Cool, can you fill up my phone battery while you're at it? Please?
On more serious terms: If urine energy would become too popular, we can expect worldwide beer shortage and families with more children opening energy farms. Unfortunatelly, there's no action without reaction
is free for OSS dev's and a license for commercial is like 1500 USD if I remember correctly.
1. He would obviously require proprietary license, look at shareware definition 2. and for example gtk is free for any use (proprietary and OSS) just as many others. Qt is probably the most expensive toolkit around.
It's very quick to learn and also supports OpenGL addons etc. Ports code to Mac, Win, and *nix.
Parent of my other comment response enlightened this a little bit. Actualy basic build you download is wrong one for G5 as it seems. Tried the one he suggested and it actualy performs much better.
I was seeing fullscreen redraw being done in four horizontal rectangles. I've got 1920x1200 and fullscreen. Not just redrawing in one piece as on any other than OSX machines.
That was slow for me unfortunately. It is much better, but still not there.
Agreed, Firefox is actualy very slow on my G5. It is slower than FFox on 1.4 P4, at least by factor 2.
Comparing FFox under OSX is nothing new. G5 is slower CPU than P4, but at certain jobs, quite a lot faster (with that I mean jobs when PPC functions were actualy used). It would be better to test Photoshop or some video application that was noticeable faster than the same app on Windows, which means that it actualy uses quite a few PPC functions to the fullest.
And again, @#!%, what is this "Undoing moderation to Comment" after posting as Anonymous Fuckin' Coward? Do I realy have to mod people proxy connected over ssh tunel, telneted trough wiretaped neighbours wireless while listening to fucking hillbilly music and preteding it is not me???
Have I high hopes,/. just fucked you over a friggin' mod point.
They continued IRIX (by using Linux they would reduce costs), they continued with high priced workstations only (and veeeery high price is what I mean). Price of SGI with Intel was at least 3x time normal Intel.
And Apple will do Apple. If that time comes.
Leave now SGI and Apple. The whole blame is always to be pointed at made up plans of the company. It is just that their decisions weren't perfect.
Diversity and choice are the main reasons why I use linux. I just love special distros. It is the geeks way. But average users can't fall in this section.
So, somehow... 1. I still hope for one JoeUser (might be even Ubuntu or Fedora, at least the way they are going is the most positive one) distro, that does point JoeUser into a right dirrection and every commercial sector is making their software for by default (as in being treated as default linux distro). 2. If this would occur then geeks should step aside (at least when suggesting best distro for the average population) and not enforce their XYZ distro flavour. This is the only way linux could improve. Average user needs "JUST WORKS" and not "./configure && make && make install" here "apt..." or explanation why mandrake rpms are not the right choice for Fedora. It is more than enough trouble to explain sometimes why so many package managers (no trolling here).
Epilogue: While geeks need their diversity, grandma and JoeUser need "BULK and JUST WORKS". I can only hope for gazillion geekish distros to feed my urge, but on the other side I would like to see one and one only user distro (BULKY and JUST WORKS).
I do still wonder what exactly is the point at this stage of introducing Yet Another Linux Distribution. It looks to me like a more or less desperate attempt to regain lost market share.
No, either they started cooperating in money and workforce or they just wanted free publicity. Others is just as you said. Desperate attempt.
And here is where the problem lies. One true distro of mine is not Slackware.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Trouble is that you don't know who invents and who reinvents anymore.
Choice and diversity are not always the best case (although I must admit that I love both of them, they are still the leading reasons why I use linux). As much as they mean freedom, they also mean work replication, which automaticaly leads to splitting of work force (for example, zillion of groupware suites but still no calendaring as in Exchange, I hope that OGO and "Evolution for Windows" will correct that) instead of concentrating in one point. Which is reason why linux is not centric OS like OSX and Windows. Too many choices is not the same as best marketing option.
7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
haven't looked into printing much, i'll take your word for it.
Bot, linux and OSX use cups (icc patches are now in linux version too). So, parent poster should expect now flamatory responses from OSX users.
8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts, and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Yes, i like to tinker with my machine. People who rebuild there classic cars are also probably masochist.
Most of the programs on Windows are either ugly, without any kind of HIG or don't fill up my expectations. Where's the difference? Even on Windows I ended up writing most of the little tools my self. Except that I can fill most of the holes with bash and use them as easy as possible. Never looked back.
9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
haven't looked into it, i'll take your word for it.
Actualy, quite a few books and newspapers are published on linux.
13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
I usually can start editing a file in a folder 4 layers deep before i can finish double clicking on the folders to find said file.
It is not that linux z... have problems with clicking. It is just a matter that clicking is too slow and too limited.
16. You feel angered because you were left out by microsoft's Media technologies, they support Mac, Sun sparc, but not linux.
Haven't looked into it, sorry.
Why would anyone envy the lack of WMV or WMA???
17. You feel inferior deep inside but unable to admit it, you don't have a database as easy and powerful as Access.
Yeah, I heared that martian verion of access rules. We poor people on Earth have to live with the sucky one.
btw. OO.o2 Base
20. You don't have DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW support in your pathetic OS.
Don't have a DVD burner yet, so i'll just take your word on that.
All three of mine work without any kind of tweaking. Install OS and it works.
23. You don't know commercial support in Linux is almost non existent.
Haven't had to look for it yet.
Same as Microsoft. I cannot even remember one competent support company for Windows either.
Even solutions to problems are hard to be found on Microsoft support, funny thing is that Google finds them right there on MS support page.
25. You are unaware that linux has no terminal services (there is a lame one that no one uses), and commercial support for it is not happening.
For 'MS Terminal Services' rdesktop works nicely for me. As for remote control of a Linux machine, SSH for command line (almost all the time it is all you need) or SSH+X for GUI for that 'one program'.
LTSP and FreeNX????
27. You cannot admit that support for USB on linux is laughable at best.
Guilty, haven't had any problems with linux USB support.
Agreed and I own USB HDD, USB printer, USB stick, USB wacom (whis one needed a little tweaking with xorg.conf, but it was my fault, GUI is available), USB Camera, USB Phone
Imagine, all of this worked without popping a single driver into my computer or needed any kind of my interaction but connecting USB. Not so long ago three were problems with unmounting but as far as I can say even those dissapeared.
You know that your post clearly shows that you're the most classical example of that???
God, it's got to be hard to be you. So bitter and angry, but I guess Windows does that to people
Re:Microsoft Longhorn...
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not exactly, the only feature that Apple made to run on GPU is Expose. Other rely on CPU and software implementation.
If you don't believe then just make a simple test. And please, before bashing remember that I only dispute the GPU usage (meaning that Apple does not use GPU for visual effects), and not how many users does that in reality (except me and some people who wanted to know if 3D is effective for FX tricks).
Test Start terminal and then top. Set dock to maximize on mouse over and start dragging your mouse over the dock. Your system is 100% taken over with window manager. Now to the real test. Open Photoshop with laaaarge picture. Start some filter. Time it. Now do it again, but this time drag mouse over dock. Filter can now take even 8x more time.
Same goes for menus, except that shadows are not so complex as dock. but diff was 5x.
All effects but expose and buffer copy when moving windows are software not hardware
I can name several. RSA encryption[1] and Wavelet compression
Which are not even nearly SOFTWARE ONLY related. In their original form their are mathematical and crpto algorithms. I say, I don't mind patented some inovative approach, but as long as it is patented in the realm where it belongs.
are the ones that spring immediately to mind.
Sorry, but I was asking computer SOFTWARE INVENTIONS, not other science realm solutions. This is where you should distinct why software implementation is not possible, but most of your cases are definitely patent material.
Marching cubes probably,
Again, mathematical not SOFTWARE.
although filing the patent after disclosure was a bit cheeky (not allowed under the UK patent system, but the American on is a bit broken). I'm sure there are others. A lot of things in computer science really are novel, and really do deserve some protection. What they do not deserve is 20 years of protection. They should have a maximum of 5 years with compulsory licensing of the patent during that time.
Agreed, but obviously you don't get one fact that I try to point out. Me personaly, I agree with patents, but I don't agree with software ones. Why? Here is a few points of my opinion about it.
1. Patenting should go in the science realm where invention belongs. That is something I can live with. 2. Software is nothing but a descriptive representation of another science realm problem so that this problem executes on your computer. Basicaly, software is nothing but description. And as such, description can't be invention 3. As soon as you allow software patenting, you'll start to allow patenting Paragraphs, Sentences, Words, Letters... Remember, you allowed description already when you allowed software patents. 4. One could argue that some programing techniques are patentable. Yes, but this are still paper techniques that are not related with their software implementation. For example OOP is nothing but a mere extension to language. I can say for sure it is patent material. But this is not software solution. It is a mere language convience optimization and as long as it is patented like that I don't mind. It is not bound to one language and one implementation. You make compiler XYZ, you license this patent and start doing your OOP implementation. But as soon as you patent the software implementation of it, you introduced whole lot of a new restrictions and stupid missrepresentations. You just bound this invention to one implementor and one implementation which controls complete segment. But here is where my OOP example (if software patent is used in this case) breaks apart. Why? One could say that this was no different than Amazon One-Click patent or Mobile Information (the one where you ask for SMS informations, yes, that edit box and Sign In is a patent claim). I think that we both agree that it is very different case and while one is patent material, both others are not. But as long as legal language is used both are nothing but mere extension solutions to solve a complex task which are correctly represented in a computer description (which is patentable as soon as you allow software patents) and as such all three make wonderfull patent material. Second example, complex network protocol for lets say multimedia streaming while doing bank accounting. As long as description is patentable, this is a decent patent material. But in reality (and in the world you would like to live in), there are 3 complex segments in this job (all 3 already exist and all that this applicant did was put in one big process that simultaneously does all 3 tasks). Network protocol, multimedia streaming and bank accounting. If you don't allow description patents, patent claim would be forced to make a claim for each segment, not for a complex one. And here is where it gets interesting. Most of it is definitely not a patent material. But saying some form of new RSA encryption would be possible if you would be able to show th
I am in favour of software patents in principle, but they should only be allowed after serious patent reform has taken place.
Name one valid software patent then. What software piece in the world would you allow to be patented.
I thought that I agree with patents too, but in the end I discovered that not even one thing could exist as software problem. Problem is in another science realm, all that software does is describes that same problem and translates it to a computer, nothing but a mere description.
So, software patent or description patent? I think software patent does not exists.
At the moment, they allow you to protect your IP, but not to exploit it. If you wish to exploit your IP, then you have to do so without infringing any IP held by any other large company - and they all have large numbers of trivial patents that can be enforced at any moment
And being a coder I imagine my self going over few millions of patents for every trivial function in my software. Even in that case you can't eally read patents without a lawyer that translates them into a real life language. You know I have to sell some software too.
If you somehow do exploit your IP and become profitable, then you will get a call from a large company telling you all of their IP that you may or may not be infringing (but couldn't afford to fight in court anyway) and offering to buy your company for a fraction of its value.
Now, here you have some strange case of humor attack. That part would be good in... ??? What way???
The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.
One could move to US if he would like to live like that. But I son't see people wanting to move.
The EU is falling apart with double digit unemployment
Cound't stand not to say this joke. 99 unemployed in whole Europe is a dream come true.
plummeting Euro
It is bound to happen in future. What would be bad here? Me personally, I will feel better as this step is finished.
unsustainable social contracts
In what point? I do live in EU, but I don't feel that. Or maybe I live in the wrong thrird rate country
immigration
And? US has outsourcing. I would take immigration over outsourcing anytime
absorption of traditionally non-European countries into the common market
And? Take out European word from your sentence and you'll see that the worlds history goes this way from ancient times, but now that Europe does it, it is bad?
and so called "free" trade agreements.
And the point would be??? US does that to complete world forcibly, but I don't see you complaining about.
Nice place to visit, but whenever I do I can plainly see it is going downhill fast.
Some of us live in EU. And I can assure you that it is a nice place to live. About downhill? Not really a status quo, but I bet the viewpoint result depends on where and how do you live, so I can't say that for EU, but for my self (and saying that I can assure you that I preffer EU over US anytime).
Prologoue about patent stupidity
EU doesn't need SWPatents. It is enough that US courts are full of stupidity. The only people that would welcome SW Patents are either very large companies or they work in patent consulting, and be that in court as patent lawyers or officials in patent agency
Now question for you.
Just how in the world do you invent something that is not based on the real life interaction and in the same time it is not some physical, technical or matematical invention.
Remember it is a piece of software you talk about. Mathematical process would not be treated as SW invention. It would be just workable software application of THE mathematical invention.
Physical? There's no physical results in software. In the case they are then software is just a part of the complete technical invention.
Technical? Every computer interaction is based on the real life interaction to make them as simple and understandable as possible.
Here's a few examples: Encryption? Enigma comes to mind and there were much older solutions scattered all troughout the history. Network? Well, a group of people interacts usualy with some form of language that allows them to communicate. In case of different languages, they use interpreters, signs... Interface? A long time in history there were paper forms, casette players and such. All that software does is just immitates them as best as possible and adds some features that are bound to happen in digital tech. For example you had CD racks for a long time, and if you sorted them by alphabet you could easily find a CD you're looking for. How could you invent that for example.
Just currious. Name one software invention that IS INVENTION and not implementation of a normal interaction or preknown fact or job. At the same time it has to be software invention and not application of problem in another realm (tech, phys, math). All that software does is describe problem (problem that exists in another realm of science) in computer language, so in your case you actualy agree with patenting description. What should we patent next? Sentences, Words, Letters??? Taken your viewpoint even forward with my strange sence of humor, your lungs are violating the process patented for creating artificial lungs. Description and intention is the same and as far as I recollect no one patented natural breathing process. The only difference in the real world is that patent application of breathing process is nothing but patented mechanical solution to breathing that already exists in nature. In other wo
I can answer you this one without a hassle:)...but as my idea stands, it would definitely work for me - I only have a few hundred people that I repeatedly get email from - only a dozen or so that I particularly care about.
I admit. If you look at this problem from your side as being one user solution could be looking good. Wait a minute.... NOT
I'm admining about 50 servers, few are companies betweeen 30-200 people. And one of my servers has about 5000+ users.
How could I know which and how many people do my customers care about. It could endanger my place in bussines if I would restrict them from being able to send or receive mail.
And better, how do you plan to administer this? Everybody should call their admin when adding new address in their address book???? You can't say that mail software should contact your account on server and update it. Many of my customers use Outlook, and so far I don't know how to patch outlook.
Polling them would hardly take any time at all.
Yep, for your 10 people, not. but my 5000+ with god knows how many people? Yes, very much. Bandwith can be used in a better way than herrasing other servers:)
Thanks for the response. But I should probably just officially retract my idea from discussion - since public key cryptography does all that I want and more... it's just a question of getting my non-nerd friends to use it.
I must admit, this would be a really great idea if you would like to solve spam problem in the days of ARPANET, when you could count domains on your fingers.
Nowadays??? Just how do you figure you as admin can tell all the servers you're pulling mail from (I seriously hope you didn't think of *). I guess you're either type very fast or you still live on the ARPANET.
p.s. Doesn't matter that I don't agree with you. SPF still sucks.
Actualy it is, at least as much I tested different servers (if you take as the whole not just MTA). But, it has been a year or more since I tested this.
netqmail(mysql or ldap)+vpopmail+courier was a winning combination.
Postfix (enabled maildir and courier) was much slower when comparing it to qmail.
The only problem with qmail is probably its license (source only, binary redistribution is not allowed)
Sorry, no fun here, because I don't believe that Intel will deliver
I'm still waiting on 350MHz 64-bit and RISC based Merced that Intel promised long ago. (ok Merced was put on the market, except specs were completely different)
Intel very often promises and very rarely delivers.
From here on* my own biased opinion All that Intel has done good (or bad, I still blame them for 386 fiasco, when they based chip on what software uses and not original IBM specs [IBM 286 already had multithreading and other specs in fact it was more of technical wonder than Intels 486. Only reason for Intel to bypass on specs was just that no software used it in that time, so no one noticed it]. Intel is in my opinion the first reason that computing evolution has gone backwards) was in the past.
Look at the Intel now. 1. Their Mobile is based on P3 (just a lot of cache added). I won't say that my Centrino 1.7 is bad, but I will get rid of him as soon as HP puts out Turion models. All I say is that why P4 when it seems that P3 is better? 2. While in the good old days AMD was creating chips that were overheating and Intels runed cool, nowadays situation is completely different. AMD cca.30-35 degees (while compiling kernel) and Intel 70 degrees in standby??
Slashdot Mirror
Soooo, how does this standard works on non-MS platforms?
Something can't become standard if it is not used everywhere
Cool, can you fill up my phone battery while you're at it? Please?
On more serious terms:
If urine energy would become too popular, we can expect worldwide beer shortage and families with more children opening energy farms.
Unfortunatelly, there's no action without reaction
For running a cross platform API, I'd suggest Qt.
He is asking about game not GUI application.
is free for OSS dev's and a license for commercial is like 1500 USD if I remember correctly.
1. He would obviously require proprietary license, look at shareware definition
2. and for example gtk is free for any use (proprietary and OSS) just as many others. Qt is probably the most expensive toolkit around.
It's very quick to learn and also supports OpenGL addons etc. Ports code to Mac, Win, and *nix.
So do many others, just without license fee.
...If you told us what APIs and toolkits you used
Or better, if you'd read liks he provided before posting:)
[pasted from forum]
My new engine uses OpenGL, SDL, and OpenAL
Parent of my other comment response enlightened this a little bit. Actualy basic build you download is wrong one for G5 as it seems. Tried the one he suggested and it actualy performs much better.
I was seeing fullscreen redraw being done in four horizontal rectangles. I've got 1920x1200 and fullscreen. Not just redrawing in one piece as on any other than OSX machines.
That was slow for me unfortunately. It is much better, but still not there.
Better (at least on first few pages, felling is better for not seeing redraw being done in 4 rectangles but inone), thanks:)
But, comparing to epiphany (gnome browser using gecko and on opteron) is still slow, can't compare it to P4 now, but it is better than before.
Somebody please mod parent up
In desktop applications yes, on actual apps (hard on CPU and using PPC options) not.
Agreed, Firefox is actualy very slow on my G5. It is slower than FFox on 1.4 P4, at least by factor 2.
Comparing FFox under OSX is nothing new. G5 is slower CPU than P4, but at certain jobs, quite a lot faster (with that I mean jobs when PPC functions were actualy used). It would be better to test Photoshop or some video application that was noticeable faster than the same app on Windows, which means that it actualy uses quite a few PPC functions to the fullest.
And again, @#!%, what is this "Undoing moderation to Comment" after posting as Anonymous Fuckin' Coward? Do I realy have to mod people proxy connected over ssh tunel, telneted trough wiretaped neighbours wireless while listening to fucking hillbilly music and preteding it is not me???
/. just fucked you over a friggin' mod point.
Have I high hopes,
No, SGI did SGI.
They continued IRIX (by using Linux they would reduce costs), they continued with high priced workstations only (and veeeery high price is what I mean). Price of SGI with Intel was at least 3x time normal Intel.
And Apple will do Apple. If that time comes.
Leave now SGI and Apple.
The whole blame is always to be pointed at made up plans of the company. It is just that their decisions weren't perfect.
Optimizing for size != Optimizing for speed
It is the same only in case if you measure speed of burning a CD with that software or loading time (but even this one is not 100%)
Sorry for not pointing out that more clearly.
Diversity and choice are the main reasons why I use linux. I just love special distros. It is the geeks way. But average users can't fall in this section.
So, somehow...
1. I still hope for one JoeUser (might be even Ubuntu or Fedora, at least the way they are going is the most positive one) distro, that does point JoeUser into a right dirrection and every commercial sector is making their software for by default (as in being treated as default linux distro).
2. If this would occur then geeks should step aside (at least when suggesting best distro for the average population) and not enforce their XYZ distro flavour. This is the only way linux could improve. Average user needs "JUST WORKS" and not "./configure && make && make install" here "apt..." or explanation why mandrake rpms are not the right choice for Fedora. It is more than enough trouble to explain sometimes why so many package managers (no trolling here).
Epilogue:
While geeks need their diversity, grandma and JoeUser need "BULK and JUST WORKS". I can only hope for gazillion geekish distros to feed my urge, but on the other side I would like to see one and one only user distro (BULKY and JUST WORKS).
I do still wonder what exactly is the point at this stage of introducing Yet Another Linux Distribution. It looks to me like a more or less desperate attempt to regain lost market share.
No, either they started cooperating in money and workforce or they just wanted free publicity. Others is just as you said. Desperate attempt.
And here is where the problem lies. One true distro of mine is not Slackware.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Trouble is that you don't know who invents and who reinvents anymore.
Choice and diversity are not always the best case (although I must admit that I love both of them, they are still the leading reasons why I use linux). As much as they mean freedom, they also mean work replication, which automaticaly leads to splitting of work force (for example, zillion of groupware suites but still no calendaring as in Exchange, I hope that OGO and "Evolution for Windows" will correct that) instead of concentrating in one point. Which is reason why linux is not centric OS like OSX and Windows. Too many choices is not the same as best marketing option.
No. It is not the case of eye opener, it is just a case of one more distro.
I would preffer if all distros would combine forces instead of introducing *NEW* hot air.
But, I would take this as positive (but still not eye opener) if those three companies would stop 3 to make 1.
Just to fill your points:)
7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
haven't looked into printing much, i'll take your word for it.
Bot, linux and OSX use cups (icc patches are now in linux version too). So, parent poster should expect now flamatory responses from OSX users.
8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Yes, i like to tinker with my machine. People who rebuild there classic cars are also probably masochist.
Most of the programs on Windows are either ugly, without any kind of HIG or don't fill up my expectations. Where's the difference? Even on Windows I ended up writing most of the little tools my self. Except that I can fill most of the holes with bash and use them as easy as possible. Never looked back.
9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
haven't looked into it, i'll take your word for it.
Actualy, quite a few books and newspapers are published on linux.
13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
I usually can start editing a file in a folder 4 layers deep before i can finish double clicking on the folders to find said file.
It is not that linux z... have problems with clicking. It is just a matter that clicking is too slow and too limited.
16. You feel angered because you were left out by microsoft's Media technologies, they support Mac, Sun sparc, but not linux.
Haven't looked into it, sorry.
Why would anyone envy the lack of WMV or WMA???
17. You feel inferior deep inside but unable to admit it, you don't have a database as easy and powerful as Access.
Yeah, I heared that martian verion of access rules. We poor people on Earth have to live with the sucky one.
btw. OO.o2 Base
20. You don't have DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW support in your pathetic OS.
Don't have a DVD burner yet, so i'll just take your word on that.
All three of mine work without any kind of tweaking. Install OS and it works.
23. You don't know commercial support in Linux is almost non existent.
Haven't had to look for it yet.
Same as Microsoft. I cannot even remember one competent support company for Windows either.
Even solutions to problems are hard to be found on Microsoft support, funny thing is that Google finds them right there on MS support page.
25. You are unaware that linux has no terminal services (there is a lame one that no one uses), and commercial support for it is not happening.
For 'MS Terminal Services' rdesktop works nicely for me. As for remote control of a Linux machine, SSH for command line (almost all the time it is all you need) or SSH+X for GUI for that 'one program'.
LTSP and FreeNX????
27. You cannot admit that support for USB on linux is laughable at best.
Guilty, haven't had any problems with linux USB support.
Agreed and I own USB HDD, USB printer, USB stick, USB wacom (whis one needed a little tweaking with xorg.conf, but it was my fault, GUI is available), USB Camera, USB Phone
Imagine, all of this worked without popping a single driver into my computer or needed any kind of my interaction but connecting USB. Not so long ago three were problems with unmounting but as far as I can say even those dissapeared.
Wouldn't even bother to respond, but....
You know it's a classic case of penis envy
You know that your post clearly shows that you're the most classical example of that???
God, it's got to be hard to be you. So bitter and angry, but I guess Windows does that to people
Not exactly, the only feature that Apple made to run on GPU is Expose. Other rely on CPU and software implementation.
If you don't believe then just make a simple test. And please, before bashing remember that I only dispute the GPU usage (meaning that Apple does not use GPU for visual effects), and not how many users does that in reality (except me and some people who wanted to know if 3D is effective for FX tricks).
Test
Start terminal and then top.
Set dock to maximize on mouse over and start dragging your mouse over the dock. Your system is 100% taken over with window manager. Now to the real test. Open Photoshop with laaaarge picture. Start some filter. Time it. Now do it again, but this time drag mouse over dock. Filter can now take even 8x more time.
Same goes for menus, except that shadows are not so complex as dock. but diff was 5x.
All effects but expose and buffer copy when moving windows are software not hardware
I can name several. RSA encryption[1] and Wavelet compression
Which are not even nearly SOFTWARE ONLY related. In their original form their are mathematical and crpto algorithms. I say, I don't mind patented some inovative approach, but as long as it is patented in the realm where it belongs.
are the ones that spring immediately to mind.
Sorry, but I was asking computer SOFTWARE INVENTIONS, not other science realm solutions. This is where you should distinct why software implementation is not possible, but most of your cases are definitely patent material.
Marching cubes probably,
Again, mathematical not SOFTWARE.
although filing the patent after disclosure was a bit cheeky (not allowed under the UK patent system, but the American on is a bit broken). I'm sure there are others. A lot of things in computer science really are novel, and really do deserve some protection. What they do not deserve is 20 years of protection. They should have a maximum of 5 years with compulsory licensing of the patent during that time.
Agreed, but obviously you don't get one fact that I try to point out. Me personaly, I agree with patents, but I don't agree with software ones. Why? Here is a few points of my opinion about it.
1. Patenting should go in the science realm where invention belongs. That is something I can live with.
2. Software is nothing but a descriptive representation of another science realm problem so that this problem executes on your computer. Basicaly, software is nothing but description. And as such, description can't be invention
3. As soon as you allow software patenting, you'll start to allow patenting Paragraphs, Sentences, Words, Letters... Remember, you allowed description already when you allowed software patents.
4. One could argue that some programing techniques are patentable. Yes, but this are still paper techniques that are not related with their software implementation. For example OOP is nothing but a mere extension to language. I can say for sure it is patent material. But this is not software solution. It is a mere language convience optimization and as long as it is patented like that I don't mind. It is not bound to one language and one implementation. You make compiler XYZ, you license this patent and start doing your OOP implementation. But as soon as you patent the software implementation of it, you introduced whole lot of a new restrictions and stupid missrepresentations. You just bound this invention to one implementor and one implementation which controls complete segment. But here is where my OOP example (if software patent is used in this case) breaks apart.
Why?
One could say that this was no different than Amazon One-Click patent or Mobile Information (the one where you ask for SMS informations, yes, that edit box and Sign In is a patent claim). I think that we both agree that it is very different case and while one is patent material, both others are not. But as long as legal language is used both are nothing but mere extension solutions to solve a complex task which are correctly represented in a computer description (which is patentable as soon as you allow software patents) and as such all three make wonderfull patent material.
Second example, complex network protocol for lets say multimedia streaming while doing bank accounting. As long as description is patentable, this is a decent patent material. But in reality (and in the world you would like to live in), there are 3 complex segments in this job (all 3 already exist and all that this applicant did was put in one big process that simultaneously does all 3 tasks). Network protocol, multimedia streaming and bank accounting. If you don't allow description patents, patent claim would be forced to make a claim for each segment, not for a complex one. And here is where it gets interesting. Most of it is definitely not a patent material. But saying some form of new RSA encryption would be possible if you would be able to show th
I am in favour of software patents in principle, but they should only be allowed after serious patent reform has taken place.
Name one valid software patent then. What software piece in the world would you allow to be patented.
I thought that I agree with patents too, but in the end I discovered that not even one thing could exist as software problem. Problem is in another science realm, all that software does is describes that same problem and translates it to a computer, nothing but a mere description.
So, software patent or description patent? I think software patent does not exists.
At the moment, they allow you to protect your IP, but not to exploit it. If you wish to exploit your IP, then you have to do so without infringing any IP held by any other large company - and they all have large numbers of trivial patents that can be enforced at any moment
And being a coder I imagine my self going over few millions of patents for every trivial function in my software. Even in that case you can't eally read patents without a lawyer that translates them into a real life language. You know I have to sell some software too.
If you somehow do exploit your IP and become profitable, then you will get a call from a large company telling you all of their IP that you may or may not be infringing (but couldn't afford to fight in court anyway) and offering to buy your company for a fraction of its value.
Now, here you have some strange case of humor attack. That part would be good in... ??? What way???
The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.
One could move to US if he would like to live like that. But I son't see people wanting to move.
The EU is falling apart with double digit unemployment
Cound't stand not to say this joke. 99 unemployed in whole Europe is a dream come true.
plummeting Euro
It is bound to happen in future. What would be bad here? Me personally, I will feel better as this step is finished.
unsustainable social contracts
In what point? I do live in EU, but I don't feel that. Or maybe I live in the wrong thrird rate country
immigration
And? US has outsourcing. I would take immigration over outsourcing anytime
absorption of traditionally non-European countries into the common market
And? Take out European word from your sentence and you'll see that the worlds history goes this way from ancient times, but now that Europe does it, it is bad?
and so called "free" trade agreements.
And the point would be??? US does that to complete world forcibly, but I don't see you complaining about.
Nice place to visit, but whenever I do I can plainly see it is going downhill fast.
Some of us live in EU. And I can assure you that it is a nice place to live. About downhill? Not really a status quo, but I bet the viewpoint result depends on where and how do you live, so I can't say that for EU, but for my self (and saying that I can assure you that I preffer EU over US anytime).
Prologoue about patent stupidity
EU doesn't need SWPatents. It is enough that US courts are full of stupidity. The only people that would welcome SW Patents are either very large companies or they work in patent consulting, and be that in court as patent lawyers or officials in patent agency
Now question for you.
Just how in the world do you invent something that is not based on the real life interaction and in the same time it is not some physical, technical or matematical invention.
Remember it is a piece of software you talk about. Mathematical process would not be treated as SW invention. It would be just workable software application of THE mathematical invention.
Physical? There's no physical results in software. In the case they are then software is just a part of the complete technical invention.
Technical? Every computer interaction is based on the real life interaction to make them as simple and understandable as possible.
Here's a few examples:
Encryption? Enigma comes to mind and there were much older solutions scattered all troughout the history.
Network? Well, a group of people interacts usualy with some form of language that allows them to communicate. In case of different languages, they use interpreters, signs...
Interface? A long time in history there were paper forms, casette players and such. All that software does is just immitates them as best as possible and adds some features that are bound to happen in digital tech. For example you had CD racks for a long time, and if you sorted them by alphabet you could easily find a CD you're looking for. How could you invent that for example.
Just currious. Name one software invention that IS INVENTION and not implementation of a normal interaction or preknown fact or job. At the same time it has to be software invention and not application of problem in another realm (tech, phys, math). All that software does is describe problem (problem that exists in another realm of science) in computer language, so in your case you actualy agree with patenting description. What should we patent next? Sentences, Words, Letters???
Taken your viewpoint even forward with my strange sence of humor, your lungs are violating the process patented for creating artificial lungs. Description and intention is the same and as far as I recollect no one patented natural breathing process. The only difference in the real world is that patent application of breathing process is nothing but patented mechanical solution to breathing that already exists in nature. In other wo
I can answer you this one without a hassle:) ...but as my idea stands, it would definitely work for me - I only have a few hundred people that I repeatedly get email from - only a dozen or so that I particularly care about.
I admit. If you look at this problem from your side as being one user solution could be looking good. Wait a minute.... NOT
I'm admining about 50 servers, few are companies betweeen 30-200 people. And one of my servers has about 5000+ users.
How could I know which and how many people do my customers care about. It could endanger my place in bussines if I would restrict them from being able to send or receive mail.
And better, how do you plan to administer this? Everybody should call their admin when adding new address in their address book???? You can't say that mail software should contact your account on server and update it. Many of my customers use Outlook, and so far I don't know how to patch outlook.
Polling them would hardly take any time at all.
Yep, for your 10 people, not. but my 5000+ with god knows how many people? Yes, very much. Bandwith can be used in a better way than herrasing other servers:)
Thanks for the response. But I should probably just officially retract my idea from discussion - since public key cryptography does all that I want and more... it's just a question of getting my non-nerd friends to use it.
Exactly like that.
I must admit, this would be a really great idea if you would like to solve spam problem in the days of ARPANET, when you could count domains on your fingers.
Nowadays??? Just how do you figure you as admin can tell all the servers you're pulling mail from (I seriously hope you didn't think of *). I guess you're either type very fast or you still live on the ARPANET.
p.s. Doesn't matter that I don't agree with you. SPF still sucks.
Actualy it is, at least as much I tested different servers (if you take as the whole not just MTA). But, it has been a year or more since I tested this.
netqmail(mysql or ldap)+vpopmail+courier was a winning combination.
Postfix (enabled maildir and courier) was much slower when comparing it to qmail.
The only problem with qmail is probably its license (source only, binary redistribution is not allowed)
Sorry, no fun here, because I don't believe that Intel will deliver
I'm still waiting on 350MHz 64-bit and RISC based Merced that Intel promised long ago. (ok Merced was put on the market, except specs were completely different)
Intel very often promises and very rarely delivers.
From here on* my own biased opinion
All that Intel has done good (or bad, I still blame them for 386 fiasco, when they based chip on what software uses and not original IBM specs [IBM 286 already had multithreading and other specs in fact it was more of technical wonder than Intels 486. Only reason for Intel to bypass on specs was just that no software used it in that time, so no one noticed it]. Intel is in my opinion the first reason that computing evolution has gone backwards) was in the past.
Look at the Intel now.
1. Their Mobile is based on P3 (just a lot of cache added). I won't say that my Centrino 1.7 is bad, but I will get rid of him as soon as HP puts out Turion models. All I say is that why P4 when it seems that P3 is better?
2. While in the good old days AMD was creating chips that were overheating and Intels runed cool, nowadays situation is completely different. AMD cca.30-35 degees (while compiling kernel) and Intel 70 degrees in standby??