'What makes this author think people want their phone to ring when their clothes are finished drying? And especially, that they'll pay extra for that?'
Hell, I've taken apart dryers to add an on/off toggle switch (left on off) to the "clothes are finished" buzzer. (I would have just removed the whole thing, but I had no use for the buzzer and the toggle looks good:^)
Well, firstly: there are a lot of stupid inventions (e.g.: hat that spreads into an umbrella). Secondly: there are a lot of inventions that are developed based on previous ideas and are fully exploited (e.g.: paperclips - there are many designs, quite a few still being used). Thirdly: many inventions are innovative, but just not quite good enough to use (e.g.: the development of the zipper took several tries). Fourthly: The technology is often not good/economical enough in practice (e.g. Lilienfeld's invention of the field effect transistor in 1925 (patented in 1930). Finally: some inventions are so far advanced for the time that no one (other than the inventor) sees any realistic use for it (e.g. Babbage's analytical engine)
'Unless you want to present a viable alternative where drugs will be developed and put through FDA trials by somebody else, patents still seem to be the way to go.'
Here's the outline of one:
Allow any drug manufacturer to repeat the FDA trials and thus be allowed to sell the drug or the original manufacturer can licence the drug and manufacturing process, thereby avoiding the (new) trials. The originating company would then be pricing the licences at a cost competitive with the cost of the trials plus R&D into the manufacturing method plus time to market.
'Second, the nature of patents almost guarantees that they almost never help the small inventor, but rather get caught up in large multinational corporations or legal firms who extract license fees...'
I agree that that is one of the very significant problems with the patent system; the inventor does not benefit as often as one would wish. That does not invalidate my remark:
...not all inventors are looking for improvements to their inventions, but rather would like to feed, clothe, etc. their families and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifstyle.
Regardless of means, I believe that innovation (if useful) should provide some material reward. The means and amounts, however, is the tricky part, requiring a balance of public vs. private rights.
'The simple truth is that patents really are a lie about free market economics. They treat it like it's a physical property, but it's not. If millions of people use my car it deprives me use of it in a serious way, but if millions of people use the same invention - then just the opposite happens. The inventor is not only able to keep and use his original invention however he wants, but also now has huge forces contributing to it's improvement.' [emphasize mine]
While there is much wrong with the patent system (to say nothing of IP in general), not all inventors are looking for improvements to their inventions, but rather would like to feed, clothe, etc. their families and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifstyle.
'"Seriously, though, can anyone document a case in which surveillance cameras resulted in a terrorist attack being stopped?"
You'd be amazed at how well cameras act as a deterrent. Criminals are much less likely to commit a crime if they know they're being watched. I can't comment on the terrorist aspect, but I'm sure there was a time somewhere when people walked away because they saw too many cameras around.'[emphasize mine]
[Grandparent]:'In this day and age, if you need funding for crime prevention, you can't get it, but if you call it terrorism prevention, you get some dough.' [Parent]:'Yes, I think that you've hit the nail on the head: "The network is part of a comprehensive strategy in the Baltimore area to spend $25 million in homeland security grants this year and next..."'
Assuming a $100,000 pa cost (salary + overhead) to field a peace officer, this would allow the hiring of 25 'anti-terrorism' personnel for 10 years. This would provide 8 additional 'anti-terrorism' persons on each of 3 eight hour shifts for 24 hour per day coverage, plus the additional supervisor for added administration. Rather than just watch the crime afterwards, they would be in a position to do something about it. Plus, there would be someone a tourist could ask for directions when lost:^)
'To be fair, you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the street in downtown Baltimore.'
I would disagree; it is more fair to say that one would have a lesser degree of privacy in a public place. This would not include allowing automated tracking of everybody. There should be an existing reason (involving criminal activity) for the authorities to track anyone.
Given the last 5000 years or so of governments and their behaviours, one can reasonably conclude that any measure which they can abuse will be abused. They have demonstrated not that government is good, but that, at best, it is better than no government.
'"what is the square root of minus one? Well, maths has an answer and we call it i". Isn't that 'begging the question' a bit.'
Yes, sort of. There is still the question of whether 'i' makes sense and is consistent, that is: is (a theory encompassing) 'i' well-defined? For example: given the simultaneous equations x+1=3 and 2x=6, the fact that we have labelled the answer 'k' does not guarentee that there is, in fact, an answer; in this case there is not.
Here, for i, we have the equation x^2=-1 and have said that, if there is a solution, call it 'i'. Obviously i cannot be real (hence the name 'imaginary'), but can we construct a consistent theory incorporating i? It turns out that we can, i.e.: complex numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that there are jurisdictions in which car mods (or some kinds) are illegal. (California comes to mind).
Would this be it?
I didn't realise that the US government was that hard up for money! :^)
And don't forget up here in Canada; in addition, there is state-ordained history too!
You mean like (first degree) murder vs. manslaughter?
Hell, I've taken apart dryers to add an on/off toggle switch (left on off) to the "clothes are finished" buzzer. (I would have just removed the whole thing, but I had no use for the buzzer and the toggle looks good :^)
No! No!, you're doing it wrong. You have to turn the monitor around and look at the screen from the other side!
Here you go; stainless steel mesh gloves!
Or you can pass them through this Shakspeare translator
Well, firstly: there are a lot of stupid inventions (e.g.: hat that spreads into an umbrella).
Secondly: there are a lot of inventions that are developed based on previous ideas and are fully exploited (e.g.: paperclips - there are many designs, quite a few still being used).
Thirdly: many inventions are innovative, but just not quite good enough to use (e.g.: the development of the zipper took several tries).
Fourthly: The technology is often not good/economical enough in practice (e.g. Lilienfeld's invention of the field effect transistor in 1925 (patented in 1930).
Finally: some inventions are so far advanced for the time that no one (other than the inventor) sees any realistic use for it (e.g. Babbage's analytical engine)
Pfft! of course not! They just like to click the links. (RTFA, ha, what a maroon!)
Computer programmers? (ducks;^)
So: with mods this is /Radio?
No, it's not. At least for some people; for others it is.
'I think it's intellectualy dishonest to assume that without massive monopolies everywhere researchers would just starve in the streets.'
I agree; thankfully I wrote nothing of the kind.
Here's the outline of one:
Allow any drug manufacturer to repeat the FDA trials and thus be allowed to sell the drug or the original manufacturer can licence the drug and manufacturing process, thereby avoiding the (new) trials. The originating company would then be pricing the licences at a cost competitive with the cost of the trials plus R&D into the manufacturing method plus time to market.
I agree that that is one of the very significant problems with the patent system; the inventor does not benefit as often as one would wish. That does not invalidate my remark:
Regardless of means, I believe that innovation (if useful) should provide some material reward. The means and amounts, however, is the tricky part, requiring a balance of public vs. private rights.
Yes, and it means 'fried apples'.
While there is much wrong with the patent system (to say nothing of IP in general), not all inventors are looking for improvements to their inventions, but rather would like to feed, clothe, etc. their families and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifstyle.
You'd be amazed at how well cameras act as a deterrent. Criminals are much less likely to commit a crime if they know they're being watched. I can't comment on the terrorist aspect, but I'm sure there was a time somewhere when people walked away because they saw too many cameras around.'[emphasize mine]
So your answer is 'no'?
[Parent]:'Yes, I think that you've hit the nail on the head:
"The network is part of a comprehensive strategy in the Baltimore area to spend $25 million in homeland security grants this year and next..."'
Assuming a $100,000 pa cost (salary + overhead) to field a peace officer, this would allow the hiring of 25 'anti-terrorism' personnel for 10 years. This would provide 8 additional 'anti-terrorism' persons on each of 3 eight hour shifts for 24 hour per day coverage, plus the additional supervisor for added administration. :^)
Rather than just watch the crime afterwards, they would be in a position to do something about it. Plus, there would be someone a tourist could ask for directions when lost
I would disagree; it is more fair to say that one would have a lesser degree of privacy in a public place. This would not include allowing automated tracking of everybody. There should be an existing reason (involving criminal activity) for the authorities to track anyone.
Given the last 5000 years or so of governments and their behaviours, one can reasonably conclude that any measure which they can abuse will be abused. They have demonstrated not that government is good, but that, at best, it is better than no government.
(You also may want to read his rant against offshore outsourcing.)
They have one right on the page.
Yes, sort of. There is still the question of whether 'i' makes sense and is consistent, that is: is (a theory encompassing) 'i' well-defined? For example: given the simultaneous equations x+1=3 and 2x=6, the fact that we have labelled the answer 'k' does not guarentee that there is, in fact, an answer; in this case there is not.
Here, for i, we have the equation x^2=-1 and have said that, if there is a solution, call it 'i'. Obviously i cannot be real (hence the name 'imaginary'), but can we construct a consistent theory incorporating i? It turns out that we can, i.e.: complex numbers.
shhhh ;^)