The article doesn't mention a damn thing about the next generation consoles...
Perhaps not the big systems, but it does cover some aspects of the portable gaming systems. Apart from the DS and PSP, it also describes:
Phones based on the highly integrated TI OMAP2 media processor, Freescale's i.MX21 combined with an Nvidia graphics accelerator, or Intel's PXA27x engine combined with the 2700G graphics support chip provide 2D and 3D graphics with drawing rates exceeding several million polygons/s. Such performance would rival the desktop computers of just a few years ago.
The TI OMAP2 and Intel 2700G are both MBX-based and pack quite a punch for relatively small amounts of silicon, so you will see decent 3D on standard consumer devices like phones.
Do Slashdot readers know of any mechanical implementations of a truly Universal Turing Machine?
Of course not.
I'm sure there must be some... they'll be in a backroom somewhere, stacked next to the perpetual motion machines and the random noise compression algorithms.:-)
The range over which you can read RFID information in any sort of portable (ie: non-obvious) fashion is limited to a few inches.
For now...
Given what the previous-1 poster wrote, I guess you should be concerned if something like Parkes or Jodrell Bank is pointed at you, but I think you might notice one of those appearing in the street.
The alternative would appear to beam more energy at the RFID device which possibly is of more concern, given that they are probably operate in the microwave spectrum. Still there must be a limit - either the person or the RFID must cook eventually.
A prime example of a military with excellent COMSEC was the Iraqi army, and they did it very simply as well. Instead of using radio, they ran wire and used field telephones for nearly EVERYTHING. When we were deployed for DESERT SHIELD we found the airwaves almost dead. The days of morse code and ciphers are pretty much gone.
Unless those telephones had a built-in encryption system, what stops the lines being tapped? The field telephones in WW1 were regularly tapped by opposing sides - surely that could still haved happened.
Building in 120GB, 160GB or higher capacity drives, for example, will mean miniature PCs able to match larger machines in storing large numbers of MP3 files or even digital photos.
Oh come on. Not many people have enough photos and MP3s to fill even 10GB nevermind 120GB or 160GB
One home use where you do need stacks of HD space is editing home videos. The DV format is not compressed very much and so it doesn't take many DV tapes of the family holiday to suddenly devour 50~100GBs of disk space.
I'll clarify that. It takes a lot of money to get such an invention into a working state; it is fiddly to get it going. This is why patents were invented. Wheras an algorithm just requires thinking (which may take a long time) until you discover an appropriate one (and an algorithm could even be discovered by a computer).
Why do you think that (non trivial) algorithms are any different to inventing any other system? A lot of patented devices would have been produced by trial and error until a working one is "discovered".
Or are you saying a computer could just test algorithms until it found an appropriate one? Goodness me. Let's say you can code an MP3 decoder in 1KByte. That would mean the computer would only have to try ~10^8000 programs before it "discoverd" it. It might be finished before the heat death of the universe but I doubt it.
Already done - XORing the source text with itself is a provably perfectly secure form of encryption!
The only problem with this is that when you send your cipher text, the big bad corrupt government agency can easily show that your clear text was "I planted the bomb":-)
A pity, as it looked as though the cipher text would compress really well.
I just love reading the pop-sci crap that gets fed to the public. We observe less solar radiation all over the world, and the next thing you know, we're jumping straight into the conclusion that two man made pollutants are cancelling each other out and keeping the greenhouse effect - an incredibly complicated process to discuss - in check.
Did you actually see the program? I found the whole thing fairly informative.
It included coverage of an international research effort (cost ~25million (pounds?)) to investigate the effect. This was conducted in a region of the Indian Ocean where weather patterns allow for "nearby" polluted and clean air regions. It was shown that the pollution dropped the radiation levels by a staggering 10%.
P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards". It's "on the cards" in Australia and UK.
or learning Choctaw, a language with two past tenses - one for giving information which is definitely true, the other for passing on material taken without checking from someone else.'"
I think Turkish has a similar concept. (I only know a few phrases so I might mess this up, but I'm pretty certain you can say "the man walked" : Adam yurudu
or you can say "the man walked (allegedly)":Adam yurumus
Must save a lot of time in avoiding libel actions:-)
If I only need to infringe on a single claim to infringe on the entire patent, then what's the purpose of, e.g., claim 2, which restricts it to BASIC? This claim builds on claim 1, and I can't think of a single way you'd infringe on claim 2 without also infringing on claim 1.
OK.... The aim is to start with claims that are as broad as possible so that people won't try doing a trivial change to the invention and say their system doesn't infringe.
You then start making the claims more specific introducing more and more inventive steps.
The reason for this is twofold: 1) During examination, the patent office may reject the broader claims and thus you can fall back on tighter and tighter specifics.
2) Later someone may uncover some arcane prior art, that you didn't know of, that eliminates some number of the broader claims. It's difficult, if not impossible, to correct claims afterwards even if your invention (in the body of the patent) is in fact genuinely novel.
Of course, patent lawyers often put in ridiculously broad claim 1.
Re:So am I infringing if... Re:So am I infringing if... (Score:1) by MadHobbit (68381) Alter Relationship on Friday November 19, @03:16PM (#10864115) Well, I Am Not A Lawyer But I Took A Course In University That Covered Canadian Patent Law.....
From what I remember, an invention can only infringe on a patent if every single claim in the patent applies to that invention.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. IANAPL either, but I deal with the damned things on a regular basis.
You infringe a patent if you infringe any of the claims**. To infringe a claim, however, you have to be doing all the steps described in the claim. If you can see a phrase in a claim and can say "my system does not do that" then you don't infringe that claim.
**Unless, I guess, you can prove that the patent is invalid due to prior art and have the resources to do so.
Sorry, yes, I was a little lax with my phrasing, but this is Slapdash, isn't it?
Perhaps I should have said something like you can form a field of order p^N, by representing the elements by the set of polynomials with cooefficients belonging to a base field of order p, with the elements of the p^N field taken modulo a polynomial of order N that is irreducible over the base field.
I only brought it up because I was doing some worj on Reed-Solomon en/decoding recently.
Here is the interesting part having to do with primes. If, and only if, p is prime, then Z_p is actually a FIELD, meaning that every nonzero element has a reciprocal element. This implies that there can be no zero divisors in Z_p, and that the ring is closed under division (except for dividing by zero, of course). I believe there are some computer applications of finite fields.
You forgot to mention all the powers of primes, i.e. P^N, also form Fields (aka Galois Fields). It's these that are major of interest in computing because you typically work with 8, 16, or 32 bits, i.e. 2^N.
For example, the error correction on CDs (Harddisks?) and digital television (DVB), uses Reed-Solomon codes which are based around these fields, usually 2^8.
Talk about aiming low: "signals to seven other users". Of course, as soon was there is a hardcoded limit people will want to exceed it.
I suspect that, given the range for high data rates is relatively low, unless your friends are the types who like cramming into phone boxes or VW beetles, it's probably not going to be a big issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not the big systems, but it does cover some aspects of the portable gaming systems. Apart from the DS and PSP, it also describes:
The TI OMAP2 and Intel 2700G are both MBX-based and pack quite a punch for relatively small amounts of silicon, so you will see decent 3D on standard consumer devices like phones.
With the help of Google, anything is possible! How to build a nuclear bomb Complete with book search!
:)
Don't panic!
Apparently U2's instructions to dismantle one should you find one are selling like hotcakes all over the world.
Of course not.
I'm sure there must be some... they'll be in a backroom somewhere, stacked next to the perpetual motion machines and the random noise compression algorithms.
Try googling for "bum scanner". Bum scanners are much more accurate than thumb scanners, because of the larger size of the inspected area.
I presume this means you can no longer say "stick it where the sun (light?) doesn't shine".
Can it cope with a vindaloo from the previous night?
Given what the previous-1 poster wrote, I guess you should be concerned if something like Parkes or Jodrell Bank is pointed at you, but I think you might notice one of those appearing in the street.
The alternative would appear to beam more energy at the RFID device which possibly is of more concern, given that they are probably operate in the microwave spectrum. Still there must be a limit - either the person or the RFID must cook eventually.
A prime example of a military with excellent COMSEC was the Iraqi army, and they did it very simply as well. Instead of using radio, they ran wire and used field telephones for nearly EVERYTHING. When we were deployed for DESERT SHIELD we found the airwaves almost dead. The days of morse code and ciphers are pretty much gone.
Unless those telephones had a built-in encryption system, what stops the lines being tapped? The field telephones in WW1 were regularly tapped by opposing sides - surely that could still haved happened.
One home use where you do need stacks of HD space is editing home videos. The DV format is not compressed very much and so it doesn't take many DV tapes of the family holiday to suddenly devour 50~100GBs of disk space.
Considering that the UK is currently stuck with deals like 512/128 for £20 a month
Can I suggest, then, that you take a look at Metronet . They offer, IMHO, a better deal.
(No, I don't work for them, just a satisfied customer)
I'll clarify that. It takes a lot of money to get such an invention into a working state; it is fiddly to get it going. This is why patents were invented. Wheras an algorithm just requires thinking (which may take a long time) until you discover an appropriate one (and an algorithm could even be discovered by a computer).
Why do you think that (non trivial) algorithms are any different to inventing any other system? A lot of patented devices would have been produced by trial and error until a working one is "discovered".
Or are you saying a computer could just test algorithms until it found an appropriate one? Goodness me. Let's say you can code an MP3 decoder in 1KByte. That would mean the computer would only have to try ~10^8000 programs before it "discoverd" it. It might be finished before the heat death of the universe but I doubt it.
Already done - XORing the source text with itself is a provably perfectly secure form of encryption!
:-)
The only problem with this is that when you send your cipher text, the big bad corrupt government agency can easily show that your clear text was "I planted the bomb"
A pity, as it looked as though the cipher text would compress really well.
I just love reading the pop-sci crap that gets fed to the public. We observe less solar radiation all over the world, and the next thing you know, we're jumping straight into the conclusion that two man made pollutants are cancelling each other out and keeping the greenhouse effect - an incredibly complicated process to discuss - in check.
Did you actually see the program? I found the whole thing fairly informative.
It included coverage of an international research effort (cost ~25million (pounds?)) to investigate the effect. This was conducted in a region of the Indian Ocean where weather patterns allow for "nearby" polluted and clean air regions. It was shown that the pollution dropped the radiation levels by a staggering 10%.
P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards".
It's "on the cards" in Australia and UK.
or learning Choctaw, a language with two past tenses - one for giving information which is definitely true, the other for passing on material taken without checking from someone else.'"
:Adam yurumus
:-)
I think Turkish has a similar concept. (I only know a few phrases so I might mess this up, but I'm pretty certain you can say
"the man walked" : Adam yurudu
or you can say
"the man walked (allegedly)"
Must save a lot of time in avoiding libel actions
I know the following has already been said by me and others but it's worth repeating...
If I only need to infringe on a single claim to infringe on the entire patent, then what's the purpose of, e.g., claim 2, which restricts it to BASIC? This claim builds on claim 1, and I can't think of a single way you'd infringe on claim 2 without also infringing on claim 1.
OK....
The aim is to start with claims that are as broad as possible so that people won't try doing a trivial change to the invention and say their system doesn't infringe.
You then start making the claims more specific introducing more and more inventive steps.
The reason for this is twofold:
1) During examination, the patent office may reject the broader claims and thus you can fall back on tighter and tighter specifics.
2) Later someone may uncover some arcane prior art, that you didn't know of, that eliminates some number of the broader claims. It's difficult, if not impossible, to correct claims afterwards even if your invention (in the body of the patent) is in fact genuinely novel.
Of course, patent lawyers often put in ridiculously broad claim 1.
Re:So am I infringing if...
Re:So am I infringing if... (Score:1)
by MadHobbit (68381) Alter Relationship on Friday November 19, @03:16PM (#10864115)
Well, I Am Not A Lawyer But I Took A Course In University That Covered Canadian Patent Law.....
From what I remember, an invention can only infringe on a patent if every single claim in the patent applies to that invention.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. IANAPL either, but I deal with the damned things on a regular basis.
You infringe a patent if you infringe any of the claims**. To infringe a claim, however, you have to be doing all the steps described in the claim. If you can see a phrase in a claim and can say "my system does not do that" then you don't infringe that claim.
**Unless, I guess, you can prove that the patent is invalid due to prior art and have the resources to do so.
The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
"
And #define sounds like a C preprocessor directive.
Ahhh but that is claim 2 (which is a dependent claim and thus is more restrictive).
Claim 1, OTOH, is much broader and does not mention BASIC.
If ever there were an example of how completely broken and useless the current patent system is then this is it.
Before you burst a blood vessel, this appears to only be a patent application, not a granted patent.
The USPTO "recently" changed its rules (to match the rest of the world) and no publishes applications before they are granted.
but the patent application seems to be pretty specific in saying that it's only in BASIC
:-)
Oh. Good point, but one would think that given it is trivial to do in other languages, it would be obvious to do in BASIC and thus should be rejected.
Since it appears it is still only an application, I guess there is a chance of this occuring... but, then again, this is the USPTO isn't it?
After a quick read of the patent, it seems to say that it is a test to see if two "variables" are actually the same entity, i.e. at the same address.
That would seem to imply
#define IsNot(A,B) (&(A) != &(B))
infringes?
Surely this is done in things like memmove() to prevent overwriting of data?
to set up a robotic weather station which will monitor the local conditions for up to five years
;-)
Day 1: Cold
Day 2: Cold
I suppose they won't bother with a big heatsink on the CPU then
Your phraseology is a little ambiguous.
Sorry, yes, I was a little lax with my phrasing, but this is Slapdash, isn't it?
Perhaps I should have said something like you can form a field of order p^N, by representing the elements by the set of polynomials with cooefficients belonging to a base field of order p, with the elements of the p^N field taken modulo a polynomial of order N that is irreducible over the base field.
I only brought it up because I was doing some worj on Reed-Solomon en/decoding recently.
the list of proofs is entitled "15 good reasons why Pure Mathematics is not taught to first year students."
Do you think they just mean arts students?!!
I'm sure we (i.e science students) had no problems with simple proofs of that nature in our first year pure maths subjects. (shrug)
Here is the interesting part having to do with primes. If, and only if, p is prime, then Z_p is actually a FIELD, meaning that every nonzero element has a reciprocal element. This implies that there can be no zero divisors in Z_p, and that the ring is closed under division (except for dividing by zero, of course). I believe there are some computer applications of finite fields.
You forgot to mention all the powers of primes, i.e. P^N, also form Fields (aka Galois Fields). It's these that are major of interest in computing because you typically work with 8, 16, or 32 bits, i.e. 2^N.
For example, the error correction on CDs (Harddisks?) and digital television (DVB), uses Reed-Solomon codes which are based around these fields, usually 2^8.
Talk about aiming low: "signals to seven other users". Of course, as soon was there is a hardcoded limit people will want to exceed it.
I suspect that, given the range for high data rates is relatively low, unless your friends are the types who like cramming into phone boxes or VW beetles, it's probably not going to be a big issue.
OT I know but...
You know why the British don't build computers, right?
Have you ever heard of ARM? I've heard a rumour, apparently, that are one or two of these CPUs in the world.