Slashdot Mirror

Here's hoping it went through more testing than VS2005 did...

The University of Richmond's IP Institute web site has more information and links on this story.

http://ipinstitute.blogspot.com/

It's not surprising really since people really don't even care that much about the music features of the phones, they still prefer to have a camera phone than an MP3 phone. I posted about this a while back: http://cellwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/trends-peopl e-like-camera-phones-more.html My guess is that within a year or 2 we'll see people really start getting into multimedia phones. But we'll need quality first and mobile TV is just not there yet.

While ID "as described in the literature" is not the same thing as creationism, the fact remains that ID was "designed" because creationism was failing.

Some of the articles published by the ID crowd have been shown to be earlier creationist texts with the references to God/creation/etc. removed and standard ID buzz-words inserted in their place.

Their strategy, outlined in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document is stated quite baldly: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God".

Sorry, but you've been fooled.

Ok, good job on the explanation/analysis.
I'm just posting to promote my offtopic blog everywhere, and your +5 funny has just increased the traffic for me.
Once again, thanks a lot ;).
PS: Quantum physics is next year for me. If the course still exists.

Indeed. Check out koffice kids part 1 and part 2. I don't think GNOME has something even similar!

Indeed. Check out koffice kids part 1 and part 2. I don't think GNOME has something even similar!

This is newsworthy because it appears on the Google blog, which seems to be the main source of Slashdot news these days.

It is precisely in those sorts of situations, where the market situation leads to natural monopolies, and consequent high prices, that the government should look closely at what is going on, and figure out how to shake things up such that competition will again become healthy. Failing that, if no competition for a given niche can exist, the next two choices are regulation (like the telco's) or creating 'competition' like the suggested 'software corps.'

The premise of a free economy is always being able to take your money to a competitor. This fundamental does not hold in cases of A corporate monopoly or even duopoly (cable & telco internet access), Extremely limited choices, in and of itself, are always bad for the public, and bad for the economy. That is why power, water, cable and telco companies are either regulated today or outright run by the government. A good argument could be made for regulating Microsoft (the goverment would have to approve the price of windows, and they would have to justify increases, and demonstrate their costs to a government board.)

Rather than spending money on legislators, spending money on development, fostering open source via an express government preference will probably provide all the help open source needs to break the MS network effect, and therefore the monopoly, restoring the market to a healthy state. Once there are competitors in a market, the government actors should step back.

There are lots of issues that are like that, like Consumer Electronics should drop all the
cheap protocols and go wireless. check out the last post here: http://stuffdreams.blogspot.com/

Revered? Irreverant is more his style. Authoritative? He's pretty authoritative on early versions on Excel and on running a small business and staying afloat. Interestingness (or lameness) is subjective and you are entitled to your opinion, but I dare say the reason the reason people link to him is because they do find him interesting.

And oh, about that 'lame blog entries' dig? A lot of people like blogs because they reveal a lot about the person. They sure make for more entertaining reading than PR pap, Unix man pages and the typical low S/N mailing list. Sure, you get angst-ridden teenagers, but you also get law professors, call girls, people who run their own small business, SGML and XML gurus. On message boards like Slashdot, though, you get dupes and the same old tired arguments about Open Source and Digital Freedoms and (bonus!) Slashdot commenters complaining about how lame other people are. Oh the irony.

Replacing hydrocarbon energy with clean energy is not the only way to reduce hydrocarbon use. Making things more efficient will also reduce power use. This can mean better insulation in buildings and homes; more efficient means of travel; more efficient lighting (LED?); more efficient heaters and air conditioners; etc.

It might even mean smarter stoplights.

As mentioned, http://adsense.blogspot.com/ says "We hope to make this available soon to international publishers". This refers to the Firefox referral bit.

Maybe additional revenue from their new music player sales will help.

Nice slam at Google Print. You said that users will be able to download music for free JUST LIKE they can download whole books for free in Google Print! Also, you said that publishers will be able to de-list their books through an onerous process, JUST LIKE Google Print.

Oh, yes, and its funny too. You and the Association of American Publishers are very funny. Thanks for your contribution.

Goolge is burning money like crazy Idiots buying stocks are jacking up the price of a company with only search as a "Product" and rest all vaporware or thinware. Maybe additional revenue from their new music player sales will help.

Buying books by the pages and chapters is not a new idea. I actually wrote about it way back in 2003. Random House, the mega publisher, is obviously giving its approval to Amazon's proposal by coming out with its own idea of micro-payment model -- charging 5 cents a page, with 4 of that going to the authors and the publishers, as reported here.<br><br>

These days, Johny and Susie Happy-Clickers gladly "click to purchase" 99-cents songs, so it seems like a natural progression to click to buy a page here, a chapter there.

Yahoo maps appear to be much smoother than Google's. The multip point feature is awesome and you can collapse everything in the map. It also includes block view, which I think is borrowed from a9 maps. While we are talking about jokes..here is something funny - http://chunnibabu.blogspot.com/2005/11/google-anno unces-music-player-from.html

• Everything is free, yet nothing is free. (Compensation paradox)
• We don't know who you are, yet there is no privacy. (Identity paradox)
• Write multiple times, yet it still doesn't run everywhere. (Compatibility paradox)
• Code goes over the network, yet it's not mobile. (Boundary paradox)
• The Web is not decentralized enough, yet it is not centralized enough. (Responsibility paradox)

• Everything is free, yet nothing is free. (Compensation paradox)
• We don't know who you are, yet there is no privacy. (Identity paradox)
• Write multiple times, yet it still doesn't run everywhere. (Compatibility paradox)
• Code goes over the network, yet it's not mobile. (Boundary paradox)
• The Web is not decentralized enough, yet it is not centralized enough. (Responsibility paradox)

Speak of the divil

The firefox tool bar is out of beta since 22/9 and also the famous google maps.

1. US Patent Application 20050244804

2. USPTO explanation of provisional patents

3. FAQ about provisional patents

4. This is also being covered at Peter Zura's Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog (Peter Zura "is a registered patent attorney practicing in the Chicago area. He is a former patent examiner and has considerable experience in patent litigation and patent portfolio development and management.")

In short, the provisional patent application becomes enforceable as of the publication date, if the patent is eventually awarded. This is why "According to the official Patent Office website, provisional rights 'provide a patentee with the opportunity to obtain a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim provided actual notice is given to the third party by [the] applicant, and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim.'"

In other words, you could infringe this provisional patent if you wanted, even after being notified by Mr. Knight, but if he is successful, you will owe him royalties.

I hope this doesn't make sense to you -- because it doesn't. We are laboring under an extremely broken system which, rather than rewarding innovation, rewards monopoly stagnation and locking up ideas from the public.

You really should get involved in the fight against this nonsense. Right to Create and freeculture are good places to start.

1. US Patent Application 20050244804

2. USPTO explanation of provisional patents

3. FAQ about provisional patents

4. This is also being covered at Peter Zura's Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog (Peter Zura "is a registered patent attorney practicing in the Chicago area. He is a former patent examiner and has considerable experience in patent litigation and patent portfolio development and management.")

In short, the provisional patent application becomes enforceable as of the publication date, if the patent is eventually awarded. This is why "According to the official Patent Office website, provisional rights 'provide a patentee with the opportunity to obtain a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim provided actual notice is given to the third party by [the] applicant, and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim.'"

In other words, you could infringe this provisional patent if you wanted, even after being notified by Mr. Knight, but if he is successful, you will owe him royalties.

I hope this doesn't make sense to you -- because it doesn't. We are laboring under an extremely broken system which, rather than rewarding innovation, rewards monopoly stagnation and locking up ideas from the public.

You really should get involved in the fight against this nonsense. Right to Create and freeculture are good places to start.

This is you -> Hi!
This is the point -> Whoosh!

There are perfectly good ways to do similar things to what Apple is doing without causing problems for the Linux community as a whole. As Linux fans as yourself are always so fond of pointing out, Linux is nothing more than a kernel. I agree. So when are we going to stop treating it as a singular entity and more as an OS Construction Kit? I made my point on this months ago, yet everyone seems to think that all we need is a slightly better Linux distro, or that what we have is "good enough".

NO!

If you want to see Linux used everywhere, how about allowing more focus in each distro? Today you get crucified if you're server only. ("I can't run it as a desktop!") Yet you get crucified if you're desktop only. ("I can't run it as a server!") Thus we have some weird amalgamations of OSes that look like Desktops but act like Servers, making no one's lives easier except for Workstation users. People keep trying to stop Linux from diverging down different paths. "We don't need that! It's fine as it is!" Let it diverge! That's what it was designed to do, and it will not truly hit its element unless you let it.

If people would help instead of hinder, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a Desktop-focused, Hardware and Linux bundle tomorrow. (Actually, you can today. Except that they screw up the marketting every time. They keep trying to sell workstations to regular desktop users. Grandma doesn't know or care what the hell the /usr vs. /var vs. root partitioning is. Just slap the DVD player in there and ship the damn thing!)

I agree that this is insanity, but it is not as innocuous as you think. Mr. Knight can begin sending out the cease-and-desists right now, with the full force of the law behind him.

I hope this makes you mad. I hope it makes you mad enough to take some action. There are a number of things you can do. See some of the other posts at Right to Create and freeculture for things you can do to put an end to some of this non-sense. Letting your representatives and congressmen know how you feel is a good place to start.

They try to act humble.
However, humbleness missed a spot with that +4.6? number you can make out there.

http://chunnibabu.blogspot.com/2005/11/google-anno unces-music-player-from.html

At least now he works for Juniper. Thats great. Next time he gets that weird idea he calls "ethics" and starts publishing critical vulns without working with the vendor we got nothing to worry about. Juniper's market penetration is nowhere close to Cisco's. As for Lynn, i share that opinion http://technolustandsushi.blogspot.com/#1123076679 49080502

Replying to my own post, because I've found some links that people *really* should go read.

One of Google's staff members wrote a piece and put it on his blog that gives a better idea of what a 'snippet' means.

Google also will make available more content from a book, if they explicitely *have the publishers permission*. And, in such a case, Google will Share the wealth. Go read the page for details. Basically, they will give you a portion of the revenue from contextual ads that are displayed with the page from your book.

This lawsuit is basically about people who are too stupid to exist (although, alas, they do), trying to fight something that will be *very* good for them. It's Sony vs. MPAA all over again, it really is. The MPAA thought they new so much better than the VCR manufacturers what is good for the motion picture industry. They are too small-brained to think creatively about how to exploit new opportunities that are opened up by the new technology. The MPAA members eventually did, and now they make, from what I've heard, the majority of their revenues from VHS/DVD sales (although they still make plenty at the box-office - it's just that VCRs and later DVD created brand-new revenue streams that eventually surpassed the box office + TV revenue).

Even after reading this op-ed I don't understand where the AAP is coming from. Are they afraid Google will start offering entire books as the op-ed suggests? That is ridiculous; Google would get their ass sued and there is no way around that. IMO the AAP is terrified of losing power: the power to control market demand, the power to let older publications fade into oblivian, the power to do things the same way they know and like. Just as the *IAAs desperately tried to maintain the status quo, the APP follows suit. The *IAA lost power and it was going against an unorganized group of theives. The AAP doesn't stand a chance against a $80 billion dollar enterprise that will text message you, for free, the phone number of the nearest pizza place. AAP: get with the times.

Where it could go right It's not all doom and gloom, though. Think of a scenario where compute threads rarely touch system memory , doing most of their work on the CPU with small working sets and you've got yourself something that Xeon should do well at. While those compute threads would have to be HyperThreading friendly to have HT be a performance win, Intel has spent good time making sure HT gets focus by application developers. If you read the last benchmark results for the dual core xeon's here you can see that AMD totally whipped the cpu into submission.

Yet Hexus.net still thinks they can find a task that the dual core xeon is better at, but yet they provide no real world example or benchmark results, so I guess they are still looking, perhaps they can find the right benchmark in the basement, or perhaps in deepest darkest africa.

http://chunnibabu.blogspot.com/2005/11/google-anno unces-music-player-from.html

Well... you're wrong. Objective-C is a compiled language, not an interpreted one.

Do you have any links for plugins for Gorm? It seems like the whole interface was based on the user writing ObjC for complex actions/methods.

Indeed, the basic idea is to use ObjC for complex actions/methods (considers though that ObjC is a strict superset of the ANSI C, so you could simply put your C code in an ObjC method without any modifications, and the next release of gcc will even allow you to mix ObjC and C++). There's no repository for Gorm palettes, but you can have a look on my blog to get the StepTalk palette.

Oh, how does the philosophy matter at all?

By the philosophy is different, I'm talking about the framework (GNUstep/OpenStep) and the language (ObjC) -- they are vastly different from Qt and C++. And frankly, I rather like Qt, programmed with it before jumping on the GNUstep ship; the signals/slots mechanism of Qt is actually quite inspired by OpenStep target/action. But ObjC and OpenStep are without a doubt much better suited for the job than Qt/C++, really (I would use C++ for a 3D engine, but ObjC for the gui -- the right tool for the right job, period). Partly because of ObjC functionalities and its dynamism (introspection, modify things at runtime, true polymorphism, replace a class by another, catch any messages, etc.) and partly because of the sheer design quality of OpenStep. It's an amazingly well designed framework. I may remind you that Cocoa on OSX is actually an OpenStep implementation..

i didn't see anything in the demo which couldn't be done on a different platform and the right interface builder. I mean QT designer can do 50% of what Gorm does with the exception of the custom actions. (I admit that is a large shortcoming though). However the entire concept of writing actions in a tiny window will not scale for medium to large applications. So I hope Obj-C's import facilities are good. Just look at the hoops Flash developers go through.

Ouch.. the point of Gorm is frankly NOT to write actions in a tiny window -- actually Gorm don't do it, in the demo it was done by the StepTalk palette. Gorm is an Object Modeller more than a GUI builder, in a sense. Its real job is to connect objects, graphical or non graphical. And you're working on the "real" objects. A .gorm file is simply the serialization of the object graph... So, no, you can't do that in any other UI builder, apart (obviously) from InterfaceBuilder on OPENSTEP^WMacOSX :-)

And yes, of course you usually import ObjC headers in Gorm, or create the class in Gorm itself. If you only saw the "StepTalk" demo, have a look to the Dataset demo, and if you want to see an example of ObjC code with Gorm, check the third demo.

If the new telescope gives me a better look at the Canadian named Lala, I'm all for it.

very interesting article from an ex-yahoo and founder of a new open mobile technology: http://bluepulseblog.blogspot.com/

Why doesn't anyone get it?

You must read the other side of the story, the truth demands to be told.

They are not happy with the name, though.

Well ... not exact explanation, but you can find some answers to your question here and here.

Well ... not exact explanation, but you can find some answers to your question here and here.

The article (follow-up here) was actually a front page story. I've posted it a few times since, but I didn't link to it because most people know what I'm talking about and would just get annoyed. The team is working on the project behind the scenes, but there's no official website yet. I'll probably move my blog to a personal website at some point so I can start sharing files of interest, including things we're working on.

The article (follow-up here) was actually a front page story. I've posted it a few times since, but I didn't link to it because most people know what I'm talking about and would just get annoyed. The team is working on the project behind the scenes, but there's no official website yet. I'll probably move my blog to a personal website at some point so I can start sharing files of interest, including things we're working on.

I'm sorry, but am I the only person in the world getting pissed off at slashdot for rejecting my posts? Does it seem like slashdot only worries about certain peoples posts and indeed only posts on certain subjects?

The site has increasingly become an GNOME/KDE site over the course of the past few years. It's become apparent to me that no other competing API toolkit will be able to edge it's way into that site so that it can get some attention.

It's time to make a better slashdot.

According to this insider's blog, Microsoft has stole Gorm, among other open source software.

According to this insider's blog, Microsoft has stole Gorm, among other software.

Gorm is also a RAD application that allows one to create user interfaces and various application object models in very intuitive way, benefiting from highly dynamic features of the Objective-C language and runtime. Flash videos can be seen here. More information can be found on this blog. Interesting is, that the application could never be done in C++, check out why.

Gorm is also a RAD application that allows one to create user interfaces and various application object models in very intuitive way, benefiting from highly dynamic features of the Objective-C language and runtime. Flash videos can be seen here. More information can be found on this blog. Interesting is, that the application could never be done in C++, check out why.

This article is not very well written. From a psychologist's point of view, it's really very sloppy. I'm not the only one: http://oghc.blogspot.com/2005/11/o-chris-crawford- we-shake-our-heads-at.html That's a pretty good review of Crawford's piece in The Escapist. Unlike that guy, though- I'm really wondering what The Escapist was thinking publishing this. It brings down their repor. I think it is only because they interviewed him, and wanted to throw a bone.

I agree, and I have the biggest human toe.

You can't see it on my blog though :-(

The other test for obviousness (the one that is somewhat sane) is apparently left for the courts to decide after the patent is granted.

You might also be interested to know that our patent system originated in 15th century England, and had nothing to do with novelty, non-obviousness, or prior art and everything to do with exclusive, state-sponsored monopoly (see A Brief History of Idea Monopoly for details on how such commonly manufactured items as soap, salt, glass, and sailcloth were granted patents).

The striking thing here is that our current patent system is starting to look a lot like the old 15th century English one, where "low quality" patents are granted willy-nilly, punishing the general public by levying a sort of tax on everyone except the owner of the patent. In other words, it seems more and more to have everything to do with exclusive, state-sponsored monopoly and nothing to do with protecting innovation and inventors.

There is more than one way that books get on Google.

The books indexed by the Library Project do not have ads (there are links to online retailers, but Google doesn't make any money from them).

On the other hand, some books get on Google through the Publisher Program. These are sponsored by a publisher, and Google does make some money from them.

You don't think a company whose profits are based almost entirely on its hosting of advertisements might have a slight ulterior motive here?

Since Google doesn't put adds on Library Project pages, they don't benefit directly.

So their only real benefit is indirect: increased goodwill for a public-spirited project, and enhancing their corporate image as the place to go for research.