Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Sugru story

sugru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: The Sugru story

#81

Post by david927 »

Egregore wrote: post #79
david927 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an excellent example for loosening regulations so that people other than millionaires can invest in startups. You want innovation? You want jobs? You want people excited about the future again? Make this one change (combined with efforts to ensure due diligence).

How do you plan to solve the scams problem? I also think that people should be able to invest without restrictions, but I understand where those limitations come from.

Sure, that's an issue but we can use modern technology, such as reputation networks, to alleviate some of the worst. Gambling is a scam, but shouldn't a grownup individual have the right to try?

I think the benefits warrant investigating ways to do this so that the public knows what they're getting into, yet have the opportunity, as in the story above, to fund what investors won't.

Re: The Sugru story

#82

Post by mgkimsal »

lambada wrote: post #78
mindstab wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha well a camera probably also isn't child safe if you break a piece off and eat it so I'm not sure you've made it any worse. As for the tubing? That possibly a more interesting question, but I suspect it's being used in an underfunded medical facility or they would have replacements aplenty, and if if comes down to sugru-ed IVs delivering life saving medicine possibly tainted (but no obvious reaction) vs no medicine…

A camera however isn't aimed at being used by children. However part of Sugru's marketing is that it can make a camera child-safe; with the implication that it can be used by children. This potentially makes them liable, while a normal camera manufacture probably isn't. As for the medical tubing, I agree that is what I would probably choose, but again it's that through their marketing of 'safe for medical tubing' whe…

"A camera however isn't aimed at being used by children"

Many cameras are aimed at children.

http://www.target.com/p/Fishe-Price-See-Yourself-Camera-Purp...

http://www.target.com/p/Vtech-Kidizoom-Camera-Pink/-/A-13357...

etc.

Re: The Sugru story

#83

Post by AkThhhpppt »

freehunter wrote: post #50
AkThhhpppt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food-safe? Not hardly: "no infection or irritation so far; in fact the site's doing pretty well, although i had to put superglue out of the toolbox in it yesterday. if all is still calm by next week, i will take it that Sugru doesn't cause major immediate damage to the interior of the human body" http://sapiensanonym.blogspot.com/2010/07/progress-bar.html

I have no idea what the context behind this is, but that man is completely insane. From reading a small amount of his site, he seems to think he's going to get a research grant for implanting magnets in his face and shoving things into his hands? He seems to think it's all safe, but every other post on his blog is about how sick he is, how his hard drive is wrecked (what do magnets do, again?), and how much pain he's…

More information can be found here, http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/02/11/scrapheap-transhumanism/, or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Dv6dDtdcs The illness is pre-existing, and the hard drive death unconnected; the size of magnet used for implantation is too weak to affect anything stored on a hard drive. And yes, there are. Most of them are being funded by the DoD and are doing things miles beyond the reach of mere mortals; the rest are in Warwick's lab in Reading - in fact, on that note: https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/cyborg/attachments/201... - the research paper on implanted magnets written by two of Warwick's research students.

Re: The Sugru story

#84

Post by peterkerr »

marcusf wrote: post #10

This is slightly OT, but if someone from Sugru is reading, the page looks weird in Chrome. The background is very jittery when you scroll (Chrome 15.0.874.121). It stays fixed in Safari and scrolls down in Firefox, and both look fine, but Chrome looks a bit weird.

Thanks for the tip Marcus. We've fixed this now.

Re: The Sugru story

#85

Post by marshray »

jcnnghm wrote: post #75
marshray wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. 3M has invented and discarded more forms of sticky gooey junk than you can imagine. If it's not going to be sold in 50 gallon drums or has the guaranteed demand of adhesive tape, they're not interested. Read about the guy who invented Post-It notes in 3M and what he had to do internally to get them to actually productize it. It's far more likely that these inventors are infringing 3M's patents than that 3…

Could you point me in the right direction to find out more about Post-It notes? The most in-depth thing I was able to find is this article, which hints at what you are talking about but doesn't go into the full details: http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/frysilver.html

The reference section on the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_note#cite_note-0 has some good links:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/frysilver.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f08e8a9a-fcd7-11df-ae2d-00144... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Fry

So it was actually two inventors at 3M. Spencer Silver discovered the low-tack adhesive in 1968 and spent 5 years promoting it as a product within the company. He eventually hooked up with Art Fry at 3M who recognized its utility for small notes. In order to get the company to recognize it as a useful product, (as I heard the story) they had to personally make the post-it pads and distribute them to the secretaries all around the company.

Eventually some executives got hooked on the notes. The initial product launch in 1977 was deemed a failure. It wasn't until 1980 that the product was re-launched successfully.

So even after the chemistry was done, 3M's own product developers had to do 8-12 years of internal evangelism to get this new product launched to consumers.

Re: The Sugru story

#86

Post by BadiPod »

Totally cool. But I am looking for a video that shows you trying to pry two items apart. I want to see how strong the bond is.

The video of the stack of items isn't enough to see how strong the bond truly is.

Re: The Sugru story

#87

Post by lambada »

mgkimsal wrote: post #82
lambada wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A camera however isn't aimed at being used by children. However part of Sugru's marketing is that it can make a camera child-safe; with the implication that it can be used by children. This potentially makes them liable, while a normal camera manufacture probably isn't. As for the medical tubing, I agree that is what I would probably choose, but again it's that through their marketing of 'safe for medical tubing' whe…

"A camera however isn't aimed at being used by children" Many cameras are aimed at children. http://www.target.com/p/Fishe-Price-See-Yourself-Camera-Purp... http://www.target.com/p/Vtech-Kidizoom-Camera-Pink/-/A-13357... etc.

Sure some are, I was generalising. Those that are aimed at children will have undergone appropriate safety testing before going to market.

Re: The Sugru story

#88

Post by jplewicke »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46
spacemanaki wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly curious because I know nothing: what regulations prevent non-millionaires from investing in startups? I thought that's what "friends and family" type of financing was...

SEC rules in the United States restrict the sale of unregistered shares in a corporation to 'qualified' investors. For an LLC or LLP you create your own rules which you outline in the Articles of Organization and they let you sell parts of the company to friends and family. I've seen several great links on the pros/cons of various company organizations here and elsewhere.

Even better, there is a major effort underway to legalize investing in startups by anyone. A bill (HR 2390 ) has already passed the House, and there's draft resolution in the Senate that would do the same thing. The main limitation will be that people won't be able to invest more than 1% of their net worth in any given startup, and that startups can't raise more than $1 million through it.

http://crowdfundinglaw.com/ has some more information.

Re: The Sugru story

#89

Post by william42 »

nirvana wrote: post #60

Imagine if patents had been eliminated. They would have died once a big company like 3M got a sample back to their lab. This company exists because they were able to patent their invention. People say that patents are bad because everything relies on previous efforts. Well, they didn't invent silicon rubber. They didn't invent the volatile compound that allows their rubber to cure overnight. But they did invent a new…

Too bad most software patents belong to either giant companies using them as a strategic hammer or patent trolls, then.

Re: The Sugru story

#90

Post by ChuckMcM »

jplewicke wrote: post #88
ChuckMcM wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEC rules in the United States restrict the sale of unregistered shares in a corporation to 'qualified' investors. For an LLC or LLP you create your own rules which you outline in the Articles of Organization and they let you sell parts of the company to friends and family. I've seen several great links on the pros/cons of various company organizations here and elsewhere.

Even better, there is a major effort underway to legalize investing in startups by anyone. A bill (HR 2390 ) has already passed the House, and there's draft resolution in the Senate that would do the same thing. The main limitation will be that people won't be able to invest more than 1% of their net worth in any given startup, and that startups can't raise more than $1 million through it. http://crowdfundinglaw.com/…

Love the concept but fear the implementation. We live in a world where one stupid person tries to feed a grizzly and gets killed, and the 'fix' is to ban hikers / campers from the region where the Grizzlies live. The US has temporarily lost the concept of 'personal responsiblity' and so when someone does something poorly and pays a price, every one who could do it and benefit are banned from participating.

This bill, if it becomes law, will survive until one stupid person loses their 1% net worth and then sues anybody and everybody because they were 'tricked' or otherwise decieved and then the whole thing will become illegal again. The reason the existing rules are not kicked out is because they are setup only to screw 'rich people' who are not considered a 'protected class' by the voters.

Yes, its a bit cynical but you can see evidence of this thinking everywhere. From banning dogs in National parks to making chemistry sets illegal.

Post reply on HN