As long as we're fantasizing, how about a "line-item veto" for the taxpayer.
Presidents have wanted this for several administrations now, but I think the power should rest with the taxpayer instead.
There doesn't have to be any patent associated with any particular language.
Patents can accrue to, among other things, "any useful method..." for X where X itself needn't be useful, and needn't be expressed in any particular language, computer or natural.
It's entirely possible, if not actually likely these days, that in the process of developing anything useful, you'll wind up re-inventing something that's already been granted a patent, however obscure.
It's not a good excuse to stop working altogether. You can at least hope that any patent has already expired or any infringement, deliberate or unintentional, will go unnoticed or unprosecuted. Worst case, you may have to pay for a license, but unless you're making a fair amount of money, that's unlikely.
Then just stop developing anything, period.
There are patent issues with *everything*
What hardware could be worth that amount?
Must be a pretty big mark-up.
... with an actual picture of the nerve:
1) Glasses. If you don't wear them, you don't care, but if you do, you pretty much can't deal with head-mounted VR wear. I've tried a lot of VR devices over the decades and *none* of them are glasses-friendly, including Oculus.
2) Field of view. Ninety degrees isn't enough for immersion. True enough, you can move your head for depth 'feel', but you're still looking through a window.
3) Lag. There's been enough said about this. It will improve over time, though, if there's enough of an audience.
Where do you live?
I've long though the US IRS should provide software to taxpayers instead of forcing us toward the so-called free market.
Hearing any variation on the phrase "wealth creation" drives me right up the wall. Always sounds like someone thinks they're Rumplestiltskin.
"Economists" will never get any respect from me until they come up with theories consistent with conservation of mass and energy.
"The stuff does actually leave your body as CO2, water and other waste products of metabolism of the said 1 kg. It does appear as a 'missing mass' on your weight scale."
Yes, this exactly. But unless everyone actually tacitly understands this, which I doubt, The mass transfer part of metabolism seems to be missing from nutrition discussions. Anorexics and bulimics seem to get it, but the popular media miss the boat. Perhaps it's too much to expect otherwise, but I blame the emphasis on "calories" for the misdirection.
sounds like there's a good joke in there somewhere, but I'm missing it.
can anyone set it up properly?
" when metabolized in the body
I don't believe this to be part of the common understanding. Rather, and usually in the context of weight control, the belief appears to be that expending the 32 megajoules will cause your kilogram of flesh to magically disappear.
All this calorie stuff seems to stem from the metabolic research of Wilber Atwater in the late 19th century. My understanding is that he performed pretty accurate measurements confirming conservation of energy for human nutrition. Conservation of mass seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhere in the 20th century to the point where the (food) calorie is now some sort of bastard unit of massergy.
Calories are energy and kilograms are mass. Conflating them in a non-relativistic way is just plain wrong. That they happen to be somewhat monotonically related when talking about food and body weight is misleading at best. I don't know if it stems from "nutritionists" ignorance of physics and actual science or is just an attempt dumb things down enough for the unwashed masses, but it makes the case that "nutrition" is no more than voodoo and superstition.
No wonder the public doesn't understand science.