I think being attacked would in fact make recruiting easier. It's quite easy to demonize people who are killing your friends and relatives and fellow countrymen all around you. Why wouldn't these people hate the U.S. and want to fight back?
The device is not what is patented. If you build a device out of metal and that device is covered by a patent, and then I make a device using the same plans but I make mine out of wood, it uses the patented idea. Similarly, I can write an algorithm in C or Fortran, and no matter which I use if the algorithm is patented both pieces of source code use the patented idea. It's the idea of how to construct the device which is patented. Otherwise, a trivial way to get around any patent would be to build a minimally different device.
This is actually what happens in the pharmaceutical industry. If a drug is patented, the molecule itself is patented. If someone makes any change to the molecule, no matter how slight, the new molecule is not covered by the patent.
That's not an algorithm, because the steps are not precise. An algorithm can be performed by a mindless device. "Build a device" is a vague instruction that someone needs to figure out how to do. Not all sets of instructions are algorithms.
When you write software, the particular implementation in source code is copyrightable. You may implement an idea in the public domain as source code and copyright the source code, and I cannot copy your source code and sell it. I can implement the same idea in my own source code and copyright my source code.
The method that an algorithm uses may be patentable. If I patent an algorithm I can require that you pay me a licensing fee to write and sell software that uses the algorithm.
The real problem with software patents is not the fundamental idea of software patents, but that the patent office grants patents on ideas that are obvious to many programmers. For an idea to be patentable, it should not be obvious to someone skilled in that technical area.
You can reduce any algorithm to a physical device that implements the algorithm. So therefore all algorithms are patentable. See, I can play the silly argument game too!
There are tons of moreextensivetests than simply leaving the browser running all day, and Firefox uses the least memory in nearly all of them. Perhaps Firefox leaks on your computer, but not on mine and nearly all other users. If its trivial to trigger the memory leak you're seeing, then it should be trivial to make your own test that we can run that demonstrates this memory leak we don't seem to be able to see.
There's no way of knowing how much memory each extension is using. Extension code is thrown into a big JavaScript/XUL soup with shared data structures. With the new Jetpack API it may be possible to determine how much memory and CPU each extension is using. Even if some users do need to find which extension is causing memory usage problems, there is a list of the extensions that cause the most problems.
If you think you see a memory problem, the thing to do is post a set of steps that can reproduce the problem. In every test I've seen, Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. Perhaps there's a problem, but you need to point out precisely what the problem is before it can be fixed. Asking for "memory usage problems" to be fixed is a vague as asking for "security problems" or "crashes" to be fixed. If you think you see a security problem, give the specifics of the problem. If you think you see a crash, give how to reproduce it or the stack trace. Otherwise, how can anyone know which security problem or crash you're referring to?
But Firefox doesn't use lots of memory. Then again, in the real world, users don't care about facts either. Firefox has a reputation for using lots of memory, so users perceive it as using lots of memory. If you care about facts, you can check my post above. Or you can just keep spreading the rumor as you just have again.
I wouldn't think that usinglessmemory would be a bug (the last link shows Firefox using less total memory than the other browsers, but because it was written on an Opera blog I suppose there was some reluctance to admit it.)
Survey says... Illegal downloads rife. Don't let this stop you from making a lame excuse for dismissing the survey results because they're inconvenient to your belief system.
If you look at one of the first posts in this story, you'll see the claim that currently 90% of people download instead of paying, and that if the RIAA were nice only 50% would do so. If this is true, wouldn't downloading cause lower revenues?
My point was that the store wasn't open long enough for people to realize they could get away without paying. If it were open every day, and anyone could see people going into the store and taking out goods without paying, yes, it would be emptied soon. This is the situation we currently have with downloading. Most people realize they can get away with it, so they do it without paying. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yeah, sort of like the free-for-all of people downloading music and movies for free, huh? Or like the looting during the NY blackout of 1977 -- that had nothing to do with people having to steal to survive a natural disaster either. When people realize they can get away with something they shouldn't do, many people do take advantage of the situation.
The problem is that once there's no security and some people realize that they can take without being punished, that releases a flood of people who will overwhelm anyone but armed security. That's why all stores have some type of security and typically prosecute shoplifters. If they didn't, they'd be looted. On the Internet, there is no security, so downloaders feel free to download whatever they want without paying, thinking they'll never be caught.
If it were open like this every day, and kids could see their friends go in and take items out of the store without paying day after day, yes the store would be empty soon. During disasters, looters take items from unguarded stores because they see others getting away with it and take advantage of the situation. Sometimes it even happens when the store is guarded, but the looters overwhelm the people guarding the store. At that point, the guards may decide to take drastic action, such as stating that looters will be shot. At least you can take comfort that the RIAA hasn't gone that far.
Then teenagers would "borrow" their parent's or brother's or friend's ID card. My local store has changed their system so the ID check comes after scanning all the items, but of course a person has to make sure the picture matches.
Even a bankrupt government cannot afford to stop spending money. We need to increase revenues and cut spending until we have a surplus and start paying off the debt. Clinton did this for us in the 90s, but Bush's tax cuts without matching cuts in spending put us back in a deficit.
By the time biofuels are available at the pump, I can buy a car that runs on them. It's not vaporware. I see cars that run on up to 85% biofuels on the road every day.
It's more like if you can afford $40,000 for a new car every two years, you can afford to save $3000 per year for your retirement. What would you say to someone who says they can't save any money when they're always driving a new, fancy car?
Slashdot Mirror
I think being attacked would in fact make recruiting easier. It's quite easy to demonize people who are killing your friends and relatives and fellow countrymen all around you. Why wouldn't these people hate the U.S. and want to fight back?
Ah, just like the war on drugs. Did you think that cocaine would become unavailable after leaders of the Medellín Cartel were killed, too?
Al Queda won't magically disappear just because its leader was killed. Many U.S. presidents have been killed while in office, yet the U.S. goes on.
Many laws use terms that don't have concrete, objective definitions. That's why we have judges who interpret the laws.
The device is not what is patented. If you build a device out of metal and that device is covered by a patent, and then I make a device using the same plans but I make mine out of wood, it uses the patented idea. Similarly, I can write an algorithm in C or Fortran, and no matter which I use if the algorithm is patented both pieces of source code use the patented idea. It's the idea of how to construct the device which is patented. Otherwise, a trivial way to get around any patent would be to build a minimally different device.
This is actually what happens in the pharmaceutical industry. If a drug is patented, the molecule itself is patented. If someone makes any change to the molecule, no matter how slight, the new molecule is not covered by the patent.
That's not an algorithm, because the steps are not precise. An algorithm can be performed by a mindless device. "Build a device" is a vague instruction that someone needs to figure out how to do. Not all sets of instructions are algorithms.
When you write software, the particular implementation in source code is copyrightable. You may implement an idea in the public domain as source code and copyright the source code, and I cannot copy your source code and sell it. I can implement the same idea in my own source code and copyright my source code.
The method that an algorithm uses may be patentable. If I patent an algorithm I can require that you pay me a licensing fee to write and sell software that uses the algorithm.
The real problem with software patents is not the fundamental idea of software patents, but that the patent office grants patents on ideas that are obvious to many programmers. For an idea to be patentable, it should not be obvious to someone skilled in that technical area.
You can reduce any algorithm to a physical device that implements the algorithm. So therefore all algorithms are patentable. See, I can play the silly argument game too!
I've used Firefox for weeks at a time on Linux without problems. I suppose to you it's just someone else denying the problem.
There are tons of more extensive tests than simply leaving the browser running all day, and Firefox uses the least memory in nearly all of them. Perhaps Firefox leaks on your computer, but not on mine and nearly all other users. If its trivial to trigger the memory leak you're seeing, then it should be trivial to make your own test that we can run that demonstrates this memory leak we don't seem to be able to see.
Then it's good that Firefox uses less memory than other browsers.
There's no way of knowing how much memory each extension is using. Extension code is thrown into a big JavaScript/XUL soup with shared data structures. With the new Jetpack API it may be possible to determine how much memory and CPU each extension is using. Even if some users do need to find which extension is causing memory usage problems, there is a list of the extensions that cause the most problems.
If you think you see a memory problem, the thing to do is post a set of steps that can reproduce the problem. In every test I've seen, Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. Perhaps there's a problem, but you need to point out precisely what the problem is before it can be fixed. Asking for "memory usage problems" to be fixed is a vague as asking for "security problems" or "crashes" to be fixed. If you think you see a security problem, give the specifics of the problem. If you think you see a crash, give how to reproduce it or the stack trace. Otherwise, how can anyone know which security problem or crash you're referring to?
But Firefox doesn't use lots of memory. Then again, in the real world, users don't care about facts either. Firefox has a reputation for using lots of memory, so users perceive it as using lots of memory. If you care about facts, you can check my post above. Or you can just keep spreading the rumor as you just have again.
I wouldn't think that using less memory would be a bug (the last link shows Firefox using less total memory than the other browsers, but because it was written on an Opera blog I suppose there was some reluctance to admit it.)
Survey says... Illegal downloads rife. Don't let this stop you from making a lame excuse for dismissing the survey results because they're inconvenient to your belief system.
If you look at one of the first posts in this story, you'll see the claim that currently 90% of people download instead of paying, and that if the RIAA were nice only 50% would do so. If this is true, wouldn't downloading cause lower revenues?
My point was that the store wasn't open long enough for people to realize they could get away without paying. If it were open every day, and anyone could see people going into the store and taking out goods without paying, yes, it would be emptied soon. This is the situation we currently have with downloading. Most people realize they can get away with it, so they do it without paying. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yeah, sort of like the free-for-all of people downloading music and movies for free, huh? Or like the looting during the NY blackout of 1977 -- that had nothing to do with people having to steal to survive a natural disaster either. When people realize they can get away with something they shouldn't do, many people do take advantage of the situation.
If people can take without paying, they'll do it. Just the way they download music and movies without paying currently.
The problem is that once there's no security and some people realize that they can take without being punished, that releases a flood of people who will overwhelm anyone but armed security. That's why all stores have some type of security and typically prosecute shoplifters. If they didn't, they'd be looted. On the Internet, there is no security, so downloaders feel free to download whatever they want without paying, thinking they'll never be caught.
If it were open like this every day, and kids could see their friends go in and take items out of the store without paying day after day, yes the store would be empty soon. During disasters, looters take items from unguarded stores because they see others getting away with it and take advantage of the situation. Sometimes it even happens when the store is guarded, but the looters overwhelm the people guarding the store. At that point, the guards may decide to take drastic action, such as stating that looters will be shot. At least you can take comfort that the RIAA hasn't gone that far.
Then teenagers would "borrow" their parent's or brother's or friend's ID card. My local store has changed their system so the ID check comes after scanning all the items, but of course a person has to make sure the picture matches.
Even a bankrupt government cannot afford to stop spending money. We need to increase revenues and cut spending until we have a surplus and start paying off the debt. Clinton did this for us in the 90s, but Bush's tax cuts without matching cuts in spending put us back in a deficit.
By the time biofuels are available at the pump, I can buy a car that runs on them. It's not vaporware. I see cars that run on up to 85% biofuels on the road every day.
It's more like if you can afford $40,000 for a new car every two years, you can afford to save $3000 per year for your retirement. What would you say to someone who says they can't save any money when they're always driving a new, fancy car?