Right now if you wanted to make money off of killing someone and harvesting their organs, you'd also have to "make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor" the only difference I can see is hiding the money, however you'd have to do that in either system, as it's going to look pretty weird if the money is going to a different person.

Everything you're describing can happen in the current system.

But they are currently worth more than 10s of thousands of dollars, because people can't sell legitimately.

Making it legal, would mean the price would drop, and the very crime would likely be harder to pull off, and attract less of a reward.

Since this crime is rare now, I'd be surprised if it didn't become even rarer, unless somehow everybody's ethics go out the window, and kill a person somehow becomes moral.

If there can be whalers on the moon, why can't there be vikings on mars? Tell me that one, Mr. Smart Guy!

Depends on the country, state, hospital, and procedure, etc.

Here's a direct link for everyone
“Secure Password Managers” and “Military-Grade Encryption” on Smartphones: Oh, Really? by Andrey Belenko and Dmitry Sklyarov

Excellent. Thanks for the response. I thought as much.

I'd have thought that such a "distortion", which would just be relativistic differences, and as such would be somewhat constant or predictable. At the very least, over time they should be able to, estimate the amount of "distortion", which would likely mean they would get more and more accurate over time, as they improve this prediction algorithm. Additionally, if more satellites are added to the field, and perhaps if the protocol also better supported geographically fixed transmitters, you could further eliminate these problems.

I don't believe it isn't priced badly, especially given what new infrastructure on this scale costs.

Lets assume it was priced under the operating cost of the old infrastructure. Why would they move to a more competitive system which will reduce their profits in the long run? Even if it were inevitable, why would they miss out on maximizing the return on their current infrastructure, before moving to the new stuff? Why wouldn't they hold out as much as possible, regardless of how favourable the contract was, as it would only give them more negotiating power (to a point)?

The problem isn't as simple as that.

I work with some Romanian developers (and I'm Australian), and our infrastructure in this regard, is a LOT better.

For this to be a successful bit of infrastructure the government needs the NBN to reach a point where they are self sustaining in a reasonable amount of time. This means that the large ISPs had to sign contracts to move people away from ADSL. To combat this, the ISPs seem to be pushing their customers to move to cable, they are trying to keep customers on their old telephony infrastructure, and are holding out on negotiating some things with the NBN Co.

In essence, they are using their market power to push back on the NBN, to try get the most favourable contracts possible, while locking their customers into old infrastructure technology, which means the NBN may take a lot longer to become a viable project.

There aren't supposed to be any non-subscribers, as all telephone, internet, and eventually television, is supposed to run over fiber.

They aren't. They are doing this, if anything, to hamper the roll-out of the fiber. It's also good to remember, that this company (Telstra) was essentially given this infrastructure by the government, as it was previously Australia's telecom monopoly. Now they use that infrastructure as a weapon. The NBN Co (the people rolling out the fiber) are a completely separate entity.

You don't need this, as VoIP has been around for a fair while now, and many ISP's bundle their internet with VoIP. Most modern routers have ports for it, so it's not a problem. They aren't self powered, but most people have mobile phones which work fine most of the time, and many people have wireless home phones which also don't work when the power goes out. I'm sure that if this was a real problem, more solutions for self-powered would come up.

In South Australia the transit services all use Google now, and it's really accurate. I'm at uni, so I'm using it all the time, and I've never had a problem. I have friends who have done more serious bus based travel, with multiple transfers, and they've had no problem. It's made their route planning a lot easier, and they can now minimize their wait times.

I've had nothing but good experiences with the whole system.

Since you obviously want me to respond to your point, I will.

The op said...

So, no. It's not like like the OP thinks. He believes this is a product, that some company is selling. It isn't.

More so...

This only holds if you consider anything where someone attempts to communicate anything to anyone else, as marketing. That could be correct in a technical definition of the term, however it would be wrong in the casual definition of the term which is synonymous with "commercial advertising".

If you think "Yes, this advertises the gallery/artist/idea", then you'd be correct, and every single piece of art in history, has been "marketing". Additionally, every single academic paper, would also be "marketing".

It's not marketing, like you'd think. If you RTFA...

And on their webpage you get more information...

So this device is them attempting to market an idea, and their art, rather than a product.

LOL Mod up! Accurate and relevant!

Really? I just asked Dick Cheney and Co. and they said their lawyers found that to be false.

(This is a joke, don't take it seriously)