Tuesday, January 31, 2012

City could shut down Hacker Dojo

http://mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=5207

Sent this morning.:
 Matthew:  Okay. There's not a lot of time since tomorrow is the popular closure date.

Fwd: Apple Changes Locks And Puts Up Extra Doors To Keep Its Projects Secret From Employees (AAPL)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Jan 30, 2012 9:51 PM
Subject: Apple Changes Locks And Puts Up Extra Doors To Keep Its Protects Secret From Employees (AAPL)
To: "john.sokol" <john.sokol@gmail.com>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/18/businessinsiderapple-changes-locks-.DTL

Monday, January 30, 2012

Fwd: SOPA truth

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anonymous

Attached.

Corrupt corporations rule, regular people just go to prison.

Q.E.D.

The Open-Science Movement Catches Fire

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/testify-the-open-science-movement-catches-fire

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Fwd: The Future of Warfare


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: av
Date: Jan 29, 2012 1:36 AM
Subject: The Future of Warfare
To: "john sokol" <john.sokol@gmail.com>
AUTOMATION OF VIOLENCE....
its our fault - guys like you and me - the techies.
hoisted by our own inventions....


Sent to you via Google Reader:


The Future of Warfare
via Global Guerrillas by John Robb on 1/27/12
Up Front:
I'm currently proof reading, and enjoying immensely, the new book "Kill Decision" by my good friend Dan Suarez.  It's about autonomous drones.  That's legendary timing for a new book (on top of that, his approach to the genre blows away Clancy at his best).  So, as you can see, I'm particularly jazzed about this topic right now.
I've done some consulting with Northrop Grumman on the future of drones.
Finally, if you want to get ahead of the curve on this, read some of my older posts on drones and supermpowerment over the last four years.
Onto the post:::
Here's the future.  Courtesy of Northrop Grumman.
It's an autonomous aircraft/drone that has a full weapons bay (4,500 lbs).   Say that word again:  autonomous.   That's the breakthrough feature.  This also means:
It can make its own "kill decision."  Again and again and again.  That decision is going to get better and better and cheaper and cheaper (Moore's law has made insect level intelligence available for pennies, rat intelligence is next).
It isn't vulnerabe to a pilot in Nevada directing it to land in Iran. Oops.
It will eventually (sooner than you think) be the "Queen," making decisions for thousands of smaller swarmed (semi-autonomous) drones it lays on a battle zone (aka "city").  
In sum:  It allows an unprecedented automation of conventional violence.  
Granted, it will be possible for small groups to put together systems like this on the cheap.  For offensive or defense reasons.
However, I'm much more worried about their ability to automate repression, particularly if combined with software bots that sift/sort/monitor all of your data 24x7x365 (already going on).

Saturday, January 28, 2012

We need a model.

We need a new model.

Treating intangibles as a service makes far more sense then placing the intangible on something tangible. With a bar code, or now days RF id. Then try to charge for it as if it were a bar of soap or a bag of pretzels. That worked well for a while, maybe 80 years. Right up until people started to gain tools work with intangibles. 
So they thought they could fix it with laws, technical hacks, lawyers and finally police.

The Internet's created much apprehension for those that control the purveyance of intangibles.
It's up to us to re-invent, re-educate and forge new solutions or there only be further escalations.

I was thinking of compensation right and credits right instead of copyright. Some standards as to what the rules are for that content are that can be placed in to simple machine parse-able form of metadata.

As much as I love FOSS and P2P, You need to be able pay if you want talented people. We weren't all born rich, or willing to live in abject poverty to hack code. Been there done that, not fun after a while.
Does anyone have any ideas or opinions?


Update: I came across an interested post.  It's similar to something I was already working on.
http://www.fistfulayen.com/blog/2012/01/a-proposal-for-legislation-to-proactively-combat-piracy-while-encouraging-an-open-and-innovative-internet/

Why Apple Just Realised the Company's First True Post-PC Quarter

http://www.osnews.com/story/25548/Why_Apple_Just_Realised_the_Company_s_First_True_Post-PC_Quarter?_m=3n%252e002k%252e370%252ebb0ao01cm6%252ed4t

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Our future


‎"Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God — but to create Him."

Arthur C. Clarke (1972)

Monday, January 23, 2012

The Housing Collapse. (almost literally)

I was going through some old photos from July 08 and found these.

This house, right on the main though-fare in Montclair California, San Bernardino County (So Cal),  it'd been completely torn up.  Looks someone took a chainsaw to the place. I just had to take a photo.

It's a little depressing to look at, so many people were loosing their homes.

Click on an Image to Enlarge.
















They can now take Vehicle Registration fees directly from Payroll!!!

I sold this car to someone a few years ago. Now the Gov has found another excuse to take money directly from my paycheck.

Will it never end!!!

Saturday, January 21, 2012

India has the most entrepreneurship.

I came across this by accident, I have to admit I would never have guessed it.  It makes sense thou, as every farmer in India is self-employed. There is a long tradition of running your own business, so common it's never even though of in those terms.  Just one walk through the markets there and the number of self starting entrepreneurs is astonishing.  Of course there is almost no regulation to anyone with a basket of fruit can start selling on the street and never get hassled.   It's woven throughout their culture and yet as they become westernized they seem to loose much of that. 

Self‐employed with employees rankings:


Friday, January 20, 2012

On our way to the Fantastic Voyage.

Taken from Facebook. 

On our way to the Fantastic Voyage. UCSD researchers have been developing fascinating devices that can self-propel, even though they are just microns in size. The latest use tiny self-propelled rocket motors that can zip around an acidic environment, like the human stomach, without the need for any external fuel. I’ve met these guys. Amazing stuff.



www.popsci.com
Tiny machines that can enter our bloodstreams and do work inside of our bodies are a staple of both science fiction and real-world biomedical science, as MEMS and other micromotor devices become increasingly small and effective. A team from the University of California, San Diego, is taking the idea...


    • John L. Sokol Using telepresence and Virtual Reality one could actually take a real fantastic Journey, being able to see stereo video from the inside of a human body and be able to travel around as if they were shrunk and place in to a miniature submarine. To able to remotely operate a miniature robot to perform surgeries



  • Thursday, January 19, 2012

    Trump Explains Health Care: No one can sum it up better than Trump



    Trump Explains Health Care

    No one can sum it up better than Trump

    Let me get this straight . . .
    We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
    plan we are
    forced to purchase and
    fined if we don't,
    Which purportedly covers at least

    ten million more people,
    without adding
    a single new doctor,
    but provides for
    16,000 new IRS agents,
    written by a committee whose chairman
    says he
    doesn't understand it,
    passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
    exempted themselves from it,
    and signed by a President who
    smokes,
    with
    funding administered by a treasury chief who
    didn't pay his taxes,
    for which we'll be
    taxed for four years before any
    benefits take effect
    ,
    by a government which has

    already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
    all to be overseen by a surgeon general
    who is
    obese,
    and
    financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

    'What could possibly go wrong?'

     

     


    Saturday, January 14, 2012

    craigslist | about > SOPA

    http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA

    Fwd: Recent developments in US patent law [Physics Today / Volume 65 / Issue 1]


    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: "Jonathan Post"
    Date: Jan 13, 2012 3:46 PM
    Subject: Recent developments in US patent law [Physics Today / Volume 65 / Issue 1]
    To:

    Physics Today / Volume 65 / Issue 1 / Articles

    Recent developments in US patent law
    Patrick M. Boucher

    January 2012, page 27
    Permalink
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1397
    Legislation making the US the last country to abandon the
    first-to-invent patent system should have a significant effect on the
    way scientists approach patenting.

    PUBLICATION DATA
    ISSN:
    0031-9228 (print)
    Publisher:
    $abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef American Institute of Physics

    Despite its innocuous title of "Improvement in Telegraphy," US Patent
    174,465 has often been described as "the single most valuable patent
    in history."1 It was also the focal point of one of the most sordid
    dramas in patent history. Despite determinations by the US Supreme
    Court in the Telephone Cases of 1888 that Alexander Graham Bell
    deserved credit for invention of the telephone,2 allegations of
    conspiratorial fraud, bribery, and intellectual theft surrounding the
    granting of his patent still cloud that credit today.
    There is no question that on Valentine's Day in 1876 Bell and Elisha
    Gray, both pictured in figure 1, filed documents with the US Patent
    Office. Bell filed a full patent application while Gray filed a
    "patent caveat," similar to a provisional patent application under
    modern law. Both were assigned to the same examiner, Zenas Fisk
    Wilber. A known alcoholic, Wilber asserted years later that in
    exchange for a bribe of $100, he improperly revealed the content of
    Gray's caveat to Bell's attorneys and allowed material drawn from it
    to be added to Bell's disclosure.3In any event, Bell prevailed.
    Figure
    View first occurrence of Fig. 1a in article.
    Figure
    View first occurrence of Fig. 1b in article.
    An apocryphal anecdote has Bell's attorney beating Gray's to the
    patent office by a mere hour or two, but whether he did was ultimately
    irrelevant: Since its early history, the US has operated under a
    "first-to-invent" patent system in which the question of who wins the
    race to the patent office is less important than who invented
    something first (see the article by James Richardson and Craig Wood in
    PHYSICS TODAY, April 1997, page 32 ). That system will change on 16
    March 2013.
    The change implemented by the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act that has
    attracted the most attention is often informally described as a move
    from the first-to-invent system to a "first-to-file" system.
    Characterized that way, the concept is deceptively simple: The first
    person to file a patent application for an invention is the one
    entitled to the patent. The reality, though, is considerably more
    complex.
    First, the act does not implement a pure first-to-file system, but
    rather implements a variation referred to as a
    "first-inventor-to-file" system. The distinction is important,
    particularly for scientists, because a major difference from a pure
    first-to-file system is that it permits, and even encourages,
    publication of the invention before it is filed with the patent
    office—provided the applicant adheres to certain critical provisos.
    Second, even pure first-to-file systems must account for inventors who
    not only come from widely varied technology areas but also develop
    their inventions under a varied array of circumstances. They develop
    and implement concepts that may be similar rather than identical, and,
    like Isaac Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, their
    inspiration routinely relies on an existing body of knowledge. They
    work in environments ranging from R&D departments of large
    multinational corporations to university laboratories to the perhaps
    romanticized garage of the individual inventor. Their research is
    financially supported by both private and public interests, which
    often reflect divergent views on such things as the role of profit and
    competition. And it is increasingly rare that the value of inventions
    is seen through a parochial lens; inventors are now routinely
    confronted with the complex reality of global commercialization of
    their ideas.
    Perhaps most notable of all, the Leahy–Smith Act does much more than
    change the US to a first-to-file system; it is the latest step in an
    effort that began some 130 years ago to harmonize the patent laws of
    different nations. The most comprehensive revision of US patent law in
    more than 50 years, the act was introduced against the backdrop of an
    acute need to address inefficiencies in the system. Some of its more
    important other provisions include the introduction of new defenses
    against patent infringement, new ways for third parties to oppose the
    granting of patents, and procedural mechanisms evidently designed to
    curtail the activities of entities sometimes pejoratively called
    patent trolls. That term usually describes an entity that seeks to
    exploit patents for licensing revenue without making its own products
    and was adopted as a substitute for "patent extortionist" after a 2001
    libel suit against Intel.4 Undoubtedly, the various provisions reflect
    the perspectives and objectives of different classes of
    inventors—including scientists—but it is overly idealistic to suppose
    that those provisions flawlessly balance the various tensions among
    those perspectives.
    Publication and other disclosures
    For hundreds of years, patent systems have encouraged inventors to
    disclose their inventions to the public through the incentive of a
    time-limited, government-backed monopoly to control use of their
    inventions by others. The bargain was well expressed by Galileo
    Galilei in December 1593 when he petitioned the doge of Venice for a
    patent on a machine "for raising water and irrigating land with small
    expense and great convenience. . . . It is not . . . fit that this
    invention, which is my own, discovered by me with great labor and much
    expense, be made the common property of everybody." If he were granted
    a temporary monopoly over its use, he said, "I shall the more
    attentively apply myself to new inventions for universal benefit."5
    The Leahy–Smith Act fundamentally recalibrates the interaction of
    patent laws with the timing and form of publications. At its most
    basic level, the move to any form of first-to-file system encourages
    inventors to file patent applications at earlier stages of an
    invention's development. Applications that are more conceptual and
    more incremental are likely to be filed, as inventors—particularly
    those working in competitive areas—seek the benefit of obtaining the
    first filing date. Ironically, physicists who have been repeatedly
    discouraged by research journals from engaging in serial publication
    of incremental results will find considerably more acceptance and
    advantage to serial patenting.
    Interestingly, a shift in focus to filing applications on technologies
    earlier in development is likely to work better for physicists than
    for some other scientists. The US Patent and Trademark Office has not
    routinely required a working model of an invention in many years, and
    physics is generally considered to be a predictable art because the
    developed laws of mechanics, electromagnetics, acoustics, and so forth
    enable reliable extrapolation of results. The requirements for
    demonstrating functionality of an invention are accordingly far more
    easily satisfied—and are therefore more amenable to earlier
    filings—than in the unpredictable arts that mostly encompass chemistry
    and biology.
    The change to a first-inventor-to-file system may also have
    consequences on the approach physicists take to publication of their
    results because of the most significant deviation from a pure
    first-to-file system provided by the Leahy–Smith Act: the retention in
    US law of a form of grace period for nonpatent disclosures (such as
    journal or other publications) by the inventor. An invention is
    patentable when it is both novel and not obvious over a body of
    knowledge referred to as prior art, as outlined in figure 2. Under a
    first-to-invent system, the definition of prior art is complex because
    it must account for the often difficult-to-determine date when
    something was invented. Under a pure first-to-file system like that
    used in most of the world, the definition of prior art is simple: It
    is everything that was publicly known before the filing date of an
    application. But in choosing to retain a grace period for disclosures,
    the US has introduced a critical wrinkle. Under its
    first-inventor-to-file system, prior art is everything publicly known
    before the filing date of an application, except for disclosures made
    by or derived from the inventor within the preceding year.
    Figure
    Fig 2.
    Figure 2. The Leahy–Smith Act implements a "first-inventor-to-file"
    patent system, which is a modified form of a "first-to-file" system.
    Disclosures made within a grace period of one year prior to filing a
    patent application are considered in determining who is entitled to
    the patent. To be granted a patent on an invention, an inventor must
    file an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office and must
    be either the first to have so filed or the first to have disclosed
    the invention during the grace period. Whether a reference is "prior
    art" defines whether it may be used in evaluating an invention's
    novelty and nonobviousness.
    View first occurrence of Fig. 2 in article.
    It is important to recognize that the body of knowledge that forms the
    prior art is not limited by the language in which it may be known nor
    by the fact that portions of it may be obscure. It does not even
    matter whether any portion of a particular reference was ever read, as
    long as it was publicly accessible. One recent example that strikingly
    illustrates the point is the patent dispute involving Blackberry
    services. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, a
    little-known publication discovered in the Norwegian University of
    Science and Technology Library in Trondheim, Norway, proved to be
    critically important. Other examples of material considered as prior
    art are eprints, doctoral theses deposited and indexed in libraries,
    and poster papers displayed at scientific conferences.
    The retention of a grace period is of particular importance to
    scientists because they frequently place a stronger emphasis on
    journal publication than do nonscientist inventors. At least in the
    US, prior publication will not preclude the ability to obtain a
    patent, provided the patent application follows publication by no more
    than a year. In that respect, too, physicists may find the system more
    conducive to their practices than will other scientists. Most journals
    of interest to physicists do not impose publication embargoes of the
    sort that are common among journals in other fields, notably medical
    journals. Publication of an invention as an eprint, as part of a
    doctoral thesis, or even on a private webpage will not immediately
    jeopardize the ability to obtain a US patent.
    More widely, the act of publishing an invention may even be
    advantageous. As long as a patent application is filed and the time
    constraints are satisfied, the first-inventor-to-file system grants
    the patent to the first person who discloses the invention to the
    public through either a publication or the patent filing. For
    inventors who are unconcerned about patent rights outside the US,
    early publication of an invention is sound strategy. It is the most
    effective way of preserving the right to the patent in the US, is less
    costly than filing a patent application, and provides a year to fully
    consider whether a patent is even desirable.
    Such a publication strategy is limited to the US and the small number
    of other countries that afford a grace period. While early forms of
    patent-reform bills conditioned the US's adoption of a first-to-file
    system on acceptance of grace periods by Europe and Japan, such
    conditioning is absent from the enacted version and requires a
    modification of the strategy when foreign patent rights are of
    concern. For example, a provisional patent application may be filed
    just before publication. Provisional patent applications are cheaper,
    easier, and quicker to file; and although they will not themselves
    ever be examined or mature into a patent, they provide a one-year
    placeholder that preserves the right to file foreign applications even
    with an intervening publication.
    Trade secrets
    While the grace period promotes the early disclosure of inventions,
    other provisions of the Leahy–Smith Act do the opposite. One eternal
    question inventors face is whether to seek a patent on their invention
    or to maintain it as a trade secret. Secrecy can be attractive,
    especially in those instances where disclosure of an invention's
    details makes it relatively easy to design alternatives. The risk of
    maintaining an invention as a trade secret has been that someone else
    might independently develop and patent it, which would suddenly make
    its continued use an infringement. The Leahy–Smith Act fundamentally
    changes the calculus in making that determination.
    Expanding a provision that was introduced a decade ago to address the
    perceived special case of business-method patents, the Leahy–Smith Act
    immediately affords a prior-user defense to patent infringement in all
    technology areas. Provided that the invention was in generally
    continuous use for at least a year prior to the filing date of a
    patent that covers it, such use may continue. While the use needs to
    have been commercial, that term is defined broadly: It covers internal
    uses by companies, sales between independent agents, premarketing
    regulatory review, and—rather counterintuitively—use by nonprofit
    laboratories.
    The consequences of that defense are significant. One principal
    motivation that encouraged filing a patent rather than maintaining an
    invention as a trade secret has been removed. The risks of maintaining
    it in secrecy no longer include the possibility that its use can later
    be prevented through independent invention by someone else. Other
    considerations for the decision accordingly take on more immediate
    importance. How easy is it for a competitor to discover the invention?
    How likely is independent invention of the same thing? How important
    is publicity to one's strategic goals? Because the change in law makes
    secrecy a more valuable protection strategy, the expectation is that
    the number of inventions that are kept secret will increase.
    Although the prior-user defense is intentionally broad, institutions
    of higher learning are immune to it: An exception prohibits the
    defense from being applied against inventions developed by university
    researchers with federal funding. The exemption is specifically
    structured with the academic-publication concerns of university
    researchers in mind and provides an incentive for them to continue
    their traditional approach to publication. Patents originally filed by
    universities are now stronger than patents owned by others because
    they may be applied against anyone, even someone who may previously
    have used the invention in secret.
    Government funding
    The favoring of university researchers who use government funds is
    consistent with a general effort that has been under way for three
    decades to increase the involvement of universities in the patent
    system. When former commissioner of patents and trademarks C. Marshall
    Dann wrote for PHYSICS TODAY in March 1978 (page 23), he adopted an
    almost cajoling tone in encouraging physicists to see the patent
    system as an alternative to journal publishing. Although he recognized
    that the way of thinking about patents on federally funded inventions
    was evolving, it was still two years before greater control over such
    patents would be extended to universities and other nonprofits through
    the Bayh–Dole Act. Considerable changes have occurred since he
    observed that "some scientists, including physicists, think that there
    is something crassly materialistic about being interested in patents,
    and that patents are usually given for clever trivialities."
    Before the Bayh–Dole Act, the government took the view that allowing
    an inventor to retain ownership of a patent on an invention developed
    with federal funds was contrary to public policy, and it required the
    public to pay twice: first to support the initial research and second
    in higher costs for technology subject to a private-ownership
    interest. There is a logic to such a view, but the demonstrable fact
    is that without the incentive of private ownership, little publicly
    supported research was effectively commercialized. Allowing federally
    supported inventors to retain patent ownership has resulted in
    markedly increased commercialization of some technologies to the
    direct benefit of the public.6 Technology-transfer offices of
    universities have consequently become much more aware of the financial
    value of patenting, to the benefit of both the universities and
    university researchers. The Leahy–Smith Act continues that trend
    beyond the university by increasing the share of patent-licensing
    royalties that may be retained by government contractors who are
    nonprofit operators of government-owned facilities.
    Other provisions
    In addition to the first-inventor-to-file system with a grace period
    and the broadening of the prior-user defense, the Leahy–Smith Act
    includes other provisions intended to address specific recent
    criticisms of the patent system. For example, the large backlog of
    unexamined applications, plotted in figure 3, has increasingly been a
    source of frustration for inventors and has prompted concerns that
    delays are straining the system's ability to spur technological
    innovation. Much of the backlog is attributable to a congressional
    practice of taking patent fees paid by inventors and diverting them to
    other government programs. The Leahy–Smith Act increases fee levels
    and gives the patent office greater financial control over their use,
    so that the office can examine applications more effectively and
    expeditiously.
    Figure
    Fig 3.
    Figure 3. The backlog of patent applications awaiting examination by
    the patent office has risen sharply over the past 15 years. The
    average interval is now about 36 months between the time of filing and
    the time a patent is granted. The patent office hopes the Leahy–Smith
    Act, which gives the office greater control over its own finances,
    will aid in addressing the backlog.
    View first occurrence of Fig. 3 in article.
    Some critics go further and assert that the patent system not only
    fails to spur innovation but actually stifles it. Litigation by patent
    trolls is frequently identified as an exploitation of the system that
    abuses the limited monopoly granted to inventors in exchange for their
    disclosure. The Leahy–Smith Act sharply curtails one of the primary
    strategies used in that type of litigation, namely the practice of
    joining many defendants—there exist instances of more than 100
    defendants spread across the US and otherwise unrelated—in a single
    infringement action. The expectation is that removal of that strategy
    will allow legitimate infringement actions to proceed while greatly
    reducing the ability to engage in exploitive behavior.
    Others contend that some patents are obvious and trivial; they
    question the quality of examination. In addition to improving funding
    for the patent office to address examination quality, the act greatly
    expands the ability of third parties to submit relevant prior art for
    consideration by the examiner and to initiate proceedings to oppose
    the granting of specific patents. Generally modeled after similar
    opposition proceedings in other countries, that additional level of
    review may dovetail with investigations into the use of peer review in
    the evaluation of patent applications (see the box ).
    Paradigm shift
    The Leahy–Smith Act is not merely a tweaking of the US patent system.
    It alters many of the most basic precepts of the system and will
    dramatically affect many basic patenting strategies developed over the
    past decades as the intricacies of the former system were refined and
    understood. Much remains unclear about the full scope of the changes
    that will occur as a result of the system's overhaul. Many terms in
    the legislation are ambiguous and will ultimately require judicial
    decisions to resolve.
    The only US president to have been granted a patent is Abraham
    Lincoln. The idea for his patent came from a mishap in which Lincoln
    found his boat stranded on a sandbar, and the boat's hands used
    planks, crates, and barrels to buoy it enough to free it. His
    invention, illustrated in figure 4, was never actually used with any
    vessel, but it is easy to imagine his excitement at the process and at
    the promise of being granted a patent. His poetic expression of that
    excitement, that the "patent system . . . added the fuel of interest
    to the fire of genius,"7 is one that still captures the system's
    ultimate goal.
    Figure
    Fig 4.
    Figure 4. Abraham Lincoln, inspired by a mishap in which he found
    himself stranded on a sandbar, became the only US president to be
    granted a patent. Illustrated by the two figures shown here, the text
    of US Patent 6,469 begins: "Be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, of
    Springfield, in the County of Sangamon, in the State of Illinois, have
    invented a new and improved manner of combining adjustable buoyant air
    chambers with a steamboat or other vessel for the purpose of enabling
    their draught of water to be readily lessened to enable them to pass
    over bars, or through shallow water, without discharging their
    cargoes."
    View first occurrence of Fig. 4 in article.
    Patents and peer review
    People who manage peer-review systems love to quote Winston Churchill:
    "No one pretends that [it] is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been
    said that [it] is the worst form . . . except for all those other
    forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill was, of
    course, applying his characteristic wit in describing democracy as a
    form of government. But the analogy with peer review resonates
    strongly with the editors of scholarly journals, who recognize the
    central role of peer review and yet are all too aware of its
    weaknesses.8 (See also the letter by Steven Rothman in PHYSICS TODAY,
    September 1995, page 124.)
    Still, peer review has not traditionally been used for evaluating
    patent applications, even though they can be as technical as journal
    articles and patent examiners have at least as many limitations on the
    breadth of their personal expertise as journal editors. One
    justification for the difference in approach has been a concern that
    technical experts consulted as referees are insufficiently
    knowledgeable of the legal considerations that govern decisions for
    patent applications. The justification is a weak one, and nations
    around the world, including the US, are beginning to experiment with
    peer-review systems for patents. The Peer to Patent pilot program in
    the US, which concluded at the end of 2011, is limited to small,
    defined technology areas and differs in important respects from
    tightly controlled, anonymous journal peer review. It more closely
    resembles online social forums. Any member of the public can
    participate as a referee and can provide comments through a Web
    interface that has no specific structure for participants to maintain
    anonymity, although they are permitted to use pseudonyms. The
    information gained from such pilot programs will ideally be informed
    by the extensive experiences of journals and funding agencies in
    determining whether and how to implement more widespread peer review
    of patent applications.
    The anonymous peer-review procedure used by journals has sometimes
    also been the target of patent disputes. A 1988 case involving
    Physical Review Letters is instructive.9 A paper the journal rejected
    became a point of focus when one party to patent litigation sought to
    compel disclosure of the identity of one of the referees; the party
    argued that transmittal of an otherwise unpublished paper to a referee
    might result in circulation sufficient to qualify as disclosure that
    would bar the granting of a patent. The court, refusing to compel the
    journal to identify the referee, noted that "even if the referee
    consulted a few colleagues about the merits of the manuscript (as the
    [journal] procedures . . . permit), this would not, as a matter of
    law, suffice to constitute a 'printed publication.' " Two points are
    noteworthy. First, submission of a paper to a journal, even when
    referees are consulted, is generally insufficient to count as a
    disclosure that would affect patent rights, at least until the journal
    formally publishes the paper. Second, journals' confidentiality
    policies regarding the identity of referees will generally be
    respected and enforced by the courts.
    Patrick Boucher is currently a patent attorney at the firm of Marsh
    Fischmann and Breyfogle, and was previously an associate editor of
    Physical Review B. He regularly comments on issues involving law and
    science at JuriScientia, http://juriscientia.com.
    References

       J. W. Wright et al., eds., The New York Times Guide to Essential
    Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind, 3rd ed., St.
    Martin's Press, New York (2011), p. 1233.
       Telephone Cases, 126 US 1 (1888).
       A. E. Evenson, The Telephone Patent Conspiracy of 1876: The Elisha
    Gray–Alexander Bell Controversy and Its Many Players, McFarland & Co,
    Jefferson, NC (2000).
       P. Groves, A Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law, Edward
    Elgar, Northampton, MA (2011), p. 314., An exhaustive discussion of
    the etymology of "patent troll" can be found in R. P. Niro, J.
    Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 6, 185 (2007).
       B. W. Bugbee, Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law, Public
    Affairs Press, Washington, DC (1967), p. 24.
       D. C. Mowery et al., Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation:
    University–Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh–Dole
    Act Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA (2004).
       A. Lincoln, Speeches and Presidential Addresses: 1859–1865 The
    Current Literature, New York (1907), p. 13.
       E. D. Robin, C. M. Burke, Chest 91, 252 (1987)
       D. Rennie, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 270, 2856 (1993)
       S. Wessely, Psychol. Med. 26, 883 (1996).
       Solarex Corp v. Arco Solar Inc, 121 FRD 163 (EDNY 1988).

    Thursday, January 05, 2012

    Vint Cerf On Human Rights: Internet Access Isn't On the List - Slashdot

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1939201/vint-cerf-on-human-rights-internet-access-isnt-on-the-list?utm_source=feedburnerGoogle+Feedfetcher&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

    Re: It's not brain surgery - If You're Over 70!

    Hi Hap, 
       That is disturbing!!!  

     I am reposting this 

    http://johnsokol.blogspot.com/2012/01/fwd-its-not-brain-surgery-if-youre-over.html 




    On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM, John Sokol <john.sokol@gmail.com> wrote:


    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Hap DeSimone <hap3k@yahoo.com>
    Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM
    Subject: It's not brain surgery - If You're Over 70!
    To:



    Hi
    You're about to hear a chilling phone conversation between a doctor and a talk show host.
    Listen carefully, because this one affects you, your family and your friends.

    You doctors out there need to pay attention to this one.


    Did they say care or no-care?





    Fwd: It's not brain surgery - If You're Over 70!

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Hap 
    Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM
    Subject: It's not brain surgery - If You're Over 70!
    To:

    Hi
    You're about to hear a chilling phone conversation between a doctor and a talk show host.

    Listen carefully, because this one affects you, your family and your friends.

    You doctors out there need to pay attention to this one.

    Did they say care or no-care?



    "R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Max Nix  
    Date: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM
    Subject: "R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011"
    To: 

    Keep in mind that this was sent to me from a ladyfriend who
    politically is on the extreme left, and the website itself skews to
    the left as well (it's a pro-green eco natural healing new age kind of
    a website), so this is not your typical generic right wing attack.
    This is what they really feel.  Fascinating:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html

    Fwd: News Flash: Dead Come To Life!

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: HAP
    Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:06 AM
    Subject: News Flash: Dead Come To Life!
    To:

        News Flash!

        Washington D.C.

        DEAD COLLEGE BOY COMES TO LIFE!!



        The previously dead college boy Robert MacNamara was
    resurrected in the body of Leon Panetta this morning. The Creature
    walked into a room and seized the microphone at a Chicago Town
    Hall Meeting, cleverly disguised as a National Security Briefing.

        The Creature had broken into the cookie jar that held the money
    that we had used to pay our troops in the field. The Creature claimed
    that there was a Fiscal Emergency that was more important than
    paying the bills such as the Army, Marines, Navy, Veterans Administration,
    etc. "We need to spend more in the Private Sector" the Creature bellowed,
    "The Military has to tighten their belts". There was no government Official
    that was man enough to stand up to the theft.

        The good news out of this is that the five or six HUNDRED MILLION
    DOLLARS will help save the most important auspices of American Life...
    Midnight Basketball and Fair Treatment of Illegal Aliens.

        In fairness to George Soros (Father of the Creature), America hasn't
    been attacked since Pearl Harbor, so we really don't NEED a big, capable
    military. (Oh, except for that thingie in New York and stuff).

        A squad of gallant Marines tried to subdue the creature with wreaths
    of Garlic, but it had not effect against the stench of corruption that engulfed
    the current Administration.

                                                                        Associated Press, Washington







    Wednesday, January 04, 2012

    Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden

    http://mashable.com/2012/01/05/sweden-religion-file-sharing/

    From Slashdot:


    Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden

    Posted by timothy 
    from the but-do-they-have-snacks-and-coffee? dept.

    bs0d3 writes"Kopimism is now an official religion in Sweden. Kopimi beliefs originated with the Swedish group called Piratbyran who believed that everything should be shared freely online without restrictions from copyright. Leader Isak Gerson, has recently had some disagreements with the Swedish Pirate Party where many people disagree with all religions."Here's the official website for the "Missionary Church of Kopimism."

    The Fractal Dimension of ZIP Codes | Wired Science | Wired.com

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/the-fractal-dimension-of-zip-codes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

    Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws About Technology - Slashdot

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/03/229233/why-politicians-should-never-make-laws-about-technology

    Myth of the Mini Ice Age


    One of the perennial golden oldies of science denial is the "impending ice age" myth.

    As usual, the climate denial noise machine distorts what an actual scientist says about his research -- That there is no prediction of any ice age. - mini, maxi, little, big or or otherwise.


    Monday, January 02, 2012

    Memetic Engineering + Music = Fan Engagement



    On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Leveious wrote:
     Memetic Engineering + Music =  Fan Engagement


    When companies – society take Memetic engineering interconnection With the Digital landscape Mobile/ Internet which has sparked a dynamic cultural shift towards "collaboration and participatory commerce", (Co Creation) and customers demanding engagement in products at unprecedented levels, corporations and institutions are scrambling to figure out the new rules of business. employees- peoples are demanding involvement in determining company direction, and executives are discovering that accepting it brings success

    Our Collegues first book  Ramaswamy and Gouillart , (The Future of Competition) and Gouillart (Transforming the Organization) highlight several examples, ranging from Starbucks to Summerset Houseboats, of companies moving from a top-down to a bottom-up approach and establishing cost-effective measures like crowd-sourcing to meet local needs.  Since we know the  authors they make an excellent case by examining the successful integration of these strategies, but they never quite make the leap beyond their single-line strategy and urge for implementation. We are implementing such strategies in actual Real time.

     Music User - Fan Experience 

    "The understanding of  harmonic context in which music is  heard, chords that  changed  peoples sensory experience, just as it does in mind without auditory cortex damage,"Such scientific  cases give us valuable information about how the auditory cortex and connected brain systems integrate what we hear with what we know about meaningful sounds like music."


    The activity of our brain during music perception also is being studied using various imaging techniques. For instance, increased flow of blood and oxygen to different brain areas can be seen as people play and listen to music. In addition, studies of animals reveal details of anatomy and the workings of brain cells that underlie music perception.

    http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/03/24/daniel-levitin-all-in-the-timing/

    When you add the context of Memetic engineering  which is constant evolving proven theory of Mental content based on Richard Dawkins 1976 book the Selfish Gene It purports to be an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. A meme, analogous to a gene, is essentially a "unit of culture"—an idea, belief, pattern of behavior, etc. which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which can reproduce itself from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen memetically as a meme reproducing itself. As with genetics, particularly under Dawkins's interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host. JohnSokol and  my self Leveious Rolando  coin Memetic Engineering  along with our colleague Gibran Burchett- Lawrence Lotman with partner Morgan Warstler.


    When you add the most powerful multi sensory  experience of Music and how it effects all parts of the brains and even the cells of the human body. which in turns effects the  behavior ideas or memes shapes the out  comes global pop culture and influence on all social change.

    Our Partner Grammy Award winning Engineer- music producer Bob " Bassy" Brockman - says:
    "Your signature brain wave activity is unique to you. It has a distinct rhythm and pattern that has developed over time and through habit.  We have developed audio-music strategies  that will facilitate and develop new patterns and expand frequencies-for example we  can  assist through  beats and  music to push focused attention towards brand campaign  via Mobile-Digital devices,  theta, alpha or even delta waves (we all know all of this intuitively)."               

    Brain waves  that  Create our experiences:
    Understanding Brain waves is key to grasping influence music- visual driven Memes( Ideas- Concepts)

    Gamma waves are the fastest of the brainwave frequencies and signify the highest state of focus possible. They are associated with peak concentration and the brain's optimal frequency for cognitive functioning. A Nobel prize winning scientist has proven that the 40Hz frequency may be the key to the act of cognition!

    Beta waves range between 13-40 HZ, and at that range you are wide-awake, alert with clarity of the mind. Therefore the mind is sharp, focused. It makes connections quickly, easily, and you're primed to do work that requires your full attention. In the Beta state, neurons fire abundantly and fast, in rapid succession, helping you achieve peak performance. New ideas and concepts with solutions to problems flash like lightning into your mind.

    The Alpha state is an intensely pleasurable and relaxed state of consciousness essential to stress reduction and high levels of creativity. Artists, musicians and athletes are prolific alpha producers; as are intuitive persons
    .  A close partner  who is the leading Alpha researcher,  says, "Its pleasure may come from the fact that alpha "represents something like letting go of Fears and anxieties."

    We have develop unique bi-neural  beat and music  frequencies allowing for and immediate attachment to any products (brands) and an emotional experience with our brand campaign. Our proprietary techniques allow for a Brands unique signature to be internalized by the target audience, in essence Embedding The Brand.  with  fans or people co-developing the ideas with us.

    Our Partner Lawrence Lotman Award winning Film Producer says: "This ensures the target consumer is engaged with the new brand strategy creating a long term, adhesive loyal customer through credible and subliminally powerful emotional targeted messages that speak directly to the needs of our target audience."

    John Sokol and  myself Leveious Rolando and others Team members along with world leading Behavioral scientists/ Global Advertising firms
    and mobile- digital -social media apps designers have developed a   Product- Memetic music brain wave methodology (patent pending) with digital -Mobile forward thinking street teams composed of young minds who understand what is happening in world now!

    We have combined leading Music engineers-producers, Concept producers, Retailers, Global manufactures, Entertainment executives, User experience software apps, Global leading edge Trend Specialists, Multi-sensory facilitators and Market itself (Creative consumers). 

    We are especially focused on Users-MADE: "The phenomenon of corporations creating goods, services and experiences in close cooperation with experienced and creative consumers, tapping into their intellectual capital, and in exchange giving them a direct say in (and rewarding them for) what actually gets produced, manufactured, developed, designed, serviced, or processed" ; as well as User CREATED is the only alternative to traditional marketing and fast  changing market to what is  next: if you co-create   products,services participants obviously don't need to be 'told' about the product, plus they are far more likely to act as brand ambassadors to their friends, family and colleagues.  

    User Made/Created is NOT plain feedback, it's not Do-It-Yourself, it's not customization, it's not even personalization, as all of these happen after companies have decided what the basics are, which products and services and experiences they're willing to hand over to consumers, who can then (at best) modify certain elements, change a color, replace a cover.  
    our approach is Memetic engineering + music driven cultural with combine knowledge of consumers who
    co creates and co -designs- co produces with us.
    Below is a few links
    nicolas.gueguen.free.fr/Articles/EJSR2007.pdf


    The illiterate of the future will not be
    the person who cannot read. It will be the person
    who does not know how to learn to embrace change
    and become a facilitator to adapt to change   .
    Alvin Toffler