...if we're going to stick with them, a term limit of like 4 years on software patents would go a LONG way.
Or less. Given that the shelf-life of most mobile technology seems to be three years or less, and most of a new mobile handset's sales seem to be made in the first six months, why not give them one year of exclusivity, then open the flood gates? Apple is one of the largest companies in the world, and software patents didn't get them there. It was innovation and sales, and as a result, it's lead the way. Despite Android handset sales eclipsing iPhone sales at this place in time, iPhones will still be sold in record numbers. Why the hell waste money on a patent? The same goes for Bezos and his asinine One-Click to buy patent. Again, Amazon is not the company it is based on that feature.
So you're saying that if we dissolved every last pharma company today new drugs would come to market exactly as they are now with no other changes to the infrastructure?
Actually, he wasn't saying that. He was saying that making profit the primary motivating force in pharmaceutical research turns it away from science and toward a more commoditized economic model. Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine. Medical and pharmaceutical research was done before to better lives and for the glory of science. Now it's being done to better the lives of people whose lives are already better (eg. Big Pharma executives and their lobbyists). A Cost-plus economic model would move us away from fairly pointless, high-side effect designer drugs and more toward a production-distribution model with a guaranteed and reasonable profit margin and leave pharmaceutical research to the scientists, not the marketing people.
It's also better for the economy, because less money spent on medication means more discretionary spending. Think about how GM wouldn't have needed a government bailout had most senior citizens been able to buy new Buicks and medication instead of medication only
Ummm.. multi-able membranes then?
If this can be constructed then you could have multi-able filters each getting smaller and smaller until you reach the molecular level filter. That should remove not only all the pathogens but also any compounds that are larger than H2O.
Except submicron filters don't function that way. They're designed for particulate matter, not ionic contaminants.
Thanks.
The point I was trying to make was that in the industry, an RO membrane is never looked at as a filtration device for removing bacteria or viruses. As a matter of fact, since TFE membranes can be damaged by chlorine and chloramines, you have to use carbon as a pre-filter for the feed water to prevent the RO membrane from failing, When you service the point of use residential systems, they're slimy (and sometimes smelly) messes from all the heterotrophic bacteria that builds up.
With pores barely wide enough to allow water molecules through, we're already talking about submicron level filtration.
Again, best practices dictate your filtration membrane is not your only pathogenic barrier. If you had a compromised immune system, and any pathogen in the water could make you exceptionally sick, if not outright kill you, wouldn't you want more than just one step in place?
I worked in water filtration for several years. The quality of the feed water would determine which system was best, but even in the best of systems, nothing is 100% (not even ultra-pure, water for injection systems; even then, there's an acceptable level of pyrogens (dead bacteria or viruses) that can remain in the water). But no one I knew who knew what they were doing would rely on a membrane under pressure to act as the only pathogenic barrier.
Theoretically, yes, something that works at the molecular level will filter out viruses and bacteria. But best practices in water treatment require some form of sterilization downstream, whether chemical (chlorine, chloramines or ozone), mechanical (submicron or ulta filtration), or Ultraviolet light. A failed membrane would allow enough pathogens through to kill, depending on what was in the water to begin with, as well as the age or physical condition of the person drinking the contaminated water.
You can purify water with activated carbon ("purify" is highly subjective, unless a governmental authority has taken the time to define it; otherwise, it's up to the marketing department). If you want to remove chlorine and objectionable tastes and odors, a simple activated carbon cartridge works great. If you want to remove heavier VOC's (volatile organic compounds) and THM's (trihalomethanes), you can use a compressed carbon block. And you can use a 1 micron absolute carbon block if you want to do all of the above, as well as achieve five log reduction (99.999%) in Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts, as well as removing 95% of lead in water (most lead found in water is particulate and not ionic).
Desalinating is a little more complicated than this. Currently, there are three (fairly simple) methods of desalinating water: reverse osmosis, steam (or vapor compression) distillation, and de-ionization. RO is usually the preferred method, because a commercial RO unit can purify a high volume of sea water at around 70-90% efficiency.
Steam or vapor compression distillation requires a lot of energy, leaves a massive amount of residue, and depending on mineral concentrations of the feed water, requires constant cleaning to prevent the equipment breaking down.
De-ionization requires no energy, but depending on the type of DI resins used, can quickly exhaust the filter bed, requiring regeneration, which again, doesn't require a lot of energy, but it does have a chemical cost to strip and regenerate the Cation/Anion resins.
Regardless of which method of desalination is being used, the feed water should be filtered to remove sediment and volatile organics (or post-filtration, in the case of DI).
The graphene method is essentially creating a thin film membrane like RO. If you jump past the original article, and go to Water Online, the method proposed would be actually be using a thin film scaffolding to support the nano layer of graphene. At that point, you might as well use RO, unless the actual production models (the graphene method proposed is still highly theoretical as the authors admit that consistently producing graphene with a uniform pore diameter is not practical yet) would allow greater pure water production at higher efficiencies than currently available with RO.
If you want to make ultra-pure water (say USP water-for-injection grade) you need to use a combination of all the above. What results you want will determine the method or number of steps required.
Thanks for playing, but your analogy about radios and TV's doesn't work. Both of those are one-way content delivery tools, where the tablet (as well as any other computing device connected to a network) is designed for input-output and most likely two-way communication, whether by virtue of forum, Blackboard, online testing or whatever.
I think when we strip al the bombast away, it's really about an established technology versus the future, and to many people, change is scar, and therefor requires even more scary analogies and scenarios to maintain the status quo, because FSM-forbid that we might adopt something that works better than the status quo, or else spend time and resources on something that isn't effective but seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately was replaced by something different and we hope better.
History has shown time and again that the technology that ends up getting adopted is not necessarily the best, just the one that is accepted on a wider scale; maybe the tablet will be the metaphorical jet pack or personal helicopter that frees us from the tyranny of toiling by the sweat of our brow, or maybe it won't. History has also shown us time and again that those who dismiss new technology out of hand and for the flimsiest of reasons become footnotes or the butt of jokes.
Once upon a time there were people who thought PC's in the classroom where a waste of space and money, and that a timeshare network and mainframes made infinitely more sense than desktop computing.
The future of computing may not be the tablet, but the tablet is certainly becoming a useful tool, and as a virtue of that, deserves consideration rather than dismissal by someone like Gates, who has bought into the conservative viewpoint that all we need to do is change curriculum and teachers and suddenly everyone in America will be smarter. This is ironic as the political forces who promote that idea are generally the best examples of anti-intellectuals who value reactionary thinking and adherence to to conventional wisdom over the joy of learning and critical thought. The first place to start for a change in the educational system is for parents to encourage their children to become life-long learners, get them to do their homework, and pay attention to what they're learning. If after that curriculum is still an issue, and teachers aren't teaching, then it is time to address those things. Otherwise we can have the best teachers and the most effective curricula, but if Mom and Dad believe that Jesus walked the earth with dinosaurs and Evolution is still an untested theory, it's all for naught.
Yes, and if you leave food out, that's how you get ants, and this is why we can't have nice things. Rational people discuss private things in public all the time. Rational people don't plot terrorist acts in public (or anywhere else). And since you have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being injured or killed in a terrorist act, IMHO the incremental removal of personal liberties for acts which are statistically less than likely than you being killed in a plane crash (oh irony of ironies) is not rational.
But it begs the question as to why it would be necessary for the government to record your conversations, anyway. Wiretapping isn't legal for the government. Why should this?
There are plenty of accredited universities that offer fully online MBA's and other graduate degree programs. I have a friend who's getting his MBA from University of Liverpool this autumn. It's taken him about the same as it would have if he'd gone to a brick and mortar university, and he worked just as hard online as he would have in class. Whether someone cheats and gets by with it is up to the professor.
Interestingly enough, it was a restaurant owner in Seattle who tipped the feds off, after angry customers contacted him about additional $70-90 charges on their checks. So yeah, he was really sticking it to the banks.
Intelligent decisions are subjective, unless it's the running-a-red-light or sticking-your-fingers-in-a-light-socket variety. So you don't like environmentalist charities. Last time I checked The Oatmeal, Matt Inman wasn't holding a spear gun to a baby panda's head, threatening to shish-kabob it if you didn't donate.
Why is it that/. devolves into these forest-for-the-trees debates, losing sight of the larger fact, which is now we apparently have copyright trolls to go along with patent trolls?
This is what I was going to say. What I can think of is to basically call him a MacGuyver. I mean, that's basically the role Southerland is suggesting the guy plays, right? Plus this term comes with a more positive connotation than "hacker" would.
I've worked some places where it wasn't MacGuyver, but B.A. Barabbas, as in "..get me a BBQ, a trash can and a tube radio, 'cause I'm going to make a server!"
...that the height of civil disobedience for a Canadian was writing a testy letter to the editor of the local paper. It would appear that the height of Libertarian activism is to debate a misinterpreted post on Slahdot to death.
The education system isn't crumbling from lack of funds. It's crumbling despite being flush with funds while claiming poverty.
There's an abundance of evidence to the contrary. While I will agree with you that many times the money they're given is used unwisely, the sad fact is we keep cutting back.
So I'm not really seeing this "demand == growth" equation working out for government-funded projects. Especially when you are suggesting that all these things are providing infrastructure so people are able to work. Checked the unemployment figures recently? Half the NCLB kids have graduated... did that funding help them? Did their existence as graduates suddenly create more jobs?
Actually, NCLB was signed into law in 2002. Most of the provisions were not started until 2004. The first kids who graduate after going through the entire program, from early childhood education and Reading First will be in 2017. Most of the AYP provisions weren't enforced until 2007. So the jury is out on that for five years.
And I was referring to demand equals growth in the private sector. If there's no market for a product, a smart businessperson won't throw his/her money into any venture unless they know they can create demand. Without that venture, no jobs are created. And if you don't have a job, then it's hard to buy that Big Screen. If we can't educate, or provide a stable base for members of society, then the wheels come completely off. That's what I was saying.
And it's not just social programs that depend on government funding. The defense industry constitutes more than 30 percent of the federal budget.
Quick question. Where does government get its money from?
Various sources (e.g. taxes, tarifs and debt, for starters). But going back to the parent posting (which I'm surprised why it was modded down, unless the realities of society are too much truth for some to handle), wealth wouldn't be created without a fairly stable society to provide the education, protection and regulatory stability needed to provide a framework for the growth of capital. Anyone wanting to disagree can watch what capital remains now vaporizes in 20 years as our crumbling education system, along with the transportation, police, fire, health care and regulatory systems which are currently being gutted will no longer support the creation of wealth. Demand fuels growth. If people have no education, if they can't drive to work, or be protected at home by police or fire, if they can't afford basic healthcare, they can earn no income. If they have no means to purchase, then there are no means to create growth and wealth.
The idea that people can do science (maybe Science, with a capitol 'S'?) with stuff they have lying around their house is probably not emphasized enough; it made me want to become a science teacher, but of course I'm not qualified, only being a physicist and a computer scientist, and not having a degree in education, or being a member of a teachers union.
As entrenched and parochial as the university academic establishment is these days, being a secondary school instructor should seem like a breath of fresh air. Unless you've got an assistant/associate professor's gig at a medium to large university, the pay would be about the same, and there are usually more science teachers needed than research associates. Not to mention the lives you could change, even if you just made a fraction of each graduating class learn to love science more.
So your simple solution is to shift to a world without corruption, which will eliminate corruption. While it is true that this would work, hopefully you can spot the circular logic.
Sorry, but the Strawman response office is closed on Friday's.
Could it be that the problem of poor leadership and exploitation in Africa is a complicated problem than can't be immediately solved by guns?
Western nations, as well as now Eastern nations (read China and Taiwan) can stay the hell out of Africa. Corruption won't occur if no one is providing the dollars, yuan, euros or any other currency with which to bribe and buy influence. We can stop looking toward the third world to provide for our standard of living, and if smart phones and other electronic devices can't be made without slave labor or exploiting workers in a developing nation to keep the price down, then perhaps it's a luxury we can do without. The same goes for oil in the Niger river delta.
Slashdot Mirror
...if we're going to stick with them, a term limit of like 4 years on software patents would go a LONG way.
Or less. Given that the shelf-life of most mobile technology seems to be three years or less, and most of a new mobile handset's sales seem to be made in the first six months, why not give them one year of exclusivity, then open the flood gates? Apple is one of the largest companies in the world, and software patents didn't get them there. It was innovation and sales, and as a result, it's lead the way. Despite Android handset sales eclipsing iPhone sales at this place in time, iPhones will still be sold in record numbers. Why the hell waste money on a patent? The same goes for Bezos and his asinine One-Click to buy patent. Again, Amazon is not the company it is based on that feature.
So you're saying that if we dissolved every last pharma company today new drugs would come to market exactly as they are now with no other changes to the infrastructure?
Actually, he wasn't saying that. He was saying that making profit the primary motivating force in pharmaceutical research turns it away from science and toward a more commoditized economic model. Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine. Medical and pharmaceutical research was done before to better lives and for the glory of science. Now it's being done to better the lives of people whose lives are already better (eg. Big Pharma executives and their lobbyists). A Cost-plus economic model would move us away from fairly pointless, high-side effect designer drugs and more toward a production-distribution model with a guaranteed and reasonable profit margin and leave pharmaceutical research to the scientists, not the marketing people.
It's also better for the economy, because less money spent on medication means more discretionary spending. Think about how GM wouldn't have needed a government bailout had most senior citizens been able to buy new Buicks and medication instead of medication only
Ummm.. multi-able membranes then? If this can be constructed then you could have multi-able filters each getting smaller and smaller until you reach the molecular level filter. That should remove not only all the pathogens but also any compounds that are larger than H2O.
Except submicron filters don't function that way. They're designed for particulate matter, not ionic contaminants.
Thanks. The point I was trying to make was that in the industry, an RO membrane is never looked at as a filtration device for removing bacteria or viruses. As a matter of fact, since TFE membranes can be damaged by chlorine and chloramines, you have to use carbon as a pre-filter for the feed water to prevent the RO membrane from failing, When you service the point of use residential systems, they're slimy (and sometimes smelly) messes from all the heterotrophic bacteria that builds up.
With pores barely wide enough to allow water molecules through, we're already talking about submicron level filtration.
Again, best practices dictate your filtration membrane is not your only pathogenic barrier. If you had a compromised immune system, and any pathogen in the water could make you exceptionally sick, if not outright kill you, wouldn't you want more than just one step in place? I worked in water filtration for several years. The quality of the feed water would determine which system was best, but even in the best of systems, nothing is 100% (not even ultra-pure, water for injection systems; even then, there's an acceptable level of pyrogens (dead bacteria or viruses) that can remain in the water). But no one I knew who knew what they were doing would rely on a membrane under pressure to act as the only pathogenic barrier.
Theoretically, yes, something that works at the molecular level will filter out viruses and bacteria. But best practices in water treatment require some form of sterilization downstream, whether chemical (chlorine, chloramines or ozone), mechanical (submicron or ulta filtration), or Ultraviolet light. A failed membrane would allow enough pathogens through to kill, depending on what was in the water to begin with, as well as the age or physical condition of the person drinking the contaminated water.
You can purify water with activated carbon ("purify" is highly subjective, unless a governmental authority has taken the time to define it; otherwise, it's up to the marketing department). If you want to remove chlorine and objectionable tastes and odors, a simple activated carbon cartridge works great. If you want to remove heavier VOC's (volatile organic compounds) and THM's (trihalomethanes), you can use a compressed carbon block. And you can use a 1 micron absolute carbon block if you want to do all of the above, as well as achieve five log reduction (99.999%) in Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts, as well as removing 95% of lead in water (most lead found in water is particulate and not ionic).
Desalinating is a little more complicated than this. Currently, there are three (fairly simple) methods of desalinating water: reverse osmosis, steam (or vapor compression) distillation, and de-ionization. RO is usually the preferred method, because a commercial RO unit can purify a high volume of sea water at around 70-90% efficiency.
Steam or vapor compression distillation requires a lot of energy, leaves a massive amount of residue, and depending on mineral concentrations of the feed water, requires constant cleaning to prevent the equipment breaking down.
De-ionization requires no energy, but depending on the type of DI resins used, can quickly exhaust the filter bed, requiring regeneration, which again, doesn't require a lot of energy, but it does have a chemical cost to strip and regenerate the Cation/Anion resins.
Regardless of which method of desalination is being used, the feed water should be filtered to remove sediment and volatile organics (or post-filtration, in the case of DI).
The graphene method is essentially creating a thin film membrane like RO. If you jump past the original article, and go to Water Online, the method proposed would be actually be using a thin film scaffolding to support the nano layer of graphene. At that point, you might as well use RO, unless the actual production models (the graphene method proposed is still highly theoretical as the authors admit that consistently producing graphene with a uniform pore diameter is not practical yet) would allow greater pure water production at higher efficiencies than currently available with RO.
If you want to make ultra-pure water (say USP water-for-injection grade) you need to use a combination of all the above. What results you want will determine the method or number of steps required.
Thanks for playing, but your analogy about radios and TV's doesn't work. Both of those are one-way content delivery tools, where the tablet (as well as any other computing device connected to a network) is designed for input-output and most likely two-way communication, whether by virtue of forum, Blackboard, online testing or whatever.
I think when we strip al the bombast away, it's really about an established technology versus the future, and to many people, change is scar, and therefor requires even more scary analogies and scenarios to maintain the status quo, because FSM-forbid that we might adopt something that works better than the status quo, or else spend time and resources on something that isn't effective but seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately was replaced by something different and we hope better.
History has shown time and again that the technology that ends up getting adopted is not necessarily the best, just the one that is accepted on a wider scale; maybe the tablet will be the metaphorical jet pack or personal helicopter that frees us from the tyranny of toiling by the sweat of our brow, or maybe it won't. History has also shown us time and again that those who dismiss new technology out of hand and for the flimsiest of reasons become footnotes or the butt of jokes.
Once upon a time there were people who thought PC's in the classroom where a waste of space and money, and that a timeshare network and mainframes made infinitely more sense than desktop computing.
The future of computing may not be the tablet, but the tablet is certainly becoming a useful tool, and as a virtue of that, deserves consideration rather than dismissal by someone like Gates, who has bought into the conservative viewpoint that all we need to do is change curriculum and teachers and suddenly everyone in America will be smarter. This is ironic as the political forces who promote that idea are generally the best examples of anti-intellectuals who value reactionary thinking and adherence to to conventional wisdom over the joy of learning and critical thought. The first place to start for a change in the educational system is for parents to encourage their children to become life-long learners, get them to do their homework, and pay attention to what they're learning. If after that curriculum is still an issue, and teachers aren't teaching, then it is time to address those things. Otherwise we can have the best teachers and the most effective curricula, but if Mom and Dad believe that Jesus walked the earth with dinosaurs and Evolution is still an untested theory, it's all for naught.
Yes, and if you leave food out, that's how you get ants, and this is why we can't have nice things. Rational people discuss private things in public all the time. Rational people don't plot terrorist acts in public (or anywhere else). And since you have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being injured or killed in a terrorist act, IMHO the incremental removal of personal liberties for acts which are statistically less than likely than you being killed in a plane crash (oh irony of ironies) is not rational.
But it begs the question as to why it would be necessary for the government to record your conversations, anyway. Wiretapping isn't legal for the government. Why should this?
Wouldn't that be ./insults.sh
% sudo -u loser
(forgive my lack of command line skills)
There are plenty of accredited universities that offer fully online MBA's and other graduate degree programs. I have a friend who's getting his MBA from University of Liverpool this autumn. It's taken him about the same as it would have if he'd gone to a brick and mortar university, and he worked just as hard online as he would have in class. Whether someone cheats and gets by with it is up to the professor.
Which raises the question that perhaps the quantum dot monitor will display the correct color only when you're not looking at it.
Interestingly enough, it was a restaurant owner in Seattle who tipped the feds off, after angry customers contacted him about additional $70-90 charges on their checks. So yeah, he was really sticking it to the banks.
I imagine Randroids to be like zombies, shuffling down streets aimlessly, moaning "Trains!" over and over again.
Intelligent decisions are subjective, unless it's the running-a-red-light or sticking-your-fingers-in-a-light-socket variety. So you don't like environmentalist charities. Last time I checked The Oatmeal, Matt Inman wasn't holding a spear gun to a baby panda's head, threatening to shish-kabob it if you didn't donate.
/. devolves into these forest-for-the-trees debates, losing sight of the larger fact, which is now we apparently have copyright trolls to go along with patent trolls?
Why is it that
This is what I was going to say. What I can think of is to basically call him a MacGuyver. I mean, that's basically the role Southerland is suggesting the guy plays, right? Plus this term comes with a more positive connotation than "hacker" would.
I've worked some places where it wasn't MacGuyver, but B.A. Barabbas, as in "..get me a BBQ, a trash can and a tube radio, 'cause I'm going to make a server!"
...that the height of civil disobedience for a Canadian was writing a testy letter to the editor of the local paper. It would appear that the height of Libertarian activism is to debate a misinterpreted post on Slahdot to death.
The education system isn't crumbling from lack of funds. It's crumbling despite being flush with funds while claiming poverty.
There's an abundance of evidence to the contrary. While I will agree with you that many times the money they're given is used unwisely, the sad fact is we keep cutting back.
So I'm not really seeing this "demand == growth" equation working out for government-funded projects. Especially when you are suggesting that all these things are providing infrastructure so people are able to work. Checked the unemployment figures recently? Half the NCLB kids have graduated... did that funding help them? Did their existence as graduates suddenly create more jobs?
Actually, NCLB was signed into law in 2002. Most of the provisions were not started until 2004. The first kids who graduate after going through the entire program, from early childhood education and Reading First will be in 2017. Most of the AYP provisions weren't enforced until 2007. So the jury is out on that for five years. And I was referring to demand equals growth in the private sector. If there's no market for a product, a smart businessperson won't throw his/her money into any venture unless they know they can create demand. Without that venture, no jobs are created. And if you don't have a job, then it's hard to buy that Big Screen. If we can't educate, or provide a stable base for members of society, then the wheels come completely off. That's what I was saying. And it's not just social programs that depend on government funding. The defense industry constitutes more than 30 percent of the federal budget.
Quick question. Where does government get its money from?
Various sources (e.g. taxes, tarifs and debt, for starters). But going back to the parent posting (which I'm surprised why it was modded down, unless the realities of society are too much truth for some to handle), wealth wouldn't be created without a fairly stable society to provide the education, protection and regulatory stability needed to provide a framework for the growth of capital. Anyone wanting to disagree can watch what capital remains now vaporizes in 20 years as our crumbling education system, along with the transportation, police, fire, health care and regulatory systems which are currently being gutted will no longer support the creation of wealth. Demand fuels growth. If people have no education, if they can't drive to work, or be protected at home by police or fire, if they can't afford basic healthcare, they can earn no income. If they have no means to purchase, then there are no means to create growth and wealth.
The idea that people can do science (maybe Science, with a capitol 'S'?) with stuff they have lying around their house is probably not emphasized enough; it made me want to become a science teacher, but of course I'm not qualified, only being a physicist and a computer scientist, and not having a degree in education, or being a member of a teachers union.
As entrenched and parochial as the university academic establishment is these days, being a secondary school instructor should seem like a breath of fresh air. Unless you've got an assistant/associate professor's gig at a medium to large university, the pay would be about the same, and there are usually more science teachers needed than research associates. Not to mention the lives you could change, even if you just made a fraction of each graduating class learn to love science more.
So your simple solution is to shift to a world without corruption, which will eliminate corruption. While it is true that this would work, hopefully you can spot the circular logic.
Sorry, but the Strawman response office is closed on Friday's.
Could it be that the problem of poor leadership and exploitation in Africa is a complicated problem than can't be immediately solved by guns?
Western nations, as well as now Eastern nations (read China and Taiwan) can stay the hell out of Africa. Corruption won't occur if no one is providing the dollars, yuan, euros or any other currency with which to bribe and buy influence. We can stop looking toward the third world to provide for our standard of living, and if smart phones and other electronic devices can't be made without slave labor or exploiting workers in a developing nation to keep the price down, then perhaps it's a luxury we can do without. The same goes for oil in the Niger river delta.
I always thought a Libertarian was just a Republican who wanted to legally smoke weed.