My guess is the latter. It's a little off topic, but if Mult. matrix A and matrix B then you'll get fewer cache misses if you transform B before doing the column A, row B, multiplications.
The maintenance crutch is to use appropriate variable names indicating what's being multiplied?
I'm just guessing, though. And it's language dependent (like Fortran arranges matrices (in memory) differently than C/C++.
one of the main uses I could see for this would be for news organizations
And useful to many other organizations, as well. Don't doubt it. Anybody that wants premium placement will try to be involved in the implementation of a search engine's algorithms. Or at least privy to their weaknesses. This feature (paid spidering) will be used to displace the information I want to find off the front page of the search engine. If it doesn't do that by default they'll figure out a way to ensure that it does (i.e., hack it).
And in the end, finding what I want on the first page will become arcane invocations and sophisticated wordplay.
Google's getting difficult to use because the junk peddlers are learning to hack it.
Maybe the next great search engine will be one that is hack resistant.
Thanks very much for the link. I appreciate the detailed response, as well.
I haven't read the link it yet (I will, I promise) but based on your response, I think the uspto has inherently lost its focus and is now actually solely focused on helping applicants carve a little section out of an existing market. And is no longer interested in a determination of what innovative is. Your assertion (you need a legal background to understand claims) acknowledges only the political reality of a patent claim examiner. I'm trying to define an examiners qualifications in terms of the stated intent of the patent office.
It looks as though your training and the body of law built up around patent claims (you refer to a claimants resources should the claim be rejected) are conditioned to the goal of granting a patent rather than granting a patent on an innovative technique or device.
Basically, if I can describe in sufficient detail how to swing diagonally (and not sideways) I can get a patent. The outcome is different from what exists, but to call that innovative?
unless you have a proper legal background to understand the metes and bounds, you may not realize how narrow or broad the claims actually are
That's funny, I consider the technical background required to evaluate that question (breadth of claim) to be overriding. Please explain how a proper legal background is required.
(Of course, you could be speaking implicitly about the current sad state that patent law is in, especially with respect to software and "methods", in which case I might be compelled to concur. It appears to me that all you need to do to get a patent these days is stress that it is a method, disguising the nature of it -- a software, a therapeutic drug or manipulation, or a device. Even though that is what it is. Calling it a method is basically admitting its use is complicated enough to require an instruction manual or a detailed feature list.)
the patent is a lot more specific than just desktop pagers. that's the point of the matter
I've been reading it and have yet to find a significant difference between what it describes and any of a number of virtual pagers I've used over the last 15y. or know have existed over the last twenty. I think if you can tabulate the specific alterations microsoft has that are so innovative and compelling as to warrant a patent, please show us. From what I can read I fail to see anything deserving of note and it is nothing more than a generic description of what we have been accustomed to using for YEARS.
They also have failed to provided anything on that page by way of prior-art investigations.
How does this rate an Insightful mod? I have points but I'll post instead:
The intent here IS to initialize regulation of VoIP in that any company offering gateway services between the 'Net and the telephone network is affected by this.
As long as VoIP doesn't have easy access into the telco networks it will remain a novelty.
Lovely generalization about women there. Unfortunatrly the logic stuff does not seem to work with men either.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that generalizations are inherently illogical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you (given you are, as I think, a woman) are providing another datum in support of the generalization.
So i take the most popular software i have, and modify the source and put a trojan in it.
So far, the only difference you've demonstrated between you (your distribution) and them (proprietary, e.g., MS) is that you have at least a verifiably better guarantee that if your distribution is rooted, you are the perpetrator.
Thanks for an honest reponse, and for the link. I saw many very telling quotations from news services at that website, that demonstrated very clearly that Al Gore probably did play an important role in arranging legislation that would bring the Internet into the public sphere, an I-way into everyone's home. And that being so, I can see also that he did fulfill an important role in the 'creation of the Internet' as an entity existing outside of Universities and DARPA. It's like Newt Gingrich himself said:
In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is--and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group"--the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen.
Your post was very informative, but I see someone has already indicated that.
Well, he certainly took the initiative in creating the Internet, but if he said he invented it he'd be somewhat less than honest, IMHO. Did he say that?
This article had the strong flavor of "blame the user" when really more attention should be paid to the weaknesses inherent to the OS/apps and their configuration.
That being said, I gave up on helping people with tech support issues long ago (except when hunger compels me) when:
A friendly and jovial neighbor came up one day and said: "say, you know about computers..."
He had an old computer running windows 3.1 and was having a problem hooking a new printer up to it. He downloaded some drivers and did all kinds of things before I got to it. I don't know what he tried, but it didn't work.
I told him I'd help him out before seeing the machine (he wasn't sure even what version of windows he had) and got a wierd feeling in my gut as I watched it boot up.
I warned him this may not only not work but his computer might be messed up after the attempt.
I copied all the system files to a backup directory before beginning.
It was hard going (found some drivers on the 'Net) but eventually the hardware was installed and it worked ok. But there was a moment when the computer started really flaking out, it got totally wierd, and I remember having to go into a dos shell and mess around with some things.
That must have really gotten to him because when it got flakey he got really flakey too, and looked accusingly at me, practically pointing his finger in my face, telling me I'd ruined his computer.
I did that for free. Never again. When someone mentions they're having windows problems I tell them I don't know anything about that OS except that it's good to stay the hell away from. It makes people unreasonable.
But I do the same thing with Linux (shame on me) I don't want to hold someone's hand that's going to hold the fact I put linux on his system over my head.
asshat64 said:I can understand a military officer in charge of a factory in an military state, BUT not a general.
I'd LOVE to comment on this but since I've never either run a militant government OR a chemical factory, I'm COMPLETELY unqualified to make ANY value statements about your otherwise INSIGHTFUL comment. Not any whatsoever.
a work account provided to the employee by the company for work use
It's generally recognized, though, that individuals are permitted to do private things while at work. One's spouse calls on the company phone to have one bring stop at the store to bring home some tofu or whatever: the phone (and email) is a conduit to the private world.
At the University of California a former employee's email account might be suspended but it is never released to that former employees nominal employer (the supervisor, the person who's paying the salary through grant money or whatever) and the former employee is able to maintain that account if he or she wishes by paying independently.
My group was bitten by this once when we let an admin assistant go that was receiving email on behalf of our PI. We had to create a generic account for the next admin to use so we could keep control of the account.
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping for something a little more concrete than your divisive speculation.
I've heard of renderman and recall the pixar ppl have developers actively contributing to Linux.
Will this affect Linux development in any significant way?
I use a G5 at work but I don't use it for anything that might be affected by this. It's mostly a number cruncher/web browser.
or just missed my (very simple) point
My guess is the latter. It's a little off topic, but if Mult. matrix A and matrix B then you'll get fewer cache misses if you transform B before doing the column A, row B, multiplications.
The maintenance crutch is to use appropriate variable names indicating what's being multiplied?
I'm just guessing, though. And it's language dependent (like Fortran arranges matrices (in memory) differently than C/C++.
the customer buying the placements?
That one? You think that one wants a search engine nobody thinks is useful?
one of the main uses I could see for this would be for news organizations
And useful to many other organizations, as well. Don't doubt it. Anybody that wants premium placement will try to be involved in the implementation of a search engine's algorithms. Or at least privy to their weaknesses. This feature (paid spidering) will be used to displace the information I want to find off the front page of the search engine. If it doesn't do that by default they'll figure out a way to ensure that it does (i.e., hack it).
And in the end, finding what I want on the first page will become arcane invocations and sophisticated wordplay.
Google's getting difficult to use because the junk peddlers are learning to hack it.
Maybe the next great search engine will be one that is hack resistant.
'd almost bet that IBM is third in line after BS/RBC and then Canopy.
Wouldn't privity give IBM access to their money (as investors in this "venture" of SCO's) if a judgment is made against SCO?
IANAL, AIDNPOOTV
veni. vidi. gnucchi
Thanks very much for the link. I appreciate the detailed response, as well.
I haven't read the link it yet (I will, I promise) but based on your response, I think the uspto has inherently lost its focus and is now actually solely focused on helping applicants carve a little section out of an existing market. And is no longer interested in a determination of what innovative is. Your assertion (you need a legal background to understand claims) acknowledges only the political reality of a patent claim examiner. I'm trying to define an examiners qualifications in terms of the stated intent of the patent office.
It looks as though your training and the body of law built up around patent claims (you refer to a claimants resources should the claim be rejected) are conditioned to the goal of granting a patent rather than granting a patent on an innovative technique or device.
Basically, if I can describe in sufficient detail how to swing diagonally (and not sideways) I can get a patent. The outcome is different from what exists, but to call that innovative?
unless you have a proper legal background to understand the metes and bounds, you may not realize how narrow or broad the claims actually are
That's funny, I consider the technical background required to evaluate that question (breadth of claim) to be overriding. Please explain how a proper legal background is required.
(Of course, you could be speaking implicitly about the current sad state that patent law is in, especially with respect to software and "methods", in which case I might be compelled to concur. It appears to me that all you need to do to get a patent these days is stress that it is a method, disguising the nature of it -- a software, a therapeutic drug or manipulation, or a device. Even though that is what it is. Calling it a method is basically admitting its use is complicated enough to require an instruction manual or a detailed feature list.)
the patent is a lot more specific than just desktop pagers. that's the point of the matter
I've been reading it and have yet to find a significant difference between what it describes and any of a number of virtual pagers I've used over the last 15y. or know have existed over the last twenty. I think if you can tabulate the specific alterations microsoft has that are so innovative and compelling as to warrant a patent, please show us. From what I can read I fail to see anything deserving of note and it is nothing more than a generic description of what we have been accustomed to using for YEARS.
They also have failed to provided anything on that page by way of prior-art investigations.
Wow. A friend of mine just pointed out that image 4.3.b (with the guy saying !@#$!#$) was lifted from fightclub.
How does this rate an Insightful mod? I have points but I'll post instead:
The intent here IS to initialize regulation of VoIP in that any company offering gateway services between the 'Net and the telephone network is affected by this.
As long as VoIP doesn't have easy access into the telco networks it will remain a novelty.
Lovely generalization about women there. Unfortunatrly the logic stuff does not seem to work with men either.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that generalizations are inherently illogical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you (given you are, as I think, a woman) are providing another datum in support of the generalization.
So i take the most popular software i have, and modify the source and put a trojan in it.
So far, the only difference you've demonstrated between you (your distribution) and them (proprietary, e.g., MS) is that you have at least a verifiably better guarantee that if your distribution is rooted, you are the perpetrator.
What you're looking for is the "encephalization factor".
I appreciate those additional entries from the table, but that "encephalization factor" is rank numerology.
Sheesh.
Your post was very informative, but I see someone has already indicated that.
probably Al Gore, since he Invented the Internet
Well, he certainly took the initiative in creating the Internet, but if he said he invented it he'd be somewhat less than honest, IMHO. Did he say that?
Can anyone explain why 3 separate B/W images are taken?
Resolution (not bandwidth.) A color camera would deliver one third the number of pixels per image that a grayscale image does.
LCD of 60 and 365 is 4380.
Either learn a little math (and analytical skills?) or quit quoting idiots with stupid claims.
Why do we have this fascination and finality for what is only one number, and not by any means an accurate portrayal of the trend.
What is the mode?
Google link, for the tin foil hat impaired
That's ENABLED, you insensitive clod!!!!
This article had the strong flavor of "blame the user" when really more attention should be paid to the weaknesses inherent to the OS/apps and their configuration.
That being said, I gave up on helping people with tech support issues long ago (except when hunger compels me) when:
A friendly and jovial neighbor came up one day and said: "say, you know about computers..."
He had an old computer running windows 3.1 and was having a problem hooking a new printer up to it. He downloaded some drivers and did all kinds of things before I got to it. I don't know what he tried, but it didn't work.
I told him I'd help him out before seeing the machine (he wasn't sure even what version of windows he had) and got a wierd feeling in my gut as I watched it boot up.
I warned him this may not only not work but his computer might be messed up after the attempt.
I copied all the system files to a backup directory before beginning.
It was hard going (found some drivers on the 'Net) but eventually the hardware was installed and it worked ok. But there was a moment when the computer started really flaking out, it got totally wierd, and I remember having to go into a dos shell and mess around with some things.
That must have really gotten to him because when it got flakey he got really flakey too, and looked accusingly at me, practically pointing his finger in my face, telling me I'd ruined his computer.
I did that for free. Never again. When someone mentions they're having windows problems I tell them I don't know anything about that OS except that it's good to stay the hell away from. It makes people unreasonable.
But I do the same thing with Linux (shame on me) I don't want to hold someone's hand that's going to hold the fact I put linux on his system over my head.
I'd even hesitate to do it for a friend.
asshat64 said: I can understand a military officer in charge of a factory in an military state, BUT not a general.
I'd LOVE to comment on this but since I've never either run a militant government OR a chemical factory, I'm COMPLETELY unqualified to make ANY value statements about your otherwise INSIGHTFUL comment. Not any whatsoever.
a work account provided to the employee by the company for work use
It's generally recognized, though, that individuals are permitted to do private things while at work. One's spouse calls on the company phone to have one bring stop at the store to bring home some tofu or whatever: the phone (and email) is a conduit to the private world.
At the University of California a former employee's email account might be suspended but it is never released to that former employees nominal employer (the supervisor, the person who's paying the salary through grant money or whatever) and the former employee is able to maintain that account if he or she wishes by paying independently.
My group was bitten by this once when we let an admin assistant go that was receiving email on behalf of our PI. We had to create a generic account for the next admin to use so we could keep control of the account.
...posting a little late for this discussion:
DEK's desktop