" Uh, maybe because the article is about a documentary of "members of the Klingon Language Institute"? "
And why does "Who said it first?" matter in the slightest bit? Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that when somebody says it, nobody else can think it?
"Surely they could have picked a Klingon phrase for the title? The "ugly bags of mostly water" comes from the "Home Soil" episode where a crystal "brain" uses it to describe humans. "
Uh, why would it have been better to pick a Klingon spoken line? What relevance would it have to the meaning of the article?
"Now as such, why did they name it this, the title has nothing to do with Klingons at all. "
So.. were you intentionally illustrating the dorkiness of Star Trek jokes by pointing out that the "Ugly Bags of Mostly Water" line wasn't said by a Klingon? I mean, that's 28 seasons of Star Trek to search through.
"Even better prior art: On my Zaurus (linux handheld) if I tap the stylus on an icon it launches the associated program. If I hold the stylus on that icon it will bring me to a properties screen about the shortcut for that application (change icon, change the name of the shortcut, rotate the screen when the application is launched)."
That's good enough for me. For the record, my intent wasn't to defend Microsoft so much as to clarify what prior art would have to be to shoot this cas down. Based on some of the other responses I recieved, I think the impression was that I was saying Microsoft's in the clear. Not really the case, but I didn't express myself clearly enough.
"IIRC, Macs used to depend on you holding the button down to access the context menu."
Not the same. For it to be the same, that context menu would have to come up only if the mouse button was down for a specified duration of time. If Macs do that, then you get your prior art, and I back down.
"Double-clicking has depended on the duration of the state of a button for a long time."
That's closer than the Mac example, but it's two clicks and not one. The reason this came about in the first place is that it's not all that practical to double click with a stylus. It's possible, but it's a pain in the ass. (Ask anybody who uses a tablet...)
"My digital voice recorder in my pocket locks itself if I hold the menu button for five seconds."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"My Palm Zire 21 turns off if I hold the power button in long enough."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"ACPI machines power off if you hold in the power button."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"Sounds like it's a fairly widespread thing. Seems to me like applying it to a new field is a "logical next step", which isn't patentable."
Really that's not for you or I to decide. The reason that Microsoft would even try to patent it in the first place is that it's a UI hardware problem they had to solve with the PocketPC. That's also the same reason that the patent office would accept it. "Well the evolution came about after some research presented over a new problem created by developing this new platform." Patents are (usually) very specific. There's a lot of complaints about prior art on this patent here (most of them aren't as related as they sound, like the digital watch example) but the thing is, Microsoft wouldn't be able to sue Casio. The patent, assuming it's not an overly broad one, wouldn't cover the button on a watch. Microsoft wouldn't be able to sue Casio at all unless they came up with a watch that has a stylus and they tried to imitate that feature.
I'm not really defending Microsoft here, I'm just trying to establish the proper context here before people start spouting off irrelevant prior art examples. If the Palm Pilot has a context menu that comes up when you hold the stylus down for 5 seconds, that's valid prior art. The power button turning on the PP backlight is not.
Sorry for being redundant, I'm a little scatterbrained today.
"Elevators were operated by people who held down a button or a switch. The length of holding determined which floor you went to. This type of tech is ancient. "
Huh. I've never been on a mouse driven elevator using a GUI.
"every single watch i have ever owned has done this! you have to hold the set button for a number of seconds before it lets you set it...this by far predates microsoft's empire! "
Perhaps, but thanks to the way patents work, using it on a PocketPC or mouse driven PC is different 'enough'. Not saying I support it, just saying I've talked to patent lawyers before about those little kinds of deviations.
I have no idea why you thought I was bashing the Dreamcast. On a technical level, it does have inferior hardware, that really can't be argued. I agree, it had better graphics, it didn't have the stupid bottlenecks that the PS2 has.
As for it's failure, no it had little (or nothing) to do with Sega's support of the system. It did have to do with Sega not having the money to keep producing systems. Heartbreaking, really. I think it'd still be around today if not for that.
"Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things."
It's hard to say. Microsoft might be willing to take an embarrasing loss on these systems just to beat Sony to market. They're a big enough company, they'll risk it. It'd either reallly pay off or really be a huge loss. Hard to say. Frankly, I'm not sure that Sony's being first to market was everything to their success. Afterall, Dreamcast beat them there, and graphically it wasn't substantially inferior to the PS2. They were still eclipsed pretty fast.
"Can't get a job without experience, can't get any experience without a job..."
It's not so bad. The problem is your first job may be cruddy and suck. Sometimes there's need for IT skills, but they don't have the money to hire a 'big gun'. So they find people for next-to-nothing.
At least that's true in the 3D industry I'm in. I have a demo reel showing very strong skills in modelling, but the lack of experience in a studio facility is biting me in the butt. So now I'm searching for lower income jobs to get that magic experience #. Then, hopefully, and yes I'm being naieve, I'll have what I need to get my dream job.
"That is nasty, but if you're using a real browser, it is not as bad (i.e., only opens one page) as using a cum-guzzle browser (you get anally screwed)."
Actually if you use the Google pop-up blocker, you're fine.
"Ask yourself: IS THIS GOOD FOR THE COMPANY?"
Yes. My coworkers are software engineers, and they browse Slashdot frequently. The boss likes it as it keeps them up on what's happening in the IT world. I can also say that some interesting improvements were made as a result of browsing Slashdot. Even received warnings about big Windows viruses in time to prevent them.
"P.s., you're fired -- the boss."
Uh huh. Because I'd so have a future there if I wasn't knowledgable and up-to-date.
"Can you imagine the virus you could write if you could change the instruction set of the cpu?"
Forgive my ignorance, but why would this be any different than the virus you can write with the general purpose CPUs we have today? You could make the machine unreliable, but that wouldn't make for an effective virus distributing machine.
"I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database)."
Well in the Linux world it's nearly a must, at least in a general sense. If people rely on other little apps to work to make theirs run (i.e. automation via scripts), then the last thing you want to do is call something a thousand times only to have it grind the computer to a halt.
(Note: The reason I specified Linux as opposed to say Windows is that the Open Source Community does a lot of sharing, from what I understand. Clarification if I'm wrong is gratefully appreciated.)
Yep, you're absolutely right. You really should have made a TMNT or Inspector Gadget joke here. We didn't watch Power Rangers. Well I did, but it was the only thing on in the morning.:P
"What always interested me about that silver-blob-thing was that when it changed to go fast, the front seemed to become the back, and the back the front. I'm not sure that pilots would get use to the idea of flying backward (unless they fly helecopters that is)"
It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen the movie, but I thought the ship was morphing into more of a tear shape for atmospheric flight. Seems logical to me, anyway, I read somewhere that the tear shape was aerodynamically the best shape for lowering wind resistance. (Confirmation or rebuttal to that comment is welcomed, I'd really like to understand that more...)
The reason I'm replying, though, is I'm not sure I'm reading your post right. Are you saying the ship was flying backwards, or that it was confusing for people on the ground to see? I ask because I'm pretty sure that ship didn't fly backwards...
Slashdot Mirror
"It just seems likely that there are plenty of more appropriate choices for the film."
Define 'better'. Is the statement they landed on inadequate, or is the problem that Worf never said it (on screen)?
" Uh, maybe because the article is about a documentary of "members of the Klingon Language Institute"? "
And why does "Who said it first?" matter in the slightest bit? Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that when somebody says it, nobody else can think it?
"Surely they could have picked a Klingon phrase for the title? The "ugly bags of mostly water" comes from the "Home Soil" episode where a crystal "brain" uses it to describe humans. "
Uh, why would it have been better to pick a Klingon spoken line? What relevance would it have to the meaning of the article?
"Now as such, why did they name it this, the title has nothing to do with Klingons at all. "
So.. were you intentionally illustrating the dorkiness of Star Trek jokes by pointing out that the "Ugly Bags of Mostly Water" line wasn't said by a Klingon? I mean, that's 28 seasons of Star Trek to search through.
"Seriously. Outside. Sunlight. "
Some times, I pretend that our sun is a star, and I venture out. Others, though, I don't feel my away team is big enough.
"Even better prior art: On my Zaurus (linux handheld) if I tap the stylus on an icon it launches the associated program. If I hold the stylus on that icon it will bring me to a properties screen about the shortcut for that application (change icon, change the name of the shortcut, rotate the screen when the application is launched)."
That's good enough for me. For the record, my intent wasn't to defend Microsoft so much as to clarify what prior art would have to be to shoot this cas down. Based on some of the other responses I recieved, I think the impression was that I was saying Microsoft's in the clear. Not really the case, but I didn't express myself clearly enough.
Thank you for being civil.
"IIRC, Macs used to depend on you holding the button down to access the context menu."
Not the same. For it to be the same, that context menu would have to come up only if the mouse button was down for a specified duration of time. If Macs do that, then you get your prior art, and I back down.
"Double-clicking has depended on the duration of the state of a button for a long time."
That's closer than the Mac example, but it's two clicks and not one. The reason this came about in the first place is that it's not all that practical to double click with a stylus. It's possible, but it's a pain in the ass. (Ask anybody who uses a tablet...)
"My digital voice recorder in my pocket locks itself if I hold the menu button for five seconds."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"My Palm Zire 21 turns off if I hold the power button in long enough."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"ACPI machines power off if you hold in the power button."
That's a button, not a stylus click.
"Sounds like it's a fairly widespread thing. Seems to me like applying it to a new field is a "logical next step", which isn't patentable."
Really that's not for you or I to decide. The reason that Microsoft would even try to patent it in the first place is that it's a UI hardware problem they had to solve with the PocketPC. That's also the same reason that the patent office would accept it. "Well the evolution came about after some research presented over a new problem created by developing this new platform." Patents are (usually) very specific. There's a lot of complaints about prior art on this patent here (most of them aren't as related as they sound, like the digital watch example) but the thing is, Microsoft wouldn't be able to sue Casio. The patent, assuming it's not an overly broad one, wouldn't cover the button on a watch. Microsoft wouldn't be able to sue Casio at all unless they came up with a watch that has a stylus and they tried to imitate that feature.
I'm not really defending Microsoft here, I'm just trying to establish the proper context here before people start spouting off irrelevant prior art examples. If the Palm Pilot has a context menu that comes up when you hold the stylus down for 5 seconds, that's valid prior art. The power button turning on the PP backlight is not.
Sorry for being redundant, I'm a little scatterbrained today.
"Elevators were operated by people who held down a button or a switch. The length of holding determined which floor you went to. This type of tech is ancient. "
Huh. I've never been on a mouse driven elevator using a GUI.
"every single watch i have ever owned has done this! you have to hold the set button for a number of seconds before it lets you set it...this by far predates microsoft's empire! "
Perhaps, but thanks to the way patents work, using it on a PocketPC or mouse driven PC is different 'enough'. Not saying I support it, just saying I've talked to patent lawyers before about those little kinds of deviations.
I have no idea why you thought I was bashing the Dreamcast. On a technical level, it does have inferior hardware, that really can't be argued. I agree, it had better graphics, it didn't have the stupid bottlenecks that the PS2 has.
As for it's failure, no it had little (or nothing) to do with Sega's support of the system. It did have to do with Sega not having the money to keep producing systems. Heartbreaking, really. I think it'd still be around today if not for that.
"Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things."
It's hard to say. Microsoft might be willing to take an embarrasing loss on these systems just to beat Sony to market. They're a big enough company, they'll risk it. It'd either reallly pay off or really be a huge loss. Hard to say. Frankly, I'm not sure that Sony's being first to market was everything to their success. Afterall, Dreamcast beat them there, and graphically it wasn't substantially inferior to the PS2. They were still eclipsed pretty fast.
"Can't get a job without experience, can't get any experience without a job..."
It's not so bad. The problem is your first job may be cruddy and suck. Sometimes there's need for IT skills, but they don't have the money to hire a 'big gun'. So they find people for next-to-nothing.
At least that's true in the 3D industry I'm in. I have a demo reel showing very strong skills in modelling, but the lack of experience in a studio facility is biting me in the butt. So now I'm searching for lower income jobs to get that magic experience #. Then, hopefully, and yes I'm being naieve, I'll have what I need to get my dream job.
I'm a little annoyed that you were modded off-topic. Frankly, I had more reason to be modded off-topic than you did.
Sorry man.
"That is nasty, but if you're using a real browser, it is not as bad (i.e., only opens one page) as using a cum-guzzle browser (you get anally screwed)."
Actually if you use the Google pop-up blocker, you're fine.
"Ask yourself: IS THIS GOOD FOR THE COMPANY?"
Yes. My coworkers are software engineers, and they browse Slashdot frequently. The boss likes it as it keeps them up on what's happening in the IT world. I can also say that some interesting improvements were made as a result of browsing Slashdot. Even received warnings about big Windows viruses in time to prevent them.
"P.s., you're fired -- the boss."
Uh huh. Because I'd so have a future there if I wasn't knowledgable and up-to-date.
"but there might be no way to extract it from the CPU core itself?"
Why is it assumed that the CPU doesn't have a reset button like your bios does?
"Can you imagine the virus you could write if you could change the instruction set of the cpu?"
Forgive my ignorance, but why would this be any different than the virus you can write with the general purpose CPUs we have today? You could make the machine unreliable, but that wouldn't make for an effective virus distributing machine.
"I don't know how the parent got to +3 but it links to a goatse.cx-type site."
This is not off-topic, folks. Some ppl browse Slashdot while at work, any warning is appreciated.
Don't penalize these guys for doing a little good.
"The Zodiac has had a working SNES emulator for weeks now. No overclocking required. Runs pretty damn good too."
The cheap one's $300!! Yeesh.
"Why not just get a GP32, you can emulate loads more machines and it looks like GBA soon (it's an ARM as well as the GBA).."
Because a lot of us already have a GBA?
Yeah right, I don't even know if I can survive dark and wet locations, let alone a camera.
"I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database)."
Well in the Linux world it's nearly a must, at least in a general sense. If people rely on other little apps to work to make theirs run (i.e. automation via scripts), then the last thing you want to do is call something a thousand times only to have it grind the computer to a halt.
(Note: The reason I specified Linux as opposed to say Windows is that the Open Source Community does a lot of sharing, from what I understand. Clarification if I'm wrong is gratefully appreciated.)
"I don't think my Slackware came with Windows Update. Where can I download it?"
Kazaa.
"DUMBJOKE!"
:P
Yep, you're absolutely right. You really should have made a TMNT or Inspector Gadget joke here. We didn't watch Power Rangers. Well I did, but it was the only thing on in the morning.
"What always interested me about that silver-blob-thing was that when it changed to go fast, the front seemed to become the back, and the back the front. I'm not sure that pilots would get use to the idea of flying backward (unless they fly helecopters that is)"
:)
It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen the movie, but I thought the ship was morphing into more of a tear shape for atmospheric flight. Seems logical to me, anyway, I read somewhere that the tear shape was aerodynamically the best shape for lowering wind resistance. (Confirmation or rebuttal to that comment is welcomed, I'd really like to understand that more...)
The reason I'm replying, though, is I'm not sure I'm reading your post right. Are you saying the ship was flying backwards, or that it was confusing for people on the ground to see? I ask because I'm pretty sure that ship didn't fly backwards...
Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, I'm sleepy.
"Well, my house only travels at one speed, and its pretty easy to get into."
Only cos I helped you take the wheels off!