You are incorrect, apparently confusing acceleration with speed. Acceleration can be easily calculated by dividing final speed by time. It is not so bad. There is a problem of finding an engine that can go fast enough. The MK70 helped out there, where
no typical engine would have.
Acceleration would not be a big deal.
Get real. A muscle car that gets to 60
in five seconds feels exhilarating, but
no danger of blackout.
600 in 50 seconds, mach 10 in 10 minutes,
no problems.
Agreed, if you say "first uses".
Later, who knows? I fly SF to Japan
frequently, and there are sceduled flights
NY to Tokyo, which could benefit from this
technology, later, when it is more developed.
(Comment about banning cars right on.
Applies to guns, too.)
When someone patents a new mechanical device,
it is typically a recombination of past devices.
That doesn't make their patent invalid,
and patents encourage mechanical invention.
Successful patents encourage people to look
for more solutions, different enough from what was patented to escape the patent, but trying to
solve the same problem. Again, we all benefit.
Sure, we pay a little more than if it was unpatented, but there is now a motivation for people to try to come up with great ways to do stuff that are not covered by patents.
If someone has a legitimate claim to a patent that covers JPEGs, and I am not saying they do,
then, of course, they should be raking in the bucks. JPEG format has been extremely useful to all of us. It is reasonable to say that without JPEGs, there would be no web, because the cool thing about browsers was that they let you see pics, as well as text. Plus, the profits in the beginning came mostly from dissemination of pictures, as we all know.;)
So, why should the company that came up with the technique which made this possible not profit? They should profit. And we should be grateful to them. While some people will hate them forever for charging for stuff that makes our lives better, they have done something wonderful for us all.
Now, as for the legitimacy of their claim, well,
let's just say that if their claim is invalid, then I hope the courts recognize that fact, and quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
You are incorrect, apparently confusing acceleration with speed. Acceleration can be easily calculated by dividing final speed by time. It is not so bad. There is a problem of finding an engine that can go fast enough. The MK70 helped out there, where no typical engine would have.
Acceleration would not be a big deal. Get real. A muscle car that gets to 60 in five seconds feels exhilarating, but no danger of blackout. 600 in 50 seconds, mach 10 in 10 minutes, no problems.
Agreed, if you say "first uses". Later, who knows? I fly SF to Japan frequently, and there are sceduled flights NY to Tokyo, which could benefit from this technology, later, when it is more developed. (Comment about banning cars right on. Applies to guns, too.)
When someone patents a new mechanical device, it is typically a recombination of past devices. That doesn't make their patent invalid, and patents encourage mechanical invention. Successful patents encourage people to look for more solutions, different enough from what was patented to escape the patent, but trying to solve the same problem. Again, we all benefit. Sure, we pay a little more than if it was unpatented, but there is now a motivation for people to try to come up with great ways to do stuff that are not covered by patents. If someone has a legitimate claim to a patent that covers JPEGs, and I am not saying they do, then, of course, they should be raking in the bucks. JPEG format has been extremely useful to all of us. It is reasonable to say that without JPEGs, there would be no web, because the cool thing about browsers was that they let you see pics, as well as text. Plus, the profits in the beginning came mostly from dissemination of pictures, as we all know. ;)
So, why should the company that came up with the technique which made this possible not profit? They should profit. And we should be grateful to them. While some people will hate them forever for charging for stuff that makes our lives better, they have done something wonderful for us all.
Now, as for the legitimacy of their claim, well,
let's just say that if their claim is invalid, then I hope the courts recognize that fact, and quickly.