That's curious. I had similar issues prior to FF3.0, but since my memory issues have mostly been resolved, staying mostly under 350MB (which I'm plenty happy with.) That's running 15+ extensions (nothing really heavy weight - although I doubt any of your 4 would be.) I'd say it might be worth stopping by SUMO and document your particular usage, including which extensions you have running, someone might have a suggestion, and/or it might help address specific issues in future development.
Hehe. First we find that 89.2% of all statistics are made up and now research shows that most researches are false. What the hell are we to believe in now?!
that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention.
Notice that my statement started with "...create an INNOVATIVE, MORE DESIRABLE method of..." The fact that it had market value came as a consequence, though I see that the end of the sentence makes it seem that market value gives causality to IP rights. What I did mean was that an innovative better process has merit and deserves some kind of recognition. Whether the system in place is the correct one is a different point altogether.
the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress
While I agree that should be the ultimate goal, it is simply not the way it plays out in a mostly capitalistic society. Truth is most people are motivated by self interest. For that reason independently of how we might agree societal systems should function, when it comes down to it people will use it for their own purposes.
one of the inherent flaws with most patent systems is that once something is patented, even if someone else with no knowledge of the patent filing independently invents the same idea, they will either, be forced to pay royalties to the first inventor, or simply forbidden from using their own invention.
While that is certainly a problem, there seems to be no clearly resolution for it, as far as commercial rights go. Either you forfeit or enforce the fact that the first person to register a product/process has rights to it.
software patents exacerbate the problem when companies are allowed to patent mathematical algorithms or trivial/obvious functionality. things like UI interfaces, JavaScript popups, portable e-mail, etc. should not be patentable. these patents do not benefit society in any way, and they have hindered technological progress rather than promote it.
The idea of a patent is to grant rights over non trivial/obvious things. I am not claiming the system works as it is intended to, but it is certainly is not meant to give rights over the obvious/trivial. The flaw here of course being the perception of what is/isn't obvious/trivial.
at the very least, non-commercial uses of patented ideas should not be prohibited. give the first inventor exclusive rights to commercial the idea, but if someone else comes along and re-invents the same concept for personal use, they should be free to do so. otherwise the patent system is just restricting free expression and stifling innovation.
I completely agree with you here. I believe that patents should concern themselves strictly with commercial use. Even independent of reinvention, I believe that if you have the means to implement anything strictly for personal use you should have the rights to.
People work hard and develop new products because they make money from doing so; and few 'people' who develop those products actually make money from patents
In this situation, you are speaking of a company developing a product, in which case they should certainly have some sorts of rights over it. As for the employees who actually performed the development, they did so "representing" the company and "forfeit" their "ownership" of the idea.
As for the specifics in different industries, that is beyond the point I was attempting to make. In the situation you brought up, the fact is that digital hardware lacks a good IP system, and in a lot of situations the protection of choice works akin to a "trade secret"
As for 'original/innovative', I don't remember seeing a single patent in that industry that wasn't clearly built on ideas that had come before; the number of truly innovative and original ideas is tiny.
Once again you are speaking of a specific industry. But even then, ideas clearly built upon ideas that have come before can still certainly be innovative. Although this is an extreme example, think wheel being an original idea & car being an innovative idea clearly based on the wheel which had come before.
Overlooking the other flaws in your statement, even if photoshop were to be considered "complex", editing raster images is most certainly not. And since in this respect patents are protecting a process, their raster image editing process would have to be patented, not photoshop itself.
Now, if you were to in fact create an innovative, more desirable method of editing raster images, you surely should have some IP rights over it since it has market value...
You are absolutely right! We should just get rid of the concept of IP and eliminate personal benefit for all future innovations. That surely will motivate people to work harder and develop new products/processes so that others with better means will reap the rewards in their place!
Don't get me wrong - I am very much in favor of open IP, however proper credit & benefits are due to original/innovative work. My issue with the above post is mainly that it overlooks the fact that patents do not benefit strictly corporations.
On another note, you make a good point on/. not having a -1 disagree moderation because I certainly disagree.
I would go further on your prediction by claiming that no one will use it altogether other than to just try it out. Albeit innovative for an online service, it is a feature that serves no real purpose when not imposed on the user.
Mathematically speaking that is incorrect.
While the vertical and horizontal components have a continuous behavior (obviously not really continuous due to machine representation) the tabs act as a discrete element and could not be considered a dimension.
Honestly... I have NEVER commented on/. - but FFS are high school students and people majoring in BIT such a large web presence for VB to be up that high?
How many people do you consider good programmers (this is probably a bad way to put things since for most/. readers that narrows it to themselves and the one code guru they idolize) actually use VB, post VB code online or worse have online VB projects?
On another note, all development for non-pc chip sets usually on support assembly and c (some modern ones c++) - so no, with the amount of embedded systems we use now days I don't see them going away any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
That's curious. I had similar issues prior to FF3.0, but since my memory issues have mostly been resolved, staying mostly under 350MB (which I'm plenty happy with.) That's running 15+ extensions (nothing really heavy weight - although I doubt any of your 4 would be.) I'd say it might be worth stopping by SUMO and document your particular usage, including which extensions you have running, someone might have a suggestion, and/or it might help address specific issues in future development.
Hehe. First we find that 89.2% of all statistics are made up and now research shows that most researches are false. What the hell are we to believe in now?!
that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention.
Notice that my statement started with "...create an INNOVATIVE, MORE DESIRABLE method of..." The fact that it had market value came as a consequence, though I see that the end of the sentence makes it seem that market value gives causality to IP rights. What I did mean was that an innovative better process has merit and deserves some kind of recognition. Whether the system in place is the correct one is a different point altogether.
the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress
While I agree that should be the ultimate goal, it is simply not the way it plays out in a mostly capitalistic society. Truth is most people are motivated by self interest. For that reason independently of how we might agree societal systems should function, when it comes down to it people will use it for their own purposes.
one of the inherent flaws with most patent systems is that once something is patented, even if someone else with no knowledge of the patent filing independently invents the same idea, they will either, be forced to pay royalties to the first inventor, or simply forbidden from using their own invention.
While that is certainly a problem, there seems to be no clearly resolution for it, as far as commercial rights go. Either you forfeit or enforce the fact that the first person to register a product/process has rights to it.
software patents exacerbate the problem when companies are allowed to patent mathematical algorithms or trivial/obvious functionality. things like UI interfaces, JavaScript popups, portable e-mail, etc. should not be patentable. these patents do not benefit society in any way, and they have hindered technological progress rather than promote it.
The idea of a patent is to grant rights over non trivial/obvious things. I am not claiming the system works as it is intended to, but it is certainly is not meant to give rights over the obvious/trivial. The flaw here of course being the perception of what is/isn't obvious/trivial.
at the very least, non-commercial uses of patented ideas should not be prohibited. give the first inventor exclusive rights to commercial the idea, but if someone else comes along and re-invents the same concept for personal use, they should be free to do so. otherwise the patent system is just restricting free expression and stifling innovation.
I completely agree with you here. I believe that patents should concern themselves strictly with commercial use. Even independent of reinvention, I believe that if you have the means to implement anything strictly for personal use you should have the rights to.
People work hard and develop new products because they make money from doing so; and few 'people' who develop those products actually make money from patents
In this situation, you are speaking of a company developing a product, in which case they should certainly have some sorts of rights over it. As for the employees who actually performed the development, they did so "representing" the company and "forfeit" their "ownership" of the idea.
As for the specifics in different industries, that is beyond the point I was attempting to make. In the situation you brought up, the fact is that digital hardware lacks a good IP system, and in a lot of situations the protection of choice works akin to a "trade secret"
As for 'original/innovative', I don't remember seeing a single patent in that industry that wasn't clearly built on ideas that had come before; the number of truly innovative and original ideas is tiny.
Once again you are speaking of a specific industry. But even then, ideas clearly built upon ideas that have come before can still certainly be innovative. Although this is an extreme example, think wheel being an original idea & car being an innovative idea clearly based on the wheel which had come before.
Overlooking the other flaws in your statement, even if photoshop were to be considered "complex", editing raster images is most certainly not. And since in this respect patents are protecting a process, their raster image editing process would have to be patented, not photoshop itself.
Now, if you were to in fact create an innovative, more desirable method of editing raster images, you surely should have some IP rights over it since it has market value...
You are absolutely right! We should just get rid of the concept of IP and eliminate personal benefit for all future innovations. That surely will motivate people to work harder and develop new products/processes so that others with better means will reap the rewards in their place! Don't get me wrong - I am very much in favor of open IP, however proper credit & benefits are due to original/innovative work. My issue with the above post is mainly that it overlooks the fact that patents do not benefit strictly corporations. On another note, you make a good point on /. not having a -1 disagree moderation because I certainly disagree.
I would go further on your prediction by claiming that no one will use it altogether other than to just try it out. Albeit innovative for an online service, it is a feature that serves no real purpose when not imposed on the user.
Mathematically speaking that is incorrect. While the vertical and horizontal components have a continuous behavior (obviously not really continuous due to machine representation) the tabs act as a discrete element and could not be considered a dimension.
Honestly... I have NEVER commented on /. - but FFS are high school students and people majoring in BIT such a large web presence for VB to be up that high?
How many people do you consider good programmers (this is probably a bad way to put things since for most /. readers that narrows it to themselves and the one code guru they idolize) actually use VB, post VB code online or worse have online VB projects?
On another note, all development for non-pc chip sets usually on support assembly and c (some modern ones c++) - so no, with the amount of embedded systems we use now days I don't see them going away any time soon.