The validation steps are obvious and many programs already do them, the database queries and state icons are obvious and many programs already do them.
The patent is only valid as a whole. The fact the other things did bits and pieces of what they're doing do not apply, as they did not perform the whole. Most inventions build on existing concepts and technology and add a new twist to it.
In other words, the mere act of allowing the user dealing with an email address as a UI element wouldn't violate this patent. You'd also have to do all of the other things listed in the claims.
Microsoft did not get a patent on treating an email address like an object.
They got a patent on allowing the user to manipulate an 'object' (not programming object, but UI element) based on the operations taken in the previous steps listed in the patent.
Even then it STILL manages to hold nearly even with the XBox, even with half the RAM and a slower CPU (though with a 128 bit bus that could have made up for it).
You're kidding right? Have you looked at an xbox and ps2 game side by side? There is a huge difference in the detail each machine is capable of rendering, and the ps2 does NOT come out on top...
I don't know why they specifically chose 360, but you'll notice that circles are a recurring theme. The "circle of light", the circle in the middle of the X, the circular platform they set it on, the circular stage at the E3 conference, the cameras spinning 360 degrees constantly during the preview promo spot, how they keep referring to how all encompasing/immersive the experience will be...etc.
Parallelizable, yes, but not in a way that suits a vector unit well. With that said, I'll freely admit that my experience in this area is somewhat limited and I could be wrong.
When you select a worksheet, you aren't changing the document you work in (all of the worksheets are saved in the same document), so it isn't a document "tab" in the sense being discussed here.
There are cars with no key-holes (some have a keypad instead). Failure of the power door lock mechanism WILL lock you out of your car (unless you have the windows rolled down).
You've obviously never tried to turn the wheel on a modern car without power steering. Not impossible, but the act of parking your car will exhaust you for most vehicles.
Your brakes typically have a cable operated backup, but if the master cylider fails your pedal will be useless.
Reminds me of my high school days; back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the computer labs at my school were filled with Mac+ machines. These machines were so infested with computer viruses that the HD was chugging constantly; I could type faster than the word processor could display text on the screen. I would literally finish a paragraph and have to wait 30 seconds for the computer to catch up.
I used to carry around a floppy with a virus checker on it; if I finished my assignment early I'd try to clean the machine... (it was a hopeless battle; anyone and everyone that used an infected machine and saved their document to disk would re-infect whatever machine they sat down at).
When I see schools without the funding allowing teachers to make copies of their assignments to give to the students, Pepsi and Coke machines selling unhealthy junk to rake in the income necessary to buy the bleach for photography class and teacher bake sales to make sure there is enough for dry-erase markers and chalk, I think linux should be introduced.
Schools with budgets as tight as you describe here either: a) don't have computer labs b) are using computers from the 80's c) paid $0 for the equipment (ie: it was donated)
It's sad that people like yourself are in a position to counsel schools regarding their software choices. Start thinking for all of our sakes. Maybe you should realize that it might just be your duty to promote OSS and make a difference in the way our education system is run.
His duty is to the students at the school, not to OSS. Get some perspective.
Hate to admit to it in the face of your belittlement of it, but I loved that part. I didn't exactly catch on to why it was hitting them, until Zaphod spoke about having an idea, then I laughed. Loved it's inpromptu return as well.
I think it was one of the funniest parts of the movie. Which speaks poorly of how funny the movie really was.
Quite honestly, if they had kept the guide bits like they were, there would have been more trouble. If it came down to a choice between Disney keeping foaming at the mouth fundies at bay and keeping foaming at the mouth fanboys at bay, they quite obviously chose fundies, and quite honestly in the age we live in today, I don't blame them, as much as it saddens me to say it.
I don't fault them for doing so -- I completely understand it. It just bugs me.:p The guide bits were still among the funnier parts of the movie even after they were cut to pieces, primarily because the original text was left mostly intact.
You must have been watching a different movie than the one I saw, because the stuff they replaced it with was very much not funny -- unless you're a two year old and like to see people get hit in the face with a giant mutant fly swatter, which was argueably the most amusing moment in the film (which isn't saying much) outside of the guide bits that they made politically correct.
There are (at minimum) 8 possible variables involved here. You account for one of them. Your logical inference follows the following sequence: "mmm, different... microsoft involved... microsoft bad... difference bad".
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant nutjob, but don't get all pissy when someone calls you on it.
So, nine years to become profitable sounds good to you? And how many more beyond that will it take just make back what they've already lost over the last ~5 years? (R&D began well before launch remember...) What makes you think that growth rate from one quarter's results will hold over 4 years? Is growth always positive, and if so, where's my Microsoft Bob?
Where did I say it sounded good? Stop jerking your knee all of the place. It's annoying.
I can't guarantee you that their growth will remain constant, no more than you can tell me that it will get worse. Based on the performance trend of that division, it will probably perform better -- not worse. Based on what they've disclosed of their plans in that market, I personally see them improving their performance. It is a judgement call; you are free to disagree if you like, but your judgement call is no better than mine.
Interesting that you assume a) they will have no R&D after they launch (what, no xbox 3?) and b) the xbox2 launch will be immediately good for the bottom line (xbox1 launched losing an estimated $120-150 per unit sold, we have no idea about pricing for xbox2 yet, but you would hope they learned their lesson the first time around - luckily since they print their own money, they were easily able to shake off the losses unlike Sega)
R&D costs are variable, and tend to increase the closer you get to a product launch. After the product launches there is a transition period where R&D costs fall off and the R&D team transitions support to (or replace) the ops team. R&D costs will start rising again after a stratedgy for the next generation is formed.
One of the factors they are supposedly focusing on with the 2nd generation unit is the per-unit cost of the hardware, which should aide in the Home & Entertainment unit's profitability over time. Only time will tell if they produce on that goal. Given what information has been made available so far, it would seem likely.
To you, billions lost over a few years seems like big money. To any company in this market, it is a years income. You almost always start off losing money entering a market dominated by other companies. If Sony had burnt (for example) 4B on developing their games division, they've made over two times that amount back by now (see below).
The PS1 was launched in Sony's FY94. Sony reported revenue for the playstation in the 20-F SEC filings under their electronics division until 1998 (and their '98 filing only lists operating income for the games division until '96), so it is not possible to determine what their operating income during the first few years of the unit; in other words, I can't tell you what the initial "entrance fee" for Sony was. I'm forced to assume that the numbers were largely negative, otherwise I would imagine Sony would have made an effort to call them out somewhere.
If that assumption is valid, you'll note that there was a tipping point -- once the PS1 caught on it took off. 2 years later Sony was dominating the market.
Also, note the operating income for FY01. This was when Sony launched the PS2; even with their dominant position on the market they still lost half a billion dollars. You may also noticed reduced operating income for FY00 due to increased R&D costs.
Compare/constrast that information with Microsoft's figures.
Microsoft Home & Entertainment division operating income:
FY02 - ($1135m) FY03 - ($1191m) FY04 - ($1215m)
Q1 FY05 - ($142m) Q2 FY05 - $126m Q3 FY05 - ($164m) Q4 FY05 - ? at their
Those are quarterly figures, not a summation of revenue from 3Q 2004 to 3Q 2005. They're comparing last years 3rd quarter results with this year's 3rd quarter results.
If you examine the figures, you'll note 12.3% revenue growth and a 20% reduction in operating losses. If you assume that their growth continues at that pace, the xbox division will be consistently profitable in roughly 4 years.
It will be interesting to see how those figures change after xbox2 launches; they've got to be dumping a fair amount of money into R&D for that unit...
This is a worm, not an exploit. It spreads itself by email or by sending a link to itself via IM. Users then click the link. The computer asks them what they want to do with the link.
It is a troll because no security vulnerability is being exploited. The user gets an IM with a link to a file. The user then clicks on the link. If the user is running XP SP2, they get an additional warning that the link is unsafe and are they sure they really want to run it? Then they run it. The "file" then runs and sends itself as a link to everyone else in the contact list.
The bit being described wasn't in the book. In their mission to cut everything out of the movie that made the books funny, they also added unfunny content that didn't exist in the book.
so i'm gonna wait until its on DVD, and i can watch it in the comfort of my own home, where i can choose to laugh or not laugh, or not, without having the collective crowd around me to 'prompt' me to laugh, or not laugh, in a big dark room..
Believe me, with this movie you won't be laughing. And the crowd won't let out much more than a chuckle.
Slashdot Mirror
The validation steps are obvious and many programs already do them, the database queries and state icons are obvious and many programs already do them.
The patent is only valid as a whole. The fact the other things did bits and pieces of what they're doing do not apply, as they did not perform the whole. Most inventions build on existing concepts and technology and add a new twist to it.
In other words, the mere act of allowing the user dealing with an email address as a UI element wouldn't violate this patent. You'd also have to do all of the other things listed in the claims.
Microsoft did not get a patent on treating an email address like an object.
They got a patent on allowing the user to manipulate an 'object' (not programming object, but UI element) based on the operations taken in the previous steps listed in the patent.
Even then it STILL manages to hold nearly even with the XBox, even with half the RAM and a slower CPU (though with a 128 bit bus that could have made up for it).
...
You're kidding right? Have you looked at an xbox and ps2 game side by side? There is a huge difference in the detail each machine is capable of rendering, and the ps2 does NOT come out on top
I don't know why they specifically chose 360, but you'll notice that circles are a recurring theme. The "circle of light", the circle in the middle of the X, the circular platform they set it on, the circular stage at the E3 conference, the cameras spinning 360 degrees constantly during the preview promo spot, how they keep referring to how all encompasing/immersive the experience will be...etc.
Two problems I can think of, though I'm stretching to remember the details from my college days...
1) the vectors you would use are not uniform
2) your output from a calculation *may* feed your input for the next one
Parallelizable, yes, but not in a way that suits a vector unit well. With that said, I'll freely admit that my experience in this area is somewhat limited and I could be wrong.
When you select a worksheet, you aren't changing the document you work in (all of the worksheets are saved in the same document), so it isn't a document "tab" in the sense being discussed here.
Good AI generally consists of a lot of logic (branching operations), and very little in the way of raw floating point calculations.
...and in a few years, every new tv sold will be an HDTV...
Yeah, and that approach worked REAL well for them last time, didn't it?
There are cars with no key-holes (some have a keypad instead). Failure of the power door lock mechanism WILL lock you out of your car (unless you have the windows rolled down).
You've obviously never tried to turn the wheel on a modern car without power steering. Not impossible, but the act of parking your car will exhaust you for most vehicles.
Your brakes typically have a cable operated backup, but if the master cylider fails your pedal will be useless.
...well, nobody would be stupid enough to try it again. :)
Reminds me of my high school days; back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the computer labs at my school were filled with Mac+ machines. These machines were so infested with computer viruses that the HD was chugging constantly; I could type faster than the word processor could display text on the screen. I would literally finish a paragraph and have to wait 30 seconds for the computer to catch up.
... (it was a hopeless battle; anyone and everyone that used an infected machine and saved their document to disk would re-infect whatever machine they sat down at).
I used to carry around a floppy with a virus checker on it; if I finished my assignment early I'd try to clean the machine
When I see schools without the funding allowing teachers to make copies of their assignments to give to the students, Pepsi and Coke machines selling unhealthy junk to rake in the income necessary to buy the bleach for photography class and teacher bake sales to make sure there is enough for dry-erase markers and chalk, I think linux should be introduced.
Schools with budgets as tight as you describe here either:
a) don't have computer labs
b) are using computers from the 80's
c) paid $0 for the equipment (ie: it was donated)
It's sad that people like yourself are in a position to counsel schools regarding their software choices. Start thinking for all of our sakes. Maybe you should realize that it might just be your duty to promote OSS and make a difference in the way our education system is run.
His duty is to the students at the school, not to OSS. Get some perspective.
Hate to admit to it in the face of your belittlement of it, but I loved that part. I didn't exactly catch on to why it was hitting them, until Zaphod spoke about having an idea, then I laughed. Loved it's inpromptu return as well.
:p The guide bits were still among the funnier parts of the movie even after they were cut to pieces, primarily because the original text was left mostly intact.
I think it was one of the funniest parts of the movie. Which speaks poorly of how funny the movie really was.
Quite honestly, if they had kept the guide bits like they were, there would have been more trouble. If it came down to a choice between Disney keeping foaming at the mouth fundies at bay and keeping foaming at the mouth fanboys at bay, they quite obviously chose fundies, and quite honestly in the age we live in today, I don't blame them, as much as it saddens me to say it.
I don't fault them for doing so -- I completely understand it. It just bugs me.
It is definately very similar in concept. I don't think I could pick one pattern that fully describes my design. But that's why it's fun. ;)
You must have been watching a different movie than the one I saw, because the stuff they replaced it with was very much not funny -- unless you're a two year old and like to see people get hit in the face with a giant mutant fly swatter, which was argueably the most amusing moment in the film (which isn't saying much) outside of the guide bits that they made politically correct.
There are (at minimum) 8 possible variables involved here. You account for one of them. Your logical inference follows the following sequence: "mmm, different ... microsoft involved ... microsoft bad ... difference bad".
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant nutjob, but don't get all pissy when someone calls you on it.
So, nine years to become profitable sounds good to you? And how many more beyond that will it take just make back what they've already lost over the last ~5 years? (R&D began well before launch remember...) What makes you think that growth rate from one quarter's results will hold over 4 years? Is growth always positive, and if so, where's my Microsoft Bob?
Where did I say it sounded good? Stop jerking your knee all of the place. It's annoying.
I can't guarantee you that their growth will remain constant, no more than you can tell me that it will get worse. Based on the performance trend of that division, it will probably perform better -- not worse. Based on what they've disclosed of their plans in that market, I personally see them improving their performance. It is a judgement call; you are free to disagree if you like, but your judgement call is no better than mine.
Interesting that you assume a) they will have no R&D after they launch (what, no xbox 3?) and b) the xbox2 launch will be immediately good for the bottom line (xbox1 launched losing an estimated $120-150 per unit sold, we have no idea about pricing for xbox2 yet, but you would hope they learned their lesson the first time around - luckily since they print their own money, they were easily able to shake off the losses unlike Sega)
R&D costs are variable, and tend to increase the closer you get to a product launch. After the product launches there is a transition period where R&D costs fall off and the R&D team transitions support to (or replace) the ops team. R&D costs will start rising again after a stratedgy for the next generation is formed.
One of the factors they are supposedly focusing on with the 2nd generation unit is the per-unit cost of the hardware, which should aide in the Home & Entertainment unit's profitability over time. Only time will tell if they produce on that goal. Given what information has been made available so far, it would seem likely.
To you, billions lost over a few years seems like big money. To any company in this market, it is a years income. You almost always start off losing money entering a market dominated by other companies. If Sony had burnt (for example) 4B on developing their games division, they've made over two times that amount back by now (see below).
Sony Games division operating income
FY04 - 68BY -> $649m
FY03 - 113BY -> $1079m
FY02 - 83BY -> $793m
FY01 - (51.1BY) -> ($488m)
FY00 - 76.9BY -> $734m
FY99 - 136BY -> $1300m
FY98 - 116BY -> $1108m
FY97 - 57BY -> $544m
FY96 - (8.9BY) -> ($85m)
FY95 - unkonwn
FY94 - unknown
These figures do not compensate for inflation.
The PS1 was launched in Sony's FY94. Sony reported revenue for the playstation in the 20-F SEC filings under their electronics division until 1998 (and their '98 filing only lists operating income for the games division until '96), so it is not possible to determine what their operating income during the first few years of the unit; in other words, I can't tell you what the initial "entrance fee" for Sony was. I'm forced to assume that the numbers were largely negative, otherwise I would imagine Sony would have made an effort to call them out somewhere.
If that assumption is valid, you'll note that there was a tipping point -- once the PS1 caught on it took off. 2 years later Sony was dominating the market.
Also, note the operating income for FY01. This was when Sony launched the PS2; even with their dominant position on the market they still lost half a billion dollars. You may also noticed reduced operating income for FY00 due to increased R&D costs.
Compare/constrast that information with Microsoft's figures.
Microsoft Home & Entertainment division operating income:
FY02 - ($1135m)
FY03 - ($1191m)
FY04 - ($1215m)
Q1 FY05 - ($142m)
Q2 FY05 - $126m
Q3 FY05 - ($164m)
Q4 FY05 - ? at their
Those are quarterly figures, not a summation of revenue from 3Q 2004 to 3Q 2005. They're comparing last years 3rd quarter results with this year's 3rd quarter results.
If you examine the figures, you'll note 12.3% revenue growth and a 20% reduction in operating losses. If you assume that their growth continues at that pace, the xbox division will be consistently profitable in roughly 4 years.
It will be interesting to see how those figures change after xbox2 launches; they've got to be dumping a fair amount of money into R&D for that unit...
This is a worm, not an exploit. It spreads itself by email or by sending a link to itself via IM. Users then click the link. The computer asks them what they want to do with the link.
None of your comments apply in this case.
It is a troll because no security vulnerability is being exploited. The user gets an IM with a link to a file. The user then clicks on the link. If the user is running XP SP2, they get an additional warning that the link is unsafe and are they sure they really want to run it? Then they run it. The "file" then runs and sends itself as a link to everyone else in the contact list.
The bit being described wasn't in the book. In their mission to cut everything out of the movie that made the books funny, they also added unfunny content that didn't exist in the book.
Exactly. :(
Too true. Your post made me laugh more than the entire movie did. :)
so i'm gonna wait until its on DVD, and i can watch it in the comfort of my own home, where i can choose to laugh or not laugh, or not, without having the collective crowd around me to 'prompt' me to laugh, or not laugh, in a big dark room ..
Believe me, with this movie you won't be laughing. And the crowd won't let out much more than a chuckle.