You can not comercialize your invention before your patent is at least registered, otherwise it counts as prior art. So it can be a two step process, but the one step option is clearly not viable.
Also, I'd disagree that this solves anything at all. Big corps (the ones that can create manufacturing lines fast) don't need more protection against small inventors. Extinguishing the patent system has a much better outcome.
Good luck trying that route. I've seen people getting bankrupt, but I've never heard about anybody that made any money this way.
When a patent troll decides to sue you because he owns the invention, and your patent is invalid, or when the manufacturing corp decides to ignore your patent and just build whatever you invented without licensing, you'll feel what it is like to go to a court.
Well, I guess you've already read the ton of answers that state that if you define the getters and setters, you can modify them in the future, while if you accessed the attribute directly, you couldn't.
That's both true in Java and.Net, and a stupid feature of those languages. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to change how an attribute is accessed without writting all that boilterplate.
We're going to keep burning it until the devil is knocking at the door
We're going to burn until we run out of fuel. If we get some disaster before that, we'll just burn more fuel to cope with it (what'll probably involve shooting people and throwing bombs around) untill we have no other option available.
Global Warming is not the kind of disaster humans can deal with.
Wake me up when you can make a cluster of Oracle databases, all actively handling requests for the same database at the sme time.
By the way, Postgres does that, but not out of the box. That's the advantaje of FOSS, you simply get a third party plugin, and there are plenty of companies that'll support something like that for you.
Booleans; Arrays; Identifiers with more than 30 characters (So that you can name it 'fk_table1_idname_table2_reason_for_the_relation', instead of 'fk_table_1_idname_') Functional indexes... And the most important feature: It's not sold by Oracle.
Yep, the power relation is similar, but ARM was successfull competing with them up to now. In fact, that's the main reason they have a monopoly at mobiles, because Intel killed everybody else... And time is playing at the ARM team, not Intel. With the end of Moore's Law (that's not a certainty yet, but a possilbe outcome for the next generation of fabs), Intel's lead in fab technology becomes less relevant.
Besides that "regularly" that digitig already talked about, that is the essence of defining on what airports you need ARFF, do you have any evidence of the odds of firefighters actualy saving 200 humans?
We are collecting statistics for years, and we still couldn't prove that it's not zero with statistical significance.
You do not often see big planes on fire. When they catch fire, they often close the entire airport.
Also, it's rare for the fire to last long enough for most people to notice the delay. Even when there is a fuel leackage on fire, the firefighters are usualy able to get there in less than 3 minutes, control it in less then 9 minutes (from the start), and get on position again 7 minutes after somebody else assumes the firefighting (16 minutes total if you have some team there).
The cost is HUGE. But the city firefigters won't be able to attend an emergency on time. Household fires need more time to grow, and houses are easier to escape, but there is an enourmous area that may get on fire - city firefighters have completely different priorities, and also different equipment.
I was in the team in charge of defining wich brazilian airports should have firefighting service once. That cost is a constant preocupation while doing policy. (Another peocupation is whether the airport firefighters are able to save people either.)
Well, the best thing Intel may do to society is just dying... But I see how they'll think differently.
Anyway, one of the basic tenets of evolution is that it can only happen when you change things. Intel is trying to evolve without changing anything... They'll stay dependent of Microsoft, they'll keep the centralized product development, they'll stay compatible with the power wasting x86 applications, and looks like they are keeping the dishonest marketing department.
By the current trends, even if Intel create an entire family of mobile processors better than the ARM ones, I wouldn't be surprized if they still fail to get traction in the mobile devices. (But I'll be quite surprized if they create better mobile processors than ARM.)
It's still too early to declare the end of Moore's Law. If for no other reason, because very few fabs can produce 20nm chips, so nobody can tell if Intel made a mistake somewhere.
Yelds increse through all the life of a fab process, and those 18 monts aren't quite exact. We can still go back to normal.
What's the problem of connecting the lights to the Internet? Are you afraid that some terrorist would invade your computers and TURN THE LIGHTS OFF? Did you stop to consider how stupid is that?
Or maybe I shouldn't post this, beause some terrorist might READ IT!
Despite what you think, lots of people, including security researches, have access to the Windows source code too.
Could you people please put that lie down already. Yeah, technicaly, lots of people have access to the source code of Windows. In practice, nobody outside of MS (or, at least, that's the official line) has the means to compile that source code, and verify that it's really Windows or to use it - and forget about all that discussion about trusting your compiler, things are not open enough to even care about that.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it. Palm owned the market by that time.
Well, success is defined by a set of goals. You probably just helped making jumping on cacti a successfull initiative.
You can not comercialize your invention before your patent is at least registered, otherwise it counts as prior art. So it can be a two step process, but the one step option is clearly not viable.
Also, I'd disagree that this solves anything at all. Big corps (the ones that can create manufacturing lines fast) don't need more protection against small inventors. Extinguishing the patent system has a much better outcome.
Good luck trying that route. I've seen people getting bankrupt, but I've never heard about anybody that made any money this way.
When a patent troll decides to sue you because he owns the invention, and your patent is invalid, or when the manufacturing corp decides to ignore your patent and just build whatever you invented without licensing, you'll feel what it is like to go to a court.
Well, I guess you've already read the ton of answers that state that if you define the getters and setters, you can modify them in the future, while if you accessed the attribute directly, you couldn't.
That's both true in Java and .Net, and a stupid feature of those languages. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to change how an attribute is accessed without writting all that boilterplate.
We're going to burn until we run out of fuel. If we get some disaster before that, we'll just burn more fuel to cope with it (what'll probably involve shooting people and throwing bombs around) untill we have no other option available.
Global Warming is not the kind of disaster humans can deal with.
Wake me up when you can make a cluster of Oracle databases, all actively handling requests for the same database at the sme time.
By the way, Postgres does that, but not out of the box. That's the advantaje of FOSS, you simply get a third party plugin, and there are plenty of companies that'll support something like that for you.
Also, Postgres has:
Booleans;
Arrays;
Identifiers with more than 30 characters (So that you can name it 'fk_table1_idname_table2_reason_for_the_relation', instead of 'fk_table_1_idname_')
Functional indexes...
And the most important feature: It's not sold by Oracle.
Yep, the power relation is similar, but ARM was successfull competing with them up to now. In fact, that's the main reason they have a monopoly at mobiles, because Intel killed everybody else... And time is playing at the ARM team, not Intel. With the end of Moore's Law (that's not a certainty yet, but a possilbe outcome for the next generation of fabs), Intel's lead in fab technology becomes less relevant.
Besides that "regularly" that digitig already talked about, that is the essence of defining on what airports you need ARFF, do you have any evidence of the odds of firefighters actualy saving 200 humans?
We are collecting statistics for years, and we still couldn't prove that it's not zero with statistical significance.
You do not often see big planes on fire. When they catch fire, they often close the entire airport.
Also, it's rare for the fire to last long enough for most people to notice the delay. Even when there is a fuel leackage on fire, the firefighters are usualy able to get there in less than 3 minutes, control it in less then 9 minutes (from the start), and get on position again 7 minutes after somebody else assumes the firefighting (16 minutes total if you have some team there).
The cost is HUGE. But the city firefigters won't be able to attend an emergency on time. Household fires need more time to grow, and houses are easier to escape, but there is an enourmous area that may get on fire - city firefighters have completely different priorities, and also different equipment.
I was in the team in charge of defining wich brazilian airports should have firefighting service once. That cost is a constant preocupation while doing policy. (Another peocupation is whether the airport firefighters are able to save people either.)
Well, the best thing Intel may do to society is just dying... But I see how they'll think differently.
Anyway, one of the basic tenets of evolution is that it can only happen when you change things. Intel is trying to evolve without changing anything... They'll stay dependent of Microsoft, they'll keep the centralized product development, they'll stay compatible with the power wasting x86 applications, and looks like they are keeping the dishonest marketing department.
By the current trends, even if Intel create an entire family of mobile processors better than the ARM ones, I wouldn't be surprized if they still fail to get traction in the mobile devices. (But I'll be quite surprized if they create better mobile processors than ARM.)
Well, it's a way of doing it.
Jumpping from a building without a parachute is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
People don't change... But somehow they are always getting worse.
Yes, the colors are measured from that area.
It's still too early to declare the end of Moore's Law. If for no other reason, because very few fabs can produce 20nm chips, so nobody can tell if Intel made a mistake somewhere.
Yelds increse through all the life of a fab process, and those 18 monts aren't quite exact. We can still go back to normal.
What's the problem of connecting the lights to the Internet? Are you afraid that some terrorist would invade your computers and TURN THE LIGHTS OFF? Did you stop to consider how stupid is that?
Or maybe I shouldn't post this, beause some terrorist might READ IT!
That, and live the ssh server listening (passwords disabled), so that you can shred the disk if you want. There is not much more anyone can do...
Or maybe, buy one of those USB computers, plug it somewhere inside the laptop, and put a back door in it.
So that the thief must take the disk out of the computer for formating it? It requires a screwdriver, flawless security.
They determined that the origin is not in our galaxy, but it looks like they know nothing else about it.
Could it be red-shifted gamma ray bursts?
Could you people please put that lie down already. Yeah, technicaly, lots of people have access to the source code of Windows. In practice, nobody outside of MS (or, at least, that's the official line) has the means to compile that source code, and verify that it's really Windows or to use it - and forget about all that discussion about trusting your compiler, things are not open enough to even care about that.
Did anybody ever try that with a C compiler?
Three times a year since the middle 90's there are news of people revisiting the dogmas of the desktop, and building something completely different.
Every time they screw up the same thing: people want desktops, not something completely different.
Since when it's not? It does make the product better, not worse...
Or, better, it would if it actualy included a start menu.