I've read the patent and have come to the conclusion that patent should not have been awarded. Basically the concept of writing any information that overflows the primary memory (SRAM, DRAM, semiconductor memory) to a secondary memory (hard disk, tape), has been in use for probably at least 50 years. Its called virutal memory or buffering. The Pause Patent is just a specific, and non-unique, implementation of this concept for a specific purpose.
Also, I believe NASA satellite technology does everything the patent covers. Exploration satellites record video (periodic series of pictures) which are compressed and saved to a secondary memory via a primary memory, and then pull from the secondary memory for transmission while recording new images. Furthermore the process is controlled remotely. Thus I believe a good lawyer will demonstrate that the patented technology was publicly documented many years prior to the patent. (Also there have got to be similar patents going back to the '70s and early '80s for digital audio, probably by Philip's, who makes a Tivo unit.)
Furthermore, the solution to the problem is obvious to almost any person with vague computer hardware knowledge back in '92. My fellow classmates and I were writing DSP algorithms that used buffering for reverb and filtering back in 1990. We just didn't have a need to write the data to disk or control the process by remote control.
Lastly, tape delay performed the same function, via a different technology. If this patent holds, then when optical memory becomes available, can a new patent be issued on a new implementation which replaces the codec, semiconductor memory and hard disk with just holographic memory?
The point of an aptitude test IS to see what you know. What is the difference between comitting the dictionary to memory and looking up words in milliseconds? Sounds a little like the Turing test.
If a measurement of intelligence was the rate at which mental challenges are completed, wouldn't an enhanced human be capable of completing mental tasks quicker?
Yes! IMHO, computers, nanotech, and biotech will all converge. Bionic devices, eyes, ears, hearts, etc., keep improving. Today people wear glasses to see better, sneakers to run faster, and cell phones to communicate better. Tomorrow we will wear more devices to improve us further.
In 20-30 years why wouldn't these machines interface with us directly? (This direct interface technology is already in primitive use with bionic eyes and ears.) And with such a direct interface, why wouldn't we be smarter? Such enhanced humans (EH) would have most of the world's knowledge available to them. Even the average EH would do much better on standard tests.
Think about how you would have done on the SATs if you could have brought in a laptop with a big horkin' hard drive filled with encyclopedias, a dictionary, a calculator, or Mathematica.
Now throw some more enhancements like photographic memory (with audio of course), and telepathy (talk to others via radio using the voice in your head and not your mouth). How well do you think the average EH would do on today's IQ tests? Far better than the average unenhanced human. The point being that human intelligence will continue to grow with technology.
Now lets say a EH develops an artificial intelligence (AI). Why wouldn't the EH find a way to further augment his/her intellictual capabilities further with this AI?
Eventually AI will exist. But direct human/machine interfacing will preceed it. Autonomous AI will have its place, but most EH intelligence will exceed most pure AI.
Machines might try to take over the world, but it will still be humans giving the orders.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read the patent and have come to the conclusion that patent should not have been awarded. Basically the concept of writing any information that overflows the primary memory (SRAM, DRAM, semiconductor memory) to a secondary memory (hard disk, tape), has been in use for probably at least 50 years. Its called virutal memory or buffering. The Pause Patent is just a specific, and non-unique, implementation of this concept for a specific purpose.
Also, I believe NASA satellite technology does everything the patent covers. Exploration satellites record video (periodic series of pictures) which are compressed and saved to a secondary memory via a primary memory, and then pull from the secondary memory for transmission while recording new images. Furthermore the process is controlled remotely. Thus I believe a good lawyer will demonstrate that the patented technology was publicly documented many years prior to the patent. (Also there have got to be similar patents going back to the '70s and early '80s for digital audio, probably by Philip's, who makes a Tivo unit.)
Furthermore, the solution to the problem is obvious to almost any person with vague computer hardware knowledge back in '92. My fellow classmates and I were writing DSP algorithms that used buffering for reverb and filtering back in 1990. We just didn't have a need to write the data to disk or control the process by remote control.
Lastly, tape delay performed the same function, via a different technology. If this patent holds, then when optical memory becomes available, can a new patent be issued on a new implementation which replaces the codec, semiconductor memory and hard disk with just holographic memory?
The point of an aptitude test IS to see what you know. What is the difference between comitting the dictionary to memory and looking up words in milliseconds? Sounds a little like the Turing test.
If a measurement of intelligence was the rate at which mental challenges are completed, wouldn't an enhanced human be capable of completing mental tasks quicker?
Yes! IMHO, computers, nanotech, and biotech will all converge. Bionic devices, eyes, ears, hearts, etc., keep improving. Today people wear glasses to see better, sneakers to run faster, and cell phones to communicate better. Tomorrow we will wear more devices to improve us further.
In 20-30 years why wouldn't these machines interface with us directly? (This direct interface technology is already in primitive use with bionic eyes and ears.) And with such a direct interface, why wouldn't we be smarter? Such enhanced humans (EH) would have most of the world's knowledge available to them. Even the average EH would do much better on standard tests.
Think about how you would have done on the SATs if you could have brought in a laptop with a big horkin' hard drive filled with encyclopedias, a dictionary, a calculator, or Mathematica.
Now throw some more enhancements like photographic memory (with audio of course), and telepathy (talk to others via radio using the voice in your head and not your mouth). How well do you think the average EH would do on today's IQ tests? Far better than the average unenhanced human. The point being that human intelligence will continue to grow with technology.
Now lets say a EH develops an artificial intelligence (AI). Why wouldn't the EH find a way to further augment his/her intellictual capabilities further with this AI?
Eventually AI will exist. But direct human/machine interfacing will preceed it. Autonomous AI will have its place, but most EH intelligence will exceed most pure AI.
Machines might try to take over the world, but it will still be humans giving the orders.