Slashdot Mirror
Google Files First Solar Patent, Builds R&D Team
bizwriter writes "Google has moved beyond investing and using solar power and has started on serious R&D work in the field. Its first patent application in solar energy technology just became public, and the company is staffing a new R&D group 'to develop electricity from renewable energy sources at a cost less than coal' at 'utility scale.'"
The Sun has a limited supply of hydrogen fuel. If we start depending on solar, in a few measly billion years we'll be depending on hydrogen imports from undemocratic planets. And the chance of a meltdown within 5 billion years or so is pretty much 100%.
That is a solar patent? Does the summary have a wrong link or something?
Where can I download a solar panel?
all patent are not evil and this is exactly the kind of patent that the system was designed to encourage.
to develop electricity from renewable energy sources at a cost less than coal' at 'utility scale.'
This is not a good example of evil.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
IP patents may be an oxymoron, I agree. But what they do with a patent is the salient part. Squash competition, or donate it to some patent freedom pool? I'll await further details.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Google' is really interested in clean energy. It invested in Makani Power that targeted high altitude winds (these winds potentially being a source of energy cheaper than coal). Wasn't bloombox too talking about google as its beta customer?
Good luck with the new venture.
For the love of GOD, Slashdot, fix the login popup to STAY ON THE ARTICLE BEING READ.
What's the point of having a fancy Ajax Web 2.0 "popup" login if it just redirects you to the main page afterward???
Google's Solar Patent
I for one do not welcome our evil expanding conglomerate overlords.
I suspect the link is wrong. This is a non-solar patent application filed back in 2009.
Solar is doomed by the amount of land it requires to make "utility-scale" energy available for anything, by its intermittance, and by the fact that the sun ultimately must go down. This is a chimera, but they will spend a lot of money chasing it.
It's politically incorrect on Slashdot to say these things anymore, but they will be no more successful here than anyone else is -- i.e. ultimately not at all. The people at Google are all energy users, not producers, and they haven't really internalized that.
HELIOSTAT CONTROL SCHEME USING CAMERAS : http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0120448.html
I suspect the submitter came in through the search USPTO system.... I had to click "Next" several times to get to this entry.
>> the company is staffing a new R&D group 'to develop electricity from renewable energy sources at a cost less than coal' at 'utility scale.'"
Yeah, and I'm going to start a company that will develop electricity from renewable energy sources at a cost less than an ice cream cone at utility scale.
Saying you're going to do something don't mean it's gonna happen. And 99% of claims of future progress from those working in renewable energy turn out to be bull crap. Based on those odds, I'd say this is bull crap too.
...this is exactly the kind of patent that the system was designed to encourage.
Yeah, if using your R&D to build up a huge patent portfolio to lock others out of the market, or charge exorbitant licensing fees is what you're after, this is exactly what the system was designed to do.. to cripple innovation, and it's working like a dream. If the government wants to create and protect monopolies like this, then we should demand that it regulate the prices, and institute a 'use it or lose it' policy. Patents and copyrights are simply there to make speculation profitable.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
What is "evil Google"?
Unlike copyright, patents actually expire. In the extremely unlikely event Google coming up with something good, they get a short term monopoly on it. Good for them, and anyone else doing something in the physical world. A generation later, this is as good as public domain and anyone can implement it.
If they're locking away uber tech, it still doesn't matter. We miss out now, but our kids will have access. Unless you believe "my uncle's friend came up with a way to save fuel consumption but got bought out by $OIL_COMPANY" conspiracies.
As the exclusive licensee of Stanford University's U.S. Patent 6,285,999, Google controls the patent on ranking the relevance of documents that cite one another by calculating the dominant eigenvector of the adjacency matrix of the documents' citation graph. Is the software patent on "PageRank" also evil?
Except that if you read the patent application, it should be shot down. The patent essentially claims "use a camera protected from heat and some image processing software to feed a control system with inputs to control heliostat mirrors to get an optimal image."
There is absolutely nothing novel about that concept, unless they are using a novel method of image processing (which the claims do not appear to indicate; they talk about "measuring bright spots" which is all a camera can do in the first place) or a novel method of keeping the camera cool (which the claims also do not indicate).
Linking image processing to a control system has already been done, and just because it hasn't been done "for a heliostat" doesn't make it novel. So I would argue that this is indeed just the type of patent that should not be allowed.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Hopefully this project doesn't end up like Google PowerMeter, which the author mentions in the article.
It was announced that PowerMeter will be deprecated on May 26, 2011.
http://code.google.com/apis/powermeter/
We do this all the time (solar observatory), to within half an arcsecond, using cameras at times, quadrant photodiodes at times, and other means. At times, we use mirrors. At times, we directly image or sense. This is truly a stupid patent if it uses the identical boring optical target (sun,planet, or star) to simply point a heliostat. As a matter of fact, the quadrant photodiode is in fact a crude imaging camera, comprised of only a few pixels. These are found everywhere. Multiple mirror systems successfully use PLL to individually focus mirrors. If this becomes a patent, then patents have lost all meaning...
Why does GoogleTM leave this horribly bad taste in me mouth. Oh because they are stealing tons of information and selling it to assholes, which in turn makes them assholes, which in turn makes anyone who thinks GoogleTM is cool assholes, which in turn does make me and asshole for even mentioning there name. See chuck you have your dicks, your pussies, and your assholes, If your dicks don't fuck the assholes you get shit all over your dicks and your pussies. So calling all dicks, fuck them assholes, or you too will get shit on your pussies, and you don't want that do you?
Seems like slashdot and google are a couple of buddys, have fun being fed this shit.
Microsoft has this week launched it's own solar power plants ( DSES - Delayed Solar Energy System),
"Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) has this week announced it's investment in two power plants based on the Delayed Solar Energy System (DSES) to power it's
Datacenters in Chicago and San Antonio. These systems burn a special fuel to generate electricity using a conventional steam turbine driving a generator to power their datacenters.
The innovative technology is called the Delayed Solar Energy System (DSES) and is based on an organic fuel which first absorbs sunlight, then is compressed and heated over a period of time. A process which turns it into a black compound which can then be easily transported using existing infrastructure. The company has hailed this as a carbon neutral technology which scrubs the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Critics though, have pointed out that the storage time required is excessive and that it's green credentials do not add up in the real world.
Executives at the Seattle based corporation have dismissed these claims saying that the technology is in it's infancy and that they hope to reduce the time required in storage from several millions of years to just a few decades. In the meantime they will continue to use the ready supply of fuel which can be found in abundance in the ground."
...to me anyway is that a publicly owned company is spending R&D money on something that doesn't include the word "social". I don't know how they beat a couple bucks out of their investors for something that's worthless next quarter but may be huge in 10-20 years but I'm sure glad they did. Our only other hope is that the government (the only real customer of technology as far I can see...prove me wrong!) doesn't decide to cut off all funding for science next election cycle.
I'd forgotten how awful the USPTO's interface is for searching, viewing, and downloading patent and trademark materials (why the hell are tiffs the format of choice, and why the hell is it so difficult to get a decent tiff viewer?) I've been using Google Patents almost exclusively for quite a while now - much easier to search things out, patents are cross-referenced with hyperlinks, and it takes just one click to get a searchable PDF. But Google Patents doesn't handle patent applications, and so I can't use it here.
I'm surprised no one has yet commented to this effect, but why would you want to use this patent? As I read it, the patent is for a very simple feedback control system for positioning of heliostats (mirrors). You put a camera on the collector, pointed at the mirror, and the camera controls the alignment of the mirror to center the point of highest intensity (the sun). Seems simple enough.
The first problem, this only works for a single mirror. That means you would need one of these light intensity sensors for each individual mirror, of which there may number thousands. Each of these is going to be on the collector, potentially blocking a significant amount of light from those mirrors. Now you could put a single camera on a rotating boom, allowing it to move around and individually manage each mirror in sequence, but that's still an overly complicated system.
You know the layout of your plant, or at least you should. Why not just use a single camera, tracking the sun across the sky, and use that combined with a bit of geometry to determine the optimum placement of each mirror to follow it. The other system has the advantage of being able to track the source of highest intensity, but surely any other source of light will be inconsequential compared to the sun. The next closest object (the moon) at its brightest might only provide a few kW of power to a several hundred MW plant.
But wait! There's more! The sun is a celestial object, and celestial objects are nothing if not predictable. Why bother with cameras at all? A nominal amount of CPU power would be able to predict the sun's track across the sky with micro-arcsecond accuracy. There's absolutely no need for any sort of feedback system at all, besides the position sensors built into the servo motors themselves. This just seems like Google had some image processing expertise, and decided to throw science at the wall to see what would stick.
Patenting physical devices that actually work is what the system was designed for.
Patenting software which physically is a long string of ones and zeros on paper is not what was intended. Symbols on paper are covered by copyrights.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
all patent are not evil
Yeah, they're backed with threats of initiation of violence, so they are.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
all form of societal organization are evil then since they are all backed with threats of initiation of some kind of violence. It is a valid philosophical position but it is not a pragmatic one.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
ROFL. So all laws, regulations, and rules are evil. What are you, 12?
patents on physical things are great, they give incentive to bring things to market. also, other companies can make the things google patents, they'll just pay 10% or so royalty. whoop de doo. And you can legally build the google-patented thing for your own amusement and not owe google one cent.
all form of societal organization are evil then since they are all backed with threats of initiation of some kind of violence.
Not at all - there are plenty of voluntary models.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The founders of Google are also the two principal investors in Nanosolar, a company that makes high efficiency low cost solar cells. They have been supporting solar development for year now so I don't know why this should be a surprise to anyone.
There is absolutely nothing novel about that concept, unless they are using a novel method of image processing (which the claims do not appear to indicate
See claim 5. The "based upon the determined error". Why patent the image processing to determine the error when it could and should be better maintained as a trade secret.
Patents that attempt to claim what is done are not valid. Patents that attempt to claim what is done, but in a much better, or even in a not-so-much-better but still novel way are patentable.
We hear about the patent system being broken, but my recent patent reviews have asked some good questions about what is being claimed. Since this is an application and not a patent, it is reasonable to assume it will receive some degree of examination related to the obviousness of the invention.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
So making money off one's invention is evil while giving one's invention away is not? Google may have a lot of money, but giving away inventions is still a bad business model. Would it benefit society for all Google employees to lose their jobs and all the money they spend in their respective communities and all the taxes they pay to suddenly cease?
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
So software, no matter how novel, is never inventive? The patent process was meant to protect inventions.
And why is it no one argues about the obviousness of an invention before it was invented? Could it be that before it was invented it was non-obvious and didn't exist yet?
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
what happen in those model when an individual don't want to contribute anymore and use violence against his host society?
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
So the patent should be on that method. "Based on the determined error" is how every single control system in the universe* works. In fact, claim 23 says "determine the error by comparing images," which is still a "what" and is an obvious "what"; if they want a patent then patent the method they use to compare the images, not stating that they are going to compare them.
While I agree that often people don't actually look at the claims in a patent, this patent still doesn't claim any "how" but merely "what." In fact, even if you go to claims 24-26, you just see a calibration procedure that anyone would know: "put all the mirrors in the desired position to get the reference image, then move them to another position to get a reference undesired position."
There is nothing novel in this particular application, and it makes me ill to think that just because it's Google it will probably get approved.
*This is not the hyperbole for which you are looking.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I usually open the login link in a new tab and then close it once in. Then I just refresh the article.
Not only will Google panels track the sun, they will track your web history and recommend sponsors to fit your habits and send this all back to Google HQ for perpetual storage, And don't worry, only Google will know your identity.
This is very exciting.
So says you. Where's your proof? I've gained immeasurably over the last couple of decades because a few people chose to give away what they had. They have too in return (Hi Linus, RMS, L. Wall, ...).
Just go ahead and try to prove that would happen.
I'm a small "L" libertarian. I think everything and everybody would be much better off if none of us needed to care about whatever it is that floats your boat.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Lets say I invent a device that gets you from point A to point B. Someone else invents a machine that gets you from point A to point B in the same time. The fact that both devices do the exact same thing but in different ways ( car and flying car) doesn't make one patent violate the other.
Two pieces of software do the same thing( VOIP). These two programs run on different hardware, do the same thing differently but with the same end result. Even though the two programs have different ones and zeros the first was patented and the second is in violation. In what world does this make sense.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I've gained immeasurably over the last couple of decades because a few people chose to give away what they had.
That's great. One choosing to give away what they have is wonderful. If they chooseto give it away. Making it mandatory to give inventions away so you might profit is wrong, and removes the incentive for motivation. If you want altruism, be the inventor and give your stuff away. Don't assume others should too so you can "gain immeasurably" from their work.
Just go ahead and try to prove that would happen.
I asked Google to give up their IP and remain profitable. They declined. Prove you are not a moron.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
So there should be a heck of a lot of innovation in China, right? They don't enforce copyright or patents over there. Interesting how most patents by Chinese people are registered in other countries.
Try getting some venture capital with a business plan of releasing all of your intellectual property immediately with no mechanism to earn royalties/fees.
A short-term, finite monopoly to a new invention is a good thing as that gives inventors a chance to capitalize on their work and gives them an incentive to make new inventions. A never-ending monopoly on an idea is another story (see Disney).
But what if your car patent described wooden wheels and I came behind you with a patent for a car with rubber tires and was able to undercut you? Not trying to take away your point (which I agree with to a large extent) - merely pointing out the devil is in the details
Software patents make sense. It is the way software patents are being implemented which is incorrect. Software patents should be reformed, but I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
To quote Bugs Bunny: "You im-BEC-ile! You ultramaroon!"
Where was anyone suggesting anyone be forced to give anything away? Google would retain copyright on their stuff even if they donated its power to a patent troll fighting org.
Done with you idiot. You're shallow as a pane of glass.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
what happen in those model when an individual don't want to contribute anymore and use violence against his host society?
Contributing is optional, but you won't get very far if you don't participate and exchange. If he initiates violence, self defense is always allowed. It's a matter of who starts the aggression, not lay-down pacifism.
The vast majority of people agree with the idea that it's not OK to start violence but it is OK to defend yourself.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
then we just don't agree on the definition of violence.
Mine is Violence : rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.
Yours seems to be : an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.
If I use your definition we seems to agree. Violence less society can exist.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Yours seems to be : an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.
with the emphasis on unjust and without the last disjunction.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
I'm not sure the vast majority of people actually agree with the "it's not OK to start violence" part. But leaving that aside, you end up in a semantic game. What is violence? Is breathing violent? No? Is second hand smoke violent? No? Then is spraying gaseous cyanide at people violent? Yes? Okay, so where's the crossover?
What about theft? Let's leave aside copyright infringement and theft of service and just talk about somebody taking your physical things. Is that violent? I don't generally think so, and yet it's not conducive to society. There hasn't been a society yet that was completely absent the concept of ownership, although the details have varied over times and places. Yet it only has meaning if either every last person agrees that it does (and they don't), or it is backed with the threat of initiation of violence (or you define violence to include taking your property).
The violence that is threatened for patent infringement, by the way, is basically fines. And if you refuse that, then conitnued refusal to participate in society. Maybe in extraordinary cases somebody might be captured by police and thrown into jail. It's not violence in the sense of torturing and beating a person senseless and maybe killing some dudes.
And when arresting a suspect in a crime, does that have an exception? After all, we don't know he's guilty yet, so it is therefore you who are initiating force (I'm assuming you don't want to throw out presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial).
So under the definition of violence I'm inferring from your statements, I reject the idea that being "backed by threat of initiation of violence" is a moral failing when it comes to lawmaking.
Patents don't protect the physical device they protect the idea of the device. How is the idea of a physical device different then the idea behind software, music, food, or other thoughts? Now the actual physical device is protected by regular property rights.
And that is the problem with the theory of IP rights. The reason property rights exist is because property is scarce. If I take your car you no longer have the car. If you come up with an idea and I learn about it doesn't force you to forget it. By giving rights to an idea you have to violate other people's rights to do what they want with their own physical property.
What about rewarding innovation. There is a natural system of temporary monopoly. When a new product is released on the market nobody knows to copy it until it is successful. Then people will copy it. This takes some time. What is interesting is that the bigger the leap forward the more difficult it will be to copy and the longer the monopoly. So there is no need for a government creation of IP rights because they exist naturally. So the real stupid patents that are easy to copy like one click shopping would enjoy a monopoly of about a day while if someone invented a tabletop fusion power plant it may take years after the product is released on the market for someone to reverse engineer.
And even with copies the market seems to reward the originators in markets where There are no IP rights like cooking and fashion.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Given the big-government advocating, state-loving, liberty-hating, Obama-sucking politics of Goggle's founders, I am glad to see them pissing a bunch of Google's money away on eco-energy religious dreams. The beauty of liberalism, as long as it can be kept out of government policies, is that it is self-limiting - by listening to their own fantasies and implementing foolish ideas that have proven to be wrong again and again, liberals squander their own resources and make themselves less influential and less able to screw up other people's lives. Rock on, Google!
To use your rubber wheels on the car would be an improvement to it, removing a module and replacing it with a more efficient one. The rubber tire maker would have to get a license if the original car patent specified tire size and how it attached to the vehicular.
What you are describing for software fits the open source model. I can make this part of the program better by making a module more efficient or replacing it entirely. This could not be done with closed and or patented software.
The changes that would be needed are to put software entirely in the copyright realm, including all artwork and GUI elements. The copyrights would only last a sane 25 years. If someone comes along and accomplishes the same thing in a different way we will call that innovation and the industry will not stagnate. Excuse anything that doesn't make sense I am very sick.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Do you always make your point by making shit up out of thin air? Or perhaps is it your contention there is only a single piece of (unnamed) software that does VOIP? It's hard to tell with particular retardation you're bringing to the party.
Mine is Violence : rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.
Yours seems to be : an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.
I don't think we're disagreeing - just take my objection to its logical conclusion. If you violate somebody's patent, you'll get sent threatening letters. At some point a group of people ("government") will tell you you have to show up at one of their temple-like buildings ("courthouse") to plead your case to a man in a black dress ("judge") because they wrote some rules down ("laws") that a man claiming to be a representative of one of your ancestors (perhaps over his objections) agreed to. If you fail to follow their demands, they'll send specialized men("police") to ransack your office, capture you with rough or injurious force ("arrest"), or, if you defend yourself, perhaps attempt to kill you (no euphemism here). If you fail to defend yourself, they'll lock you in a cage ("prison") and possibly subject you to anal rape from other caged people (again, no euphemism).
All because you arranged your property in a way that somebody previously did, but they wrote it down and mailed it in with a bunch of money. They claim this is to improve society.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What about theft? Let's leave aside copyright infringement and theft of service and just talk about somebody taking your physical things. Is that violent?
No, I don't think so. No harm is done to the body, and it's a situation that insurance can readily cover. But if you catch somebody taking your stuff, you'd be justified in taking it right back, even if it's in their hands. At that point, I suspect the average thug thief escalates to violence.
Yet it only has meaning if either every last person agrees that it does (and they don't), or it is backed with the threat of initiation of violence (or you define violence to include taking your property).
You only need to start with every person agreeing that they own themselves, and the rest of ownership falls out of that logically.
The violence that is threatened for patent infringement, by the way, is basically fines. And if you refuse that, then conitnued refusal to participate in society. Maybe in extraordinary cases somebody might be captured by police and thrown into jail. It's not violence in the sense of torturing and beating a person senseless and maybe killing some dudes.
If you refuse to have your liberty taken away over something unjust like patents (that is you act in self-defense) then you might very well wind up killed. At least beaten, thrown in a cage, and have a good chance of being serially raped.
And when arresting a suspect in a crime, does that have an exception? After all, we don't know he's guilty yet, so it is therefore you who are initiating force (I'm assuming you don't want to throw out presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial).
The primary purpose of governments is to provide retributive justice. Looking at the numbers (about half a billion people were killed by governments in the 20th century, through war and democide) it's not all that clear that the trials are worthwhile. So much of what the 'Justice System' covers could be more adroitly handled by insurance and reputation systems in the modern age. The thing that sticks out is violent crimes. Factoring out all the ones caused by government action (e.g. drug crimes caused by prohibition) leaves really just a few. I'm still thinking through the cost-benefit analysis there, but I don't think I'll find half a billion rapes and murders. Remember, the State offers protection to murders and often gets in the way of self-defense.
So under the definition of violence I'm inferring from your statements, I reject the idea that being "backed by threat of initiation of violence" is a moral failing when it comes to lawmaking.
In the end, the means are everything. "The ends justify the means" is can only be argued to be defensible if the ends can be accurately predicted. It turns out that usually they can't be.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
with a capacity factor of 25% solar pv is listed at ~$210/MWh, whereas "advanced" nuclear are listed at $113/MWh with a capacity factor of 90% which is probably only achieved in korea. (do they infer the "next" generation plants which will presumably be cheaper than all those 30year old plants all over the world).
look at the cost of wind! cheaper than nuclear! please take a look at http://www.makanipower.com/concept/makani-m1/ which is viable over 85% of the usa land, also its viable off shore.
somehow its just easier to convince investors and governments to invest +$10billion in nuclear plants than in other tech that is not as centralised. oh and the cost of disposal of all that spent fuel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
The disposal of low level waste reportedly costs around £2,000/m in the UK. High level waste costs somewhere between £67,000/m and £201,000/m.[37] General division is 80%/20% of low level/high level waste,[38] and one reactor produces roughly 12 m of high level waste annually.
you would think that this revenue stream would attract many companies jumping at earning this fee solve the waste.
face it nuclear is one of the most expensive means of boiling water. no nuclear power plants have insurance that actually covers the costs of accidents either, so they get a free ride on those externalities too.
If you are free from ("laws") ,("government") ,("arrest") and ("prison") and you happen to be stronger why would not you use your force to raise on top of the others and to assure that your genes ("kids") stays there also ? You are hard wired to do this, why would not it be ethical to do so ?
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Google is an advertising/search company! Okay, so they started up with the Android. And a self-driving car. And they've got numerous other projects.
But solar power research? When will the madness end!
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
People who are without government are rarely without governance. Think of the distinction between Common Law and Statute Law. Heck, think of Homeowner-Associations, where many people voluntarily take on additional, often orthogonal, governance (not for me, but their choice).
As far as protection, I'd certainly go in with my neighbors for private security, just like I'd go in with them to get our damn road fixed (I personally pay more in car repair each year than filling the potholes would cost - multiply that out). Personal responsibility requires personal protection as well, so an unarmed populace isn't part of the equation.
Couple that with proper reputation systems (think confederated Internet systems), and somebody who wants to 'take over' has to first amass a force to defeat all the private and personal security in an area and do it completely off the books, using his wealth gained under a reputation system but never letting on that he's a sociopath. It makes for a good Ian Flemming flick, but it's not really a risk in a highly-entangled economy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This makes total sense. "Green" energy tech is positioning itself to be the next big area of development. I predict that, very soon, companies like Google will be filing green tech patent applications left and right, in the same way that they currently file patent applications for every single small improvement on smartphones. Get ready for the green energy wars.