So how is the object manager patent a new, useful, and nonobvious improvement on Smalltalk (which is mentioned under Other References)?
When Thomas Edison's laboratory was inventing the light bulb, they tried thousands of wrong solutions over the course of a year and a half. That kind of work does require patent protection, since it is much easier to reverse engineer the one correct way than to redo the research.
Software is the opposite. It is a constructive process rather than one of elimination. One starts with a framework and then develops the various required processes inside that framework. Reverse engineering is at least as difficult as redoing the development. Further, there are frequently multiple ways to accomplish the same task. Note that Microsoft's announced plan in regard to the Eolas patent is to replace the code. Eolas is not going to get rewarded for "innovative merit," just for hiding their monopoly. If Microsoft had found the patent in the first place, they would have simply avoided the Eolas method.
Yes, there are some ideas in software that are, in fact, new, useful, and nonobvious. However, they are not the results of long research, but of intuitive leaps. For example, the GIF patent was based on the Welch variant of the Lempel Ziv algorithm. The primary difference between LZW and LZ is that LZW adds sequences to the translation dictionary one step earlier. For example, LZ does not compress baba at all (it would compress bababa). LZW compresses the four eight bit characters to three nine bit characters.
Software patents can also have an actively harmful effect on research and development. For example, if Sun has to pay a billion dollars, what effect will that have on future development of community languages? What happens to Java if Sun refuses to pay Kodak's licensing fees (note: I find this scenario highly unlikely but it's worth thnking about why it's unlikely)? What happens with other object oriented, compiled to bytecode languages that do not have Sun's deep pockets (e.g. Python, GNU Java)? This is especially bad since applications aren't published at the time of application, so someone may have already patented the system that you are currently developing.
"do away with some of the janitorial staff by making all the employees empty their trash cans into the public trash area...for the few dollars they save"
How does that save money? Instead of a single janitor going around and dumping trash cans into a big mobile trash holder for near minimum wage, you now have IT employees taking singleton trips to the dumpster at their wages...which are presumably higher than the janitor's. So more time is wasted by higher wage personnel. Where are the savings?
It's worth noting that everything about which they complain (except the profitability and size) were characteristics of the now bankrupt Ames as well. K-Mart is the current competitor. These are all just natural characteristics of a department store. They sell cheap junk as cheaply as possible.
Smalltalk is listed under Other References in the patent claim. Apparently they are claiming to have some enhancement of what smalltalk does that was patentable and is used by Java.
No, I wasn't able to figure out what that enhancement was.
Yet somehow, FujiFilm finds the US to be the optimal labor market in which to produce film for the US. I believe that you are right in principle but wrong in application to Kodak.
I have much the same issue with outsourcing tech support to India. I am less concerned about job loss and more concerned about loss of service quality. Yes, the Indian support personnel may be technically more proficient than the American personnel, but you can't convince me that there won't be problems with accents, etc. that cause communication difficulties. In fact, some of the offshore jobs have already come back for exactly that reason.
x86 is an older architecture than PowerPC. It doesn't matter that some RISC processor might have existed prior to x86; the issue is that the current Mac processors are a newer architecture than is x86.
Translation layers throw out some of the advantages of RISC. In particular, they do not allow the compiler to manage the instructions properly. The primary point of RISC is to shift the burden of optimization from the processor to the compiler. Using a CISC translation layer prevents the processor from taking full advantage of the RIS and pipelining.
"if all EULA-style agreements (a textfile included with the software)"
No one is claiming that a textfile included with the software is incapable of offering an agreement. The claim is that you cannot be bound by said agreement merely by receiving it with the software. The GPL works by a much different mechanism. If you choose to accept the GPL agreement, then you may redistribute the software. If you refuse the license, then you may not (unless you negotiate a separate agreement). The problem with a EULA is that it doesn't offer you anything that you don't already have. If you legally obtain a copy of the software, you don't require a license to use it.
It is also worth noting that someone could in fact make a perfectly legal EULA by the simple expedient of having the customer sign the EULA prior to paying for the software. In that case, one can limit the transfer with whatever conditions one wants. The problem here is that users are told that they are only renting the software *after* paying for it. It would be like going to Wal-Mart, picking up a $20 movie and when you put it in your DVD player, it said "By clicking Yes, you agree to our license agreement, which says that you are only renting this movie. Don't forget to return the movie tomorrow."
You can't change a purchase agreement to a rental agreement unilaterally. You can offer someone an agreement that offers some rights in exchange for concessions.
I think the same of WC2 (same engine as SC) vs. WC3. The little details like having Alleria kill a catapult by shooting it from just outside the catapult's range or using Kerrigan *alone* to beat an entire level are especially memorable levels from the expansion sets of those two games. I have no similar memories of WC3. The closest was playing Optimus Prime in one of the bonus games.
I still like playing Moria for that matter. Graphics suck compared to any other role playing game, but I enjoy playing it.
P.S. I hope your previous post pops up on my metamod so that I can mark the flamebait unfair.
"Wouldn't this produce smarter birds though?I mean, if the landscape were plastered with windmills, all the stupid birds would die out after a few generations, resulting in a new species of hyper-intelligent birds that would take over the world and start a fast food franchise called Kentucky Fried Human!!1!!"
You should only be able to write in candidates who are not on the ballot. Yes/no options is a good idea. Only ballots which didn't have the relevant option checked would be vulnerable.
"So do I . . . does that mean that I am only subject to federal law?"
No, it just means that you *are* subject to federal law. It is up to the federal law (if it exists) to determine if it is the sole relevant law or if it will allow state laws. For example, there are both federal and state minimum wage laws. You need to comply with both.
If you have proportional representation *in* the electoral college, you can force a candidate to include members of your party in their cabinet with a spoiler minority. For example, if Nader had won Florida in 2000, he could have played Bush and Gore off each other and won concessions for his support. Alternately, if the electors went as the votes did, Nader would have had about 5 electors, maybe 3 for other parties, and about 265 each for Gore and Bush.
What if I go through the ballots and *add* a candidate to a number of ballots. This is indetectable in approval voting. In plurality voting, adding votes shows up because there would be too many ballots. In approval voting, this would look fine, because you could add the votes to the existing ballots.
Electors are not required to vote for any particular candidate. If a state elects Nader's electors, then Nader's electors can choose which of the major parties' candidates they will support. No spoiler effect.
The most famous example of this was when John Quincy Adams was elected with support from the electors of the other candidate who wasn't Andrew Jackson (Henry Calhoun maybe?). Another example is the Gore elector who didn't vote in 2000 (in protest).
"No thanks. Once an ISP has caved to a baseless takedown notice, I wouldn't want to do business with them anymore either, whether it was more convenient or not."
That only works if there are ISPs that won't cave that first time. My point is that this is normal behavior for an ISP. As a result, you will have to switch *every* time. If you stay with the original ISP, they might behave better next time.
I would be very surprised to find a state that has a sales tax but does not have a use tax. I can verify that both Pennsylvania and Ohio do. I have seen people talk about it in Texas as well.
Not sure how much it is enforced in the various states, but use taxes is pretty common in states with sales taxes.
Approval voting is about the same difficulty as the current plurality system. Approval voting is much easier to explain and use than IRV. IRV is about the same difficulty as Condorcet. If simplicity and superiority to plurality voting are what is desired, then approval voting should be your choice.
You want a real life example? How about the following: B = Bush (Sr.), C = Clinton, P = Perot:
30 BPC 37 CPB 13 PBC
9 PCB
3 BCP
6 CBP
First round: 33 B, 43 C, 22 P Second round: 46 B, 52 C
Clinton wins. Same as with plurality. However, if you do the other two possible races, you get:
Perot would have beaten either Bush or Clinton in a two way race, but he is eliminated in the first round by IRV. Only 9% of voters would prefer anyone but Perot, but that is the result of the initial elimination.
Approval voting (assuming everyone votes for both the first two candidates in their IRV preference) would give 52B, 55C, 89P. Perot wins, same as condorcet or elector negotiation.
Approval voting is the simple version of Condorcet; IRV is merely the complicated version of plurality voting. Yes, IRV makes it easier for people to vote for a third party with limited support. The thing is that it only matters when said third party is small. If it actually has enough support to potentially win, IRV misses a lot.
"Past military spending" (which includes veteran's benefits and a portion of interest payments on the debt) is also mandatory and should not be counted in discretionary spending. You do not get close to 50% without this "past military spending." Current military spending (what can be changed) is only a third of the discretionary budget. Someone else posted http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm which indicates this (if one reads the fine print).
It's also worth pointing out that half of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Just ignoring that half (and the percentage is increasing) is not going to work. Especially since the budget deficit is currently larger than the *entire* discretionary military budget. Cutting the military budget won't free up any revenue, just borrowing.
Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the ISP? Now, at least that ISP knows that he is distributing his own music and can tell anyone who may contact them that. If he switches, then he must go through the whole process over again.
"Unless you sit down and watch 6 hours of movies in one sitting, you have a steady stream of movies coming and going."
Even with the 8 movie plan and mostly watching TV DVDs (usually 3 hours long), I would run out of movies over the weekend. Movies lost in the mail (even temporarily) are annoying because they keep you from getting your next movie until 6 days have passed.
It also depends on when the bandwidth is used. If you get your movie immediately *after* watching the previous one (which is how the mail based system works), then the bandwidth would be mostly used in off peak times. ISPs can give you as much bandwidth as you would like at 3 AM. At 6 PM, they would be scrambling to do so, but at that time you are either surfing the net or just beginning the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
"A patent has to be new, useful, and nonobvious."
So how is the object manager patent a new, useful, and nonobvious improvement on Smalltalk (which is mentioned under Other References)?
When Thomas Edison's laboratory was inventing the light bulb, they tried thousands of wrong solutions over the course of a year and a half. That kind of work does require patent protection, since it is much easier to reverse engineer the one correct way than to redo the research.
Software is the opposite. It is a constructive process rather than one of elimination. One starts with a framework and then develops the various required processes inside that framework. Reverse engineering is at least as difficult as redoing the development. Further, there are frequently multiple ways to accomplish the same task. Note that Microsoft's announced plan in regard to the Eolas patent is to replace the code. Eolas is not going to get rewarded for "innovative merit," just for hiding their monopoly. If Microsoft had found the patent in the first place, they would have simply avoided the Eolas method.
Yes, there are some ideas in software that are, in fact, new, useful, and nonobvious. However, they are not the results of long research, but of intuitive leaps. For example, the GIF patent was based on the Welch variant of the Lempel Ziv algorithm. The primary difference between LZW and LZ is that LZW adds sequences to the translation dictionary one step earlier. For example, LZ does not compress baba at all (it would compress bababa). LZW compresses the four eight bit characters to three nine bit characters.
Software patents can also have an actively harmful effect on research and development. For example, if Sun has to pay a billion dollars, what effect will that have on future development of community languages? What happens to Java if Sun refuses to pay Kodak's licensing fees (note: I find this scenario highly unlikely but it's worth thnking about why it's unlikely)? What happens with other object oriented, compiled to bytecode languages that do not have Sun's deep pockets (e.g. Python, GNU Java)? This is especially bad since applications aren't published at the time of application, so someone may have already patented the system that you are currently developing.
"do away with some of the janitorial staff by making all the employees empty their trash cans into the public trash area...for the few dollars they save"
How does that save money? Instead of a single janitor going around and dumping trash cans into a big mobile trash holder for near minimum wage, you now have IT employees taking singleton trips to the dumpster at their wages...which are presumably higher than the janitor's. So more time is wasted by higher wage personnel. Where are the savings?
It's worth noting that everything about which they complain (except the profitability and size) were characteristics of the now bankrupt Ames as well. K-Mart is the current competitor. These are all just natural characteristics of a department store. They sell cheap junk as cheaply as possible.
What do people expect?
Smalltalk is listed under Other References in the patent claim. Apparently they are claiming to have some enhancement of what smalltalk does that was patentable and is used by Java.
No, I wasn't able to figure out what that enhancement was.
In Pennsylvania, the top limit for small claims was either $5000 or $10,000.
Yet somehow, FujiFilm finds the US to be the optimal labor market in which to produce film for the US. I believe that you are right in principle but wrong in application to Kodak.
I have much the same issue with outsourcing tech support to India. I am less concerned about job loss and more concerned about loss of service quality. Yes, the Indian support personnel may be technically more proficient than the American personnel, but you can't convince me that there won't be problems with accents, etc. that cause communication difficulties. In fact, some of the offshore jobs have already come back for exactly that reason.
x86 is an older architecture than PowerPC. It doesn't matter that some RISC processor might have existed prior to x86; the issue is that the current Mac processors are a newer architecture than is x86.
Translation layers throw out some of the advantages of RISC. In particular, they do not allow the compiler to manage the instructions properly. The primary point of RISC is to shift the burden of optimization from the processor to the compiler. Using a CISC translation layer prevents the processor from taking full advantage of the RIS and pipelining.
"if all EULA-style agreements (a textfile included with the software)"
No one is claiming that a textfile included with the software is incapable of offering an agreement. The claim is that you cannot be bound by said agreement merely by receiving it with the software. The GPL works by a much different mechanism. If you choose to accept the GPL agreement, then you may redistribute the software. If you refuse the license, then you may not (unless you negotiate a separate agreement). The problem with a EULA is that it doesn't offer you anything that you don't already have. If you legally obtain a copy of the software, you don't require a license to use it.
It is also worth noting that someone could in fact make a perfectly legal EULA by the simple expedient of having the customer sign the EULA prior to paying for the software. In that case, one can limit the transfer with whatever conditions one wants. The problem here is that users are told that they are only renting the software *after* paying for it. It would be like going to Wal-Mart, picking up a $20 movie and when you put it in your DVD player, it said "By clicking Yes, you agree to our license agreement, which says that you are only renting this movie. Don't forget to return the movie tomorrow."
You can't change a purchase agreement to a rental agreement unilaterally. You can offer someone an agreement that offers some rights in exchange for concessions.
The especially ironic part of this is that Blizzard uses a bittorrent like system to distribute videos.
"Starcraft trounces...Warcraft III"
I think the same of WC2 (same engine as SC) vs. WC3. The little details like having Alleria kill a catapult by shooting it from just outside the catapult's range or using Kerrigan *alone* to beat an entire level are especially memorable levels from the expansion sets of those two games. I have no similar memories of WC3. The closest was playing Optimus Prime in one of the bonus games.
I still like playing Moria for that matter. Graphics suck compared to any other role playing game, but I enjoy playing it.
P.S. I hope your previous post pops up on my metamod so that I can mark the flamebait unfair.
"Wouldn't this produce smarter birds though?I mean, if the landscape were plastered with windmills, all the stupid birds would die out after a few generations, resulting in a new species of hyper-intelligent birds that would take over the world and start a fast food franchise called Kentucky Fried Human!!1!!"
Look how well that worked for the Dodo!
Oh...wait...
You should only be able to write in candidates who are not on the ballot. Yes/no options is a good idea. Only ballots which didn't have the relevant option checked would be vulnerable.
"So do I . . . does that mean that I am only subject to federal law?"
No, it just means that you *are* subject to federal law. It is up to the federal law (if it exists) to determine if it is the sole relevant law or if it will allow state laws. For example, there are both federal and state minimum wage laws. You need to comply with both.
If you have proportional representation *in* the electoral college, you can force a candidate to include members of your party in their cabinet with a spoiler minority. For example, if Nader had won Florida in 2000, he could have played Bush and Gore off each other and won concessions for his support. Alternately, if the electors went as the votes did, Nader would have had about 5 electors, maybe 3 for other parties, and about 265 each for Gore and Bush.
What if I go through the ballots and *add* a candidate to a number of ballots. This is indetectable in approval voting. In plurality voting, adding votes shows up because there would be too many ballots. In approval voting, this would look fine, because you could add the votes to the existing ballots.
Electors are not required to vote for any particular candidate. If a state elects Nader's electors, then Nader's electors can choose which of the major parties' candidates they will support. No spoiler effect.
The most famous example of this was when John Quincy Adams was elected with support from the electors of the other candidate who wasn't Andrew Jackson (Henry Calhoun maybe?). Another example is the Gore elector who didn't vote in 2000 (in protest).
"No thanks. Once an ISP has caved to a baseless takedown notice, I wouldn't want to do business with them anymore either, whether it was more convenient or not."
That only works if there are ISPs that won't cave that first time. My point is that this is normal behavior for an ISP. As a result, you will have to switch *every* time. If you stay with the original ISP, they might behave better next time.
"And those areas are enumerated in the Constitution."
Case in point: interstate commerce, which just happens to be the area under discussion.
I would be very surprised to find a state that has a sales tax but does not have a use tax. I can verify that both Pennsylvania and Ohio do. I have seen people talk about it in Texas as well.
Not sure how much it is enforced in the various states, but use taxes is pretty common in states with sales taxes.
States have no rights in interstate commerce. Microsoft certainly engages in interstate commerce.
Approval voting is about the same difficulty as the current plurality system. Approval voting is much easier to explain and use than IRV. IRV is about the same difficulty as Condorcet. If simplicity and superiority to plurality voting are what is desired, then approval voting should be your choice.
You want a real life example? How about the following: B = Bush (Sr.), C = Clinton, P = Perot:
30 BPC
37 CPB
13 PBC
9 PCB
3 BCP
6 CBP
First round: 33 B, 43 C, 22 P
Second round: 46 B, 52 C
Clinton wins. Same as with plurality. However, if you do the other two possible races, you get:
Eliminate Bush: 46C 52P
Eliminate Clinton: 43B 55P
Perot would have beaten either Bush or Clinton in a two way race, but he is eliminated in the first round by IRV. Only 9% of voters would prefer anyone but Perot, but that is the result of the initial elimination.
Approval voting (assuming everyone votes for both the first two candidates in their IRV preference) would give 52B, 55C, 89P. Perot wins, same as condorcet or elector negotiation.
Approval voting is the simple version of Condorcet; IRV is merely the complicated version of plurality voting. Yes, IRV makes it easier for people to vote for a third party with limited support. The thing is that it only matters when said third party is small. If it actually has enough support to potentially win, IRV misses a lot.
"Past military spending" (which includes veteran's benefits and a portion of interest payments on the debt) is also mandatory and should not be counted in discretionary spending. You do not get close to 50% without this "past military spending." Current military spending (what can be changed) is only a third of the discretionary budget. Someone else posted http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm which indicates this (if one reads the fine print).
It's also worth pointing out that half of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Just ignoring that half (and the percentage is increasing) is not going to work. Especially since the budget deficit is currently larger than the *entire* discretionary military budget. Cutting the military budget won't free up any revenue, just borrowing.
"he's moves ISP"
Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the ISP? Now, at least that ISP knows that he is distributing his own music and can tell anyone who may contact them that. If he switches, then he must go through the whole process over again.
"Unless you sit down and watch 6 hours of movies in one sitting, you have a steady stream of movies coming and going."
Even with the 8 movie plan and mostly watching TV DVDs (usually 3 hours long), I would run out of movies over the weekend. Movies lost in the mail (even temporarily) are annoying because they keep you from getting your next movie until 6 days have passed.
It also depends on when the bandwidth is used. If you get your movie immediately *after* watching the previous one (which is how the mail based system works), then the bandwidth would be mostly used in off peak times. ISPs can give you as much bandwidth as you would like at 3 AM. At 6 PM, they would be scrambling to do so, but at that time you are either surfing the net or just beginning the movie.