Let the moon help with that. it is rock, and tunnel machines can work robotically. Then it is a matter of sealing it off and letting the rock itself be your shielding.
two machines, and create a V shaped complex. It doesn't have to be very long at least as far as tunnels go. and once built the inner layers would be easy enough to seal off.
You do know about Lunar dust, right? More abrasive than virtually anything on Earth, it floats up a meter and more off the ground by electrostatic charge, that same charge can cause it to cling to any exposed surface like it is electro-plated on (because, basically, it is...) makes machines with moving parts... challenging... to design for durability. That, and the vacuum, and the temperature extremes, and the radiation (you did want digital computer controls, didn't you?), and the fact that nobody has taken the challenge seriously yet, so there aren't really any Earth-based testing labs devoted to real lunar excavation machine testing yet... I could see a 10 year learning curve before we have something that we _think_ will work well enough to justify the cost of sending it there to find out, and then I would expect a Mars Lander like rate of success.
At least with the Moon we don't have to wait for 2 year launch window opportunities.
I think the project could evolve to true greatness if the individual scenes could be put into competition, with the highest voted scenes making the final cut in a monthly release...
Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't see why transforming the Arctic from ice (white and highly reflective) to liquid (darker in color and absorbs solar energy in the top 10 meters), might want to think about how many white cows would have to be replaced with black cows to have the same net effect. (Answer: even in post-McDonalds America, there aren't enough cows to equal the surface area of the Arctic ice cap)
The executive class of these companies have been farming out more and more work to China. They do so under the arrogant premise that the manufacturing can be done without learning the original design work. Already fair parts of the design work have been taken over by Chinese companies.
The arrogant part is in thinking that we are the only ones that can come up with a good design, that we can create 'intellectual property' and make profits solely off of that.
I think it's simpler than that... read the bit about yanking workers out of bed at Midnight and having thousands of units produced by morning. Why put up with arrogant workers who think they can sleep until the sun comes up, spend weekends and holidays with their families, and require more than a week's notice to relocate to another town? The "party line" is that China has strict labor laws that would forbid such things, but wink, wink, we can do it if it gets your business.
The United States did this after WWII, and the arrogant Europeans mostly bought our stuff, in part because their countries were decimated, and also in part because Americans worked a little bit harder and cheaper than the Europeans were willing to. China is taking it to the next level, and it's a level I wouldn't want to follow them to. It's very seductive to business, if the U.S. wants to recapture domestic production, we're going to have to do what the Germans do and start paying 3 and 4x as much for our domestically made appliances and be happy doing it because they're of superior quality and using them benefits our countrymen.
Or, we can kiss a couple of million of our children goodbye after 10th grade and ship them off to "trade University" where they'll live, learn and work in a world competitive environment for the next 30-40 years, doing whatever they're told on a moment's notice and getting 2 weeks per year of liberty - like being in the army, but without people shooting at you, and with much lower retirement benefits.
In the "bleeding edge" emerging electronics tech world, Mr. Jobs may have been right, those jobs are gone. If you want ideas transformed from an executive decision to new designs in the hands of millions of consumers in less than 6 months, there's not time for everyone in that supply chain to watch their kids at soccer practice.
What source code is there if it's all hardware? I don't think it would be that difficult to make a no-software electrical stimulator, we have large ones at the sex shop, making a tiny one shouldn't be any more difficult.
The original pacemakers were all hardware, but it's a lot more convenient to adjust settings when you don't have to cut the patient open and turn a set screw.
There's not a whole lot of difference between a TENS (transcutaneous electrical neurostimulator) from the sex-shop and an implanted device, well, except for the whole bio-compatible implant case and lead wires, electrodes you can place safely on the surface of a beating heart, batteries that last 7 years, etc.
As a mechanical engineer I feel a little insulted. Why does the lawyer want the software code but not all of the design documents?
At least with the software, there's a good chance that it's delivered as specified. Design documents might point out a design flaw, but more likely the mechanical flaws will be in production's execution of the design.
I think one of the major software flaws in most implanted devices is that many of their communication protocols rely on security through obscurity. If the code were revealed, you could literally drop some implantees dead as they walk in or out of a Wal-Mart by modulating the inventory control system emitted fields as they pass.
Historical failure rates say nothing about what malicious intent might achieve in the future.
It's called software validation and it's a pain in the ass. It's such a pain for medical devices that everyone avoids it unless absolutely needed. Which is why medicine is 10 years behind when it comes to electronics.
I always thought AAMI 62304 summed it up better... but, either way you look at it, the main effect of the regulations is to slow things down, make them more costly, and therefore less subject to rapid reinvention.
Along about 1978, new medical devices were coming out so quickly that doctors and regulators couldn't keep up, so we got the 510(k) regulations. Then about 1990 or so they realized that they had to do something about software and the design process, too, so the "design controls" regulations rolled in in the mid 1990s. There's some minimal merit in the formalization of the product and software development process, but the real desired (and achieved) effect in the marketplace is to throttle the number of new types of devices coming to market so that only the best, and best understood, make it over the initial cost to market hurdle. I think the regulation also serves to stifle improvement of the devices that have made it to market, since the investment to get there is so great, business leaders are very wary about doing anything that might put a successful device "at risk," such as pointing out a flaw by improving it.
The device sends data unencrypted (isn't that a HIPA violation?).
The device accepts external commands without authentication (WTF?).
An attacker can relatively easily cause cardiac arrest in someone implanted with one of these.
FDA approval means that the manufacturer is not liable for any of the above.
FDA approves nothing, they give permission to market. FDA accepts no liability in the event of a problem with the device, that still falls on the manufacturer, and the physician and hospital which installed it and monitored it.
One of my favorite arguments for a wiki in a corporate documentation system is the early nuclear submarines (which were indirectly behind the development of hypertext documentations systems) and their paperwork which literally weighed more and occupied more volume than the submarine itself.
This sort of demand is why lawyers are disliked. The life science industry has to follow the FDA directive to perform a source code review. It is very unlikely that the source code in these devices have any remaining bugs due to the length of time that these devices have been used. In addition to the source code for the software running the device, which is most likely to be extremely robust given the long time that these devices have been in use (+25 years), she might as well ask for the manufacturing process details for the battery, the casing, the electronic components, and the design of the microprocessor. This is pointless since any qualified experts on the code are likely to be working for the device manufacturer.
The medical device industry I worked in for 20+ years was highly unlikely to open a can of approved worms. Once the software receives permission to market, it's mostly locked down to avoid the appearance of weakness, the potential for recall of affected devices, and the liability of admitting fault in devices already distributed for use.
...and incidentally every time one of their products flies over my house to land at the DC area airport I live close to.
Yet I don't demand to audit their code.
There is also a pilot and co-pilot in command of the aircraft. Most of the time they're sober enough to recover any software glitches before a crash, and they're usually awake during takeoffs and landings.
Best case, she improves the reliability or security of the code.
What makes you think anything she can do will improve the security of the code?
Short retort: what makes you think she cant? Flaws have already been demonstrated. Somebody (she, or her paid expert) can certainly remove them if they try.
What good would it do to inspect the code under and NDA?
It would give her the peace of mind that she knows better the true extents and seriousness of the flaws, the circumstances under which they might (and might not) arise, and the potential for somebody to remotely screw around with her heart rate against her will.
The manufacturer is expecting you to trust this device they sell to regulate your heart rate 24/7/365 for many years. That's more trust than we put in most "things" in this life, especially software driven things.
O.K. before you start giving me computer controlled aircraft examples, remember the redundancies and human elements in those systems, same for automobiles, ships and trains. A pacemaker is flying solo, 100% computer controlled with virtually zero oversight for months at a time, especially while you sleep.
But does that imply that someone has the right to force the manufacturer to open up their source code?
Does she require the code to be "opened up"? AFAICT, she wants to check the code, nothing more.
If I was the manufacturer of the device, she'd sign an NDA and get the code. Worst case, she spreads the code and gets sued. Best case, she improves the reliability or security of the code.
I don't really see any problem here.
The problem is in the perception. If she finds "areas to improve" in the code, what does the manufacturer say to the tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of implantees with the code that "could be improved?" Swapping out the device before it's normal end of life is an additional surgery, which carries a slight but non-zero chance of death.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet piracy legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns on this important issue.
As you may be aware, on May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP/ PIPA, S. 968), which is meant to curb the online theft of intellectual property, much of which is occurring through rogue websites overseas in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs. It was with this in mind that I was previously a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act. I believe it's important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy. However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and can promote new technologies.
Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill unanimously and without controversy. Since then, I've heard from a number of Floridians who have raised legitimate concerns about the impact this bill could have on Internet access, as well as a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's authority to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.
Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the PROTECT IP Act. Furthermore, I have encouraged Majority Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet. Please know that I will remain mindful of your concerns should this, or similar legislation, such as the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261), come before the Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida. If I can be of any further help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I'm not trying to imply that there was an evil genius behind the plot, or there was any malice aforethought, just that it has played out as an entrapment scenario, much like MicroSoft allowing (encouraging?) widespread piracy to drive adoption, then putting the screws to the legitimate channels when doing so would turn them into the richest corporation in the world.
Well, maybe I'll deserve my troll point for this next line, but maybe there was some evil genius malice aforethought in Redmond....
No, they didn't say that in the article. Are you suggesting that Scandinavian countries are 'heavily policed' states?
I'd say that Scandinavia has at least as thorough and consistent rule of law as the United States, probably more completely and evenly enforced than in the U.S., too.
Say you're a consumer electronics manufacturer, like, oh, Sony, and you make audio, then later video recording devices "for the masses," you sell them in quantity, get them in the hands of Joe Average, and let him record whatever he wants, which you know is about 98.9% copies of commercial works and 1% his garage band (playing cover tunes without a license) or 2 year old reciting the cereal commercial from T.V., and 0.1% actual, legitimate use.
So, what's your next move? Why, get into the commercial content industry, of course... music, movies, basically anything that makes something worthy of copying with the very same consumer electronics you've successfully sold for the last decade or three... It's a booming industry, lots of money to make there.
And, then what? Well, of course, you go and clamp down on all this horrid copyright infringement that you yourself have been enabling and implicitly promoting for 50 years.
Entrapment is (rarely, but sometimes) a valid argument against the police, why not corporations?
Sad story for the rural Kentucky factory workers, I'd bet the guy did alright in the deal, though - probably alright enough that he could give his ex-factory workers a couple hundred bucks a month each, if he wanted to.
I'd rather just have a smart-phone app that images shelf-tags, uploads them to a database, and simultaneously checks that database to tell me if the store I'm standing in is screwing me on the price of the item I'm about to pick up. If a competitor on (or near) my regular travel routes (also automatically learned by the app) has the exact same (or equivalent) item for a significantly better price, the app beeps and informs me of it, otherwise it just silently collects data and shares it with other users of the same app in my area.
If there were an actual app like that, I might think that $30/month for a wireless data plan is actually justifiable, not only for the money I'd save directly, but also for the effect it would have on my local merchants, discouraging them from constantly spiking prices up and down since they'd lose more on the loss leaders and gain less on the gouges.
Wal-Mart is a historically very dangerous partner, especially for small companies. Their high volume and low pricing come at the cost of any slack for their partners, who wind up on a treadmill of lowering per unit costs, and wind up "making up in volume what they lose on every sale". I've seen several smaller companies with products sold there start out very excited, but go very bankrupt within 5 years because they can't keep the prices down low enough to match Wal-Mart's demands without firing the staff who came up with the product.
It's a very dangerous tiger to grab the tail of for a small business, especially a small patent holder. If the patent will help pad your resume, I could see it, but don't rely on Wal-Mart to help you make money with it.
Or, just take this for what it is, a fun come-on that might feel like a lottery win for some schmo with a better beer holder who wouldn't otherwise be able to do anything with his idea. If you've got a valid going concern of a business, this contest is probably not for you. If, on the other hand, you're a typical WalMart shopper, this could be very much like American Idol for otherwise hopeless inventors.
A product idea, or an issue with a product idea? Unless you've got a lot of backing to get you through the production and sales gauntlets, you'd make more money per hour reciting "you want fries with that?" through a greasy microphone for the next 10 years, than attempting to push even the best of product ideas out to market over the same time frame.
the chance to SELL your product on Wal-Mart's shelves
Incase anybody doesn't know: this ^^^ can be worth more than your weight in pure Platinum.
I was sort-of nearby when BreatheRight did their launch. More important than NFL players wearing them on camera was the shelf space in the drug stores, they didn't say what all it took to get that shelf space, but it was implied that there were blood sacrifices...
Interesting point from the article, they imply that in a heavily policed state atheists are less discriminated against. Seems that people just need to feel that someone is watching them (and, by implication, the other guy), if everyone believes in God, that need is satisfied to some degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Let the moon help with that. it is rock, and tunnel machines can work robotically. Then it is a matter of sealing it off and letting the rock itself be your shielding.
two machines, and create a V shaped complex. It doesn't have to be very long at least as far as tunnels go. and once built the inner layers would be easy enough to seal off.
You do know about Lunar dust, right? More abrasive than virtually anything on Earth, it floats up a meter and more off the ground by electrostatic charge, that same charge can cause it to cling to any exposed surface like it is electro-plated on (because, basically, it is...) makes machines with moving parts... challenging... to design for durability. That, and the vacuum, and the temperature extremes, and the radiation (you did want digital computer controls, didn't you?), and the fact that nobody has taken the challenge seriously yet, so there aren't really any Earth-based testing labs devoted to real lunar excavation machine testing yet... I could see a 10 year learning curve before we have something that we _think_ will work well enough to justify the cost of sending it there to find out, and then I would expect a Mars Lander like rate of success.
At least with the Moon we don't have to wait for 2 year launch window opportunities.
I think the project could evolve to true greatness if the individual scenes could be put into competition, with the highest voted scenes making the final cut in a monthly release...
But Al Gore lives in a big house and lies about inventing the Internet, so he's a big weenee and we don't have to listen to him lalalalalalalalalala
You left out his wife's backing of censorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
and, about the house, he feels real bad about that, and has bought all sorts of green credits to make up for it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't see why transforming the Arctic from ice (white and highly reflective) to liquid (darker in color and absorbs solar energy in the top 10 meters), might want to think about how many white cows would have to be replaced with black cows to have the same net effect. (Answer: even in post-McDonalds America, there aren't enough cows to equal the surface area of the Arctic ice cap)
The executive class of these companies have been farming out more and more work to China. They do so under the arrogant premise that the manufacturing can be done without learning the original design work. Already fair parts of the design work have been taken over by Chinese companies.
The arrogant part is in thinking that we are the only ones that can come up with a good design, that we can create 'intellectual property' and make profits solely off of that.
I think it's simpler than that... read the bit about yanking workers out of bed at Midnight and having thousands of units produced by morning. Why put up with arrogant workers who think they can sleep until the sun comes up, spend weekends and holidays with their families, and require more than a week's notice to relocate to another town? The "party line" is that China has strict labor laws that would forbid such things, but wink, wink, we can do it if it gets your business.
The United States did this after WWII, and the arrogant Europeans mostly bought our stuff, in part because their countries were decimated, and also in part because Americans worked a little bit harder and cheaper than the Europeans were willing to. China is taking it to the next level, and it's a level I wouldn't want to follow them to. It's very seductive to business, if the U.S. wants to recapture domestic production, we're going to have to do what the Germans do and start paying 3 and 4x as much for our domestically made appliances and be happy doing it because they're of superior quality and using them benefits our countrymen.
Or, we can kiss a couple of million of our children goodbye after 10th grade and ship them off to "trade University" where they'll live, learn and work in a world competitive environment for the next 30-40 years, doing whatever they're told on a moment's notice and getting 2 weeks per year of liberty - like being in the army, but without people shooting at you, and with much lower retirement benefits.
In the "bleeding edge" emerging electronics tech world, Mr. Jobs may have been right, those jobs are gone. If you want ideas transformed from an executive decision to new designs in the hands of millions of consumers in less than 6 months, there's not time for everyone in that supply chain to watch their kids at soccer practice.
What source code is there if it's all hardware? I don't think it would be that difficult to make a no-software electrical stimulator, we have large ones at the sex shop, making a tiny one shouldn't be any more difficult.
The original pacemakers were all hardware, but it's a lot more convenient to adjust settings when you don't have to cut the patient open and turn a set screw.
There's not a whole lot of difference between a TENS (transcutaneous electrical neurostimulator) from the sex-shop and an implanted device, well, except for the whole bio-compatible implant case and lead wires, electrodes you can place safely on the surface of a beating heart, batteries that last 7 years, etc.
As a mechanical engineer I feel a little insulted. Why does the lawyer want the software code but not all of the design documents?
At least with the software, there's a good chance that it's delivered as specified. Design documents might point out a design flaw, but more likely the mechanical flaws will be in production's execution of the design.
there is no excuse for the code not being 100% open. People's lives hang in the balance.
Security through obscurity has served that industry well for many decades - and it is a VERY good reason to not release the source code.
Yes, they should use better security methods, but most of them haven't yet.
I think one of the major software flaws in most implanted devices is that many of their communication protocols rely on security through obscurity. If the code were revealed, you could literally drop some implantees dead as they walk in or out of a Wal-Mart by modulating the inventory control system emitted fields as they pass.
Historical failure rates say nothing about what malicious intent might achieve in the future.
It's called software validation and it's a pain in the ass. It's such a pain for medical devices that everyone avoids it unless absolutely needed. Which is why medicine is 10 years behind when it comes to electronics.
For a "quick" overview, here's a start: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126954.htm
I always thought AAMI 62304 summed it up better... but, either way you look at it, the main effect of the regulations is to slow things down, make them more costly, and therefore less subject to rapid reinvention.
Along about 1978, new medical devices were coming out so quickly that doctors and regulators couldn't keep up, so we got the 510(k) regulations. Then about 1990 or so they realized that they had to do something about software and the design process, too, so the "design controls" regulations rolled in in the mid 1990s. There's some minimal merit in the formalization of the product and software development process, but the real desired (and achieved) effect in the marketplace is to throttle the number of new types of devices coming to market so that only the best, and best understood, make it over the initial cost to market hurdle. I think the regulation also serves to stifle improvement of the devices that have made it to market, since the investment to get there is so great, business leaders are very wary about doing anything that might put a successful device "at risk," such as pointing out a flaw by improving it.
And, as she said in the talk:
FDA approves nothing, they give permission to market. FDA accepts no liability in the event of a problem with the device, that still falls on the manufacturer, and the physician and hospital which installed it and monitored it.
One of my favorite arguments for a wiki in a corporate documentation system is the early nuclear submarines (which were indirectly behind the development of hypertext documentations systems) and their paperwork which literally weighed more and occupied more volume than the submarine itself.
This sort of demand is why lawyers are disliked. The life science industry has to follow the FDA directive to perform a source code review. It is very unlikely that the source code in these devices have any remaining bugs due to the length of time that these devices have been used.
In addition to the source code for the software running the device, which is most likely to be extremely robust given the long time that these devices have been in use (+25 years), she might as well ask for the manufacturing process details for the battery, the casing, the electronic components, and the design of the microprocessor.
This is pointless since any qualified experts on the code are likely to be working for the device manufacturer.
The medical device industry I worked in for 20+ years was highly unlikely to open a can of approved worms. Once the software receives permission to market, it's mostly locked down to avoid the appearance of weakness, the potential for recall of affected devices, and the liability of admitting fault in devices already distributed for use.
...and incidentally every time one of their products flies over my house to land at the DC area airport I live close to.
Yet I don't demand to audit their code.
There is also a pilot and co-pilot in command of the aircraft. Most of the time they're sober enough to recover any software glitches before a crash, and they're usually awake during takeoffs and landings.
Best case, she improves the reliability or security of the code.
What makes you think anything she can do will improve the security of the code?
Short retort: what makes you think she cant? Flaws have already been demonstrated. Somebody (she, or her paid expert) can certainly remove them if they try.
What good would it do to inspect the code under and NDA?
It would give her the peace of mind that she knows better the true extents and seriousness of the flaws, the circumstances under which they might (and might not) arise, and the potential for somebody to remotely screw around with her heart rate against her will.
The manufacturer is expecting you to trust this device they sell to regulate your heart rate 24/7/365 for many years. That's more trust than we put in most "things" in this life, especially software driven things.
O.K. before you start giving me computer controlled aircraft examples, remember the redundancies and human elements in those systems, same for automobiles, ships and trains. A pacemaker is flying solo, 100% computer controlled with virtually zero oversight for months at a time, especially while you sleep.
Does she require the code to be "opened up"? AFAICT, she wants to check the code, nothing more.
If I was the manufacturer of the device, she'd sign an NDA and get the code. Worst case, she spreads the code and gets sued. Best case, she improves the reliability or security of the code.
I don't really see any problem here.
The problem is in the perception. If she finds "areas to improve" in the code, what does the manufacturer say to the tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of implantees with the code that "could be improved?" Swapping out the device before it's normal end of life is an additional surgery, which carries a slight but non-zero chance of death.
Dear Mr. Merchant,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet piracy legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns on this important issue.
As you may be aware, on May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP/ PIPA, S. 968), which is meant to curb the online theft of intellectual property, much of which is occurring through rogue websites overseas in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs. It was with this in mind that I was previously a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act. I believe it's important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy. However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and can promote new technologies.
Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill unanimously and without controversy. Since then, I've heard from a number of Floridians who have raised legitimate concerns about the impact this bill could have on Internet access, as well as a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's authority to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.
Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the PROTECT IP Act. Furthermore, I have encouraged Majority Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet. Please know that I will remain mindful of your concerns should this, or similar legislation, such as the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261), come before the Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida. If I can be of any further help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R).
I'm not trying to imply that there was an evil genius behind the plot, or there was any malice aforethought, just that it has played out as an entrapment scenario, much like MicroSoft allowing (encouraging?) widespread piracy to drive adoption, then putting the screws to the legitimate channels when doing so would turn them into the richest corporation in the world.
Well, maybe I'll deserve my troll point for this next line, but maybe there was some evil genius malice aforethought in Redmond....
No, they didn't say that in the article. Are you suggesting that Scandinavian countries are 'heavily policed' states?
I'd say that Scandinavia has at least as thorough and consistent rule of law as the United States, probably more completely and evenly enforced than in the U.S., too.
I just had a funny thought last night...
Say you're a consumer electronics manufacturer, like, oh, Sony, and you make audio, then later video recording devices "for the masses," you sell them in quantity, get them in the hands of Joe Average, and let him record whatever he wants, which you know is about 98.9% copies of commercial works and 1% his garage band (playing cover tunes without a license) or 2 year old reciting the cereal commercial from T.V., and 0.1% actual, legitimate use.
So, what's your next move? Why, get into the commercial content industry, of course... music, movies, basically anything that makes something worthy of copying with the very same consumer electronics you've successfully sold for the last decade or three... It's a booming industry, lots of money to make there.
And, then what? Well, of course, you go and clamp down on all this horrid copyright infringement that you yourself have been enabling and implicitly promoting for 50 years.
Entrapment is (rarely, but sometimes) a valid argument against the police, why not corporations?
Sad story for the rural Kentucky factory workers, I'd bet the guy did alright in the deal, though - probably alright enough that he could give his ex-factory workers a couple hundred bucks a month each, if he wanted to.
I'd rather just have a smart-phone app that images shelf-tags, uploads them to a database, and simultaneously checks that database to tell me if the store I'm standing in is screwing me on the price of the item I'm about to pick up. If a competitor on (or near) my regular travel routes (also automatically learned by the app) has the exact same (or equivalent) item for a significantly better price, the app beeps and informs me of it, otherwise it just silently collects data and shares it with other users of the same app in my area.
If there were an actual app like that, I might think that $30/month for a wireless data plan is actually justifiable, not only for the money I'd save directly, but also for the effect it would have on my local merchants, discouraging them from constantly spiking prices up and down since they'd lose more on the loss leaders and gain less on the gouges.
Wal-Mart is a historically very dangerous partner, especially for small companies. Their high volume and low pricing come at the cost of any slack for their partners, who wind up on a treadmill of lowering per unit costs, and wind up "making up in volume what they lose on every sale". I've seen several smaller companies with products sold there start out very excited, but go very bankrupt within 5 years because they can't keep the prices down low enough to match Wal-Mart's demands without firing the staff who came up with the product.
It's a very dangerous tiger to grab the tail of for a small business, especially a small patent holder. If the patent will help pad your resume, I could see it, but don't rely on Wal-Mart to help you make money with it.
Or, just take this for what it is, a fun come-on that might feel like a lottery win for some schmo with a better beer holder who wouldn't otherwise be able to do anything with his idea. If you've got a valid going concern of a business, this contest is probably not for you. If, on the other hand, you're a typical WalMart shopper, this could be very much like American Idol for otherwise hopeless inventors.
The issue with a product idea (I have one)
A product idea, or an issue with a product idea? Unless you've got a lot of backing to get you through the production and sales gauntlets, you'd make more money per hour reciting "you want fries with that?" through a greasy microphone for the next 10 years, than attempting to push even the best of product ideas out to market over the same time frame.
the chance to SELL your product on Wal-Mart's shelves
Incase anybody doesn't know: this ^^^ can be worth more than your weight in pure Platinum.
I was sort-of nearby when BreatheRight did their launch. More important than NFL players wearing them on camera was the shelf space in the drug stores, they didn't say what all it took to get that shelf space, but it was implied that there were blood sacrifices...
(the group most discriminated against of all) an athiest.
There's a reason for that:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
Interesting point from the article, they imply that in a heavily policed state atheists are less discriminated against. Seems that people just need to feel that someone is watching them (and, by implication, the other guy), if everyone believes in God, that need is satisfied to some degree.