It is not the USPTO's job to invalidate patents, generally; it is the courts.
Shouldn't it be though? All these companies want to get this patent crap going in Europe and they still haven't "fixed" ours. The Patent Office MUST do a better job in not making it the job of the courts to fix their bad patents. It costs a lot of money for companies to secure what they innovated. Patents are becoming more of a hinderance to innovation and the consumer than a way for innovators to get a period of profit.
This is all courtroom leverage and market FUD. Meanwhile, MS will act like their one patent (out of Apple's many on their iPod) will allow them to license a dozen iPod clones and Apple will have to sue over years to stop them--meanwhile their market share might be effected by competing with their own design. This is old school M$ tactics. I've seen it plenty.
The good news is that Microsoft is cheating to compete on yesterdays technology. Apple will have a new design out by Christmas and Gates will be chasing Job's tail on this one.
You can't patent an "idea". Copyrights can be used for specific interface "looks" and Patents for unique functions. There is a lot of similarity with a lot of things. You could also look at the "Docks" used by Next many years before Active Desktop.
Most of the "Unique" things you've seen in Windows are from the NEXT computer. Which got paid good money to own Apple.;-)
The iPod was already being sold when Microsoft received this patent. I expect them to have difficulty getting money from this since there was prior art.
Of course, this is about patent ownership... so what happens in court may have little to do with who really innovated.
I wasn't coming down on you... you were making a good point and it was a jumping off point for my comment. Predicting the future is not as important as planning for it. My point is that the predictions did not account for human factors. Sci-Fi writers tend to explore technologies effect on society and not enough about societies effect on technology. I am saying that our society has done a pitiful job at improving Americans. I believe I am right.
Also, the 1980's say the biggest decrease in inflation and greatest increase in GDP. Reagonomics didn't kick in until 1982, but already, the "trickle down" and tax cutting by Reagon had to be backtracked in 1981 to curtail big problems with the deficit. Because the Business 101 people "think" they understand economics -- nobody seems to remember the "Employment Tax" -- the biggest "back door tax" increase in history. If you are ever self-employed you will notice that this just about doubles your taxes.
I don't think Jimmy Carter was doing everything perfect, but he put us on the correct course. LONG TERM he was absolutely right, short term was just a little difficult. The recession was caused by Saudi Arabia stretching their muscles and raising prices with the OPEC cartel. J.C.'s move to alternative engergy scared the Saudis into cheaper prices (note, or prices are a lot cheaper than Europe, this has a lot to do with Dollar denomination of oil, U.S. military might, and our propping up of the Saudi government).
I'm not trying to get into gov talk -- but it is really impossible to make my point about a progressive society versus a regressive society and how that impacts real progress.
If we had "stayed the course" with the Carter doctrine, we would have trains throughout the country that actually went somewhere you needed to go. Highways would be smaller. SUVs might not exist because gas prices would be higher. The balance of trade would be much improved and perhaps Siberia would not now be thawing.
But the benefits would be that we would probably not have the terrorism threats we currently enjoy because we would not have made the devil's deal with the Saudis (who own about 20% of our country). We would not have sent death squads into Latin America.
I'm not upset as much about a pet dream not being realised. I'm upset that our country cannot be called the "good guys", and that we don't lead in innovation, we have guys in suits that own lawyers that make sure they profit from innovations of others, while the middle class is being separated from any control of its future.
There is a big difference between the Carter approach of self sufficiency versus the Bush approach of future debt to prop up an economy and an imperialistic military. Curbing spending and investing in infrastructure and education do not show improvements immediately just as debt and corruption do not show their damage immediately.
If people don't "get" how this effects real technological advances--well I wasn't talking to those people anyway. Right now, some "get" what I'm saying and the rest believe in a Liberal media--Unicorns.
We'll business subsidies to business who "donate money" to politicians and hire them later as consultants is also not illegal. The system is so corrupt that things that are not benefitting the citizen are made illegal.
That does not mean they are not corrupt. A lot of my money goes to prisons and roads. A lot of my money goes to pork. The fact that I decreasingly have any control over this does not escape me.
Science fiction fans and writers undervalued the power of bureaucracy, greed and short-sightedness that would overtake the country since Carter.
When president Carter was president, we had "Conjunction Junction", we had a push to adopt a metric system, we had recycling and bills to push car MPG ratings. We even forced companies to list the ingredients in the food. In short, there was a push to improve Americans as good citizens.
Then the politicians so seductive "you are already great and its everyone else's fault". Corporations embraced Leveraged Buyouts and steel companies got run into the ground while they leased their own equipment to strip capitol from pension funds.
Look, if you wanted to make money in the '80s, you became a lawyer, an MBA of a Finance major. I knew Engineers who washed cars. We changed our priorities as a culture from doing great things to making a buck. How can you reach the stars with such a culturally vacuous goal? We have become apathetic and decadent and ignorant, in general. And we don't reward true innovators--just those holding the patents. Those of us who decried the cultural wasteland were put down as ignorant by anyone with a business 101 degree (I got a CIS degree myself, to add credibility to my lowly BS in Art). We didn't know what we were talking about.
So now, it is the fault of the dreamers? Those with great ideas who inspired others? What the f***? Arthur C. Clarke wasn't elected-- he doesn't have any responsibility other than to sell books. This parent post is talking about what Sci-Fi writers didn't predict (don't agree), but how does a cheaper computer stand in the way of going to the stars? Wow, I have a 3D paperclip in my word processing program and the computer costs under $500. OK. Where is the real progress. We have massive networked computers systems, and other than blogs like Slashdot-- what has that produced of truly great significance? Direct marketing?
I'm making broad strokes with black and white but I'm trying to hit home that we aren't any closer to space because not enough people cared to support the effort.
Now, I really don't care too much about better rockers. I really care about fixing the damage we've done to the earth and about energy-- Two things that Jimmy Carter had as priorities. Whatever we end up doing, it will require Social Engineering, which conjures a lot of fear in people. But really, all collective actions result in Social Engineering. The past 3 decades of Laissez Faire culture has left us with a populace of greedy sheep.
I want Universal Healthcare, real alternative energy research, real conservation, mass transit, and free internet for all. And of course, the business 101 people who took a course in economics will tell me how unrealistic and anti-business such things are. But ask yourself, the last time you saw a fire truck pass by-- how come a system that works so well and cheap doesn't charge extra to show up on time? Because the culture that lives at the fire-station is driven by people who want to be heroes and are allowed to be. And it is not being an absolutist to want government to do useful things. If you took the money we waste on not regulating banks and stock fraud, plus subsidies to huge corporate farming conglomerates, mega billions to mercenaries and others "helping" with the business of war, huge grants to oil companies and a whole slew of government pork to a thousand other businesses-- you dwarf by a factor of ten any social program I've mentioned. We've spent more on the Iraq invasion in inflation adjusted dollars than was ever spent on the Apollo program. And we will never get the control of the oil out of that botched mission that some would have thought might pay for it.
The problem with great American accomplishments seems to me to stem from us not being so great anymore.
When next we revisit the idea of a space program, maybe it wouldn't have to compete for dollars with welfare. Maybe. But don't blame the dreamers because we sold out on the dream.
1) It takes a long time. Meaning, the chance that in that time a better approach may be find is very likely.
2) Mars nees a magnetic field. Gases defrosted are going to be lost to solar winds and radiation. Not immediately, but eventually. The freezing of the planet was all that saved some small bit of the original light elements.
3) Sounds expensive. What about a "super algae"?
4) I'd rather have a base on the moon and develop interstellar vehicles there.
We really need to look at global warming on earth first. I was reading an article about Southern Siberia melting. The methane bubbling up from the ground and the loss of reflective snow are causing it to warm faster. The expectation is that this will release as much methane as all other sources combined. This is called a "tipping point". Current theories of global warming look at all things remaining the same and adding X amount of greenhouse gas and calculating warming. Events like melting permafrost change ground absorption and liberating more greenhouse gas are not part of the prediction. Also, the Antartic ice fields breaking off are causing glaciers to slide into the ocean and raise ocean water levels... without melting. Past assumptions only looked at ice melting. So, what other "Tipping Point" events have we not guessed at? When are we at the point where we can't reverse Global Warming?
This really needs to be Job 1 of the government, Job 2 should be realizing that we have hit Peak Oil and that the rate of oil coming out of the ground is going to slow while demand increases.
Perhaps solar reflectors in outer space shading the planet and sending energy down via coherent light might help? But really, we need to focus on the important things. Mars can wait. If we wanted to use it to test out ideas to save our planet (rather than release a super algae on earth that has irreversable consequences) than I'm in.
Blogs to me are kind of like "your life on a bumper sticker". A shout in the dark, in case people are listening.
But, in a philosophical sense, in the grand scheme, I think they are like the subconscious of a world mind. If you cross-referenced a lot of these blogs, you could get an idea of how a certain group is thinking. Not so much in what each person is saying, but in what they are looking at, and how they are saying it. Perhaps people distort their thinking when they right it down... but that is no different than how all of our communication is distorted by whom and how we are comminicating what we think. They are doing some predictive research using just this concept on http://www.halfpasthuman.com/ It is pretty interesting and has been strangely better than a few wacko psychics in predicting earthquakes and a power outage in China. Fascinating stuff.
If everyone had a blog, you might have a better barometer of the world consciousness than anything yet realized. I know that sound grandiose when talking about some high school girl blogging about the cute buy she saw on the way to school... but, if you were going to see the beginnings of a world mind, how would it start? If the sampling were more often, say from a wireless PDA and updating a block every 30 minutes and more people had blogs, then add a social situation where people become more forthcoming about what they think... you would start getting a lot of useless chatter that would become more useful in aggregate.
I've tried to make this point before... but you make a good discussion of the details. I would also like to add that it is even worse than just the money; from what I've read a standard contract might be for 3, 5 or 10 albums. Until you've completed that, you can't make an album for anyone else, or use music that they don't want. An artist can't make an old song free or get songs published that the label doesn't want.
I've made the point that the RIAA is getting the government to protect their profits. They are the equivalent of forcing everyone with a car to buy a buggy whip for more than the price of the car. They don't help the consumer, the artist, or the quality of product. Labels only unique product is hype. When they talk about "music pirates" hurting artists, they mean Record Labels and maybe Madonna or someone with a good contract. Most artists would like to get people to their concerts and could care less about what is "stolen" on the web.
this is an abuse of the legal system,.. however, there really is no legal way FedEx can go after this guy. He is taking advantage of FedEx freely distributing boxes in order to promote its service. In a business, you can really appreciate not having to pay up front for a package and the convenience this represents.
So, while this is a dirty trick, I think in this case it is warranted to fight fire with fire. Other than charging for packages up front, FedEx has no other recourse. And who would benefit from that?
If RFIDs become ubiquitous, they in a sense, become you.
These idiots see no problem in an unencrypted number? OK, lets call you 123, and your neighbor 456. We don't know who that is, but over time, we don't care about the name. 123 goes into Kroger, and Kroger gets to use the RFID because they say to the government that they will keep an eye out for bad guys and wink wink, we donated to the congressman's campaign. And every company will do the same. Then when 123 buys pampers and milk, they know he has a new baby. Maybe the share this information with another database -- in fact, it bypasses any privacy laws because they don't have to worry about YOU, no, they are sharing an anonymous number.
This number will be so useful and so handy that many will stop asking you for personal ID, because they'll have your handy RFID number. "Good afternoon 123, welcome to Delta."
Of course, the people planning to do wrong will steal an RFID or hack the system. So this won't be useful for anything but population control and marketing. Which will become the same thing.
The textbook is already overpriced due to the political system of textbook publishing. I read once about the actual system to produce something like a math or history book--it is too convoluted too remember in detail. It entails looking at every other publishers book and then morphing that with just a little bit of your own work -- so that it is unique, but in a way that is bland and acceptable. Large bulk purchasers like California and Texas seem to set the tone for how every other publisher tailors their work. The Academic bureaucracy that purchases books is also a convoluted and political animal that doesn't necessarily make good decisions, but does help to make the process even more resemble a dog chasing its own tail. Anyway, there have been 3 billion classes on physics and calculus yet we still get new books every other year -- like they were any better than the books from twenty years ago.
So now, with the ebook, you aren't killing trees and for one penny, rather than perhaps $5, the publisher gets a lot of savings (no stock, no printing costs, no overprints). Of course, to save any money on these already overpriced books, the student will most often get the ebook (most people want to forget the class soon after). Once the real book is eliminated, what will the supposed 33% discount be based on? They will be able to charge more for the ebook, because they don't have to compete with used books still in circulation.
I'm all for ebooks -- but not allowing people to own something is absolutely wrong.
Eventually, due to competitive pressure and science, people will get perfect memories -- only a matter of time. A PDA or other accessory computer can almost be considered part of your memory -- but what will be the legal distinction when something like this is "a part of you"? Can copyright law basically demand money every-time you have a memory? Perhaps Disney will blur out the perfect recollection from that copyrighted visit you took to Disney World.
The eBook is fine if it is forever for one person and is transferrable like a real book. Otherwise, copyright will become the new slavery. Because information will become part of our experience.
The other reason this sucks is that it removes a free market. The current situation with college textbooks is a study in collusion and extortion. Why? Because, you can't buy any math book -- you must buy a specific math book chosen by your college or professor. Rarely is this a book that has been around for more than 4 years-- you are lucky to find a used one for a measly 20% off. If you don't buy it, you risk failing in a class that you spent a lot of money on and that could ruin your grades and your wallet. With the millions of $ spent on textbooks -- it would be truly awesome if such big bucks stakes didn't result in pressure and incentives for Universities to choose one vendor over another. If I were a state, paying $1200 to subsidize a $400 semester class for a student -- wouldn't I want a generic and copyfree book on Calculus. I mean, how many Billions could be saved in education if the colleges themselves made royalty free textbooks? Why is this never brought up? What better use of resources than to have PhD graduates adding to the State History book with peer review? I suppose there is too much money involved in regurgitating the same stuff in slightly different form and re-selling it to wave after wave of students who are trying to get a good job.
Here is another dirty secret. Testing companies like Kaplan are also involved in politics. They donate to a certain somebody's campaign and "bam" now we have mandatory testing throughout the country. They also teach how to pass their own tests in SAT Prep courses. Nobody else can sell you the test. Testing students is itself a $ Billion industry. While it is nice to know if somebody is learning, I am really skeptical that a generation of test-takers is really a useful thing for real world problem solving. When I create a presentation or a web site -- you know, there just isn't any multiple
There could actually be a mobile weapons lab and it was driven into Syria.
North Korea could also, at this very minute, have a nude bomb.
Yet again, you are ignoring the importance of Iraq being a credible and real threat to the US. There are more dangerous countries out there.
You totally ignore all the Proven facts and Proven lies and then put all the responsibility to prove that there is no conceivable way that Iraq could have done anything under any scenario you can pull out of a hat. Sorry, but its our government that has no credibility on this and has done the wrong thing.
All I've heard from pro Iraq Invasion crowd is juvenile arguments; 1) Saddam is a bad man, or he is worse than Bush. 2) Saddam gassed his own people -- while forgetting that we let him an gave him the equipment. I.e., Saddam is bad. 3) Iraq disobeyed a UN resolution--by this logic Israel is a prime target too. 4) They could have had WMDs and you haven't proven that they didn't that will satisfy every theory I can come up with. Whatever. 5) Re-use some totally dismissed earlier "fact" like mobile weapons labs (those "Labs" separated oxygen and hydrogen to create artillery balloons) for the thousandth time.
Look, all the evidence that we actually have is that the Bush gang wanted outposts in the middle east and that they actually capitulated to Bin Laden by moving out of Saudi Arabia. Then we have numerous documents show that the Bush gang has been planning and looking for an excuse for some time to grab an oil rich nation. Then we have the Downing Street memos which show them putting pressure on England to come up with some excuse because we were going to invade no matter what Saddam did. End of story.
The US told the inspection teams that we were attacking and that it was best if they left. Saddam did not kick them out (he wasn't that stupid). It's easy to get confused because there was a lot of garbage flying on the news at that time.
So what do I make of that? You get information from either O'Reilly, Fox, or Rush Limbaugh. You are not to blame.
Watch it, your going against slashthink, by pointing out that the Iraqi's violated the terms of the cease-fire means...
With all the UN resolutions we ignore and ridicule we get all indignant about the ONE we care about? If we didn't have Veto power in the UN, Israel and the United States would have more than their fair share of UN resolutions against us. I would also point out, that for the most part, people are not disagreeing that Saddam pushed the limits constantly and that he was a bad man.
There has been a lot of news coverage of the Oil for Food Program. We are more interested in one scandal at the UN that involved Millions while we ignore numerous scandals in the US war that involve Billions. So, once the UN has purged itself of all sin, then we will believe them when they say that there are no WMDs.
But even if they found a serin gas facility I would have been happy seeing it bombed rather than a full scale invasion -- especially while we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan to help that country get back on its feet.
However, somehow it totally escapes you that the point that everyone is making to criticize the war is that it wasn't necessary and it was based on false information. I was for the war at first because I didn't believe our government would lie about a think like imminent nuclear attack (serin gas is a poor WMD in comparison). Then we find they had no way to deliver any WMD -- no drones and no rockets. Then the occupation was totally botched by the administration. I'll agree that the resolution to give the president the power to go to war was very effective in getting a weasel like Saddam to comply. But we also found out by the actual inspector in charge that they did have full access and didn't find anything -- which was kind of overlooked. If you look at the Downing Street Memos and even the website for a New American Century, you will see a desire to invade Iraq that was looking for an excuse. The actual facts are that this administration wanted to occupy Iraq since it got in office. Everything else is an excuse.
This isn't about anti-war, it's about anti-incompetence.
It was Bush that changed the assassination policy from the policy that Carter had pushed. The accidental targeting of Kaddafi's swimming pool was a bit too convenient --but it did send a message. Clinton did a bit of targeted bombing with the cruise missiles which could be looked at as assassination of leaders. He might have chosen this path however, because he had very little political support despite his successes.
Personally, I think it's a lot more civilized to target leaders. People shouldn't have to always be the target when countries disagree. If all the senators who could vote for a war had to send a kid in harms way, there would be a bit more thought to this process.
Unfortunately, the security measures would totally restrict access of the public and would force everyone to be prescreened for any audience with our leaders. Ideally, we would have a world court that could actually bring bad leaders to justice.
You can tell the character of a man by those who hate him.
So great men make great enemies? Like Cheney voting no on Nelson Mandela getting released from prison? Does that make Nelson Mandela have a better or worse character? Or does that slogan make no logical sense?
I hate lying crooks who jeopardize national security.
The problem with YAEWS (Yet Another Expensive Weapons System) is that we haven't had much luck with those in the past. The less expensive concept of Network Warfare that Gore pushed in the 90's is what made the difference in our current skirmishes. Though things like Stealth Bombers get a lot of PR--they haven't done much beyond blow up a few power plants. That and the fact that most of the weapons in Iraq and been effectively reduced by embargo. We don't need a secret project with untested technology and no oversight. We need real progress in America in technology and things that effect the average citizen. If we are going to throw more money at weapons, then think about the un-sexy things like transports and troop carriers that allow for rapid deployment and safer troops.
The real fear in the government is in small suitcase nukes. We need better Neutrino detection technology. Bin Laden isn't going to be blowing up satellite any time soon. Neither, for that matter is North Korea. So I don't see anything practical in satellite weapons beyond more research.
I'm a definite fan of a Nuclear rocket engine. In real terms, it is a lot safer and controllable than rocket fuels.
You can also use very small nuclear explosions -- I think that would create more thrust than using nuclear heat. You can harden and separate materials such that launch failure does not result in explosions or the release of nuclear materials. The most dangerous bit would actually become the oxygen carried for human passengers.
Very valid point. The speed would need to be faster than escape velocity -- and this also means you have tremendous instantaneous acceleration. Humans and delicate equipment could not survive a rail-gun (or electro mag) launch. Actually not much of anything could survive the acceleration and heat that such a "GUN" would require, especially from Earth gravity and atmosphere.
This is why I think that we need a moon base. There, the 1/10th gravity and lack of any environment to pollute will be a great asset. Your heavy/sturdy components could be built on the moon and then lifted into earth orbit via rail-gun and then assembled in orbit. People and delicate components would be lifted from earth.
It is easier to achieve efficiencies and advances in Big Projects than in a lot of little consumer annoyances. If nobody gets anything else in their heads other than that, we will have accomplished something.
The ultimate problem with a useful and working energy policy in this country, is that government solutions for anything GOOD, are thought of as socialist. Hence, slacking on standards for water quality and expecting everyone to buy a water purifier. Or slacking on factory emissions and expecting every car in the country to spend time, money and energy to tune each and every car.
All the presumptions we make on what will and won't work are based upon what we are currently doing. So, doing the same thing looks better than any alternative, because there has been no big investments in alternative R&D or the infrastructure to make it practical. Most often, the costs are looked at for how expensive is it to put energy panels on my roof -- if the government subsidized the cost and allowed you to pay it back over 25 years on your electricity bill we would get a flood of people buying solar panels and over time, amazingly, solar panels would actually get cheaper and more practical. The only problem with this discussion is that so much of the discussion is on what a consumer should buy or invest in, so that we automatically make the solution expensive and inefficient. How many more throw away products do I need to keep track of in my home?
Most here are making good points about how electric cars aren't really a panacea or that Hydrogen is difficult. But the fundamental issue is that the real solutions cannot be achieved without regulations and government spending. But somehow that is going to be too much for some people to accept because it would mean that Social Darwinism cannot achieve real efficiency and a better society. We have to accept that we are all connected and that what one person does has an effect on those around them. Everyone cannot buy their own pavement and they shouldn't be expected to solve the energy crisis on a house by house basis.
Like the previous poster mentions, true efficiency is better achieved at large scale. High technology and investment and training are best done at one place. But we won't come to that conclusion because all the propaganda will push it towards individuals. People will get tax breaks for hybrid cars before there is a push to put in enough trains that people can start using them. But really, where can you get more efficiency with less expense than in mass transit? Why was this never brought up in the Energy Bill? Why is a $14 Billion giveaway to those who already make $65 Billion a quarter acceptable? What would Exxon and BP do differently if the Bush Energy Bill weren't giving them this money -- would they stop selling gas?
This problem will not be addressed until it becomes a crisis.
I like the fact that we are more aware of the "life cycle" cost of fuel. When you look at electric cars, you must consider that the battery is less efficient at storing energy than gasoline --and that the energy was made with coal. So an electric car actually results in more pollution -- but that pollution is displaced to wherever the electricity is generated.
But, that does not say that we can't improve coal power plants to produce less pollution, or that batteries and transmission lines can't become more efficient. That is where our government money should be going -- better process efficiency.
I think the argument about the life-cycle cost of solar panels and wind generators is a little exaggerated-- it also ignores economies of scale and innovations and efficiencies of scale if we actually invested in this technology. All the arguments against alternative energy seem to stem from comparing these struggling startup attempts to oil/gas/coal which have more than a trillion $ in investment. If the government actually spent that $14 Billion in the energy bill on alternative energy, we might actually be able to come up with "greener" green technologies that would be practical.
The best thing we could do right now in this country is to massively expand our use of trains and light rail. Each house in this country could reduce energy consumption by at least 50% if the knowledge, tools and resources were more available. This would actually take a government with leadership however, so I don't expect it any time soon.
Also, I would point out that pollution could be better managed by government--but it isn't. Most pollution that we see tends to be cause by an unusual concentration of things. Perhaps some of the solution to our problems is to decentralize production and disposal.
The main thing holding us back is the delusional concept that private industry will regulate itself, and that such expensive and cooperative systems will auto-magically appear without real government.
I made this point before about the X-33. There is a way now to channel the rocket exhaust without needing all the moving parts in the engine. The exhaust moves over a wedge and atmospheric pressure creates the ideal thrust vector.
There are a lot of new "tricks" we've learned that should make a much better shuttle than we have now. But I think everyone here would agree, it is past time that we replaced the current shuttle with something better.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not the USPTO's job to invalidate patents, generally; it is the courts.
Shouldn't it be though? All these companies want to get this patent crap going in Europe and they still haven't "fixed" ours. The Patent Office MUST do a better job in not making it the job of the courts to fix their bad patents. It costs a lot of money for companies to secure what they innovated. Patents are becoming more of a hinderance to innovation and the consumer than a way for innovators to get a period of profit.
This really needs to be fixed.
Mod SgtChaireBourne up.
This is all courtroom leverage and market FUD. Meanwhile, MS will act like their one patent (out of Apple's many on their iPod) will allow them to license a dozen iPod clones and Apple will have to sue over years to stop them--meanwhile their market share might be effected by competing with their own design. This is old school M$ tactics. I've seen it plenty.
The good news is that Microsoft is cheating to compete on yesterdays technology. Apple will have a new design out by Christmas and Gates will be chasing Job's tail on this one.
You can't patent an "idea". Copyrights can be used for specific interface "looks" and Patents for unique functions. There is a lot of similarity with a lot of things. You could also look at the "Docks" used by Next many years before Active Desktop.
;-)
Most of the "Unique" things you've seen in Windows are from the NEXT computer. Which got paid good money to own Apple.
The iPod was already being sold when Microsoft received this patent. I expect them to have difficulty getting money from this since there was prior art.
Of course, this is about patent ownership... so what happens in court may have little to do with who really innovated.
I wasn't coming down on you... you were making a good point and it was a jumping off point for my comment. Predicting the future is not as important as planning for it. My point is that the predictions did not account for human factors. Sci-Fi writers tend to explore technologies effect on society and not enough about societies effect on technology. I am saying that our society has done a pitiful job at improving Americans. I believe I am right.
Also, the 1980's say the biggest decrease in inflation and greatest increase in GDP. Reagonomics didn't kick in until 1982, but already, the "trickle down" and tax cutting by Reagon had to be backtracked in 1981 to curtail big problems with the deficit. Because the Business 101 people "think" they understand economics -- nobody seems to remember the "Employment Tax" -- the biggest "back door tax" increase in history. If you are ever self-employed you will notice that this just about doubles your taxes.
I don't think Jimmy Carter was doing everything perfect, but he put us on the correct course. LONG TERM he was absolutely right, short term was just a little difficult. The recession was caused by Saudi Arabia stretching their muscles and raising prices with the OPEC cartel. J.C.'s move to alternative engergy scared the Saudis into cheaper prices (note, or prices are a lot cheaper than Europe, this has a lot to do with Dollar denomination of oil, U.S. military might, and our propping up of the Saudi government).
I'm not trying to get into gov talk -- but it is really impossible to make my point about a progressive society versus a regressive society and how that impacts real progress.
If we had "stayed the course" with the Carter doctrine, we would have trains throughout the country that actually went somewhere you needed to go. Highways would be smaller. SUVs might not exist because gas prices would be higher. The balance of trade would be much improved and perhaps Siberia would not now be thawing.
But the benefits would be that we would probably not have the terrorism threats we currently enjoy because we would not have made the devil's deal with the Saudis (who own about 20% of our country). We would not have sent death squads into Latin America.
I'm not upset as much about a pet dream not being realised. I'm upset that our country cannot be called the "good guys", and that we don't lead in innovation, we have guys in suits that own lawyers that make sure they profit from innovations of others, while the middle class is being separated from any control of its future.
There is a big difference between the Carter approach of self sufficiency versus the Bush approach of future debt to prop up an economy and an imperialistic military. Curbing spending and investing in infrastructure and education do not show improvements immediately just as debt and corruption do not show their damage immediately.
If people don't "get" how this effects real technological advances--well I wasn't talking to those people anyway. Right now, some "get" what I'm saying and the rest believe in a Liberal media--Unicorns.
We'll business subsidies to business who "donate money" to politicians and hire them later as consultants is also not illegal. The system is so corrupt that things that are not benefitting the citizen are made illegal.
That does not mean they are not corrupt. A lot of my money goes to prisons and roads. A lot of my money goes to pork. The fact that I decreasingly have any control over this does not escape me.
Science fiction fans and writers undervalued the power of bureaucracy, greed and short-sightedness that would overtake the country since Carter.
When president Carter was president, we had "Conjunction Junction", we had a push to adopt a metric system, we had recycling and bills to push car MPG ratings. We even forced companies to list the ingredients in the food. In short, there was a push to improve Americans as good citizens.
Then the politicians so seductive "you are already great and its everyone else's fault". Corporations embraced Leveraged Buyouts and steel companies got run into the ground while they leased their own equipment to strip capitol from pension funds.
Look, if you wanted to make money in the '80s, you became a lawyer, an MBA of a Finance major. I knew Engineers who washed cars. We changed our priorities as a culture from doing great things to making a buck. How can you reach the stars with such a culturally vacuous goal? We have become apathetic and decadent and ignorant, in general. And we don't reward true innovators--just those holding the patents. Those of us who decried the cultural wasteland were put down as ignorant by anyone with a business 101 degree (I got a CIS degree myself, to add credibility to my lowly BS in Art). We didn't know what we were talking about.
So now, it is the fault of the dreamers? Those with great ideas who inspired others? What the f***? Arthur C. Clarke wasn't elected-- he doesn't have any responsibility other than to sell books. This parent post is talking about what Sci-Fi writers didn't predict (don't agree), but how does a cheaper computer stand in the way of going to the stars? Wow, I have a 3D paperclip in my word processing program and the computer costs under $500. OK. Where is the real progress. We have massive networked computers systems, and other than blogs like Slashdot-- what has that produced of truly great significance? Direct marketing?
I'm making broad strokes with black and white but I'm trying to hit home that we aren't any closer to space because not enough people cared to support the effort.
Now, I really don't care too much about better rockers. I really care about fixing the damage we've done to the earth and about energy-- Two things that Jimmy Carter had as priorities. Whatever we end up doing, it will require Social Engineering, which conjures a lot of fear in people. But really, all collective actions result in Social Engineering. The past 3 decades of Laissez Faire culture has left us with a populace of greedy sheep.
I want Universal Healthcare, real alternative energy research, real conservation, mass transit, and free internet for all. And of course, the business 101 people who took a course in economics will tell me how unrealistic and anti-business such things are. But ask yourself, the last time you saw a fire truck pass by-- how come a system that works so well and cheap doesn't charge extra to show up on time? Because the culture that lives at the fire-station is driven by people who want to be heroes and are allowed to be. And it is not being an absolutist to want government to do useful things. If you took the money we waste on not regulating banks and stock fraud, plus subsidies to huge corporate farming conglomerates, mega billions to mercenaries and others "helping" with the business of war, huge grants to oil companies and a whole slew of government pork to a thousand other businesses-- you dwarf by a factor of ten any social program I've mentioned. We've spent more on the Iraq invasion in inflation adjusted dollars than was ever spent on the Apollo program. And we will never get the control of the oil out of that botched mission that some would have thought might pay for it.
The problem with great American accomplishments seems to me to stem from us not being so great anymore.
When next we revisit the idea of a space program, maybe it wouldn't have to compete for dollars with welfare. Maybe. But don't blame the dreamers because we sold out on the dream.
I think this is a bad idea.
1) It takes a long time. Meaning, the chance that in that time a better approach may be find is very likely.
2) Mars nees a magnetic field. Gases defrosted are going to be lost to solar winds and radiation. Not immediately, but eventually. The freezing of the planet was all that saved some small bit of the original light elements.
3) Sounds expensive. What about a "super algae"?
4) I'd rather have a base on the moon and develop interstellar vehicles there.
We really need to look at global warming on earth first. I was reading an article about Southern Siberia melting. The methane bubbling up from the ground and the loss of reflective snow are causing it to warm faster. The expectation is that this will release as much methane as all other sources combined. This is called a "tipping point". Current theories of global warming look at all things remaining the same and adding X amount of greenhouse gas and calculating warming. Events like melting permafrost change ground absorption and liberating more greenhouse gas are not part of the prediction. Also, the Antartic ice fields breaking off are causing glaciers to slide into the ocean and raise ocean water levels... without melting. Past assumptions only looked at ice melting. So, what other "Tipping Point" events have we not guessed at? When are we at the point where we can't reverse Global Warming?
This really needs to be Job 1 of the government, Job 2 should be realizing that we have hit Peak Oil and that the rate of oil coming out of the ground is going to slow while demand increases.
Perhaps solar reflectors in outer space shading the planet and sending energy down via coherent light might help? But really, we need to focus on the important things. Mars can wait. If we wanted to use it to test out ideas to save our planet (rather than release a super algae on earth that has irreversable consequences) than I'm in.
Blogs to me are kind of like "your life on a bumper sticker". A shout in the dark, in case people are listening.
... but that is no different than how all of our communication is distorted by whom and how we are comminicating what we think. They are doing some predictive research using just this concept on http://www.halfpasthuman.com/ It is pretty interesting and has been strangely better than a few wacko psychics in predicting earthquakes and a power outage in China. Fascinating stuff.
... but, if you were going to see the beginnings of a world mind, how would it start? If the sampling were more often, say from a wireless PDA and updating a block every 30 minutes and more people had blogs, then add a social situation where people become more forthcoming about what they think... you would start getting a lot of useless chatter that would become more useful in aggregate.
But, in a philosophical sense, in the grand scheme, I think they are like the subconscious of a world mind. If you cross-referenced a lot of these blogs, you could get an idea of how a certain group is thinking. Not so much in what each person is saying, but in what they are looking at, and how they are saying it. Perhaps people distort their thinking when they right it down
If everyone had a blog, you might have a better barometer of the world consciousness than anything yet realized. I know that sound grandiose when talking about some high school girl blogging about the cute buy she saw on the way to school
That's why I only use real gold in me buy'in n' sellin'. Test each piece with my one good tooth. Arrr...
I've tried to make this point before ... but you make a good discussion of the details. I would also like to add that it is even worse than just the money; from what I've read a standard contract might be for 3, 5 or 10 albums. Until you've completed that, you can't make an album for anyone else, or use music that they don't want. An artist can't make an old song free or get songs published that the label doesn't want.
I've made the point that the RIAA is getting the government to protect their profits. They are the equivalent of forcing everyone with a car to buy a buggy whip for more than the price of the car. They don't help the consumer, the artist, or the quality of product. Labels only unique product is hype. When they talk about "music pirates" hurting artists, they mean Record Labels and maybe Madonna or someone with a good contract. Most artists would like to get people to their concerts and could care less about what is "stolen" on the web.
Great points.
this is an abuse of the legal system,.. however, there really is no legal way FedEx can go after this guy. He is taking advantage of FedEx freely distributing boxes in order to promote its service. In a business, you can really appreciate not having to pay up front for a package and the convenience this represents.
So, while this is a dirty trick, I think in this case it is warranted to fight fire with fire. Other than charging for packages up front, FedEx has no other recourse. And who would benefit from that?
If RFIDs become ubiquitous, they in a sense, become you.
These idiots see no problem in an unencrypted number? OK, lets call you 123, and your neighbor 456. We don't know who that is, but over time, we don't care about the name. 123 goes into Kroger, and Kroger gets to use the RFID because they say to the government that they will keep an eye out for bad guys and wink wink, we donated to the congressman's campaign. And every company will do the same. Then when 123 buys pampers and milk, they know he has a new baby. Maybe the share this information with another database -- in fact, it bypasses any privacy laws because they don't have to worry about YOU, no, they are sharing an anonymous number.
This number will be so useful and so handy that many will stop asking you for personal ID, because they'll have your handy RFID number. "Good afternoon 123, welcome to Delta."
Of course, the people planning to do wrong will steal an RFID or hack the system. So this won't be useful for anything but population control and marketing. Which will become the same thing.
I welcome our new RFID overlords.
The textbook is already overpriced due to the political system of textbook publishing. I read once about the actual system to produce something like a math or history book--it is too convoluted too remember in detail. It entails looking at every other publishers book and then morphing that with just a little bit of your own work -- so that it is unique, but in a way that is bland and acceptable. Large bulk purchasers like California and Texas seem to set the tone for how every other publisher tailors their work. The Academic bureaucracy that purchases books is also a convoluted and political animal that doesn't necessarily make good decisions, but does help to make the process even more resemble a dog chasing its own tail. Anyway, there have been 3 billion classes on physics and calculus yet we still get new books every other year -- like they were any better than the books from twenty years ago.
So now, with the ebook, you aren't killing trees and for one penny, rather than perhaps $5, the publisher gets a lot of savings (no stock, no printing costs, no overprints). Of course, to save any money on these already overpriced books, the student will most often get the ebook (most people want to forget the class soon after). Once the real book is eliminated, what will the supposed 33% discount be based on? They will be able to charge more for the ebook, because they don't have to compete with used books still in circulation.
I'm all for ebooks -- but not allowing people to own something is absolutely wrong.
Eventually, due to competitive pressure and science, people will get perfect memories -- only a matter of time. A PDA or other accessory computer can almost be considered part of your memory -- but what will be the legal distinction when something like this is "a part of you"? Can copyright law basically demand money every-time you have a memory? Perhaps Disney will blur out the perfect recollection from that copyrighted visit you took to Disney World.
The eBook is fine if it is forever for one person and is transferrable like a real book. Otherwise, copyright will become the new slavery. Because information will become part of our experience.
The other reason this sucks is that it removes a free market. The current situation with college textbooks is a study in collusion and extortion. Why? Because, you can't buy any math book -- you must buy a specific math book chosen by your college or professor. Rarely is this a book that has been around for more than 4 years-- you are lucky to find a used one for a measly 20% off. If you don't buy it, you risk failing in a class that you spent a lot of money on and that could ruin your grades and your wallet. With the millions of $ spent on textbooks -- it would be truly awesome if such big bucks stakes didn't result in pressure and incentives for Universities to choose one vendor over another. If I were a state, paying $1200 to subsidize a $400 semester class for a student -- wouldn't I want a generic and copyfree book on Calculus. I mean, how many Billions could be saved in education if the colleges themselves made royalty free textbooks? Why is this never brought up? What better use of resources than to have PhD graduates adding to the State History book with peer review? I suppose there is too much money involved in regurgitating the same stuff in slightly different form and re-selling it to wave after wave of students who are trying to get a good job.
Here is another dirty secret. Testing companies like Kaplan are also involved in politics. They donate to a certain somebody's campaign and "bam" now we have mandatory testing throughout the country. They also teach how to pass their own tests in SAT Prep courses. Nobody else can sell you the test. Testing students is itself a $ Billion industry. While it is nice to know if somebody is learning, I am really skeptical that a generation of test-takers is really a useful thing for real world problem solving. When I create a presentation or a web site -- you know, there just isn't any multiple
I wouldn't argue with you about the fuel pumps. I was just pointing out that the nozzles themselves have been improved.
My thought is that we should look more at nuclear rockets. They are a lot safer and useful than many would think.
There could actually be a mobile weapons lab and it was driven into Syria.
North Korea could also, at this very minute, have a nude bomb.
Yet again, you are ignoring the importance of Iraq being a credible and real threat to the US. There are more dangerous countries out there.
You totally ignore all the Proven facts and Proven lies and then put all the responsibility to prove that there is no conceivable way that Iraq could have done anything under any scenario you can pull out of a hat. Sorry, but its our government that has no credibility on this and has done the wrong thing.
All I've heard from pro Iraq Invasion crowd is juvenile arguments;
1) Saddam is a bad man, or he is worse than Bush.
2) Saddam gassed his own people -- while forgetting that we let him an gave him the equipment. I.e., Saddam is bad.
3) Iraq disobeyed a UN resolution--by this logic Israel is a prime target too.
4) They could have had WMDs and you haven't proven that they didn't that will satisfy every theory I can come up with. Whatever.
5) Re-use some totally dismissed earlier "fact" like mobile weapons labs (those "Labs" separated oxygen and hydrogen to create artillery balloons) for the thousandth time.
Look, all the evidence that we actually have is that the Bush gang wanted outposts in the middle east and that they actually capitulated to Bin Laden by moving out of Saudi Arabia. Then we have numerous documents show that the Bush gang has been planning and looking for an excuse for some time to grab an oil rich nation. Then we have the Downing Street memos which show them putting pressure on England to come up with some excuse because we were going to invade no matter what Saddam did. End of story.
The US told the inspection teams that we were attacking and that it was best if they left. Saddam did not kick them out (he wasn't that stupid). It's easy to get confused because there was a lot of garbage flying on the news at that time.
So what do I make of that? You get information from either O'Reilly, Fox, or Rush Limbaugh. You are not to blame.
Wow.
Watch it, your going against slashthink, by pointing out that the Iraqi's violated the terms of the cease-fire means...
With all the UN resolutions we ignore and ridicule we get all indignant about the ONE we care about? If we didn't have Veto power in the UN, Israel and the United States would have more than their fair share of UN resolutions against us. I would also point out, that for the most part, people are not disagreeing that Saddam pushed the limits constantly and that he was a bad man.
There has been a lot of news coverage of the Oil for Food Program. We are more interested in one scandal at the UN that involved Millions while we ignore numerous scandals in the US war that involve Billions. So, once the UN has purged itself of all sin, then we will believe them when they say that there are no WMDs.
But even if they found a serin gas facility I would have been happy seeing it bombed rather than a full scale invasion -- especially while we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan to help that country get back on its feet.
However, somehow it totally escapes you that the point that everyone is making to criticize the war is that it wasn't necessary and it was based on false information. I was for the war at first because I didn't believe our government would lie about a think like imminent nuclear attack (serin gas is a poor WMD in comparison). Then we find they had no way to deliver any WMD -- no drones and no rockets. Then the occupation was totally botched by the administration. I'll agree that the resolution to give the president the power to go to war was very effective in getting a weasel like Saddam to comply. But we also found out by the actual inspector in charge that they did have full access and didn't find anything -- which was kind of overlooked. If you look at the Downing Street Memos and even the website for a New American Century, you will see a desire to invade Iraq that was looking for an excuse. The actual facts are that this administration wanted to occupy Iraq since it got in office. Everything else is an excuse.
This isn't about anti-war, it's about anti-incompetence.
It was Bush that changed the assassination policy from the policy that Carter had pushed. The accidental targeting of Kaddafi's swimming pool was a bit too convenient --but it did send a message. Clinton did a bit of targeted bombing with the cruise missiles which could be looked at as assassination of leaders. He might have chosen this path however, because he had very little political support despite his successes.
Personally, I think it's a lot more civilized to target leaders. People shouldn't have to always be the target when countries disagree. If all the senators who could vote for a war had to send a kid in harms way, there would be a bit more thought to this process.
Unfortunately, the security measures would totally restrict access of the public and would force everyone to be prescreened for any audience with our leaders. Ideally, we would have a world court that could actually bring bad leaders to justice.
You can tell the character of a man by those who hate him.
So great men make great enemies? Like Cheney voting no on Nelson Mandela getting released from prison? Does that make Nelson Mandela have a better or worse character? Or does that slogan make no logical sense?
I hate lying crooks who jeopardize national security.
The problem with YAEWS (Yet Another Expensive Weapons System) is that we haven't had much luck with those in the past. The less expensive concept of Network Warfare that Gore pushed in the 90's is what made the difference in our current skirmishes. Though things like Stealth Bombers get a lot of PR--they haven't done much beyond blow up a few power plants. That and the fact that most of the weapons in Iraq and been effectively reduced by embargo. We don't need a secret project with untested technology and no oversight. We need real progress in America in technology and things that effect the average citizen. If we are going to throw more money at weapons, then think about the un-sexy things like transports and troop carriers that allow for rapid deployment and safer troops.
The real fear in the government is in small suitcase nukes. We need better Neutrino detection technology. Bin Laden isn't going to be blowing up satellite any time soon. Neither, for that matter is North Korea. So I don't see anything practical in satellite weapons beyond more research.
I'm a definite fan of a Nuclear rocket engine. In real terms, it is a lot safer and controllable than rocket fuels.
You can also use very small nuclear explosions -- I think that would create more thrust than using nuclear heat. You can harden and separate materials such that launch failure does not result in explosions or the release of nuclear materials. The most dangerous bit would actually become the oxygen carried for human passengers.
Very valid point. The speed would need to be faster than escape velocity -- and this also means you have tremendous instantaneous acceleration. Humans and delicate equipment could not survive a rail-gun (or electro mag) launch. Actually not much of anything could survive the acceleration and heat that such a "GUN" would require, especially from Earth gravity and atmosphere.
This is why I think that we need a moon base. There, the 1/10th gravity and lack of any environment to pollute will be a great asset. Your heavy/sturdy components could be built on the moon and then lifted into earth orbit via rail-gun and then assembled in orbit. People and delicate components would be lifted from earth.
Damn, I wanted to make this point first...
It is easier to achieve efficiencies and advances in Big Projects than in a lot of little consumer annoyances. If nobody gets anything else in their heads other than that, we will have accomplished something.
The ultimate problem with a useful and working energy policy in this country, is that government solutions for anything GOOD, are thought of as socialist. Hence, slacking on standards for water quality and expecting everyone to buy a water purifier. Or slacking on factory emissions and expecting every car in the country to spend time, money and energy to tune each and every car.
All the presumptions we make on what will and won't work are based upon what we are currently doing. So, doing the same thing looks better than any alternative, because there has been no big investments in alternative R&D or the infrastructure to make it practical. Most often, the costs are looked at for how expensive is it to put energy panels on my roof -- if the government subsidized the cost and allowed you to pay it back over 25 years on your electricity bill we would get a flood of people buying solar panels and over time, amazingly, solar panels would actually get cheaper and more practical. The only problem with this discussion is that so much of the discussion is on what a consumer should buy or invest in, so that we automatically make the solution expensive and inefficient. How many more throw away products do I need to keep track of in my home?
Most here are making good points about how electric cars aren't really a panacea or that Hydrogen is difficult. But the fundamental issue is that the real solutions cannot be achieved without regulations and government spending. But somehow that is going to be too much for some people to accept because it would mean that Social Darwinism cannot achieve real efficiency and a better society. We have to accept that we are all connected and that what one person does has an effect on those around them. Everyone cannot buy their own pavement and they shouldn't be expected to solve the energy crisis on a house by house basis.
Like the previous poster mentions, true efficiency is better achieved at large scale. High technology and investment and training are best done at one place. But we won't come to that conclusion because all the propaganda will push it towards individuals. People will get tax breaks for hybrid cars before there is a push to put in enough trains that people can start using them. But really, where can you get more efficiency with less expense than in mass transit? Why was this never brought up in the Energy Bill? Why is a $14 Billion giveaway to those who already make $65 Billion a quarter acceptable? What would Exxon and BP do differently if the Bush Energy Bill weren't giving them this money -- would they stop selling gas?
This problem will not be addressed until it becomes a crisis.
I like the fact that we are more aware of the "life cycle" cost of fuel. When you look at electric cars, you must consider that the battery is less efficient at storing energy than gasoline --and that the energy was made with coal. So an electric car actually results in more pollution -- but that pollution is displaced to wherever the electricity is generated.
But, that does not say that we can't improve coal power plants to produce less pollution, or that batteries and transmission lines can't become more efficient. That is where our government money should be going -- better process efficiency.
I think the argument about the life-cycle cost of solar panels and wind generators is a little exaggerated-- it also ignores economies of scale and innovations and efficiencies of scale if we actually invested in this technology. All the arguments against alternative energy seem to stem from comparing these struggling startup attempts to oil/gas/coal which have more than a trillion $ in investment. If the government actually spent that $14 Billion in the energy bill on alternative energy, we might actually be able to come up with "greener" green technologies that would be practical.
The best thing we could do right now in this country is to massively expand our use of trains and light rail. Each house in this country could reduce energy consumption by at least 50% if the knowledge, tools and resources were more available. This would actually take a government with leadership however, so I don't expect it any time soon.
Also, I would point out that pollution could be better managed by government--but it isn't. Most pollution that we see tends to be cause by an unusual concentration of things. Perhaps some of the solution to our problems is to decentralize production and disposal.
The main thing holding us back is the delusional concept that private industry will regulate itself, and that such expensive and cooperative systems will auto-magically appear without real government.
I made this point before about the X-33. There is a way now to channel the rocket exhaust without needing all the moving parts in the engine. The exhaust moves over a wedge and atmospheric pressure creates the ideal thrust vector.
There are a lot of new "tricks" we've learned that should make a much better shuttle than we have now. But I think everyone here would agree, it is past time that we replaced the current shuttle with something better.