"Footies". Where we interview people who watch football all the time, dress in the kits, and go to these whacky "Games" where they get to see their stars performing, and meet up with other fans.
We should concentrate on how obsessively sad these people are, and find people who have memorised entire games, and spend vast amounts of money collecting memorabilia and signed tat.
Most of Asia uses NTSC, but this isn't an NTSC card. It's an HDTV card. Yet another different standard. Of course, the chances of Europe adopting the same standard as the US is somewhat remote.
The summary is just a summary. To actually find if you're violating the patent, you need to look at the claims. It's a shame the summary and the detail both failed to give the patent number.
But they'd already lost the ad revenue. There was no way they could get it back. So, unless missing the show is also costing them money, I can;t see what the difference is.
If Walmart gave studff away, they'd lose something. (i.e. the goods)
If he downloads a TV show, the producers wouldn't. They haven't lost the advertising revenue because he missed the show. They haven't lost the DVD revenue because it's not available on DVD. They had no way of getting money from the episode he downloaded, so his downloading it didn't cost them anything.
IANAL, howeever, it looks like this is a patent on panning around a sphere as opposed to along a plane (e.g. external views on a flight sim). The rest of it looks like quite well established means of transforming and projecting an object, which is quite thorughly discussed in the referenced texts, and has been used quite substantially in the games industry since Elite.
If I'm right, then I'm not sure whether there is any prior art to this. It's not possible to determine whether the camera is being moved or the object is being rotated. OTOH, it's difficult to determine whether anyone else actually violates this for much the same reason.
This is why I never use anything but arrays and design all my code specifically for arrays: sequential access whenever possible, no random modifications, inserts only at the end, combine any modifications into blocks, etc. This is guaranteed to get you excellent cache usage (or at least, as good as it is going to get) and I have yet to see an application where I couldn't fit such a design.
The thing I'm currently working on is a forked data structure. A list of elements, each with a data structure representing results for each year for an arbitrary number of years. So item 1 has existed since 1990, so need 14 years worth of data, item 2 has existed since 2001 so only needs 3. Item 3 has existed since 1800 so needs 204 years. I can only conceive of accessing them to add a year, delete the last year, delete the entire list, and display items (usually only looking at one item at a time, so I just iterate through a single list).
I could use vectors perhaps, but they cause a lot of overhead when you use a lot of them for small structures. Arrays will cause all the problems linked lists have, except memory fragmentation will be a bigger problem since we have inconsistently sized fragments. I possibly could create an array per year, and have a 2d array indexed by year and item ID, although I'm not 100% sure if this would work. The linked lists seem to make more sense to me.
In general, I'll use vectors or arrays. In fact, the vector template has meant that I rarely need to use a linked list.
I'll just add that even if you never use them, you should still know they exist and how to use them, especially if you claim to be an "expert" programmer.
Allocate a large chunk of memory, and then allocate link structures from that. Create a linked list of unused structures. When you delete one, add it to the start of the unused list.
I would also suggest that you rethink your design. In most cases, however, addition and removal happen much less often than reading, and optimizing for reading will make your code faster. Try it and profile. You might be surprized just how little insert/remove matters.
But you're assuming that speed matters in this section. The code I'm using a linked list for is not used enough to make such optimisation neccesary. When speed matters, I use an array.
You can do paged allocation, which will create less memory fragmentation than a linked list. STL does that for its vector template.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the implementation I use allocates a new chunk of memory and copies.
I can think of a lot of things that are worst (or even worse) than dangling cables. Being put through a mincing machine while someone was playing a scratched George Fornby record, for example.
They cause memory fragmentation, screw up your cache
Certainly a disadvantage. But there are ways around memory fragmentation.
dd two pointers of overhead per item (quite possibly in a different memory location from the data),
If the link pointer is part of the data structure, then it's only one extra pointer in the same memory location as the data. If you're using inheritence, an array will need pointers as well.
The main problem with an array is that it is not dynamic. If you wantto remove an item from the middle, you have to copy all the other data backwards, which is a lot slower than simply removing a link. An arbitrary number of items can be added to the end of it which you cannot do with an array. You could use a vector perhaps, but you'll stil have gaps if you delete an item from the middle.
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
Sadly, a link was then posted to Slashdot, increasing costs and traffic.
They were outside of territorial boundaries when it started, but the UK extended those boundaries to include sealand. Read all about it
This is irelevent. You can't extend a nation's boundaries to claim sovereignity over another nation. Otherwise, Great Britain would have to cede control of the channel islands to France. so the only question is whether it was a nation in the first place.
The letter says "there is nothing to prevent any U.S. user from simply downloading GWTW from the Web Site. Indeed, we were able to do so easily."
Yes there is! There's a warning that some works may not be out of copyrighyt outside of Australia. And they're relying on their users to be honest law abiding citizens.
PGA should be highly offended that the GWTW estate considers their users tro be a bunch of criminals.
But if US law is anything like UK law (which is based on the same treaty), then this doesn't apply to personal imports. Only import for resale or redistribution.
And all these convoluted exceptions to exceptions stuff is why lawyers are paid so much.
Slashdot Mirror
"Footies". Where we interview people who watch football all the time, dress in the kits, and go to these whacky "Games" where they get to see their stars performing, and meet up with other fans.
We should concentrate on how obsessively sad these people are, and find people who have memorised entire games, and spend vast amounts of money collecting memorabilia and signed tat.
Read the rest of the article. The winner has to live and do business in the US.
So it is. Just assumed it would be NTSC since all the dodgy DVDs my flatmate owns are NTSC.
Most of Asia uses NTSC, but this isn't an NTSC card. It's an HDTV card. Yet another different standard. Of course, the chances of Europe adopting the same standard as the US is somewhat remote.
Yes, but the devil is in the detail.
The summary is just a summary. To actually find if you're violating the patent, you need to look at the claims. It's a shame the summary and the detail both failed to give the patent number.
But they'd already lost the ad revenue. There was no way they could get it back. So, unless missing the show is also costing them money, I can;t see what the difference is.
doh! Thanks. Had that set to HTML for so long I'd forgotten what the other options were.
These people are legal professionals. I suspect such a naive tactic would work for reasons that mere mortals liek us could not possibly understand.
No it's not.
If Walmart gave studff away, they'd lose something. (i.e. the goods)
If he downloads a TV show, the producers wouldn't. They haven't lost the advertising revenue because he missed the show. They haven't lost the DVD revenue because it's not available on DVD. They had no way of getting money from the episode he downloaded, so his downloading it didn't cost them anything.
A cease and desist is not the same as suing people. It is simply a demand that the recipient cease and desist from doing something.
IANAL, howeever, it looks like this is a patent on panning around a sphere as opposed to along a plane (e.g. external views on a flight sim). The rest of it looks like quite well established means of transforming and projecting an object, which is quite thorughly discussed in the referenced texts, and has been used quite substantially in the games industry since Elite.
If I'm right, then I'm not sure whether there is any prior art to this. It's not possible to determine whether the camera is being moved or the object is being rotated. OTOH, it's difficult to determine whether anyone else actually violates this for much the same reason.
And then return p rather than new.
I mean just return p. It's late. Brain not working.
Looks fine (as C) to me, although it would be faster to put your new item on the front of the list.
item *p = list;
item *new = (item *)malloc(sizeof(item));
new->next = p;
p = new;
And then return p rather than new.
Going completely off-topic, how do you get the indentation to work on slashdot?
This is why I never use anything but arrays and design all my code specifically for arrays: sequential access whenever possible, no random modifications, inserts only at the end, combine any modifications into blocks, etc. This is guaranteed to get you excellent cache usage (or at least, as good as it is going to get) and I have yet to see an application where I couldn't fit such a design.
The thing I'm currently working on is a forked data structure. A list of elements, each with a data structure representing results for each year for an arbitrary number of years. So item 1 has existed since 1990, so need 14 years worth of data, item 2 has existed since 2001 so only needs 3. Item 3 has existed since 1800 so needs 204 years. I can only conceive of accessing them to add a year, delete the last year, delete the entire list, and display items (usually only looking at one item at a time, so I just iterate through a single list).
I could use vectors perhaps, but they cause a lot of overhead when you use a lot of them for small structures. Arrays will cause all the problems linked lists have, except memory fragmentation will be a bigger problem since we have inconsistently sized fragments. I possibly could create an array per year, and have a 2d array indexed by year and item ID, although I'm not 100% sure if this would work. The linked lists seem to make more sense to me.
In general, I'll use vectors or arrays. In fact, the vector template has meant that I rarely need to use a linked list.
I'll just add that even if you never use them, you should still know they exist and how to use them, especially if you claim to be an "expert" programmer.
Like what?
Allocate a large chunk of memory, and then allocate link structures from that. Create a linked list of unused structures. When you delete one, add it to the start of the unused list.
I would also suggest that you rethink your design. In most cases, however, addition and removal happen much less often than reading, and optimizing for reading will make your code faster. Try it and profile. You might be surprized just how little insert/remove matters.
But you're assuming that speed matters in this section. The code I'm using a linked list for is not used enough to make such optimisation neccesary. When speed matters, I use an array.
You can do paged allocation, which will create less memory fragmentation than a linked list. STL does that for its vector template.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the implementation I use allocates a new chunk of memory and copies.
I can think of a lot of things that are worst (or even worse) than dangling cables. Being put through a mincing machine while someone was playing a scratched George Fornby record, for example.
Why would anyone ever use a linked list?
I use them all the time.
They cause memory fragmentation, screw up your cache
Certainly a disadvantage. But there are ways around memory fragmentation.
dd two pointers of overhead per item (quite possibly in a different memory location from the data),
If the link pointer is part of the data structure, then it's only one extra pointer in the same memory location as the data. If you're using inheritence, an array will need pointers as well.
The main problem with an array is that it is not dynamic. If you wantto remove an item from the middle, you have to copy all the other data backwards, which is a lot slower than simply removing a link. An arbitrary number of items can be added to the end of it which you cannot do with an array. You could use a vector perhaps, but you'll stil have gaps if you delete an item from the middle.
Pah. I could do it in less than an hour!
Limited to tracing a single ray with a hardcoded rectangular axis alligned object, perhaps, but it would be a ray tracer.
Must be a trade secret then;)
Often, for all intents and purposes, a link from Slashdot is a DoS:P
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
Sadly, a link was then posted to Slashdot, increasing costs and traffic.
They were outside of territorial boundaries when it started, but the UK extended those boundaries to include sealand. Read all about it
This is irelevent. You can't extend a nation's boundaries to claim sovereignity over another nation. Otherwise, Great Britain would have to cede control of the channel islands to France. so the only question is whether it was a nation in the first place.
The letter says "there is nothing to prevent any U.S. user from simply downloading GWTW from the Web Site. Indeed, we were able to do so easily."
Yes there is! There's a warning that some works may not be out of copyrighyt outside of Australia. And they're relying on their users to be honest law abiding citizens.
PGA should be highly offended that the GWTW estate considers their users tro be a bunch of criminals.
But if US law is anything like UK law (which is based on the same treaty), then this doesn't apply to personal imports. Only import for resale or redistribution.
And all these convoluted exceptions to exceptions stuff is why lawyers are paid so much.