i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
I know you and I disagree on a lot of political topics, but I'm 100% with you here. I'm a greedy capitalist who's far more interested in my own lifestyle than in a spotted owl, but I want us to get off oil and onto something long-term sustainable, and ASAP. I'd happily encourage Congress to fund a Manhattan Project-style national security-motivated investment to make it happen. Forget about carbon dioxide and all that (even if I do think those things are important) - I just don't want to depend on the good graces of countries who hate us to keep my country running.
Either we invest in alternative energy development now and eat the research costs for the next X years until it comes online, or we wait until gas gets ludicrously expensive and then start research - and then wait X years after that until we can use it. Maybe if we'd taken this stuff seriously in the 70s and 80s, X would almost be up and we'd have viable alternatives available today. Thanks, previous generation.
We are slaves. That is why the "previous generation" fucked us. You don't understand this. You don't have to. All you need to understand is one simple subject: Fractional Reserve Banking. That is the yoke that binds us. All we need do is end the practice of FRB, and we will be free.
The problem with ideas is that they seem obvious in hindsight. Prior to that, clearly nobody had implemented it.. so the idea couldn't have been that obvious
You're saying: because something hasn't been implemented yet means it must not be obvious?
I'm saying: Perhaps M$ just got to the patent office first with an obvious idea... (much like the Bell's Telephone)
Since the patent examiners are not professionals skilled in the art It's obvious that they aren't qualified to make the non-obvious distinction, or else we wouldn't have so many of these obvious patents.
FYI Menus existed in 1995. Menus on a webpage == fnck!ng obvious esp. to any professional skilled in the art of making menus and web pages.
Businesses with no patents at all, or those with the most worthless patents (in case you need at least one patent as a membership requirement).
Some ideas clearly are a good match for each other. So, what if...
- an entry requirement into a DPL is a patent that the existing members in the DPL agree would be good to introduce, because it would strengthen the complete suite of patents?
- a scoring system is introduced to allow more "generous" members greater control over the direction of the DPL and a greater portion of the potential profits to the DPL itself (such as licence fees for using the patents in the DPL)?
- DPL's allowed other businesses to use the patents in return for licence fees (or for free, to protect from patent trolls)
- the original patent owner retains the right to add the patent to other DPL's
It seems that a DPL would become a business entity in it's own right.
A scoring system might be tricky to design/define, but I think doable. Different DPL's might also use different scoring systems.
I heard about this when it was first announced and cannot believe it still exists/people are still playing this "game"
Anyway this is probably more of a PR smoke then an actual discovery. Drug companies burn through lots of computer time to find potential drug targets most of which do not work. I would expect that a protein (much larger and more complicated then developed drugs) would make the likelihood of its synthesis and folding into the desired structure even less likely to work.
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.