More than three times a week, and that's criminal.
I mean, throwing things about in your home or My Documents directory are fairly standard. How often do you put your (picture) files in a \qw3r3et354t\bchnjc8g45\3j4n45g9u98d directory?
While everyone seems to see WinFS (and associated services) as some sort of search panacea, your ability to retrieve those files is linked to 1.) its metadata and 2.) your ability to recall a search term that appears in the metadata. If your search for "bird" and the metadata specifies "hawk", short of a dictionary search, you still cannot find it. It doesn't matter if the uber search capabilities can span the entire hard drive in 5 secs, and run through multi-dimensional data. You still need a search term, and that search term (in whole or in part) must appear somewhere in the file, be it the filename or metadata.
Essentially, WinFS makes data appear more ordered (assuming you take the time to fill out the fields). Otherwise, it's useless.
Right. Is that why their drivers are always 10 under the speed limit?
A previous poster (another article) said it best: "I'll never buy a Buick, because they seem so damn hard to drive."
And as it happens, I driven a Park Avenue (GF's parents'). Handles like a boat.
But then, I've probably been spoiled: I drive cars where numbers, not names are used.
Current love affair? BMW 325XI Longest running car (and all time favourite): BMW 740IL
the 740 has 360,000 miles. The dealership is currently running a pool, to see if I can get it to 500,000 miles, before the engine dies.
Some people see cars as merely vehicles of transportation, to get you from point A to point B. Others see them as something more.
When I climb into the 3 at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how horrible it has been. Stress melts away, as the engine revs, and I'm on the road once again.;)
Democrats want to spend your money. (SS, Welfare, Medi-, AA)
Republicans want to tell you how to spend your money. (thou shalt not buy alcohol, drugs, blasphemous material)
Libertarians want everybody to leave them alone. Keep your money, spend it how you want, do not come crying to us if you do something that qualifies for a darwin award (I did not know that peeing on an electric generator would fry my brain. Now I am needin' you to pay for me, for the rest of my life).
Now, this grossly understates the differences, but it is something you can take to the bank.
It's called Opium. Well, Percocet and OxyContin (derivatives). Greatest stuff ever invented. The equivalent of Soma (Huxley, "Brave New World").
Bah, I'm probably addicted (multiple surgeries, doctor prescribed).
I like it because it's not like most of the other drugs. Weed-> you get high (stupid and hungry). Nicotine-> nice buzz, makes me irritable. Alcohol-> really stupid.
The above are fun (many others, unnamed), but I like to keep my mind both: 1.) happy, and 2.) sharp.
Percocet lasts 8 hours. Not high (like cocaine), but...mellow. It does two things: 1.) disconnects physical pain (you could drive a nail through your hand, and laugh while doing it) and 2.) disconnects mental pain (anything that distresses you. Locks off all the white noice running through your subconcious).
You're still sharp as a whip; percocet does not affect that. It just stops pain. Total stop.
The addiction isn't like other drugs either: you just get used to not feeling pain (slight euphoria). It's the ultimate chill pill.
But it seems most of my friends are more concerned with getting out of their minds ("Dude, what did I do last night") than enjoying what they have.
I imagine they (government) could vaccinate you against these drugs, but then the medical profession would lampoon them. Opium (and its children: Oxycodone, Oxycontin, MORPHINE) are considered the end of the line for pain. If they do not work, nothing will.
Right...linux is better than windows. That depends entirely on what you are trying to do.
Windows, by its very nature, is a standard. It's something that runs on a wide variety of cheap hardware, and the GUI/DLLs/basic metaphors are similar if not the same across even older versions.
Linux, on the other hand, is very open. You can extend it, rewrite it, patch it to your hearts content. However, there is nothing standard about a Linux install (various distros, kernels, etc.).
At the end of the day, human nature promotes vices by default. In this case, laziness: developers would rather write one program, and spend time testing it on a single OS, then test it on a dozen different flavors. With the exception of a third-party conflicting driver, a program that will run on two Windows machines should run on a third with no problem. With linux, you may need to install foo-package with bar-options, and God help you if you have been mucking about with the source to...say X.
What linux needs to really grow is the same thing it is against: a single standard.
It's not that we do not have a monopoly on stupid ideas, it's that we export them (so other countries can enjoy the same warm feeling *cough* shaft *cough* of these ideas).
I guess I wish that the (congressional) debate would move back from "what can we tax?" to "why do we tax?". These days it's less about "Life, Liberty, and Property" than a free-for-all "Everything must go, get your legislation for you and your special interest".
It's kind of funny what the founding fathers thought of public service: they hated it. The did it, because it needed to be done, but they looked upon the government the same way Bill Gates looks at the DoJ. Now, politicians and beauracrats are treated with great fanfare, as though they are doing something truly great, as opposed to the truth: essentially, they got their position by winning a popularity contest.
On a side note, does anyone remeber the article a while back, on some obscure law in Florida, whereby they could tax LANs?
Rights do not exist in nature, and nature has only one rule: survival of the fittest.
And what if that life did turn out to be (subjective) better than ours? What of it? Should we all say "Oh well, they're better, let's go kill ourselves"? What I find odd about people who make statements like these is that they hate humans. They view them as a virus, not as a natural inhabitant. Self-loathing creatures.
So humans are intelligent, that makes us special? Great. The way I view it: nature decided that it got tired of constantly going back to the drawing board (dinosaurs, whatever) to build a lifeform that could withstand extreme conditions. Nature said "Screw this, the next lifeform is going to be smart enough that I can go on vacation, and not have to worry about some stray asteroid/ice age obliterating them".
So you lose a few species along the way. Stuff happens, even with us not around (see above). Hell, we're not even responsible for the worst stuff. We change the environment to suit our needs (kill off predators, domesticate the rest). Happens with all species.
Your view seems to be: humans destroy the 'natural' environment around them, and need to be destroyed/smacked-down/whatever. My view: the surrounding environment serves as a temporary infrastructure for nature's greatest accomplishment (to date): a thinking machine: man. Everything else is expendable.
In 100 million years (or whenever our sun expands), it will be the humans that carry life (our own human lives, plus other species) forth from this planet, to show the universe what has been accomplished. Breaking down our homes, living among nature, serves no purpose when there is a higher calling.
Keep in mind I do not condone wonton destruction of our environment (or others). If Titan has life, we'll be careful there as well. But as far as nature goes, we are the benchmark. No other creature has the ability to create and destory as we do. I'm only pointing out the obvious, and as we learn more about our environment, we learn to enhance it and mitigate our effects. You'll notice that smoke stacks are less numerous these days (see Industrial Revolution). Humans learn, "Hey, we're poisoning our air, let's do something about that". We learn, we move on. Deal.
Wait. How is repairing someone else's laptop (in my free time) a social responsibility?
It is of my own volition that I help them at all. I have no responsibility to "society" to fix someone's machine. Especially for people who have trouble openning a Word document, but know how to change Themes/install Bonzi Buddy/f*ck up their machine.
And having someone walk in and say "Can you, like, just make this work? I'll be back after lunch" rarely engenders the "warm fuzzy socialistic happy feeling" about doing my part for the people, komrade. Perhaps you like it ("Awwe, I made someone happy, I feeeeeel good. Someone pet me").
Hardly. I'm a developer, but I get dragged into doing tech support for everyone's {sister, cousin, relative, friend}. They want my help (and they always do), they can deal.
Look at it this way: if MS is busy wasting its time/money on stupid & useless patents like this, then they aren't spending their time patenting things that could deal damage to {other parties}.
TaskBar Grouping and Auto-Hide are the first to go, when working on someone's laptop. They are useless, and not terribly important.
Secondly, who wants to go challenge such a useless patent in court? I mean, principles aside, if someone did, we would be able to use it in {window manager}. Great, TaskBar Grouping, someone please kill me.
Security, Speed, User-friendliness. Basic GUI programming. These are all that count.
Annoying, stupid *features* like animated dogs and taskbar grouping which slow productivity and piss off users do not make the cut.
Speed limits were designed way back when you could reduce your gas intake by slipstreaming off your buddy (the guy in front of you). Same idea as geese flying in formation (reduces drag).
Nowadays, speed limits serve a different purpose: adding money to the state's coffers (in the name of education, social security, etc.). A friend of mine works with the cops (state & local), and yes, they do have quotas. Twice a month, cops are everywhere, then they disappear for a few weeks.
I do not condone doing 90MPH+ in a population center (i.e. center city Philly), but once you're out on the highway or the backroads, let loose. If your car has the speed and breaking distance, you have nothing to fear.
As an aside, under all circumstances, I obey the yellow speed signs (speed limits or otherwise). They actually serve a purpose (if a sign says 15 MPH, you bet that I'm going to abide by it).
I'd like to see the cops chase after those who impede traffic (30MPH in a 45MPH zone). Course, we can't have that in PA, as it would offend all those older voters (I think they outnumber everyone else). Grannies, wearing coke-bottle glasses, out driving their Buicks. Left-blinker, for 2 1/2 freaking miles.
Hmm. My experience is that the drivers tend to work well, provided you have a "Built by ATI" card. If you get a "Powered by ATI" card (OEM), then you can run into trouble (they use ATI drivers, but conflicts popup).
Personally, I love watching TV, a DVD, and running OpenGL program all at once, just to showboat it's capabilities: processor time hits a max of 10%. This running on a PII 400Mhz machine, with 128MB of ram.
Sure, you can get seperate cards that will do each task better (MPEG2 Encoder, Decoder, Video card), but the AIW does each well enough.
I've sworn off all other video cards for the AIW.
As for running an AIW under linux (Slackware), give up.
And my conclusion was that raw clock speed IS the most important factor in performance.
Hardly. It's the amount of work per clock cycle/number of cycles per second that determines the performance. Instructions (MMX, 3DNOW, SSE) play into this.
This is also why a P3 beats a P4 at the same clock speed. A P3 does more work per cycle than a P4, even though they are clocked the same.
The whole point behind AMDs naming scheme is that the model number == the amount of work of a Intel P4 processor at appropriate speed.
Funny you should mention that: I've researched in that area.
You think 3D is difficult, 4D (3D + time) is like walking on broken glass. Surprisingly, ideas tend to come rather easily with 4D (as opposed to 3D). And it's effects are most satisfying (3D file objects, complete with delta records and a commit buffer: easy protection against viruses, worms, trojans, stupidity and they look cool to boot!).
Interesting idea. Have you tried patenting it? j/k.
Seriously though, with the exception of a few scummy companies/people, patentees like to patent because they believe that their implementation is new, original, and unique. We would drop a patent application if some serious prior art was found (no one likes be to unoriginal).
Part of the problem is that a prior-art search is supposed to cover this. Lawyers will not be happy. Their clients will be unhappy that they spent money on both the lawyer and the filing fee. It's a shame that you cannot file a provisional app (not a full app, but keeps the door open), send the full app to a site, see if it pans out, then act accordingly (file the full app or abandon).
Another problem is that there are a lot of services out there (though free/many eyes would help) that are not used. And those services may or may not be legit. And when you get down to it, there is a lot of possible prior art for an app.
To put things in focus, I first began to fear IBM when I wrote my first app, and came across the shear number of patents they own. Scary stuff.
As an aside, the masses (of average people) do not care. Which is a problem.
The problem with this is that technology is advancing faster than ever, and copying technology is about easy as copying an MP3.
I've spent about 9 years researching what I aim to patent. IMHO it's new, unique, and original.
But, the length of time to copy it (after reading the patent, playing with my prototypes) is trivial for someone like MS or IBM.
So now we have a problem. If we shorten the length of a software patent to about 2 years (as an example), MS and IBM can sit back and wait for it to expire. They can bide their time, then use my implementation for free.
So in the end, I lose out (9 years). This is what the patent system was created to protect, the ability for someone (large or small entity) to spend a lot of money with the knowledge that their efforts will pay off (recoup R+D, and a hefty profit).
Intel, AMD, TI, IBM are only living now because of IP. A chinese manufacturer could rip off the IP and produe their chips for a lot less than they are now (they could do the R+D for a lot less). The reason this doesn't happen is because they cannot sell their chips in any country that honours the patent system.
A lot of/.ers can read a patent and go pfft! I could do that. But you did not think of it first, or research it (trivial patents aside). It only came to you after you read it. You went "Hey, I know create something like that (in programming)", but you didn't think of it. Again, trivial patents aside.
It's not a question of implementing a new algorithim (after reading the paper), but of creating the algorithim in the first place. I think (though I'm not sure) Google has a patent on PageRank. And you all know how easy that is to implement, but no one before Google thought of it. And you can see its effects.
The plight of an entity (upon research of a new method) is that they have to patent as broad as possible to protect their creation.
In truth, the length of patent enforcement saves the small entity. If MS or IBM wants to use my implementation, they can pay up or wait 17 years. And in an information economy, waiting for a new feature is deadly (hence, they often settle or fight it out).
We have moved from an industrial economy to an information economy. Manufacturing is cheap, so it has been outsourced. Information is the new economy. So while the original patent system protected the industrial economy, the current one protects information economy.
The wealth of our economy would disappear overnight with the abolition of our current system. Reformation is needed, but what kind and how much is key.
1.) Business Leaders: they have their ears closest to the ground, because their industry is directly affected. The good thing is that they want it to change. The bad thing is that their changes will make it harder for a small inventor to assert their patents, so the little guy will be ripped off more often.
2.) Acadamia: great ideas, they never work out. The problem with academics is that they all live in a sheltered kingdom, where everyone meets in committees. Which is great if everyone is on the same page, but the real world doesn't work like that. They need to decide a reformed system like TCP/IP : its goal is to grant or deny a patent in the most efficent manner, while keeping in mind that the worst patents are the most likely to be granted.
3.) Average guy: doesn't know what a patent is, or how it affects them.
4.) Small Entity (Inventor): wants to do the oppositte of the big guys. Make them more prone to lawsuits, make them bleed money.
Personally, I kind of like the way the system works now. On one hand, I'm not a CEO, so watching companies being lampooned makes for some entertainment. The little guy getting it is less so. I'm about even for either getting a stupid patent. Right now I have my own application making its way through the system.
So its a toss up: the instability makes for entertainment, and some hope that I won't have to deal with more bureacracy when the time comes. On the other hand, it's definitely not stable, and probably not healthy.
I think what he's getting at is that while you have a right to charge as much as you want for your product/labor, you do not have a 'right' per say to receive profit from your labor/product.
Hear me out. When I say 'right' I do not mean natural rights/common law (as Locke would put it), but a 'right' as in a constitutional right.
I.e. If you run a company, and it is running at a loss, you do not have the 'right' to file a lawsuit against your competitors, alleging that they are infringing on your 'right' to profit.
Your labor is your own, and you have the right to its use. Whether the product of your labor produces a profit is entirely up to the free market and your skills {negotiation, advertising, volume/quality of product}.
(Excuse my ignorance in such matters{Perl}), but I think it's the compiler's job (with other languages) to check for conditions likes this (comparing two unlike objects). It catches the mistake, you cast one of the objects one way or another, and use their methods.
Invader Zim, how I love that show. It truly appeals to the Machiavelli in me.
Apparently, there are (1.5 seasons + halloween & christmas specials) of it. Low ratings are to blame, so halfway into the second season, Nick axed it.
There is some talk that certain elements *cough* parents *cough* were to blame, as the content was less than PC. Which is what made it great: rooting for the bad guy, making fun of the good guy's "big head" (Zib), and "My Tallest" (alien overlords with a penchant for snacks) thrown in there for good measure.
Seriously, I would give my right kidney if they brought back Invader Zim.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and how often do you misplace files?
More than three times a week, and that's criminal.
I mean, throwing things about in your home or My Documents directory are fairly standard. How often do you put your (picture) files in a \qw3r3et354t\bchnjc8g45\3j4n45g9u98d directory?
While everyone seems to see WinFS (and associated services) as some sort of search panacea, your ability to retrieve those files is linked to 1.) its metadata and 2.) your ability to recall a search term that appears in the metadata. If your search for "bird" and the metadata specifies "hawk", short of a dictionary search, you still cannot find it. It doesn't matter if the uber search capabilities can span the entire hard drive in 5 secs, and run through multi-dimensional data. You still need a search term, and that search term (in whole or in part) must appear somewhere in the file, be it the filename or metadata.
Essentially, WinFS makes data appear more ordered (assuming you take the time to fill out the fields). Otherwise, it's useless.
Bah, Lexus. Which Japanese car company owns them again?
In my view, Lexus are getting better, but do not compare to a Benz, BMW, or (as of late) a Volvo. This is for overall enjoyment, not just longevity.
Right. Is that why their drivers are always 10 under the speed limit?
;)
A previous poster (another article) said it best: "I'll never buy a Buick, because they seem so damn hard to drive."
And as it happens, I driven a Park Avenue (GF's parents'). Handles like a boat.
But then, I've probably been spoiled: I drive cars where numbers, not names are used.
Current love affair? BMW 325XI
Longest running car (and all time favourite): BMW 740IL
the 740 has 360,000 miles. The dealership is currently running a pool, to see if I can get it to 500,000 miles, before the engine dies.
Some people see cars as merely vehicles of transportation, to get you from point A to point B. Others see them as something more.
When I climb into the 3 at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how horrible it has been. Stress melts away, as the engine revs, and I'm on the road once again.
Who modded this insightful>?
The best way to explain things is this:
Democrats want to spend your money. (SS, Welfare, Medi-, AA)
Republicans want to tell you how to spend your money. (thou shalt not buy alcohol, drugs, blasphemous material)
Libertarians want everybody to leave them alone. Keep your money, spend it how you want, do not come crying to us if you do something that qualifies for a darwin award (I did not know that peeing on an electric generator would fry my brain. Now I am needin' you to pay for me, for the rest of my life).
Now, this grossly understates the differences, but it is something you can take to the bank.
No, no, no. You do not have a right to happiness. You have a right to pursue it.
I mean, if you're happy, how would the government ever corral you into doing their bidding? (do what we tell you, or we'll make it hurt).
It's called Opium. Well, Percocet and OxyContin (derivatives). Greatest stuff ever invented. The equivalent of Soma (Huxley, "Brave New World").
Bah, I'm probably addicted (multiple surgeries, doctor prescribed).
I like it because it's not like most of the other drugs. Weed-> you get high (stupid and hungry). Nicotine-> nice buzz, makes me irritable. Alcohol-> really stupid.
The above are fun (many others, unnamed), but I like to keep my mind both: 1.) happy, and 2.) sharp.
Percocet lasts 8 hours. Not high (like cocaine), but...mellow. It does two things: 1.) disconnects physical pain (you could drive a nail through your hand, and laugh while doing it) and 2.) disconnects mental pain (anything that distresses you. Locks off all the white noice running through your subconcious).
You're still sharp as a whip; percocet does not affect that. It just stops pain. Total stop.
The addiction isn't like other drugs either: you just get used to not feeling pain (slight euphoria). It's the ultimate chill pill.
But it seems most of my friends are more concerned with getting out of their minds ("Dude, what did I do last night") than enjoying what they have.
I imagine they (government) could vaccinate you against these drugs, but then the medical profession would lampoon them. Opium (and its children: Oxycodone, Oxycontin, MORPHINE) are considered the end of the line for pain. If they do not work, nothing will.
Right...linux is better than windows. That depends entirely on what you are trying to do.
Windows, by its very nature, is a standard. It's something that runs on a wide variety of cheap hardware, and the GUI/DLLs/basic metaphors are similar if not the same across even older versions.
Linux, on the other hand, is very open. You can extend it, rewrite it, patch it to your hearts content. However, there is nothing standard about a Linux install (various distros, kernels, etc.).
At the end of the day, human nature promotes vices by default. In this case, laziness: developers would rather write one program, and spend time testing it on a single OS, then test it on a dozen different flavors. With the exception of a third-party conflicting driver, a program that will run on two Windows machines should run on a third with no problem. With linux, you may need to install foo-package with bar-options, and God help you if you have been mucking about with the source to...say X.
What linux needs to really grow is the same thing it is against: a single standard.
It's not that we do not have a monopoly on stupid ideas, it's that we export them (so other countries can enjoy the same warm feeling *cough* shaft *cough* of these ideas).
I guess I wish that the (congressional) debate would move back from "what can we tax?" to "why do we tax?". These days it's less about "Life, Liberty, and Property" than a free-for-all "Everything must go, get your legislation for you and your special interest".
It's kind of funny what the founding fathers thought of public service: they hated it. The did it, because it needed to be done, but they looked upon the government the same way Bill Gates looks at the DoJ. Now, politicians and beauracrats are treated with great fanfare, as though they are doing something truly great, as opposed to the truth: essentially, they got their position by winning a popularity contest.
On a side note, does anyone remeber the article a while back, on some obscure law in Florida, whereby they could tax LANs?
Rights do not exist in nature, and nature has only one rule: survival of the fittest.
And what if that life did turn out to be (subjective) better than ours? What of it? Should we all say "Oh well, they're better, let's go kill ourselves"? What I find odd about people who make statements like these is that they hate humans. They view them as a virus, not as a natural inhabitant. Self-loathing creatures.
So humans are intelligent, that makes us special? Great. The way I view it: nature decided that it got tired of constantly going back to the drawing board (dinosaurs, whatever) to build a lifeform that could withstand extreme conditions. Nature said "Screw this, the next lifeform is going to be smart enough that I can go on vacation, and not have to worry about some stray asteroid/ice age obliterating them".
So you lose a few species along the way. Stuff happens, even with us not around (see above). Hell, we're not even responsible for the worst stuff. We change the environment to suit our needs (kill off predators, domesticate the rest). Happens with all species.
Your view seems to be: humans destroy the 'natural' environment around them, and need to be destroyed/smacked-down/whatever. My view: the surrounding environment serves as a temporary infrastructure for nature's greatest accomplishment (to date): a thinking machine: man. Everything else is expendable.
In 100 million years (or whenever our sun expands), it will be the humans that carry life (our own human lives, plus other species) forth from this planet, to show the universe what has been accomplished. Breaking down our homes, living among nature, serves no purpose when there is a higher calling.
Keep in mind I do not condone wonton destruction of our environment (or others). If Titan has life, we'll be careful there as well. But as far as nature goes, we are the benchmark. No other creature has the ability to create and destory as we do. I'm only pointing out the obvious, and as we learn more about our environment, we learn to enhance it and mitigate our effects. You'll notice that smoke stacks are less numerous these days (see Industrial Revolution). Humans learn, "Hey, we're poisoning our air, let's do something about that". We learn, we move on. Deal.
Wait. How is repairing someone else's laptop (in my free time) a social responsibility?
It is of my own volition that I help them at all. I have no responsibility to "society" to fix someone's machine. Especially for people who have trouble openning a Word document, but know how to change Themes/install Bonzi Buddy/f*ck up their machine.
And having someone walk in and say "Can you, like, just make this work? I'll be back after lunch" rarely engenders the "warm fuzzy socialistic happy feeling" about doing my part for the people, komrade. Perhaps you like it ("Awwe, I made someone happy, I feeeeeel good. Someone pet me").
Hardly. I'm a developer, but I get dragged into doing tech support for everyone's {sister, cousin, relative, friend}. They want my help (and they always do), they can deal.
Look at it this way: if MS is busy wasting its time/money on stupid & useless patents like this, then they aren't spending their time patenting things that could deal damage to {other parties}.
Does it matter? I mean, really, does it matter?
TaskBar Grouping and Auto-Hide are the first to go, when working on someone's laptop. They are useless, and not terribly important.
Secondly, who wants to go challenge such a useless patent in court? I mean, principles aside, if someone did, we would be able to use it in {window manager}. Great, TaskBar Grouping, someone please kill me.
Security, Speed, User-friendliness. Basic GUI programming. These are all that count.
Annoying, stupid *features* like animated dogs and taskbar grouping which slow productivity and piss off users do not make the cut.
Were South & North Korea ever one country?
From what I've heard (too lazy to check), they never were one country, which is why those 're-unification' efforts are laughed at.
Get off it.
Speed limits were designed way back when you could reduce your gas intake by slipstreaming off your buddy (the guy in front of you). Same idea as geese flying in formation (reduces drag).
Nowadays, speed limits serve a different purpose: adding money to the state's coffers (in the name of education, social security, etc.). A friend of mine works with the cops (state & local), and yes, they do have quotas. Twice a month, cops are everywhere, then they disappear for a few weeks.
I do not condone doing 90MPH+ in a population center (i.e. center city Philly), but once you're out on the highway or the backroads, let loose. If your car has the speed and breaking distance, you have nothing to fear.
As an aside, under all circumstances, I obey the yellow speed signs (speed limits or otherwise). They actually serve a purpose (if a sign says 15 MPH, you bet that I'm going to abide by it).
I'd like to see the cops chase after those who impede traffic (30MPH in a 45MPH zone). Course, we can't have that in PA, as it would offend all those older voters (I think they outnumber everyone else). Grannies, wearing coke-bottle glasses, out driving their Buicks. Left-blinker, for 2 1/2 freaking miles.
Hmm. My experience is that the drivers tend to work well, provided you have a "Built by ATI" card. If you get a "Powered by ATI" card (OEM), then you can run into trouble (they use ATI drivers, but conflicts popup).
Personally, I love watching TV, a DVD, and running OpenGL program all at once, just to showboat it's capabilities: processor time hits a max of 10%. This running on a PII 400Mhz machine, with 128MB of ram.
Sure, you can get seperate cards that will do each task better (MPEG2 Encoder, Decoder, Video card), but the AIW does each well enough.
I've sworn off all other video cards for the AIW.
As for running an AIW under linux (Slackware), give up.
Hardly. It's the amount of work per clock cycle/number of cycles per second that determines the performance. Instructions (MMX, 3DNOW, SSE) play into this.
This is also why a P3 beats a P4 at the same clock speed. A P3 does more work per cycle than a P4, even though they are clocked the same.
The whole point behind AMDs naming scheme is that the model number == the amount of work of a Intel P4 processor at appropriate speed.
Funny you should mention that: I've researched in that area.
You think 3D is difficult, 4D (3D + time) is like walking on broken glass. Surprisingly, ideas tend to come rather easily with 4D (as opposed to 3D). And it's effects are most satisfying (3D file objects, complete with delta records and a commit buffer: easy protection against viruses, worms, trojans, stupidity and they look cool to boot!).
-Ryan
Interesting idea. Have you tried patenting it? j/k.
Seriously though, with the exception of a few scummy companies/people, patentees like to patent because they believe that their implementation is new, original, and unique. We would drop a patent application if some serious prior art was found (no one likes be to unoriginal).
Part of the problem is that a prior-art search is supposed to cover this. Lawyers will not be happy. Their clients will be unhappy that they spent money on both the lawyer and the filing fee. It's a shame that you cannot file a provisional app (not a full app, but keeps the door open), send the full app to a site, see if it pans out, then act accordingly (file the full app or abandon).
Another problem is that there are a lot of services out there (though free/many eyes would help) that are not used. And those services may or may not be legit. And when you get down to it, there is a lot of possible prior art for an app.
To put things in focus, I first began to fear IBM when I wrote my first app, and came across the shear number of patents they own. Scary stuff.
As an aside, the masses (of average people) do not care. Which is a problem.
The problem with this is that technology is advancing faster than ever, and copying technology is about easy as copying an MP3.
/.ers can read a patent and go pfft! I could do that. But you did not think of it first, or research it (trivial patents aside). It only came to you after you read it. You went "Hey, I know create something like that (in programming)", but you didn't think of it. Again, trivial patents aside.
I've spent about 9 years researching what I aim to patent. IMHO it's new, unique, and original.
But, the length of time to copy it (after reading the patent, playing with my prototypes) is trivial for someone like MS or IBM.
So now we have a problem. If we shorten the length of a software patent to about 2 years (as an example), MS and IBM can sit back and wait for it to expire. They can bide their time, then use my implementation for free.
So in the end, I lose out (9 years). This is what the patent system was created to protect, the ability for someone (large or small entity) to spend a lot of money with the knowledge that their efforts will pay off (recoup R+D, and a hefty profit).
Intel, AMD, TI, IBM are only living now because of IP. A chinese manufacturer could rip off the IP and produe their chips for a lot less than they are now (they could do the R+D for a lot less). The reason this doesn't happen is because they cannot sell their chips in any country that honours the patent system.
A lot of
It's not a question of implementing a new algorithim (after reading the paper), but of creating the algorithim in the first place. I think (though I'm not sure) Google has a patent on PageRank. And you all know how easy that is to implement, but no one before Google thought of it. And you can see its effects.
The plight of an entity (upon research of a new method) is that they have to patent as broad as possible to protect their creation.
In truth, the length of patent enforcement saves the small entity. If MS or IBM wants to use my implementation, they can pay up or wait 17 years. And in an information economy, waiting for a new feature is deadly (hence, they often settle or fight it out).
We have moved from an industrial economy to an information economy. Manufacturing is cheap, so it has been outsourced. Information is the new economy. So while the original patent system protected the industrial economy, the current one protects information economy.
The wealth of our economy would disappear overnight with the abolition of our current system. Reformation is needed, but what kind and how much is key.
I think neither are a good idea.
Let's break it down:
1.) Business Leaders: they have their ears closest to the ground, because their industry is directly affected. The good thing is that they want it to change. The bad thing is that their changes will make it harder for a small inventor to assert their patents, so the little guy will be ripped off more often.
2.) Acadamia: great ideas, they never work out. The problem with academics is that they all live in a sheltered kingdom, where everyone meets in committees. Which is great if everyone is on the same page, but the real world doesn't work like that. They need to decide a reformed system like TCP/IP : its goal is to grant or deny a patent in the most efficent manner, while keeping in mind that the worst patents are the most likely to be granted.
3.) Average guy: doesn't know what a patent is, or how it affects them.
4.) Small Entity (Inventor): wants to do the oppositte of the big guys. Make them more prone to lawsuits, make them bleed money.
Personally, I kind of like the way the system works now. On one hand, I'm not a CEO, so watching companies being lampooned makes for some entertainment. The little guy getting it is less so. I'm about even for either getting a stupid patent. Right now I have my own application making its way through the system.
So its a toss up: the instability makes for entertainment, and some hope that I won't have to deal with more bureacracy when the time comes. On the other hand, it's definitely not stable, and probably not healthy.
-Ryan
I think what he's getting at is that while you have a right to charge as much as you want for your product/labor, you do not have a 'right' per say to receive profit from your labor/product.
Hear me out. When I say 'right' I do not mean natural rights/common law (as Locke would put it), but a 'right' as in a constitutional right.
I.e. If you run a company, and it is running at a loss, you do not have the 'right' to file a lawsuit against your competitors, alleging that they are infringing on your 'right' to profit.
Your labor is your own, and you have the right to its use. Whether the product of your labor produces a profit is entirely up to the free market and your skills {negotiation, advertising, volume/quality of product}.
I'm curious. Has Microsoft ever truly enforced patents?
I know they use them for bartering, but I cannot recall any time in recent memory that they have.
Well, maybe.
(Excuse my ignorance in such matters{Perl}), but I think it's the compiler's job (with other languages) to check for conditions likes this (comparing two unlike objects). It catches the mistake, you cast one of the objects one way or another, and use their methods.
Invader Zim, how I love that show. It truly appeals to the Machiavelli in me.
Apparently, there are (1.5 seasons + halloween & christmas specials) of it. Low ratings are to blame, so halfway into the second season, Nick axed it.
There is some talk that certain elements *cough* parents *cough* were to blame, as the content was less than PC. Which is what made it great: rooting for the bad guy, making fun of the good guy's "big head" (Zib), and "My Tallest" (alien overlords with a penchant for snacks) thrown in there for good measure.
Seriously, I would give my right kidney if they brought back Invader Zim.