> Well, obviously (you can't patent an idea), but how many methods exist for > "the word 'giant' [to] get very large"?
Many, all incompatible with the patented method. That's the point. When someone sends you an MSWord document containing animated fonts you won't be able to "experience" them when you open the document on Linux. This will be yet another reason to use Linux.
> Their patent basically says "but have a computer do it automatically".
It describes a specific method of doing so. They'll try to get it written into an ISO standard. Apple will be able to license the patent under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. Free Software will, of course, be locked out (another reason to use Free Software).
> It makes me want to go out and find those exact examples to prove how > obvious they are (I'm sure they've been done a time or two), but I don't > have the time.
They are trying to patent a method of doing this, not the idea of doing it. Read the claims.
> So - people freaked out over this new doom also accept that daylight savings > time creates an extra hour of daylight. But that's ok - that won't burn the > crops. 24 hours of daylight might.
Don't you see? That's the solution! If setting our clocks forward creates daylight setting them back will destroy it! We can compensate for the extra daylight from the supernova by setting our clocks back! We're saved!
I remember reading about some references to it found years ago in older religious tomes, but can't find anything online; anyone have those readily available?
shadowbearer writes: > [SN1054] was observed in 1054 by astronomers all over the known world at the time
Deadstick writes: >...except in Europe, where they appear to have missed it.
Two European mentions of it have been found (plus one possible North American one). Note that it is mentioned only four times in Chinese documents and once in Japanese so it evidently wasn't viewed as being of major importance in Asia either. It would appear that the literate of world in the 11th century considered politics and religion to be the only things really worth writing about.
Point out to the doomsdayers that radiation from the Big Bang, the largest explosion in the history of the universe and unimaginably large compared to a mere supernova, is about to strike the Earth.
> Sure , they'll go weeks, months, maybe even years running inefficient office > software, but eventually one of their engineers will get sick of it and come > up with something that works.
There is already efficient office software for Linux that works. I'm sure Google will improve it, which is fine.
> Here's a thought. Rather than "pressuring" Google employees to create a > viable alternative by eliminating the use of Windows, why doesn't Google > management just tell their employees to do it?
That's pretty much what it means.
> I realize that requiring your people to carry out your instructions is a > radical idea, but it's been known to work from time to time.
> Perhaps i misunderstood you, but if i understand this correctly, they didn't > migrate from Windows to Linux because of technological reasons, but merely > because they were using illegal copies of Microsoft software...
You don't have to be infringing any copyrights to be in danger of being put to considerable expense by a BSA audit. You need only have lost some of your receipts. And recall that they are going to want to go through your entire business and install their "auditing" software on every Windows machine (or at least that is how I've seen their process described). The cost of supervising that plus the cost of the business interruption and cleaning up afterwards could approach the cost of converting to Linux even if they find no "violations".
Slashdot Mirror
> Well, obviously (you can't patent an idea), but how many methods exist for
> "the word 'giant' [to] get very large"?
Many, all incompatible with the patented method. That's the point. When someone sends you an MSWord document containing animated fonts you won't be able to "experience" them when you open the document on Linux. This will be yet another reason to use Linux.
> Their patent basically says "but have a computer do it automatically".
It describes a specific method of doing so. They'll try to get it written into an ISO standard. Apple will be able to license the patent under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. Free Software will, of course, be locked out (another reason to use Free Software).
> 1. Investors are (collectively at least) really stupid.
You confound the stock market and Slashdot.
> For instance, there were smart economists saying back in 2006 or so "watch
> out, there's a housing bubble".
At any time there is always somebody calling everything a bubble.
> Only time will tell if they are truly on to predicting crashes.
That and how rich they get betting on their predictions.
> In the States EULA are legal binding contracts.
Sometimes.
> These has been decided by two separate districts.
> The cases are ProCD v Zeidenberg and Blizzard v bnetd
Narrow decisions providing little in the way of precedent.
> If the EULA says you don't own it then you don't own it.
Nothing here to own.
> This is why they will throw crappy, rusted rebar into the mix, as it won't
> matter as soon as it sets up.
They use rusty rebar intentionally. Concrete bonds well to rusty steel.
Also note that the steel is elastic. It will give to make up for the slight difference in the coefficients of thermal expansion.
> If they don't get scammed, they'll just throw it away on lottery tickets.
Which is to say that they will get scammed.
> So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or
> film in the last 20 years.
Well, sure. This is about tv and movies. Start demanding creativity and you'll have nothing.
> ...2Advanced Studios...
If that's "drop dead gorgeous" I'll take ugly. What a pile of pointless, illegible tediousity.
> Unfortunately that will all fall by the wayside if/when advertisers start
> using HTML5.
And that may be the opening wedge for HTML5. Advertisers may insist that their designers learn to use it because it gets past adblockers.
> Good thing Europe don't accept software patents.
It isn't that simple. Google "German Supreme Court software patent", for example. Or read up on the FAT patent in Europe.
> It makes me want to go out and find those exact examples to prove how
> obvious they are (I'm sure they've been done a time or two), but I don't
> have the time.
They are trying to patent a method of doing this, not the idea of doing it. Read the claims.
> From the lights reference frame these events are concurrent...
In the light's reference frame there is no time.
> So - people freaked out over this new doom also accept that daylight savings
> time creates an extra hour of daylight. But that's ok - that won't burn the
> crops. 24 hours of daylight might.
Don't you see? That's the solution! If setting our clocks forward creates daylight setting them back will destroy it! We can compensate for the extra daylight from the supernova by setting our clocks back! We're saved!
And this will work for global warming too!
Because no one can express feelings with words.
If you fly anywhere at light speed it will remain "now" for you while you do so.
Here you go.
shadowbearer writes:
> [SN1054] was observed in 1054 by astronomers all over the known world at the time
Deadstick writes: ...except in Europe, where they appear to have missed it.
>
Two European mentions of it have been found (plus one possible North American one). Note that it is mentioned only four times in Chinese documents and once in Japanese so it evidently wasn't viewed as being of major importance in Asia either. It would appear that the literate of world in the 11th century considered politics and religion to be the only things really worth writing about.
Ever considered that it might not be the same people doing both?
> My guess is either the person is making it up, or their lack of basic
> astronomical knowledge...
Note that this is the same forum where someone attributed an extra hour of daylight to DST.
Point out to the doomsdayers that radiation from the Big Bang, the largest explosion in the history of the universe and unimaginably large compared to a mere supernova, is about to strike the Earth.
> Why does it even need to be publicly debunked to this extent?
I got the impression that "Bad Astronomer" had been receiving numerous emails about it.
> Sure , they'll go weeks, months, maybe even years running inefficient office
> software, but eventually one of their engineers will get sick of it and come
> up with something that works.
There is already efficient office software for Linux that works. I'm sure Google will improve it, which is fine.
> Here's a thought. Rather than "pressuring" Google employees to create a
> viable alternative by eliminating the use of Windows, why doesn't Google
> management just tell their employees to do it?
That's pretty much what it means.
> I realize that requiring your people to carry out your instructions is a
> radical idea, but it's been known to work from time to time.
Ever manage a large organization?
> Perhaps i misunderstood you, but if i understand this correctly, they didn't
> migrate from Windows to Linux because of technological reasons, but merely
> because they were using illegal copies of Microsoft software...
You don't have to be infringing any copyrights to be in danger of being put to considerable expense by a BSA audit. You need only have lost some of your receipts. And recall that they are going to want to go through your entire business and install their "auditing" software on every Windows machine (or at least that is how I've seen their process described). The cost of supervising that plus the cost of the business interruption and cleaning up afterwards could approach the cost of converting to Linux even if they find no "violations".