I don't know about "lag", but the kid in me remembers thinking he could make a "perpetual-motion all-permanent-magnet motor" if *only* permanent magnets could be turned off and on easily.
The right combination of shield material should make it possible. Just build a motor so the magnets attract each other till they rotate close, then place the shield so the magnets can pass. Remove shielding. Repeat forever.
Then I grew up. The adult in me said "it's too good to be true". There must be losses which would cancel out any gains. Magnetic resistance, eddy currents, something. Besides, where would the energy come from? The aether? (Not that we really know what magnetic fields are anyway.)
So, as a matter of pride and common sense, I suspect this guy is wrong. I hope he is.
If he turns out to be right, the kid in me is going to have to kick my adult butt.
That's funny. One-Click is "_put_it_on_my_tab_ on the Internet". --- One of my elementary school friends lived near a small park with a neighborhood store. One day, coming home from school, we stopped in and I was surprised to learn he could buy candy just by uttering the mystical phrase:
"put it on my tab"
Totally novel to me at the time. Of course, I was only 10.
Now, if the old store were still there, you would probably be required to enable Cookies and Java Script before the shopkeeper would even recognize you had an account.
Maybe patents should be given a value or life span according to the amount of work that went into it.
Say, for instance, someone built a small shell script* that could parse all known patents and generate all possible combinations of inventions or methods that haven't already been thought up. Then, let's say there is a useful-enough-to-patent** function that could weed out the chaffe and submit the rest as full blown patent pending requests.
I wouldn't really want to give that person a very long monopoly on every new invention in the whole world.*** It seems that once the time/money he'd invested in his invention machine was paid off (plus some profit) it would do more harm than good to let him charge everyone a tax for thinking.
(* or Lisp or Prolog) (** do you think this is how IBM comes up with so many ideas?;) (*** unless I am that person >8^)
Does this bother anyone else? Sometimes it seem to me the stock market isn't about investing anymore, but trading-for-profit, get rich quick style. You know, large scale gambling and playing the odds.
The worst part is when people pour their retirement money into the stock market. (401K, etc.) Then the players and day-traders come along and extract from that pool, skimming off the crests and troughs.
I don't know if there is a way to fix it though, of if it needs to be fixed. Maybe, different currencies: play-money for the traders, and work-credits for everybody else. Or maybe there should be a new market, one just for real investing (in companies) without all the playing around. Or maybe the most practical solution is to not put your retirement in the stock market, unless you have some good players managing it...
So how long before there is a www.20Q.net style site/game for medical diagnosis? (Put one in your first-aid kit.)
Or eventually, self service healthcare booths: swipe your credit and insurance card, put in the symptoms, sit in the booth, let it take some medical imaging, prick your finger, etc.... then get prescriptions written, or be referred to a hospital or surgeon. (Or maybe even open up a teleconference with an actual doctor or specialist.)
I like the idea of renting or owning a trailer-generator for long trips. The road warriors would have an on-board generator (hybrids of today). We could do that *now* with your-choice-of-fuel generators and the existing hydrocarbon pumping stations.
* Accidents? Think of what you could do with a giant capacitor, intentionally! There might be a booming after-market in roof-top rail-guns and lasers.;)
Some people assume that reading and parsing are the difficult part for computers. Which is understandable. It's not that easy for us. The study of words and language is a major part of our early schooling.
Others (like yourself) realize this shouldn't be difficult for computers. You are correct. In truth, computers have little trouble keeping track of nouns, verbs, subjects, predicates... even most of the exceptions.
BUT, The insurmountable part is giving the computer any kind of useful understanding of those words. Even the classification of "noun" or "verb" is useless to the computer. It has no concept of action versus object. Computers don't know up from down. We take our understanding for granted. We understand the world before we can even speak, then, later, we learn, relate, and attach words to that model of reality that is already cemented into our brains.
Computers only have the words. (Not even words, more like large numbers.) How would you explain something to a blind, deaf, brain-in-a-jar using only numbers? The is the difficult part. To truly understand human language, you must first understand humans.
The closest I can think of is a column of water: Leave it alone and the hotter molecules should go to the top leaving the cooler ones near the bottom.
It still seems like you could extract useful work from the two ends, maybe with a heat pipe or wheel or some column of fluid that expands when it cools.
I think thy might be asking for something thy can't have... Big music company exectives to get along?!?!
Maybe we need a trusted third party, like a bank. One that could keep track of music/video/software licenses and convert between the different formats for you. ITunes is pretty close, and a few other games services, but they are download only, and format specific, and not really backed by any kind of guarantees.
Why shouldn't data work the way money does? You could transfer songs between people and other "banks". You could access your stuff from anywhere on the network or from ATM-like things.
Maybe Google or Apple (or France) will build that, if someone hasn't already. I'm pretty much too lazy to look. And I don't really like music.:)
One problem with measuring obviousness is that most things seem obvious after you've heard the solution.
Having peers review the actual patent, then asking them to honestly estimate it's obviousness is a tall order. Besides the fact that they now have been given your ideas (and may wish to see the patent thrown out), they must also ask themselves how easy it would be to solve a problem for which they already have the answer.
Instead, we should measure the patent's obviousness indirectly, by asking those "schooled in the art" to solve the same problem that the patent solves, without actually giving them the patent's solution.
If the patent is re-invented by the peers, it is non-obvious. If the solution isn't re-invented, then the peers either didn't care, didn't want to invest time in a solution, or the solution really is non-obvious-enough, that it's inventor deserves a brief monopoly.
Examples:
To EE/Computer/Radio peers: Somebody wants to patent a method to send and receive e-mail from a portable, wireless device. How would you do it?
To EE/AutoIndustry: Somebody wants to patent a method of sending an electric signal when the brake pedal is pressed. Give us some obvious solutions.
I'd like to add that "Wii" is probably more acceptable to China's firewall than "Revolution". Nintendo wouldn't want some name controversy to keep them out of (potentially) the largest market in the world would they.
(Also, something in the back of my mind wonders if it doesn't have something to do with "WWII"...)
A lot of things will change when anyone can start making and using business quality electronic forms the same way they use word processing and e-mail today. All you'll need for taxes is this year's ODF/XForm. 80% of "business app" software will go away. Standards committees like HL7 and X12 will become un-necessary.
We're getting closer. (see: freebxml.org, PDF, OpenOffice, XForms, Mozilla) It just isn't quite there yet. Who knows, some revolutionary forms client may use asynchronous Java script, but it doesn't really seem maintainable to me.
With implementable standards, the software should follow and small business will finally be able to replace a lot of their paper/pens and hand-crafted form applications.
That's interesting. I wonder if choosing the money is an example of vote splitting, with our brain cells forming a little voting population.
That would be bad news for Microsoft; their party's votes will be split six ways by the different candidates.
Re:Why can't the movie theatre _tell_ the phone
on
Polite Cell Phones
·
· Score: 1
The quiet zone transmitter has been thought of before; unfortunately, the phones need to support it AND all meeting places need to buy a transmitter.
How about a wireless standard just for the phones? Maybe one that adds herd mentality. Since most people silence their phones when they should anyway, the few who forget would get a message: "Hey, jerk! Everbody else is in silent mode. Why aren't you?"
Or maybe something already available. Nearby cell/blue-tooth traffic might be used to determine local phone density, hinting that you're in a theatre situation.
No physical products... Don't they sell rack mounted search machines? Anyway, maybe they are trying to fix that by getting into the telecom/network provider business. That's what I'd do. The more competition, the better -- I think.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not know about the solar decathlon, and apparently, neither did the grand parent... - Thanks!
I got my first install from a shareware/freeware CD. I remember downloading patches and re-compiling to add ELF support. Good times.
I don't know about "lag", but the kid in me remembers thinking he could make a "perpetual-motion all-permanent-magnet motor" if *only* permanent magnets could be turned off and on easily.
The right combination of shield material should make it possible. Just build a motor so the magnets attract each other till they rotate close, then place the shield so the magnets can pass. Remove shielding. Repeat forever.
Then I grew up. The adult in me said "it's too good to be true". There must be losses which would cancel out any gains. Magnetic resistance, eddy currents, something. Besides, where would the energy come from? The aether? (Not that we really know what magnetic fields are anyway.)
So, as a matter of pride and common sense, I suspect this guy is wrong. I hope he is.
If he turns out to be right, the kid in me is going to have to kick my adult butt.
That is something I did not know. - Thanks
r oadcasting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Multimedia_B
That's funny. One-Click is "_put_it_on_my_tab_ on the Internet".
---
One of my elementary school friends lived near a small park with a neighborhood store. One day, coming home from school, we stopped in and I was surprised to learn he could buy candy just by uttering the mystical phrase:
"put it on my tab"
Totally novel to me at the time. Of course, I was only 10.
Now, if the old store were still there, you would probably be required to enable Cookies and Java Script before the shopkeeper would even recognize you had an account.
Do you think people will take these findings into account when they planning on procrastinating from now on? Will that change the formula?
Just a thought, for fun.
;)
Maybe patents should be given a value or life span according to the amount of work that went into it.
Say, for instance, someone built a small shell script* that could parse all known patents and generate all possible combinations of inventions or methods that haven't already been thought up. Then, let's say there is a useful-enough-to-patent** function that could weed out the chaffe and submit the rest as full blown patent pending requests.
I wouldn't really want to give that person a very long monopoly on every new invention in the whole world.*** It seems that once the time/money he'd invested in his invention machine was paid off (plus some profit) it would do more harm than good to let him charge everyone a tax for thinking.
(* or Lisp or Prolog)
(** do you think this is how IBM comes up with so many ideas?
(*** unless I am that person >8^)
Does this bother anyone else? Sometimes it seem to me the stock market isn't about investing anymore, but trading-for-profit, get rich quick style. You know, large scale gambling and playing the odds.
The worst part is when people pour their retirement money into the stock market. (401K, etc.) Then the players and day-traders come along and extract from that pool, skimming off the crests and troughs.
I don't know if there is a way to fix it though, of if it needs to be fixed. Maybe, different currencies: play-money for the traders, and work-credits for everybody else. Or maybe there should be a new market, one just for real investing (in companies) without all the playing around. Or maybe the most practical solution is to not put your retirement in the stock market, unless you have some good players managing it...
So how long before there is a www.20Q.net style site/game for medical diagnosis? (Put one in your first-aid kit.)
Or eventually, self service healthcare booths: swipe your credit and insurance card, put in the symptoms, sit in the booth, let it take some medical imaging, prick your finger, etc.... then get prescriptions written, or be referred to a hospital or surgeon. (Or maybe even open up a teleconference with an actual doctor or specialist.)
I like the idea of renting or owning a trailer-generator for long trips. The road warriors would have an on-board generator (hybrids of today). We could do that *now* with your-choice-of-fuel generators and the existing hydrocarbon pumping stations.
;)
* Accidents? Think of what you could do with a giant capacitor, intentionally! There might be a booming after-market in roof-top rail-guns and lasers.
Some people assume that reading and parsing are the difficult part for computers. Which is understandable. It's not that easy for us. The study of words and language is a major part of our early schooling.
Others (like yourself) realize this shouldn't be difficult for computers. You are correct. In truth, computers have little trouble keeping track of nouns, verbs, subjects, predicates... even most of the exceptions.
BUT, The insurmountable part is giving the computer any kind of useful understanding of those words. Even the classification of "noun" or "verb" is useless to the computer. It has no concept of action versus object. Computers don't know up from down. We take our understanding for granted. We understand the world before we can even speak, then, later, we learn, relate, and attach words to that model of reality that is already cemented into our brains.
Computers only have the words. (Not even words, more like large numbers.) How would you explain something to a blind, deaf, brain-in-a-jar using only numbers? The is the difficult part. To truly understand human language, you must first understand humans.
My first thought was that of an optical mouse or something like it.
The closest I can think of is a column of water: Leave it alone and the hotter molecules should go to the top leaving the cooler ones near the bottom.
It still seems like you could extract useful work from the two ends, maybe with a heat pipe or wheel or some column of fluid that expands when it cools.
I think thy might be asking for something thy can't have... Big music company exectives to get along?!?! Maybe we need a trusted third party, like a bank. One that could keep track of music/video/software licenses and convert between the different formats for you. ITunes is pretty close, and a few other games services, but they are download only, and format specific, and not really backed by any kind of guarantees. Why shouldn't data work the way money does? You could transfer songs between people and other "banks". You could access your stuff from anywhere on the network or from ATM-like things. Maybe Google or Apple (or France) will build that, if someone hasn't already. I'm pretty much too lazy to look. And I don't really like music. :)
One problem with measuring obviousness is that most things seem obvious after you've heard the solution.
Having peers review the actual patent, then asking them to honestly estimate it's obviousness is a tall order. Besides the fact that they now have been given your ideas (and may wish to see the patent thrown out), they must also ask themselves how easy it would be to solve a problem for which they already have the answer.
Instead, we should measure the patent's obviousness indirectly, by asking those "schooled in the art" to solve the same problem that the patent solves, without actually giving them the patent's solution.
If the patent is re-invented by the peers, it is non-obvious. If the solution isn't re-invented, then the peers either didn't care, didn't want to invest time in a solution, or the solution really is non-obvious-enough, that it's inventor deserves a brief monopoly.
Examples:
To EE/Computer/Radio peers: Somebody wants to patent a method to send and receive e-mail from a portable, wireless device. How would you do it?
To EE/AutoIndustry: Somebody wants to patent a method of sending an electric signal when the brake pedal is pressed. Give us some obvious solutions.
I'd like to add that "Wii" is probably more acceptable to China's firewall than "Revolution". Nintendo wouldn't want some name controversy to keep them out of (potentially) the largest market in the world would they.
(Also, something in the back of my mind wonders if it doesn't have something to do with "WWII"...)
"Result: Failed validation, 50 errors"
...
"51. Error Line 405 column 16: end tag for element "CS:MPRegion" which is not open."
You've described most closed source projects there too. Just, change the last line to read:
- The few users who can justify it's expense and lack of control.
You're right about forms.
A lot of things will change when anyone can start making and using business quality electronic forms the same way they use word processing and e-mail today. All you'll need for taxes is this year's ODF/XForm. 80% of "business app" software will go away. Standards committees like HL7 and X12 will become un-necessary.
We're getting closer. (see: freebxml.org, PDF, OpenOffice, XForms, Mozilla) It just isn't quite there yet. Who knows, some revolutionary forms client may use asynchronous Java script, but it doesn't really seem maintainable to me.
With implementable standards, the software should follow and small business will finally be able to replace a lot of their paper/pens and hand-crafted form applications.
That's interesting. I wonder if choosing the money is an example of vote splitting, with our brain cells forming a little voting population.
That would be bad news for Microsoft; their party's votes will be split six ways by the different candidates.
The quiet zone transmitter has been thought of before; unfortunately, the phones need to support it AND all meeting places need to buy a transmitter.
How about a wireless standard just for the phones? Maybe one that adds herd mentality. Since most people silence their phones when they should anyway, the few who forget would get a message: "Hey, jerk! Everbody else is in silent mode. Why aren't you?"
Or maybe something already available. Nearby cell/blue-tooth traffic might be used to determine local phone density, hinting that you're in a theatre situation.
(BTW - I like the "answer with hold" idea.)
No physical products... Don't they sell rack mounted search machines? Anyway, maybe they are trying to fix that by getting into the telecom/network provider business. That's what I'd do. The more competition, the better -- I think.
Yes. Now imagine that... after you sit on it.
That's funny.
When I was in business school, "Micheal Dell" was called "Toyota".
This could be abused by a "team" of people using the same id...