While his application might have been abandoned, that doesn't negate it as prior art.
Perhaps, but isn't his claim weakened by the fact that he waited so long to file suit?
IANAL. Could someone who is tell us what the legal principle is in this case? Specifically, if you wait too long to claim harm, then your claim of harm is invalidated?
And besides, what does prior art do for him? Wouldn't prior art just invalidate (some of) Apple's patents, and allow any other manufacturer to make a device that would otherwise infringe on those patents?
It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp.
Well, at least Vladimir Putin and all the new far-right groups in Europe (that are partly funded by Russia) are happy about the outcome.
I wonder about that. Brexit has put downward pressure on oil prices. Russia would need to sell its oil to fund those "far-right groups" and its other ambitions in Europe.
I never saw how this differed from the Michelson-Morley experiment, and could equally show the existence of luminiferous ether.
Well, they are different.
The Michelson-Morely experiment was a failure: it was designed to observe changes in the speed of light in different reference frames, but it showed none. And that result changed our understanding of the universe in fundamental ways.
These gravitational-wave observations, and their subsequent simulations, appear to be a success for the theory of general relativity. And that's important too.
Indeed. And that's not the half of it. The CEO's article is a self-promoting cyber-fart, rife with contradictions and inaccuracies. Some examples:
- He thinks coding nowadays is "eerily similar" to the way it was in the late 1950s, with coders sitting at "terminals" to write COBOL. Uh, really? They used keypunches, not terminals, and often the keypuncher and programmer were two separate people. And coding took longer -- much longer -- than it does today.
- He claims he wants to "revolutionize the way coding is done" but really he wants to re-define what coding means, so that it includes what his product offers. He sees a brave new world that offers anyone the opportunity to "code" with visual tools, like "a Powerpoint for making software." Great analogy. When I see the word "Powerpoint" I think of whiz-bangy visuals with little to no information content.
- And who is going to create these "tools" in the first place? Oh yeah, people who actually do know how to code. He advises "[p]op computing can help us get there, offering a gloriously diverse array of tools to match our gloriously diverse species." Very uplifting, but "help" to get there is not the same as actually getting the job done.
I could say more, but I'm fed up trying to disentangle this mess of an article.
Yet look at how anti-science Republicans have become. And don't forget that from Hoover Dam to the present, the Ds and Rs have traded places, ideologically.
The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. -- Socrates
This is not about millennials vs. non-millennials. This is about younger vs. older, in any era.
When we're younger, we're more impatient, more reckless, take more risks, etc. Suffering from the consequences of poor choices helps us to make better ones in the future.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it." Just because some compiler vendors may have supported non-standard extensions that allowed recursion does not mean you can claim the language supported it in general
Almost all C programs in existence depend on implementation-define features, so by that measure, there exist almost no C programs at all.
What "implementation-define[d] features" do you mean, and how do "[a]lmost all C programs in in existence depend" on them?
My experience with both languages is that it is Fortran, not C, that has suffered historically from a lack of portability due to implementation-defined features.
For better or for worse (mostly the latter) Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms throughout its history.
How? The first C standard ever came out in 1989, the first Fortran standard with recursion in 1990, one year later. The first C++ standard came out in 1998, the first Fortran standard with OOP came out in 2003. And, of course, C++ still lacks many of the numerical features, parallel programming features, and multidimensional arrays found in Fortran.
That's a straw-man. You seem to think that C and C++ are the only languages and standards to be compared with Fortran.
First of all, support for recursion dates back to Algol 68. And the de facto definition of the C language was contained in Kernighan and Ritchie's 1978 book, which was subsequently updated in 1988 to the ANSI standard that was adopted officially in 1989. The concept of object-oriented programming dates back to the late 1950s. Its first appearance in a formal language was with Simula 67. In subsequent years, languages such as Smalltalk, Lisp derivatives, and Object Pascal were followed eventually by C++ in the early 1980s. Object-oriented programming surged in popularity beginning in the early 1990s. Fortran caught up eventually, but as usual, it was late to the party.
I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding "numerical features, parallel programming, and multidimensional arrays." C++ supports all of that, just not the same way as Fortran.
I say again: Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms. It didn't even support a DO-WHILE officially until 1990. Oh sure, most compiler vendors had it in their F77 offerings, but you could never be sure it was there when you ported your code to another machine and its compiler.
Perhaps what you are referring to by "adopting new paradigms" is the fact that C++ standards often wrote stuff into the standard that then took many years to implement correctly for compiler writers; I don't see that as an advantage.
Compared to what? Standards that pre-date their implementation provide a common adoption plan for vendors. Standards that post-date a number of divergent implementations are an attempt to remove redundancy and incompatibility between them.
And no, that's not what I meant by "adopting new paradigms." There you go again with a straw-man.
That has condemned it to a niche existence in scientific computing.
That "niche" is its purpose in life. C++, unfortunately, has found no niche at all; C++ seems to be a waystation for people moving up from C before they then abandon C++ for greener pastures.
Again, you seem to think that C and C++ are the only valid comparisons to Fortran.
Go ahead and Google for rankings of language usage. This one, for example. I challenge you to find a ranking that even has Fortran on the list.
The other languages were compiled, completely procedural, and at least Fortran didn’t even support recursion until the 90’s.
I'm not sure what you mean by "were". Fortran is widely used in scientific computing. It has supported recursion since the 1970's, although it only was standardized in 1990. Fortran 200x is object oriented, supports operator overloading, and has excellent support for array and parallel computing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it." Just because some compiler vendors may have supported non-standard extensions that allowed recursion does not mean you can claim the language supported it in general. GP is right: Fortran, as a standard, did not support recursion until 1990. Granted, it was possible to "hack" recursion with F77 constructions but that's more of a conceptual exercise than a viable practice. When it's that hard to do something in a language, you need to use a different one.
For better or for worse (mostly the latter) Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms throughout its history. That has condemned it to a niche existence in scientific computing. Its main virtue (not to be taken lightly) is that it has excellent compiler support for efficient numerical computing.
Ah, I finally understand why the military-industrial complex has been denying climate change for so long now...
Uh, what? To be sure, there are some industries with a vested interest in denying climate change (Exxon and Koch are an example) but the military? Not so much:
Slashdot Mirror
I thought there was a way to objectively decide morals: write rules ahead of time.
I think you're confusing morality with ethics.
Morality is the innate sense of what we think is right by ourself and others. Ethics is the attempt to codify this into rules.
It's a bit like the difference between justice and the law.
You fail at physics. There's no way that a single man/woman (fat or otherwise) could stop a train.
While his application might have been abandoned, that doesn't negate it as prior art.
Perhaps, but isn't his claim weakened by the fact that he waited so long to file suit?
IANAL. Could someone who is tell us what the legal principle is in this case? Specifically, if you wait too long to claim harm, then your claim of harm is invalidated?
And besides, what does prior art do for him? Wouldn't prior art just invalidate (some of) Apple's patents, and allow any other manufacturer to make a device that would otherwise infringe on those patents?
It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.
Wow, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
JK ;-P
It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp.
Well, at least Vladimir Putin and all the new far-right groups in Europe (that are partly funded by Russia) are happy about the outcome.
I wonder about that. Brexit has put downward pressure on oil prices. Russia would need to sell its oil to fund those "far-right groups" and its other ambitions in Europe.
I never saw how this differed from the Michelson-Morley experiment, and could equally show the existence of luminiferous ether.
Well, they are different.
The Michelson-Morely experiment was a failure: it was designed to observe changes in the speed of light in different reference frames, but it showed none. And that result changed our understanding of the universe in fundamental ways.
These gravitational-wave observations, and their subsequent simulations, appear to be a success for the theory of general relativity. And that's important too.
I'll second the upvote for AC. The OP is ignorant (perhaps willfully) of how science works.
Indeed. And that's not the half of it. The CEO's article is a self-promoting cyber-fart, rife with contradictions and inaccuracies. Some examples:
- He thinks coding nowadays is "eerily similar" to the way it was in the late 1950s, with coders sitting at "terminals" to write COBOL. Uh, really? They used keypunches, not terminals, and often the keypuncher and programmer were two separate people. And coding took longer -- much longer -- than it does today.
- He claims he wants to "revolutionize the way coding is done" but really he wants to re-define what coding means, so that it includes what his product offers. He sees a brave new world that offers anyone the opportunity to "code" with visual tools, like "a Powerpoint for making software." Great analogy. When I see the word "Powerpoint" I think of whiz-bangy visuals with little to no information content.
- And who is going to create these "tools" in the first place? Oh yeah, people who actually do know how to code. He advises "[p]op computing can help us get there, offering a gloriously diverse array of tools to match our gloriously diverse species." Very uplifting, but "help" to get there is not the same as actually getting the job done.
I could say more, but I'm fed up trying to disentangle this mess of an article.
Writing software today is eerily similar to what it was like in the late 1950s, when people sat at keypunch machines and wrote COBOL programs.
Not to mention that the person doing the keypunching was not necessarily the person who wrote the code.
It's a deal. I can give you 120,000 of them.
Ready for it? The most common password was "123456".
That will be $38,400 please.
Just because the company's run like a cult doesn't mean the employees are communists.
Just because employees form a union doesn't mean they are communists.
The EFF does not have investigative powers, but it does have investigative talent, and a recognized history of advocacy for consumers.
That's still larger than the wavelength of visible light (about 400 to 800 nm.)
A thousandth of a micrometre ... yes, that's smaller than visible light.
The error is in TFS and TFA.
Well I, for one, welcome our new Facebook-karma-hungry landlords.
Uh, no, not really.
You forgot Hitler
That's covered by the GP's "Godwin" reference.
Yet look at how anti-science Republicans have become. And don't forget that from Hoover Dam to the present, the Ds and Rs have traded places, ideologically.
No, Pinky Gigglebrain's response to my Socrates quote was pointless. What does the generation gap have to do with the fall of empires?
Some empires last for a year or two, others for over a thousand years. And everything in between. The Athenian empire had a run of about 70-ish years.
Empires fall because of political and social factors, not because the next generation gets tired of them.
Yeah, and look what eventually happened to the Athenian Empire. :D
What's your point?
Eventually, all empires fall.
The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.
-- Socrates
This is not about millennials vs. non-millennials. This is about younger vs. older, in any era.
When we're younger, we're more impatient, more reckless, take more risks, etc. Suffering from the consequences of poor choices helps us to make better ones in the future.
Almost all C programs in existence depend on implementation-define features, so by that measure, there exist almost no C programs at all.
What "implementation-define[d] features" do you mean, and how do "[a]lmost all C programs in in existence depend" on them?
My experience with both languages is that it is Fortran, not C, that has suffered historically from a lack of portability due to implementation-defined features.
How? The first C standard ever came out in 1989, the first Fortran standard with recursion in 1990, one year later. The first C++ standard came out in 1998, the first Fortran standard with OOP came out in 2003. And, of course, C++ still lacks many of the numerical features, parallel programming features, and multidimensional arrays found in Fortran.
That's a straw-man. You seem to think that C and C++ are the only languages and standards to be compared with Fortran.
First of all, support for recursion dates back to Algol 68. And the de facto definition of the C language was contained in Kernighan and Ritchie's 1978 book, which was subsequently updated in 1988 to the ANSI standard that was adopted officially in 1989. The concept of object-oriented programming dates back to the late 1950s. Its first appearance in a formal language was with Simula 67. In subsequent years, languages such as Smalltalk, Lisp derivatives, and Object Pascal were followed eventually by C++ in the early 1980s. Object-oriented programming surged in popularity beginning in the early 1990s. Fortran caught up eventually, but as usual, it was late to the party.
I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding "numerical features, parallel programming, and multidimensional arrays." C++ supports all of that, just not the same way as Fortran.
I say again: Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms. It didn't even support a DO-WHILE officially until 1990. Oh sure, most compiler vendors had it in their F77 offerings, but you could never be sure it was there when you ported your code to another machine and its compiler.
Perhaps what you are referring to by "adopting new paradigms" is the fact that C++ standards often wrote stuff into the standard that then took many years to implement correctly for compiler writers; I don't see that as an advantage.
Compared to what? Standards that pre-date their implementation provide a common adoption plan for vendors. Standards that post-date a number of divergent implementations are an attempt to remove redundancy and incompatibility between them.
And no, that's not what I meant by "adopting new paradigms." There you go again with a straw-man.
That "niche" is its purpose in life. C++, unfortunately, has found no niche at all; C++ seems to be a waystation for people moving up from C before they then abandon C++ for greener pastures.
Again, you seem to think that C and C++ are the only valid comparisons to Fortran.
Go ahead and Google for rankings of language usage. This one, for example. I challenge you to find a ranking that even has Fortran on the list.
I'm not sure what you mean by "were". Fortran is widely used in scientific computing. It has supported recursion since the 1970's, although it only was standardized in 1990. Fortran 200x is object oriented, supports operator overloading, and has excellent support for array and parallel computing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it." Just because some compiler vendors may have supported non-standard extensions that allowed recursion does not mean you can claim the language supported it in general. GP is right: Fortran, as a standard, did not support recursion until 1990. Granted, it was possible to "hack" recursion with F77 constructions but that's more of a conceptual exercise than a viable practice. When it's that hard to do something in a language, you need to use a different one.
For better or for worse (mostly the latter) Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms throughout its history. That has condemned it to a niche existence in scientific computing. Its main virtue (not to be taken lightly) is that it has excellent compiler support for efficient numerical computing.
Until it runs ADA it will be a toy language for hipsters.
Let me know when it runs Lisp.
I'll hold out for Brainfuck (more politely known as B****fuck.)
Then again, why stop there?
Ah, I finally understand why the military-industrial complex has been denying climate change for so long now...
Uh, what? To be sure, there are some industries with a vested interest in denying climate change (Exxon and Koch are an example) but the military? Not so much:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.defense.gov/News-Ar...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...