I understand the view that patenting will get innovations out of the lab the fastest, but I question why they are being offered only under exclusive licenses at an appreciable cost. I'm sure that the Goddard tech transfer office has reasons to choose this scheme, but I think those justifications should be made public-both to ensure the best licensing strategy is pursued and to allow evaluation of that decision 5 years down the road...
If I guess at your intent, you're fearful that the church is a brainwashing agent, filling people's heads with false or limiting views on the world that prevent them from being rational, responsible citizens. We can certainly cherry-pick examples of this from the histories of most major religions, especially when viewed in a contemporary lens. But why jump all over examples to the contrary, the pope's address being the most recent? You and he are saying the exact same thing: people should take care to not get caught up in the constructs of man to the point that the occupation prevents them from engaging in society.
Seems like Pope + _____ is the formula to devolve our otherwise insightful community.
Yes, we all love technology, but we must remember how it benefits our lives; technology is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. It cannot replace human interaction, regardless if its conducted over Second Life or coffee at Strabucks. Our current level of technology makes it difficult for tech-mediated communication to equal the real-world experience, but Skype is better than a phone call and cheaper than driving to visit.
As I understand the church's position, it is not against technologies like the iPad & facetime, but it is against Apple calling them 'Magical,' because this implies we can't and shouldn't understand how they work.
The largest benefit of this research is in refining our understanding of how solar systems form. This has very real applications in helping us to understand our solar system and extends to topics like the distribution of resources throughout the inner planets and asteroids. You're right that earth has problems, but if any of us want to continue to enjoy our standard of living (or anything enjoyed after ~1900s), we cannot restrict ourselves to the earthen resources.
No one (of repute) is talking about traveling to 581g to meet our fellow life forms. Space travel beyond our solar system is infeasible according to current physics, it's out of the question. Looking at other planets may allow us to answer some of the most fundamental questions on our existence; in this case how did life arise and how common is it.
The life the article refers to is any form of cellular organism. We've found life all over the earth, in many regions previously considered inhospitable to life. We know (believe strongly) that life can arise from liquid water, so if we find a planet whose orbit places it in the collection of orbits that allow for liquid water to exist, it is no stretch to say that life is possible there. 581g certainly does not look like earth, but it doesn't need to.
But at the expense of future discoveries. The real challenge is to convey exactly what was discovered and what that may lead to. Right now, these observations are helping refine our solar system formation theories, which allow better estimates on the probability of life arising in similar conditions as on earth.
If you omitted the first sentence I'd take your comment as satire. The entire premise behind disruptive entrants is that they see a new "business space" that is usually tangentially related to the dominant one. Big companies are so very focused on having "...new models coming out every year" that they miss the actual growth environment. So, no, unless one of the major automakers releases a (practical) flying car in 2011, they are not developing disruptive products (I've not seen one in the 2011 previews yet...).
This is a great example of the power of Twitter. This kind of frank conversation with an elected representative is largely unprecedented.
Twitter is evolving, but notice that Cory is able to speak to both Moore and the subjects of Moore's tweets, and that every word is public.
So, who can tell me what the tax or levy on spray paint is? Though I don't have stats, I'd wager that urban graffiti does more actual harm to property owners, municipalities, and local communities than 'piracy' does to the multimedia industry. It's rather ridiculous that victims or local governments self-finance the removal of graffiti, an actual, physical harm, while these taxes do not. The ridiculity of this proposal quickly becomes apparent once we extract it from the narrow view of copyright and intellectual property...
So thinking about the incredible success of Blair Witch and Paranormal Adventures and Iron Sky's potential, is the next step beyond donation offering shares in the production? Fans/customers would direct support the production and have the potential to get a slice of the profit, enticing them to contribute more and earlier in production. Film makers/bands would need to be careful in the terms of the agreement, but supporters would likely experience better returns than state lotteries...
I love adblock plus and have disabled it on techdirt. I hope you get some exorbitant rate for accepting ads with sounds, because they are incredibly annoying. Perhaps you could help your advertisers understand that they if have any hope for a click they should avoid annoying your readers...
The special audacity here is that many, if not all online lyric databases are user-submitted transcriptions. Listeners are not scanning and posting their cd jackets but writing what they hear as they listen to the song; I've seen many inaccurate transcriptions but at least the sites are trying to fulfill a consumer desire. I can't see how the labels have any claim to the lyrical content; the order of words in a song seem like a fact.
Scientific debate must be supported by hard science and reasoned theory; online comments are a poor platform for this sort of rigorous debate. A reader's first reaction to the methods and conclusions of a paper are useful and should be able to be shared, but these online comments are not a substitute for a follow-on experiment that corrects the flaws in the predecessor.
Online commenting would be a useful addition to scientific communities, but journals could add more value if they expressed the evolution of a theory over multiple peer-reviewed articles and include recommendations for future work (taken from article comments and suggestions for improvement included in the papers).
"We accept the contract which is the law of the land to teach our inventions via a patent(s). There is considerable cost involved in teaching beyond the act of inventing."
Exterior to Ronald's and Mike's debate, I question how much 'teaching' patents actually do. Contrast Instructables.com with the USPTO and it's pretty apparent that patents are much more focused on protecting ideas than 'promoting the progress...' Patents are instructive, but their teaching utility is bound by the legalese that keeps obvious patents from being seen for what they are.
Techdirt has had this sort of patent improvement discussion multiple times but I've never seen any information on how 'skilled in the art' patent examiners actually are. If you have two companies conducting breakthrough research, I'd argue that only those who are at the forefront can say whether the newest iteration is non-obvious, despite what the larger profession or public may think.