I used to think this this limit existed - for home use, I hit a wall at full HD video streaming - you'ld only use ~30Mb. Some mention torrent packages - but the actual utilization of this package would still hit the same limit, making the download process redundant. However, if distributed computing (REAL cloud computing - so memory, processors, applications and data are essentially 'out there') becomes real, 1Gbps would get very slow very fast. For now, just give me a game that utilizes realtime streaming of application binaries, and high quality assets over the Net and I'll be happy. Other than games, I'm at a loss as to what these monstrous home applications could be. Anyone?
But yeah, I'm a 'wait and see' on Thunderbolt.
I've been goind through the comments. The problem, IMO, is that the PTO seems to be granting patents without considering the definition of what a patent is, and how one is granted. Yeah, I'm saying the lawyers have lost their way - sue me.
IIRC, the applicant has to show a development or innovation that is not obvious to a normal (or average) practitioner of the craft. The 1/10 argument actually SUPPORTS the patent application, as only 1 out of 10 thought it was obvious. Whether they though to do it first or not is not the issue - it must be non-obvious. Other engineers may simply have not done it as it was not commercially viable.
I'm all for patenting, for example, specific expressions of carrying out encryption. The problem is, that the PTO seems to be allowing patents for the act of encryption itself - this I have a problem with. The former protects the effort put into the expression (and hence the artists work) without preventing improvement and further evolution of the idea, but the latter kind of patents are killing innovation by doing just that. If it's THAT obvious to do, it should never had been patentable in the first case. It's particularly bad in software, where ideas and incremental evolution of ideas is at the root of development. It seems overly broad patents are being granted every day. I mean 'look and feel' patents? Really?
I believe the degrees that focus on technical skills and theory are not what the OP is commenting about. I've noticed there's a huge number of 'degrees' out there that are based on Operations, and not Engineering and Technical Skills. These typically have buzzwords in their titles and should be classified as such (Operations), and not confused with the 'pure' science and technical degrees.
In my country, the local universities churn out a number of dodgy-sounding 'degrees' such as Management Information Systems, Business Information Systems, etc. I actually have no idea what these are, but there's a preoccupation here with sitting in a desk in an office, versus doing the work. They sound 'managerial' and give the freshie a skewed viewpoint in that they expect to be leading teams of engineers and IT departments, all the members of which could probably talk them under the table in a technical conversation.
Seriously, I'm presently looking for great engineers to grow my practice, but everyone I talk to seems to want Google pay without Google technical skills. They want to be project managers and team leaders, yet confess they're 'not very technical' in the phone interview. They also have no answer to my follow up on how they expect to lead a team without understanding the work at hand. I've believed that great engineers manage themselves, with a good eye on the realities of the project and the customer interests. The 'project manager', if not having engineering background, is most likely redundant. No, please don't give me the 'engineers don't have time to manage themselves'.
My question to everyone is this: At what point did the engineers allow themselves to become the grunts of the industry?
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.