Suppose you have a software patent on [algorithm]. I implement [algorithm] in LISP. Surely your patent applies to my implementation. Except that my implementation is nearly identical to an equivalent formula in Lambda calculus (except for syntax). Lambda calculus is math. Math isn't patentable. So your patent actually doesn't apply to my implementation. Which is absurd (how is it that patents "care" which language you write in?).
What conclusions are you talking about? It's an opinion piece. Obviously the author holds an opinion you disagree with. That doesn't make him wrong. Oh, and opinions don't need cold hard proof. He does have a point about HS Geometry (WTF is the reasoning behind distinguishing between AB and AB-with-bar-on-top? It's total formalism and you shouldn't start the class with it.).
The $150 isn't just for the "sync glasses" service, it's primarily for delivery and installation of the TV. --... and then they built the supercollider.
I love how your sig goes with your comment, sorta.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? How can anything be worse than emacs? Why bother trying to get worse?
Don't look at WP's article on Goatse, IIRC it has an image of the site (i.e. use lynx instead!).
Is it a business letter or a personal letter?
There is a better way. It's called Dvorak. Unfortunately, QWERTY is entrenched.
"I just love how he thinks this is worth $100 million!"
I think he thinks if he says it enough times it will come true.
Like SCO/Darl McBride?
Suppose you have a software patent on [algorithm]. I implement [algorithm] in LISP. Surely your patent applies to my implementation. Except that my implementation is nearly identical to an equivalent formula in Lambda calculus (except for syntax). Lambda calculus is math. Math isn't patentable. So your patent actually doesn't apply to my implementation. Which is absurd (how is it that patents "care" which language you write in?).
You're the first person to use the word "prove" in this discussion IIRC. Certainly the person who posted the Knuth quote didn't use that word.
That's good enough IMHO. Remind me, what exactly is the problem with embedded device patents?
petty little squabbles
Wouldn't it be simpler to just nuke the entire middle east and move on?
What about by assuming the thing in question exists and then deriving a contradiction?
What kind of bucket?
Oh, you want Star Wars?
Demos always have all the good parts and no story line. How are you supposed to make an informed decision based on that?
Google doesn't have "explicit ANDs".
So use GNP instead.
What conclusions are you talking about? It's an opinion piece. Obviously the author holds an opinion you disagree with. That doesn't make him wrong. Oh, and opinions don't need cold hard proof. He does have a point about HS Geometry (WTF is the reasoning behind distinguishing between AB and AB-with-bar-on-top? It's total formalism and you shouldn't start the class with it.).
The $150 isn't just for the "sync glasses" service, it's primarily for delivery and installation of the TV. ... and then they built the supercollider.
--
I love how your sig goes with your comment, sorta.
Sounds like head tracking to me.
I don't know what GP was thinking... BOFH-tactics usually involve electricity and/or Halon.
Surely, the governments are not working completely outside of the normal "democratic" system?
Of course they are. That's the whole point of ACTA.
Like this?
IIRC he had a false eye at one point.
All your file are belong to us.
FTFY.
IANAL.
How about the fact that you can reduce any turing-equivalent language to Lambda calculus, which is math, which is ineligible for patenting?