I don't believe perfect/absolute pitch is being born with the ability to simply hear a note and know that it's C#. Rather, you have to be trained at least once that a certain sound is Bb, but later, any time you hear it, you know it's Bb. And I doubt that they'd be limited to a 12-tone pitch system unless that was all you ever exposed them to.
I'm sorry that I don't have a reference, but I believe I heard (pardon the pun) that we may all be born with perfect pitch but the vast majority of us soon lose this as we develop.
I guess this is like how I've seen people from the UK saying they "go to university", rather than I go to a university, or I go to the university or I got to college. When I read that in the past, I thought it was just a typo, but, I've seen it on here so many times, I learned it was how they phrased things over there.
But surely, even in the US you say "I got to school" rather than "I go to a school"?
In my opinion, and printer is about as valuable in a modern office as horse stalls are in a modern firehouse.
Why do I still print?
Because when I have 3 or more documents I'm reading to review etc, it's more convenient to be able to
a) flick between the pages of different documents
b) underline/highlight/ make notes in the margins
c) carry them with me/ dump them on a couch/chair while reading.
d) I often need the computer screen to write a review document.
My PC screen's resolution isn't up to the job of having multiple documents open side-by-side (and the laptop's is even worse). Furthermore,the interface to Acrobat/Word/anything for that matter, is pathetically slow. A mouse and keyboard are no substitute for human hands on paper combined with a simple pen.
Maybe when we have desks that are touch sensitive LCDs with 10k*10k resolution, things may change.
Thing is that in the UK they are f*&ked when it comes to stream ripping. Any sane person stream rips either the Freeview (digital terrestrial TV with absolutely no DRM) version if available (has higher bitrates) or the DAB version.
Not only that, but some DAB radios (e.g. http://www.pure-digital.com/Products/Product.asp?P roduct=VL-60767) already come with an SD card slot so you can record the transmission. (It apparently also has a USB connector but I don't know if that can be used to transfer music.)
You don't need antialiasing if you are rendering with an interval engine like this one: http://sunfishstudio.com/
Are they using interval arithmetic in the renderer? I'm not sure how novel that would be as I used it in a ray tracer in a previous company pre-1990. Of course, they may have added some new way of using it.
As for Java graphics, I have heard on the grapevine that it can make it rather challenging to get anywhere near the native performance of the rendering hardware.
It's not about whether prior art exists, it's about whether prior art exists AND it is seen by the patent examiner during the process.
Indeed.
I think it is also compounded by the fact that, in my limited experience of filing a few patents, the USPTO only appears to search existing US patents when looking for prior art. The European patent offices, OTOH, also include scientific journals, etc, so tend to be more thorough.
Oh okay. And I thought one of the basic ideas behind creating a dedicated body to examine and grant patents was to create a way to examine all important aspects. Clearly, prior art is not one of them - even if "the concepts in those patents were clearly discussed and published by others prior to the patent being filed. Berninger says that the ideas were discussed at the VoIP forum meeting in 1996 and published in January of 1997. The patents in question were filed after that."
IANAPL but I have written quite a few patents and had them filed at the USPTO, EPO, Japan, and Internationally.
In my experience, whenever the USPTO has done a prior art search, it appears they only looked at previous US patents. I've never received any references to international patents and certainly not scientific papers so I assume they don't bother searching those.[shrug]
This is in stark contrast to the EPO etc, who will fire all sorts of references back at you (including those from smaller scientific journals) and make you explain why your invention is, or more usually the just the claims are, novel.
Australian electronics businessman and philanthropist, Dick Smith, trying to solve Australia's water shortage with an iceberg....http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iceberg.h tml
"Michael Fricklas, a lawyer for Viacom, has an opinion piece in the Washington Post laying out Viacom's side in their $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. Fricklas asserts that the DMCA's 'safe harbor' provisions don't apply because YouTube is knowledgeable to infringement and furthermore derives financial benefit from it.
Will this dispute between Viacom and YouTube be tried before a jury? If so, how can this be legal? Surely this article could be construed as potentially prejudicing any jury against YouTube....or is this something that can be done in the US?
I'd mod the parent up if I had any points but as I haven't, I'll just add my two cents' worth. I used to program in Occam and it soon became second nature to throw threads at a problem because it was so easy to do it.
DISCLAIMER: Do not construe the following as legal advice. The claims (at least in the reissued patent) are narrower than simple time-to-frequency transforms. To infringe, an invention must possess the qualities or features of one or more of the claims of a patent. The claim that contains the reference to the transforms (claim 1) also has other requirements that must be met by an invention before it should be found to be infringing that particular claim.
IANAPL but...
Just to add to this, for an invention to infringe a particular claim, it must be doing all the things stated in that claim. If at any stage one can say "this invention does not do that" then one can ignore that claim.
For the grandparent poster, in this instance I was just pointing out that some compressors don't transform into the frequency domain and thus the claims can be ignored.
Having quickly looked at those claims, I would think that at least some lossless compressors (e.g. Monkey's Audio in particular) would be fine since at least some do not transform the signal into the frequency domain.
But surely the arcade version of the hardware doesn't rely on GD-ROM as its storage medium?
I must say the only Naomi (1 & 2) boards that I saw took replaceable ROM packs, which meant they booted very quickly and probably would have been more reliable in an environment like an arcade. I suppose, however, that a GDROM based system would have made distribution of new games/updates cheaper though.
Computer science is only a hop, skip, and a jump away from hard mathematics. What would happen to the field of mathematics if mathematicians started patenting their novel analysis methods?
That cannot happen - at least not in Europe. A patent must be for an industrial/product application (or similar?). AFAIU, (see link) things such as mathematics or business can't be patented. Of course, the US is a strange place and the rules there may vary.
Our government needs to more clearly delineate what software can and cannot be patented in order to prevent more ridiculous patents. I'm more in the 'No Software Patents' camp, but I think there are exceptions, particularly for very specialized software in specific industries.
No. It's not software patents, per se, that is the problem. It's being able to "patent the bleeding obvious" that is the problem.
This particular example, IMHO as "one skilled in the art [of computer programming]", falls slap bang into the "obvious" bucket.
There is nothing wrong with having technical software (or any other method of implementing) patents provided what is being patented is novel and non-obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry that I don't have a reference, but I believe I heard (pardon the pun) that we may all be born with perfect pitch but the vast majority of us soon lose this as we develop.
"You insensitive clod". You missed out the "Mockingbird" option
Arghhh. Of course, that was meant to be "I go to school".
But surely, even in the US you say "I got to school" rather than "I go to a school"?
Sorry to disappoint you, but IIRC from the SIGGRAPH lecture, I think they removed people from the database.
It did work quite well, however, offering a choice of different image completions.
Why do I still print?
Because when I have 3 or more documents I'm reading to review etc, it's more convenient to be able to
a) flick between the pages of different documents
b) underline/highlight/ make notes in the margins
c) carry them with me/ dump them on a couch/chair while reading.
d) I often need the computer screen to write a review document.
My PC screen's resolution isn't up to the job of having multiple documents open side-by-side (and the laptop's is even worse). Furthermore,the interface to Acrobat/Word/anything for that matter, is pathetically slow. A mouse and keyboard are no substitute for human hands on paper combined with a simple pen.
Maybe when we have desks that are touch sensitive LCDs with 10k*10k resolution, things may change.
Not only that, but some DAB radios (e.g. http://www.pure-digital.com/Products/Product.asp?
I am also 41 and my grandfather fought in WW1
I think this seems to show, at least in some cases, the generation gap may be increasing.
Are they using interval arithmetic in the renderer? I'm not sure how novel that would be as I used it in a ray tracer in a previous company pre-1990. Of course, they may have added some new way of using it.
As for Java graphics, I have heard on the grapevine that it can make it rather challenging to get anywhere near the native performance of the rendering hardware.
Indeed.
I think it is also compounded by the fact that, in my limited experience of filing a few patents, the USPTO only appears to search existing US patents when looking for prior art. The European patent offices, OTOH, also include scientific journals, etc, so tend to be more thorough.
IIRC, you are asked when it's first configured. If you are really paranoid, just tell your firewall to block it. You do run a firewall, don't you?
Seriously though, I replaced Google Desktop with Copernic because the latter also allows you to search network drives.
To file it with the WPO. What this technically does, OTOH, I don't actually know.
IANAPL but I have written quite a few patents and had them filed at the USPTO, EPO, Japan, and Internationally.
In my experience, whenever the USPTO has done a prior art search, it appears they only looked at previous US patents. I've never received any references to international patents and certainly not scientific papers so I assume they don't bother searching those.[shrug]
This is in stark contrast to the EPO etc, who will fire all sorts of references back at you (including those from smaller scientific journals) and make you explain why your invention is, or more usually the just the claims are, novel.
It is the fastest conventional (i.e. with wheels) train.
Australian electronics businessman and philanthropist, Dick Smith, trying to solve Australia's water shortage with an iceberg....http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iceberg.h tml
Will this dispute between Viacom and YouTube be tried before a jury? If so, how can this be legal? Surely this article could be construed as potentially prejudicing any jury against YouTube....or is this something that can be done in the US?
I'd mod the parent up if I had any points but as I haven't, I'll just add my two cents' worth. I used to program in Occam and it soon became second nature to throw threads at a problem because it was so easy to do it.
Errrr... because it probably take several weeks to understand most patents especially if you are not an expert in that particular field.
IANAPL but...
Just to add to this, for an invention to infringe a particular claim, it must be doing all the things stated in that claim. If at any stage one can say "this invention does not do that" then one can ignore that claim.
For the grandparent poster, in this instance I was just pointing out that some compressors don't transform into the frequency domain and thus the claims can be ignored.
I don't think so.
Having quickly looked at those claims, I would think that at least some lossless compressors (e.g. Monkey's Audio in particular) would be fine since at least some do not transform the signal into the frequency domain.
I must say the only Naomi (1 & 2) boards that I saw took replaceable ROM packs, which meant they booted very quickly and probably would have been more reliable in an environment like an arcade. I suppose, however, that a GDROM based system would have made distribution of new games/updates cheaper though.
[Sarcasm mode]
Oh yes, because PS2 didn't have native hardware support:
[/Sarcasm mode]
PS2 did achieve a high polygon and fill rate (provided you didn't mind the simple blend modes) but it did use a hectare of silicon.
I could go on but I'm already bitter and twisted enough as it is.
That cannot happen - at least not in Europe. A patent must be for an industrial/product application (or similar?). AFAIU, (see link) things such as mathematics or business can't be patented. Of course, the US is a strange place and the rules there may vary.
No. It's not software patents, per se, that is the problem. It's being able to "patent the bleeding obvious" that is the problem.
This particular example, IMHO as "one skilled in the art [of computer programming]", falls slap bang into the "obvious" bucket.
There is nothing wrong with having technical software (or any other method of implementing) patents provided what is being patented is novel and non-obvious.