It claims either a computer programmed in a particular way
Thus a different computer running the same software isn't protectd by the patent, right? If you get a patent for a Pentium 4 running bubble sort, I can safely run it on my AMD Semprom, am I right? No? Then it is a claim on the algorithm.
or a computer-readable medium on which the program is stored
Thus, you can get patents on the contents of a book? Great.
or a method for programming a computer
That is even better. You get a patent over an idea on my head!
The problem is that Facebook is worth $30e9. For that kind of investiment, one'd expect some huge revenue streams, that just selling publicity slots won't create. Or, in other words, the problem is that some people has put (and will soon put) too much money into Facebook, expecting it to be something completely different from what it is. They'll have a nasty surprize, of course, as one can't stay deluded in a finantial market for long.
Interesting that it looks like this problem is inherent of social networks. There are always several of them out there, competing for users. Normaly the one with the biggest budget wins, but that budget comes from investiment... So, Facebook probably won't be the last iteration.
No, it allows you to pay for premium space - you know, like advertisers do - most people won't want to do that though.
Yep, most people won't care to use it. Except for spammers.
You really think everyone is just going to transition to some other social network because of this?
That was my first tought... That yes, people are going to switch just because of this.
Social networks live at a thin line; put too much info on the face of its users, and it is useless; put too little info on the face of its users, and it is useless. Make a single change that encourages spam, and you can be shot out of your previous equilibrium into uncharted territory.
...and we can get a new social network that actually cares about its users.
And that, people, is how you recgnize a dreamer.
Sorry, but if the users don't care about themselves, why would a company? The only way we can get a social network that cares about its users (in the way we care about people, not in the way we care about cows) is if we take the profits out of the equation, and do it ourselves. Yet, our stereotyped grandmother isn't simply going to do it.
The GP is correct, and you should go back to school.
Programs ARE math. Yep, they are abstract things that you can't hold on your hand (didn't you notice it?). You'd better define better what you mean by "pounder", because depending on your definition, that'll indeed make a search result appear on your head/paper/computer.
What? I was under the impression that most invetions were created several times in paralel. And that includes most world changing inventions. But that argument turns into a contest of anedoncts that is useless, as we can't quantify the importance of an invetion or the size of the invetion-space of a time.
A much better argument is: If you think that is an useless exception that will only apply to an incredibly irrelevant number of inventions, why are you oposing it?
It is not happening in the US so why draw that comparison?
Sorry? Last time I saw, the perpretators (MS, MPAA) were based on the US. Also, the victims are torrent users, probably widespread through the globe, and thus some of them will be in the US too.
So, the perpretators are in the US, and the victims are in the US, but it is not happening in the US?
If everybody tells the same lie using the same words, it becomes "jargon". Like "no, you don't look fat on those clothes", it's not even a lie anymore.
Yes, one could raise into the CEO level on a big company without a degree. It will be hard for you to find somebody around here that disagrees with that. If for no other reason, just the fact that a student just days from gatting his degree doesn't have one should be enough to convince any reasonable person that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, and not some magical stuff.
But you are wrong. That was not a case of a person raising to the top without a degree. He has one.
Their version of GMail is actualy much less buggy. They have a finance portal that is ok (no reason to choose them over Google, or the other way around - but those portals are way too generic for any real use), a news portal that isn't as big as Google's, but several people use.
You know, those aren't the only icons that nobody has any idea of the meaning anymore. Those 26 icons were also once created from real world metaphors, and nobody has any idea of their old meaning anymore:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Those other 10 are the same stuff. Once they were created from real world metaphors:
0123456789
We should drop all those icons already. People can't understand icons that have no real world meaning, they make conversations harder.
It was not false advertizing. They delivered the blue sky for the people whatching the games, didn't they? The fact that a few days latter the sky was brown again isn't relevant for those visitors.
Yeah, but the US carriers are doing it wrong. How is it that with the same or less bandwidth available, carriers in Europe and Canada are able to deal with the same or higher subscriber density?
If you put more towers out there, each one less powerful, you increase the total bandwidth. But that takes investiment from the part of the carriers, and they can't do that, can they?
It seems like it's no different than putting two numbers in a hat, pulling one out at random, and then sending the hat to someone and say . . . when I look at mine and send you that info, we both know what yours is!
That's the best analogy with classical concepts you may get. It's quite like that, except that the papers don't decide what number is on them untill somebody looks. But if you get one, yeah, the other person is getting the other number.
At first both photons are in a mixed stated that make them anti-correlate perfectly. Then, somebody does a measurement and changes the state of one of the photons (to a classical state), as the other photon is perfectly anti-correlated, it changes to the oposite classical state.
No, teleportation is instantaneous. It happens when the first peer does one of the measurements (don't just ask what "first" means here - I have no idea and it seems I'm not alone). All the rest of the procedure is there just to set the experimental conditions.
Except that it is not that secure. Quantum encryption can only be secure if you have an authenticated channel to exchange the reading orientations. If somebody can impersonate your peer at that exchange, you are owned.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus a different computer running the same software isn't protectd by the patent, right? If you get a patent for a Pentium 4 running bubble sort, I can safely run it on my AMD Semprom, am I right? No? Then it is a claim on the algorithm.
Thus, you can get patents on the contents of a book? Great.
That is even better. You get a patent over an idea on my head!
The problem is that Facebook is worth $30e9. For that kind of investiment, one'd expect some huge revenue streams, that just selling publicity slots won't create. Or, in other words, the problem is that some people has put (and will soon put) too much money into Facebook, expecting it to be something completely different from what it is. They'll have a nasty surprize, of course, as one can't stay deluded in a finantial market for long.
Interesting that it looks like this problem is inherent of social networks. There are always several of them out there, competing for users. Normaly the one with the biggest budget wins, but that budget comes from investiment... So, Facebook probably won't be the last iteration.
The world become a better place since that kind of people stopped sending things through email. Now Facebook will ruin it all.
Yep, most people won't care to use it. Except for spammers.
That was my first tought... That yes, people are going to switch just because of this.
Social networks live at a thin line; put too much info on the face of its users, and it is useless; put too little info on the face of its users, and it is useless. Make a single change that encourages spam, and you can be shot out of your previous equilibrium into uncharted territory.
And that, people, is how you recgnize a dreamer.
Sorry, but if the users don't care about themselves, why would a company? The only way we can get a social network that cares about its users (in the way we care about people, not in the way we care about cows) is if we take the profits out of the equation, and do it ourselves. Yet, our stereotyped grandmother isn't simply going to do it.
The GP is correct, and you should go back to school.
Programs ARE math. Yep, they are abstract things that you can't hold on your hand (didn't you notice it?). You'd better define better what you mean by "pounder", because depending on your definition, that'll indeed make a search result appear on your head/paper/computer.
What? I was under the impression that most invetions were created several times in paralel. And that includes most world changing inventions. But that argument turns into a contest of anedoncts that is useless, as we can't quantify the importance of an invetion or the size of the invetion-space of a time.
A much better argument is: If you think that is an useless exception that will only apply to an incredibly irrelevant number of inventions, why are you oposing it?
Every industry is not treated the same by the law of any reasonably developped country. Why did you equate that with person equality?
That would be quite an interesting law to have written down.
When the laws start to acknowledge that little people has no right, it gets way easier to arguee that the system isn't just.
Yeah, as jimshatt already said, I was aware that exist people that know the origin of those icons. That "nobody" was hyperbole.
Anyway, that's a quite informative post. Thank you.
Sorry? Last time I saw, the perpretators (MS, MPAA) were based on the US. Also, the victims are torrent users, probably widespread through the globe, and thus some of them will be in the US too.
So, the perpretators are in the US, and the victims are in the US, but it is not happening in the US?
If everybody tells the same lie using the same words, it becomes "jargon". Like "no, you don't look fat on those clothes", it's not even a lie anymore.
Yes, one could raise into the CEO level on a big company without a degree. It will be hard for you to find somebody around here that disagrees with that. If for no other reason, just the fact that a student just days from gatting his degree doesn't have one should be enough to convince any reasonable person that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, and not some magical stuff.
But you are wrong. That was not a case of a person raising to the top without a degree. He has one.
Their version of GMail is actualy much less buggy. They have a finance portal that is ok (no reason to choose them over Google, or the other way around - but those portals are way too generic for any real use), a news portal that isn't as big as Google's, but several people use.
I also doubt anybody is using their search.
I guess the metaphor is not for using wrenches for fixing things, it is for motor tunning.
Anyway, stupid article is stupid, and all that. We don't go changing a well stablished language just because the shape of our phones changed.
You know, those aren't the only icons that nobody has any idea of the meaning anymore. Those 26 icons were also once created from real world metaphors, and nobody has any idea of their old meaning anymore:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Those other 10 are the same stuff. Once they were created from real world metaphors:
0123456789
We should drop all those icons already. People can't understand icons that have no real world meaning, they make conversations harder.
It was not false advertizing. They delivered the blue sky for the people whatching the games, didn't they? The fact that a few days latter the sky was brown again isn't relevant for those visitors.
Why is Online Self Healing different and from "Make the damn FS work properly"?
WTF FS is that has problems that can be fixed online?
If you put more towers out there, each one less powerful, you increase the total bandwidth. But that takes investiment from the part of the carriers, and they can't do that, can they?
Demand == offer. How can it exceed capacity?
That's the best analogy with classical concepts you may get. It's quite like that, except that the papers don't decide what number is on them untill somebody looks. But if you get one, yeah, the other person is getting the other number.
The quantum state is not transfered.
At first both photons are in a mixed stated that make them anti-correlate perfectly. Then, somebody does a measurement and changes the state of one of the photons (to a classical state), as the other photon is perfectly anti-correlated, it changes to the oposite classical state.
No, teleportation is instantaneous. It happens when the first peer does one of the measurements (don't just ask what "first" means here - I have no idea and it seems I'm not alone). All the rest of the procedure is there just to set the experimental conditions.
Except that it is not that secure. Quantum encryption can only be secure if you have an authenticated channel to exchange the reading orientations. If somebody can impersonate your peer at that exchange, you are owned.
Don't mind. If Oracle could by any means get any clue, they'd not be in this mess to start with.
They've already showed that they are completely willing to go against the orders of the judge, what makes you think they'll obey a recomendation?