Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft's "Immortal Computing" Project

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Jan 23, 2007 05:21 AM
from the beyond-the-grave dept.
SeenOnSlash writes "Microsoft is working on a project they call 'immortal computing' which would let people store digital information in durable physical artifacts and other forms to be preserved and revealed to future generations, and maybe even to future civilizations. The artifacts would be designed to make the process of accessing the information clear with instructions in multiple languages or hieroglyphics. In one possible use, messages for descendants or interactive holograms might be stored on tombstones. The project was revealed when their patent application recently became public."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • misread title (Score:5, Funny)

    by pimpimpim (811140) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:25AM (#17721326)
    Did anyone else also read 'immoral computing'? :)
  • yeah, I went there (Score:5, Funny)

    by macadamia_harold (947445) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:31AM (#17721360)
    (http://www.google.com/)
    Microsoft is working on a project they call 'immortal computing'

    As far as projects like this are concerned, there can be only one.
  • A bit rich (Score:5, Insightful)

    by turing_m (1030530) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:34AM (#17721380)
    This is from the company whose business model is built around proprietary document formats - the sole purpose of which is to lock users into a never-ending upgrade cycle.
    • Re:A bit rich (Score:5, Funny)

      by MichaelSmith (789609) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:43AM (#17721438)
      (http://netapps.com.au/)
      They can sell upgrades to the dead.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:A bit rich by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:44AM
    • Re:A bit rich by foobsr (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:56AM
    • Re:A bit rich (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LaughingCoder (914424) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:48AM (#17722206)
      This is from the company whose business model is built around proprietary document formats - the sole purpose of which is to lock users into a never-ending upgrade cycle.
      I look at it a little differently. Microsoft is a company that has consistently put an extremely high priority on backwards compatibility, thereby allowing people to access their data and run their application even though they were produced decades ago. I think MS may be uniquely qualified to tackle a problem like this because of that experience. Contrary to what you assert, people *are not* forced to upgrade *because* MS provides backwards compatibility. I can send an old Word 6.0 document to someone with Word 2007 and they can read it. I am not forced to upgrade unless I want the new features of Word 2007, or unless I want to read Word 2007 files. Further, I can request the sender to write out a Word 6.0 file so that I could read it with my ancient application. Where exactly is the forced upgrade? In fact, many on these boards have commented that Microsoft's big problem is convincing people to upgrade - why buy the new office when the old one works just fine. This would be a much easier task for MS if they took the easy road and abandoned backwards compatibility.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:A bit rich by Chris whatever (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:43AM
      • Re:A bit rich by turing_m (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:06AM
        • Re:A bit rich by Zonnald (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:19PM
    • Re:A bit rich by rucs_hack (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:25AM
      • Re:A bit rich by BalanceOfJudgement (Score:3) Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:34PM
        • Re:A bit rich by rucs_hack (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:03PM
          • Re:A bit rich by BalanceOfJudgement (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:09PM
            • Re:A bit rich by rucs_hack (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:59PM
    • Re:A bit rich by donaldm (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:41AM
    • Re:A bit rich - lost irony by mspohr (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:56AM
    • Quote by Dolda2000 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:33PM
    • Re:A bit rich by sgt_doom (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @04:53PM
  • tombstone (Score:4, Funny)

    by mbaudis (585035) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:36AM (#17721392)
    (http://www.progenetix.net/)
    in tombstones? i start to understand the vision behind the zune ...
  • Yuh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:36AM (#17721394)
    (http://www.flying-rhenquest.net/)
    They can't even manage to preserve "digital artifacts" between two different versions of Word, much less forever. If you want to preserve a document forever post it in plain text on the Internet and hope that other people find value in it. You can still find 20-year old documents from the BBS era on the Internet because people found value in them and kept reposting them. And none of those documents are in a proprietary document format!
    • Re:Yuh huh... by CRCulver (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:03AM
    • Re:Yuh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kestasjk (933987) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:16AM (#17721618)
      (http://kestas.kuliukas.com/)
      The great thing about digital information is that it doesn't need to be stored on immortal storage; if people care about the data it can be copied again and again to and from storages which die while the data lives on.

      This has the nice bonus that usually no-one cares about information that's boring, so as time goes on the good stuff lingers while the blogs die; it's very similar to natural selection, right down to the immortal digital information being stored in temporary bodies.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Yuh huh... by Weirdbro (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:34AM
      • Re:Yuh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dangitman (862676) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:40AM (#17721782)

        This has the nice bonus that usually no-one cares about information that's boring, so as time goes on the good stuff lingers

        Popular != good.

        More importantly, what we find interesting today, might be totally worthless to people in the future, while stuff we consider useless and boring could be immensely valuable. That's the big problem with backups - you never really know today what you might want tomorrow. In many ways, the reverse is true - what is not backed up will gain value because of its rarity. Imagine how much you could make if you found a lost Shakespeare sonnet today - discarded by Shakespeare because he thought it was utter crap.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Yuh huh... by smartyhall (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:08AM
          • Re:Yuh huh... by Lodragandraoidh (Score:3) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:36AM
          • Re:Yuh huh... by tehcyder (Score:1) Wednesday January 24 2007, @07:45AM
        • Re:Yuh huh... by Lazerf4rt (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:25AM
          • Re:Yuh huh... by dangitman (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:11PM
        • Re:Yuh huh... by umghhh (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:17AM
        • Re:Yuh huh... (Score:5, Funny)

          by grand_it (949276) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:56AM (#17723398)
          More importantly, what we find interesting today, might be totally worthless to people in the future, while stuff we consider useless and boring could be immensely valuable.

          John?
          John Titor?
          Is it you?

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Yuh huh... by kfg (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:48AM
          • Re:Yuh huh... by dangitman (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:15PM
            • Re:Yuh huh... by kfg (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @04:21PM
              • Re:Yuh huh... by dangitman (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:48PM
              • Re:Yuh huh... by kfg (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:06PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Memes by quokkapox (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:39AM
      • Re:Yuh huh... by cowscows (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:43AM
      • Re:Yuh huh... by Tsagadai (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:16AM
    • Re:Yuh huh... by Shemmie (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:09AM
    • Re:Yuh huh... by FireFury03 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:06AM
    • Re:Yuh huh... by Dolohov (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:06AM
  • Immortal stuff by locksmith101 (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:38AM
  • Makes no sense. by FridayBob (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:38AM
  • will not the internet be the solution? by macadamia_harold (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:41AM
  • The key to durability... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by killbill! (154539) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:41AM (#17721426)
    (http://www.killbill.org/)
    ... is not to make the material support last forever, but to make as many copies as possible, and replace them often.

    If the goal is to keep valuable information for future generations, a regularly upgraded, Internet-based distributed storage system would be a better bet.
  • Jurassic Sparc anyone? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Half a dent (952274) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:42AM (#17721432)
    Have your PC encased in a block of amber so your descendants can marvel at how primitive our coding was.
  • by tehSpork (1000190) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:43AM (#17721434)
    "The artifacts would be designed to make the process of accessing the information clear with instructions in multiple languages or hieroglyphics"

    This is Microsoft we're talking about, their idea of clear seems to be a bit muddy at best. Besides, doesn't Windows already come with unintelligible hieroglyphics, otherwise known as "error messages?"
  • No DRM in this by Merkwurdigeliebe (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:47AM
  • by MoralHazard (447833) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:48AM (#17721458)
    One of my aunts did a Civil War battleground tour, recently, on the tail of visiting relatives in Pennsylvania, and sent me a really neat letter about it. I have a really peculiar middle name, a gift from my great-grandfather, and she managed to find out that he got it from his grandfather, who enlisted in a Pennsylvania regiment about two months before the battle of Gettysburg and died, there. Found his name on the monument and everything. I thought this was one of the coolest things I'd heard in a while, just because I personally feel so little connection with history or my ancestors.

    It got me thinking about all the OTHER things I wish I could know about them. These were coal-mining Irish folks, not so much for the reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, so they didn't make a lot of efforts to record anything, at least not that's survived the years. In the other branches of my family, the more recent immigrants from Croatia and Spain, we have a few stories and a little jewelry, but past 1880 or so, there's just nothing.

    I want to know more. I want to know what they thought about the current events of their world (why DID my great-great-great grandfather enlist, anyway? ). What did they think of their jobs, and their families, and about why they were in their places in the world? Did they wonder what I'd be like? What did they wonder most about the future, and did they care?

    So... tell me, Slashdot, on this fine, dark, cold Tuesday morning: If this technology, or something similar, had been available, what do you wish your ancestors would have left behind for you to read, or watch videos of, or hear? And why?
  • Can Sci-Fi be considered prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:52AM (#17721474)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    I have seen more than enough science fiction to have seen this application in many forms. How can this initiative be patentable?!
  • by TheJasper (1031512) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:52AM (#17721476)
    I can't believe they are trying to patent this (well, I can, but I don't want to). Anyone heard of Frederick Pohl? Author of the Gateway books. The aliens (and later humans) archived themselves for posterity. There are plenty of other examples as well.

    It's a good idea, but not original. I read the article, but couldn't force myself through the whole patent. Still, it sounds to me like they are trying to patent the idea of a time capsule, with the only difference being that they are talking about information in a more interactive form.

    They aren't even trying to patent a specific technique, but the whole idea. From the patent application (all the way at the bottom which I did read):

    What has been described above includes examples of the subject matter. It is, of course, not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing the subject matter, but one of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that many further combinations and permutations of the subject matter are possible. Accordingly, the subject matter is intended to embrace all such alterations, modifications and variations that fall within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Furthermore, to the extent that the term "includes" is used in either the detailed description or the claims, such term is intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to the term "comprising" as "comprising" is interpreted when employed as a transitional word in a claim.

    So basically they are claiming that any system which in any way is similar to theirs is covered. Ok, par for the course. It still isn't very original, and doesn't deserve a patent.

    What do they want to achieve anyway? Will you have to buy a renewable licensing scheme for accessing this information? Will it contain drm? Will sony end up owning your grandfathers immortal thoughts?

    So what if I write an interactive information system as described, with the one difference is that I'm still alive, and I just want my genius available to my friends and family without actually having to talk to them. Does the system all of a sudden owe licensing costs to MS when I die?

    This has to be one of silliest patent ideas I've seen. Of course, I haven't seen all that many and remain convinced that there are many more that are sillier.

  • I wish... by Wanderer2 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:52AM
  • Hubris? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kubrick (27291) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:55AM (#17721486)
    "My name is Ray Ozziemandias, king of kings:
    Look on my document formats, ye mighty, and despair!"
    Nothing beside remains: round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.
    (with abject apologies to P.B. Shelley.)
    • Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dido (9125) <didoNO@SPAMimperium.ph> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:18AM (#17722044)
      (http://stormwyrm.blogspot.com/)

      Very, very clever. If I had mod points I'd give them! If Microsoft is really serious about doing this, then they will be doing the very antithesis of what they have been doing since, well, ever. Proprietary file formats anyone? Secret protocols? DRM? All of these things which they've been doing and promoting from the very beginning are precisely the sorts of things that will frustrate future digital archaeologists to no end. Consider the simple fact that we can still read Galileo's technical writings from the 1560's, but not Marvin Minsky's technical writings from the 1960's, thanks to proprietary storage hardware. Stuff is basically written on the wind [longnow.org] these days, and Microsoft has done more than any single organization (largely because of their market monopoly) to make information as evanescent as it is now.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Hubris? by smellsofbikes (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:45PM
  • Prototype (Score:3, Funny)

    by spellraiser (764337) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:55AM (#17721488)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday February 14 2007, @09:49AM)

    Here's a snapshot of a prototype [daviddarling.info] of what these artifacts will look like.

    • Re:Prototype by MichaelSmith (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:14AM
      • Re:Prototype by spellraiser (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:25AM
        • Re:Prototype by MichaelSmith (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:42AM
          • Re:Prototype by Lemmeoutada Collecti (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:23AM
          • Re:Prototype by veganboyjosh (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:10AM
    • Re:Prototype by KIAaze (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:27AM
  • If it ain't broke... by youthoftoday (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:57AM
  • Kidding aside, I think this is important by retrosteve (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:58AM
  • Immortal Computing? by Otto-Marrakech (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:58AM
  • What's Old Is New Again! by ReidMaynard (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:59AM
  • Altruism by Tristandh (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:01AM
    • Re:Altruism by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:12AM
    • Re:Altruism by Valdrax (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:12PM
    • Re:Altruism by eneville (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:10PM
  • They patented it?!? by Zaatxe (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:04AM
  • absolutely hilarious (Score:3, Funny)

    by 2ms (232331) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:05AM (#17721564)
    Microsoft the one to finally bring to the world an absolutely universal and timeless standard of communication with which all future generations of not merely systems that humans create but also the humans that created them themselves will be compatible...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!
  • Sounds like a job for ODF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by giafly (926567) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:08AM (#17721578)
    OpenDocument or ODF [wikipedia.org] "became an officially published ISO and IEC International Standard (ISO/IEC 26300) on November 30, 2006 ... The OpenDocument format is intended to provide an open alternative to proprietary document formats so organizations and individuals can avoid being locked in to [and outlive] a single vendor."
  • by toby (759) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:11AM (#17721594)
    (http://www.telegraphics.com.au/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 06, @03:35PM)
    ...It's anything relating to Microsoft.

    Erasing them and everything they touch from the face of the earth is one of the most helpful things we can do for future civilisation.
  • 10,000 years in the future (Score:4, Funny)

    by TrappedByMyself (861094) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:12AM (#17721602)
    "How interesting. This ancient culture seemed to communicate solely by using images of nude females."
  • Karma Whore link! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:14AM (#17721612)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    http://free.patentfetcher.com/Patent-Fetcher.php?s ubmit=Fetch&PN=20070011109 [patentfetcher.com]

    Go to the link above and it will get the patent docs into a PDF format so that you don't have to install that ridiculous TIFF plugin. And if someone out there knows an easier way to view the page without a ridiculous plugin (under Linux+Firefox) please tell?
  • I foresee the.... by oDDmON oUT (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:17AM
  • On some guy's tombstone by dangitman (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:30AM
  • Hi There! (Score:5, Funny)

    by IchBinEinPenguin (589252) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:31AM (#17721712)
    It looks like you are tring to decypher this ancient artefact!
  • Curse of the Pharaohs by Earle Martin (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:33AM
  • Question is... by camcorder (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:37AM
  • Ozymandias of Egypt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hachete (473378) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:44AM (#17721812)
    (http://www.badstep.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 30 2003, @06:04AM)
    I MET a traveller from an antique land
    Who said:--Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
    Nothing beside remains: round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.
  • Digital Preservation by elronxenu (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:50AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Uh oh! by NPN_Transistor (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:50AM
  • Not Only, But Also... by berenixium (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:51AM
  • I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by maadlucas (679602) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:52AM (#17721884)
    (Last Journal: Saturday June 07 2003, @10:22AM)
    2000 years later...

    Archaeologist A: Wow! A graveyard from the early 21st century, and it's perfectly preserved!

    Archaeologist B: An awesom find!

    A: I can't begin to imagine how much we can learn from this...

    B: Yeah... oh look! This one has a kind of primitive digital inscription!

    A: Can you activate it?

    B: Reconfiguring my power source now... ah yes...

    A: What is it?

    B: A strange message..

    A: What?

    B: "This gravestone has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. Would you like to tell Microsoft about this problem?"

    A: Who is Microsoft?
  • On one hand this is a good idea, but by smartin (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:55AM
  • Prior art? by 192939495969798999 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:07AM
  • What artifacts would store the info? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pjbass (144318) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:10AM (#17721982)
    (http://www.waskiewicz.org/)
    The patent surrounds the method of storing data on an device to persist indefinately. I want to know any hardware vendor today that makes some form of silicon or any other storage medium that lasts indefinately, or one that has announced plans to make such a device. Microsoft has some really interesting things coming out of their research labs, but this one makes me scratch my head, since they are not a hardware company, and no hardware company has anything remotely close to handling this research. While it's very interesting to be thinking of these things, I don't see why this is a big deal as compared to any other research project any other technology company may be working on.

    Honestly, this is making headlines because whenever Microsoft files for obscure patents that their rather talented architects and strategic planners can forsee, they are challenged on the basis of validity for their patent. If some startup somewhere was doing this research, it would have never made /. Compare this to all research being done in quantum computing arenas, where some rather radical advances and theories are being pursued, way more radical than this. Do you read about them here? Not usually.

    Then again, the ol' rock, chisel, and hammer seemed to hold information for a damn long time...
  • Interactive Holograms? by SpanishArcher (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:11AM
  • Forget the artefacts, go online instead. by elronxenu (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:21AM
  • Immortalize the Blue Screen Of Death by curmudgeon99 (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:25AM
  • huh by Fist! Of! Death! (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:31AM
  • No-one will be able to read it by Bromskloss (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:46AM
  • by tezza (539307) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:46AM (#17722190)
    * Paris Hilton Video
    * George Bush dropping the First Dog
    * Wikipedia: The Greatest Edits
    * Donald Trump's Hairpiece
    * Star Wars where Han shoots first
  • This Sucks.. by SloWave (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:48AM
  • Patenting Voyager Records? by SloWave (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:05AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • and the first message they read is.... by SlashDread (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:14AM
  • Read the article, first. by Bright Apollo (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:20AM
  • Future spam? by ebvwfbw (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:35AM
  • Useless junk by mapkinase (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:42AM
  • Heard It all before by pngwen (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:50AM
  • like the "time machine" rings by Fedarkyn (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:57AM
  • The ultimate act of the "me" generation by Eternal Vigilance (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:58AM
  • Data != Computing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:01AM (#17722818)
    (http://dexplor.com/)
    I think "Immortal Computing" is a misnomer. Maybe "Immortal Data Storage" would suffice, but when I think of computing I think of software - something that executes. Their term would better suite software designed to be highly portable, that survives independently of hardware (java?).

    Dan East
  • The use is all wrong by SpaceLemur (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:06AM
  • DRM on your Tombstone by BillGatesLoveChild (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:28AM
  • Finally! by SlaveToThePenn (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:32AM
  • BSOD by 10Ghz (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:46AM
  • The Clock of the Long Now by Eryq (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:50AM
  • Um... by Landshark17 (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:02AM
  • is the InterNet immortal? by peter303 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:10AM
  • The History of mankind... by TransEurope (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:13AM
  • this will never work... by mseidl (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:15AM
  • Ultimate backup technology! by 7grain (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:29AM
  • Leeloo Dallas.... by blankoboy (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:29AM
  • Instructions by jejones (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:31AM
  • by popo (107611) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:35AM (#17723938)
    Sigh. Microsoft just patented the concept of people leaving information about themselves for future generations.
    What's the catch? Oh, yeah "electronically". WTF is wrong with the patent office that they allow applicants
    to append whatever the prevalent technology of the day is, to the end of their patent application as a sign of
    originality.

    The formula looks like this: [standard idea with which everyone is familiar] + ["The Web"] = [New Concept]

    Obviously in this case we're talking about consumer electronics and not the web, but the point is the same.
    Microsoft just patented the "Time Capsule", in fact I'll be amazed if they don't call it the "Microsoft Time Capsule"
    in a fit of creative brilliance. Never mind that the idea is a standard part of cultural awareness, they've added something
    new and its -- yes -- today's standard technologies for data storage. Sure there are plenty of time capsules out there,
    but there's no prior art for this one because Microsoft was the first to marry all those 'pre-personal-computing' ideas
    with their obvious 'post-personal-computing' counterparts.

    And with an army of lawyers, there's a whole lot of work out there applying that formula above to each and every
    concept on Earth.

  • It will work? by ntropia (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:52AM
  • I can see it now... by jeffeb3 (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:01AM
  • They reinvented my idea of year 2001? by rnd0110 (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:45AM
  • I can imagine next generation historians with this by guruevi (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:01PM
  • What about the Butlerian Jihad? by eeyore (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:30PM
  • The patent is flawed... by Raynor (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:48PM
  • Liability by ashtophoenix (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:58PM
  • Message from the grave by peadot (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @01:09PM
  • Pyramids by Joebert (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @01:10PM
  • Rosetta Stone by gorehog (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @01:41PM
  • we already have immortal computing by arifirefox (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @01:51PM
  • Psychotherapy needed? by Maljin Jolt (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:16PM
  • Counterintuitive by bitspotter (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:20PM
  • Rosetta Stones of information by reynols (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:22PM
  • presumptuous assumptions about the future by smellsofbikes (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:54PM
  • backwards compatible? by e-scetic (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @04:55PM
  • TOMBSTONES? by pwainwright (Score:1) Wednesday January 24 2007, @03:57PM
  • Re:Nothing lasts forever by CmdrGravy (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:06AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2