Your post seems to assume that standard interaction with a computer, like mousing/typing, for long periods of time is the only application for input devices.
It might instead be argued that the available input devices drive the paradigms of input. New, improved, innovative input methodologies open up human-computer interaction to new applications and ideas.
They don't have Sharia law in Iraq, not by letter AFAIK, and definitely not by spirit. I've spent almost three of the last five years in that country in various capacities, and I know this firsthand. Why are you spouting bullshit?
The vast majority of inventions are applications of previously existing technologies, combining them in new ways or toward new problems. To suggest that something must be a breakthrough of sorts to be patentable is an untenable position at best in the existing framework.
To suggest "scrapping patents completely" shows a pretty significant lack of understanding of their place in the modern economy, and akin to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Tivo-like devices were by no means common in 1998.
Moreover, you seem to be under the mistaken impression, as are many on Slashdot, that any kind of "prior art" invalidates a patent, no matter how precursory or tangential. While a video capture card could certainly be combined with special software to perform "dvr"-like actions prior to the Tivo patent, the Tivo folks were the ones to define their process, productize it, and make it available. If there's any legitimate application of patents, it's a case like Tivo.
Yahoo is a major competitor in the Internet advertising space, one of the only competitors to Google on search, the owner of multiple great "Web 2.0"-style services like Flickr, and the producer of some of the best modern, standards-based web development tools like the YUI, as well as a pioneer in open web service APIs.
While the advertising issue is likely Microsoft's main objective, purchasing Yahoo will also move the company much more into the "modern" web-space. Microsoft was late to the original web-party, and they'd probably like to avoid repeating that mistake, especially as their primary businesses begin to lose some of their strength (operating systems and the like).
I spent several months in Iraq on a response team helping Iraqis get prosthetics and assistive devices. Interestingly enough, about 80% of them had lost limbs prior to the war, either due to lacking medical treatment or political reprisal from Baathist forces. The most heartbreaking was a boy of about 17 to whom we delivered a wheelchair. He had no feet due to a reprisal against his family (in which the older male members of his family were all murdered).
Google significantly boosted the efficacy of the typical user search over what had been previously achieved by AltaVista, Yahoo, Lycos, etc...that is how they gained their initial market share, and what ultimately lead to the reduction in desireability of the "generic" domain.
I didn't saw searching the web, but rather the significant boost in the efficacy of those searches. Google brought the issues of search relevance out into the public eye more than any company before it, as evidenced by the massive adoption of the engine by the general public.
Before web searching was as effective as it is now (largely thanks to Google), it wasn't illogical to think that people might type generic domains to find what they are looking for, i.e. meat.com if they are looking to order meat, get info on meat, or what have you.
The idea that many marketers (and others) had is that not only would owning such domains get you more traffic, but it would also begin to associate the very idea of _noun_ on the web with your particular brand of _noun_.
Your accusation of straw-manning is a straw man in itself, as he was not construction such. The article itself draws parallels that he was merely taking to a further conclusion.
Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master. Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.
The most likely reason for this is to prevent circumvention of DRM, the same DRM mandated by the studios for participation in the iTMS.
"A little too egalitarian for their classist sensibilities"? Give me a fucking break.
DTrace is hardly crippled, although these modifications are certainly not ideal. Maybe we could actually discuss the real effects, and potential solutions, instead of spewing sensationalist rhetoric? Of course not.
The most likely reason for this is to prevent circumvention of DRM, the same DRM mandated by the studios for participation in the iTMS.
"A little to egalitarian for their classist sensibilities"? Give me a fucking break.
DTrace is hardly crippled, although these modifications are certainly not ideal. Maybe we could actually discuss the real effects, and potential solutions, instead of spewing sensationalist rhetoric? Of course not.
I need to grow up? It seems the rest of us were having a mature discussion until you came along...
But in answer to your post, we are talking about trackpads here, rather than external mice. Of course a two-button mouse is preferable to a one-button mouse. Of course, the external mouse Apple ships is a two-button mouse. I don't prefer it myself, but it does have two buttons.
Few who have taken the time to learn the Apple trackpad would consider going to back to a less-capable style, unless they have a particular need for pressing both buttons at the same time (I myself don't).
I find that very interesting. For me, the two-finger scroll and two-finger alt click have been godsends. Now I can left click, right click, and scroll without changing my finger position on the trackpad whatsoever. I can't stand using the separate right click on my IBM linux laptop now.
From the content of your post, it's obvious you haven't heard of this guy and didn't read the article. This guy is not just using a "replacement foot".
I'd be interested in knowing exactly which strawman you are referring to. I even quoted the relevant line, to make it easy for you. What is your alternative interpretation?
Apparently my original post was not made in its entirety. The fact is that I myself don't believe in a supreme being, but I'm certainly not so self-assured and self-righteous as you or others like you.
Indeed, I don't think a guy who claims to get his instructions from God has any business showing up at a university.
We'd better throw out the vast majority of basic physics, biology, and chemistry then, as much of it was fleshed out by men of (various) faith.
Should a Christian not be allowed at a University? A Muslim? A Scientologist? What exactly is the test to be "allowed" to "show up" at a University? And how is it that you are sure that you have the definite, correct answer as such?
Sincerely, An atheist who isn't a self-righteous idiot
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, being in the military makes you acutely aware of the negative impact drug use can have on performance in a critical situation.
Not sure how that makes one an asshole. Stay out of my military, and I'll stay out of your basement.
Nothing like a little Slashdot-style generalization.
Your post seems to assume that standard interaction with a computer, like mousing/typing, for long periods of time is the only application for input devices.
It might instead be argued that the available input devices drive the paradigms of input. New, improved, innovative input methodologies open up human-computer interaction to new applications and ideas.
They don't have Sharia law in Iraq, not by letter AFAIK, and definitely not by spirit. I've spent almost three of the last five years in that country in various capacities, and I know this firsthand. Why are you spouting bullshit?
Spoken like someone who has spent no time in a Sharia-based society.
The vast majority of inventions are applications of previously existing technologies, combining them in new ways or toward new problems. To suggest that something must be a breakthrough of sorts to be patentable is an untenable position at best in the existing framework.
To suggest "scrapping patents completely" shows a pretty significant lack of understanding of their place in the modern economy, and akin to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Tivo-like devices were by no means common in 1998.
Moreover, you seem to be under the mistaken impression, as are many on Slashdot, that any kind of "prior art" invalidates a patent, no matter how precursory or tangential. While a video capture card could certainly be combined with special software to perform "dvr"-like actions prior to the Tivo patent, the Tivo folks were the ones to define their process, productize it, and make it available. If there's any legitimate application of patents, it's a case like Tivo.
Yahoo is a major competitor in the Internet advertising space, one of the only competitors to Google on search, the owner of multiple great "Web 2.0"-style services like Flickr, and the producer of some of the best modern, standards-based web development tools like the YUI, as well as a pioneer in open web service APIs.
While the advertising issue is likely Microsoft's main objective, purchasing Yahoo will also move the company much more into the "modern" web-space. Microsoft was late to the original web-party, and they'd probably like to avoid repeating that mistake, especially as their primary businesses begin to lose some of their strength (operating systems and the like).
I spent several months in Iraq on a response team helping Iraqis get prosthetics and assistive devices. Interestingly enough, about 80% of them had lost limbs prior to the war, either due to lacking medical treatment or political reprisal from Baathist forces. The most heartbreaking was a boy of about 17 to whom we delivered a wheelchair. He had no feet due to a reprisal against his family (in which the older male members of his family were all murdered).
Google significantly boosted the efficacy of the typical user search over what had been previously achieved by AltaVista, Yahoo, Lycos, etc...that is how they gained their initial market share, and what ultimately lead to the reduction in desireability of the "generic" domain.
I didn't saw searching the web, but rather the significant boost in the efficacy of those searches. Google brought the issues of search relevance out into the public eye more than any company before it, as evidenced by the massive adoption of the engine by the general public.
Before web searching was as effective as it is now (largely thanks to Google), it wasn't illogical to think that people might type generic domains to find what they are looking for, i.e. meat.com if they are looking to order meat, get info on meat, or what have you.
The idea that many marketers (and others) had is that not only would owning such domains get you more traffic, but it would also begin to associate the very idea of _noun_ on the web with your particular brand of _noun_.
You seriously think that preferring books to videogames overall as a medium is "elitism"?
Your accusation of straw-manning is a straw man in itself, as he was not construction such. The article itself draws parallels that he was merely taking to a further conclusion.
Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master. Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.
The most likely reason for this is to prevent circumvention of DRM, the same DRM mandated by the studios for participation in the iTMS. "A little too egalitarian for their classist sensibilities"? Give me a fucking break. DTrace is hardly crippled, although these modifications are certainly not ideal. Maybe we could actually discuss the real effects, and potential solutions, instead of spewing sensationalist rhetoric? Of course not.
The most likely reason for this is to prevent circumvention of DRM, the same DRM mandated by the studios for participation in the iTMS.
"A little to egalitarian for their classist sensibilities"? Give me a fucking break.
DTrace is hardly crippled, although these modifications are certainly not ideal. Maybe we could actually discuss the real effects, and potential solutions, instead of spewing sensationalist rhetoric? Of course not.
How is a desire for profit a vice on the part of a company? Profit is the very essence of its purpose.
I need to grow up? It seems the rest of us were having a mature discussion until you came along...
But in answer to your post, we are talking about trackpads here, rather than external mice. Of course a two-button mouse is preferable to a one-button mouse. Of course, the external mouse Apple ships is a two-button mouse. I don't prefer it myself, but it does have two buttons.
Few who have taken the time to learn the Apple trackpad would consider going to back to a less-capable style, unless they have a particular need for pressing both buttons at the same time (I myself don't).
I find that very interesting. For me, the two-finger scroll and two-finger alt click have been godsends. Now I can left click, right click, and scroll without changing my finger position on the trackpad whatsoever. I can't stand using the separate right click on my IBM linux laptop now.
From the content of your post, it's obvious you haven't heard of this guy and didn't read the article. This guy is not just using a "replacement foot".
I'd be interested in knowing exactly which strawman you are referring to. I even quoted the relevant line, to make it easy for you. What is your alternative interpretation?
Apparently my original post was not made in its entirety.
The fact is that I myself don't believe in a supreme being, but I'm certainly not so self-assured and self-righteous as you or others like you.
Indeed, I don't think a guy who claims to get his instructions from God has any business showing up at a university.
We'd better throw out the vast majority of basic physics, biology, and chemistry then, as much of it was fleshed out by men of (various) faith.
Should a Christian not be allowed at a University? A Muslim? A Scientologist? What exactly is the test to be "allowed" to "show up" at a University? And how is it that you are sure that you have the definite, correct answer as such?
Sincerely,
An atheist who isn't a self-righteous idiot
I'd say you've already shown yourself to be significantly inferior to him, simply by virtue of your attitude.