Yep it's a myth propagated by anti-science nuts. First popularized by religionists who were angry over evolutionary theory to try to discredit the science.
Yes speed was growing but in many cases didn't mean performance was improving as much which is why amd was blowing away intel even with lower clock speed cpus. And who cares about clock speeds other than pc ricers? My sandy bridge quad core will beat the socks off of a 3 year old quad core even if it was overclocked.
For the.millionth time, Moore's law is not about processor speed. And no a 3 year old cpu is not the samesame as today. Take for example the sandy bridge intel cpus. They blow away the older core2quads in performance and at lower clock speeds.
Good for at&t? And if it's so important why are they trying to sell off spectrum? Apparently it's not as pressing an issue as we are being lead to believe if they can afford to sell some off.
And if you don't believe me, just read the words of the USPTO for it's rules of prior art (yes these are the rules of the first to invent system):
For the purposes of Article 33(2) and (3), everything made available to the public anywhere in the world by means of written disclosure (including drawings and other illustrations) shall be considered prior art provided that such making available occurred prior to the relevant date.
So again, what is your point since the rules on what constitutes prior art is exactly the same.
No it doesn't. Even under first to file, prior art invalidates a patent. First to file only changes the rules if what happens when multiple people attempt to patent the same thing.
*facepalm* First to file does not get rid of prior art requirements. Do you idiots even bother doing two second of research before continuing to spout this nonsense? Secondly that same company could already do that now so this change won't make any difference in someone trying to patent prior art.
IBM is now mostly a services company with little need for new patents.
And yet in 2009, they received 4900 patents and in 2010 they received nearly 5900 which is more than any other company. IBM has for 18 consecutive years held the #1 position in granted patents . Reality doesn't seem to march your assertion.
So it's not that you support it, it's just that you....support it and cheering it on. Way to be a hypocrite. And seriously you hate the phone? Do you have no life at all to get worked up over something so trivial as a phone?
Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.
Based on what exactly? Your word?
In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.
Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?
Slashdot Mirror
Except the site still requires flash and d.oesn't use html5
And creating such obviously stupid articles is a great way to drive page hits and adclicks especially when slashdot puts you on the front page.
Yep it's a myth propagated by anti-science nuts. First popularized by religionists who were angry over evolutionary theory to try to discredit the science.
Wow that got mangled badly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth>fixed link. That people keep propagating this anti-science myth is hilarious.
but not too long ago scientists were 100% certain that the world was flat too.
No that is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth>myth.
Because the people at cern are idiots and couldn't possibly have thought of that?
Yes speed was growing but in many cases didn't mean performance was improving as much which is why amd was blowing away intel even with lower clock speed cpus. And who cares about clock speeds other than pc ricers? My sandy bridge quad core will beat the socks off of a 3 year old quad core even if it was overclocked.
For the.millionth time, Moore's law is not about processor speed. And no a 3 year old cpu is not the samesame as today. Take for example the sandy bridge intel cpus. They blow away the older core2quads in performance and at lower clock speeds.
*facepalm* Moore's law has nothing to do with processor speed ratings.
You do realize that you'd be at the bottom of the list and never get any attention, right?
It's posting a "citation needed" as ac the best comeback you got tepples?
And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.
False. You can be liable for copyright infringement even if you don't do the copying yourself. This it's decades old precedent in the US.
Good for at&t? And if it's so important why are they trying to sell off spectrum? Apparently it's not as pressing an issue as we are being lead to believe if they can afford to sell some off.
Nope prior art requires public disclosure of the invention. Which is the way the rules have always been so his whining makes no sense.
And if you don't believe me, just read the words of the USPTO for it's rules of prior art (yes these are the rules of the first to invent system):
For the purposes of Article 33(2) and (3), everything made available to the public anywhere in the world by means of written disclosure (including drawings and other illustrations) shall be considered prior art provided that such making available occurred prior to the relevant date.
So again, what is your point since the rules on what constitutes prior art is exactly the same.
Which is no different than how prior art works now so what's your point?
And how is that any different then now? Oh right it's not any different.
No it doesn't. Even under first to file, prior art invalidates a patent. First to file only changes the rules if what happens when multiple people attempt to patent the same thing.
Except for all the prior art to invalidate your patent? Oh right you don't even understand what you're talking about.
If that is what he says than he is an idiot. Prior art still applies even in a first to file system.
*facepalm* First to file does not get rid of prior art requirements. Do you idiots even bother doing two second of research before continuing to spout this nonsense? Secondly that same company could already do that now so this change won't make any difference in someone trying to patent prior art.
IBM is now mostly a services company with little need for new patents.
And yet in 2009, they received 4900 patents and in 2010 they received nearly 5900 which is more than any other company. IBM has for 18 consecutive years held the #1 position in granted patents . Reality doesn't seem to march your assertion.
So it's not that you support it, it's just that you....support it and cheering it on. Way to be a hypocrite. And seriously you hate the phone? Do you have no life at all to get worked up over something so trivial as a phone?
Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.
Based on what exactly? Your word?
In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.
Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?