The problem with your reference to original intent is that when copyright was first developed paper and printing were expensive and so any copying was expensive. Now, copying is cheap and easy. You couldn't [easily] non-commercially rip off a copyright work in the past as commercial printing equipment was required. This all changed with photocopying I guess.
As far as music goes... I don't know whether there was an original intent to protect music. But then music was always performed directly and not indirectly through technology. Then some stingy miser who didn't want to have to rent an orchestra to listen to tun3z went and invented wax drums.
Copyright is broken. Just like patents are. Both _were_ started with the intent of proper compensation for the creator of the work. If we could go back to that...
I agree, some very rich people need to look to the greater good and not adding another million to their bank accounts.
PS: must check dates as to when printing press (steam version early 1800s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press) and Queen Anne (earl 1700s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne) were around;0)>
And once you have the number (at least in the UK) you can ask the Patent Office (the "Comptroller") to say whether the patent is valid or not. So if it's trivially anticipated you may be able to sort it out without making a court appearance.
I think there is a similar routine in the USPTO, basically recognition of the fact that bad patents slip through.
The parents are going to hate you when they come in one day and find the family computer taken apart on the living room floor so they can show their friend all the special modules.
Mind you I did that kind of thing as a kid and most of it worked afterwards.
Never should have opened up that Acorn Electron with the power on though!
I'm using the latest release of Scribus (1.2) and whilst I'm not entirely happy with it (I can only get a print out by porting PNG's to windows, but I think that's epsons fault!) I can tell you it has tracking facilities.
I'm pretty new to all this but kerning is where the individual letter displacement can be adjusted, tracking is where lines of text can be spread (like justification in a wordprocessor) to an arbitrary length (eg to match the width of a graphic).
<serious> Scribus has this, if this isn't tracking please tell me what is? </serious>
I don't really know MSWord that well as my last employer used WordPerfect...
Are floating tables like a table inside a frame? Sections, what the fubar are those? But wrt word-count, what's wrong with the one under File>Properties:Statistics ?
What do you use floating tables and sections for, how do they convey information that can't be conveyed by OOo? Remember this is a word processor.
This all sounds a bit zealous, but I'm just curious - I often recommend OOo and it would be good to say "oh but it can't do... if that matters to you".
scientific postmodernity... is that self-contradictory?
It is "absolutely right" in the sense of getting the correct result... just like (11+2) mod 10=3 might be derived by noting that 11 is 3 in base 2. It's completely wrong, but it works in this scenario.
I suppose if you only care about what works and not what the truth is that's fine.
FWIW I'm a graduate in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics and also studied Philosophy of Science (to a basic level) at Uni... but call me a troll if you like. Hey call me anything it's late and I can't hear you!!
A theory is just a 'guess'. A very educated guess that has yet to be proved wrong. For it to be scientific I believe it must be provably falsifiable.
This kind of stems from my general belief that current theories work well and are mutually consistent (in the standard models and moreso) but are not necessarily "the truth".
[climbs on hobby-horse]
Consider the oft-repeated tale of people in the middle-ages believing that Jerusalem is the centre of the Universe. [Apart from that being a bit of a historical urban myth based on our assumptions having seen maps with Jerusalem at the centre! - prove me wrong reference a work that states "we believe jerusalem to be the physical centre of the universe"... oops, moving on]. Why not? It's a reasonable theory, is it falsifiable, I guess it is. But, you say, the Earth moves round the Sun and so the Earth can't be the centre of anything... here's where Occam comes in and falls on his face. Yeah, the maths is hard if you consider the Earth to be static, but just because the maths is more beautiful in one formation does that make it more true??
[/off hobby horse]
Anyway Bob, the theories have been tested. Great. They are sound. But are they true? Are photon energies genuinely quantised, perhaps as science develops this "theory" will be a historical side-note like the greeks atom (meaning indivisable)? How can we say that quarks are primal matter at one stage and be "right" yet at a later date we decide that we have superstrings, then later m-branes. Are all these theories "right" by you? [Sorry can't think of alternates for GR, my mind is not that inventive].
PS: Your theory on Asian children is false. My friend Aleem can't do maths very well:0)>
I'm sorry, but every time there's a discussion on OSS, someone mentions their favourite feature that is missing and it's nearly always in the very easily accessible options.
If this was only an about:config setting I'd understand... sheesh!
To quote sanosuke001 "man you have to pay attention more":0b>
I can't verify it, I think the bit in quotes is... you guessed it, a quote!
So, thats not this guys opinion, the error I think is the point: the guy found the quote funny because it's a factual error stated in an authoratitive manner.
Like a guy trying to convince you he knows electronics saying "yeah, see those two pinned cylinders, they're called MOSFETs". Some would find this funny, maybe.
I was expecting this to have been posted already, didn't see it anywhere though... didn't look at the age range (did you mention one?) but this is good stuff for primary ages (under 11).
Plus, I'd make sure they have KStars, it's awesome and the Ugandans are likely to be very familiar with alot of constellations (I'm assuming light polution there is low).
I've never heard this argument that crypto patents (et al) are trivial. The argument I have heard is that this is the implementation of a mathematical method.
Now, a lot of folk think that maths is about discovery of relationships that are consistent with the current mathematical/logical framework (like pure science). Further, that this isn't _invention_ (though it is very worthwhile and highly skilled work that I greatly admire). [You appear to think that maths is discovery and invention?]
So, the only bit left to be an invention then is the programming an algorithm into a computer, given the algorithm. This can be simple - technical but not inventive, the sort of thing programmers commonly do.
Often, it will be hard because of the optimisations required. So, claim the optimisations in a patent, but the mere implementation of the algorithm isn't inventive IMO. Basically, I don't think that mathematics is (nor should be) patentable. This way anyone can use the basic mathematics and produce their own optimisations.
PS: I don't think the optimisations should be patentable either (different argument). But I do feel that there is a strong argument that if anything else is patentable that such optimisations (that make inventive use of the platform) should be considered to have an inventive technical effect and so be patentable.
I'm with you part of the way. I just see this as problematic.
Suppose I invent a new computer system for use by governments. I can't finance a working model because it requires thousands of computers and I don't have money. I could keep the idea secret - benefit is lost to society. Or, I could tell everyone - specific financial rewards are lost for me (might not be a problem depending on your politics). I can't promote the idea as people will just use it and not credit me [I'm avoiding use of "steal" here, cf. copyright arguments].
This is where, if you're going to have a patent system, non-realised patents (but not speculative ones) fit in. For the little guy (SMEs etc.) prototyping of even small products is hugely expensive.
"Patents are not intended for ideas (not even for very good ideas), but for inventions "
Yeah, tell that to the UKPO (an Executive agency of the DTI)... http://www.innovationlogbook.gov.uk/... "Recording and protecting your ideas, your concepts, your thoughts"
This looks like shoddy marketing, but to be honest I think it actually demonstrates the true state of affairs. People don't need to invent (an engineering process?) to get a patent, just having an idea is enough.
Build the engine or a small-scale version and have the patent examiner measure the force it creates. Either conduct this test in a vacuum room or demonstrate from theoretical standpoint that the engine does not depend on pushing against air (or simply have it raise a hundred kilograms and demonstrate that there is no noticeable wind - that pretty much proves the matter too).
I'm suspecting a dose of humour, but, do you really think it viable? Incidentally a small scale solar sail wouldn't prove that a large one would work. That would be like saying if we scale up a Cessna (small aeroplane) then we can build a 500 seater aircraft. To genuinely prove the engineering you have to build the item itself, then of course it's likely to be several kilometers wide and only deployable in space.
I suppose if you want to avoid patents on things which have not actually been created thats cool. Just I don't think working prototypes are a convincing intermediate position.
Just because it's profitable, even if it's profitable in the non-financial sense then unless it's profitabl enough you rich fat-assed share-holders are goin' to say:
"Be more profitable, I don't sit on my fat-ass all day just so you can benefit society and make a little bit of money exploiting 3rd world children. Make more money for me, more, more - more I tell you." [whipcrack]
People often say this... what if I invent a spaceship propulsion system (eg the solar sail). How do I get it to the patent office. How does the examiner verify that it is a "working example"?
How about a nano-machine, I can just see the examiner with a plastic baggie and a scanning electron microscope... "it must be here somewhere...".
Or perhaps a deadly biological agent.
Or a killer computer virus (where software patents are allowed).
Or a brain implant.
It'd make life interesting for patent examiners I guess.
Who is an expert in materials for tooth brush bristles? How about the machines for making tooth brush bristles? If you're one of few experts in your country are you going to work for the patent office or are you going to make tootbrush bristles (and lots of money)?
[sarcasm on] Anyway, clearly we need such experts at the patent office. So too do we need pen barrel experts, etc. etc. [sarcasm off].
You see then we have to employ many tens of thousands of people to have expertise in all areas of industry. Instead of doing this we employ people in the general field, expecting some patents to slip through and be mopped up by the courts.
A 100% effective examination process would not generate any wealth... so why not just scrap it!!!:0)>
The nominal person skilled in the art is an "uninventive technician". They are supposedly aware of all disclosures (documents, talks, TV, film, comics!, whatever) made anywhere in the world in their field. Although obscurity of the docs can be a factor in proceedings to determine obviousness.
"the deputy director" - there isn't just one, their are several. The top-dog is the comptroller. Then there are divisional directors, then deputy directors (one of whom heads the group that examine computer patents), then senior examiners and finally examiners (and associates below them).
You might say obviousness in patent terms means "damn obvious". When you look at two disclosures of the two parts (one might be common general knowledge, generally their are only two) then you have to be struck immediately by the expected result [and avoid ex-post-facto analysis].
I think the argument is slightly different to how Halo1 frames it in that if an examiner argues that a "barrel-shift and multiply processor in a mobile phone"-patent (say, maybe for hashes or something, I'm just making this up!!) is obvious as "barrel-shift and multiply processors are known in general computing and mobile phones are just specialised computers"... then the response is, if it's obvious _in_such_a_well_worked_field why hasn't it been done already. It's a pretty good argument too. The best ideas, after all, always elicit that "why didn't we think of that before".
That's when the examiner has to say, benefit of doubt to applicant and use their big stamp!
Incidentally this all gets quite tricky when you mix-in the non-patentability of computer programs!!
"Still can't work out how to make shift-click open into a new tab"
This is like group tech-support, but never mind... the combo you're looking for is ctrl-LeftMouseButton, shift-LMB is used to open a new broser window. Unlike M$ Mozilla haven't broken the defacto standards. You might like to look at mouse gestures (not as good as Operas IMHO, too much setup) if you use lots of tabs.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with your reference to original intent is that when copyright was first developed paper and printing were expensive and so any copying was expensive. Now, copying is cheap and easy. You couldn't [easily] non-commercially rip off a copyright work in the past as commercial printing equipment was required. This all changed with photocopying I guess.
... I don't know whether there was an original intent to protect music. But then music was always performed directly and not indirectly through technology. Then some stingy miser who didn't want to have to rent an orchestra to listen to tun3z went and invented wax drums.
...
;0)>
As far as music goes
Copyright is broken. Just like patents are. Both _were_ started with the intent of proper compensation for the creator of the work. If we could go back to that
I agree, some very rich people need to look to the greater good and not adding another million to their bank accounts.
PS: must check dates as to when printing press (steam version early 1800s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press) and Queen Anne (earl 1700s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne) were around
And once you have the number (at least in the UK) you can ask the Patent Office (the "Comptroller") to say whether the patent is valid or not. So if it's trivially anticipated you may be able to sort it out without making a court appearance.
I think there is a similar routine in the USPTO, basically recognition of the fact that bad patents slip through.
The parents are going to hate you when they come in one day and find the family computer taken apart on the living room floor so they can show their friend all the special modules.
Mind you I did that kind of thing as a kid and most of it worked afterwards.
Never should have opened up that Acorn Electron with the power on though!
I'm using the latest release of Scribus (1.2) and whilst I'm not entirely happy with it (I can only get a print out by porting PNG's to windows, but I think that's epsons fault!) I can tell you it has tracking facilities.
I'm pretty new to all this but kerning is where the individual letter displacement can be adjusted, tracking is where lines of text can be spread (like justification in a wordprocessor) to an arbitrary length (eg to match the width of a graphic).
<serious> Scribus has this, if this isn't tracking please tell me what is? </serious>
I don't really know MSWord that well as my last employer used WordPerfect ...
... if that matters to you".
Are floating tables like a table inside a frame? Sections, what the fubar are those? But wrt word-count, what's wrong with the one under File>Properties:Statistics ?
What do you use floating tables and sections for, how do they convey information that can't be conveyed by OOo? Remember this is a word processor.
This all sounds a bit zealous, but I'm just curious - I often recommend OOo and it would be good to say "oh but it can't do
scientific postmodernity ... is that self-contradictory?
... just like (11+2) mod 10=3 might be derived by noting that 11 is 3 in base 2. It's completely wrong, but it works in this scenario.
It is "absolutely right" in the sense of getting the correct result
I suppose if you only care about what works and not what the truth is that's fine.
FWIW I'm a graduate in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics and also studied Philosophy of Science (to a basic level) at Uni ... but call me a troll if you like. Hey call me anything it's late and I can't hear you!!
... oops, moving on]. Why not? It's a reasonable theory, is it falsifiable, I guess it is. But, you say, the Earth moves round the Sun and so the Earth can't be the centre of anything ... here's where Occam comes in and falls on his face. Yeah, the maths is hard if you consider the Earth to be static, but just because the maths is more beautiful in one formation does that make it more true??
:0)>
A theory is just a 'guess'. A very educated guess that has yet to be proved wrong. For it to be scientific I believe it must be provably falsifiable.
This kind of stems from my general belief that current theories work well and are mutually consistent (in the standard models and moreso) but are not necessarily "the truth".
[climbs on hobby-horse]
Consider the oft-repeated tale of people in the middle-ages believing that Jerusalem is the centre of the Universe. [Apart from that being a bit of a historical urban myth based on our assumptions having seen maps with Jerusalem at the centre! - prove me wrong reference a work that states "we believe jerusalem to be the physical centre of the universe"
[/off hobby horse]
Anyway Bob, the theories have been tested. Great. They are sound. But are they true? Are photon energies genuinely quantised, perhaps as science develops this "theory" will be a historical side-note like the greeks atom (meaning indivisable)? How can we say that quarks are primal matter at one stage and be "right" yet at a later date we decide that we have superstrings, then later m-branes. Are all these theories "right" by you? [Sorry can't think of alternates for GR, my mind is not that inventive].
PS: Your theory on Asian children is false. My friend Aleem can't do maths very well
I call feature-troll on this one.
... sheesh!
:0b>
I'm sorry, but every time there's a discussion on OSS, someone mentions their favourite feature that is missing and it's nearly always in the very easily accessible options.
If this was only an about:config setting I'd understand
To quote sanosuke001 "man you have to pay attention more"
I can't verify it, I think the bit in quotes is ... you guessed it, a quote!
So, thats not this guys opinion, the error I think is the point: the guy found the quote funny because it's a factual error stated in an authoratitive manner.
Like a guy trying to convince you he knows electronics saying "yeah, see those two pinned cylinders, they're called MOSFETs". Some would find this funny, maybe.
Spot on. Indeed every series of actions is an algorithm is it not?!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_pr ofiles/1069166.stm
Says that English is official language, then Swahili. There must be stuff in Kswahili around.
I was expecting this to have been posted already, didn't see it anywhere though ... didn't look at the age range (did you mention one?) but this is good stuff for primary ages (under 11).
http://www.ofset.org/gcompris
They also mention: http://childsplay.sourceforge.net/
Plus, I'd make sure they have KStars, it's awesome and the Ugandans are likely to be very familiar with alot of constellations (I'm assuming light polution there is low).
I've never heard this argument that crypto patents (et al) are trivial. The argument I have heard is that this is the implementation of a mathematical method.
Now, a lot of folk think that maths is about discovery of relationships that are consistent with the current mathematical/logical framework (like pure science). Further, that this isn't _invention_ (though it is very worthwhile and highly skilled work that I greatly admire). [You appear to think that maths is discovery and invention?]
So, the only bit left to be an invention then is the programming an algorithm into a computer, given the algorithm. This can be simple - technical but not inventive, the sort of thing programmers commonly do.
Often, it will be hard because of the optimisations required. So, claim the optimisations in a patent, but the mere implementation of the algorithm isn't inventive IMO. Basically, I don't think that mathematics is (nor should be) patentable. This way anyone can use the basic mathematics and produce their own optimisations.
PS: I don't think the optimisations should be patentable either (different argument). But I do feel that there is a strong argument that if anything else is patentable that such optimisations (that make inventive use of the platform) should be considered to have an inventive technical effect and so be patentable.
Why not then, in the VinXP (when it comes out) have some sort of redundancy so that errors (such as 1 vs I vs l) could be corrected for?
I'm with you part of the way. I just see this as problematic.
Suppose I invent a new computer system for use by governments. I can't finance a working model because it requires thousands of computers and I don't have money. I could keep the idea secret - benefit is lost to society. Or, I could tell everyone - specific financial rewards are lost for me (might not be a problem depending on your politics). I can't promote the idea as people will just use it and not credit me [I'm avoiding use of "steal" here, cf. copyright arguments].
This is where, if you're going to have a patent system, non-realised patents (but not speculative ones) fit in. For the little guy (SMEs etc.) prototyping of even small products is hugely expensive.
Yeah, tell that to the UKPO (an Executive agency of the DTI) ... http://www.innovationlogbook.gov.uk/ ... "Recording and protecting your ideas, your concepts, your thoughts"
This looks like shoddy marketing, but to be honest I think it actually demonstrates the true state of affairs. People don't need to invent (an engineering process?) to get a patent, just having an idea is enough.
Build the engine or a small-scale version and have the patent examiner measure the force it creates. Either conduct this test in a vacuum room or demonstrate from theoretical standpoint that the engine does not depend on pushing against air (or simply have it raise a hundred kilograms and demonstrate that there is no noticeable wind - that pretty much proves the matter too).
I'm suspecting a dose of humour, but, do you really think it viable? Incidentally a small scale solar sail wouldn't prove that a large one would work. That would be like saying if we scale up a Cessna (small aeroplane) then we can build a 500 seater aircraft. To genuinely prove the engineering you have to build the item itself, then of course it's likely to be several kilometers wide and only deployable in space.
I suppose if you want to avoid patents on things which have not actually been created thats cool. Just I don't think working prototypes are a convincing intermediate position.
Just because it's profitable, even if it's profitable in the non-financial sense then unless it's profitabl enough you rich fat-assed share-holders are goin' to say:
"Be more profitable, I don't sit on my fat-ass all day just so you can benefit society and make a little bit of money exploiting 3rd world children. Make more money for me, more, more - more I tell you." [whipcrack]
Or something along those lines anyway.
People often say this ... what if I invent a spaceship propulsion system (eg the solar sail). How do I get it to the patent office. How does the examiner verify that it is a "working example"?
... "it must be here somewhere ...".
How about a nano-machine, I can just see the examiner with a plastic baggie and a scanning electron microscope
Or perhaps a deadly biological agent.
Or a killer computer virus (where software patents are allowed).
Or a brain implant.
It'd make life interesting for patent examiners I guess.
This is an economics problem.
... so why not just scrap it!!! :0)>
Who is an expert in materials for tooth brush bristles? How about the machines for making tooth brush bristles? If you're one of few experts in your country are you going to work for the patent office or are you going to make tootbrush bristles (and lots of money)?
[sarcasm on] Anyway, clearly we need such experts at the patent office. So too do we need pen barrel experts, etc. etc. [sarcasm off].
You see then we have to employ many tens of thousands of people to have expertise in all areas of industry. Instead of doing this we employ people in the general field, expecting some patents to slip through and be mopped up by the courts.
A 100% effective examination process would not generate any wealth
Couple of points ...
... then the response is, if it's obvious _in_such_a_well_worked_field why hasn't it been done already. It's a pretty good argument too. The best ideas, after all, always elicit that "why didn't we think of that before".
The nominal person skilled in the art is an "uninventive technician". They are supposedly aware of all disclosures (documents, talks, TV, film, comics!, whatever) made anywhere in the world in their field. Although obscurity of the docs can be a factor in proceedings to determine obviousness.
"the deputy director" - there isn't just one, their are several. The top-dog is the comptroller. Then there are divisional directors, then deputy directors (one of whom heads the group that examine computer patents), then senior examiners and finally examiners (and associates below them).
You might say obviousness in patent terms means "damn obvious". When you look at two disclosures of the two parts (one might be common general knowledge, generally their are only two) then you have to be struck immediately by the expected result [and avoid ex-post-facto analysis].
I think the argument is slightly different to how Halo1 frames it in that if an examiner argues that a "barrel-shift and multiply processor in a mobile phone"-patent (say, maybe for hashes or something, I'm just making this up!!) is obvious as "barrel-shift and multiply processors are known in general computing and mobile phones are just specialised computers"
That's when the examiner has to say, benefit of doubt to applicant and use their big stamp!
Incidentally this all gets quite tricky when you mix-in the non-patentability of computer programs!!
How many spotted the Ben Elton reference I wonder?
"Still can't work out how to make shift-click open into a new tab"
... the combo you're looking for is ctrl-LeftMouseButton, shift-LMB is used to open a new broser window. Unlike M$ Mozilla haven't broken the defacto standards. You might like to look at mouse gestures (not as good as Operas IMHO, too much setup) if you use lots of tabs.
This is like group tech-support, but never mind
HTH
pbhj
gimp-2.0 -b ...
...!
... I know, already!!1111
;0)>
Command line batch processing
Yeah, I know,
But I just had to say it
May be so, but do you really think they know better?