1. Me, young? I wish. 16 color sucks but would be enough. I was trying to not make unreasonable demands. E-ink is new tech so I am willing to cut it some slack but 256 shades of gray does not cut it.
2. OK, now you are just trolling. The physical layer is not everything. Can it do TCP/IP? Can it do DNS? Can it render WWW content as well as Mozilla or Opera does (including some scripting support)? Does it have the whole web stack to enable me to go to individual publishers and get content from their websites (and that includes payments via SSL and scripting)?
3. There are three ways I can attach text that I can think of. I can write it with a stylus on a touchscreen, I can type it in, or I can attach a physical post-it note. The first is unavailable but should be. The third is unacceptable because the note is not saved and not really associated with the page of text. If I scroll to next page, the note loses context. Typing is slow because e-ink refreshes slowly so you get no feedback as you type. It looks to be a very frustrating experience even in the promotional video. Plus, the keyboard has no support for special characters, so e.g. math notes are not possible.
In conclusion, I do no appreciate ad hominem attacks. I think you are trolling and I will try not to feed the troll in the future but I could not help myself right now.
First off, I am not a troll. Never have been. The mods are on crack. Second, the video showed it used by a university student so I presume a biology textbook is well within the intended use. Color is essential but again, 16 colors is likely enough. They also claim it connects to things like Wikipedia, so it has some net connectivity somewhere. If not, it needs that feature badly. It is nice that you can attach notes. How do you do that without touch screen? This point makes me curious. If it is typing, then we are back to impossibly slow interface. And I agree, $400 is fine for a first run product. I am talking about what this will need to be the end all be all reader. Cheaper with more functionality.
I do not have the device so I am going from video on Amazon website. Here is what the device currently lacks: 1. Hi-res screen. Some competitors do UXGA (16x12). 8x6 is piddly. 2. Color. Tech manuals and such have color graphs. Need not be much but at least 16-color display is a must. 3. Must have stylus and ability to attach notes to specific places in text (ideally also voice notes). 4. The video said that when you buy from Amazon store, the data is still stored on the server. Local storage is a must for everything from books, to annotations. 5. Faster typing. The video made it look like 100cpm folks will be in pain. 6. It was not clear whether the device could connect to scientific journals. The ability to get authorized through university proxies is a must. This means the user must be able to make custom login scripts and update security software. 7. Affordable price. $400 is about an order of magnitude too high. This is a device that lets Amazon sell more books so I would expect it to be a loss leader like some game consoles. This must be an impulse buy kind of thing to take over the market.
This would not be without precedent. Peering agreements are a part of the internet after all. Even airlines make worldwide alliances. There is no reason this would not work for movie downloads. And yes, I agree, if they had to ship movies by mail it would be unreasonable. But Netflix has a download service so, again, all they'd have to do is give me access to a peer download service in the country of my choice. They could even charge more for this premium service and give some of that premium to the peering company in that other country. All I want is for that complexity to be hidden from me. I want an all-in-one shop where I can find everything that has ever been shot and digitized. For a price, yes, of course. I also want an active effort to digitize rare and old footage, just like Google books.
I am sure there something like Netflix in France. All they'd have to do is redirect me to those servers for downloading the movie I want. I have not tried p2p but I doubt it is well-organized, annotated, and has informative user reviews. I want a polished service and nothing less will do. I am just fine not watching movies except in theaters. But if I could get what I wanted just when I wanted in the format I wanted then I'd pay a subscription fee for those rare "spur of the moment" downloads.
Whoever is the first to have a foreign film section which is a. In native language b. As complete as Hollywood section will get my dollars. There is cinema everywhere - Korea, China, Brazil, Russia - everywhere; but try finding these movies at Netflix. There will be a few but for instance some of my favorite 1970's French movies are not there. Many good movies are indies or equivalent - short run, never been in wide release type. Again, hard to find. Some movies were dubbed into other languages. Are these dubbed versions avaliable along with originals? No. I speak Russian. Can I find Eisenstein movies on netflix? In Russian? These guys do not want my dollars so they don't get them.
Is this thing available? The website says that I (the consumer) should come back in October. I guess I will check again in 5 days but it is not looking good. My contract is up soon so I might not mind trying Neo but they sure don't look ready for business.
This is sort of my field too although I am not a doctor but a basic researcher. So there could be three things valuable about this test: 1. It may be able to give diagnosis earlier. 2. It may be cheaper and faster than current screening. 3. When combined with current techniques it may add a few percentages to diagnostic precision. If it is cheap, it will be worth it for that alone.
From my perspective, #1 is key. We need to find the cause of Alzheimer's and many people (including myself) think that plaques are a red herring, a symptom not the cause. So if we can find a test to screen for the earliest stages of disease then finding the root cause may be easier.
I would assume that heating/cooling issues would be taken care of with geothermal. If worse comes to worse, you can build the entire house underground. Solar and wind are mainly for lights, TV, fridge, and nowadays maybe charging your car.
What he seems to be saying is that Ubuntu is ready for corporate desktop. The minor driver issues can be dealt with by support guys but otherwise the polish is there. It may not be ready for the grandma but his review makes it sound like Ubuntu is ready for desktop (if there is someone to custom configure it upfront). Is there anyone working on the complete client-server install distro of Linux (something that would install a complete Linux groupware solution on the server and Linux clients ready to talk to said server)? A complete end-to-end install where there is no need for things like Exchange on either end.
I just checked and holographic media is here. Tapestry by Maxell is being sold. Granted, it will have to come down in price by a factor of 100 for me to consider buying it and I am in a science lab with serious funding.
That stuff is dangerous. CDK stands for cyclin-dependent kinase. These types of kinases control a lot of stuff all at once because they link cell cycle clock to actual processes in a cell. CDK5 (which I indirectly work on) controls a lot. This drug needs to be tested over many many years before field use because CDK5 may play a role in slow-developing diseases like Alzheimer's.
This is the first time in a long time that there is a real reason to develop HURD. Wonder if it'll be enough to push it past Duke Nukem Forever stage of development.
Google maps is nice but it still misses major features (maybe I just don't know they got it but I doubt it): 1. Overlay radio station coverage on travel map 2. Overlay cell carrier coverage on travel map 3. Route via streets only - no highways. Some competitors allow this. 4. Elevation/wind profile/local weather forecast along the route (e.g. for biking) 5. Allow user to specify routing constraints (my fav: show route with fewest numbers of turns) 6. Plan multi-day trip based on projected start times and end times for each day. Suggest local hotels.
I would not pay $100. A 2 Gb SD card costs 17.50 today on pricewatch not counting sales and rebates that happen occasionally bringing the price down even more. So I would pay a bit extra, perhaps $20 for a wifi version. HTH.
Except there is ample evidence that MS higher-ups were warned ahead of Novell deal of this exact predicament. By Moglen himself. In person. So if MS wants to argue the intent thing, they may have a problem. I am sure MS will find a way to get out of this but arguing over intent is not likely to be it. Nobody turned around and, as you so eloquently put it, "fucked them over". They knew damn well what they were getting into ahead of time.
1. Expensive? Yes. Necessary? Doubly so. 2. It is the right thing to do but perhaps would be hard to sell. Perhaps, a person or corporation that files a blatantly obvious patent could be banned for some time from filing any more patents. Kind of like what you do with DOS attacks and temporary banning of IPs. 3. OK, we're on the same page. 4. No, this is where you are not getting it at all. The submitter should be able to describe his/her invention in plain language and have this codified into claims by USPTO personnel. That way, you do not claim an invention for yourself, you get credited with an invention by others. Put differently, the government is the entity that formulates what monopoly it is granting you (you do not write your own terms). 5. see #3:).
I agree with the grandparent. My definition of non-obvious is as follows: Suppose a patent, once granted is valid for X years. Then... an innovation is non-obvious if a given industry has spent at least X years trying to come up with a solution to a well-defined problem and failed, whereas the proposed innovation does solve the problem. Furthermore, the problem in question should not be quantitatively posed but must be qualitative in nature. In other words, just because no-one has made a car with 100 mpg before does not mean your car is innovative. On the other hand, making the very first internal combustion engine is innovative.
Your rant is way off. If patent validity is strictly established via litigation then this puts a barrier to entry for small inventors. The current system is also bad in this regard, BTW, both because of litigation and because patent lawyers cost a lot just to file and prosecute a patent. What is the solution. It is a complex problem and requires a complex reform. 1. Change USPTO pay scale to make patent examiners much higher paid people than senior industry people. That way the older scientists and engineers with great understanding of the industry could be lured to review inventions. This is the only way to ensure that all prior art is taken into account. Hire enough people that each patent can be reviewed at length by a committee of three or more examiners. 2. Introduce a new category of patent rejections: blatantly obvious. People who submit those applications waste USPTO time. Charge them a set (and hefty) penalty - perhaps a few thousands per person and a few million per corporate entity. 3. Make patents vary in length depending upon industry. The faster-moving industries need higher IP turnover. So for instance, software patents would not be harmful if they were granted for 3-5 years. Similarly biotech patents would be OK if they lasted 5-10 years. Business practices patents are ridiculous and should be banned (one way to do that is to make them expire within 1-2 years). 4. Simplify application process. Make USPTO write patent claims and search for prior art. The patent applicant would just be required to explain what the invention is, all legal language finagling would be done by USPTO. No more patent lawyers, no more intentionally vague claims. 5. Making litigation cheaper is another topic. We need to reform our legal system so this is just a little piece of that big problem.
I actually hope this is right. This way we could test for "religious gullibility" (for lack of a better term) and give people medical treatment for their condition. A pill to cure zealotry - that's a nice prospect.
As a scientist, I realize that better than you give me credit for. However especially after the Korean scandal it is important to say to the general public: peer review helps with honest mistakes but a single paper even in a top journal does not guarantee the result is honest and correct.
I would only add that Cell is not just "a pretty respected medical journal". It, along with Nature and Science, is one of the big three, the most respected journals in most sciences. This does not guarantee against fraud but this is not science by press release either. The other thing is that they talk of human trials. Just to get approved for those you need buttload of evidence and it is reviewed very thoroughly and it will be tested by many people, not just study authors. Everything about this work seems proper, though once again there is no real guarantee against fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Me, young? I wish. 16 color sucks but would be enough. I was trying to not make unreasonable demands. E-ink is new tech so I am willing to cut it some slack but 256 shades of gray does not
cut it.
2. OK, now you are just trolling. The physical layer is not everything. Can it do TCP/IP?
Can it do DNS? Can it render WWW content as well as Mozilla or Opera does (including some
scripting support)? Does it have the whole web stack to enable me to go to individual
publishers and get content from their websites (and that includes payments via SSL and
scripting)?
3. There are three ways I can attach text that I can think of. I can write it with a stylus
on a touchscreen, I can type it in, or I can attach a physical post-it note. The first is
unavailable but should be. The third is unacceptable because the note is not saved and not
really associated with the page of text. If I scroll to next page, the note loses context.
Typing is slow because e-ink refreshes slowly so you get no feedback as you type. It looks
to be a very frustrating experience even in the promotional video. Plus, the keyboard has no
support for special characters, so e.g. math notes are not possible.
In conclusion, I do no appreciate ad hominem attacks. I think you are trolling and I will
try not to feed the troll in the future but I could not help myself right now.
First off, I am not a troll. Never have been. The mods are on crack.
Second, the video showed it used by a university student so I presume a biology textbook is well within
the intended use. Color is essential but again, 16 colors is likely enough.
They also claim it connects to things like Wikipedia, so it has some net connectivity somewhere. If not, it
needs that feature badly.
It is nice that you can attach notes. How do you do that without touch screen? This point makes me curious.
If it is typing, then we are back to impossibly slow interface.
And I agree, $400 is fine for a first run product. I am talking about what this will need to be the end all be all
reader. Cheaper with more functionality.
I do not have the device so I am going from video on Amazon website.
Here is what the device currently lacks:
1. Hi-res screen. Some competitors do UXGA (16x12). 8x6 is piddly.
2. Color. Tech manuals and such have color graphs. Need not be much but at
least 16-color display is a must.
3. Must have stylus and ability to attach notes to specific places in text
(ideally also voice notes).
4. The video said that when you buy from Amazon store, the data is
still stored on the server. Local storage is a must for everything from books,
to annotations.
5. Faster typing. The video made it look like 100cpm folks will be in pain.
6. It was not clear whether the device could connect to scientific journals.
The ability to get authorized through university proxies is a must. This means
the user must be able to make custom login scripts and update security software.
7. Affordable price. $400 is about an order of magnitude too high. This is a device
that lets Amazon sell more books so I would expect it to be a loss leader like some
game consoles. This must be an impulse buy kind of thing to take over the market.
This would not be without precedent. Peering agreements
are a part of the internet after all. Even airlines make
worldwide alliances. There is no reason this would not
work for movie downloads.
And yes, I agree, if they had to ship movies by mail it
would be unreasonable. But Netflix has a download service
so, again, all they'd have to do is give me access to
a peer download service in the country of my choice. They
could even charge more for this premium service and give
some of that premium to the peering company in that other
country. All I want is for that complexity to be hidden
from me. I want an all-in-one shop where I can find
everything that has ever been shot and digitized. For a
price, yes, of course. I also want an active effort to
digitize rare and old footage, just like Google books.
I am sure there something like Netflix in France.
All they'd have to do is redirect me to those servers
for downloading the movie I want.
I have not tried p2p but I doubt it is well-organized,
annotated, and has informative user reviews. I want a
polished service and nothing less will do. I am just
fine not watching movies except in theaters. But if
I could get what I wanted just when I wanted in the
format I wanted then I'd pay a subscription fee for
those rare "spur of the moment" downloads.
Whoever is the first to have a foreign film section which is
a. In native language
b. As complete as Hollywood section
will get my dollars. There is cinema everywhere - Korea, China, Brazil,
Russia - everywhere; but try finding these movies at Netflix. There will
be a few but for instance some of my favorite 1970's French movies are
not there. Many good movies are indies or equivalent - short run, never
been in wide release type. Again, hard to find. Some movies were dubbed
into other languages. Are these dubbed versions avaliable along with originals?
No.
I speak Russian. Can I find Eisenstein movies on netflix? In Russian?
These guys do not want my dollars so they don't get them.
Is this thing available? The website says that I (the consumer) should come back in October. I guess I will check again in 5 days
but it is not looking good. My contract is up soon so I might not mind trying Neo but they sure don't look ready for business.
This is sort of my field too although I am not a doctor but a basic researcher. So there could be three things valuable about this test:
1. It may be able to give diagnosis earlier.
2. It may be cheaper and faster than current screening.
3. When combined with current techniques it may add a few percentages to diagnostic precision. If it is cheap, it will be worth it for that alone.
From my perspective, #1 is key. We need to find the cause of Alzheimer's and many people (including myself) think that plaques are a red herring, a symptom not the cause.
So if we can find a test to screen for the earliest stages of disease then finding the root cause may be easier.
No, but if we can make a drug that deactivates that area
of the brain, we could well have a cure for religion.
I would assume that heating/cooling issues would be taken care of with geothermal. If worse comes to worse, you can build the entire house
underground. Solar and wind are mainly for lights, TV, fridge, and nowadays maybe charging your car.
What he seems to be saying is that Ubuntu is ready for corporate desktop. The minor driver issues can be dealt with by
support guys but otherwise the polish is there. It may not be ready for the grandma but his review makes it sound like
Ubuntu is ready for desktop (if there is someone to custom configure it upfront).
Is there anyone working on the complete client-server install distro of Linux (something that would install a complete
Linux groupware solution on the server and Linux clients ready to talk to said server)? A complete end-to-end install
where there is no need for things like Exchange on either end.
I just checked and holographic media is here. Tapestry by Maxell is being sold.
Granted, it will have to come down in price by a factor of 100 for me to consider
buying it and I am in a science lab with serious funding.
That stuff is dangerous. CDK stands for cyclin-dependent kinase. These types of kinases control a lot of stuff all at once
because they link cell cycle clock to actual processes in a cell. CDK5 (which I indirectly work on) controls a lot. This
drug needs to be tested over many many years before field use because CDK5 may play a role in slow-developing diseases
like Alzheimer's.
This is the first time in a long time that there is a real reason to develop HURD.
Wonder if it'll be enough to push it past Duke Nukem Forever stage of development.
The parent confused supersonic and supercavitating which is what is.
Google maps is nice but it still misses major features (maybe I just don't know they got it but I doubt it):
1. Overlay radio station coverage on travel map
2. Overlay cell carrier coverage on travel map
3. Route via streets only - no highways. Some competitors allow this.
4. Elevation/wind profile/local weather forecast along the route (e.g. for biking)
5. Allow user to specify routing constraints (my fav: show route with fewest numbers of turns)
6. Plan multi-day trip based on projected start times and end times for each day. Suggest local hotels.
I would not pay $100. A 2 Gb SD card costs 17.50 today on pricewatch
not counting sales and rebates that happen occasionally bringing the
price down even more. So I would pay a bit extra, perhaps $20 for
a wifi version. HTH.
Except there is ample evidence that MS higher-ups were warned ahead of Novell deal of this exact predicament. By Moglen himself. In person.
So if MS wants to argue the intent thing, they may have a problem. I am sure MS will find a way to get out of this but arguing over intent
is not likely to be it. Nobody turned around and, as you so eloquently put it, "fucked them over". They knew damn well what they were getting
into ahead of time.
1. Expensive? Yes. Necessary? Doubly so. :).
2. It is the right thing to do but perhaps would be hard to sell. Perhaps, a person or corporation that files a blatantly obvious patent could be banned for some time from filing any more patents. Kind of like what you do with DOS attacks and temporary banning of IPs.
3. OK, we're on the same page.
4. No, this is where you are not getting it at all. The submitter should be able to describe his/her invention in plain language and have this codified into claims by USPTO personnel. That way, you do not claim an invention for yourself, you get credited with an invention by others. Put differently, the government is the entity that formulates what monopoly it is granting you (you do not write your own terms).
5. see #3
I agree with the grandparent. My definition of non-obvious is as follows:
Suppose a patent, once granted is valid for X years. Then...
an innovation is non-obvious if a given industry has spent at least X years trying to
come up with a solution to a well-defined problem and failed, whereas the proposed
innovation does solve the problem. Furthermore, the problem in question should not
be quantitatively posed but must be qualitative in nature. In other words, just because
no-one has made a car with 100 mpg before does not mean your car is innovative.
On the other hand, making the very first internal combustion engine is innovative.
Your rant is way off. If patent validity is strictly established via litigation
then this puts a barrier to entry for small inventors. The current system is
also bad in this regard, BTW, both because of litigation and because patent
lawyers cost a lot just to file and prosecute a patent.
What is the solution. It is a complex problem and requires a complex reform.
1. Change USPTO pay scale to make patent examiners much higher paid people
than senior industry people. That way the older scientists and engineers with
great understanding of the industry could be lured to review inventions. This
is the only way to ensure that all prior art is taken into account. Hire
enough people that each patent can be reviewed at length by a committee of
three or more examiners.
2. Introduce a new category of patent rejections: blatantly obvious. People
who submit those applications waste USPTO time. Charge them a set (and hefty)
penalty - perhaps a few thousands per person and a few million per corporate
entity.
3. Make patents vary in length depending upon industry. The faster-moving
industries need higher IP turnover. So for instance, software patents would
not be harmful if they were granted for 3-5 years. Similarly biotech
patents would be OK if they lasted 5-10 years. Business practices patents
are ridiculous and should be banned (one way to do that is to make them
expire within 1-2 years).
4. Simplify application process. Make USPTO write patent claims and search
for prior art. The patent applicant would just be required to explain what
the invention is, all legal language finagling would be done by USPTO. No
more patent lawyers, no more intentionally vague claims.
5. Making litigation cheaper is another topic. We need to reform our legal
system so this is just a little piece of that big problem.
I actually hope this is right. This way we could test for "religious gullibility" (for lack of a better term) and give people medical treatment for their condition. A pill to cure zealotry - that's a nice prospect.
4 hour run time. I'll pass. Wake me up when they make something competitive with Panasonic R5
laptop or Electrovaya tablets.
As a scientist, I realize that better than you give me credit for. However especially after the Korean scandal it is important to say to the general public: peer review helps with honest mistakes but a single paper even in a top journal does not guarantee the result is honest and correct.
I would only add that Cell is not just "a pretty respected medical journal".
It, along with Nature and Science, is one of the big three, the most respected
journals in most sciences. This does not guarantee against fraud but this is
not science by press release either. The other thing is that they talk of human
trials. Just to get approved for those you need buttload of evidence and it is
reviewed very thoroughly and it will be tested by many people, not just study
authors. Everything about this work seems proper, though once again there is no
real guarantee against fraud.