It has led to absurdities such as an algorithm on Intel x86 not being patentable in Europe but the same algorithm on a Xilinx Vertex-5 is -- the distinction between the two is arbitrary and capricious.
I'm trying to learn about this -- is there a EPO Board of Appeal decision about a specific application, or can you explain the difference so that I understand it. Is it: (*) No technical effect by running an algorithm in memory through the fixed Intel silicon / Technical effect putting the algorithm into effect in the FPGA? (*) Badly stated claims not being in the problem-'characterized in that'-solution style? (*) Some other formality not observed at the EPO?
You may note that this hypothetical EPO-granted patent cannot be infringed by the patent for an algorithm when that algorithm is implemented in a fixed-silicon processor -- as I believe it's excluded subject matter and not within the scope of claims as granted.
I'm skeptical about these statistics: 500 tumour patients and 1300 control subjects can't really support a probability of 0.003% and 0.0045% for each outcome, can they? I reckon that these numbers are less likely than the false-positive error for their data set.
I'm citing the anecdotal experience of a chunk of people who are doing what they would normally do (if you wish to quibble 'common usage') with their AirBook and finding that the 5-hour claim is a ridiculous over-estimate.
That's one citation. Ars Technica notes that the common experience is around half of the predicted five hours.
Speaking to others about the battery life of the Air, my averages turned out to be, well, pretty average. Based on actual use, users I spoke to were getting between 2:00 and 2:45 depending on screen brightness and levels of disk activity. (from: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook-air-ssd-review.ars/2
and
I usually keep the screen brightness on the lowest setting out of personal preference, and all I ever do on my laptop (these days) is write and surf--sometimes with some music, and the bit of occasional graphic editing. Those aren't exactly energy-intensive uses, and I can pretty regularly squeeze a good 3:45 to four hours out of a brand new MacBook or MacBook Pro battery. I'll cut to the chase here: the MacBook Air's battery life sucks. A lot. I found it to be a pretty big disappointment, holding it to my admittedly-high standards. I ran down the battery from full charge four times and came out with an average of two hours and 33 minutes. (from http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook-air-review.ars/4)
Walt's seen the thing -- but not tested it. The biggest let down with the MacBook Air was its battery life (and then Remote Disk). Does this ThinkPad have decent battery life? And is it as sturdy as we expect Thinkpads to be?
And on a final unrelated note, to counter Torvald's argument that HFS is crap, we've been reading for nearly a year that Apple is ready to adapt ZFS. Once MacOS defaults to ZFS, it'll trounce any existing form of ext3. He really should be comparing the merits of ext3 against ZFS, the future, not the past.
I think that comparisons between the ext3 and ZFS aren't meaningful right now. Ext3 is simple, in use and proven reliable. ZFS is available and may be reliable, but requires effort to tame it. Further, ZFS drags people into the world of wishful thinking, the same kind of twilight zone as discussion about Virtualisation. I say this because both disc access speed and virtualisation are bandwidth limited, so doing clever things with your data and core operating systems (respectively) are going to be hampered by this limit. More so when you consider that Apple sell workstations, and office/domestic computers which will not have the multi-processing and multi-disc arrays which overcome these bandwidth choke-points.
BTW what's the memory usage like in ZFS? Is it at all suitable for workstation, office or home use? The implementation in FreeBSD and its ensuing discussion -- citing Sun's own documentation -- points out that ZFS grows unbounded in proportion to its workload (http://kerneltrap.org/FreeBSD/ZFS_Stability). I can't see Apple actually deploying it until we have a base configuration of your AppleTV, Time Capsule or even MacBook with 6 GiB of RAM.
The losses to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the weather and chemistry of the atmosphere through which it passes. The best implementation of your idea would be to catch Cosmic Rays (money no object, eh?) and push them through the atmosphere to collectors at the desert, and then make thermal vents which push un-transformable excess heat back into space.
I reject the premise of your 'personally will live forever'. Because it's me willing these things now, I (whether the copy or the original) would be dead but would live on in the remaining memory and processing state. And if I knew that there was a backup of me, I'd be less concerned if I (whether the copy or the original) would be dead, because I, in some manner, will live on in the remaining memory and processing state. I say this knowing that notifying the copy of my death and the other me's grief at losing me would cause differences between how I am me and how the copy is me, but that goes with the territory.
The only guide I've seen that makes sense about DRAM has timings was at LWN.net and was part of a massive series called What every programmer should know about Memory. Part One explained how dynamic ram picks the words it reads from an access matrix, so requires time to energise the reading portion of the memory cell. IIRC, the answer to your question is in that link, but I can't remember the exact details to recite here.
Have you been to the USPTO? There's a big hint by the sign on the wall (big letters) that says: "We are here to grant patents". Not "...here to make sure that your patent application is legitimate, novel and not obvious and will contribute to the progress of useful arts and sciences".
Mammon slept. And the beast reborn spread over the earth and its numbers grew legion. And they proclaimed the times and sacrificed crops unto the fire, with the cunning of foxes. And they built a new world in their own image as promised by the sacred words, and spoke of the beast with their children. Mammon awoke, and lo! it was naught but a follower.
My optic nerve is only rated at around 10 Mbps. Do I need to spend $250k on the gold-tipped Monster cable, or can I just use the $14k upgrade from Monoprice?
If that algorithm really is so critical to your success that you need to patent it, it's probably not something you want other people to know how to implement
What companies wanted in software patents was better legal protection than the notion of trade secrets. The patent system trades the public disclosure of an invention for a limited time monopoly to work that invention. When you're done with your patent, the public get to implement your invention because you've told them how in the patent itself. Most countries worldwide -- and particularly United States -- will not grant a monopoly when the patent doesn't tell the reader how to work the invention. So you're legally bound to tell people in your patent how to implement your algorithm. What is gained is patent infringement litigation, at the expense of the disclosure.
Do you really seriously think that Mathematicians function as the priests of an obfuscated hierarchy of secret knoweldge? That the process of disseminating mathematical knowledge intentionally keeps the 'common man' out of the loop?
You are wrong to assert that the language of mathematics should be shaped around you; it has had millennia of use by other people. The development of novel mathematics works how it works because that's what we mathematicians are good at. The publication of a proof is the equivalent of allowing access to computer source code. Just because there's years of personal study required to gain enough of an understanding that you, a single person, may contribute to either research mathematics or a sizable free software project does not mean that you are being barred from entry. I welcome you to try; good luck in learning and using Maths.
The GP was reminiscent of the old 'file copying troll', the one about what you can do with a Mac in comparison with Windows 2000.
I'm skeptical about the reliability of the entire <strike>article</strike> blog post*: no-one's yet mentioned that the X60 has DDR2 RAM at 533MHz or 800MHz bus clock, even when the CPU is throttled back. So there are huge biases of memory and disk bandwith on top of the CPU cache and IPC efficiency of the Core 2 processor over the suggested P3 1GHz with 256 MiB of RAM.
I would argue contrary to what you're saying. Miguel created GNUmeric, started the GNOME project and has continued to work toward providing Free Software that interoperates with Microsoft products. Free Software exists in a world where Microsoft is already entrenched, so de Icaza is taking the difficult but pragmatic stance of developing Free Software that works with Microsoft's proprietary stuff. He's been doing that all along, and Wikipedia claims that when interviewed to join a MS team writing a SPARC port of Internet Explorer, he implored MSIE team to free the IE codebase.
I think that Miguel needs to continue to do the work that he's doing. But there's another side to the role he's played: publicity. Make it known that he's doing what he's doing for why he's doing it, without discussion, so that people can know what's going on, make up their minds and then let him do what he does well.
The best way to bring people to open source is to get past the "if you can, do; if you can't, whine about other people doing it."
Slashdot Mirror
Brains?
I'm trying to learn about this -- is there a EPO Board of Appeal decision about a specific application, or can you explain the difference so that I understand it. Is it:
(*) No technical effect by running an algorithm in memory through the fixed Intel silicon / Technical effect putting the algorithm into effect in the FPGA?
(*) Badly stated claims not being in the problem-'characterized in that'-solution style?
(*) Some other formality not observed at the EPO?
You may note that this hypothetical EPO-granted patent cannot be infringed by the patent for an algorithm when that algorithm is implemented in a fixed-silicon processor -- as I believe it's excluded subject matter and not within the scope of claims as granted.
I'm skeptical about these statistics: 500 tumour patients and 1300 control subjects can't really support a probability of 0.003% and 0.0045% for each outcome, can they? I reckon that these numbers are less likely than the false-positive error for their data set.
Don't forget that Eric Raymond fella. Last I heard, he's worth a buck or two.
I'm citing the anecdotal experience of a chunk of people who are doing what they would normally do (if you wish to quibble 'common usage') with their AirBook and finding that the 5-hour claim is a ridiculous over-estimate.
There, fixed that for you.
Walt's seen the thing -- but not tested it. The biggest let down with the MacBook Air was its battery life (and then Remote Disk). Does this ThinkPad have decent battery life? And is it as sturdy as we expect Thinkpads to be?
I think that comparisons between the ext3 and ZFS aren't meaningful right now. Ext3 is simple, in use and proven reliable. ZFS is available and may be reliable, but requires effort to tame it. Further, ZFS drags people into the world of wishful thinking, the same kind of twilight zone as discussion about Virtualisation. I say this because both disc access speed and virtualisation are bandwidth limited, so doing clever things with your data and core operating systems (respectively) are going to be hampered by this limit. More so when you consider that Apple sell workstations, and office/domestic computers which will not have the multi-processing and multi-disc arrays which overcome these bandwidth choke-points.
BTW what's the memory usage like in ZFS? Is it at all suitable for workstation, office or home use? The implementation in FreeBSD and its ensuing discussion -- citing Sun's own documentation -- points out that ZFS grows unbounded in proportion to its workload (http://kerneltrap.org/FreeBSD/ZFS_Stability). I can't see Apple actually deploying it until we have a base configuration of your AppleTV, Time Capsule or even MacBook with 6 GiB of RAM.
With every due respect this shouldn't be 'funny'. This is a geek site, and we have standards to uphold: *Worf* is the son of *Mogh*.
..does it run Linux?
I think it may be worth asking the people at Bestofmedia if it runs Linux and what the compile, I/O, etc benchmarks are like with 8 cores.
The losses to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the weather and chemistry of the atmosphere through which it passes. The best implementation of your idea would be to catch Cosmic Rays (money no object, eh?) and push them through the atmosphere to collectors at the desert, and then make thermal vents which push un-transformable excess heat back into space.
I reject the premise of your 'personally will live forever'. Because it's me willing these things now, I (whether the copy or the original) would be dead but would live on in the remaining memory and processing state. And if I knew that there was a backup of me, I'd be less concerned if I (whether the copy or the original) would be dead, because I, in some manner, will live on in the remaining memory and processing state. I say this knowing that notifying the copy of my death and the other me's grief at losing me would cause differences between how I am me and how the copy is me, but that goes with the territory.
The only guide I've seen that makes sense about DRAM has timings was at LWN.net and was part of a massive series called What every programmer should know about Memory. Part One explained how dynamic ram picks the words it reads from an access matrix, so requires time to energise the reading portion of the memory cell. IIRC, the answer to your question is in that link, but I can't remember the exact details to recite here.
Have you been to the USPTO? There's a big hint by the sign on the wall (big letters) that says: "We are here to grant patents". Not "...here to make sure that your patent application is legitimate, novel and not obvious and will contribute to the progress of useful arts and sciences".
My optic nerve is only rated at around 10 Mbps. Do I need to spend $250k on the gold-tipped Monster cable, or can I just use the $14k upgrade from Monoprice?
What companies wanted in software patents was better legal protection than the notion of trade secrets. The patent system trades the public disclosure of an invention for a limited time monopoly to work that invention. When you're done with your patent, the public get to implement your invention because you've told them how in the patent itself. Most countries worldwide -- and particularly United States -- will not grant a monopoly when the patent doesn't tell the reader how to work the invention. So you're legally bound to tell people in your patent how to implement your algorithm. What is gained is patent infringement litigation, at the expense of the disclosure.
No, but the flash memory is silicon transistors. That's where Moore's Law applies.
Do you really seriously think that Mathematicians function as the priests of an obfuscated hierarchy of secret knoweldge? That the process of disseminating mathematical knowledge intentionally keeps the 'common man' out of the loop?
You are wrong to assert that the language of mathematics should be shaped around you; it has had millennia of use by other people. The development of novel mathematics works how it works because that's what we mathematicians are good at. The publication of a proof is the equivalent of allowing access to computer source code. Just because there's years of personal study required to gain enough of an understanding that you, a single person, may contribute to either research mathematics or a sizable free software project does not mean that you are being barred from entry. I welcome you to try; good luck in learning and using Maths.
There's three (at my last count: Red Hat, Suse and Debian) that HP support, so it's likely that the NYSE has its admins working with Debian.
The GP was reminiscent of the old 'file copying troll', the one about what you can do with a Mac in comparison with Windows 2000.
I'm skeptical about the reliability of the entire <strike>article</strike> blog post*: no-one's yet mentioned that the X60 has DDR2 RAM at 533MHz or 800MHz bus clock, even when the CPU is throttled back. So there are huge biases of memory and disk bandwith on top of the CPU cache and IPC efficiency of the Core 2 processor over the suggested P3 1GHz with 256 MiB of RAM.
*: reliability && blog post. Oh dear.
I would argue contrary to what you're saying. Miguel created GNUmeric, started the GNOME project and has continued to work toward providing Free Software that interoperates with Microsoft products. Free Software exists in a world where Microsoft is already entrenched, so de Icaza is taking the difficult but pragmatic stance of developing Free Software that works with Microsoft's proprietary stuff. He's been doing that all along, and Wikipedia claims that when interviewed to join a MS team writing a SPARC port of Internet Explorer, he implored MSIE team to free the IE codebase.
I think that Miguel needs to continue to do the work that he's doing. But there's another side to the role he's played: publicity. Make it known that he's doing what he's doing for why he's doing it, without discussion, so that people can know what's going on, make up their minds and then let him do what he does well.
The best way to bring people to open source is to get past the "if you can, do; if you can't, whine about other people doing it."
I pay $8 per gallon at the moment. I filled my car on the way home from work. £1.04 per litre in US Dollar per US Gallon.
I (nostalgically) thought it was part of the 10-year anniversary celebrations...