"A fantastic feat of engineering it may be, but you missed out the rather crucial word "unmanned"..."
Boy, it's a good thing those first rockets had people in 'em. Otherwise they'd have been worthless at getting us to be able to build rockets that could hold people.
"...but one almost certainly cannot show him believably without a hug budget."
Very true. Hoopy frood though he may be, Zaphod needs constant validation of self-worth from others. I imagine he'd run through huggers faster than Marvin would drive grips suicidal.
How soon we forget: The books were novelizations of the Hith-hikers Radio Scripts, a 12-installment radio programme.
"We had nothing in common: I liked watching movies made from books I'd read. She like reading novelizations of movies. It's no wonder she finished Lord of the Rings so fast."
Helios *can* fly at an absurdly high altitude (100,000 feet) but it flies *better* at lower altitudes (60,000 feet) and can hold 6 times as much payload doing so.
My point is that when you're faced with different constraints, it's often better to start from the ground up with a design that fits those constraints. If it were me, I would start with a glider as a base, and modify the structure to accomodate a little more weight, and a relatively small electric engine.
Conventional is great for the task it was designed and iterated for. That's why it becomes considered conventional. However, changing one aspect to something unconventional, while still sticking with the other attributes, just because they are conventional, is false thinking.
In short, things are conventional because they're good at what they do. They're not good at what they do because they're conventional. If you change a part of it, and it no longer becomes as good at what it does, it doesn't matter that it's 80% based on conventional ideas, because the new product itself will never be conventional.
Conventional is fine, but when you tinker with it, conventional doesn't always make the best base to iterate from.
It's interesting that the article completely ignores Helios, NASA's tested and proven high-altitude, entirely solar and battery-powered aircraft.
It seems absurd to say that the only route to a viable ZEV passenger aircraft is to stuff batteries into a conventional aircraft, and try to make it more efficient. Conventional aircraft have evolved based on the assumption of a significant power source.
Avenues of research involving the creation of ZEV aircraft, like Helios or a glider with a battery booster, that work well for their given tasks, are just as, if not more, viable ways to reach the destination of a viable ZEV commuter craft.
Mandating novel energy sources but ignoring novel form factors seems pretty short sighted. I hope it's only the Globe article's author who pooh-poohed such avenues, and not the researchers in the field.
I assume you'd be similarly cynical about the Wright Brothers. Their first day of flying yeilded speeds slower than a bicycle and a distance of less than 100 yards, yet it proved that the technology was feasable.
The way I see it, students and volunteers working on a low-budget proof of concept would probably see at least half an order of magnatude improvement when working with refined tools, a plane specifically built around the flight tolerances expected, more heavily researched and mass-produced.
True, it would be nice if it got off the ground, but the forecasted specs for this prototype, 100mph and 100mi range, don't bother me in the least.
Already CNN, MSNBC, and a lot of other news stations have a bottom portion of the screen dedicated to metanews. The answer will probably be that they will periodically take over the lower portion of the screen to show sponsorship information. Networks could work with production companies to find the times when this is least intrusive to the story, since a cognitive disruption damages the brand and the show at the same time, after all.
In my opinion, this would almost be worth it to get rid of commercial breaks. True, commercials would have to lack video, and have to be compelling enough to entice with just words or graphics on a smaller piece of real estate (cough*bannerads*cough), but this might not be such a bad thing...
That's a nice handle. Would that stating something made it so...
It's a shame that you either didn't read my post, or didn't bother to understand it. If you had, you'd have realized:
I didn't say that AOLiza predated your 'invention' or served as prior art. In fact, my first post said just the opposite. However...
If 'LONG before AOLiza' is over 11 months before, then I'm sorry, but you worked yourself OUT of the patent, because patent law decrees that you have to file the patent within one year of the invention (which I also mentioned in my original post, had you bothered to read it).
You don't address the main point I made, which is that, by putting in hooks for bots in the first place, AOL did the legwork that made your work whether it used those hooks or not a simple and predictable extention of previsously available technologies, and not a novel invention worthy of a patent, by their own federal regulations.
Read before you flame. Slashdot forums aren't the place to vigorously defent a patent through FUD.
As the creator (hack, cough, apologies to Prof Weisenbaum (sp)) or AOLiza, I've got a few opinions on ActiveBuddy's patent claim:
First, sadly, despite the fact that AOLiza was unleashed a few weeks before ActiveBuddy's patent filing, it doesn't apply as prior art, because according to patent law, if the claimant filed the patent application within one year of inventing, disclosing, or even detailing the invention in an email, it's still valid.
That isn't to say that prior art doesn't exist. I'm certain that it does, not the least of which in the AIM::BOT perl libraries which preceeded ActiveBuddy by well over a year.
Moreover, AOLiza doesn't even use the AIM::BOT libraries (although an earlier test version did). It uses the Mac version of AIM and the applescript hooks that AOL put into that application. These hooks, including calls so that other programs can grab messages, send messages, and do a myriad of other 'bot' functions, existed well over a year before ActiveBuddy's application, and were clearly designed to allow the attachment of automated scripts or bots to be used with the application.
This is important because in addition to 'get there first' and 'usefulness' the third requirement for a successful patent application is demonstrated non-obviousness. The invention has to be a novel application of technologies, not simply an evolution of existing (and possibly patented) technologies.
Clearly, when AIM for Mac had hooks specifically written to allow third-party programs to act as bots, another companys claim that actually USING those hooks, or punching holes into another part of the program to make hooks of their own, can not be seen as novel in any way.
That's my two cents, and I'd be happy to testify in court.
Let's see: First news link was DOA. Second one says "University of Queensland researchers say they are receiving data from the rocket, but it is too early to say whether the experiment has been a success." which/. interprets as "Successfully tested."
Salshdot editors must feel pretty giddy with their manifest-destiny powers, if writing a headline can make something so...
Yeah. 'Jeb' (the character I played) gives out his email a lot, and is sure that torrent of emails from the hot women in bars are just about to roll in.
The easy way not to get hit with a cease and desist is to not use the Apple logo or one of Apple's trademarks.
Imitate the style, but don't make something that infringes on their marks, and should the cease and desist come in, you can laugh at them, and maybe call them up to do it to their face.
Thanks for the more than one word answer. Really... I was honestly asking the first time.
Noprob.;-)
Yes, it should show up in Update for X. I guess they assumed that folks who would need carbonlib would boot into 9 now and again. That makes a certain amount of sense, because the apps that rely on carbonlib are those that are built to run in both OS X and OS 9. Therefore, any app that would take advantage of carbonlib would only do so if you were running in OS 9 mode as opposed to OS X + Classic.
Thanks for making me think that through. I hadn't realized that 'till now.
You: "Wasn't it like a month ago they released an update to CarbonLib they encouraged everyone to get, and you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it?" Me: "No" You: "Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I was imagining this then."
No, you weren't imagining the article, just the part where you interpreted it to mean "you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it." There were direct download links in the story body itself.
More to the point though, my original post was written to make the point that the average OS X user has no reason to fear Software Update while running in Classic mode. 'Booting up into OS 9 and running Software Update' is not the same as running in Classic mode, and via Apple's means of notifying users of the update, those who run in classic mode were given a direct download link. Those who don't regualrly use the OS 9 version of Software Update (ie those who are using OS X and Classic instead of OS 9) never got notification to use OS 9's software update to install the CarbonLib update.
My plan is: Each time my mom calls with a tech question for her PC, I time the call, and ask her to put $(minutes) into a cookie jar. When she has $1300, I'll tell her to use it to get an LCD iMac.
"Wasn't it like a month ago they released an update to CarbonLib they encouraged everyone to get, and you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it?"
and to prevent Classic from becoming its own security hole.
This wouldn't be a problem for the average user running OS X and classic, since the OS 9 version of software update wouldn't ever be launched. Only the Os X version would be activated regularly to check for updates.
True that until they patch the OS 9 version similarly there will be a lingering risk for people running OS 9 as their primary OS, but not for those using it in Classic mode.
Slashdot Mirror
"A fantastic feat of engineering it may be, but you missed out the rather crucial word "unmanned"..."
Boy, it's a good thing those first rockets had people in 'em. Otherwise they'd have been worthless at getting us to be able to build rockets that could hold people.
"...but one almost certainly cannot show him believably without a hug budget."
Very true. Hoopy frood though he may be, Zaphod needs constant validation of self-worth from others. I imagine he'd run through huggers faster than Marvin would drive grips suicidal.
How soon we forget: The books were novelizations of the Hith-hikers Radio Scripts, a 12-installment radio programme.
"We had nothing in common: I liked watching movies made from books I'd read. She like reading novelizations of movies. It's no wonder she finished Lord of the Rings so fast."
Helios *can* fly at an absurdly high altitude (100,000 feet) but it flies *better* at lower altitudes (60,000 feet) and can hold 6 times as much payload doing so.
My point is that when you're faced with different constraints, it's often better to start from the ground up with a design that fits those constraints. If it were me, I would start with a glider as a base, and modify the structure to accomodate a little more weight, and a relatively small electric engine.
Conventional is great for the task it was designed and iterated for. That's why it becomes considered conventional. However, changing one aspect to something unconventional, while still sticking with the other attributes, just because they are conventional, is false thinking.
In short, things are conventional because they're good at what they do. They're not good at what they do because they're conventional. If you change a part of it, and it no longer becomes as good at what it does, it doesn't matter that it's 80% based on conventional ideas, because the new product itself will never be conventional.
Conventional is fine, but when you tinker with it, conventional doesn't always make the best base to iterate from.
It's interesting that the article completely ignores Helios, NASA's tested and proven high-altitude, entirely solar and battery-powered aircraft.
It seems absurd to say that the only route to a viable ZEV passenger aircraft is to stuff batteries into a conventional aircraft, and try to make it more efficient. Conventional aircraft have evolved based on the assumption of a significant power source.
Avenues of research involving the creation of ZEV aircraft, like Helios or a glider with a battery booster, that work well for their given tasks, are just as, if not more, viable ways to reach the destination of a viable ZEV commuter craft.
Mandating novel energy sources but ignoring novel form factors seems pretty short sighted. I hope it's only the Globe article's author who pooh-poohed such avenues, and not the researchers in the field.
I assume you'd be similarly cynical about the Wright Brothers. Their first day of flying yeilded speeds slower than a bicycle and a distance of less than 100 yards, yet it proved that the technology was feasable.
The way I see it, students and volunteers working on a low-budget proof of concept would probably see at least half an order of magnatude improvement when working with refined tools, a plane specifically built around the flight tolerances expected, more heavily researched and mass-produced.
True, it would be nice if it got off the ground, but the forecasted specs for this prototype, 100mph and 100mi range, don't bother me in the least.
MoL lets you run Mac on Linux. MoL for OS X lets you run OS 9 on OS X. That's Classic.
Which platform?
Is this news?
Watch EdTV.
Already CNN, MSNBC, and a lot of other news stations have a bottom portion of the screen dedicated to metanews. The answer will probably be that they will periodically take over the lower portion of the screen to show sponsorship information. Networks could work with production companies to find the times when this is least intrusive to the story, since a cognitive disruption damages the brand and the show at the same time, after all.
In my opinion, this would almost be worth it to get rid of commercial breaks. True, commercials would have to lack video, and have to be compelling enough to entice with just words or graphics on a smaller piece of real estate (cough*bannerads*cough), but this might not be such a bad thing...
It's a shame that you either didn't read my post, or didn't bother to understand it. If you had, you'd have realized:
- I didn't say that AOLiza predated your 'invention' or served as prior art. In fact, my first post said just the opposite. However...
- If 'LONG before AOLiza' is over 11 months before, then I'm sorry, but you worked yourself OUT of the patent, because patent law decrees that you have to file the patent within one year of the invention (which I also mentioned in my original post, had you bothered to read it).
- You don't address the main point I made, which is that, by putting in hooks for bots in the first place, AOL did the legwork that made your work whether it used those hooks or not a simple and predictable extention of previsously available technologies, and not a novel invention worthy of a patent, by their own federal regulations.
Read before you flame. Slashdot forums aren't the place to vigorously defent a patent through FUD.As the creator (hack, cough, apologies to Prof Weisenbaum (sp)) or AOLiza, I've got a few opinions on ActiveBuddy's patent claim:
First, sadly, despite the fact that AOLiza was unleashed a few weeks before ActiveBuddy's patent filing, it doesn't apply as prior art, because according to patent law, if the claimant filed the patent application within one year of inventing, disclosing, or even detailing the invention in an email, it's still valid.
That isn't to say that prior art doesn't exist. I'm certain that it does, not the least of which in the AIM::BOT perl libraries which preceeded ActiveBuddy by well over a year.
Moreover, AOLiza doesn't even use the AIM::BOT libraries (although an earlier test version did). It uses the Mac version of AIM and the applescript hooks that AOL put into that application. These hooks, including calls so that other programs can grab messages, send messages, and do a myriad of other 'bot' functions, existed well over a year before ActiveBuddy's application, and were clearly designed to allow the attachment of automated scripts or bots to be used with the application.
This is important because in addition to 'get there first' and 'usefulness' the third requirement for a successful patent application is demonstrated non-obviousness. The invention has to be a novel application of technologies, not simply an evolution of existing (and possibly patented) technologies.
Clearly, when AIM for Mac had hooks specifically written to allow third-party programs to act as bots, another companys claim that actually USING those hooks, or punching holes into another part of the program to make hooks of their own, can not be seen as novel in any way.
That's my two cents, and I'd be happy to testify in court.
This sounds exaactly like a certain recruiting post on Craigslist about six weeks ago.
God, having an eidetic memory comes in handy...
- Securith through Obscurity
and- Security through Diligence
we now add the mighty- Security through Litigation?
To be fair, when do the handgun designers go to jail again?Let's see: First news link was DOA. Second one says "University of Queensland researchers say they are receiving data from the rocket, but it is too early to say whether the experiment has been a success." which /. interprets as "Successfully tested."
Salshdot editors must feel pretty giddy with their manifest-destiny powers, if writing a headline can make something so...
Yeah. 'Jeb' (the character I played) gives out his email a lot, and is sure that torrent of emails from the hot women in bars are just about to roll in.
:-)
But I think the point still stands.
The easy way not to get hit with a cease and desist is to not use the Apple logo or one of Apple's trademarks.
Imitate the style, but don't make something that infringes on their marks, and should the cease and desist come in, you can laugh at them, and maybe call them up to do it to their face.
Another parody, combining 'switch' and the '.mac' debacle...
Yeah, I know it's a self-link, but.. well... mod me down if it's not funny.
Which is refreshing considering that several of the questions were the same, though reprinted in slightly varying formats...
I was going to say $($minutes) but I couldn't decide which $ should be escaped.
I mean to say that for each minute, t\she should contribute a dollar to her iMac fund.
Actually, Classic regularly launches OS 9's Software Update on my Cube, every Monday night.
Oops on me then. Hopefully they'll have an update for Software Update 9 soon...
Thanks for the more than one word answer. Really... I was honestly asking the first time.
;-)
Noprob.
Yes, it should show up in Update for X. I guess they assumed that folks who would need carbonlib would boot into 9 now and again. That makes a certain amount of sense, because the apps that rely on carbonlib are those that are built to run in both OS X and OS 9. Therefore, any app that would take advantage of carbonlib would only do so if you were running in OS 9 mode as opposed to OS X + Classic.
Thanks for making me think that through. I hadn't realized that 'till now.
You: "Wasn't it like a month ago they released an update to CarbonLib they encouraged everyone to get, and you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it?"
Me: "No"
You: "Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I was imagining this then."
No, you weren't imagining the article, just the part where you interpreted it to mean "you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it." There were direct download links in the story body itself.
More to the point though, my original post was written to make the point that the average OS X user has no reason to fear Software Update while running in Classic mode. 'Booting up into OS 9 and running Software Update' is not the same as running in Classic mode, and via Apple's means of notifying users of the update, those who run in classic mode were given a direct download link. Those who don't regualrly use the OS 9 version of Software Update (ie those who are using OS X and Classic instead of OS 9) never got notification to use OS 9's software update to install the CarbonLib update.
Game, set, and match. Thanks for playing.
My plan is: Each time my mom calls with a tech question for her PC, I time the call, and ask her to put $(minutes) into a cookie jar. When she has $1300, I'll tell her to use it to get an LCD iMac.
"Wasn't it like a month ago they released an update to CarbonLib they encouraged everyone to get, and you had to boot to OS 9 and run software update there to get it?"
No.
and to prevent Classic from becoming its own security hole.
This wouldn't be a problem for the average user running OS X and classic, since the OS 9 version of software update wouldn't ever be launched. Only the Os X version would be activated regularly to check for updates.
True that until they patch the OS 9 version similarly there will be a lingering risk for people running OS 9 as their primary OS, but not for those using it in Classic mode.