If you wanted to write for both KDE and Windows, you'd use QT and get Mac for free. No porting necessary. Just recompile. Native apps with native look and feel. Yay!
Unfortunately, in this metaphor, Apple wouldn't let you sell the app you just made for their platform because the original code didn't target OS X.
It didn't appear on the surface that the iPhone operated completely differently or used a different paradigm than WebOS, Android, or even the flashy Taiwanese smart phones that preceded them all. Care to explain?
Your phone was probably made in China. The software was probably outsourced to India. Only the profit stayed in the U.S., and that just went to the top people in the company.
It's obviously tuned for that, but it wouldn't be fair to ask it to understand Scottish, now, would it?;) Seriously, though, in my expat group we had at least ten English-speaking countries represented, and I had little trouble in most cases. There was still one New Zealander who I never understood, even after a year, and generally gave up asking him to repeat himself after the third time in a row and just tried to fake it. I'd get maybe 10-20% of the any sentence from him.
Speech recognition of random accents, even in one language, is virtually impossible. I think the computer needs to be given a clue about the accent of the speaker.
This is the kind of problem that I think can only be solved by massively parallel computing -- the kind we're not going to see on a personal level for a very long time -- paired with a huge amount of data to draw from. In other words, it's a Googly kind of problem. Other, similar problems like photo or face recognition lead me to believe that fighting the always-connected (cloudy) movement is probably the wrong way to go if we want these things.
Agreed. I'd love to see the browser space split into equal shares (by rendering engine) of Trident, Gecko, and WebKit. Breaking the Desktop OS market into thirds would be great, too. Phones (iPhone OS, WinMo, and Android)? Not so much. The more the merrier.
You asked me where they claimed it. I answered. Implementation due to ambiguity isn't breaking the standard. They have been shown to break several times.
They didn't lie, though, I guess, because they only claim to conform for reads in MS Word 2007. Of course, the moment that you make a significant change and save, that file is no longer conformant. The sales weasels aren't going to say that, though. They just say "We do OOXML, an international standard!"
The biggest problem was that choosing "HTML 4.0(1) Transitional" (no URI) meant that it rendered like IE5. Just about everything on the web used that DOCTYPE for years.
By using Microsoft® Office Word 2007 SP2, users can open document files that conform to the Office Open XML File Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008]. By using Microsoft® Word 2010, users can both create and open document files that conform to the Office Open XML File Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008] and pursuant to the implementation notes that are cited in section 2.3.4 of this document.
The Mozilla Foundation was created in 1998, while IE6 was released in 2001. There's three and a half years there that you were apparently lost or sleeping. In addition, Gecko 0.9 was concurrent with the release of IE6, and a lot of us used it -- it wasn't pre-alpha. KHTML was also better. The problem at that time was that Microsoft had long won the browser wars, and most of the web was written for IE5 or IE5.5, which were absolute shit with regard to standards. Microsoft was the only one that had a chance of rendering those pages decently. Browsers that attempted to be standards compliant (not IE5-compliant), routinely couldn't visit half the websites in existence at the time.
Maybe you're confusing "standards compliant" with "looked decent with the web," which I'll gladly admit IE6 was the only browser to do at the time.
back up to 1999-2000, and I was using Netscape or Mozilla nightlies. Those sucked, but non-Windows users didn't have a lot of choice.
OK. They broke standards by modeling the standard after their own product, then failing to follow the standard they proposed while claiming that they were compliant. They did that all with the only thing that could be considered a reference implementation of the standard.
Microsoft isn't leading the target. Their pre-Alpha IE9 is eventually shooting for (really more hoping) to meet the standards of the currently released browsers. By next year, when IE9 really comes out comes out, all those browsers will have moved on and MS will have missed the target yet again. Chrome appears to be getting 20% faster with each release (I have seen 2.0 vs. 3.0 and 4.0 v.s 5.0 benchmarks, but I don't have 3.0 vs. 4.0). IE9 is trying to match Chrome 3.0's speed. Chrome 6.0 will be out by then, and IE9 will still be an order of magnitude behind the front-runner.
I want someone to try to cut all of Lost into chronological order, so I can watch it and see if it makes any sense. I'm certain it won't. Every minor mistake will be very apparent.
I did watch part of the first season, before it jumped the shark jumper (The whole series jumped the shark from about five minutes in).
Interestingly, there aren't any seasonal series on Thai TV at all (that I can remember). Every show is written to cover 20 or 50 episodes, is aired two to three times a week, and is over in a couple of months. The entire series is shot long before it airs, and new stories are being shot and promoted while the current story plays out. Korean TV drama is the same as far as I can tell, but my Korean isn't nearly as good as my Thai is, so I can't be sure.
Although the model used is interesting, Thai TV sucks. I'm not recommending it to anyone.
Although the patents are software, they're still narrow and specific. These aren't patent trolls -- the patents are well-known and disclosed as part of a standard. the license fees are also public knowledge, and as you state, patent infringement doesn't require either prior knowledge or consent to a contract.
If you use this "non-commercial" camera to produce commercial work, MPEG-LA can just come up to you and demand that you pay the licensing fee, and you're pretty much screwed. They will do it, too, if it's worth their time in fees or publicity.
We can only hope that software patents get overturned, but it doesn't look like the developed world is heading in that direction, does it?
I didn't really get what he was talking about, but I imagine that he meant that patents should be treated like trademarks in an "enforce it or lose it" system. Patent holders wouldn't be allowed to change licensing terms mid-patent or to wait and pounce.
This isn't some kind of EULA situation where a provision in the contract will be thrown out: the cameras are stated to be for non-commercial use because no one paid for a commercial license. Suing would be quick and dirty, and the user would be at fault. The user could possibly then sue the manufacturer for misleading claims (TFA's "professional camera" that doesn't allow professional shots), I guess, but the user would definitely be unlicensed and therefor have to pay.
Take a look at Gregory Maxwell's response to the accusation of OGG falling under patents. He has a good bit to say about MPEG-LA and anti-trust, as well.
Zonker has a 4-digit Slashdot ID, so I'm pretty sure that he realizes that you can't take back something you put on the web. His phrasing is pretty standard when you talk about portability. You're not the one who didn't get that, though: you just chimed in.
My post, however, was perfectly clear, with links for supporting what I was talking about, and you completely missed the point and talked past it. I think you just failed to read what I posted before you shot back. There's another explanation, but I won't go there.
Regarding FB, there's no way to get some information like relationships out. You can't get photos out with anything near the original resolution and they lose all tagging. There's lots of stuff you can't get. It'd be like taking your legacy spreadsheets and converting them to CSV.
No, I don't actually want to play. I just mentioned what I guess is the most popular page on the most popular site on the web in order to point out that there is a lot of the web that's useless to iPad owners. Yes, you can figure out how to do write and install something, but the people who play Farmville almost certainly can't.
I'm not proposing that Flash be included. iPad proponents can't say "you can visit any site" truthfully, though. Some of the most popular parts of the web are excluded.
Slashdot Mirror
If you wanted to write for both KDE and Windows, you'd use QT and get Mac for free. No porting necessary. Just recompile. Native apps with native look and feel. Yay!
Unfortunately, in this metaphor, Apple wouldn't let you sell the app you just made for their platform because the original code didn't target OS X.
It didn't appear on the surface that the iPhone operated completely differently or used a different paradigm than WebOS, Android, or even the flashy Taiwanese smart phones that preceded them all. Care to explain?
::doubleblink::
You're being ironic, right?
Your phone was probably made in China. The software was probably outsourced to India. Only the profit stayed in the U.S., and that just went to the top people in the company.
The data is sent to Google and massively parallel processed, then sent back. It's SaaS.
It's obviously tuned for that, but it wouldn't be fair to ask it to understand Scottish, now, would it? ;) Seriously, though, in my expat group we had at least ten English-speaking countries represented, and I had little trouble in most cases. There was still one New Zealander who I never understood, even after a year, and generally gave up asking him to repeat himself after the third time in a row and just tried to fake it. I'd get maybe 10-20% of the any sentence from him.
Speech recognition of random accents, even in one language, is virtually impossible. I think the computer needs to be given a clue about the accent of the speaker.
This is the kind of problem that I think can only be solved by massively parallel computing -- the kind we're not going to see on a personal level for a very long time -- paired with a huge amount of data to draw from. In other words, it's a Googly kind of problem. Other, similar problems like photo or face recognition lead me to believe that fighting the always-connected (cloudy) movement is probably the wrong way to go if we want these things.
I'll let you what commercial was on each page along with my thoughts:
Agreed. I'd love to see the browser space split into equal shares (by rendering engine) of Trident, Gecko, and WebKit. Breaking the Desktop OS market into thirds would be great, too. Phones (iPhone OS, WinMo, and Android)? Not so much. The more the merrier.
You asked me where they claimed it. I answered. Implementation due to ambiguity isn't breaking the standard. They have been shown to break several times.
They didn't lie, though, I guess, because they only claim to conform for reads in MS Word 2007. Of course, the moment that you make a significant change and save, that file is no longer conformant. The sales weasels aren't going to say that, though. They just say "We do OOXML, an international standard!"
The biggest problem was that choosing "HTML 4.0(1) Transitional" (no URI) meant that it rendered like IE5. Just about everything on the web used that DOCTYPE for years.
2.3.2
Application and Versions
By using Microsoft® Office Word 2007 SP2, users can open document files that conform to the Office Open XML File Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008]. By using Microsoft® Word 2010, users can both create and open document files that conform to the Office Open XML File Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008] and pursuant to the implementation notes that are cited in section 2.3.4 of this document.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/4/8/24862317-78F0-4C4B-B355-C7B2C1D997DB/%5BMS-OFFDI%5D.pdf
I once paid over $1000 for two floppy drives and an upgrade from 4KB to 64KB. This was my Model I.
The Mozilla Foundation was created in 1998, while IE6 was released in 2001. There's three and a half years there that you were apparently lost or sleeping. In addition, Gecko 0.9 was concurrent with the release of IE6, and a lot of us used it -- it wasn't pre-alpha. KHTML was also better. The problem at that time was that Microsoft had long won the browser wars, and most of the web was written for IE5 or IE5.5, which were absolute shit with regard to standards. Microsoft was the only one that had a chance of rendering those pages decently. Browsers that attempted to be standards compliant (not IE5-compliant), routinely couldn't visit half the websites in existence at the time.
Maybe you're confusing "standards compliant" with "looked decent with the web," which I'll gladly admit IE6 was the only browser to do at the time.
back up to 1999-2000, and I was using Netscape or Mozilla nightlies. Those sucked, but non-Windows users didn't have a lot of choice.
OK. They broke standards by modeling the standard after their own product, then failing to follow the standard they proposed while claiming that they were compliant. They did that all with the only thing that could be considered a reference implementation of the standard.
Microsoft isn't leading the target. Their pre-Alpha IE9 is eventually shooting for (really more hoping) to meet the standards of the currently released browsers. By next year, when IE9 really comes out comes out, all those browsers will have moved on and MS will have missed the target yet again. Chrome appears to be getting 20% faster with each release (I have seen 2.0 vs. 3.0 and 4.0 v.s 5.0 benchmarks, but I don't have 3.0 vs. 4.0). IE9 is trying to match Chrome 3.0's speed. Chrome 6.0 will be out by then, and IE9 will still be an order of magnitude behind the front-runner.
I want someone to try to cut all of Lost into chronological order, so I can watch it and see if it makes any sense. I'm certain it won't. Every minor mistake will be very apparent.
I did watch part of the first season, before it jumped the shark jumper (The whole series jumped the shark from about five minutes in).
Interestingly, there aren't any seasonal series on Thai TV at all (that I can remember). Every show is written to cover 20 or 50 episodes, is aired two to three times a week, and is over in a couple of months. The entire series is shot long before it airs, and new stories are being shot and promoted while the current story plays out. Korean TV drama is the same as far as I can tell, but my Korean isn't nearly as good as my Thai is, so I can't be sure.
Although the model used is interesting, Thai TV sucks. I'm not recommending it to anyone.
That would be more thee marketing then the storytelling.
That's thine marketing.
p.s. Sorry to be a Grammar Jesuit.
Although the patents are software, they're still narrow and specific. These aren't patent trolls -- the patents are well-known and disclosed as part of a standard. the license fees are also public knowledge, and as you state, patent infringement doesn't require either prior knowledge or consent to a contract.
If you use this "non-commercial" camera to produce commercial work, MPEG-LA can just come up to you and demand that you pay the licensing fee, and you're pretty much screwed. They will do it, too, if it's worth their time in fees or publicity.
We can only hope that software patents get overturned, but it doesn't look like the developed world is heading in that direction, does it?
I didn't really get what he was talking about, but I imagine that he meant that patents should be treated like trademarks in an "enforce it or lose it" system. Patent holders wouldn't be allowed to change licensing terms mid-patent or to wait and pounce.
This isn't some kind of EULA situation where a provision in the contract will be thrown out: the cameras are stated to be for non-commercial use because no one paid for a commercial license. Suing would be quick and dirty, and the user would be at fault. The user could possibly then sue the manufacturer for misleading claims (TFA's "professional camera" that doesn't allow professional shots), I guess, but the user would definitely be unlicensed and therefor have to pay.
Take a look at Gregory Maxwell's response to the accusation of OGG falling under patents. He has a good bit to say about MPEG-LA and anti-trust, as well.
Bravo, sir, bravo. ::slow clap::
Zonker has a 4-digit Slashdot ID, so I'm pretty sure that he realizes that you can't take back something you put on the web. His phrasing is pretty standard when you talk about portability. You're not the one who didn't get that, though: you just chimed in.
My post, however, was perfectly clear, with links for supporting what I was talking about, and you completely missed the point and talked past it. I think you just failed to read what I posted before you shot back. There's another explanation, but I won't go there.
Regarding FB, there's no way to get some information like relationships out. You can't get photos out with anything near the original resolution and they lose all tagging. There's lots of stuff you can't get. It'd be like taking your legacy spreadsheets and converting them to CSV.
No, I don't actually want to play. I just mentioned what I guess is the most popular page on the most popular site on the web in order to point out that there is a lot of the web that's useless to iPad owners. Yes, you can figure out how to do write and install something, but the people who play Farmville almost certainly can't.
I'm not proposing that Flash be included. iPad proponents can't say "you can visit any site" truthfully, though. Some of the most popular parts of the web are excluded.