Slashdot Mirror


NIST Advanced Technology Program Awards

An anonymous submitter writes "Look, some research money awarded to all the recent slashdot topics! Printable LCD displays and circuits, high accuracy biometric algorithms, holographic data storage, an overclockers dream, and the DMCA fights back. See all the projects listed for NIST's FY2002 funding."

5 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Easy way to do this by nattt · · Score: 2, Informative

    The easiest way to stop someone taping a movie with their camcorder is to use an infra-red lightsource. Camcorders pick up IR - just try pointing your TV zapper at the lens and recording it!

    Perhaps you could place LEDs in the projection screen in the pattern - "Don't Copy Movies" or some other message....

    --
    -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
  2. From the website... by lobos · · Score: 2, Informative

    of the company that's getting money from the government to protect movies...

    "Cinea, Inc. is the premier provider of security services for the Digital Cinema industry and other high-value entertainment content.

    Founded by the same world class engineering team behind the highly regarded Divx(TM) encrypted DVD system, the Cinea security services are the only digital cinema security solutions developed from the ground up to meet the needs of studios and exhibitors
    ."

    Also, from the project website:
    For project information:
    Laurence Roth, (571) 323-0070, x1
    lroth@cinea.com

    ATP Project Manager
    Victoria Franques, (301) 975-8630
    victoria.franques@nist.gov
    Perhaps these people deserve a call and some email?

  3. Optical (Holographic) Memory by ebuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been hearing about this every 3 to 5 years since 1985 when they were considering using it as storage modules for visual recogonition. I imagine it will be another 20 years before a marketable product will be released, if ever.

    On the lighter side of things: If you break an optical storage cell in half, and stick it back in your computer, you will have all of your data, but it will be fuzzy.

  4. I disagree by FallLine · · Score: 4, Informative

    While I am normally strongly opposed to the various forms of corporate welfare, e.g., subsidies, protectionist policies, etc., the ATP is one government program that I strongly support.

    Firstly, unlike those other programs, aka government welfare, these funds are used to pay for the basic research that will lead to economic production, rather than inefficiency.

    Secondly, this program is primarily about defraying RISK, not the COST per se (as would be the case if they were subsidizing production or what have you). What you fail to realize is that many projects are not viable for but a handful of the largest corporations because the level of risk is so high that they cannot afford to even do the research. Who wants to invest in a company, where before they can do anything or make any money, they need to invest 5m (purely for research) for, say, 5 years, with only a 10% probability of success? Would you? Very few investors are willing to incur this kind of risk, even when the potential payout is multiplies higher whatever the initial investment is. Btw, the venture capital community is generally NOT willign to for a number of reasons. There is a reason why the only successful drug producers are

    Thirdly, the NIST prevents companies from engaging in total crapshots on the governmentsdollar by requiring the company to pay for 50% (and in the case of larger companies 60%) of the research.

    Fourthly, there are many additional costs that the companies must pay for to commercialize the technology.

    Fifthly, working for a company that received a grant from the NIST last year, I can tell you that most of awards are NOT to large companies, so the rich getting richer complaint does not hold water.

    Sixthly, the successful investments will yield additional tax receipts that far exceed the grant amounts, especially when secondary beneficiaries are taken into consideration.

    Seventhly, this is a meritocracy. Although it's not perfect, they select the best of the best, at least in theory. The researchers that hope to essentially live off of perpetual research do not get funded. You really have to convince them that it can and will be commercialized.

    Eightly, the companies sole opportunity to really benefit comes from making it into a commercial success, i.e., they're not allowed to pocket the money.

    Anyways-I support it and that's enough for now, I'm going home.