It seems a lot of slashdot folk here don't read before they post. Some are already talking about avoiding other vehicles on the road. First off, do you really think they would allow a bunch of robotic vehicles to drive along side drivers? Second, it does mention across the desert both off and on road, but does not say anything about public roads where it must avoid other vehicles. Another thing mentioned was GPS. Someone complained about not being able to use GPS. If that person had done some reading (FAQ on the page) then they would have seen that a public GPS or a private autonomous GPS receiver is allowed.
Now my thoughts on this challenge. A few things I think are most important here are: 4x4 type of vehicle (truck, SUV, Hummer, Jeep, etc.) (Automatic prefered for ease of use) A must have GPS receiver. Infrared obstacle detection device (180 degrees) about 100 meters. Also, another device to analyze the terrain about 180 degrees around the front of the vehicle out to about 100 meters. Attach the GPS, obstacle device, and terrain device to a computer and also have the computer hooked up to the acceleration pedal, brake pedal, and shifter to put into park or drive.
The terrain device would be the most complicated. Then all you would need is a few good programmers that can work with the data the different devices provide and your set. I'm not sure if such terrain devices exist outside the military, but I'm sure some laser/infrared/etc. engineers out there could produce a basic one. This project isn't as complicated as it sounds, but it would take some good engineers and programmers to finish. Just my thoughts.
I have to disagree. Microsoft with all the money and great programmers they have all locked up in rooms working hard to get the next "innovative" software can't seem to compete against millions of programmers around the world. The fact is, interest fuels innovation better than any amount of money you throw into a project. If all the information regarding a certain field become freely available to the public, that field would progress like no other. No company could beat millions of people around the world working together to reach a goal. It is best when research is kept as open as possible. Patents, for example, have held back progress by keeping the technology and information in the hands of a few.
So it's just commies that don't give a crap about patents is it? You can't imagine how many non-commies are against the idea as well. Don't give me BS either. Serious intellectuals are against it. Patents are a form of piracy. They steal ideas from the public. So wouldn't patents be more communistic than no patents?
"The added benefit is that China doesn't follow all the same patent and copyright issues as other countries so they are truly free to innovate and compete."
Very true. Intellectual property laws do so much to hinder progress.
I rarely read nonfiction; I read mostly nonfiction. For those that do like to read nonfiction though I recommend "Prey" by Michael Crichton. The book happened to be laying around at my job and so I read it (I have a lot of reading time where I work). It is very good and is based around swarm intelligence, computing, and many new upcoming technologies with an emphasis on the consequences the technology may bring.
"True, BUT were's the incentive to discover those many ways, if all you have to do is use someone elses way?"
Are you serious? Do you really believe what you have just said? People don't want to use "someone elses way" when they want to increase efficiency for example. The incentive to "discover" comes from the increase in quality or quantity. Do you where clothes that the most popular person wears because it works for them?
Not a bad idea about only allowing an individual to own the patent, but it still has problems. The owner could be one of the company investors, one that happens to own most of the company for example. Companies can argue that because they paid the inventor a salary that they have rights to the patent because the inventor could just as easily leave the company and go wherever. Then how about a large team that works to produce an idea? Who would hold the patent then? The patent is a flawed idea that just creates more problems than those it attempts to solve. We won't stop inventing because the ideas we create could be used by anyone else. We stop inventing when we are pressured by laws that prevent us from doing so. Even large projects don't require huge investments, just a large group of motivated individuals aiming for the same goal. Should I even mention Linux or open source software? Science works the same. Scientists and inventors gain a lot of their knowledge from books, journals, papers, and others they communicate with.
"...it appears that their paper is making waves in economic circles."
I'm extremely happy to hear this. You can't imagine how upset the issue about patents makes me when I keep hearing about more protection, stronger laws, another lawsuit against infringement, another idiotic patent issued, and more power to the large coporations that in reality due some of the least amount of innovation, especially considering their size, power, and wealth. Good to see the issue finally coming out besides just in court suppressing the little guy. I read most of the paper a few days ago, well said, and its good to see such a long article discussing the issue on Reason.com. I must say that the issue scares a lot of people. It is because the elimination of such strong laws giving an individual or corporation ownership of an idea would in effect help bridge the gap between rich and poor. Scary isn't it? The idea would also cause a major shift in economic structure in various industries that have relied on using intellectual property as a means of profit or part of their business. Like on the front of "Programming Perl" says, "There is more than one way to do it." Yes, the current system works, but how well? Does the constant threat of piracy and increase in spending to fight it a sign of an efficient system. I sure don't think so.
"Nerds think they are superior." All nerds? Superior in what?
Do all nerds really view others as losers? Don't others view nerds as losers as well, but not all others?
About the issue with women. So nerds lusting over women as opposed to treating them like a piece of meat is worse? Could they just be unconfident, shy, and possibly have the unfortunate fate that as nerds they take are seen stereotypically and will be approached less often as well?
Also, how do their views on the DMCA... "all boil down to 'ME WANT IT FREE!'"? Nerds happen to spend a lot of time reading, tinkering, etc. and so maybe they understand why these laws are bad for society, economy, privacy, and even the average American. If nerds wanted it free, then you would see nerd anarchists all over the place. Your views are very opinionated with very little fact behind them. I'm sorry to break it to you, but whether one is a nerd, athlete, artist, or average joe they are still human. From a young age I didn't have strong opinions against any particular group of people, although I disliked some of the things certain groups did. I tried to understand why people did the things they did and not judge it as simply bad or good. When you view the world with almost completely no opinion behind it, you begin to really understand things clearly. Nerds are no better than any other type of person, but they aren't egomaniacs either. Same goes for others, they are no better than nerds.
This is a very good paper. Very well written and in depth. , but even so this paper has shown me a perspective that has opened my eyes even more. He seems to have touched upon an even larger problem at the same time. The entire issue with popularity, education, bullying, hierarchy, etc. is something that will forever shape America. If this paper doesn't do a good job of showing how big the problem is, then what will?
From the article "The company's stock soared on the news, rising $54.75, or 57 percent, to close at $11.69 on Nasdaq."
How do you raise your stock price $54.75 and only end up closing at $11.69? You can be in the negatives nowadays? Or was there some sort of stock split they didn't mention?
I agree. There would be more incentive to create better quality content at the same time. If your content is popular enough, you may get away with more ads within the content than if your content is less popular. So the next time you see a Jackie Chan movie, he might be wearing some (name a shoe maker) shoes, driving a (name a car), and maybe even have him going to see another movie thats coming out next month. Advertising within the movie would create a whole new method of advertising that would be less obvious, but most likely just as powerful. That is why you see artists and athletes that advertise a product. Athletes also get sponsers which help pay for their particular sport and advertise themselves at the same time. As the internet grows larger and faster, it is only logical to use this sort of strategy to distribute content. Maybe some company will start making content that is based around their product, or should I say maybe some more will. Check out bmwfilms.com for an example. I still have yet to see the clips though.
Wow, what a trade off. They have complete and total control over media/content binded legally for 14 years. Which won't make much of a difference since by then they'll buy themselves extended copyrights or find some other legal method to prevent the content from going into public domain. At the same time, when these copy restriction devices come out onto the market it will slowly drive free software to extinction. Btw, how would this help the artists? I can see it helping the indistry and the corporations, but the artists?
"Anyone can build something according to a design."
Are you sure about that? I'm not very sure I could look at a processor design and build it. For that matter, I can't play a song by looking at the notes or build a skyscraper looking at the blueprints or any number of other things I neither learned how to do and/or have no equipment and tools for.
This is to all the posts that support copyright. I understand the way you see things, I used to think the same when I was a little kid. When I entered high school the subject really caught my interest and I began to read into it. I thought about it every single day and still do to this day, but fortunately now I take a break every once in a while. I ask you all, please, do some reading on the opposing side. Also, for just one moment, seriously consider the option of no IP laws.
Btw. almost everyone defending IP mentioned the fact that without compensation, intellectuals would produce no works of art or new ideas. I first must ask, are you an artist? writer? music composer? Art and technology advances are fueled by interest, passion, wants, needs, and pleasure. Yes, money can be linked directly to this and even without IP laws money can be made (do some reading to find out how). I could go on forever stating all your defenses for IP with counter arguments against them, but this isn't the place.
Has anyone else thought about the fact that maybe we would be better off without copyright? Seriously, one moment please, don't mod me down so fast. Sure, we've lived with copyright laws for a while now, but what would it be like without them? Have you ever REALLY thought about it? I've done a lot of thinking and a lot of reading (I do mean a lot). I know most people don't even question it, they just question one thing, the work put into it. Yet ask yourselves this, do the construction workers, road builders, etc. get payed royalties everytime you drive down the road or use your house? How come we treat information like this?
Not for gNutella. Since it is an open network and any client can work on this network (such as the open source ones). The only place a EULA would work is on proprietary networks and/or networks where an account must be created through the service provider.
Ok, so some industries vanish. New ones form, and we continue. It happens all the time with technology. New technology replaces the need for certain businesses and/or industries. Simple fact of life. Intellectual property hinders progress. Please don't tell my a bunch of crap about courses you've took. It is just more reason for you to believe that IP is good. Please read some of the counter arguments. I've done my part in reading and understanding the "old" ways. Do a search for Brian Martin and intellectual property, first link in google. Also, do some more research. These are not just opinions I express. Please for the sake of humanity, don't ever argue a point without understanding the other side. I do understand that many industries could vanish, but they can be saved with some careful planning and rethinking the system. I also understand that the complete elimination of intellectual property within a very short period of time could cause many problems. Yet if it were done slowly, for example, by preventing new patents from being issued and then later slowly eliminating existing ones, then these problems wouldn't be an issue. Many people see the direct consequences of this idea, but don't realize the benefits and long term effects.
Your kids will be telling you, "I just got Palm Tattoo version 2.8". What a pain to upgrade this would be. Hopefully they have cheap easy laser removal.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems a lot of slashdot folk here don't read before they post. Some are already talking about avoiding other vehicles on the road. First off, do you really think they would allow a bunch of robotic vehicles to drive along side drivers? Second, it does mention across the desert both off and on road, but does not say anything about public roads where it must avoid other vehicles.
Another thing mentioned was GPS. Someone complained about not being able to use GPS. If that person had done some reading (FAQ on the page) then they would have seen that a public GPS or a private autonomous GPS receiver is allowed.
Now my thoughts on this challenge.
A few things I think are most important here are:
4x4 type of vehicle (truck, SUV, Hummer, Jeep, etc.) (Automatic prefered for ease of use)
A must have GPS receiver.
Infrared obstacle detection device (180 degrees) about 100 meters.
Also, another device to analyze the terrain about 180 degrees around the front of the vehicle out to about 100 meters.
Attach the GPS, obstacle device, and terrain device to a computer and also have the computer hooked up to the acceleration pedal, brake pedal, and shifter to put into park or drive.
The terrain device would be the most complicated. Then all you would need is a few good programmers that can work with the data the different devices provide and your set. I'm not sure if such terrain devices exist outside the military, but I'm sure some laser/infrared/etc. engineers out there could produce a basic one. This project isn't as complicated as it sounds, but it would take some good engineers and programmers to finish. Just my thoughts.
Did you read the parent post I was replying too? Taken out of context a sentence can be made out to sound pretty stupid.
I have to disagree. Microsoft with all the money and great programmers they have all locked up in rooms working hard to get the next "innovative" software can't seem to compete against millions of programmers around the world. The fact is, interest fuels innovation better than any amount of money you throw into a project. If all the information regarding a certain field become freely available to the public, that field would progress like no other. No company could beat millions of people around the world working together to reach a goal. It is best when research is kept as open as possible. Patents, for example, have held back progress by keeping the technology and information in the hands of a few.
So it's just commies that don't give a crap about patents is it?
You can't imagine how many non-commies are against the idea as well.
Don't give me BS either. Serious intellectuals are against it.
Patents are a form of piracy. They steal ideas from the public. So wouldn't patents be more communistic than no patents?
"The added benefit is that China doesn't follow all the same patent and copyright issues as other countries so they are truly free to innovate and compete."
Very true. Intellectual property laws do so much to hinder progress.
Pipe dream? No way. You can't imagine how long ago I thought up this idea. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later.
I can't believe I wrote nonfiction over and over, forgot. First and third "nonfiction" is supposed to be "fiction". Sorry.
I rarely read nonfiction; I read mostly nonfiction. For those that do like to read nonfiction though I recommend "Prey" by Michael Crichton. The book happened to be laying around at my job and so I read it (I have a lot of reading time where I work). It is very good and is based around swarm intelligence, computing, and many new upcoming technologies with an emphasis on the consequences the technology may bring.
"True, BUT were's the incentive to discover those many ways, if all you have to do is use someone elses way?"
Are you serious? Do you really believe what you have just said? People don't want to use "someone elses way" when they want to increase efficiency for example. The incentive to "discover" comes from the increase in quality or quantity. Do you where clothes that the most popular person wears because it works for them?
Not a bad idea about only allowing an individual to own the patent, but it still has problems. The owner could be one of the company investors, one that happens to own most of the company for example. Companies can argue that because they paid the inventor a salary that they have rights to the patent because the inventor could just as easily leave the company and go wherever. Then how about a large team that works to produce an idea? Who would hold the patent then? The patent is a flawed idea that just creates more problems than those it attempts to solve. We won't stop inventing because the ideas we create could be used by anyone else. We stop inventing when we are pressured by laws that prevent us from doing so. Even large projects don't require huge investments, just a large group of motivated individuals aiming for the same goal. Should I even mention Linux or open source software? Science works the same. Scientists and inventors gain a lot of their knowledge from books, journals, papers, and others they communicate with.
"...it appears that their paper is making waves in economic circles."
I'm extremely happy to hear this. You can't imagine how upset the issue about patents makes me when I keep hearing about more protection, stronger laws, another lawsuit against infringement, another idiotic patent issued, and more power to the large coporations that in reality due some of the least amount of innovation, especially considering their size, power, and wealth. Good to see the issue finally coming out besides just in court suppressing the little guy. I read most of the paper a few days ago, well said, and its good to see such a long article discussing the issue on Reason.com. I must say that the issue scares a lot of people. It is because the elimination of such strong laws giving an individual or corporation ownership of an idea would in effect help bridge the gap between rich and poor. Scary isn't it? The idea would also cause a major shift in economic structure in various industries that have relied on using intellectual property as a means of profit or part of their business. Like on the front of "Programming Perl" says, "There is more than one way to do it." Yes, the current system works, but how well? Does the constant threat of piracy and increase in spending to fight it a sign of an efficient system. I sure don't think so.
"Nerds think they are superior." All nerds? Superior in what?
Do all nerds really view others as losers? Don't others view nerds as losers as well, but not all others?
About the issue with women. So nerds lusting over women as opposed to treating them like a piece of meat is worse? Could they just be unconfident, shy, and possibly have the unfortunate fate that as nerds they take are seen stereotypically and will be approached less often as well?
Also, how do their views on the DMCA... "all boil down to 'ME WANT IT FREE!'"? Nerds happen to spend a lot of time reading, tinkering, etc. and so maybe they understand why these laws are bad for society, economy, privacy, and even the average American. If nerds wanted it free, then you would see nerd anarchists all over the place. Your views are very opinionated with very little fact behind them. I'm sorry to break it to you, but whether one is a nerd, athlete, artist, or average joe they are still human. From a young age I didn't have strong opinions against any particular group of people, although I disliked some of the things certain groups did. I tried to understand why people did the things they did and not judge it as simply bad or good. When you view the world with almost completely no opinion behind it, you begin to really understand things clearly. Nerds are no better than any other type of person, but they aren't egomaniacs either. Same goes for others, they are no better than nerds.
This is a very good paper. Very well written and in depth. , but even so this paper has shown me a perspective that has opened my eyes even more. He seems to have touched upon an even larger problem at the same time. The entire issue with popularity, education, bullying, hierarchy, etc. is something that will forever shape America. If this paper doesn't do a good job of showing how big the problem is, then what will?
Would these Tube stations happen to be what was used in the most recent James Bond: Die Another Day? Where Bond got his new stealthy car.
From the article
"The company's stock soared on the news, rising $54.75, or 57 percent, to close at $11.69 on Nasdaq."
How do you raise your stock price $54.75 and only end up closing at $11.69? You can be in the negatives nowadays? Or was there some sort of stock split they didn't mention?
I agree. There would be more incentive to create better quality content at the same time. If your content is popular enough, you may get away with more ads within the content than if your content is less popular. So the next time you see a Jackie Chan movie, he might be wearing some (name a shoe maker) shoes, driving a (name a car), and maybe even have him going to see another movie thats coming out next month. Advertising within the movie would create a whole new method of advertising that would be less obvious, but most likely just as powerful. That is why you see artists and athletes that advertise a product. Athletes also get sponsers which help pay for their particular sport and advertise themselves at the same time. As the internet grows larger and faster, it is only logical to use this sort of strategy to distribute content. Maybe some company will start making content that is based around their product, or should I say maybe some more will. Check out bmwfilms.com for an example. I still have yet to see the clips though.
Wow, what a trade off. They have complete and total control over media/content binded legally for 14 years. Which won't make much of a difference since by then they'll buy themselves extended copyrights or find some other legal method to prevent the content from going into public domain. At the same time, when these copy restriction devices come out onto the market it will slowly drive free software to extinction. Btw, how would this help the artists? I can see it helping the indistry and the corporations, but the artists?
"Anyone can build something according to a design."
Are you sure about that? I'm not very sure I could look at a processor design and build it. For that matter, I can't play a song by looking at the notes or build a skyscraper looking at the blueprints or any number of other things I neither learned how to do and/or have no equipment and tools for.
This is to all the posts that support copyright. I understand the way you see things, I used to think the same when I was a little kid. When I entered high school the subject really caught my interest and I began to read into it. I thought about it every single day and still do to this day, but fortunately now I take a break every once in a while. I ask you all, please, do some reading on the opposing side. Also, for just one moment, seriously consider the option of no IP laws.
Btw. almost everyone defending IP mentioned the fact that without compensation, intellectuals would produce no works of art or new ideas. I first must ask, are you an artist? writer? music composer?
Art and technology advances are fueled by interest, passion, wants, needs, and pleasure. Yes, money can be linked directly to this and even without IP laws money can be made (do some reading to find out how). I could go on forever stating all your defenses for IP with counter arguments against them, but this isn't the place.
Has anyone else thought about the fact that maybe we would be better off without copyright? Seriously, one moment please, don't mod me down so fast. Sure, we've lived with copyright laws for a while now, but what would it be like without them? Have you ever REALLY thought about it? I've done a lot of thinking and a lot of reading (I do mean a lot). I know most people don't even question it, they just question one thing, the work put into it. Yet ask yourselves this, do the construction workers, road builders, etc. get payed royalties everytime you drive down the road or use your house? How come we treat information like this?
Actually there is a link to the video. It's in the picture; the red text.
Not for gNutella. Since it is an open network and any client can work on this network (such as the open source ones). The only place a EULA would work is on proprietary networks and/or networks where an account must be created through the service provider.
Ok, so some industries vanish. New ones form, and we continue. It happens all the time with technology. New technology replaces the need for certain businesses and/or industries. Simple fact of life. Intellectual property hinders progress. Please don't tell my a bunch of crap about courses you've took. It is just more reason for you to believe that IP is good. Please read some of the counter arguments. I've done my part in reading and understanding the "old" ways. Do a search for Brian Martin and intellectual property, first link in google. Also, do some more research. These are not just opinions I express. Please for the sake of humanity, don't ever argue a point without understanding the other side. I do understand that many industries could vanish, but they can be saved with some careful planning and rethinking the system. I also understand that the complete elimination of intellectual property within a very short period of time could cause many problems. Yet if it were done slowly, for example, by preventing new patents from being issued and then later slowly eliminating existing ones, then these problems wouldn't be an issue. Many people see the direct consequences of this idea, but don't realize the benefits and long term effects.
Hard drives on eBay get a sudden boost. Hard drives sold for ridiculous prices on eBay. Coincidentally, credit card fraud increases as well.
Your kids will be telling you, "I just got Palm Tattoo version 2.8". What a pain to upgrade this would be. Hopefully they have cheap easy laser removal.