Sharks and dolphins compete for food and a lone dolphin is potential prey for a hungry member of one of the larger shark species.
Ditto with dogs and cats - in the wild they compete for food and are potential prey for each other. Sure the domesticated variety often live happily together... as long as there's plenty of food and living space.
We all want to own a slave. We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it. Every time. With no back talk.
On Windows, yes. That's one of the things that bugs people moving from Windows to the Mac, in fact. The "maximize" button on a Mac window does not maximize to fill the whole screen.
IE does the fill the screen thing, and a lot of websites are (very annoyingly) designed assuming a window that fills a particular size screen. Photoshop doesn't though - Photoshop windows are specifically sized to fit the image and do not normally maximize to fill the whole screen. Office has lots of options for zooming documents, etc. including a feature (on by default no?) to fit the document to the width of the window, which only makes sense if you expect windows to be different widths.
If you watch the workflow of most professional computer users who are doing something other than using a web browser, you will find that they frequently use different windows from different apps (or different windows from the same app) at the same time, whether it's a coder with a text editor and a few terminals open, or a secretary going back and forth between multiple documents. Multiple monitors, which are more popular now than ever before, are overwhelmingly used to display more than one window at once.
Well, and that little problem of actually interfacing directly with the brain, input and output, reliably and safely. Have you noticed how the examples you cited are (a) very limited and (b) only used to try to restore some semblance of normal function? That's because they're too dangerous to use in normal people (hey, if you screw up a blind guy's retina while you're putting in an implant, who cares?).
There are a LOT of technical problems to overcome before you're even at the point where DRM et al is even a potential concern.
That's great if all you do is use your computer as a fancy telephone.
Look at anyone who uses a computer professionally, whether it's a secretary, coder, CEO or whatever. They've got a desktop or notebook. Sure, if we invent a super battery maybe my notebook will morph into a piece that's like a phone, a wireless keyboard and some big screens, but it's not going to morph into a watch, in isolation. Screens are getting bigger, not smaller.
Why would you want to wear your data uplink on your wrist? I keep mine in my pocket. It's called a smart phone. That way it's less likely to get broken, doesn't advertise itself as something worth stealing, and I don't have a big clunky thing on my wrist.
A watch computer is a non-solution looking for a problem. The form factor just isn't useful for much other than telling the time.
The article author seems to think that the iPhone interface is going to take over everything. That the app-that-takes-over-the-whole-screen paradigm is the universal solution to all computing.
We did that, twenty years ago. As soon as we developed computers powerful enough to multitask, we did. And I don't mean playing music in the background, but running multiple programs at once and interacting with them. For a small screen mobile device the one app at a time paradigm is pretty much mandatory. For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.
Exactly. The people who might buy a scaled up iPhone tablet are people who have an iPhone. Oops. No market.
Apple might be able to sell a $200-$300 e-book reader. They won't be able to sell a $1000 iPhone++. If they're actually aiming for the $500+ price point, which seems likely, they're going to have to come up with something that can substitute for a notebook in many circumstances.
VTOL aircraft have to be overpowered to pull off the takeoff and landing, but with a top speed of 250 km/h (ground speed, presumably) and those little wings I wouldn't count on getting to 9000 metres, never mind higher.
Only Apple is gaining? A lot of people use WebKit. you're probably a Google fan? Maybe Palm? You've heard of Android, Chrome and the Pre, right? Perhaps you use KDE and Konquerer?
You've obviously got an axe to grind. The iPhone isn't particularly open, but you might have noticed that's only one of Apple's products. Saying they're the only ones to have gained from their open source contributions is just stupid.
Do you not think there might be some possibility they might gain from releasing this code?
PS: I'm an Iphone developer so I have no problem installing whatever I want on my iPhone without jailbreaking it. There is some open source software in the app store as well, that anyone can install.
"Please, start actually thinking about what patents are instead of treating them as some sort of religion."
Uh, yeah, that's what my post asked. Is there any actual reason why we should treat software and hardware differently in terms of patentability?
Of course the patent system has issues, but I disagree that the issue is "don't allow software patents." The problems are that frivolous patents are granted, due to a broken review system. Software patents may be frivolous or may not be. Hardware patents may be frivolous or may not be. Business method patents may always be frivolous. I can see several arguments for why things like business models should not be patentable. Actually thinking about it I can't see any reason why software algorithms should not be patentable while hardware algorithms (machines, chemical processes) are. If someone can come up with an actual cogent argument for why that distinction should exist, I would be very interested. I've never seen such an argument.
Perhaps if you and the poster I replied to would actually think a little you could come up with some actual arguments that reasonable people would listen to, instead of irrelevant straw man arguments, name calling and repeatedly emphasizing irrelevant sound bites.
Adjust the brightness of your screen. It doesn't matter whether the light is emitted by your LCD or reflected by your e-ink, so long as it is done so in a reasonable ratio to the intensity of the ambient light. Light is light.
Reflected light automatically adjusts itself to the ambient. An LCD screen can do this as well, but requires a sensor. Failing that, you can use the backlight control, often labelled as "brightness" to adjust it manually.
They did a pretty good job of it. I have a friend back home (north of the 55th parallel) who wanted an iPhone but couldn't get one because Rogers didn't have service out where she lives (you drive an hour on the two lane primary highway from the nearest major city, population 30k, then turn onto the secondary highway and drive for fifteen minutes, then turn onto the gravel....). She's now got a Telus iPhone and has service, no problem.
If she's got Telus/Bell GSM then they've probably rolled it out pretty much everywhere they serve.
A machine, or a chip, is just a physical manifestation of math. Can you come up with good justifications for your assertions? Why should a machine be patentable and an software algorithm not be? Why should a chemical process (an algorithm for manipulating chemicals, such as refining aluminum) be patentable and a method for manipulating information not be?
Damn kids with their white space. Back in the good old days we did things right - the code was the art. A little bit manipulation here, some inline assembler there.... It didn't matter one bit how you arranged it on the screen, it was still beautiful.
"We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are"
Careful with generalizations. MapReduce is not such a bad thing to patent, provided of course that you actually invented it. The problem here seems not to be that the patent is frivolous but rather that Google didn't even come close to inventing the thing they've patented.
Ah yes, I was going to mention the MBP. I usually forget that mine adjusts automatically, but it usually manages to be comfortable to look at outside during the day or in dark rooms with no windows. One of the best features.
When you're the guy with the fastest car and the reputation as the best driver, there is always a line of young punks waiting to make their name by knocking you off in a street race. I believe a documentary was made about the phenomenon, called "The Fast and the Furious," except that they mixed in some cops too.
I don't think nytimes.com can demand nearly as much advertising revenue as the actual newspaper. How much did Firefox pay for their full page ad? A banner ad on the website would likely be much cheaper.
CBS, NBC and ABC are television broadcasters. I don't know the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if their web presence is subsidized by their broadcasting business. Would any of those websites be viable without the ad revenue from the actual TV stations? Again, I think a TV commercial pulls in a lot more revenue than an equivalent web ad.
It doesn't matter if Google is a news "provider" or not. We're talking about news gatherers - the people who go and get the information then organize it into a story, none of which Google does. Yes, it's easy to look at columnists and say they should just set up a blog, but the important bits of journalism, the actual news, often requires quite a bit of capital backing and frequently the influence of a large, respected organization.
Once solution is certainly just to not have newspapers anymore and get all our news from TV, but you can't blame the newspapers for trying to save themselves.
I think everything will be wonderful when advertising matures. There will be very little of it, it will be unobtrusive, and aimed at letting you know a product exists. Everything that is "ad supported" at the moment will charge reasonable fees and all products and services will be cheaper because they don't have to spend insane amounts on advertising.
Of course, some big markets, and possibly some big economies, are going to have to realize they're based on lies and empty promises before that happens.
Note that Google doesn't actually produce news, they aggregate it. Google does not employ any reporters. It's easy to make something into a viable business model when you get your product for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Got a reference for that?
Sharks and dolphins compete for food and a lone dolphin is potential prey for a hungry member of one of the larger shark species.
Ditto with dogs and cats - in the wild they compete for food and are potential prey for each other. Sure the domesticated variety often live happily together... as long as there's plenty of food and living space.
We all want to own a slave. We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it. Every time. With no back talk.
On Windows, yes. That's one of the things that bugs people moving from Windows to the Mac, in fact. The "maximize" button on a Mac window does not maximize to fill the whole screen.
IE does the fill the screen thing, and a lot of websites are (very annoyingly) designed assuming a window that fills a particular size screen. Photoshop doesn't though - Photoshop windows are specifically sized to fit the image and do not normally maximize to fill the whole screen. Office has lots of options for zooming documents, etc. including a feature (on by default no?) to fit the document to the width of the window, which only makes sense if you expect windows to be different widths.
If you watch the workflow of most professional computer users who are doing something other than using a web browser, you will find that they frequently use different windows from different apps (or different windows from the same app) at the same time, whether it's a coder with a text editor and a few terminals open, or a secretary going back and forth between multiple documents. Multiple monitors, which are more popular now than ever before, are overwhelmingly used to display more than one window at once.
"The real problem is Copyright Law and DRM."
Well, and that little problem of actually interfacing directly with the brain, input and output, reliably and safely. Have you noticed how the examples you cited are (a) very limited and (b) only used to try to restore some semblance of normal function? That's because they're too dangerous to use in normal people (hey, if you screw up a blind guy's retina while you're putting in an implant, who cares?).
There are a LOT of technical problems to overcome before you're even at the point where DRM et al is even a potential concern.
That's great if all you do is use your computer as a fancy telephone.
Look at anyone who uses a computer professionally, whether it's a secretary, coder, CEO or whatever. They've got a desktop or notebook. Sure, if we invent a super battery maybe my notebook will morph into a piece that's like a phone, a wireless keyboard and some big screens, but it's not going to morph into a watch, in isolation. Screens are getting bigger, not smaller.
Why would you want to wear your data uplink on your wrist? I keep mine in my pocket. It's called a smart phone. That way it's less likely to get broken, doesn't advertise itself as something worth stealing, and I don't have a big clunky thing on my wrist.
A watch computer is a non-solution looking for a problem. The form factor just isn't useful for much other than telling the time.
The article author seems to think that the iPhone interface is going to take over everything. That the app-that-takes-over-the-whole-screen paradigm is the universal solution to all computing.
We did that, twenty years ago. As soon as we developed computers powerful enough to multitask, we did. And I don't mean playing music in the background, but running multiple programs at once and interacting with them. For a small screen mobile device the one app at a time paradigm is pretty much mandatory. For larger screens, you want to see multiple things at a time.
Exactly. The people who might buy a scaled up iPhone tablet are people who have an iPhone. Oops. No market.
Apple might be able to sell a $200-$300 e-book reader. They won't be able to sell a $1000 iPhone++. If they're actually aiming for the $500+ price point, which seems likely, they're going to have to come up with something that can substitute for a notebook in many circumstances.
VTOL aircraft have to be overpowered to pull off the takeoff and landing, but with a top speed of 250 km/h (ground speed, presumably) and those little wings I wouldn't count on getting to 9000 metres, never mind higher.
Only Apple is gaining? A lot of people use WebKit. you're probably a Google fan? Maybe Palm? You've heard of Android, Chrome and the Pre, right? Perhaps you use KDE and Konquerer?
You've obviously got an axe to grind. The iPhone isn't particularly open, but you might have noticed that's only one of Apple's products. Saying they're the only ones to have gained from their open source contributions is just stupid.
Do you not think there might be some possibility they might gain from releasing this code?
PS: I'm an Iphone developer so I have no problem installing whatever I want on my iPhone without jailbreaking it. There is some open source software in the app store as well, that anyone can install.
"Please, start actually thinking about what patents are instead of treating them as some sort of religion."
Uh, yeah, that's what my post asked. Is there any actual reason why we should treat software and hardware differently in terms of patentability?
Of course the patent system has issues, but I disagree that the issue is "don't allow software patents." The problems are that frivolous patents are granted, due to a broken review system. Software patents may be frivolous or may not be. Hardware patents may be frivolous or may not be. Business method patents may always be frivolous. I can see several arguments for why things like business models should not be patentable. Actually thinking about it I can't see any reason why software algorithms should not be patentable while hardware algorithms (machines, chemical processes) are. If someone can come up with an actual cogent argument for why that distinction should exist, I would be very interested. I've never seen such an argument.
Perhaps if you and the poster I replied to would actually think a little you could come up with some actual arguments that reasonable people would listen to, instead of irrelevant straw man arguments, name calling and repeatedly emphasizing irrelevant sound bites.
He's also CEO of Apple, who never ever contribute any open source such as Darwin or WebKit.
Remember that Pixar bought Disney for minus a jillion dollars a while ago.
Adjust the brightness of your screen. It doesn't matter whether the light is emitted by your LCD or reflected by your e-ink, so long as it is done so in a reasonable ratio to the intensity of the ambient light. Light is light.
Reflected light automatically adjusts itself to the ambient. An LCD screen can do this as well, but requires a sensor. Failing that, you can use the backlight control, often labelled as "brightness" to adjust it manually.
They did a pretty good job of it. I have a friend back home (north of the 55th parallel) who wanted an iPhone but couldn't get one because Rogers didn't have service out where she lives (you drive an hour on the two lane primary highway from the nearest major city, population 30k, then turn onto the secondary highway and drive for fifteen minutes, then turn onto the gravel....). She's now got a Telus iPhone and has service, no problem.
If she's got Telus/Bell GSM then they've probably rolled it out pretty much everywhere they serve.
A machine, or a chip, is just a physical manifestation of math. Can you come up with good justifications for your assertions? Why should a machine be patentable and an software algorithm not be? Why should a chemical process (an algorithm for manipulating chemicals, such as refining aluminum) be patentable and a method for manipulating information not be?
Damn kids with their white space. Back in the good old days we did things right - the code was the art. A little bit manipulation here, some inline assembler there.... It didn't matter one bit how you arranged it on the screen, it was still beautiful.
"We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are"
Careful with generalizations. MapReduce is not such a bad thing to patent, provided of course that you actually invented it. The problem here seems not to be that the patent is frivolous but rather that Google didn't even come close to inventing the thing they've patented.
Ah yes, I was going to mention the MBP. I usually forget that mine adjusts automatically, but it usually manages to be comfortable to look at outside during the day or in dark rooms with no windows. One of the best features.
When you're the guy with the fastest car and the reputation as the best driver, there is always a line of young punks waiting to make their name by knocking you off in a street race. I believe a documentary was made about the phenomenon, called "The Fast and the Furious," except that they mixed in some cops too.
I don't think nytimes.com can demand nearly as much advertising revenue as the actual newspaper. How much did Firefox pay for their full page ad? A banner ad on the website would likely be much cheaper.
CBS, NBC and ABC are television broadcasters. I don't know the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if their web presence is subsidized by their broadcasting business. Would any of those websites be viable without the ad revenue from the actual TV stations? Again, I think a TV commercial pulls in a lot more revenue than an equivalent web ad.
It doesn't matter if Google is a news "provider" or not. We're talking about news gatherers - the people who go and get the information then organize it into a story, none of which Google does. Yes, it's easy to look at columnists and say they should just set up a blog, but the important bits of journalism, the actual news, often requires quite a bit of capital backing and frequently the influence of a large, respected organization.
Once solution is certainly just to not have newspapers anymore and get all our news from TV, but you can't blame the newspapers for trying to save themselves.
I think everything will be wonderful when advertising matures. There will be very little of it, it will be unobtrusive, and aimed at letting you know a product exists. Everything that is "ad supported" at the moment will charge reasonable fees and all products and services will be cheaper because they don't have to spend insane amounts on advertising.
Of course, some big markets, and possibly some big economies, are going to have to realize they're based on lies and empty promises before that happens.
Note that Google doesn't actually produce news, they aggregate it. Google does not employ any reporters. It's easy to make something into a viable business model when you get your product for free.
In capitalism isn't anything without a price a bad thing?