Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It is a MakerBot after all (Score 3, Interesting) 185

by moderatorrater (#44173247) Attached to: Breaking Up With MakerBot

It's interesting that the author uses a time killing game as a yard stick for the waiting period - as if the time spent while printing was 'dead' and couldn't possibly be used for anything productive.

That's his point - for the purposes of using the makerbot, it is dead time. You can't iterate before you have something, and you can't have something for 5 hours with a 33% chance that hardware failure was the problem and not the design.

What we're really seeing here is the impatience of the Now Generation. What? You have to wait -thirty minutes- for something to be produced?? OMG!

That's basically the same as having to wait 5 hours, right?

Have these people any idea how long it takes to produce something through conventional CNC, let alone hand fabrication?

How many amateurs are willing to burn virtually all of their free time for a day to do those things? Very few. Comparing your professional abilities and patience to his amateur abilities and patience is unfair (to put it very kindly).

Comment: Cue the xenophobia (Score 4, Insightful) 617



Comment: Re:Interface patents (Score 1) 130

by moderatorrater (#42913195) Attached to: EFF Proposes a Working Code Requirement For Software Patents
Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's obvious and should be able to be patented. You need someone who knows the field to determine whether it's obvious or not, and if you have someone who knows the field looking at the working code, they could do just as well looking at the application (once it was translated into English, anyway).

Comment: Re:Been saying that... (Score 1) 376

by moderatorrater (#42810121) Attached to: Economists Argue Patent System Should Be Abolished
The way it currently works is that generics don't need to go through the same trials because they're the exact same chemical and re-proving that it's safe and effective doesn't add anything. If it would add something, then we probably improve the required trials so that one set is good enough.

The other argument against requiring generics to go through trials is that cheap generics are an important part of healthcare. If you don't have the insurance to pay for the latest and greatest, you can use the generic instead and it will cost you $10 / month.

Comment: Re:Been saying that... (Score 2) 376

by moderatorrater (#42808951) Attached to: Economists Argue Patent System Should Be Abolished

Of course you could solve the same problem by pealing back the red tape as well

In pharma, that red tape is known as "making sure the drug doesn't outright kill you." It's not perfect and it's currently being gamed, but the red tape is absolutely necessary.

The other problem with pharma is that the red tape is only necessary for the first person to do it. Thus, if the patent system goes away but the red tape stays there, then innovation will disappear completely because everyone will jump on the new drugs with generics and no need to recoup the costs of making sure it doesn't kill people.

There are things that need fixing with pharma, but simply eliminating red tape and patents certainly won't do it.
