Software is hardware is software. If you can't patent software, then you shouldn't be able patent hardware either. This was settled the better part of a century ago, in case anyone was paying attention. Pretending that software is a special case that is different from hardware creates a distinction where none exists.
I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not on patentability, but I'd like to point out a way to make a distinction between software and hardware: software may be (pratically) numerically identified, while hardware may not. Any particular algorithm may be written in some encoding, e.g., the C language, x86 binary, or some specification of Turing machine, which has (on a computer, which exists as) a unique numerical representation. Any other algorithm either is or is not exactly the same (though it may not have the same encoding, and there is no general process for determining said sameness). A particular algorithm can thus be described by a particular number, meaning the algorithm which in a given encoding corresponds to that number, and any other (algorithmically) identical encodings. No such reduction exists for hardware; conceivably, the position and state of every atom of a particular device could be recorded, or some less tiring scheme could be created mapping general arrangements of materials to numbers, but no such thing exists and is practical to do. Software is, and in fact, to be executed on computers, must be, numerically reducible, while hardware exists in the realm of the imprecise. I hope that all doesn't sound as convoluted to you as it does to me (it sounded very clear in my head), and I don't know what it has to do with software patents (draw your own conclusions), but it is a distinction between software and hardware.
Somewhere, on the edge of symbol-slamming systems, there has to be some connection with the real world, with our experiences.
This doesn't follow from your example. A human which just knows father(ken, mark) knows as good as aaa1(aaa2, aaa3) if he doesn't also know father(ken, mark) implies son(mark, ken) and so many other things about the relationship of father and the symbols ken and mark. Is there any reason a prolog program could not know the same, i.e., 'grounded in real-world experiences' could be the way such a web of knowledge looks from the outside?
Last time I looked, it really made me cry for help. I don't know how much the situation has improved since then (that was about a year ago).
A lot. Blender's old UI was cryptic and daunting, almost requiring the manual for the simplest of models. Blender's new UI (as of 2.3) keeps the same feel and ideas but is simple to pick up. Every function is accesible through menus with keyboard shortcuts labeled at the side, so you can learn the functions at your own pace. Every button has tool tip text.
Back then, (IIRC) it didn't even have undo. I just hope it has some kind of support for it now, or better yet, something like the modifier stack in 3DSMAX.
Never used 3DSMAX, but undo (which was previously only available in a limited form) is now in there, with a list of actions akin to ms word and maybe what you describe.
Blender's new UI is designed to fix the problems of the old, and I think it does so very nicely. I invite you to try it out, and see how the software has changed.
Re:This makes me think of .....
on
More on Spintronics
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If anyone wants to correct me, please do.
Not so sure about quantum computers, but i belive this is the idea behind them. Transistors used now read either High or low, +5v or 0v, which correspond to binary terms of 0 or 1. Thus we can gather data by reading the charges on the transistors. If we could use electrons, a up-spin meaning 0 and a down-spin 1 (not really up or down, but thats how we denote them), then we could use a 100% efficient replacement for transistors.
No, quantum computers aren't about efficiency; they're a whole bigger concept. In a quantum computer, each quantum bit, called a qubit, can be both 0 and 1 simultaneously. You then make them resolve into the answer you want by observing them in the correct manner. In effect, you test all possible combinations of bits for a solution to your problem at the same time. This is a whole different concept from the transistor/logic gate deal - google if you want to know more.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't follow from your example. A human which just knows father(ken, mark) knows as good as aaa1(aaa2, aaa3) if he doesn't also know father(ken, mark) implies son(mark, ken) and so many other things about the relationship of father and the symbols ken and mark. Is there any reason a prolog program could not know the same, i.e., 'grounded in real-world experiences' could be the way such a web of knowledge looks from the outside?
A lot. Blender's old UI was cryptic and daunting, almost requiring the manual for the simplest of models. Blender's new UI (as of 2.3) keeps the same feel and ideas but is simple to pick up. Every function is accesible through menus with keyboard shortcuts labeled at the side, so you can learn the functions at your own pace. Every button has tool tip text.
Back then, (IIRC) it didn't even have undo. I just hope it has some kind of support for it now, or better yet, something like the modifier stack in 3DSMAX.
Never used 3DSMAX, but undo (which was previously only available in a limited form) is now in there, with a list of actions akin to ms word and maybe what you describe.
Blender's new UI is designed to fix the problems of the old, and I think it does so very nicely. I invite you to try it out, and see how the software has changed.
Not so sure about quantum computers, but i belive this is the idea behind them. Transistors used now read either High or low, +5v or 0v, which correspond to binary terms of 0 or 1. Thus we can gather data by reading the charges on the transistors. If we could use electrons, a up-spin meaning 0 and a down-spin 1 (not really up or down, but thats how we denote them), then we could use a 100% efficient replacement for transistors.
No, quantum computers aren't about efficiency; they're a whole bigger concept. In a quantum computer, each quantum bit, called a qubit, can be both 0 and 1 simultaneously. You then make them resolve into the answer you want by observing them in the correct manner. In effect, you test all possible combinations of bits for a solution to your problem at the same time. This is a whole different concept from the transistor/logic gate deal - google if you want to know more.