Wait, you're claiming that sticking something that already exists (a digital camera) in the same case as something else that already existed is MORE innovative than the camera sensors, memory, and all that other stuff you can't see is? That has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever heard.

Exactly what patent is it that covers ALL speech recognition on a computer? Or has there been some mathematical proof done that shows there is no other way to do it?

You can't get a patent on a 'new version'. You can get a patent on improvements, but ANYONE can do that.

What do you mean speech recognition isn't an invention? Did it just fall out of the sky or something?

If this technology existed 20 years ago, then the patent is expired anyway.

You're not making any sense.

Wow. You do know that Moore's law is not a real thing, right? You can't 'take advantage of it'.

And you may want to look at what one of those 'other companies' that are making these ever smaller components is called. Hint, it begins with an S and ends with a G.

"The point" is that no system is, or will ever be, perfect. You are the one making the claim that they are too cheap to patch systems, etc. They aren't.

Even with their precautions someone breached them. That does not mean the money was not well spent, it just means that their system (including all the users of their system) is not perfect. I suppose YOU could make a 'perfect system' for them?

Of course they COULD have kept that valuable customer name/email information off the internet. That would kind of make it impossible to offer on-line banking (something probably 99% of their customers want), wouldn't it.

There will ALWAYS be tradeoffs between usability and security. A perfectly secure system would be virtually useless. The trick, of course, is finding the right balance. A breech like this does not show that balance is not currently right.

How is that 'not really innovation'? What enabled all those improvements, magic? Or maybe you think Moore's law is an actual law of physics, and things are just going to keep getting denser with no innovation from dedicated human beings?

If 'incremental improvements' are not innovation, then there has been no innovation between ENIAC and today's smartphones. Every one of the steps between there and here has been 'just an incremental improvement'.

What is your point? Yes, I am sure Dragon has patents on certain ways of doing speech recognition, and if you want to use those methods you must pay Dragon. So what?

The purpose of patents is to spur innovation. Doing what someone else is already doing, the same way they are doing it, is not innovation.

If you are unable to copy (whether or not you 'designed it from scratch') what Dragon is doing, maybe you should do something ELSE. Maybe there is a better way to do speech recognition. Maybe you should focus your attention on something other than speech recognition. Those efforts could lead to real innovation, efforts that would otherwise be wasted doing what already has been done.

Read up on something like the history of the steam engine. Watt was motivated by financial gain. He patented his engine and rigorously defended it. Other people saw a lucrative market for steam powered engines, and set about making their own engines that were different than what Watt did. That drove innovation. And the same pattern is repeated throughout history.

Really? 10 years ago you had a phone with 32GB of memory, that could connect to an LTE4 network, stream usable HD video (and display it on it's own HD screen), do voice recognition, weighed less the 150 grams, had a 16MP camera, etc? Exactly which phone was that?

Now, maybe YOU do not want or appreciate those features, and that is fine, but don't pretend they don't exist.

Most innovation (not just now, but always) does NOT show up suddenly as some earth-shattering new thing. Most innovation is incremental improvements to existing stuff.

Exactly. This is nothing more than a case of nostalgia for 'the good old days' that never actually existed.

Watt and his competitors were having patent fights hundreds of years ago. Bell and his competitors. Edison. The list goes on.

Yep, you can't innovate. Which is why the phone in your pocket is exactly the same as, does the same thing as, and performs the same as the phone that was there 10 years ago.

Haha. For almost 90 years motor vehicles have been excluded from the requirement to have a search warrant. If you 'stand your ground' they will just impound your vehicle and then search it.

Try running a new smartphone on a battery of the same size from 10 years ago, then come back and tell us they haven't improved batteries.

What happens with a hole in the ground when you keep indiscriminately putting stuff in that you can't access? In case you don't know, it becomes full. And when it becomes full you have to cap it (expensive) and properly prepare a new hole (more expensive). I'll leave it to you to try and figure out why the city (and I am guessing the vast majority of it's citizens) think that is a bad thing.

OK, if you want to call a $1 fine 'force', go ahead. You will note that this is similar to the fines they have already been assessing for 3 years for putting recyclables in the trash, and in all that time have only had $2000 worth of fines.

As for why, it is pretty obvious. It is not that they 'want to make compost', it is that they DON'T want recyclable material in the landfills. Once something is in a landfill it is there, taking up space, pretty much forever. Landfills get full and must be closed, and new landfills built. Both of those are expensive (and environmentally unfriendly).

If they compost, on the other hand, they wind up with something useful, which can be sold to help pay for the landfills. Composted material does not become your problem forever, landfilled material does.

I doubt very much that they care what you do with your recyclables, as long as they don't wind up in the landfill.

Based on your acceptance of an article in Computerworld(!) as being a reliable source or a true reflection of what was actually stated, I would say you are a moron.

I am curious as to why you would think a poorly written article in Computerworld points to even the slightest indication of 'incompetent project management' or 'absolute fraud'. If I write 'Bill Gates wrote the Linux kernel in PERL' does that mean that the Linux project management is completely incompent, or, more likely, absolute fraud? Or does it just mean I am an idiot?

This is an article in Computerworld written by some hack who took an IBM press release and completely rewrote it introducing all kinds of errors not present in the original (such as the idiotic units). It is not a submission to a scientifc journal or some such.

A little critical thinking goes a long way, and you seem to not have any.