Who's got the HowTo on embedding existing apps as modules in the SL client, with their GUIs rendered onto 2D surfaces on 3D SL objects? I want my avatar's chest to display the GAIM messages I send from my mobile phone.
Anonymous denial Coward likes testicles in his soup. Imagine what they'd eat if they actually had to live through an atomic war, instead of squatting their cushy Slashdot posting pit.
AFAIK, the Standard Model doesn't call for 70% of the mass of the universe to reside in neutrinos, or even 10%. Does the standard model describe the majority of mass as non-electromagnetic?
Photons aren't energy, they're matter with an energy equivalence proportional to their frequency. Maybe the descriptions of "dark energy" are inaccurate - they're describing dark matter at high energy. Perhaps neutrinos, or some other non-interacting particle in motion. But dark energy is described as different from familiar energy: negative pressure, something like "antigravity".
It just seems strange that we've never directly experienced dark matter/energy on or near Earth, when it's the large majority. Not that we should have it on our unique planet (in Feynman's terms - because we're on it, it's unique) - but can't we synthesize it, to study it? Especially if it's got nearly magical properties of undetectability and/or antigravity.
Dark matter is becoming as household a term as "black hole". But what makes it dark? It's matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetism, so we can't see it - though its gravitation makes it detectable by other means. But what kind of matter doesn't interact with electromagnetics? Have we ever physically obtained any? Synthesized any? And supposedly something like 70% of the dark "matter" is energy. How does non-dark energy interact with electromagnetism, where the dark "stuff" does not?
I'm sure eliminating everything but the video, soundcard, network, Flash/cache and minimal CPU make for a lot more WiFi and a lot of extra weight capacity for 8h battery.
What about just the lightest, foldable-smallest, cheapest tablet that is just a high FPS streaming/VoIP/VNC client with WiFi? Everything else but the AGUI can go on a server, if the WiFi can keep the streams over 24FPS and the audio over 80Kbps, with minimal jitter and framedrops.
after WWII, hoping to reduce the amount of poor nourishment for soldiers in the field.
Funny, no mention of that "peace dividend from a war product" in the actual story, which instead cites compassion for starving Japanese on soup lines after atomic war devastated their country. But if instant ramen was indeed either inspired or funded justified by feeding soldiers better, then it's proof that outlawing war makes a nation's economy more competitive where it counts: feeding people, and making money. And thereby making peace, which even the biggest liar warmongers will claim is the reason to make war. Ramen works better. An army travels on its stomach, but for what? Everyone travels on our stomachs, and a fast hot meal is the way to our hearts.
You are an Anonymous fool Coward who knows even less about the law than about how to even post a meaningful comment on Slashdot. Your stupidity is criminal.
US copyright law protects copying content for journalism and critical reviews of even fictional content. It doesn't protect copying for mere replay of entertainment. The court has to decide whether the copying is "informational" or "entertainment".
Now that US journalism is largely indistinguishable from entertainment, it will often lose its copyright exemption protection.
NYC's many underground niches are lousy with geeks of every sort. Come out for Warper:
Warper is a party for people interested in the latest evolution in DJ culture. Conceived by live electronic music performers to build community, showcase creativity, and share knowledge in the NY area and beyond. Each party consists of a program of music created and remixed with the power and flexibility of the latest music technology. Music performers and creators bring their laptops, instruments, drives, controllers, and ideas to share and showcase.
No, we just have faster mainframes. New versions of Perl will implement new HW optimizations at the same rate (faster, really, from the larger dev community and easier porting from other projects) as new COBOL releases can. It doesn't take 2 decades, but yes it would of course take time - though not decades, especially if the next-gen COBOL developers work in a better environment like a new Perl. Does the prospect of more than 2 hours of developing a new language merger mean we shouldn't do it? You really must never have programmed COBOL if you can't handle such dev timeframes.
We're discussing a story about specific evidence of Exxon paying to fake "science" to undermine legitimate science indicating climate change. Where is the evidence that "environmentalists have lied"?
You try the "everyone's a liar" trick without evidence, but then you decide that manmade global warming is fake, because you've decided that solar output is to blame. Based on your less-than-rocket science remembering something about "global cooling" from high school 30 years ago, compared against the conclusions by many actual climate science experts.
You 70s "skeptics" also tried to stop us from keeping CFC aerosols from destroying the ozone layer, but we kept your lies and denial down long enough to do a lot of fixing. You demand we do not "shout down each other", but you say that the problem is that thinking is stopped by the "sky is falling mentality". You are a hypocrite, a Greenhouse denial projector.
You have destroyed any possible credibility with your clumsy denials, and should stop shouting baseless nonsense while serious people try to figure out how to undo the damage you have been doing since the Eisenhower era.
If you're mad at energy corps ripping you off, lying to you, paying/bribing others to lie to you or to rip you off, why not fight them directly?
Join the Union of Concerned Scientists, and fight with the good guys against the bad guys. It's much more fulfilling than just bitching on Slashdot, which only consumes power which pays the energy corps to rip you off and lie to you. And drains you of the fight that could be taken right to them.
What is the evidence that they are patenting it for the "opposite reason"? If they're patenting it to prevent a profiteer from patenting it, they could just publish their patent docs and release it in the public domain. As I've discussed in detail in another subthread responding to my post, "defensive" patents are BS: they offer absolutely no more defense to the patenter than would just publishing it into the public domain. But those defensive patents are more expensive. So they are obviously BS: more cost, no more benefit.
This patent is designed, like every other, to exclude other parties from producing the invention. Which is monopoly the basis for extracting profit.
I'm waiting for someone to sue a holder of a patent on a human gene sequence, because they have the prior art, and refuse to cease & desist from producing the protein in their cells.
Patenting existing biology is a pinnacle of patent travesty, like patenting business processes not even implemented in real people.
As I said before in this thread (probably more than once by now, in different ways): the same degree of improvement is necessary to prove "novelty" compared to existing art whether that art is patented or just published. The patent does nothing extra, except that a non-novel (negligible) improver has to get a license of the patent to produce their negligibly improved invention, while they are free to produce the negligible improvement on the public domain invention. In neither case can the negligible improver patent the negligible improvement.
Lawyers will not explain that to you unless you specifically pay them to write an opinion on that question. Even then, most will write weaselly qualifiers to encourage you to patent anything you want to protect your right to exploit. Because lawyers make money off patents, and practically none off putting inventions in the public domain.
Signed applets can use contacts stored on your local host with your OK.
Storing patched SW at servers run by admins and personal data at clients protected by the people who own it is the way to best secure privacy and safety.
How about a Perl module that snarfs COBOL sourcecode and spits out Perl source, which then is either eval()'ed against the COBOL formatted data, or just stored for later execution as a standalone script? How about a Perl6 module that compiles COBOL sourcecode to Perl bytecode? COBOL is mainly just printf(), with the remaining fraction doable in Perl anyway.
What benefit does a "defensive" patent give to a defender who just wants the rights to exploit the patented invention, that merely publishing the patent docs, without registering a patent, doesn't give? None.
If the second inventor is infringing the original patent enough to need to negotiate with them, then they're prevented from patenting their second invention by the published, unpatented, prior art. But the public, unpatented, prior art doesn't prevent anyone from exploiting the invention - just prevents anyone from excluding others from exploiting it. That "negotiation" you mentioned is the part where the "defensive" patent doesn't just defend the original inventor, but also prevents others from exploiting it. Which is not defensive. Ergo, "defensive" patents are BS - they're just lies to protect "offensive" exclusion like any other patent.
Publishing the invention details does exactly what "defensive" patents claim to do, without the BS. Published inventions are "owned" by the public, in the public domain, like nearly all the intellectual value contained in all intellectual property. Just because "libertarians" think everything is property, and all property has a single private owner, doesn't mean that it's true.
Patents don't exist to recognize that the first inventor is special and deserves a reward. They exist to protect the inventor from competition with unfair advantage saving their money to compete only once it's invented, taking less risks and making less investments in the invention itself. Patents are justified to allow inventors to break even without getting ripped off by vultures, not to exploit the maximum profit without competition.
The argument for their monopoly limitations on liberty is to protect investors so they will invent, which is necessary to society, otherwise they will not. The requirement that patented invention details be published immediately upon granting the monopoly protects other inventors from accidentally infringing, and ensures that the public can get those details for use in progress not excluded by the patent. Either significant improvements, or interoperation, or adopting techniques in other fields in which the original invention doesn't operate, or just after the patent expires.
Patents should last merely short times, determined by the patent office analyzing market projections produced and justified by the inventor, challengable later in court with new data, or until some reasonable ROI, at most 200%, is reached.
The patent offers no more defense against later patents on increments than does merely publishing the patent docs as prior art. Therefore, "defensive patents", which offer no more defensive benefit, but which cost more to obtain, are PR BS. They're not "defensive", or they would have been rendered as merely prior art, with the same defensive value but lower cost and greater general utility.
There's no reason to continue to bloat the patent catalog with them, though there is a reason to lie about their "defensive" nature, while retaining their offensive power.
We need to reform the patent system and office. But we don't have to wait for that to start improving it, by using (or avoiding) the existing system to get what we need.
OpenWengo is an OS-installed app, not an auto-installed downloadable app maintained on the VoIP server. Their Flash applet is closed source.
If the distribution and maintenance process is slowed down by requiring users to install (continuously bugfixed) apps under their OS, the ecosystem will remain riddled with insecurity.
No, TrollMods, a detailed response to a driveby Flame is not "Flamebait". Just because it calls your buddies "fascists" doesn't make it a flame. When they're really fascists.
Who's got an OSS Flash or Java applet that is a SIP or IAX client? If we keep the VoIP SW on the server (tested and upgraded), and give it access to our network/AV HW only on request in a sandbox, we're pretty safe against viruses. These applets can be signed and distributed easily, unlike OS-installable full apps, or dedicated HW.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's got the HowTo on embedding existing apps as modules in the SL client, with their GUIs rendered onto 2D surfaces on 3D SL objects? I want my avatar's chest to display the GAIM messages I send from my mobile phone.
Anonymous denial Coward likes testicles in his soup. Imagine what they'd eat if they actually had to live through an atomic war, instead of squatting their cushy Slashdot posting pit.
AFAIK, the Standard Model doesn't call for 70% of the mass of the universe to reside in neutrinos, or even 10%. Does the standard model describe the majority of mass as non-electromagnetic?
Photons aren't energy, they're matter with an energy equivalence proportional to their frequency. Maybe the descriptions of "dark energy" are inaccurate - they're describing dark matter at high energy. Perhaps neutrinos, or some other non-interacting particle in motion. But dark energy is described as different from familiar energy: negative pressure, something like "antigravity".
It just seems strange that we've never directly experienced dark matter/energy on or near Earth, when it's the large majority. Not that we should have it on our unique planet (in Feynman's terms - because we're on it, it's unique) - but can't we synthesize it, to study it? Especially if it's got nearly magical properties of undetectability and/or antigravity.
Dark matter is becoming as household a term as "black hole". But what makes it dark? It's matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetism, so we can't see it - though its gravitation makes it detectable by other means. But what kind of matter doesn't interact with electromagnetics? Have we ever physically obtained any? Synthesized any? And supposedly something like 70% of the dark "matter" is energy. How does non-dark energy interact with electromagnetism, where the dark "stuff" does not?
The war against Japan was an atomic war. Not exclusively atomic, but it was an atomic war. Like WWI was a trench war. No sense denying it.
I'm sure eliminating everything but the video, soundcard, network, Flash/cache and minimal CPU make for a lot more WiFi and a lot of extra weight capacity for 8h battery.
What about just the lightest, foldable-smallest, cheapest tablet that is just a high FPS streaming/VoIP/VNC client with WiFi? Everything else but the AGUI can go on a server, if the WiFi can keep the streams over 24FPS and the audio over 80Kbps, with minimal jitter and framedrops.
Funny, no mention of that "peace dividend from a war product" in the actual story, which instead cites compassion for starving Japanese on soup lines after atomic war devastated their country. But if instant ramen was indeed either inspired or funded justified by feeding soldiers better, then it's proof that outlawing war makes a nation's economy more competitive where it counts: feeding people, and making money. And thereby making peace, which even the biggest liar warmongers will claim is the reason to make war. Ramen works better. An army travels on its stomach, but for what? Everyone travels on our stomachs, and a fast hot meal is the way to our hearts.
You are an Anonymous fool Coward who knows even less about the law than about how to even post a meaningful comment on Slashdot. Your stupidity is criminal.
US copyright law protects copying content for journalism and critical reviews of even fictional content. It doesn't protect copying for mere replay of entertainment. The court has to decide whether the copying is "informational" or "entertainment".
Now that US journalism is largely indistinguishable from entertainment, it will often lose its copyright exemption protection.
Not that you'd know that from watching TV.
Oh, and we invented dorkbot
No, we just have faster mainframes. New versions of Perl will implement new HW optimizations at the same rate (faster, really, from the larger dev community and easier porting from other projects) as new COBOL releases can. It doesn't take 2 decades, but yes it would of course take time - though not decades, especially if the next-gen COBOL developers work in a better environment like a new Perl. Does the prospect of more than 2 hours of developing a new language merger mean we shouldn't do it? You really must never have programmed COBOL if you can't handle such dev timeframes.
We're discussing a story about specific evidence of Exxon paying to fake "science" to undermine legitimate science indicating climate change. Where is the evidence that "environmentalists have lied"?
You try the "everyone's a liar" trick without evidence, but then you decide that manmade global warming is fake, because you've decided that solar output is to blame. Based on your less-than-rocket science remembering something about "global cooling" from high school 30 years ago, compared against the conclusions by many actual climate science experts.
You 70s "skeptics" also tried to stop us from keeping CFC aerosols from destroying the ozone layer, but we kept your lies and denial down long enough to do a lot of fixing. You demand we do not "shout down each other", but you say that the problem is that thinking is stopped by the "sky is falling mentality". You are a hypocrite, a Greenhouse denial projector.
You have destroyed any possible credibility with your clumsy denials, and should stop shouting baseless nonsense while serious people try to figure out how to undo the damage you have been doing since the Eisenhower era.
If you're mad at energy corps ripping you off, lying to you, paying/bribing others to lie to you or to rip you off, why not fight them directly?
Join the Union of Concerned Scientists, and fight with the good guys against the bad guys. It's much more fulfilling than just bitching on Slashdot, which only consumes power which pays the energy corps to rip you off and lie to you. And drains you of the fight that could be taken right to them.
What is the evidence that they are patenting it for the "opposite reason"? If they're patenting it to prevent a profiteer from patenting it, they could just publish their patent docs and release it in the public domain. As I've discussed in detail in another subthread responding to my post, "defensive" patents are BS: they offer absolutely no more defense to the patenter than would just publishing it into the public domain. But those defensive patents are more expensive. So they are obviously BS: more cost, no more benefit.
This patent is designed, like every other, to exclude other parties from producing the invention. Which is monopoly the basis for extracting profit.
I'm waiting for someone to sue a holder of a patent on a human gene sequence, because they have the prior art, and refuse to cease & desist from producing the protein in their cells.
Patenting existing biology is a pinnacle of patent travesty, like patenting business processes not even implemented in real people.
As I said before in this thread (probably more than once by now, in different ways): the same degree of improvement is necessary to prove "novelty" compared to existing art whether that art is patented or just published. The patent does nothing extra, except that a non-novel (negligible) improver has to get a license of the patent to produce their negligibly improved invention, while they are free to produce the negligible improvement on the public domain invention. In neither case can the negligible improver patent the negligible improvement.
Lawyers will not explain that to you unless you specifically pay them to write an opinion on that question. Even then, most will write weaselly qualifiers to encourage you to patent anything you want to protect your right to exploit. Because lawyers make money off patents, and practically none off putting inventions in the public domain.
Signed applets can use contacts stored on your local host with your OK.
Storing patched SW at servers run by admins and personal data at clients protected by the people who own it is the way to best secure privacy and safety.
How about a Perl module that snarfs COBOL sourcecode and spits out Perl source, which then is either eval()'ed against the COBOL formatted data, or just stored for later execution as a standalone script? How about a Perl6 module that compiles COBOL sourcecode to Perl bytecode? COBOL is mainly just printf(), with the remaining fraction doable in Perl anyway.
What benefit does a "defensive" patent give to a defender who just wants the rights to exploit the patented invention, that merely publishing the patent docs, without registering a patent, doesn't give? None.
If the second inventor is infringing the original patent enough to need to negotiate with them, then they're prevented from patenting their second invention by the published, unpatented, prior art. But the public, unpatented, prior art doesn't prevent anyone from exploiting the invention - just prevents anyone from excluding others from exploiting it. That "negotiation" you mentioned is the part where the "defensive" patent doesn't just defend the original inventor, but also prevents others from exploiting it. Which is not defensive. Ergo, "defensive" patents are BS - they're just lies to protect "offensive" exclusion like any other patent.
Publishing the invention details does exactly what "defensive" patents claim to do, without the BS. Published inventions are "owned" by the public, in the public domain, like nearly all the intellectual value contained in all intellectual property. Just because "libertarians" think everything is property, and all property has a single private owner, doesn't mean that it's true.
Patents don't exist to recognize that the first inventor is special and deserves a reward. They exist to protect the inventor from competition with unfair advantage saving their money to compete only once it's invented, taking less risks and making less investments in the invention itself. Patents are justified to allow inventors to break even without getting ripped off by vultures, not to exploit the maximum profit without competition.
The argument for their monopoly limitations on liberty is to protect investors so they will invent, which is necessary to society, otherwise they will not. The requirement that patented invention details be published immediately upon granting the monopoly protects other inventors from accidentally infringing, and ensures that the public can get those details for use in progress not excluded by the patent. Either significant improvements, or interoperation, or adopting techniques in other fields in which the original invention doesn't operate, or just after the patent expires.
Patents should last merely short times, determined by the patent office analyzing market projections produced and justified by the inventor, challengable later in court with new data, or until some reasonable ROI, at most 200%, is reached.
The patent offers no more defense against later patents on increments than does merely publishing the patent docs as prior art. Therefore, "defensive patents", which offer no more defensive benefit, but which cost more to obtain, are PR BS. They're not "defensive", or they would have been rendered as merely prior art, with the same defensive value but lower cost and greater general utility.
There's no reason to continue to bloat the patent catalog with them, though there is a reason to lie about their "defensive" nature, while retaining their offensive power.
We need to reform the patent system and office. But we don't have to wait for that to start improving it, by using (or avoiding) the existing system to get what we need.
OpenWengo is an OS-installed app, not an auto-installed downloadable app maintained on the VoIP server. Their Flash applet is closed source.
If the distribution and maintenance process is slowed down by requiring users to install (continuously bugfixed) apps under their OS, the ecosystem will remain riddled with insecurity.
Moderation 0
50% Flamebait
50% Interesting
No, TrollMods, a detailed response to a driveby Flame is not "Flamebait". Just because it calls your buddies "fascists" doesn't make it a flame. When they're really fascists.
Who's got an OSS Flash or Java applet that is a SIP or IAX client? If we keep the VoIP SW on the server (tested and upgraded), and give it access to our network/AV HW only on request in a sandbox, we're pretty safe against viruses. These applets can be signed and distributed easily, unlike OS-installable full apps, or dedicated HW.