Google snatches new Project Glass patents | News | TechRadar

bkardell · 2012-05-25T15:52:03.320366+00:00

I hereby publicly disclose my future patentable claim to display the symbol of an ass whenever someone wearing a head mounted display views a copy of a us patent that should never have been granted.

bkardell · 2012-05-25T15:46:45.623829+00:00

Reading through some of the claims - really annoying USPTO letting them get some of the obvious ones.

a display that triangulates sound ? Really ? never looked for that in the past record? Not obvious? Jordi's visor never did it? DUHHHH. why not patent a display with a forward facing camera while at it.

Using an "Arrow" to indicate direction of sound? Really? AN ARROW OMG HOW INNOVATIVE!

IR to communicate between glasses?

SO if I say bluetooth to communicate between glass I now have public disclosure which gives 1 yr to patent THAT innovation and no one else can under new US law.

What about filters over glasses. - disclosed. rubber earpieces - disclosed. frequency filtering -disclosed. detecting dog barks - disclosed another glasses wearer enters room - disclosed tv speech closed captioned and displayed on visor - disclosed

I mean come all the things they are patenting are natural expected extensions of a computer now and been done before whether in a display headviewer format or existing now therefore should not be patentable.

triangulation of sound or sound level on off - done before - not invented by google.

So just to get it out of the way I hereby restate all their claims and apply them to a in eye miniaturized display system so when things get smaller than what Google is patenting - yeah I already publicly disclosed my patentable features.

Now I empathize with Google and don't single them out - after all apple would do it and try to shut Google down with it if Google didn't do it first.

orion12 · 2012-05-25T08:01:24.493462+00:00

Your grandmother reborn now

http://www.glam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thumb36437-carlag.jpg

then

http://i.imgur.com/VqTyz.jpg

orion12 · 2012-05-25T07:50:56.991533+00:00

logged in just to help upvote you to the top for the grandson to see

Thatsrugged · 1 day

of course that worked great for Heinlein and he was kind of the best

thanksforcalling · 1 day

wow. You're right.

I just saw the fan trailer and now I actually want to see it.

When marketed it seemed they focused on "Tim Riggins" bare-chested to get the girls interested.

Of course that' s a problem because girls typically won't pay to see a sci fi film, and guys who would don't usually want to see the film focus on the bare chest of some dude.

TSC · 1 day

sounds very "back to the future" ish when speed up.

mepper · 1 day

Are you kidding?

Sometimes the shear lack of understanding at NASA of what interests the public who fund these mission just astonishes me.

And NASA wonders why people don't care about space much anymore.

Rocks!

Here's an idea. Nasa will grant the first people who survive 1 yr on Mars exclusive permanent legal right to the 200 square miles surrounding their landing site.

Then have a contest to be the astronauts on the mission.

You would have millions watching it for years.

People want HUMAN INTERACTION.

As a space geek I hate to say it but it's true.

They want to see people doing back flips on mars in low gravity against a red canyon background.

They want to see them growing the mars bacteria in petri dishes and stoking their aquariums with them like mars seamonkeys with a live webcam to watch.

And that's ok because those things are what life is about and if we are every gonna get off this planet we better start planning missions around what it means to be a balanced human and not what is means to be a scientist stuck in a lab.

really?

We are going to send people all the way to mars to get rocks?

That really didn't promote the exploration of the moon too well did it?

jb2386 · 1 day

Viking landers in 1976 already definitively found life as has been shown over and over.

Repeatedly analysis for decades since the landing has shown it ove rand over in multitudes of different ways.

The fact that people still don't admit it shows more about the struggle to get people to admit to anything definitively than it does about life on Mars.

No doubt some redditors will jump here and prove that point by arguing.

jb2386 · 1 day

Compare that to the fact that you have more bacteria in/on your body then you have cells.

love a source for that.

find it hard to believe based on body volume

achacttn · 1 day

I would suggest a browser plugin to spyder pages.

firefox has several

i use scrapbook which will go down several levels

also look up independent sypder programs that owrk outside of a browser.

http://www.httrack.com/ is one free one but its hard to figure out.

you do often have to tell it to ignore robots.txt and also set time interval between downloads so it doesn't hit servers too hard and fast.

aguafiestas · 1 day

If one of them got a PSA test a year or two before they died, and then a prostate surgery to remove the cancer, they probably would have felt that their life was saved by the PSA. But, it wasn't. They died at 65 from something else with a prostate cancer they never knew about. This is what a lot of the concern is about.

EXZACTLY. right back to the "they are going to die of somethign else first so we shouldn't spend the money to treat what will kill them if they DON'T die of something else first.

Except then when life saving new medicine comes along which extends lifespan by 10 years the prostate cancer you didn't treat kills them.

That is why that is a false cost saving analysis.

georedd · 1 day

SpaceX Developing Low-Cost Launch Vehicle for Space Travel
April 22, 2003 - Aerospace Daily
Soaring Interest in Earth's Low Orbit
April 22, 2003 - LA Times
Entrepreneur Tries His Midas Touch in Space
April 22, 2003 - LA Times
Taking a Cheap Shot at Space
April 15, 2003 - USA TODAY
Will A Low-Cost Satellite Launch Firm Fly?
March 26, 2003 - Investors Business Daily
Rocket Man - Web Entrepreneur Focuses on Aerospace in El Segundo
March 26, 2003 - Daily Breeze
Rocket Man - Paypal Co-Founder Now Banks on Space
March 2003 - Futuredex
Web Entrepreneur Eyes Small Launcher Market
November 11, 2002 - Space News

georedd · 1 day

Thank you.

Well said and briefer and more to the point than I would have been.

People seem to think that after someone wants to start buying your product they should get credit for developing your product to begin with.

It ironic how they argue the ratio of money spent on a final purchase for three flights to make the case which actually make it look WORSE for the guy like SpaceX who develops a rocket for nearly nothing!

georedd · 1 day

He is just trying to thinly justify his seething dislike for SpaceX so he is making ridiculous arguments.

It's too bad he and others can't share the joy of the accomplishments. It's their loss really.

georedd · 1 day

SpaceX received NASAs $300 for NASA SPECIFIC LAUNCHES of the existing rocket more than ten years AFTER SpaceX had already built and developed the Falcon 1 the first orbital rocket and finished design and development of Falcon 9 launcher and part of Dragon.

The guy who runs in with the latest check can't say he paid for the whole party that preceded them.

NASA didn't.

NASA is the guy who came late and now seems to be trying to claim credit for the job.

SpaceX developed those rockets on their won. NASA is simply paying for the right to utilize them now for their own specific purposes which require NASA specific testing which they are only PARTIALLY paying for.

SpaceX has far more customers lined up (more than 100 launch contracts I think now) SpaceX would be launching with or without NASA just like they did for over decade.

georedd · 1 day

No.

You were actually factually wrong and still are.

NASA DID not fund Falcon 1 the first orbital rocket and did not fund the design and development of Falcon 9 the second and current orbital rocket.

NASA first paid only $10 million in 2007 fully 13 years into SpaceX's existence after SpaceX had already designed built and substantially completed and partial tested Falcon 1 their first orbital rocket and completed the initial design of Falcon 9 and offered it to consumers, 10 of whom had already signed up and all of which was self funded with over $200 million dollars.

NASA did NOT fund the development of falcon 9. And Falcon 9 was SpaceX's SECOND orbital rocket.

What NASA did was come along AFTER the rocket wa smade available and wanted to pay for THEIR OWN TESTING for the Falcon 9 to interface with nasa's space station. They wanted 3 launches mostly dedicated to that specific task which SpaceX did not need as part of their future business which they only partially paid for. SO it is completely false to say that nasa "paid for the development" of Falcon 9

That's like saying because you bought half the gas for your car to drive it the last 50 miles you paid for it's development - no you did not!

Hell until 2006 just a few short years ago NASA wanted nothing to do with SpaceX and treated them like a bastard child.

Now NASA slaps NASA logos all over SPaceX pictures and acts like NASA teams built the rocket.

I looked at your linked PDF.

Did you notice how in all pages pictures on pages 3 through 6 that NASA chose every picture of the rockets they could find that did NOT have a SPACEX logo and put their own NASA logo right on top of the page like they were all NASA buildings down in Florida or something?

Verified Email	Four-Year Club
reddit mold

georedd

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login