So in very related news, that might render this problem void:
CRISPR-Cas9 Improved 10,000-Fold by Synthetic Nucleotides
"Scientists at the University of Alberta in Canada have developed a technology that can dramatically improve the specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. The approach uses synthetic guide molecules known as bridged nucleic acids (BNAs) in place of the system’s native guide RNAs (gRNAs) to direct the Cas9 enzyme to its target DNA sequence, and so reduce off-target DNA cleavage."
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.genengnews.com%2Fgen...

Go see it for yourself http://www.spacex.com/webcast

The myth of humans being obsolete is not what what Elon, Bill, Steven and others are (most) afraid of. Read the Wait But Why post on AI to see another example of how things could go wrong (also examples of the opposite). http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/... The example of how it could go wrong is in part 2, the link is to part 1, but just read it all - it's fascinating stuff :)

The same investigation found that Tesla’s crash rate was reduced by 40% after introduction of Autopilot:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectrek.co%2F2017%2F01%2F19...

Here is another take on the same story: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectrek.co%2F2016%2F11%2F23...

I think the most interesting thing is it will bring VR to notebooks - most current notebooks doesn't work with VR, even if the GPU is strong enough to support it. Problem with VR on current notebooks:
“The problem is that even if the dedicated card generates an image, the integrated card is what outputs that image to a monitor,” Lyons told me. “With VR, that monitor is your headset. Unfortunately integrated cards just aren’t powerful enough to output images to a VR headset without latency. There are workarounds to make VR work on a laptop with Optimus, but since the HDMI port is connected to the integrated card there is no way to bypass it.”
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockpapershotgun.c...

Problem solved with geforce 10 series notebooks \o/
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.nvidia.com%2Fblog%2F...

I'm wondering if you could improve this by having multiple edges?
I'm not a physicist, but does the disc have to be a disc? Would a very thin edge do the job of diffraction? If so, you could block out unwanted light that passes on the "wrong" inner side of the edges with a small disc in front of the telescope.
Then you could have multiple thin edges next to each other and thus get multiple Arago spots. Most of them would be a bit out of focus I guess, but that could probably be handled by software or using something like the lytro camera.
Just a thought - though if it has to be a disc before the diffraction occurs, then it doesn't work.

I think http://www.monosolutions.com/ might be what you are looking for.

Take a look, try it for free at: Mono.net
I'm not affiliated with mono in any way, but have seen it from an admin perspective, and would say it's what you are looking for.

http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

Cool and good that this is being done, but! I'm really surprised that no one in here appears to be outraged about the fact that a kickstarter campaign like this one is needed at all.
25% of 4th graders can't read an comprehend a simple English sentence like the one presented in the kickstarter video.
It's a massive failure of the (public) school system, and the public school system can probably thank the politicians for this failure.
To get such grand scale illiteracy in a country takes something else than just bad teachers and school leaders - it takes amazingly bad policy decisions at state/country level.

I agree, and I think one of the major problems in this is, when a robot replaces the workforce at some company the money (salary) that once went to many now goes to a lot fewer. The money shifts towards the people in 'higher' positions. So in the long run we need to reshape the economy, because continuing with the current model won't end well.

Thanks for taking the time to clear things up for me.
Now I see I got caught a little by the flames, that usually burn around online discussions - pre-tty stupid.
While I agree, that patents seems like the only viable solution for the little guy to enter the market, it only holds true under the conditions currently existing in the market.
What the paper is trying to say, is that you could change things. I actually think that if we tried the solutions suggested in the paper, everybody would be better of, patents would be as good as gone, and everybody, big or little, would have a chance to innovate and enter the market.
You should read it if you haven't, it's quite interesting. It gives you some idea of, that we don't have to keep an outdated monopolitic system that mostly works in the favor of the big guys - even though it gives a little room for the small guy as well - because we can make alternative systems that are better.

And you, sir, might be right!
So.... in the medical business... mentioning cancer drugs and getting cleared by FDA ... and he's not developing a pharmaceutical?
I'm not a native English speaker, but I did assume that developing drugs and medicine could be said to be in the medical business. But no? Is medical business only machinery? Or what is the difference? Or is it something else I'm missing?

You, Sir, has clearly not RTFP!
Please at least read page 13 of the paper, and throw out your well preserved assumptions of how the world works.
- I'll give you a taste of page 13:
"There are four things that should be born in mind in thinking about the role
of patents in the pharmaceutical industry. First, patents are just one piece of a
set of complicated regulations that include requirements for clinical testing and
disclosure, along with grants of market exclusivity that function alongside patents.
Second, it is widely believed that in the absence of legal protections, generics would
hit the market side by side with the originals. This assumption is presumably based
on the observation that when patents expire, generics enter immediately. However,
this overlooks the fact that the generic manufacturers have had more than a decade
to reverse-engineer the product, study the market, and set up production lines.
Lanjouw’s (1998) study of India prior to the recent introduction of pharmaceutical
patents there indicates that it takes closer to four years to bring a product to market
after the original is introduced—in other words, the fifi rst-mover advantage in pharmaceuticals
is larger than is ordinarily imagined. Third, much development of
pharmaceutical products is done outside the private sector; in Boldrin and Levine
(2008b), we provide some details. Finally, the current system is not working well:
as Grootendorst, Hollis, Levine, Pogge, and Edwards (2011) point out, the most
notable current feature of pharmaceutical innovation is the huge “drought” in the
development of new products."