or a rip-off from the lamp, but you can see the unique inspiration that led to the creation of an entirely new piece of design work.
The real problem with Jobs refusing to even consider payment for Apple's IP is that it can retard progress.
I can agree with you there. But our scheme of copyright/patent is designed to give some period of exclusivity. Apple does put a lot of $$$ into those designs, and wants a payback.
It's good for Apple because they don't have to put as much work into coming up with improvements to their products to remain competitive
That might make sense if Apple hadn't invested billions into its mobile products. The original iPhone was a $150 million gamble. Since then they've bought a billion dollars worth of flash memory and semiconductor companies to improve the products (years later the work results in the custom A6 chip). Apple has invested billions more into manufacturing technologies. We're still waiting to see what that hugely expensive exclusive license with LiquidMetal will pay off with, since Apple has had metallurgists and fabrication specialists working on that one for a few years now.
They're working as hard as, or harder than, anyone else.
We, the supreme nanny state, get to decide what you "need."
And even if a car is a basic city fuel-efficient put-put car, we'll ban it if it has an "evil" sporty look to it. And we'll limit purchases to one every five years, and require a background check and mental health examination.
Like fuel injection, airbags, antilock braking, stability control, etc., longer-range electric cars will eventually get down to the price where the average person can afford it. But don't think it'll go along the lines of SSDs since Moore's Law doesn't apply. It will take decades absent a battery breakthrough. ABS has been around since the 20s, and in cars since the 60s, but only became common on smaller, inexpensive cars in the 2000s. Even now, four-channel, four-sensor ABS (every wheel independently controlled) is less common on the lower-end cars.
I don't mind such a model. Bandwidth for wireless or landline is finite. At times when that finite resource becomes scarce due to high usage, a higher charge or a bandwidth cap makes sense. Or for cellular, pay more for a plan that isn't subject to the bandwidth caps, and the rest of us who don't care so much can live with the cap. Note bandwidth caps to adjust to traffic patterns, not a data amount cap. You normally have 4 Mbps, but it's rush hour on the networks so you only get 1 Mbps.
But they won't do it for the reasons set forth in the article. Basically, they're greedy. They don't want to give us the best service, they want to squeeze every last penny out of us. They can do this because competition is not that good. I was thinking of going to Virgin Mobile, but I can't live with their coverage, so I'll be staying with my sucky provider. Nobody around gives the bandwidth that the cable company does for home (the DSL is a joke).
The iPhone was #1 when the suit was filed, the newest generation is still #1 despite any infringement. Given that, how could Apple possibly claim irreparable harm from runners-up?
Attacking the juror was just pathetic since they can't show one falsehood stated by him in voir dire. The time for a peremptory challenge is before the trial, not after.
I actually appreciate Jobs' sentiment there. It's nice to see that in this day money isn't the universal resolver of disputes. You can't just screw someone and say "Here's some cash, get over it." You have to actually stop screwing them.
I always considered the jury's decision inviolable, that you had to find something like a bribe or purposely hidden conflict of interest to overturn it No, this foreman's case doesn't fit that since he answered the questions truthfully as asked, and even said he worked for Seagate (being in a lawsuit was another question, limited to the last 10 years, and his fell outside that timeframe). The alternative is constant retrials, over and over, the one with the most money to pay the lawyers wins. The jury made its decision, so live with it.
If you take this into criminal law, that means the government always wins. You see it's not double jeopardy because you weren't retried. The jury decision was thrown out and you are being tried for the first time again.
The great thing about an electric car is simplicity. You have a battery, a motor, a differential, and a light-weight cooling system (mainly for the batteries). The engine is basically one moving part that doesn't reciprocate, you don't need a multi-gear transmission with a shifting mechanism, and there's no high-heat to degrade everything. No oil changes, rare coolant fluid changes.
Although you may have to take it in for maintenance, it should be relatively rare compared to an internal combustion engine.
How behind the times are you? Modern diesels are far less polluting than the diesels of old. With common rail injection, ultra-low sulphur diesel and particulate scrubbers, they are pretty damn clean. Couple that with lower fuel consumption they can, for example, put out less CO2 per mile than gasoline.
By 1990 in America I thought only older clunkers didn't have cats, but then I found out that many fairly new cars in Europe didn't. I think the market there when pretty much entirely cat by the mid 90s.
Slashdot Mirror
You asked why change the status quo. The article answers your question of why. It gives the reasons for a need to change. No need to restate it if you can read the article.
Hey, some guy just built a helicopter, why not the first Lego satellite?
Four months per crime when years were possible, the judge was being nice. This wasn't the case of a hacker being railroaded for just perusing some systems he hacked into. There was malicious intent here, he invaded privacy and publicly distributed the results,
The article was answering the quesiton. It's the reason we're here.
That's actually a case for patent trolls. In a sense, they buy the rights to a regular-guy patent and then bankroll its defense.
That's kind of the point of the article, profit to the detriment of the consumer.
The ISPs communicate concepts of speed now, they can do it then.
ISPs already communicate concepts of speed before the signing of the contract. Nothing different here except instead of just giving an unrealistic hyped maximum, they are giving a more realistic minimum.
Dumbed-down concepts are already communicated by ISPs in addition to the numbers. TWC advertises multiple HD streams, etc., then a Mbps number for the high-speed package. People who know to test the stated Mbps can, the rest don't care. Only now they don't automatically complain when they don't see the high number, because they're looking to make sure they get at least the low number because that's what was promised (not the high number). This has the benefit of making customers happier, because they'll usually see higher than advertised (remember, the low number is only for high-congestion periods).
Like they don't do that now when they don't get the theoretical rarely-reached high number, which is the only one advertised.
Inspirational as to general theme, not copy. One impressionist isn't necessarily copying another.
As percentage is a BS metric since Apple has higher profit margins, R&D will look low, punished for success. Apple also doesn't do much pure research like IBM or Intel, instead directing most research into actual products. Apple also doesn't build foundries and have to R&D smaller processes (at least not yet), billions saved. While Apple now develops custom SOC, the architecture is still licensed, not developed. Different businesses, different R&D patterns.
If you want minimum A minimum speed, pay B. If you want X minimum speed, pay Y. Both come with Z maximum speed. Express speed in any way users can understand like "Web browsing speed" or "HD movie watching speed" just like they do now. Users will need to know they paid a certain amount for a certain minimum level of service, no more.
Users don't need to know the scheduling behind it, but the more tech savvy of those on the lower plan may notice they only get W speed during peak hours, but usually get Z speed at night. This is no more complicated than current plans, and much more honest since they don't only tell you theoretical max speeds. "I went to a speed test site and it came out half of what I pay my ISP for, what a ripoff!" No more ISP response of "You should have read the fine print..."
They don't achieve the same goal. With an amount cap, everybody could still be downloading during peak hours, and almost nobody using it late at night.
I suggested basically an SLA. If you want to be ensured 4 Mbps (or whatever, calculate based on network capacity) then you pay more. If you don't mind being cut as low as 1 Mbps (or less, again, whatever the capacity dictates) during congestion periods, then you pay less. Adjust prices and minimum data rates to a point where the network can get saturated, but everybody gets a minimum operable amount at least during that saturation. If someone who pays less wants to watch movies eight hours straight on 4G overnight, who cares, it's not burdening the network. Right now that guy would exceed his data cap in no time. If somebody wants to watch 4G video when the network is congested, then he gets to pay extra for it.
Big difference between the periodic congestion-based bandwidth caps I suggested and the arbitrary data amount caps the industry uses.
The former helps achieve maximum use of the network while still maintaining usability, the latter is just gouging.
Give me much better gas mileage per volume of fuel, which means I can drive the same distance and produce less pollution. Environmentally conscious Europe now sells about 50% of new cars as diesel.
Out of context. Jobs was referring to the Picasso quote. The meaning is that good artists just copy what others do (Samsung). Great artists find forgotten inspirations and make something revolutionary from it.
The iMac G4 was inspired by Luxo Jr. from Pixar, which in turn was inspired by the Luxo desk lamp Lasseter had on his desk. You can't say the iMac is a copy or a rip-off from the lamp, but you can see the unique inspiration that led to the creation of an entirely new piece of design work.
I can agree with you there. But our scheme of copyright/patent is designed to give some period of exclusivity. Apple does put a lot of $$$ into those designs, and wants a payback.
That might make sense if Apple hadn't invested billions into its mobile products. The original iPhone was a $150 million gamble. Since then they've bought a billion dollars worth of flash memory and semiconductor companies to improve the products (years later the work results in the custom A6 chip). Apple has invested billions more into manufacturing technologies. We're still waiting to see what that hugely expensive exclusive license with LiquidMetal will pay off with, since Apple has had metallurgists and fabrication specialists working on that one for a few years now.
They're working as hard as, or harder than, anyone else.
Have you seen the size of a walk-in commercial fridge? You need a bigger truck.
We, the supreme nanny state, get to decide what you "need."
And even if a car is a basic city fuel-efficient put-put car, we'll ban it if it has an "evil" sporty look to it. And we'll limit purchases to one every five years, and require a background check and mental health examination.
Like fuel injection, airbags, antilock braking, stability control, etc., longer-range electric cars will eventually get down to the price where the average person can afford it. But don't think it'll go along the lines of SSDs since Moore's Law doesn't apply. It will take decades absent a battery breakthrough. ABS has been around since the 20s, and in cars since the 60s, but only became common on smaller, inexpensive cars in the 2000s. Even now, four-channel, four-sensor ABS (every wheel independently controlled) is less common on the lower-end cars.
I'd love to see the cyclist who can haul a commercial fridge to a restaurant in the middle of Paris. I do hope they have common-sense exceptions.
The offenceS. He got 10 years for a crime spree consisting of 26 separate crimes. That's not bad.
I don't mind such a model. Bandwidth for wireless or landline is finite. At times when that finite resource becomes scarce due to high usage, a higher charge or a bandwidth cap makes sense. Or for cellular, pay more for a plan that isn't subject to the bandwidth caps, and the rest of us who don't care so much can live with the cap. Note bandwidth caps to adjust to traffic patterns, not a data amount cap. You normally have 4 Mbps, but it's rush hour on the networks so you only get 1 Mbps.
But they won't do it for the reasons set forth in the article. Basically, they're greedy. They don't want to give us the best service, they want to squeeze every last penny out of us. They can do this because competition is not that good. I was thinking of going to Virgin Mobile, but I can't live with their coverage, so I'll be staying with my sucky provider. Nobody around gives the bandwidth that the cable company does for home (the DSL is a joke).
For my kid I automatically get texts for (IIRC) 50%, 75%, 90% and limit hit (she can't go over).
The iPhone was #1 when the suit was filed, the newest generation is still #1 despite any infringement. Given that, how could Apple possibly claim irreparable harm from runners-up?
Attacking the juror was just pathetic since they can't show one falsehood stated by him in voir dire. The time for a peremptory challenge is before the trial, not after.
I actually appreciate Jobs' sentiment there. It's nice to see that in this day money isn't the universal resolver of disputes. You can't just screw someone and say "Here's some cash, get over it." You have to actually stop screwing them.
I always considered the jury's decision inviolable, that you had to find something like a bribe or purposely hidden conflict of interest to overturn it No, this foreman's case doesn't fit that since he answered the questions truthfully as asked, and even said he worked for Seagate (being in a lawsuit was another question, limited to the last 10 years, and his fell outside that timeframe). The alternative is constant retrials, over and over, the one with the most money to pay the lawyers wins. The jury made its decision, so live with it.
If you take this into criminal law, that means the government always wins. You see it's not double jeopardy because you weren't retried. The jury decision was thrown out and you are being tried for the first time again.
The great thing about an electric car is simplicity. You have a battery, a motor, a differential, and a light-weight cooling system (mainly for the batteries). The engine is basically one moving part that doesn't reciprocate, you don't need a multi-gear transmission with a shifting mechanism, and there's no high-heat to degrade everything. No oil changes, rare coolant fluid changes.
Although you may have to take it in for maintenance, it should be relatively rare compared to an internal combustion engine.
How behind the times are you? Modern diesels are far less polluting than the diesels of old. With common rail injection, ultra-low sulphur diesel and particulate scrubbers, they are pretty damn clean. Couple that with lower fuel consumption they can, for example, put out less CO2 per mile than gasoline.
By 1990 in America I thought only older clunkers didn't have cats, but then I found out that many fairly new cars in Europe didn't. I think the market there when pretty much entirely cat by the mid 90s.