spiral doesn't work. i tried it. imagine a square lawn, which most are, or at least rectangular. a spiral starts out great. you carve a big circle out of the square quickly. now you have 4 corners to mow and the remaining shape is such that you have some really difficult turns to make as you try to clear them. you end up having to go backward and forward in your tractor and it just sucks.
i found a modified zamboni approach to work very well.
Yes, I totally agree. I used to mow a mere 1.5 acres and it was all about minimizing turns of the 90 or 180 degree variety. I once tried to start in the middle and just mow a big spiral. It started out great except the mostly rectangular lawn then had some problematic corners to attend to and that was just a pain in the ass because if you wanted to clear a corner you suddenly had turns > 90 degrees and on my tractor that was really hard.
Being a hockey player I modeled my technique on what a zambonie does on the ice. the zamboni doesn't really like turns - it's on freaking ice- but it can do a 90 degree turn ok but never a 180. So it first goes down the middle and then across one end and up the far side, across the far end and up the middle again, but one-zamboni width over. Trying to guess the exact middle of your lawn is a bit tough and your efficiency largely rested on that initial choice.
At any rate, some overlap in lawn mowing is always preferably to never having to stop and turn around.
I guess my testicles wouldn't be illegal, because I previously owned them. But what about my son's testicles and my daughters ovaries?
If DNA can be expressed in digital form, the technology used in my testicles would be illegal.
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITIAL DEVICES - the term "interactive digital devices" means any machine, device, product, software or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
For those who don't want to dig through the whole W3C proposal, here
is their basic justification for this idea. In the spirit of Noam
Chomsky, I have attempted to translate what they are really saying. I
think the agenda is pretty clear.
<w3c> The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open standards
environment on which the Web is built and continues to grow. The
Web's open technical standards have developed through the open,
collaborative process created by the World Wide Web Consortium. As
Web technology has become more commercially critical and the impact
of software and business process patents are felt more strongly in
the Web development arena, W3C believes it is necessary to adopt a
more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the
relationship between the open technical Recommendations developed
by W3C and patent rights held by both W3C Members and others.
</w3c>
<translation> "sine qua non" means "something absolutely indispensable
or essential." (source: www.m-w.com) But the W3C can, in just two
more paragraphs, show us that this revolution is now over and the
new standards will be "nil sine numine" (nothing without the divine
will). We know who the divine are and it's not you and me.
</translation>
<w3c> The root of the challenge posed by patents in any standards
arena is that participants in a standards body will be unwilling
and unable to work collaboratively if, at the end of the process,
the jointly-developed standard can only be implemented by meeting
licensing terms that are unduly burdensome, unknown at the
beginning or even the end of the design process, or considered
unreasonable. At the same time, many Members invest significant
research effort in the development of their own intellectual
property portfolios, so are concerned about protecting and
benefiting from proprietary technology they have developed or
acquired.
</w3c>
<translation> Michele Herman (Microsoft), Scott Peterson (HP),
Tony Piotrwoski (Philips) and Helene Plotka Workman (Apple) and
others who form the W3C can't work together on an open standard
because they really would rather patent the technology. In fact,
sometimes one of them even stabs the others in the back at the last
minute by saying "Thank you for helping us develop this standard
and for helping us promote it. Now guess what. We've got it
patented! Ha Ha Ha!"
What they want to do is get each other to agree ahead-of-time that
this or that standard is going to be patented. They'll probably
take turns deciding which company gets to own the patent. To
justify this, they say, it's expensive to do this research.
I'm sure research like this is expensive, but if expensive research
is worth it, the market will accept it and make it a defacto
standard. If the research is patented the research has to be even
more valuable to the public or it won't be accepted as a
standard. But no argument is given to the effect that we will get
more or better research done if that research comes with the
blessing of the W3C. They just want to get paid for the research
they are doing. That's not objectionable, but trying to get paid by
hijacking a previously open standards body has the ugly smell of a
meat packer bribing the USDA.
</translation>
<w3c> In developing a new patent policy for W3C Activities, our goal
is to affirm the Web community's longstanding preference for
Recommendations that can be implemented on a royalty-free (RF)
basis. Where that is not possible, the new policy will provide a
framework to assure maximum possible openness based on reasonable,
non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing terms.
</w3c>
<translation> When our large coporate partners give the signal, we
will march in step, salute, and endorse a patented technology as
part of a standard.
</translation>
<w3c> The second decade of the Web has already demonstrated that
patents will be a factor in the ongoing development of the World
Wide Web infrastructure. A variety of factors suggest that the Web
will be increasingly affected by the patent process. The Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) has identified the following
significant factors:
Convergence: The Web had its origins in the personal computer
software industry, where patents had seldom been a factor in
development dynamics. However, as the Web comes into contact with
the telecommunications, broadcast media and consumer electronics
industries, the tradition of patenting technology from those
industries will likely be carried over to the Web. Rise in patent
issuance: Patent offices, led by the U.S. PTO, are issuing patents,
especially in the software sector, at record rates. Experience of
Internet-related standards bodies: A number of standards bodies
including W3C, IETF, the WAP Forum, and others, have encountered
potential barriers to acceptance of standards because of licensing
requirements perceived as onerous. Popularity of business method
patents: Beginning with the State Street decision in the United
States and continuing through high-profile litigation between
Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com, business method patents have
become increasingly significant factor in the ecommerce
marketplace. These factors make it clear that the W3C must have a
clear and effective policy to address the inevitable increase in
patent issues that will come before individual Working Groups and
the Membership as a whole. </w3c>
<translation>
Beyond the traditional software companies, lots of other big media companies also want patents.
Developers don't accept standards that have LARGE patent fees
associated with them. (We'll try to give them ones that have
smaller fees)
Wow, there are lots of software patents being issued - some of them
are really idiotic. This is a gold mine we don't want to miss out
on.
It's funny. None of this is a logical argument for their
position. They are simply stating what is going on the
industry. Companies like to patent.
</translation>
<w3c> Importance of interoperability for core infrastructure, lower
down the stack: Preservation of interoperability and global
consensus on core Web infrastructure is of critical importance. So
it is especially important that the Recommendations covering
lower-layer infrastructure be implementable on an RF
basis. Recommendations addressing higher-level services toward the
application layer may have a higher tolerance for RAND terms.
Better disclosure: A clear process, to which Members are committed
and/or bound to ensure better disclosure of essential patents as a
condition of Membership, is vital. Access for general public (not
just Members): Licensing terms for essential technology should be
available on a non-discriminatory basis to W3C Members and
non-Members alike. Working Group flexibility: One patent licensing
framework may not be appropriate to every W3C Working
Group. Therefore, Working Groups should have flexibility to specify
minimum licensing terms as part of their work. These intellectual
property rights requirements should then become the basis for
Advisory Committee and Director review of the resulting
specification.
</w3c>
<translation> These vague and unenforceable guidelines will protect
the process from getting out of hand.
Our member companies won't screw each other by keeping silent about
their patent intentions until the end.
We'll let the public comment, but we can ignore what they say.
Each working group can rewrite the rules whenever they want.
</translation>
The W3C is sowing the seeds of their own destruction. What we are
likely to get are lots patents of not all that great commercial
appeal. If a company has an idea for a patent with lots of commercial
appeal, they won't put it in the W3C which might restrict the royalty
fee they can charge. If something is truly revolutionary, it will
follow normal patent routes. The market will decide. If something is
less than truly revolutionary, these companies will try to get the W3C
to endorse it and hope that that will fool people into using it. Then
they'll spring the royalty fees on us.
Then we'll all hate the W3C and it will become a large rotting useless
body. The web will "mature" like other technolgies where innovation
happens as often as it did in Europe during the middle ages.
ObjectSpace has done this same thing before. Voyager started out being totally free for anything and then suddenly one day it was no longer free for commercial use. The first time I wrote it off as an honest change in business strategy because, hey they realized they needed to make money and that was a way to do it. Now that they've done the same thing again, one must conclude it is their standard practice to run a bait and switch.
Slashdot Mirror
spiral doesn't work. i tried it. imagine a square lawn, which most are, or at least rectangular. a spiral starts out great. you carve a big circle out of the square quickly. now you have 4 corners to mow and the remaining shape is such that you have some really difficult turns to make as you try to clear them. you end up having to go backward and forward in your tractor and it just sucks.
i found a modified zamboni approach to work very well.
Yes, I totally agree. I used to mow a mere 1.5 acres and it was all about minimizing turns of the 90 or 180 degree variety. I once tried to start in the middle and just mow a big spiral. It started out great except the mostly rectangular lawn then had some problematic corners to attend to and that was just a pain in the ass because if you wanted to clear a corner you suddenly had turns > 90 degrees and on my tractor that was really hard.
Being a hockey player I modeled my technique on what a zambonie does on the ice. the zamboni doesn't really like turns - it's on freaking ice- but it can do a 90 degree turn ok but never a 180. So it first goes down the middle and then across one end and up the far side, across the far end and up the middle again, but one-zamboni width over. Trying to guess the exact middle of your lawn is a bit tough and your efficiency largely rested on that initial choice.
At any rate, some overlap in lawn mowing is always preferably to never having to stop and turn around.
I guess my testicles wouldn't be illegal, because I previously owned them. But what about my son's testicles and my daughters ovaries?
If DNA can be expressed in digital form, the technology used in my testicles would be illegal.
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITIAL DEVICES - the term "interactive digital devices" means any machine, device, product, software or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
Another agrees with Alan Cox.
For those who don't want to dig through the whole W3C proposal, here
is their basic justification for this idea. In the spirit of Noam
Chomsky, I have attempted to translate what they are really saying. I
think the agenda is pretty clear.
<w3c> The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open standards
environment on which the Web is built and continues to grow. The
Web's open technical standards have developed through the open,
collaborative process created by the World Wide Web Consortium. As
Web technology has become more commercially critical and the impact
of software and business process patents are felt more strongly in
the Web development arena, W3C believes it is necessary to adopt a
more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the
relationship between the open technical Recommendations developed
by W3C and patent rights held by both W3C Members and others.
</w3c>
<translation> "sine qua non" means "something absolutely indispensable
or essential." (source: www.m-w.com) But the W3C can, in just two
more paragraphs, show us that this revolution is now over and the
new standards will be "nil sine numine" (nothing without the divine
will). We know who the divine are and it's not you and me.
</translation>
<w3c> The root of the challenge posed by patents in any standards
arena is that participants in a standards body will be unwilling
and unable to work collaboratively if, at the end of the process,
the jointly-developed standard can only be implemented by meeting
licensing terms that are unduly burdensome, unknown at the
beginning or even the end of the design process, or considered
unreasonable. At the same time, many Members invest significant
research effort in the development of their own intellectual
property portfolios, so are concerned about protecting and
benefiting from proprietary technology they have developed or
acquired.
</w3c>
<translation> Michele Herman (Microsoft), Scott Peterson (HP),
Tony Piotrwoski (Philips) and Helene Plotka Workman (Apple) and
others who form the W3C can't work together on an open standard
because they really would rather patent the technology. In fact,
sometimes one of them even stabs the others in the back at the last
minute by saying "Thank you for helping us develop this standard
and for helping us promote it. Now guess what. We've got it
patented! Ha Ha Ha!"
What they want to do is get each other to agree ahead-of-time that
this or that standard is going to be patented. They'll probably
take turns deciding which company gets to own the patent. To
justify this, they say, it's expensive to do this research.
I'm sure research like this is expensive, but if expensive research
is worth it, the market will accept it and make it a defacto
standard. If the research is patented the research has to be even
more valuable to the public or it won't be accepted as a
standard. But no argument is given to the effect that we will get
more or better research done if that research comes with the
blessing of the W3C. They just want to get paid for the research
they are doing. That's not objectionable, but trying to get paid by
hijacking a previously open standards body has the ugly smell of a
meat packer bribing the USDA.
</translation>
<w3c> In developing a new patent policy for W3C Activities, our goal
is to affirm the Web community's longstanding preference for
Recommendations that can be implemented on a royalty-free (RF)
basis. Where that is not possible, the new policy will provide a
framework to assure maximum possible openness based on reasonable,
non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing terms.
</w3c>
<translation> When our large coporate partners give the signal, we
will march in step, salute, and endorse a patented technology as
part of a standard.
</translation>
<w3c> The second decade of the Web has already demonstrated that
patents will be a factor in the ongoing development of the World
Wide Web infrastructure. A variety of factors suggest that the Web
will be increasingly affected by the patent process. The Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) has identified the following
significant factors:
Convergence: The Web had its origins in the personal computer
software industry, where patents had seldom been a factor in
development dynamics. However, as the Web comes into contact with
the telecommunications, broadcast media and consumer electronics
industries, the tradition of patenting technology from those
industries will likely be carried over to the Web. Rise in patent
issuance: Patent offices, led by the U.S. PTO, are issuing patents,
especially in the software sector, at record rates. Experience of
Internet-related standards bodies: A number of standards bodies
including W3C, IETF, the WAP Forum, and others, have encountered
potential barriers to acceptance of standards because of licensing
requirements perceived as onerous. Popularity of business method
patents: Beginning with the State Street decision in the United
States and continuing through high-profile litigation between
Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com, business method patents have
become increasingly significant factor in the ecommerce
marketplace. These factors make it clear that the W3C must have a
clear and effective policy to address the inevitable increase in
patent issues that will come before individual Working Groups and
the Membership as a whole. </w3c>
<translation>
Beyond the traditional software companies, lots of other big media companies also want patents.
Developers don't accept standards that have LARGE patent fees
associated with them. (We'll try to give them ones that have
smaller fees)
Wow, there are lots of software patents being issued - some of them
are really idiotic. This is a gold mine we don't want to miss out
on.
It's funny. None of this is a logical argument for their
position. They are simply stating what is going on the
industry. Companies like to patent.
</translation>
<w3c> Importance of interoperability for core infrastructure, lower
down the stack: Preservation of interoperability and global
consensus on core Web infrastructure is of critical importance. So
it is especially important that the Recommendations covering
lower-layer infrastructure be implementable on an RF
basis. Recommendations addressing higher-level services toward the
application layer may have a higher tolerance for RAND terms.
Better disclosure: A clear process, to which Members are committed
and/or bound to ensure better disclosure of essential patents as a
condition of Membership, is vital. Access for general public (not
just Members): Licensing terms for essential technology should be
available on a non-discriminatory basis to W3C Members and
non-Members alike. Working Group flexibility: One patent licensing
framework may not be appropriate to every W3C Working
Group. Therefore, Working Groups should have flexibility to specify
minimum licensing terms as part of their work. These intellectual
property rights requirements should then become the basis for
Advisory Committee and Director review of the resulting
specification.
</w3c>
<translation> These vague and unenforceable guidelines will protect
the process from getting out of hand.
Our member companies won't screw each other by keeping silent about
their patent intentions until the end.
We'll let the public comment, but we can ignore what they say.
Each working group can rewrite the rules whenever they want.
</translation>
The W3C is sowing the seeds of their own destruction. What we are
likely to get are lots patents of not all that great commercial
appeal. If a company has an idea for a patent with lots of commercial
appeal, they won't put it in the W3C which might restrict the royalty
fee they can charge. If something is truly revolutionary, it will
follow normal patent routes. The market will decide. If something is
less than truly revolutionary, these companies will try to get the W3C
to endorse it and hope that that will fool people into using it. Then
they'll spring the royalty fees on us.
Then we'll all hate the W3C and it will become a large rotting useless
body. The web will "mature" like other technolgies where innovation
happens as often as it did in Europe during the middle ages.
ObjectSpace has done this same thing before. Voyager started out being totally free for anything and then suddenly one day it was no longer free for commercial use. The first time I wrote it off as an honest change in business strategy because, hey they realized they needed to make money and that was a way to do it. Now that they've done the same thing again, one must conclude it is their standard practice to run a bait and switch.