It is fact that 802.11 chipsets are now cheaper than Bluetooth chipsets (and this event is recent).
802.11 is targeted towards exactly the area which Bluetoth now occupies. All that was holding it back was the price of the chipset. Now that barrier is gone you will see 802.11 replacing Bluetooth in the next generation of products. I'm talking chipsets here, so it will take a short time to flow onto the consumer market.
I've had pretty extensive discussions with one of the guys that invented802 style WLANs. His vision as always been world domination for 802.11: LANs, headsets, remote controls, TVs, light switches, toasters,... Everything Bluetooth does (and more) is in the sights of 802.11
The goal all along for 802.11 has been to be the 'universal' wireless protocol. It aims to provide a mid level service at a low end price, using its ubiquity to achieve economies of scale and come in at a lower price than competitors with lower specifications.
Bluetooth has recently been killed by 802.11.
(Insert images of John Cleese banging a parrot on a counter here.) The chips which make up an 802.11 device have always had a higher 'spec' than Bluetooth so Bluetooth was supposed to compete on price. Recently Moore's Law coupled with economies of scale means 802.11 chipsets are cheaper than Bluetooth. There is no longer any reason to buy Bluetooth, an inferior product at a higher price.
Chances are 802.11 will soon kill off any newcomer, with lower specifications, in the same way. It's a risky game to compete with 802.11 based on price.
What's to stop the company from going after Mozilla authors as well, or authors of any other free software program that uses plugins?
Also, from the article:
"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."
Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.
Having said that though, check out the case Frearson v Loe, dated 1878 (google is your friend). I gather (in my naive IANAL way) that it is an often quoted precedent. The case determined that non-commercial experimentation is okay, even in the face of patents. Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?
> Yeah, anyone can make a bomb with the proper chemicals, but can YOU do it with bubble gum, a piece of thread and a muffin?:)
Easy!
You eat the muffin, stick the bubble gum over your rear end and fart until you have a nice big bubble full of explosive gas. You then poke the bit of thread into the bubble to act as a fuse. Done and ready to light.
If vendors are allowed to collect such information in order to better target pricing, shouldn't purchasers be allowed to have access to 'perfect' pricing data to allow a fully informed choice? That is, shouldn't vendors be forced to release their pricing formulas and consumers be allowed to build web sites to compare these prices?
It seems that companies claiming prices as 'confidential' want it all their own way. That doesn't seems like a very pure form of capitalism.
No, it's only going to chase away dishonest companies, which the community doesn't need anyway.
If a company doesn't like the GPL, what's wrong with approaching the authors and saying 'Look, we can't live with this, can we negotiate some other license?'. Instead dishonest companies break the law, and violate the authors' copyright. If someone did it to them, they would be using words like 'theft' and 'pirate'. It's not playing hardball, it's called common courtesy.
> "with the exception of the Australian Financial Review referring to it in the Free Trade Agreement context"
and from the artcle:
> '"That remains something of a weakness in local copyright laws in that they focus on the supply of the devices rather than their use," Mr Williams said.'
Put the two together and you have a push, using the looming US 'free' trade agreement as a cover, to outlaw the private non-commercial use of various technologies in Australia.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL CONCERNED AUSTRALIANS TO WRITE TO THEIR MPs, URGING THEM TO MAKE LAWS TO BENEFIT ALL AUSTRALIANS (AND AUSTRALIAN R&D), NOT JUST A SMALL GROUP OF COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
By way of example, the old lady may have figured out that a candidate's tie selection says more about the candidate than what comes out of their mouth. (sounds almost reasonable to me!) But that is not my point.
My point is that just because someone's selection criteria does not agree with yours, it doesn't make their selection criteria invalid or irresponsible.
Wouldn't it be neat to send each student home with a CD containing a (legal) copy of the tools they have just learned to use?
If teaching generic 'word procesor' and 'spreadsheet' courses, consider at least one session on gnumeric and abiword. Both are quite usable. Their user interfaces are close enough to excel and word that the session won't be a huge culture shock, but at the same time different enough to make students have to understand what they are doing, rather than just clicking 'the third button from the left'. Abiword is available for Windows, in case you don't want to go the complete GNU/Linux step (though having used it for 6 months now, I actually prefer the Gnome 2.2 user interface to the WIndows UI.)
Consider setting up at least one machine, with a CD burner, as a 'software kiosk', where the community can come and download basic free (as in beer and/or GNU) software using a 'point and burn' user interface.
If the old lady wants to vote for Al Gore's tie, who are you to tell her she cannot? Surely that is her prerogative?
On a practical point, if the 'old ladies' vote randomly, their influence should average out to zero. If they don't vote randomly, doesn't that mean they have a voice which should be heard?
A) I would argue that there are examples of R&D which are not based on physical observation, but on simulation. For example, integrated circuit design, structural design, process modelling, at least some acoustics and so on. These simulations are highly developed and the thing being simulated is typically fabricated without verifying simulation results against physical measurements. The main costs in these fields is a specialists time and computing power. Computing power is getting cheaper at a rapid rate. As the simulations get more sophisticated, and easier to use, the expertise required falls and so the cost of the time goes down as well. In this case, I think my assertion that R&D costs will plummet is strong.
B) Then there is 'computational science'. An example is Lattice QCD and some molecular biology. In these cases, the simulations are not well developed, and much effort is still going into making the simulations more accurate. One must be a specialist to use these 'type B' simulations. Eventually these fields will become well developed and move into class 'A'. I would claim that my argument for reductions in R&D costs is still valid for these fields, but time scales are much longer.
C) Then there are the 'real' science areas where people in white coats run around labs full of test tubes and so on. Today's 'real' science areas will be tomorrow's 'computational science', eventually moving into 'type A' simulations. For example, today (I assume) drugs are designed experimentally and then proceed through expensive clinical trials. Eventually we will have a simulator which models all the chemical processes of the human body. We will also have molecular simulators, which will be able to be used to design molecules with particular properties (possibly using some form of 'dumb' Monte Carlo analysis?). The effects of these drugs will be able to be simulated using the human body model. These simulated results will be more reliable than clinical trials, as the model will be more observable than a real human body and the model can be made to cover a wider spread of real world subjects than would actually be available for a trial. I'm arguing that these simulations will move through the 'type B' phase then into the 'type A' phase where they can be carried out on a relatively cheap computer by a relatively inexperienced person.
Eventually, I think we will have a 'type A' simulator that can simulate an arbitrary chemical process. Given that our everyday world is based on chemical processes (as opposed to nuclear) these simulators will allow (a well read) Joe Average to virtually manipulate atoms. As computing power grows the volume which can be simulated, and consequentially the range of things which can be simulated, will grow to the point where most things that we interact with (including our basic needs) can be simulated.
This is what I meant by "R&D costs will plummet" and why I think they will become a more tenuous justification for errecting artificial barriers such as treatign ideas as property.
I'm not saying science will go away, but I do think fields such as chemistry and biology will undergo major revolutions, possibly to the point where they become like computer science or information theory.
It's not about music. It's about the bigger picture.
The world is moving towards an era of exceedingly low barriers to manufacturing and distribution. (See previous story on peer-to-peer manufacturing.) Incumbents are selfishly seeking to impose artificial barriers, such as claiming property rights over ideas and information.
We will have an opportunity to abolish resource shortages and largely solve material needs. The alternative is people dying from disease and starvation due to artificial barriers, such as intellectual 'property rights', preventing them from receiving things such as drugs and food. These things will be affordable if artificial barriers, such as intellectual property', are removed. (It is is okay to charge competitive prices for materials, labour and other scarce resources.) Okay you may argue R&D needs to be recouped, but as simulations become more accurate R&D costs will plummet, rendering such arguments moot.
It all depends on having one's NEEDS satisfied. By definition, once needs are eliminated, everything else is optional.
Sure all those Rembrants and Shakespearian plays are neat, but ultimately they are not a necessity.
A sharing economy only works when everyone shares.
I disagree with this. I think it is more accurate to say "A sharing economy only works when a 'critical mass' shares". The size of the critical mass depends on the item being shared. If climbing a high wall and you need a lift up, the critical mass is about two (one extra person to boost you up). If sending someone to the moon, the critical mass is much bigger. The effect of a system like the Internet is to increase number of sharers in contact with each other and decrease the effort required to certian goals (so reducing the number of sharers required). Both of these factors make a sharing economy more feasible. Nanotechnology should dramatically reduce the 'effort required' (reducing the number of sharers required even further) for many more goals than the Internet.
Nanotech offers the potential for the minority of sharers to 'break free' from those who don't share, to form their own sub-economy (possibly a black economy?) The groundshift comes when the community of sharers gets larger than the number of people required to provide for basic needs.
The chances are the sharers would find the time and inclination to cater to some of their own wants in addition to their needs. I would propose (without evidence) that given time, the proportion of sharers would increase as the majority caught onto the fact that it is not necessary to defer wants when they can be obtained immediately by sharing.
Ahh, but the whole of the 'device under construction' doesn't need to be in a vacuum, at the same time, while it is being built. Only the part being actively worked on.
It's a bit like poking that really long bit of timber through the workshop window while you work on one end of it. (Of course the project you are working on is building yourself a new workshop the same size as your existing one!)
Don't forget this is version one. Surely future versions will be able to take in millions of works written in hundreds of languages, simultaneously? Tell it which work is a translation of which (or let it figure it out for itself) and it will then be able to translate from any one of the languages to another. In the translation process, it won't just take into consideration the relationships between the two languages being translated, but the relationships between all of the languages fed in.
For example, if translating fron langauge A to B, useful information might also be gleaned by considering influences from the paths A->C->B, A->D->B, A->C->E->B and so on, where C, D and E are also languages.
The closest analogy I can think of is a device called a 'multiuser detector' from information theory.
What one really needs is a scanner which one programs with one's OWN ethics. It then measures against these ethics and beeps accordingly.
Not sure how one goes about 'programming' ethics though. I imagine delegating your ethical decisions to a beeper also raises a whole lot of new ethical questions!
If the main resource is carbon, it is widely available. The trick will be to have the assembler 'mine' it's raw materials from its environment (plant matter, atmosphere,...). Also, wastage will be pretty well zero, so a bare minimum of material will be required. Thirdly, having full control of the material being fabricated allows very strong structures to be built, opening the possibility of strong low density 'foam' type materials, using even smaller amounts of raw materials.
one where all needs are provided
The trick would be to figure out how to get the universal assembler to provide all the basic needs. Food, shelter, sanitation, water, energy source. Biggest problem would be that the supply of real estate is limited. It would be interesting to see where people's greed will be directed once most things have no monetary value. I suspect people will start to hoard real estate. Will we see a war when the landless manufacture weapons and attempt to stop landowners from hoarding land surplus to building a shelter on?
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs.
This is not necessarily the case. Any self respecting 'universal assembler' will be able to make a copy of itself.
There will STILL be an economy
It depends on what you mean by an economy. Surely the (forgotten) purpose of the economy is to satisfy our needs? Once needs can be satisfied without an economy, why have one? With any luck, the economy will be replaced by community. We will then live FOR those around us. It might take a bit of adjustment, but I'm sure most will cope.
Presumably these glasses will indicate empty even though they ar 30% full, the glass will self destruct if you take too long to drink your beer and you will not be able to fill the glas with homebrew beer? When they do refill it, maybe you only get half a glass of beer?
(Betcha students can't sneak them out of the pub either.)
Probably longer term than humanoid robots, but I suspect soon an awful lot more effort will go onto nanotechnology than humanoid robots, swinging things nanotech's way.
The article assumes things will still be built out of bricks, concrete, and so on. What if they were built out of atoms instead?
Why do you need a humanoid to clean the bathroom when it will be built out of self cleaning material, coated with organisms/nanobots that eat the germs and muck?
Why have a humanoid to pour concrete when the building can be 'grown'.
Why have a machine wash your clothers when you just feed your dirty cloths in as raw material for the 'magic manufacturing box' {goes something like 1) dirty underpants 2) ??? 3) new underpants} and it will make you a brand spanking new pair of undies from the old ones?
Why have humanoid burger flipper, when you can just synthesise cooked meat?
Licensing restricts the bandwidth available, and so the maximum datarate which can be transmitted. Having said that, space-time coding may be able to increase the datarate (ultimately, a focused laser beam is just another form of space-time coding). WIth visible you don't have to license the spectrum.
Legislation (in some countries) basically says only approved phone companies are allowed to run communications networks. 'Approved' means you pay a sum of money and agree to build surveillance capablities into your network (and comply with any surveillance requests from the government). Visible spectrum generally isn't counted as a communications medium (unless it is in a waveguide), so there are no legal limitations on a network using visible spectrum through the air.
Slashdot Mirror
It is fact that 802.11 chipsets are now cheaper than Bluetooth chipsets (and this event is recent).
802.11 is targeted towards exactly the area which Bluetoth now occupies. All that was holding it back was the price of the chipset. Now that barrier is gone you will see 802.11 replacing Bluetooth in the next generation of products. I'm talking chipsets here, so it will take a short time to flow onto the consumer market.
I've had pretty extensive discussions with one of the guys that invented802 style WLANs. His vision as always been world domination for 802.11: LANs, headsets, remote controls, TVs, light switches, toasters, ... Everything Bluetooth does (and more) is in the sights of 802.11
No, it applies to integrated circuit complexity, of which processor speed is a consequence. Here is the original paper by Moore.
Bluetooth has recently been killed by 802.11. (Insert images of John Cleese banging a parrot on a counter here.) The chips which make up an 802.11 device have always had a higher 'spec' than Bluetooth so Bluetooth was supposed to compete on price. Recently Moore's Law coupled with economies of scale means 802.11 chipsets are cheaper than Bluetooth. There is no longer any reason to buy Bluetooth, an inferior product at a higher price.
Chances are 802.11 will soon kill off any newcomer, with lower specifications, in the same way. It's a risky game to compete with 802.11 based on price.
Also, from the article:
Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.
Having said that though, check out the case Frearson v Loe, dated 1878 (google is your friend). I gather (in my naive IANAL way) that it is an often quoted precedent. The case determined that non-commercial experimentation is okay, even in the face of patents. Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?
Because the application doesn't need a real time operating system. (As proven by the fact that it works, and doesn't use a RTOS)
Easy!
You eat the muffin, stick the bubble gum over your rear end and fart until you have a nice big bubble full of explosive gas. You then poke the bit of thread into the bubble to act as a fuse. Done and ready to light.
Now we know what Shylock really wanted that pound of flesh for. Too bad he stuffed up the contract and forgot to order the blood option!
It seems that companies claiming prices as 'confidential' want it all their own way. That doesn't seems like a very pure form of capitalism.
If a company doesn't like the GPL, what's wrong with approaching the authors and saying 'Look, we can't live with this, can we negotiate some other license?'. Instead dishonest companies break the law, and violate the authors' copyright. If someone did it to them, they would be using words like 'theft' and 'pirate'. It's not playing hardball, it's called common courtesy.
> "with the exception of the Australian Financial Review referring to it in the Free Trade Agreement context"
and from the artcle:
> '"That remains something of a weakness in local copyright laws in that they focus on the supply of the devices rather than their use," Mr Williams said.'
Put the two together and you have a push, using the looming US 'free' trade agreement as a cover, to outlaw the private non-commercial use of various technologies in Australia.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL CONCERNED AUSTRALIANS TO WRITE TO THEIR MPs, URGING THEM TO MAKE LAWS TO BENEFIT ALL AUSTRALIANS (AND AUSTRALIAN R&D), NOT JUST A SMALL GROUP OF COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
My point is that just because someone's selection criteria does not agree with yours, it doesn't make their selection criteria invalid or irresponsible.
If teaching generic 'word procesor' and 'spreadsheet' courses, consider at least one session on gnumeric and abiword. Both are quite usable. Their user interfaces are close enough to excel and word that the session won't be a huge culture shock, but at the same time different enough to make students have to understand what they are doing, rather than just clicking 'the third button from the left'. Abiword is available for Windows, in case you don't want to go the complete GNU/Linux step (though having used it for 6 months now, I actually prefer the Gnome 2.2 user interface to the WIndows UI.)
Consider setting up at least one machine, with a CD burner, as a 'software kiosk', where the community can come and download basic free (as in beer and/or GNU) software using a 'point and burn' user interface.
On a practical point, if the 'old ladies' vote randomly, their influence should average out to zero. If they don't vote randomly, doesn't that mean they have a voice which should be heard?
A) I would argue that there are examples of R&D which are not based on physical observation, but on simulation. For example, integrated circuit design, structural design, process modelling, at least some acoustics and so on. These simulations are highly developed and the thing being simulated is typically fabricated without verifying simulation results against physical measurements. The main costs in these fields is a specialists time and computing power. Computing power is getting cheaper at a rapid rate. As the simulations get more sophisticated, and easier to use, the expertise required falls and so the cost of the time goes down as well. In this case, I think my assertion that R&D costs will plummet is strong.
B) Then there is 'computational science'. An example is Lattice QCD and some molecular biology. In these cases, the simulations are not well developed, and much effort is still going into making the simulations more accurate. One must be a specialist to use these 'type B' simulations. Eventually these fields will become well developed and move into class 'A'. I would claim that my argument for reductions in R&D costs is still valid for these fields, but time scales are much longer.
C) Then there are the 'real' science areas where people in white coats run around labs full of test tubes and so on. Today's 'real' science areas will be tomorrow's 'computational science', eventually moving into 'type A' simulations. For example, today (I assume) drugs are designed experimentally and then proceed through expensive clinical trials. Eventually we will have a simulator which models all the chemical processes of the human body. We will also have molecular simulators, which will be able to be used to design molecules with particular properties (possibly using some form of 'dumb' Monte Carlo analysis?). The effects of these drugs will be able to be simulated using the human body model. These simulated results will be more reliable than clinical trials, as the model will be more observable than a real human body and the model can be made to cover a wider spread of real world subjects than would actually be available for a trial. I'm arguing that these simulations will move through the 'type B' phase then into the 'type A' phase where they can be carried out on a relatively cheap computer by a relatively inexperienced person.
Eventually, I think we will have a 'type A' simulator that can simulate an arbitrary chemical process. Given that our everyday world is based on chemical processes (as opposed to nuclear) these simulators will allow (a well read) Joe Average to virtually manipulate atoms. As computing power grows the volume which can be simulated, and consequentially the range of things which can be simulated, will grow to the point where most things that we interact with (including our basic needs) can be simulated.
This is what I meant by "R&D costs will plummet" and why I think they will become a more tenuous justification for errecting artificial barriers such as treatign ideas as property.
I'm not saying science will go away, but I do think fields such as chemistry and biology will undergo major revolutions, possibly to the point where they become like computer science or information theory.
The world is moving towards an era of exceedingly low barriers to manufacturing and distribution. (See previous story on peer-to-peer manufacturing.) Incumbents are selfishly seeking to impose artificial barriers, such as claiming property rights over ideas and information.
We will have an opportunity to abolish resource shortages and largely solve material needs. The alternative is people dying from disease and starvation due to artificial barriers, such as intellectual 'property rights', preventing them from receiving things such as drugs and food. These things will be affordable if artificial barriers, such as intellectual property', are removed. (It is is okay to charge competitive prices for materials, labour and other scarce resources.) Okay you may argue R&D needs to be recouped, but as simulations become more accurate R&D costs will plummet, rendering such arguments moot.
Sure all those Rembrants and Shakespearian plays are neat, but ultimately they are not a necessity.
A sharing economy only works when everyone shares.
I disagree with this. I think it is more accurate to say "A sharing economy only works when a 'critical mass' shares". The size of the critical mass depends on the item being shared. If climbing a high wall and you need a lift up, the critical mass is about two (one extra person to boost you up). If sending someone to the moon, the critical mass is much bigger. The effect of a system like the Internet is to increase number of sharers in contact with each other and decrease the effort required to certian goals (so reducing the number of sharers required). Both of these factors make a sharing economy more feasible. Nanotechnology should dramatically reduce the 'effort required' (reducing the number of sharers required even further) for many more goals than the Internet.
Nanotech offers the potential for the minority of sharers to 'break free' from those who don't share, to form their own sub-economy (possibly a black economy?) The groundshift comes when the community of sharers gets larger than the number of people required to provide for basic needs.
The chances are the sharers would find the time and inclination to cater to some of their own wants in addition to their needs. I would propose (without evidence) that given time, the proportion of sharers would increase as the majority caught onto the fact that it is not necessary to defer wants when they can be obtained immediately by sharing.
It's a bit like poking that really long bit of timber through the workshop window while you work on one end of it. (Of course the project you are working on is building yourself a new workshop the same size as your existing one!)
For example, if translating fron langauge A to B, useful information might also be gleaned by considering influences from the paths A->C->B, A->D->B, A->C->E->B and so on, where C, D and E are also languages.
The closest analogy I can think of is a device called a 'multiuser detector' from information theory.
Not sure how one goes about 'programming' ethics though. I imagine delegating your ethical decisions to a beeper also raises a whole lot of new ethical questions!
If the main resource is carbon, it is widely available. The trick will be to have the assembler 'mine' it's raw materials from its environment (plant matter, atmosphere, ...). Also, wastage will be pretty well zero, so a bare minimum of material will be required. Thirdly, having full control of the material being fabricated allows very strong structures to be built, opening the possibility of strong low density 'foam' type materials, using even smaller amounts of raw materials.
one where all needs are provided
The trick would be to figure out how to get the universal assembler to provide all the basic needs. Food, shelter, sanitation, water, energy source. Biggest problem would be that the supply of real estate is limited. It would be interesting to see where people's greed will be directed once most things have no monetary value. I suspect people will start to hoard real estate. Will we see a war when the landless manufacture weapons and attempt to stop landowners from hoarding land surplus to building a shelter on?
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs.
This is not necessarily the case. Any self respecting 'universal assembler' will be able to make a copy of itself.
There will STILL be an economy
It depends on what you mean by an economy. Surely the (forgotten) purpose of the economy is to satisfy our needs? Once needs can be satisfied without an economy, why have one? With any luck, the economy will be replaced by community. We will then live FOR those around us. It might take a bit of adjustment, but I'm sure most will cope.
Encryption? It wouldn't do to have all that unguarded audio and video whizzing about the air waves would it now?
(Betcha students can't sneak them out of the pub either.)
The article assumes things will still be built out of bricks, concrete, and so on. What if they were built out of atoms instead?
Why do you need a humanoid to clean the bathroom when it will be built out of self cleaning material, coated with organisms/nanobots that eat the germs and muck?
Why have a humanoid to pour concrete when the building can be 'grown'.
Why have a machine wash your clothers when you just feed your dirty cloths in as raw material for the 'magic manufacturing box' {goes something like 1) dirty underpants 2) ??? 3) new underpants} and it will make you a brand spanking new pair of undies from the old ones?
Why have humanoid burger flipper, when you can just synthesise cooked meat?
Licensing and Legislation.
Licensing restricts the bandwidth available, and so the maximum datarate which can be transmitted. Having said that, space-time coding may be able to increase the datarate (ultimately, a focused laser beam is just another form of space-time coding). WIth visible you don't have to license the spectrum.
Legislation (in some countries) basically says only approved phone companies are allowed to run communications networks. 'Approved' means you pay a sum of money and agree to build surveillance capablities into your network (and comply with any surveillance requests from the government). Visible spectrum generally isn't counted as a communications medium (unless it is in a waveguide), so there are no legal limitations on a network using visible spectrum through the air.
Yep. It's exactly what I have in mind. Unfortunatly it is still missing the important 'active aiming' element.