Actually it probably does affect Chrome. For some stupid reason the Windows version of Chrome shares it's network settings with Internet Explorer, which makes it lose a great many points.
Can you be sure to be the first to hear yesterdays news, today. People were submitting this all last night and evening, and after every other site reported it finally Slashdot get's t's act together and posts the story. I don't understand why people pay for this site -- probably the same people who pay for Hotmail.
They make big sweeping changes to a new technology that is not well tested or even finished, ala PulseAudio. It's for this reason it's always felt buggy to me. I honestly don't get the global appeal, Fedora is cutting edge and stable and just as easy to use, while something like Madrive is stable and easy to use. I guess the free CD promo really paid off.
Your little blurb paragraph lacks enough detail to be considered prior art for a patent application that would have excessive detail, making your little blurb abstract enough not to qualify in any meaningful way.
Honestly, it won't and can't be used for anything, and I guarantee it never will be, nor that any comment on any BBS ever has.
Ahh, thanks for the reply. I just find it odd....I never used my account for many years because I would seldom post. A lot of the comments I read from AC's are just as valid as someone with an account, I just don't get the attitude around here that AC automatically equals not worth listening to.
I had no idea MS were doing the same thing as Apple, exercising completely control over what applications you have permission to install on a device you purchased. Why would they copy Apple in this area?
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant. A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
I just don't get what APK's deal is. He is clearly ignorant/misinformed and surely knows better...but I don't think I have ever seen a more dedicated troll than WillyonWheels. I mean..., he has been posting this same shit for years now, slightly customizing it for each story. It must be nice to have that much free time.
Your reply is equivalent to arguing that people should be able to leave their houses completely open and unlocked, because it's wrong to steal. This is true, but completely irrelevant from a practical standpoint. As long as people *can* do something that benefits them, they *will*.
Yes...I should not have to check addons to firefox to make sure nothing dodgy has been installed. Of course, this behaviour will continue as long as it is technically possible, so why doesn't Mozilla simply make it impossible? Only allow installing addons through firefox, with explicit prompts.
So, wait, Akondai is just PIM stuff? I thought I remember it clashing with sound daemon of some sort. I wonder if Akondai needs to be on every PC, when most people are storing their stuff, at least contacts in the cloud. Why replicate it in many places? Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
I stayed away from the 4.x serious in particular. not least because of all the Akondai stuff. I think a DE should be as minimal as possible...provide a shell, file browser, and maybe some basic applications. KDE seems to want to manage everything, and there is so much stuff running in the background that I have no idea what is needed and what is not. I also think it is somewhat childish to start every application with a K...but hey.
I should note that I am arguing from ignorance here about my knowledge of the workings, just my brief experiences. But, that is the impression I got. Is there any truth to it, and if there is, why has the KDE team gone down that road?
It seems to be less about configurability and themes and more to do with how much you think your DE should be responsible for.
It clearly states on the internode site that the terabyte is split between peak and offpeak. It also states that it is a combined effort, so no, 500gb download MAX, half of which must be during offpeak.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it probably does affect Chrome. For some stupid reason the Windows version of Chrome shares it's network settings with Internet Explorer, which makes it lose a great many points.
My God, get over it.
Can you be sure to be the first to hear yesterdays news, today. People were submitting this all last night and evening, and after every other site reported it finally Slashdot get's t's act together and posts the story. I don't understand why people pay for this site -- probably the same people who pay for Hotmail.
They make big sweeping changes to a new technology that is not well tested or even finished, ala PulseAudio. It's for this reason it's always felt buggy to me. I honestly don't get the global appeal, Fedora is cutting edge and stable and just as easy to use, while something like Madrive is stable and easy to use. I guess the free CD promo really paid off.
Two words: Lacks and Detail.
Your little blurb paragraph lacks enough detail to be considered prior art for a patent application that would have excessive detail, making your little blurb abstract enough not to qualify in any meaningful way.
Honestly, it won't and can't be used for anything, and I guarantee it never will be, nor that any comment on any BBS ever has.
Only APK quotes like you do, i.e. like an idiot. Stop following me troll.
you realize that the above is useless as far as being submitted for prior art, right?
Ahh, thanks for the reply. I just find it odd....I never used my account for many years because I would seldom post. A lot of the comments I read from AC's are just as valid as someone with an account, I just don't get the attitude around here that AC automatically equals not worth listening to.
Why don't you respond to AC's? Not everything who has something positive to contribute needs an account.
I had no idea MS were doing the same thing as Apple, exercising completely control over what applications you have permission to install on a device you purchased. Why would they copy Apple in this area?
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant.
A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
So, why don't you respond to AC's? Not everyone who has something to contribute feels the need to make an account.
The ridiculous fines the EU imposed on Microsoft a decade too late.
What has being an AC got do do with anything?
I just don't get what APK's deal is. He is clearly ignorant/misinformed and surely knows better...but I don't think I have ever seen a more dedicated troll than WillyonWheels. I mean..., he has been posting this same shit for years now, slightly customizing it for each story. It must be nice to have that much free time.
Your reply is equivalent to arguing that people should be able to leave their houses completely open and unlocked, because it's wrong to steal. This is true, but completely irrelevant from a practical standpoint. As long as people *can* do something that benefits them, they *will*.
Yes...I should not have to check addons to firefox to make sure nothing dodgy has been installed. Of course, this behaviour will continue as long as it is technically possible, so why doesn't Mozilla simply make it impossible? Only allow installing addons through firefox, with explicit prompts.
Out of curiosity, what is your jurisdiction?
prices are transit costs + whatever Telstra feels like adding on because they can get away with it.
So, wait, Akondai is just PIM stuff? I thought I remember it clashing with sound daemon of some sort. I wonder if Akondai needs to be on every PC, when most people are storing their stuff, at least contacts in the cloud. Why replicate it in many places? Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
Sure, Because as far as names go Kontakt oozes professionalism and reliability just like Windows Live Mail. Wait, what?
I stayed away from the 4.x serious in particular. not least because of all the Akondai stuff. I think a DE should be as minimal as possible...provide a shell, file browser, and maybe some basic applications. KDE seems to want to manage everything, and there is so much stuff running in the background that I have no idea what is needed and what is not. I also think it is somewhat childish to start every application with a K...but hey.
I should note that I am arguing from ignorance here about my knowledge of the workings, just my brief experiences. But, that is the impression I got. Is there any truth to it, and if there is, why has the KDE team gone down that road?
It seems to be less about configurability and themes and more to do with how much you think your DE should be responsible for.
It clearly states on the internode site that the terabyte is split between peak and offpeak. It also states that it is a combined effort, so no, 500gb download MAX, half of which must be during offpeak.
plus its divided between up and down....so 250gb down peak + 250gb down offpeak.