Suppose you somehow manage to build a true-blue 3D copying machine. You feed the damned thing with various scrap materials that you own/paid for and take it to your favorite car manufacturer and use it to scan a car.... note that this scan does not in ANY way have any effects (adverse or otherwise) on said car.
Having said that, knowing assembler is useful because it teaches you how the machine works.
However, most modern compilers can generate code that is much faster than handwritten assembler - especially because they know how to take advantage of the specialized processor architectures (hyper-threading, pipeling etc).
I'd imagine it's hard to use something as prior art that was not made public. I made internet radio twenty years ago! Now excuse me while I change this timestamp...
You know, there must an Emacs macro that does this - probably from the 80s.
That they mentioned the double click does not mean they patented it. They may
have patented the use of the double click when combined with time-based
selection of the application to be launched, but that is FAR from the same
thing. And as far as I know - hasn't been done on any system anyway. Personally
I think it'd be rather unwieldy which probably explains why nobody did it:)
But things that are obvious to a "practioner of the art" are not supposed to be patentable.
Doing different things based on how long a button is held is obvious!
Can I patent the idea that different functions will be invoked in an app if the mouse is moved left or right?
They're suggesting frequencies be sold like property. If you're broadcasting between 54Mhz and 216Mhz, and I own that property in the area (VHF TV channels 2-13), I'll sue you, and I'll get a restraining order to get your equipment unplugged or seized.
But this sugestions shows that he does not understand how the technology has changed and why this approach to the radio spectrum no longer makes sense.
Nobody should own any frequency band, instead a standard should be defined for transmitting devices to share a wide band of frequencies (that's how wi-fi works in relatively narrow band).
Think of the radio spectrum like one big Ethernet, where if all device follow correct procedures, everyone can share the spectrum and no on has to own it.
I'm sorry but this is not how you look into the future:simple extrapolation of the present. Nielsen simply takes all of the features we look at today and scales them up (3PHz processor, exabyte hard drives, etc.). My God, whatever computers look like in 30 years will probably bear little semblance to what we use today.
Just assuming that there will be just one processor. Probably the number of processors will be measured in KP (kilo-processors).
Actually SUVs are less safe, because they are likely to get into accidents that smaller cars can avoid. After all if it takes you extra 100 feet to stop you are more likely to hit something.
Don't take my word for it. Check out this article,
which appeared in the New Yorker magazine few months back.
Software Patents suck - but they are the new reality. We need to either beat them or join them.
Not really. Patenting things just makes lawyers richer. The best way to fight patents is to publish your ideas and make sure that prior art is well established.
--Advertising (this includes print adds, video ads you see on TV, those nice displays you see in stores for some albums, etc)
--Food (the record company usually pays for the food the band eats in the studio)
--Room and Board (record compnaies usually pay for the artist to live in a hotel while the album is being recorded)
[...etc...]
Actually, a record company lends the band money for these expenses. They expect to get the money back from the sales of the CD. That's how some of the most popular artists go bankrupt - they never see the money made from the CD.
I've started listening Jazz and a lot of brilliant artists of this kind of music are dead, so no royalties are needed there.
Actually a lot of brilliant jazz musicians are alive and you can buy their recordings directly from them. Jazz was never a big money maker for the recording industry (except perhaps in the early 30s).
We have the music of Motzart and Brahams today because it was recorded in a tangible, people-readable media that was able to be passed from generation to generations.
Music still will be written on paper and passed on. There was pop-music in time of Mozart and think how many then written songs were lost, because there was only one hand-written copy of the music.
I expect that significant music will survive. Which is significant only time will tell, but I would guess that 100 years from now you will still be able to hear Duke Ellington. I'm not so sure about Britney.
It's still about money, don't lose sight of that. The problem here is a classic one, the REALITY of a situation is running directly counter to common sense. The RIAA long ago decided that this was an important battle, after all it's effectively costing them money. After all, people getting your product for free SEEMS like a really bad thing. I think that 95% of reasonable people would instantly reach the same conclusion as well.
Following this line of argument you can show that RIAA is really, really insane. They can spend $100K dollars to give songs away. It's called "radio" and to get a song on a playlist at a major station can cost a lot of money.
So, how stupid are they, that they are trying to kill a promotion system that does not cost them a dime!
I think that 95% of reasonable people would jump on an opportunity for such free advertising and promition.
I can see why musicians would have strong opinions on what goes onto their albums.
The idea of an "album" is an artifical construct due to the technology introduced by the LP record. Until then, all records had to be under 3 minutes. Some of the greatest US songwriters wrote songs in that format (eg. Ellington, Gershwin etc).
With digital music, the idea of the "album" is dead. A piece of music and be 5 minutes or three weeks long. It's up to the artist.
On the other hand songs by their nature (i.e. short legth) are meant to be mixed and matched at the will of the listener.
If artists do not like that, they can get another job.
For the millions of academic users that depend on simple, powerful annotation for their scholarly work, they're SOL if they use OpenOffice. That's because EndNote drag 'n drop only works on MSWord. The program that most academic writers rely upon is mostly useless with OO. OOps!
Hmmm.... Maybe these guys should learn LaTeX and concentrate more on the content, not formatting of their papers.
So because people are illegally downloading shit they don't own and have no rights to, we should change laws that have been the backbone of music, film, TV, and many other facets of our everyday life? BULLSHIT.
Actually the music, film and TV business as it exists today was created by breaking or ignoring existing laws. For example see this article
by Lawrence Lessing.
Slashdot Mirror
They have these on Star Trek: replicators.
Having said that, knowing assembler is useful because it teaches you how the machine works.
However, most modern compilers can generate code that is much faster than handwritten assembler - especially because they know how to take advantage of the specialized processor architectures (hyper-threading, pipeling etc).
You know, there must an Emacs macro that does this - probably from the 80s.
But things that are obvious to a "practioner of the art" are not supposed to be patentable. Doing different things based on how long a button is held is obvious!
Can I patent the idea that different functions will be invoked in an app if the mouse is moved left or right?
Come on!
WTF?
But this sugestions shows that he does not understand how the technology has changed and why this approach to the radio spectrum no longer makes sense.
Nobody should own any frequency band, instead a standard should be defined for transmitting devices to share a wide band of frequencies (that's how wi-fi works in relatively narrow band).
Think of the radio spectrum like one big Ethernet, where if all device follow correct procedures, everyone can share the spectrum and no on has to own it.
Google Software Radio and UWB.
It was first published in 1990.
Just assuming that there will be just one processor. Probably the number of processors will be measured in KP (kilo-processors).
Why not just use Lisp?
How can recording of a live event not be "instant"? How can you delay it? Time travel?
Isn't a tape recorder and couple of microphones prior art?
an event recording system that has an event-capture module, an editing module, and a media recording module.
tape deck, microphones - "event recording system"
start and stop buttons, tape splicer - "editing module"
tape - "media recording module"
WTF?
And where do I go to hear songs I like? There are none on the radio.
Look at it this way. The patent will expire in 17 years, but the copyright is forever...
Has Led Zeppelin produced anything new lately? If not it should be pretty easy to boycott.
Don't take my word for it. Check out this article, which appeared in the New Yorker magazine few months back.
Not really. Patenting things just makes lawyers richer. The best way to fight patents is to publish your ideas and make sure that prior art is well established.
--Food (the record company usually pays for the food the band eats in the studio)
--Room and Board (record compnaies usually pay for the artist to live in a hotel while the album is being recorded)
[...etc...]
Actually, a record company lends the band money for these expenses. They expect to get the money back from the sales of the CD. That's how some of the most popular artists go bankrupt - they never see the money made from the CD.
Courtney Love wrote some articles on this...
Actually a lot of brilliant jazz musicians are alive and you can buy their recordings directly from them. Jazz was never a big money maker for the recording industry (except perhaps in the early 30s).
You should support the musicians...
Music still will be written on paper and passed on. There was pop-music in time of Mozart and think how many then written songs were lost, because there was only one hand-written copy of the music.
I expect that significant music will survive. Which is significant only time will tell, but I would guess that 100 years from now you will still be able to hear Duke Ellington. I'm not so sure about Britney.
Following this line of argument you can show that RIAA is really, really insane. They can spend $100K dollars to give songs away. It's called "radio" and to get a song on a playlist at a major station can cost a lot of money.
So, how stupid are they, that they are trying to kill a promotion system that does not cost them a dime!
I think that 95% of reasonable people would jump on an opportunity for such free advertising and promition.
The idea of an "album" is an artifical construct due to the technology introduced by the LP record. Until then, all records had to be under 3 minutes. Some of the greatest US songwriters wrote songs in that format (eg. Ellington, Gershwin etc).
With digital music, the idea of the "album" is dead. A piece of music and be 5 minutes or three weeks long. It's up to the artist.
On the other hand songs by their nature (i.e. short legth) are meant to be mixed and matched at the will of the listener.
If artists do not like that, they can get another job.
Good point!
Hmmm.... Maybe these guys should learn LaTeX and concentrate more on the content, not formatting of their papers.
Actually the music, film and TV business as it exists today was created by breaking or ignoring existing laws. For example see this article by Lawrence Lessing.