It sounds like the objection was that he ran servers, the bandwidth thing was merely the trigger to ask.

I'm baffled ISPs still think "servers" are something that needs banning. Reminds me of when so many clueless ISPs banned NAT (or rather connection sharing between multiple PCs in general.)

Fair enough.

... whatever the thing really is, comes across as one of the oddest, math challenged inventors imaginable.

Ever so often not being a native English speaker catches up with me, while "constance" is a nice town, it actually isn't an English word. I guess "constancy" would do, and it'll give the none physicist more of a hint towards the meaning, than the technical word "invariance".

Should have made clearer that I referred to the "instant" in the /. summary.

Sorry, should have made more clear that I referred to the "instant" in the /. summary.

Regard the FLT paths as having as much physical reality as the infinite electron mass before renormalization.

ST is like making sausage, the end result is pretty good, but what goes in it can be rather stomach turning.

Isn't it :-)

Felt the same way when I first came across it, and ever since kept wondering why SR is still taught most of the time following the initial cumbersome path - not that the latter isn't interesting as well, and certainly historically very relevant, yet this approach creates so much more clarity.

Yes, I am aware of that, but the additional principle that you have to introduce is not the constance of c in all inertial reference frames, but the less strict condition that the universe doesn't allow instantaneous transfer (velocities are bounded by an upper limit). Then the fact that c has to be constant in all frames of motion follows from there.

This is essentially another new first principle - and if I have any criticism of the paper than it is that this isn't more explicitly stated.

Because he's made a fortune helping people get movies and music without paying. Well, without paying the producers of those movies and that music.

And this is Slashdot, so helping a bunch of leechers makes him a hero because MAFIAA.

Yeah, it's the old "Something related to X did this to me, therefore I'm going to attack people also related to X but in another way that doesn't mean they had any control over the first thing" thing.

See also numerous wars we've been involved in over the last few decades.

We already knew that.

Whatever "we" you mean count me out.

According to GR gravity is facilitated via a retarded potential, and of course GR survived so far every conceivable test and has been shown to make correct predictions were Newtonian gravity failed.

So no, gravity does not operate faster than light.

It's a common misconception that QM as a theory of the microcosm is somehow more general and accurate than SR. Yet, the derivation of SR does not even require the constance of light speed (although that's the route that Einstein oribinally followed), but can be derived from very obvious first principles.

And this is a key difference to QM where this still hasn't been accomplished (despite the theory being such a fantastic empirical success story). Of course as far as empirical evidence goes SR also has a spotless record (which is why the CERN faster than light brewhaha was pretty much a forgone conclusion).

.

Special Relativity makes quite clear that if two particles are spacelike separated when measured, that the concept of "instantaneous" is devoid of meaning.

If you have this kind of distance than you will have just one special reference frame where this is true, and infinite more where the events are arbitrarily separated in time. This is already at the core of the EPR paradox.

I.e. that you can have entanglement across time follows trivially from SR and the EPR paradox.

It's just astounding how many times the very same insight can get repackaged and sold as new.

The OP made the point that with GSM hardware is decoupled from paid services, so he was talking about the advantage of the GSM (2GSM, UMTS, LTE) standard.

The GP is wrong in suggesting that it would have been shortsighted and is using a lot of the myths that Qualcomm spread about GSM to promote that view. Qualcomm could have made a decent phone standard, but they felt the carriers wanted "a digital version of AMPS" and that's pretty much, functionally, what they originally created, with messaging and data being grafted on, clumsily, later, in a game of catch up that they never really won. By the time the TIA standards finally supported SIM cards the carriers were so locked to a SIMless platform they weren't prepared to implement it. And at that point it was pretty much clear that GSM/UMTS standards were so far ahead that Qualcomm would never catch up.