Software patents are not and will never be palatable. They're bad law for at least two major reasons.
1) You can't patent math, and software is just applied math. At their purest, algorithms are mathematical proofs of data transformation. Software is an implementation of that algorithm on a specific set of hardware.
2) In light of point #1, software is also an "electromechanical proof" of an existing, and already patented, device. That specific set of hardware that the software runs on is a patented (and rightly so) invention. To patent the software is to re-patent the device itself, for the purpose that one specific sequence of functions it can perform actually results in data transformation as described in someone else's patent.
Software patents are bad law and need to be abolished, 100%, no exceptions, no sympathy.
Now you have an issue: You patent the algorithm on a generic purpose computer, aka a machine.
Oh, the problem just always has been that the benchmarks were done on prototype hardware, which ran at higher frequencies than final products, had better cooling, and a power supply. But the Shield Android TV is a final product that has all this, so the benchmarks are accurate.
You have to use Google, that's the definition of the word: ": to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web". If you use google as a general web searching verb, expect a cease and desist letter from Google's lawyers.
x86?! Jesus Christ, that platform was obsolete back in 2005! We've had x86-64 for well over a decade now, and it has been the standard even for shitty consumer-grade hardware for just about as long.
GCC 2?! That's even worse than x86! My God, the latest release of GCC 2 was on March 16, 2001! GCC 2.0 was first released on February 22, 1992! Even GCC 3, which has long been considered obsolete, saw its latest release almost a decade ago, on March 06, 2006. GCC 5 was released earlier this year.
I know you'll give "compatibility" as the justification for why it's still targeting a long-obsolete platform, and using a long-obsolete compiler system. But that's just a failed excuse at this point.
If Haiku is to be a relevant operating system in 2015, then it needs to get its shit together. It needs to target the CPU architecture that has been in use for the past decade. It needs to use a compiler system released this century. This "x86 GCC 2" bullshit needs to end. We need to see "x86-64 GCC 5" or even "x86-64 LLVM/Clang".
Well, fine, take the 4.4 version:
http://download.haiku-os.org/n...
or the 64-bit 4.4 version:
http://download.haiku-os.org/n...
They just won't be able to run BeOS binaries, as the ABI changed from gcc 2 to gcc 4.
I'm sure 5.0 binaries will come eventually, but gcc 5 is relatively new, so it will take some time, as new gcc releases have and cause tons of bugs.
Then your phone is crashy or your vendor is weird. Everything downloaded from the Play Store are apps, even the Google services stuff. Those get upgraded in the background.
System updates, which update the underlying Android OS are not automatic in any phone I ever heard of, and it would be a horrible idea.
Slashdot Mirror
With "2420 mAh at 3.8V (9.2 Wh)", the battery life will surely suck. I have 3100 mAh, that's a reasonably sized battery.
Amazon has a HTML5 player too, but it does not work for all content yet.
Too bad for you that Google automatically converts them to HTML5 ads.
Those are not ads, they're malware.
Liars! I thought you were a funny named city.
Keeping most things single threaded is good though, it keeps the system much more stable and responsive.
it does not matter what the patent says.... As long as the patent is considered invalid / not enforceable / whatever, it is a right decision.
Or you simply run it in production, wait for problems, and rollback :.... ;)
Shut the fuck up, you stupid racist. Let's hope that idiot never finds a good job again.
As if any intelligence agency would not do the same. Where do people live, in fantasy wonderland?
we are still waiting for VDSL to roll out more.
What do you mean more attractive? There is no real competition, both pools need to be licensed anyway.
Software patents are not and will never be palatable. They're bad law for at least two major reasons.
1) You can't patent math, and software is just applied math. At their purest, algorithms are mathematical proofs of data transformation. Software is an implementation of that algorithm on a specific set of hardware.
2) In light of point #1, software is also an "electromechanical proof" of an existing, and already patented, device. That specific set of hardware that the software runs on is a patented (and rightly so) invention. To patent the software is to re-patent the device itself, for the purpose that one specific sequence of functions it can perform actually results in data transformation as described in someone else's patent.
Software patents are bad law and need to be abolished, 100%, no exceptions, no sympathy.
Now you have an issue: You patent the algorithm on a generic purpose computer, aka a machine.
Oh, the problem just always has been that the benchmarks were done on prototype hardware, which ran at higher frequencies than final products, had better cooling, and a power supply. But the Shield Android TV is a final product that has all this, so the benchmarks are accurate.
Are you using personalized search results and have visited it before?
You're not using personalized search results then.
You have to use Google, that's the definition of the word: ": to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web". If you use google as a general web searching verb, expect a cease and desist letter from Google's lawyers.
Personalized search results might be scary, but are extremely useful.
I'm not encouraged when I see "x86 GCC 2".
x86?! Jesus Christ, that platform was obsolete back in 2005! We've had x86-64 for well over a decade now, and it has been the standard even for shitty consumer-grade hardware for just about as long.
GCC 2?! That's even worse than x86! My God, the latest release of GCC 2 was on March 16, 2001! GCC 2.0 was first released on February 22, 1992! Even GCC 3, which has long been considered obsolete, saw its latest release almost a decade ago, on March 06, 2006. GCC 5 was released earlier this year.
I know you'll give "compatibility" as the justification for why it's still targeting a long-obsolete platform, and using a long-obsolete compiler system. But that's just a failed excuse at this point.
If Haiku is to be a relevant operating system in 2015, then it needs to get its shit together. It needs to target the CPU architecture that has been in use for the past decade. It needs to use a compiler system released this century. This "x86 GCC 2" bullshit needs to end. We need to see "x86-64 GCC 5" or even "x86-64 LLVM/Clang".
Well, fine, take the 4.4 version: http://download.haiku-os.org/n... or the 64-bit 4.4 version: http://download.haiku-os.org/n... They just won't be able to run BeOS binaries, as the ABI changed from gcc 2 to gcc 4. I'm sure 5.0 binaries will come eventually, but gcc 5 is relatively new, so it will take some time, as new gcc releases have and cause tons of bugs.
You still have to restart the Chromebook for the update to take effect. You could just continue running the old version if you don't reboot.
Then your phone is crashy or your vendor is weird. Everything downloaded from the Play Store are apps, even the Google services stuff. Those get upgraded in the background. System updates, which update the underlying Android OS are not automatic in any phone I ever heard of, and it would be a horrible idea.
Taking notes on a document requires being able to split the screen, read from one window, and write in another.
Don't generalize your personal opinion.
Meanwhile, in Germany, most trains include power sockets precisely so passengers can charge their laptops/phones/whatever.
So, to prevent the selling halfing the term, split up the company, and sell the newly created subsidiary?
What gnome does right: GNOME 2 What gnome does wrong: GNOME 3
Fix:
What gnome did right: GNOME 2 What gnome does wrong: GNOME 3