You nailed it. If there's a futures market for it, that means volatility. Part of it will be intrinsic to the resource itself. The other part will be due to active manipulation for financial gain. I think some will win and some will lose. Unfortunately, it will not be in equal measure.

ANTICIPATED: Handheld computers and wireless data.
EXPECTED: An almost 100% sure thing we'd get there.
UNEXPECTED: That same technology that was supposed to be our tool to free us and make us better is used by default to track us, monetize us, maintain and resell portofolios on us.
DISAPPOINTED: The success of the cell phone and tablet effectively kills other pieces of dedicated or unique hardware implementations (MP3 player, a physical chess set that you can play against another friend anywhere in the world, etc).
ALSO DISAPPOINTED: How freely the common person would cash in their privacy for free services.

HOPED FOR: That "everyone" would finally be online and that you could do real things (and significant things) online.
EXPECTED: More individuals connecting with even more individuals.
UNEXPECTED: Reaching the tipping point where you're expected to be online or you can't access some desired information. (My offline parents complain about this quite regularly.)

SKEPTICAL: My dad telling me (circa 1980) that computer graphics would be good enough one day to make cartoons just as good as I see on TV. Even further in the future, maybe even something that might look like real life!
UNEXPECTED: Just how far we've surpassed even that dream of believable computer graphics in standard definition and in real time.

PROMISED: Useful and interactive household robots.
DISAPPOINTED: Roomba and a few small toys.

PROMISED: Television will keep getting better and better.
EXPECTED: High quality and lower cost hardware.
DISAPPOINTED: Everyday "broadcast quality" video quality has improved, but not as much as I'd thought.

For "Offline Trajectories" 20180352383-A1,

It should cite "System and method for providing quality of service mapping" US8620339B2 while talks about doing that very thing (but with a different spin to it).

https://patents.google.com/pat...

I'm not saying it invalidates the patent (I'm not a patent examiner) but it should at least be cited as a related patent.

You raise some interesting issues, but in the end, what does this proposed change in FCC policy look and smell like? Is this really about how the FCC can best meet the connectivity needs of rural customers? Or something else?

If this was honestly first and foremost about meeting the needs of rural customers, hey, we'd all welcome this! But it looks like the FCC is tinkering (yet again) with the definition of broadband, and this time it seems they're using it with the intention of steering funds.

How? They can define the bandwidth requirements just high enough to be unfavorable to regional competitors who have been building out networks. Yet they don't go too high. They still keep the definition low enough as not to burden those new competitors who have a well-known plan to roll out high speed fixed-wireless technology.

5G promises to be an awesome new technology, and I personally can't wait to see it! But I'd like to see it compete with the wired competitors on more level ground. Not through political lobbying. Not by carving out competition with an arbitrary definition of 5G that artificially tilts the distribution of funds.

It is another story of regulatory capture at the FCC. The FCC was supposed to favor Americans and put limits on corporations. Now the FCC is favoring the corporation they're supposed to regulate and the Americans are just contrived into a justification for doing so.

It is sad and unfortunate for America.

The current standards for the Connect America were kept low so that they could show a map full of territory that is covered with 'high speed broadband Internet access'. The FCC wanted to look good.

Now that we're on the cusp of 5G, the FCC wants to change the rules of the Connect America (Slush) Fund to turn it into a giveaway for 5G wireless providers (such as his former corporate employer).

They need the number to be high enough to knock out many of the existing landline offerings (often local or regional companies), but at the same time low enough not to significantly obligate those 5G providers to offer significantly more than they want to.

It is a delightful balancing act of minimal levels and timing that is used to shift the reward from wired landline providers to wireless providers. I'm sure his sponsors couldn't have asked for anything more.

There might be a more selfish reason for this. If they're looking for rich alumni who can feed money back into the program some years down the road, they'll want to funnel as many of them as they can into private equity, venture capital and hedge funds after graduation.

> The most recent Fire TV released this fall canâ(TM)t yet run the Silk browser...

I'm wondering what unfortunate twist of software turned the word "cannot" into "canâ(TM)t"? It seems like an implausible replacement.

I had this guy who thought my ancient [first initial][lastname] email address was his own. He was using it for various things, including signing up for his new credit card. Apparently, his credit card company did not valid an email address before it started sending reward statements, which included a partial card number. The credit card company did NOT provide an unsubscribe feature (unless I logged into the other customer's account which, of course, was not possible). Actually, there was no mechanism for me NOT to get his reward statements!

After escalating to the credit card company's executive customer service (the customer service of last resort when you write to the company's CEO) , they evidently got ahold of the guy to inform him that this email address is bad, and to get his real one.

My recent problems with someone else trying to use my email address have since stopped.

Do you have any plans to do anything with your Metaverse trademark?

Are you looking to sell it off, or to bless a public implementation of the Metaverse with the official title?

> They were also able to precisely track a virtual reality headset with the same precision.

One does not "precisely track" a VR headset with two centimeter resolution. I'll guess that they continued to use the IMU tracking that is built into the Samsung Gear VR, and they used it to display the tracking of external objects that were measured with two centimeter resolution.

> SunOS/Solaris started out lean; when it got bloated, people like me jumped ship. Linux started out lean and it is getting bloated; when it is getting too bloated, I will jump ship again.

FWIW, Linus said that Linux is bloated. That was at LinuxCon in 2009. I don't think that's much of a factor. I'll agree with you that Linux has plenty of life left in it.

> Wow. How impressive. Oh wait, Linux has had EDAC since 2006. But you keep paying your millions to Oracle. I'm sure its worth it.

Actually, this might be worth an illustration. It was a long time back, so I'm sure I've forgotten a few details, but I'll give you the big picture.

Around 2000, Sun Microsystems had a problem with the L2 cache on their 400mhz CPUs. It seems that IBM misrepresented the error rate on the chips, and they were having bit errors that were much higher than specified. Because of what was supposed to be an incredibly low error rate, they engineered the L2 cache with parity protection. That's enough to detect an error and cause a UE (uncorrectable error) event. So I know that your EDAC functionality in 2006 was in Solaris well before 2000.

After that problem, Sun Microsystems did two things. First, they mirrored the L2 cache. Second, they completely beefed up their handler for CE/UE (correctable errors and uncorrectable errors) along the memory/cache/bus/cpu to bring it up to Enterprise level error handling. You get an Uncorrectable Error in your CPU's L2 cache. Do you panic? I looked over the EDAC documentation and I could be wrong (please correct me, if so) but it looks like that would result in a panic. Or you could just have it log that the UE event happened but take no action.

What would Solaris do differently? It would find the page of virtual memory that had the corresponding error. Has it been modified? If not, just discard the page, log the event, and go on. There is a whole set of rules it goes through to determine the best way to keep the system running when it hits an uncorrectable error. Let's say that the page was modified and that there was an uncorrectable error in the L2 cache. We panic now, right? No. Solaris checks and sees who the page of memory belongs to. If it is a user process, then that process is simply killed (and the event logged) and the OS continues running. Only if it is a dirty page of active kernel memory do we have a panic.

That isn't just recovering from a soft error. That's recovering from a hard error. So, as this story illustrated, there are quite a number of things happening behind the scenes in an enterprise level OS. You picked a good example with Linux EDAC.

> Why bother? Just shut down that server, replace the memory, restart. If your application can't handle a brief downtime for one of your servers, there is something wrong with the application, and no OS magic can fix that for you.

You know, it is kind of funny. Person A will argue, "See? Linux has all of the cool features of an enterprise class operating system. What makes Solaris on SPARC so special?" When you point out just a fraction of the things that Linux doesn't do, person B will jump in and claim, "OMG that OS is so bloated that people are running away from it for that very reason!"

Hey, Solaris on SPARC certainly has its issues, but let's be real here. People are not running away from it in any significant numbers due to the inclusion of enterprise-class features. The irony to that argument is that you'll find that many of these "bloated" enterprise-class features in Solaris have been working their way into Linux for years. Linux has been making great strides over the past ten years.

Wow. It took them that long to put in a handler for CE and UE events? I see. What we're talking about goes beyond that first level of handling those events.