2014 called -
Forget Makerbot - did you warn them about the Paris attacks? The Ankara bombings? The Metrojet bombing? Did you tell them to have Robin Williams visit a psychiatrist? Did you tell them to have Carrie Fisher visit a cardiologist? Did you have them warn Ukraine not to underestimate Russia in Donbass? Did you tell Germanwings to up their game on psych evals? Did you tell them to teach Podesta basic email security? Did you tell about Brexit? Did you warn them about Trump? Did you have anyone tell Clinton that she'll be best known for email servers and a conspiracy theory about a pizza parlor's occult child pornography dungeon? Did you warn Bowling Green about the horrific terror attack, and the cruel irony that people will forget about it?
Is it really that expensive? I know some people who had run a small startup automaker that raised 30-something million. They were about 3 months out from first commercial deliveries (having made a couple dozen prototypes to various degrees, ranging from empty shells to full builds), with about $10m still left in the bank - when the board decided to bring on a guy from Detroit (Paul Wilbur, the guy responsible for the Chevy SSR, and a bunch of other train-wrecks-in-car-form), who then proceeded to run the company into the ground.
Are aircraft that much more expensive than cars, that you can't even build a demonstrator for that kind of money? To be fair, the automaker's vehicle was technically classified as a motorcycle, so their regulations weren't as onerous as for most cars (but they still did full crash and crush tests anyway, voluntarily). But, I mean, they just churned out prototypes one after the next.
"4. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 3, wherein the operational component comprises an accessory display configured to present visual content. "
I'll refer you to claim 1:
1. An electronic accessory device, comprising: an operational component that provides an output to a user; a housing carrying the operational component, the housing having a recess; and a control interface coupled to the operational component and configured to receive a control signal from an electronic host device when the electronic host device is positioned within the recess and coupled to the control interface, wherein the electronic accessory device is inoperable without the electronic host device being coupled to the control interface.
The "operational component" is the dock/display, not the phone; the phone is, later, referred to as the "electronic host device". There is nothing novel in #1, as it's describing precisely what the Motorola Atrix and Lapdock did; there's also nothing novel in #4, it's simply describing an external display as part of a dock which, again is what the Atrix and Lapdock did.
"5. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 4, wherein the electronic host device comprises an input device configured to detect a touch event. "
Indeed, and the Atrix did still respond to touch when docked. I distinctly recall wondering why, as you had to have the Lapdock display tilted at an odd angle, wherein it could still be actively in use as a display but tilted too far forward to really be useful, to be able to do so. It may not have been configured to detect a touch event in a useful way, but it was configured to detect a touch event while docked, which is the claim made here. There's, likewise, nothing novel in #5.
Claims 22-26 are not covered by the Atrix/Lapdock, but the other 15 claims are invalidated by that prior art. The remaining 5 claims are also not novel, having existed within previous mobile device dock designs; hell, I'm sure at least one of them included all 20 claims. Yes, the claims are numbered 1-28; 9-16 were "cancelled", so there are, truly, only 20 claims remaining, 3/4 of which are covered by a single piece of prior art from 7 years ago.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out, above me:
Every claim is independently asserted to be a novel invention.
None of these claims represent anything novel, even within the scope of mobile device docking stations.
So, if those miracle 10 minute chargeable batteries are so common
Not particularly common, but available. Most manufacturers prefer energy density to charge time. You get ~2/3rds the energy density on fast charging packs that you get on the highest density 18650s.
So, a little less energy density (30%?) I think for fast charge rates people would give up 30% runtime in a whole host of pluggable environments. So there must be some other reason we don't see reliable fast charge batteries in common applications. I'm thinking cost would be number one.
(Hoverboards) So far, some reports have blamed the batteries, others the cables, but we don't know for sure
Having owned one, and noting that there was a significant spark when attempting to plug it in, I'd say there was more wrong with those hoverboards than just batteries or chargers... quite possible the entire charging subcomponent consisted of a single wire from plug to battery. I had to plug it in a second time just to be sure I saw what I saw, and Amazon kindly refunded it immediately.
Not a single thing that you listed uses fast charge batteries.
And yet they all wound up in smoking piles of burnt electronics.
Right. Computing is the one thing that's advanced so dramatically. Your expectation that if a technology doesn't advance as fast as computing is absurd.
Of course it's absurd. We're also in the very very beginning of this tech. It's no different than the invention of the wheel to hyperloop, just compressed down into roughly 80 years. Just wait on the next technical revolution that may go even faster - bio-engineering.
Tensile strengths? To what are you referring?
I'm referring to tensile strength. If you don't know what tensile strength is, you really need to learn some very, very basic physics. That's like saying "I don't know what mass is"
Of course of materials. Materials in all fields. Tensile strengths, compressive strengths, elastic moduli, etc have all improved with time.
Totally incorrect - the tensile strength of an elemental material is a physical limit. Now, we may have not reached those limits in manufactured components, but the tensile strength is fixed. Now, for engineered materials, we certainly are improving, as well as creating new materials and new manufacturing techniques that bring us much closer to that physical maximum we seek on a macro scale.
But like pretty much every technological field except computing, the rate of improvements are nothing at all like some endless, 1.5-year exponential growth rate.
Computers, in case you haven't noticed, have fallen off the treadmill. The last 5 years at least have almost been standing still.
Batteries win hands down.
I guess I didn't recall how recently Lithium ion batteries came into existence. They certainly increased battery performance hugely, but within them they haven't really done more than double or triple over the last 20 years. (Note, that leaves the first 10 years where there were significant improvements)
ICEs still to this date are nowhere near their Carnot limit.
But they are near the physical limits of power losses due to friction and conduction losses until a frictionless, non-melting non-conducting material can be found, at least regarding efficiency. Now power out of a given sized engine? That can still go up quite a bit, at least from what we have in our day to day cars.
Today's tires are better in rolling resistance, comfort, safety, *and* cost than those of several decades ago. But again, the curve is nothing like that of computing.
Actually, tires have improved tremendously in many ways, reliability, treadwear, improved wet traction, lowered noise (due both to materials and tread design) etc etc etc. Rolling resistance is something that has not improved tremendously, since there were very low rolling resistance tires quite a ways back, and those were actually worsened wrt to rolling resistance to increase comfort. I'd say the biggest improvements were the combination of treadwear and traction, and then separately, reliability. I still recall belts (both regular and radials) breaking in tires and causing blowouts. A spare was expected to be used, now, it's truly "in case of emergency only" if you even have one.
You're holding batteries to the standard of the one thing that's advanced faster than everything else (computing). Which is ridiculous.
The point here is that a battery is still like a 1800s wood burning steam engine compared to the charging rate of a battery
I can't even parse that sentence.
In a word - supercapacitor. Another word - flow. Both beat regular batteries in certain areas of performance, both have their drawbacks. I'd love a supercapacitor with the energy density of the best lithium battery at the large scale cost of a flow battery.
Somehow we got hung up on computers and all related tech and the amazing improvements over the previous 40 years. However, that curve has significantly flattened, like Thor's hammer hit it, at least until there's a fundamental shift, much like with batteries when lithium ion batteries were introduced. I will predict that genetic engineering is about to enter a similar phase of amazing improvement, provided we don't wind up killing ourselves.
Publicising their QA process now serves to help defend against current and future litigation.
It doesn't do squat against current litigation. Litigation already in progress related to a past event isn't going to be helped by what you started doing today to prevent said event in the future.
Either embrace web based software and accept that or stick to traditional style desktop software.
I prefer not to embrace spy on me,,, errr web based software. Thank you very much.
Come on, be sensitive. Some people spent their whole weekend making that movie.
Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But Science Insider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.
Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.
In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.
At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”
Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the NOAA research has generally proved accurate. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods.
Researchers say the Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office, the U.K. government’s climate agency, which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.
Read on. It's worth it. The short of it: Bates was demoted by Karl several years back. Bates accepts both AGW, and the conclusions of Karl's paper, but decided to post a nitpicking complaint that he had used the ISTI land data in addition to the base NOAA data (the former of which isn't as high quality), without specifically commenting about the data source quality difference:
The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.
But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There's nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says
The article also goes into the split within NOAA over how strongly to focus on new data and approaches that capture effects which old data and approaches might have missed, vs. old ones which are less accurate but more validated. The land data people tend to fall into the former category while the satellite people tend to fall in the later category. Karl was a land guy and Bates was a satellite guy.
It's interesting to read Bates' blog post with "Karl" replaced by "The guy who demoted me":
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of the Guy Who Demoted Me et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Guy Who Demoted Me study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”).
... In the following sections, I provide the details of how the guy who demoted me failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what the guy who demoted me has provided.
Complaining about system performance? The "upgrade" is less capable than the system it is supposed to replace. That's about as valid a complaint as there can be. That said, I never complained about the performance, I pointed out that, while it would be quite a winner in Nintendo's handheld lineup (e.g. I actually like the hardware), they chose to position it as a replacement for a more capable system. That makes it a loser; it's positioned to be, quite literally, a downgrade.
I can think of at least 1 other company that went that route.. **cough** Apple **cough** mini **cough**
Look at it this way: The Geo Metro wasn't a horrible car, for what it was. It was cheap, fuel efficient, and got you from point A to point B. It wasn't built really well and it is obvious that corners were cut, but that was fine because Geo sold it as what it was: cheap transportation. If they had sold it as a sports car, luxury car, or even anything of any quality, it would have been complete crap.
The Geo Metro was maybe 1 step above a Yugo and only maybe slightly less prone to breaking down. Sometimes it is better to not have a particularly bad version of a thing.
I still own a Wii, I saw no reason to "upgrade" to any of their later stuff, as you noted, nothing really compelling about any of them. For me, Wii U didn't float 5 years ago, and nothing has changed in that regard. I mean, I think my 5 year old smartphone in the drawer is a better piece of kit, it just doesn't have the content.
"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken