Okay, my thought is that this discussion can be a place to talk about each individual strip as it comes out.

Today's is very cool. What I really like about Patent Pending is that it showcases Jon's art so well. I love the slightly fish-eye perspective on the stairwell that creates some tension, and the glowy blue keypad is deeply cool.

The Star Trek reference is fun. The "keyboard, how quaint" scene is one of my favorites in the movie series, and I quote it often. I really like the main character's look. He makes me think of Kevin Smith, because of his appearance, but also because of the whole Mal-Wart vest/"I'm not even supposed to be here"/Clerks-ness of his characterization.

I really wish I had access to the archive. I just have to convince my wife that it's not stupid to pay for a membership to an online comic book site. Unfortunately, the renewal for my domain name is coming up, and that has to be a priority.

We see today, a continuation of the 'keyboard, how quaint' metaphor.

We have a delicious bit of irony with Jon-I-mean-Silas asking to 'do away with the sarcasm' and then following up two panels later with "Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't anticipating being here at 3 in the morning with a prima donna hacker".

I especially admire the further revelation of Trina's character by clever placement of Troll Dolls.

Does anyone get the 'Future Monkey' reference on Avi's tee?

In Response to zamphir (#695):

If Future Monkey is a reference to something outside of Patent Pending, I'm missing it.

I just intended it to be a generic sort of logo t-shirt. Future Monkey is a band tht Avi listens to.

In Response to zamphir (#695):

I agree about the Troll dolls. They also point out the bleakness of the future. It is sad and frightening that not only do they still exist, but there are still people who buy them.

Oh, well. At least they aren't beanie babies.

In Response to Gentoo666 (#758):

Would somebody mind translating this post into coherent english?

Well, I don't have enough karma to start my own thread... Someone give me karma. ;)

I thought Silas voiced all of my concerns perfectly today. I mean, I'm not even dating Julia, and I was aghast at the way Avi was touching her, back on page 7. His little God-in-the-midst-of-mere-men attitude gets to me too.

Also, anyone notice how quickly his grief dried up at the prospect of getting into Happy Patents? He walked into the Warthog in a daze, but sprang into action soon enough when Silas revealed where he worked.

Like I said before [goats.com], I don't like him and I don't trust him.

And what do those funny orange goggles do?

"It's not unheard of for a patent clerk to take an interest in these sorts of things"....

ROFLMAO.

bravo.

In Response to wishus (#864):

The orange goggles are basically just a head-mounted display.

Don't you have a pair of orange goggles?

In Response to zamphir (#1171):

I feel that I must also add my bravo to you Jon. I don't know how long you were planning that joke but it was perfect. As a physics major, and a huge fan of all things comedic I feel I am qualified to rank that as one of the ten best physics jokes of all time. Keep up the good work Jon and take as long as you need on each Patent Pending strip (If they are anywhere near as good as that one, then they will be well worth the wait)
--
"I know what it feels like to be upside down from here" - Atom and his Package

In Response to jon (#1175):

No, I'm still using CRTs. ;>

In Response to wishus (#1181):

It's just that they're terribly comfortable. I think everyone will be wearing them in the future.

In Response to jon (#1182):

AHHHHH!!!! Princess Bride Reference!!!
I do not think it means what you think it means!

In Response to Arcane_um (#1179):

Just read the current PP (heehee), and even knowing others would (and did) give kudos to you, I felt compelled to register just to throw mine in.

That is perhaps one of the best payoffs to a slow setup I've seen in a while. Too bad you pretty much have to be a geek to get it... although I'm very glad you don't have to be a physicist on more than just an amatuer or historical level. ;)

Keep up the great work! Patent Pending (and goats) are two shining pearls in a sea of webcomic... unpearlish-things.

First, a minor typo in the August 29 strip - the last frame has 'puposefully' instead of 'purposefully."

I will say, however, that that discussion of what consciousness is, and how we could get it into computers, was the most convincing fictional discussion of same that I've ever read.

A hell of a lot better than 'They say somehow the computers got smart.'

In Response to BoxJam (#1440):

I'll have to fix the typo when I get home tonight. Thanks for the good eye.

The shame of it is that I have tons of additional detail on how the quantum consciousness model might work, but I simply can't cram it all into the strip.

Sometimes I'm beginning to think it would have been best if I had kept PP as a novel.

In Response to jon (#1443):

It might get very very boring if you put in all the additional details. Even in a real novel, that's the first thing a decent editor would cut.

You could throw it all into a message in the 'Ideas I'll never develop' thread in the Ring Of Fire.

I'm not so sure I agree with the sentiment that a purposefully designed system will be more efficient than an evolved system. Optimization of complex systems is, well, hard. And simulated evolution (so called 'genetic' algorithms) is a good approach to optimizing complex systems.

And it's not clear that removing redundant or 'obsolete' pieces of the human brain would make it more efficient either. Particularly when you imply that there are quantum effects going on - how much of that excess gray matter is quantum entangled with the rest of the system?

In Response to jon (#1443):

But as a novel, it wold lose a lot, too. Like the troll dolls.
Seriously, though, the strip really demonstrates the depth that comes from knowing more than you can tell. I find it all the more intriguing because I know that there is way more to it than I can get. I'm all for intelligent science fiction. However I do think that if you made it a novel and used ALL the detail you could think of, you would lose some of us less intellectual readers due to massive confusion.

In Response to zamphir (#1444):

I would say that a computer is much better at doing math accurately and quickly, than, say, my brain. And the computer is designed. I have no doubt that someone could design a quantum computer that was equally efficient at... whatever it is that quantum computers do.

There's also the likelihood that whoever designed such a system could use genetic algorhythms do aid in the design. A few million simulated generations of design, all taking place in a matter of minutes on a supercomputer cluster somewhere could probably outpace and overtake the natural pace of evolution pretty easily.

The wonderful thing about placing a piece of fiction in the future is that you can just assume that there's been a leap in technology whenever you need to fill a plothole.

In Response to Arcane_um (#1192):

Inconceivable!

In Response to jon (#1475):

I disagree....I would say the human brain is much faster than a computer at doing math. Take catching a ball for instance. The human brain is just slower when it comes to making calculations through the learned system we follow for doing math 'by hand' or with a calculator.

But that system is essentially just a emulator running on top of our normal brain functions. How much processing power is exerted in identifying the characters " 2 + 1 = 4 " then identifying that it represents a mathmatical expression, evaluating the expression, and identifying it is false? The advantages of computers are that when evaluating expressions, they don't have to worry about identification or evaluating the rules of the emulator...since it is their native format and the information is given in an already processed form.

I'm of the opinnion that if we were to feed the human brain information optimized to an appropriate format (like mathematical expressions for computers) we would find that the human brain could run circles arround computers when it comes to processing.

In Response to jon (#1475):

I gotta go with Dynadine on the math bit.

But again, if one uses evolutionary tactics in designing a system, is it still a 'designed' system, or is it an 'evolved' system?

Particularly, would Avi consider it designed or eveolved, as he used those terms in "And because it's purposefully designed instead of haphazardly evolved'? Or is he asserting that it would be 'purposeful' evolution, rather than 'haphazard' evolution? Because "regular" evolution is very purposeful - maximize the total survival of the individual and the species.

Or have I been spending too much time in 'All Hail the Pedants'?

And Avi's comment about "But he didn't have to understand it fully to get it to work" is the big issue I see with things like evolving neural networks to act as expert or AI systems. Exactly how much good does it do us to have a widget that does something if we don't know how we got it to work in the first place? To what end unreproduceable or uncomprehendable systems? I mean, sure, the free Pop-Tarts are great, but what if I run out of Kittens? Will puppies work just as well? What about Pudding?

In Response to Dynedain (#1488):

Bah! people always use this one. First up. A computer / robot has been made that can catch a ball. So your point is thereby negatated.

Secondly, and much more importantly, do you think you do the math to catch a ball?

Think about it a second. Children suck at catching balls until they have done it a bit. You think they are learning the math involved? Could it be that they are learning to make a guess where something will go, then refine that guess and so on?

Hold a ball above the desk and drop it. Odds are you will not catch it by getting there in the nick of time (like a sideways moving grasp of the ball), for reliability most people will simply see that the thing is dropping straight down and put their hand at the bottom of the straight line and wait for the ball to get there. Very little math involved. Just a learned observation that things drop straight down. If a wind moved it to the side you would move your hand using your binocular vision to judge the deflection. Not your brain making mathermatical equations.

Plus most people drop the balls all the bloody time.

If you are going to claim that the human brain is making mathematical equations of where the ball should be to catch it at least compare it to a slide rule.

In Response to tor (#1516):

Don't watch much cricket do you Tor?
Not alot of ball dropping going on there.
Children play cricket too don't they?

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#1535):

Not alot of ball dropping going on there.

I'm pretty sure that cricket players practice. Computers don't have to.

Children play cricket too don't they?

Yes, but not professionally.

Tor's points are valid -- just because a computer uses calculus to catch a ball doesn't mean that's the process you're using.

In Response to jon (#1544):

Right.

That doesn't mean that calculus is more efficient at solving the same problem either.

In some things, it's easy to say that that the designed system is more efficient than the evolved one - transportation, for instance.

But I'm not going to buy that intelligence is that straightforward. Intelligence is incredibly elusive and illusive.

In Response to zamphir (#1546):

Yes. Intelligence is indeed incredibly elusive.

*snigger*