Safety - Actually, we would create overland routes - Forests essentially over which travel is permitted - things may fall, but generally not on houses, farmers markets etc...
Monitoring the air for intruders is trivial compared to monitoring the ground.
I think your arguments suggest we are closer to flight than it appears.
Air Vehicles would REQUIRE real time location tracking - one databse - all info. Ita actually more of a threat to privacy advocates than regulatory agencies.
No such thing as Fender Bender. The Air is a medium in which computers can EASILY provide effecive guidance. Most airplanes made today use electronic steering, pilot optional.
100 million flying pods would not be a challenge.
I have written a scaleable ATC alg which could easily handle those numbers.
AIK
Re:Flying Car: Completely Impractical
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 2
The Problem with Cars is the operate so very close to each other - with unreal accuracy requirements.
2 feet in any direction could cost your life.
In the Air, GPS precision is enough to seperate traffic, and for landing, ground based positioning systems can provide landing.
The Traffic control problem is not complicated (simple Ant Colony Optimization can do it)
The Issue is reliabiity.
I would suggest a 4 upthrust system.
The 4 thrusters designed such that any two can support the craft's weight at least suffecient to create a survivable descent. And the third (Assuming one fails) is capable of providing axis control.
Assuming the thrusters are articulated, any 4 thruster vehicle can be repositioned in the air for flight on three thrusters - it requires that the balance of weight is higher than the thruster plane. In this case the plane can lean over and thereby shift the weight away from the failed corner and evenly onto the other three corners, forming a weightbalanced tripod.
Running for President is likely a Long Term financial plus for political parties.
That money can then be focussed on wins in specific areas.
So I would discount the underlying assumption that is "Costs" moeny for a party to run for high office. The media really "Contributes" a lot of "free value" into the race, and Parties which throw their hat into the ring are likely to put back a televangelists treasure.
Large Cities make it easy for people to live inexpensively - which translated means poor people will be attracted to cities - Crime is simple a manifestation of poverty - one could even call it a pseudonym, Cities are effecient, and poverty requires effeciency.
I'm not going to throw out the First Amendment just because someone got hoodwinked.
The Whitehouse had the chance to deny the Documents - they didn't.
That is PROOF by many standards.
The Bigger truth that Bush checked out on his military duty is lost in the minutia. Bush hasn't come clean on his military record - and is documented as covering up records. That's Bush - not some irrelevent newsman - Buhs - the one in the Whitehouse - lying about his records - so relax.
Given that Political Campaigns have been reduced to which side can out-litter the other with non-biodegradeable liver-poisening plastic signs on public property, roadsides, intersections, lamppoles etc - how does a responsible environmentalist participate in an (illegal)littering campaign?
If the price of admission is trashing the environment - so how does the good side compete?
(Arrested in NC for cleaning up illegal signs - including political signs.)
Just remember, Bush is responsible for the single biggest TAX INCREASE in history - the fact that it is a tax inccrease on our kids only makes it less human.
Bastard Babyboomers should pay for their own damn taxes - not put them over on their Grandkids - assh*les
As a dedicated driver - you would benefit from autoairtaxis - because it would reduce the congestion on the roads, reduce pollution, and make you safer in your highrise office.
America is largly suburban - dots of residential outside the working urban area, so the essential traffic problem is the 15 mile spoke. Airtaxis could create an Uberbuss from house to work and back again, with minimal pollution, stops starts, etc... One would need transit from the central airport to final destination - but the truth is that ground busses - if needed would be plentiful - the problem is they are not needed.
I'm not against your need to go anywhere anytime, but if most of the time you needed to go into the city to work - there would be more room for your rare trip to random destinations, unless your the salemen type - then think Open Road.
Trains can be safe if you construct full barrior fencing, put them underground, on overpasses, etc.
Yeah I know better - I love trains - but.
In the US, the answer may not be trains.
Look at the math. A Person is worth some dollar amount per day and needs to get halfway across the country (Average trip) its 3 days by train, its 3 hours by air. The difference in cost doesn't justify the time cost.
Trains are not the final solution.
Yeah - I know 3,000 died on 911.
What I propose are smaller planes which could not destroy towers, and autopilits which cannot be coerced to fly into buildings.
I suggest in the US, given our size, and the length of the average trip (which is almost always the mean distance between all cities) That air travel is an important component.
And that moving more traffic into the air can reduce pollution, congestion, reliance of foriegn oil, traffic jams etc... AIK
Pilots are expensive - look at United - they are going down because of their pilot salary, retirement etc. Elevator men went the way of the dodo. I understand on a big flight - it's trivial, but seasonal travel means you need backup etc... And what's proposed here are SMALL PLANES for one way - relatively short hops - like Bus routes.
Consider: I created an Automated ATC which is really a cooperative Autopilot (no central equipmenet)
It is inherently scaleable and capable of coordinating infinite planes with infinite waypoints and cost $175 in hardware.
It should alway retain an emergency landing location.
Autoland is the challenge here.
And I suggest we would be safer with planes which could not be steered into towers, than in planes that are subject to human intervention.
30 was hyperbole, but the point is smallish planes are less threatening.
I created an Autopilot program based on the Ant Colony Optimization.
It has very few lines of code - requires $170 dollars worth of hardware and can coordinate an infinite number of nodes. The ACO produces effecient routes through airports and deals nicely with congestion. The ATC problem is trivial.
I love trains - been across europe on them, plan to move to europe when i can work there because i love trains and hate cars - so don't get me wrong here.
America is a bigger stretch of land, and the cost of Trains requires a nearly socialist state.
America is not good at socialism, but it is good at tech, an autopilot airtaxi system would be practical, safe, and I think a benefit for the environment - I know there's no reneable or clean fuel for airplanes, but they are more effecient:
1. line of sight travel + 30% 2. no starts/ stops + 1,000 % 3. No highway maintenance vehicles + 5% 4. No highway asphault smokestack + 30%
I think airplanes may be an order of magnitude more effecient.
Tracks are more expensive than roads, easy to sabatage, if they run close enough that people can walk - they are dangerous, harder to stop if a kid, duck, or dog ends up in the street.\
The bullshit that people who end up run over by a train deserved it is ignorance - trains are dangerous for kids, schoolbusses get trashed quite often, many crossing has no warning, many warnings are old / don't work. The fact is there's no brakes.
Trains are dangerous in the station, and they require so many starts and stops - they lose the effeciency of non-stop travel.
Hard to justify trains for the American suburban existence.
Trains require even more expensive roads - tracks.
Trains are very dangerous to pedestrians.
It's very expensive to build tracks out to where they are needed - unless the builders have been good enough to build clusters in nice straight lanes.
Trains are safer per mile than cars - but not as safe per mile as commercial planes.
Training America to take the train has been a failure.
AIK
Autopilot - not for cars - for planes
on
Vehicles of Tomorrow?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Seriously
Autopilot for Airplanes is relatively easy.
And if airplanes didn't require pilots, they would be more economical than cars, which need to stop and start to avoid hitting each other, which need very expensive roads, which tend to hit pedestrians at a frightful pace, and tend to run into each other - largely because roads are sort of an everlasting game of chicken.
Per mile travelled, airplanes are much safer.
Autopilot would prevent them running into skyscrapers, and actually reduce the threat - who wants to hijack a commuter plane with 30 gallons of fuel and 12 people?
So we convert to electric golfcarts to drive us to and from the community airdrome.
And save gas by sharing a better ride on a point to point nonstop mass transit.
Humanity means IDENTIFYING as one human among many.
Soldier identify themselves by their uniforms etc as being seperate from the "other."
The US Military is therefore de-humanizing by definition.
The Founding Fathers - use rhetoric which is inherently "humanizing"
"All Men are created equal" this is _more_ humanizing than the previous context - which is that Men are born to a class.
We have progressed from this point to include as "Men" - people of color, and women.
The question for the military is are they more inclusive than the context of their time - or less inclusive.
In some respects they pass the test - they are making proress integrating women, and certainly they have intergrated minorities.
The problem remains that they are self-indetifying - their cause is not the betterment of humanity, but the "kick butt success" of "Us" and the destruction of "them."
As long as they assert a negative - they will have the advantage in the lack of evidence.
(As someone said - you can't prove a negative)
As for cambodia - he was on the border, and the border - your technicolor globe notwithstanding - are not marked with a swatch of florescent paint.
5 miles either way in a circumferance of 28,000 is much closer than the margin of error in most elections. Making an issue of which side of the Cambodia front JK was on seems pointless.
A Veteran of the war on Iraq - stationed in kuwait might honestly say "I served in Iraq". That is the general name for the theatre at large. And if the war is held on the border, then the border is where one fights Iraq, Cambodia, or any other.
It may seem relevent to us, with our map and pins to say - ah ha - your pin is on this side of the line - but that's crap. When you're at war, the region is in conflict, and you are in the region. The name of the enemy is Cambodia, and you are within the scope of their missles, bullets, etc - you are there, border or no border - remember maps are the approximations carteographers use to describe the outcome of war - during a war, maps are mere memories.
Recently I got very angry with the conservative spammers in my family email list for sending along the drivel such as "John K voted against every military program . . . ala Zell *spitball* Miller's bit."
My Beef is that commitees make decisions by voting up or down on a series of compromised bill starting with the compromise closest to the heart of the bill's author and ending as close to the middle as it takes to reach a majority.
And inevitable the bill's title sounds like "Bill to buy baby formula, flak jackets, schoolbooks, and lower the price of gasoline."
But the actual text says stuff like "Send or keep a billion dollars of useless production in my home district, my friends home district - screw the minority members in their districts, and give me a raise - plus, but enough of the stuff on top that foxnews will let it pass quietly.
In other words - it seems that the goal of congress is to complicate the actual vote, while the media is trying to explaint all that to the soccer moms who vote based on the 2 seconds of news they get while surfing between two lifetime movie channels.
AIK
PS - if you're a soccer mom who does keep up on the news - I apologize - my experience with soccer moms is limited by the bigamy laws of the state - your mileage will vary.
Journalists in the US aren't murdered, they have it too easy, and as a result, they're soft - soft on the truth - and letting the government tell them what they can and cannot know.
In other countries people are dying for it - but getting to the truth.
Corporate "homeland Security State" is the threat. Corporate interests can and do manipulate news. They have before (long example re:pesticide v monsanto).
So buck up - get the real story - the one that would get you killed if you were in Sri Lanka and skip the gossip.
I think many years ago the patent office bought two cabinent and someone wrote "utility" on one and "methods" on the other. In any case, they think in those terms. The use of dated phrases like "Apparatus consisting of" is largely an effort by patent authors to avoid reinenting the wheel - to speak in the lanuage of the forum, and to make thir own novel ideas the focus of the paper.
After reading your prior art - you'r likely to get a feel for the candence of claims common in that field and generally - I choose the candence with the fewest words.
"3. The method (or apparatus) of claim 2 wherein, ya da ya" gets repeated ad nausium.
When you say Apparatus comprising a widget, a skniffle, and a flaggerelum - examiners will be on familiar ground.
But in the end perhaps the reason old conventions are honored is that petitioners are either trying to hide the fact that they're newbies by plaguerizing ancient phrases, or they are trully ancient. I'm in the first camp.
ut back to your point - I think you can claim a method on someone else's aparatus - espectially because an apparatus must be claimed as a "means" to some end.
If you can use a new method to convert an electric motor into a generator - for example by urning the shaft - viola - a novel method patent!
As I understand - and I'm in court this session on a complicated reverse first amendment ssue. (What the State cannot publish)
The State can regulate the place and manner of speach provided the forum is not traditionaly a public forum (Taxpayers for Vincent v LA) But they cannot regulate content in such a way that minority views are censored. Regulating for content is deated - for example, the do-not-call law contains content specific elements and is likely IMO to be struck - its really only a short term populist bill slated for destruction.
I think you will find that the FCC has ruled that private spheres canot - for example limit satelitte dishes because access to competative press is a Constitutional right.
Having estalished the right of residnts to access satelite (and cable) it would seem tough to deny the right to connect to it via an FCC approved dvice.
In essence the U is asking for an exception from the FCC regs which REQUIRE the device to accept interference.
I have my doubts that a few private access points will interupt the continuity of the U system. In My home, I can see 3 access points - but that desn't seem to create an issue.
I supect they want to enforce content based regulations. Specifically they want to restrict file sharing, obscenity, piracy, conspiracy, viruses, outgoing spam, and a log of every student packet - I suppose.
Some of which I understand - but I suggest they will have an uphill battle because the right of a resdent to use a radio-device over the objections of the property owner have been establised in a case probably called DirectTV v Prudish HOA.
Look for FCC and Satelite Service - certainlyy DirectTV will have a faq.
But I would tend to view sending and receiving data - most of which is a kind of speech as a right of spech. Specifically - if I intend to set up an FCC approved link as a means to recieve email - the the state cannot infringe same without due process.
Slashdot Mirror
Autopilot has been here for many years.
...
New Lift - Doubt it.
Safety - Actually, we would create overland routes - Forests essentially over which travel is permitted - things may fall, but generally not on houses, farmers markets etc
Monitoring the air for intruders is trivial compared to monitoring the ground.
I think your arguments suggest we are closer to flight than it appears.
AIK
No - its a Bureaucrat's dream.
Air Vehicles would REQUIRE real time location tracking - one databse - all info. Ita actually more of a threat to privacy advocates than regulatory agencies.
No such thing as Fender Bender.
The Air is a medium in which computers can EASILY provide effecive guidance. Most airplanes made today use electronic steering, pilot optional.
100 million flying pods would not be a challenge.
I have written a scaleable ATC alg which could easily handle those numbers.
AIK
The Problem with Cars is the operate so very close to each other - with unreal accuracy requirements.
2 feet in any direction could cost your life.
In the Air, GPS precision is enough to seperate traffic, and for landing, ground based positioning systems can provide landing.
The Traffic control problem is not complicated (simple Ant Colony Optimization can do it)
The Issue is reliabiity.
I would suggest a 4 upthrust system.
The 4 thrusters designed such that any two can support the craft's weight at least suffecient to create a survivable descent. And the third (Assuming one fails) is capable of providing axis control.
Assuming the thrusters are articulated, any 4 thruster vehicle can be repositioned in the air for flight on three thrusters - it requires that the balance of weight is higher than the thruster plane. In this case the plane can lean over and thereby shift the weight away from the failed corner and evenly onto the other three corners, forming a weightbalanced tripod.
AIK
Exposure is a way to raise money.
Running for President is likely a Long Term financial plus for political parties.
That money can then be focussed on wins in specific areas.
So I would discount the underlying assumption that is "Costs" moeny for a party to run for high office. The media really "Contributes" a lot of "free value" into the race, and Parties which throw their hat into the ring are likely to put back a televangelists treasure.
AIK
Large Cities make it easy for people to live inexpensively - which translated means poor people will be attracted to cities - Crime is simple a manifestation of poverty - one could even call it a pseudonym, Cities are effecient, and poverty requires effeciency.
AIK
I'm not going to throw out the First Amendment just because someone got hoodwinked.
The Whitehouse had the chance to deny the Documents - they didn't.
That is PROOF by many standards.
The Bigger truth that Bush checked out on his military duty is lost in the minutia. Bush hasn't come clean on his military record - and is documented as covering up records. That's Bush - not some irrelevent newsman - Buhs - the one in the Whitehouse - lying about his records - so relax.
AIK
AIK
Given that Political Campaigns have been reduced to which side can out-litter the other with non-biodegradeable liver-poisening plastic signs on public property, roadsides, intersections, lamppoles etc - how does a responsible environmentalist participate in an (illegal)littering campaign?
If the price of admission is trashing the environment - so how does the good side compete?
(Arrested in NC for cleaning up illegal signs - including political signs.)
AIK
Just remember, Bush is responsible for the single biggest TAX INCREASE in history - the fact that it is a tax inccrease on our kids only makes it less human.
Bastard Babyboomers should pay for their own damn taxes - not put them over on their Grandkids - assh*les
AIK
My experience in San Francisco was the opposite.
it was fast comfortable - quiet - except for the occassional cellphone deaf monologuist.
I had an hour or so to enjoy coffee, a book, and the peace of mind from safe relaxation rather than frustrating risk.
As a dedicated driver - you would benefit from autoairtaxis - because it would reduce the congestion on the roads, reduce pollution, and make you safer in your highrise office.
America is largly suburban - dots of residential outside the working urban area, so the essential traffic problem is the 15 mile spoke. Airtaxis could create an Uberbuss from house to work and back again, with minimal pollution, stops starts, etc... One would need transit from the central airport to final destination - but the truth is that ground busses - if needed would be plentiful - the problem is they are not needed.
I'm not against your need to go anywhere anytime, but if most of the time you needed to go into the city to work - there would be more room for your rare trip to random destinations, unless your the salemen type - then think Open Road.
AIK
Trains can be safe if you construct full barrior fencing, put them underground, on overpasses, etc.
...
Yeah I know better - I love trains - but.
In the US, the answer may not be trains.
Look at the math. A Person is worth some dollar amount per day and needs to get halfway across the country (Average trip) its 3 days by train, its 3 hours by air. The difference in cost doesn't justify the time cost.
Trains are not the final solution.
Yeah - I know 3,000 died on 911.
What I propose are smaller planes which could not destroy towers, and autopilits which cannot be coerced to fly into buildings.
I suggest in the US, given our size, and the length of the average trip (which is almost always the mean distance between all cities) That air travel is an important component.
And that moving more traffic into the air can reduce pollution, congestion, reliance of foriegn oil, traffic jams etc
AIK
Your opinion is quite respected.
Pilots are expensive - look at United - they are going down because of their pilot salary, retirement etc. Elevator men went the way of the dodo. I understand on a big flight - it's trivial, but seasonal travel means you need backup etc... And what's proposed here are SMALL PLANES for one way - relatively short hops - like Bus routes.
Consider:
I created an Automated ATC which is really a cooperative Autopilot (no central equipmenet)
It is inherently scaleable and capable of coordinating infinite planes with infinite waypoints and cost $175 in hardware.
It should alway retain an emergency landing location.
Autoland is the challenge here.
And I suggest we would be safer with planes which could not be steered into towers, than in planes that are subject to human intervention.
30 was hyperbole, but the point is smallish planes are less threatening.
AIK
Not so.
I created an Autopilot program based on the Ant Colony Optimization.
It has very few lines of code - requires $170 dollars worth of hardware and can coordinate an infinite number of nodes. The ACO produces effecient routes through airports and deals nicely with congestion. The ATC problem is trivial.
Landing is the bitch.
AIK
I love trains - been across europe on them,
plan to move to europe when i can work there because i love trains and hate cars - so don't get me wrong here.
America is a bigger stretch of land, and the cost of Trains requires a nearly socialist state.
America is not good at socialism, but it is good at tech, an autopilot airtaxi system would be practical, safe, and I think a benefit for the environment - I know there's no reneable or clean fuel for airplanes, but they are more effecient:
1. line of sight travel + 30%
2. no starts/ stops + 1,000 %
3. No highway maintenance vehicles + 5%
4. No highway asphault smokestack + 30%
I think airplanes may be an order of magnitude more effecient.
That is good for the envir.
AIK
AIK
Tracks are more expensive than roads, easy to sabatage, if they run close enough that people can walk - they are dangerous, harder to stop if a kid, duck, or dog ends up in the street.\
The bullshit that people who end up run over by a train deserved it is ignorance - trains are dangerous for kids, schoolbusses get trashed quite often, many crossing has no warning, many warnings are old / don't work. The fact is there's no brakes.
Trains are dangerous in the station, and they require so many starts and stops - they lose the effeciency of non-stop travel.
Hard to justify trains for the American suburban existence.
AIK
The Cause of Accidents is distracted Drivers - overwhelmingly - like 95% (VDOT Study)
Auto pilot is the solution to fatal travel - by any medium.
AIK
I'd love to agree with you however;
Trains require even more expensive roads - tracks.
Trains are very dangerous to pedestrians.
It's very expensive to build tracks out to where they are needed - unless the builders have been good enough to build clusters in nice straight lanes.
Trains are safer per mile than cars - but not as safe per mile as commercial planes.
Training America to take the train has been a failure.
AIK
Seriously
Autopilot for Airplanes is relatively easy.
And if airplanes didn't require pilots, they would be more economical than cars, which need to stop and start to avoid hitting each other, which need very expensive roads, which tend to hit pedestrians at a frightful pace, and tend to run into each other - largely because roads are sort of an everlasting game of chicken.
Per mile travelled, airplanes are much safer.
Autopilot would prevent them running into skyscrapers, and actually reduce the threat - who wants to hijack a commuter plane with 30 gallons of fuel and 12 people?
So we convert to electric golfcarts to drive us to and from the community airdrome.
And save gas by sharing a better ride on a point to point nonstop mass transit.
AIK
Humanity means IDENTIFYING as one human among many.
Soldier identify themselves by their uniforms etc as being seperate from the "other."
The US Military is therefore de-humanizing by definition.
The Founding Fathers - use rhetoric which is inherently "humanizing"
"All Men are created equal" this is _more_ humanizing than the previous context - which is that Men are born to a class.
We have progressed from this point to include as "Men" - people of color, and women.
The question for the military is are they more inclusive than the context of their time - or less inclusive.
In some respects they pass the test - they are making proress integrating women, and certainly they have intergrated minorities.
The problem remains that they are self-indetifying - their cause is not the betterment of humanity, but the "kick butt success" of "Us" and the destruction of "them."
That is why they get into trouble in the prisons.
AIK
The SBVFT seems to be asserting a negative:
There were no war crimes.
JK didn't earn his medals:
There were no attacks on that day.
As long as they assert a negative - they will have the advantage in the lack of evidence.
(As someone said - you can't prove a negative)
As for cambodia - he was on the border, and the border - your technicolor globe notwithstanding - are not marked with a swatch of florescent paint.
5 miles either way in a circumferance of 28,000 is much closer than the margin of error in most elections. Making an issue of which side of the Cambodia front JK was on seems pointless.
A Veteran of the war on Iraq - stationed in kuwait might honestly say "I served in Iraq". That is the general name for the theatre at large. And if the war is held on the border, then the border is where one fights Iraq, Cambodia, or any other.
It may seem relevent to us, with our map and pins to say - ah ha - your pin is on this side of the line - but that's crap. When you're at war, the region is in conflict, and you are in the region. The name of the enemy is Cambodia, and you are within the scope of their missles, bullets, etc - you are there, border or no border - remember maps are the approximations carteographers use to describe the outcome of war - during a war, maps are mere memories.
AIK
Recently I got very angry with the conservative spammers in my family email list for sending along the drivel such as "John K voted against every military program . . . ala Zell *spitball* Miller's bit."
My Beef is that commitees make decisions by voting up or down on a series of compromised bill starting with the compromise closest to the heart of the bill's author and ending as close to the middle as it takes to reach a majority.
And inevitable the bill's title sounds like
"Bill to buy baby formula, flak jackets, schoolbooks, and lower the price of gasoline."
But the actual text says stuff like "Send or keep a billion dollars of useless production in my home district, my friends home district - screw the minority members in their districts, and give me a raise - plus, but enough of the stuff on top that foxnews will let it pass quietly.
In other words - it seems that the goal of congress is to complicate the actual vote, while the media is trying to explaint all that to the soccer moms who vote based on the 2 seconds of news they get while surfing between two lifetime movie channels.
AIK
PS - if you're a soccer mom who does keep up on the news - I apologize - my experience with soccer moms is limited by the bigamy laws of the state - your mileage will vary.
For those with seconds to digest the point.
Journalists in the US aren't murdered, they have it too easy, and as a result, they're soft - soft on the truth - and letting the government tell them what they can and cannot know.
In other countries people are dying for it - but getting to the truth.
Corporate "homeland Security State" is the threat. Corporate interests can and do manipulate news. They have before (long example re:pesticide v monsanto).
So buck up - get the real story - the one that would get you killed if you were in Sri Lanka and skip the gossip.
- I think that about does it.
AIK
I think many years ago the patent office bought two cabinent and someone wrote "utility" on one and "methods" on the other. In any case, they think in those terms. The use of dated phrases like "Apparatus consisting of" is largely an effort by patent authors to avoid reinenting the wheel - to speak in the lanuage of the forum, and to make thir own novel ideas the focus of the paper.
After reading your prior art - you'r likely to get a feel for the candence of claims common in that field and generally - I choose the candence with the fewest words.
"3. The method (or apparatus) of claim 2 wherein, ya da ya" gets repeated ad nausium.
When you say Apparatus comprising a widget, a skniffle, and a flaggerelum - examiners will be on familiar ground.
But in the end perhaps the reason old conventions are honored is that petitioners are either trying to hide the fact that they're newbies by plaguerizing ancient phrases, or they are trully ancient. I'm in the first camp.
ut back to your point - I think you can claim a method on someone else's aparatus - espectially because an apparatus must be claimed as a "means" to some end.
If you can use a new method to convert an electric motor into a generator - for example by urning the shaft - viola - a novel method patent!
AIK
OK - skimmed your paper.
As I understand - and I'm in court this session on a complicated reverse first amendment ssue.
(What the State cannot publish)
The State can regulate the place and manner of speach provided the forum is not traditionaly a public forum (Taxpayers for Vincent v LA) But they cannot regulate content in such a way that minority views are censored. Regulating for content is deated - for example, the do-not-call law contains content specific elements and is likely IMO to be struck - its really only a short term populist bill slated for destruction.
I think you will find that the FCC has ruled that private spheres canot - for example limit satelitte dishes because access to competative press is a Constitutional right.
Having estalished the right of residnts to access satelite (and cable) it would seem tough to deny the right to connect to it via an FCC approved dvice.
In essence the U is asking for an exception from the FCC regs which REQUIRE the device to accept interference.
I have my doubts that a few private access points will interupt the continuity of the U system. In My home, I can see 3 access points - but that desn't seem to create an issue.
I supect they want to enforce content based regulations. Specifically they want to restrict file sharing, obscenity, piracy, conspiracy, viruses, outgoing spam, and a log of every student packet - I suppose.
Some of which I understand - but I suggest they will have an uphill battle because the right of a resdent to use a radio-device over the objections of the property owner have been establised in a case probably called DirectTV v Prudish HOA.
Look for FCC and Satelite Service - certainlyy DirectTV will have a faq.
AIK
But I would tend to view sending and receiving data - most of which is a kind of speech as a right of spech. Specifically - if I intend to set up an FCC approved link as a means to recieve email - the the state cannot infringe same without due process.