This is one huge step for locally based information networks finally becoming accessible. We've grown used to the world wide web, but what are the implications of sharing a net that only covers a small local or regional area?

This is a BIG deal! It gives the currency liquidity; it can now readily be transferred back into other currency forms by washing it through gold or oil in the two examples provided. That also increases how desirable it is to intercept and steal people's bitcoins though. I hope the servers hosting the coins are as secure as they need to be.

I bet they're banking on monetizing the "copyright" screening tools that are going to cost us all an absurd amount, making entry into the internet damned near impossible for those of us without thousands to invest. Shameful Godaddy.com. I hope consumer confidence is shattered in their business because of this poor decision, placing profiteering over protecting basic freedoms. They should know better.

I'm currently working with the site OccupyTownHall.Org to set up a voting system for Public Figures. The model is to empower the public to set up public profiles for their public officials. These public profiles can then be easily voted upon. Each public profile is either raised up to OccupyHallofHonor.Org to highlight those who have been warmly received by the public, or lowered to OccupyWallofShame.Org to show those who have earned public disapproval. Through this, our objective is to better empower people to have their voices and opinions matter to their politicians. This project is early on and we are in pressing need of those capable of assisting with the technical aspects. If anyone would like to participate in this effort, please email us at SpecialProjects@OccupySociety.Org. Thanks!

WOW. A stamp sized solar array accompanying a processor provides an indefinite power source?? If so, combine that with pico-electic power from a watch and you might be able to get a wristwatch sized processor to have suffecient power to do simple things like communicate with wi-fi and render simple apps. I think this potential is going to be a sea-change; I can hardly wait.

Is it just me or does it look like it doesn't cost a million bucks? Which would be a nice change for substantial UAVs. I suspect its an early generation cheap surveillance drone. Fully mission capable as it is; its not like slapping a camera on a remote control plane is really that hard in this day and age.

Its not a question of AI's "making" geniuses, the point is optimizing the return on invested time the students gain. An AI could moderate the pedagogy methods used on each particular student to allow the most ideal combination of learning activities. This could be anything from orchestrating peer groups inside of simulated spaces to simply choosing the dominant coursework as aligning with dispositions. Imagine if you had spent K through 12 studying subject matter you loved while being persistently pushed to better understanding by a mentor who could answer directly or put you quickly in touch with those who can answer even the boldest of questions you might have. The outcome of such an optimized learning environment really would be the "super-intelligent" students Alex Peakes speaks of.

They should be fined, HTC that is, for the cost of the current-day expense of doing their own R & D to implement those key factors in their technology under the presumption no groundwork was laid for them. $13 a unit or other such numbers are patent extortion however. Considering the level of triviality the patents in contention have now reached, those development costs should not be all that substantial. ... the novelty wore of quickly.

" in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art" - http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html#nonobvious No joke, the "Upgrade" button is a patent the United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently holding as a protected I.P.. They've clearly failed to perform their due diligence regarding what are technical innovations versus only Trade Secrets. I believe the root of this problem is due to the exponentially faster timescales that complexity now shifts to merely being novelty. The speed of development in software fields is unprecedented and old schools of thought for decades long protections are antiquated. Considering the USPTO was designed to handle the slow advancement of a paper age however, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a paper dinosaur of old bureaucratic methods can't keep up.

I sincerely hope the Judge is smart enough to spot a failure of jurisprudence on behalf of the Patenting Authority. If these patents had been judged correctly the first time, this mess would never of had to been bothered with. I also can’t blame Google for disregarding unrealistic claims of property regarding common-sense programming advancements. The claims are likely rationally un-defendable, like nearly all software patents these days.

An irony of our society: We child safety proof ALMOST EVERYTHING when it comes to showing dimwits what to avoid (Then hold responsible those who failed to protect idiots from themselves) yet it is somehow controversial to try clever tricks to show the sensible people better paths. .... Sigh. My vote is that civil nudging methods are a definitive good use of influence.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with what they are doing, just that its a best case scenario for how our historically lax information security measures can be exposed as I don't think the polite approach would drive the point home sufficiently. Pulling the pants down of major companies who should have already prepared better sucks for the companies disgraced but for every one they embarrass are scores more who are doing what they can to tighten their own belts. Whitehats have been trying for years to demonstrate, unsuccessfully, better efforts are needed. The best cure for our complacency is a tame threat encouraging solid fences are built before the real, wild threats arrive. And keep in mind, it's OUR data these companies have so poorly guarded.

The Sony hacks illustrated just how exposed our data is; the treasure trove of personal data sitting out there for the EASY taking by real criminals is a disaster waiting to happen on an unprecedented scale. I'd rather a group like Lulz go around poignantly dispelling our notions of information security rather than have actual identity thieves take on the mantle of a wake up call themselves. I applaud their point: if you can't even stop people compromising systems for laughs, you'll never be able to stop those who are doing so for profit.

If we can agree that quantum phenomenon apply to the matter that comprises our neurology then it is a given that quantum behavior is an element of the environment in which our neurology has evolved. Being an intrinsic property, isolating conscious activity from that inherent dynamic requires fully encompassing its behavior in such a way as to sufficiently capture and nullify these characteristics. Barring achieving that effect, we are left with a situation in which quantum phenomenon plays some role in the way our neurology and by that our consciousness works. Frankly, the non sequitor is in thinking that quantum theory DOESN’T play a role in consciousness.

The most substantial fallacy here however is in all this trite search for a silver bullet, the “QUANTUM PHYSICS WILL EXPLAIN MY SOUL” mysticism some seem to embrace. It’s one a piece of a bigger puzzle; there will never be a simple answer at which we can point to and declare “That is I”. Still, why do rational people presume quantum mechanical inclusion as a factor in consciousness? It’s because quantum theory is EXTREMELY useful for explaining how the computationally complex aspects of our cognition are capable of operating; probabilistic computation makes almost trivial types of tasks which are FAR beyond our binary computational approaches. Tasks which are critical to simulating reality in a non-polar universe. If we have an evolutionary system developing with access to the components useful for developing a computational advantage that increases survivability, Occam’s Razor (or to stick with the popular Latin phrasings here, lex parsimoniae) in the very least can be used to show that the presumption of exclusion of these properties is the less defendable position.