Comments for BIG POTATOES http://www.bigpotatoes.org The London Manifesto for Innovation Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:06:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on 12: Think Global, Act Global by Feedback Form http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/03/12_thinkactglobal/comment-page-1/#comment-279 Feedback Form Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:06:45 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?p=199#comment-279 last few days our class held a similar talk on this topic and you point out something we have not covered yet, thanks. - Laura last few days our class held a similar talk on this topic and you point out something we have not covered yet, thanks.

- Laura

]]> Comment on Event: Blue-skies thinking is dead: long live blue-skies thinking? by Maxine Horn http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/09/event-blue-skies-thinking-is-dead-long-live-blue-skies-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-256 Maxine Horn Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:04:12 +0000 http://www.bigpotatoes.org/?p=1040#comment-256 I agree with Martyn - blue sky thinking and research has led to many innovations emerging, some have been significant. Purely focusing on research with pre-determined outcomes surely works against the very idea of research and innovation? Too much innovation is focused on invention and securing patents. There exists, throughout creative industries, a huge amount of vital contributions to innovation that is simply not subject to obtaining a patent. Even those that could lead to patents, demand that the innovator develops and secures a patent before even beginning conversations with potential route to market and co-creation partners. This can lead to a lot of time and money being wasted and even patents becoming worthless or easily circumvented by larger players. Change is needed - and the recent launch of an 'open protection' system called Creative Barcode - may provide the change that is needed to allow open innovation to reach its full potential. www.creativebarcode.com I agree with Martyn – blue sky thinking and research has led to many innovations emerging, some have been significant. Purely focusing on research with pre-determined outcomes surely works against the very idea of research and innovation?

Too much innovation is focused on invention and securing patents.

There exists, throughout creative industries, a huge amount of vital contributions to innovation that is simply not subject to obtaining a patent. Even those that could lead to patents, demand that the innovator develops and secures a patent before even beginning conversations with potential route to market and co-creation partners. This can lead to a lot of time and money being wasted and even patents becoming worthless or easily circumvented by larger players.
Change is needed – and the recent launch of an ‘open protection’ system called Creative Barcode – may provide the change that is needed to allow open innovation to reach its full potential. http://www.creativebarcode.com

]]> Comment on Event: Blue-skies thinking is dead: long live blue-skies thinking? by Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Event: Blue-skies thinking is dead: long live blue-skies thinking? -- Topsy.com http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/09/event-blue-skies-thinking-is-dead-long-live-blue-skies-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-250 Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Event: Blue-skies thinking is dead: long live blue-skies thinking? -- Topsy.com Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:52:19 +0000 http://www.bigpotatoes.org/?p=1040#comment-250 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Sunderland, Design Interactions. Design Interactions said: For the dreamers -- Blue-Skies Thinking is Dead: Long Live Blue-Skies Thinking? http://bit.ly/9dYfjK [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Sunderland, Design Interactions. Design Interactions said: For the dreamers — Blue-Skies Thinking is Dead: Long Live Blue-Skies Thinking? http://bit.ly/9dYfjK [...]

]]> Comment on 01: Think Big! by Paul Reeves http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/03/01_thinkbig/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Paul Reeves Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:48:43 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?p=265#comment-197 Not clear where to post this - but worth a look - Airbus' view of the future http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/reports_results_reviews/THE_FUTURE_by_Airbus_consumer_report.pdf Not clear where to post this – but worth a look – Airbus’ view of the future

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/reports_results_reviews/THE_FUTURE_by_Airbus_consumer_report.pdf

]]> Comment on Beyond the iPad by BIG POTATOES | Event: Beyond the iPad http://www.bigpotatoes.org/events/beyondtheipad/comment-page-1/#comment-133 BIG POTATOES | Event: Beyond the iPad Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:38:34 +0000 http://www.bigpotatoes.org/?page_id=840#comment-133 [...] Beyond the iPad [...] [...] Beyond the iPad [...]

]]> Comment on Research by BIG POTATOES | BIG POTATOES workgroups underway http://www.bigpotatoes.org/research/comment-page-1/#comment-132 BIG POTATOES | BIG POTATOES workgroups underway Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:12:58 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?page_id=101#comment-132 [...] Research [...] [...] Research [...]

]]> Comment on Research by Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Research -- Topsy.com http://www.bigpotatoes.org/research/comment-page-1/#comment-85 Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Research -- Topsy.com Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:47:48 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?page_id=101#comment-85 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nico Macdonald, Norman Lewis. Norman Lewis said: Kick-off tonight of the Big Potatoes IT workgroup. See http://bit.ly/blvT8o for some details. Discussion on the promise of convergence + [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nico Macdonald, Norman Lewis. Norman Lewis said: Kick-off tonight of the Big Potatoes IT workgroup. See http://bit.ly/blvT8o for some details. Discussion on the promise of convergence + [...]

]]> Comment on James Woudhuysen on Material World (Radio 4) on scientific development and the economy by malcolm watts http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/04/interviewmaterialworld/comment-page-1/#comment-78 malcolm watts Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:25:45 +0000 http://www.bigpotatoes.org/?p=760#comment-78 I think what people want is a complete package, including the goal and timetable for completion. What do I mean by this? Take housing - people don't just want somewhere to live, they want purpose - a job, a family, society etc. Robert Owen was on the right track but was hooked on the proclivities of the period connected with religion and not to mention the vibrancy of capitalism at the time - creating specific ideologies and dogmas. From a purely human point of view, a total package to achieve a given end would be ideal. I think what people want is a complete package, including the goal and timetable for completion.
What do I mean by this? Take housing – people don’t just want somewhere to live, they want purpose – a job, a family, society etc. Robert Owen was on the right track but was hooked on the proclivities of the period connected with religion and not to mention the vibrancy of capitalism at the time – creating specific ideologies and dogmas. From a purely human point of view, a total package to achieve a given end would be ideal.

]]> Comment on Welcome to BIG POTATOES: Join the debate! by Julian Spence http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/03/jointhedebate/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Julian Spence Tue, 25 May 2010 15:43:36 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?p=124#comment-70 Hi I much appreciated a copy of the manifesto I was given. It reminded me of the Midlands Philosophical societies - which con-joined membership worked together to push signification innovations. Difficult to see who are the successors to Wedgwood & Arkwright - with their appreciation of more than just product but also manufacturing and technology push. In these societies networking individuals and bringing new ideas and arts together seemed to have flourished. Perhaps we have failed to learn the lessons of history...? Hi
I much appreciated a copy of the manifesto I was given.
It reminded me of the Midlands Philosophical societies – which con-joined membership worked together to push signification innovations. Difficult to see who are the successors to Wedgwood & Arkwright – with their appreciation of more than just product but also manufacturing and technology push. In these societies networking individuals and bringing new ideas and arts together seemed to have flourished. Perhaps we have failed to learn the lessons of history…?

]]> Comment on 13: The spirit of innovation knows no limits by James Woudhuysen http://www.bigpotatoes.org/2010/03/13_weknownolimits/comment-page-1/#comment-44 James Woudhuysen Wed, 12 May 2010 15:16:10 +0000 http://dev.bigpotatoes.org/?p=201#comment-44 It is not only 'greenies' who oppose infrastructure in the Third World, but the UN. For Aaron Cosbey, 'Developing Country Interests in Climate Change Action and the Implications for a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime', United Nations Conference on Trade and Development , 2009, pp26, 27, on http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcbcc20092_en.pdf, 'The rush of investment needed over the next several decades in developing country energy infrastructure will lock in technologies for up to half a century thereafter', and 'today’s investments, particularly in energy infrastructure, cast long shadows'. But this fatalistic doctrine would make climate a barrier to China, say, continuing in coal-fired power stations, when that country has little choice for the present. China will not be in coal in 50 years time, but in nuclear and renewables. Through fossil fuels now, it can gain the wealth to dispose of that kind of energy infrastructure in the future. Similarly and more recently (3 April), the UN Development Programme report Ambitious but achievable: Universal Access to Energy by 2030, on http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=2521394 is in fact far from ambitious. It argues, in the modern style, not for a decent energy supply to assist industrialisation and end poverty, but rather for 'universal access to modern energy servicesto meet basic needs'... by 2030 (p10). All peasants and all shanty-town dwellers must be not be allowed to be cold in their homes in winters in 20 years' time – oh yes, Big Potatoes indeed! The Green/UN/mainstream doctrines of Energy Return On Energy Invested, and of 'natural capital', can only represent new energy infrastructure in the Third World as self-defeating and an attack on the planet. See JW and Joe Kaplinsky, Energise! A future for energy innovation (Beautiful Books, 2009), pp52, 457-60. For an interesting Greenish treatment of energy return on investment, (7 June 2007), see Ida Kubiszewski and Cutler J. Cleveland (Lead Author); Peter K. Endres (Contributing Author); Peter Saundry (Topic Editor);. 2007. "Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment), 13 October 2006, on http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy Although this article favours large scale wind, the EREOI/EROI approach that follows from Figure 3 displayed in it would rule out nuclear, solar thermal and solar PV, and arguably new hydroelectric plants. That doesn't leave a lot of scope for innovation.... It is not only ‘greenies’ who oppose infrastructure in the Third World, but the UN. For Aaron Cosbey, ‘Developing Country Interests in Climate Change Action and the Implications for a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development , 2009, pp26, 27, on

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcbcc20092_en.pdf,

‘The rush of investment needed over the next several decades in developing country energy infrastructure will lock in technologies for up to half a century thereafter’, and ‘today’s investments, particularly in energy infrastructure, cast long shadows’. But this fatalistic doctrine would make climate a barrier to China, say, continuing in coal-fired power stations, when that country has little choice for the present. China will not be in coal in 50 years time, but in nuclear and renewables. Through fossil fuels now, it can gain the wealth to dispose of that kind of energy infrastructure in the future.

Similarly and more recently (3 April), the UN Development Programme report Ambitious but achievable: Universal Access to Energy by 2030, on

http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=2521394

is in fact far from ambitious. It argues, in the modern style, not for a decent energy supply to assist industrialisation and end poverty, but rather for ‘universal access to modern energy servicesto meet basic needs’… by 2030 (p10).

All peasants and all shanty-town dwellers must be not be allowed to be cold in their homes in winters in 20 years’ time – oh yes, Big Potatoes indeed!

The Green/UN/mainstream doctrines of Energy Return On Energy Invested, and of ‘natural capital’, can only represent new energy infrastructure in the Third World as self-defeating and an attack on the planet. See JW and Joe Kaplinsky, Energise! A future for energy innovation (Beautiful Books, 2009), pp52, 457-60.

For an interesting Greenish treatment of energy return on investment, (7 June 2007), see Ida Kubiszewski and Cutler J. Cleveland (Lead Author); Peter K. Endres (Contributing Author); Peter Saundry (Topic Editor);. 2007. “Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy.” In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment), 13 October 2006, on

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

Although this article favours large scale wind, the EREOI/EROI approach that follows from Figure 3 displayed in it would rule out nuclear, solar thermal and solar PV, and arguably new hydroelectric plants.

That doesn’t leave a lot of scope for innovation….

]]>