In the case of an author using unlicensed patented technology, you are absolutely correct.
The original question was:
"Is it possible to have an open source project that uses patented technology? How would the patent holder be able to collect license fees from the users of the program?"
However, I interpreted this as, can I use patented technology in open source?" The answer is yes, if it's licensed properly. The fact that a patent holder has made and open-source implementation of the patented technology available or licensed the technology for use in an open source project does not effect the enforceability of the patent.
The rub is where people want to keep something a "trade secret". For that technology to enjoy trade secret protection, it must continue to be a secret.
That's one of the reasons that there've been a lot of problem with video card companies -- they've sometimes wanted to keep things a trade secret.
Patents can mix with open source and given the current patent climate, it may be a good and reasonable self-defense measure to pursue patents for open source projects.
It's common for companies who are sued for patent infringement to look through their patent portfolio and try to find a case of infringement going the other way. They squabble a bit, settle, and cross-license. Patents can be defensive as well as offensive.
Of course you can build patented algorithms into open source projects and still make money off the patents.
As a matter of fact, all patents are available publicly and one of the criteria for a patent is that you must describe the invention clearly enough so that a person "ordinarily skilled" in the art can replicate the patented technology.
Even if a company were to cut and paste the code from an open source project into a closed-source commercial product that would not effect, in any way, the enforceability of the patent.
The rub comes in where companies want to keep thing a "trade secret". There is no time limit on trade secrets and the must be kept secret, and don't prohibit someone from independently inventing the same thing.
Trade secrets and open source don't mix but patents and open source can coexist.
As and aside, most of the patent licensing revenues are derived from deals between companies not from end users. End users pay for a product, which is generally more than just a collection of patents.
Whether patents are a good or evil is a completely different subject.
The problem with requirements development as it is practiced in most organization is that there is a "user advocate" that is a proxy for the users of the system. The user advocates job is to become the "average user" of the software and reduce the requirements burden/cost to the real user.
The problem is that the user advocate is a poor substitute for real users therefore the requirements aren't always good.
Shipping early and often is much better than a formal requirements development process because it gets early code into real user's hands quicker.
Or... "I think that I might get removed from the review team if I said that I'd fight them tooth and nail. So I'm not saying anything."
It's seems to me that this guy is walking a fine line. He's answering questions in a hostile environment. That takes guts and speaks a little to his credibility.
By my view, this sort of system is an affront to our liberties. The fact that he's answering questions here make me think that he believes that there is a balance to be had (a hardliner wouldn't bother). I expect that he'll discharge his duties in accord with his beliefs.
The big question is: How do you explain all those NT web sites out there? If Sun and Latter Linux are the best choices for doing big sites and Linux costs less than NT for small sites. It's not all about FUD and tricking suites into forcing NT on Nerds either.
I can tell you why we chose an NT solution -- we had to be able to hire quickly to be first to market.
When you are in that state, almost nothing is more important than getting out to market. If that means that you have to go with NT to be able to find talent, then so be it. Would I have personally preferred to go with a Sun or Linux solution? Sure -- but in the Seattle area I can make it to market so much quicker with NT.
Down in the bay area, the opposite is probably true. It's probably much easier to find Unix type talent.
The offshoot it that we have to spend more cash on redundant systems and on management of those systems but my product has been launched and our customers love it.
BTW, the url listed as my site (www.euonym.com) isn't the project I'm talking about. That's a tiny little(486 50Mhz) Linux box. In other words, there's no reason for everybody to visit it all at once and cause me to lose my uptime.
This (Post-Flight Inspection of STS-90) is from NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News:
Using samples collected by tape pull, dental mold, and wooden probe extraction techniques, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA) were able to identify the nature of 29 of the impactors. A total of 16 particles (55%) were found to be man-made debris, while the remaining 13 particles (45%) were meteoritic in nature. An analysis of the orbital debris impactors revealed an assortment of aluminum (56%), paint (31%), and stainless steel (13%) projectiles.
8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris? Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come with a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.
I work on a commercial product and have done very little open source. Our startup just closed it's first round of funding. The thing that sticks in my mind about the whole process is the shear number of crackpot, lame, desperate people trying to raise funds in the Internet space.
It seems that there are a large number of opportunists that will just jump on the bandwagon. They might spoof a low-level VC or angel investor into seeding the company but it won't last. The problem is that when you push there just isn't anything really there.
I predict that the same will happen to the Linux community. The opportunists will try to move in. The only defense that the Linux community has against the slobbering horde is to purchase goods and services from only those companies that genuinely helps the open source effort (code, good PR, etc.)
If you have an idea for and open source software company, you will have to shout a lot louder to get VC attention.
The Open Source community can't control what the VCs fund so we're likely to see some terrible stuff. However, we can control who we approach with our ideas. I would suggest that if the VC you talk to isn't seriously interested in what you've don't for Open Source, you should walk away.
This is more than just trying to keep Open Source pure. Sooner or later push will come to shove and the VC will pressure you to do something that will hurt your reputation in the community. Without an understanding of how important reputation is in this market they just won't get why that's such a bad idea.
BTW, when I say "we" up above I mean the community. Some would argue that because I haven't contributed much code that I don't get to be part of that "we". That's really okay. The guys that can do that have my respect and support.
The problem is that the JVM has certain semantics that it expects to enforce upon programs that run under it.
Garbage collection is a good example. A lot of C/C++ programs would fail if compiled for a VM that could yank memory out from under you. Sure there are was to trick the VM but the question is why bother.
If the VM forces incompatibilities on the compiler writers then that means code changes for the application. I don't want to fix applications -- I just want to recompile them.
First off I think the idea of a general VM is a good one. Writing a good one would be hard. Writing a good, fast one would be even harder.
The problem with the Java VM is that it has a lot of Java-specific behaviors in the VM itself. For instance it assumes that there are classes. That's fine and you could compile a C program into a bunch of classes but why?
One reason that Sun may have had for doing this is that it makes the VM faster. If the VM can work at a slightly higher level by making a few assumptions, the VM can put a lot of code that would otherwise have to be interpreted in native code.
For instance, if you assume that the languages that target the VM have garbage collection, then you can have the VM handle it automatically instead of making the compiler emit code to handle it. On the other hand, that means no pointers. Then the VM isn't a viable target for C/C++ compilers.
The Microsoft compiler ships with a mostly standard STL implementation. It's a repackaged Dinkumware.
I would expect to see the full implementation in the next rev of the compiler -- Along with a lot of useless stuff like extensions to the language(not libraries, mind you -- the language itself) for C++.
In 1993, I had to turn off the monitor to my Linux box so the IT guys wouldn't notice it and take it away. (0.96 slackware -- I think)
In 1995, we had to fight tooth and nail to get our Linux box on the network and actually sign a document saying that we would administer it and if it caused a problem they would yank it off the network without warning. It got yanked four times and it was never the problem -- it was just the first thing they tried.
In 1998, we started developing commercial products that ran on Linux.
In 1999, the IT guys are asking about building Linux machines to do NAT and other things. When I ask why they say "Well, I hear the things never crash."
Boy things change. I've gone from fire breathing infidel hippie to mainstream without changing my stance. Go figure.
I went to the configure page and tried to add more RAM -- it appears that it's impossible to do so.
So, I started thinking. Why would someone want one of these things. What makes them cool -- or at least cooler than the network appliance boxes I can build out of cheap PC parts?
I think that programmers should take a little time and learn enough ASM as to not be completly stuck when the compiler or debugger lies to them.
Yep, that's right compilers, debuggers, bytecode interpreters, all of them can lie to you. ASM code and a debugger stepping through ASM code can still lie to you but it rare enough that in a ~12 year career I can think of only two times where ASM code lied. C/C++ compilers lie so often that it's not worth remembering.
So learn a little ASM. When someone gets stuck and you flip the debugger to disassembly and point out the problem right away, you will awe and amaze your co-workers.
A couple of C++ problems that are easy to see by stepping through the code in assembly:
1) Crushed VTables. 2) Multiple inheritence problems (what? a cast can change the value of a pointer) 3) Optimized build debugging (shudder!) 4) STL Unsafe iterator problems 5) A lot of C++ compilers have problems with temporary objects. 6) Believe it or not MS C++ has some problems with ternary operators.
Assembly coding is still a very useful skill. I can't tell you how many times someone has called me over to look at their shiny C++ program because they can't figure out why it's crashing.
Because I did a lot of assembly programming, I can switch the debugger to assembly and pick out the problem pretty quickly.
It still pays to know where the bodies are buried.
If you can pick up a good book about assembly language programming, I would highly recommend learning at least enough to fake your way through a debugging session in assembly even if you plan to write nothing but Perl the rest of your life.
I live in Seattle and a couple of things that I think are important are being overlooked. In particular, I believe that the Secret Service and, indirectly, President Clinton need to share some of the blame for what's gone on here.
Tuesday night the rioters (as opposed to protestors) seemed out of control. Seattle is such a pretty place with a vital, interesting downtown core. It was a shame to see the damage -- but it was only property damage. It rates about a two on my outrage meter.
Local news reported Tuesday night that the Secret Service was "discussing" the possibility of canceling the President's trip to Seattle if his safety could not be guaranteed. The Secret Service seemed to be saying to the Seattle police: "Get this thing under control or we're going to embarrass you in front of the whole nation." No police chief wants to ridiculed like that.
The Seattle police seemed to go overboard the following night. From my vantage point -- mostly through the live reports that ran constantly both nights, it seemed like they were trying to prove that they were in control at any cost. The stuff that the Police did Tuesday night rates about an eight on my outrage meter.
The Police and the local media are saying that there have been a few isolated problems with Police overreacting. I don't buy it. What I saw was not a few rogue cops -- it was a directive from the very top.
I just wonder how much of that had to do with the Secret Service's intervention and "threat" to cancel the President's trip. It seems that Chief Norm Stamper didn't want to be seen as the next Darrel Gates and would do whatever it takes to make sure it didn't happen.
I think that Mayor Schell and Chief Norm Stamper should be held accountable by the voters of Seattle and removed from office at the next opportunity.
I'm involved with a pre-money startup that's been going through this. There is just so much to tell that I don't think I can do the subject justice in the time I have.
The biggest issue that you may have is finding the right VC. There are lots that are scared of hardware and are looking for pure Internet plays. The only thing you will accomplish by presenting to these folks is to do yourself damage. Ask upfront: "Are you interested in a combine Linux and hardware play?"
Most VCs will not sign an NDA. Although, I've heard that some will be more willing to sign in the case of hardware.
When you talk to a VC tell them a little about your idea -- just enough to give them an idea of what market you're addressing and then ask: "Are you working on or thinking about a potentially competing venture?" Most VCs will answer truthfully. Don't trot out the NDA until you've reached this point -- even then don't be surprised if they refuse.
In the initial meetings, make sure that you stay away from the "how" of what you're doing -- that's the part that's patentable -- stick with the what and the market opportunity.
Get an introduction to the VCs that you target -- don't bother with sending in a plan without an introduction. It's usually not worth the time of the money. One VC says that they get 10,000 plans a year and fund 15.
Think about approaching 3Fs (Friends, Family and Fools) or angels investors for seed money that will allow you to start the patent process.
Check out http://www.garage.com
VCs invest in idea based on the strength of 1) Market 2) Team 3) Product in that order.
Well, that's it for now -- have to go prep for another fscking demo.
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:55:05 +0100 (BST) To: Robert Minichino Subject: Re: Journaling file system
Hi,
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:39:04 -0500 (EST), Robert Minichino said:
> For a project I'm heading up, we need a journaling file system > (log-based metadata) for quick filesystem recovery after crashes. I > do believe that there is some work going on with one, and I'm > interested in it's status and assisting with it in any way. If there > isn't a work in progress, or its completion is targeted too far in the > future we will have to write the filesystem entirely ourselves.
I expect to have publicly testable code for journaling over ext2fs in about 4 weeks or so.
This is from some Microsoft documentation. I don't know much about journaling file systems but this doesn't seem good.
NTFS may delete old records in order to conserve space. If needed records have been deleted, the indexing service recovers by reindexing the volume, as it does when no change journal exists.
"A computer intelligence would likely not be impatient..."
-- This assumes that impatience is a negative trait that serves no purpose. IMO, computer intelligence, when it does emerge, will be evolved or trained -- not built (see a thread called Computer Intelligence and Philosophy for some reading material). Presumably, a computer intelligence generated in this way would find that impatience is a good solution to the forces that caused human to develop the trait in the first place.
Most likely any such intelligence would be grown or trained. That means that they'd be more like us than an infallible automaton.
So a better wording is "Who would you trust to raise this artificial intelligence?" I know that I'm fine with someone I don't know raising my cab driver, but not that okay with not knowing who raised (trained) my doctor.
In _Understanding_Computers_and_Cognition, Winograd an Flores argue against the possibility of an explicitly constructed intelligence. However, they *DO* allow for the possibility of artificial intelligence that is grown.
Presumably, these intelligences will be grown (or taught) in the real physical world. This would put their learning on the same time scale as human intelligence. Training in a virtual environment doesn't help. Most of what we consider human intelligence is rooted in our interactions with each other. To train in this interaction means that there must be people around. People interact on a human timescale not the accelerated in which we like to train a computer.
Given that the timescale for generating intelligence is more bounded by the time required for training than the computing power available, I believe that Kurzweil's timeframe is off. He predicts computers will be as smart as us in 2020. Well, that gives them about 20 years to develop the correct learning techniques and to start raising what is essentially a child. I think we'd be lucky to see intelligent machines by 2099.
For some good reading check out:
Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. 1987
Dreyfus, Hubert L., Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Division I of Heidegger's Being and Time, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA 1991
Drefus, Hubert L., What Computers Still Can't Do: a critique of artificial reason MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1992
Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time(tranlated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson), Harper and Row, NY 1962
Slashdot Mirror
Exodus also generally has a limit on how much power they'll pull into you cage because of heat-density concerns.
I think there's a great Ask Slashdot lurking in here about how they built and manage this stuff.
In the case of an author using unlicensed patented technology, you are absolutely correct.
The original question was:
"Is it possible to have an open source project that uses patented technology? How would the patent holder be able to collect license fees from the users of the program?"
However, I interpreted this as, can I use patented technology in open source?" The answer is yes, if it's licensed properly. The fact that a patent holder has made and open-source implementation of the patented technology available or licensed the technology for use in an open source project does not effect the enforceability of the patent.
The rub is where people want to keep something a "trade secret". For that technology to enjoy trade secret protection, it must continue to be a secret.
That's one of the reasons that there've been a lot of problem with video card companies -- they've sometimes wanted to keep things a trade secret.
Patents can mix with open source and given the current patent climate, it may be a good and reasonable self-defense measure to pursue patents for open source projects.
It's common for companies who are sued for patent infringement to look through their patent portfolio and try to find a case of infringement going the other way. They squabble a bit, settle, and cross-license. Patents can be defensive as well as offensive.
Of course you can build patented algorithms into open source projects and still make money off the patents.
As a matter of fact, all patents are available publicly and one of the criteria for a patent is that you must describe the invention clearly enough so that a person "ordinarily skilled" in the art can replicate the patented technology.
Even if a company were to cut and paste the code from an open source project into a closed-source commercial product that would not effect, in any way, the enforceability of the patent.
The rub comes in where companies want to keep thing a "trade secret". There is no time limit on trade secrets and the must be kept secret, and don't prohibit someone from independently inventing the same thing.
Trade secrets and open source don't mix but patents and open source can coexist.
As and aside, most of the patent licensing revenues are derived from deals between companies not from end users. End users pay for a product, which is generally more than just a collection of patents.
Whether patents are a good or evil is a completely different subject.
The problem with requirements development as it is practiced in most organization is that there is a "user advocate" that is a proxy for the users of the system. The user advocates job is to become the "average user" of the software and reduce the requirements burden/cost to the real user.
The problem is that the user advocate is a poor substitute for real users therefore the requirements aren't always good.
Shipping early and often is much better than a formal requirements development process because it gets early code into real user's hands quicker.
Or... "I think that I might get removed from the review team if I said that I'd fight them tooth and nail. So I'm not saying anything."
It's seems to me that this guy is walking a fine line. He's answering questions in a hostile environment. That takes guts and speaks a little to his credibility.
By my view, this sort of system is an affront to our liberties. The fact that he's answering questions here make me think that he believes that there is a balance to be had (a hardliner wouldn't bother). I expect that he'll discharge his duties in accord with his beliefs.
When you are in that state, almost nothing is more important than getting out to market. If that means that you have to go with NT to be able to find talent, then so be it. Would I have personally preferred to go with a Sun or Linux solution? Sure -- but in the Seattle area I can make it to market so much quicker with NT.
Down in the bay area, the opposite is probably true. It's probably much easier to find Unix type talent.
The offshoot it that we have to spend more cash on redundant systems and on management of those systems but my product has been launched and our customers love it.
BTW, the url listed as my site (www.euonym.com) isn't the project I'm talking about. That's a tiny little(486 50Mhz) Linux box. In other words, there's no reason for everybody to visit it all at once and cause me to lose my uptime.
This (Post-Flight Inspection of STS-90) is from NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News:
Using samples collected by tape pull, dental mold, and wooden probe extraction techniques, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA) were able to identify the nature of 29 of the impactors. A total of 16 particles (55%) were found to be man-made debris, while the remaining 13 particles (45%) were meteoritic in nature. An analysis of the orbital debris impactors revealed an assortment of aluminum (56%), paint (31%), and stainless steel (13%) projectiles.
---
The FAQ from this site says:
8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come with a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.
I work on a commercial product and have done very little open source. Our startup just closed it's first round of funding. The thing that sticks in my mind about the whole process is the shear number of crackpot, lame, desperate people trying to raise funds in the Internet space.
It seems that there are a large number of opportunists that will just jump on the bandwagon. They might spoof a low-level VC or angel investor into seeding the company but it won't last. The problem is that when you push there just isn't anything really there.
I predict that the same will happen to the Linux community. The opportunists will try to move in. The only defense that the Linux community has against the slobbering horde is to purchase goods and services from only those companies that genuinely helps the open source effort (code, good PR, etc.)
If you have an idea for and open source software company, you will have to shout a lot louder to get VC attention.
The Open Source community can't control what the VCs fund so we're likely to see some terrible stuff. However, we can control who we approach with our ideas. I would suggest that if the VC you talk to isn't seriously interested in what you've don't for Open Source, you should walk away.
This is more than just trying to keep Open Source pure. Sooner or later push will come to shove and the VC will pressure you to do something that will hurt your reputation in the community. Without an understanding of how important reputation is in this market they just won't get why that's such a bad idea.
BTW, when I say "we" up above I mean the community. Some would argue that because I haven't contributed much code that I don't get to be part of that "we". That's really okay. The guys that can do that have my respect and support.
The problem is that the JVM has certain semantics that it expects to enforce upon programs that run under it.
Garbage collection is a good example. A lot of C/C++ programs would fail if compiled for a VM that could yank memory out from under you. Sure there are was to trick the VM but the question is why bother.
If the VM forces incompatibilities on the compiler writers then that means code changes for the application. I don't want to fix applications -- I just want to recompile them.
Oops. The last line should read "COM+" instead of "C++".
First off I think the idea of a general VM is a good one. Writing a good one would be hard. Writing a good, fast one would be even harder.
The problem with the Java VM is that it has a lot of Java-specific behaviors in the VM itself. For instance it assumes that there are classes. That's fine and you could compile a C program into a bunch of classes but why?
One reason that Sun may have had for doing this is that it makes the VM faster. If the VM can work at a slightly higher level by making a few assumptions, the VM can put a lot of code that would otherwise have to be interpreted in native code.
For instance, if you assume that the languages that target the VM have garbage collection, then you can have the VM handle it automatically instead of making the compiler emit code to handle it. On the other hand, that means no pointers. Then the VM isn't a viable target for C/C++ compilers.
The Microsoft compiler ships with a mostly standard STL implementation. It's a repackaged Dinkumware.
I would expect to see the full implementation in the next rev of the compiler -- Along with a lot of useless stuff like extensions to the language(not libraries, mind you -- the language itself) for C++.
In 1993, I had to turn off the monitor to my Linux box so the IT guys wouldn't notice it and take it away. (0.96 slackware -- I think)
In 1995, we had to fight tooth and nail to get our Linux box on the network and actually sign a document saying that we would administer it and if it caused a problem they would yank it off the network without warning. It got yanked four times and it was never the problem -- it was just the first thing they tried.
In 1998, we started developing commercial products that ran on Linux.
In 1999, the IT guys are asking about building Linux machines to do NAT and other things. When I ask why they say "Well, I hear the things never crash."
Boy things change. I've gone from fire breathing infidel hippie to mainstream without changing my stance. Go figure.
I went to the configure page and tried to add more RAM -- it appears that it's impossible to do so.
So, I started thinking. Why would someone want one of these things. What makes them cool -- or at least cooler than the network appliance boxes I can build out of cheap PC parts?
Can somebody help me on this one?
My biggest problem was the edge of the table. I'd rest my wrist on it and it was cause circulation and nerve damage.
;-)
I switched to a keyboard and mousepad that kept me from doing that and the pain and numbness has been gone for about three years and counting.
Might work for you -- not that you won't have enough suggestions by time this is all over.
I think that programmers should take a little time and learn enough ASM as to not be completly stuck when the compiler or debugger lies to them.
Yep, that's right compilers, debuggers, bytecode interpreters, all of them can lie to you. ASM code and a debugger stepping through ASM code can still lie to you but it rare enough that in a ~12 year career I can think of only two times where ASM code lied. C/C++ compilers lie so often that it's not worth remembering.
So learn a little ASM. When someone gets stuck and you flip the debugger to disassembly and point out the problem right away, you will awe and amaze your co-workers.
A couple of C++ problems that are easy to see by stepping through the code in assembly:
1) Crushed VTables.
2) Multiple inheritence problems (what? a cast can change the value of a pointer)
3) Optimized build debugging (shudder!)
4) STL Unsafe iterator problems
5) A lot of C++ compilers have problems with temporary objects.
6) Believe it or not MS C++ has some problems with ternary operators.
Learn ASM -- saves time later.
Assembly coding is still a very useful skill. I can't tell you how many times someone has called me over to look at their shiny C++ program because they can't figure out why it's crashing.
Because I did a lot of assembly programming, I can switch the debugger to assembly and pick out the problem pretty quickly.
It still pays to know where the bodies are buried.
If you can pick up a good book about assembly language programming, I would highly recommend learning at least enough to fake your way through a debugging session in assembly even if you plan to write nothing but Perl the rest of your life.
I live in Seattle and a couple of things that I think are important are being overlooked. In particular, I believe that the Secret Service and, indirectly, President Clinton need to share some of the blame for what's gone on here.
Tuesday night the rioters (as opposed to protestors) seemed out of control. Seattle is such a pretty place with a vital, interesting downtown core. It was a shame to see the damage -- but it was only property damage. It rates about a two on my outrage meter.
Local news reported Tuesday night that the Secret Service was "discussing" the possibility of canceling the President's trip to Seattle if his safety could not be guaranteed. The Secret Service seemed to be saying to the Seattle police: "Get this thing under control or we're going to embarrass you in front of the whole nation." No police chief wants to ridiculed like that.
The Seattle police seemed to go overboard the following night. From my vantage point -- mostly through the live reports that ran constantly both nights, it seemed like they were trying to prove that they were in control at any cost. The stuff that the Police did Tuesday night rates about an eight on my outrage meter.
The Police and the local media are saying that there have been a few isolated problems with Police overreacting. I don't buy it. What I saw was not a few rogue cops -- it was a directive from the very top.
I just wonder how much of that had to do with the Secret Service's intervention and "threat" to cancel the President's trip. It seems that Chief Norm Stamper didn't want to be seen as the next Darrel Gates and would do whatever it takes to make sure it didn't happen.
I think that Mayor Schell and Chief Norm Stamper should be held accountable by the voters of Seattle and removed from office at the next opportunity.
My favorite example of ambiguity is from a book called "Natural Language Processing" (i think). Anyway the sentence is:
Rice flies like sand.
This could mean that the noun "Rice flies" enjoy sand or the the noun "Rice" flies in the same manner as sand.
I'm involved with a pre-money startup that's been going through this. There is just so much to tell that I don't think I can do the subject justice in the time I have.
The biggest issue that you may have is finding the right VC. There are lots that are scared of hardware and are looking for pure Internet plays. The only thing you will accomplish by presenting to these folks is to do yourself damage. Ask upfront: "Are you interested in a combine Linux and hardware play?"
Most VCs will not sign an NDA. Although, I've heard that some will be more willing to sign in the case of hardware.
When you talk to a VC tell them a little about your idea -- just enough to give them an idea of what market you're addressing and then ask: "Are you working on or thinking about a potentially competing venture?" Most VCs will answer truthfully. Don't trot out the NDA until you've reached this point -- even then don't be surprised if they refuse.
In the initial meetings, make sure that you stay away from the "how" of what you're doing -- that's the part that's patentable -- stick with the what and the market opportunity.
Get an introduction to the VCs that you target -- don't bother with sending in a plan without an introduction. It's usually not worth the time of the money. One VC says that they get 10,000 plans a year and fund 15.
Think about approaching 3Fs (Friends, Family and Fools) or angels investors for seed money that will allow you to start the patent process.
Check out http://www.garage.com
VCs invest in idea based on the strength of 1) Market 2) Team 3) Product in that order.
Well, that's it for now -- have to go prep for another fscking demo.
I also found this:
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie"
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:55:05 +0100 (BST)
To: Robert Minichino
Subject: Re: Journaling file system
Hi,
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:39:04 -0500 (EST), Robert Minichino
said:
> For a project I'm heading up, we need a journaling file system
> (log-based metadata) for quick filesystem recovery after crashes. I
> do believe that there is some work going on with one, and I'm
> interested in it's status and assisting with it in any way. If there
> isn't a work in progress, or its completion is targeted too far in the
> future we will have to write the filesystem entirely ourselves.
I expect to have publicly testable code for journaling over ext2fs in
about 4 weeks or so.
--Stephen
"A computer intelligence would likely not be impatient..."
--
This assumes that impatience is a negative trait that serves no purpose. IMO, computer intelligence, when it does emerge, will be evolved or trained -- not built (see a thread called Computer Intelligence and Philosophy for some reading material). Presumably, a computer intelligence generated in this way would find that impatience is a good solution to the forces that caused human to develop the trait in the first place.
Most likely any such intelligence would be grown or trained. That means that they'd be more like us than an infallible automaton.
So a better wording is "Who would you trust to raise this artificial intelligence?" I know that I'm fine with someone I don't know raising my cab driver, but not that okay with not knowing who raised (trained) my doctor.
In _Understanding_Computers_and_Cognition, Winograd an Flores argue against the possibility of an explicitly constructed intelligence. However, they *DO* allow for the possibility of artificial intelligence that is grown.
i -memo-871/memo.html
Presumably, these intelligences will be grown (or taught) in the real physical world. This would put their learning on the same time scale as human intelligence. Training in a virtual environment doesn't help. Most of what we consider human intelligence is rooted in our interactions with each other. To train in this interaction means that there must be people around. People interact on a human timescale not the accelerated in which we like to train a computer.
Given that the timescale for generating intelligence is more bounded by the time required for training than the computing power available, I believe that Kurzweil's timeframe is off. He predicts computers will be as smart as us in 2020. Well, that gives them about 20 years to develop the correct learning techniques and to start raising what is essentially a child. I think we'd be lucky to see intelligent machines by 2099.
For some good reading check out:
Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. 1987
Dreyfus, Hubert L., Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Division I of Heidegger's Being and Time, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA 1991
Drefus, Hubert L., What Computers Still Can't Do: a critique of artificial reason MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1992
Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time(tranlated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson), Harper and Row, NY 1962
Also:
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/jcma/papers/1986-a