Sorry, I could not find anything like this in my SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings for the past seven years. I must have been thinking about something else. It may not have been a drag-and-drop system, either; it might have been a browsing/navigation system where related objects where arranged in close proximity to your current object, and moving to a related object would re-arrange the other objects to show the objects related to the new object.
After skimming through the patent, it seems the "smart" component of this is in bringing the possible drop targets within close proximity to the object being dragged. I vaguely remember reading about a system of that nature in one of my SIGGRAPH conference proceedings a few years back. I don't have time to look it up right now though, as I have to get to work. Maybe later tonight, unless someone else can find it first.
Every windowing system in existence? How could Yahoo! possibly implement a drag-and-drop interface without the support of a window system that has already implemented it (whether they use the window system's native drag-and-drop or not)?
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.46.0.0 0.0.255.255 log access-list 112 deny ip any 65.52.0.0 0.3.255.255 log access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.128.0 0.0.15.255 log access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.144.0 0.0.7.255 log access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.128.0 0.0.63.255 log access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.192.0 0.0.15.255 log access-list 112 permit ip any any
I don't know what the original report "proposing to close down file sharers' Internet connections" entailed, but that description sounds overly broad. Does it cover any file sharing whatsoever, any sharing specifically on P2P networks, or sharing files specifically identified as infringing copyrighted material?
The last time I used P2P (bittorrent), it was for downloading Fedora Core DVD's. If someone shut down my Internet connection for doing that, I would be *pissed*!
... unlike fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts, scientific laws and theories are mutable (they change whenever conflicting observations are made) and limited in scope (they are only really trustworthy within the scope of the measurements they are based on).
You think that doesn't apply to religion as well? You need to start looking outside of your own little religious faith, at the longer and larger world history. There is a huge difference between the religions of ancient Egypt and modern Muslim, between ancient Greek and Roman gods and today's Christianity. Those aren't simply refinements like science makes, but complete rewrites. Even if you look just at the Christian religions, the religious texts themselves have changed between the Hebrew Bible, the old Catholic canon of the synod of Carthage of 397, the "King James" version of 1611, and variousprotestantversions of modern times. The large number of Christian denominations (and even Muslim and a few Jewish denominations) shows that even "fundamentalist" interpretations can't always agree.
In science, on the other hand, laws and theories don't simply change; they are refined. And before any new theory is accepted, it has to be proven by experimental evidence which is accepted through peer review -- in other words, all scientists everywhere can verify and agree with it (with the proviso of course that it is subject to further refinement).
No, the RIAA is a coalition of record labels and distributors, not artists. (It stands for "Recording Industry Association of America".) They're the middlemen in the music industry, neither creators nor consumers.
Not quite. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Although the text of MPEP 2701 doesn't explicitly state it, the implication of section I is that the patent owner is expected to actively "make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import the claimed invention" (in the absence of any legal barriers precluding its creation), NOT to passively sit on the patent so that nobody can make the invention without paying them a fee or getting sued.
I think as part of patent reform that it should be made a requirement that the patent owner actively make his invention, and release the patent when he (or any potential buyer) is no longer able or willing to do so.
This patent is old, but not yet past the patent expiration date (that's 21 years, isn't it?), so it seems to pre-date any prior art I can think of. That seems to make it plausible.
But this patent was granted to Xerox, NOT "IP Innovation LLC". So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?
The content of this patent is given in a language that is so obtuse that I can't tell whether it's describing something that was obvious, or if it's describing a single large virtual desktop, or if it's talking about something completely different than the "workspaces" we're used to seeing today. And I really don't have the time this morning to try deciphering it.
I re-registered my phone numbers last month. Shortly after that I started getting 4-5 calls a week from some unknown number who never left a message. The do-not-call registry says that telemarketers have up to 30 days to remove your number from their phone lists. Sure enough, after 30 days had passed this unknown company stopped calling.
HOWEVER, my initial registration for the do-not-call registry was done in August 2003, and was supposed to be good for 5 full years -- in other words, this company had no right to pester me when I re-registered, because my previous registration was still in effect.
I should have saved their phone number from my caller ID box and registered a formal complaint. However by the time it occurred to me to do so, they had stopped calling.
On the subject of power savings, I tried enabling the on-demand frequency governor when I last upgraded my system. Turned out that enabling AMD's PowerNow feature in the BIOS, which enabled the on-demand governor to work, caused my VMware virtual machine to randomly hang and/or stop its clock. So I had to turn it off.
I'm willing to try some of the other power-saving suggestions, but only as long as they don't cause problems in any of the applications I use.
If Microsoft fixes the OOXML specification and it becomes a standard, then Microsoft Office won't even be compatible with Microsoft's own standard. Color me not surprised.
After looking over the design submissions at gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com, I like the idea of having the toolbox attached to the image window. That at least would make it easier to see when I accidentally press a key that changes the current tool.
However, I can also see the point of a previous poster about adding as little as possible to the image window so that you can get the maximum amount of image possible on the screen. So, why not make the toolbox dockable to and undockable from the image window, just like the dialogs can be docked to and undocked from the toolbox?
I can also see how using a tabbed multi-document window can reduce clutter and make it easy to switch between multiple images. But personally I prefer having images in separate windows, particularly when I want to copy and paste selections from one image to another. So why not allow the user the choice of being able to stack certain images together in a single tabbed window or split tabs off into separate windows? (Say, that's kind of like what Firefox does with tabs.)
The one idea I don't like is that of putting all of the separate image, toolbox, and dialog windows inside a single application window. All that accomplishes is reducing the screen real estate available to the child windows.
What about the value of putting previously copyrighted works in the public domain? That's the criteria we really need to get our hands on to convince the legislators to reduce copyright terms.
It takes the power of an entire sun -- something on the order of 10^26 to 10^32 watts -- for us to pick up a tiny pinprick of light, and that's only if our own sun doesn't get in the way. How likely do you think we'll be to pick up a signal sent on a few measly megawatts of power?
Stop calling it "intellectual property theft"? It's copyright violation. "Property theft" implies stealing someone's tangible goods (or ideas) and passing it off as your own, which is clearly not what's going on here. It's an unauthorized reproduction (and possibly public display or sale) of an artistic work.
This got me wondering how many bpp my own Viewsonic Pro series monitor can display. I was surprised to find that it wasn't listed in the product specifications -- neither as bits nor total number of colors.
A little further digging brought me to this article which gave some good insight about the differences. Some highlights:
Since consumers were demanding faster screens, something needed to be done to improve response times. To facilitate this, many manufacturers turned to reducing the number of levels each color pixel render. This reduction in the number of intensity levels allows the response times to drop but has the drawback of reducing the overall number of colors that can be rendered.
High-speed LCD monitors typically reduce the number of bits for each color to 6 instead of the standard 8.... This is far fewer than the true color display such that it would be noticeable to the human eye.
If no color depths is listed, it should be assumed that monitors of 12ms or faster will be 6-bit and the 20ms and slower panels are 8-bit.
This is very subjective to the actual user and what the computer is used for. The amount of color really matters to those that do professional work on graphics. For these people, the amount of color that is displayed on the screen is very important. The average consumer is not going to really need this level of color representation by their monitor. As a result, it probably doesn't matter. People using their displays for video games or watching video will likely not care about the number of colors rendered by the LCD but by the speed at which it can be displayed. As a result, it is best to determine your needs and base your purchase on those criteria.
I found the coloration on venturebeat.com's example very distracting as well. It actually slows down reading.
But the original page does not colorize the sample text. Personally I don't find it that much easier to read than the traditional block, but at least it's not less easy.
Funny, this was one of my big complaints about Mozilla on Linux several years ago. At the time I was overruled by the developers who proclaimed XBL widgets were the right way to go. I agree that CSS styles should be allowed to override the default widget look, but I still think the default look should be taken from the native OS, not MS Windows 3.1. Even at that, some of the widgets -- or at least parts of them -- still can't be fully styled by CSS in Firefox.
IMHO, the simple BASIC games of the past were better if you were an aspiring computer programmer, because it gave you a fun way to experiment with making the computer do what you want. (Assuming you were paying attention to those lines of code you copied from COMPUTE! or other magazines.)
The early commercial games for 8-bit computers and 2nd-generation video game consoles were good in their day, and had the advantage of creativity -- limited by CPU and memory capacity, but not by special-purpose hardware, there seemed to be much more variety in game genres. Today by comparison, game consoles provide accelerated 3-D graphics, so most games are 3-D FPV action or adventure games and focus on "realism". They provide much greater detail and depth, but it seems not as much variety. How many simple board games or 2-D puzzles can you find on a modern console? Of course the PC, being a general-purpose machine, still has a decent varienty of games. And the Wii's virtual console gives it the advantage of having both old-style and new-style games.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I could not find anything like this in my SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings for the past seven years. I must have been thinking about something else. It may not have been a drag-and-drop system, either; it might have been a browsing/navigation system where related objects where arranged in close proximity to your current object, and moving to a related object would re-arrange the other objects to show the objects related to the new object.
After skimming through the patent, it seems the "smart" component of this is in bringing the possible drop targets within close proximity to the object being dragged. I vaguely remember reading about a system of that nature in one of my SIGGRAPH conference proceedings a few years back. I don't have time to look it up right now though, as I have to get to work. Maybe later tonight, unless someone else can find it first.
Every windowing system in existence? How could Yahoo! possibly implement a drag-and-drop interface without the support of a window system that has already implemented it (whether they use the window system's native drag-and-drop or not)?
I already have one up above that:
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.46.0.0 0.0.255.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 65.52.0.0 0.3.255.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.128.0 0.0.15.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.144.0 0.0.7.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.128.0 0.0.63.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.192.0 0.0.15.255 log
access-list 112 permit ip any any
(for the truly paranoid)
I don't know what the original report "proposing to close down file sharers' Internet connections" entailed, but that description sounds overly broad. Does it cover any file sharing whatsoever, any sharing specifically on P2P networks, or sharing files specifically identified as infringing copyrighted material?
The last time I used P2P (bittorrent), it was for downloading Fedora Core DVD's. If someone shut down my Internet connection for doing that, I would be *pissed*!
You think that doesn't apply to religion as well? You need to start looking outside of your own little religious faith, at the longer and larger world history. There is a huge difference between the religions of ancient Egypt and modern Muslim, between ancient Greek and Roman gods and today's Christianity. Those aren't simply refinements like science makes, but complete rewrites. Even if you look just at the Christian religions, the religious texts themselves have changed between the Hebrew Bible, the old Catholic canon of the synod of Carthage of 397, the "King James" version of 1611, and various protestant versions of modern times. The large number of Christian denominations (and even Muslim and a few Jewish denominations) shows that even "fundamentalist" interpretations can't always agree.
In science, on the other hand, laws and theories don't simply change; they are refined. And before any new theory is accepted, it has to be proven by experimental evidence which is accepted through peer review -- in other words, all scientists everywhere can verify and agree with it (with the proviso of course that it is subject to further refinement).
No, the RIAA is a coalition of record labels and distributors, not artists. (It stands for "Recording Industry Association of America".) They're the middlemen in the music industry, neither creators nor consumers.
Not quite. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Try "replace and re-certify".
Politicians. Sheesh.
Although the text of MPEP 2701 doesn't explicitly state it, the implication of section I is that the patent owner is expected to actively "make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import the claimed invention" (in the absence of any legal barriers precluding its creation), NOT to passively sit on the patent so that nobody can make the invention without paying them a fee or getting sued.
I think as part of patent reform that it should be made a requirement that the patent owner actively make his invention, and release the patent when he (or any potential buyer) is no longer able or willing to do so.
This patent is old, but not yet past the patent expiration date (that's 21 years, isn't it?), so it seems to pre-date any prior art I can think of. That seems to make it plausible.
But this patent was granted to Xerox, NOT "IP Innovation LLC". So why the hell is this 3rd party suing over a patent it wasn't granted?
The content of this patent is given in a language that is so obtuse that I can't tell whether it's describing something that was obvious, or if it's describing a single large virtual desktop, or if it's talking about something completely different than the "workspaces" we're used to seeing today. And I really don't have the time this morning to try deciphering it.
I re-registered my phone numbers last month. Shortly after that I started getting 4-5 calls a week from some unknown number who never left a message. The do-not-call registry says that telemarketers have up to 30 days to remove your number from their phone lists. Sure enough, after 30 days had passed this unknown company stopped calling.
HOWEVER, my initial registration for the do-not-call registry was done in August 2003, and was supposed to be good for 5 full years -- in other words, this company had no right to pester me when I re-registered, because my previous registration was still in effect.
I should have saved their phone number from my caller ID box and registered a formal complaint. However by the time it occurred to me to do so, they had stopped calling.
On the subject of power savings, I tried enabling the on-demand frequency governor when I last upgraded my system. Turned out that enabling AMD's PowerNow feature in the BIOS, which enabled the on-demand governor to work, caused my VMware virtual machine to randomly hang and/or stop its clock. So I had to turn it off.
I'm willing to try some of the other power-saving suggestions, but only as long as they don't cause problems in any of the applications I use.
If Microsoft fixes the OOXML specification and it becomes a standard, then Microsoft Office won't even be compatible with Microsoft's own standard. Color me not surprised.
After looking over the design submissions at gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com, I like the idea of having the toolbox attached to the image window. That at least would make it easier to see when I accidentally press a key that changes the current tool.
However, I can also see the point of a previous poster about adding as little as possible to the image window so that you can get the maximum amount of image possible on the screen. So, why not make the toolbox dockable to and undockable from the image window, just like the dialogs can be docked to and undocked from the toolbox?
I can also see how using a tabbed multi-document window can reduce clutter and make it easy to switch between multiple images. But personally I prefer having images in separate windows, particularly when I want to copy and paste selections from one image to another. So why not allow the user the choice of being able to stack certain images together in a single tabbed window or split tabs off into separate windows? (Say, that's kind of like what Firefox does with tabs.)
The one idea I don't like is that of putting all of the separate image, toolbox, and dialog windows inside a single application window. All that accomplishes is reducing the screen real estate available to the child windows.
What about the value of putting previously copyrighted works in the public domain? That's the criteria we really need to get our hands on to convince the legislators to reduce copyright terms.
for basic features like Resize & Rotate (especially rotate), and dual-headed display on monitors with different resolutions.
What's so hard about providing the same features in their Linux driver that they have in their Windows driver?
It takes the power of an entire sun -- something on the order of 10^26 to 10^32 watts -- for us to pick up a tiny pinprick of light, and that's only if our own sun doesn't get in the way. How likely do you think we'll be to pick up a signal sent on a few measly megawatts of power?
Stop calling it "intellectual property theft"? It's copyright violation. "Property theft" implies stealing someone's tangible goods (or ideas) and passing it off as your own, which is clearly not what's going on here. It's an unauthorized reproduction (and possibly public display or sale) of an artistic work.
This got me wondering how many bpp my own Viewsonic Pro series monitor can display. I was surprised to find that it wasn't listed in the product specifications -- neither as bits nor total number of colors.
A little further digging brought me to this article which gave some good insight about the differences. Some highlights:
I found the coloration on venturebeat.com's example very distracting as well. It actually slows down reading.
But the original page does not colorize the sample text. Personally I don't find it that much easier to read than the traditional block, but at least it's not less easy.
Funny, this was one of my big complaints about Mozilla on Linux several years ago. At the time I was overruled by the developers who proclaimed XBL widgets were the right way to go. I agree that CSS styles should be allowed to override the default widget look, but I still think the default look should be taken from the native OS, not MS Windows 3.1. Even at that, some of the widgets -- or at least parts of them -- still can't be fully styled by CSS in Firefox.
IMHO, the simple BASIC games of the past were better if you were an aspiring computer programmer, because it gave you a fun way to experiment with making the computer do what you want. (Assuming you were paying attention to those lines of code you copied from COMPUTE! or other magazines.)
The early commercial games for 8-bit computers and 2nd-generation video game consoles were good in their day, and had the advantage of creativity -- limited by CPU and memory capacity, but not by special-purpose hardware, there seemed to be much more variety in game genres. Today by comparison, game consoles provide accelerated 3-D graphics, so most games are 3-D FPV action or adventure games and focus on "realism". They provide much greater detail and depth, but it seems not as much variety. How many simple board games or 2-D puzzles can you find on a modern console? Of course the PC, being a general-purpose machine, still has a decent varienty of games. And the Wii's virtual console gives it the advantage of having both old-style and new-style games.
... for employers: Always run background checks before offering the person a job!