Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them.
I'm not so concerned for Google or Netflix as I am concerned about startups who would otherwise be able to compete with the content provided by ISPs. What would've happened had Verizon and Comcast slowed down traffic to Netflix when it was first created? What about if it were possible when Facebook, or Google, were born?
I think it sets a dangerous precedent when one or two companies literally get to decide what new services are good ideas and then create their own, shitty version of it that competes only on the basis of not being fucked with by the ISP.
The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance.
So, this is a win for Amazon. They get free publicity for the holiday season from the announcement to use drones, and they don't have to deliver (pun not intentional) because of the mean old geezers of the FAA. I have to wonder: was that their plan all along?
This isn't quite correct- factoring isn't known to be NP-Hard (and so proving it's in P wouldn't necessarily prove P=NP). Neither is the discrete logarithm problem, which is the basis for ECC. However, I think this actually helps your argument.
The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity
What? QM is COMPLETELY in line with relativity. If you had FTL communication, it wouldn't, but that doesn't exist- quantum teleportation requires a classical channel to relay information (namely, which state Bob's particle collapsed into). I admit I haven't read the linked articles yet, but I doubt the authors made any such claim (and that was input by the submitter/editor)
Source: I am a PhD student in Quantum Computer Science.
The research into quantum computing is using done with the goal of a universal quantum Turing machine, which would, by proof, run classical algorithms in addition to quantum ones.
Not the D-Wave. There's two branches in current quantum computation: General quantum computation, which is still stuck at the implementation stage (of which languages like QCL derive) and D-Wave's computation (which, admittedly, is geared toward quantum annealing and no other quantum procedures, and is therefore not a general quantum computer).
If I were to think a few years down the road, the path D-Wave is taking would culminate in chips that do specific things, such as perform quantum communication protocols, but only those things that were hardwired into the chip. It's hard to think of how a quantum operating system or a quantum programming language would operate under such a model. The general quantum computing path, for which four major quantum programming languages have been written already (QCL, LANQ, CQPL, and QML), if possible, would allow for Turing-Complete machines.
as an anticompetitive practice? Google gets market share for android phones with a better Youtube app, and refusing to allow other people APIs for that app seems like the definition of using market share from one product to affect another.
Did you know that this is what the GA was working on? It seems this problem could have been solved just as easily with more communication than more programming ability.
Researchers should sell journals a "License" that allows the journal to print the researchers IP, but the researcher still owns the IP and can sell other people the license as well.
Bad driving isn't simply "speeding over 70mph" (aren't some highways over that speed limit anyway?), it's an amalgamation of not paying attention, not planning ahead, and not conforming to how everyone else is driving (to an extent). The problem you pose isn't solved in any way by this technology, and it gives more "bad driver" false positives than correct predictions.
It's a shame that some people get caught up so much in "being right" that they stop considering another's position, but don't leave because of it- there are several people willing to discuss and change opinions still here.
That said, I think we'd agree that certain DRM is simply unacceptable, even if on things we rent. I feel like the renting/owning distinction isn't relevant in terms of DRM, though- IANAL, and so obviously my interpretation of law or what it should be is incorrect, but when I rent something, I feel like I have any capabilities that I would when owning it except I have to return it in its original condition at the end of the contract term. I wouldn't want my landlord checking in on me every minute to make sure I haven't done anything bad with my apartment, certainly.
That said, there's plenty of other middle grounds to escape to. If I want to pay a local artist based on how often I listen to his music, I could write a simple script that calculated how much I owe him every month and display that info to me- and if I went over some limit that I personally chose, would halt reading the file and tell me so. That, IMO, constitutes DRM, but is a bit different in that I have absolute power in how much I'm paying and to who, I'm free to disable it if I wish, it's incredibly noninvasive, and it has zero legal enforcement. If we're willing to agree that this is DRM (which we may not!), then obviously the optimal amount of DRM- something that could, in theory, balance the wants of both the consumer and the producer of the content- lies somewhere within this spectrum.
Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable. As long as they're profitable, companies will continue to use such business practices.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that judges are also seeing the idiocy that certain policies seem to lead to, but given how these companies sometimes even blatantly disregard the courts... They'll just find a different patent and sue in a different court system until they get their money back.
“The court said Aereo “provides the functionality of three devices: a standard TV antenna, a DVR, and a Slingbox” device. Each of these devices is legal, so it stands to reason that a service that combines them is also legal."
I definitely feel there's a way to abuse this "Combinations of legal devices are legal". I mean, webservers are legal, and CD rippers are legal, so putting ripped CDs on a webserver should be legal too, right?
I don't know, Stanford Online has taught Cryptography and Networking- two upper level undergraduate CS courses at my university. And Coursera has a Databases course too. Sure, these courses might be vastly outnumbered by the number of "Python Introduction Tutorials", but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised no one has posted wat yet. Even though it's a video, I really found it interesting and funny.
Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them.
I'm not so concerned for Google or Netflix as I am concerned about startups who would otherwise be able to compete with the content provided by ISPs. What would've happened had Verizon and Comcast slowed down traffic to Netflix when it was first created? What about if it were possible when Facebook, or Google, were born?
I think it sets a dangerous precedent when one or two companies literally get to decide what new services are good ideas and then create their own, shitty version of it that competes only on the basis of not being fucked with by the ISP.
The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance.
When 37% of Americans have only two wired broadband providers, 28% have just one, and 2% have no wired broadband ISPs at all, I don't think this is really as much an option.
So, this is a win for Amazon. They get free publicity for the holiday season from the announcement to use drones, and they don't have to deliver (pun not intentional) because of the mean old geezers of the FAA.
I have to wonder: was that their plan all along?
Ah, totally my mistake there.
This isn't quite correct- factoring isn't known to be NP-Hard (and so proving it's in P wouldn't necessarily prove P=NP). Neither is the discrete logarithm problem, which is the basis for ECC.
However, I think this actually helps your argument.
The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity
What? QM is COMPLETELY in line with relativity. If you had FTL communication, it wouldn't, but that doesn't exist- quantum teleportation requires a classical channel to relay information (namely, which state Bob's particle collapsed into). I admit I haven't read the linked articles yet, but I doubt the authors made any such claim (and that was input by the submitter/editor)
Source: I am a PhD student in Quantum Computer Science.
I just read the article, and I didn't reach that conclusion until I read your post. Thanks for your insight!
As an American, I can verify that we do.
And it's still pretty creepy, at least for the first few years...
The research into quantum computing is using done with the goal of a universal quantum Turing machine, which would, by proof, run classical algorithms in addition to quantum ones.
Not the D-Wave. There's two branches in current quantum computation: General quantum computation, which is still stuck at the implementation stage (of which languages like QCL derive) and D-Wave's computation (which, admittedly, is geared toward quantum annealing and no other quantum procedures, and is therefore not a general quantum computer).
If I were to think a few years down the road, the path D-Wave is taking would culminate in chips that do specific things, such as perform quantum communication protocols, but only those things that were hardwired into the chip. It's hard to think of how a quantum operating system or a quantum programming language would operate under such a model. The general quantum computing path, for which four major quantum programming languages have been written already (QCL, LANQ, CQPL, and QML), if possible, would allow for Turing-Complete machines.
See, when this happens, the game should go into the public domain. Seems like a really simple idea.
as an anticompetitive practice? Google gets market share for android phones with a better Youtube app, and refusing to allow other people APIs for that app seems like the definition of using market share from one product to affect another.
what happened to the Vesuvius?
Python, actually. The quantum part is treated like an oracle.
Just when my mod points expire- this is correct.
Is it okay if I post copyrighted material if I go through a 3rd party to do so?
Did you know that this is what the GA was working on? It seems this problem could have been solved just as easily with more communication than more programming ability.
Researchers should sell journals a "License" that allows the journal to print the researchers IP, but the researcher still owns the IP and can sell other people the license as well.
Bad driving isn't simply "speeding over 70mph" (aren't some highways over that speed limit anyway?), it's an amalgamation of not paying attention, not planning ahead, and not conforming to how everyone else is driving (to an extent). The problem you pose isn't solved in any way by this technology, and it gives more "bad driver" false positives than correct predictions.
It's a shame that some people get caught up so much in "being right" that they stop considering another's position, but don't leave because of it- there are several people willing to discuss and change opinions still here. That said, I think we'd agree that certain DRM is simply unacceptable, even if on things we rent. I feel like the renting/owning distinction isn't relevant in terms of DRM, though- IANAL, and so obviously my interpretation of law or what it should be is incorrect, but when I rent something, I feel like I have any capabilities that I would when owning it except I have to return it in its original condition at the end of the contract term. I wouldn't want my landlord checking in on me every minute to make sure I haven't done anything bad with my apartment, certainly. That said, there's plenty of other middle grounds to escape to. If I want to pay a local artist based on how often I listen to his music, I could write a simple script that calculated how much I owe him every month and display that info to me- and if I went over some limit that I personally chose, would halt reading the file and tell me so. That, IMO, constitutes DRM, but is a bit different in that I have absolute power in how much I'm paying and to who, I'm free to disable it if I wish, it's incredibly noninvasive, and it has zero legal enforcement. If we're willing to agree that this is DRM (which we may not!), then obviously the optimal amount of DRM- something that could, in theory, balance the wants of both the consumer and the producer of the content- lies somewhere within this spectrum.
Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable. As long as they're profitable, companies will continue to use such business practices. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that judges are also seeing the idiocy that certain policies seem to lead to, but given how these companies sometimes even blatantly disregard the courts... They'll just find a different patent and sue in a different court system until they get their money back.
Generally, a communicant needs to borrow a classical communications channel to express which state the pair collapsed into- Wikipedia has a good article on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#Protocol
“The court said Aereo “provides the functionality of three devices: a standard TV antenna, a DVR, and a Slingbox” device. Each of these devices is legal, so it stands to reason that a service that combines them is also legal." I definitely feel there's a way to abuse this "Combinations of legal devices are legal". I mean, webservers are legal, and CD rippers are legal, so putting ripped CDs on a webserver should be legal too, right?
"Twighlight"? Editors don't even read the titles anymore, it seems.
I don't know, Stanford Online has taught Cryptography and Networking- two upper level undergraduate CS courses at my university. And Coursera has a Databases course too. Sure, these courses might be vastly outnumbered by the number of "Python Introduction Tutorials", but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
And that is why instead of Google Drive, I'm looking for an alternative that encrypts my family photo's rather than analyzes them.
I don't THINK I have anything illegal in my photo drive, but you never know what may be spotted by a robot looking through my thousands of photos.
You could just encrypt your photos client-side (i.e. before you put them in Google Drive).
How do you think Apple's lawyers got to Mexico in the first place? "Siri, get me directions from Cupertino to Mountain View..."