IANAL, but could the patent be applied to other two-pane navigation structures? If so, there's a rather high-profile piece of prior art in the form of the Windows 3.1 (and earlier) File Manager.
It's only one factor, and it's laying the blame with consumers, when the industry itself, and the economy in general can be blamed just as well.
Over the last 3 years, the record companies have decreased the number of titles available by IIRC 30%. The remaining 70% largely sucks. And the economic climate isn't what it used to be. And the record companies have been shooting themselves in the foot by labeling their customers criminals.
Re:Centimetre Wave (SHF and above) Radar
on
Tuxedo Park
·
· Score: 1
The magnetron is also credited to a Dutch engineer (mr. Staal, who worked for Philips), who created one in 1935.
More on Dutch contributions to radar development here.
Re:RADAR was invented by the brits!
on
Tuxedo Park
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it was huge and immobile. But that doesn't mean it was impractical. It achieved its objective, ie early warning against German air raids.
Loomis' main contribution seems to have been the mass production of magnetrons. A significant contribution, for sure, but one that was more a matter of logistics than British inability.
Actually, radar made a big difference during the Battle of Britain.
Quote from that site: Britain had one great advantage, radar. Invented by a Scotsman, James Watson Watt, it was still rudimentary and often unreliable but it allowed Fighter Command to have a good idea of where German attacks were heading and how strong they were. It allowed the RAF to keep its planes on the ground until they were needed and then the fighter controllers would vector them in onto the attackers. It was a less than perfect system but it was the best in the world at that time, and it worked.
Re:RADAR was invented by the brits!
on
Tuxedo Park
·
· Score: 2
WDYM, "more practical"? By the time Loomis started working on radar, the Brits had the system that was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in place.
Radar invention - more info
on
Tuxedo Park
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Depending on your definition of 'invent', you can go as far back as 1880 (finding that radio waves reflect) or 1924(first succesful radio ranging) for the invention of radar.
Practical radar systems were first built in 1935 by Watson-Watt.
AFAI can determine, Loomis didn't get into the radar business until 1939, when he copeid all the information the British had.
ClarisWorks (even v1.0) was miles ahead of the entire competition on the Mac. Heck, it was one of the few applications that deserved the moniker "insanely great". This is one case where the market did choose the superior product.
Actually, it's more the case that everyone has heard of Microsoft Office, but hardly anyone has heard of Works.
That may be the case nowadays, but 'way back then', Works suites were fairly well known.
I think a big factor was that corporate users tended to standardize on Office rather than Works, because some employees needed (or thought they needed) the features not present in the Works suites. Which led to employees wanting to use the same applications at home as they were used to at work.
In a recent interview in a Dutch newspaper(sorry, not online), an executive for one of the big distributors said that the retail price of a CD is divided into 30% for the retailer, 30% for the distributor, and the remainder for the entire production process (studio, royalties, production etc.).
Not everyhting. The UI is one of the biggest horrors of iDrive (with previously-simple operations requiring you to navigate three levels of menus, that sort of crap), and no sign of it being fixed.
YMMV, but it does look to me like more and more new cars (European and Japanese, at least) have the radio integrated into the dashboard. With remote displays (radio mounted low, but a display on top of the dash, maybe combined with heater control info or navigation system), and remote control (steering wheel buttons), radios are getting less and less standard.
He said the technique could open doors worldwide for criminals and terrorists.
Surely, any place that's a likely target for terrorists has more security in place than cylinder locks? Like keycard access systems, or Marine guards with machine guns? This is more a criminal than a terrorist problem.
Most types of terrorist attack don't require access to keys. Just park a truck full of explosives in the general vicinity.
If the technique has been known to locksmiths, what makes the author think lockpickers haven't known about it, too?
This technique is only marginally safer (less detectable) than an attack with lockpicking tools.
All in all, the article sounds more like fearmongering than a real concern.
IIRC, those weren't EMP weapons. They used coils of wire (dumped from a cruise missile) to short out the power station's outdoor distribution equipment (YK, the field full of high-voltage transformers, switches etc. that connect the generator to the power grid).
But on the internet, the situation is different. Up to 20 years ago, finding all books ever written about a subject was practically impossible, so the effort of avoiding duplicates was significant.
Nowadays, that effort is trivial. I appreciate the value of having two different points of view, but for things like an encyclopedia, IMO it would be better to have one great project, rather than two mediocre ones.
Somehow I don't find affordable smart bombs due to economics of scale is a positive development...
If you read the post, you'll find that I didn't say or imply that it was.
Terrorists aren't more likely to use smart weapons anymore than you'll see them use Mk-84 gravity bombs today. Smart bombs may be inexpensive, but they require a warplane to bring them near their target.
Terrorists have been using 'smart weapons' for years. They just aren't called that, they're called 'suicide bombers'.
As 9/11 and other recent bombings show, terrorists already have the capability to bring down a building. Be it by driving a truck near ir and detonating its payload, or by piling an airplane into it. Terrorists don't need GPS bombs, they don't care about collateral damage or risk to the person delivering the bomb.
In the last Gulf War, this percentage was very high (IIRC, 90% were dumb). But in the conflicts since then, the percentage of smart vs dumb bombs has increased steadily. In Afghanistan 60% of bombs were smart.
The cost of 'smart' weapons (mainly GPS-guided bombs) has come down (thanks to Moore's law) significantly. Also, many weapons that were still experimental in Gulf War I, are now in production.
I've been toying with the idea of forwarding all my Korean and Chinese spam (60% of the spam I receive is in those languages, another 20% is English-langugage but relayed via.kr or.cn servers) to their embassies. Currently,.kr and.cn ISPs are being bribed into giving spammers free reign. The Chinese and Korean governments could put a stop to that (IIRC South Korea does have spamming legislation), they just need to be made aware of the seriousness of the problem.
Sending the government a few spams won't do that, but sending them all the spam anyone receives might.
First, I've never heard of police cars being equipped with live OCR equipment.
IDK about police cars, but over here (.nl), the police have been experimenting with a stationary OCR system. The experiment involved checking everyone's average speed over a 3-km stretch of highway (read licence plates at beginning and end, calculate time between passages).
Slashdot Mirror
That's an iMac you're talking about, not a PowerMac G4.
Nice machine, but 'value' isn't just about the hardware. The machine you listed can't run OS X, which immediately halves its value.
Except that according to various recent tests, it isn't. At least not in the Apple vs Wintel case.
Well, yes. But then why compare your 'roll-your-own' system with a PowerMac G4?
Prices start at $ 1500, not 2000.
Do you know what kind of PC I could build for that much money??
One that won't run OS X, that's for sure.
IANAL, but could the patent be applied to other two-pane navigation structures? If so, there's a rather high-profile piece of prior art in the form of the Windows 3.1 (and earlier) File Manager.
Why is that sad? It's probably true to a degree.
It's only one factor, and it's laying the blame with consumers, when the industry itself, and the economy in general can be blamed just as well.
Over the last 3 years, the record companies have decreased the number of titles available by IIRC 30%. The remaining 70% largely sucks. And the economic climate isn't what it used to be. And the record companies have been shooting themselves in the foot by labeling their customers criminals.
The magnetron is also credited to a Dutch engineer (mr. Staal, who worked for Philips), who created one in 1935.
More on Dutch contributions to radar development here.
Yes, it was huge and immobile. But that doesn't mean it was impractical. It achieved its objective, ie early warning against German air raids.
Loomis' main contribution seems to have been the mass production of magnetrons. A significant contribution, for sure, but one that was more a matter of logistics than British inability.
Actually, radar made a big difference during the Battle of Britain.
Quote from that site: Britain had one great advantage, radar. Invented by a Scotsman, James Watson Watt, it was still rudimentary and often unreliable but it allowed Fighter Command to have a good idea of where German attacks were heading and how strong they were. It allowed the RAF to keep its planes on the ground until they were needed and then the fighter controllers would vector them in onto the attackers. It was a less than perfect system but it was the best in the world at that time, and it worked.
WDYM, "more practical"? By the time Loomis started working on radar, the Brits had the system that was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in place.
Depending on your definition of 'invent', you can go as far back as 1880 (finding that radio waves reflect) or 1924(first succesful radio ranging) for the invention of radar.
Practical radar systems were first built in 1935 by Watson-Watt.
AFAI can determine, Loomis didn't get into the radar business until 1939, when he copeid all the information the British had.
ClarisWorks (even v1.0) was miles ahead of the entire competition on the Mac. Heck, it was one of the few applications that deserved the moniker "insanely great". This is one case where the market did choose the superior product.
Actually, it's more the case that everyone has heard of Microsoft Office, but hardly anyone has heard of Works.
That may be the case nowadays, but 'way back then', Works suites were fairly well known.
I think a big factor was that corporate users tended to standardize on Office rather than Works, because some employees needed (or thought they needed) the features not present in the Works suites. Which led to employees wanting to use the same applications at home as they were used to at work.
In a recent interview in a Dutch newspaper(sorry, not online), an executive for one of the big distributors said that the retail price of a CD is divided into 30% for the retailer, 30% for the distributor, and the remainder for the entire production process (studio, royalties, production etc.).
Not everyhting. The UI is one of the biggest horrors of iDrive (with previously-simple operations requiring you to navigate three levels of menus, that sort of crap), and no sign of it being fixed.
YMMV, but it does look to me like more and more new cars (European and Japanese, at least) have the radio integrated into the dashboard. With remote displays (radio mounted low, but a display on top of the dash, maybe combined with heater control info or navigation system), and remote control (steering wheel buttons), radios are getting less and less standard.
I see several problems with the article.
He said the technique could open doors worldwide for criminals and terrorists.
All in all, the article sounds more like fearmongering than a real concern.
IIRC, those weren't EMP weapons. They used coils of wire (dumped from a cruise missile) to short out the power station's outdoor distribution equipment (YK, the field full of high-voltage transformers, switches etc. that connect the generator to the power grid).
But on the internet, the situation is different. Up to 20 years ago, finding all books ever written about a subject was practically impossible, so the effort of avoiding duplicates was significant.
Nowadays, that effort is trivial. I appreciate the value of having two different points of view, but for things like an encyclopedia, IMO it would be better to have one great project, rather than two mediocre ones.
Somehow I don't find affordable smart bombs due to economics of scale is a positive development...
If you read the post, you'll find that I didn't say or imply that it was.
Terrorists aren't more likely to use smart weapons anymore than you'll see them use Mk-84 gravity bombs today. Smart bombs may be inexpensive, but they require a warplane to bring them near their target.
Terrorists have been using 'smart weapons' for years. They just aren't called that, they're called 'suicide bombers'.
As 9/11 and other recent bombings show, terrorists already have the capability to bring down a building. Be it by driving a truck near ir and detonating its payload, or by piling an airplane into it. Terrorists don't need GPS bombs, they don't care about collateral damage or risk to the person delivering the bomb.
Duh. It should have read "mostly harmless" instead...
:-P
In the last Gulf War, this percentage was very high (IIRC, 90% were dumb). But in the conflicts since then, the percentage of smart vs dumb bombs has increased steadily. In Afghanistan 60% of bombs were smart.
The cost of 'smart' weapons (mainly GPS-guided bombs) has come down (thanks to Moore's law) significantly. Also, many weapons that were still experimental in Gulf War I, are now in production.
I've been toying with the idea of forwarding all my Korean and Chinese spam (60% of the spam I receive is in those languages, another 20% is English-langugage but relayed via .kr or .cn servers) to their embassies. Currently, .kr and .cn ISPs are being bribed into giving spammers free reign. The Chinese and Korean governments could put a stop to that (IIRC South Korea does have spamming legislation), they just need to be made aware of the seriousness of the problem.
Sending the government a few spams won't do that, but sending them all the spam anyone receives might.
First, I've never heard of police cars being equipped with live OCR equipment.
IDK about police cars, but over here (.nl), the police have been experimenting with a stationary OCR system. The experiment involved checking everyone's average speed over a 3-km stretch of highway (read licence plates at beginning and end, calculate time between passages).