Interesting question, though as far as I understand that's not what the project was about. To my understanding, the positions and movements are continuously calculated off-site and then, irrespective of the flying objects, any flying object steered, maneuvered and hoovered about to attain the calculated position and flight path. And then maintain constantly what is fed into the Xcopter to balance the rod (pendulum). I guess that the quadrocopters were just the easiest and fastest to be maneuvered around, like tilted into any direction without any secondary motion control.
Serious. Logic kind of dictates this to have happened. It does not mean that doctors are worse than the system; on the contrary: doctors are those fantastic deliverers of input to this expert system. Of course, a medical system that has all sorts of medical information, treatments, medicines, and potentially millions of case histories provided by human doctors will evaluate chances, correlations and success probabilities much much faster and much better than the family GP. So what's new in here? Maybe that the computer systems are now available to actually do these calculations.
Uh, no, it doesn't grant what the summary said, and the fact that you ignored half of the limitations in the claims makes me wonder if those people in be examination corps were ever actually your colleagues.
Your assumption could be correct. If only the terminology was correct. What "claims'? You might want to go to bed tonight having learned that dependent claims do not form any limitations whatsoever. The first independent claim, one, does not contain any limitation beyond the implementation in software and the update of the transaction list quite close to the moment of execution. Over. Dependent claims describe specific embodiments in conjunction and in the light of the independent claim(s) only.
We were used to plentiful of uninformed/. 'news' over the last decade on patents and stuff; when 'filing' and 'granted' was considered the same, effectively, and lots of nonsense, like the contents of the abstract being considered as the underlying idea, or even as the legally binded grant, and much more.
In a nutshell, I expected the same, yet again, and was almost reluctant to even go into the details and actually read the document. OMG! It is a patent It does grant what the summary said Incredible.!!
There is a comment from AC further up ("Bad summary of patent") stating correctly that it does contain a last minute change as necessity for potential infringement. True. But I can't believe that there is no anticipating document before 2009, where a recurring delivery system of any sorts had a 'last check' of possible modifications by the customer before the actual delivery.
Much too often, I had to come to the defense of my former colleagues in patent examination. In this case, however, I need to agree when someone questioned if there are signs of life left in the office. Actually, I doubt it.
I totally agree, and I am one of them. We have given up and have passed the baton to the bean-counters of all sorts and all worlds. In a nutshell, we have allowed ourselves to be prostituted in scales of rankings and economies. We have given up all ethic authority for breadcrumbs at funding, evaluation and throughput.
How does one manage to have a super-low ID (2919) with a super-new device identifier (Nexus7)?? May, I, please, become a Galaxy-S-3 with an ID of, e.g. 1918? Pleeeeze!
Make it serious square. From what we have been told until here, at least. First factor, fire is the last thing you want on a plane. Over. Second factor, fire without clear-cut reason is what you don't want. The commentator who seemingly played the matter down "The only person on board..." is mistaken. If a plane can experience its batteries overheating beyond the temperature that incenses wild fire, without shutting the batteries off beforehand (no temperature control??), and when almost not in service (passengers and crew disembarked), it not airworthy at all. In this sense webmistressrachel's comment is uncalled for. Losing a wing or pressure due to a collision is in a sense 'more normal'. Because the reason is clear-cut. But a fire out of the blue is simply a 'must not, ever'.
Very good. AC and (currently) 5 insightful points.
Actually, had I mod points I might have modded you 'flamebait', eventually even 'funny', because the answer is in principle known. Your question looks like a conjecture. The reality is rather a mix of a potentially fatal cocktail of sociological issues ('keeping up with the Joneses' - the coolness of gadgetry plus group pressure) and a good doses of capitalism; the latter reinforced since the demise of the self-declared 'communist' countries.
I don't give you my last mod point, because then I can not post, sorry. Totally understood. Academia has gone totally bonkers since the pea counters took over. I have been in academia (with many interruptions) since 1980. And what used to be a science-oriented employment basically decided on by the requirements of science, has become a business organisation with decision-making essentially done on economic principles. At my age I can surely say that we have experienced a total rear entry into capitalism. And from my experience I can surely deduce the lack of serious progress in the light of a betterment for mankind. Science - or what is called so - has become a fast-lane; a boiler-like heating up of tiny, partially scientific non-results, for immediate harvesting opportunities in almost exclusively business-oriented areas.
My boss, a full-tenured professor, works any minute he does not sleep. Per hour, his salary is probably in the range of that of a janitor. Which would not matter to me, if I were in his position, if only the work was academic work. But it isn't. I bet that 90 percent of his work is menial work, administrative work, sitting in committees, haggling over money. This applies similarly to most universities world-wide. The stress is on to be ranked among the top universities, and at the same time to generate a continuous flow of income to the university. And to cater for ever larger numbers of ever less prepared students.
Can someone with mod points minus 1 this shameless advertisement for some Youtube clip showing African Christmas music? I would guess that our AC poster is none other than Aulnay Cap, the owner of that Youtube channel. A veritable AC!
Assumptions... assumptions...... wrong assumptions. I am using Unity on a daily basis. First. I have tried Gnome3, again, for an hour or so, yesterday. Second. What was your line of reasoning again?
The world (and dog) seem to agree that Mark Shuttleworth screwed it up with his money-spinning exercise of searching Amazon instead of your own machine, when making an innocuous search. Many of us started to hate Unity for that 'feature'. And now someone comes along and offers an extension to the likewise hated Gnome3 that compounds its ugliness.
I'd give you +10 if I could. You are almost spot on: The system was actually created not for the return, but to protect the single, private inventor from the larger companies; so that (s)he was encouraged to invent. Look at the american system: The designee of a patent is still the inventor, while in Europe it is the company. Though, over the years, the companies have found their own ways to turn around the system by actually preventing innovation on the outside.
And, while hoping not to confuse the general public: By far the largest number of patents are not filed to protect one's own invention, but in order to set up a barricade of obstacles for the competition to achieve the same or similar results with other means. Think about this, think hard. When multinational ABC found advantages for drive safety by preventing the blocking of wheels during braking, they did not stop at patenting that method, but filed patents all around that method, in order to prevent the competition to likewise prevent blocking of wheels by any other method. As a result, there were years and years when the safety device of anti-blocking was available only to the owners of that brand of cars. Thereby, safety and health of others were compromised since not all cars could have such systems. And this is exactly what we see these days, again. The current law suits are not about how to create round corners (which could be patentable engineering solutions), but the existence of round corners on tablets.
Come on, that's simply apologetic. If the chinese companies didn't steal ideas and avoided patents, nobody would ever buy any of their products. And why didn't you write your last sentence about 'China being good' in English?
Me too. But perfect?? Search is long, if not lengthy. Does it provide the features that our Exchange server offers? Did it not slow down significantly with and after 3.0? Yes, here it still does. For some years now I have been getting used to sometimes waiting 10 seconds or more for a (e.g.) 7kB mail coming in. What's it doing there?
I for one would love a client that is as capable as Google online mail. It must be possible to be even better, since all data are local. Yes, I'm waiting impatiently for that client.
I really haven't used a desktop client for email in years. Where's the gain for the user?
The best I have experienced was Zimbra, but it really prefers to be run on a standalone machine and is pretty resource intensive.
Now let's start to think for a somewhat longer moment:
1. The gain is there. Not in carrying around GBs, but in a constant and consistent interface, without adcrap, without changes to the whims of the writer, and without the need to download totally everything evrytime; plus the opportunity to download IF someone so desires. No, these are not asked too much.
2. Zimbra is not Exchange, and is neither FREE.
3. Sorry, I forgot: which was the FOSS client to connect to all intricacies of Exchange?
Until recently, being a rather old/.-er, I have spun fun about and around W8. I know too well what it takes to be a nerd, and a member of Slashdot (aside of the few who try to post reasonable stuff, paid handsomely by the evil empire).
Finally I took the leap, and actually installed an original version (not OEM, neither pirated) on my box. My partner started a row with me, when after a few hours, I seemingly unmotivated exclaimed OMG! while she was in deep concentration. Done. Finished. Whatta crap! From now on I can honestly state 'been there, done it, useless'. Okay, not totally, it actually installs fast, boots significantly faster than W7. But that's the end already. Being a CS person, I could even navigate the two disparaging screens. And still, no need I would ever want to again. I don't miss a 'Start'-button (my KDE is configured to do totally without), I love screen edges (my interface is configured to let me do most stuff with edge events). The time - bang-bang - comes in like I was visually impaired, the address bar of IE looks likewise. The logon screen is okay, fresh and inviting. But the two non-unify-able interface constructions, with a bit of toggling switches left and right and a bit of traditional radio-boxes; no, OMG!
If it was free (of charge), I'd discourage using it, because 'there are better interfaces'. But someone paying actual money for a rabid mixture of unfinished substances ought to have her head examined.
It's been more than 10 years that some of us have tried very hard to give the/.-community a basic education in patent law. And yet, for the umpteenth time, confusion reigns above good sense. 1. It is an application [only / yet] 2. What matters legally are only the claims.
"A battery charging circuit, comprising: a first node arranged to receive wirelessly provided power; a short term charge storage device having a first charge capacity; and a long term storage device having a second charge capacity, wherein the second charge capacity is substantially greater than the first charge capacity, wherein the long term storage device is charged by, (A) storing charge corresponding to the power wirelessly received at the first node into the short term charge storage device, (B) when the stored charge is equal to about the first charge capacity, then passing the stored charge from the short term storage device to the long term storage device, and (C) repeating (A) and (B) until the charge stored in the long term storage device is about equal to the second charge capacity."
Now, is that on wireless charging, or on the concept of having two storage devices, a short-term and a long-term one, where the energy travels subsequently form the short-term recipient to the long-term recipient of a much larger capacitance?? No, it is not inventive. Surely, someone had the idea before to charge a capacitor wirelessly, and then transfer the energy to a battery.
3. USPTO is not manned with brain-damaged people; but with people under a number of stress-factors. One being a so-called production pressure. You are terminated when you work too intense on an application. Second, case law. A patent examiner is not supposed to contravene relevant court decisions. Actually, in about all legal systems the idea is on a basic legal text, that is interpreted over time by the courts. And good legal practice is considering the written law in the light of the court decisions ('case law'). The whole mess at USPTO started not with legal frameworks, but with Diamond vs Diehr and the Supreme Court taking a horrible wrong decision. A decision that effectively took out the inventive step as criterion and left novelty as single gauge.
Come on, AC. Use your brain. Many of us wouldn't want to switch from MS to LinxMS. Yes, there is Exchange, I agree. But there is also a whole lotta crap that I'd hate to have a replacement for on my desktop in order to "switch easily". So what's your point of 'not good enough'? Not close enough to a set of partially crappy stuff? God beware!
Theoretically. Theoretically? I have lived in the tropics for the last 15 years, and that cost me half of my CDs. They were - I dunno - eaten up? In any case, there were tracks in the silver like some animal scurrying and eating through the layer. I can't be sure, and didn't try a microscope either. I only noticed the loss, ripped all of them and considered the originals as write-offs.
Need to correct you here, again. A one-time pad, used 'properly', does not prevent cracking per se. The one-time pad that is made up of non-totally-random symbols helps cracking. Because the translation of the plaintext character would be non-random; which in case of a non-equal distribution of letters in a language can help at the cryptanalysis. A real-world scenario was the weakness of SSH some years ago, when keys could be predicted from non-random processing.
One-time pad does not necessarily obstruct key reuse for longer messages. Like cyclic use of the one-time pad. One-time can as well imply 'once', in the sense of using this pad once, for one message, scribble it on silk and pass it to a messenger for easy hiding and digestion in the case of being caught; with another message using another one-time pad, and so forth. Like the transaction numbers for online banking. [I know that they are not used as keys, but for the sake of explanation of the term 'one-time'.]
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting question, though as far as I understand that's not what the project was about. To my understanding, the positions and movements are continuously calculated off-site and then, irrespective of the flying objects, any flying object steered, maneuvered and hoovered about to attain the calculated position and flight path. And then maintain constantly what is fed into the Xcopter to balance the rod (pendulum).
I guess that the quadrocopters were just the easiest and fastest to be maneuvered around, like tilted into any direction without any secondary motion control.
Serious. Logic kind of dictates this to have happened.
It does not mean that doctors are worse than the system; on the contrary: doctors are those fantastic deliverers of input to this expert system.
Of course, a medical system that has all sorts of medical information, treatments, medicines, and potentially millions of case histories provided by human doctors will evaluate chances, correlations and success probabilities much much faster and much better than the family GP. So what's new in here? Maybe that the computer systems are now available to actually do these calculations.
Uh, no, it doesn't grant what the summary said, and the fact that you ignored half of the limitations in the claims makes me wonder if those people in be examination corps were ever actually your colleagues.
Your assumption could be correct. If only the terminology was correct. What "claims'? You might want to go to bed tonight having learned that dependent claims do not form any limitations whatsoever. The first independent claim, one, does not contain any limitation beyond the implementation in software and the update of the transaction list quite close to the moment of execution. Over.
Dependent claims describe specific embodiments in conjunction and in the light of the independent claim(s) only.
We were used to plentiful of uninformed /. 'news' over the last decade on patents and stuff; when 'filing' and 'granted' was considered the same, effectively, and lots of nonsense, like the contents of the abstract being considered as the underlying idea, or even as the legally binded grant, and much more.
In a nutshell, I expected the same, yet again, and was almost reluctant to even go into the details and actually read the document.
OMG!
It is a patent
It does grant what the summary said
Incredible.!!
There is a comment from AC further up ("Bad summary of patent") stating correctly that it does contain a last minute change as necessity for potential infringement. True. But I can't believe that there is no anticipating document before 2009, where a recurring delivery system of any sorts had a 'last check' of possible modifications by the customer before the actual delivery.
Much too often, I had to come to the defense of my former colleagues in patent examination. In this case, however, I need to agree when someone questioned if there are signs of life left in the office.
Actually, I doubt it.
... should be the next monkey sent to space by the Iranian Space Programm.
I totally agree, and I am one of them.
We have given up and have passed the baton to the bean-counters of all sorts and all worlds. In a nutshell, we have allowed ourselves to be prostituted in scales of rankings and economies. We have given up all ethic authority for breadcrumbs at funding, evaluation and throughput.
Totally OT.
How does one manage to have a super-low ID (2919) with a super-new device identifier (Nexus7)??
May, I, please, become a Galaxy-S-3 with an ID of, e.g. 1918? Pleeeeze!
Make it serious square. From what we have been told until here, at least. ..." is mistaken. If a plane can experience its batteries overheating beyond the temperature that incenses wild fire, without shutting the batteries off beforehand (no temperature control??), and when almost not in service (passengers and crew disembarked), it not airworthy at all.
First factor, fire is the last thing you want on a plane. Over.
Second factor, fire without clear-cut reason is what you don't want.
The commentator who seemingly played the matter down "The only person on board
In this sense webmistressrachel's comment is uncalled for. Losing a wing or pressure due to a collision is in a sense 'more normal'. Because the reason is clear-cut. But a fire out of the blue is simply a 'must not, ever'.
Very good. AC and (currently) 5 insightful points.
Actually, had I mod points I might have modded you 'flamebait', eventually even 'funny', because the answer is in principle known. Your question looks like a conjecture. The reality is rather a mix of a potentially fatal cocktail of sociological issues ('keeping up with the Joneses' - the coolness of gadgetry plus group pressure) and a good doses of capitalism; the latter reinforced since the demise of the self-declared 'communist' countries.
I don't give you my last mod point, because then I can not post, sorry.
Totally understood. Academia has gone totally bonkers since the pea counters took over. I have been in academia (with many interruptions) since 1980. And what used to be a science-oriented employment basically decided on by the requirements of science, has become a business organisation with decision-making essentially done on economic principles.
At my age I can surely say that we have experienced a total rear entry into capitalism. And from my experience I can surely deduce the lack of serious progress in the light of a betterment for mankind. Science - or what is called so - has become a fast-lane; a boiler-like heating up of tiny, partially scientific non-results, for immediate harvesting opportunities in almost exclusively business-oriented areas.
My boss, a full-tenured professor, works any minute he does not sleep. Per hour, his salary is probably in the range of that of a janitor. Which would not matter to me, if I were in his position, if only the work was academic work. But it isn't. I bet that 90 percent of his work is menial work, administrative work, sitting in committees, haggling over money.
This applies similarly to most universities world-wide. The stress is on to be ranked among the top universities, and at the same time to generate a continuous flow of income to the university. And to cater for ever larger numbers of ever less prepared students.
Can someone with mod points minus 1 this shameless advertisement for some Youtube clip showing African Christmas music?
I would guess that our AC poster is none other than Aulnay Cap, the owner of that Youtube channel. A veritable AC!
Assumptions ... assumptions ... ... wrong assumptions. I am using Unity on a daily basis. First.
I have tried Gnome3, again, for an hour or so, yesterday. Second.
What was your line of reasoning again?
The world (and dog) seem to agree that Mark Shuttleworth screwed it up with his money-spinning exercise of searching Amazon instead of your own machine, when making an innocuous search.
Many of us started to hate Unity for that 'feature'.
And now someone comes along and offers an extension to the likewise hated Gnome3 that compounds its ugliness.
How is that newsworthy?
I'd give you +10 if I could. You are almost spot on: The system was actually created not for the return, but to protect the single, private inventor from the larger companies; so that (s)he was encouraged to invent. Look at the american system: The designee of a patent is still the inventor, while in Europe it is the company.
Though, over the years, the companies have found their own ways to turn around the system by actually preventing innovation on the outside.
And, while hoping not to confuse the general public: By far the largest number of patents are not filed to protect one's own invention, but in order to set up a barricade of obstacles for the competition to achieve the same or similar results with other means. Think about this, think hard. When multinational ABC found advantages for drive safety by preventing the blocking of wheels during braking, they did not stop at patenting that method, but filed patents all around that method, in order to prevent the competition to likewise prevent blocking of wheels by any other method. As a result, there were years and years when the safety device of anti-blocking was available only to the owners of that brand of cars. Thereby, safety and health of others were compromised since not all cars could have such systems.
And this is exactly what we see these days, again. The current law suits are not about how to create round corners (which could be patentable engineering solutions), but the existence of round corners on tablets.
Come on, that's simply apologetic. If the chinese companies didn't steal ideas and avoided patents, nobody would ever buy any of their products. And why didn't you write your last sentence about 'China being good' in English?
Me too. But perfect?? Search is long, if not lengthy. Does it provide the features that our Exchange server offers? Did it not slow down significantly with and after 3.0? Yes, here it still does. For some years now I have been getting used to sometimes waiting 10 seconds or more for a (e.g.) 7kB mail coming in. What's it doing there?
I for one would love a client that is as capable as Google online mail. It must be possible to be even better, since all data are local. Yes, I'm waiting impatiently for that client.
I really haven't used a desktop client for email in years. Where's the gain for the user?
The best I have experienced was Zimbra, but it really prefers to be run on a standalone machine and is pretty resource intensive.
Now let's start to think for a somewhat longer moment:
1. The gain is there. Not in carrying around GBs, but in a constant and consistent interface, without adcrap, without changes to the whims of the writer, and without the need to download totally everything evrytime; plus the opportunity to download IF someone so desires. No, these are not asked too much.
2. Zimbra is not Exchange, and is neither FREE.
3. Sorry, I forgot: which was the FOSS client to connect to all intricacies of Exchange?
Until recently, being a rather old /.-er, I have spun fun about and around W8. I know too well what it takes to be a nerd, and a member of Slashdot (aside of the few who try to post reasonable stuff, paid handsomely by the evil empire).
Finally I took the leap, and actually installed an original version (not OEM, neither pirated) on my box. My partner started a row with me, when after a few hours, I seemingly unmotivated exclaimed OMG! while she was in deep concentration. Done. Finished. Whatta crap!
From now on I can honestly state 'been there, done it, useless'. Okay, not totally, it actually installs fast, boots significantly faster than W7. But that's the end already. Being a CS person, I could even navigate the two disparaging screens. And still, no need I would ever want to again. I don't miss a 'Start'-button (my KDE is configured to do totally without), I love screen edges (my interface is configured to let me do most stuff with edge events). The time - bang-bang - comes in like I was visually impaired, the address bar of IE looks likewise. The logon screen is okay, fresh and inviting. But the two non-unify-able interface constructions, with a bit of toggling switches left and right and a bit of traditional radio-boxes; no, OMG!
If it was free (of charge), I'd discourage using it, because 'there are better interfaces'. But someone paying actual money for a rabid mixture of unfinished substances ought to have her head examined.
It's been more than 10 years that some of us have tried very hard to give the /.-community a basic education in patent law. And yet, for the umpteenth time, confusion reigns above good sense.
1. It is an application [only / yet]
2. What matters legally are only the claims.
"A battery charging circuit, comprising: a first node arranged to receive wirelessly provided power; a short term charge storage device having a first charge capacity; and a long term storage device having a second charge capacity, wherein the second charge capacity is substantially greater than the first charge capacity, wherein the long term storage device is charged by, (A) storing charge corresponding to the power wirelessly received at the first node into the short term charge storage device, (B) when the stored charge is equal to about the first charge capacity, then passing the stored charge from the short term storage device to the long term storage device, and (C) repeating (A) and (B) until the charge stored in the long term storage device is about equal to the second charge capacity."
Now, is that on wireless charging, or on the concept of having two storage devices, a short-term and a long-term one, where the energy travels subsequently form the short-term recipient to the long-term recipient of a much larger capacitance??
No, it is not inventive. Surely, someone had the idea before to charge a capacitor wirelessly, and then transfer the energy to a battery.
3. USPTO is not manned with brain-damaged people; but with people under a number of stress-factors. One being a so-called production pressure. You are terminated when you work too intense on an application. Second, case law. A patent examiner is not supposed to contravene relevant court decisions. Actually, in about all legal systems the idea is on a basic legal text, that is interpreted over time by the courts. And good legal practice is considering the written law in the light of the court decisions ('case law'). The whole mess at USPTO started not with legal frameworks, but with Diamond vs Diehr and the Supreme Court taking a horrible wrong decision. A decision that effectively took out the inventive step as criterion and left novelty as single gauge.
Come on, AC.
Use your brain.
Many of us wouldn't want to switch from MS to LinxMS.
Yes, there is Exchange, I agree. But there is also a whole lotta crap that I'd hate to have a replacement for on my desktop in order to "switch easily".
So what's your point of 'not good enough'? Not close enough to a set of partially crappy stuff? God beware!
Theoretically. Theoretically?
I have lived in the tropics for the last 15 years, and that cost me half of my CDs. They were - I dunno - eaten up? In any case, there were tracks in the silver like some animal scurrying and eating through the layer. I can't be sure, and didn't try a microscope either. I only noticed the loss, ripped all of them and considered the originals as write-offs.
Good argument, wrong reason.
Zero-Days is not exactly what AV is able to defeat easily.
Need to correct you here, again. A one-time pad, used 'properly', does not prevent cracking per se.
The one-time pad that is made up of non-totally-random symbols helps cracking. Because the translation of the plaintext character would be non-random; which in case of a non-equal distribution of letters in a language can help at the cryptanalysis.
A real-world scenario was the weakness of SSH some years ago, when keys could be predicted from non-random processing.
[How is this worth mod points?]
Two different messages can never be encrypted with a one-time pad.
One-time pad does not necessarily obstruct key reuse for longer messages. Like cyclic use of the one-time pad. One-time can as well imply 'once', in the sense of using this pad once, for one message, scribble it on silk and pass it to a messenger for easy hiding and digestion in the case of being caught; with another message using another one-time pad, and so forth. Like the transaction numbers for online banking. [I know that they are not used as keys, but for the sake of explanation of the term 'one-time'.]