Didn't we have an article about this already? Oh wait, that was about the fact that he was going to speak at the con, now we have an article about the talk he just gave?
You simultaneously called them "offenders" and then said they're not about designs.
That's just it, a patent is supposed to cover the ideas contained within a design of a working solution. This is why you can't patent things that are illogical [or outside the realm of understood science].
Otherwise, we could just sit down, think of a million devices we can't create yet and shut down the "IP" industry.
If you write scientific texts then TeX is the way to go. Wordprocessors are just not mean for formulae. In my case my first book had both formulae and source code. Instead of manually pasting in the source code and hoping it's up to date, I wrote a perl script which would insert it where I wanted at parse time. While some layout issues can be tricky with TeX I think I spent the majority of the time on the content not the tool.
When I wrote my second book [in Word] I spent a lot of time fighting the formatting, formulas were a bitch, etc...
I imagine had I been writing a romance novel it would have been fine...
You're obviously very young or very sarcastic or very ignorant or all three...
ClarisWorks had a spell checker. I don't recall if it did grammar, but we were in school at the time. We were expected to correct our own grammar. It had "font" support in that any installed font could be used in a document. True, it didn't embed fonts, but it wasn't expected that there would be a huge market for addon fonts.
Anti-aliasing wasn't a big requirement given that we were using DOT MATRIX PRINTERS. Not exactly grace. As for printer profiles, you could use any printer that was install in the system under the control panel. That included dot matrix, bubble jet and lasers.
Unicode support shouldn't double the size of the application if you just design the application with that in mind first. UTF-8 for instance is very easy to support since it has ASCII as a SUBSET of the standard.
blah blah...
I don't few a lot of the new features as real features. If I wanted automatic text I'd use LaTeX and perl (oh wait, that's what I do). Not only is it easier but it's infinitely more customizable.
Point is, we were using a word processor for what most people today use a word processor. And yet, somehow, we didn't consume 400 Watts of energy in the process. Didn't need 200GB disk drives or multiple GBs of ram.... hmmm.
How does my comment show a lack of security concern? You want user apps to only run as the user. That's the point of privilege separation. If I had 30 users on a box, and one of them decides to run a virus, it should at most destroy their data.
Yeah I was talking about ClarisWorks for the Mac in my post. From what I recall it wasn't huge [heck the macs only had like 80MB HDs at the time] but had all the nice on screen editing, fonts, drawings, and all that crap that the average Word user needs. Sure it didn't come with 3000 fonts or a paperclip but it was damn spanky and I'd use it over Word anyday.
As for LaTeX part of it's hugeness (other than the binaries which weigh in at several megabytes) are the scripts and metafonts. A TeX distro which used a zip container to hold all the files would probably save a decent amount of space.
I probably would want to run TeTex on a PC from the early 80s, but I think it's doable (well I know it is, since TeX was written in the 70s...)
Firefox/mozilla/etc run as your user. At most this would be able to infect my user, not the system. Even in windows, if you don't run as root it should be the same deal.
This exploit requires you to download the exploit code then, click on a link with file:/// with CTRL down (to turn off popup blocking). Sounds less like an exploit of firefox and more of the stupid user who runs things.
that too. I used to donate during college. It was nice on campus and I could swing by the cafeteria for a snack before heading home.
They should do more drives at local malls. If it was closer to home I'd just walk there. I like donating since O- is versatile, and they give me free cookies.
Not really. more crap in game IMPLIES more power, but compare say a 486 to a Core 2 Duo. The latter is much more efficient per MIPS than the former.
To put it another way, to match the power [in MIPS] of a typical 1989 486 desktop, you could do so with far less power consumption today. The problem is few companies write conservative software. Go ahead, make your application inefficient, a new cpu is always around the corner!
What people seem to forget is that we were doing word processing, vector graphics and all that on old school Mac IIs in the mid to early 80s. Those programs certainly didn't require hundreds of megabytes of ram or gigabytes of disk space. Of course people associate numerical requirements with quality. CPU has more megahurts? It must be better! Game needs a faster GPU? It must be awesomer! etc...
I'm personally impress with efficiency not bulkyness. Write me a competent word processor that fits on a floppy disk. That'd be a hoot.
I think you're missing a distinctive point. I don't do what I do to get appreciation or renumeration. I *appreciate* that it happens, but it wasn't the goal. That's like saying you're not selfless if you volunteer years of free time to educating youths and then get a thank you at the end of the day.
In my case, many of the people who benefit from my work never, EVER, contact me. They almost never give me credit for my work. And if it weren't for my love of piano (and some really mean people in December) I'd still be working on the projects today.
Imagine, they put that part of the DVD spec to have PCM tracks... like OMG an IDEA!!!
And btw, you could put them today as tracks. Weird Al for instance has a dual-sided CD/DVD where the DVD side has the same songs in 5.1. No reason they couldn't be 2ch high bitrate (if not uncompressed PCM).
Sure it might not work exactly like a CD but you could use the on screen menu to select tracks fairly easily.
Depends on what you are looking for. My LCD display has a higher pitch than you HDTV which makes it easier to read text and schematics.
From TV (as in the programming) I'm looking for humour, drama, stuff that makes you think (yeah I know... rare). I don't care how many pixels it's represented in as long as it's enough to not take away from the message. When the resolution (or technicalities) BECOMES the message, I think we have lost the point of art.
Put it another way, if you can't watch the shows you like watching in grayscale (black and white), chances are you like the shows you like for reasons other than their story, artistic value, etc. Shite programming in HD is shite programming just the same. It just costs more to consume it.
Not saying there is no place for HD, I'm saying it doesn't *make* the show.
Studios don't make the best use of technology. Look at DVDs for instance. You could cram roughly 6 audio CDs uncompressed on a DVD. Instead? They only sell 5.1 surround mixes with videos and all that. Which is cool I guess, but when you're shopping for a Johnny Cash box set, it'd be cool to get it all on one DVD instead of a box of CDs.
I agree on the cost too. Personally I rarely buy CDs. Mostly I get them from amazon when I decide that the album is actually worth my cash. But if they were reasonable I would buy more. I recently looked at getting the Scrubs series. ~$42 per box. That means for the series so far I'd have to pay ~$210 CAD, plus tax and shipping. That's a bit ridiculous and as a result I don't own any of them (why only own a few, when if you want to collect the series you really want them all). Now if they were say $15-20 per box I'd consider buying the set...
While yes a lot of the cost is the "license" fees [or whatever you want to call them]. Materials do cost money. Costs money to make, money to ship, money to stock, etc... Even the "writeoff" bin of most movie stores still sells movies for $5 or so. I seriously doubt that's to pay the studios cut. Aside from the cost factor, just having fewer physical discs in my movie collection would be nice.
Second, an LCD element is an LCD element. Cramming more into a tinier spot should, at least rationally, be harder than placing them into a larger area. It may have a higher materials cost, but I can't see how the failure rate goes up just because the pitch changes size. I think, like the way they price processors, they use the the smaller displays to help pay for factory downtime when they're not making the huge displays which they sell at obscene profits. In the end, many "lower cost" processors are made with the same design and process as the higher end parts, in fact, many of them are capable of running at the higher rates too (e.g. Intel Core 2 Duo processors).
To think that the industry is totally level and not making bank on the hysteria that is HD is foolish.
Frankly, if I were to invest in HD, I'd make sure I'm set for the next decade [hopefully...]. No sense buying a 720p or whatever TV now when content for higher resolutions will be out soon enough.
And yes, 3000 was an exageration. Point is though, a decent set will run you a grand or two [Canadian not USD]. Meanwhile a higher resolution [though smaller] LCD will cost you half if not less as much.
Maybe I don't get LCD production but I thought it was the # of pixels that mattered, not their size. Why should a larger equal resolution display cost way more?
I don't expect anything in return, I just appreciate that it often happens.
For instance, I'm donating a stipend to Toorcon [...again] this year. It's in the form of a no strings attached gift. I very likely will not see a tangible (re: cash or otherwise) return on this investment. If the student recipient decides to take advantage of the gift, give a cool talk and further their career, kudos. I don't expect them to pay me back, thank me, or anything.
Similarly, I give out public domain software that I support. That it has netted me tuition money, gifts, invites to pub nights, and all that is cool. But it wasn't why I did it.
Sometimes people just reward positive action. Doesn't mean positive actions requires a reward.
I dunno, for me the attraction is the space not the quality. I don't have super human vision and frankly i don't care for quality beyond DVD quality. If I want to look at detailed line art schematics or whatever, I'd use my 1280x1024 LCD to look at it. I don't need to buy a 3000 dollar HD tv for that. I still don't get why they cost so much.
On the flipside, provided that Blueray disks don't cost more than DVDs to press [???] boxsets would become cheaper as they would require fewer discs, less packaging, etc... So there is already incentive to offer them in that format.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not free, you don't even have a constitution in which said freedoms would be granted.
You're a royal subject, property of her Majesty the Queen of England.
sucker.
I wonder how much a canadian MP costs. Love to buy a couple. Sad to see that Canada is for sale.
Tom
ok, let me rephrase that before I make some neugen's head explode...
You can't LEGITIMATELY patent things that can't exist or be designed.
Just like "you can't kill people" may technically be incorrect it's still acceptable forms of speech.
Tom
Didn't we have an article about this already? Oh wait, that was about the fact that he was going to speak at the con, now we have an article about the talk he just gave?
Good lord, I want that guys press agent!
Tom
You simultaneously called them "offenders" and then said they're not about designs.
That's just it, a patent is supposed to cover the ideas contained within a design of a working solution. This is why you can't patent things that are illogical [or outside the realm of understood science].
Otherwise, we could just sit down, think of a million devices we can't create yet and shut down the "IP" industry.
Tom
Um, what?
Minority reported didn't include the design documents for that magical technology.
The patent [if any] would cover the design of the solution.
Just wait till warp drive is invented...
If you write scientific texts then TeX is the way to go. Wordprocessors are just not mean for formulae. In my case my first book had both formulae and source code. Instead of manually pasting in the source code and hoping it's up to date, I wrote a perl script which would insert it where I wanted at parse time. While some layout issues can be tricky with TeX I think I spent the majority of the time on the content not the tool.
When I wrote my second book [in Word] I spent a lot of time fighting the formatting, formulas were a bitch, etc...
I imagine had I been writing a romance novel it would have been fine...
You're obviously very young or very sarcastic or very ignorant or all three...
ClarisWorks had a spell checker. I don't recall if it did grammar, but we were in school at the time. We were expected to correct our own grammar. It had "font" support in that any installed font could be used in a document. True, it didn't embed fonts, but it wasn't expected that there would be a huge market for addon fonts.
Anti-aliasing wasn't a big requirement given that we were using DOT MATRIX PRINTERS. Not exactly grace. As for printer profiles, you could use any printer that was install in the system under the control panel. That included dot matrix, bubble jet and lasers.
Unicode support shouldn't double the size of the application if you just design the application with that in mind first. UTF-8 for instance is very easy to support since it has ASCII as a SUBSET of the standard.
blah blah...
I don't few a lot of the new features as real features. If I wanted automatic text I'd use LaTeX and perl (oh wait, that's what I do). Not only is it easier but it's infinitely more customizable.
Point is, we were using a word processor for what most people today use a word processor. And yet, somehow, we didn't consume 400 Watts of energy in the process. Didn't need 200GB disk drives or multiple GBs of ram.... hmmm.
Tom
How does my comment show a lack of security concern? You want user apps to only run as the user. That's the point of privilege separation. If I had 30 users on a box, and one of them decides to run a virus, it should at most destroy their data.
Also, this is why we backup data.
Tom
Yeah I was talking about ClarisWorks for the Mac in my post. From what I recall it wasn't huge [heck the macs only had like 80MB HDs at the time] but had all the nice on screen editing, fonts, drawings, and all that crap that the average Word user needs. Sure it didn't come with 3000 fonts or a paperclip but it was damn spanky and I'd use it over Word anyday.
As for LaTeX part of it's hugeness (other than the binaries which weigh in at several megabytes) are the scripts and metafonts. A TeX distro which used a zip container to hold all the files would probably save a decent amount of space.
I probably would want to run TeTex on a PC from the early 80s, but I think it's doable (well I know it is, since TeX was written in the 70s...)
Firefox/mozilla/etc run as your user. At most this would be able to infect my user, not the system. Even in windows, if you don't run as root it should be the same deal.
This exploit requires you to download the exploit code then, click on a link with file:/// with CTRL down (to turn off popup blocking). Sounds less like an exploit of firefox and more of the stupid user who runs things.
Tom
that too. I used to donate during college. It was nice on campus and I could swing by the cafeteria for a snack before heading home.
They should do more drives at local malls. If it was closer to home I'd just walk there. I like donating since O- is versatile, and they give me free cookies.
Not really. more crap in game IMPLIES more power, but compare say a 486 to a Core 2 Duo. The latter is much more efficient per MIPS than the former.
To put it another way, to match the power [in MIPS] of a typical 1989 486 desktop, you could do so with far less power consumption today. The problem is few companies write conservative software. Go ahead, make your application inefficient, a new cpu is always around the corner!
What people seem to forget is that we were doing word processing, vector graphics and all that on old school Mac IIs in the mid to early 80s. Those programs certainly didn't require hundreds of megabytes of ram or gigabytes of disk space. Of course people associate numerical requirements with quality. CPU has more megahurts? It must be better! Game needs a faster GPU? It must be awesomer! etc...
I'm personally impress with efficiency not bulkyness. Write me a competent word processor that fits on a floppy disk. That'd be a hoot.
You mean buying the highest end power consuming gear raises the power consumption of the device as a whole?
NO WAI! Nice ad laden "story" though... [and yes, I flipped through it].
Tom
ah, kudos. I'd donate blood too [especially since I'm type O-] but the place is too far away and a bitch to get to.
Tom
I think you're missing a distinctive point. I don't do what I do to get appreciation or renumeration. I *appreciate* that it happens, but it wasn't the goal. That's like saying you're not selfless if you volunteer years of free time to educating youths and then get a thank you at the end of the day.
In my case, many of the people who benefit from my work never, EVER, contact me. They almost never give me credit for my work. And if it weren't for my love of piano (and some really mean people in December) I'd still be working on the projects today.
Tom
Imagine, they put that part of the DVD spec to have PCM tracks... like OMG an IDEA!!!
And btw, you could put them today as tracks. Weird Al for instance has a dual-sided CD/DVD where the DVD side has the same songs in 5.1. No reason they couldn't be 2ch high bitrate (if not uncompressed PCM).
Sure it might not work exactly like a CD but you could use the on screen menu to select tracks fairly easily.
Tom
Funny, I said the same about normal def and HD as a whole.
Yes, there is more pixels on the screen. No, that doesn't change the message of the shows I'm watching.
Tom
Depends on what you are looking for. My LCD display has a higher pitch than you HDTV which makes it easier to read text and schematics.
... rare). I don't care how many pixels it's represented in as long as it's enough to not take away from the message. When the resolution (or technicalities) BECOMES the message, I think we have lost the point of art.
From TV (as in the programming) I'm looking for humour, drama, stuff that makes you think (yeah I know
Put it another way, if you can't watch the shows you like watching in grayscale (black and white), chances are you like the shows you like for reasons other than their story, artistic value, etc. Shite programming in HD is shite programming just the same. It just costs more to consume it.
Not saying there is no place for HD, I'm saying it doesn't *make* the show.
Agreed.
Studios don't make the best use of technology. Look at DVDs for instance. You could cram roughly 6 audio CDs uncompressed on a DVD. Instead? They only sell 5.1 surround mixes with videos and all that. Which is cool I guess, but when you're shopping for a Johnny Cash box set, it'd be cool to get it all on one DVD instead of a box of CDs.
I agree on the cost too. Personally I rarely buy CDs. Mostly I get them from amazon when I decide that the album is actually worth my cash. But if they were reasonable I would buy more. I recently looked at getting the Scrubs series. ~$42 per box. That means for the series so far I'd have to pay ~$210 CAD, plus tax and shipping. That's a bit ridiculous and as a result I don't own any of them (why only own a few, when if you want to collect the series you really want them all). Now if they were say $15-20 per box I'd consider buying the set...
Tom
While yes a lot of the cost is the "license" fees [or whatever you want to call them]. Materials do cost money. Costs money to make, money to ship, money to stock, etc... Even the "writeoff" bin of most movie stores still sells movies for $5 or so. I seriously doubt that's to pay the studios cut. Aside from the cost factor, just having fewer physical discs in my movie collection would be nice.
Second, an LCD element is an LCD element. Cramming more into a tinier spot should, at least rationally, be harder than placing them into a larger area. It may have a higher materials cost, but I can't see how the failure rate goes up just because the pitch changes size. I think, like the way they price processors, they use the the smaller displays to help pay for factory downtime when they're not making the huge displays which they sell at obscene profits. In the end, many "lower cost" processors are made with the same design and process as the higher end parts, in fact, many of them are capable of running at the higher rates too (e.g. Intel Core 2 Duo processors).
To think that the industry is totally level and not making bank on the hysteria that is HD is foolish.
is it a 1080p tv? etc...
Frankly, if I were to invest in HD, I'd make sure I'm set for the next decade [hopefully...]. No sense buying a 720p or whatever TV now when content for higher resolutions will be out soon enough.
And yes, 3000 was an exageration. Point is though, a decent set will run you a grand or two [Canadian not USD]. Meanwhile a higher resolution [though smaller] LCD will cost you half if not less as much.
Maybe I don't get LCD production but I thought it was the # of pixels that mattered, not their size. Why should a larger equal resolution display cost way more?
Tom
I don't expect anything in return, I just appreciate that it often happens.
For instance, I'm donating a stipend to Toorcon [...again] this year. It's in the form of a no strings attached gift. I very likely will not see a tangible (re: cash or otherwise) return on this investment. If the student recipient decides to take advantage of the gift, give a cool talk and further their career, kudos. I don't expect them to pay me back, thank me, or anything.
Similarly, I give out public domain software that I support. That it has netted me tuition money, gifts, invites to pub nights, and all that is cool. But it wasn't why I did it.
Sometimes people just reward positive action. Doesn't mean positive actions requires a reward.
Tom
I dunno, for me the attraction is the space not the quality. I don't have super human vision and frankly i don't care for quality beyond DVD quality. If I want to look at detailed line art schematics or whatever, I'd use my 1280x1024 LCD to look at it. I don't need to buy a 3000 dollar HD tv for that. I still don't get why they cost so much.
On the flipside, provided that Blueray disks don't cost more than DVDs to press [???] boxsets would become cheaper as they would require fewer discs, less packaging, etc... So there is already incentive to offer them in that format.
Tom
Most stuff at Walmart is shite. At least the stuff they make bank on. The more expensive clothing, electronics, aren't exactly flying off the shelves.