Patenting something (properly) will cost thousands of dollars and will require a patent lawyer.
The US is a first-to-invent not a first-to-patent country, so make sure you have a hardcopy of your invention description dated and notarized.
Then let some Net crypto people beat on your idea, make sure you say "Patent Pending."
If it holds up, you should easily be able to raise the money to get it patented properly. (Actually, if so, email me, I may know a few investors)
Judging from your description, I'd say your invention has a high probability of not truly doing what you think it does. Developing novel and useful cryptographic technology is a rare occurance, generally done by people who have a ton of experience in the area. No point in wasting money if it won't stand up to 30 minutes in sci.crypt
OK, the white light and vapor display is walk-through, but not truly 3D volumetric.
I wonder if you could create a real 3D volumetric display using an aerosol of a fluorescent substance, and illuminate it so that the energy required for fluorescence is only present where two beams cross, then you could scan out 3D voxels.
What does four competing standards mean? It means there can be no meaningful consolidation in the US market, which in turn means that it is very hard to take cost out of the business.
So you really mean: "Why can't we all just have MICROSOFT CELLPHONES?" That would consolidate the market...
Tell legislators that changes to patent law would slow development of new drugs October 01, 2002
Washington, D.C. - A group of celebrities and pharmaceutical researchers, including television talk-show host Montel Williams and actress Kate Jackson, urged the U.S. House of Representatives to reject pending patent legislation that would harm patients by slowing the development of new life-saving, cost-effective medicines.
Along with Williams, who has multiple sclerosis, and Jackson, a breast-cancer survivor, the celebrities included television personality Leeza Gibbons, whose mother suffers from Alzheimer's disease; Peter Samuelson, a movie producer who has diabetes; and Nancy Davis, founder of Race to Erase MS, who also has MS. The group held a press conference on Capitol Hill before visiting Members' offices.
1. Pharmaceutical companies have big ties into our government, controlling legislation.
50% of every dollar spent on medicine in the US comes from the Federal Government. No big suprise it is politicized. With prescription drug coverage for Medicare coming, the percentage will rise.
3. The FDA has limited manpower, which means less drugs tested.
This is wrong. Every drug is tested by its maker, on its maker's dime. The FDA only requires testing and examines results. The average cost of testing is near $100 million, and the drug may then not work (most don't make it through testing). Backups due to the FDA do not lead to untested drugs being released, it leads to fewer drugs being released.
Good motivations, but the great economies of the British Empire and the United States were built on tariffs, price controls and trade controls.
When were there price controls in the US besides in time of war and briefly in the 1970's?
I'll admit that free trade is probably way down at the bottom of the list of things a country needs to do to have economic growth.
#1 is a stable currency (which the US has had for a while, with some trouble during the late 60's and early 70's...but much better compared to Argentina right now).
#2 is low corruption, something most of the US and Britain have had for a while (compared to say India or Peru).
#3 is effective laws for private property, something both the US and Britain have done well since the turn of the century, but developing countries have a horrible record at, especially for land lived on by the poor.
Of course, US trade barriers may have harmed growth rather than help it. There are many economists who believe enaction of trade barriers by the US dramatically deepened the Great Depression, for example.
The greatest threat is from export barriers developing countries set up themselves. I have an uncle who runs a plastic bag factory in El Salvador. During the civil war, the government refused to let him export bags. Now that he can, he exorts bags all over Central America, has vastly enlarged his factory and employs many more people. I think often these barriers exist mainly to provide corrupt government officials opportunities for graft.
The worst, of course, is US and EU import barriers against developing countries, such as our nutty textile quotas, or Europe's barriers against African produce.
As economies grow, birth rate declines. Poor parents need many children to labor for the family to bring in income, and also need to have many children because some will die from common diseases. Parents in better economies, OTOH, lose a great deal of income and time investing in and caring for their children (average cost per child in US is ~$200,000).
The only way to have room for all the people on the earth is to have them not be poor...
I think Bluetooth connections between phones and peripherals would be cool. I wonder, though, about the power drain from Bluetooth would affect battery life.
I'm not an economist, so what I am saying is idle speculation and argument.
The important point of what I am saying is that non-US countries _could_ benefit from Wintel sales as well as a domestically-produced OS and CPU.
I certainly wouldn't say that governments should never subsidize the creation of technology, indeed once countries reach a certain economic size there probably isn't a better way to continue growth than to develop home-grown technologies.
But there have been many examples of government subsidies of technology that was not well matched to the free market (Japan in the late 80's-early 90's did a lot of this, for example).
My wife has used a mobilewebcam I built from a tablet computer, a USB microcam, using CDPD communications.
One of the biggest problems we found was battery power, always a problems with computers, but enhanced due to the power sucked by the webcam (lots of pixels to move to the computer at high bandwidth, even if they are just to be compressed using JPEG), and the power sucked by CDPD transmission. Of course, the cam was sending out an image every 5 minutes or so, and the camera was "always on."
I think the naysayers on the camera wireless phones are totally wrong. I don't expect everyone to purchase a camera phone, but I think a lot of people (especially young people and several business niches) will. It's really fun!
The uses of a camera phone do not intersect much with a high-quality megapixel digital camera used for "archival quality" pictures. PhoneCams will be used much more for quick little shots where quality matters little...a bunch of friends at a bar (which will totally change Mardi Gras!), to show a potential purchase while shopping, to show a map with directions, to see if you like the night club, or a "hey I'm in Vegas, look" call while travelling.
When people purchase US products abroad, they are helping foreign economies as well, because there are foreign importers, distributors, and retailers all making money from the sale as well.
In addition, the technical value of Intel chips and MS products (probably) enables the foreign country to generate further wealth.
It _may_ be better for a foreign country to produce its own OS and chips, but it will depend on how efficient they are at such production, and what the technological value of the products would be.
In a free market, I imagine it would be tough for most countries to produce OS and chips that could be competitive with Wintel, unless they could make some amazing technological leap.
There have been many rapid climate changes over the history of the earth, some minor ones even in the last thousand years. It could happen at any time.
The point is that we must, as a species, grow our economy and technology globally to be ready to meet whatever climatic changes we encounter (regardless of cause, natural or because of us).
In sub-saharan Africa, nearly 300,000 people will die this year because of famine, partially due to a drought. Depite a major drought in the US this year, no one will die, since the US has an advanced economy that can effectively move food from place to place.
It is also far easier for an advanced economy to handle the sacrifices of environmentalism. The US has been able to do a lot to clean up rivers and ozone/sulphur in the air. But even the West is only slowly nearing the technological capacity to truly deal with CO2 pollution, and the rest of the world will lag.
Economic and technological growth of developing countries are most hindered by their governments. Corruption, dictatorship, red tape, inflation, civil war, trade controls, and price controls are the big killers of economies. Appropriate economic policies are highly linked with economic growth and poverty reduction. Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were very poor countries during the first half of the 20th Century, but have grown into nearly Westernized countries.
BTW, IMF and World Bank loans are mechanisms for countries to funnel money to corrupt politicians and their friends, as well as provide incentives for countries to run high budget deficits which often leads to inflation. So yes, capitalists should dislike the IMF and WB. They may be a major reason why developing country growth has actually slowed down to near zero over the last two decades.
Around San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador, power is pretty good now. Not much worse than where I live in the US. I have a cousin there with DSL...
It sounds like these computers will be used for producing additional anti-growth propoganda, and thus will actually work to keep people in poverty rather than fixing up the economically ignorant governments of the developing world.
I've got news for anti-globalists - there has been zero growth averaged across developing countries over the last ten years. And as a result, there is still massive poverty. Despite increasing levels of direct investment, developing country governments have been running massive deficits and allowing inflation to rule. Actually, direct investment in the poorest countries is decreasing, it is only the somewhat-with-it governments of Latin America that can keep investment coming in.
Of course, this is due in part because of the IMF and WB dumping dollars into developing governments without gettign any kind of "adjustments" in policy...so they are half-right to want to axe them.
If you axe the WB and IMF, we will stop supporting corrupt developing governments, and they will have to take drastic efforts to increase GDP growth lest they not get their pay...
Imagine if 802.11b manufacturers put $1 per device sold into a fund for building wireless infrastructure. Hmmm, how many 802.11b devices have been sold? 10 million/year? If you generated $10 million per year, you could probably at least support 1000 wireless access points with T1'ish bandwidth, possibly seeding the purchase of more devices. Or twiddle the numbers and make it work out better.
To answer the question, run-of-the-mill banners do 10 cents per thousand impressions these days. Even factoring in a select audience (like Slashdot) or pop-under/overs (unlike Slashdot), a couple of dollars per thousand impressions is all you can make.
This is OT, but why the heck is there no self-serve in NJ? Is this is safety issue or a "jobs" issue? Where did this insane law come from, and why hasn't it been overturned by reasonable human beings?
1) Wedding photographers are generally not quality photograhic artists if you are paying less than $2000 for a wedding shoot. Your buddies with megapixel cameras may be just as good, at least they can see the true lighting effects in real time.
2) True photographic artists will make you look great, and they don't sell negatives...
My wedding photographer sucked bad. My wife and I did a reshoot of just us a month later with a real photographic artist, and the pictures are amazing.
Re:An excellent example...
on
Open Source TV
·
· Score: 2
PBS is "owned" by its member stations. It receives funds from CPB, dues paying member stations, and other sources such as grants and video sales.
Being PBS, don't we already have the rights to watch this stuff no cost and commercial free?
PBS produces no original content. PBS is a program distributor and video interconnection service. Public television stations pay dues to PBS in return for programming and video delivered via satellite (except for American Samoa and Guam, who get tapes, soon to be DVDs).
Shows you see on PBS are produced by people other than PBS. Those producers hold the copyrights. Often the producers are stations such as WGBH and WNET. Sometimes they are not.
PBS acquires rights for Public Television stations to air programs, in return for paying the producers. Generally, these rights entitle a Public Television station to air a program a certain number of times in a certain period of time.
The sad thing is that China, a market socialist dictatorship, is doing fairly well compared to many African countries (such as Zimbawe, Ethiopia, or Angola) where people are starving or near starvation.
A market socialist dictatorship that keeps the peace is better than a market-destroying dictatorship that fights civil wars.
But at the same time, I think the people of China will eventually realize that political freedom is good once they run out of the ability to grow their economy under a market socialist dictatorship.
Most Universities have no way to support someone who is a full-time employee and a full-time student. They will schedule all the classes during the day when you can't make it.
Even now, I would start watching it again, if they ditch 90% of the rules.
The arena could be buried under 10 feet of dirt with 1' thick concrete walls, accessable only by two small tunnels. Robotic cameras are mounted in the walls behind tempered glass. No live studio audience (saved money right there), just two "unlimited" robots going at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Patenting something (properly) will cost thousands of dollars and will require a patent lawyer.
The US is a first-to-invent not a first-to-patent country, so make sure you have a hardcopy of your invention description dated and notarized.
Then let some Net crypto people beat on your idea, make sure you say "Patent Pending."
If it holds up, you should easily be able to raise the money to get it patented properly. (Actually, if so, email me, I may know a few investors)
Judging from your description, I'd say your invention has a high probability of not truly doing what you think it does. Developing novel and useful cryptographic technology is a rare occurance, generally done by people who have a ton of experience in the area. No point in wasting money if it won't stand up to 30 minutes in sci.crypt
OK, the white light and vapor display is walk-through, but not truly 3D volumetric.
I wonder if you could create a real 3D volumetric display using an aerosol of a fluorescent substance, and illuminate it so that the energy required for fluorescence is only present where two beams cross, then you could scan out 3D voxels.
What does four competing standards mean? It means there can be no meaningful consolidation in the US market, which in turn means that it is very hard to take cost out of the business.
So you really mean: "Why can't we all just have MICROSOFT CELLPHONES?" That would consolidate the market...
Celbrities, Pharmaceutical Researchers Urge House to Reject Patent Legislation that Would Harm Patients
1. Pharmaceutical companies have big ties into our government, controlling legislation.
50% of every dollar spent on medicine in the US comes from the Federal Government. No big suprise it is politicized. With prescription drug coverage for Medicare coming, the percentage will rise.
3. The FDA has limited manpower, which means less drugs tested.
This is wrong. Every drug is tested by its maker, on its maker's dime. The FDA only requires testing and examines results. The average cost of testing is near $100 million, and the drug may then not work (most don't make it through testing). Backups due to the FDA do not lead to untested drugs being released, it leads to fewer drugs being released.
Good motivations, but the great economies of the British Empire and the United States were built on tariffs, price controls and trade controls.
When were there price controls in the US besides in time of war and briefly in the 1970's?
I'll admit that free trade is probably way down at the bottom of the list of things a country needs to do to have economic growth.
#1 is a stable currency (which the US has had for a while, with some trouble during the late 60's and early 70's...but much better compared to Argentina right now).
#2 is low corruption, something most of the US and Britain have had for a while (compared to say India or Peru).
#3 is effective laws for private property, something both the US and Britain have done well since the turn of the century, but developing countries have a horrible record at, especially for land lived on by the poor.
Of course, US trade barriers may have harmed growth rather than help it. There are many economists who believe enaction of trade barriers by the US dramatically deepened the Great Depression, for example.
The greatest threat is from export barriers developing countries set up themselves. I have an uncle who runs a plastic bag factory in El Salvador. During the civil war, the government refused to let him export bags. Now that he can, he exorts bags all over Central America, has vastly enlarged his factory and employs many more people. I think often these barriers exist mainly to provide corrupt government officials opportunities for graft.
The worst, of course, is US and EU import barriers against developing countries, such as our nutty textile quotas, or Europe's barriers against African produce.
As economies grow, birth rate declines. Poor parents need many children to labor for the family to bring in income, and also need to have many children because some will die from common diseases. Parents in better economies, OTOH, lose a great deal of income and time investing in and caring for their children (average cost per child in US is ~$200,000).
The only way to have room for all the people on the earth is to have them not be poor...
I think Bluetooth connections between phones and peripherals would be cool. I wonder, though, about the power drain from Bluetooth would affect battery life.
I'm not an economist, so what I am saying is idle speculation and argument.
The important point of what I am saying is that non-US countries _could_ benefit from Wintel sales as well as a domestically-produced OS and CPU.
I certainly wouldn't say that governments should never subsidize the creation of technology, indeed once countries reach a certain economic size there probably isn't a better way to continue growth than to develop home-grown technologies.
But there have been many examples of government subsidies of technology that was not well matched to the free market (Japan in the late 80's-early 90's did a lot of this, for example).
My wife has used a mobile webcam I built from a tablet computer, a USB microcam, using CDPD communications.
One of the biggest problems we found was battery power, always a problems with computers, but enhanced due to the power sucked by the webcam (lots of pixels to move to the computer at high bandwidth, even if they are just to be compressed using JPEG), and the power sucked by CDPD transmission. Of course, the cam was sending out an image every 5 minutes or so, and the camera was "always on."
I think the naysayers on the camera wireless phones are totally wrong. I don't expect everyone to purchase a camera phone, but I think a lot of people (especially young people and several business niches) will. It's really fun!
The uses of a camera phone do not intersect much with a high-quality megapixel digital camera used for "archival quality" pictures. PhoneCams will be used much more for quick little shots where quality matters little...a bunch of friends at a bar (which will totally change Mardi Gras!), to show a potential purchase while shopping, to show a map with directions, to see if you like the night club, or a "hey I'm in Vegas, look" call while travelling.
My quantum mechanics teacher has a very good solution to this. He had a file with 100 problems. An exam was a random draw of 3 of those.
;)
Yeah, I had the same teacher, and it was tougher than just that.
The three questions were actually superpositions of the 100, so you wouldn't know what they were until you observed them on the test
When people purchase US products abroad, they are helping foreign economies as well, because there are foreign importers, distributors, and retailers all making money from the sale as well.
In addition, the technical value of Intel chips and MS products (probably) enables the foreign country to generate further wealth.
It _may_ be better for a foreign country to produce its own OS and chips, but it will depend on how efficient they are at such production, and what the technological value of the products would be.
In a free market, I imagine it would be tough for most countries to produce OS and chips that could be competitive with Wintel, unless they could make some amazing technological leap.
There have been many rapid climate changes over the history of the earth, some minor ones even in the last thousand years. It could happen at any time.
The point is that we must, as a species, grow our economy and technology globally to be ready to meet whatever climatic changes we encounter (regardless of cause, natural or because of us).
In sub-saharan Africa, nearly 300,000 people will die this year because of famine, partially due to a drought. Depite a major drought in the US this year, no one will die, since the US has an advanced economy that can effectively move food from place to place.
It is also far easier for an advanced economy to handle the sacrifices of environmentalism. The US has been able to do a lot to clean up rivers and ozone/sulphur in the air. But even the West is only slowly nearing the technological capacity to truly deal with CO2 pollution, and the rest of the world will lag.
Economic and technological growth of developing countries are most hindered by their governments. Corruption, dictatorship, red tape, inflation, civil war, trade controls, and price controls are the big killers of economies. Appropriate economic policies are highly linked with economic growth and poverty reduction. Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were very poor countries during the first half of the 20th Century, but have grown into nearly Westernized countries.
BTW, IMF and World Bank loans are mechanisms for countries to funnel money to corrupt politicians and their friends, as well as provide incentives for countries to run high budget deficits which often leads to inflation. So yes, capitalists should dislike the IMF and WB. They may be a major reason why developing country growth has actually slowed down to near zero over the last two decades.
Around San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador, power is pretty good now. Not much worse than where I live in the US. I have a cousin there with DSL...
It sounds like these computers will be used for producing additional anti-growth propoganda, and thus will actually work to keep people in poverty rather than fixing up the economically ignorant governments of the developing world.
I've got news for anti-globalists - there has been zero growth averaged across developing countries over the last ten years. And as a result, there is still massive poverty. Despite increasing levels of direct investment, developing country governments have been running massive deficits and allowing inflation to rule. Actually, direct investment in the poorest countries is decreasing, it is only the somewhat-with-it governments of Latin America that can keep investment coming in.
Of course, this is due in part because of the IMF and WB dumping dollars into developing governments without gettign any kind of "adjustments" in policy...so they are half-right to want to axe them.
If you axe the WB and IMF, we will stop supporting corrupt developing governments, and they will have to take drastic efforts to increase GDP growth lest they not get their pay...
Imagine if 802.11b manufacturers put $1 per device sold into a fund for building wireless infrastructure. Hmmm, how many 802.11b devices have been sold? 10 million/year? If you generated $10 million per year, you could probably at least support 1000 wireless access points with T1'ish bandwidth, possibly seeding the purchase of more devices. Or twiddle the
numbers and make it work out better.
To answer the question, run-of-the-mill banners do 10 cents per thousand impressions these days. Even factoring in a select audience (like Slashdot) or pop-under/overs (unlike Slashdot), a couple of dollars per thousand impressions is all you can make.
This is OT, but why the heck is there no self-serve in NJ? Is this is safety issue or a "jobs" issue? Where did this insane law come from, and why hasn't it been overturned by reasonable human beings?
My experience
1) Wedding photographers are generally not quality photograhic artists if you are paying less than $2000 for a wedding shoot. Your buddies with megapixel cameras may be just as good, at least they can see the true lighting effects in real time.
2) True photographic artists will make you look great, and they don't sell negatives...
My wedding photographer sucked bad. My wife and I did a reshoot of just us a month later with a real photographic artist, and the pictures are amazing.
PBS is "owned" by its member stations. It receives funds from CPB, dues paying member stations, and other sources such as grants and video sales.
Being PBS, don't we already have the rights to watch this stuff no cost and commercial free?
PBS produces no original content. PBS is a program distributor and video interconnection service. Public television stations pay dues to PBS in return for programming and video delivered via satellite (except for American Samoa and Guam, who get tapes, soon to be DVDs).
Shows you see on PBS are produced by people other than PBS. Those producers hold the copyrights. Often the producers are stations such as WGBH and WNET. Sometimes they are not.
PBS acquires rights for Public Television stations to air programs, in return for paying the producers. Generally, these rights entitle a Public Television station to air a program a certain number of times in a certain period of time.
The sad thing is that China, a market socialist dictatorship, is doing fairly well compared to many African countries (such as Zimbawe, Ethiopia, or Angola) where people are starving or near starvation.
A market socialist dictatorship that keeps the peace is better than a market-destroying dictatorship that fights civil wars.
But at the same time, I think the people of China will eventually realize that political freedom is good once they run out of the ability to grow their economy under a market socialist dictatorship.
Most Universities have no way to support someone who is a full-time employee and a full-time student. They will schedule all the classes during the day when you can't make it.
;)
My wife is currently getting her second BS in Computer and Information Science while she works full-time through the University of Maryland University College. They are a leader in online education, and you can take all your classes for this degree online.
Next semester she's taking Unix Systems Administration, and after that I'm going to give her root and let her admin our servers
Even now, I would start watching it again, if they ditch 90% of the rules.
The arena could be buried under 10 feet of dirt with 1' thick concrete walls, accessable only by two small tunnels. Robotic cameras are mounted in the walls behind tempered glass. No live studio audience (saved money right there), just two "unlimited" robots going at it.
Does the US currently have any plans for a "regime shift" over there?
No - China, unlike Iraq, has already developed nuclear weapons.
I want something simple and small, that I can maybe put a four-port ethernet card into.
Boxer PC dual Ethernet, 11cm x 16.5cm x 22cm.