Yeah, I oversimplified a bit to make my point easier to understand (that's the ~fun of expressing ideas in this media).
But my main point was the same as yours...
It seems to me that the ease or difficulty of reverse-engineering has nothing to do with the purpose of a patent and should not be confused with the "non-obvious" requirement for patentability.
1.5 years into a 5-year project, the project is on-time and under-budget?
Quite conceivable, especially since the main contractors (Bechtel, Siemens, Westinghouse) are not operating on cost-plus contracts. But this early into a project, it is a bit premature to assume that it'll continue to be under-budget and on-time. But who knows, maybe it will be. The reputation of the contractors (especially Bechtel, as primary contractor for most of the work) depends on it. This is especially important given that the market for construction of nuclear facilities in the US has the potential to, um, explode over the next decade or two.
Keep in mind that the biggest boondoggle of over-budget and past-due construction (the Big Dig in Boston) was under budget and on time for the first several years of construction.
They do tend to take more responsibility for their actions than we do in the West.
Or, rather, they are more likely to make scapegoats pay the ultimate price.
Do you think executing the head of their FDA-equivalent solved the underlying problems that led to so many public disgraces due to contaminants? Do you think that person was solely responsible for those problems?
Executing that man was PR. Nothing less, nothing more. It's the other actions they have, or have not, taken that would truly demonstrate whether they have taken responsibility.
Funny. I used to ride the train with Jim Cramer, back before he assumed the crazy "Mad Money" persona for his show. He wasn't hurting for cash when he still worked for GS.
Because revisions to law often occur by inserting clauses into existing statute.
Especially true for potential political hot-topics.
This is why the laws are so convoluted... most legislation doesn't replace old law, it modifies it. It helps obfuscate the law... so instead of 'voting to remove the medical practice safe harbor' the legislator can claim they 'voted to support the biotechnology industry that employs x people in their district'. That's just one reason we end up with "spaghetti law".
You've got it backwards. Patents exist *precisely* to protect inventions that can be easily reverse-engineered.
If an invention cannot easily be reverse-engineered, then it does not need the protection of a patent. QED.
"Novel and non-obvious" does not mean "difficult to reverse-engineer".
The cotton gin is a great example. Easily reverse-engineered, but protected by patent nonetheless.
We know it was easily reverse-engineered because several people did just that. Never mind all the claims that Whitney's "invention" was simply the result of reverse-engineering gins in Europe/England.
I can only assume that Congress did not intend for the "biotechnology patent" to subsume the entire safe harbor!
Why assume that? Pharma/biotech companies give millions to electoral campaigns, and employ thousands in many voting districts. As far as I'm concerned, Congress intended to do something very similar to what you've suggested -- to remove the medical safe harbor for all but a few medical purposes.
Prometheus is the Titan who was chained to a rock by Zeus so an eagle could eat his liver every day (it grew back every night).
Since the liver filters crap from the blood, clearly Prometheus has the patent on regenerative shit filtering, not on shit production.
As a side note, what's ironic to me is Prometheus has become a symbol of defiance to authority, largely due to Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. (In the original mythology, Prometheus reconciles with Zeus and submits to Zeus's will -- Shelley rewrites the myth so that Prometheus's defiance leads to Zeus's downfall). So now we have a company using the name "Prometheus", but using the full powers of authority to prevent others from using potentially life-saving technology.
Way, way off-topic -- I know. But for this company to use the name "Prometheus" because of its association with knowledge/wisdom (Prometheus brought fire to humans, which is why Zeus punished him), but then contradict the modern association with defiance of authority... well, I find it humorous, anyway.
Just weird to me that this is the cutting edge so far in brain surgery is all. Just goes to show how far we still have to go.
But that's not quite right.
This is not the cutting edge of brain surgery. This is better than the cutting edge, it's the burning acoustic probe of brain surgery.
I think it's pretty damn cool that we can operate on a brain without having to open up the skull or damage surrounding tissue to get at the target tissue.
And FWIW, there are plenty of other areas where brain surgery is advancing... if you want to revisit the 'cutting edge' metaphor, it's more like a cutting polyhedron. There are multiple edges, vertices, and faces, all of which are part of the advances. Our knowledge of brain physiology is one face, the toolset for surgery is another face (of which this would be an edge), etc.
Please read the rest of that section. Emphasis mine:
(A) the term "medical activity" means the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not include (i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent, (ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of such patent, or (iii) the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent.
That's a loophole to the medical practice exception that you could drive an ambulance through.
Going back to its roots, a "server farm" or a "wind farm" make perfect sense, as the basis for the word "farm" is land.
That is, the agricultural connotation of "farm" is a later addition. Really, any tract of land is a farm. It just happens that leased land was rarely used for anything but agriculture back in the middle ages, so eventually a "farm" was only a tract of land used for agriculture.
So the primary meaning of the word "farm" is "land". This fits for wind farms, agricultural farms, etc. For server farms, I think it has more to do with the agricultural similarities. A row of cabbages is similar to a row of servers, etc. Rather than one monolithic production entity (like a city), instead you have rows of servers that equate to rows of crops.
Likely the modern usage is heavily influenced by the character of what is being called a $PRODUCT farm, regardless of land use. But it's interesting to me that this ties in very well with the original meaning of the word "farm".
It's quite possible that they're using tools they are implementing without outside help. But given the scope of the project, and the increase in effectiveness, I'd expect that they've hired someone to help.
FWIW... I'm taking Nokie/Siemens words with a grain of salt... they are not exactly a neutral party.
I don't know if they should be considered in any way culpable (lots of research to be done), but any link that contains the words "press release" needs to be vetted thoroughly by an independent party.
And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures?
Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?
Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?
I'm very curious who, if anyone, is helping Iran's government do this. Because I do control a decent amount of spending, and I'd like to know if there's anyone I do business with that I should think twice about renewing contracts with. I'd be disappointed, and more than a bit shocked, if any of my suppliers are helping Iran do this. But there is precedent. And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.
It's better than just a net sum of zero. It's actually better when you use the produced energy yourself, because there is far less energy loss than if the power company sent it to you. Transmission losses for a short distance from the wind farm to you are much lower, assuming you don't skimp on the wiring, and any excess energy will be sent to downstream customers with less loss, too, especially if they make it a high voltage generating station (and I suspect they have to due to the size).
From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.
Is it cheaper to build out your own power generation than it is to pay for the overhead and profits of the grid power suppliers? What are the efficiencies of scale in electricity generation? How does capital financing play into this -- would the utilities get much cheaper capital from the financiers?
I like the main idea of your post, though. Distributed (and sustainable/green) power generation with traditional power companies acting as a backup supplier would give a nice transition to a more sustainable generation system. Unfortunately, I think if that model were adopted widely, we'd lose one of the great efficiencies of centralized power generation -- predictable loads. The big power companies would need to shift to power supplies that have a quick response to increased demand (or they'd need to waste a lot of fuel maintaining higher base generation).
I'm by no means an expert in the industry, so I don't know tons about how it *could* play out, let alone how it *would* play out... but I do wonder how a grid-based backup supply could cope with highly variable demand.
That's not a good comparison to the post that sparked his comment.
Von Braun offered more than comments. When a person's entire topical output is a written comment on a message board, then overt racism in the comment is cause to ignore the whole thing.
Simply put, a comment on slashdot is not *important* enough to override the derision such outright racism deserves.
That's my opinion, yours might differ -- but I think that overlooking such blatant racism is tantamount to approving of the racism.
Well, aside from the fact that he strongly hinted that he wanted his students to focus on coursework, not extranea... given that he is going to judge his students on their code, why would you want to introduce a variable in their output that has nothing to do with their understanding of the course material?
Anyone who has taught a class on a tight schedule knows that scope creep is as bad in the syllabus as it is for project design. So you want the students to evaluate and choose a collaboration tool in order to get started on their class? On day 1 or day 2 they need to be up and running...
Maybe it's just me, but I think that the course should focus on the course material, and not get bogged down in extraneous stuff like what collaborative tools to use.
I get cheap insurance because I only drive on weekends. My insurance company just wants to check the reading on my car's mileage meter every six months or so.
Lucky you. Back when I had a long commute -- despite the fact that I took mass transit to my office (with a two-mile drive to the train station) my insurance company assumed I drove to my office each day. I provided train receipts, pictures of my odometer, etc... I offered to have their agent inspect my odometer in person... but to no avail. They based their rates on a 120-mile round trip despite the fact that I drove four miles daily.
I eventually switched insurance carriers, but I overpaid on my insurance for six months because those douchebags couldn't grok the idea that someone might take mass transit even when they own a car.
At home, there are more ingredients: people dander, cheeto dust, pet dander, etc.
And that's nothing compared to mouse sludge, which often includes dried-up moisturizer (!), bacteria, yeast, among other things (of both human and non-human origins).
Never volunteer to fix a "slow" or "stuttering" mouse. Ever. Even for your in-laws. Especially for your in-laws (one stray thought about your mother-in-law and how the mouse got gunked, and you're ready for some shock therapy). Buy them a new one instead.
I've seen it. But the question remains... why would a pimp encourage his clientele to go out and get laid for free?
It just doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, his advice to horny slashdotters who ask him quesitons is "come visit my stable, I'll make sure you get a piece" in which case he's, well, brilliant.
I am a little confused as to your business plan. Why would you offer advice to slashdotters on getting laid on their own, when it would be far more profitable to ensure they need to visit your stable of hos to get laid?
Might I suggest you acquire the services of a business plan consultant to help you maximize your profits by leveraging the synergisms of your diverse talent pool? Careful attention to branding (perhaps literally) and marketing could help you achieve your quarterly and yearly targets for growth and margins.
It's pretty clear that the free market (blockbuster) has established the value of a license at $3-$5 per week. But I don't think the game studios would be happy if they sold ten million physical copies on launch day for $5 a pop either.
If that was a weekly license fee, they'd be happy. That's $50 million in revenue per week.
If they game companies could get $5/week (~$20/month) for each copy they "sold", they could conceivably make a lot more money than they are making now... assuming that they could retain customers for longer than three months on average. Look at WoW (which gets revenue from initial sales and from continuing access fees)... it's a fricken gold mine.
Maybe then we'd get games with more replay value, too, since it would be necessary in order for the producers to maximize their profits.
In both instances you can buy the brand new item for full retail price - or wait a while and get it in slightly worse condition and maybe not with all the extras that originally came with the item.
breaks the analogy. This is a digital product. The used version is exactly the same as the new version (assuming the packaging & manual are included).
While this doesn't really destroy your point, it does help explain why the used game market presents such a problem for game producers.
You buy a new car, instead of a used one, because it's better than a used one.
You don't buy a new game, instead of a used game, because it is better -- you buy the new game because there are no used versions available.
So what the game producers are trying to do, is to *introduce* a reduction of value in used games (by limiting the number of activations, or other DRM). This drives gamers to the new copies of the game, where the producers make money.
In both cases the customer is paying more than they otherwise would if they bought it directly from the person selling it to the reseller. And in both cases you're dealing with shady, underhanded people.
So there is no value in maintaining a marketplace for goods? There is no value to sellers for a reseller to expend all the effort in selling the game?
There are shady, underhanded people everywhere, but resellers provide a valuable service to sellers (and buyers). I'll gladly sell a game for $20 less so that I don't have to spend an hour selling the game to the end-customer myself. My time is worth more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
But my main point was the same as yours...
1.5 years into a 5-year project, the project is on-time and under-budget?
Quite conceivable, especially since the main contractors (Bechtel, Siemens, Westinghouse) are not operating on cost-plus contracts. But this early into a project, it is a bit premature to assume that it'll continue to be under-budget and on-time. But who knows, maybe it will be. The reputation of the contractors (especially Bechtel, as primary contractor for most of the work) depends on it. This is especially important given that the market for construction of nuclear facilities in the US has the potential to, um, explode over the next decade or two.
Keep in mind that the biggest boondoggle of over-budget and past-due construction (the Big Dig in Boston) was under budget and on time for the first several years of construction.
Or, rather, they are more likely to make scapegoats pay the ultimate price.
Do you think executing the head of their FDA-equivalent solved the underlying problems that led to so many public disgraces due to contaminants? Do you think that person was solely responsible for those problems?
Executing that man was PR. Nothing less, nothing more. It's the other actions they have, or have not, taken that would truly demonstrate whether they have taken responsibility.
Funny. I used to ride the train with Jim Cramer, back before he assumed the crazy "Mad Money" persona for his show. He wasn't hurting for cash when he still worked for GS.
Because revisions to law often occur by inserting clauses into existing statute.
Especially true for potential political hot-topics.
This is why the laws are so convoluted... most legislation doesn't replace old law, it modifies it. It helps obfuscate the law... so instead of 'voting to remove the medical practice safe harbor' the legislator can claim they 'voted to support the biotechnology industry that employs x people in their district'. That's just one reason we end up with "spaghetti law".
You've got it backwards. Patents exist *precisely* to protect inventions that can be easily reverse-engineered.
If an invention cannot easily be reverse-engineered, then it does not need the protection of a patent. QED.
"Novel and non-obvious" does not mean "difficult to reverse-engineer".
The cotton gin is a great example. Easily reverse-engineered, but protected by patent nonetheless.
We know it was easily reverse-engineered because several people did just that. Never mind all the claims that Whitney's "invention" was simply the result of reverse-engineering gins in Europe/England.
Why assume that? Pharma/biotech companies give millions to electoral campaigns, and employ thousands in many voting districts. As far as I'm concerned, Congress intended to do something very similar to what you've suggested -- to remove the medical safe harbor for all but a few medical purposes.
No, no, that's someone else.
Prometheus is the Titan who was chained to a rock by Zeus so an eagle could eat his liver every day (it grew back every night).
Since the liver filters crap from the blood, clearly Prometheus has the patent on regenerative shit filtering, not on shit production.
As a side note, what's ironic to me is Prometheus has become a symbol of defiance to authority, largely due to Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. (In the original mythology, Prometheus reconciles with Zeus and submits to Zeus's will -- Shelley rewrites the myth so that Prometheus's defiance leads to Zeus's downfall). So now we have a company using the name "Prometheus", but using the full powers of authority to prevent others from using potentially life-saving technology.
Way, way off-topic -- I know. But for this company to use the name "Prometheus" because of its association with knowledge/wisdom (Prometheus brought fire to humans, which is why Zeus punished him), but then contradict the modern association with defiance of authority... well, I find it humorous, anyway.
But that's not quite right.
This is not the cutting edge of brain surgery. This is better than the cutting edge, it's the burning acoustic probe of brain surgery.
I think it's pretty damn cool that we can operate on a brain without having to open up the skull or damage surrounding tissue to get at the target tissue.
And FWIW, there are plenty of other areas where brain surgery is advancing... if you want to revisit the 'cutting edge' metaphor, it's more like a cutting polyhedron. There are multiple edges, vertices, and faces, all of which are part of the advances. Our knowledge of brain physiology is one face, the toolset for surgery is another face (of which this would be an edge), etc.
That's a loophole to the medical practice exception that you could drive an ambulance through.
If through the clouds
You want to fly
Wait for radar
Or likely die
Burma Shave
Yes, but I do not have the information necessary to vet their statements.
This really intrigued me, so I looked into the etymology of the word 'farm' a bit.
Going back to its roots, a "server farm" or a "wind farm" make perfect sense, as the basis for the word "farm" is land.
That is, the agricultural connotation of "farm" is a later addition. Really, any tract of land is a farm. It just happens that leased land was rarely used for anything but agriculture back in the middle ages, so eventually a "farm" was only a tract of land used for agriculture.
So the primary meaning of the word "farm" is "land". This fits for wind farms, agricultural farms, etc. For server farms, I think it has more to do with the agricultural similarities. A row of cabbages is similar to a row of servers, etc. Rather than one monolithic production entity (like a city), instead you have rows of servers that equate to rows of crops.
Likely the modern usage is heavily influenced by the character of what is being called a $PRODUCT farm, regardless of land use. But it's interesting to me that this ties in very well with the original meaning of the word "farm".
It's quite possible that they're using tools they are implementing without outside help. But given the scope of the project, and the increase in effectiveness, I'd expect that they've hired someone to help.
FWIW... I'm taking Nokie/Siemens words with a grain of salt... they are not exactly a neutral party.
I don't know if they should be considered in any way culpable (lots of research to be done), but any link that contains the words "press release" needs to be vetted thoroughly by an independent party.
And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures?
Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?
Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?
I'm very curious who, if anyone, is helping Iran's government do this. Because I do control a decent amount of spending, and I'd like to know if there's anyone I do business with that I should think twice about renewing contracts with. I'd be disappointed, and more than a bit shocked, if any of my suppliers are helping Iran do this. But there is precedent. And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.
From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.
Is it cheaper to build out your own power generation than it is to pay for the overhead and profits of the grid power suppliers? What are the efficiencies of scale in electricity generation? How does capital financing play into this -- would the utilities get much cheaper capital from the financiers?
I like the main idea of your post, though. Distributed (and sustainable/green) power generation with traditional power companies acting as a backup supplier would give a nice transition to a more sustainable generation system. Unfortunately, I think if that model were adopted widely, we'd lose one of the great efficiencies of centralized power generation -- predictable loads. The big power companies would need to shift to power supplies that have a quick response to increased demand (or they'd need to waste a lot of fuel maintaining higher base generation).
I'm by no means an expert in the industry, so I don't know tons about how it *could* play out, let alone how it *would* play out... but I do wonder how a grid-based backup supply could cope with highly variable demand.
That's not a good comparison to the post that sparked his comment.
Von Braun offered more than comments. When a person's entire topical output is a written comment on a message board, then overt racism in the comment is cause to ignore the whole thing.
Simply put, a comment on slashdot is not *important* enough to override the derision such outright racism deserves.
That's my opinion, yours might differ -- but I think that overlooking such blatant racism is tantamount to approving of the racism.
Well, aside from the fact that he strongly hinted that he wanted his students to focus on coursework, not extranea... given that he is going to judge his students on their code, why would you want to introduce a variable in their output that has nothing to do with their understanding of the course material?
Anyone who has taught a class on a tight schedule knows that scope creep is as bad in the syllabus as it is for project design. So you want the students to evaluate and choose a collaboration tool in order to get started on their class? On day 1 or day 2 they need to be up and running...
Maybe it's just me, but I think that the course should focus on the course material, and not get bogged down in extraneous stuff like what collaborative tools to use.
Lucky you. Back when I had a long commute -- despite the fact that I took mass transit to my office (with a two-mile drive to the train station) my insurance company assumed I drove to my office each day. I provided train receipts, pictures of my odometer, etc... I offered to have their agent inspect my odometer in person... but to no avail. They based their rates on a 120-mile round trip despite the fact that I drove four miles daily.
I eventually switched insurance carriers, but I overpaid on my insurance for six months because those douchebags couldn't grok the idea that someone might take mass transit even when they own a car.
At the office, sure.
At home, there are more ingredients: people dander, cheeto dust, pet dander, etc.
And that's nothing compared to mouse sludge, which often includes dried-up moisturizer (!), bacteria, yeast, among other things (of both human and non-human origins).
Never volunteer to fix a "slow" or "stuttering" mouse. Ever. Even for your in-laws. Especially for your in-laws (one stray thought about your mother-in-law and how the mouse got gunked, and you're ready for some shock therapy). Buy them a new one instead.
I've seen it. But the question remains... why would a pimp encourage his clientele to go out and get laid for free?
It just doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, his advice to horny slashdotters who ask him quesitons is "come visit my stable, I'll make sure you get a piece" in which case he's, well, brilliant.
Dear Slashdot Pimp,
I am a little confused as to your business plan. Why would you offer advice to slashdotters on getting laid on their own, when it would be far more profitable to ensure they need to visit your stable of hos to get laid?
Might I suggest you acquire the services of a business plan consultant to help you maximize your profits by leveraging the synergisms of your diverse talent pool? Careful attention to branding (perhaps literally) and marketing could help you achieve your quarterly and yearly targets for growth and margins.
Sincerely,
Slashdot Business Plan Consultant
If that was a weekly license fee, they'd be happy. That's $50 million in revenue per week.
If they game companies could get $5/week (~$20/month) for each copy they "sold", they could conceivably make a lot more money than they are making now... assuming that they could retain customers for longer than three months on average. Look at WoW (which gets revenue from initial sales and from continuing access fees)... it's a fricken gold mine.
Maybe then we'd get games with more replay value, too, since it would be necessary in order for the producers to maximize their profits.
breaks the analogy. This is a digital product. The used version is exactly the same as the new version (assuming the packaging & manual are included).
While this doesn't really destroy your point, it does help explain why the used game market presents such a problem for game producers.
You buy a new car, instead of a used one, because it's better than a used one.
You don't buy a new game, instead of a used game, because it is better -- you buy the new game because there are no used versions available.
So what the game producers are trying to do, is to *introduce* a reduction of value in used games (by limiting the number of activations, or other DRM). This drives gamers to the new copies of the game, where the producers make money.
So there is no value in maintaining a marketplace for goods? There is no value to sellers for a reseller to expend all the effort in selling the game?
There are shady, underhanded people everywhere, but resellers provide a valuable service to sellers (and buyers). I'll gladly sell a game for $20 less so that I don't have to spend an hour selling the game to the end-customer myself. My time is worth more than that.