What are these people smoking? One needs to be a bleeding lawyer to *know* what to calculate intp the payslip in the fist place. One needs to deduce the communal tax ( some 20% depending on the city, but its not stated anywhere on the slip!). Then there is the progressige national tax. Which I think is calculated after the communal tax. Anyone (who don't work with the tax authorities) care to tell me what the progression levels are? And once we have done that, lets deduce the pension ensurance (which I think is comparable to the pay) and health insurance (which should not be comparable to pay). And when this is calclulated, lets take into account the tax reductions that are taken in advance, lowering the tax rate.
Anyone who says everybody should be able to calculate their payslip is an egocentirc arrogant SHAAH.
And the other point - train time table. That is easy - and again don't require maths. The train is late. And the nice lady will announce it when it arrives. (If it arrives).
Perhaps life is more formal in the UK, where TFA originates. But here in Soviet Finland, we have this thing called "reilu meininki".
Whaddaya mean "screwed us with Linux"? OtherOS works just as fine as it always has. Excellent craftsmanship - thanks Geoff Levand et. al! True, Sony did removed the online gaming, and forward compatibility of games with FW 3.21 (new games are annoyingly & confusingly still labeled with the same "for PS3", eventhough they clearly don't work with my PS3). But the option for Sony to force updates didn't come untill FW 3.30 ( http://www.itproportal.com/2010/04/22/sony-can-update-ps3-firmware-without-asking/ ). So before that the choice was yours. Anyways - who plays games on their console? (that is like sooo 1990's!!). If I want to play - I start up my 6-core Phenom with dual video cards. Now, what can this new PS4 do?
Any knucklehead that is able to misread TFA *must* be stupid enough not to have any influence.
I usually employ Hanlon's razor. But if someone finds anyting agressive in ESRs text, then stupidity nolonger suffices as explanation. IMHO. Of course, a malicious non-stupid is even worse than a benign stupid.
What do you think will happen during those 90 days if the studies reach any conclusion that is not "OMG underground diesel exhaust is teh AWESOMES!!!11!"?
Reading Nash's letters makes me realize how much better presentation medium powerpoint is. And also how much junk is made to sound nice, just with a nice presentation.
Perhaps this distinction between invention and discovery is where I fail. I really don't see how there can be anything called "invention" by this standard. Once you discover something (say - a filament doesn't burn out when not in contact with oxygen), the invention step to a light bulb is, IMHO, trivial. Figuring out a good material for the filament might be lots of work - or just a discovery for the material scientist.
My point is not that everyting should be patentable. The light bulb perhaps should (have) be(en). My point is that with the current patent system is seriously flawed. This flawed system causes a lot of nonsense SW patents, and a few other ones too. ("Method for swinging on a swing" was revoked, but is the "circular transportation facilitation device" still valid? I probably don't need to list dubious SW patents for this crowd:) ) But this flaw should NOT be held against SW patents as such. They many times have just as much engineering work behind them as any other (proper!) patent. Rather, the argument should be held against the patenting system as it is implemented today.
A quick remedy would be to increase the level of the "inventive step" to seriously reduce the number of patents. That woud, incidentally, probably take care of much of the dodgy SW patents at the same time.
Why is patenting encryption by modular exponentiation absurd?
I had no idea modular exponentiation could be applied to encryption. If nobody else either had noticed this - then why should we not allow somebody to protect their invention?
What are the alternatives?
1) The idea is never put into use. Humanity doesn't get encryption by modular exponentiation. 2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky. 3) Inventor publishes the invention in a engineering journal. Same outcome as in case 2.
Now - I wonder if modular exponentiation can be useful for anything else than encryption? Luckily the concept itself cannot be patented. But if I come up with a new use for modular exponentiation - don't you want me to share? Or do you just want me to share it for free. As in beer.
Mod parent up! This is the exact question I have always been asking, and never found a more satisfactory answer than:
There is no difference.
If someone comes up with a better way of producing potash or sorting a list than is currently known, they should be able to apply for a patent. But the patent should be granted only if: - the new method is truly novel - the method improves the previous best known methods - it is likely that no-one would invent the same thing in the time the patent is valid. Even if skilled in the art.
What all the commotion and FUD about software patents boil down to is that the entire field of software is so new, that there is still an avalance of inventions going on. I.e. the third point most never holds. The solution is not a blanket ban on software patents, but a more rigorous check in the patent granting process.
He really wrote "hackers dream"?? I stopped reading at "leaves a user's information vulnerable to hackers".
I don't even know what the current politically correct phrase is for people with skin two shades darker than mine (no, I don't live in the USA). Yet terms "hacker" and "nerd" are kosher. I just don't grok that country.
Except that the cell search can be done at the most narrow bandwidth, 1.4MHz. And actually even half of that (see e.g. Sesia et. al http://search.barnesandnoble.com/LTE/Stefania-Sesia/e/9780470697160 ). And further more, in the cell search - the signal is searched for in the time domain. Only when you find a candidate do you need to start to use the fourier transform.
People want the government to forgive Turing for being homosexual?
In honour of the great logician - lets apply it here:
-Pardon, or forgivness of a crime, can only be given the guilty
-Pardoning Turing implies he is (still) guilty
ergo, homosexuality is a crime.
I won't sign that petition, ktnx.
Should I know what is craiglist?
Looking at craiglist.org reminds me of a moderately NSFW domain parikng page. "Women seeking men", etc. Complete with crappy translations and all. If I was running Windows, I'd be starting the virus checker right about now.
Not first DSP, but possibly first vendor-backed one. LLVM has (or had at least recently) a blackfin backed, and quick googling shows at least two c64x off-tree backend projects for LLVM.
But I agree - having a commercially backed DSP target is good for the compile framework. Easier to add possible Mali support in the future.
No, beacuse applying a new FFT algorithm (which now is readily published) to old problems is considered obvious for anyone skilled in the art.
But if you could find a completely *new* thing to do with this algorithm, that wasn't possible earlier because Fast Fourier Transform wasn't fast enough - that you might be able to patent.
A much more lucrative plan would be to search half a dozen of these old patents, implment them with the new algorithm and publish papers on these. Then collect you PhD, and get a cozy, moderately paying job.
Slashdot Mirror
What are these people smoking?
One needs to be a bleeding lawyer to *know* what to calculate intp the payslip in the fist place. One needs to deduce the communal tax ( some 20% depending on the city, but its not stated anywhere on the slip!). Then there is the progressige national tax. Which I think is calculated after the communal tax. Anyone (who don't work with the tax authorities) care to tell me what the progression levels are?
And once we have done that, lets deduce the pension ensurance (which I think is comparable to the pay) and health insurance (which should not be comparable to pay).
And when this is calclulated, lets take into account the tax reductions that are taken in advance, lowering the tax rate.
Anyone who says everybody should be able to calculate their payslip is an egocentirc arrogant SHAAH.
And the other point - train time table. That is easy - and again don't require maths. The train is late. And the nice lady will announce it when it arrives. (If it arrives).
Perhaps life is more formal in the UK, where TFA originates. But here in Soviet Finland, we have this thing called "reilu meininki".
Whaddaya mean "screwed us with Linux"? OtherOS works just as fine as it always has. Excellent craftsmanship - thanks Geoff Levand et. al!
True, Sony did removed the online gaming, and forward compatibility of games with FW 3.21 (new games are annoyingly & confusingly still labeled with the same "for PS3", eventhough they clearly don't work with my PS3).
But the option for Sony to force updates didn't come untill FW 3.30 ( http://www.itproportal.com/2010/04/22/sony-can-update-ps3-firmware-without-asking/ ). So before that the choice was yours.
Anyways - who plays games on their console? (that is like sooo 1990's!!). If I want to play - I start up my 6-core Phenom with dual video cards. Now, what can this new PS4 do?
How can you use that title, and not post the obligatory "Luxury. We used to dream about 5$/gallon".
No wonder you posted as AC.
Any knucklehead that is able to misread TFA *must* be stupid enough not to have any influence.
I usually employ Hanlon's razor. But if someone finds anyting agressive in ESRs text, then stupidity nolonger suffices as explanation. IMHO. Of course, a malicious non-stupid is even worse than a benign stupid.
What do you think will happen during those 90 days if the studies reach any conclusion that is not "OMG underground diesel exhaust is teh AWESOMES!!!11!"?
The MIB turn up to neuralize the authors?
Reading Nash's letters makes me realize how much better presentation medium powerpoint is.
And also how much junk is made to sound nice, just with a nice presentation.
TFA is just a LMGTFY??
This must be a new low.
What if I refuse just this one vaccine? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16109424
You mean the summaries on /. are not supposed to be Bizarre, Confusing, Misleading and (dare I say) a bit Trollish?
Yeh, I'm new here.
Perhaps this distinction between invention and discovery is where I fail. I really don't see how there can be anything called "invention" by this standard. Once you discover something (say - a filament doesn't burn out when not in contact with oxygen), the invention step to a light bulb is, IMHO, trivial. Figuring out a good material for the filament might be lots of work - or just a discovery for the material scientist.
My point is not that everyting should be patentable. The light bulb perhaps should (have) be(en). My point is that with the current patent system is seriously flawed. This flawed system causes a lot of nonsense SW patents, and a few other ones too. ("Method for swinging on a swing" was revoked, but is the "circular transportation facilitation device" still valid? I probably don't need to list dubious SW patents for this crowd :) )
But this flaw should NOT be held against SW patents as such. They many times have just as much engineering work behind them as any other (proper!) patent. Rather, the argument should be held against the patenting system as it is implemented today.
A quick remedy would be to increase the level of the "inventive step" to seriously reduce the number of patents. That woud, incidentally, probably take care of much of the dodgy SW patents at the same time.
Why is patenting encryption by modular exponentiation absurd?
I had no idea modular exponentiation could be applied to encryption. If nobody else either had noticed this - then why should we not allow somebody to protect their invention?
What are the alternatives?
1) The idea is never put into use. Humanity doesn't get encryption by modular exponentiation.
2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.
3) Inventor publishes the invention in a engineering journal. Same outcome as in case 2.
Now - I wonder if modular exponentiation can be useful for anything else than encryption?
Luckily the concept itself cannot be patented. But if I come up with a new use for modular exponentiation - don't you want me to share? Or do you just want me to share it for free. As in beer.
Mod parent up!
This is the exact question I have always been asking, and never found a more satisfactory answer than:
There is no difference.
If someone comes up with a better way of producing potash or sorting a list than is currently known, they should be able to apply for a patent.
But the patent should be granted only if:
- the new method is truly novel
- the method improves the previous best known methods
- it is likely that no-one would invent the same thing in the time the patent is valid. Even if skilled in the art.
What all the commotion and FUD about software patents boil down to is that the entire field of software is so new, that there is still an avalance of inventions going on. I.e. the third point most never holds. The solution is not a blanket ban on software patents, but a more rigorous check in the patent granting process.
He really wrote "hackers dream"??
I stopped reading at "leaves a user's information vulnerable to hackers".
I don't even know what the current politically correct phrase is for people with skin two shades darker than mine (no, I don't live in the USA). Yet terms "hacker" and "nerd" are kosher. I just don't grok that country.
Except that the cell search can be done at the most narrow bandwidth, 1.4MHz. And actually even half of that (see e.g. Sesia et. al http://search.barnesandnoble.com/LTE/Stefania-Sesia/e/9780470697160 ).
And further more, in the cell search - the signal is searched for in the time domain. Only when you find a candidate do you need to start to use the fourier transform.
People want the government to forgive Turing for being homosexual? In honour of the great logician - lets apply it here: -Pardon, or forgivness of a crime, can only be given the guilty -Pardoning Turing implies he is (still) guilty ergo, homosexuality is a crime. I won't sign that petition, ktnx.
They are hanging the fibre in the air? How quaint.
Should I know what is craiglist? Looking at craiglist.org reminds me of a moderately NSFW domain parikng page. "Women seeking men", etc. Complete with crappy translations and all. If I was running Windows, I'd be starting the virus checker right about now.
Or is this a local issue?
The first time ever? That's incredible.
Not at all, he is from the USA.
But I agree - having a commercially backed DSP target is good for the compile framework. Easier to add possible Mali support in the future.
Qualcomm just submitted their Hexagon backend to LLVM, btw.
Is it just me that is getting middle-aged?
Mod parent up. First (only?) comment under this news with techincal, on-topic and informative content!
No, beacuse applying a new FFT algorithm (which now is readily published) to old problems is considered obvious for anyone skilled in the art. But if you could find a completely *new* thing to do with this algorithm, that wasn't possible earlier because Fast Fourier Transform wasn't fast enough - that you might be able to patent. A much more lucrative plan would be to search half a dozen of these old patents, implment them with the new algorithm and publish papers on these. Then collect you PhD, and get a cozy, moderately paying job.
1 base Pi == 1 base 10 == 1 base 2 == 1 base N