Their point was that websites that lack videos are sliding into irrelevance - nothing to do with which technology is used. I much prefer skimmable text over a video and agree with them.
It's still not a good idea, whether MS says so or not. Then again, I question the reasoning of an entire collection of email being in a single point of failure file. Especially one that corrupts easily over a certain size (at least before the newer 64-bit format). Maybe the index, but why the contents? Something more like Maildir makes a lot of sense. Apple Mail also puts each email in its own file - which is what I've been using for years now...at least at home.
At work, I keep Outlook PST files local - and I don't have the problems that my coworkers do. I changed from the SOP default for a good reason.
I personally had to deal with the IRS a few times, every time I was told it was "illegal" for them to use email, and they used mail or phone exclusively. Maybe they have different policies for different departments, but I've tried, mutliple times, and have never seen an email from an IRS employee.
I'm sure they're most concerned with internal emails. It's no surprise the IRS wouldn't rely on email as a primary official communication, but that's not the same thing.
They already have a firm hired to act as the Registered Agent for their corporation. That person would likely be the one to show up in court to represent them. The corporation would be the plaintiff, not the authors. May not be a simple case, but it wouldn't be a default judgement, either.
1+1 is certainly concrete as much as the fact that certain kinds of apple are red. You are trying to use some sort of literary definition of abstract, but that's not applicable here.
You're misreading the idea of building blocks. Building blocks aren't about their importance. It's about it being incomplete. You have to have a complete idea - a full algorithm. For example, you can't just say "and it will be encrypted" - you have to be specific with a novel use of that encryption for it to be a valid claim.
So it was invalidated because of one the claims was no more concrete than "on a computer." I don't know the implications of that. Maybe, as you said, the rest of the claims would then have to be proven obvious/prior for the patent not to stand. So they maybe overlooked that detail when they didn't actually have the authority to, even though it gave the end result that everyone wanted.
If you're talking about a consumer that lazy/uninformed, they probably don't even know they're not getting USB3 speeds, and will remark at how fast it is.
The protocol isn't slow, but anyone can get a bad implementation. When you say the TV took 3 minutes to switch - switch to what?
First off, the receiver shouldn't be sending the signal to the TV to change inputs if that's why it woke up. Yet another problem with the implementation, but not the spec.
If the set top box switches off due to HDMI-CEC, it doesn't necessarily have to switch on when the TV is on - and probably shouldn't. As you said, you might be planning to watch a DVD. Instead, it should have a low-power mode (much like a Roku, e.g.) that displays a simple message on the screen telling you to press a button the remote to wake it up. And yes, the message could occasionally move to different parts of the screen in case you still own a plasma. The Roku uses under 1 watt in this mode.
With USB 3 chips being fully backward compatible, why should anyone continue to manufacture USB 2.0 chips? It just doesn't make sense - economies of scale make it cheaper for all USB-compliant chips to be USB 3.0 eventually, once bugs are worked out and production ramps up. Regardless of if the underlying hardware can take advantage of the speed. If the bus standard is only listed in the specs, this is perfectly fine. If it's marketed to imply that the speeds are consistent as well, that is something else.
Clear QAM doesn't solve all the needs. The cable industry's own recent CableCARD (with tru2way) does. That's not getting implemented broadly either.
Clear QAM means every subscriber receives all the channels, all the time. Nice, in theory, but wasteful. Two-way CableCARD lets the device request a multicast stream for whatever channels you are actually watching/recording. This frees up huge amounts of bandwidth on a given cable node - improving Internet speeds at the last mile and giving you capacity for more channels or PPV or on-demand video.
The issue is that they just don't want you to have it. They want you to have their cable box.
There's a difference between a USB 3 speed device and a USB 3 compliant device. The latter just uses more recent signalling and doesn't actually guarantee a speed. SATA2 was mostly a marketing gimmick over SATA until SSD drives started becoming common. Almost zero benefit (unless using a port multiplier).
Maybe an old one, but the new ones are well insulated and don't run often. Even if their peak draw is high, they don't run enough to outweigh a few dozen watts 24/7.
The boxes also don't know when someone is using them or not, or if the television is even on, so they can't really know when it's safe to start shutting down components.
HDMI-CEC would be a start. Actually query the TV and ask if it's on. Would work in 80% of cases at least. Except for those dummies with a 52" tv hooked up with red, yellow, and white cables.
There's also Power Factor Correction and efficiency gains. And one 12V output doesn't carry the full capacity of the PSU - there are multiple isolated "rails."
You act as though the CableCard doesn't handle the decryption. With latest generation CableCards, there's no reason that a TV needs a cable box, even if the cable company wants to free up bandwidth for Internet or additional channels (which is supported by tru2way). And yet cable companies are still applying for exceptions to implementing CableCard on that very basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Loud pipes annoy everyone - even people who are inside their homes a half mile a way. There is no good excuse for THAT much noise pollution.
Their point was that websites that lack videos are sliding into irrelevance - nothing to do with which technology is used. I much prefer skimmable text over a video and agree with them.
They'll still have to figure out something to add to it to make it obnoxiously loud.
To avoid slowing down transmission of information:
Use Arial or another simple font on a plain background.
That's funny. I like the end result, but the reasoning of a font choice slowing down the email system is silly.
It's still not a good idea, whether MS says so or not. Then again, I question the reasoning of an entire collection of email being in a single point of failure file. Especially one that corrupts easily over a certain size (at least before the newer 64-bit format). Maybe the index, but why the contents? Something more like Maildir makes a lot of sense. Apple Mail also puts each email in its own file - which is what I've been using for years now...at least at home.
At work, I keep Outlook PST files local - and I don't have the problems that my coworkers do. I changed from the SOP default for a good reason.
I personally had to deal with the IRS a few times, every time I was told it was "illegal" for them to use email, and they used mail or phone exclusively. Maybe they have different policies for different departments, but I've tried, mutliple times, and have never seen an email from an IRS employee.
I'm sure they're most concerned with internal emails. It's no surprise the IRS wouldn't rely on email as a primary official communication, but that's not the same thing.
They already have a firm hired to act as the Registered Agent for their corporation. That person would likely be the one to show up in court to represent them. The corporation would be the plaintiff, not the authors. May not be a simple case, but it wouldn't be a default judgement, either.
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysear...
1+1 is certainly concrete as much as the fact that certain kinds of apple are red. You are trying to use some sort of literary definition of abstract, but that's not applicable here.
Are you arguing that a simple equation is abstract rather than concrete just because it uses numbers (which aren't necessarily an abstract concept)?
Mathematical algorithms are concrete, not abstract.
You're misreading the idea of building blocks. Building blocks aren't about their importance. It's about it being incomplete. You have to have a complete idea - a full algorithm. For example, you can't just say "and it will be encrypted" - you have to be specific with a novel use of that encryption for it to be a valid claim.
Software is concrete mathematics.
So it was invalidated because of one the claims was no more concrete than "on a computer." I don't know the implications of that. Maybe, as you said, the rest of the claims would then have to be proven obvious/prior for the patent not to stand. So they maybe overlooked that detail when they didn't actually have the authority to, even though it gave the end result that everyone wanted.
Probably some amount of trademarking going on with the look and feel. They have the time and money.
Exactly - it's not because it's software, it's because simply using a computer didn't make it a novel invention.
If you're talking about a consumer that lazy/uninformed, they probably don't even know they're not getting USB3 speeds, and will remark at how fast it is.
The protocol isn't slow, but anyone can get a bad implementation. When you say the TV took 3 minutes to switch - switch to what?
First off, the receiver shouldn't be sending the signal to the TV to change inputs if that's why it woke up. Yet another problem with the implementation, but not the spec.
If the set top box switches off due to HDMI-CEC, it doesn't necessarily have to switch on when the TV is on - and probably shouldn't. As you said, you might be planning to watch a DVD. Instead, it should have a low-power mode (much like a Roku, e.g.) that displays a simple message on the screen telling you to press a button the remote to wake it up. And yes, the message could occasionally move to different parts of the screen in case you still own a plasma. The Roku uses under 1 watt in this mode.
With USB 3 chips being fully backward compatible, why should anyone continue to manufacture USB 2.0 chips? It just doesn't make sense - economies of scale make it cheaper for all USB-compliant chips to be USB 3.0 eventually, once bugs are worked out and production ramps up. Regardless of if the underlying hardware can take advantage of the speed. If the bus standard is only listed in the specs, this is perfectly fine. If it's marketed to imply that the speeds are consistent as well, that is something else.
Clear QAM doesn't solve all the needs. The cable industry's own recent CableCARD (with tru2way) does. That's not getting implemented broadly either.
Clear QAM means every subscriber receives all the channels, all the time. Nice, in theory, but wasteful. Two-way CableCARD lets the device request a multicast stream for whatever channels you are actually watching/recording. This frees up huge amounts of bandwidth on a given cable node - improving Internet speeds at the last mile and giving you capacity for more channels or PPV or on-demand video.
The issue is that they just don't want you to have it. They want you to have their cable box.
There's a difference between a USB 3 speed device and a USB 3 compliant device. The latter just uses more recent signalling and doesn't actually guarantee a speed. SATA2 was mostly a marketing gimmick over SATA until SSD drives started becoming common. Almost zero benefit (unless using a port multiplier).
Maybe an old one, but the new ones are well insulated and don't run often. Even if their peak draw is high, they don't run enough to outweigh a few dozen watts 24/7.
The boxes also don't know when someone is using them or not, or if the television is even on, so they can't really know when it's safe to start shutting down components.
HDMI-CEC would be a start. Actually query the TV and ask if it's on. Would work in 80% of cases at least. Except for those dummies with a 52" tv hooked up with red, yellow, and white cables.
There's also Power Factor Correction and efficiency gains. And one 12V output doesn't carry the full capacity of the PSU - there are multiple isolated "rails."
You act as though the CableCard doesn't handle the decryption. With latest generation CableCards, there's no reason that a TV needs a cable box, even if the cable company wants to free up bandwidth for Internet or additional channels (which is supported by tru2way). And yet cable companies are still applying for exceptions to implementing CableCard on that very basis.
And by International, I think I mean Multinational - not sure what the proper term is.