I've never thought of a set of projection screens as a sculpture before..but I guess they haven't created an amorphous blob that's supersensitive to wireless transmissions yet:( One day!
It happens on the Internet too, with Domain Name squatters. People end up paying quite a bit of money for reasonable names (when they should get them for free).
And it certainly happens in every other industry: new industries are especially prone to squatters because it's a way to make an easy million.
However, most/all of these patents are for totally incomplete technologies. Imagine if the designer of the first computer patented the sequence 1001 and made coders pay a $100 fine if that sequence was used in any binary code...the content might be there, but the functionality is totally lost. In a field that can help people, it is the scientific way (and the right way) to allow for the free exchange of ideas. Though it would be fun to have a race to see who can make the most tiny steps first, wouldn't it be wiser and more productive for the industry to be regulated? This way, leaps and bounds would be rewarded.
Of course, I don't see science as being a badly-formed MMORPG, but if you're fine with stopping progress in a fledgling field, then by all means, we should allow this to continue.
Apparently what newspapers are really missing are:
* Bold, primary colors to inform Americans how to feel about "the issues"
* Big, moving, symbolic images and lines
* Stirring music
The real problem is that newspapers are still caught up in that "facts" fad..which totally puts their necks out on the line. What if they get a fact wrong? That would prove them "uncredible" - instead, what they should be doing is telling people what to think about topics in a way that is not legally binding!
Presenting facts and statistics is too complicated for the modern enlightened viewer. They need graphics!!
Disruptive change never comes about via the masses. Large groups of people thinking collectively (at best) move slowly; their ideas evolve and change over time. They have to be convinced over large spans of time to accept ideas. The masses do not innovate; they smash ideas down and then accept them.
What the head of MIT's Media lab should have been saying is that there are a lot more people on the planet than there were before. With increased numbers over the whole and a constant percentage of "smart people," it would appear that smart people are on the rise.
In the overpopulation of our planet, we are witnessing a lot of smart people being born. We are also witnessing a lot of stupid people being born. Although there may be millions of intelligent humans out there now, there are still billions of stupid ones.
The group of individuals making the change is as small as ever..in terms of how much of the population they take up. And with more stupid people running around, change will happen just as slowly as before (try convincing billions that you are right!)
One last thought - Those making the changes have always wanted disruptive change, but look at the results of their desires. Communism would have been a massively disruptive change (on paper), but once it was implemented, people were able to smash it back down into the monarchy they were accustomed to.
The device itself is outstandingly functional, except outside stubbornness killed its usefulness for the consumer. If there had been an early-on movement to install free/easy Wi-Fi hotspots in as many public places as possible, PDA's would have gotten the hint and all come with preinstalled WiFi/Bluetooth. There could have been an explosion of free online applications for PDAs..and if someone had worked IM into it, PDA's would have killed cell phones. Free IM = Text Messaging, and I don't see AOL charging 10 cents per 'ding'
But businesses were lazy, and so cell phones took advantage of the situation.
The problem with MySpace isn't the murder-factor. People love hearing stories about some kid got killed from "viewing a website" (because that's all it is, to them) - then they can proudly say that their lives don't involve that dangerous Inter Net. Ignorant people will cling to any bad facet of something they don't understand as proof that they are right.
MySpace's problem is how many young kids are using it, and are learning that being cool means collecting friends. And to be really cool, you should collect prostitutes and porn stars as friends too!
Why doesn't the news pick up on that? Anyone who's been to an elementary/jr. high school has heard just how popular MySpace is...but try reporting a statistic when there's murder a'foot.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never thought of a set of projection screens as a sculpture before..but I guess they haven't created an amorphous blob that's supersensitive to wireless transmissions yet :( One day!
It happens on the Internet too, with Domain Name squatters. People end up paying quite a bit of money for reasonable names (when they should get them for free).
And it certainly happens in every other industry: new industries are especially prone to squatters because it's a way to make an easy million.
However, most/all of these patents are for totally incomplete technologies. Imagine if the designer of the first computer patented the sequence 1001 and made coders pay a $100 fine if that sequence was used in any binary code...the content might be there, but the functionality is totally lost. In a field that can help people, it is the scientific way (and the right way) to allow for the free exchange of ideas. Though it would be fun to have a race to see who can make the most tiny steps first, wouldn't it be wiser and more productive for the industry to be regulated? This way, leaps and bounds would be rewarded.
Of course, I don't see science as being a badly-formed MMORPG, but if you're fine with stopping progress in a fledgling field, then by all means, we should allow this to continue.
Apparently what newspapers are really missing are:
* Bold, primary colors to inform Americans how to feel about "the issues"
* Big, moving, symbolic images and lines
* Stirring music
The real problem is that newspapers are still caught up in that "facts" fad..which totally puts their necks out on the line. What if they get a fact wrong? That would prove them "uncredible" - instead, what they should be doing is telling people what to think about topics in a way that is not legally binding!
Presenting facts and statistics is too complicated for the modern enlightened viewer. They need graphics!!
Disruptive change never comes about via the masses. Large groups of people thinking collectively (at best) move slowly; their ideas evolve and change over time. They have to be convinced over large spans of time to accept ideas. The masses do not innovate; they smash ideas down and then accept them.
What the head of MIT's Media lab should have been saying is that there are a lot more people on the planet than there were before. With increased numbers over the whole and a constant percentage of "smart people," it would appear that smart people are on the rise.
In the overpopulation of our planet, we are witnessing a lot of smart people being born. We are also witnessing a lot of stupid people being born. Although there may be millions of intelligent humans out there now, there are still billions of stupid ones.
The group of individuals making the change is as small as ever..in terms of how much of the population they take up. And with more stupid people running around, change will happen just as slowly as before (try convincing billions that you are right!)
One last thought - Those making the changes have always wanted disruptive change, but look at the results of their desires. Communism would have been a massively disruptive change (on paper), but once it was implemented, people were able to smash it back down into the monarchy they were accustomed to.
The device itself is outstandingly functional, except outside stubbornness killed its usefulness for the consumer. If there had been an early-on movement to install free/easy Wi-Fi hotspots in as many public places as possible, PDA's would have gotten the hint and all come with preinstalled WiFi/Bluetooth. There could have been an explosion of free online applications for PDAs..and if someone had worked IM into it, PDA's would have killed cell phones. Free IM = Text Messaging, and I don't see AOL charging 10 cents per 'ding'
But businesses were lazy, and so cell phones took advantage of the situation.
The problem with MySpace isn't the murder-factor. People love hearing stories about some kid got killed from "viewing a website" (because that's all it is, to them) - then they can proudly say that their lives don't involve that dangerous Inter Net. Ignorant people will cling to any bad facet of something they don't understand as proof that they are right. MySpace's problem is how many young kids are using it, and are learning that being cool means collecting friends. And to be really cool, you should collect prostitutes and porn stars as friends too! Why doesn't the news pick up on that? Anyone who's been to an elementary/jr. high school has heard just how popular MySpace is...but try reporting a statistic when there's murder a'foot.