You realize what you just said there, right? Actually, IE6 was horribly broken. It never followed standards, had all kinds of proprietary crap in there, and didn't follow it's own rules half the time. Hell, all you needed to do to break a layout was make something float. There's workarounds, but you shouldn't need workarounds. IE6 saw success because it was a default install on Windows, and Windows was/is successful.
That's fantastic that you can play your old games in a browser now. Now tell me what the system requirements are. I'm betting you need more than 8mb RAM and 66mhz CPU in order to play them from your browser. It's terribly inefficient.
No, no they aren't. There's more offerings for OSs now for various niches and special use cases, but when real work needs to be done a real OS needs to be used. Period.
You could do all of those in a browser... like I said, browsers are becoming more and more like an OS.
Because you can and because it's the best way are two wildly different things. Powerful machines are dirt cheap, and memory is even cheaper. It's ridiculous to say that streaming games will replace installed games because it's just a really stupid way to do a lot of games. Applications too. I'm not running a frakin' word processor from my browser unless I absolutely have to. An internet browser should not do more than browse the internet.
The problem isn't that a profit can't be made; it's the difference between hundreds of millions vs. near-infinity.
Depends on what's being developed. Anything involving humans is a terribly expensive and terribly long process... and for good reason. Even worse, the equipment used for random experimentation costs the whole research lab a liver each time it's used. The point is R&D is pretty damn expensive. So, unless the drug costs 5 average homes and insurance companies are willing/forced to cough up, the profit just isn't there.
If you want to look at things that cost ridiculous amounts of money, check out the equipment used in those R&D labs. Gene chips... oh my god. And then they're just tossed after. It's almost like robbing a bank every day and burning the cash for warmth.
The chance of causing an autoimmune disease with this sort of treatment protocol seems enormous... Do you really think that nothing could possibly go wrong in training the body to kill its own cells of a specific narrow type?
I'd still take that possibility over a terrible death sentence any day. Well, depending on the traffic on the way to the clinic. Then I may just take the death sentence.
The GAO looked at patents and the pharmaceutical industry and noted that patents did not help create new drugs but in fact were against the creation of new drugs. The best the pharmaceutical industry could do was tweak anti-histamines.
This. This is the reason there will be no cheap one-time cure-all wonder drug (for whatever ailment). There's no profit in it, and so the research on it doesn't get properly funded, and the whole idea comes crashing down in a burning pile of failure.
I can't see how changing from 'first to invent' to 'first to file' is a good thing at all?!?!
Can someone explain that to me?? I mean, sounds like this opens things up to more theft.
You walk by Jimmie's garage with the door open, you see him working on something, you talk, look and walk home and file for a patent on it....you get $$ and Jimmie gets screwed....
Yeah, maybe I'm not getting it either. They changed it first to file, but then claimed they made it easier to show prior art. So.... wtf? What if I can't afford those ridiculous patents (seriously, thousands of $$$) but have a marvelous invention. Someone else patents it later. I turn over their bullshit lawsuit with proof of prior art. Can I file a patent and have it granted still? What the hell is going on here?
After reading this thread, am I the only one who thinks people are underestimating the capacity for understanding in a 2nd grader? Let's be honest here: not everyone will get it. You add 20 years and there's even fewer who understand it. You're not there to inspire the uninspirable in that field. You'll spark interest from the right minds as long as you don't pander to the lowest common denominator and make it too simple.
I remember discovering programming in basic when I was 8 years old without outside inspiration. I was also beginning to read full length novels. Comparing programming to legos would have bored me to tears.
Nice idea if it was 5 years ago. Nowadays people consider their facebook, blogger, etc their web page that they "made". They're largely unimpressed by the web anymore unless it falls way outside what they can do easily (do more than just a photo and some text/tags).
I don't know about you but I can think about the word "giraffe" without visualizing a giraffe. i suspect similar would apply here (to play devil's advocate...)
Michael Moore, nude and greased in butter. The vomit on your keyboard proves you wrong:D
Maybe this is the future of scanning? Stop people if they have any ideas of blowing the plane up in their head.
Wonder what kinda privacy issues this will lead to, magneto's helmet anyone ?
Think of any animal, but whatever you do, don't think of a giraffe.
Persson has given credit where credit is due for the inspiration of his creation. He has already said he was heavily inspired by DF (among others). Why can't people create something different? Nobody can be inspired? What good is that?
Google bought Motorola mobility not motorola solutions which is a whole other company so I don't think they're getting all those patents you're talking about.
We obviously won't be able to stop this melting by just reducing emissions. It will be really interesting to see what happens with shipping lanes and military strategy if we can go right over the pole (with boats, instead of just with missiles).
And that's the problem with all this research. The focus should be 100% on the significance of the Human Impact, and just how much we can realistically do (or should do) to stop anything from happening... which really would probably be happening anyway. It has in the past, it is now, and it will again in the future.
I have the same. Except here I pay $104/mo. And that's only because I opt to keep renewing my contract from 5 years ago (otherwise it'd be $160). Speeds during the day (until around 10pm) are anywhere from 30-70% advertised speed. I know, quite a range there. At night I'll top it out most of the time.
I wouldn't have a business account, but they do shit like block your ports "for your own safety" unless you're willing to fork over literally twice as much or more for the same damn connection with open ports, and the possibility to pay for a static IP.
What bullshit is that!? On the other hand, I'm confident I'll stay mostly clear of their abuses of consumer plan customers (caps, throttling, non-hijacked DNS results, etc). In other words, I have to pay double to get the internet connection I should be getting in the first place. UGH.
Just because it is negligible to you that does not imply it is negligible to the case (after all, Apple claimed that they are "practically identical".)
And they practically are. Not exactly. Not technically. But practically, they are identical to the casual observer.
Way to prove their case for them in an attempt to do the opposite. Please don't try to be a lawyer.
I can't imagine what would happen if the toilet paper industry got all panty-twisted up over how their competitors' products looked like theirs.
and google didn't just spend 12 billion dollars to only make prototypes.
No, they spent $12billion for mobile patents as well as patents regarding STBs and modems, among other things. They've insisted pretty hard they are letting MM do what they do without any interference, and they're not giving them special consideration for their Nexus line over anybody else. I know, that last part is lip service, but I guess we'll find out. But really it's most about patents. They're thinking ahead for GoogleTV protection as well.
As far as M$ goes... well... breaking everyone's legs is equal treatment too. Just sayin'.
So Microsoft, Apple and Oracle wanted Google to join them and jointly bid with them, allowing access to the patents for everyone. Google didn't join, and lost the bidding when they tried to get it all for themselves. Who is the real hostile company here?
That's fine and all, but it doesn't actually help Google defend against frivolous patent lawsuits. Oh sure, they'd have the same bunch of patents as all their major competitors have, but it doesn't do diddly against existing patent portfolios they don't have.
In short, joining them would have been a giant waste of cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft did a good job with IE6...
You realize what you just said there, right? Actually, IE6 was horribly broken. It never followed standards, had all kinds of proprietary crap in there, and didn't follow it's own rules half the time. Hell, all you needed to do to break a layout was make something float. There's workarounds, but you shouldn't need workarounds. IE6 saw success because it was a default install on Windows, and Windows was/is successful.
That's fantastic that you can play your old games in a browser now. Now tell me what the system requirements are. I'm betting you need more than 8mb RAM and 66mhz CPU in order to play them from your browser. It's terribly inefficient.
No, no they aren't. There's more offerings for OSs now for various niches and special use cases, but when real work needs to be done a real OS needs to be used. Period.
You could do all of those in a browser... like I said, browsers are becoming more and more like an OS.
Because you can and because it's the best way are two wildly different things. Powerful machines are dirt cheap, and memory is even cheaper. It's ridiculous to say that streaming games will replace installed games because it's just a really stupid way to do a lot of games. Applications too. I'm not running a frakin' word processor from my browser unless I absolutely have to. An internet browser should not do more than browse the internet.
Ridiculous!
The problem isn't that a profit can't be made; it's the difference between hundreds of millions vs. near-infinity.
Depends on what's being developed. Anything involving humans is a terribly expensive and terribly long process... and for good reason. Even worse, the equipment used for random experimentation costs the whole research lab a liver each time it's used. The point is R&D is pretty damn expensive. So, unless the drug costs 5 average homes and insurance companies are willing/forced to cough up, the profit just isn't there.
If you want to look at things that cost ridiculous amounts of money, check out the equipment used in those R&D labs. Gene chips... oh my god. And then they're just tossed after. It's almost like robbing a bank every day and burning the cash for warmth.
The chance of causing an autoimmune disease with this sort of treatment protocol seems enormous... Do you really think that nothing could possibly go wrong in training the body to kill its own cells of a specific narrow type?
I'd still take that possibility over a terrible death sentence any day. Well, depending on the traffic on the way to the clinic. Then I may just take the death sentence.
The GAO looked at patents and the pharmaceutical industry and noted that patents did not help create new drugs but in fact were against the creation of new drugs. The best the pharmaceutical industry could do was tweak anti-histamines.
This. This is the reason there will be no cheap one-time cure-all wonder drug (for whatever ailment). There's no profit in it, and so the research on it doesn't get properly funded, and the whole idea comes crashing down in a burning pile of failure.
I can't see how changing from 'first to invent' to 'first to file' is a good thing at all?!?!
Can someone explain that to me?? I mean, sounds like this opens things up to more theft.
You walk by Jimmie's garage with the door open, you see him working on something, you talk, look and walk home and file for a patent on it....you get $$ and Jimmie gets screwed....
Yeah, maybe I'm not getting it either. They changed it first to file, but then claimed they made it easier to show prior art. So.... wtf? What if I can't afford those ridiculous patents (seriously, thousands of $$$) but have a marvelous invention. Someone else patents it later. I turn over their bullshit lawsuit with proof of prior art. Can I file a patent and have it granted still? What the hell is going on here?
*pout* Don't spit on one of the few things outside computers that actually were fun in my childhood.
If you could have shown me how to combine them (maybe with microcontrollers) you'd have had me hooked.
Oh, definitely!!! Lego spaceships that light up and move when someone walks by? Golden!
After reading this thread, am I the only one who thinks people are underestimating the capacity for understanding in a 2nd grader? Let's be honest here: not everyone will get it. You add 20 years and there's even fewer who understand it. You're not there to inspire the uninspirable in that field. You'll spark interest from the right minds as long as you don't pander to the lowest common denominator and make it too simple.
I remember discovering programming in basic when I was 8 years old without outside inspiration. I was also beginning to read full length novels. Comparing programming to legos would have bored me to tears.
I wonder if Americans are surprised on a daily basis that there is life outside the US.
I wonder if this false assumption about Americans will ever wear out.
Nice idea if it was 5 years ago. Nowadays people consider their facebook, blogger, etc their web page that they "made". They're largely unimpressed by the web anymore unless it falls way outside what they can do easily (do more than just a photo and some text/tags).
I don't know about you but I can think about the word "giraffe" without visualizing a giraffe. i suspect similar would apply here (to play devil's advocate...)
Michael Moore, nude and greased in butter. The vomit on your keyboard proves you wrong :D
Maybe this is the future of scanning? Stop people if they have any ideas of blowing the plane up in their head. Wonder what kinda privacy issues this will lead to, magneto's helmet anyone ?
Think of any animal, but whatever you do, don't think of a giraffe.
Jurassic Park, here we come! Bring on the Velociraptors!!
you mean Deinonychus right?
Velociraptor was the size of a goose or near there
Deinonychus just didn't sound cool enough for the movie... so they went with the wrong name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus
And Godzilla doesn't exist, but it's still fun. Don't ruin the fun.
The next step will be patenting everything in Minecraft by using existing patents and adding "in the Minecraft" at the end.
Kinda like adding "mobile" in front of other existing patents!
Persson has given credit where credit is due for the inspiration of his creation. He has already said he was heavily inspired by DF (among others). Why can't people create something different? Nobody can be inspired? What good is that?
Google bought Motorola mobility not motorola solutions which is a whole other company so I don't think they're getting all those patents you're talking about.
Yes they did. All those are included in Mobility.
*Cough* They have.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03544615342/judge-waxes-comedic-whether-you-can-trademark-quilted-diamonds-toilet-paper.shtml
What. The. Hell. Idiocracy here we come?
As a side note, I did enjoy that Judge's remarks on the case.
We obviously won't be able to stop this melting by just reducing emissions. It will be really interesting to see what happens with shipping lanes and military strategy if we can go right over the pole (with boats, instead of just with missiles).
And that's the problem with all this research. The focus should be 100% on the significance of the Human Impact, and just how much we can realistically do (or should do) to stop anything from happening... which really would probably be happening anyway. It has in the past, it is now, and it will again in the future.
I have the same. Except here I pay $104/mo. And that's only because I opt to keep renewing my contract from 5 years ago (otherwise it'd be $160). Speeds during the day (until around 10pm) are anywhere from 30-70% advertised speed. I know, quite a range there. At night I'll top it out most of the time.
I wouldn't have a business account, but they do shit like block your ports "for your own safety" unless you're willing to fork over literally twice as much or more for the same damn connection with open ports, and the possibility to pay for a static IP.
What bullshit is that!? On the other hand, I'm confident I'll stay mostly clear of their abuses of consumer plan customers (caps, throttling, non-hijacked DNS results, etc). In other words, I have to pay double to get the internet connection I should be getting in the first place. UGH.
Just because it is negligible to you that does not imply it is negligible to the case (after all, Apple claimed that they are "practically identical".)
And they practically are. Not exactly. Not technically. But practically, they are identical to the casual observer.
Way to prove their case for them in an attempt to do the opposite. Please don't try to be a lawyer.
I can't imagine what would happen if the toilet paper industry got all panty-twisted up over how their competitors' products looked like theirs.
Or how about generic branded cereal?
Cars?
They also had more iPad like icon layout vs the standard home screen and removed the Samsung branding from the Tab.
You mean tiled icon layout right?
and google didn't just spend 12 billion dollars to only make prototypes.
No, they spent $12billion for mobile patents as well as patents regarding STBs and modems, among other things. They've insisted pretty hard they are letting MM do what they do without any interference, and they're not giving them special consideration for their Nexus line over anybody else. I know, that last part is lip service, but I guess we'll find out. But really it's most about patents. They're thinking ahead for GoogleTV protection as well.
As far as M$ goes... well... breaking everyone's legs is equal treatment too. Just sayin'.
So Microsoft, Apple and Oracle wanted Google to join them and jointly bid with them, allowing access to the patents for everyone. Google didn't join, and lost the bidding when they tried to get it all for themselves. Who is the real hostile company here?
That's fine and all, but it doesn't actually help Google defend against frivolous patent lawsuits. Oh sure, they'd have the same bunch of patents as all their major competitors have, but it doesn't do diddly against existing patent portfolios they don't have.
In short, joining them would have been a giant waste of cash.