Slashdot Mirror

I don't know, the iPhone looks pretty big to me, at least in some pictures.

I agree, in fact there was a blog article written by an android game developer that kinda mock'ed this notion of fragmentation.

Quote from the blog: "I'm lucky enough to have occasional access to lots of different Android devices via my work. The whole point of the Android approach to apps is that you can write an app on one device (or even an emulator) and deploy it across everything. In my case, that's been pretty true."

One of the largest reasons for having such a huge patent portfolio is mainly to discourage patent trolls from trying to sue IBM.

Sorry but if you deal with a troll in the sense of a non-practicing (or some say non-producing) entity, there's no way you can use your own patent portfolio to countersue. The troll has no products/services against which you can assert your patents, where you have none, a few, or tens of thosuands. There's simply no counterthreat for a lack of a target area on which to drop a bomb.

The only way to defend yourself against a troll is that you get the troll's patent invalidated or prove that you don't infringe the patent claim(s) in question. All of that has nothing to do with your own patent portfolio. If you want to invalidate the troll's patent on the basis of prior art, you can use any publication (such as a magazine article or source code published on the Internet) or a patent. It doesn't have to be your own: for prior art you can use your worst enemy's stuff.

More details on the limit of using one's own patents against trolls in this blog post; there are two sections addressing the troll question, the one under the subhead "Absolutely zero deterrent effect on "patent trolls" (non-producing entities)" and the one under "Patent busting isn't a matter of having any patents of one's own".

What this patent fails to account for is that starting up the car results in increased fuel consumption for the short period while the engine attains running speed. Short period, though, but multiply it by the number of signals in an average city, and it might just come out that this actually increases sum consumption.

Also, I'd like to draw your attention to a post detailing just what can happen if we introduce networking into cars. And this is even made easier by the forced standards needed for this project to work...

...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."

I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.

IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany, effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.

At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.

This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.

...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."

I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.

IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany, effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.

At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.

This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.

...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."

I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.

IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany, effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.

At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.

This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.

...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."

I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.

IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany, effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.

At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.

This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.

Google definitely uses my data in ways that I don't explicitly authorize them to (arguably it is embedded in one of those terms of service that i sign but I am not talking technicality here but perception of trust) and definitely creates suspicion on total transparency image that is often spread in this forum. I have posted my experience below.

http://diagonalslash.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-is-messing-with-my-profile-data.html

Actually, you can find instructions on setting Google SSL as your search engine here: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-secure-search.html
Have fun!

If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.

The SPCA is *VERY* far from an Animal Rights position. SPCA is a Welfare initiative. For example, promoting so called "humane" animal products. In NZ, a recent news story was how the "free range" label is meaningless http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/05/no-actual-free-range-standard-for-nz.html Indeed, many Vegans, such as myself, are VERY critical of PETA. I *hate* when they raise false choices, between "have the animals suffer" or "lets kill animals but maybe make the cages an inch bigger". I promote actual Veganism, true Animal Rights.

Animals are delicious? Well...I would disagree, but I guess taste is subjective, taste is what you grow up with. If you live in an area where you eat X, you will most likely enjoy it, no matter what other cities/countries/continents think.

I find it hard to believe in any situation that a wild animal "suffers" more than an animal stuck in a cage for its whole life. Its somewhat like saying an animal with one of his or her legs stuck in a trap is suffering far less...

Lets put the choice into the outside world. Lets say that people would all live to be 100 if we lived inside our whole lives. I'd even expand it beyond "a cage", lets go with a whole building. Would you choose that situation? Or would you rather be outside, able to live wherever you wish? To be able to eat whatever you wish? To listen to music you choose, to drive a car...its just silly to continue on this chain of thought! Especially if you knew you were being slaughtered while still being a child by choosing the confined option!

If you truly believe being farmed for your organs is "a pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation", then by all means turn yourself in to some cannibals! I liked when you said "no predation", ha, human beings are surely one of the most dangerous predators in the world! Think of a pig, what would eat the majority of pigs in the world? I'd assume people.

From the Vegan groups I know, the majority of Vegans seem to be in the field of Tech! I have a podcast about Animal Rights, and I was getting many messages from Linux using Vegans, who couldnt use iTunes to subscribe. You will notice on stories such as this, there will be regular /. users who mention their veganism. They dont scream it at you in every one of their posts, but there must surely be many vegans using Slashdot.

Frankly, I cannot stand PETA, I hate their position of Welfare reforms and sexist stunts. There are many true AR groups, such as The Abolitionist Approach http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

I dont think killing 56 billion living beings, excluding aquatic animals*, for our pleasure is morally justifiable. *PDF of UN statistics from 2007 http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/2007-glipha-stats.pdf

There is a way to discover bad code. It has to do with timing. If timing had been part of our computing model from the beginning, we would have no trouble identifying bad code. Why? Because they cannot help changing, even if slightly, the temporal signature of a software system. It's time to retire the Turing computing model because time is its main missing ingredient. It's all in the timing.

Read How to Construct 100% Bug-Free Software. The only problem is that we need a new computing model. The current one obviously sucks.

So now, there's all this buckled piping on the sea floor and it's leaking in a few places but alot of it is coming out a cleanly broken end of the pipe

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

A vessel at the surface will use 30,000 horsepower pumps to slam kill mud and clay into the well's bent riser,

The article:

It will use the BOP's three-inch-diameter choke and kill lines, which open into the space between the well's casing and the drill pipe that runs up the riser. The lines are being cut and spliced into hoses connected to the Q4000, a vessel on the surface, whose 30,000-horsepower pumps will drive a dense mix of clay and other substances called kill mud into the lines.

The kill line is part of the BOP. Nothing is being forced back down the riser (the bent, broken, patched, leaking mile long pipe now laying on the ocean floor).

Here's nice graphic showing what they seem to be trying to do.

You seem not to understand how smartphone CPUs are built.

Yes, I do.

ARM does not make CPUs, they design CPU cores

Hence ARM based chips in the post you're replying to and not ARM-made chips.
And hence the mention of ARM together with TI and Qualcomm in my top post to whose response I was responding.

One of these other components is the bit that handles H.264 decoding, typically something like a C64x DSP.

Well. Sort of. ARM also provides the NEON SIMD CORE which can be integrated into the chip.
And a hypothetical hardware accelerated VP8 may or may not use NEON, in addition to DSP (as does the hardware Theora acceleration which is NEON+DSP), GPU (very likely as PowerVR are among the OpenCL proponents, and Nvidia is even supporting VP8) and dedicated core (not very likely but could happen if WebM gets that popular).

The only company that makes ARM chips on the list is Qualcomm. Other big players, like TI and Samsung, are absent.

Read again. Texas Instrument, the makers of the OMAP series of SoC, which has a mammoth market share in the embed world, is listed in 4th position from the bottom of the list.

(As is also Nvidia which - some predicts - could play a significant role in upcoming the ARM-powered-netbooks market share)

So, as I was saying in my top post, with ARM (the design maker), TI and Qualcomm (the biggest chip makers) you pretty much cover 99.9% of the phones.

Well, if Pacman isn't your cup of tea, there's always Quake II in your browser.

Hey check this out. http://wiscatheists.blogspot.com/

There's just one instance of the everybody draw mohammed day helping promote exactly what you were talking about -- people actually going out and confronting muslims about free speech (though without your strange suggestion of vandalism).

I'm not affiliated with that group but it's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping would happen around where I live!

Yes, the problem is that there are some really bad patent thickets out there, and codecs are one of the worst patent thickets (also in terms of enforcement).

I try to avoid "See I Told Ya So" types of posts, but in this case SCNR: WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers" (and I previously made that suggestion on my blog in this post on video codecs)

I'm all for open-sourcing useful program code but the question here is whether it's fair for Google to expose an entire community, including the commercial adopters of open source, to this kind of risk. The situation surrounding Android serves as a warning. Google is unfortunately in favor of software patents and doesn't do anything against the problem. They're entitled to their patent strategy. But it's important that third parties don't run into patent problems in reliance upon Google's vague promises.

If Google really believed that WebM/VP8 was safe from a patent perspective, then why in the world don't its WebM license terms contain a hold-harmless clause or at least some basic indemnification (less value than holding harmless but better than nothing) in favor of developers adopting it?

People should think twice (at least!) before relying on any vague promises and they should also consider that Google isn't the patent powerhouse that could start a "pissing contest" with the major contributors to the MPEG LA pool. I explained Google's limits in that regard in this recent slashdot comment, The idea of Google countersuing isn't realistic.

The official Android developers blog post is probably more interesting than blogspam

Just collecting the data packets then ?
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-collected-data-packets-from-open.html
"600 gigabytes of data was taken off of the Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries"...

At least one is quite a blogger.

Look, I get your point: MS had to replace XP with something. But to suggest that they didn't waste a buttload of time rearranging the deck chairs...well, you've obviously never read this post.

I'm guessing that anything including a photo is right out then?

http://cricbio.blogspot.com/2009/09/hanif-mohammad.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/life/teddy-mohammed-bear-instant-web-star

Everyone knows about the log off button design team now surely? Overstaffing is the root of many problems. Once someone has a team, they have to keep feeding the team, and grow its responsibilities, or they lose manager status. So you fight with other parts of the company to keep your own job. Not healthy.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html

The trend seems to be towards improvement, but I can't find a recent graph in a few moments of searching - this one only goes through the end of the 1990s:

http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/histsmog.html

Oh here is one, through 2008 which seems to show the same slow improvement:

http://admission-unpeeled.blogspot.com/2009/08/smog-blog.html

To answer your *, yes, Buddhism pretty much is a religion. Though you'd be hard pressed to find any idol or deities associated with it.

Are you serious?

http://travelsintaiwan.blogspot.com/2008/01/big-buddha-of-baguashan-changhua.html
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/attractions/outlying-giant-buddha.html
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/thailand/bangkok-wat-pho
http://www.malaysiasite.nl/buddhaeng.htm

Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required.

True, but can't the same be said about any software open or closed source? In fact, has anyone done reverse analysis of H.264 implementations (including x264) and made sure they do not infringe any of the On2's patents Google now holds?

I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology

If you are a small company developing a webcam, or a portable video computing device and purchase an H.264 license from MPEG-LA, this will not guarantee that MPEG-LA will come to your "rescue" when your implementation of H.264 is found to infringe on someone else's patents that are NOT part of H.264 patent pool.

Having said that, Google did assemble an impressive list of supporters, including hardware and software companies (minus Apple) that are key players in the industry today. In fact, from just glancing over, TI, ARM, Broadcom, and Sorenson already have or will shortly offer hardware/software support for the codec. Microsoft also went back on their H.264-only statement they had made earlier.

Sure, to have more patent assurances would be nice, but this should at least put small/upstart companies at the same "protection" level as any software out there, open or closed. Think of companies who can purchase "off-the-shelf" hardware components and offer video in their innovative low-cost, low-power devices bypassing the video protection cartel. This can bring back real competition in the market.

Also, this in-depth analysis by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.

It's not really so "in-depth" if they fail to mention any single case where infringement is likely. Vague words like "in-depth" and "substantial" sound like FUD, nothing else.

Some journalists, bloggers and Twitter users appear to have misconceptions regarding the way Microsoft Internet Explorer will support WebM.

It's certainly very positive for Internet Explorer users that they can play WebM video/audio provided that they have a codec (meaning, a plug-in) installed. That's what the Windows Team blog states as a technical requirement.

However, that just means flexibility for MSIE users and isn't a major breakthrough for WebM/VP8. Internet Explorer has always allowed plug-ins and I don't even know if it's ever tried to block one. So this isn't the same kind of endorsement of WebM/VP8 as if Internet Explorer came with WebM support on board. If that happened, it would also mean that there aren't any remaining concerns over patent issues. But that's not what has happened.

Keep in mind that you can also view H.264 with Firefox if you have a plug-in. The net effect of the whole HTML 5 video situation is that plug-ins will continue to play a role.

Yet Another Codec, both Gratis AND Freedom ?
Supported by a fuck-ton of companies ?
- among which not only the major player which made better the modern web as we know it (All the companies mentioned in the summary. Basically anything beside Microsoft)
- but also several hardware industry backers (like major such as ARM, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments) ?
(We can expect a "WebM accelerated on embed chip's GPU+DSP" Google Summer of Code poping up this year...)

Well, thank you Google ! That's pretty much good news !!!

Only question : How will be the HTML5 standards organised ? Will it be possible to mix and match the various codecs (Theora, VP8, ...) with the various containers (OGG, Matroska, ...) ? Or will it be specified only as defined combination (WebM = Matroska + VP8 + Vorbis ; ??? = OGG + Theora + Vorbis, H264 = MP4 + Mpeg 4 AVC/h264 + AAC) ?

Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required. What about patents that third parties could assert? While it appears to be a nice gesture if a major player releases software on open source terms, it's imperative to perform a well-documented patent clearance.

Developers should be provided with detailed explanations why Google believes that no one adopting WebM will have to fear allegations of patent infringement. Otherwise those developers might be exposed to considerable risk. It wouldn't be possible to check on millions of different patents but at the very least I think Google should look at the patents held by the MPEG LA pool as well as patents held by some well-known 'trolls' and explain why those aren't infringed. Programmers have a right to get that information so they can make an informed decision for themselves whether to take that risk or not.

It's not unreasonable to ask Google to perform a well-documented patent clearance because they certainly have the resources in place while most open source developers don't.

The situation surrounding Android shows that Google might opt to stand on the sidelines if those adopting its open source technologies -- such as HTC -- are sued by patent holders. I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology, so Google should at least help everyone to assess the risk.

We all know Steve Jobs' recent email in which he said a patent pool was being assembled to go after open source codecs. So the patent question is really a critical one. Also, this in-depth analysis by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.

I have previously called for this kind of patent clearance, in connection with the open source Theora codec as well as with VP8, here on slashdot as well as on my blog, such as in this post.

google just open sourced vp8. That means we can stop eating the ogg theora shit sandwich and start using a codec that doesn't suck ass.

Britains used the threat of nuking Argentina. France gave deactivation codes for Exocet missiles in exchange for Britain not nuking Argentina.

Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”

link.

For christ's sake, the way inferential statistics works the size of the population is fundamentally irrelevant. If anything, larger is a bit better. Stop being a dumbass.

One more time -- "That's the single dumbest thing you can say about polling results." http://angrymath.blogspot.com/2009/02/interpreting-polls-angrymath-meditation.html

Well, this isn't quite as serious as Bank Trojans, but Storm8 is infamous for stealing phone numbers from their customers. And this is with the all-mighty App Store in place.

Which any app on any other platform, save Android, can do. In fact, Apple has a right to pull phone number stealing apps off the market for using "private APIs" because there is (or was) no API to get the phone number.

But if you have a BlackBerry, Windows Mobile or Symbian phone, the phone number's an API call away. The "except Android" is because it requires permission when you install it, which is a good and bad thing - good in that it asks, bad in that most users just click OK without reading the list (just like how they don't read dialogs already).

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386337&cid=29585841

In fact, the odd part of this thing is why is the iPhone unique in starting this? After all, these APIs have been around for years, yet only the iPhone has started the whole steal-private-data thing that every other phone could've done for a long time now.

Ironically, the best protection is a jailbroken app called Firewall IP that lets you selectively control how apps connect and phone home. Oddly, some of the biggest names (Fox Network, for example) have the most egregious uploading of personal information.

http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/2009/10/top-gun-top25-paid-app.html

Here's a neat blog that's on haitus at the moment, but details apps on the Top 25 app list and if they phone home or not.

http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/

I guess it's Apple's fault for making unlimited data connections standard and devs can now assume that a phone has a constant internet connection...

Well, this isn't quite as serious as Bank Trojans, but Storm8 is infamous for stealing phone numbers from their customers. And this is with the all-mighty App Store in place.

Which any app on any other platform, save Android, can do. In fact, Apple has a right to pull phone number stealing apps off the market for using "private APIs" because there is (or was) no API to get the phone number.

But if you have a BlackBerry, Windows Mobile or Symbian phone, the phone number's an API call away. The "except Android" is because it requires permission when you install it, which is a good and bad thing - good in that it asks, bad in that most users just click OK without reading the list (just like how they don't read dialogs already).

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386337&cid=29585841

In fact, the odd part of this thing is why is the iPhone unique in starting this? After all, these APIs have been around for years, yet only the iPhone has started the whole steal-private-data thing that every other phone could've done for a long time now.

Ironically, the best protection is a jailbroken app called Firewall IP that lets you selectively control how apps connect and phone home. Oddly, some of the biggest names (Fox Network, for example) have the most egregious uploading of personal information.

http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/2009/10/top-gun-top25-paid-app.html

Here's a neat blog that's on haitus at the moment, but details apps on the Top 25 app list and if they phone home or not.

http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/

I guess it's Apple's fault for making unlimited data connections standard and devs can now assume that a phone has a constant internet connection...

For those not feeling brave enough to wade through the arXiv preprint: http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-physics-claim-from-d0.html

I take it you don't like the decision?
Then you'd better hope we get more justices like the dissenters... Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case... (FTFA)

Yeah, I totally hope we get more justices who believe it's constitutional to execute the innocent and that the First Amendment's freedom of religion only applies to monotheists. Not to mention that the interests of the candidates in a disputed presidential election outweigh the interests of the electorate in selecting the candidate they voted for. Yeah, let's hope for more of that.

A judge's record is bigger than any single case; we'd be wise to keep that in mind.

No spyware on the iPhone at all..oh wait
http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/

the app store is rife with it

You know, if I had any artistic talent at all, I would probably respond to all this by drawing up a picture of a child be graphically anally penetrated by "Uncle Sam" with the words "No Child Left Behind" tattooed on his cock, just to help test (and illustrate) how ridiculous these laws can be. (of course, I would be cowardly hiding behind free speech through political satire....)

Actually.... I guess it could be done in stick figures and labels. I mean, is a stick figure is meant to represent a 10 year old boy, and another stick figure represents a man raping that child... is that child porn? What about a picture of a guy stroking his hard on, while looking at a catalog of children's toys? I mean.... seriously!

And as I type this.... I did a quick google search and find.... I am.... just not that original... http://stickfigurechildporn.blogspot.com/2008/12/here-is-template-for-stick-figure-child.html

I guess all the good ideas really are taken.

-Steve

Wouldn't you censor a dentist that has a sign like this?

XML is not a markup language

XML is not a markup language
XML does not deserver its "ML", or even its "X". But first, the "ML" part.

I am one of the world's leading experts on markup languages. I'll start there. I'm a 20-year veteran of desktop publishing, am personally related to the author of one of the very first markup languages in the world (Scribe), and have actually used SGML, MML, HTML, and most of the other markup languages that came along decades before XML.

So I know what I'm talking about. XML is not a markup language.

A markup language is predicated on the idea that the markup is an exception in a river of text. That is, the markup is a departure from the state that existed at the time the markup was encountered.

One of the first instances of this was the TROFF mechanism in UNIX, used for formatting "man pages". A simple example was that a line that started with .i was italic. So you might format a sentence with an italic word in it like this:

Here is an
.i emphasized phrase
and back to normal text

The same basic approach is used in HTML, except that it's not line-oriented, so you need a "close delimiter" other than carriage return (which is actually a pretty handy closing delimiter, but I digress). So the same thing in HTML is:

Here is an <i>emphasized phrase</i> and back to normal text.

The idea of markup is that you literally mark up a text, "circling" things, if you will, giving instructions to the typesetter (or parser, or other) that this snippet of text is to be treated somehow differently.

Another tenet of a markup language is that only the syntax is specified. The semantics of what the markup means is implicit (HTML) or described earlier (Scribe) or some combination of the two (CSS).

But here's the real kicker: a pure ASCII text file is a valid example of any markup language. That underscores the notion that the markup is a departure from the river of text. So a plain text file is technically a valid HTML file (though they ruined that purity with XHTML and CSS by requiring tags in it, but that's because they too didn't really know what a markup language was).

and http://xmlsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/xml-as-container.html

Monday, December 11, 2006
XML as a "container"
XML is most often used as a kind of container to hold structured data of some kind. The semantic nature of the data is not defined by XML itself, but typically is carried separately as a data definition or simply by being programmed into the model itself, which is the more common approach (e.g. "this XML file contains preference data" or "this XML file contains a Technorati Ping").

There is one big problem with XML as a container. Its syntax, which is borrowed from HTML and SGML, involves angle brackets and a begin/end paradigm. The problem with this is that you can't embed similar data inside the XML file without escaping all the angle brackets. That gets messy very fast. It also is impossible to nest to arbitrary depth. That is, you can't have an XML file that contains an XML file that contains an HTML file without knowing beforehand how many times to un-escape the data when parsing it.

It also makes it essentially impossible to embed binary data in an XML file because you can't know whether or not to escape the XML sequences within the binary data (you should NOT, if the binary data is to be respected).

This is a classic problem with file formats which require parsing of the data and in which the delimiters themselves might be embedded. You have to recognize nested delimiters and/or escape them.

There ar

XML is not a markup language

XML is not a markup language
XML does not deserver its "ML", or even its "X". But first, the "ML" part.

I am one of the world's leading experts on markup languages. I'll start there. I'm a 20-year veteran of desktop publishing, am personally related to the author of one of the very first markup languages in the world (Scribe), and have actually used SGML, MML, HTML, and most of the other markup languages that came along decades before XML.

So I know what I'm talking about. XML is not a markup language.

A markup language is predicated on the idea that the markup is an exception in a river of text. That is, the markup is a departure from the state that existed at the time the markup was encountered.

One of the first instances of this was the TROFF mechanism in UNIX, used for formatting "man pages". A simple example was that a line that started with .i was italic. So you might format a sentence with an italic word in it like this:

Here is an
.i emphasized phrase
and back to normal text

The same basic approach is used in HTML, except that it's not line-oriented, so you need a "close delimiter" other than carriage return (which is actually a pretty handy closing delimiter, but I digress). So the same thing in HTML is:

Here is an <i>emphasized phrase</i> and back to normal text.

The idea of markup is that you literally mark up a text, "circling" things, if you will, giving instructions to the typesetter (or parser, or other) that this snippet of text is to be treated somehow differently.

Another tenet of a markup language is that only the syntax is specified. The semantics of what the markup means is implicit (HTML) or described earlier (Scribe) or some combination of the two (CSS).

But here's the real kicker: a pure ASCII text file is a valid example of any markup language. That underscores the notion that the markup is a departure from the river of text. So a plain text file is technically a valid HTML file (though they ruined that purity with XHTML and CSS by requiring tags in it, but that's because they too didn't really know what a markup language was).

and http://xmlsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/xml-as-container.html

Monday, December 11, 2006
XML as a "container"
XML is most often used as a kind of container to hold structured data of some kind. The semantic nature of the data is not defined by XML itself, but typically is carried separately as a data definition or simply by being programmed into the model itself, which is the more common approach (e.g. "this XML file contains preference data" or "this XML file contains a Technorati Ping").

There is one big problem with XML as a container. Its syntax, which is borrowed from HTML and SGML, involves angle brackets and a begin/end paradigm. The problem with this is that you can't embed similar data inside the XML file without escaping all the angle brackets. That gets messy very fast. It also is impossible to nest to arbitrary depth. That is, you can't have an XML file that contains an XML file that contains an HTML file without knowing beforehand how many times to un-escape the data when parsing it.

It also makes it essentially impossible to embed binary data in an XML file because you can't know whether or not to escape the XML sequences within the binary data (you should NOT, if the binary data is to be respected).

This is a classic problem with file formats which require parsing of the data and in which the delimiters themselves might be embedded. You have to recognize nested delimiters and/or escape them.

There ar

XML is not a markup language

XML is not a markup language
XML does not deserver its "ML", or even its "X". But first, the "ML" part.

I am one of the world's leading experts on markup languages. I'll start there. I'm a 20-year veteran of desktop publishing, am personally related to the author of one of the very first markup languages in the world (Scribe), and have actually used SGML, MML, HTML, and most of the other markup languages that came along decades before XML.

So I know what I'm talking about. XML is not a markup language.

A markup language is predicated on the idea that the markup is an exception in a river of text. That is, the markup is a departure from the state that existed at the time the markup was encountered.

One of the first instances of this was the TROFF mechanism in UNIX, used for formatting "man pages". A simple example was that a line that started with .i was italic. So you might format a sentence with an italic word in it like this:

Here is an
.i emphasized phrase
and back to normal text

The same basic approach is used in HTML, except that it's not line-oriented, so you need a "close delimiter" other than carriage return (which is actually a pretty handy closing delimiter, but I digress). So the same thing in HTML is:

Here is an <i>emphasized phrase</i> and back to normal text.

The idea of markup is that you literally mark up a text, "circling" things, if you will, giving instructions to the typesetter (or parser, or other) that this snippet of text is to be treated somehow differently.

Another tenet of a markup language is that only the syntax is specified. The semantics of what the markup means is implicit (HTML) or described earlier (Scribe) or some combination of the two (CSS).

But here's the real kicker: a pure ASCII text file is a valid example of any markup language. That underscores the notion that the markup is a departure from the river of text. So a plain text file is technically a valid HTML file (though they ruined that purity with XHTML and CSS by requiring tags in it, but that's because they too didn't really know what a markup language was).

and http://xmlsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/xml-as-container.html

Monday, December 11, 2006
XML as a "container"
XML is most often used as a kind of container to hold structured data of some kind. The semantic nature of the data is not defined by XML itself, but typically is carried separately as a data definition or simply by being programmed into the model itself, which is the more common approach (e.g. "this XML file contains preference data" or "this XML file contains a Technorati Ping").

There is one big problem with XML as a container. Its syntax, which is borrowed from HTML and SGML, involves angle brackets and a begin/end paradigm. The problem with this is that you can't embed similar data inside the XML file without escaping all the angle brackets. That gets messy very fast. It also is impossible to nest to arbitrary depth. That is, you can't have an XML file that contains an XML file that contains an HTML file without knowing beforehand how many times to un-escape the data when parsing it.

It also makes it essentially impossible to embed binary data in an XML file because you can't know whether or not to escape the XML sequences within the binary data (you should NOT, if the binary data is to be respected).

This is a classic problem with file formats which require parsing of the data and in which the delimiters themselves might be embedded. You have to recognize nested delimiters and/or escape them.

There ar

All of our presidents have been Christians and the majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress are Christians.

All that shows is that all politicians *claim* to be devout Christians, which is not surprising given the fact that the united states discriminates against atheists. Last time I heard the atheism is political suicide, which is mostly due to religious propaganda and bigotry. The list of qualities people seem to like in politicians looks like: white males > colored males > women > fundamentalists > racists > gays > sex offenders > atheists... Everyone is happy that it's possible to have a black president, but I will only be amazed when the first *publicly* atheist president is elected. Note the 'public' since there have been enough 'alledged' atheist presidents... I say alledged since both atheists and christians 'claim' these presidents for their camp, but knowing the aforementioned bias against atheism it's no big surprise that any atheist president would hide this fact.

P.S. here is the old poll: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_

P.P.S. read the first comment about Obama's atheism (gave me a laugh), funny that 'politicians will do anything for votes' can't be put in perspective by the faithful: http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-obama-atheist.html

While the DPL is still work-in-progress, I've posted this preliminary analysis of its possibilities and limitations. It remains to be seen if it offers a compelling reason for anyone to join.

Wait... It gets better. Look up that person and you are bound to find some more drama.

He, or she is an expert troll (meant as a compliment).

In a previous blog post, you explain that there is no such thing as a patent-free video codec. The reason being that the existence of prior-art is not sufficient to prevent a patent from being granted.

This implies that even video (or image-based) codecs in existence for nearly 20 years will still be patent-encumbered when any original patents expire in a few years.

While it may be prudent for a large player like Google to vet their codecs against the MPEG-LA license pool, the real problem is that software patents are unworkable.

behind?why?
Zaklina

It seems like the caching issues could be fixed with prefetch instructions that can fetch bigger chunks. Which it apparently has.

Still just fetching instructions for 48 cores is a huge amount of bandwidth.

http://perilsofparallel.blogspot.com/2010/01/problem-with-larrabee.html

Let's say there are 100 processors (high end of numbers I've heard). 4 threads / processor. 2 GHz (he said the clock was measured in GHz).

That's 100 cores x 4 treads x 2 GHz x 2 bytes = 1600 GB/s.

Let's put that number in perspective:

* It's moving more than the entire contents of a 1.5 TB disk drive every second.

* It's more than 100 times the bandwidth of Intel's shiny new QuickPath system interconnect (12.8 GB/s per direction).

* It would soak up the output of 33 banks of DDR3-SDRAM, all three channels, 192 bits per channel, 48 GB/s aggregate per bank.

In other words, it's impossible.

So 48 cores needs 16 banks of DDR3-SDRAM.