Hmm, a compilation of extremely short review of products debuted at GenCon, focused, of course, on WOTC and other major sponsors.
No review of events, a brief description of major sponsors' booths, no discussion of atmosphere(although we can all pretty much guess that one).
I have the feeling that the reviewer writes marketing copy for a living.
Finally:Though Gen Con wasn't our honeymoon (we're not that dorky), we did have the chance to be serenaded by a Klingon and his Vulcan wife in honor of our union. There are few places in the world where such a thing could be experienced, and I'm already looking forward to next year.
Not that dorky? Looking forward to Trekkie serenades for he and the missus? I call BS.
Sure, but even sub-consciously, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. Why do you think so many baseball players use amphetamines during games? And fuggedaboud 'roids...
I'm not saying there will be no side effects, interactions, long-term usage effects, or anything else.
The point is, there is a market for products developed from this class of compounds, that is distinct from the market for caffeine and amphetamines.
The class of compounds being researched does have the potential for being better than amphetamines and other stimulants because of its selectivity for brain function affected by sleep deprivation.
This could, potentially, mean fewer side effects and less addiction than other stimulants.
There is also further research to be done regarding the use of this class of compounds to treat non-sleep-deprivation related decreased neuro function. Brain damage due to Alzheimer's comes to mind, and might have been mentioned in the article.
Finally, look for compounds in this class to be used to make people "better than well" for selected reasons -- airline pilots, truck drivers, baseball players, etc. It will still be several years, perhaps decades, before compounds in this class make it to your pharmacy.
but People do need REM sleep on a regular basis for our conscience to rest.
Though I am sure there are many coders who would try it for a week to get that project done(aka MSFT forcing it on longhorn developers?)
Which would explain the disappearance of Jiminy Cricket from the MS Labs.
And I'm not sure what you've been up to if you've been taxing your conscience enough that it needs a rest...
Revision: "reverse [some of] the biological and behavioral effects of sleep deprivation"
This drug also increased test performance in the control group. The increase in test performance was slightly more pronounced in the sleep-deprived group.
Caffeine would likely show similar results, as would nasal decongestants and stimulant diet pills (both of which are amphetamines).
Hell, for that matter, I bet crystal meth, in low doses, would produce the same effect.
Meh, wake me up when the real fix for sleep deprivation is discovered... oh, wait...
Soon after I got a Pet 2001 (CBM precursor to the C64, for all you young 'uns) I decided that 15 minutes to load Telengard from the tape cassette drive is too slow... so I rigged it to fast forward with the tape heads in read position. Obviously, I'm not exactly a genius at age 9.
Terrible noises come out, I pop open the cassette cradle, and try to remove the tape. The spool is still trying to wind, but not moving because the tape is tangled. The tape breaks as I am inserting my finger to untangle it... my finger gets caught in a loop, I can't pull my finger out, and I'm afraid to mess any further with the drive. Eventually, my finger turns a dark enough purple that I get some scissors and cut the tape.
Sure, but we have higher expectations for quality of service, cleanliness, etc.
Also, consider the relative economies of the two places:
USA GDP per capita (2004, est): 40,100
Vietname GDP per capita (2004, ext): 2,700
That's a factor of about 15. A tailor-made endoscope in the US is probably of much higher quality than the homebrew one mentioned. If it lasts twice as long, then the costs are equivalent in terms of GDP.
I'm curious how big the webcam in question is, since the article didn't really say unless I missed it on two read-throughs. (Early in the morning, you see.)
Remind me to only schedule my surgeries in the afternoon, please.
Wrong. Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it. A blanket "encourage innovation" idea has been used to argue that it should provide control for people to make a lot of money which was not the goal.
Wrong again. Patents were supposed to encourage progress of technology by protecting the financial interests of the inventor. The entire reason for the patent system was to allow inventors to make money off their innovations, thereby securing a profit incentive for innovation.
The US Constitution (article I, Section 8, Powers granted): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I am not implying that the system requires demonstration of novelty -- both the current and proposed laws explicitly require novelty.
This is currently enforced by the "prior art" concept.
I am not saying that the patent system is without flaws -- I am saying that, in the context of the proposed legislation, demonstration of prior art will still invalidate a patent claim.
Regarding the "numbers enclosed by a box" bit, please be aware that there is far more to that patent than the concept of boxing numbers. I do think the patent is more than a bit absurd, but your FUD is not well researched.
The MS patent you refer to is for a "method and apparatus" by which this can be done. This does not mean no one else can do this, it just means that no one else can use the patented process without licensing.
Is it just? Who knows. Does it have anything to do with demonstrated prior art of the process? No.
Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases that I have heard of in the news as of late have not been by an inventor that has thought that another person had stolen his idea, but rather
by companies, with questionably vague patents, suing infringers, or rightful blatant patent infringement, usually perpetrated by larger companies.
Please read section 101 & 102 of HR2795, patent claims are still invalidated by prior art.
Re: Duty of Candor and Good Faith:
Don't know what this means exactly. Kind of scary that you'd have to legislate "duty of candor and good faith though"
This section mostly relates to the duty of the applicant to disclose relevant information in the application (e.g., possible prior art, dates of research, etc.). Willful failure to disclose can lead to unenforceability of the patent, and/or sanctions against the filer (up to $1 million per infraction).
Of note, a motion to oppose a patent claim (post-grant or not) is also subject to the duty of candor.
The duty of Candor and Good Faith exists to keep patent fraud suits out of the courts and in the hands of the patent system.
Read the Groklaw review, the author missed some important stuff. I'm not saying the proposed law is good or bad (haven't researched it enough yet), but it's important to realize that Groklaw is not an authoritative source.
From the review:"I'm reading this sad tale, and all of a sudden, it hits me. What would happen to Apple in identical circumstances if Congress had already passed the Patent Reform Act of 2005? That proposed legislation, now working its way through Congress, proposes to change the US system to a first-to-file patent system, instead of first-to-invent. Zounds, I said to myself.
I give the rest of the quote, but I will say: HR2795 will not eliminate the need to demonstrate novelty.
See section 102 of HR2795.
Apparently, Groklaw posters are as prone to not having RTFB as Slashdot posters are to not having RTFA.
Lamar Smith [TX-21] sponsored the bill, introduced 6/8/05.
Co-sponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 6/8/2005
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 6/8/2005
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 6/8/2005
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/28/2005
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/8/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/8/2005
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 6/8/2005
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/8/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/8/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 7/28/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/8/2005
Word in DC is that major changes are expected before this even makes it out of committee -- look for changes that benefit both the patent law industry and the corporate interests.
I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?
Under the new bill, existence of prior art will still void a patent, though the definition of prior art has changed slightly.
If anyone tries to read the linked version of HR2975, good luck. Here's a more readable version from Thomas:
Sure, just like technology prevented telemarketers from calling after 9 PM.
The profit incentive (on both sides of the fence, both marketing and anti-spam tech) is to allow Spam to occur, so it will continue if allowed.
This comes at a loss of productivity (economic standpoint) and quality of life (social standpoint), which are bad.
The issue of free speech, however, is quite different. I completely agree with you, that the government should not be allowed to impinge on our right to email what we want.
The answer then, is that we trade the inconvenience of receiving Spam for the right to send our own Spam.
I believe that, over time, Spam will drop to a manageable level, due to private anti-Spam software. Just like snail mail, I'll toss my junk mail without opening it -- or downloading to my local host.
Oh, wait, this is my situation now -- and it works fine for me.
Has anyone on here actually ever bought anything from one of these mass market emails?...What I wonder is how they stay in business. Money has to be coming in from somewhere."
How many do you think they have to sell to be profitable?
Spam is virtually free to send, and their overhead is practically nil.
Sure, there's only a small chance that someone might buy their product... but I bet they'll be able to sell their list of valid addresses to spammers that have 'real' products, such as marketing surveys, etc.
"What's the point of having something if it is only used for what is supposed to be used for... "
My point is, I pay for it to be what it is intended to be[1].
Out-of-context stuff like this can negatively affect my gameplay experience, similar to the "Who likes System of a Down?!!?" comments.
On the other hand, maybe this has the potential of increasing the amount of Role-Playing going on in MMORPGs... perhaps people who are being recorded might be more likely to stay in character.[2]
[1] Then again, I'm not generally getting the experience I pay for, anyway.
[2] Thanks for making me think about this some more, maybe there is some positive potential for my gaming experience with machinima.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, a compilation of extremely short review of products debuted at GenCon, focused, of course, on WOTC and other major sponsors.
No review of events, a brief description of major sponsors' booths, no discussion of atmosphere(although we can all pretty much guess that one).
I have the feeling that the reviewer writes marketing copy for a living.
Finally:Though Gen Con wasn't our honeymoon (we're not that dorky), we did have the chance to be serenaded by a Klingon and his Vulcan wife in honor of our union. There are few places in the world where such a thing could be experienced, and I'm already looking forward to next year.
Not that dorky? Looking forward to Trekkie serenades for he and the missus? I call BS.
Sure, but even sub-consciously, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. Why do you think so many baseball players use amphetamines during games? And fuggedaboud 'roids...
I'm not saying there will be no side effects, interactions, long-term usage effects, or anything else.
The point is, there is a market for products developed from this class of compounds, that is distinct from the market for caffeine and amphetamines.
I read the study, available here: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request= get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030299
The class of compounds being researched does have the potential for being better than amphetamines and other stimulants because of its selectivity for brain function affected by sleep deprivation.
This could, potentially, mean fewer side effects and less addiction than other stimulants.
There is also further research to be done regarding the use of this class of compounds to treat non-sleep-deprivation related decreased neuro function. Brain damage due to Alzheimer's comes to mind, and might have been mentioned in the article.
Finally, look for compounds in this class to be used to make people "better than well" for selected reasons -- airline pilots, truck drivers, baseball players, etc. It will still be several years, perhaps decades, before compounds in this class make it to your pharmacy.
I read the study, it refers to alleviating and mitigating some of the brain effects.
Article and summary are full of marketing-speak, short on qualifications to their statements.
but People do need REM sleep on a regular basis for our conscience to rest. Though I am sure there are many coders who would try it for a week to get that project done(aka MSFT forcing it on longhorn developers?)
Which would explain the disappearance of Jiminy Cricket from the MS Labs.
And I'm not sure what you've been up to if you've been taxing your conscience enough that it needs a rest...
Revision: "reverse [some of] the biological and behavioral effects of sleep deprivation"
This drug also increased test performance in the control group. The increase in test performance was slightly more pronounced in the sleep-deprived group.
Caffeine would likely show similar results, as would nasal decongestants and stimulant diet pills (both of which are amphetamines).
Hell, for that matter, I bet crystal meth, in low doses, would produce the same effect.
Meh, wake me up when the real fix for sleep deprivation is discovered... oh, wait...
decided to try and have a drink out of my watercooling setup
this happened three times...
Methinks he wasn't trying to have a drink... he was trying to fill his tobacco* waterpipe
*"Sure, it's for tobacco, officer..."
Soon after I got a Pet 2001 (CBM precursor to the C64, for all you young 'uns) I decided that 15 minutes to load Telengard from the tape cassette drive is too slow... so I rigged it to fast forward with the tape heads in read position. Obviously, I'm not exactly a genius at age 9.
Terrible noises come out, I pop open the cassette cradle, and try to remove the tape. The spool is still trying to wind, but not moving because the tape is tangled. The tape breaks as I am inserting my finger to untangle it... my finger gets caught in a loop, I can't pull my finger out, and I'm afraid to mess any further with the drive. Eventually, my finger turns a dark enough purple that I get some scissors and cut the tape.
Goodbye, Telengard. Goodbye, cruel world.
They've got a long, long way to go before commercial (even unprofitable) viability.
Anyone else notice the price tag (US$10 Mil)?
Revised headline should read:
Japanese Company Fails Bid to Win X-Prize; Japanese Government Picks up Research Tab
If you move into production, you are disclosing your innovation by default -- reverse engineering is not a new thing.
Sure, but we have higher expectations for quality of service, cleanliness, etc.
Also, consider the relative economies of the two places:
USA GDP per capita (2004, est): 40,100 Vietname GDP per capita (2004, ext): 2,700
That's a factor of about 15. A tailor-made endoscope in the US is probably of much higher quality than the homebrew one mentioned. If it lasts twice as long, then the costs are equivalent in terms of GDP.
I think it's more of the church being the predominant social structure for so long.
The theory is that most churches already have a well-functioning charity program, that could be enhanced through extra funding.
Not that I want my government funding faith-based charities, but that's the basic principal.
And if you talk to most Christians out there, they do not believe that charitable works should only benefit the "deserving."
I'm curious how big the webcam in question is, since the article didn't really say unless I missed it on two read-throughs. (Early in the morning, you see.)
Remind me to only schedule my surgeries in the afternoon, please.
Please read the bill before posting an AC comment about current practices to a post about potential future practices.
FTA:"...but of course, you could just be future proofing, or compensating for something... "
Sure, I'll be compensating for my ice-cold burrito by running a microwave oven off the USB.
Wrong. Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it. A blanket "encourage innovation" idea has been used to argue that it should provide control for people to make a lot of money which was not the goal.
Wrong again. Patents were supposed to encourage progress of technology by protecting the financial interests of the inventor. The entire reason for the patent system was to allow inventors to make money off their innovations, thereby securing a profit incentive for innovation.
The US Constitution (article I, Section 8, Powers granted): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I am not implying that the system requires demonstration of novelty -- both the current and proposed laws explicitly require novelty.
This is currently enforced by the "prior art" concept.
I am not saying that the patent system is without flaws -- I am saying that, in the context of the proposed legislation, demonstration of prior art will still invalidate a patent claim.
Regarding the "numbers enclosed by a box" bit, please be aware that there is far more to that patent than the concept of boxing numbers. I do think the patent is more than a bit absurd, but your FUD is not well researched.
The MS patent you refer to is for a "method and apparatus" by which this can be done. This does not mean no one else can do this, it just means that no one else can use the patented process without licensing.
Is it just? Who knows. Does it have anything to do with demonstrated prior art of the process? No.
Please read section 101 & 102 of HR2795, patent claims are still invalidated by prior art.
Re: Duty of Candor and Good Faith:
This section mostly relates to the duty of the applicant to disclose relevant information in the application (e.g., possible prior art, dates of research, etc.). Willful failure to disclose can lead to unenforceability of the patent, and/or sanctions against the filer (up to $1 million per infraction).
Of note, a motion to oppose a patent claim (post-grant or not) is also subject to the duty of candor.
The duty of Candor and Good Faith exists to keep patent fraud suits out of the courts and in the hands of the patent system.
Read the Groklaw review, the author missed some important stuff. I'm not saying the proposed law is good or bad (haven't researched it enough yet), but it's important to realize that Groklaw is not an authoritative source.
From the review:"I'm reading this sad tale, and all of a sudden, it hits me. What would happen to Apple in identical circumstances if Congress had already passed the Patent Reform Act of 2005? That proposed legislation, now working its way through Congress, proposes to change the US system to a first-to-file patent system, instead of first-to-invent. Zounds, I said to myself.
I give the rest of the quote, but I will say: HR2795 will not eliminate the need to demonstrate novelty.
See section 102 of HR2795.
Apparently, Groklaw posters are as prone to not having RTFB as Slashdot posters are to not having RTFA.
Lamar Smith [TX-21] sponsored the bill, introduced 6/8/05.
Co-sponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 6/8/2005 Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 6/8/2005 Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 6/8/2005 Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/28/2005 Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/8/2005 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/8/2005 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/8/2005 Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/8/2005
Word in DC is that major changes are expected before this even makes it out of committee -- look for changes that benefit both the patent law industry and the corporate interests.
I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?
m p/~c109SY2LZY:e3477:
Under the new bill, existence of prior art will still void a patent, though the definition of prior art has changed slightly.
If anyone tries to read the linked version of HR2975, good luck. Here's a more readable version from Thomas:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./te
Sure, just like technology prevented telemarketers from calling after 9 PM.
The profit incentive (on both sides of the fence, both marketing and anti-spam tech) is to allow Spam to occur, so it will continue if allowed.
This comes at a loss of productivity (economic standpoint) and quality of life (social standpoint), which are bad.
The issue of free speech, however, is quite different. I completely agree with you, that the government should not be allowed to impinge on our right to email what we want.
The answer then, is that we trade the inconvenience of receiving Spam for the right to send our own Spam.
I believe that, over time, Spam will drop to a manageable level, due to private anti-Spam software. Just like snail mail, I'll toss my junk mail without opening it -- or downloading to my local host.
Oh, wait, this is my situation now -- and it works fine for me.
Has anyone on here actually ever bought anything from one of these mass market emails? ...What I wonder is how they stay in business. Money has to be coming in from somewhere."
How many do you think they have to sell to be profitable?
Spam is virtually free to send, and their overhead is practically nil.
Sure, there's only a small chance that someone might buy their product... but I bet they'll be able to sell their list of valid addresses to spammers that have 'real' products, such as marketing surveys, etc.
"What's the point of having something if it is only used for what is supposed to be used for... "
My point is, I pay for it to be what it is intended to be[1].
Out-of-context stuff like this can negatively affect my gameplay experience, similar to the "Who likes System of a Down?!!?" comments.
On the other hand, maybe this has the potential of increasing the amount of Role-Playing going on in MMORPGs... perhaps people who are being recorded might be more likely to stay in character.[2]
[1] Then again, I'm not generally getting the experience I pay for, anyway.
[2] Thanks for making me think about this some more, maybe there is some positive potential for my gaming experience with machinima.
What if they threw a Hi-Def party and nobody came?
If they throw a HD party, everyone will.
Remember, it's the pr0n industry that drives computer video tech.