I'm not "leaking" anything sensitive, so no worries about my job.:-)
However, all the heckling was bothering the hell out of me so I had to go back and double-check my sources, and I apologize; I believe I stand mistaken...the first 2-inch res imagery to which I referred was indeed aerial photography (frown), and a secondary image to which I referred as being awestruck by was a 10cm res image (according to a colleague)...my sincere apologies to BWJones. I am humbled.
Oh, and thanks, Wavicle, for providing the heckle that made me run and check again. (yet another frown)
Wow, impressive resolution for such a remote platform. Of course the resolution of the current US spy satellites is about three times better (10cm optimal), but those things are the size of a school bus and regardless, it is impressive what you can see with 30cm resolution.
I'm willing to bet US spy (esp. military) satellites can have much better resolution than 10cm...I work for a GIS company, and we often work with satellite imagery at 5cm resolution. I believe, by the way, the MRO does have multispectral capabilities (seven-channel, from ultraviolet to near-infrared).
Best Buy has pull as a media outlet, but their online end is pure crap because they use it purely to drive business to their retail stores.
That's why I think it could potentially do well. They have a huge number of people in their stores that they can try and talk into using the service. Combine that with any traffic they get through normal internet customers and the service could (stress could, not will) do very well.
This will probably be huge, IMO. Best Buy has a large customer base, many of whom are completely ignorant of the fact that they can buy songs individually online...they come into the store looking for a CD...something they can hold in their hands and place in a player)...and you know the BBY salespeople will rape them with a rehearsed speech about this service and why they should believe it IS the best way to purchase music. Many people will writhe in discomfort, squirming to get away from the pushy high school kid in the blue shirt, but Best Buy will succeed in seducing many others.
Actually, I just realized that your original blockquote from me was a combination of my original comment and someone's reply to my comment. To clarify, it should read:
Me:
Arguing that the limited patent duration is a good thing...
"dditionally patents on a product last either 20 years (for utility and plant patents), or 14 years (for design patents). Very rarely does an invention stay valid for this long, with no necessary improvements."
A reply to my comment, reenforcing my idea, though confusing my thought for one against limited patent timeframes:
But the flip side to that is that many inventions have become effectively useless by the time the patent expires.
Actually, that sort of behavior would indicate that the system is working. After all, people are inventing things to strike up the bounty that a patent offers them. That's exactly what the patent system aims to do.
Whoops...When I said "It is a sad thought..." I meant for it to mean it is sad to think an original inventor might not receive the first patent on their product, and that someone else might gain the rights to the invention. In your comment, you're stating (better than I) exactly what I was trying to say. (grin) Sorry for the confusion.:P
But the flip side to that is that many inventions have become effectively useless by the time the patent expires.
Again, exactly what I was trying to say.:) Thanks for the clarification.
This is an improvement patent, not an original product patent. The moist towel dispenser guy merely had to prove that his "improvement" was actually a useful addition to the originally patented invention.
It is a sad thought, but the patent application process should make it difficult for so-called "patent hunters" (people who search for unpatented products in order that they might try to patent in order to receieve exclusive rights to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import an invention). The process requires the "inventor" to provide a description of the product in enough detail to allow another individual skilled in the art to create the patented object...this is difficult to do for someone who isn't exceptionally skilled in the given area.
A patent, however, isn't necessarily a complete monopoly...yes, patents give the original inventor the right to keep others from making/selling/using the original invention, but others can still file "improvement" patents to better the original product, granting them the right to make/use/sell/blahblahblah the improved version of the product. Additionally patents on a product last either 20 years (for utility and plant patents), or 14 years (for design patents). Very rarely does an invention stay valid for this long, with no necessary improvements.
hmmm. I think that you must prove that you invented something in order to patent it...
I don't think so...you merely have to prove the product is novel (not identical to another invention), non-obvious (must meet a certain level of difference from a similar previous inventions), and have some useful purpose....then again, I suppose any useful invention created by someone else likely has a patent already, and the requirements for a patent nearly demand you be the inventor.
If anyone out there watches http://www.slickdeals.net/, you can see here that you can try out a TV episode download for free (they deduct $1.99 from the bill)...worth a try, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not "leaking" anything sensitive, so no worries about my job. :-)
However, all the heckling was bothering the hell out of me so I had to go back and double-check my sources, and I apologize; I believe I stand mistaken...the first 2-inch res imagery to which I referred was indeed aerial photography (frown), and a secondary image to which I referred as being awestruck by was a 10cm res image (according to a colleague)...my sincere apologies to BWJones. I am humbled.
Oh, and thanks, Wavicle, for providing the heckle that made me run and check again. (yet another frown)
It's not commercial data. I'm aware of the capabilities of the working hardware you mentioned.
:)
BTW, thanks for the tidbit on the plans for GeoEye-1 and Worldview-1/2; I wasn't aware of them.
Our largest contracts are military...I wish I could send you more (seriously, I do), but I would like to keep my job. :)
By the way, I like your site (simple, well organized...very satisfying design).
No, it's 5cm satellite imagery. :) Amazing stuff, believe me. I was stunned when I first saw the HUGE files in such incredible detail.
Am I thinking of the same hardware as you? I'm talking about the MRO Mars Color Imager...
Here
I'm willing to bet US spy (esp. military) satellites can have much better resolution than 10cm...I work for a GIS company, and we often work with satellite imagery at 5cm resolution. I believe, by the way, the MRO does have multispectral capabilities (seven-channel, from ultraviolet to near-infrared).
This will probably be huge, IMO. Best Buy has a large customer base, many of whom are completely ignorant of the fact that they can buy songs individually online...they come into the store looking for a CD...something they can hold in their hands and place in a player)...and you know the BBY salespeople will rape them with a rehearsed speech about this service and why they should believe it IS the best way to purchase music. Many people will writhe in discomfort, squirming to get away from the pushy high school kid in the blue shirt, but Best Buy will succeed in seducing many others.
Here are two mirrors:
p df
http://www.computersciencegeek.com/files/Es3b-en.
http://www.gilscode.com/files/Es3b-en.pdf
Good luck!
I was arguing the limited time span is a good thing. ;)
This is an improvement patent, not an original product patent. The moist towel dispenser guy merely had to prove that his "improvement" was actually a useful addition to the originally patented invention.
It is a sad thought, but the patent application process should make it difficult for so-called "patent hunters" (people who search for unpatented products in order that they might try to patent in order to receieve exclusive rights to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import an invention). The process requires the "inventor" to provide a description of the product in enough detail to allow another individual skilled in the art to create the patented object...this is difficult to do for someone who isn't exceptionally skilled in the given area. A patent, however, isn't necessarily a complete monopoly...yes, patents give the original inventor the right to keep others from making/selling/using the original invention, but others can still file "improvement" patents to better the original product, granting them the right to make/use/sell/blahblahblah the improved version of the product. Additionally patents on a product last either 20 years (for utility and plant patents), or 14 years (for design patents). Very rarely does an invention stay valid for this long, with no necessary improvements.
Bah, sorry if mine was a repost. :S
If anyone out there watches http://www.slickdeals.net/, you can see here that you can try out a TV episode download for free (they deduct $1.99 from the bill)...worth a try, eh?
Geek out!
Did the thought of this monster computer give anyone else an erection? Um...me neither...
I love Slashdot.