Thank you Johnny Chung Lee for The Interactive Whiteboard

Jackpot it becoming more frequent when looking for Open Science. Today I found the TED talk with Johnny Chung Lees hacks for the Wii Remote Controller. Amazing how one man playing around in his laboratory can create revolutionary technology for a percent of professional equipment. But the best part is - he share it! And better yet, according to himself, what fascinates him even more than the actual inventions is how quickly people pick up an invention through the internet and improve it when offered it freely.

So, thank you Johnny Chung Lee for not only being an outstanding inventor, but also allowing your inventions to benefit us all!

If you wish to create $14 dollar steady cams, virtual whiteboards, interactive touch screens, 3D eye wear for graphical contents with material even poor people may afford - go see what is on Lees website.

Johnny Chung Lees project website
TED talk

Tools and further reading

 

Educational Blocks - If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?

When I discuss the existence of great unused inventions and the contents of this blog with people I am often met with the statement: "If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?" This phrase is so common that it almost seems like a response running on default, like the memes I wrote about earlier.

Where does this instant rejection of the amazing possibility of a breakthrough for mankind come from? If you were drowning, would you not least attempt to reach a floating object? It does not seem to be the case with long term hazards caused by pollution, wasteful energy sources, overproduction, hunger etc. When I attempt to dig in why my (of different backgrounds) debaters are sceptical towards investigating the integrity of claims on great breakthroughs, and I usually get a school/high school quote of sorts. Examples could be "my physics teacher always said engines can never produce more energy than they can consume and that it is simply impossible" or " it is against the laws of science - so I can not be". I was told these things too, and in a discussion they are statements that are hardly open for discussion. When I try to list some of the problems a good invention might meet before it is on the supermarket shelf, the most difficult to believe is the inventions design - not the problems it faces. I do not like conspiracy theories (though this blog might be labeled as one), but is it not scary that individual thoughts can get one tracked like this? Should we curiosity not be allowed to overcome scepticism in the case of need?

In my own opinion I did rather poorly in school until I realized that I was complicating things by taking too many variables into account at the same time when solving an assignment. My teachers, who I respect, did not want my interpretation or creativity so much as they wanted the correct answer. All through my education, up to doctoral level, I have been schooled in searching for answers that fit the mental box called facts. I agree this reality works very well per default - but it may restrain you and me from even accepting the existence of a revolutionary technological breakthrough. And how do you approach that as an inventor? It works, you can show it works, but people deny it because they have been taught I can not exist. If that is the case perhaps technological breakthroughs are left to be investigated by believers who can accept humanity might not know everything, but can hit a lucky strike when trying to reach for the sky.

Financial Blocks - The best inventions are free!

If a combination of brilliant inventors and wealth occurred in history it is rarely the case modern times. If there ever were a time where currency is crucial for an invention to rise through the cement floors of documentation, risk assessments, patents, marketing, laws, and safety reports (that all exist for our benefits we might argue), it is the present time. But time could be at a changing point, circling around the dominating investors dictating what inventions are needed!

Many idealistic inventors have had the idea of free applications of discoveries should benefit humanity. Nikola Teslas (1856-1943) dream of free energy is just one of these. He believed so intensively in this idea that he tore up the patent contract that entitled him to royalties on the all the electricity we now take for granted, possibly making him the richest man on earth.
So far the wall every inventor meets is raising enough finances to do research, build and improve. Competition is tough, and money is often earmarked in narrow fields (designed on demand by industry, universities and politicians) like the EU framework program. It may be tough for a totally original idea to be considered in such a context. So what to do when there are no money from the investors?

The current revolution of the IT-era could open a possibility: free innovation. Or perhaps innovation paid directly by the users rather than investors.
Look at the approach of Wikibooks in helping to solve the knot of how to educate people in developing countries. One plan is to write 1000 books of education by qualified people though Wikipedias online tools, and make them available for free. The project is driven, on a book level, by sponsors who wish to be associated with the developing markets. With one new approach, greedy bureaucrats, international politics, and outdated books, are elegantly chess mated.

Independent programmers increasingly release programs, many of them open source, for free use on the internet, and live off voluntary donations. The debated peer to peer internet technology, BitTorrent (by Bram Cohen) is just one example. A technology that is just at its beginning of its applications, and has lead to inventions such as free telecommunication (Skype). Voluntary donations have already spread into many internet based projects from pop culture (comic books, independent music artists) to humanitarian movements (The Hunger Site).

Individuals donating finances to projects rather than big interest based money tanks is probably a trend born from our ego centered culture and the new web technologies, but a powerful trend none the less. It would loosen some of the organized control and allow more chaos and creativity – evolution, in short. Firms also seem to have discovered that paying for exposure (commercials) is a way to finance projects on the internet (eg. The Hunger Site). If the trend develops over the years one can hope that at least some of the international resources could be redirected to help home inventors and great ideas on their feet. Perhaps free for everyone.