Language differences are about a lot more than just syntax. If all you want to do is crank out code without respect to whether or not it's implemented well in the chosen language (based on its own idiosynchrasies), then I suppose that learning the syntax alone might be enough. I dare say though, that most people will have a rough time becoming proficient using C++ templates after only two weeks, or settling on a reasonable memory management scheme after spending most of their time with Java.
I'd say that once you know the syntax, you've only mastered the least common denominator. Then you have to factor in the time required to master the language itself.
It seems like this patent is Google's entree into the slimy practice of patenting anything it can get its hands on. Google will be able to share its presence with other notable offenders, like Amazon, Microsoft, and several other firms. Because this is a principle in which I believe strongly, Google's method of advertising, though arguably one of the better ones in practice, will take a back seat to other, more salient issues - like their willingness to patent methods that have prior art, and that aren't really innovative. My willingness to continue using Google will last as long as its willingness to remain free of stupid patents.
Yes, the next person to discover such a vulnerability should carefully document it, bring it to Cisco's attention in no uncertain terms, and then wait. I understand he waited four months, but the time to strike (that will have an impact on how these issues are handled in the future), is AFTER someone has been harmed by the exploit, and the injured party's attorney is looking for discoverable evidence to support a sizable lawsuit.
Wouldn't your average lawyer say the same thing about programmers?
I dont know-- maybe someone can ask the next lawyer they see how well they'd function without e-mail, WordPerfect, Lexis-Nexis, etc. At least with programmers, it's gobbledygook that does something.
First one to patent in the absence of prior art, wins. The problem is that companies knowingly omit prior art from their patent applications (or include only very general mention of it), thereby heaping a huge burden onto the USPTO. The USPTO often just shrugs its shoulders, grants the patent, and looks for these messes to be ironed out in court. Maybe some laws that enact stiff fines for companies who fail to perform due diligence when citing prior art would put a stop to this practice.
The incident in the early eighties that is said to have spurred the growth of software patents was a Supreme Court decision in 1981 that that granted James Diehr, an engineer, a patent that was intially denied by the patent office. The Patent office claimed that since software is not patentable, one cannot combine software with a conventional process to make it patentable.
However, since the ruling applied to a physical process controlled by a computer program, this still left the question as to whether or not a computer program, by iself, was patentable. In 1994, a Federal Appeals court ruled that standalone software programs can be patented (In re Alappat). Oddly, the decision doesn't provide for the protection of software per se, but views the computer as a new machine once the software has been loaded.
Even more interesting, is that the claim itself applies to the method used to smooth the waveforms rendered by oscilliscopes so that they appear as continuous, non-jagged waveforms. The description sounds remarkably close to what we know as anti-aliasing- a process that is very common in many different graphics-related applications. It begs the question - if loading this process (a mathematical algorithm) into a computer (or a piece of hardware) makes the machine patentable, where does that leave patents that exist solely on the software itself? If the method of antialiasing had been patented, we'd all be paying royalties to someone, or simply living with rasterized images that contain visual discontinuities(jaggies).
In light of all of this, it seems to me that there is still some room for legal intervention/clarification.
The patent office decided on its own accord to begin granting patents to software methods. There was no bill passed by Congress, or signed by the President. There were two fairly significant cases that led to this - one was a case in the early 80's that included software as a means of regulating another process. However, people began to interpret this to mean that software could now be patented.
Later, there was the Compton's case, where the producers of Compton's electronic encyclopedia claimed ownership of the entire concept of multimedia. This patent was thrown out, but may have served as catalyst to further escalate the patent madness.
One of the key problems is that because there are so many patents being filed, and so much revenue being generated in the way of patent fees, this has created an entrenched interest - those in the government who value the money more than they care about the havoc that it is causing. Congress could have easily put an end to this...but true to form (or is that lack of form - you can't have form without a spine) they ignored it, and continue to do so.
If anything, this exodus should be a wakeup call for legislators to do something constructive for once, by crafting a law that makes the patenting of software methods illegal.
If it is, there are probably lots of people out JUST for the money, that don't really know what they are doing. I seem to remember reading an article somewhere about someone posting their offering on the bulletin board in a local grocery store, and was dumbfounded at the number of calls he received from people who needed something fixed that had been screwed up someone that didn't have the competence to solve their problem.
It's like any other industry- just because you take your car into get the brakes repaired, by no means guarantees quality workmanship.
Not to thwart the CYA mentality in the Whitehouse, I heard that all printed paged automatically have the word "CLASSIFIED" printed on them. That saves them from having to dig up their rubber stamps each time they're about to do something stupid^W in the interest of national security.
Back when the 2nd Amendment was penned, times were interesting - if a well-armed militia meant a well-armed citizenry, what that did was put the citizens and government military on equal footing. To my knowledge, there wasn't much differentiation with respect to the weapons used by the military and those used by citizens. If the citizens had to defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control, they could- and it would be a fair fight.
Contrast this with the conditions we have today...we still have the 2nd Amendment, but the difference between what the government has at its disposal, and what the citizens are allowed to have, makes me wonder if it would even be *possible* to defend against such an occurrance.
Inkscape and Gimp are designed to meet two different needs, although there may be a small amount of crossover. Gimp isn't quite Photoshop, but I've used it for quite a while now. It's not perfect, but it's very capable, and I'm encouraged by its ongoing development.
Just because it may cost customers money because of a flaw does not mean this was intentional or even wrong.
I don't think I suggested it was intentional or wrong, but I am suggesting that citing the amount money it may have cost Microsoft to release a patch is every bit as irrelevent. I might also suggest that if Microsoft wishes to shoulder so much of the world's trust with respect to its use of computers, it better damn well be prepared to deal with the consequences of its failed QA.
Here's the problem - with many transactions, any continued control by the vendor is relinquished at the point of sale. If I purchase a couch, once I pay for it and take it off the premises, I can burn it for all the vendor cares. But I can also re-sell it. I can also put it in any room, within any structure that I may choose- the vendor has neither any say in any of these matters, nor any knowledge.
Microsoft is working diligently to make sure that it has complete control long after the sale. To be sure, piracy is wrong. But having to look down the barrel of a gun every time you reasonably expect Micorosoft to do its job (correct defects via periodic updates), any time you need Microsoft's approval to do what you want with your property, is WORSE.
But... when MS releases a patch, they are spending millions of dollars on R&D, advertising, lawyer fees, etc - this is supposed to be for legitimate users only.
When MS releases a patch, it's usually to correct a defect which either has already, or may, cost its customers boatloads of money.
The Gorillaz. I'm not so sure I like the music as much as I've liked other material, but there are some very innovative things about this effort. It is a "virtual" band, which means that the artists who write/perform the group's music can be as varied as the music itself. The site itself is entirely flash-based, but it's creative. The videos are available in the Cinema, which you can easily get to by using the directory on the wall.
Second, it's accompanied by some of the more artistic videos I've seen in a long time. When music videos first hit the scene, there was a conscious effort to actually produce something creative. For quite a while now it's been mostly the same tired crap, a formula re-worked, and re-worked, and re-worked...I'd had enough of it a long time ago. The only thing I do not like about the videos on the Gorillaz website is that they're only available in RealPlayer or Windows Media Player formats.
It seems that every so often, the U.S. political climate morphs into a cesspool of self-importance and self-indulgence. The current climate is no exception. But, if anything, history has shown us that things can swing back in the other direction- let's just hope it does after the WhiteHouse is cleansed of all the Bushnic political mildew.
People should also realize that software provides them the means to accomplish tasks they would not be able to accomplish otherwise. Herein lies the value of one's time, and whether it's more economical to allocate funds to the purchase of software that can do a job faster and better, or stick with something manual. The actual physical cost of reproducing the software itself is miniscule...the value it provides, however, can be quite substantial.
He said the testing is designed to find out what kind of data airlines will need to get - such as passengers' birthdates - so they can turn it over to the government to check against watch lists.
I don't know whether to break out in hysterical laughter, or start sobbing uncontrollably. I can't think of a single reason that a few HUNDRED names (a thousand might be pushing it) wouldn't have provided this information. Or...maybe just thinking the process through for a minute. Now there's a novel idea.
This is why it is ALWAYS better to never LET the data fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Of course, this was engineered by the same governmental infalliblity that gave us the WMD fantasy, so there wasn't much people could do to stop it. I'd suggest rolling some heads this coming election, but that requires a spine- I'm not sure American voters are up to the task.
I guess we have different ideas about what "self-sufficient" means. In my book, it means that there is no welfare involved. There are no kickbacks, payoffs, grants, or other "incentives".
The only reason companies like Dell get away with this is because they'll put thousands to millions of local people to work.
So? What you're saying is that Dell gets a huge kickback if it can create a tax revenue stream funded by the employees. Maybe it's time corporations be subject to a welfare-to-work program of their own, that reintroduces a company to the notion of self-sufficiency.
Whether you and I like it or not, the fact is that intellectual property is one of the US's largest exports and the income that it brings into this this country plays a major role in the quality of life we enjoy.
Really? Is that before or after all of the tax breaks, subsidies, and other corporate welfare? Did you happen to catch the article over at the register about the handouts that Dell will be receiving from North Carolina?
Slashdot Mirror
Language differences are about a lot more than just syntax. If all you want to do is crank out code without respect to whether or not it's implemented well in the chosen language (based on its own idiosynchrasies), then I suppose that learning the syntax alone might be enough. I dare say though, that most people will have a rough time becoming proficient using C++ templates after only two weeks, or settling on a reasonable memory management scheme after spending most of their time with Java.
I'd say that once you know the syntax, you've only mastered the least common denominator. Then you have to factor in the time required to master the language itself.
It seems like this patent is Google's entree into the slimy practice of patenting anything it can get its hands on. Google will be able to share its presence with other notable offenders, like Amazon, Microsoft, and several other firms. Because this is a principle in which I believe strongly, Google's method of advertising, though arguably one of the better ones in practice, will take a back seat to other, more salient issues - like their willingness to patent methods that have prior art, and that aren't really innovative. My willingness to continue using Google will last as long as its willingness to remain free of stupid patents.
Yes, the next person to discover such a vulnerability should carefully document it, bring it to Cisco's attention in no uncertain terms, and then wait. I understand he waited four months, but the time to strike (that will have an impact on how these issues are handled in the future), is AFTER someone has been harmed by the exploit, and the injured party's attorney is looking for discoverable evidence to support a sizable lawsuit.
Wouldn't your average lawyer say the same thing about programmers?
I dont know-- maybe someone can ask the next lawyer they see how well they'd function without e-mail, WordPerfect, Lexis-Nexis, etc. At least with programmers, it's gobbledygook that does something.
First one to patent in the absence of prior art, wins. The problem is that companies knowingly omit prior art from their patent applications (or include only very general mention of it), thereby heaping a huge burden onto the USPTO. The USPTO often just shrugs its shoulders, grants the patent, and looks for these messes to be ironed out in court. Maybe some laws that enact stiff fines for companies who fail to perform due diligence when citing prior art would put a stop to this practice.
The incident in the early eighties that is said to have spurred the growth of software patents was a Supreme Court decision in 1981 that that granted James Diehr, an engineer, a patent that was intially denied by the patent office. The Patent office claimed that since software is not patentable, one cannot combine software with a conventional process to make it patentable.
However, since the ruling applied to a physical process controlled by a computer program, this still left the question as to whether or not a computer program, by iself, was patentable. In 1994, a Federal Appeals court ruled that standalone software programs can be patented (In re Alappat). Oddly, the decision doesn't provide for the protection of software per se, but views the computer as a new machine once the software has been loaded.
Even more interesting, is that the claim itself applies to the method used to smooth the waveforms rendered by oscilliscopes so that they appear as continuous, non-jagged waveforms. The description sounds remarkably close to what we know as anti-aliasing- a process that is very common in many different graphics-related applications. It begs the question - if loading this process (a mathematical algorithm) into a computer (or a piece of hardware) makes the machine patentable, where does that leave patents that exist solely on the software itself? If the method of antialiasing had been patented, we'd all be paying royalties to someone, or simply living with rasterized images that contain visual discontinuities(jaggies).
In light of all of this, it seems to me that there is still some room for legal intervention/clarification.
The patent office decided on its own accord to begin granting patents to software methods. There was no bill passed by Congress, or signed by the President. There were two fairly significant cases that led to this - one was a case in the early 80's that included software as a means of regulating another process. However, people began to interpret this to mean that software could now be patented.
Later, there was the Compton's case, where the producers of Compton's electronic encyclopedia claimed ownership of the entire concept of multimedia. This patent was thrown out, but may have served as catalyst to further escalate the patent madness.
One of the key problems is that because there are so many patents being filed, and so much revenue being generated in the way of patent fees, this has created an entrenched interest - those in the government who value the money more than they care about the havoc that it is causing. Congress could have easily put an end to this...but true to form (or is that lack of form - you can't have form without a spine) they ignored it, and continue to do so.
If anything, this exodus should be a wakeup call for legislators to do something constructive for once, by crafting a law that makes the patenting of software methods illegal.
If it is, there are probably lots of people out JUST for the money, that don't really know what they are doing. I seem to remember reading an article somewhere about someone posting their offering on the bulletin board in a local grocery store, and was dumbfounded at the number of calls he received from people who needed something fixed that had been screwed up someone that didn't have the competence to solve their problem.
It's like any other industry- just because you take your car into get the brakes repaired, by no means guarantees quality workmanship.
What I'd like to know is the probability of an RFID tag even surviving an explosion.
Now you have a web browser. ...and someone monitoring your every move.
Not to thwart the CYA mentality in the Whitehouse, I heard that all printed paged automatically have the word "CLASSIFIED" printed on them. That saves them from having to dig up their rubber stamps each time they're about to do something stupid^W in the interest of national security.
Back when the 2nd Amendment was penned, times were interesting - if a well-armed militia meant a well-armed citizenry, what that did was put the citizens and government military on equal footing. To my knowledge, there wasn't much differentiation with respect to the weapons used by the military and those used by citizens. If the citizens had to defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control, they could- and it would be a fair fight.
Contrast this with the conditions we have today...we still have the 2nd Amendment, but the difference between what the government has at its disposal, and what the citizens are allowed to have, makes me wonder if it would even be *possible* to defend against such an occurrance.
Inkscape and Gimp are designed to meet two different needs, although there may be a small amount of crossover. Gimp isn't quite Photoshop, but I've used it for quite a while now. It's not perfect, but it's very capable, and I'm encouraged by its ongoing development.
Just because it may cost customers money because of a flaw does not mean this was intentional or even wrong.
I don't think I suggested it was intentional or wrong, but I am suggesting that citing the amount money it may have cost Microsoft to release a patch is every bit as irrelevent. I might also suggest that if Microsoft wishes to shoulder so much of the world's trust with respect to its use of computers, it better damn well be prepared to deal with the consequences of its failed QA.
Here's the problem - with many transactions, any continued control by the vendor is relinquished at the point of sale. If I purchase a couch, once I pay for it and take it off the premises, I can burn it for all the vendor cares. But I can also re-sell it. I can also put it in any room, within any structure that I may choose- the vendor has neither any say in any of these matters, nor any knowledge.
Microsoft is working diligently to make sure that it has complete control long after the sale. To be sure, piracy is wrong. But having to look down the barrel of a gun every time you reasonably expect Micorosoft to do its job (correct defects via periodic updates), any time you need Microsoft's approval to do what you want with your property, is WORSE.
But... when MS releases a patch, they are spending millions of dollars on R&D, advertising, lawyer fees, etc - this is supposed to be for legitimate users only.
When MS releases a patch, it's usually to correct a defect which either has already, or may, cost its customers boatloads of money.
They aren't, which is my mistake. They are, however, rather innovative with respect the points that I mentioned.
The Gorillaz. I'm not so sure I like the music as much as I've liked other material, but there are some very innovative things about this effort. It is a "virtual" band, which means that the artists who write/perform the group's music can be as varied as the music itself. The site itself is entirely flash-based, but it's creative. The videos are available in the Cinema, which you can easily get to by using the directory on the wall.
Second, it's accompanied by some of the more artistic videos I've seen in a long time. When music videos first hit the scene, there was a conscious effort to actually produce something creative. For quite a while now it's been mostly the same tired crap, a formula re-worked, and re-worked, and re-worked...I'd had enough of it a long time ago. The only thing I do not like about the videos on the Gorillaz website is that they're only available in RealPlayer or Windows Media Player formats.
It seems that every so often, the U.S. political climate morphs into a cesspool of self-importance and self-indulgence. The current climate is no exception. But, if anything, history has shown us that things can swing back in the other direction- let's just hope it does after the WhiteHouse is cleansed of all the Bushnic political mildew.
People should also realize that software provides them the means to accomplish tasks they would not be able to accomplish otherwise. Herein lies the value of one's time, and whether it's more economical to allocate funds to the purchase of software that can do a job faster and better, or stick with something manual. The actual physical cost of reproducing the software itself is miniscule...the value it provides, however, can be quite substantial.
He said the testing is designed to find out what kind of data airlines will need to get - such as passengers' birthdates - so they can turn it over to the government to check against watch lists.
I don't know whether to break out in hysterical laughter, or start sobbing uncontrollably. I can't think of a single reason that a few HUNDRED names (a thousand might be pushing it) wouldn't have provided this information. Or...maybe just thinking the process through for a minute. Now there's a novel idea.
This is why it is ALWAYS better to never LET the data fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Of course, this was engineered by the same governmental infalliblity that gave us the WMD fantasy, so there wasn't much people could do to stop it. I'd suggest rolling some heads this coming election, but that requires a spine- I'm not sure American voters are up to the task.
I guess we have different ideas about what "self-sufficient" means. In my book, it means that there is no welfare involved. There are no kickbacks, payoffs, grants, or other "incentives".
The only reason companies like Dell get away with this is because they'll put thousands to millions of local people to work.
So? What you're saying is that Dell gets a huge kickback if it can create a tax revenue stream funded by the employees. Maybe it's time corporations be subject to a welfare-to-work program of their own, that reintroduces a company to the notion of self-sufficiency.
Whether you and I like it or not, the fact is that intellectual property is one of the US's largest exports and the income that it brings into this this country plays a major role in the quality of life we enjoy.
Really? Is that before or after all of the tax breaks, subsidies, and other corporate welfare? Did you happen to catch the article over at the register about the handouts that Dell will be receiving from North Carolina?