Talking Motion picture/talkies--a series of pictures that appear to move when viewed in quick sequence with synchronized recorded sound.
Fixed that for you. Confusing film/movie would be just as bad as confusing movie/talking movie, right? The talkies were a bigger revolition than the transition to digital.
Some statistics to back it up. Pricerunner.se lists 320 netbooks out of which 11 run linux. Only 1 is sold in more than 5 stores. Most are sold in only 1 "non-mainstream" stores.
One year ago, the linux acer one was on display everywhere, same with the eee. The blue linux aa1 was about $140 cheaper than the blue windows aa1 (I know, because I bought one).
Now, the linux machines are almost non-existant and more expensive.
About the dodgy linux distro, acers linpus version sucked! I didn't realize how much it sucked until I installed CrunchBang with the Kuki kernel. Suddenly, the temperature control was better, the boot up faster and the overall responsiveness was better (not to mention the layout, repositories, programs etc). It now feels like a real computer!
I could rant about it for hours but the short version is: The acer linux was pure crap. Portuguise amateurs (the magnificent Kuki people) did it better.
I love my linux acer but it doesn't run the OS that came with it. If I had to buy a new one, I'd have to pay the M$ tax.
Goetz argument isn't weakened by using the waterfall model. He's just comparing phases of the waterfall model traditional manufacturing so that's hardly an argument at all.
His argument seems to be that since you can implement any algorithm in hardware just as well as in software, both ways are equal and thus patentable (given the current patent laws).
His mistake is that you can not and should not ever be able to patent algorithms (since it's math), only a specific physical machine that "executes" the algorithm. No one has (yet) claimed a numerical method like Runge-Kutta should be patentable. However, if you find a novel way of implementing Runge-Kutta using sticks and rocks, you can patent that particular physical machine.
(Ok, some crazy patent lawyer or politician has probably claimed algos should be patentable but no "real" people with braincells)
Your logic is kind of flawed. Since "," is a separator in sentences, why sholdn't it be a separator for numbers? Keeping to the logic of language, is a week separator (separates between words), semi-week and strong.
The most reasonable would thus be 1000000.00 = 1 000 000,00 (which happens to be the standard in some nordic countries).
Using commas and dots would be like writing: I,went,to,the,supermarket,to,buy,some,cola.cabbages.and.condoms!
Even if we can't agree on the right way to write numbers, could we at least agree localization of Excel and other programs is the SOURCE OF ALL EVIL EVER!!! Whoever thought it was a good idea to change the formatting of dates, numbers etc based on your computer settings should spend an eternity in hell "converting" fucked up csv's, dump files etc.
The "annoying infinities" are originally from Quantum Field Theory. I don't remember the exact details but it's something like this:
The electric field around an electron causes self interactions so the observed mass of an electron could be split in "bare mass" + "self interactions". Thing is, when you try to calculate the bare mass, you get infinity. Fortunately, the self interactions part turns out to be -infinity, almost exactly canceling out the first infinity. The remainder (turns out) is a very accurate prediction of the measured mass (or charge, charge/mass ratio or whatever it was).
Thus, some of the quantities are "infinite" but all the infinities cancel out perfectly and the stuff we can measure is all nice and finite. So, if a theory predicts infinite measurable quantities, it's rubbish. If it predicts infinite unmeasurable quantities... well, we can live with that.
Oh, and from a quantum mechanical perspective, an electron is not a point particle. It's a weebly-wobbly thingy with some properties that could be thought of as shape and some kind of position but not really...
Sure, the patent application may not go through, most likely because of the non-obvious/inventive step requirement (even if you find something looking like prior art, it may not look like it to a lawyer).
It doesn't make the (american) patent system any less stupid though: Microsoft obviously thought the chances were good enough (> 0%) to spend some money filing a patent. It would (almost) be business malpractice if they didn't. Similar patents have been granted before (progress bars, one click shopping etc) and M$ would get a significant advantage if the patent was allowed (great marketing feature and by preventing interoperability of spreadsheets once again).
As long as design/software patents are allowed, you have to live with the consequences. Next time, vote on someone who cares.
It's ironic that france of all countries wants to introduce these laws. The french enlightenment and french thinkers shaped our modern view of how government should be kept from abusing it's powers (like Montesquieu's tripartite form of government). The idea was that all power should be shared so no single person or authority could abuse it.
With the Hadopi laws, the spirit of the tripartite system is basically side stepped. It only takes a single court to both judge and execute a punishment without the defendent even knowing he's accused of anything. Wow... It's rather funny really... unless you're french.
Amen to that! Fundamental research is a very-long-term investment. Very few companies can afford it since they must generate revenue to the investors on a quarterly basis. Investing money in projects that may result in profit 20 years from is plain suicide when most share holders have a time horizon of (at most) a few years.
I'm another one of those who spent years studying difficult math stuff like differential geometry and lie algebras just to end up working with financial math (which is mostly +, - and sometimes %). There's plenty of people who'd love to do fundamental research, but no such jobs.
Encode all data as 2D images and print them. Also print the algorithm for decoding the data (in plain text).
If your niece isn't geeky enough to scan the images and implement the decoding algorithm (in some cool futuristic language), she doesn't deserve any presents.
Um... No.
Quantum Mechanics was created as a reaction to unexplainable experiments (The photo electric effect, atomic spectrums etc). It was a process of many small incremental steps in both experiments and theory that led to what we have today. It didn't take long to get predictions from QM, it was almost immediate, that's why QM survived. Nobody liked it since it is counter intuitive, defying logic etc but they had no choice. It was the only available theory that could make predictions in the subatomic world. String theory on the other hand is a bunch of mathematical tools with has yet to make any predictions.
So for QM: There was a strange phenomena, they created a weird theory that explained it.
But for string theory: There was a weird theory, they have yet to find a phenomena it explains.
Huge difference there...
(Oh, and they've already had 30 years to find some use for it. How long should we wait before calling shenanigans?)
Slashdot Mirror
Talking Motion picture/talkies--a series of pictures that appear to move when viewed in quick sequence with synchronized recorded sound .
Fixed that for you. Confusing film/movie would be just as bad as confusing movie/talking movie, right? The talkies were a bigger revolition than the transition to digital.
Pentax *ist. Now THAT was a stupid name.
I guess they first named it Pentax Marxist but realised it wasn't very "sales" so they replaced Marx with a wildcard.
Some statistics to back it up.
Pricerunner.se lists 320 netbooks out of which 11 run linux. Only 1 is sold in more than 5 stores. Most are sold in only 1 "non-mainstream" stores.
One year ago, the linux acer one was on display everywhere, same with the eee. The blue linux aa1 was about $140 cheaper than the blue windows aa1 (I know, because I bought one).
Now, the linux machines are almost non-existant and more expensive.
About the dodgy linux distro, acers linpus version sucked! I didn't realize how much it sucked until I installed CrunchBang with the Kuki kernel. Suddenly, the temperature control was better, the boot up faster and the overall responsiveness was better (not to mention the layout, repositories, programs etc). It now feels like a real computer!
I could rant about it for hours but the short version is: The acer linux was pure crap. Portuguise amateurs (the magnificent Kuki people) did it better.
I love my linux acer but it doesn't run the OS that came with it. If I had to buy a new one, I'd have to pay the M$ tax.
The US is only one party away from being a dictatorship.
Goetz argument isn't weakened by using the waterfall model. He's just comparing phases of the waterfall model traditional manufacturing so that's hardly an argument at all.
His argument seems to be that since you can implement any algorithm in hardware just as well as in software, both ways are equal and thus patentable (given the current patent laws).
His mistake is that you can not and should not ever be able to patent algorithms (since it's math), only a specific physical machine that "executes" the algorithm.
No one has (yet) claimed a numerical method like Runge-Kutta should be patentable. However, if you find a novel way of implementing Runge-Kutta using sticks and rocks, you can patent that particular physical machine.
(Ok, some crazy patent lawyer or politician has probably claimed algos should be patentable but no "real" people with braincells)
Your logic is kind of flawed. Since "," is a separator in sentences, why sholdn't it be a separator for numbers?
Keeping to the logic of language, is a week separator (separates between words), semi-week and strong.
The most reasonable would thus be 1000000.00 = 1 000 000,00 (which happens to be the standard in some nordic countries).
Using commas and dots would be like writing:
I,went,to,the,supermarket,to,buy,some,cola.cabbages.and.condoms!
Even if we can't agree on the right way to write numbers, could we at least agree localization of Excel and other programs is the SOURCE OF ALL EVIL EVER!!!
Whoever thought it was a good idea to change the formatting of dates, numbers etc based on your computer settings should spend an eternity in hell "converting" fucked up csv's, dump files etc.
The "annoying infinities" are originally from Quantum Field Theory. I don't remember the exact details but it's something like this:
The electric field around an electron causes self interactions so the observed mass of an electron could be split in "bare mass" + "self interactions". Thing is, when you try to calculate the bare mass, you get infinity. Fortunately, the self interactions part turns out to be -infinity, almost exactly canceling out the first infinity. The remainder (turns out) is a very accurate prediction of the measured mass (or charge, charge/mass ratio or whatever it was).
Thus, some of the quantities are "infinite" but all the infinities cancel out perfectly and the stuff we can measure is all nice and finite. So, if a theory predicts infinite measurable quantities, it's rubbish. If it predicts infinite unmeasurable quantities... well, we can live with that.
Oh, and from a quantum mechanical perspective, an electron is not a point particle. It's a weebly-wobbly thingy with some properties that could be thought of as shape and some kind of position but not really...
Sure, the patent application may not go through, most likely because of the non-obvious/inventive step requirement (even if you find something looking like prior art, it may not look like it to a lawyer).
It doesn't make the (american) patent system any less stupid though:
Microsoft obviously thought the chances were good enough (> 0%) to spend some money filing a patent. It would (almost) be business malpractice if they didn't. Similar patents have been granted before (progress bars, one click shopping etc) and M$ would get a significant advantage if the patent was allowed (great marketing feature and by preventing interoperability of spreadsheets once again).
As long as design/software patents are allowed, you have to live with the consequences. Next time, vote on someone who cares.
It's ironic that france of all countries wants to introduce these laws. The french enlightenment and french thinkers shaped our modern view of how government should be kept from abusing it's powers (like Montesquieu's tripartite form of government). The idea was that all power should be shared so no single person or authority could abuse it.
With the Hadopi laws, the spirit of the tripartite system is basically side stepped. It only takes a single court to both judge and execute a punishment without the defendent even knowing he's accused of anything. Wow... It's rather funny really... unless you're french.
Amen to that! Fundamental research is a very-long-term investment. Very few companies can afford it since they must generate revenue to the investors on a quarterly basis. Investing money in projects that may result in profit 20 years from is plain suicide when most share holders have a time horizon of (at most) a few years.
I'm another one of those who spent years studying difficult math stuff like differential geometry and lie algebras just to end up working with financial math (which is mostly +, - and sometimes %). There's plenty of people who'd love to do fundamental research, but no such jobs.
Encode all data as 2D images and print them. Also print the algorithm for decoding the data (in plain text).
If your niece isn't geeky enough to scan the images and implement the decoding algorithm (in some cool futuristic language), she doesn't deserve any presents.
Um... No. Quantum Mechanics was created as a reaction to unexplainable experiments (The photo electric effect, atomic spectrums etc). It was a process of many small incremental steps in both experiments and theory that led to what we have today. It didn't take long to get predictions from QM, it was almost immediate, that's why QM survived. Nobody liked it since it is counter intuitive, defying logic etc but they had no choice. It was the only available theory that could make predictions in the subatomic world. String theory on the other hand is a bunch of mathematical tools with has yet to make any predictions. So for QM: There was a strange phenomena, they created a weird theory that explained it. But for string theory: There was a weird theory, they have yet to find a phenomena it explains. Huge difference there... (Oh, and they've already had 30 years to find some use for it. How long should we wait before calling shenanigans?)