well after reading that i feel a little dumb as i apparently couldn't remember my first statement when writing my last.
what i mean by the "validity of the patent does not matter" is that whether it should have even been granted or whether it does, in fact, hold up in court do not matter. only it's current state does and that is that is as a valid patent.
The validity of the patent does not matter. That the patent was granted does. This means that B&N infringed Amazon's patent. That is what is wrong. It is now the court's job to decide if the patent is valid. Until the court decides otherwise, the patent is valid and infringement is illegal. Hence the injunction against B&N.
Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was. But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent. If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue. It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
If software patents are a necessary evil, and yet Amazon's use of them as a basis for a suit to defend against B&N using Amazon's technologies against them is wrong, then can you tell me why they are "necessary?" It seems to me that this is the only way to use software patents: to keep people (in this case corporate competitors) from stealing your innovations. And why isn't B&N the aggressor here? Wasn't their theft of Amazon's "1-click" technology the "first shot?"
I cannot agree with you and RMS that Amazon is offensive rather than defensive concerning their "1-click" technology. As I see it Amazon is using their patent to defend against competitor's (specifically B&N) stealing Amazon's own innovations. Why isn't B&N copying Amazon's technology "firing the first shot."
According to statmarket about 67% of web users have the Flash plugin. 2 out of 3 ain't bad for some things, but in normal, everyday web usage alienating 1/3 of potential customers/viewers is pretty dumb.
But as you say they are "IT professionals" which would surely increase the chances they have it. In my mind the fact that they are "IT professionals" will only decrease the chance that whatever they decide to test it with will actually have Flash installed. I know I wouldn't have it in there to judge this contest. This contest should be about simplicity and elegance to a given solution. Assuming Flash is present has NO elegance.
unless i've forgotten more of my math than i think i did, this is impossible. there is no way to find an "equivalent (but mathematically distinct)" function to the RSA function. this is because if you have two functions f and g such that f(x)=g(x) for all x (as would be required) then f=g. Of course, they may be written differently (i.e. a trivial case of functions written differently would be f=tan(x), g=sin(x)/cos(x)). However, this does not mean that these are not the same exact function.
Re:This review doesn't belong on Slashdot
on
Review: "Scream 3"
·
· Score: 1
who are not pop culture, and should never be pop culture
say one thing, do another? running for president, eh? well, as pop culture can only be defined as that which is popular to the "majority" your advertising for MF is only helping them get there. so which is it, eh?
Do banks use a small number of web-banking software, or does each roll their own?
Though I am not a banker nor a banking industry expert, my guess is that most banks have rolled their own web-banking software rather than go with any pre-packaged solutions that may exist. My main reason for saying this is that, in my experience, banking (and other financial institutions) seem to have the idea that the way they run their business and keep track of things is entirely different (and much more complicated) than any other bank (or equivalent financial inst.). By believing this (which isn't as true as they would like to believe) they continue to produce their own proprietary, back end software solutions. The result is an environment and a mess of custom code that would be difficult if not impossible to use pre-packaged solutions. But of course, if there were pre-packaged solutions that made this possible for a given bank, they likely would not go for it as their ways of doing business are "entirely different" from any other banks and so outside software could not do the job.
With respect to your first thought concerning the "reply to root" button being less than obvious: I believe that this is mostly by design. The fact that it is out of the way and in a less intuitive spot helps to lessen the number of replies to the post description itself. In doing so, it promotes responding to other people's messages thereby nurturing a more discussion oriented comments section. (Admittedly, discussions are few and far between down here.)
...they have a pseudo monopoly. for instance, if im out to buy a dave matthews cd I can only buy that cd from RCA/BMG. thats right, i could go buy another cd from another company but I want that dave matthews cd, and they are free to charge what they wish on the fans...
While I agree that CD prices are generally unreasonable, the argument and example you present are a bit off the mark. This is like saying that the automobile industry has a "psuedo monopoly" on cars because if I wan't a BMW Z3 Roadster I have to pay whatever the dealer is charging me. I can get a Ford Escort for less if I want to, but since I want a BMW I am stuck paying what they charge me. Expecting something else is just ludicrous.
Music companies are going to charge a price the market will bare. Obviously the more popular products are going to cost more than their less popular counterparts. In other words, the music industry charges $15+ dollars for CDs because people will buy them for $15+ dollars. Supply...demand...
I find JonKatz articles and writings to be sickeningly sensationalist, blatantly boring, and outrageously outlandish. It is as though he picks the most mundane of subjects, and stares at a wall until he thinks of some way this affects society in a negative way.
It's as though you picked the easiest target on Slashdot and stared at a wall until you thought of some way to insult the man. Jealous of his writing I am sure, your use of alliteration sucks.
Don't take this personally, there are lots of people in the world like you, and I ignore them too.
Do you ignore all of them this well? Really, a fabulous job to be sure. Keep up the good work.
Great idea. So let's not complain the next time id grabs video card information, Real grabs music preference information, sites track users navigation, and some comany you do business with sells your personal information to some other company. One word...Privacy...it's simply one's right to keep their information their information.
...his trust in the market to favour a Java-compatible implementation. As such things go, I doubt that the market would favour any such thing.
I completely disagree with this statement as I can think of a number of reasons supporting the contrary. It seems that application developers who are going to be using Java (or some forked variant thereof) would prefer to use an entirely compatible implementation. This would allow the application to run on any platform with a certified VM. Now obviously a forked implementation could also create new forked VMs for all these platforms, but that would be a heck of a lot of work and how about being able to use the application in an environment which already has a compatible VM installed for other purposes. There is no reason why I want two different VMs running for the same basic purpose. From the perspective of a consulting shop such as IBM who strive for high reuse from code on one project o be used on another, there is very little that is compelling one to use a superset, forked version of Java. If this new version of Java is used on a project, the reuse is limited only to projects that have the same environment, which is very limiting.
IBM's "official" response to Sun's recent actions can be found here and states that though IBM does not support Sun's moves their implementation will still conform to Sun's specs. In other words, they seem to have no plan to fork. With IBM and Sun backing the same implementation of Java it would be hard to get any fork to be widely used and all attempts will likely end up on the garbage pile with J++.
...received a gift that had been ordered online. It was intact and on time. But when Ms. Perkett opened the box, she found the gift - and the invoice.
You mean, they have the gall to send me a receipt with my purchase? Give me a break. This isn't a problem, it's a good thing. And if I order a gift for someone online and have it shipped directly to them, I should realize that they'll be getting the receipt. And that they should, if it's broken (or some other problem, etc.) and they are halfway across the country, they should be able to return it. And for that my friends we need a frickin' receipt.
Incorrect inventory DBs are likely only a fraction of the problem with shipping delays. In fact, I would venture that most of these companies have up to date, accurate DBs of their inventory. However, just because I currently have none of a given item does not mean that I should say it is out of stock. If I do that's business lost and if I am expecting a new shipment in that will have the given item, well hell, I've as good as got it. Of course, now that truck ends up arriving later than expected and that just propagates. In addition, even though there are statements like "this product usually ships between 24 and 48 hours" these are likely estimated when normal shopping traffic occurs, not during the holidays, and yet people will take them as scripture. Instead you will have delays in getting things out of the warehouse (the warehouse workers have a lot more work to do during the holidays, things aren't going to keep running as usual) and delays using whatever courier service you use (let's face it, sometimes overnight delivery isn't going to be overnight delivery). When ones expectations of the process are unreasonably high, then obviously you'll be disappointed.
And you bet Andersen has a reason to publish this "study" as they are a consulting firm and would love to be able to say to a potential client "Look, 25% of all online transactions fail. We can get your business online and help you avoid these problems (or fix them if you already are online)." Make them think that without you they are losing money and you've got them paying you money for your services.
Well, a search for "Timberwolves" (as in the MN Timberwolves) returned 2 matches while a search for "Linux" returned only 469 and compared to other engines it is slow (couple seconds per search). Google returned 21600 and 829000 matches respectively and both in under a second. I am sure that Google is probably running on more/faster machines, but I'm not going to do anything one place if I can do it quicker somewhere else. If they expect anyone to use it, they better get to indexing those 80 million pages every 3 months or they won't have be serving more than 10 searches a day. And I'll second the motion that the interface sucks. Needs a good deal of work.
I see IBM (and HP also) as entirely different than MS here and can not see them developing their own versions of Java. It makes sense for MS to bastardize Java because they are enitrely for the proprietization of the language to the Windows platform. They have nothing else but Windows and do not desire their "enhancements" be available on anything else. IBM and HP on the other hand have a much larger set of platforms which they support in various ways. In the case of IBM, polluting Java would require polluting it for OS/390, OS400, AIX, as well as Windows, Linux and many other operating systems that they often make their products available for. IBM is very concerned about portability as many of their software applications run on several (or more) platforms. Just check pretty much any product at www.software.ibm.com and you will likely see that the product you look at is available on several platforms (MQSeries is available for well over 20 different platforms and is not alone). IBM is making a big push in the Java arena already specifically for its platform independence and development speed, polluting Java would not make sense for them. This is an investment which they have already made and very likely will continue to do so and not by bastardizing the language.
For those too lazy to look past the first page at CNet here's the reason they didn't use SuSE 6.3:
Editors' note: SuSE released version 6.3 of SuSE Linux too late to be included in this review. According to the company, the new version includes 230 additional software packages, a new graphical installer that automatically detects hardware, and a revised manual. Look for our review of SuSE Linux 6.3 in the near future.
Man I totally konw what you're saying. I mean, I noticed that they seemed biased in the amount of towards the coverage of the last olympics (in Atlanta) giving it precedence over other sports and their football summaries always seem to paint the Falcons in the best light possible. Of course they made sure to include in their stories on the World Series how the Braves were cheated out the championship. Damn refs. And it all makes sense...just look at where CNN Interactive is based. Conspiracy theory my ass.
Very cool. I am wondering how well it handles any sort of realistic terrain. Works well on a nice piece of flat pavement but does it still work on ground with a few more bumps. If it could this would be the ultimate in surveillance. The go anywhere, do anything spy.
Slashdot Mirror
what i mean by the "validity of the patent does not matter" is that whether it should have even been granted or whether it does, in fact, hold up in court do not matter. only it's current state does and that is that is as a valid patent.
The validity of the patent does not matter. That the patent was granted does. This means that B&N infringed Amazon's patent. That is what is wrong. It is now the court's job to decide if the patent is valid. Until the court decides otherwise, the patent is valid and infringement is illegal. Hence the injunction against B&N.
Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was. But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent. If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue. It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
If software patents are a necessary evil, and yet Amazon's use of them as a basis for a suit to defend against B&N using Amazon's technologies against them is wrong, then can you tell me why they are "necessary?" It seems to me that this is the only way to use software patents: to keep people (in this case corporate competitors) from stealing your innovations. And why isn't B&N the aggressor here? Wasn't their theft of Amazon's "1-click" technology the "first shot?"
I cannot agree with you and RMS that Amazon is offensive rather than defensive concerning their "1-click" technology. As I see it Amazon is using their patent to defend against competitor's (specifically B&N) stealing Amazon's own innovations. Why isn't B&N copying Amazon's technology "firing the first shot."
BTW you ever try going to www.slashdot.com? no? hmmm...
But as you say they are "IT professionals" which would surely increase the chances they have it. In my mind the fact that they are "IT professionals" will only decrease the chance that whatever they decide to test it with will actually have Flash installed. I know I wouldn't have it in there to judge this contest. This contest should be about simplicity and elegance to a given solution. Assuming Flash is present has NO elegance.
note to self: dust off math books (it's something i've been meaning to do for a while now)
unless i've forgotten more of my math than i think i did, this is impossible. there is no way to find an "equivalent (but mathematically distinct)" function to the RSA function. this is because if you have two functions f and g such that f(x)=g(x) for all x (as would be required) then f=g. Of course, they may be written differently (i.e. a trivial case of functions written differently would be f=tan(x), g=sin(x)/cos(x)). However, this does not mean that these are not the same exact function.
say one thing, do another? running for president, eh? well, as pop culture can only be defined as that which is popular to the "majority" your advertising for MF is only helping them get there. so which is it, eh?
Though I am not a banker nor a banking industry expert, my guess is that most banks have rolled their own web-banking software rather than go with any pre-packaged solutions that may exist. My main reason for saying this is that, in my experience, banking (and other financial institutions) seem to have the idea that the way they run their business and keep track of things is entirely different (and much more complicated) than any other bank (or equivalent financial inst.). By believing this (which isn't as true as they would like to believe) they continue to produce their own proprietary, back end software solutions. The result is an environment and a mess of custom code that would be difficult if not impossible to use pre-packaged solutions. But of course, if there were pre-packaged solutions that made this possible for a given bank, they likely would not go for it as their ways of doing business are "entirely different" from any other banks and so outside software could not do the job.
With respect to your first thought concerning the "reply to root" button being less than obvious: I believe that this is mostly by design. The fact that it is out of the way and in a less intuitive spot helps to lessen the number of replies to the post description itself. In doing so, it promotes responding to other people's messages thereby nurturing a more discussion oriented comments section. (Admittedly, discussions are few and far between down here.)
Whoever the hell marked this thing Insightful should have moderator priveleges revoked...or the crack taken out of their pipe.
While I agree that CD prices are generally unreasonable, the argument and example you present are a bit off the mark. This is like saying that the automobile industry has a "psuedo monopoly" on cars because if I wan't a BMW Z3 Roadster I have to pay whatever the dealer is charging me. I can get a Ford Escort for less if I want to, but since I want a BMW I am stuck paying what they charge me. Expecting something else is just ludicrous.
Music companies are going to charge a price the market will bare. Obviously the more popular products are going to cost more than their less popular counterparts. In other words, the music industry charges $15+ dollars for CDs because people will buy them for $15+ dollars. Supply...demand...
It's as though you picked the easiest target on Slashdot and stared at a wall until you thought of some way to insult the man. Jealous of his writing I am sure, your use of alliteration sucks.
Do you ignore all of them this well? Really, a fabulous job to be sure. Keep up the good work.
So why not just to set all information free.
Great idea. So let's not complain the next time id grabs video card information, Real grabs music preference information, sites track users navigation, and some comany you do business with sells your personal information to some other company. One word...Privacy...it's simply one's right to keep their information their information.
...his trust in the market to favour a Java-compatible implementation. As such things go, I doubt that the market would favour any such thing.
I completely disagree with this statement as I can think of a number of reasons supporting the contrary. It seems that application developers who are going to be using Java (or some forked variant thereof) would prefer to use an entirely compatible implementation. This would allow the application to run on any platform with a certified VM. Now obviously a forked implementation could also create new forked VMs for all these platforms, but that would be a heck of a lot of work and how about being able to use the application in an environment which already has a compatible VM installed for other purposes. There is no reason why I want two different VMs running for the same basic purpose.
From the perspective of a consulting shop such as IBM who strive for high reuse from code on one project o be used on another, there is very little that is compelling one to use a superset, forked version of Java. If this new version of Java is used on a project, the reuse is limited only to projects that have the same environment, which is very limiting.
IBM's "official" response to Sun's recent actions can be found here and states that though IBM does not support Sun's moves their implementation will still conform to Sun's specs. In other words, they seem to have no plan to fork. With IBM and Sun backing the same implementation of Java it would be hard to get any fork to be widely used and all attempts will likely end up on the garbage pile with J++.
And get this...
...received a gift that had been ordered online. It was intact and on time. But when Ms. Perkett opened the box, she found the gift - and the invoice.
You mean, they have the gall to send me a receipt with my purchase? Give me a break. This isn't a problem, it's a good thing. And if I order a gift for someone online and have it shipped directly to them, I should realize that they'll be getting the receipt. And that they should, if it's broken (or some other problem, etc.) and they are halfway across the country, they should be able to return it. And for that my friends we need a frickin' receipt.
Incorrect inventory DBs are likely only a fraction of the problem with shipping delays. In fact, I would venture that most of these companies have up to date, accurate DBs of their inventory. However, just because I currently have none of a given item does not mean that I should say it is out of stock. If I do that's business lost and if I am expecting a new shipment in that will have the given item, well hell, I've as good as got it. Of course, now that truck ends up arriving later than expected and that just propagates. In addition, even though there are statements like "this product usually ships between 24 and 48 hours" these are likely estimated when normal shopping traffic occurs, not during the holidays, and yet people will take them as scripture. Instead you will have delays in getting things out of the warehouse (the warehouse workers have a lot more work to do during the holidays, things aren't going to keep running as usual) and delays using whatever courier service you use (let's face it, sometimes overnight delivery isn't going to be overnight delivery). When ones expectations of the process are unreasonably high, then obviously you'll be disappointed.
And you bet Andersen has a reason to publish this "study" as they are a consulting firm and would love to be able to say to a potential client "Look, 25% of all online transactions fail. We can get your business online and help you avoid these problems (or fix them if you already are online)." Make them think that without you they are losing money and you've got them paying you money for your services.
Well, a search for "Timberwolves" (as in the MN Timberwolves) returned 2 matches while a search for "Linux" returned only 469 and compared to other engines it is slow (couple seconds per search). Google returned 21600 and 829000 matches respectively and both in under a second. I am sure that Google is probably running on more/faster machines, but I'm not going to do anything one place if I can do it quicker somewhere else. If they expect anyone to use it, they better get to indexing those 80 million pages every 3 months or they won't have be serving more than 10 searches a day. And I'll second the motion that the interface sucks. Needs a good deal of work.
I see IBM (and HP also) as entirely different than MS here and can not see them developing their own versions of Java. It makes sense for MS to bastardize Java because they are enitrely for the proprietization of the language to the Windows platform. They have nothing else but Windows and do not desire their "enhancements" be available on anything else. IBM and HP on the other hand have a much larger set of platforms which they support in various ways. In the case of IBM, polluting Java would require polluting it for OS/390, OS400, AIX, as well as Windows, Linux and many other operating systems that they often make their products available for. IBM is very concerned about portability as many of their software applications run on several (or more) platforms. Just check pretty much any product at www.software.ibm.com and you will likely see that the product you look at is available on several platforms (MQSeries is available for well over 20 different platforms and is not alone). IBM is making a big push in the Java arena already specifically for its platform independence and development speed, polluting Java would not make sense for them. This is an investment which they have already made and very likely will continue to do so and not by bastardizing the language.
For those too lazy to look past the first page at CNet here's the reason they didn't use SuSE 6.3:
Editors' note: SuSE released version 6.3 of SuSE Linux too late to be included in this review. According to the company, the new version includes 230 additional software packages, a new graphical installer that automatically detects hardware, and a revised manual. Look for our review of SuSE Linux 6.3 in the near future.
Another good place is the Kosmic Free Music Foundation. Lots of good stuff.
Man I totally konw what you're saying. I mean, I noticed that they seemed biased in the amount of towards the coverage of the last olympics (in Atlanta) giving it precedence over other sports and their football summaries always seem to paint the Falcons in the best light possible. Of course they made sure to include in their stories on the World Series how the Braves were cheated out the championship. Damn refs.
And it all makes sense...just look at where CNN Interactive is based.
Conspiracy theory my ass.
Very cool. I am wondering how well it handles any sort of realistic terrain. Works well on a nice piece of flat pavement but does it still work on ground with a few more bumps. If it could this would be the ultimate in surveillance. The go anywhere, do anything spy.