Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'm wondering what would happen if the combined effects of being under pressure (4 kms of ice) and low temperature would make this the worlds largest beer bottle experiment?
It would be tragic, yet somewhat hilarious at the same time.
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?