I'd have to go look it up to find out. On the basis that British Patents cannot be applied for algorithms (because they are discovered and not novel), I'd be surprised. But then I can always be wrong.
The blit application was written, if my memory serves, as the description of a device using a mechanically described process.
As for enforceablity I'd be interested to hear of a single software only or algorithmic patent being upheld within the UK as valid. Paying over royalties on the basis of patents is sometimes just blackmail and the suffering companies payup only because the legal expenses and subsequent costs outweigh paying the blackmailer.
The RDF claim will fail because there are too many 'men of straw' also using RDF that it would simply be too expensive for the claimant to go after. I imagine I'd be one of them as I have used and use RDF on occasion.
And Tax, probably even more importantly tax. Since purchase tax laws are for bounded on the country of the supply the supply of goods and services based on an internet transaction is always vague and fuzzy.
Individual governments believe that they are losing considerable revenue because of this.
If location of the individual by means of their IP address becomes a matter of civil liberties, look to the Data Haven type of organisations providing proxy services.
US Patents are largely discredited in the world and are well known as simply being a method of blackmailing competitors and reducing competition as a whole.
Patenting software solutions in itself is a misuse of the patent process. The aim of any patent process is to protect the creator of an entirely novel process or object for a reasonable amount of time.
The rot set in when the blit patent was accepted, which fundamentally meant that using XOR was somehow a new and novel process.
The only way to stop this misuse is to ignore the Patent Office and if one has a novel concept to describe it in copyrightable form.
From what I remember as it was at almost the lowest point in creating a window (or reusing a current one), things like File New Window did fail (but then that also seems reasonable you can start a new browser instance for new windows).
In practical use the popups didn't seem to take over the main window content. It is a while since I did this though.
Since mozilla.org decided to licence under the GPL it effectively excluded me from development after some three years of moderate activity on my part.
The functional method I used (and there are a couple of alternatives) is to modify the window open backend such that it always opened the same window name (I think in my case _content, though I might be wrong about that), replacing whatever name was passed to it, or if no name was used, creating one.
This achieves the main aim, all window opens happen within the same window. Then you have to exclude the scripted opens for things like adverts and such so that your actual main content isn't obscured.
The current preference changes manage that. Personally I'd prefer a point and shoot method of collecting URLs that I didn't mind created popups in much the same way as having black and white lists (hmmm I don't think anyone ever got around to doing that either).
All of this kind of behaviour was meant to come out of changes in the security model so that it would be relatively straightforward and efficient to restrict any identified address from doing any except the user's desired behaviour.
To be honest I haven't kept close enough up to date to know if that fundamental change happened, if it hasn't though all such changes are going to be much harder than necessary.
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas?
on
Mozilla 0.9.7 Released!
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I showed that more than a year ago and I know some have implemented similar techniques to prevent any window opening under any circumstances and show the link in the existing window.
The problem with the wording is not that its inaccurate, its entirely accurate. The problem is that the user is searching for something to stop windows opening and so naturally grabs at whatever seems reasonable. After that assumption is made they are going to be satisfied 80% of the time but consider the actual behaviour a bug because windows can still be opened.
It is important to remember though that the comment is not the code, just as the map is not the territory.
Firstly, the code is the document, the final arbiter, the Holy Ghost and all. Comments if they are useful at all should be similar to headnotes and footnotes.
A comment should introduce the function, method and state baldly its intent, it may also mention any dependancies. Further comments should only be added to either document bug fixes, give the bug number etc, or to indicate why the code does it this way and _NOT_ that way.
There is no point in the comments documenting what the code does in some pseudo code since, not being code, it will be less accurate than the code it documents and being entirely separate from the code a maintenance problem. (Oh for a language that hooks dependent documentation)
The anti-Unicode stance, which tends to be wholly American is interesting since before the attempts to unify character set encoding there was complete chaos in non Roman character sets. This wasn't thought at all interesting or useful because it didn't affect US english software.
Each of the language systems had their own methodologies and for some multiple encoding schemes.
Unicode is a painless way to protect your app from different character set operating systems so long as it is implemented at the core. Bolting it on afterwards is nasty.
Yep, we already have an answer why bother thinking any more.
I don't have any brief to defend Fred Hoyle but gratuitously attacking his ideas because someone proposes material evidence which coincides with his theory seems somewhat of a knee jerk reaction.
I'm completely open minded about whether there was one or more than one origin of life on this particular planet, apart from divine intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about glasshouses and stones. if you don't have the stones don't live in the glasshouses.
I'd have to go look it up to find out. On the basis that British Patents cannot be applied for algorithms (because they are discovered and not novel), I'd be surprised. But then I can always be wrong.
The blit application was written, if my memory serves, as the description of a device using a mechanically described process.
As for enforceablity I'd be interested to hear of a single software only or algorithmic patent being upheld within the UK as valid. Paying over royalties on the basis of patents is sometimes just blackmail and the suffering companies payup only because the legal expenses and subsequent costs outweigh paying the blackmailer.
The RDF claim will fail because there are too many 'men of straw' also using RDF that it would simply be too expensive for the claimant to go after. I imagine I'd be one of them as I have used and use RDF on occasion.
And Tax, probably even more importantly tax. Since purchase tax laws are for bounded on the country of the supply the supply of goods and services based on an internet transaction is always vague and fuzzy.
Individual governments believe that they are losing considerable revenue because of this.
If location of the individual by means of their IP address becomes a matter of civil liberties, look to the Data Haven type of organisations providing proxy services.
US Patents are largely discredited in the world and are well known as simply being a method of blackmailing competitors and reducing competition as a whole.
Patenting software solutions in itself is a misuse of the patent process. The aim of any patent process is to protect the creator of an entirely novel process or object for a reasonable amount of time.
The rot set in when the blit patent was accepted, which fundamentally meant that using XOR was somehow a new and novel process.
The only way to stop this misuse is to ignore the Patent Office and if one has a novel concept to describe it in copyrightable form.
>Ah, hi Simon! *g* :-)
Happy New Year Ben
From what I remember as it was at almost the lowest point in creating a window (or reusing a current one), things like File New Window did fail (but then that also seems reasonable you can start a new browser instance for new windows).
In practical use the popups didn't seem to take over the main window content. It is a while since I did this though.
Since mozilla.org decided to licence under the GPL it effectively excluded me from development after some three years of moderate activity on my part.
The functional method I used (and there are a couple of alternatives) is to modify the window open backend such that it always opened the same window name (I think in my case _content, though I might be wrong about that), replacing whatever name was passed to it, or if no name was used, creating one.
This achieves the main aim, all window opens happen within the same window. Then you have to exclude the scripted opens for things like adverts and such so that your actual main content isn't obscured.
The current preference changes manage that. Personally I'd prefer a point and shoot method of collecting URLs that I didn't mind created popups in much the same way as having black and white lists (hmmm I don't think anyone ever got around to doing that either).
All of this kind of behaviour was meant to come out of changes in the security model so that it would be relatively straightforward and efficient to restrict any identified address from doing any except the user's desired behaviour.
To be honest I haven't kept close enough up to date to know if that fundamental change happened, if it hasn't though all such changes are going to be much harder than necessary.
Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I showed that more than a year ago and I know some have implemented similar techniques to prevent any window opening under any circumstances and show the link in the existing window.
The problem with the wording is not that its inaccurate, its entirely accurate. The problem is that the user is searching for something to stop windows opening and so naturally grabs at whatever seems reasonable. After that assumption is made they are going to be satisfied 80% of the time but consider the actual behaviour a bug because windows can still be opened.
Simon
It is important to remember though that the comment is not the code, just as the map is not the territory.
Firstly, the code is the document, the final arbiter, the Holy Ghost and all. Comments if they are useful at all should be similar to headnotes and footnotes.
A comment should introduce the function, method and state baldly its intent, it may also mention any dependancies. Further comments should only be added to either document bug fixes, give the bug number etc, or to indicate why the code does it this way and _NOT_ that way.
There is no point in the comments documenting what the code does in some pseudo code since, not being code, it will be less accurate than the code it documents and being entirely separate from the code a maintenance problem. (Oh for a language that hooks dependent documentation)
The anti-Unicode stance, which tends to be wholly American is interesting since before the attempts to unify character set encoding there was complete chaos in non Roman character sets. This wasn't thought at all interesting or useful because it didn't affect US english software.
Each of the language systems had their own methodologies and for some multiple encoding schemes.
Unicode is a painless way to protect your app from different character set operating systems so long as it is implemented at the core. Bolting it on afterwards is nasty.
Explaining the irrational rationally is not the act of a rational being.
Yep, we already have an answer why bother thinking any more. I don't have any brief to defend Fred Hoyle but gratuitously attacking his ideas because someone proposes material evidence which coincides with his theory seems somewhat of a knee jerk reaction. I'm completely open minded about whether there was one or more than one origin of life on this particular planet, apart from divine intervention.