QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Comments on RR4.htm (all items)
Document uploaded 08-12-2005 07:25 PM ET (US)

Who (sort)
When (sorted)
Regarding item # (sort)
14
david-braden
08-14-2005
01:31 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 95
This is kind of fun, not quite f2f but still, real time interaction. I think I will go off and do something else for a while though. It might be more productive. Do you still move books when you have glonet?
13
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
01:18 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 100
There are MANY loving pet owners, who must often leave their pets home, unattended. I can imagine a large variety of items designed to attract and keep your pet's attention, even be involved in training.

I have previewed the few video tapes claimed to attract the attention of dogs and cats. Some do, for awhile. But, this is a research area that could lead to some large profits. Robot chickens for my animals to chase. Food containers that hide themselves and force the animal to hunt.

Pet Entertainment Centers.
Edited 08-14-2005 01:19 PM
12
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
01:14 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 101
Kong is (was) a family firm that initially put out very hard rubber "tubes" that would be filled with food for dogs, keeping them busy. As far as I know, Kong still doesn't market directly to customers, only to stores like PetsMart.

However, in the stores, the fantastic utility of Kongs is never adequately promoted. Kong has an intereting website, including interesting Kong recipes; but who goes there. Years ago I had the idea of creating a business to market easy to use Kong fillers. Stuffing with peanut butter mixes was messy and lead to the avoidance of use. Kong supplies to people and agencies that use many dogs, like the police and the military. Recently, some Kong fillers have emerged on the market; as have Kong competitors.

But, there still is a market for someone to properly market Kongs and Kong fillers.
11
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
01:09 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 95
I have lost count on the number of times I have moved and had to pack my books in boxes. I try to keep them together, but the efficiency of box storage overrides. The books are then reshelved, mixed.

I dream of a box for book storage that is also a ready shelf component for a bookcase. A special front could be attached for moving and storage. Pegs or other means could be used to lock the separate boxes securely when assembled in a house.

Inexpensive versions could be made of strong plastic. Intelligent second order marketing may lead to a large and growing market.

A side variation, re books, is to produce and market the small radio transmiter labels being planned for items in stores, to be used on your books -- put them anywhere and find them through their radiating label. But, I do like my books that are similar to cluster.
10
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:58 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 61
I don't want to involved to any great extent in this project; but if the idea could be developed to a stage and then sold with a small percent of future profits, it would be a contribution.

Here in Tucson, I see this as eventually a major market item. Growth policies are open to doubling the population, as the water table drops and becomes in greater need of "treatment". I don't believe Tucson will continue to get the CRP Colorado River water - being at the end of the line and low in political clout.
9
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:54 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 60
I had devoted a fair amount of time researhing this concept. I did find recycle shower systems for outback vehicles in Australia - but they recycled the heat through coils of old hot water in tanks of new incoming water.

More research for existing patents would be needed.

Consideral technological investment in design particulars, and experimentation with actual prototypes, is needed.

The market would be varied and slow in growth -- but become quite large when the cost of water and energy reach higher levels. Versions could be made and promoted for new homes. Replacement inserts could be made for some existing shower systems. Actual savings over time need to be calculated and clearly presented.

Versions could vary from manual to highly computerized.
8
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:47 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 59
These are various spin-off ideas generated over the years that are not related to information systems.

They gain greater relevance today as the network model of NanoCorps and outsources might enable a few people to creat a rather substantial enterprize.

In my view, although each invention had the potential for making profit, my concern (beyond slightly raising my standard of living) would be to invest in more significant change projects.
7
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:43 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 73
This was motivated by the PBS special on Social Entrepreneurs, the Brazilian Gauco, who rented solar electrical systems to people off grid at the same cost as their purchase of kerosene.

This could also be a special loan system, for example, to refit a house for energy efficiency - new lighting, better insulation, etc. Home improvement loans from banks seem more interested in squeezing dollars that assisting the environment. These would be loans were there was minimum profit to the loaning institution. Maybe a financial cooperative of those businesses that would supply the parts and labor for the retrofit.
Edited 08-14-2005 01:02 PM
6
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:34 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 33
There are mere hints (less than rough drafts) of some ideas I have had over the years related to my use of intelligent tools. I believe that with appropriate design and second order marketing, each could be a profitable and valued product. Some would be components of Colab Studios. Others have the potential of becoming ventures to rival NES for market share.
Edited 08-14-2005 12:35 PM
5
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:31 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 3
What I am actually speculating about here, is if the four ventures listed may not have different sets of stakeholders and different time-frames for development at different stages. Each may generate their own distinct profits. They all overlap, but there may also be large regions of non-overlap.

The meta system we would design for NES may be applicable for the other three as well, without at quadrupling of effort.

This is a META strategy issue.
4
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:26 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 3
I propose that the technology at the local site, at the Input/Output interface, at the works station or colab studio be as autonomous as possible from the technology of cyberspace as a whole (including the technology of the servers as base of cyberspace).

This is but speculation - to keep the needs of the two aspects from biasing each other. On the other hand, the growing use of networked PCs in eSCIENCE projects implies an involvement of PCs in whole cyberspace activity - but this specific type of application could be re-framed.

Another is the movement back to using programs online and no longer in your PC -- or you temporarily download just what you need to your PC from cyberspace. This would imply a greater integration between PC (work station) technology and web technology.

There also are the many local networks, that call for greater integration.

To reverse this suggestion, can a network perspective be applied to the workstation?
3
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-14-2005
12:17 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 3
NASA model myths: I have long used an example of how NASA accomplished it moon project. Whether fully factual, it is useful. That this model has been abandoned by NASA due to political interference may explain so many of NASA failures.

First myth: NASA, in the moon race against the Russians, there was maximum financing and limited political interference.

Second myth: They set out to LEARN to do what was needed; the objective was so far off that there were no experts.

Third myth: The complexity of the project forced them to divide it into sub-projects. Each sub-project had to attend only to its internal activity AND to its interface with other sub-projects. A sub-project did not have to attend to the internal activity of other sub-projects. There probably was a meta-project to see that the whole was functioning.

Some useful synergy may have been lost, but overall it was an excellent strategy.
2
david-braden
08-13-2005
05:26 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 2
Put it all down, then for a while we will need to focus on next steps. It all depends on attracting talented people to participate and develop the system to where Content Providers and Evaluators can make a living. At that point, all manner of ideas can be explored.
1
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
08-12-2005
07:25 PM ET (US)
General comment
This discussion space is for comments on the document "RR4.htm".

Print | RSS Views: 204 (Unique: 122 ) / Subscribers: 2 | What's this?