Drugs aren't the output of a single device or process. Drugs are the output of multiple devices and processes working to create a novel output and therefore patentable. Software is not the resultant output of multiple devices or processes.
I like your example and it shows the need to support certain activities.
In this case, GM can reverse engineer your product since the physical manifestation of that product exists and can be inspected and its workings discovered.
Software, for the most part, does not exist in a meaningful, tangible manifestation unless you choose to give away the source code. Yes, you get the assembly codes and can decompile the binary into some crippled form of source code, but, you can't really discover the actually mechanism the same way you can take apart a physical device.
Furthermore, a 200 MPG engine would not have been created as the output of a single machine or process. You're not going to build that engine using just a drill press or just a milling machine or even just a 3D printer. If it theoretically COULD be the output of one single device, then, it shouldn't be patentable.
The 200MPG engine is going to be the resultant output of many processes and devices and therefore deserves legal defense.
Software is the output of a single device/process and doesn't deserve to be a patentable output. Furthermore, it can be monetized in the public without others easily "figuring it out" unless it was trivial to begin with at which point we're back to the point where it doesn't deserve to be patented because it's simply not that novel.
See my previous response. In a word, yes, the output of a single mechanical device shouldn't be patentable. Combining outputs from multiple unique devices, however, should be something we encourage and reward with legal defense.
I like how you're thinking and appreciate your response.
In fact, I don't believe you should be able to patent the output of a drilling press or a milling machine. In general, as I think out loud, it seems the root problem is allowing the output from a single device or process to be patented. Once a machine or process exists that can produce an output then nobody should be able to hold license to any one particular output of that device or process.
Now, combine multiple outputs from multiple different devices or processes and create a new device or process that can produce a new kind of output that can't be done with any existing single device or process... that feels like what we want to encourage and give legal defense.
That's a fair point and observation. Development takes time. The reward should be focused on those who actually take the time to develop and market their product for meaningful use in society (or team up with others who can bring a product to market) and not reward those who simply come up with the idea for it and wait to sue someone else who actually spends the time to make it a reality.
The difference is that patents cover the method by which music created; not the actual created content. Copyright protects the actual content. If music could be patented, then, you could be infringing while playing the piano because of the method you are using (pressing keys).
+1 Agree with you here. Stealing content is bad. Go write your own code, create your own music, whatever. Content creators should not have to worry about whether their METHODS are infringing, but, they should be given pause when attempting to steal someone else's effort instead of creating their own.
My issue with software patents are that inventors have the tools to create just about anything in their own home. Anyone could have created Facebook, JPG rendering, one-click purchase with simply a laptop. If software patents were music, it would be like patenting piano music. Press the keys in a certain way (which anyone will eventually do who plays piano at all) and.. oops... you just violated a patent. Press keys in an arbitrary other pattern and viola... instant patent and license to pester future composers with your "invention".
There's nothing non-obvious with just about any software. Developers should not have to worry about the dark legal cloud of patents hanging over them for something literally anyone could create with readily available tools in their own home. That very fact should make it obvious why software patents should not exist. People don't accidentally find a cure for cancer in their basement with their Junior Chem Lab Set which is why patents do have a place in general.Even worse is the fact you could be unknowingly violating a patent without even knowing it and the system purposely allows patent holders to wait around until inventors start to actually profit from their inventions and THEN start suing. The fact that patent holders can even have patents without even having a real product simply shows the system isn't about stimulating and rewarding invention but stirring up revenue for government agencies and legal firms.
Linux isn't a popular gaming platform because it lacks capability or features to support great gaming. It's not a popular gaming platform because game developers can't economically support the myriad of Linux distros in a way the consumer expects to be supported. Supporting even the "most popular" or "most common" Linux (however you want to define it) is a developer death by a 100 paper cuts spending time, effort and money fixing all the little edge cases.
Mainstream consumers want to "get Linux", then "play games" that "just works" not fiddle around recompiling source code or waiting for a package maintainer to get around to creating the package for their particular strain of Linux only to have it stop working 6 months later when the next 0.0.0.1 release comes out of Linux Distro XYZ. Imagine waiting two weeks for a yum update of you favorite MMO game client while everyone on Windows simply clicked an icon the moment the game update was released from the developer, the game updated itself auto-magically and connected and you were playing that evening.
It stands to be seen how well Windows 8 actually turns out as a gaming platform, but, from a veteran MMO developer's perspective, Windows has been a dream to develop, distribute and support games for compared to Linux. Windows prior to Win8 may not have been open source but it was open in the way consumers and developers care: you could build and distribute anything you wanted without approval from anyone.
I can imagine one future path for game consoles is to be hardware integrated into TVs just like cameras are now integrated into cellphones. It's rare nowadays to buy a dedicated camera unless you're an enthusiast. I can totally imagine 5-10 years from now having PS/Wii/XBox enabled TVs being a standard feature set while gaming enthusiasts will continue to purchase cutting edge PC hardware just like photography enthusiasts buy SLRs and the rest of us just use the camera built into our cellphone.
You're using the wrong value of 'you'. If you had explored Linux distributions in any detail at all, you'd know that the 'you' who does the recompile is the package maintainer. This means that the actual developer can simply maintain a stable code base and leave it to others to handle dependency issues on their particular platform. Which is as it should be, because each distro knows its own requirements better than any third party software developer could ever be expected to.
I appreciate your thoughts. There are many aspects of Linux I like from a power user's perspective and even a developer's perspective. If I, as a developer, were maintaining an application such as Gimp, OpenOffice, MySQL or other tool-centric applications, I love the idea of just focusing on source code development and letting package maintainers handle the distribution and sort out the various distro differences.
Where this breaks down is when I'm developing and supporting an application that can change frequently and at any time and is required to be up to date in order for the user to use. I am an MMO developer. The game client isn't an application my users can update when they feel like nor do I want to have to be beholden to package maintainers and their schedule with distributing new changes to the game client while my players are stuck wondering why they can't connect to the game server. When I release a change to the MMO ecosystem, my players expect to be able to click on the little icon and have the game "just work". That means, as a developer, I LOVE the Windows platform because, while it's true I have to do all the work, I am guaranteed that it will work from end to end without a random, significant portion of my playerebase suddenly left stranded for an undetermined amount of time. Furthermore, I don't have to spend my development time chasing down a hundred little special edge cases that all end up being meaningless, yet, time and resource consuming situations to deal with. With Windows, I develop, test and deploy to my users and it "just works".
Linux Desktop will become as powerful and ubiquitous as Linux Server when the Desktop embraces a more user and 3rd party-friendly support and distribution model.
For years we've been talking about "The Year for Linux on the Desktop". As veteran game developer, it's always boggled me how Linux, despite it's power, is so shortsighted when it comes to 3rd party support and distribution. 3rd part support and easy distribution along with backwards and forwards compatibility is what made Windows so dominate over the past 20 years. The typical solution bandied about by Linux users is "you can always distribute the source and recompile". Yes, that's what the average computer wants to do; fiddle around recompiling source code on their personal micro-flavor of Linux out of a sea of 100s of distros only to have it break again with the next 0.0.0.1 release of the underlying OS.
What's telling to me is that now when you ask "What's the most popular Linux distro", you can arguably say "Android" and the reason Android has become so popular is because it easily supports 3rd party apps like a reasonable OS is expected. No fuss no muss. Just like Windows.
Congratulations, Google, for finally taking Linux in the right direction.
I was always amazed with AMD's ability to create a cheaper yet better performing chip during the Athlon days. At that time it seemed silly for anyone to even consider Intel.
I hear you on the wrinkle issue, PC! Unfortunately, I have an affinity for button shirts that have nice stitched embroidery designs which means many of my shirts are wrinkle prone cotton. I do LOVE my wrinkle-free/iron-free shirts. To handle my cotton shirts my girlfriend and I bought a nice dryer with a steam function that suffices to handle the wrinkles pretty well. I envy her... all her dresses are made out of material that literally DOES NOT wrinkle even if she balls her dress up into a tiny ball in the suitcase. She pulls it out, flip flip, smooth as silk.
I like what you're saying. My personal experience is that the only real variation people notice in practice is your shirt and sometimes whether your pants are lighter or darker than normal. That's why I optimized my system to simply focus on creating variety where I feel it has the most impact (the shirt). It's not uncommon for me to wear the same looking jeans over and over yet I look different every day.
The real key to this is being disciplined. It's tempting to want to buy new black socks that don't quite match your existing black socks but keep your old black socks. I mean why not, they are still good... except now you've created an unneeded variation you have to deal with each and every day you want to pick a pair of socks.
Same goes with shirts... all my shirts go well with any pair of blue-ish jeans (except black or really white faded jeans). So when it comes to buying jeans, I don't get white or black, just lighter and darker versions of blue jeans even if I find a killer pair of jeans I really really want.
Finally, the black shoes are key to the whole efficiency because, well, black goes with everything.
Ultimately, I put my effort into the once-a-month / once-a-year shopping effort and make the daily choosing and wearing effort a no brainer.
For my current batch of black socks, I went to Target where they have the black dress socks hanging on individual hooks (usually, as you say, in batches of 1-3), found a pattern I liked AND that had about two dozen identical in stock to buy then and there. I'm down to about 8 pair now (they get holes over time and then I toss them) and I'll go through this routine again when I'm down to about 5 pairs (and throw out whatever remaining existing socks I have since they probably won't match the new batch). Not going to lie, sometimes you have to drive to a variety of places to find a store with a style you like and have enough quantity in stock.
I like the sentiment expressed. Why waste mental resources on mundane decisions that don't amount to anything worthwhile. I created a similar routine with my clothes, however, I do not by wearing THE EXACT same thing every day (and bragging about it), but, by creating a routine system that still requires no decision making yet produces a diverse look.
I have one pair of stylish black shoes (slip on even) that look great with jeans, pants or a suit.
I have two dozen pair of black socks that are all identical. This means I merely need to grab two socks and I know they match. I don't allow variations (which means you end up having to inspect each sock to find it's right mate) and who cares about socks.
Finally, and this is the key, I have a limited set of jeans and button shirts that all mix and match without exception.
At the beginning of the day, I merely pick a pair of jeans, grab a shirt, two socks and slip on my one pair of shoes and voila I've spent no effort thinking about it yet I look great.
As a hiring manager, when I see a candidate with a CS degree from MIT, Stanford or Carnegie Mellon, I take notice. I also take notice of any candidate that can show me working code they've done on their own time regardless of degree.
The key ingredients that get a game design funded and developed are:
1. A succinct, energizing demonstration of the core concept that can be comprehended within 30 seconds by a group of non-gamers (typically Investors, Directors and Executives). This can be a storyboard, a working demo or a mock demo with cobbled pieces from other games for illustration.
2. Assembling a team that is ready and capable of executing the concept.
Ultimately, what investors and companies invest in are teams of people that can develop a killer concept into reality.
Perhaps when they say "unlimited data" they mean you're free to download and process any data (web, video, music, txt, voice, etc). I know when I hear "unlimited" in reference to a web-enabled device I think no download limits, but, it wouldn't surprise me if legally/contractually they are contrasting that with other digital devices that are limited to processing voice data or limited to processing text data.
I own a 2005 corvette so I'm fairly sensitive to gas prices since I am required to use premium gas. Here is how I how I changed my driving habits to go from getting 15mpg on average per tank of gas to 22mpg under practically identical driving conditions.
My 'vette is a 6-speed manual transmission and has both an average and instant mpg monitor. On the highway, my 'vette gets surprisingly good gas mileage; on average between 26-30mpg. Unfortunately the 'vette suffers greatly in stop-and-go traffic, which was my more common type of driving.
To boost my mpg, I adjusted the following driving habits:
1. Drive in the highest gear possible. I used to have a habit of driving in 4th gear around town. Switching to 6th gear on the same roads boosted me from 15mpg to 18mpg with that single change.
2. In general, reduce acceleration and brake usage. Many of the following items give specific examples of this basic theme.
3. Don't brake while making turns or taking corners. I used to brake heavily before taking a corner, followed by hard acceleration after the corner. Reducing both helped.
4. Coast to stops. Rather than keeping the foot on the gas then braking at stops; I coasted as much as possible with the clutch disengaged.
5. Observe and anticipate traffic-lights. Anticipating a green light to turn red meant I could coast to the inevitable stop from a farther distance away. Good timing was a bonus since I might not need to stop at all. Rushing up to beat a green only to have to brake hard and THEN start from a dead-standstill just wastes gas. Might as well coast; it's all the same time-wise.
Anticipating a red light to turn green meant keeping my speed steady which avoided needless braking followed by needless acceleration.
Sometimes applying a little accelerator on a diminishing green light meant avoiding having to start from a dead stand-still at a stoplight (the worst gas consumption to avoid if at all possible).
It all comes down to paying attention to your traffic lights on your most commonly traveled routes and knowing their specific timings.
6. Find your sweet-spot on the highway. Turns out my sweet spot for my 'vette, mpg-wise, was between 75-85mph. Driving slower isn't necessarily more efficient.
7. Ease the accelerator from dead-standstills.
8. Get to your highest gear possible as quick as possible from stand-stills. I start in 1st and skip-shift to 4th and then skip-shift to 6th.
9. Keep the tires inflated.
10. Coast in parking lots. If you have regular places you go to such as shopping or work, find ways to coast into your parking spot to avoid using the accelerator. Taking a few extra seconds to park (or parking a in spots that are conducive to coasting even if they aren't front row) isn't going to change your day but it will save you some gas.
Perhaps some of these tips will help you. I know they helped me.
Slashdot Mirror
Drugs aren't the output of a single device or process. Drugs are the output of multiple devices and processes working to create a novel output and therefore patentable. Software is not the resultant output of multiple devices or processes.
I like your example and it shows the need to support certain activities.
In this case, GM can reverse engineer your product since the physical manifestation of that product exists and can be inspected and its workings discovered.
Software, for the most part, does not exist in a meaningful, tangible manifestation unless you choose to give away the source code. Yes, you get the assembly codes and can decompile the binary into some crippled form of source code, but, you can't really discover the actually mechanism the same way you can take apart a physical device.
Furthermore, a 200 MPG engine would not have been created as the output of a single machine or process. You're not going to build that engine using just a drill press or just a milling machine or even just a 3D printer. If it theoretically COULD be the output of one single device, then, it shouldn't be patentable.
The 200MPG engine is going to be the resultant output of many processes and devices and therefore deserves legal defense.
Software is the output of a single device/process and doesn't deserve to be a patentable output. Furthermore, it can be monetized in the public without others easily "figuring it out" unless it was trivial to begin with at which point we're back to the point where it doesn't deserve to be patented because it's simply not that novel.
See my previous response. In a word, yes, the output of a single mechanical device shouldn't be patentable. Combining outputs from multiple unique devices, however, should be something we encourage and reward with legal defense.
I like how you're thinking and appreciate your response.
In fact, I don't believe you should be able to patent the output of a drilling press or a milling machine. In general, as I think out loud, it seems the root problem is allowing the output from a single device or process to be patented. Once a machine or process exists that can produce an output then nobody should be able to hold license to any one particular output of that device or process.
Now, combine multiple outputs from multiple different devices or processes and create a new device or process that can produce a new kind of output that can't be done with any existing single device or process... that feels like what we want to encourage and give legal defense.
That's a fair point and observation. Development takes time. The reward should be focused on those who actually take the time to develop and market their product for meaningful use in society (or team up with others who can bring a product to market) and not reward those who simply come up with the idea for it and wait to sue someone else who actually spends the time to make it a reality.
The difference is that patents cover the method by which music created; not the actual created content. Copyright protects the actual content. If music could be patented, then, you could be infringing while playing the piano because of the method you are using (pressing keys).
+1 Agree with you here. Stealing content is bad. Go write your own code, create your own music, whatever. Content creators should not have to worry about whether their METHODS are infringing, but, they should be given pause when attempting to steal someone else's effort instead of creating their own.
My issue with software patents are that inventors have the tools to create just about anything in their own home. Anyone could have created Facebook, JPG rendering, one-click purchase with simply a laptop. If software patents were music, it would be like patenting piano music. Press the keys in a certain way (which anyone will eventually do who plays piano at all) and .. oops... you just violated a patent. Press keys in an arbitrary other pattern and viola... instant patent and license to pester future composers with your "invention".
There's nothing non-obvious with just about any software. Developers should not have to worry about the dark legal cloud of patents hanging over them for something literally anyone could create with readily available tools in their own home. That very fact should make it obvious why software patents should not exist. People don't accidentally find a cure for cancer in their basement with their Junior Chem Lab Set which is why patents do have a place in general.Even worse is the fact you could be unknowingly violating a patent without even knowing it and the system purposely allows patent holders to wait around until inventors start to actually profit from their inventions and THEN start suing. The fact that patent holders can even have patents without even having a real product simply shows the system isn't about stimulating and rewarding invention but stirring up revenue for government agencies and legal firms.
Linux isn't a popular gaming platform because it lacks capability or features to support great gaming. It's not a popular gaming platform because game developers can't economically support the myriad of Linux distros in a way the consumer expects to be supported. Supporting even the "most popular" or "most common" Linux (however you want to define it) is a developer death by a 100 paper cuts spending time, effort and money fixing all the little edge cases.
Mainstream consumers want to "get Linux", then "play games" that "just works" not fiddle around recompiling source code or waiting for a package maintainer to get around to creating the package for their particular strain of Linux only to have it stop working 6 months later when the next 0.0.0.1 release comes out of Linux Distro XYZ. Imagine waiting two weeks for a yum update of you favorite MMO game client while everyone on Windows simply clicked an icon the moment the game update was released from the developer, the game updated itself auto-magically and connected and you were playing that evening.
It stands to be seen how well Windows 8 actually turns out as a gaming platform, but, from a veteran MMO developer's perspective, Windows has been a dream to develop, distribute and support games for compared to Linux. Windows prior to Win8 may not have been open source but it was open in the way consumers and developers care: you could build and distribute anything you wanted without approval from anyone.
I can imagine one future path for game consoles is to be hardware integrated into TVs just like cameras are now integrated into cellphones. It's rare nowadays to buy a dedicated camera unless you're an enthusiast. I can totally imagine 5-10 years from now having PS/Wii/XBox enabled TVs being a standard feature set while gaming enthusiasts will continue to purchase cutting edge PC hardware just like photography enthusiasts buy SLRs and the rest of us just use the camera built into our cellphone.
You're using the wrong value of 'you'. If you had explored Linux distributions in any detail at all, you'd know that the 'you' who does the recompile is the package maintainer. This means that the actual developer can simply maintain a stable code base and leave it to others to handle dependency issues on their particular platform. Which is as it should be, because each distro knows its own requirements better than any third party software developer could ever be expected to.
I appreciate your thoughts. There are many aspects of Linux I like from a power user's perspective and even a developer's perspective. If I, as a developer, were maintaining an application such as Gimp, OpenOffice, MySQL or other tool-centric applications, I love the idea of just focusing on source code development and letting package maintainers handle the distribution and sort out the various distro differences.
Where this breaks down is when I'm developing and supporting an application that can change frequently and at any time and is required to be up to date in order for the user to use. I am an MMO developer. The game client isn't an application my users can update when they feel like nor do I want to have to be beholden to package maintainers and their schedule with distributing new changes to the game client while my players are stuck wondering why they can't connect to the game server. When I release a change to the MMO ecosystem, my players expect to be able to click on the little icon and have the game "just work". That means, as a developer, I LOVE the Windows platform because, while it's true I have to do all the work, I am guaranteed that it will work from end to end without a random, significant portion of my playerebase suddenly left stranded for an undetermined amount of time. Furthermore, I don't have to spend my development time chasing down a hundred little special edge cases that all end up being meaningless, yet, time and resource consuming situations to deal with. With Windows, I develop, test and deploy to my users and it "just works".
Linux Desktop will become as powerful and ubiquitous as Linux Server when the Desktop embraces a more user and 3rd party-friendly support and distribution model.
For years we've been talking about "The Year for Linux on the Desktop". As veteran game developer, it's always boggled me how Linux, despite it's power, is so shortsighted when it comes to 3rd party support and distribution. 3rd part support and easy distribution along with backwards and forwards compatibility is what made Windows so dominate over the past 20 years. The typical solution bandied about by Linux users is "you can always distribute the source and recompile". Yes, that's what the average computer wants to do; fiddle around recompiling source code on their personal micro-flavor of Linux out of a sea of 100s of distros only to have it break again with the next 0.0.0.1 release of the underlying OS.
What's telling to me is that now when you ask "What's the most popular Linux distro", you can arguably say "Android" and the reason Android has become so popular is because it easily supports 3rd party apps like a reasonable OS is expected. No fuss no muss. Just like Windows.
Congratulations, Google, for finally taking Linux in the right direction.
I was always amazed with AMD's ability to create a cheaper yet better performing chip during the Athlon days. At that time it seemed silly for anyone to even consider Intel.
This book kicked off my game development career 18 years ago.
Tricks of the Game-Programming Gurus
http://www.amazon.com/Tricks-Game-Programming-Gurus-Andre-Lamothe/dp/0672305070/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350093954&sr=8-2&keywords=tips+tricks+of+the+game+programming+gurus
I think you mean Pro Tip but yea I was only discussing the visible parts.
Haha! Sounds like what I would expect from Sheldon!
I hear you on the wrinkle issue, PC! Unfortunately, I have an affinity for button shirts that have nice stitched embroidery designs which means many of my shirts are wrinkle prone cotton. I do LOVE my wrinkle-free/iron-free shirts. To handle my cotton shirts my girlfriend and I bought a nice dryer with a steam function that suffices to handle the wrinkles pretty well. I envy her... all her dresses are made out of material that literally DOES NOT wrinkle even if she balls her dress up into a tiny ball in the suitcase. She pulls it out, flip flip, smooth as silk.
Thanks RB
I like what you're saying. My personal experience is that the only real variation people notice in practice is your shirt and sometimes whether your pants are lighter or darker than normal. That's why I optimized my system to simply focus on creating variety where I feel it has the most impact (the shirt). It's not uncommon for me to wear the same looking jeans over and over yet I look different every day.
The real key to this is being disciplined. It's tempting to want to buy new black socks that don't quite match your existing black socks but keep your old black socks. I mean why not, they are still good... except now you've created an unneeded variation you have to deal with each and every day you want to pick a pair of socks.
Same goes with shirts... all my shirts go well with any pair of blue-ish jeans (except black or really white faded jeans). So when it comes to buying jeans, I don't get white or black, just lighter and darker versions of blue jeans even if I find a killer pair of jeans I really really want.
Finally, the black shoes are key to the whole efficiency because, well, black goes with everything.
Ultimately, I put my effort into the once-a-month / once-a-year shopping effort and make the daily choosing and wearing effort a no brainer.
For my current batch of black socks, I went to Target where they have the black dress socks hanging on individual hooks (usually, as you say, in batches of 1-3), found a pattern I liked AND that had about two dozen identical in stock to buy then and there. I'm down to about 8 pair now (they get holes over time and then I toss them) and I'll go through this routine again when I'm down to about 5 pairs (and throw out whatever remaining existing socks I have since they probably won't match the new batch). Not going to lie, sometimes you have to drive to a variety of places to find a store with a style you like and have enough quantity in stock.
I like the sentiment expressed. Why waste mental resources on mundane decisions that don't amount to anything worthwhile. I created a similar routine with my clothes, however, I do not by wearing THE EXACT same thing every day (and bragging about it), but, by creating a routine system that still requires no decision making yet produces a diverse look.
I have one pair of stylish black shoes (slip on even) that look great with jeans, pants or a suit.
I have two dozen pair of black socks that are all identical. This means I merely need to grab two socks and I know they match. I don't allow variations (which means you end up having to inspect each sock to find it's right mate) and who cares about socks.
Finally, and this is the key, I have a limited set of jeans and button shirts that all mix and match without exception.
At the beginning of the day, I merely pick a pair of jeans, grab a shirt, two socks and slip on my one pair of shoes and voila I've spent no effort thinking about it yet I look great.
As a hiring manager, when I see a candidate with a CS degree from MIT, Stanford or Carnegie Mellon, I take notice. I also take notice of any candidate that can show me working code they've done on their own time regardless of degree.
The key ingredients that get a game design funded and developed are:
1. A succinct, energizing demonstration of the core concept that can be comprehended within 30 seconds by a group of non-gamers (typically Investors, Directors and Executives). This can be a storyboard, a working demo or a mock demo with cobbled pieces from other games for illustration.
2. Assembling a team that is ready and capable of executing the concept.
Ultimately, what investors and companies invest in are teams of people that can develop a killer concept into reality.
Perhaps when they say "unlimited data" they mean you're free to download and process any data (web, video, music, txt, voice, etc). I know when I hear "unlimited" in reference to a web-enabled device I think no download limits, but, it wouldn't surprise me if legally/contractually they are contrasting that with other digital devices that are limited to processing voice data or limited to processing text data.
I own a 2005 corvette so I'm fairly sensitive to gas prices since I am required to use premium gas. Here is how I how I changed my driving habits to go from getting 15mpg on average per tank of gas to 22mpg under practically identical driving conditions.
My 'vette is a 6-speed manual transmission and has both an average and instant mpg monitor. On the highway, my 'vette gets surprisingly good gas mileage; on average between 26-30mpg. Unfortunately the 'vette suffers greatly in stop-and-go traffic, which was my more common type of driving.
To boost my mpg, I adjusted the following driving habits:
1. Drive in the highest gear possible. I used to have a habit of driving in 4th gear around town. Switching to 6th gear on the same roads boosted me from 15mpg to 18mpg with that single change.
2. In general, reduce acceleration and brake usage. Many of the following items give specific examples of this basic theme.
3. Don't brake while making turns or taking corners. I used to brake heavily before taking a corner, followed by hard acceleration after the corner. Reducing both helped.
4. Coast to stops. Rather than keeping the foot on the gas then braking at stops; I coasted as much as possible with the clutch disengaged.
5. Observe and anticipate traffic-lights.
Anticipating a green light to turn red meant I could coast to the inevitable stop from a farther distance away. Good timing was a bonus since I might not need to stop at all. Rushing up to beat a green only to have to brake hard and THEN start from a dead-standstill just wastes gas. Might as well coast; it's all the same time-wise.
Anticipating a red light to turn green meant keeping my speed steady which avoided needless braking followed by needless acceleration.
Sometimes applying a little accelerator on a diminishing green light meant avoiding having to start from a dead stand-still at a stoplight (the worst gas consumption to avoid if at all possible).
It all comes down to paying attention to your traffic lights on your most commonly traveled routes and knowing their specific timings.
6. Find your sweet-spot on the highway. Turns out my sweet spot for my 'vette, mpg-wise, was between 75-85mph. Driving slower isn't necessarily more efficient.
7. Ease the accelerator from dead-standstills.
8. Get to your highest gear possible as quick as possible from stand-stills. I start in 1st and skip-shift to 4th and then skip-shift to 6th.
9. Keep the tires inflated.
10. Coast in parking lots. If you have regular places you go to such as shopping or work, find ways to coast into your parking spot to avoid using the accelerator. Taking a few extra seconds to park (or parking a in spots that are conducive to coasting even if they aren't front row) isn't going to change your day but it will save you some gas.
Perhaps some of these tips will help you. I know they helped me.
This post has been one of the most insightful things I've seen written on Slashdot for a long time.