but one South Korean researcher predicts it could be over a thousand times faster than current 4G networks.
Maybe in every other country in the world, but here in the US the companies will buy enough politicians that they can have 5G legally defined as somewhere between 3G and where 4G is supposed to be.
Well, I do agree with you the media is as much to blame as any talking heads spewing the misinformation (just not that we should give the original sources a pass).
The problem is same as with global warming, evolution, or other fringe non-scientific alternative opinions. The media tries to "balance" the argument by providing equal coverage of both sides when in reality the actual evidence/voices/etc are overwhelmingly in favor of one side (skip to 3:20 if you just want the punchline...)
Also, what TFA did point out but the summary didn't is that even if the immunization had reduced effectiveness, most cases would be less severe in someone who has been vaccinated, which can be the difference between a very annoying illness and a life-threatening one.
She's still promoting unsubstantiated FUD about vaccinations, she has just switched her focus from autism to "toxins".
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
"Yet as doctors say, dosage makes the poison. The amount of, say, formaldehyde in a typical vaccination is much less than you’d get eating an apple. The same can be shown for the other ingredients claimed to be toxins in vaccines as well. The truth is vaccines contain far too small a dose of any of these things to cause any of the problems McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers claim exist.as doctors say, dosage makes the poison.
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?"
Yeah, totally. America has never had much luck with its space program!
Funny thing is, I could almost see this being a legitimate patent, if the tarp had some rfid and chipware embedded that communicated with the car (ie, tarp is still on, some clown is uncovering your car, tarp is blowing down the highway you forgot to take it off you idiot)
Yeah, I'm not familiar with the distinction you're drawing. Verbal and oral are basically the same thing, both terms mean a contract spoken but not written down (at least, that was the case when I went to law school, and I've never encountered anything in practice that says otherwise), and Musk's blog post is not verbal or oral. It's written, but it's not a contract. There is only one party, it's not a meeting of the minds. Essentially it's a gift.
For what it's worth, I've never heard that definition of "verbal" contract at all, either in law school or in my practice. As far as I'm concerned, a verbal and an oral contract are the same thing. You might be able to quibble and say that a contract made in American Sign Language is verbal but not oral, I guess.
Eh, I think "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology" was pretty clear. Of course they are going to bring the lawyers in and codify it all, etc. I'm sure it will be the pretty standard "you don't sue us we won't sue you kind of thing" plenty of other companies have already done. This was a blog post, not a legal document...
In fact, RTFA and not just the two sentence quoted in the summary, and said clearer statement is already there
And most importantly...
not good faith: using our patents and then trying to sue us for infringing yours.
They aren't going to give up their defensive position, they are basically just promising not to sue if they are not sued.
If there was a written agreement/contract or patent license (which I assume there will be, and it will also include very specific clauses about indemnifying Tesla against any lawsuits of the licensee) then it doesn't matter.
And despite the casual tone of Musk's post, Tesla is a large public company and still beholden to shareholders, etc. They will undoubtedly get the lawyers involved to make sure things go as planned. This isn't the first time a company has done this (or similarly, multiple companies have pooled their defensive patents), so it's not like there aren't established practices already...
Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not... because it's EXACTLY WHAT THE LINKED BLOG POST IS. And in fact, that's exactly what Slashdot just did...
They don't really need something "new", because what they already have is a completely new mindset for a car company. They are so far ahead of the established old-thought auto makers in so many areas that it would take the rest of them a complete overhaul of their entire executive staff, middle management, engineer and design teams, factories, etc, to get close.
Not to mention they are profitable and make an $80k+ niche car that has been backordered since well before it was ever released. At some level it's like Ferrari saying "ok, we are releasing the patents behind our $1M supercar" - the market is so specialized it wouldn't matter, and Ferrari's demand so outstrips their supply you basically have to get permission from Ferrari to even buy one.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
