The problem is that for almost all software patents, a monopoly is being granted for details we did not actually need to know, because they are obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'.
And if that's true, it shouldn't be patented, hence my comment about the PTO. But the claim that *all* techniques in computing are "obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'" seems, frankly, rather ridiculous to me. If that were the case, all research in computing science might as well cease now, as, apparently, all problems are solvable by anyone with some programming experience.
Give the man a cookie. Finally, someone who actually understands the purpose of patents. The whole deal, here, is that, in the past, people just kept their inventions secret if they could. The end result? Techniques could die with their inventor (read about Damascus steel for a great example of this). And, as you say, meanwhile people have to duplicate the effort.
Patents, therefore, are a tradeoff. They protect the inventor while encouraging them to disclose their techniques. Thus, the inventor gets something (a government protected monopoly for a limited period), and society gets something (access to the details of the technology).
As for software patents, I have no problem with them on the surface (well, except for those that are obvious, but that's a problem with the patent office, not patents in general). However, I think software patents should have a more limited lifespan. After all, 20 years is a *very* long time in the world of computing (just think how different things were in 1986). Something like 4 or 5 years makes far more sense.
In my understanding, this is essentially correct-- the technology to do this exists now. However, they can be sued for this discrimination.
And yet again you ignore my question: do you have proof of this?
Again, this all started because Comcast said "we'll screw Google if we want". They wouldn't make this claim if they felt they'd be sued. And Google wouldn't be pushing for legislation preventing this behaviour if they had such obvious legal recourse. So, either you're wrong, or Google and Comcast are. I'm willing to be it's you, but hey, maybe you know something Google doesn't know.
What the hell are you talking about? Signing a binary doesn't prevent copying. All it prevents is someone from modifying the ROM and then running it on the Wii. The only thing that will "prevent copying" is full-on encryption. However, the Wii would then need the key to decrypt the content, at which point you just hack the Wii to get the key.
Basically, they're facing the exact same problem content providers are facing: you're trying to lock down content while at the same time giving the user the means to unlock it (so they can use it). And unless you can ensure the hardware is unhackable, this simply cannot work.
OK, this argument is confusing because the grandparent forgot to mention that the Telecoms are currently restricted from discriminating against companies because of their common carrier status. Current legislation means to change that, though.
And do you have proof this is the case? This whole can of worms started because a telecom head (Comcast's, I believe) stated they might start performing source-based descrimination. This implies that they feel free they can do this.
Further, AFAIK, CC status only pertains to the content flowing across their network. If they block material based on content, then they are responsible for any other content on their network. However, I don't believe it's clear that CC status prevents ISPs from blocking/slowing *all* content from a given source.
Point being, I don't think it's at all clear that telecoms can't start throttling traffic *now*, if they so choose. And hence Google's (and others) efforts to get legislation passed to *prevent* this from happening. Last I'd heard, anyway.
Now, the government is currently trying to enact legislation which will make the above possible. The supporters of the Net Neutrality movement argue that the rules should stay as they are: we've not needed explicit rules before, we shouldn't be adding them now. The opponents of the movement argue that network companies shouldn't be stopped from using Quality-of-Service in their offerings. Now, there were some important points there:
What the... okay, now I'm *really* confused.
If "the government is currently trying to enact legislation which will make the above possible", then the legislation that's apparently being worked on allows "AT&T (and Comcast, and Rogers) go back to their HQ and tune their Quality-of-Service so that Google's traffic is slowed down significantly", right? Because that's what was "above".
Okay, so far so good. Legislation == screw over Google. Then you say "the supporters of the Net Neutrality movement argue that the rules should stay as they are". IOW, let the system be. If people want to fuck around with QoS and screw Google over, so be it, right? That's the way it is right now. Anyone can adjust QoS as they see fit, today, because it's their network.
But *then*, you claim "The opponents of the [Net Neutrality] argue that network companies shouldn't be stopped from using Quality-of-Service in their offerings". So... the legislation == screw Google. Supporters == screw Google. And... opponents == screw Google??
Honestly, it's people like you who confuse this fucking issue.
More to the point, third parties porting their games to other platforms, to me, suggests lack of confidence in the PS3 marketplace, and *that* is scary. After all, it's one thing for a dope like me to predict doom for Sony. It's another, entirely, if their third-party developers lose confidence in them.
Actually, that's not that unusual. Caffeine is a vasoconstrictor, and so it can work to cure headaches in some people (particularly in the case of tension headaches). Heck, painkillers such as ibuprofen are often combined with caffeine, as the two together work even better.
Yeah, it is harmless... when you aren't overdosing on the shit. Seriously, 10-12 cans a *DAY*? If I was your pancreas, I would have taken you out and shot you.
it just turns into a platform to accelrate demeaning and hateful comments.
Umm... how can it not, when you're spitting out things like:
"So, prior to the flood, there was a canopy of water or vapor in the outer atmosphere. Also, land was all connected as a single continent, with water under the land."
Honestly, that's the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I've ever heard! "Canopy of water"? "water under the land"? Can you see how fucking insane this is??
Look, the fact is, because of your 'faith', you can just make shit like this up (okay, that's not entirely fair... you start off with the bible, and *then* start making shit up) in order to justify your beliefs. Fine, that's great, I'm all for it! Have fun! But the minute you try to take these crazy-ass fables of yours and promote them in schools, or inject them into government, I have *serious* problems.
Wow, spending most of the review focusing on supposedly crappy AI and crappy plot, only to barely mention graphics and the end and some multiplayer action as being great.
Yeah, no kidding! How dare he focus on things like, you know, gameplay! I mean, graphics and the ending are *so* much more important than the AI and actual plot, as far as enjoyment of a game goes, right?
People can train themselves not to be bystanders, and well they should.
Of course they can. But they need to realize that's what's happening, first. The important thing is this effect exists. It's not some failing in society. These aren't terrible, selfish people who only think of themselves. These are people who, faced with this particular situation, behaved exactly as is expected from current psychological theory.
Re:A LAW FOR EUROPEAN DIESEL STANDARDS FOR US.
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
Taxing fuel to get SUV's off the road is irrational.
No, actually it's quite economically sound. The goal, here, is to force the cost of externalities back on to the consumer. See, the problem is that, right now, the cost of fuel doesn't fully reflect it's true cost, in terms of environmental impact. If you apply a fuel tax, you artificially inject this cost back into the system, and can allow free market economics to solve the problem (heck, just look at the push for efficient vehicles after the recent increases in fuel prices).
As for the poor, you can easily offset the inherent regressiveness of the tax by providing a rebate, or heck, even creating a voucher system. It *is* a solvable problem. But proposing a fuel tax is tantamount to political suicide, so you'd never see it happen.
If you want to prove a hypothesis - you need evidence.
Nice, you just illustrated the GPs point.
You *can't* prove a scientific hypothesis! All you can do is provide more and more evidence to back it up. Even General Relativity isn't "proven" in the scientific sense, and as far as theories goes, it's as rigorously tested as they get.
So, the question is, at what point will there be enough evidence to convince you? Personally, I think the answer is "never", because you have your beliefs and you're unwilling to deviate from them.
Please, don't be so reactionary. As was linked to elsewhere in this discussion, this is referred to as the Bystander Effect. It's a very real psychological phenomena, and while people like to attribute this sort of behaviour to some "problem with our times", the reality is that there is a real effect occuring here that's important to understand.
Actually, the bystander effect combined with the fact that these were authority figures (thus creating a fear of punishment or retaliation) makes it *far* less likely that someone would come to this individual's aid. Unfortunate, but true.
Meanwhile, I might point out that it's incredibly easy for you to Monday-night-quarterback the events. I'm willing to bet your actions wouldn't have been nearly so heroic, had you actually been placed in that situation. The instinct for self-preservation, the power of group psychology, and our own tendency toward obedience to authority figures, can make otherwise good people behave remarkably poorly (the Milgram experiment being a rather dramatic illustration, not to mention the murder of Kitty Genovese).
Bah, don't be ridiculous. Graphical improvements made from the Atari up to probably the PS1 generation made a genuine difference to gameplay, as it allowed things that simply weren't possible before (or do you really believe something like Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Mario 64 would have been possible on a 2600?).
Now, however, we've reached a plateau where improvement to graphics has little to no effect on the quality of gameplay. Which is why, I think, Nintendo decided to make a lateral move and focus on new interfaces, rather than technical one-upmanship.
Oh ffs, that's called "poorly worded". It's pretty clear, given the reality of the situation, that the intent was to point out the lack of a cable to output HD on an HDTV. The fact you can't accept this means you're either a) thick, or b) a Sony apologist. Or, I suppose, c) both.
I think the PS3 is overpriced, rushed out of the door and overpowered, but it sure is innovative: Cell is a completely new architecture and Blu Ray a completely new storage medium.
Uhh, huh? Cell is just the PS2 architecture taken to it's logical conclusion. Rather than a bunch of special purpose vector units surrounding a single core, you have a bunch of cores. Nothing terribly special, there, IMHO.
And BR is just a souped up DVD. Nothing more, nothing less. It's no more innovative than moving from CD to DVD... it's yet another optical drive, with it's usual host of problems (load times, scratched media, etc, etc).
Honestly, I see very little in the PS3 that's terribly innovative or compelling. The Cell is really the best thing it has going for it, as far as that goes, and ironically, it works *against* game developers by making their jobs significantly harder, as writing a game for the PS3 is now a very different task compared to writing one for, say, the Wii or 360.
Then 1080i does have an advantage over 1080p30, specifically in cost, and that's a very legitimate reason. After all, HDTV is already out of reach for most average consumers. If only progressives were available, it would be that much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that for almost all software patents, a monopoly is being granted for details we did not actually need to know, because they are obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'.
And if that's true, it shouldn't be patented, hence my comment about the PTO. But the claim that *all* techniques in computing are "obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'" seems, frankly, rather ridiculous to me. If that were the case, all research in computing science might as well cease now, as, apparently, all problems are solvable by anyone with some programming experience.
Give the man a cookie. Finally, someone who actually understands the purpose of patents. The whole deal, here, is that, in the past, people just kept their inventions secret if they could. The end result? Techniques could die with their inventor (read about Damascus steel for a great example of this). And, as you say, meanwhile people have to duplicate the effort.
Patents, therefore, are a tradeoff. They protect the inventor while encouraging them to disclose their techniques. Thus, the inventor gets something (a government protected monopoly for a limited period), and society gets something (access to the details of the technology).
As for software patents, I have no problem with them on the surface (well, except for those that are obvious, but that's a problem with the patent office, not patents in general). However, I think software patents should have a more limited lifespan. After all, 20 years is a *very* long time in the world of computing (just think how different things were in 1986). Something like 4 or 5 years makes far more sense.
In my understanding, this is essentially correct-- the technology to do this exists now. However, they can be sued for this discrimination.
And yet again you ignore my question: do you have proof of this?
Again, this all started because Comcast said "we'll screw Google if we want". They wouldn't make this claim if they felt they'd be sued. And Google wouldn't be pushing for legislation preventing this behaviour if they had such obvious legal recourse. So, either you're wrong, or Google and Comcast are. I'm willing to be it's you, but hey, maybe you know something Google doesn't know.
What the hell are you talking about? Signing a binary doesn't prevent copying. All it prevents is someone from modifying the ROM and then running it on the Wii. The only thing that will "prevent copying" is full-on encryption. However, the Wii would then need the key to decrypt the content, at which point you just hack the Wii to get the key.
Basically, they're facing the exact same problem content providers are facing: you're trying to lock down content while at the same time giving the user the means to unlock it (so they can use it). And unless you can ensure the hardware is unhackable, this simply cannot work.
OK, this argument is confusing because the grandparent forgot to mention that the Telecoms are currently restricted from discriminating against companies because of their common carrier status. Current legislation means to change that, though.
And do you have proof this is the case? This whole can of worms started because a telecom head (Comcast's, I believe) stated they might start performing source-based descrimination. This implies that they feel free they can do this.
Further, AFAIK, CC status only pertains to the content flowing across their network. If they block material based on content, then they are responsible for any other content on their network. However, I don't believe it's clear that CC status prevents ISPs from blocking/slowing *all* content from a given source.
Point being, I don't think it's at all clear that telecoms can't start throttling traffic *now*, if they so choose. And hence Google's (and others) efforts to get legislation passed to *prevent* this from happening. Last I'd heard, anyway.
Now, the government is currently trying to enact legislation which will make the above possible. The supporters of the Net Neutrality movement argue that the rules should stay as they are: we've not needed explicit rules before, we shouldn't be adding them now. The opponents of the movement argue that network companies shouldn't be stopped from using Quality-of-Service in their offerings. Now, there were some important points there:
What the... okay, now I'm *really* confused.
If "the government is currently trying to enact legislation which will make the above possible", then the legislation that's apparently being worked on allows "AT&T (and Comcast, and Rogers) go back to their HQ and tune their Quality-of-Service so that Google's traffic is slowed down significantly", right? Because that's what was "above".
Okay, so far so good. Legislation == screw over Google. Then you say "the supporters of the Net Neutrality movement argue that the rules should stay as they are". IOW, let the system be. If people want to fuck around with QoS and screw Google over, so be it, right? That's the way it is right now. Anyone can adjust QoS as they see fit, today, because it's their network.
But *then*, you claim "The opponents of the [Net Neutrality] argue that network companies shouldn't be stopped from using Quality-of-Service in their offerings". So... the legislation == screw Google. Supporters == screw Google. And... opponents == screw Google??
Honestly, it's people like you who confuse this fucking issue.
More to the point, third parties porting their games to other platforms, to me, suggests lack of confidence in the PS3 marketplace, and *that* is scary. After all, it's one thing for a dope like me to predict doom for Sony. It's another, entirely, if their third-party developers lose confidence in them.
Actually, that's not that unusual. Caffeine is a vasoconstrictor, and so it can work to cure headaches in some people (particularly in the case of tension headaches). Heck, painkillers such as ibuprofen are often combined with caffeine, as the two together work even better.
Yeah, it is harmless... when you aren't overdosing on the shit. Seriously, 10-12 cans a *DAY*? If I was your pancreas, I would have taken you out and shot you.
it just turns into a platform to accelrate demeaning and hateful comments.
Umm... how can it not, when you're spitting out things like:
"So, prior to the flood, there was a canopy of water or vapor in the outer atmosphere. Also, land was all connected as a single continent, with water under the land."
Honestly, that's the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I've ever heard! "Canopy of water"? "water under the land"? Can you see how fucking insane this is??
Look, the fact is, because of your 'faith', you can just make shit like this up (okay, that's not entirely fair... you start off with the bible, and *then* start making shit up) in order to justify your beliefs. Fine, that's great, I'm all for it! Have fun! But the minute you try to take these crazy-ass fables of yours and promote them in schools, or inject them into government, I have *serious* problems.
Wow, spending most of the review focusing on supposedly crappy AI and crappy plot, only to barely mention graphics and the end and some multiplayer action as being great.
Yeah, no kidding! How dare he focus on things like, you know, gameplay! I mean, graphics and the ending are *so* much more important than the AI and actual plot, as far as enjoyment of a game goes, right?
People can train themselves not to be bystanders, and well they should.
Of course they can. But they need to realize that's what's happening, first. The important thing is this effect exists. It's not some failing in society. These aren't terrible, selfish people who only think of themselves. These are people who, faced with this particular situation, behaved exactly as is expected from current psychological theory.
Taxing fuel to get SUV's off the road is irrational.
No, actually it's quite economically sound. The goal, here, is to force the cost of externalities back on to the consumer. See, the problem is that, right now, the cost of fuel doesn't fully reflect it's true cost, in terms of environmental impact. If you apply a fuel tax, you artificially inject this cost back into the system, and can allow free market economics to solve the problem (heck, just look at the push for efficient vehicles after the recent increases in fuel prices).
As for the poor, you can easily offset the inherent regressiveness of the tax by providing a rebate, or heck, even creating a voucher system. It *is* a solvable problem. But proposing a fuel tax is tantamount to political suicide, so you'd never see it happen.
If you want to prove a hypothesis - you need evidence.
Nice, you just illustrated the GPs point.
You *can't* prove a scientific hypothesis! All you can do is provide more and more evidence to back it up. Even General Relativity isn't "proven" in the scientific sense, and as far as theories goes, it's as rigorously tested as they get.
So, the question is, at what point will there be enough evidence to convince you? Personally, I think the answer is "never", because you have your beliefs and you're unwilling to deviate from them.
Unfortunately the kid got what he deserved, maybe a bit too much of what he deserved, but definitely what he deserved.
He deserved to be electrocuted repeatedly while lying prone on the ground? Wow. I'd hate to be your misbehaving children...
Please, don't be so reactionary. As was linked to elsewhere in this discussion, this is referred to as the Bystander Effect. It's a very real psychological phenomena, and while people like to attribute this sort of behaviour to some "problem with our times", the reality is that there is a real effect occuring here that's important to understand.
Actually, the bystander effect combined with the fact that these were authority figures (thus creating a fear of punishment or retaliation) makes it *far* less likely that someone would come to this individual's aid. Unfortunate, but true.
Meanwhile, I might point out that it's incredibly easy for you to Monday-night-quarterback the events. I'm willing to bet your actions wouldn't have been nearly so heroic, had you actually been placed in that situation. The instinct for self-preservation, the power of group psychology, and our own tendency toward obedience to authority figures, can make otherwise good people behave remarkably poorly (the Milgram experiment being a rather dramatic illustration, not to mention the murder of Kitty Genovese).
Bah, don't be ridiculous. Graphical improvements made from the Atari up to probably the PS1 generation made a genuine difference to gameplay, as it allowed things that simply weren't possible before (or do you really believe something like Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog, or Mario 64 would have been possible on a 2600?).
Now, however, we've reached a plateau where improvement to graphics has little to no effect on the quality of gameplay. Which is why, I think, Nintendo decided to make a lateral move and focus on new interfaces, rather than technical one-upmanship.
Yes, because PowerPC is clock-for-clock comparable to an Intel, and an nVidia card is clock-for-clock comparable to an ATI.
And besides, who cares, as long as the games are fun?
Oh ffs, that's called "poorly worded". It's pretty clear, given the reality of the situation, that the intent was to point out the lack of a cable to output HD on an HDTV. The fact you can't accept this means you're either a) thick, or b) a Sony apologist. Or, I suppose, c) both.
I think the PS3 is overpriced, rushed out of the door and overpowered, but it sure is innovative: Cell is a completely new architecture and Blu Ray a completely new storage medium.
Uhh, huh? Cell is just the PS2 architecture taken to it's logical conclusion. Rather than a bunch of special purpose vector units surrounding a single core, you have a bunch of cores. Nothing terribly special, there, IMHO.
And BR is just a souped up DVD. Nothing more, nothing less. It's no more innovative than moving from CD to DVD... it's yet another optical drive, with it's usual host of problems (load times, scratched media, etc, etc).
Honestly, I see very little in the PS3 that's terribly innovative or compelling. The Cell is really the best thing it has going for it, as far as that goes, and ironically, it works *against* game developers by making their jobs significantly harder, as writing a game for the PS3 is now a very different task compared to writing one for, say, the Wii or 360.
I'd hate to see what it's like at night. So many of the pedestrians in that video should have been run over!
Why? In such an environment, it's the responsibility of the pedestrian to cross safely, and I suspect they can see the cars just fine.
Or you could spend $500 on a decent PC in a small-form-factor enclosure that'll handle any media you throw at it.
Honestly, how is a PS3 remotely cost effective for this purpose??
And that explains why the Pine Patches website, a project entirely divorced from the Pine project, can't be moved, how?
Then 1080i does have an advantage over 1080p30, specifically in cost, and that's a very legitimate reason. After all, HDTV is already out of reach for most average consumers. If only progressives were available, it would be that much worse.